RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:05:00 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

So, Using the Chats you can see at a glance that, the Japanese Ho-5 is worth about 2.5 US 50 cals in terms of over all lethality, and the gun is over twice as effecent as a US .50 cal.

A Type 99 MK II (Zero Cannon), is worth two .50 cal's and about twice as effecent.

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 211

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:23:56 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

Gentlemen, my apologies for being very fashionably late for the party.

The AE's landbased Air OOB is a team effort, but special commendation is due Steve "ChezDaJez" Sanchez and Brian "BigB" Wisher for their outstanding research contributions, and to Mike Kraemer and Bruce Powers for the rather less glamorous but no less crucial job of database entry.

Yet none of this would have meant anything if not for the unfailing courage of our programmer, Michael "MichaelM" McFarland, in the face of unrelenting pestering for new code or elucidation of old.

Responsibility for all faults and shortcomings of the landbased Air OOB - and the shear size of the beast makes it nay certain that there'll be enough of those to keep the forum lively - rest with me and me alone.

Please direct questions pertaining the OOB of carrier- and other shipbased aviation to the Navy Team. I won't repeat this. For at least the next 24 hours.

Between us we'll try to answer your many, many questions as best we can. We're about as excited as you are about coming out into the open, but please be patient with us, and bear in mind that every minute spend answering questions here is a minute less spend on improving the AE.

A few years back 2by3 launched a supertanker called WitP. Supertankers don't habitually turn on a dime, but we strive to dock all 300,000 tons of it while running over the bare minimum of pleasure boats and if possible not mounting the pier. We've had to choose our battles with care, and the AE won't be everything everybody ever wanted, but I dare say that everybody will find something to love.

Now to play catch-up. My apologies in advance if I left anyone out. Cricky, 211 post already!

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
1) "configurable resize for squadrons" could you expand on this one?

All air units can/will resize - akin to the CV squadrons of old - as applicable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
Will production of allied aircraft be on the map (disabled) and then start building up production on the date it is available. (I hate it that on 11/43 I automatically have 250 SB2C Helldivers in production)

Many more aircraft allows for a more graduated approach to replacements, if that's what you're asking :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Are there seperate TR kites like the Hurri TRII, or is it performed by the usual suspects?

Separate - and more kinds of Hurri than you can shake a stick at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig
Will the allied have to pay PP to transfer their heavies to China? Else they can start their bombing campain early 42 and bomb everything to dust till middle 42.

PP = SAIEW. Allied player will have fewer heavies to burn, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
Something which always bugged me was the limited number of aircraft types. The classic example of this was the Mavis transports that started at Jaluit (in CHS). Since they were of type Transport if you moved them elsewhere you couldn't then move them back again since Jaluit was a size 0 airbase. The answer to this of would have been a new type called "Floatplane Transport" or some such with some subset or superset of Transport and Patrol attributes.

Get the AE and thou shalst be bugged no more. At least as far as float tranports are concerned. Hopefully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72
Some Navy squadrons are only carrier capable not trained because they arrive on land. Is this fixed?

Yes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Did the Anson make the cut?

Yes

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to drw61)

Post #: 212

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:36:15 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

OTS. Kamikazes have not been touched. Read some AAR's later in the war, they work. One thing we did that may help is alter AAA so that during attacks only AAA in the quadrant being approached may fire.

Hello Elf. Thanks for all your answers so far.

Watching PzB's AAR, I think we noticed that slow ships are definitely chosen as a much more valid kamikaze target, with not much consideration for size. PT-boats and LCI may get targeted instead of an Essex simply because they are slower than the Essex (while there's hardly something bigger than a CV to notice and to target from the air, especially instead of a barge ^^)

Did the team check this a little bit? I admit kamikazes do work (well they hit stuff) but we definitely need both this to be looked after (maybe there is something like a value to increase for the kamikazes to pay more attention to sheer size) and, of course, the land-attack kamikaze bug, that is not as uncommon as we'd like it to be... This land-attack mass suicide may prove to be quite problematic is Japan is really meant to lack pilots!

Thanks in advance!

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 213

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:50:48 AM

1EyedJacks

Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

Also can you change weapon loadouts a la BTR?

No.

quote:

Can you list the different areas of pilot experience?

� Air attack
� Air defensive
� Naval bombing
� Naval torpedo
� Naval search
� Recon
� ASW
� Transport
� Ground bombing
� Low level naval bombing
� Low level ground bombing
� Strafe

So which of those experience levels are most important for a Kamikazi - Low level naval bombing? <laughter>

And how do I train up my kamikazi squadrons...

Sorry - it must be past my bed time... <more laughter>

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 214

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 4:01:44 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Stock WiTP Figurs for:

50 Browning MG

Range 4
Accuracery 23
Effect 3
Penatration 2
Load Cost 75

....................

Type 99 MK II

Range 5
Accuracery 23
Effect 4
Penatration 3
load cost 100

....................

Ho-5

Range 5
Accuracery 28
Effect 4
Penatration 3
load cost 100

.................

Hispano

Range 5
Accuracery 26
Effect 4
Penatration 3
Load cost 100

So if we take the formentioned chart and compare them to the WiTP figures, thier are some isues:

Range, the Hispano and the US 50 should have equiel ranges I belave 5 is the max and that should be about right, the Ho-5 and the type 99 should be less, 4 I should think, but the isue hear is that these guns were designed to operate efectively withen the standard expected range envelope of around 400m, the Germans determined that prety much all a t a combate took place at that range or less, so designing an A t A weapon to operate at greater than that range was a waste.

Acuracery, the Hsipano and the US 50 were fairly accurate, as was the H0-5 the Type 99's were not generaly as acurate but the longer barel on the Type 99 MK II helped so were not to far off hear.

Efect,The type 99 nad the Hsipano should be prety equiel, the Ho-5 slightly less, it makes up for hitting power per shell with a higher rof, the US 50 should be about half, say a two to their 4.

Peneration, all should be about equiel, the Hispano and US 50 for obvious reasions, the Japanese guns because they only nead to penatrate far enough to alow their shels to detonate to acheave the desired results.

Load cost: The weapons load costs shold be looked at well, not shure who much this matters in game.
.............

Fun Day at the Museum: Ho-5 Farthest, Type 99 MK II and MK I.

Picture taken in the Oregon MIlitray Museum.

< Message edited by Brady -- 12/9/2007 8:44:38 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 215

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 4:07:34 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Brady,

I understand your point and we want to be as historical as possible. However, there is so little data on the aircraft. It does appear that it wasn't a particularly successful aircraft. Francillon listed it as a minor type and devoted only a short paragraph to it. To accurately model its performance, we need more data than what is available. If you have any specific data such as wing loading, ceiling, cruise speed, fuel capacity, please provide it to me via PM and I will discuss it with the air team. Any data on the 33rd would also be appreciated.. especially data concerning what aircraft replaced their B5Ms and their war record.

We could include the 33rd as a Kate equipped unit but as you say that wouldn't be quite the same.

Also, be advised that much of the aircraft data and the air OoB is still a work in progress. Just because we say it is not currently included, doesn't mean that it won't be. We just have to make a strong case for it.

Thanks,

Chez

I have a book on work done between 1910 and 1941 - explicitly packaged NOT to duplicate Francillons work - and I have used both these works, along with a number of books devoted to specific planes, and file materials in the form of articles or documents shorter than books devoted to Japanese aircraft, to build a database. Where data was missing, I have equations that calculate the empty hole using other data we do have. For example, weight and power yield power loading, etc. Using methods I learned working at Boeing Software Integration Laboratories, I even can fill in holes for things like Rate of Climb, maximum dive speed, etc - although these must be said to be estimates rather than calculations (like loading is - that isn't an estimate because it is using hard data in the right way to yield the true loading - wether or not any reference gives it to us). I can give you any of this data on any aircraft - there are a couple of hundred sub types - in any form required - with (usually) the holes filled in. [If a crticial factor is missing, my formulas will produce an error instead of a result however - a symbol not on the keyboard but which does appear on the screen]

We have Mikesh's book also. Indeed between all the members of the Air Team, I don't think there is a reference available in English that hasn't been begged, borrowed, stolen or purchased. Name a top researcher in the field, including Japanese authors, and we have used it. Indeed, we have even used original source documents in Japanese to verify some data.

Thanks for the offer for the formulas but we have an aeronautical guru on the team that has been able to provide formulas to calculate various aspects of aircraft performance. I think that when you see the finished product, you will agree it is pretty dang accurate.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 216

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 4:53:45 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

when in the TrainING pool, pilots are un-named, and un-designated. Generic if you will. Once they area drawn to an operational unit they are designated as TB, DB, FF, MB, REC etc. Once this happens they remain designated as a "Type" of pilot. And when they are moved from pool to pool they are in seperate pools based on their type.

The one exception is where they are in the Training Command pool as "instructors". Here is where they affect the output of "students" in the TrainING pool.

Very interesting. Once a pilot is designated by being assigned to an operational unit and then transferred to a pool, does the player know how many of each type of pilot is in that pool. Example: There are 20 pilots in the reserve pool. Will the player know that 12 are fighter, 3 TB, etc.?

How does a pilot become an instructor?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 217

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 4:55:26 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

- The pilot pools needs to be separate for General Naval Aviation and Trained Carrier Pilots.

included

Did I just read this right? There is now a difference between IJNAF carrier trained pilots and IJNAF non-carrier trained pilots?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 218

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 4:56:38 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Placekeeper for marking where I left off reading.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 219

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 4:57:20 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

4) How are aircraft defined as carrier capable? Currenlty they are fixed to a slot. Will there be similar limitations?
The editor has a new field that allows an A/C to be designated as such. It is no longer slot-based.

I think this just answered my question.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 220

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 5:07:14 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You will be able to view the training pool. It will show several "classes" ordered lowest to highest AVG EXP and how many pilots are currently in it. When you draw from this pool you draw from the most senior class first.

OMG. I'm in heaven. Taking this a bit further, are new classes added periodically? This expansion is getting better and better.

Yes they are. The classes are on a 12 month curriculum. When one graduates a new one takes it's place in "ground school".

So basically, there is a limit to the number of "pilots" you can remove from the training school, right? Also, can you throw out a couple of numbers as to the class sizes? Will the new classes increase in size as the war continues and the Japanese realize their pilot shortage?

Later in the war, the shortage was due to lack of fuel for training and lack of experienced instructors. The first can be modelled as a supply draw; the second can be modelled by rotation home of experienced pilots. If they don't survive to be rotated, you don't have the instructors.

Does this mean that Japanese pilots will now rotate home to be instructors? Will the players be able to rotate pilots home to be instructors?

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 221

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 5:30:42 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

The question might be in game terms why would you want to, or care to, do you get some in game benifift from doing so?

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 222

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 1:13:38 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

It seems to me that if training really lasted 12 months, the quality would not be as bad as when it only lasted two months - as IRL.

On the other hand, how can you get any flight time at all if there is no fuel to fly trainers?

Late in the war some pilots went into action with values like 15 flight hours. It should not require a year to do that.
But the quality should be awful. But not impossibly so: I have an article about a PLAAF ace of the Korean war who went into action with under 50 flight hours total - and whose unit found it almost impossible even to stay in the part of the sky they were supposed to be in. Still - he shot down every US pilot he encountered - and we confirm most of his kills. So rarely a pilot may do well in spite of such awful training.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 223

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:20:43 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Elf -

The USN was prohibited (by interservice agreement) from possessing land based bombers (except seaplanes) prior to the war. Starting around the end of 1942 the USN started operating squadrons of patrol bombers of various types. Though much of the equipment was in pretty much the same as the USAAF equipment the training was quite different. The USN/USMC multi-engine bombers operated and attacked at low levels and were quite proficient at attacking ships/submarines. Basically though they did not make mass attacks on enemy fleets (though that may be a result of the IJN not presenting such targets). Previously you mentioned that low level naval attack proficiency would be mostly restricted to the USAAF 5th AF. I should hope that the USN 2E/4E bombers would also be given their due.

Is the PB4Y-2 Privateer included now? Is the BAT radar guided bomb? If so is it useable against land targets as well (apparently the RAF used it against bridges on the Burma railway somewhat successfully)?

(in reply to MineSweeper)

Post #: 224

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:31:00 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

The RAF didn't use the BAT. You're thinking of the Razon/Mezon bombs...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 225

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:35:45 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

How about limiting IJA aviation support to support only IJA a/c, IJN aviation support to support only IJN a/c?

That would be cool, could we extend this to Not alowing FAA Units to be suported on US CV's and vice versa, and Comenwealth Units to only be suported by Comenwealth unit's?

It almost sounds like more trouble than it's worth.

Brady, You are hired for the purposes of speculating answers to questions in this thread for me...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 226

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:39:28 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

Here is my question: will the planes have their historical operational range? I didn't play stock for a very long time, but if I recall correctly, the operational ranges were too short. I am thinking about El Cid Again's work (in theory we have the right operational range in RHS). Anyway, in case the answer is negative, these ranges can be changed via the editor, right?

EDITED: Thanks in advance, sorry.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 227

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:41:53 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
Gentlemen, my apologies for being very fashionably late for the party.

Well, fashionably late is better than unfashionably late!

Yes, Timtom is my OoB Maven and you will all be pleased to hear that he has been a pain in my @$$ for all the right reasons. I don't think a more comprehensive, accurate, and yet flexible OoB has been constructed for ANY game ANYwhere...

We will all soon benefit from his long hours of painstaking research and groveling(to me

) for more leeway and features in the editor. For all that I couldn't have asked for a more thorough , trustworthy, and stalwart OoBattler.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 228

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:43:45 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

quote:

OTS. Kamikazes have not been touched. Read some AAR's later in the war, they work. One thing we did that may help is alter AAA so that during attacks only AAA in the quadrant being approached may fire.

Hello Elf. Thanks for all your answers so far.

Watching PzB's AAR, I think we noticed that slow ships are definitely chosen as a much more valid kamikaze target, with not much consideration for size. PT-boats and LCI may get targeted instead of an Essex simply because they are slower than the Essex (while there's hardly something bigger than a CV to notice and to target from the air, especially instead of a barge ^^)

Did the team check this a little bit? I admit kamikazes do work (well they hit stuff) but we definitely need both this to be looked after (maybe there is something like a value to increase for the kamikazes to pay more attention to sheer size) and, of course, the land-attack kamikaze bug, that is not as uncommon as we'd like it to be... This land-attack mass suicide may prove to be quite problematic is Japan is really meant to lack pilots!

Thanks in advance!

I hear what you are saying Fishbed, but given that AE players will be starting from scratch, we priortized any adjustment to the Kamikaze routine to a later patch. AS it will likely not require any OoB work, and thus no restarts, we could code any changes at a later date. Bigger fish...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 229

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:43:50 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Excellent work gentlemen
You too Terminus.

Sorry, but I can't help but notice three missing training options for pilots.
1. Night Bomber Training Strategic
2. Night Bomber Training Tactical
3. Night Fighter Training

Or is this regulated with the day/night toggle?

Could be missing a fourth?
4. Daylight Bomber Training Strategic

< Message edited by Halsey -- 12/9/2007 2:45:30 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 230

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 2:44:50 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

Also can you change weapon loadouts a la BTR?

No.

quote:

Can you list the different areas of pilot experience?

� Air attack
� Air defensive
� Naval bombing
� Naval torpedo
� Naval search
� Recon
� ASW
� Transport
� Ground bombing
� Low level naval bombing
� Low level ground bombing
� Strafe

So which of those experience levels are most important for a Kamikazi - Low level naval bombing? <laughter>

And how do I train up my kamikazi squadrons...

Sorry - it must be past my bed time... <more laughter>

Low level Naval Bombing.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)

Post #: 231

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:01:16 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

- The pilot pools needs to be separate for General Naval Aviation and Trained Carrier Pilots.

included

Did I just read this right? There is now a difference between IJNAF carrier trained pilots and IJNAF non-carrier trained pilots?

No there is no difference. We currently do not track individual pilots Carrier Quals.

It is tracked in the units.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 232

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:02:20 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It seems to me that if training really lasted 12 months, the quality would not be as bad as when it only lasted two months - as IRL.

On the other hand, how can you get any flight time at all if there is no fuel to fly trainers?

Late in the war some pilots went into action with values like 15 flight hours. It should not require a year to do that.
But the quality should be awful. But not impossibly so: I have an article about a PLAAF ace of the Korean war who went into action with under 50 flight hours total - and whose unit found it almost impossible even to stay in the part of the sky they were supposed to be in. Still - he shot down every US pilot he encountered - and we confirm most of his kills. So rarely a pilot may do well in spite of such awful training.

Is there a question in here?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 233

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:06:26 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

when in the TrainING pool, pilots are un-named, and un-designated. Generic if you will. Once they area drawn to an operational unit they are designated as TB, DB, FF, MB, REC etc. Once this happens they remain designated as a "Type" of pilot. And when they are moved from pool to pool they are in seperate pools based on their type.

The one exception is where they are in the Training Command pool as "instructors". Here is where they affect the output of "students" in the TrainING pool.

Very interesting. Once a pilot is designated by being assigned to an operational unit and then transferred to a pool, does the player know how many of each type of pilot is in that pool. Example: There are 20 pilots in the reserve pool. Will the player know that 12 are fighter, 3 TB, etc.?

How does a pilot become an instructor?

The player does not know how many of which type is in the pool.

Pilots become instructors when a player selects him and sends him to the Training Command pool.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 234

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:09:29 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Does this mean that Japanese pilots will now rotate home to be instructors? Will the players be able to rotate pilots home to be instructors?

Not Automatically. Players will be given the option. IJN and IJAAF did rotate veterans back to the HIs to train new pilots but not approaching anywhere near the regularity or the numbers the US did.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 235

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:15:15 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

The question might be in game terms why would you want to, or care to, do you get some in game benifift from doing so?

In my game I will want to.

1. I want to preserve select High skill pilots
2. I want to build a buffer between my Training Schools and the fleet
3. More and higher EXP veterans in the Training Command pool will positively affect the EXP levels of newly trained replacements, and can ever so slightly increase production.
4. The Japanese contrary to popular opinion and however belatedly DID increase the intake of pilot training candidates through out the war. We intend to try and match this as accurately as possible. If game conditions (read into this how you will) allow it the IJ player will be able to fully train pilots after the historical decline of the aviation pipeline began

This is a feature, and is forces the Allied player the ATTRITE japanese planes on a large scale. If he does not do this he is making his own bed for 43', 44' and 45'...better get your favorite pillow.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 236

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:17:08 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Here is my question: will the planes have their historical operational range? I didn't play stock for a very long time, but if I recall correctly, the operational ranges were too short. I am thinking about El Cid Again's work (in theory we have the right operational range in RHS). Anyway, in case the answer is negative, these ranges can be changed via the editor, right?

EDITED: Thanks in advance, sorry.

all planes are being reviewed for accuracy. Timtom, Chez and BigB can address specifics, but this is a work in progress so don't expect to see spreadsheets...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 237

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:17:24 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Here is my question: will the planes have their historical operational range? I didn't play stock for a very long time, but if I recall correctly, the operational ranges were too short. I am thinking about El Cid Again's work (in theory we have the right operational range in RHS). Anyway, in case the answer is negative, these ranges can be changed via the editor, right?

EDITED: Thanks in advance, sorry.

Yes, they will.

Sorry, Elf, didn't see you there...

< Message edited by Terminus -- 12/9/2007 3:19:02 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 238

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:17:46 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Excellent work gentlemen
You too Terminus.

Sorry, but I can't help but notice three missing training options for pilots.
1. Night Bomber Training Strategic
2. Night Bomber Training Tactical
3. Night Fighter Training

Or is this regulated with the day/night toggle?

Could be missing a fourth?
4. Daylight Bomber Training Strategic

Toggle.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 239

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/9/2007 3:22:00 PM

Bahnsteig

Posts: 70
Joined: 8/18/2004
From: Croatia\Germany
Status: offline

quote:

quote:
ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig
Will the allied have to pay PP to transfer their heavies to China? Else they can start their bombing campain early 42 and bomb everything to dust till middle 42.

PP = SAIEW. Allied player will have fewer heavies to burn, though.

But it will still be possible for the allied to locate all the heavies to Chunking, Sian, Changsha ... and bomb all resources and industry in the range without giving the japanese a possibility to defend.
The same for Palembang und Kuching early in the war.
It's impossible to cover all bases with at least one fighter squadron.
There must be a reason why this didn't happen in the war. Else the war had been over in middle 43.
Maybe it should only be possible to bomb conquered bases, but not the resources.
As Chinese, British or Dutch, I wouldn't be happy to see all my resoucres get destroyed just because the japanese are using them for some years. This would make big political problems.
Imagine how Stalin would react if the USAAF would bomb japanese occupied Vladivostok to dust.

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 240