AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[jwilkerson]

The idea of doing a "harpoon like" mission profile system was definitely discussed early on in the AE scoping process. However, this feature did not make the cut. There are many of us who would like to see this one day - but it might have to wait for a "WITP-II".

[khyberbill]

The idea of doing a "harpoon like" mission profile system was definitely discussed early on in the AE scoping process. However, this feature did not make the cut. There are many of us who would like to see this one day - but it might have to wait for a "WITP-II".

Would a WITP-II be a complete rewrite of the engine, code etc? That would of course, lead to AE-II!!

[51st Highland Div]

Had a search on the forums in regards assigning pilots to squadrons..just its a pain having to individually add pilots to a squadron..will there be a "Get All Pilots" type button to bring squadrons up to full complement in one go ? Apologies if its been posted before...

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: 51st Highland Div

Had a search on the forums in regards assigning pilots to squadrons..just its a pain having to individually add pilots to a squadron..will there be a "Get All Pilots" type button to bring squadrons up to full complement in one go ? Apologies if its been posted before...

Yes.

[51st Highland Div]

Excellent thank you Yamato Hugger for your quick reply...

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: timtom

AE will allow modders to set up OTU's of a sort in that units can be given the "training" attribute. This means that the unit can only fly training missions, or, in the case of the Japanese, Special Attack missions. At the same time the unit can hold three (or four, I forget) times the normal number of pilots.

I did a search on "Training Squadrons" and this is the best I could find on the subject so please forgive me if this question has been raised and answered.

What properties will training squadrons have? If I check the "trainer" box in the editor what capabilities or limitations will that give a squadron. I believe it has been said that training squadrons will only fly "training" missions but then what are the mechanics of it? How do I transfer pilots who have been trained via training squadrons back into the pool to be used in squadrons which can fly combat missions? If a training squadron can't fly combat missions then those pilots are stuck in limbo if they can't somehow be rotated into a combat squadron.

Many thanks. [&o]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

The idea of doing a "harpoon like" mission profile system was definitely discussed early on in the AE scoping process. However, this feature did not make the cut. There are many of us who would like to see this one day - but it might have to wait for a "WITP-II".

Would a WITP-II be a complete rewrite of the engine, code etc? That would of course, lead to AE-II!!

WitP-II (or whatever it would be called) would be a total re-write. It would also be likely 3-5 years down the road (AE took 3).

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Another question: It is possible to code two different bombloads for Naval/ground targets for airplanes? Could be absolutely stunning to have say 4x 500lbs against ships and 40x23lb parafrags for ground targets on B-25s...

Or does B-25C1(strafer) comes with parafrags only? [:D]

As has been stated many times before, no.

[AmiralLaurent]

OK, here is my idea: allow every kind of mission to every kind of aircraft.

Because in historical cases, they could be used in every kind of mission....

In WWII, CAP was flown by bombers over convoys, but also sometimes over base (for example Hudson in early 1942 against bases raided by japanese floatplanes). US CV used SBD to reinforce CAP in 1942 (and Dutch used their Devastator teh same over Holland in 1940). Japanese floatplanes (Pete, Jake) were routinely used as fighters. Ok course they will not stand long against real bombers but may have some success against unescorted bombers.

Transports might be flown by any aircraft. In emergency cases, fighters were carrying a passenger. Bombers routinely do that.

On the other hand, transports were sometimes used as bombers.

Same for recon aircraft, that might be armed (and so flew sweeps, or ground attack). For example Ki-36 was rather a light bomber/tactical support aircraft rather than pure recon.

ASW was often flown by fighters from US CVE. Naval search too.

And so on...

Thinking of it a bit longer, some missions (sweep, CAP, LRCAP) will require the aircraft to have weapons.

Tactical recon might be flown by any type of AC. For me it's recon without picture.

Recon will require to have a photographic material inside the aircraft.

Then I fully agree that a bomber used as a fighter will be awfully slow and lack maneuvarility and so have far less chance to intercept incoming aircraft... But at least your convoy far out at sea may be protected by some B-17 from nasty Betties.

And the experience system described is perfect for that. The plane will suck in any role not designed for him, the crew will suck too. But sometimes it might help.

[Dili]

There were comon air figthings between Patrol aircrafts.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy

Shifting from disbanding to building, I noticed a number of official histories in our library that included the "Australia in the War of 1939 - 1945" voume entitled "THe Role of Science and Industry".  I was flipping through the pages when I noticed it contained the manufacturing/delivery information for Aussie Beauforts, Beaufighters, Wirraway and Boomerang aircraft listed below.  You probably already have the information but I added it below just in case:

Wirraway deliveries began in July 39 (2 per month) which reached 8 per month by the end of the year.  It varied between 5 and 11 aircraft per month until July 1940, when 16 Wirraways were built (out of a total of 83 to date).  The delivery rate climbed to 33 in October, 34 in November before dropping to 23 in December 1940 (total 204 built).   In 1941 delivery rates varied between 5 and 22 for the first six months (91 total manufactured) before reaching 26 in August, 36 in September, 45 in October, 37 in November and 42 in December 1941.  In 1942, Wirraway production was 25 in January, 22 in February, 29 in March, 26 in April, 18 in May and 9 in June 1942 - when deliveries ended. 

Boomerang deliveries began in August 1942 with one aircraft.  They "climbed" to 3 in September, 5 in October, dropping to 4 in November and climbing again to 11 in December 1942.  Boomerang deliveries in 1943 started at 3 in January, 13 in February, 21 in March, 18 in April, 16 in May, 10 in June, 4 in July, 22 in August, 14 in September, 7 in October, 9 in November and ended with eight machines delivered in December 1943 (for a cumulative total of 169).  In 1944, the Aussies built 4 Boomerangs in January, 5 in February, 6 in March, 12 in April, 5 in May and June, 6 in July, 5 in August, 2 in September, 4 in October, 5 in November, and 7 in December for 248 cumulative aircraft delivered.  Deliveries ended in January 1945 with a run of thirteen more Boomerangs.

Australian production/deliveries of Beauforts began in August 1941 and ended in August 1944 with a cumulative total of 700 aircraft delivered during that period.  During 1941, the monthly manufacturing totals hovered between 2 and 3 with a cumulative total of 10 aircraft delivered.  In 1942, deliveries picked up from single digits (Jan - March) to reach 12 in April, 16 in May, 20 in June, 13 in July, 17 in August, 24 in September, 29 in October, 25 in November, and 24 in December 1942 for a cumulative total of 208 aircraft.  Deliveries increased slightly during 1943, beginning with 19 Beauforts per month in January, 27 in February, 23 in March, 27 in April, 24 in May, 33 during June through August, 37 in September, 34 in October, 32 in November, and 29 in December for a cumulative total of 559 aircraft.  Deliveries in 1944 spanned January through August, with peak figures in Jan and Feb 44 (25 and 26), dropping to 17 in March, 11 in April, 20 in May, 15 in June and July, and 12 in August for a cumulative total of 700 aircraft.

Australian Beaufighter deliveries began in may 1944.  This took me aback as it seemed to me that the Aussies were "making them" before that date.  The official history notes on page 412 that "for several reasons the proposal to manufacture the Beaufighter was temporarily abandoned and not revived until November 1942."   
Beaufighter deliveries in May 1944 totaled one aircraft, with two more built in June, 8 in July, 13 in August, 20 in September, 23 in October, 27 in November, and 18 in December 1944 for a cumulative total of 112.  During 1945, the Aussies produced 28 in January, 26 in February, 28 in March, 30 in April, 29 in May, 31 in June, 26 in July, and 19 in August for a cumulative total of 329.

Mark - a belated thank you. Good data is always helpful and welcome

[Long Lance]

May I set 'restrictions' for Airgroups other than range?
 
i. e. Betties from Rabaul may attack at up to a range of 11, but not Port Moresby (range 9 or so) and any TF or whatever that sits there?

[NormS3]

Has the firebombing in the late game changed any?

Is it easier to achieve a firestorm?

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

May I set 'restrictions' for Airgroups other than range?

i. e. Betties from Rabaul may attack at up to a range of 11, but not Port Moresby (range 9 or so) and any TF or whatever that sits there?

No

[Dili]

Does the splited units have their own name or will be A/B/C like in Witp or can be like in LCU's where they can start splitted under specific names and then when assembled loose that and split A/B/C?

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

May I set 'restrictions' for Airgroups other than range?

i. e. Betties from Rabaul may attack at up to a range of 11, but not Port Moresby (range 9 or so) and any TF or whatever that sits there?

No

Would a sector search limit an attack to that zone only? Let's say a Betty squadron have a sector search limit, it can still attack everywhere? even if so would there will be more chances attacking in their sector?

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Does the splited units have their own name or will be A/B/C like in Witp or can be like in LCU's where they can start splitted under specific names and then when assembled loose that and split A/B/C?

If you divide a unit (a division or a larger air unit) you get /A, /B, /C just like stock. Note many units start "broken down" (some even to companies) and if you dont re-form the parent these will remain as long as you want. After a few test runs through as the Japs I have determined that some of the Jap inf divs that are broken down to their battalions would work very well as garrison troops on the atolls (2 bns plus misc base forces). Generally the atolls arent big enough for a full regiment plus the additional base forces.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Dili

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

May I set 'restrictions' for Airgroups other than range?

i. e. Betties from Rabaul may attack at up to a range of 11, but not Port Moresby (range 9 or so) and any TF or whatever that sits there?

No

Would a sector search limit an attack to that zone only? Let's say a Betty squadron have a sector search limit, it can still attack everywhere? even if so would there will be more chances attacking in their sector?

Yes, it will still have a 360 degree attack arc. That isnt settable.

[Dili]

Okay but in first part of my question is if Air units can came split with their names instead of A/B/C and assembled like LCU's?

[DuckofTindalos]

Pre-split air units don't come with A/, B/, C/ etc. If you COMBINE them and then split them again, then you'll get A/, B/, etc...