Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nicks vs Naval targets

 
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 >> The War Room >> Nicks vs Naval targets Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/5/2012 4:09:48 PM   
millersan

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/7/2012
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		It's july '42, PBEM, I'm Jap. I trained up some Nick pilots for naval attack. Thought they might be good for stopping a FTrans mission but the computer sent them against a CV TF with "no ordinance"!!! Should have had 2x250 kg
Do Nicks not bomb ships?? Is this a bug? Attack was from level two base with 20k supply. Not in range of HQ.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Mare' at 119,164

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 63 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 18 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 12

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged
Ki-45 KAIa Nick: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses
Allied Ships
CV Illustrious
CA Northampton
Aircraft Attacking:
2 x Ki-45 KAIa Nick bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 2 plane(s) with no ordnance
Post #: 1
RE: Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/5/2012 4:24:47 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		When they got jumped by CAP, they probably jettisoned ordnance and acted as fighters. While the developers can confirm this, it would be my guess.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to millersan)
Post #: 2
RE: Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/5/2012 4:33:48 PM   
millersan

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/7/2012
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		Thanks...............Dumping their load makes sense as I can't believe they would have been sent out empty. Should have broken off at that point and not got flak'd. Can't have everything.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 3
RE: Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/5/2012 4:39:34 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		Also, not seeing how you set the mission there are a couple of other things that could have happened.

1. If you used drop tanks, the tanks took the place of bombs. Most WWII aircraft it was an either/or option, it wasn't until late in the war when planes could carry both extra fuel and ordnance.
2. If you set to 100' altitude, it treated it as a strafing run instead of a bombing mission. Try setting to 2000' and see if you get the same result.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to millersan)
Post #: 4
RE: Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/5/2012 5:58:33 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

When they got jumped by CAP, they probably jettisoned ordnance and acted as fighters. While the developers can confirm this, it would be my guess.


You are right. I think A2A combat does have a message when fighters of fighter-bombers jettison bombs.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 5
RE: Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/6/2012 1:30:24 PM   
millersan

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 1/7/2012
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		Thanks again. I did find a post that "LBA not classed as an attack bomber (B-25, A-20 & 26) and flies a low level mission will fly with half the usual bomb load" (7.2.1.10) Didn't see anything about stafing and no bombs except on a sweep mission. I'll go with setting the altitude a bit higher next time and see what happens.

Millersan

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 6
RE: Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/6/2012 1:49:24 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: millersan

Thanks again. I did find a post that "LBA not classed as an attack bomber (B-25, A-20 & 26) and flies a low level mission will fly with half the usual bomb load" (7.2.1.10) Didn't see anything about stafing and no bombs except on a sweep mission. I'll go with setting the altitude a bit higher next time and see what happens.

Millersan


If you set a fighter or fighter-bomber on an attack mission at 100' it will strafe rather than bomb. 100' would be too low to safely use a standard iron bomb, the resulting explosion would destroy the plane that dropped it. IIRC the attack bombers can both strafe and skip bomb, but you can find more info on that here in the forums.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to millersan)
Post #: 7
RE: Nicks vs Naval targets - 7/6/2012 3:27:26 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline 		Also if one trains at 100' rather than 1000' you will train at straffing rather than low nav ...

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Nicks vs Naval targets Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.641