RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (Full Version)

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



Message


CV2 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/19/2011 8:27:58 AM)

This is perhaps the best source I could find on line on it. No mention of ANY daytime torpedo attacks at all.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/PBY_Catalina

Night attacks and night mining (which was a surprise to me, didnt know they dropped mines).




herwin -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/19/2011 8:50:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
My intent is nothing more than to make this a better game.


I have the same intent, but there are a few things I have to keep in mind:

1. The underlying game engine is not infinitely flexible. There are places where it definitely takes leave of its senses. So tolerate a few gotchas to avoid creating more than a few new ones. The number of patrol planes is sufficiently low that using them for naval attack is a diversion. Whenever I see my opponent wasting a dozen torpedoes on a couple of motorboats (HDMLs or PTs), I regard that as tolerable. That's an opportunity to hunt something bigger wasted.

2. It's easy to make any game engine too complicated and opaque. You end up with **** happening that makes no sense. That was discussed by Wayne Hughes in Military Modelling for Decision Making, 3rd edition, Wayne P. Hughes, Jr., ed., 1997. Starting on page 50, there is an essay by Hughes "On Model Stricture, or Stifling Thought", where he criticises the way complicated opaque models inhibit imagination and creativity. "Too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating." He then gives examples of systems that had to be abandoned because they "contain coding mysteries that produce counterintuitive, unexplained results."

What you have here is a Markov chain algorithm producing a joint distribution of outcomes that simulates combat. That's an incredible achievement, especially when the programmers didn't know that that was what they were building.

This link to Gibbs sampling discusses a way to improve the algorithm to reflect real-world data. The programmers won't want to go there. I don't blame them.




herwin -> Fixing a Markov Chain Problem (2/19/2011 11:13:00 AM)

Suppose there's a problem with a specific combat model. You have a choice of two approaches: tweak it, or solve it from above. Remember: "Too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating." So tweaking it is about as likely to introduce new bugs as it is to remove old ones. There is an alternative known as Gibbs Sampling. As the Wikipedia article says, your goal is "to generate a sequence of samples from the joint probability distribution of two or more random variables. The purpose of such a sequence is to approximate the joint distribution....Gibbs sampling is applicable when the joint distribution is not known explicitly or is difficult to sample from directly, but the conditional distribution of each variable is known and is easy (or at least, easier) to sample from."

In other words, you know how each variable varies as a function of some or all of the other variables (and some of those other variables are likely to be already known for the battle you're trying to model). You then resample one variable at a time (basically a bootstrap) until the joint distribution stabilises and then take a final sample to represent the outcome of your battle. Example: for ground combat, some of the variables are fixed, and some of the conditional distributions are independent of the outcome. You know how victory depends on the casualty fractions of the two sides and vice versa, and you know how casualty fractions vary as a function of other parameters. You can incorporate most of the WitP-AE parameters in your model, but as conditional distributions rather than as logic built on random number draws. You can probably get by with less random number draws than the current model would use, produce a more realistic distribution of outcomes, and reduce the opacity linking inputs to outputs. At the same time, you would be more robust to attempts to game the system.




CV2 -> RE: Fixing a Markov Chain Problem (2/19/2011 11:26:52 AM)

Well in the case of the patrol planes on naval attack, thats a simple matter of removing the button from that aircraft type which to be historically accurate, should be done. Im not talking about tweaking the routine, Im talking about removing the mission type altogether. Fortunately this one can be solved by a simple house rule if by no other means.

The admin stackingcan not be handled by house rule and should be fixed. Since it was added in AE and is therefore fresh code, it should be (emphasize should) easy to find and remove. My understanding is the original code was a nightmare. But here again, it isnt "tweaking" anything. Its simple removal of what should be (again stress should) a simple easy to find routine.

Ed: Or at the very least a selector switch put in at the start of the game like auto sub ops for example to toggle it on and off. There again, I cant believe this would be that difficult. Just adding a few if..then..else statements on existing lines.




TheElf -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/25/2011 1:46:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ldeathbow

I kinda hate to do this to you - but the answer is so complex it is best to aim you at the manual. Read section 9.4 Airfields, starting on page 213. Copied below for your convenience.

9.4 AIRFIELDS
Airfields accommodate, repair and resupply air units, and serve as a point from which to launch air strikes.
Airfield size has many effects. It is easier to damage and destroy aircraft on the ground at smaller airfields (less dispersion). It is also more likely that planes will suffer operational losses when landing at smaller airfields.
Level bombers require an airfield equal to size 4 + (bomb load / 6500) rounded down. So, a B29 requires a size 7 airfield to avoid the penalties. Light bombers require a starting airfield of 2 rather than 4.
Penalties include:
»»Increased operational losses on takeoff.
»»A reduction in their range as air units cannot fly combat Missions at greater than their normal range.
»»A diminished (extended range) bomb load.
If a base has less Aviation Support than is required, level bomber offensive missions are reduced by 25%.
If an Airfield has too many aircraft (physical space) or groups (administrative) present, then the airfield is deemed overstacked. And is indicated by an ‘*’ next to the airfield.
An overstacked airfield affects how many aircraft can be launched, casualties from attacks and aircraft repairs.
A 9+ airfield does not suffer from overstacking.
An airfield can operate 50 single engine (or 25 two engine, or 12 four engine) planes per AF size or 1 group per AF size. The best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, or if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups.
In addition, groups at rest or in training only count as 1/3 for the purposes of counting aircraft at the base, and don’t count at all against the number of groups. Split groups only count as individual groups if they are attached to different HQs.

The easy answer is 2 groups (but that depends on wether they are on training status or active, etc.)


actually you can operate as many groups as you want. They'll just be limited in there sortie count due to the penalties. But they will fly...




TheElf -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/25/2011 2:14:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Since all you want to do is jump and down and yell and scream, then I will ask
Why didn't you see this when you were testing the game and get it fixed. This behavior has been in since the first release


Believe me, I tried. Elf was extremely resistant to any changes (including ones he himself admitted were wrong), much less any suggestions from me. But now that he is not on the team anymore, maybe we can get some of these problems fixed. Another one I would like to see gone is that stupid admin stacking thing that has no basis in reality (which Elf admitted was wrong).

The only way things like this will get changed is if people stop defending it and actually speak out. Sending me PMs saying "I wanted to say that, Im glad you did" doesnt cut it. You need to say it HERE, not to me.

Yamato Hugger, to answer your question simply AE is an in depth expansion of a previously coded game. In the previously coded game aircraft were categorized in several broad categories. We added a couple new ones to highlight some special capabilities, but for the most part these categories remained the same. The PBY is a Patrol aircraft. So is the PB4Y. Patrol aircraft perform Naval attack in this game.

You are just going to have to come to grips with the fact that this game is the way it is. It plays well. It has it's flaws, but we worked to do our best to overcome them. Many of your suggestions, while valid, came very late in our development process. You were not brought in to redevelop the game. You were brought in to test it's playability and report it's flaws. You were a great tester. But the things you found had to be prioritized within the scope of the project, and considered relative to the risk of throwing the code into upheval. In some cases we took your suggestions and acted on them. In others we couldn't. I don't recall this issue being brought up. Not to say it wasn't, but it is such a minor issue compared to all the other things we were dealing with...

It's unfortunate, but it is the way it is. There are a lot of things that I would have liked to have done to make the game better. Some of them are as a result of your testing others were personal things I wanted. We just couldn't fit them in.

For the record I never admitted the admin stacking rule has no basis in reality. It does. And if you would like to have a debate, start a thread in the appropriate forum.




vonTirpitz -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (3/8/2011 2:11:22 AM)

Could someone shed some light what the game message "Transports flying to X intercepted" actually means please? I have been unsuccessful in locating any specific information in the game manual or elsewhere on the forum so I wanted to post the query here.

I had posted a similar question in the tech support forum but it was more in reference to transport losses (or lack of) flying these missions. I noted that despite heavy flak in the area no enemy or friendly transports have been downed by flak or air-to-air after more than 400 turns of gameplay. Results from the PBEM seemingly indicates that operational losses are not affected by the message either.

So, in lieu of a definitive answer to the previous question, I wonder if the message may actually only indicate a reduction in the amount of supplies being successfully transported to the base being interdicted. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any information.





wdolson -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (3/8/2011 3:00:50 AM)

It means enemy fighters intercepted your transport planes.

Bill




vonTirpitz -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (3/8/2011 3:32:14 AM)

Thanks Bill. I understood what the message obviously implied. I suppose I was not clear enough with my question.

What exactly is the effect of it? I have seen no aircraft losses associated with it, no impact to the interceptors nor the transports and no apparent reduction in the amount of supplies flown.

edit: and when I say I see no apparent reduction in the supplies flown it is because I have not been able to accurately track the supplies to see if there is an impact. If the message indicates that the transport mission has been aborted then that would make perfect sense to me as well. I am simply curious if there is any practical reason to try and interdict these missions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It means enemy fighters intercepted your transport planes.

Bill





witpqs -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (3/8/2011 4:57:09 PM)

AFAIK it depends upon the outcome of that combat, which unfortunately is not included in the combat report. I have seen where, absent other air to air combat involving the fighter types in question, my fighters and enemy fighters both showed air to air losses but the transports were OK. I have also seen cases where a bunch of PBY's flying out trapped troops for shot down by a nearby KB, although in that case I did not know enough to look for such a message.




vettim89 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/1/2011 7:28:57 PM)

I posted a question over in the Scen Design forum but perhaps it is best placed here. The PBY-5 is listed as a patrol aircraft and the "float capable" box is not checked. DOes this mean the game views the PBY the same way as say a PBJ Mitchell? In other words, does the PBY require at least a level 1 AB in order to fly patrol missions?

Also, in the editor on the air craft screen there is a box named "DT ordinance". What doe sit mean? I noticed not a single a/c in the Scenario 1 DB has the box checked?

Lastly, is the max load value what is used to indicate how much an a/c can move in the :transport" mission? Is that value used for anything else?




Iron Duke -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/1/2011 11:12:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Also, in the editor on the air craft screen there is a box named "DT ordinance". What doe sit mean? I noticed not a single a/c in the Scenario 1 DB has the box checked?


got this from

www.alternatewars.com


Ordnance coded as “external” will swap for drop tanks which are also coded as “external”; the same will happen with center-line ordnance.

You can define two bombs as "external" and one as "center-line" while defining two DT's as "external" and none as "center-line".

In this case the two "external" bombs would be replaced with two DTs, leaving the centerline bomb.

To override the above and allow an aircraft to carry a full suite of ordnance and DT's, tag the "DT ordnance" field.





jcjordan -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (6/11/2011 3:10:38 AM)

Not sure if this has been fixed or not but in my scen1 started under original release unit but patched to last official update 3131 No80 RAAF renames to 440930 on 093044




EasilyConfused -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (7/3/2011 2:03:46 PM)

Minor errors I noticed, apologies if it has already been reported:

1.  VS-2 (1777) has the presumably invalid rename date of 4301.
2.  VP-22 (2718) has the presumably invalid rename date of 441000.




Chris H -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/16/2011 7:06:56 PM)

I'm playing the latest Beta but don't think this is a Beta problem as such.

No 1844 Sqn FAA is a commonwealth unit that comes with 12 a/c and is based on CVE Begum. Not paying any attension to the number of pilots available I increased the size to 24 to fit the ship now, some game turns later I find I'm 10 commonwealth pilots short. The Get Pilot Buttons are active but clicking on them does nothing

I've since resized back to 12.

Sardaukar suggests this is a scenario design issue, not technical thing.




jcjordan -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/19/2011 11:58:53 PM)

I think this will also become a bigger problem in late 45 when some more air units that represent European units being transferred to the Pacific as IIRC there's a few more Commonwealth air units that come in in those. In the last official patch you could draw pilots with an empty pool but it seems that in the beta patches coming out that's not the case so you won't be able to fill air units w/ a Commonwealth nationality nor replace lost pilots. I also think that French units would be affected under the same case as there're a couple of those late war.




Pascal -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (10/8/2011 8:06:48 PM)

Edited for the answer was known.

Never mind...




PaxMondo -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (12/2/2011 3:51:15 PM)

It was discovered in Mike's AAR that the Tojo uses Ha-34 in Scen 1 and Ha-35 in Scen 2. Is that intentional or was that an oversight when the Ha-34 change was made?

Thanks.




inqistor -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (2/4/2012 8:01:09 AM)

There is 3066 No.1 Sqn RAAF unit at Kota Bharu. It begins war with 8 airframes, 4 under repair, and 2 in reserve. I have not found anything about their initial composition, and why there should be aircrafts in repair. The only sure thing is that they send 7 planes in intial strike, and made 17 sorties during whole night (not possible to replicate in-game).

Anyway, in Scenario beginning at 8th December this unit have identical composition, but Awajisan Maru is already heavily damaged. That means, that No.1 Sqn RAAF already took part in combat, and AAR shows that:
quote:

No.1 Squadron RAAF continued making bombing runs, some 17 sorties being flown, landing, rearming and taking off again until 05.00. Japanese escorts put up a thick cover of AA fire, shooting down at least two Hudsons and badly damaging three others.

which actually suggest, that this unit is already after initial loses (2 planes).

So... maybe it should start war with full complement of 4 planes in reserve, or maybe at 8th December it should have even less planes, and more damaged?




BigDuke66 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (2/23/2012 5:29:24 PM)

Is it correct that the Australian DC-2 production runs from March to Mai 1942 but production is ZERO?




fodder -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/5/2012 5:06:56 AM)

I've seen a number of posts by those who should be in the know that a new patch is in the works for the game. I would very much like to ask the the KI-44 Tojo be looked at and hopefully changed.

If I may be so bold to say the Ki-44 IIa Tojo should be dropped from the game.

The Ki-44 IIa was a preproduction prodotype model and only 4-8 were ever built.

The first production model was the KI-44 IIb it began production in Oct.42. Like all KI-44 it had armor. It was armed with 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the wings. This is by far the most numerous version of the KI-44 Tojo built.

The KI-44 IIc had a variety of differant weapon combinations. The most common was 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. 40mm Ho301 cannons were tried but as soon as these models reached the field, they were found to be ineffective and were replace buy 20mm or even 37mm cannons in the field and on the production line.

If a 44 version is to be done it should be the KI-44III. Numerous prodotypes for this aircraft were built with an even greater variety of armaments than the IIc, so many prodotypes in fact that the delay in getting to production caused the KI-44III to be cancelled in favor of the KI-84.

As a suggestion the KI-44III be armed with 4x20mm HO-5 cannons. Seen this 4x20mm armament in a number of places, not sure if they were nose and wing or just wing. If you want to make us JFBs very happy give it 2x12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 4x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. Seen this in a few places also. If 4x20mm cannons are used on the wings, no bombs or drop tanks can be carried.

I have a number of my own sources to support these suggested changes, but I can't hold them up and show them to you. Here are some online ones.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_nakajima_ki-44.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=616
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/nakajima_ki-44.php
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/i/Ki-44_Tojo.htm
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/ki-44/tech.html



Thank you for the read.
Now I just hope I put this in the right place.

edit was to insert a missing II




timtom -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/10/2012 2:32:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if this has been fixed or not but in my scen1 started under original release unit but patched to last official update 3131 No80 RAAF renames to 440930 on 093044


Not seeing that in my version (v1.01.08r9).

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Minor errors I noticed, apologies if it has already been reported:

1. VS-2 (1777) has the presumably invalid rename date of 4301.
2. VP-22 (2718) has the presumably invalid rename date of 441000.



Thanks...Ten-thumbs strikes again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

It was discovered in Mike's AAR that the Tojo uses Ha-34 in Scen 1 and Ha-35 in Scen 2. Is that intentional or was that an oversight when the Ha-34 change was made?

Thanks.


Oversight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

There is 3066 No.1 Sqn RAAF unit at Kota Bharu. It begins war with 8 airframes, 4 under repair, and 2 in reserve. I have not found anything about their initial composition, and why there should be aircrafts in repair. The only sure thing is that they send 7 planes in intial strike, and made 17 sorties during whole night (not possible to replicate in-game).

Anyway, in Scenario beginning at 8th December this unit have identical composition, but Awajisan Maru is already heavily damaged. That means, that No.1 Sqn RAAF already took part in combat, and AAR shows that:
quote:

No.1 Squadron RAAF continued making bombing runs, some 17 sorties being flown, landing, rearming and taking off again until 05.00. Japanese escorts put up a thick cover of AA fire, shooting down at least two Hudsons and badly damaging three others.

which actually suggest, that this unit is already after initial loses (2 planes).

So... maybe it should start war with full complement of 4 planes in reserve, or maybe at 8th December it should have even less planes, and more damaged?


The reference used is Appendix A "RAF Strength in Singapore and Malaya: 7 December 1941" in Propert, Henry: The Forgotten Air Force: The Royal Air Force in the War Against Japan, Brassey 1995 in turn referencing AHQ Far East Signal Q497 dated 9/12/41 but pertaining to 7/12/41 local time. You'll find other figures in other literature, but we chose Propert because it's referenced. No.1 Sqn's ORB is missing for this period, so perhaps we'll never know. Anyway, Propert gives 1 Sqn's strength as 8 servicable a/c and 6 a/c unservicable, which under a T/O for a GR sqn of 12+6 became 8+4 = 12 plus 2 reserve in my interpretation.

I would imagine you're right about the Dec.8 (game time) strength, though I don't maintain that scenario.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Is it correct that the Australian DC-2 production runs from March to Mai 1942 but production is ZERO?


Unless there's a factory hiding somewhere then no, production should be 3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fodder

I've seen a number of posts by those who should be in the know that a new patch is in the works for the game. I would very much like to ask the the KI-44 Tojo be looked at and hopefully changed.

If I may be so bold to say the Ki-44 IIa Tojo should be dropped from the game.

The Ki-44 IIa was a preproduction prodotype model and only 4-8 were ever built.

The first production model was the KI-44 IIb it began production in Oct.42. Like all KI-44 it had armor. It was armed with 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the wings. This is by far the most numerous version of the KI-44 Tojo built.

The KI-44 IIc had a variety of differant weapon combinations. The most common was 2x 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 2x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. 40mm Ho301 cannons were tried but as soon as these models reached the field, they were found to be ineffective and were replace buy 20mm or even 37mm cannons in the field and on the production line.

If a 44 version is to be done it should be the KI-44III. Numerous prodotypes for this aircraft were built with an even greater variety of armaments than the IIc, so many prodotypes in fact that the delay in getting to production caused the KI-44III to be cancelled in favor of the KI-84.

As a suggestion the KI-44III be armed with 4x20mm HO-5 cannons. Seen this 4x20mm armament in a number of places, not sure if they were nose and wing or just wing. If you want to make us JFBs very happy give it 2x12.7mm HO-103 machine guns in the nose and 4x 20mm HO-5 cannons in the wings. Seen this in a few places also. If 4x20mm cannons are used on the wings, no bombs or drop tanks can be carried.

I have a number of my own sources to support these suggested changes, but I can't hold them up and show them to you. Here are some online ones.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_nakajima_ki-44.html
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=616
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/nakajima_ki-44.php
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/i/Ki-44_Tojo.htm
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/ki-44/tech.html

Thank you for the read.
Now I just hope I put this in the right place.

edit was to insert a missing II



During development, a fair bit of virtual ink was spilled trying to unravel the questions you highlight above. Long story short, we arrived at a position comforming to that outlines by Jim Long in post three on the linked topic over on J-aircraft.org -> http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=5995.0 and post four here -> http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=9225.0

Note that recent publications by Nick Millman (Aircraft of the Aces: Ki-44 "Tojo" Aces of WWII, Osprey 2011) and Richard Dunn (Exploding Fuel Tanks: Saga of technology that changed the course of the Pacific air war, S.D.G. 2011) support the Long position on the armament and protection, but then they're part of the J-aircraft posse :)

Additionally, regarding what frames where produced when, we contacted Robert Brown of LemaireSoft who co-produced the web transcription of the USSBS production figures -> http://lemairesoft.sytes.net:1945/weben/avion/stats/11054.html#18155 Robert informed us that the USSBS researchers actually didn't know the production details of the Ki-44-II & III, that is to say they only knew the total production and the breakdown on LemaireSoft only represents an at best educated guess. The latter also helps explain why the likes of Francillon and Bueschel are decided wolly about on the subject.














Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (12/28/2012 7:41:33 AM)

Hello! I'm new here so sorry if this isn't in the right place :). Just a question about level bombers using also torpedoes (G4M1 for example). Do they use bombs for land bombing even if the switch "Using TORPEDOES" is on?

The manual states: "Torpedoes are only used against suspected high-value ship targets. If a check for an appropriate
target or torpedo supply fails, then the strike will use bombs instead.", so I would presume so.




Barb -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (12/29/2012 10:42:03 AM)

Torpedoes are used for Naval attacks + sometimes Port attacks (several rolls needed for this). For all other missions (Airfield attack, ground attack, asw, naval search, etc...) default load are bombs even with "Using torpedoes" on.




Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (12/29/2012 4:18:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Torpedoes are used for Naval attacks + sometimes Port attacks (several rolls needed for this). For all other missions (Airfield attack, ground attack, asw, naval search, etc...) default load are bombs even with "Using torpedoes" on.


Thanks for the answer! I was also confused by the game stating the G4M1 also has a bomb load but the witp tracker showing only the torpedo..




PaxMondo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/20/2013 11:44:46 PM)

timtom,

I've been traipsing around looking at data on the Ki-67 Peggy.  What I am finding is that the engine used was the Ha-44, not the Ha-45.  If confirmed, I think this should be implemented for all of the stock scenarios.

(Sorry if this has already been identified.  I freely admit that I have not [yet] read all 67 pages of this thread.  [;)])




Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 2:10:12 PM)

Hi! I just had KB surprise an allied Surface TF at Midway in the early 42's. About 35 B5N2 Kates "bombing the ****" out of the armor of 2-3 allied BB's. So probably no damage at all and absolutely no torpedoes were used in this disaster. How is this possible? Or why? Not enough valuable targets for a few torpedoes from a reserve of 60 or so? Altitude 10000 feet but it should not affect torpedoing (planes lower themselves for a torpedo run)?




Alfred -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 3:12:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

Hi! I just had KB surprise an allied Surface TF at Midway in the early 42's. About 35 B5N2 Kates "bombing the ****" out of the armor of 2-3 allied BB's. So probably no damage at all and absolutely no torpedoes were used in this disaster. How is this possible? Or why? Not enough valuable targets for a few torpedoes from a reserve of 60 or so? Altitude 10000 feet but it should not affect torpedoing (planes lower themselves for a torpedo run)?


Again we are being asked to guess.

There can be some perfectly valid reasons why the IJN did not use torpedoes. As this outcome could equally apply to the Human Allied player, I suggest you revisit the manual and reread what are the necessary conditions for deployment of torpedoes.

Alfred




Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 3:34:52 PM)

Thanks for the reply Alfred! Yes there might be a valid reason for this and I hope the Allied player will have equally bad luck at some point :). Its just strange to me that after hundreds of hours of learning to play this game, the most effective naval weapon is still so hard to use. Even when everything should be fine and there is a target of 3 BBs without CAP. Was it in real life? If it would be up to me, my planes would use it every time there is a target. At least in the beginning of the war for the IJN. End of rant. Sorry :D (Im playing PBEM, and this could have been crucial). Just some feedback.

Edit: the manual really doesnt tell me anything new about the use of torpedoes, thats why I use the forum. I hadnt touched the settings on the planes on the KB after Pearl, just added some ASW and naval search to the Kates and Vals. Kates were using torpedoes, not bombs. But anyway, maybe if was just bad luck or something else the manual doesnt tell us :)




Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 6:56:23 PM)

Ok, so as far as the guessing, below is the combat report and the pictures of KB and it's leader, Akagi in the KB and the squadron of Akagi's Kate's attacking the BB's. Torpedo ordnance is ok (maxed out in all of the KB carriers), as is the "using torpedoes"-switch on the Kates. All I want to know, is there a reason for the Kate's NOT to use any torpedoes against the second most valuable targets in the game which are completely without air cover? I'm very frustrated with this issue. Basically KB, can because of some unknown dice roll (severe storms?), render itself as useful as a peashooter in a VERY decisive battle?

Morning Air attack on TF, near Laysan Island at 162,93

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 74 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 31 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
B5N2 Kate x 35



Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
BB Colorado, Bomb hits 1
BB New Mexico, Bomb hits 1
BB Idaho



Aircraft Attacking:
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
9 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
13 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb


[image]local://upfiles/43604/6909FBD5E3E243118A1BE5C068EF6F7A.jpg[/image]




Page: <<   < prev  64 65 66 [67] 68   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.029297E-02