AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5061
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

P-38's in 12/41

Post by PzB74 »

Not going to make a big thing about this but my 2c about making prototype P-38s available to combat units in AE from the begining of the war is wrong if you ask me.

P-38D aircraft reached USAAF squadrons in August, 1941, but the military did not consider them ready for combat; as such they were re-designated RP-38D,"R" for "Restricted to non-combat roles," and only used for training. By December, 1941, 69 of these early P-38's were on active duty. In 1940, the British and French had ordered several hundred P-38's. Between the fall of France and British dissatisfaction with the Lightnings' performance, very few were delivered. Most of these airframes (ordered by the European allies) were kept by Lockheed as training/experimental models or were eventually completed as models P-38F or P-38G.

Ref. Ace Pilots; http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p38_lightning.html
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Cathartes
Posts: 1585
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am

RE: P-38's in 12/41

Post by Cathartes »

A couple handfuls of P-38Es were in California for Home Defense when the war began (1st Pursuit squadron flew to San Diego on Dec. 8). That's essentially what you get in AE and there are none being produced until mid '42, and they have poor-experience pilots, and these birds have a high service rating. Their impact is irrelevant in my opinion.
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5061
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: P-38's in 12/41

Post by PzB74 »

My opponent said he put his crack pilots into those P-38s.
- Felt like the Germans in 6/41 when they met the T-34, not so superior after all [:'(]

"Restricted to non-combat roles" - so it was all ok in stock WitP.
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: P-38's in 12/41

Post by witpqs »

I think it's OK for them to be there, but not dumped into the pool and inserted elsewhere. That's a tad gamey.
sven6345789
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:45 am
Location: Sandviken, Sweden

RE: P-38's in 12/41

Post by sven6345789 »

Since they have a high service rating, it must be hell to keep them operable. So it equals out i guess.
Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by timtom »

ORIGINAL: sspahr

The F-6C (USAAF Tac Recon slot 318) has speed and climb stats equivalent to the Allison-engined P-51A. The F-6Cs were all modified from the Merlin-engined B and C models, and the performance values should reflect that. Also, the side art for that aircraft represents an F-6D.

Data error. Ta.
ORIGINAL: Zsolo007

Hi,

This was probably brought up before, and it's not a big deal, but why is the Kawasaki Ha-40 called Ha-60 (the engine of the ki-61) ingame?

->
ORIGINAL: timtom
ORIGINAL: mikemike

Shouldn't the Kawasaki Ha-60 engine be the Kawasaki Ha-40?

Engines represents an amalgam of different types, hence we use the joint Army/Navy system of designation whenever possible - in this case "Ha-60" for the engine formely known as Ha-40.

[:)]
ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Couple of questions and possible errors...

1. In Aircraft in the editor ( Scenario 2 ) class 844 and 845 ( Tsurugi) are listed as level bomber. I am curious as to why they wouldn't be listed as dive-bombers or somesuch. In real life in the non-kami role they were never designed for a bombsight or anything like that...

2. Top view art for the Ki-115a and b appears to be switched. From the side the 115a is greyish but from the top camoed while the 115b is camoed from the side but greyish from the top.

3. Ki 84a and b both upgrade to the Ki84r. Surely the a should upgrade to the b which should then upgrade to the r version?

1. The light bomber serves as a sort of catch-all general purpose a/c. Divebombers are defined more narrowly - has to have dive brakes to qualify. If you want to use a diffent methodology, that's your prorogative, obviously. AFAIK there's separate code for Kamikaze attack independent of a/c type.

2. So they are.

3. Apparently the -b model was limited issue (100-odd) and produced in tandem with the vanilla model from 3/45 onwards at Nakajima's plant in Ota. The set-up mirrors this.
ORIGINAL: crsutton

Hi,

I am playing scen 2 via email. It is April 1942 and I have just gotten a squadron of Beaufort I torpedo bombers at karachi. However, I notice that Beaufort I type is not listed to begin production until 4/43. Is this an error? Should the plane begin production in 4/42 instead?

Thanks,

WAD. We've got three Beaufort sqns - 22, 42, 217. 22 Sqn arrived Ceylon 4/42 and remained there until end '44 while converting to Beaufighters mid-44. 217 Sqn arrived Ceylon 8/42 but without the air echelon, which had been folded into 39 Sqn in the ME. Thus air echelon had to be rebuilt. Initially no Beauforts were available, so flew Hudsons instead. Finally received Beau's 4/43, then Beaufighters summer '44. Never deployed to Burma. The air echelon of 42 Sqn was retained in ME and did not arrive Ceylon until 11-12/42, however with crews and (possibly) a/c unlike 217 Sqn. Converted to Blens early '43 before deploying to Burma. Less than 40 Beau's are available to the player. This is meant to reflect the apparent dearth of Beau's while simultaniously hoping to encourage the player to keep them in reserve for a special occasion.
ORIGINAL: Fopkob

Hello, i'm new to the game. And i must say it is great!

Just started my first full war scen #1 against allied AI. But one thing bothers me. AFAIK, first Ki-49-Ia were used against Chinese in auturm 1941. By december 1941 61st Sentai was reequiping Ki-21 to Ki-49-Ia, but due to slow production fully refited in february 1942. Production of Ki-49-IIa started in august 1942. This doesn't correlate with in-game OOB - Ki-49-Ia availability date 4/42, Ki-49-IIa availability date 9/42. Error in OOB?
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/japan/aircr ... -helen.asp

-ADD-
No G8N in game? Why? More prototypes build when compared to Kikka or J8W. It would be nice to have G8N, G10N and Ki-91. :D

My understanding is that the 61st didn't fully convert until July, deploying to the DEI in September. The general rule is that an a/c type is made available not by first production date but by first receipt with operational units. In amorphous cases like this the other criteria is when production exceeded 10 pr month which per the USSBS data is April in the case of the Donryu. A similar case is that of VMF-124 and the F4U.

Reg. the G8N, the methodology employed is basically if an a/c was still in the running by the time of VJ-day, it's fair game for inclusion. However if a particular project had been abandoned by this time, the a/c isn't included. My understanding is that the G8N was cancelled in July '45.
ORIGINAL: sspahr

Scen 1
Air Group 3223 No 139 Sqn RAF (renamed to 62 Sqn on April 30 '42)

This unit retains the Hudson IIIa for the entire war. According to RAF Web, http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn061-65.htm , 62 Sqn converted to the Dakota in July 1943.

You're right. Nice catch, sir! [:)]
ORIGINAL: sspahr

Another weapons mismatch:

Scen 1 Aircraft 610 A6M3a
Weapon 2 is Device#189 Type 99-2 Cannon
Weapon 12 is Device#188 Type 99

Oh for flips sake somebody smack the fat-fingered orbat-wallah.
Where's the Any key?

Image
sven6345789
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:45 am
Location: Sandviken, Sweden

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by sven6345789 »

Question regarding A-24 Banshee
checked the dates for the A type (the first one you get, there are two), and it is listed as being available from 2/42 until 2/42; WAD? you get the second type (B ) in 3/43, so 2/43 would also make sense.
Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5061
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by PzB74 »

Got hit by Banshees from 01/42 - so doesn't this mean they are available from 12/41?
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: PzB

Got hit by Banshees from 01/42 - so doesn't this mean they are available from 12/41?

Yes - within units. There is only a very limited production run (maybe 15 IIRC) in 42/02.
rockmedic109
Posts: 2414
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by rockmedic109 »

ORIGINAL: PzB

Got hit by Banshees from 01/42 - so doesn't this mean they are available from 12/41?
Something like three squadrons show up in Oz in Late DEC/Early Jan. They have a withdrawal date in March, I believe. And the replacement rate for A-24 is not enough for sustained operations. Attrition will wear them down before they withdraw.
User avatar
Grollub
Posts: 6674
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Lulea, Sweden

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Grollub »

Another question concerning the Banshee Sqn that arrive in Australia 01/42;

I've dumped some good DB pilots from the squadrons training on the WC into the bomber reserve. My intention was to transfer these from the reserve to the Banshee Sqns.

Problem is, that when I "Request veteran" for the Banshees, the only pilots that show up for transfer to them is either from active fighter units or from the fighter, not bomber reserve?

Bug or something WAD?
“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Barb »

Arent those on the WC of Marines or Navy nationality? :) You cant have Marine flying an Army plane ...
Image
User avatar
Grollub
Posts: 6674
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Lulea, Sweden

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Grollub »

Ahhh ... that could be the reason.

Thanks.
“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"
Menser
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Peabody, Massachusetts

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Menser »

I've posted this in the general thread and got no reply's so I'll try here.
Scenario 2 version 1.02.1097 ( and Guad scen)
I've been running a few turns to get the feel after playing this and the starter scenario's and I have noticed that dedicated fighter sweeps .... weather made by me or the AI most times launch after other escorted or non escorted raids. Is this WAD? In my understanding of standard operational procedures, Sweeps were made always before any raid and were a major priority to the success of most missions. Yet I see that is not the case. Just trying the 1st turn against the AI in Scen2, it sends sweeps against Clark field, Iba and Rangoon after other raids have arrived (and I have had in this and the shorter scenarioes my sweeps happen after escorted or non escorted raids). I am wondering if the sweeps can be givien a higher priority in the games cue ...... Like Recon, Search, and ASW search have already. Recon, Search, and ASW search start first, Sweeps second ....All other air operations 3rd. Sweeps seem to be hit or miss propositions now as to be the only way to use them effectively is to clear the sky's many days before your other operations are launched (giving up your element of surprise if you are playing PBEM).
"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by witpqs »

There was a thread about this a couple months back. The basic answer was that sweeps are not designed to come before raids. But, if you set them to the same altitude as a bombing raid there is a better chance that they will coordinate. And, same for fighter escort - if you set it to the same altitude as the bombers there is a better chance they will coordinate.
Menser
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Peabody, Massachusetts

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Menser »

Yes, fighter escorts need to be set for the bombers altitude to provide escort, that is well understood.
Sweeps need to be set for the highest altitude the fighters are effective at to try and get the bounce on the enemy planes, setting them low and you might as well not send them at all (unless you plan on strafing, which would be foolish in the presence of a strong cap).
"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by witpqs »

Just passing you the information that was previously provided.
doc smith
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:06 am
Contact:

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by doc smith »

2d request for help!!

I would have searched the db if I knew how to phrase it in a meaningful and directly-applicable form. That being said, I apologize if this was raised earlier.

I have run into the case where a base had over 20K supply pts, a nearby HQ (well within range of applicable air units), and replacements available. Nevertheless, I can't move replacements from the pool to a unit with less than TO&E strength.

For example, I have a squadron with 9 of 16 P-40Es at Townsville. The unit is part of II Fighter Command, part of the II Fighter Command in town, 8 replacements in the pool, yet no way to transfer planes from the pool to the squadron. According to the rules, I should be able to draw planes but no 'button' is available. Takes a long time to get a/c into the unit.

Also, where is the best place to draw replacements into an 'Independent' Navy fighter squadron from a carrier VF squadron with 23 of 27 a/c TO&E. Example, Hornet is at Noumea and the town has over 20K supplies plus several planes of the same type in the pool. Again, no button to draw the units, whether the carrier unit is on shore or on a docked or undocked Hornet. What am I doing wrong (playing the Dec. 8th campaign as the Allies against an AI Japanese 'player'). I tried changing the group to Pacific Ocean Areas or South Pacific, but no joy (the SP HQ is not in play).

Also, why, when picking an active veteran pilot, said selection is removed from the list but NOT added to the group which requested him.  I usually have to go thru several tries to get one who actually appears "in transit" to the receiving group.  (Page set to "50+", "Manual", and "Any" location for the candidates to add to my squadron).  Seems that only if I select someone (say, from the reserves) for 49th PG/7th PS and his location changes (example, from 409th PG/37th PS) to 49th PG/7th PS with a travel delay of 6 days.  Why does this work this way?

Appreciate any help.


User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Barb »

Did squadrons you mentioned draw replacements in last 7 days? If yes, they have to wait a little to get additional planes.

Image
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by spence »

Why is the ASW mission not available for (at least) radar equipped aircraft flying at night? Certainly it was within the capability of the combatants. A significant number of submarines were sunk by ASW aircraft at night, principally in the Atlantic but the capability certainly was not absent in the Pacific.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”