AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[gingerbread]

There is a rather large gap in time during which no B-17s are replaced.
'F' model stops after 09/42 and 'G' starts in 09/45.

/g

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

There is a rather large gap in time during which no B-17s are replaced.
'F' model stops after 09/42 and 'G' starts in 09/45.

/g

The 8th USAAF getting all the B-17's especially given their losses during the daylight raids?

[Sardaukar]

Leaking CAP-issue, as per here:

tm.asp?m=2303098

I know it is working same as in WitP, but in AE, the power of Sweep-mission has been increased. This can lead to deliberate attempts to unbalance air war model by directing Sweeps to nearby base, causing CAP to "leak" there in small numbers, thus being outnumbered and against superior mission type. This can lead to extremely lopsided kill-ratios.

What I'd suggest, is to stop CAP leaking, when unit range is set as 0. It would be fine if CAP would leak with higher range settings (1 and more), since it is occasionally very useful and would in this case be player-adjustable.

I wonder if that would be possible to program?

[bsq]

Could some one please explain the maths here (whilst I go off and copy the save for the inevitable post-mortem).

-------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Rangoon at 54,53
 
Weather in hex: Light cloud
 
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 33 minutes
 
Japanese aircraft
      Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 5
      Ki-43-IV Oscar x 12
      Ki-67-Ib Peggy x 8
      Ki-84b Frank x 1
 
 
 
Allied aircraft
      Spitfire VIII x 12
      Thunderbolt I x 3
      P-51D Mustang x 9
 
 
Japanese aircraft losses
      Ki-43-IIb Oscar: 3 destroyed
      Ki-43-IV Oscar: 6 destroyed
      Ki-67-Ib Peggy: 5 destroyed
      Ki-84b Frank: 1 destroyed
 
 
Allied Ships
      xAK Oregonian, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
      xAK Steel Traveler, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
      xAK Tak Sang, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
      xAK Steel Engineer, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
      xAK Hupeh, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
      xAK Testbank, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
      xAK Robert Luckenbach, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
      xAK Nora Moller, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
 
 
 
Aircraft Attacking:
       8 x Ki-67-Ib Peggy flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  3 x 250 kg GP Bomb
 
CAP engaged:
23rd FG/75th FS with P-51D Mustang (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      (9 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
      0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 10000
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
No.135 Sqn RAF with Thunderbolt I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      (3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
      0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 20000
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
No.81 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      (8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
      0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 20000
      Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
No.8 Sqn RIAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
      (4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
      0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
      Group patrol altitude is 20000
      Raid is overhead
------------------------------------------------------

So there were 8 Peggy being used as Kamikazes, the CAP/Flak got 5, yet the remaining 3 got 8 ships!!

There is no way that this sort of anomaly (downright 'cheating') by the AI can be explained.  Even if one argues that the CAP got recalled and the 5 Peggy's were lost by gunfire from the TF - how were only 5 destroyed for 8 Kamikaze hits.
 

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

There is a rather large gap in time during which no B-17s are replaced.
'F' model stops after 09/42 and 'G' starts in 09/45.

/g

The B-17's were pulled from the Pacific and B-24s took their place because of the better range of the 24. There were other reasons that escape me right now.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

There is a rather large gap in time during which no B-17s are replaced.
'F' model stops after 09/42 and 'G' starts in 09/45.

/g

The B-17's were pulled from the Pacific and B-24s took their place because of the better range of the 24. There were other reasons that escape me right now.

Such as they were easier to fly - absolutely critical in Europe where the box formation was flown and the experience levels of the crews were lower due the high attrition of the aircrews - and they sacrificed bomb-load for .3 and .5 cal machine-guns and ammunition - again crucial to give them a chance in the precision daylight raids they were involved with.

I doubt in a Europe first scenario, the 'better' range of the 24 was primary concern, moreover it was a case of whatever was needed for the ETO was provided.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: bsq

Could some one please explain the maths here (whilst I go off and copy the save for the inevitable post-mortem).

-------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Rangoon at 54,53

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 33 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 5
     Ki-43-IV Oscar x 12
     Ki-67-Ib Peggy x 8
     Ki-84b Frank x 1



Allied aircraft
     Spitfire VIII x 12
     Thunderbolt I x 3
     P-51D Mustang x 9


Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-43-IIb Oscar: 3 destroyed
     Ki-43-IV Oscar: 6 destroyed
     Ki-67-Ib Peggy: 5 destroyed
     Ki-84b Frank: 1 destroyed


Allied Ships
     xAK Oregonian, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
     xAK Steel Traveler, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
     xAK Tak Sang, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
     xAK Steel Engineer, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
     xAK Hupeh, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
     xAK Testbank, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
     xAK Robert Luckenbach, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk
     xAK Nora Moller, Kamikaze hits 1, and is sunk



Aircraft Attacking:
      8 x Ki-67-Ib Peggy flying as kamikaze
              Kamikaze:  3 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
23rd FG/75th FS with P-51D Mustang (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     (9 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
     0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 9 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 10000
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 12 minutes
No.135 Sqn RAF with Thunderbolt I (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     (3 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
     0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 3 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 20000
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 5 minutes
No.81 Sqn RAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     (8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
     0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 8 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 20000
     Time for all group planes to reach interception is 11 minutes
No.8 Sqn RIAF with Spitfire VIII (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
     (4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
     0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 4 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
     Group patrol altitude is 20000
     Raid is overhead
------------------------------------------------------

So there were 8 Peggy being used as Kamikazes, the CAP/Flak got 5, yet the remaining 3 got 8 ships!!

There is no way that this sort of anomaly (downright 'cheating') by the AI can be explained.  Even if one argues that the CAP got recalled and the 5 Peggy's were lost by gunfire from the TF - how were only 5 destroyed for 8 Kamikaze hits.

Is this an AI game? Is it a stock scenario?

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

There's also several VFB units set to arrive in Jan 45 that arrive on the different Essex class carriers but they show in the air reinforcement queue. I wonder if, with the above problem w/ the VMF squadrons on Lex & Sara, if they will arrive or not? I've also found some FAA units the same way - FAA 1830,1836, 1835, 1841, 1842, VBF units - 1,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,82

Code should account for these as part of the CAG resizing (famous last words).

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Also found that VBF6 is set to come in on Essex, shouldn't that be Enterprise?

Correct.

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Hello Air chaps!

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I wondered what was the official position on the "uber single-engined carrier torpedo bombers" issue? Namely the fact that Kates and Avengers have a distinctive tendency to be better at 20.000 ft horizontal bombing than Val and Dauntless crews are at dive bombing ^^

Cf my earlier post
tm.asp?m=2294064

Any plan to look into this, if it hasn't been done yet?

Thanks in advance!

Odd...

ORIGINAL: Pascal

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Yes, this is going to be a pet peev. I've seen this error since WitP.

The Catalina flying boats (almost all versions) are not given enough range compared to actual, historical ranges (verified by actual test documents from WWII which can be found at

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight ... 14239.html

Not just the PBY-5 could make it to Pearl Harbor from the West Coast, but so could the PBY-5A. This has an influence on strategic flexibility.

Similarly, according to Francillion's work on Japanese aircraft (and some Japanese sources), both the Mavis and Emily flying boats are also under-ranged in WitP AE.

I've looked at the DB all the way up to the 1094 beta patch.

I'll post revised data shortly.

According to his bio by Potter, whenever Nimitz had to attend meetings in the San Francisco area he flew in a PBY. That is until one time when upon landing they struck a submerged log (not visible to the pilots). The plane flipped over and seriously injured the pilots and Nimitz himself had minor injuries. After that the 'even higher' brass detailed a 4-engine land based transport for his personal use.

Pascal - they set aircraft ranges to get the mission ranges as correct as possible. Perhaps (due to the formulas in the code) they simply had to sacrifice some transfer range?

Each range in the database can now be set individually, not like in WitP. So transfer range, extended range and normal range are now independent of each other. In WitP everything was dependent.

Yes, I read in a number of books the story of Nimitz and his PBY flipping. He was very lucky.

Here are my range numbers based on original military docs and published sources for the PBY's

PBY-5
Max range: 2850
Extended range: 2350
Normal range: 1950
Max DT: 3350
Ext. DT: 2650
Norm. DT: 2350

PBY-5A
Max: 2790
Ext : 1940
Norm : 1650
Max DT: 3300
Ext DT: 2540
Norm DT: 2290

The Catalina I's (PBY-5), Dutch PBY-5's and Canadian Canso A (PBY-5A) have to be modified accordingly.

[:)] -> tm.asp?m=2239022

ORIGINAL: timtom

Actually arriving at range numbers and applying them with some sort of consistancy across the hundreds of different a/c in the game has been a headache of epic proportions. We've comprehesively reviewed our original data set twice.

The problem is in part the quality of data available. In my experience, with only a few exceptions technical aviation literature on the period is remarkably light on "hard" data, and if any is presented it's usually in isolation - the reader is presented with a couple (at best) of range numbers without any elucidation on a/c load conditions etc. Often the more detailed/technical a reference is, the less "hard" data it'll have, perhaps in aknowledgement of the ultimately futile nature of the quest - an aircraft after all is a rather different piece of technology from, say, a dishwasher and its performance can vary greatly depending on load state, altitude, speed, weather, wear, and pilot experience. Lastly aviation literature seems to shun references and footnotes like the plague, so it's usually nay impossible to establish interdepence. Lastly, performance data is usually (always) arrived at under test conditions under ideal conditions with mint aircraft and top-notch air- and ground crews. In other cases, range performance is arrived at mathematically.

The second challenge is then to translate the data into game terms with the inherent constraints therein. In all cases we've presumed that a/c always operates with a fuel reserve plus that flying at "extended" range is inherently more risky than the more conservative "normal" range. Different presumptions have been made about different categories of aircraft depending on different presumptions about load states and mission types undertaken. Compressing a large, varied and three-dimensiona data-set into a smaller, simplified and two-dimensional but set of game data invariably leads to compromises etc. Fx if one strips a PBY-5 of its armour, self-sealers, armament and any other tactical equipment, top up on fuel, keep the load to a minimum, and then chug along at optimum speed-for-range you'll get quite the milage on her - fx Quantas operated a connection from Perth (IIRC) to Colombo direct, which is well over 3,000 miles.

In fact the BuAer data on the PBY-5 dated August 19th 1942 states a maximum range of 4,100 statute miles on 1750 US gallons @ 7,000 ft/114mph, clean (no armour, self-sealers removed, no guns, ammo or tactical load) at 30,470 lbs and no fuel reserve. Just copy-pasting this figure into the game presents two methodological problems: 1) Should we automatically presume a best-case scenario on transfer range? This might make sense when considering, say, a San Fran to Pearl flight where one can ride a radio beacon and get all the tactical equipment replaced on arrival, but perhaps less so if the destination is some SoPac "dot base". 2) Applying the best-case scenario here demands that it be applied in ALL cases, which in turn requires that the necesary data is available. The detail given in the BuAer source is the exception rather than the norm however, so using this range number then poses the question whether this a/c has now been given an advantage over other a/c for which less detailed data is available.

Screen is of the data we chose to use on the PBY-5. However it is recognised that the PBY ought to be able to reach PH (it's a hex short IIRC). Fear not, I'll suitably chastice the dumbo responsible. ALL in-game ranges are less that RL theoretical ranges though, to account for operational realites such as fuel reserves etc.

Miles = Statute ->

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: timtom

However it is recognised that the PBY ought to be able to reach PH (it's a hex short IIRC). Fear not, I'll suitably chastice the dumbo responsible.

I don't understand. Did you mean to have it be changed so they will reach Pearl Harbor or not? As of Patch 2 they still don't reach.

In real life were the PBYs flown or crated and shipped to Pearl and points west?

If this is not going to be changed a solution would be that those VP units that were historically sent to the Central and South Pacific come into the game at Pearl. Not ideal but better.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Each range in the database can now be set individually, not like in WitP. So transfer range, extended range and normal range are now independent of each other. In WitP everything was dependent.

I don't see how this can be accomplished with the Editor. Maybe I am not understanding what you mean.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: timtom

However it is recognised that the PBY ought to be able to reach PH (it's a hex short IIRC). Fear not, I'll suitably chastice the dumbo responsible.

I don't understand. Did you mean to have it be changed so they will reach Pearl Harbor or not? As of Patch 2 they still don't reach.

In real life were the PBYs flown or crated and shipped to Pearl and points west?

If this is not going to be changed a solution would be that those VP units that were historically sent to the Central and South Pacific come into the game at Pearl. Not ideal but better.

They could fly to Pearl. Which ones did and which ones didn't I do not know.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: timtom

However it is recognised that the PBY ought to be able to reach PH (it's a hex short IIRC). Fear not, I'll suitably chastice the dumbo responsible.

I don't understand. Did you mean to have it be changed so they will reach Pearl Harbor or not? As of Patch 2 they still don't reach.

Too late to action for patch 2, sorry. Not a small thing as ALL transfer ranges has to be recomputed to avoid given any particular a/c an arbitrary advantage. It will be sorted for patch 3.

IIRC the in-game transit can presently be made via Alaska if need be.

[HansBolter]

When switching a bomber from training to any other mission the 10% positive increment buttons are missing and do not appear until after one has hit the positive 100% button and then hit the negative 10% button. In order to go from 0% to 10% one has to first go to 100% and then back down in 10% increments. The buttons are not missing from the fighters when they are switched from training to any other mission, it appear to happen only to bombers.






p.s was wrong about it being different for fighters, they suffer from the same lack of buttons.

[ChezDaJez]

Back to the pilot's skill levels...

The manual contradicts the conventional wisdom being put out by the board regarding the display of skill increases.

Page 146 of the LITE pdf manual states:

Colors may be used on this screen to denote significant changes in the status of pilots. A pilot’s
name in yellow indicates his Overall EXP is above 80 and is eligible to transfer to the Training
Command. White indicates he is currently assigned a plane and is ready to fly. Black indicates
he is removed from flight duty due to excessive fatigue or a shortage of aircraft. Red means
this pilot’s aircraft is being repaired and is not usable. The pilot may be given a new aircraft if
one is available due to pilot loss or additional planes. A Green Sub skill means this value has
increased since the start of the month. Skills improve relatively easily at low values, but it is
harder to gain a skill level at higher values.

Several posters and my own experience indicate that this is not neceesarily true. It appears that a skill highlighted in green reflects a change from the latest turn and that orange either reflects changes from the beginning of the month or the last 30 days. Not quite sure which.

It would be nice if all the clarifications and corrections could be gathered in one place. Maybe we could have a sticky thread regarding manual errata changes and updates. In this way, people can gather the new info into a word file and print it out.

Would certainly help cut down on the number of similar postings.

Chez

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

It appears that a skill highlighted in green reflects a change from the latest turn and that orange either reflects changes from the beginning of the month or the last 30 days.

Correct

[sspahr]

The F-6C (USAAF Tac Recon slot 318) has speed and climb stats equivalent to the Allison-engined P-51A. The F-6Cs were all modified from the Merlin-engined B and C models, and the performance values should reflect that. Also, the side art for that aircraft represents an F-6D.

[Pascal_slith]

Two websites with a lot of flight manuals and performance data of WW2 aircraft available.  I've downloaded quite a few (still trolling for more).
 
www.ww2aircraft.net  - go especially to the technical section.  In there, two sections are important for original performance data (and much more including complete flight manuals): the section labelled Flight Test Data and the section labelled Other Mechanical Systems Tech.  These allowed me to get the original range data for a few of the PBY models, confirming that the 5a should also be able to reach Pearl Harbor from San Fran.  The data for my previous post was supported by this documentation (and trolling at a few other sites).  Having such original data is far better than almost any book out there.  And it's all free.
 
The second site is  http://www.seawings.co.uk/  which is dedicated to flying boats.  Here, you can get the flight manuals for the Empire, Singapore, Sunderland, Calcutta, Seaford and soon a number of others.
 
There is some Japanese data on ww2aircraft.net .

[Q-Ball]

Question for the Devs:

I posted this in the main forum, but noone seemed to know the answer. Do you?

What does pilot EXPERIENCE do? I understand, for example, that better "NavT" experience makes it more likely you get a torp hit, and "Defn" makes that pilot harder to shoot down. But what does generic "EXPERIENCE" do?

I ask because pilots gain skills faster than experience, and it is not uncommon to see a pilot with a very high skill level, but lower experience

Is "EXP" kind of a summation of all the skill levels, or a separate stand-alone trait that modifies all the other ones in practice?

[gajdacs zsolt]

Hi,

This was probably brought up before, and it's not a big deal, but why is the Kawasaki Ha-40 called Ha-60 (the engine of the ki-61) ingame?

[Grotius]

What does pilot EXPERIENCE do? I understand, for example, that better "NavT" experience makes it more likely you get a torp hit, and "Defn" makes that pilot harder to shoot down. But what does generic "EXPERIENCE" do?

I'm glad someone asked this question, because I don't understand either!