AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Did I see somewhere in the avalanche of emails over the weekend that air units will be squadron size?  Does this mean that Japanese air units will be chutai or daitai/chutai?

Generally air units are portrayed at their lowest, non-organic level. For the Japanese this means that things stays much the same as always.

Very good. Thanks. I was concerned that if the Japanese used chutai for all the air units we'd be overwelmed by units and that it would take forever to assign missions to them.

That begs another question: Would it be possible to give multiple air units at a base the same mission all at once instead of one at a time?

[spence]

Somewhere in here I think I saw mention of sectors for AA fire in so far as TF defense is concerned. Has this been manipulated in some fashion to account for the different tactical formations used by the Japanese and Allies (particularly in the 1942 time frame): to whit, the tremendous dispersion of a Japanese TF under air attack (up to 30 km) which essentially put screening ships out of effective AAA range of the CVs (but allowed the CVs to manuever radically when under attack) versus the close in (1500-2000 yard) ring formation of the Allies which constrained manuever by the CV somewhat but allowed the screen to concentrate its AAA against aircraft attacking the CV?

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: hvymtl13

Biggest question I have is- I've read where some ordanance will be tracked, ie mines and possibly torpedoes etc. concerning thier availibility; but no option to control the air strikes specific loadout of available ordnance? Is this set in stone already or not possible to include? The player defined loadouts on airstikes would be seriously cool stuff.

I agree here. For me, at a minimum, would it be possible to at least to be able to toggle on or off torpedoes on the TBs on carriers. Any possibility of that?

[Grotius]

the Japanese aircraft range is marginally over four/five hexes while Allied range is marginally under four/three hexes. [snip]

Hey Ron, interesting observation, and an interesting suggestion to use range differently than it's used now. But I have one quick comment: won't the new 40-mile hexes somewhat alleviate the problem you're describing? More granularity in distances means that range-approximation will now be somewhat more accurate, as aircraft ranges will increase to reflect the larger scale map. Maybe not accurate enough fully to address the issue you raise, but perhaps enough to mitigate it somewhat.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Can't recall seeing this puppy in here.

Are there any tweaks to Minelaying missions in terms of whether CAP will be able to intercept them?

Hi all,

?

[Javakamp]

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

That would probably be a better question for the OOB group.

Chez

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Given what has been disclosed above - including things like altitude ratings for aircraft - I think you HAVE turned lead into gold. Which is to say - outstanding work.

Why thank you for the vote of confidence, Sid. Hopefully we won't disappoint.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

One of the problems with the CV based air model I've encountered regularly has been the inabilty of the model to handle the exacting data pertaining to the aircraft (range and endurance specifically) with TF movement and the hex grid map. This always resulted in Japanese CV TFs, with their longer range/endurance aircraft, enjoying the ability to strike with impunity at long range because the Japanese aircraft range is marginally over four/five hexes while Allied range is marginally under four/three hexes. The Allied CV TFs don't launch because of the nature of the map (hex grid) and the 'reaction mechanism' designed to deal with this real data vs hex grid mapping just can't cope with the situation...it either fails to react or goes bounding off to it's doom. Has the reaction model been improved to allow for this tactical level detail within the more strategic format the game phases represent...can Allied CVs launch despite the aircraft being shorter ranged, or have the naval based aircraft been given a rounded up/down reange/endurance (ie...all Japanese/Allied CV TF aircraft strike range maxed at 4 hexes) to ensure launch.

In conjunction with this desire to equalize Jap/Allied strike range for CV based aircraft to alleviate the limitations of the hex grid, why not use the range/endurance to determine coordination/strike size and weapon loadout only instead of allowing the extra hex range simply because the data, when translated into hexes, allows for an extra hex range as the stated range/endurance of certain aircraft barely cross the range needed for the extra hex?

All I can say ATM is that we're aware of the issue and exploring some options. Better than nothing, I guess.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

USAAF squadrons will be set up as you suggest. Group structures were generally stable with some exceptions particularly among the fighter groups. In relevant cases, players will have to accept some compromises with regards to naming. Specifically, to keep groups @ 3-4 squadrons, we will need to rename units when they historically transferred from one group to another. This is unlikely to follow the lines of actual gane deployment of units by players.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Can't recall seeing this puppy in here.

Are there any tweaks to Minelaying missions in terms of whether CAP will be able to intercept them?

Hi all,

?

Currently SAIEW

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
That begs another question: Would it be possible to give multiple air units at a base the same mission all at once instead of one at a time?

SAIEW, Mike

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Can't recall seeing this puppy in here.

Are there any tweaks to Minelaying missions in terms of whether CAP will be able to intercept them?

Hi all,

?

Currently SAIEW

That's too bad. It makes Allied minelaying of Japanese ports totally ahistorical due to the inability of the Japanese to affect it at all. That really concerns me. May I ask why it's not being looked at?

[spence]

IRL the Japanese were unable to significantly affect the aerial minelaying itself: practically no minelayers were shot down by Japanese defenses. They could sweep the mines though. Apparently mines are going to be tracked or restricted in some fashion so it may well be that you overstate the problem.

[DuckofTindalos]

With a severe reduction in number of mines available, the problem should be somewhat alleviated...

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

With a severe reduction in number of mines available, the problem should be somewhat alleviated...

I'll take your word for it T.

Spence, there's a big difference between shooting down practically no minelayers and having 0% chance of ever shooting down a minelayer.

I'm still concerned about this.

[Javakamp]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

USAAF squadrons will be set up as you suggest. Group structures were generally stable with some exceptions particularly among the fighter groups. In relevant cases, players will have to accept some compromises with regards to naming. Specifically, to keep groups @ 3-4 squadrons, we will need to rename units when they historically transferred from one group to another. This is unlikely to follow the lines of actual gane deployment of units by players.

I can live with those little things.

Thanks for the answer and all the hard work.

[spence]

Spence, there's a big difference between shooting down practically no minelayers and having 0% chance of ever shooting down a minelayer.

The total loss of minelaying aircraft during the 6 month campaign against the Home Islands was 15 aircraft to all causes. Since all mining missions occur at night I'll wager that the ops losses provided by the game engine mechanics exceed the actual losses considerably.

[BB57]

I have always felt that once Iwo was taken by the allies B-29 op losses from the Mariannas should be less. Is this being looked at or is it even possible?

Will USAAF long range recon assets (B-24 and B-29) be included?

You guys are way better than most goverments. They couldn't possibly have kept a secret of the magatude of AE for 2 years.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: BB57

You guys are way better than most goverments. They couldn't possibly have kept a secret of the magatude of AE for 2 years.

LOL! This is soooo true.

And I say this as a veteran of five U.S. federal government agencies: the Army; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Transportation; the State Department and (currently) the Small Business Administration.