AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Gormadoc]

Can anyone get even close to the same numbers of aircrafts destroyed in a Pearl Harbour attack compared to realworld attack.

Sofar my best attemp where 55 airplanes destroyed on ground according to combat report. That where with all airgroups attacking airfields.

Loading up the Allies, revealed they had total aircraft available on PH to be 247, with 136 rdy and 106 not rdy and 5 in reserve compared to
317 available, 227 rdy and 72 not rdy and 18 in reserve before PH attack.

Results in real attack where around 160-180 destroyed planes and around 100 damaged.

Perhaps increasing damage done to airplanes on ground in morning attack, if 7th december surprise is set to on, would be preferable?

[Walloc]

Do u play historic first turn or not?
I would assume u dont since u set all the planes to attack.

Reason i ask is i that did some tests on PH attacks some time after the game came out and unless some thing has changed and it might. Spurred on by a gut feeling.
I found a noteable difference in the damage done to ships and planes, depending on whether u play historic or non historic first turn. Even if u attack with exactly same settings, targets, attacking hex and so on.
I did the test as i recall 40 times on each setting. Each time closing the program to avoid distortions from the random generator. The average damage was notable different. On average approx 1.5 BB sunk more in historic then non historic turns. Overall damage shipping as well as plane damage was on average higher too. Average damage to ship was even higher in historic than non historic with all planes on port strikes. Tho i didnt test that very many times.

As well as the lost jap planes was markedly different. On average many more in non historic than historic turns.
Possibly explaining some of the damage difference as strikes "seemed more disrupted".

I can give no logical explanation for this only observe and notice it. My gut feeling in playing the game since is thats it hasnt changed, but i havent done any test to confirm that.
The non historic turns results was closer to the damage in the real attack if u want to make that comparison, btw. In as reference to damaged and sunken ships.

I might suggest to try and see what results u get by doing historic turns. Remember to close the program totally after each test. As apparently the random generator numbers might carry over from each started scn to next if u dont. Destroying the credibility of the statiscal factor in the tests. As per advice of Treespider.

Hope it helps,

Rasmus

[Gormadoc]

I play with 7th December surprise to on and Historical first turn on off, since i want to be able to adjust orders.

Historical first turn should only effect ability to change orders and not effecting combat results according to manual.

7th december surprise should increase damage to airplanes not flying.
With 7th December surprise set to on, i have no trouble to get a "historical" result with Port attack on PH.
Setting all airplanes to attack will regular result in a better result against ship than historical.
However its quite impossible to get a "historical result" against airbases, even by fully focussing initial attacks against airbases and ignore port attack.

Will try to set Historical first turn to on and compare results.

If that changes outcome significantly it would be appropiate to adjust manual so new players would be made aware that Historical First turn also effect combat results on first turn.

In any event thx for the reply.

[Walloc]

All my tests was ofc with surprise on in both cases.

I agree with what u say, as to how its players are lead to be belive its suppose to function and most likely how its intended. Its just my experience it doesnt.
Any how let us know what u find out. Would be interresting either way to see what results others might get from tests.
Especially interesting would be the results from all planes on airfield attack vs historic that has far from that.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Gormadoc]

Think you are correct.

A few test results, all test where done without changing orders in the test which had historical turn set to off.
Significantly higher casualties for allies with Historical first turn set to on compared to off, wich confirms the results you got.
two tests are ofcourse low, but since they confirm the result from a much larger amount of test, that you had already done, I dont think it is necesary with more test to conclude that Historical first turn also adds to damage.

Historical First Turn on, 7th December surprise on:

Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

58 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
243 total
141 rdy
95 not rdy
7 reserve
1 BB sunk medium damage to rest.



Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

65 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
242 total
149 rdy
80 not rdy
13 reserve
3 BB Sunk heavy damage to two others.


Historical first turn off, 7th december surprise on:
Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

37 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
274 total
161 rdy
104 not rdy
9 reserve
1 BB sunk medium damage to rest.


Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate
68 Zero

40 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
271 total
159 rdy
109 not rdy
3 reserve
1 BB sunk medium damage to rest.


Historical 1 turn off & 7th December surprise off 1:
Airplanes flying
126 Val
144 Kate (only 143 reached PH)
68 Zero

0 BB sunk, 1 BB medium damaged, rest minor damage.
15 planes destroyed on ground - acc. combat report

loading allies After attack.
261 total
193 rdy
67 not rdy
0 reserve

Lotts of allied airplanes where lost on attacks on Jap carrier fleet, which explains the same total number of airplanes.

[Walloc]

Thx for the report. Interesting question is ofc, why?
I dont think its intended, as u say its not what ppl gather from reading the manual.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Cad908]

A question came up in the war room about the actual role of Air HQ's.

Could I get a dev to answer these two questions?

Background: Base is Naga on Luzon. At the base is the V US Bomber Command. I have moved some air groups in to begin operations. Note: some are attached to V US Bomber Command, some to Fifth USAAF and others II US Fighter Command.

I would always spend the Political Points and attach all the groups to the V US Bomber Command as that is the ONLY Air HQ within command range in that the groups will activate and coordinate better by being in the range of the Air HQ it is attached to. Other players argue that as long as there is a HQ within command range, it does not matter, therefore I am wasting Political Points.

Questions:

1. Are the groups able to get better activation chances by being in the command range of the Air HQ it is ATTACHED to, or does it not matter?

2. Are the groups more likely to coordinate by being in the command range of the Air HQ it is ATTACHED to, or does it not matter?

Thank you

[henhute6]

I played War in pacific a lot in 2001-2003 and allied code names for japanese fighters were deleted in latest version. I would like to see that also in admiral's edition. It's strange to see "Oscar" when it should be Hayabusa and "Tony" when it should be Hien.

Also metric system would be great in air combat.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: henhute6

I played War in pacific a lot in 2001-2003 and allied code names for japanese fighters were deleted in latest version. I would like to see that also in admiral's edition. It's strange to see "Oscar" when it should be Hayabusa and "Tony" when it should be Hien.

You can do this yourself via the editor

Also metric system would be great in air combat.

While I come from an "enlightened metric society" too ... what you are asking is for a complete code base change ... doubt that will ever happen ... Not that I know but back in the 40's metric probably wasn't used for altitudes in planes anyway ... Are they used today ?[&:]

[henhute6]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Not that I know but back in the 40's metric probably wasn't used for altitudes in planes anyway ... Are they used today ?[&:]

Depends nationality of plane. German and Japanese pilots definitely had their altimeters in metric.

http://www.thunderace.org/images/bf109cockpit.jpg

[tigercub]

The Lilly Ki-48 II2 payload 200kg? this looks to be in error there payload was 300kg normal for ki-48 I & 400kg max load and for the Ki-48II models 400kg was the normal load..infomation from>.R.J francillon ... ALF?

Tigercub

[witpqs]

The USN SB2C-5 (slot 484) has no radar, but all previous models of the SB2C do have radar. Is this correct or an oversight?

EDIT to add: I've looked around and I have not seen any reference to radar being deleted in the -5, only fuel capacity being added. So, I presume this is an error and should have the same radar as the previous model.

[Reg]

Ive just been going through the aircraft data in the editor to ensure I have the right rotating art associated with aircraft types.

However I noticed that the Hurricane IV armament is totally incorrect in Scenario 1. The editor shows this aircraft fitted with 4x Device 168 (20mm Hispano Cannon) and 2x Device 203 (500lb GP Bomb).

In reality the Hurricane IV had a Universal Wing with hard points for 2x Vickers 40mm Cannon (similar to the Hurricane IId) or 2x 500lb Bombs or 8x 3" Rockets or 2x fuel tanks (or combination thereof) plus a pair of permanent wing mounted 0.303 machine guns for sighting purposes. It also had significant engine, armour and airframe improvements over the Hurricane IId which I assume have already been included in the aircraft stats.

Would it be possible to get this corrected in a future update please?

Also on this topic is the 3" Rockets which I believe was the main armament option used by this (and many other) aircraft types during the later part of the war. These rockets are currently not included in the game but do you know if there are there any plans to include them as they are a historically significant armament option??? [&:]

[latosusi]

Those 40 mm cannons seem to be totally ineffective in their intented role: tankbusting

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Those 40 mm cannons seem to be totally ineffective in their intented role: tankbusting

As I recall, they were very effective--the top surface of an AFV has particularly thin armour since it's not exposed to direct attack in most tactical situations. It is a major vulnerability when the tank is operating in a 3-D environment.

[latosusi]

I attecked jap tank regiment with them for few days, not a single tank lost

[jcjordan]

I noticed that the Chinese air units 2522-2533 in Karachi come in w/ US nationality pilots assigned to them & the game initially doesn't seem to recognize them as being in the unit even though they are on the pilot roster. IE you may have 8 American pilots asigned to the unit on it's arrival & max pilots is 16 for the unit, you can draw 16 Chinese pilots for a total of 24 pilots but it seems that after running a turn it does set itself straight. So only looks like this situation is only for the 1st day the units arrive.
 
 Also VMF211 (2587) doesn't seem to resize to 24 like all the other VMF units instead it stays at 18 a/c. No163RCAF (3007)doesn't resize to 16 from 12 like the other RCAF fighter units. VMSB241 (2613) doesn't resize to 24 from 18 like the other VSMB units.
 
58th BS (3634) resizes to US FS size (25 from 16) in Aug 43 but is locked to bombers until the P-38L comes along.  Also I don't seem to see a name change for it either or w/d date to become something else from unit tab. IIRC this unit became 531st FBS in Aug 43 using A-24s so should it w/d in late Jul43 to come back in mid Aug43 as 531st FBS w/ A-24's w/ upgrade at that point to P-38's at Pearl?
 
This is scen 1 of my game started under original release so things may have changed since then.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: henhute6

Also metric system would be great in air combat.

While I come from an "enlightened metric society" too ... what you are asking is for a complete code base change ... doubt that will ever happen ... Not that I know but back in the 40's metric probably wasn't used for altitudes in planes anyway ... Are they used today ?[&:]

Aircraft altitudes in air traffic control still use the English system.

[Pascal_slith]

Reposted from main forum.


fter extensive sifting of original data on the performance of the PBY Catalina flying boats
(versions -4 through -6A) (see links and references at the end of this post) the endurance
data in the database (lower right of the database screen in the editor) should be as follows
(data for USN, other countries' versions in parentheses):



PBY-4 (sequence is max, extended, normal, max DT, ext DT, normal DT): 2965, 2340, 1950, 0, 0, 0

PBY-5 2850, 2350, 1950, 3350, 2650, 2350 (also RAAF Catalina I, RNZAF, ML-KNIL and RAF Catalina IVA and VI; Soviet PBN-1)

PBY-5A 2790, 1940, 1650, 3300, 2540, 2290 (also RCAF Canso A, RAF Cat IIIA)

PBY-6A 1830, 1250, 980, 2140, 1430, 1140


The Catalina variants in the game have too little range. Yes, this has been a quip of mine for a few years now and I've posted before about it (along with I think a fair number of others).

The Japanese Mavis and Emily should also have longer ranges (I'm working on this too), as should some of the Betty versions.



Sources:

General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors (Putnam's History of Aircraft)

RAAF Performance evaluation documents here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight ... 14239.html

(The ww2aircraft.net website has a wealth of performance data on many, many aircraft)

US Navy PBY Catalina Units of the Pacific War (Osprey)

PBY: The Catalina Flying Boat by Roscoe Creed

Flying Cats: The Catalina Aircraft in World War II by Andrew Hendrie

Excellent article from Popular Mechanics of 1943: http://books.google.com/books?id=xdYDAA ... e&q&f=true

US Navy historical center website has data on certain US Navy aircraft of WWII. For Catalina check:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/pby-6a.pdf

[wdolson]

One of the problems in most sources is that the numbers quoted are the optimum maximums.  Results in the field were usually less than that.

Bill