Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Drop tanks, with future date availability

 
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: Drop tanks, with future date availability Page: <<   < prev  64 65 [66] 67 68   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Drop tanks, with future date availability - 1/9/2011 6:46:40 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14803
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
inqistor,

They are looking for OOB issues in this thread (unit data that might be wrong). It might help if those last two suggestions (last two posts) were in a thread in the main area as program change suggestions. Might get more notice.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1951
NIK George in IRONMAN - 1/18/2011 5:29:55 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It might help if those last two suggestions (last two posts) were in a thread in the main area as program change suggestions. Might get more notice.


Well, the fact, that extra pilots, do not go from trainee pools, is obvious BUG, not suggestion. I just checked other nations. Actually both Dutch, and Philippines pools are empty at the game beginning, yet you could still draw new pilots.
I got 11-21 exp with Dutch, and skills between 5-24 range
Philippines got exp 12-17, with skills 5-21

So obviously this is not working, as suppose to. You actually draw some random guys, with comparable statistics, no matter of nation. So it is still working as in WITP. Nobody have problem with that? Maybe it was working at first game version, but got bugged, after patch, which enabled manual drawing of pilots?


Anyway,
IRONMAN scenario
Both NIK1-J, and NIK5-J GEORGE model fighters have different armament for normal, and extended range.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1952
RE: NIK George in IRONMAN - 1/18/2011 7:55:19 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14803
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It might help if those last two suggestions (last two posts) were in a thread in the main area as program change suggestions. Might get more notice.


Well, the fact, that extra pilots, do not go from trainee pools, is obvious BUG, not suggestion. I just checked other nations. Actually both Dutch, and Philippines pools are empty at the game beginning, yet you could still draw new pilots.
I got 11-21 exp with Dutch, and skills between 5-24 range
Philippines got exp 12-17, with skills 5-21

So obviously this is not working, as suppose to. You actually draw some random guys, with comparable statistics, no matter of nation. So it is still working as in WITP. Nobody have problem with that? Maybe it was working at first game version, but got bugged, after patch, which enabled manual drawing of pilots?


Anyway,
IRONMAN scenario
Both NIK1-J, and NIK5-J GEORGE model fighters have different armament for normal, and extended range.


Uh, what I was telling you is that BUGS go in Technical Support to get noticed most effectively, but have fun.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1953
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/4/2011 6:09:07 AM   
Ldeathbow

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 2/15/2010
Status: offline
I'm playing Japan, Scen 1, and trying to set up an early warning system using my longest range AC in a naval search mode that will be from land bases and (esentially) permanent.

It does not appear that I can get enough air groups, of adequate size, of a single air frame and/or type (I'm going to end up using some Patrol, some Bomber (Nell, Betty) and maybe even a recon or 2) to cover the search I have in mind without having to have pilots fly EVERY day for 4 years (talk about fatigue :) ). So I started to look at G3M2 Nell and noticed that the Genzan Ku K-1, based in Saigon, does NOT have a search mode option...yet the Bihoro Ku K-1 Det (also in Saigon) DOES?!?! Why do not all air groups flying the same craft offer all the same role options? I understand that Genzan might not have any experience in search, but it isn't even an option - so I can't train them nor can I assign them for "OJT" (On the Job Training)

I'm willing to accept that squad X has a 10% chance of spotting something while squad Y has a 50% chance - but if xxxx Ku K-1 CAN do but yyyyy Ku K-1 CAN'T, it makes it much more difficult to track your air groups assignments. (I admit I have no idea what the differences are between Ku, Sentai and Chutai, but I would assume that all Ku (for example) can perform similar task.)

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1954
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/4/2011 6:25:57 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Isn't Genzan Ku K-1 flying night missions? I don't think night flying squadrons have search mission option.

(in reply to Ldeathbow)
Post #: 1955
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/4/2011 6:35:04 AM   
Ldeathbow

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 2/15/2010
Status: offline
boy do I feel stupid :). Guess I need to look at things a bit closer first - then ask

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 1956
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/13/2011 4:58:19 PM   
xnavytc

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline
how many air groups can u base at an airfield capacity of 2

(in reply to Ldeathbow)
Post #: 1957
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/14/2011 2:09:58 PM   
Ldeathbow

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 2/15/2010
Status: offline
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.)

(in reply to xnavytc)
Post #: 1958
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/14/2011 3:55:15 PM   
xnavytc

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline
ok was afraid there wouldnt be a nice easy answer, yeah read that in the manual, thanks for typing it all in, didnt understand either way i'm afraid, just a noob, i guess i'll put them on an airefield until it tells me too many, red numbers etc, thanks again though

(in reply to Ldeathbow)
Post #: 1959
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 6:21:17 PM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
CC from other thread:

Ed: I cant upload files of any type since Matrix changed its site, I dont know why, so I cant upload the saves. I have them if wanted.

Date is 21 Dec 41 (all 3 attacks on this date). Note PBYs start with torp attack experience under 20. These aircraft are launching from Bataan a level 1 airfield level 2 port (note: naval attack airstrikes can not launch from a level 1 airfield and if using port size as airfield size for the Cats, a level 2 would cause a reduced bomb load). No AV/AVD/AVP is in the hex.

Case 1) 4 PBYs attack a ship in thunderstorms and get 3 hits.
Case 2) 5 PBYs attack a DD and a small patrol boat and get 1 hit.
Case 3) (my favorite) 8 PBYs attack a TF with fighter cover and still manage 4 hits.

My questions are these:
Number 1. Why were these raids allowed to fly to begin with? No AV type ships in the hex and only a level 1 airfield (granted PBYs dont use airfields, but still).
Number 2. Why were these planes carrying torpedoes? No AV type ships in the hex and no HQs with torps in the PI and yet they are carrying torps on strikes.
Number 3. Why are pilots with 20 or less torpedo experience hitting with such deadly accuracy?
Number 4. How is it an 8 plane strike that gets intercepted and loses 1 plane with at least 2 more damaged (since only 5 attacked) manage 80% hits? Average experience for that fighter unit is 72. The lowest 4 experienced pilots (assuming these 4 made the intercept) is 70, 70, 69, and 66.
Number 5. (actually a repeat of number 2) Where are these planes getting their torpedoes? They should at BEST be flying with reduced loads and this assumes it uses port size as airfield size for Cats.
Number 6. When is this known issue going to be fixed?

Now the up side of this of course is the allies have a very limited number of Cats. While the Japanese player can build as many Emilys as he wants. I have just doubled my Emily factories in this game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on TF, near Catanduanes at 83,81

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes


Allied aircraft
PBY-4 Catalina x 4


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AK Sakura Maru, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk


Aircraft Attacking:
4 x PBY-4 Catalina launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Catanduanes at 83,81

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes


Allied aircraft
PBY-4 Catalina x 5


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
DD Asagiri
PB Kantori Maru, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x PBY-4 Catalina launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Taytay at 75,81

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
PBY-4 Catalina x 8

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-4 Catalina: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Nissen Maru, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
xAKL Kembu Maru

Japanese ground losses:
515 casualties reported
Squads: 22 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



Aircraft Attacking:
4 x PBY-4 Catalina launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo
1 x PBY-4 Catalina launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 22in Mk 13 Torpedo

CAP engaged:
Yamada Det S-2 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 24000
Raid is overhead


< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/18/2011 6:24:56 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1960
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 6:40:47 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
1) 2) 5) Air HQs have a range greater than 0

3) They hit no fast moving warships but 2 AKs and 1 PB, higher chance to get hits there, even with low torp skill.

4) The accuracy is actually much lower than 80%, because every Cat mounts 2 torpedoes.


That said, Catalinas are deadly against naval targets, but part of the root cause for this lies in my answer to 4).
The game engine probably has difficulties simulating hit chances for planes that carry more than one torpedoe, probably it treats
hit chances similar to the double number of planes attacking mounting only one torp.

so...6) could be done by simply reducing the Catalina loadout to a single torp, my personal opinion is that its only a minor issue.









< Message edited by LoBaron -- 2/18/2011 6:41:38 PM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1961
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 7:21:08 PM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

1) 2) 5) Air HQs have a range greater than 0

3) They hit no fast moving warships but 2 AKs and 1 PB, higher chance to get hits there, even with low torp skill.

4) The accuracy is actually much lower than 80%, because every Cat mounts 2 torpedoes.


That said, Catalinas are deadly against naval targets, but part of the root cause for this lies in my answer to 4).
The game engine probably has difficulties simulating hit chances for planes that carry more than one torpedoe, probably it treats
hit chances similar to the double number of planes attacking mounting only one torp.

so...6) could be done by simply reducing the Catalina loadout to a single torp, my personal opinion is that its only a minor issue.



1) I guess I have played Japan far too long because I remember the Far East air HQ as having no torpedoes.

4) So a 40% accuracy is acceptable to you with about 20 torp skill? Good to know where your priorities are 40% AFTER being intercepted by 72 average experience fighters no less. And thats 40% of the torpedoes launched. Up to 80% of these "wonder pilots" hit. With their 20 or so experience. I am just amazed that anyone would even try to defend these results.

6) reduced load for a Cat is NOT 1 torp. Its 2 500 lbers. I noticed you avoided the airfield/port size issue. I guess this too is a "minor issue".

I guess this means the only reduced load Cats carry is if they venture out beyond their "normal range". So how exactly does that work? They fly so many hexes with torps, then as they cross that line, magically their torps turn into bombs and they continue their journey? Seems to be the way it works.

But shouldnt it work like this: if your max range is set to equal or less than normal max range then you carry a full load and if your range is set to beyond that you should be carrying a reduced load (assuming airfield size permits of course). Right? I mean you dont decided in mid flight what you are carrying, but the game works that way. When you take off, if you carry enough fuel in the aircraft to travel beyond its "normal" max range then you should only be allowed to carry a reduced bomb load. This should be fixed also.

Ed: But this lends itself to the argument that the strike doesnt take off until the TF is spotted. Ok, this would mean the planes need to be armed and fueled and then travel at their cruise speed to the target. Right? Figure an hour to arm and fuel. That gives your 115mph PBY a max range of 7 hexes. If the target was spotted that phase, then range would be less depending on when in the phase it was spotted. So a target 4+ hexes away spotted by a PBY would not allow an airstrike that phase because the time it took the spotting plane to get there plus the time it would take the strike to get there is greater than the 4 hours of the phase. So it attacks next phase. Now again, what happens if the strike returns home after dark? are operational losses accounted for in this event? Of course they arent. The game has the cruise speeds of the aircraft, but it doesnt use them. Why not?

The way it SHOULD work IMHO is air strikes should be formed like naval TFs. These "air TFs" travel to and from their targets at their slowest aircrafts cruise speed. When they get home if there is time (accounting for reload/rearm time) they can be sent out again (and again if need be esp in the case of CAP). This would also allow intercepts enroute which also isnt allowed in the game.

< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/18/2011 7:59:16 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 1962
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 8:36:16 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
CV2 I´m not interested in starting a debate.

If you don´t like the accuracy, which is high and I do not remember saying that this isn´t the case, then I suggest you put a bit more CAP over your invasion fleets than 4 Zeros
how ever experienced they might be.

You missed my point concerning 6). It was just a fast and easy proposal how to reduce the effectiveness of Catalinas in-game, I wasn´t talking about extended range loadouts.
I am not a dev so can only suggest, and if the decision is made in favour of a more historical loadout (2 fish) or in favour of a more realistic hit percentage (1 fish)- I am happy with both.

I did not avoid your airfield/port size comment but ignored it since we are talking about float planes. So I am at loss what base size has to do with the whole story.


You lost 2 AKs and 1 PB, big deal. Catalinas are accurate, but theres not nearly enough of them around to change the big picture, so I don´t see your problem, except that
operating TFs in territory with enemy air is a dangerous job. But thats not exactly news.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1963
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 9:28:20 PM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
PBY pilots have about the same experience in torpedo use that Dutch pilots have in naval bombing, would you agree?

Have you ever seen the Dutch attain the hit rates with bombs as torps with the Cats? - Keeping in mind they drop MORE bombs than Cats have torpedoes on top of that. Not complaining about the losses I took on this 1 turn. Complaining about the accuracy of the weapon. Now I take it you are defending the accuracy of the weapon.

Now history tells us that the Black Cats - attacking alone and at night had successes. However, there is no record of any formation attacks by PBYs - ever. In fact, I cant find a recorded hit by any PBY ever during daylight with torpedoes. Can you? Then tell me again how these results seem reasonable to you.

Personally I cant understand why "naval attack" is even a mission choice for them or any patrol plane for that matter.

< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/18/2011 9:30:53 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 1964
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 9:31:16 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
I have a feeling that the 200 foot release altitude has some bearing on the accuracy also.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1965
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 9:33:40 PM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I have a feeling that the 200 foot release altitude has some bearing on the accuracy also.


Yes, 200' - 200 miles per hour. 1 AA gunner should be able to smoke a target flying that low and that slow and coming right at him. Ever seen a PBY lost to AA fire? Doesnt happen very often.

I have 1 game records for Dec 42. 212 PBYs (of all types) lost. 5 by AA fire. 21 on the ground and 29 to air to air.

And 27 ships lost to 22 in mk 13 torpedoes. And not 1 of them a night attack.

< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/18/2011 9:42:12 PM >

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 1966
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 10:06:16 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
Now I take it you are defending the accuracy of the weapon.


Wrong. I am merely raising an eyebrow about how much attention you pay to this slightly off accuracy, in contrast to its actual impact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
And 27 ships lost to 22 in mk 13 torpedoes. And not 1 of them a night attack.


By chance did you notice that this weapon is carried by Devastators and Avengers as well?

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1967
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 10:12:04 PM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
Now I take it you are defending the accuracy of the weapon.


Wrong. I am merely raising an eyebrow about how much attention you pay to this slightly off accuracy, in contrast to its actual impact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
And 27 ships lost to 22 in mk 13 torpedoes. And not 1 of them a night attack.


By chance did you notice that this weapon is carried by Devastators and Avengers as well?


Yes I have. I have also noted that enemy carriers have come no where near me. The one time they were closing, the Wasp found a sub, and they backed off.

15 in the PI, 7 near Java, 1 in the Aleutians, and the other 4 in the Solomons. Some of these 4 could have been to Marine avengers, frankly I dont recall. But at least 23 were to patrol planes.

Again, why is naval attack even an option for them? Never happened in the war. They never trained for it. So why is it an option?

*** Naval attack in game terms being formation attacks by multiple aircraft. A single plane "naval attack" would be, in game terms, "naval search".

< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/18/2011 10:25:43 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 1968
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 10:26:56 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14803
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
This thread is for OOB errors (like planes with the wrong range and stuff). You should take this game combat engine issue elsewhere.

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1969
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/18/2011 10:38:06 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
Now I take it you are defending the accuracy of the weapon.


Wrong. I am merely raising an eyebrow about how much attention you pay to this slightly off accuracy, in contrast to its actual impact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
And 27 ships lost to 22 in mk 13 torpedoes. And not 1 of them a night attack.


By chance did you notice that this weapon is carried by Devastators and Avengers as well?


Yes I have. I have also noted that enemy carriers have come no where near me. The one time they were closing, the Wasp found a sub, and they backed off.

15 in the PI, 7 near Java, 1 in the Aleutians, and the other 4 in the Solomons. Some of these 4 could have been to Marine avengers, frankly I dont recall. But at least 23 were to patrol planes.

Again, why is naval attack even an option for them? Never happened in the war. They never trained for it. So why is it an option?

*** Naval attack in game terms being formation attacks by multiple aircraft. A single plane "naval attack" would be, in game terms, "naval search".


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

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1970
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 1:03:18 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/19/2011 1:41:28 AM >

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 1971
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 1:04:23 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

This thread is for OOB errors (like planes with the wrong range and stuff). You should take this game combat engine issue elsewhere.


Look again - Air issues AND OOB errors.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1972
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 2:23:07 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3864
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

that stupid admin stacking thing that has no basis in reality (which Elf admitted was wrong).


I am curious, what do you mean ?

I am not arguing one way or another mind you, but would be interested in why you think it should not be in game.

thx

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1973
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 3:05:35 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
Guadalcanal for example. I dont remember it all now, I wrote it out in the devs forum years ago but with in a week or 2 tops there were 6 different squadrons operating (I listed the squadrons and dates) - without problems - out of Henderson. No air HQ present, and army, marine, and naval air all operating out of this 1 level 2 airfield. Just 1 example of the pointlessness of the rule. Like I said, Elf himself in the dev forum (which is posted on this board somewhere if you want to look) that the rule was based on nothing more than a whim of his.

Found it: You can see by the "commanders" list at end that there was NO air HQ present. From the operations conducted there was NO admin effect (ie strikes halved) because of "admin stacking". Note also - 30 aircraft flew in from the Long Island. A carrier that in the game can only handle 16.

Operations:
On August 20, Marine pilots from Marine Aircraft Group 23 with eighteen F4F Wildcat fighter planes of VMF-223 led by Major John L. Smith, and a dozen SBD Dauntless dive bombers of VMSB-232 led by Lt. Colonel Richard Mangrum, flying from the escort aircraft carrier USS Long Island, landed at Henderson Field, and these warplanes were conducting combat missions on the next day. They were joined on August 22, by the U.S. Army's 67th Pursuit Squadron, under Major Dale Brannon, with five Army P-400s (an "export" version of the P-39), and on August 24 by eleven SBD dive bombers that came from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise because they were unable to land on their own carrier, with battle damage sustained during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. At the end of August, these warplanes were joined by nineteen more Wildcats from VMF-224 under Major Robert E. Galer, and twelve more SBD dive bombers from VMSB-231, also part of the Marine Air Group 23. This varied assortment of Army, Marine, and Navy pilots and warplanes was the beginnings of the Cactus Air Force.[31]

August 21 brought the first Marine air-to-air combat but it resulted in mixed results. Japanese Zeros from the Tainan Air Group on a bomber escort mission (the bombers were fruitlessly searching for American carriers south of Guadalcanal) passed over Henderson Field Field on their way back to Rabaul, and six of these were met by four Cactus Air Force F4F Wildcats at 14,000 feet (4,300 m). The engagement resulted in Major Smith claiming the first air-to-air victory for the CAF but two of the other pilots crashed while landing their damaged aircraft, with both of the Wildcats deemed a total loss except for salvaged parts. The Japanese actually suffered no losses in this aerial engagement. That same night, an SBD Dauntless blew a tire on take-off, causing it to ground loop and crash for another aircraft loss.[32]

On August 24, during the naval Battle of the Eastern Solomons between aircraft carrier forces of Japan and the U.S. east of the Solomon Islands, Japanese Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo sent the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) light carrier Ryūjō ahead of the main Japanese warship force to send an aircraft attack force against Henderson Field. The Ryūjō mission was most likely in response to a request from Nishizo Tsukahara, the naval commander at Rabaul, for help from the Japanese combined fleet in neutralizing Henderson Field.[33] At 12:20 and 200 miles (320 km) northeast of Guadalcanal, the Ryūjō launched six "Kate" bombers and 15 A6M Zero fighters to attack Henderson Field in conjunction with an attack by 24 "Betty" bombers and 14 Zero fighters from Rabaul. Unknown to the Ryūjō force, however, the Rabaul aircraft had encountered severe weather and returned to their base at 11:30. The Ryūjō's aircraft arrived over Henderson Field at 14:23 and tangled with 14 Marine Wildcats and four Army P-400s while bombing the airfield. In the resulting engagement three Kates, three Zeros, and three Marine fighters were shot down and no damage was done to Henderson Field. Two Marine pilots were killed in the engagement as well as eight Japanese aircrewmen. All of these Japanese aircraft were eventually lost because, while they were attacking Henderson Field, the Ryūjō was sunk by aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, forcing the Japanese aircraft to ditch in the ocean upon returning to the previous location of their carrier.[34]

On August 31, the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. Since she was forced to return to Pearl Harbor for drydock repairs, most of the Saratoga's aircraft and aircrewmen remained behind at Espiritu Santo. Admiral McCain planned to send some of these aircraft to reinforce the Cactus Air Force at Guadalcanal.[35]

Commanders:
From the time of the first Marine squadron landed on August 20 until August 25 there was no commanding officer for Marine air, which instead reported directly to General Vandegrift. The Marines had not designated an air operations commander, the Army already had a squadron present and the field had already acquired the air of a naval base after having been promised to certain naval units. The first Marine commander was Colonel William W. Wallace but he only retained command temporarily.[17] Cactus Air Force technically was under the command of Rear Admiral John S. McCain, who commanded all land based Allied aircraft in the South Pacific. Vandegrift and his operational commanders, however, exercised local command over the Allied aircraft operating out of Henderson Field.[18]

< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/19/2011 3:09:16 AM >

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 1974
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 6:39:08 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Doh...how could I miss this.

All the other guys are already having fun in this thread and I did not notice...

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1975
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 7:15:50 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Doh...how could I miss this.

All the other guys are already having fun in this thread and I did not notice...


So suggestions for improving the game is a joke to you? Good to know.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 1976
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 7:40:28 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14803
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Doh...how could I miss this.

All the other guys are already having fun in this thread and I did not notice...


So suggestions for improving the game is a joke to you? Good to know.


You were trashing Elf and misrepresenting what he said a long time ago. Before you were "CV2".

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1977
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 7:42:19 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4567
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
CV2, I will to explain to you what the problem is in providing a solution for the Catalina accuracy issue you seem to have followed since
the time the game was developed, although I do not think think that an explanation should be neccesary for someone who claims to know
WitP AE this long.

Issue: Catalina accuracy on naval attacks

Symptom: High hit percentage per plane on naval attack missions, compared to the historically reached hit percentage, as can be derived from the
few engagements.

Reason for the issue: General high accuracy of torpedo attacks (enhanced by low release alt. of the weapon as Nomad mentioned), weapon loadout
for Catalinas is 2 torpedoes.

Possible solutions:

1) Reduction of the Catalina loadout to 1 torpedo.
Personal comment: The game is very accurate concerning loadouts, reducing to 1 torpedo would be ahistorical. Advantage: Does only impact accuracy where applied.
My personal favourite but I am sure there are other opinions, the Japanese have similar loadouts btw., so this would have to impact a couple of more loadouts
than Catalina only. Cool do we now change everything that does not end in the results we believe to be correct to ahistorical?

2) Disabling naval attack mission setting for Patrol planes.
Personal comment: No, I don´t like this. And I don´t care whether you believe this option shouldn´t exist. Patrol planes were used in the naval attack role, possibly
not like they can be used in the game, but that applies to about 50% of all assets available to a player, and I only accept artificial limitation as a tradeoff in some aspects
if there is a critical reason for that, and a few patrol planes that are potentially more dangerous than historical simply is not one of them.
Against a decent Japanese player this is not an option anyway as you will get your precious planes shot out of the air by CAP.

3) Reducing overall torp accuracy.
Personal comment: Please not. Please. The weapon systems are carefully balanced. Imagine the poor Japanese player noticing that his vaunted Netty menace is no menace
anymore after all. Imagine KB losing its superiority after the first few months because Kates are the only weapon that stand in the way of Dauntless superiority.
Torp accuracy favours the Japanese player, not the Allied player. Just in case you did not notice that after all those years.

I hope this helps you in understanding why, except for historical/gameplay tradoffs where you will have opinions like a******, changing this is a huge task compared
to the really minor impact it represents in the game.´

This is something TheElf has probably thought through a bit, but you can bet that he got the picture very fast, and this is absolutely enough to resist any
drive to change it. Resistance to changes is often derived from a better understanding how this changes impact an overall system, most of all if you have only limited
freedom to change other parts of this overall system.

Believe me, part of my work is estimating the impact of changes to complex software. I know what I´m talking about.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 1978
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 7:59:16 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Doh...how could I miss this.

All the other guys are already having fun in this thread and I did not notice...


So suggestions for improving the game is a joke to you? Good to know.


You were trashing Elf and misrepresenting what he said a long time ago. Before you were "CV2".


Well that is kind of getting off the thread, so I responded to you in a PM.

My intent is nothing more than to make this a better game. If that makes me a bad person, then I guess Im a bad person. If you dont happen to agree with me, by all means thats your right. Stating why you disagree with me and providing data on WHY you disagree with me would be intelligent debate or discussion. Making a joke or trying to bait me into personal stuff shows a lack of class.

So if you happen to think the game is perfect, please feel free to green button me. It wont hurt my feelings. Honestly. If you dont think its perfect, if you think there may be ways to improve it step up and say what you think. Thats what the board is for and thats what I do with it.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1979
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 2/19/2011 8:08:34 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

CV2, I will to explain to you what the problem is in providing a solution for the Catalina accuracy issue you seem to have followed since
the time the game was developed, although I do not think think that an explanation should be neccesary for someone who claims to know
WitP AE this long.



I understand your point on this. But the fact remains there is no successful recorded torpedo attacks by patrol planes in daylight - that I am aware of. Now I dont petend to be perfect and all knowing, so if Im wrong on that please point me to where I can see it. Thats all Im asking in that regard. They also didnt train in this type of attack - again, that I am aware of. Again, if you know differently please point me in the direction.

Now as far as the game itself goes, this is the way I look at it. If you are going to do it to me, I am going to do it to you. I match gamey move for gamey move (and yes, this falls into the realm of gamey moves in my book). The Japs can make far more Mavis' and Emilys than the allies get Catalinas.

Ed: I'd like to meet the guy that would fly his big PBY - in daylight - 200 feet off the water at 200 MPH or less - into AA fire. Not to mention that a fighter could swoop in at any time and end his and his crews life in a quick hurry. That boy would have some mighty huge stones.

< Message edited by CV2 -- 2/19/2011 8:12:25 AM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 1980
Page:   <<   < prev  64 65 [66] 67 68   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Drop tanks, with future date availability Page: <<   < prev  64 65 [66] 67 68   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

0.170