Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft

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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/23/2013 10:37:54 PM

cplprice

Posts: 94
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Chickamauga GA
Status: offline

This is possibly a stupid question, but in the editor when working with aircraft you must specify IJ Army or IJ Navy. Can it be set so an aircraft can be used on an interservice basis? If I set a particular aircraft, say N1K2, up as two seperate aircraft, one Navy, one army, it doesn't do what I'm needing because I'm still producing two seperate types. I want to be able to simulate something similar to the F4F where both US Navy and Marine Corps pilots used a single type, same, same with the F4U.
Any ideas? All suggestions or information will be greatly appreciated.

Post #: 1

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/23/2013 10:40:42 PM

Terminus

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

Not possible for the Jap side.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to cplprice)

Post #: 2

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/23/2013 11:30:21 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

I've never tried it, but you may be able to create an Army unit that either uses or upgrades to a Navy aircraft. That's usually how it's done on the Allied side, though there is special code for USMC aircraft. There are some other units that use aircraft of different nationalities.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 3

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/24/2013 12:49:32 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

As the USMC is part of the USN the aircraft are interchangable.

The answer would be to have all japanese aircraft as IJN or IJA only, not sure what would break (Probably pilots, make them all one flavour)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 4

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/24/2013 1:07:06 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

In real life this is true, but as far as the game engine is concerned each category is a separate nationality. The Dutch are a nationality, but so is the IJA and the IJN is a separate nationality from the IJA. The USN is a separate nationality from the USMC. There is just special code that allows the USN and USMC to share the same aircraft pools.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 5

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/24/2013 2:44:20 AM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cplprice

This is possibly a stupid question, but in the editor when working with aircraft you must specify IJ Army or IJ Navy. Can it be set so an aircraft can be used on an interservice basis? If I set a particular aircraft, say N1K2, up as two seperate aircraft, one Navy, one army, it doesn't do what I'm needing because I'm still producing two seperate types. I want to be able to simulate something similar to the F4F where both US Navy and Marine Corps pilots used a single type, same, same with the F4U.
Any ideas? All suggestions or information will be greatly appreciated.

Matrix programmers are essentially correct: Army and Navy aircraft, even when otherwise identical, have different electrical systems, different radios and different weapons. Late in the war some effort was made to correct this - notably with the Ki-67. But even then, the Army only had one "torpedo squadron" trained to use the plane with naval weapons.

Using two different models for one plane also permits using the historically different naval and military designation systems - with rare exceptions there always were different names (Ki-46 and Ki-67 are exceptions). This also permits two different pools - one per service - for replacements - which is also realistic.

The optimum practical solution is to let a service operate ALL of the planes of a given type. That is its specialty as it were. Then put the air units under the same command and operate them cooperatively. Other solutions will be less efficient economically.

(in reply to cplprice)

Post #: 6

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/24/2013 6:07:14 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: cplprice

This is possibly a stupid question, but in the editor when working with aircraft you must specify IJ Army or IJ Navy. Can it be set so an aircraft can be used on an interservice basis? If I set a particular aircraft, say N1K2, up as two seperate aircraft, one Navy, one army, it doesn't do what I'm needing because I'm still producing two seperate types. I want to be able to simulate something similar to the F4F where both US Navy and Marine Corps pilots used a single type, same, same with the F4U.
Any ideas? All suggestions or information will be greatly appreciated.

Matrix programmers are essentially correct: Army and Navy aircraft, even when otherwise identical, have different electrical systems, different radios and different weapons. Late in the war some effort was made to correct this - notably with the Ki-67. But even then, the Army only had one "torpedo squadron" trained to use the plane with naval weapons.

Using two different models for one plane also permits using the historically different naval and military designation systems - with rare exceptions there always were different names (Ki-46 and Ki-67 are exceptions). This also permits two different pools - one per service - for replacements - which is also realistic.

The optimum practical solution is to let a service operate ALL of the planes of a given type. That is its specialty as it were. Then put the air units under the same command and operate them cooperatively. Other solutions will be less efficient economically.

But the editor allows the JFB to come up with the unbelievable so they should be able to merge them if they want.

The penalty is that they have to do the modding themselves.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 7

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/24/2013 12:13:23 PM

Terminus

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

"Essentially correct", Trevethan? You arrogant ****.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 8

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/24/2013 6:43:00 PM

Symon

Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
As the USMC is part of the USN the aircraft are interchangable.

The answer would be to have all japanese aircraft as IJN or IJA only, not sure what would break (Probably pilots, make them all one flavour)

That's basically the answer. It is technically possible to create inter/intra service aricraft (inter/intra national). We do it all the time. It's not hard at all, simply painstaking and requires accounting across several data files, but as JeffK says there are implications. So I don't think I will say how to do it on an open forum. because if I do, someone will do it, and not do it righteous, and get all tangled up in their underwear, and get all pee'd off. But if you have a specific situation, or a particular group of planes that are functional for a particular mission, send me a pm and I'll be glad to help.

Oh, sorry ... I'm one of those "essentially correct" designers, so you will have to take my offer of assistance with a grain of salt

Hope you do because I have FINALLY gotten into the airplane part of things and am looking at what who does which to whom and when and how the whacking happens. Soon as Michael and Thomas read this they will prolly start grabbing garlic wreaths and start wearing silver crucifixes

Ciao. JWE

< Message edited by Symon -- 5/24/2013 7:03:09 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la libert�! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 9

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/25/2013 8:13:21 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cplprice

This is possibly a stupid question, but in the editor when working with aircraft you must specify IJ Army or IJ Navy. Can it be set so an aircraft can be used on an interservice basis? If I set a particular aircraft, say N1K2, up as two seperate aircraft, one Navy, one army, it doesn't do what I'm needing because I'm still producing two seperate types. I want to be able to simulate something similar to the F4F where both US Navy and Marine Corps pilots used a single type, same, same with the F4U.
Any ideas? All suggestions or information will be greatly appreciated.

Hmm interesting. I thought this "import" feature from beta works for all nations, but it seems to work only for US.

Anyway, what is exactly a problem? You have to add the plane into upgrade path anyway, and you can probably even add enemy planes there (not, that you will get replacements, but it is probably possible with convoys). Then it should went standard plane upgrade path. Like in this case. As you can see New Zealand unit starts with British fighter, and can upgrade it by British path, or convert back into its nation pools.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to cplprice)

Post #: 10

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/25/2013 2:01:52 PM

cplprice

Posts: 94
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Chickamauga GA
Status: offline

Gotta' say, you guys have provided some really great answers. El Cid Again gave me the reason why it should not be an option:

quote:

Matrix programmers are essentially correct: Army and Navy aircraft, even when otherwise identical, have different electrical systems, different radios and different weapons.

I was re-reading Francillon, and I had started thinking what a difference it would have made had Japan's Army and Navy cooperated more prior to the establishment of the Munitions Ministry in November, 1943. (They still didn't fully cooperate even then)
Realistically, all aircraft types would have still needed to have been researched, because you gain knowledge, technological innovation, etc. even when developing failed types, that go into developing the next generation. I had just wanted to explore what would have happened if the best type in each category had been adopted for full scale production, cross service. Production of marginal types could be avoided or scaled back. I'll just cross copy the aircraft and assign them the proper designations, then the individual service can decide upon adoption. I didn't want to have to have to set up a different factory to produce an army and a navy version because in reality the aircraft could be produced on one line, just in batches with the different service specific options. (Example the USAAF B-25 and US Navy/USMC PBJ were the same aircraft, made on the same production lines, just different service specific details. The USAAF just transferred that portion of the B-25C and B-25D production blocks from specific plants to the Navy).

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 11

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/25/2013 11:28:16 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

In the US many changes were made to aircraft after production in post production facilities. For example the B-17 Cheyenne tail turret was called that because instead of disrupting production to introduce the new tail turret, B-17s were completed with no tail turret or minimal work done there and then flown the the post production facility in Cheyenne, Wyoming where the new turret was installed.

Douglas built A-24s side by side with SBDs, but I believe the PBJ came along after the post production facilities had been set up and all B-25s were completed to the same spec with the PBJ modifications being done post production. Not all countries had that sort of post production set up. The US might have been unique in that regard.

I know a lot of the changes to the PB4Y-1 were done in post production facilities.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to cplprice)

Post #: 12

RE: Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft - 5/27/2013 2:53:10 AM

dwg

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Douglas built A-24s side by side with SBDs, but I believe the PBJ came along after the post production facilities had been set up and all B-25s were completed to the same spec with the PBJ modifications being done post production. Not all countries had that sort of post production set up. The US might have been unique in that regard.

Variation on a theme, but the RN had a big depot at New York (run by Blackburn if memory serves) doing RN specific mods to US-built aircraft prior to delivery. There was also a programme in Canada to do post-trials defect rectification and UK specific modifications to US built ships such as the escort carriers.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 13

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Possibly stupid question on IJA/IJN aircraft

Page: [1]