Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

service ratings for aircraft

 
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 >> service ratings for aircraft Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
service ratings for aircraft - 6/16/2009 10:28:56 PM   
sven6345789

 

Posts: 1022
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline
What effect do they have?

for example, you have a full squadron of Ki-27 and a full squadron of Ki-61 in some backwater place. one month passes, both units undertake their missions. How strong will the squadrons be after one month (or two or three)?

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943
Post #: 1
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 12:03:12 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4618
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Your question is too open ended. I guess depends intensity of use and combat or not, range, supply, support.

(in reply to sven6345789)
Post #: 2
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 2:12:46 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

What effect do they have?

for example, you have a full squadron of Ki-27 and a full squadron of Ki-61 in some backwater place. one month passes, both units undertake their missions. How strong will the squadrons be after one month (or two or three)?

Service ratings represent the technical difficulty that certain A/C brought to the wrench turners on the ground. As general rule radials are easier to fix than inline. More engines means more work/time, and further "quirkiness" or temperamental A/C receive an extra flavoring of Serviceability.

In game terms this rating helps determine the delay associated with returning a Damaged or unserviceable A/c back to flight status. There is randomness involved, and these ratings can be offset by Supply, AF size, AV support, and such. The opposite can be said as well.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to sven6345789)
Post #: 3
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 4:15:05 AM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
Thanks for the reply Elf. I just finished Fire in the Sky, based on all of your recommendations, and it was a great read! Of the many things that I heard about for the first time was the almost universal lack of proper maintenance, spare parts, skiller laborer's, ect. for the Japanease in the South Pacific. The author did not have nice things to say about the Japanease soldiers back at the airfields, among many other inadequacies. What I found especially interesting was how many planes were lost flying from Japan to the front lines.

Questions:

1. Was his assesment of the inability to properly service Japanease aircraft accurate?
2. If so, will AE represent this in some way? Is this represented by the service rating?
3. Does the airbase experience affect this in any way?

Obviously this can be modded (I assume), so I am curious how stock AE will handle it.

Thanks in advance!

Chad

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 4
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 10:45:32 AM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline
quote:

Questions:

1. Was his assesment of the inability to properly service Japanease aircraft accurate?
2. If so, will AE represent this in some way? Is this represented by the service rating?
3. Does the airbase experience affect this in any way?


Great questions Chad. I look forward to the answers....

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 5
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 10:55:42 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 1967
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
If the servicing of Japanese aircraft was accurate in this game the japs would have a much harder time of it i can tell you.(for the benefit of the game i would not do it)
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

Thanks for the reply Elf. I just finished Fire in the Sky, based on all of your recommendations, and it was a great read! Of the many things that I heard about for the first time was the almost universal lack of proper maintenance, spare parts, skiller laborer's, ect. for the Japanease in the South Pacific. The author did not have nice things to say about the Japanease soldiers back at the airfields, among many other inadequacies. What I found especially interesting was how many planes were lost flying from Japan to the front lines.

Questions:

1. Was his assesment of the inability to properly service Japanease aircraft accurate?
2. If so, will AE represent this in some way? Is this represented by the service rating?
3. Does the airbase experience affect this in any way?

Obviously this can be modded (I assume), so I am curious how stock AE will handle it.

Thanks in advance!

Chad

Tiger!

_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 6
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 12:45:39 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Especially the Ki-61 Hien (Tony) was a problem child for JAAF. Bad for them, since it was one of the few planes that was competitive against Allied 2nd generation fighters. "Fire in the Sky" comments that it often gave more problems to JAAF mechanics than to enemy.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 7
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 1:07:17 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4058
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline


_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 8
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 2:21:02 PM   
tigercub


Posts: 1967
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline
100% Sardaukar, even generality speaking jap field service in ww2 was not great and after 43 because of supply much worse. A large factor in the lose of many jap planes in WW2,I feel you have to draw a line between ww2 and a wargame or you would see a lot more japs planes sitting at airfields waiting to be fixed but insted getting bombed on there airfield.

Tiger!


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 9
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 3:14:43 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
I just wanted to throw in, if anyone has not read 'Fire in the Sky', it is a must read. Someone on these forums recommended it to me, and I want to pass that recommendation along. It shed light on so many aspects of what air to air combat was really like between the Japanease and the Allies, and more importantly, the difficulty of keeping aircraft in the air. I now see why so many complained about stock WitP always having 100% of your squadron operational.

As I mentioned above, Bergerud does not treat the Japanease nicely in the book. Its not because he is biased or bashing them. They had some very serious deficiencies that in his opinion, lost them the war. Both in aircraft, tactics, maintenance and others. Dont get me wrong, they put up a great fight, but in his opinion, they were doomed from the start. As was mentioned above, the Tony was a maitenance disaster when it should have been a great plane.

Heres a link from Amazon for the book, just FYI:

Amazon - Fire in the Sky - Eric Bergerud

(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 10
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 3:34:16 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
Bergerud points out in "Fire in the Sky" that when Allied troops captured Japanese airbases, often they'd find many planes that were in good condition except they were missing one or two critical components.  The mechanics had cannibalized perfectly good planes for parts to keep other planes running, indicating a collapsed logistic system.  I believe he also stated somewhere that Japan planned for a short campaign and wasn't anywhere prepared for a long, drawn out war.  Their logistic and replenishment program in the South Pacific was very indicative of that.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 11
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 3:51:44 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4618
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
In game terms that means if you can put supply and support units there is not reason that Ki-61 is a problem. Of course its engine might be less reliable but if the player can somewhat offset that with supply and support i don't see a problem.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 12
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 4:36:06 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I believe he also stated somewhere that Japan planned for a short campaign and wasn't anywhere prepared for a long, drawn out war. 



Along those lines, I thought his take on the famous Zero was interesting. It was indeed a great plane, and very deadly in the right hands. But, with the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and armor of any type, it guranteed that those great pilots would not be around for very long. All it took was one good .50 cal shot and it was a flamer or the pilot was killed.

His statistics of how many Japanease pilots survived the early training classes were especially sobering.

At any rate, would still be interested in an answer to the above questions if Elf or anyone else on the dev team gets a chance. I am curious to see how (if at all) this will all be represented in vanilla AE.

Thanks in advance.

Chad

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 13
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/17/2009 5:19:30 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Along those lines, I thought his take on the famous Zero was interesting.


I really liked this book as well. He makes the distinction between an aircraft, looking at the performance numbers, and an airforce, looking at how the parts work together. Wargamers tend to look at armor and number of cannons. Maintenance, facilities and disease were huge factors in this theater, overwhelming paper values for turn radius or rate of climb.



_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 14
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/25/2009 1:09:16 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2075
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: online
I read "Fire In the Sky" as well, and also encourage any WITP/AE fan to read it. To me, all the abandoned aircraft at the captured airfields represents a lack of supply, so I believe WITP (and assume AE) already models the situation pretty well (i.e. damaged aircraft don't get repaired without supply).

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 15
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/25/2009 5:47:36 AM   
TheOx

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline
Ok, just bought the book at Amazon. Can't beat $1.95!

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 16
RE: service ratings for aircraft - 6/27/2009 2:27:34 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

I read "Fire In the Sky" as well, and also encourage any WITP/AE fan to read it. To me, all the abandoned aircraft at the captured airfields represents a lack of supply, so I believe WITP (and assume AE) already models the situation pretty well (i.e. damaged aircraft don't get repaired without supply).


But I would still be curious to know if any of this is reflected in the service ratings of aircraft.

Or, regardless of any nation operating the plan or specific plane in the game, is it just as simple as:

1. One inline engine = Rating A
2. One radial engine = Rating B
3. Two inline engines = Rating C
4. Two radial engines = Rating D
. . . And so on

Or, is it based on each aircraft? ie. aircraft A and B both have one radial engine, but the service rating of aircraft A is higher because it was a bear to maintenance in real life.

Thanks in advance!

Chad

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> service ratings for aircraft Page: [1]
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

0.156