RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (Full Version)

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



Message


jcjordan -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:04:09 AM)

This mostly an AI type question on air - will the "die roll" for air units to attack something that has a strong CAP being worked on/changed? In most of my games vs AI I set a very exp/morale unit to Nav Atk & it won't attack something like the KB Death Star TF the AI uses in the next hex w/ or w/o escort yet it will attack this single ship AP that is at the extreme range & in no danger to the base. IRL the air units would attack the KB as it's the most dangerous. This seems to plague land air more than naval air that if there is a strong cap presence or fighter presence, the unit fails the "die rolls" to attack a target very regularly while IRL they would attack the target.




ctangus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:04:28 AM)

Follow-up to your post on different plane types - you mentioned light bombers require a minimum level 3 AF for offensive ops. What's the minimum for fighter-bombers & attack/medium/heavy bombers?




TheElf -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:06:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

" Night Air search phase "

WOOHOO![:)]

Torpedo's, Tracked for alunits or just CV's, I supose each CV will have a number they can carry dependenbt on Class? What about AV's?


Correct on CVs. AV's fall under the Naval team. Sorry.




TheElf -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:07:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

This mostly an AI type question on air - will the "die roll" for air units to attack something that has a strong CAP being worked on/changed? In most of my games vs AI I set a very exp/morale unit to Nav Atk & it won't attack something like the KB Death Star TF the AI uses in the next hex w/ or w/o escort yet it will attack this single ship AP that is at the extreme range & in no danger to the base. IRL the air units would attack the KB as it's the most dangerous. This seems to plague land air more than naval air that if there is a strong cap presence or fighter presence, the unit fails the "die rolls" to attack a target very regularly while IRL they would attack the target.

That whole dynamic was one of the first things to go. Better be sure before you send units unescorted...




Mike Solli -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:08:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Torpedoes are tracked now.



Very cool. [:D]




TheElf -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:10:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

Follow-up to your post on different plane types - you mentioned light bombers require a minimum level 3 AF for offensive ops. What's the minimum for fighter-bombers & attack/medium/heavy bombers?

FB's SHOULD be considered the same as Lt Bombers or DBs (need to finalize this). Heavies are Level 4 AF restricted as are Mediums. Though I THINK Med. and Hvy's might be able to fly with extended range loads...I'll have to ask michaelm to follow up on this for me...




TheElf -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:12:07 AM)

Ok that's it for Day 1 folks. This guy has to rack out. Keep the questions coming. More answers in the morning...

Oh and welcome to our wonderland, we're as excited about this as you all seem to be!




spence -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:30:17 AM)

quote:

ATTACK BOMBERS - Think Kenney's 5th AF. These are the strafers, masthead attacks, and Parafraggers. They will be mostly limited to units in the 5th AF.

Essentially the 5th was the only numbered AF that operated regularly this way, so we have made them a special unit of sorts by limiting Attack bomber variants to units in this command. You can still order other units to perform low level attacks, but without large numbers of forward firing .50s AAA will cause higher attrition and FATIGUE.



I hope that the USN land based bombers (PV-1s and PV-2s, PBJ's, PB4Y-1s and PB4Y-2s) figure into this low level stuff also. They never got into the "high level precision bombing" thing. The PV-1, Navy version of the short lived USAAF B-34/B-37, had a window in the nose for a bombardier originally but that was removed and replaced with a 3 pack of .50 cal MGs fairly early on. My father flew these planes and says that his bombsight was a dead fly on the windscreen and his training was entirely for masthead and glide bombing attacks. PB4Ys operated in pairs with one flying circles around a target ship strafing with all its turret guns while the other ran in for a masthead attack.

Oh yeah, good night[:)]




Don Bowen -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:40:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Night, is it the same as before, or have their been changes made?


Seems to be getting warmer and more humid. Must be global warming.







Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 2:50:43 AM)

[:D]




USS America -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 3:10:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Torpedoes are tracked now.



Very cool. [:D]



You like tracking anything, Mike. [:'(]




Brady -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 3:48:34 AM)

B5M......yes....Mmmmm-?




ChezDaJez -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 4:03:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

B5M......yes....Mmmmm-?


Nothing is cast in stone as yet but probably not given its very limited run and immediate obsolesence.

Chez




Brady -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 4:10:42 AM)


[img]http://www.oniva.com/upload/2131/B5M-9s.jpg[/img]

 The Japanese Navy aparently orderd as noted and received 125 of these machines, and then decided on the Kate instead, prefering it in the end over the Mitsubishi machine, Both Machines are very similar in ofensive ordance capabalitys, in fact their prety much identical, Torp and bomboad the same( But so are Most Japanese Bombers).

Various referances (Book's) I have indicate that the B5M was operationaly deployed from SE asia during the first part of the war, the Unit show above is as noted by the Tail code part of the 33 KoKutai, again acording to a referance of mine this unit was operation from Late 41 to late 42, the game does not howeaver "Do Composit" so I beleave this unit is Not represented in game as such. Many Japanese KoKutai were in fact composit formations, the game side steps this in part by using Hikotai (squadron's) though I dont beleave any Hikotai from this unit are present either ( I may be wrong on this though).

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

Above from: Name This...(464), Which raises an interesting question:

Are Japanese are units still modeled the same or are thier composit unit's?





Mike Solli -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 4:23:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Torpedoes are tracked now.



Very cool. [:D]



You like tracking anything, Mike. [:'(]


Yup, that's my curse in life. [:D]




William Amos -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 4:25:44 AM)

Can you please put a "toggle" switch in that allows us to turn off recon missions. It would speed up the game and takes so damn long to resolve all the photo recon missions. Rather just have them in Intel reports




Brady -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 4:50:51 AM)

Just to be clear, thier was mention of Air to surface search radar, but is their air to air radar as well, and if so are they both intended to operate as one would expect? Like if you had a Jake on Nigfht Naval Search and thier was no moon would it "see" better than a Jake that did not have radar?




pad152 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 5:07:59 AM)

1. Pilot Pools Japan

The numbers never make any sense to me because, every naval aircraft type gets it pilots from the same pool. I doubt a carrier figther/bomber pilot got the same level of training as the pilot flying a float plane or tranport plane.[;)] Japan starts the war with a lot of understrength naval air units I always hated to waste a good naval carrier pilot on some float plane group!

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

2. Operational losses vs pilot replacements

- Losing more pilots to Op losses than you get in a month is just wrong, no airforce in world could operate like this! If Japan is losing 30 pilots a month to op losses then they need to generate more then 30 a month. It's all to easy to break the back of the Japanese air forces in 1942 due to this. This makes the Japanese air forces a dog that eats it's self.

3. Editor

- Allow setting the experince level for the pilot pool for each year of the war.

4 Airgroup Experince

Allied Airgroups seem to go from can't the broad side of a barn to killers that can't miss, Japan's Airgoups go through the same process in reverse. I beleive this is due to the Japan bonus in 1942.

- I say let (pilot experince + aircraft type + HQ air) define the airgroups performance not some hard coded trigger in 1942.











ChezDaJez -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 5:17:54 AM)

quote:

Various referances (Book's) I have indicate that the B5M was operationaly deployed from SE asia during the first part of the war, the Unit show above is as noted by the Tail code part of the 33 KoKutai, again acording to a referance of mine this unit was operation from Late 41 to late 42, the game does not howeaver "Do Composit" so I beleave this unit is Not represented in game as such. Many Japanese KoKutai were in fact composit formations, the game side steps this in part by using Hikotai (squadron's) though I dont beleave any Hikotai from this unit are present either ( I may be wrong on this though).


The B5M1 was primarily built as a hedge against Nakajima's B5N Kate and its various teething problems including those with the hydraulics. The B5M Mabel was terminated once it became apparent that the problems had been resolved. had been resolved. Most B5M's were already relegated to secondary duties by the start of the war and by the end of 1942, there weren't any remaining in front line service. It's possible that if a strong enough case can be made for it, it could possibly be included but I wouldn't hold my breath over it.

As far as composite squadrons go, they won't be modeled as such. In other words, no unit will have a mix of aircraft. While it is recognized that many Japanese units used hacks (small transports) for ferrying personnel around, they can't be included under the current game limitations.

There are many changes to the way the Air OoB is presented (smaller units and such) but I'll let one of the Air OoB experts give the details.

Chez




ChezDaJez -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 5:52:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Just to be clear, thier was mention of Air to surface search radar, but is their air to air radar as well, and if so are they both intended to operate as one would expect? Like if you had a Jake on Nigfht Naval Search and thier was no moon would it "see" better than a Jake that did not have radar?


Not sure about the air-air radar as it was generally a very short range affair. Air-surface radar will give a greater chance of detection regardless of time of day.

Chez




Knavey -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 6:09:13 AM)

How are they going to simulate the Zero Bonus since it won't be hard coded any more?  Or is it going away *gasp*?




ChezDaJez -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 6:15:40 AM)

quote:

1. Pilot Pools Japan


While what you are saying makes sense, it would be very difficult to implement in WitP under the current engine. Type aircraft designation occured at different points for the various nationalities but in general it occured following basic flight training. While this makes sense, it would be very difficult to implement in WitP under the current engine. A new pilot pool would be required for each aircraft type.

quote:

2. Operational losses vs pilot replacements


Operational losses generally caused more casualties than did combat. The replacement pool numbers for the Japanese are still being worked on.

quote:

3. Editor


Don't know. Someone else will have to answer this.

quote:

4 Airgroup Experince


There was no "Japan" bonus in 1942. There was a decreasing 5 month "Zero" bonus and an AVG bonus (if you want to call it that) that ignored the "Zero" bonus.

However, there are no more bonuses. The game now models aircraft performance based on altitude bands and pilot experience. What you will see early war is Japan continuing to be successful because she had better aircraft (generally speaking) and better pilots. As the war progresses and Japanese pilots are attrited, their average experience levels will drop. Couple that with increasing allied experience and more capable aircraft and the pendulum will begin to swing the other way.

Chez




ChezDaJez -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 6:23:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

How are they going to simulate the Zero Bonus since it won't be hard coded any more?  Or is it going away *gasp*?


It's gone. Fatigue, morale and other factors contribute, but aircraft ratings and pilot experience will be the primary keys for success.

Chez




Knavey -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 6:25:10 AM)

If geishas and USO tours are out, then morale is going to be difficult to increase.




Brady -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 6:27:45 AM)

I think the main thing for me regarding the B5M, is that if only one squadron of them was deployed operationaly for a year of the war, and evidenced in the above photo, and I do have a referance for the operationaly history of that squadron, then well thats a whole other torp squadron, even if we asume that all 125 built went just to maintain that single squadron thats still plenty in the pool, even if half were lost to traing acedents or from gambeling debts and drunken Naval oficers on a binge in some SE Asian brothel(I will trade you to of my torp bombers for that girl on the left...). For game play heck they could be represented by Kates, but thats  kinda not the point, many planes gould be used to represent other types, but for me this is whear the imershion is lost, or can be at times, I would like to see Ansons on ASW patrole out of Austraila, and SBC-4's flying from Somoa, and Mables in the pool. 125 planes is a lot for Japan particulary for a type that was just as good as the Kate, which was in it's day the best ship boarn torp bomber in the world. Another way to look at this if this Mable unit is not in the game...and were suposed to have a better OOB now, and granted it's not perfect, dident we just find an eror?





jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 6:54:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

If geishas and USO tours are out, then morale is going to be difficult to increase.


Hey Knavey did you ask Don about this on the Navy Thread?
[:D]




ChezDaJez -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 7:08:27 AM)

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




Grotius -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 7:15:52 AM)

Knavey, one other thing on the soon-to-be-gone Zero bonus: AE apparently will model different flying stats (e.g., maneuverability) at different altitudes, and the Zero will be able to shine at its preferred altitude. Er, something like that, anyway. It sounds like a great new feature.




scottott999 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 8:21:59 AM)

What a great bomb to drop on Pearl Harbor Day!

just a couple of questions....at least to start with  

1) Are cohesive attacks possible from land bases or CV taskforces located at different ranges from the target?

2) Can squadron returning from a bombing run be diverted to non-originating carrier or base?

3) Is there some sort of fighter patrol feature that would allow for chance encounters to occur outside of a base or target hex.  I thinking some thing along the lines of two fighter patrols engaging over the slot or a fighter patrol intercepting a returning bomber flight or transports returning to base

4) How are aircraft defined as carrier capable?  Currenlty they are fixed to a slot.  Will there be similar limitations?

5) I love the new pilot rating system.  Is there something to define if a pilot is carrier trained or is a fighter pilot a fighter pilot?   




briny_norman -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/8/2007 9:38:16 AM)

Will the databases be more accessible?
For example, currently, after having looked up a plane in the plane database the only way to get back is to push the Allied planes/Japanese planes button again which nullifies your sorting choices and sends you back to the top of the list agian, so you have to sort again and scroll all the way back down the list to, for example, look at a different version of the same plane.
Can get quite tedious... but could be solved by having the plane list and plane details screen on the same page...

Also, will there be sorting options in the databases like 'show only bombers' or 'show only british planes' like there are in lists in other parts of the game?




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.709961E-02