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: CXAM Radar??

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CXAM Radar?? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CXAM Radar?? - 8/3/2004 7:47:33 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Keep it up Brady! Fight the good fight man!

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 91
RE: CXAM Radar?? - 8/3/2004 9:17:47 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		, I will have time on thursday to do some more of the list, their are several erros in the Army planes and some more in the Navy planes.

_____________________________





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 TheElf)
Post #: 92
RE: CXAM Radar?? - 8/3/2004 12:24:05 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline 		Brady, thanks for posting your observations… someone should point this out. I’ve started to mess with editor two days after WitP release… and I still make changes, from cosmetic like internal position of Rikko torpedoes and up to crucial like range/endurance issue, and this one is the most problematic… what effect right range ratings will have if the map is wrong? Did you test Japanese a/c with corrected ratings? If not… do it and you’ll see that correct data is not always the best solution possible. I’m trying to tune aircraft endurance/drop tanks settings in order to see historically accurate performance in WitP world and not on database screen…

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 93
RE: Campaign 42 to 46 - 8/3/2004 12:24:26 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		In the database for scenario #5 (similiar starting time), the 1st USMC Div is loaded into taskforce TG62.1 and 112th USA Cav Rgt is at Suva.
However in the database for scenario #14, the 1st USMC Div is located at Luganville and the 112th USA Cav Rgt is loaded into taskforce TG62.1.

My guess is that this is a typo as these units are next to each other in the database.

Sorry forgot! This applies to version 1.21 databases.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 8/3/2004 7:30:32 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 94
RE: OOB Comments - 8/3/2004 2:12:48 PM   
oleb

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 10/18/2002
Status: offline 		In scenario 15 the DD Natsushio seems to start upgraded. Its listed as Kagero 6/1944. Other Kagero class destroyers are not available for upgrade before 1/43.

Is the upgraded destroyer a bug or feature?

_____________________________

Ktarn

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 95
airgroup sizes - 8/3/2004 4:07:26 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline 		Hi,
please somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I always got the impression that IJN airgroups (Daitai) consist of 27 (max) planes which split into 3 Chutais a 9 (max) planes.
IJA airgroups (Sentai) consist of 36 (max) planes which split into 3 12 (max) plane chutais.
Now in the game I've seen lots of army chutais with 9 planes and navy chutais with 12 planes. Also I spotted a army sentai with 27 aircraft. Is this correct ?

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to oleb)
Post #: 96
Commonwealth aircraft corrections - 8/3/2004 8:24:42 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		V1.21, Scenario 15
Leaving aside the Firefly, for which the host of egregious errors have already been recorded, some minor / very minor errors as follows, mainly for completeness, unless the XT vs INT or F makes a difference:

095 Swordfish: Wpn 1 should be 151 Vickers V x 1 or omitted; Wpn 2 should be 148 Lewis x 1

096 Barracuda - Armour should be 1

106 Empire - this armament looks extremely dubious (see my comment re the Sunderland), but trying to find definitive source - all I have confirmed is some form of improvised armament. Suspect should be limited to flexible Vickers Ks. Given that the Empires were built as airliners, suspect the bombs (if correct at all) should be 12-XT unless definitive evidence to contrary.

107 Sunderland - depends on which mark, but RAF never fitted quadruple Lewises to anything! If we go for the most prevalent Mk IIs or Mk IIIs, then:
Wpn 1 150 .303 Browning x 2;
Wpn 2 150 .303 Browning x 2 03-TT (or keep the 2 x beam .50 for late Mk Is)
Wpn 3 150 .303 Browning x 4

108 Dornier 24K-2 Wpn 2 should be 165 20mm HS404 x 1

118 Lysander I
Wpn 1 150 .303 Browning x 2
Wpn 2 149 Vickers K x 1 (if Lysander Mark I) or x 2 (if Mark II, much more common Mark in the Far East)

119 Wirraway Wpn 2 should be 149 Vickers K x 1

129 Spitfire XIV normal E wing should be:
Wpn 1 just x2 Hispanos
Wpn 2 161 .50 Browning x 2 00-F
Wpn 3 203 500lb GP x 2 12-XT

133 Blenheim IF Cannot find any evidence of Blenheim IFs carrying AI radar in the Far East. 27 Sqn were indeed nominated as a night-fighter unit, but appear to have relied solely on Mark I eyeball. When reformed, they flew Beaufighter Ic, VIc and Xs - ie long-range fighter rather than night-fighter variant. And in 1941-2, suspect every available AI
set would have been kept in the UK for home defence. Bombload is too light - looking for definitive detail.

134 Beaufighter VIF - even if one allows the AI (trying to find when first sets deployed to Far East), the bombs should be 12-XT.

149 Beaufighter VIC - again, the mythical Beaufighter internal bomb bay. Change Wpn 3 and Wpn 4 to 12-XT.

152 Beaufighter 21 - as well as changing bombs to 12-XT, Wpn 2 should be 161 .50 Browning x 6. Also, should add 149 Vickers K x1 as 05-BR. And should be torpedo capable, but is this possible for a fighter-bomber? I have avoided changing, just in case.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 97
RE: OOB Comments - 8/3/2004 10:41:28 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline 		The initial dispositions of RAAF Squadrons on 12/7/41, and 12/11/41 for Australia is as follows:

Singapore Island

Sembawang Base - No. 453 Sqn. RAAF - 16 x Buffalo (18 x Buffalo in Scenario 15)
No. 8 Sqn. RAAF - 4 x Hudson (Det. not represented in Scenario 15)

Northern Malaya

Sungei Patani Base - No. 21 Sqn. RAAF - 12 x Buffalo
Kota Bharu Base - No. 1 Sqn. RAAF - 12 x Hudson (10 x Hudson in Scenario 15)
Kuantan Base - No. 8 Sqn. RAAF - 8 x Hudson (12 x Hudson in Scenario 15)

Australia

Wirraways
No. 4 Sqn. RAAF - Canberra - 12 a/c
No. 5 Sqn. RAAF - Laverton - 12 a/c
No. 12 Sqn. RAAF - Darwin - 18 a/c (12 a/c in Scenario 15)
No. 22 Sqn. RAAF - Richmond - 17 a/c
No. 23 Sqn. RAAF - Archerfield - 12 a/c (+ 3 Hudsons)
No. 24 Sqn. RAAF - Townsville - 12 a/c (+ 4 Hudsons - see below) (Ordered to Rabaul)
No. 25 Sqn. RAAF - Pearce - 18 a/c

Hudsons
No. 2 Sqn. RAAF - Darwin - 8 a/c (+ No. 7 Sqn. RAAF attached with no a/c)
Det/No. 2 Sqn. RAAF - Koepang - 4 a/c
No. 6 Sqn. RAAF - Richmond - 6 a/c
Det/No. 6 Sqn. RAAF - Laverton - 4 a/c (Has 6 a/c in Scenario 15)
No. 13 Sqn. RAAF - Darwin - 6 a/c
Det/No. 13 Sqn. RAAF - Laha - 6 a/c
No. 14 Sqn. RAAF - Pearce - 12 a/c
Det/No. 24 Sqn. RAAF - Rabaul - 4 a/c

Catalinas
No. 11 Sqn. RAAF - Port Moresby - 6 a/c
No. 20 Sqn. RAAF - Port Moresby - 6 a/c

Seagulls
No. 9 Sqn. RAAF - Richmond - 6 Shipborne and 5 Landbased a/c (Became Walrus with patch 1.20 -you had it right the first time - should be Seagulls)

I haven't found any reference to the 2/22 RAAF Flight contained in the game.

SOURCE:
Gillison, Douglas; "Australia in the War of 1939-1945: Royal Australian Air Force, 1939-1942," The Griffin Press, Adelaide, 1962.

Thanks,

Brad

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 98
RE: OOB Comments - 8/3/2004 11:20:25 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Brady,

The endurance figures are minutes of flight time at cruise speed.
Actually, most aircraft get a little extra endurance because there is no time to form up a strike etc.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 99
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 12:52:02 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

Brady,

The endurance figures are minutes of flight time at cruise speed.
Actually, most aircraft get a little extra endurance because there is no time to form up a strike etc.

Mike


I have a question on how to calculate range:

For example -- the TBD Devastator.

I multiply the cruising speed (128 mph) times the endurance (225 minutes) = 28800

I divide that number by 60 (converting endurance from minutes to hours and getting the range in miles) = 480

I divide that number by 60 (to convert range to hexes) = 8

So the TBD can fly 4 hexes out, and 4 back . . . thats 240 miles each way, or about twice its historically accurate range.

Is this the "extended" range? If so, how do I calculate the normal combat range?

P.S. Thanks Nessaja, for developing the a/c database; and thanks, Spooky, for posting it on your website!

P.P.S. Please don't refer me to an answer on a page # in the manual. My game order hasn't arrived yet.

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 8/3/2004 10:58:39 PM >

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 100
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 3:04:06 AM   
GoofTrooper


Posts: 54
Joined: 7/22/2004
From: USA
Status: offline 		I would like to see both the A6m3 model 22 and 32, instead of a generic M3. If the generic model went to 22 then at least some scenarios would lose their balance. IIRC the Japanese didn't have enough model 21 in Solomon’s and the 32's couldn't reach Guadalcanal. If there is a change, please create both or leave as is. Both were used in large enough numbers and should be included.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 101
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 3:09:36 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

(snipped)

Seagulls
No. 9 Sqn. RAAF - Richmond - 6 Shipborne and 5 Landbased a/c (Became Walrus with patch 1.20 -you had it right the first time - should be Seagulls)


There is continuing confusion concerning the aircraft named Seagull. The RAAF catapult aircraft was the Seagull V - a variation of the Walrus (actually the Walrus was developed from the Seagull V). It is an entirely different aircraft than the U.S. Navy SOC Seagull floatplane. The RAAF used both Seagull V and Walrus so either name would be proper. I'd vote for Walrus due to common recognition and lack of confusion with the U.S. plane.

DOn

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 102
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 3:11:43 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

Brady,

The endurance figures are minutes of flight time at cruise speed.
Actually, most aircraft get a little extra endurance because there is no time to form up a strike etc.

Mike


I have a question on how to calculate range:

For example -- the TBD Devastator.

I multiply the cruising speed (128 mph) times the endurance (225 minutes) = 28800

I divide that number by 60 (converting endurance from minutes to hours and getting the range in miles) = 480

I divide that number by 60 (to convert range to hexes) = 8

So the TBD can fly 4 hexes out, and 4 back . . . thats 240 miles each way, or about twice its historically accurate range.

Is this the "extended" range? If so, how do I calculate the normal combat range?

P.S. Thanks Nessaja, for developing the a/c database; and thanks, Spooky, for posting it on your website!

P.P.S. Please don't refer me to an answer on a page # in the manual. My game order hasn't arrived yet.


Using the formula in the Editor Manual to calculate maximum range.

You multiply the cruising speed (128) times the endurance (225) = 28800.

Take that figure (28800) and divide by 3600 to get maximum range = 8 hexes, the same that you calculated

Normal range is equal to 1/4 of the maximum range = 2 hexes

Extended combat range is equal to 1/3 of the maximum range = 2.67 which I think will round to 3.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 103
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 3:31:58 AM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the heads-up, Don....Walrus it is.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 104
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 6:48:47 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"Brady, thanks for posting your observations… someone should point this out. I’ve started to mess with editor two days after WitP release… and I still make changes, from cosmetic like internal position of Rikko torpedoes and up to crucial like range/endurance issue, and this one is the most problematic… what effect right range ratings will have if the map is wrong? Did you test Japanese a/c with corrected ratings? If not… do it and you’ll see that correct data is not always the best solution possible. I’m trying to tune aircraft endurance/drop tanks settings in order to see historically accurate performance in WitP world and not on database screen… "


I have just started to try out the revised setings I came up with so I have yet to see any real effects, most of my time the past few days has been spent reamking a turn one in scenario 15 and looking up info for the posts above and going over the plane setings for the Empire, I spent all day on Sunday doing this prety much, so I havent realy sean the efects yet, and as Lemurs pointed out I nead to do some math. I recall posting a long time ago on the range issue and found that way back before the game was released many aircraft particulary CV based aircraft had their Historical ranges adjusted for game play isuses, my personaly take on this being nescessary is the compleat oppset of Matrix.

One observation based on the above findings and those I have yet to post for the Japanese army planes is that the Japanese Fighters are for the most part grosely underguned do to these mistakes in the oob.

I was woundering just how the drop tanks played into this, I see in the devices list that drop tanks exist but noticed that they do not apear on any of the planes in the weapons slots, so I asumed that the ranges in game took this into acount?

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

"The endurance figures are minutes of flight time at cruise speed.
Actually, most aircraft get a little extra endurance because there is no time to form up a strike etc. "


CC, I nead to sit down in the morning when I am fresh and go through and do some wath and get a feal for whear this is at, Matrix admitadely has (see above) adjusted some of this for gamplay,if I recall from postings in the past (pre game release) it was discused that some of the CV planes have unhistoric range setings to alow for vetter play, like SBD's and Swordfish for instance I Beleave have longer than they should ranges and soem Japanese planes are neutered....Or so I recal I have to do the math...

Nice Signature BTW

_____________________________





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 Montbrun)
Post #: 105
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 10:21:28 AM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		1.21 Scen 15
As has been mentioned before, the RN is denied the tenders it should have. Given that torpedo-reloading has been proven to be nationality-specific, this is rather critical.

Still working on tracking down AD-equivalents, but for AS:

HMS Lucia at Colombo at start. Elderly WW1 Submarine Depot Ship, 5800 tons, 12 kts. Probably minimal armament. Later used as destroyer repair ship once more modern AS-equivalents arrived in theatre. Captain R M G Gambier.

HMS Adamant, arriving circe May/June 1942. 12,500t, 17 kts, four twin 4.5", four quad 2pdr pom-poms, eight Oerlikons, eight Vickers 0.5" (use Browning?). Captain R S Warne. Built as an AS, and planned to replace Lucia. However, when she arrived she was used as an AR for a considerable period to support Eastern Fleet before finally relieving Lucia, allowing her in turn to adopt the AD/AR role.

HMS Maidstone, arriving March 1944. 8,900t, 17kts, four twin 4.5", four quad 2pdr pom-poms. Captain L M Shadwell.

HMS Wolfe, arriving August 1944. 21,500t, 16 kts, four 4", lots of light AA - trying to find reliable figures, but maybe 19 Oerlikons plus multiple pom-poms. Captain J Slaughter.

Question - presumably it is possible, using the Class upgrade system, to switch from, say, AR to AS? If so, one could class Adamant as an AR on arrival, then switch her in, say 1943, to an AS. And switch Lucia from AS to AD (I suspect AD is a better representation of her later role than AR).

Alternatively, keep Adamant as an AR throughout, and Lucia as AS.

David

PS I have deliberately left out Wu Chang, since, as far as I can find out, she was used more as a submarine accommodation ship at Singapore and Trincomalee than a true depot.



< Message edited by DBS -- 8/4/2004 8:32:55 AM >

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 106
Liberator VI - 8/4/2004 3:46:50 PM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline 		In all scenarios, the Liberator VI has a range of 7/10 End=600. All other versions of the B-24 have a range of 10/14 End=825.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 107
RE: OOB Comments - 8/4/2004 5:26:26 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline 		Thanks, Herrbear!

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 108
RE: OOB Comments - 8/5/2004 6:26:47 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Just to add to the 31 pages of oob fixes. Dont know if anyone else has mentioned it but I just noticed that VMSB 231, the Vindacater unit that the Lexington was bringing to Midway apparently isnt in Senerio 15. It should start either on board the Lex or at Midway on turn one.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 109
RE: OOB Comments - 8/5/2004 10:20:56 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		G3M: Looks ok....(Though I nead to look at the endurance figures for it a bit closer with a range of 3,871 st. miles, an endurance of 1,500 seams off.),Cruse spead seams a tad High, listed at 184 mph the game has it at 203.

L3Y: Same as the Nell.

G4M1: Endurance again neads to be looked at, with 3,749 miles listed and endurance at 1,500 in the game, crusing spead listed at 196 mph, game alows 226. Torpedo, could arguable considered internal, espichaly if the one the Jill carys is considered internal.

G4M2:3,765 st miles listed, cruse spead listed at 196, game alows 226, endurance in game at 1,500. Their could be a valaid argument for replacing the Beam(blister/side) windo 7.7mm MG's with Type 99 20mm cannons. same note on torpedo stowage as above. Most of which also mounted the Type 99 MK II cannon, while the game shows type 99 MK I's. If this craft is intended to represent the mid war Betty the adation or use of the 7.7mm Nose gun should/could be switched to the 13.2mm type as was often fited for this time frame. The G4M2 should also be a bit more manuaverable than the G4M1 and this is not so in the game in fact it is the opset of how it should be.

G4M2e: See notes above on cruse spead, also I dont see any referances showing that the range was so drasticaly impacted for this model when carrying the Ohka, game show 700 for endurance.

P1Y: Listed range is given at 1,192-3,338 (normal-Max), cruse spead is given at 230 mph, game has 260, with an endurance of 630 in game, at glance somthing seams off espichaly when compared to the figures given above for the Bettys. Also This plane should be Torpedo Capable and it is not in the game.


C5M: Should be 7.7mm Type 92 MG not Type 89.


H6K4: Cruse spead listed at 138 (matches value given in game), Game endurance given as 1,400, Normal/Max range; 2,981/3,779 miles.Torpedos should be external, not internal. Max Load should be 2(1,764)=3,528, game alows for 2,205....now this is only a factor if the later figure impacts the planes abaility to cary two torps as it would on a torp run, it could cary the two torps or 2,205 pounds of bombs.

H8K:4,445 miles listed as max range, cruse spead given as 184, game alows 1440 for endurance...wtf?....Torpedos should be external, not internal as listed, their should be also more 7.7mm Type 92 mg's at least 4 more two per side this in adation to to the listed in game aramement.

H6K2-L: See notes above on H6K.

_____________________________





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 TIMJOT)
Post #: 110
RE: OOB Comments - 8/5/2004 10:46:33 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		E8N:558 st miles given as range,Cruse given as 115, endurance at 480.

F1M: 460 miles given as range, Cruse given at 127, endurance is at 200...???

E13A: 1,298 st miles listed as range, Cruse given at 138, endurance at 480...??? Bombload could be one 250KG bomb as aposed to the four 60 kg bombs it carrys.

E7K2: Max spead is in error listed in game at 149, should be 171 mph. My referances list 11.32 hours endurance, game figure for endurance is 690, cruse spead gien as 115mph. Bombload could be two 60 KG bombs as aposed to the four 30 KG bombs.

_____________________________





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 #: 111
RE: OOB Comments - 8/5/2004 11:13:10 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Ki-27:Max Spead listed at 292 mph, game alows for 286 mph. Cruse listed at 217 mph. 390/1,060 (normal/max) range, endurance given as 200. Bombload listed for all varients as Four 25 KG bombs, game alows two 30 kg bombs.

Note on Bombs: At this pont I would like to say that it would be cool if we could get the Army Bombs added and stop using Navy types in their stead, 50KG bomb type namely, and posably the 25 KG type listed above, also it would be nice to add a 500 KG bomb type modeled on the Navy type, this weapon was used often and would be a good fit for several types, even if Matrix does not care to use it, dyo scenarious could benifift from it.

Ki-43-Ib:Range listed at 745 miles, cruse given at 199, endurance in game at 375. Gunpackage should be One 7.7mm Type 89 & One 12.7 mm Ho-103 MG, not the listed Two Type 89's.

Note on Manuaver: Again I am baffled at the way manuaver ratings are given out, espichaly when a plane like the Hellcate is given a figure comperable to that of the Oscar.

Ki-43-IIa: 1,095/1,990 (Normal/max) Range listed, cruse at 273, game endurance at 435. Bombload should be Two(2)-250KG bombs, not two 30kg bombs.

_____________________________





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 #: 112
RE: OOB Comments - 8/6/2004 1:42:03 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Ki-44-IIb:805/1,056 (normal/max) ranges given cruse spead of 249, Endurance in game at 250.Their were aprox. 394 IIb's built They were intended to be armed with Two 12.7 mm Ho-103 MG's and two 40mm Ho-301 Cannon's, but the 40mm Ho-301 was horiable inacurate and very short ranged, and was more often than not removed entirely and the plane was left with just the two MG's, the IIc was armed with Four Ho-103 MG's and with about 427 built would represent the largest single varient. (See Buschell Ki-44 p. 62/63). Though with just the single model in the game it is dificult to get a truly representative model to cover the entire war. Buschell also sights the bombload for this type(s) as either two 30-100KG bombs or one 250 KG bomb.

Ki-45 KAIa:Range listed at 1,404 miles, cruse given as 235, endurance in game at 355. Bombs shoul dbe If any at all, two 250 KG Bombs, Bomb facing should be 12-XT, Not 00-F.

October 1942 saw the first Combat debuet of the Ki-45, the 21st Sentai in Burma, yet in the game 12/42 or 1/43 (depending on model) is the first moth for availabality.

Ki-45 KAI Ib: Endurance see notes above for KAIa.

Ki-45 KAI Ic: See Notes on Endurance for KAIa, range listed at 1,243 miles. The 37mm Type 98 is a hand Loaded weapon...Ya some guy sits in front of the darn thing and stuffed shels into it!, it is a modified field gun...The Gun that this plane mounted is the 37mm Ho-203, an automatic weapon a true machine cannon with a 25 round capacity the weapons are NOTHING alike, it would be realy nice if this could be sorted. Again we have two 60KG bombs listed when the real load was two 250KG bombs.

_____________________________





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 #: 113
RE: OOB Comments - 8/6/2004 2:34:36 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Ki-46-III KAI:Range listed at 1,243 miles plus 1 Hour combat, cruse listed at 249, endurance is 370...???...Ok Again we see the 37mm Type 98, when we should see the 37mm Ho-203. Again Not shure why this plane has a bomb capacity in the game.

Ki-61 KAIc: Interestingly we have the worst preforming Tony modeled in WiTP, while sources can be a bit confusing as to exactly how many of each type were built the model at hand is not by any streach of the imaganation the Larger or more represenative of the lot. This model started production in January 44. Realy WiTP should have more than one model of Ki-61, the Tony was a very imporatnat Aircraft for Japan, with Over 3,000 being built and of those 1,380 were Ki-61-I, 1,274 were Ki-61-I KAI(various sub models "c" being but one). The Earler one and the one more represenative of the fighting in the New Gunie area The Ki-61-Ib did 368 and climbed much better 16,405 ft in just 5 min 31 sec as aposed to 7 min for the Model we have in the game. The earler model also handeled a bit better. The model we have in the Game also has the wrong Cannon aramement it should have the Ho-5 20mm Cannons Not the Ho-3. The Tony should have two 250 KG Bombs Not the two 60KG bombs it is listed in the game as having.

_____________________________





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 #: 114
RE: OOB Comments - 8/6/2004 4:13:10 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Ki-84-Ia: 1,053/1,347 (Normal/Max) Miles listed as the range,cruse spead 277, endurance 290. Ki-84's started combate operation in the spring of 44, an expermantil unit was in operation in October 43, so the Availabality date of Augast 44 seams a tad late imo. The Gun Package is again off in that the Ho-3 is not the corect gun and should be switched to the Ho-5.

Ki-84-Ic: See notes on preformace listed above relating to endurance. I am baffeled as to why this vershion has a lower manuaver number the only diferance between it and the a is the gunpackage the difereance in total weapon weight is only 98 pounds and we see a 4 point drop in manuaver???, Bearing in mind hear that the "a" model had the 20 mm Ho-5 in the wing (25 pounds diferance), now before you start whing about the ammo diferance remember that thier is less total ammo for the 30 mm gun and the weight diferance for the rounds is 155 grams.* Also the Ho-3 is again incorect, this gun should be the Ho-5 20mm. Also I am kinda courious as to why this plane is in the game as a Varient, Since hardely any were built, sources I have in Japan tell me that Buschell is wrong in his figures for the production of this plane and basicaly only a few prototypes were made, their was a lengthy debate in the AH form a while ago on this. Why I mention this is when I see a plane that has just a few models made of a type that saw virtualy no combate and we have over a thousand of an early model Ki-61 not represented it makes me wounder...This Type walso Fully capable of carying the two 250 KG bombload, yet we again have the Navy 60 KG bombs straped to it....


*Source Flying Guns WW2 Anthony G. Williams & Emmananuel Gustin

_____________________________





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 #: 115
RE: OOB Comments - 8/6/2004 4:47:44 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Ki-100:870/1,367 (Normal/Max), Cruse listed at 249 mph, endurance is at 330.

Ki-102: Range 1,243 miles,Cruse 250, Endurance 300. The most produced varient of the Ki-102 was the "b", to quote from Francillion p. 136 " and the Ki-102a was never placed in quanity production." In fact prety much all the Ki-102s made were "b" models 215 in fact out of 238....So Why do you think they chose the "a" model...hmm so they could put the 37 mm Type 98 cannon on it maybe instead of the 57mm Ho-401...again note that the 37mm Type 98 is that handloaded field gun pos that was never even on the "a" model it was the 37mm Ho-203. So in a nut shel if it is at all posable it would be realy cool if this could be cleaned up and switched to the "b" and armed with the 57mm Ho-401.

_____________________________





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 #: 116
RE: OOB Comments - 8/6/2004 7:08:48 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Somebody already posted the lack of the Curtis C-46(which owned the "Hump"),and I would also like to request the C-54,which was in use at Okinawa durning that campaign,(if not earlier)..Tango Yankee..

_____________________________




(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 117
RE: OOB Comments - 8/6/2004 7:12:47 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		L2D2:2,003 miles listed range, cruse listed as 161 (game has 185), max spead 220. The L2D3-Ia, managed 244 and crused at 150, ranged listed at 1,865 miles. Later varients had (L2D4) One 13.2mm Type 2 MG and two Type 92 MG's. Despite apearances the Tabby was not entirely a carbon coppy of the DC 3, the engines differed of course and as such the preformance differed to a degree...see p.502 Francillion.

Ki-30: 1,056 listed range cruse given as 236,endurance 270.

Ki-32: 1,218 miles listed range, cruse 186, endurance 270.

Ki-51: range listed at 660 miles, cruse given as 180, endurance 230.

Ki-21: 1,680 Miles listed range, cruse given as 236, endurance 380

Ki-48: 1,274/ 1,491 (normal/max) range, cruse given as 180, endurance 360.

Ki-49: 1,243/1,833 (normal/max) rang, Cruse at 217, endurance 420. The Type 99 Cannon listed should be replaced with at least the Ho-3, which would be a better replacement for the Ho-1, I suspect the intent hear was to avoid modeling the Ho-1 and seaking a suitable replecemnt for it. Their could be some argument for up gunning the defensive guns to the 12.7mm in the nose ventrail and tail posations (and keeping the 7.7 in the remainder), as this was common on mid to late war models.

Ki-67: Cruse spead is listed at 249, while the game shows 279...1,740 miles/2,360 miles(normal/max) range, endurance 375, this may want to be looked do to the descrepency in cruse speads. Tail Turet should have TWO 12.7mm MG's not One, Top Turet should have the Ho-5 20mm Cannon Not the Ho-3. The Peggy should be TORPEDO capable, yet it is not in the game.

Ki-46 III: Range listed at 2,485, cruse given as 249, endurance 600.

Ki-46 II:1,537 miles range, cruse 249, endurance 370.

Ki-15: 1,491 miles range, cruse 199, endurance 430. What I want to know is why this plane has the same endurance as the C5M???

Ki-36: Range 767 miles, cruse 147, endurance 320. Their should be a 7.7mm Type 89 fixed firing forward in this plane in adation to the 7.7mm gun it has presently firing to the rear. Bombload should set to facing 12-XT, presently it is 00-F.

Ki-57-II:932/1,865 (normal/max) range, cruse 199, endurance 540.

MC-21:See notes above on Ki-21.

Ki-54:Range 597 miles,cruse 149, endurance 240.

_____________________________





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 m10bob)
Post #: 118
opps - 8/7/2004 6:33:31 AM   
Jorm


Posts: 545
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Melbourne
Status: offline 		opps

< Message edited by Jorm -- 8/7/2004 4:43:10 AM >

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 119
RE: opps - 8/7/2004 8:46:01 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline 		Data Collected

Note see post #2 on page 1 of this thread for a list of player requested items that will not be added or changed. I also will start a thread in the general scetion where you all can argue about the decisions, Please do not do it here Thanks.

< Message edited by pry -- 8/7/2004 1:14:26 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorm)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CXAM Radar?? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
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

4.016