AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by timtom »


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?

MichaelM did a feasibility study on a similar issue (in code terms) and found that it couldn't be done with the current code. So in my uneducated opinion, no.

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

F-7 & F-13 both, along with the appropriate OOB. See also post #256 ;)
Where's the Any key?

Image
BB57
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:51 pm
Location: Beresford, SD

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by BB57 »

I'll read that to say if it was used in the Pacific most likely it is in! USAF background is 100 SRW and it bugged me that the long range recon was left out of WitP I.  Thank You.
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by bradfordkay »

SAIEW.... SAIEW... SAIEW...

c'mon, guys, Stop Making Sense!
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25341
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,

Shameless BUMP... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I don't think this was asked before regarding upcoming WitP-AE...


Is there any modification to airbase overstacking rule?

Are there any modifications that differ 1-engine planes from 2-engine and 4-engine aircraft (all regarding stacking rules of airbases)?


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: hvymtl13

Great plan on this expansion. Sounds great.
I read all the previous posts and good questions and answers. So I have only a couple:
Recon was mentioned fairly often so far, but no mention of intercepting them. I've noticed myself and read a few threads on this subject that imply they are overly difficult to shoot down.

Recon should be very difficult to shoot down. WITP is an operational game - players don't control tactics as such - but clearly recon pilots will attempt to come in at the "wrong" altitude - at a time when escape into darkness or clouds is feasible - etc. Note that the lowly Glen was able to do not only pre Pearl Harbor recon - but post strike recon as well - in spite of being low and slow and the enemy having many fighter planes and being on such a high state of alert no aircraft was safe (including those in US markings). Recon aircraft have a number of tactical advantages and assets, and figuring out in time that they can be intercepted at all is difficult - and rare. In the normal case in WWII no intercept was made. When it was, in the normal case it failed.

Actual intercept - from the ground - is difficult indeed. But it is quite true that CAP has a shot - IF it is high enough and IF it sees the recon plane. The problem is - a single aircraft coming in optimizing the chances not to be seen inherant in the situation often is not seen in time. Another problem is that recon will normally be above the altitude CAP should be at if it is to be effective against bombers.
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16366
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Mike Solli »

ORIGINAL: 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.

Spence, I'm not arguing history. I agree that 15 aircraft lost is inconsequential. My argument for trying to fix this is for alternate history purposes. If the Japanese are able to field a capable air force in 1943, then the Japanese should be the ability to contest the Allied aerial minelaying campaign.
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: 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.

Spence, I'm not arguing history. I agree that 15 aircraft lost is inconsequential. My argument for trying to fix this is for alternate history purposes. If the Japanese are able to field a capable air force in 1943, then the Japanese should be the ability to contest the Allied aerial minelaying campaign.
No one should be arguing anything on this thread...[:)]

Thanks.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
Sonny II
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:05 pm

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Sonny II »

ORIGINAL: TheElf


........................

No one should be arguing anything on this thread...[:)]

Thanks.


Bravo! Bravissimo!

Nor should they be arguing on any of the AE specific threads.
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by spence »

Forgot to ask before: PV-2 Harpoons in AE?
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Captain Cruft »

Will the following bug be fixed:

Fighters trying to escort Recon missions but getting "UNABLE TO LOCATE TARGET". Thereby exhausting themselves and also rendering themselves unable to participate in the actual air combat phase.

It happens all the time, you must have seen it ...
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Grotius »

SAIEW.... SAIEW... SAIEW...

c'mon, guys, Stop Making Sense!

Hehe, I also wondered whether SAIEW was a Talking Heads reference. [8D]

Back on-topic: I can't remember whether this has been asked/answered -- will there be any change to the procedure for transferring aircraft? I think Elf or someone acknowledged working on the fog-of-war aspect of air transfers (the player moving second gets more info about transfers than the player moving first). Will AE address the question of whether transferred aircraft should immediately be able fly missions?

Forgive me if this has been asked; I've read all these threads but it's easy to lose track.
Image
Rainerle
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:52 am
Location: Burghausen/Bavaria
Contact:

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Rainerle »

Hi,
can we have night transport flights only (to contested bases)? Can the Japanese use the transport float planes for attacking enemy bases (i.e. non paratroop units but they are not paradropped of course).
Image
Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10304
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Dixie »

I like the idea of Lizzies being used as light bombers [8D] I don't know if this has been covered yet, but here's some stuff I would like to see that either isn't really in the current game or isn't there at all:

Blenheim MkV
A few of the unarmed Beauforts that were in Singers at the start of the Pacific war and were used for recce missions
Some of the modified Buffaloes that were used for similar missions IIRC
Thunderbolt MkI & MkII
Liberator GRV etc for proper anti-sub missions
Ansons
Hurricane IIb
Hurricane IIc
Hurricane TRII
Hurricane IV
Spitfire PRIV
PR Mitchells
Beaufighter MkIc
Beaufighter MkX (I don't think the RAF used them for lugging torps around in SE Asia)
Beaufort transports as used by the RAAF

One for the JFBs out there: How about the ability to employ a limited number of prototype a/c before their general introduction (a la the Tojo in China), may be beyond the limits of what is poissible though...
A proper RAF Tiger Force [&o]
Maybe sticking 8 Sqn under a restricted command to stop the Allied player moving them from Aden where they spent most of the war carrying out ASW.
Royal Navy MONABs and shore based squadrons

I know some of this is probably in already and some of this is obviously far more likely than other stuff, but as the actress said to the bishop 'If you don't ask you don't get'. [;)]

You will learn to dread my posts [:D]

EDIT: What Brady said in the post under mine [:D]
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Brady »

Forgive me if this was covvered, but I cant see that it has been thus far:
 
Has the tell tail red line present for recon flights been done away with, and given that most recon flights went compleatly unnoticed, is their a rutine that would alow for this in game, that the enemy might not even see the flight.
 
 Also can we do recon flights at night?
 
   
Image


SCW Beta Support Team

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
NormS3
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Contact:

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by NormS3 »

Is there a cap on total number of pilots as in WITP?  I think it was 20,000 initially and one upgrade improved that to 30,000.  Just wondering because if so many new air units are being added, won't that affect the cap on pilots?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Brady

Has the tell tail red line present for recon flights been done away with, and given that most recon flights went compleatly unnoticed, is their a rutine that would alow for this in game, that the enemy might not even see the flight.

I would like to second this and take it one step further:

The red lines lines showing the origin of air attacks should only be shown when the origin of the attack is detected. And, if the attack is detected (say) halfway, then the red line should only be drawn halfway. The red line should also be subject to Fog Of War - it could be displayed incorrectly!

I don't know if the current engine can accommodate these suggestions, but it would be great if they could.
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: spence

Forgot to ask before: PV-2 Harpoons in AE?
Yup.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Grotius
SAIEW.... SAIEW... SAIEW...

c'mon, guys, Stop Making Sense!
Hehe, I also wondered whether SAIEW was a Talking Heads reference. [8D]

Not a reference, but an influence.

Back on-topic: I can't remember whether this has been asked/answered -- will there be any change to the procedure for transferring aircraft? I think Elf or someone acknowledged working on the fog-of-war aspect of air transfers (the player moving second gets more info about transfers than the player moving first). Will AE address the question of whether transferred aircraft should immediately be able fly missions?

Wasn't me. They are available to fly, but still subject to ops loss and damage.


[/quote]
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
can we have night transport flights only (to contested bases)? Can the Japanese use the transport float planes for attacking enemy bases (i.e. non paratroop units but they are not paradropped of course).
OTS
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Brady

Has the tell tail red line present for recon flights been done away with, and given that most recon flights went compleatly unnoticed, is their a rutine that would alow for this in game, that the enemy might not even see the flight.

I would like to second this and take it one step further:

The red lines lines showing the origin of air attacks should only be shown when the origin of the attack is detected. And, if the attack is detected (say) halfway, then the red line should only be drawn halfway. The red line should also be subject to Fog Of War - it could be displayed incorrectly!

I don't know if the current engine can accommodate these suggestions, but it would be great if they could.
Last time I played WitP the red line was gone. Maybe I am thinking of AE. Can't remember now... I haven't played stock since we started this little project.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”