AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[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

[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?

[Ldeathbow]

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?!?

[wdolson]

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

[timtom]

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

[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.

[michaelm75au]

The 57 mm has no load cost.
ELINT is shown as a default if there is trouble determining data.

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.

[inqistor]

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

[inqistor]

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.

[inqistor]

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.

[witpqs]

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.

[inqistor]

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.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

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. [8D]

[Ldeathbow]

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.)

[Puhis]

Isn't Genzan Ku K-1 flying night missions? I don't think night flying squadrons have search mission option.

[Ldeathbow]

boy do I feel stupid . Guess I need to look at things a bit closer first - then ask

[xnavytc56]

how many air groups can u base at an airfield capacity of 2

[Ldeathbow]

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

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

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

[xnavytc56]

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

[CV2]

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