AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[TheElf]

yikes! Busy bees...gotta get back to work!

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What about "fly-by" interception?
ATM, a bomber may fly over 20 bases with large numbers of fighters without getting attacked. Will this be changed?

This was discussed, but the game mechanics make this sort of thing problematic. We settled for an extra chance of Combat AFTER the Target has been hit. You can think of it as a "Random Encounter".

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Elf, so to be clear...Pilots can be trained for different A/C missions?

Yes. When a bomber group is created in the editor the pilots in that group are given an overall EXP (what we use now in WitP) AND priority in the skills (listed in a previous post) they will use. There is an entire screen you can view for each pilot with all his skills, and the colors even change when they improve...

So for a DB group their primary skills are, in no particular order

• Naval search 75
• Air defensive 65
• Ground bombing 85
• Naval bombing 90

Everything else (recon, Air Attack, torp attk etc.) is at the basic EXP level when they left flight school so whatever the National AVG is for the year they finished(let's say 50-55 EXP). When Missions are flown against a CV TF Fx, they will use their Air Def skill to avoid or dodge fighters, then use their Naval Bombing skill to drop bombs on the CV.

So you can have a pilot with 75% exp. for Naval Attacks and say 85% for Airfield Attack ?

Yes

Does this graphic have a bearing on this.

What you are pointing to in the graphic are the top 3 skills, on average for the entire unit. This is what No. 100 Sqdn is good at.

If you want to change the groups specialty, you need to train them in whatever mission it is you want them to get better at. So you click on "training" in the pic and all the mission types are then selectable (I think they turn Yellow). You select, say ASW patrol, cuz this unit is weak in that area and the ASW option will turn Green. Voila! they will train as usual, and it but only the skills used in ASW mission profile you selected will improve.




[/quote]

[MineSweeper]

Excellent.....Thanks Elf....[:)][:)][:)]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig

All Skills that are used for that mission may then be improved in the normal fashion.

While flying strafing missions, will the A2A skill improve to a max value, like 60, which may be the maximum A2A experience without seeing air combat?

Nope. A2A will only improve if you train the unit in it or if you fly actual A2A combat missions. Strafing improves the "Strafe" skill

And will allied replacement pilots still be higly skilled with 70-75exp without seeing a battle before?

This is an OoB item and is still being worked on.

What about "fly-by" interception?
ATM, a bomber may fly over 20 bases with large numbers of fighters without getting attacked. Will this be changed?

That's what I'm asking for all the time, but no chance.

See above.

And maybe an "undo" button if a transfer goes to a wrong base Happens sometimes.
Or a possibility to select all squadrons which should transfer to the same base.

This is patch material. We only had so much time and a defined scope within which to work. We prioritized bigger fish...

[/quote]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Just like to say i like the KIA,MIA,WIA additions to the unit screen. Nice to track its service record through the game. Little details like this will make this game immense

Thanks Cantona, I couldn't agree more.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

If I'm adding pilots from a pool to a fighter squadron does the program automatically pull pilots based on, say Air Attack/Air Defense experience or is there just as likely a possability that a pilot will be pulled from the pool to fill a fighter squadron with a high level of Transport experience...

This is still be worked out, but I'll give you as much info as I can.

What SHOULD happen, is Pilots coming out of the TrainING pool will be trained in all their skills to the National AVG for the current year. When they are in this pool they are not yet Fighter, Bomber, or Divebomber pilots yet. When they are drawn from this pool they become a designated Fighter pilot for example and as they fly missions in that type their skills will mature in the areas where they use skills most.

So in the Ex. of a FTR Pilot Air Attk, Def, and Strafe.

The first 10 missions will be rapid improvement to simulate the old adage. But they have to survive those 1st 10 missions...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Lannes_

How will be treated airbases? For example:
There will be air stack limit for different size of air bases?
Will be affected also the number of planes that can do CAP or attacks depending on the air base level, or a restricted maximun range for a big air group attacking coordinately?

Right now we are still tweaking this based on test results.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

I have to say "Wow!" again - all the changes look great but the more I think about it, the air war changes seem most profound at first glance. I have a few follow-up questions:

Thanks! We did beaver away at this for a while, so I hope you are right...

ORIGINAL: TheElf

when in the TrainING pool, pilots are un-named, and un-designated. Generic if you will. Once they area drawn to an operational unit they are designated as TB, DB, FF, MB, REC etc. Once this happens they remain designated as a "Type" of pilot. And when they are moved from pool to pool they are in seperate pools based on their type.

The one exception is where they are in the Training Command pool as "instructors". Here is where they affect the output of "students" in the TrainING pool.

1. Do pilots get assigned as "instructors" in the Training command automatically, by player choice, or by both? Can they be reassigned to the front as desired?

Both, I think. I'll have to check my notes. They can be reassigned as desired.

The design of this is intended to reward an IJ player that manages his pilots well. If he could afford to cut some loose from the front either because he bought himself some time or the Allied player was not forcing attrition, he should have a mechanism that allowed improvement on reality.

2. How do instructors affect the output of students? More pilots trained? Better experience when they graduate? Both?

Both, though the balance of this has not been finalized.

3. Is there an advantage to keeping highly trained fighter pilots as instructors, or could I get the same advantages by just sending lots of transport pilots back to the States or Japan?

The average EXP of the pilots in the "instructor" role is what drives improvement. But replacement pilots will only train for so long, so there is a point of diminishing return. This isn't a mechanism to create Aces out of Flight school, it is to delay the eventual decline of the Japanese training system.

[/quote]

[ctangus]

Thanks! [:)]

[okami]

Has the A2A values been revamped to show actual Ballistic capabilities. Witp had a low opinion of 20mm cannons will this add-on address this?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: okami

Has the A2A values been revamped to show actual Ballistic capabilities. Witp had a low opinion of 20mm cannons will this add-on address this?

I am not sure exactly what you are asking. I THINK you are saying that you believe the 20mm cannon devices are not effective enough or are too short range?

This is OTS, in the sense it is a bit in the weeds, but A/C in general are under review, so if you can make a case and support it I can see it being on the table. I DO NOT want to start a debate on this thread however.

[Dili]

Did the aerial mine year date rule got shelved?  I hope so and that entry date is specified in device, since the Britsih also had aerial mining capability with Swordfish, Beauforts and Wellingtons at least.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Did the aerial mine year date rule got shelved? I hope so and that entry date is specified in device, since the Britsih also had aerial mining capability with Swordfish, Beauforts and Wellingtons at least.

OTS

[Yakface]

Hi Elf
 
Posted a question some time age - I can't see the answer - it's post 152
 
Thanks

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: TheElf


ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

If I'm adding pilots from a pool to a fighter squadron does the program automatically pull pilots based on, say Air Attack/Air Defense experience or is there just as likely a possability that a pilot will be pulled from the pool to fill a fighter squadron with a high level of Transport experience...

This is still be worked out, but I'll give you as much info as I can.

What SHOULD happen, is Pilots coming out of the TrainING pool will be trained in all their skills to the National AVG for the current year. When they are in this pool they are not yet Fighter, Bomber, or Divebomber pilots yet. When they are drawn from this pool they become a designated Fighter pilot for example and as they fly missions in that type their skills will mature in the areas where they use skills most.

So in the Ex. of a FTR Pilot Air Attk, Def, and Strafe.

The first 10 missions will be rapid improvement to simulate the old adage. But they have to survive those 1st 10 missions...

Thanx for taking the time to field these questions Elf.

So following along the same vein of questions regarding experience, individual pilots have experience levels that factor into combat. Does this go into a "combined average" for the fighter group or is each 1-on-1 air battle a pilot-to-pilot check against the individual experience level?

Does the unit leader experience also add in to an air-to-air battle?

Can you share with us what is factored into air-to-air combat?

I'm sure the gun value, the manueverablity, the range(distance from home base), and the altitude factor in... And then the different types of experience for pilot, squadron leader, and base commander?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Brady,

I understand your point and we want to be as historical as possible. However, there is so little data on the aircraft. It does appear that it wasn't a particularly successful aircraft. Francillon listed it as a minor type and devoted only a short paragraph to it. To accurately model its performance, we need more data than what is available. If you have any specific data such as wing loading, ceiling, cruise speed, fuel capacity, please provide it to me via PM and I will discuss it with the air team. Any data on the 33rd would also be appreciated.. especially data concerning what aircraft replaced their B5Ms and their war record.

We could include the 33rd as a Kate equipped unit but as you say that wouldn't be quite the same.

Also, be advised that much of the aircraft data and the air OoB is still a work in progress. Just because we say it is not currently included, doesn't mean that it won't be. We just have to make a strong case for it.

Thanks,

Chez

I have a book on work done between 1910 and 1941 - explicitly packaged NOT to duplicate Francillons work - and I have used both these works, along with a number of books devoted to specific planes, and file materials in the form of articles or documents shorter than books devoted to Japanese aircraft, to build a database. Where data was missing, I have equations that calculate the empty hole using other data we do have. For example, weight and power yield power loading, etc. Using methods I learned working at Boeing Software Integration Laboratories, I even can fill in holes for things like Rate of Climb, maximum dive speed, etc - although these must be said to be estimates rather than calculations (like loading is - that isn't an estimate because it is using hard data in the right way to yield the true loading - wether or not any reference gives it to us). I can give you any of this data on any aircraft - there are a couple of hundred sub types - in any form required - with (usually) the holes filled in. [If a crticial factor is missing, my formulas will produce an error instead of a result however - a symbol not on the keyboard but which does appear on the screen]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: okami

Has the A2A values been revamped to show actual Ballistic capabilities. Witp had a low opinion of 20mm cannons will this add-on address this?

I am not sure exactly what you are asking. I THINK you are saying that you believe the 20mm cannon devices are not effective enough or are too short range?

This is OTS, in the sense it is a bit in the weeds, but A/C in general are under review, so if you can make a case and support it I can see it being on the table. I DO NOT want to start a debate on this thread however.

In stock and CHS, cannon generally had far to low an effect rating - typically something close to MG values. The .50 was usually 150% of the .30 - it probably should be exactly double - so a British plane with 8 x .30s = a US plane with 4 x .50s - permitting endless arguments about which is better? But a cannon EFFECT should be a multiple of the .50 - IF you get a hit - it should matter much more. On the other hand, accuracy can be used to make the chance of a hit less - which is true because of the lower ROF. Accuracy used to be a direct function of ROF - and that seems to work very well. In RHS I used the weight of the shell for cannon - divided by the weight of a .50 cal shell - for effect of cannon - and it seems to work well.

[Brady]

Has aerial mining been changed at all, or is it prety much the same as before, espichaly the start dates for doing so for the allies and Japanese?
 
Did the Anson make the cut?
 

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I have a book on work done between 1910 and 1941 - explicitly packaged NOT to duplicate Francillons work - and I have used both these works,

Cid. Would you share the name of this book, it's author(s), and publisher with the rest of the WITP world so we can cross check the data. "I have a book" is pretty vague....