Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

In the campaign, there are no B5N2 Kate factories. Is this correct?

There is a size 0 factory in Hiroshima/Kure.

Andrew

Ahh, thanks Andrew.

I noticed that in the campaign, the 54th IF Chutai has 27 ready planes.  A bit high, you think?

I found 2 minor glitches in the UI.

#1

1. Go to the "All Land Based Planes" Screen
2. Isolate so that only fighters are showing (however, this glitch does happens with all types of air units)
3. Isolate so that only 1 country/branch is showing (i.e. Russia)
4. Use any of the buttons on the bottom (i.e. "Allow replacements for all units on this list")
5. Now show all of the other units/branches and you will notice that step 4 applied to ALL fighters, whether they were showing or not. This glitch does not cross over to different types of planes...meaning that if the fighters were the type isolated, then it would only effect fighters.

#2

1. Go to any base with an air unit
2. open the screen for any specific air unit
3. Click on the button to show other air units under the same HQ
4. Hit the "back" button. This should take you back to the specific air unit screen....instead, it takes you to the "All Land Base Planes" screen

These are more of a UI issue then they are an air unit issue. However, I didn't know where else to post it.

Any a/c equipped with the camera device should be able to fly the recon mission. This is the cheap&cheerful way of turning a fighter into a tac-rec type. There's a known issue with the camera device, so maybe that's what you're seeing.

That is an excellent idea the camera device.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I noticed that in the campaign, the 54th IF Chutai has 27 ready planes.  A bit high, you think?

Yes, very odd. The only reference of mine which has anything to say about the strength of the 54th Dokuritsu Hiko Chutai gives the number as 27 though. Sticks out like a sore thumb but I don't know any better. IJNAF T/O's are a bit if a brain-teaser, mind.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Any a/c equipped with the camera device should be able to fly the recon mission. This is the cheap&cheerful way of turning a fighter into a tac-rec type. There's a known issue with the camera device, so maybe that's what you're seeing.

That is an excellent idea the camera device.

Thank MichaelM. I wanted a proper Tac-Rec a/c type, but this was the path of least resistance (important when you got a gazillion other things to code). It does have...potential, I must admit [;)]

A couple of things:
 
1.  The 3 Ki-102 variants show up as follows:
 
Ki-102a - Mar 45
Ki-102b - Nov 44
Ki-102c - Oct 45
 
Did the "b" variant actually come out befor the "a" variant?
 
2.  In the city of Maebashi, there are 2 Ki-43-Ic factories.  Their sizes are 32(0) and 0(8) respectively.  That's the only place where I've seen a functional factory on 7 Dec 41 that shows damage.  Is this correct?  It may very well be, but it's curious.
 
Thanks.

As per earlier mail I've noticed after my Coral Sea battle the air groups have filled up with loads of pilots. Far more than needed for full flight operations. Is this supposed to happen?

Secondly - in the Aleutians Campaign - there's no replacements set for PV-1's. Is this intentional?

In addition to my earlier points about Walrus and Swordfish I, puzzled by 5 Sqn RNZAF - seems to be in twice, not counting the Det at Singapore. It appears at game start at Suva as #3031, has no withdrawal date or return as, but also appears at #3033 at Suva on 440715. Is this supposed to in fact be No 6 Sqn? (Although that formed as a Catalina unit at Suva in May 1943, not July 1944, from a 5 Sqn cadre.)


David

V-43 appears to have been at NAS Seattle ( as opposed to San Diego in game) in 12/41 and transferred to Hawaii and then Aleutians shortly afterward they were equipped with 6 PBY5s.

http://www.vpnavy.org/vp43_1941.html;   http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_PBY_catalina_US_navy_squadrons.html

VP-13 was equipped with 4 PB2Ys but was at NAS San Diego at the beginning of the war (as opposed to 1/43 in game) (http://pacific.valka.cz/forces/admin4112.htm

But, I also found evidence that that as early as 2/42 VP-43 was active in San Francisco and San Diego and VP-13 was in Hawaii (but records 12/41 show them operating from San Diego as they transferred to Hawaii  http://www.pby.com/Archives.nsf/3a796208ccfb151e88256877001bb12b/9bfd6688b2d094f98825687d00351267!OpenDocument)

So maybe the only real things needing a change is the VP-13 being available at inception with the 4 PB2Ys and changing the VP-43s PB2Ys to PBY5s.

Sorry for the confusion.  Not trying to be a know-it-all, just trying to help.

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: bsq

1. Lancasters.
Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE). FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)

My understanding is that the armament of the B.1 (FE) was 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.5 nose turret, 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.150 mid-upper turret, also removable if the 400 gal BB tank(-s) was carried, and 2x0.5 Browning Mk II in an F.N.82 or 121 rear turret. Don't know how many, if any, came with the F.N.79 turret.

The Mk VII, I believe, had a similar armament suite except the upper turret was a Martin housing 2x0.50's.

What do you hold the correct armament to be, Robert?

I was happy with the guns just that the mark was wrong - of course if you are making an amalgam, then fine that represents the best compromise - especially as chatting to a colleague today has led me to believe that many of the late war B Mk 1's had mods that made a right hotch-potch of gun armaments.

The cookie would have been superfluous, indeed chances are the mounting space would have been occupied with the tank as it was held near CofG.

The fuselage tank on the other hand that was added to some test aircraft was, by all accounts, problematic as it altered some of the handling characteristics of the Lancaster to such a point that it was disliked by the test crews (and if the test pilots don't do it then who are we to argue). Indeed do not forget that the Lancaster (unlike the B-17, 24 and 29) was a single pilot proposition and if it couldn't be 'trimmed out' taking the weight off the stick then the pilot would be the proverbial 'one armed paper hanger'.

Personally I would delete the cookie, replace two of the 1000lb bombs with 4lb incendiaries (cheaper to make especially as there was no steel casing and proven to work well on Japanese construction by Lemay).

I'll try to get you a source for the Dresden raid as (minus the 4000lb) the bomb load cited there is fairly typical and would be likely used in raids against population centres.

I don't know if this questions goes here, but is it advisable to convert some of your Claudes on your smaller carriers to Zeros while in Japan before you deploy them southward at game start??

ORIGINAL: Speedy

As per earlier mail I've noticed after my Coral Sea battle the air groups have filled up with loads of pilots. Far more than needed for full flight operations. Is this supposed to happen?

Secondly - in the Aleutians Campaign - there's no replacements set for PV-1's. Is this intentional?

No, the aircraft replacements should be (and will be) reset. Thanks. As for the pilot issue in Coral Sea, no idea. That's flyboy territory.

Scenario 1 - Aircraft ID 828 Ki-84r Frank has ranges for extended and normal with droptanks, but no maximum.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Speedy

As per earlier mail I've noticed after my Coral Sea battle the air groups have filled up with loads of pilots. Far more than needed for full flight operations. Is this supposed to happen?

Secondly - in the Aleutians Campaign - there's no replacements set for PV-1's. Is this intentional?

No, the aircraft replacements should be (and will be) reset. Thanks. As for the pilot issue in Coral Sea, no idea. That's flyboy territory.

Only thing I noticed was replacements were on. Japs never have that on, but I'm not sure what the norm is for Allied.

Same issues in Gudalcanal senario, too.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Speedy

As per earlier mail I've noticed after my Coral Sea battle the air groups have filled up with loads of pilots. Far more than needed for full flight operations. Is this supposed to happen?

Secondly - in the Aleutians Campaign - there's no replacements set for PV-1's. Is this intentional?

No, the aircraft replacements should be (and will be) reset. Thanks. As for the pilot issue in Coral Sea, no idea. That's flyboy territory.

ORIGINAL: DBS

In addition to my earlier points about Walrus and Swordfish I, puzzled by 5 Sqn RNZAF - seems to be in twice, not counting the Det at Singapore. It appears at game start at Suva as #3031, has no withdrawal date or return as, but also appears at #3033 at Suva on 440715. Is this supposed to in fact be No 6 Sqn? (Although that formed as a Catalina unit at Suva in May 1943, not July 1944, from a 5 Sqn cadre.)


David

The Singapore-equipped No.5 Sqn becomes No.6 Sqn 11/42. The Singapore flight remained on Fiji after 5 Sqn was disestablished and was apparently unofficially known as No.6 Sqn. This is the cadre you're referring to when No.6 Sqn was officially established the following May. The second No.5 Sqn is an entirely different unit.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

V-43 appears to have been at NAS Seattle (as opposed to San Diego in game) in 12/41 and transferred to Hawaii and then Aleutians shortly afterward they were equipped with 6 PBY5s.

The reference we've primarily relied on for the USN patrol squadrons is Roberts, Michael D.: Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons Vol.2: The History of VP, VPB, VP(HL) and (VP)AM Squadrons. Naval Historical Center, Department of the Navy 2000. Per this reference (p.458), VP-43 was based at San Diego 21/07/41 to 06/06/42 with a six-plane detachment at Kodiak, Alaska 01/04/42 to "late May".

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

VP-13 was equipped with 4 PB2Ys but was at NAS San Diego at the beginning of the war (as opposed to 1/43 in game)

VP-13 was based at San Diego from its formation in July '40 to early January '43. It's role was primarily to flight test the PB2Y, and, after the outbreak of war, to function as VIP-flight and as a transitional training unit. It also undertook some patrol work. A detachment operated out of Pearl from late '41, eventually doing a regular 12 roundtrips to Australia a month.

On balance we chose not to include VP-13 until it appears as a fully fledged combat unit in January '43.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Sorry for the confusion. Not trying to be a know-it-all, just trying to help.

No worries [:)]

btw, if I'm not responding to a bug report (like JuanG's) it's not that it's being ignored, it's because it's being logged, then fixed.

Something I noticed:

ORIGINAL: 88l71

Something I noticed:

Little did we know, the Allies were testing rocket assisted takeoff devices that lasted at least 10 minutes before the war and used them on Hurricanes and Hudsons.

Looks like an extra zero to me. [:D]

Yeah, I figured it was just a small typo, not actual performance data.