Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Hurricane IV data

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Hurricane IV data Page: <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/9/2010 10:08:09 PM   
JeffK


Posts: 5197
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Those 40 mm cannons seem to be totally ineffective in their intented role: tankbusting


As I recall, they were very effective--the top surface of an AFV has particularly thin armour since it's not exposed to direct attack in most tactical situations. It is a major vulnerability when the tank is operating in a 3-D environment.


As the RAF dropped the 40mm in the ETO and took up the inaccurate, and if you read many opinions, ineffective 3" & 60lb rockets. I dont see any opinions that the 40mm was worth keeping.

As mentioned, in the game they are almost useless.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 1921
RE: Question on Air HQ's - 10/9/2010 10:45:57 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

quote:

ORIGINAL: henhute6

quote:


Also metric system would be great in air combat.

While I come from an "enlightened metric society" too ... what you are asking is for a complete code base change ... doubt that will ever happen ... Not that I know but back in the 40's metric probably wasn't used for altitudes in planes anyway ... Are they used today ?


Aircraft altitudes in air traffic control still use the English system.


Not just the English system, but barometric altitude.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 1922
RE: PBY Catalina ranges - 10/9/2010 11:52:53 PM   
Pascal


Posts: 1637
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

One of the problems in most sources is that the numbers quoted are the optimum maximums.  Results in the field were usually less than that.

Bill



The RAAF numbers are from full performance test reports. They are corroborated by a number of the other sources.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 1923
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/11/2010 5:06:52 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2357
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hbrsvl

Hi-I don't know how else to get the following into the right hands. So, if I'm in the wrong place, I appologise.

My problem has to do with an air unit having incorrect aircraft.

Details: Playing Allies, scen.9, 6/16/42, v1102a. I have unit # 2628 at San Diego. Unit name is VMSB 244, but aircraft assigned to the unit are 18-F4F-4.

Can this be fixed? If so, how-please know that I am not a computer programmer. Are there other glitches like this around?

Thanks, Hugh Browne



VMSB-244 became/becomes VMF-215, hence the upgrade to the F4. Should start with the SB2U-3.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Air group - slot 3131 - 80th Sqn RAAF renames to 440930 on 30th sept 1944 (440930)



Bug, obviously.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Califvol

I just saw I posted my orignal post in the wrong thread over at Tech Support Forum when it belongs here. So, please let me repeat it.

US Float Planes

I notice that the production for the Seamew appears "light" as there were over 700 made and production did not end until Jan '44. (Of course this was a universally loathed plane, but issued to the fleet never the less)

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/curtiss_model82.php

This is 2 for 1 production over the Seagull that only had 322 produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOC_Seagull

And the SC-1 Seahawk is not even in the game and yet there were near 600 of them made as a replacement for the Seamew (which in its turn was suppose to replace the Kingfisher). The Seahawk was well recived by the fleet in Oct. 1944 and was the last of the US float planes produced for ship catapult use in my readings. (Note it had a far less range than the Seamew, but was a much better flier)

http://plane.spottingworld.com/SC_Seahawk

Because the Seamew is "light" in production and because the SC-1 isn't in the game, the net result is that the US goes out of manufacturing float planes for ship use as of Nov 44 when the Kingfisher ends prodution.

This is a great game and I understand that a cut has to be made somewhere on aircraft. I also am not an expert on float planes and am a victim of what limited readings I have done, so my data may be suspect. But, is it game design intent that there be no US Float Plane being produced/supplied to the fleet after Nov '44 when the Kingfisher goes out of production?

Or have I totally misread the situation and in game the US is still producing a float plane for ship use after Nov '44?

Thanks for any response.


The SO3C saw very limited operational service AFAIK. No argument on the SC-1 though.
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gormadoc

There are several other airplanes included that never did enter production.

Example of this:
S1A1 Denko, no prototypes where ever finished, the two they where working on where destroyed in bombing raids.
Ki-94-II , only one prototype built but war ended before it was flown.

Both the two i mention above, had several prototypes completed and both airplane types where flight tested.

EDIT: The Ki-119 never left the drawing board, under assumption that source below are correct.

Quote: it was initially planned that the first flight would take place in September 1945, but most of the drawings were destroyed during air attacks on the Kagamigahara plant in June 1945. Despite this setback, Kawasaki stroved to complete a new set of drawings and it was hoped that the first prototype would be ready in November 1945 but the Japanese surrender halted further work.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32870


The game goes past 8/45. A plane design stopped from production or going in service by the rl end of the war is in a bit of a different category than a plane design cancelled during the war. Imo the former is a valid 'what if?' the latter is not.

It's just my opinion why the G5 and G8 were not included, I'm not one of the developers.


What Mark says.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The Lilly Ki-48 II2 payload 200kg? this looks to be in error there payload was 300kg normal for ki-48 I & 400kg max load and for the Ki-48II models 400kg was the normal load..infomation from>.R.J francillon ... ALF?

Tigercub



Bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The USN SB2C-5 (slot 484) has no radar, but all previous models of the SB2C do have radar. Is this correct or an oversight?

EDIT to add: I've looked around and I have not seen any reference to radar being deleted in the -5, only fuel capacity being added. So, I presume this is an error and should have the same radar as the previous model.


The Dash -5 could carry an AN/ASB-4 radar pod on one wing bomb-rack, but did, AFAIK, not carry the built-in ASB radar of previous models. Figured you guys would rather have the extra bomb - or?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

Ive just been going through the aircraft data in the editor to ensure I have the right rotating art associated with aircraft types.

However I noticed that the Hurricane IV armament is totally incorrect in Scenario 1. The editor shows this aircraft fitted with 4x Device 168 (20mm Hispano Cannon) and 2x Device 203 (500lb GP Bomb).

In reality the Hurricane IV had a Universal Wing with hard points for 2x Vickers 40mm Cannon (similar to the Hurricane IId) or 2x 500lb Bombs or 8x 3" Rockets or 2x fuel tanks (or combination thereof) plus a pair of permanent wing mounted 0.303 machine guns for sighting purposes. It also had significant engine, armour and airframe improvements over the Hurricane IId which I assume have already been included in the aircraft stats.

Would it be possible to get this corrected in a future update please?

Also on this topic is the 3" Rockets which I believe was the main armament option used by this (and many other) aircraft types during the later part of the war. These rockets are currently not included in the game but do you know if there are there any plans to include them as they are a historically significant armament option???



In my understanding the Universal Wing included the 4x20mm option. Further, to my knowledge, the MK IV operated primarily in the FB role with 20 Sqn being the only dedicated 40mm outfit but operating primarily the MK IID.

There's no current plans to include rockets, sorry, though the idea of merging them into bundles is very interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I noticed that the Chinese air units 2522-2533 in Karachi come in w/ US nationality pilots assigned to them & the game initially doesn't seem to recognize them as being in the unit even though they are on the pilot roster. IE you may have 8 American pilots asigned to the unit on it's arrival & max pilots is 16 for the unit, you can draw 16 Chinese pilots for a total of 24 pilots but it seems that after running a turn it does set itself straight. So only looks like this situation is only for the 1st day the units arrive.



Sorry, are you saying the US pilots don't turn up initially but do turn up later?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

also VMF211 (2587) doesn't seem to resize to 24 like all the other VMF units instead it stays at 18 a/c. No163RCAF (3007)doesn't resize to 16 from 12 like the other RCAF fighter units. VMSB241 (2613) doesn't resize to 24 from 18 like the other VSMB units.



Bugs, more bugs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

58th BS (3634) resizes to US FS size (25 from 16) in Aug 43 but is locked to bombers until the P-38L comes along.  Also I don't seem to see a name change for it either or w/d date to become something else from unit tab. IIRC this unit became 531st FBS in Aug 43 using A-24s so should it w/d in late Jul43 to come back in mid Aug43 as 531st FBS w/ A-24's w/ upgrade at that point to P-38's at Pearl?

This is scen 1 of my game started under original release so things may have changed since then.


Mine upgrade A-20A -> A-24B -> P-39N1 -> P-38L etc, renaming to 531 FBS 8/43 and 21st FG/531st FS 6/44?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1924
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/11/2010 6:47:17 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14937
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The USN SB2C-5 (slot 484) has no radar, but all previous models of the SB2C do have radar. Is this correct or an oversight?

EDIT to add: I've looked around and I have not seen any reference to radar being deleted in the -5, only fuel capacity being added. So, I presume this is an error and should have the same radar as the previous model.


The Dash -5 could carry an AN/ASB-4 radar pod on one wing bomb-rack, but did, AFAIK, not carry the built-in ASB radar of previous models. Figured you guys would rather have the extra bomb - or?


I just checked, and it does not get an extra bomb. The -5 shows the same bomb load as the -4, -3, and -1C (in other words all previous models).

Whoops! You edited your post while I was looking it up in-game. Thanks for checking, will look forward to the fix.

Much appreciated.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1925
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/11/2010 11:39:44 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1763
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: hbrsvl

Hi-I don't know how else to get the following into the right hands. So, if I'm in the wrong place, I appologise.

My problem has to do with an air unit having incorrect aircraft.

Details: Playing Allies, scen.9, 6/16/42, v1102a. I have unit # 2628 at San Diego. Unit name is VMSB 244, but aircraft assigned to the unit are 18-F4F-4.

Can this be fixed? If so, how-please know that I am not a computer programmer. Are there other glitches like this around?

Thanks, Hugh Browne



VMSB-244 became/becomes VMF-215, hence the upgrade to the F4. Should start with the SB2U-3.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Air group - slot 3131 - 80th Sqn RAAF renames to 440930 on 30th sept 1944 (440930)



Bug, obviously.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Califvol

I just saw I posted my orignal post in the wrong thread over at Tech Support Forum when it belongs here. So, please let me repeat it.

US Float Planes

I notice that the production for the Seamew appears "light" as there were over 700 made and production did not end until Jan '44. (Of course this was a universally loathed plane, but issued to the fleet never the less)

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/curtiss_model82.php

This is 2 for 1 production over the Seagull that only had 322 produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOC_Seagull

And the SC-1 Seahawk is not even in the game and yet there were near 600 of them made as a replacement for the Seamew (which in its turn was suppose to replace the Kingfisher). The Seahawk was well recived by the fleet in Oct. 1944 and was the last of the US float planes produced for ship catapult use in my readings. (Note it had a far less range than the Seamew, but was a much better flier)

http://plane.spottingworld.com/SC_Seahawk

Because the Seamew is "light" in production and because the SC-1 isn't in the game, the net result is that the US goes out of manufacturing float planes for ship use as of Nov 44 when the Kingfisher ends prodution.

This is a great game and I understand that a cut has to be made somewhere on aircraft. I also am not an expert on float planes and am a victim of what limited readings I have done, so my data may be suspect. But, is it game design intent that there be no US Float Plane being produced/supplied to the fleet after Nov '44 when the Kingfisher goes out of production?

Or have I totally misread the situation and in game the US is still producing a float plane for ship use after Nov '44?

Thanks for any response.


The SO3C saw very limited operational service AFAIK. No argument on the SC-1 though.
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gormadoc

There are several other airplanes included that never did enter production.

Example of this:
S1A1 Denko, no prototypes where ever finished, the two they where working on where destroyed in bombing raids.
Ki-94-II , only one prototype built but war ended before it was flown.

Both the two i mention above, had several prototypes completed and both airplane types where flight tested.

EDIT: The Ki-119 never left the drawing board, under assumption that source below are correct.

Quote: it was initially planned that the first flight would take place in September 1945, but most of the drawings were destroyed during air attacks on the Kagamigahara plant in June 1945. Despite this setback, Kawasaki stroved to complete a new set of drawings and it was hoped that the first prototype would be ready in November 1945 but the Japanese surrender halted further work.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32870


The game goes past 8/45. A plane design stopped from production or going in service by the rl end of the war is in a bit of a different category than a plane design cancelled during the war. Imo the former is a valid 'what if?' the latter is not.

It's just my opinion why the G5 and G8 were not included, I'm not one of the developers.


What Mark says.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The Lilly Ki-48 II2 payload 200kg? this looks to be in error there payload was 300kg normal for ki-48 I & 400kg max load and for the Ki-48II models 400kg was the normal load..infomation from>.R.J francillon ... ALF?

Tigercub



Bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The USN SB2C-5 (slot 484) has no radar, but all previous models of the SB2C do have radar. Is this correct or an oversight?

EDIT to add: I've looked around and I have not seen any reference to radar being deleted in the -5, only fuel capacity being added. So, I presume this is an error and should have the same radar as the previous model.


The Dash -5 could carry an AN/ASB-4 radar pod on one wing bomb-rack, but did, AFAIK, not carry the built-in ASB radar of previous models. Figured you guys would rather have the extra bomb - or?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

Ive just been going through the aircraft data in the editor to ensure I have the right rotating art associated with aircraft types.

However I noticed that the Hurricane IV armament is totally incorrect in Scenario 1. The editor shows this aircraft fitted with 4x Device 168 (20mm Hispano Cannon) and 2x Device 203 (500lb GP Bomb).

In reality the Hurricane IV had a Universal Wing with hard points for 2x Vickers 40mm Cannon (similar to the Hurricane IId) or 2x 500lb Bombs or 8x 3" Rockets or 2x fuel tanks (or combination thereof) plus a pair of permanent wing mounted 0.303 machine guns for sighting purposes. It also had significant engine, armour and airframe improvements over the Hurricane IId which I assume have already been included in the aircraft stats.

Would it be possible to get this corrected in a future update please?

Also on this topic is the 3" Rockets which I believe was the main armament option used by this (and many other) aircraft types during the later part of the war. These rockets are currently not included in the game but do you know if there are there any plans to include them as they are a historically significant armament option???



In my understanding the Universal Wing included the 4x20mm option. Further, to my knowledge, the MK IV operated primarily in the FB role with 20 Sqn being the only dedicated 40mm outfit but operating primarily the MK IID.

There's no current plans to include rockets, sorry, though the idea of merging them into bundles is very interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I noticed that the Chinese air units 2522-2533 in Karachi come in w/ US nationality pilots assigned to them & the game initially doesn't seem to recognize them as being in the unit even though they are on the pilot roster. IE you may have 8 American pilots asigned to the unit on it's arrival & max pilots is 16 for the unit, you can draw 16 Chinese pilots for a total of 24 pilots but it seems that after running a turn it does set itself straight. So only looks like this situation is only for the 1st day the units arrive.



Sorry, are you saying the US pilots don't turn up initially but do turn up later?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

also VMF211 (2587) doesn't seem to resize to 24 like all the other VMF units instead it stays at 18 a/c. No163RCAF (3007)doesn't resize to 16 from 12 like the other RCAF fighter units. VMSB241 (2613) doesn't resize to 24 from 18 like the other VSMB units.



Bugs, more bugs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

58th BS (3634) resizes to US FS size (25 from 16) in Aug 43 but is locked to bombers until the P-38L comes along.  Also I don't seem to see a name change for it either or w/d date to become something else from unit tab. IIRC this unit became 531st FBS in Aug 43 using A-24s so should it w/d in late Jul43 to come back in mid Aug43 as 531st FBS w/ A-24's w/ upgrade at that point to P-38's at Pearl?

This is scen 1 of my game started under original release so things may have changed since then.


Mine upgrade A-20A -> A-24B -> P-39N1 -> P-38L etc, renaming to 531 FBS 8/43 and 21st FG/531st FS 6/44?


On the US pilots in the Chinese units - they come in when the unit comes in but strangely if you want to fill out the unit w/ either of the "get pilots" you can fill the unit totally w/ chinese pilots (max of 16 before button greys out) along w/ whatever US pilots currently come in w/ it leading to an overage of pilots in the unit. There are some "Chinese" sounding names as well as "US" sounding names that come in with the unit when it arrives but the US ones seem to create the problem. I would assume that it's something along the lines with the unit being Chinese that the programming doesn't really recognise the US pilots as being in the unit so you can fill it to the max w/ chinese pilots leading to an overage of pilots in the unit. The strange thing of it is that this only seems to be on the first turn that the unit arrives w/ any future turns being normal. From what I've seen, there're are future US pilots assigned to arrive in the coming months to these units as well. It's just the first turn when the unit arrives that's weird.

I missed the rename of the 58th in my database & I might've upgraded the unit in my game which changed my selection of a/c. Right now mine is made up of A-29s w/ my choices only being bombers w/ the P38L & P51D as the only fighters. Would it be a better representation of this unit for it to w/d as I said & then come back a couple of weeks later in PH as the 531st FBS sized to fighter size along w/ the proper a/c say P-39s?

Like I said this is scen 1 started under the original release so things may have changed as far as the db is concerned. I just thought the US/Chinese pilot thing strange

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1926
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/12/2010 11:03:08 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2215
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

Ive just been going through the aircraft data in the editor to ensure I have the right rotating art associated with aircraft types.

However I noticed that the Hurricane IV armament is totally incorrect in Scenario 1. The editor shows this aircraft fitted with 4x Device 168 (20mm Hispano Cannon) and 2x Device 203 (500lb GP Bomb).

In reality the Hurricane IV had a Universal Wing with hard points for 2x Vickers 40mm Cannon (similar to the Hurricane IId) or 2x 500lb Bombs or 8x 3" Rockets or 2x fuel tanks (or combination thereof) plus a pair of permanent wing mounted 0.303 machine guns for sighting purposes. It also had significant engine, armour and airframe improvements over the Hurricane IId which I assume have already been included in the aircraft stats.

Would it be possible to get this corrected in a future update please?

Also on this topic is the 3" Rockets which I believe was the main armament option used by this (and many other) aircraft types during the later part of the war. These rockets are currently not included in the game but do you know if there are there any plans to include them as they are a historically significant armament option???



In my understanding the Universal Wing included the 4x20mm option. Further, to my knowledge, the MK IV operated primarily in the FB role with 20 Sqn being the only dedicated 40mm outfit but operating primarily the MK IID.

There's no current plans to include rockets, sorry, though the idea of merging them into bundles is very interesting.


Well there you go. Every single reference in my personal library all imply the single 0.303 wing guns and underwing stores was the standard gun armament yet the Vintage Wings of Canada's Mk IV (KZ321) is fitted with 4x20mm Cannons.

Interestingly I also dug up this quote (repeated on several sites).
quote:

The Mark IV is in most respects similar to the Mark IIC and both were produced on the same production line. When the Mark IV Hurricane entered service in March of 1943, it was equipped with four 20 mm cannons. Mark IVs also had a new wing designed to carry the following armament packages as needed: (1) two .303-in guns and two 40 mm Vickers cannons; (2) eight 60 pound rockets and two .303-in guns; (3) two 250 lb., or 500-lb bombs and two .303-in guns; (4) two 45 or 90 gallon drop tanks and two .303-in guns.


The RAF historical section website lists all these armament options with the word 'or' between them and no indication of which were mutually exclusive configurations.

Looks like we can take our pick as to what a 'representative' example of the Hurricane MkIV actually is though a rocket carrier would be my pick.

Good Call timtom


< Message edited by Reg -- 10/12/2010 11:04:03 AM >


_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1927
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/12/2010 11:47:24 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8163
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan
On the US pilots in the Chinese units - they come in when the unit comes in but strangely if you want to fill out the unit w/ either of the "get pilots" you can fill the unit totally w/ chinese pilots (max of 16 before button greys out) along w/ whatever US pilots currently come in w/ it leading to an overage of pilots in the unit. There are some "Chinese" sounding names as well as "US" sounding names that come in with the unit when it arrives but the US ones seem to create the problem. I would assume that it's something along the lines with the unit being Chinese that the programming doesn't really recognise the US pilots as being in the unit so you can fill it to the max w/ chinese pilots leading to an overage of pilots in the unit. The strange thing of it is that this only seems to be on the first turn that the unit arrives w/ any future turns being normal. From what I've seen, there're are future US pilots assigned to arrive in the coming months to these units as well. It's just the first turn when the unit arrives that's weird.

I missed the rename of the 58th in my database & I might've upgraded the unit in my game which changed my selection of a/c. Right now mine is made up of A-29s w/ my choices only being bombers w/ the P38L & P51D as the only fighters. Would it be a better representation of this unit for it to w/d as I said & then come back a couple of weeks later in PH as the 531st FBS sized to fighter size along w/ the proper a/c say P-39s?

Like I said this is scen 1 started under the original release so things may have changed as far as the db is concerned. I just thought the US/Chinese pilot thing strange



I think you're talking about Chinese-American Composite Wing (CACW) squadrons. Many units in the wing had a mix of American and Chinese pilots and the Americans were authorized to wear the wings of both air forces. Most aircraft had Chinese insignia, though late in the war some had US national insignia.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1928
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/12/2010 11:32:20 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1763
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan
On the US pilots in the Chinese units - they come in when the unit comes in but strangely if you want to fill out the unit w/ either of the "get pilots" you can fill the unit totally w/ chinese pilots (max of 16 before button greys out) along w/ whatever US pilots currently come in w/ it leading to an overage of pilots in the unit. There are some "Chinese" sounding names as well as "US" sounding names that come in with the unit when it arrives but the US ones seem to create the problem. I would assume that it's something along the lines with the unit being Chinese that the programming doesn't really recognise the US pilots as being in the unit so you can fill it to the max w/ chinese pilots leading to an overage of pilots in the unit. The strange thing of it is that this only seems to be on the first turn that the unit arrives w/ any future turns being normal. From what I've seen, there're are future US pilots assigned to arrive in the coming months to these units as well. It's just the first turn when the unit arrives that's weird.

I missed the rename of the 58th in my database & I might've upgraded the unit in my game which changed my selection of a/c. Right now mine is made up of A-29s w/ my choices only being bombers w/ the P38L & P51D as the only fighters. Would it be a better representation of this unit for it to w/d as I said & then come back a couple of weeks later in PH as the 531st FBS sized to fighter size along w/ the proper a/c say P-39s?

Like I said this is scen 1 started under the original release so things may have changed as far as the db is concerned. I just thought the US/Chinese pilot thing strange



I think you're talking about Chinese-American Composite Wing (CACW) squadrons. Many units in the wing had a mix of American and Chinese pilots and the Americans were authorized to wear the wings of both air forces. Most aircraft had Chinese insignia, though late in the war some had US national insignia.

Bill


Yes the units are the CACW units that come in at Karachi in Aug/Sept 43. It's just the strange thing of it is is the first turn if you try to get pilots to max the units pilots out. It's what I'd call a minor bug (at least at the surface it seems that way) so not a real biggie but just reporting something from the X-Files. I'll see if I have an old save of before they came in & see if I can set up what I'm seeing/talking about since my game is started under original release it may not show under a new game w/ later patch.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 1929
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/13/2010 12:11:46 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8163
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The game engine does not allow adding pilots from more than one nation, but a unit can arrive with one nationality and then you can add another depending on what nationality the pilots added are.  It's done the way it is to get around a limitation in the game engine.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1930
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/14/2010 10:44:38 PM   
PzB


Posts: 5060
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
I'm a bit put off by sweep functionality;

You CAN sweep:
Enemy base hexes, any empty land hexes

You can NOT sweep:
Friendly base hexes and empty sea hexes

Is there a good reasoning behind this and why can't sweeps be allowed over any type of hex?

_____________________________



"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

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 1931
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/20/2010 2:35:08 PM   
RUDOLF


Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
Yes, Big Problem for Air War.

Ground to AQir Radar's dosn't work.
Plz see here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2603369

_____________________________

http://wikileaks.org/

(in reply to PzB)
Post #: 1932
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/22/2010 12:49:37 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

I'm a bit put off by sweep functionality;

You CAN sweep:
Enemy base hexes, any empty land hexes

You can NOT sweep:
Friendly base hexes and empty sea hexes

Is there a good reasoning behind this and why can't sweeps be allowed over any type of hex?


You should ask Gary Grigsby.

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to PzB)
Post #: 1933
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/22/2010 4:40:41 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7165
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

I'm a bit put off by sweep functionality;

You CAN sweep:
Enemy base hexes, any empty land hexes

You can NOT sweep:
Friendly base hexes and empty sea hexes

Is there a good reasoning behind this and why can't sweeps be allowed over any type of hex?


You should ask Gary Grigsby.


I realize its just a terminology difference, but I thought a 'Sweep' was sending in fighters to draw out the defenders into air to air combat, basically you want force their CAP and reserve 'ready 5' aircraft to come out and play in order to reduce their numbers and gain air superiority. There is no point in 'sweeping' a friendly base because there are no enemy fighters there to draw out, in that case you are defending and thus providing CAP and BARCAP.

At least that is how I understand it. Again, its mostly a terminology thing...

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1934
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/22/2010 9:54:43 PM   
PzB


Posts: 5060
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline
Not quite correct;

Scenarios:

1. The enemy is contesting one of your base hexes and has numerous combat units in your hex.
He's dropping supplies to his troops and providing a strong LRCAP to protect both hus transport ac and his troops.
--> If you want to clear the airspace over your own base you need to send in sweeps.

2. Enemy forces have started an amphibious invasion of Tarawa and a strong carrier force has put up a LRCAP over the island
and invasion fleets there.
--> In order to clear the way for your naval bombers you need to send in sweeps.

There are many similar or related situations were it is absolutely necessary to send in sweeps but it can't be done.
To suppress enemy air power over a friendly base I've had to send in 4-5 bombers with a 90 strong fighter escort.
Escorts are far less efficient against enemy fighters than fighters on sweep mission so this is a last ditch effort.



_____________________________



"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

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 1935
RE: Hurricane IV data - 10/23/2010 2:29:42 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Not quite correct;

Scenarios:

1. The enemy is contesting one of your base hexes and has numerous combat units in your hex.
He's dropping supplies to his troops and providing a strong LRCAP to protect both hus transport ac and his troops.
--> If you want to clear the airspace over your own base you need to send in sweeps.

2. Enemy forces have started an amphibious invasion of Tarawa and a strong carrier force has put up a LRCAP over the island
and invasion fleets there.
--> In order to clear the way for your naval bombers you need to send in sweeps.

There are many similar or related situations were it is absolutely necessary to send in sweeps but it can't be done.
To suppress enemy air power over a friendly base I've had to send in 4-5 bombers with a 90 strong fighter escort.
Escorts are far less efficient against enemy fighters than fighters on sweep mission so this is a last ditch effort.



This is BTS. Beyond the Scope of the AE project. Thus the terse, uninformative response above. Not trying to be cute or coy, just stating fact. Sorry...

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to PzB)
Post #: 1936
Stumped by 'Ol Hickory - 11/12/2010 1:15:57 AM   
vonTirpitz


Posts: 511
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Wilmington, NC
Status: offline
Perhaps one of you fine gentlemen can help me figure out the IJA Ki-54 Hickory in AE. The forum search didn't produce anything regard to my question so I thought I'd go ahead post it here.

In game, the trainer/transport version (54c) is available on 1/43 and the bomber version (54b) on 5/45. However, from what I've read about this plane, the prototypes flew in 1940 and was in production from 1941 through 1945 with the a/b/c models following each other in succession. The limited -d patrol/ASW model which appeared in 44/45 (IIRC) seems to have determine the payload. (Granted I was surprised to find how little information is available for this plane).

Despite reported claims as to how solid this little plane was for the training/transport role, statistically speaking, it is a sub-par aircraft in comparison with it's contemporaries particularly from 43 onward. (I doubt I will be inclined to build too many of them).

Still, the dates of availability have me confused. Perhaps it is a data entry oversight. Was it intended that the Ki-54b (in game) should actually be labeled the -d variant with the late entry/bomber role?

One reference to the production numbers was found on this site http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/i/Ki-54_Hickory.htm ref. Francillon, R. 1979. Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.

Thanks for any clarification that might be available.



_____________________________


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1937
RE: Stumped by 'Ol Hickory - 12/2/2010 8:00:26 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Hi all,

I've started LBA minelaying missions and I don't understand why the Japanese player should get visibility (via the air attacks screen) of the fact that I'm dropping mines. I understand if there's CAP present there should be a combat screen but I can't see why otherwise?

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to vonTirpitz)
Post #: 1938
RE: Stumped by 'Ol Hickory - 12/20/2010 11:19:24 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1763
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
Not sure if this is WAD or missed error but there's a loadout difference between the B & GR (coastal command type) versions of Liberators & Wellingtons that I just happened to notice after all this time. The GR carry 250lb bombs but the B versions carry 500lb bombs but they carry the same # of bombs. This is scen 1 started under original release but patched up to latest patch.

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 1939
B7A2 Grace - 12/21/2010 6:55:52 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 777
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline
Why the B5N or B6N series does not upgrade to B7A2 ?

The B7A2 is the upgrade for the D3A or D4Y series, but not for the torpedo bombers.

Should be not better that the B6N2a upgraded to B7A2, because now as currently designed dive bombers upgrade to B7A2, but not torpedo bombers !


_____________________________


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1940
RE: B7A2 Grace - 12/25/2010 10:12:05 PM   
packerpete

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
Blitzk's question above prompted me to ask about the SB2C Helldiver's Mark-13 carrying capability in AE. Is this or can this capability be added? Link added below indicates that the torpedo would be carried partially internally.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/sb2c-5.pdf

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 1941
RE: B7A2 Grace - 12/29/2010 10:54:12 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1763
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
I posted this in main forum but didn't get replies so I'll see what air devs think on the Barracuda being classified as DB instead of TB

This is my game started under original release in Jan44 but patched to last official patch (not the latest betas) scen 1. The game has them as db role but armed w/ torpedos as main normal range armament. Well the problem comes about in that due to them being classed as db no unit can upgrade to it (and there's not many FAA units anyway) & they produce 32/mo until the very late war arrivals of the BPF CVL/CVE that have them. I know historically they were classified as both a tb as well as a db & IIRC as far as Europe goes they were used that way but as far as the Pacific goes they were used more in a tb role only but replaced w/ Avengers due to performance issues. So should it be changed to be a tb so that they could be used by the few FAA units around or availability be changed to later w/ the arrival of the CVL/CVE in 45 or no production & being replaced by Avengers?

(in reply to packerpete)
Post #: 1942
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 12/31/2010 6:41:24 AM   
Ldeathbow

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 2/15/2010
Status: offline
I did a search and could not find this referenced anywhere. not sure if it's an Air, Naval, or Production issue - so I'll post here and hope :)

I've been playing, and replaying, the first month or so of Campaign (scenario 1) to get familiar with all the things there are to deal with. I noticed that, although Japan has 240 B5N Kate's (144 N2's (on 6 CV's) and 21 N1's (on 2 CVL's) plus reserves and replacement pool) active on Dec. 7, 1941 - there is NO factory producing Kate's (or any TB for that matter).

A quick search on Wikipedia suggest there should be at least 5 or 6 per month in production in '41 (possibly as many as 12/mo) to produce the roughly 1150 planes historically built after introduction in '37 - although, by comparison, I looked at Val's and saw that in game production rate is about 1/2 what would be expected in order to make the 1486 planes that were historically produced (after '40 introduction).

Why did Japan start a war without a factory building aircraft that would, resonably, be expected to be destroyed? We've got almost 2 Zero's per day and 1 Val every other day (more or less) yet NO Kate's being produced?!? Was it the designers intention that the Japanese player should be forced to waste time and resources converting a factory to build planes that have been in production for 4 years?!?

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1943
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 12/31/2010 7:45:43 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8163
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The IJN was expecting the Jill to be available in numbers by early 1942 and had started switching the Kate production over to Jill production when the war started.  When the Jill program ran into snags, they had to switch back to Kate production for a while.  The mess created a shortage of Kates for the first six months of the war or so. 

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Ldeathbow)
Post #: 1944
RE: Stumped by 'Ol Hickory - 1/2/2011 12:38:23 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2357
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

Perhaps one of you fine gentlemen can help me figure out the IJA Ki-54 Hickory in AE. The forum search didn't produce anything regard to my question so I thought I'd go ahead post it here.

In game, the trainer/transport version (54c) is available on 1/43 and the bomber version (54b) on 5/45. However, from what I've read about this plane, the prototypes flew in 1940 and was in production from 1941 through 1945 with the a/b/c models following each other in succession. The limited -d patrol/ASW model which appeared in 44/45 (IIRC) seems to have determine the payload. (Granted I was surprised to find how little information is available for this plane).

Despite reported claims as to how solid this little plane was for the training/transport role, statistically speaking, it is a sub-par aircraft in comparison with it's contemporaries particularly from 43 onward. (I doubt I will be inclined to build too many of them).

Still, the dates of availability have me confused. Perhaps it is a data entry oversight. Was it intended that the Ki-54b (in game) should actually be labeled the -d variant with the late entry/bomber role?

One reference to the production numbers was found on this site http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/K/i/Ki-54_Hickory.htm ref. Francillon, R. 1979. Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.

Thanks for any clarification that might be available.



In-game availability dates are driven by the dates when a/c first came into use with units represented in the game - such as we can identify them. Thus the date the first production model rolled out of the factory is of secondary importance, fx the first production model Ki-61 was manufactured 8/42 but the type only appeared with combat units from 2/43, hence the latter is the game availability date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if this is WAD or missed error but there's a loadout difference between the B & GR (coastal command type) versions of Liberators & Wellingtons that I just happened to notice after all this time. The GR carry 250lb bombs but the B versions carry 500lb bombs but they carry the same # of bombs. This is scen 1 started under original release but patched up to latest patch.


The GR types get longer range in exchange for a lighter loadout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Why the B5N or B6N series does not upgrade to B7A2 ?

The B7A2 is the upgrade for the D3A or D4Y series, but not for the torpedo bombers.

Should be not better that the B6N2a upgraded to B7A2, because now as currently designed dive bombers upgrade to B7A2, but not torpedo bombers !



quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I posted this in main forum but didn't get replies so I'll see what air devs think on the Barracuda being classified as DB instead of TB

This is my game started under original release in Jan44 but patched to last official patch (not the latest betas) scen 1. The game has them as db role but armed w/ torpedos as main normal range armament. Well the problem comes about in that due to them being classed as db no unit can upgrade to it (and there's not many FAA units anyway) & they produce 32/mo until the very late war arrivals of the BPF CVL/CVE that have them. I know historically they were classified as both a tb as well as a db & IIRC as far as Europe goes they were used that way but as far as the Pacific goes they were used more in a tb role only but replaced w/ Avengers due to performance issues. So should it be changed to be a tb so that they could be used by the few FAA units around or availability be changed to later w/ the arrival of the CVL/CVE in 45 or no production & being replaced by Avengers?


The current setup allows us to reflect that multi-role nature of these two types (they both had dive brakes), but as you say this creates a problem for the PDU player who deviated for the predesignated UpG path. So it's a trade-off. During the design phase we had to pick our battles and otherwise make do.

I guess we could swap it round of we get a sense that this is what a majority of players would want - not too much skin of my nose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: packerpete

Blitzk's question above prompted me to ask about the SB2C Helldiver's Mark-13 carrying capability in AE. Is this or can this capability be added? Link added below indicates that the torpedo would be carried partially internally.

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/sb2c-5.pdf


Just replace the current centreline device with the TT, presto, you got a setup similar to the B7A and Barracuda above.

Many, particularly late-war, a/c had a bewildering array of weapon loadouts - indeed the SB2C is a good example of the shift towards the multi-role strike platform in naval aviation. However the game options available to us are rather more primitive, so we picked loadouts we believed representative of standard fits. I'm not aware of the SB2C being used much in the TB role if at all, although the VT's of the Midway class CV's were equipped with SB2C's during the second half of '45.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1945
Ki-93Ia - 1/2/2011 4:27:02 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Latest patch (i).
Ki-93Ia plane have too many lines of armament shown, so it crawl over LOADs bar (in plane screen, under planes production&stocks). Both Cannon mounts report only ELINT after name.
This is probably of some typo in 57mm Ho-401 Cannon, as it have both 0 weight, and 0 as availability date.
The plane statistics seems to be shown correctly in Database screen.

ELINT seems to be some bad variable report, and also Camera device shows it. It too have 0 weight, and availability date.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1946
RE: Ki-93Ia - 1/3/2011 12:29:28 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9272
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
The 57 mm has no load cost.
ELINT is shown as a default if there is trouble determining data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Latest patch (i).
Ki-93Ia plane have too many lines of armament shown, so it crawl over LOADs bar (in plane screen, under planes production&stocks). Both Cannon mounts report only ELINT after name.
This is probably of some typo in 57mm Ho-401 Cannon, as it have both 0 weight, and 0 as availability date.
The plane statistics seems to be shown correctly in Database screen.

ELINT seems to be some bad variable report, and also Camera device shows it. It too have 0 weight, and availability date.



_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1947
Ki-44 TOJO new engine - 1/5/2011 10:05:31 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I do not know, if it was reported earlier.

At first, I thought, that my patch (latest i) got somehow corrupted during installation. But I have checked several database fixes, and they all seems implemented. All except...
change of engine for Ki-44 TOJO. In original Grand Campaign (scenario 1), and GC with Quiet China it seems fine, but in both Hakko Ischi (scenario 2), and 8th December (scenario 9) Ki-44 TOJO still uses old engine

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 1948
Trainee pilots - 1/8/2011 4:59:12 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Again, I do not know if it was earlier reported.
When player uses all pilots of any nationality from pool, all drawn extras, does not seems to be pulled from TRAINEE POOL.

It is easy to check it in Grand Campaign, as there are more free places in squadrons for USSR, and China, for example, but I also got this after 5-6 months of Guadalcanal scenario.

In Guadalcanal I got IJNavy pilots, with 15-21 experience, and skills in range of 5-23. While minimum experience, for last class, should be 17 (as this is experience earlier class should graduate).

In Grand Campaign (IRONMAN), I got:
for USSR experience 9-17, and skills 5-22, while minimum experience should be 19
for China experience 9-13, and skills 5-22, while minimum experience should be 14

In neither case, pool of any class became smaller, although in Guadalcanal, after few months, I can see, that primary class (1-3 months) is 2 times smaller, than average of all next.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1949
Drop tanks, with future date availability - 1/9/2011 9:16:44 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
A small inconvenience.
At database screen, when drop tanks, for plane, have future date availability, they are greyed out, but listed ranges are the same, as without drop tanks.
Even considering, that it could be "mystery" in earlier game, player can still see full statistics of planes coming online in 1946, so no reason not to include extra ranges.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1950
Page:   <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Hurricane IV data Page: <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   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

0.141