AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]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
Howard Mitchell
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:41 am
Location: Blighty

RE: adding pilots

Post by Howard Mitchell »

The B-29-1 Superfortress is shown as having 3x0.5" MGs and 1x20mm cannon as tail armament, rather than 2x0.5" MGs and 1x20mm cannon.

Image

The original B-29 tail armament was 2x0.5" MGs and 1x20mm cannon, but the cannon was often removed as its shells followed a different trajectory to the MGs, and firing the three guns together was not effective as the computer only calculated for the MGs. It was recommended that the gunner only fire the cannon when the target was close (not more than 600 yards). The cannon feed mechanism also tended to jam. (Info from William Wolf's book on the B-29).

Often a third 0.5" was added in the cannon's place, and AE shows the later B-29s as having 3x0.5" MG only.
While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim
bsq
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:11 pm

RE: adding pilots

Post by bsq »

Some Air Leader issues:

Keith Park - should be an Air Marshal (promoted in 1941 when he took over at Malta). His stats (IMO) are too low. He was considered one of the greatest Air Commanders ever produced by the RAF (even though he was a New Zealander), yet he rates (much) lower than Curtis LeMay. At the very least his Air Skill should be on par with LeMay and his Skill and Inspiration should be much higher.


mikemike
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by mikemike »

In the Coral Sea scenario, the 3rd BG/89th BS (Air Group 3667) upgrades to aircraft type 270, which doesn't exist. The message in the Operations Report is "3rd BG/89th BS has an invalid upgrade from A-20A Havoc to # 270". This error also exists in the Aleutian Scenario, where the unit isn't active.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
User avatar
invernomuto
Posts: 942
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Turin, Italy

RE: adding pilots

Post by invernomuto »

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

What is going on with pilot availability?  The manual says pilots may not be available to fly based on extreme fatigue or not enough planes for all the pilots.

Well, the first is not happening; I've got pilots with barely any fatigue on the 'no fly' list in every squadron.  It's not the second one either; in fact, I've got more flyable planes than available pilots in nearly every squadron I've looked at.  Some, such as my fighter squadrons, have only half the available pilots for flyable planes.

This is crippling my carriers; I don't dare send my CV's out of harbor with only 4-6 fighter pilots available for the entire squadron, even though there are 30+ pilots in each one!  Attack squadrons don't appear to be affected nearly as badly; my land based torpedo bombers have as many pilots as flyable planes, for example, and the attack squadrons on the CV's aren't as bad as the fighter squadrons either.

True, there is definitely something strange. Here are some screenshots.
This air unit has an average fatigue of ZERO and 26 serviceable aricrafts. Some pilots are listed in black and not avaliable for flying according to the manual.
Why?



Image
Attachments
Pilotnotavaliable.jpg
Pilotnotavaliable.jpg (129.71 KiB) Viewed 427 times
User avatar
invernomuto
Posts: 942
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Turin, Italy

RE: adding pilots

Post by invernomuto »

Here is the air unit screenshot

Image
Attachments
pilotiAirUnit.jpg
pilotiAirUnit.jpg (139.79 KiB) Viewed 427 times
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Swordfish II

Post by timtom »

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Sasebo Ku S-1 and Kawai Det are the Claudes that do not upgrade.
ORIGINAL: fcam1387

Yamada-Det S-2
Saesbo KU S-1
3rd Hicotai IMAF

All WAD.
ORIGINAL: Speedy

A general query on the A-29. It has no replacements coming in online yet more than a few units with the blighters in. Assuem it's intentional etc? Sheesh it's tough being Allies at game start....so few replacements........

Well..yes. 41st BG didn't actually deploy overseas until autumn of '43.
ORIGINAL: fbs

19th BG/32nd BS and 19th BG/32nd BS Det are both in San Francisco - just combine them
7th BG/9th BS and 7th BG/9th BS Det are both in San Francisco (should the main unit be in Pearl Harbor?)

In both cases the detachments upgrade to the LB-30.
ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

The Buffalo MK1 was armed with 4x0.5 machine guns in AE. However re-reading Bloody Shambles and Buffalos over Singapore, it would appear a number of Buffalos were using 0.303 brownings as wing guns. This was due to problems with the 0.5 machine guns jamming after a rounds being fired.

MJT

We only get to pick one gun suite per a/c. Generally we've gone with the "factory" version rather than any of the any number of field mods.
ORIGINAL: John Lansford

All four of my USN CV's have many more pilots for their fighter squadrons than are currently flying. I've got one squadron that has 30+ pilots but only 3 men are listed as available for flying (names are white, everyone else's is black). The manual says their names going black means they've got excess fatigue or very low experience, but neither is applicable in any of these squadrons. I've got pilots with 11 fatigue and 70 experience flying, while there are more experienced pilots with 0 fatigue listed as black.

I've docked their ships at Pearl, I've put them on "training/rest", I've tried everything, but only a small group of pilots remain available for flying. What is going on here?

"Blacklisted" pilots should be tapped to fly missions regardless. Being "blacklisted" does not mean that the pilot isn't available to fly come the execution of the turn.
ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

Will Pilot pool limit be so high so that the game will not ever reach the death limit, and start to purge pilots from both sides at will ?

I believe so, yes.
ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

Production of Hurricane IIbs for the RAF should start in december 1941 in order to ensure 488 squadron is able to change to them by January 23 1942. As took place in real life. Also they should not be given the dutch artwork.

Many thanks

MJT
ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

Hurricanes IIbs for the Dutch should total 29 machines not 27 as set as this moment in time.

Many thanks

MJT

Post #1439 this thread ->
ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

Now I would like to point out that 488 Sqn RNZAF upgrades to Hurricanes which it should do, But why are they the Dutch artwork version?

Deliberately set up that way (long story), but you question has caused me to rethink it...fiddle, fiddle...right, sorted - from patch 1 anyway :)
ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell

The B-29-1 Superfortress is shown as having 3x0.5" MGs and 1x20mm cannon as tail armament, rather than 2x0.5" MGs and 1x20mm cannon.

The original B-29 tail armament was 2x0.5" MGs and 1x20mm cannon, but the cannon was often removed as its shells followed a different trajectory to the MGs, and firing the three guns together was not effective as the computer only calculated for the MGs. It was recommended that the gunner only fire the cannon when the target was close (not more than 600 yards). The cannon feed mechanism also tended to jam. (Info from William Wolf's book on the B-29).

Often a third 0.5" was added in the cannon's place, and AE shows the later B-29s as having 3x0.5" MG only.



ANTZ!
ORIGINAL: bsq

Some Air Leader issues:

Keith Park - should be an Air Marshal (promoted in 1941 when he took over at Malta). His stats (IMO) are too low. He was considered one of the greatest Air Commanders ever produced by the RAF (even though he was a New Zealander), yet he rates (much) lower than Curtis LeMay. At the very least his Air Skill should be on par with LeMay and his Skill and Inspiration should be much higher.

Ground Team's headache [8D]






Where's the Any key?

Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Swordfish II

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: timtom
ORIGINAL: John Lansford

All four of my USN CV's have many more pilots for their fighter squadrons than are currently flying. I've got one squadron that has 30+ pilots but only 3 men are listed as available for flying (names are white, everyone else's is black). The manual says their names going black means they've got excess fatigue or very low experience, but neither is applicable in any of these squadrons. I've got pilots with 11 fatigue and 70 experience flying, while there are more experienced pilots with 0 fatigue listed as black.

I've docked their ships at Pearl, I've put them on "training/rest", I've tried everything, but only a small group of pilots remain available for flying. What is going on here?

"Blacklisted" pilots should be tapped to fly missions regardless. Being "blacklisted" does not mean that the pilot isn't available to fly come the execution of the turn.

Well - what does it mean when the pilot is displayed in black text?
User avatar
R8J
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Shelby County, Tennessee

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by R8J »

Scenario 2

Slots 423 and 424, F4F-3 Wildcat and F4F-3P Wildcat. Has drop tank ranges. No drop tank assigned.
Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Who Dares Wins.

You smell like dead bunnies.
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by herwin »

Does WitP AE Staff work for the non-campaign scenarios?
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Swordfish II

Post by timtom »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: timtom

"Blacklisted" pilots should be tapped to fly missions regardless. Being "blacklisted" does not mean that the pilot isn't available to fly come the execution of the turn.

Well - what does it mean when the pilot is displayed in black text?

That a pilot's not currently assigned an a/c. This does not prevent him from being assigned one during turn execution.
ORIGINAL: R8J

Scenario 2

Slots 423 and 424, F4F-3 Wildcat and F4F-3P Wildcat. Has drop tank ranges. No drop tank assigned.

Thanks Robert - already reported though :)
ORIGINAL: herwin

Does WitP AE Staff work for the non-campaign scenarios?

That would be a question for Woos on the WitPStaff thread on the Tech sub-forum.


Where's the Any key?

Image
bsq
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:11 pm

Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by bsq »

I currently have my USN carriers denuded of aircraft, but they are not being replaced, even when docking at places like PH and Sydney where there is 200k+ supply. Checking the pools, production etc against the aircraft types concerned there is nothing in the pool and no production - OK, so I upgrade - but I cannot because there is no pool or production for the aircraft type that the unit will upgrade to. If I can't get the upgrade path to show F4F-4, then I may as well cede the whole of the Central/South Pacific to the AI.

So is this dead end intentional?? If the upgrade is linear with no option to alter the path like there is WITP then the allied player is stuffed until 1943 when the Hellcats come on line. It seems as though you have one chance at a Midway type encounter and then you have used up all your carrier aircraft and then have to wait for the Essex etc.

Is my only option to disband/withdraw my VF, VS and VB Sqns and lay my carriers up for 60 days? Have I missed a trick on the production front. The window of production for some of these aircraft types seems very narrow!

At the moment I am using the limited number of less effective VM Sqns to bolster the CVW's, but surely this is not as intended.

Of course at the moment I am benefiting from the bug that has provided 72 Corsairs on Lex, Sara, Yorktown and Hornet, but once they are gone it's back to PH for my carriers.
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by Mynok »


If you didn't select player defined upgrades then yes, you are stuck to the historical path. And the F4Fs were historically in very short supply.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
EasilyConfused
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:18 pm

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by EasilyConfused »

A minor error I just noticed, apologies if it has already been reported.  Air Group entry 3831 (407th BG/633th BS) has 122 ready aircraft instead of 12.  Now that I type this, it occurs to me that it should be 633rd not 633th as well, but that's not terribly important.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by witpqs »

The P-36A Mohawk is shown as a 'Float Fighter'!!!
User avatar
Chad Harrison
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:07 pm
Location: Boise, ID - USA

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by Chad Harrison »

Did a search, but didnt see any results.

For Scen 1, the PBJ-1H (459) is listed as having avail dates from 10/44 to 1/43. Screenshot below.



Image
Attachments
pbj.jpg
pbj.jpg (53.76 KiB) Viewed 427 times
User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by RyanCrierie »

Aircraft 492 SO3C-2 Seamew doesn't have the FLOAT CAPABLE toggle on, even though it's a floatplane.
ussdefiant
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:06 pm

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by ussdefiant »

A problem in Scenario 2, the Tony starts production in 11/42, but their engines don't start until 2/43.
User avatar
langleyCV1
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:17 pm
Location: Berkshire UK

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by langleyCV1 »

Can Anyone see VP9 in Scenario 1 or has it been missed!

MJT
"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"
User avatar
langleyCV1
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:17 pm
Location: Berkshire UK

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by langleyCV1 »

Sorry My mistake it became VP12 not sure if this served in the Pacific.

MJT
"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

Post by timtom »

ORIGINAL: bsq

I currently have my USN carriers denuded of aircraft, but they are not being replaced, even when docking at places like PH and Sydney where there is 200k+ supply. Checking the pools, production etc against the aircraft types concerned there is nothing in the pool and no production - OK, so I upgrade - but I cannot because there is no pool or production for the aircraft type that the unit will upgrade to. If I can't get the upgrade path to show F4F-4, then I may as well cede the whole of the Central/South Pacific to the AI.

So is this dead end intentional?? If the upgrade is linear with no option to alter the path like there is WITP then the allied player is stuffed until 1943 when the Hellcats come on line. It seems as though you have one chance at a Midway type encounter and then you have used up all your carrier aircraft and then have to wait for the Essex etc.

Is my only option to disband/withdraw my VF, VS and VB Sqns and lay my carriers up for 60 days? Have I missed a trick on the production front. The window of production for some of these aircraft types seems very narrow!

At the moment I am using the limited number of less effective VM Sqns to bolster the CVW's, but surely this is not as intended.

Of course at the moment I am benefiting from the bug that has provided 72 Corsairs on Lex, Sara, Yorktown and Hornet, but once they are gone it's back to PH for my carriers.

What's the game date?
PDU or NPDU?
How many VF, VB, VT have you lost?
Did you upgrade USMC units at first opportunity?
Have you "downgraded" any USMC units?
How, in general, have you operated your CV's?
Where's the Any key?

Image
Post Reply

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