AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Knavey]

How are they going to simulate the Zero Bonus since it won't be hard coded any more?  Or is it going away *gasp*?

[ChezDaJez]

1. Pilot Pools Japan

While what you are saying makes sense, it would be very difficult to implement in WitP under the current engine. Type aircraft designation occured at different points for the various nationalities but in general it occured following basic flight training. While this makes sense, it would be very difficult to implement in WitP under the current engine. A new pilot pool would be required for each aircraft type.

2. Operational losses vs pilot replacements

Operational losses generally caused more casualties than did combat. The replacement pool numbers for the Japanese are still being worked on.

3. Editor

Don't know. Someone else will have to answer this.

4 Airgroup Experince

There was no "Japan" bonus in 1942. There was a decreasing 5 month "Zero" bonus and an AVG bonus (if you want to call it that) that ignored the "Zero" bonus.

However, there are no more bonuses. The game now models aircraft performance based on altitude bands and pilot experience. What you will see early war is Japan continuing to be successful because she had better aircraft (generally speaking) and better pilots. As the war progresses and Japanese pilots are attrited, their average experience levels will drop. Couple that with increasing allied experience and more capable aircraft and the pendulum will begin to swing the other way.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

How are they going to simulate the Zero Bonus since it won't be hard coded any more?  Or is it going away *gasp*?

It's gone. Fatigue, morale and other factors contribute, but aircraft ratings and pilot experience will be the primary keys for success.

Chez

[Knavey]

If geishas and USO tours are out, then morale is going to be difficult to increase.

[Brady]

I think the main thing for me regarding the B5M, is that if only one squadron of them was deployed operationaly for a year of the war, and evidenced in the above photo, and I do have a referance for the operationaly history of that squadron, then well thats a whole other torp squadron, even if we asume that all 125 built went just to maintain that single squadron thats still plenty in the pool, even if half were lost to traing acedents or from gambeling debts and drunken Naval oficers on a binge in some SE Asian brothel(I will trade you to of my torp bombers for that girl on the left...). For game play heck they could be represented by Kates, but thats  kinda not the point, many planes gould be used to represent other types, but for me this is whear the imershion is lost, or can be at times, I would like to see Ansons on ASW patrole out of Austraila, and SBC-4's flying from Somoa, and Mables in the pool. 125 planes is a lot for Japan particulary for a type that was just as good as the Kate, which was in it's day the best ship boarn torp bomber in the world. Another way to look at this if this Mable unit is not in the game...and were suposed to have a better OOB now, and granted it's not perfect, dident we just find an eror?
 
 

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

If geishas and USO tours are out, then morale is going to be difficult to increase.

Hey Knavey did you ask Don about this on the Navy Thread?
[:D]

[ChezDaJez]

Brady,

I understand your point and we want to be as historical as possible. However, there is so little data on the aircraft. It does appear that it wasn't a particularly successful aircraft. Francillon listed it as a minor type and devoted only a short paragraph to it. To accurately model its performance, we need more data than what is available. If you have any specific data such as wing loading, ceiling, cruise speed, fuel capacity, please provide it to me via PM and I will discuss it with the air team. Any data on the 33rd would also be appreciated.. especially data concerning what aircraft replaced their B5Ms and their war record.

We could include the 33rd as a Kate equipped unit but as you say that wouldn't be quite the same.

Also, be advised that much of the aircraft data and the air OoB is still a work in progress. Just because we say it is not currently included, doesn't mean that it won't be. We just have to make a strong case for it.

Thanks,

Chez

[Grotius]

Knavey, one other thing on the soon-to-be-gone Zero bonus: AE apparently will model different flying stats (e.g., maneuverability) at different altitudes, and the Zero will be able to shine at its preferred altitude. Er, something like that, anyway. It sounds like a great new feature.

[scottott999]

What a great bomb to drop on Pearl Harbor Day!
 
just a couple of questions....at least to start with  
 
1) Are cohesive attacks possible from land bases or CV taskforces located at different ranges from the target?
 
2) Can squadron returning from a bombing run be diverted to non-originating carrier or base?
 
3) Is there some sort of fighter patrol feature that would allow for chance encounters to occur outside of a base or target hex.  I thinking some thing along the lines of two fighter patrols engaging over the slot or a fighter patrol intercepting a returning bomber flight or transports returning to base
 
4) How are aircraft defined as carrier capable?  Currenlty they are fixed to a slot.  Will there be similar limitations?
 
5) I love the new pilot rating system.  Is there something to define if a pilot is carrier trained or is a fighter pilot a fighter pilot?   

[moose1999]

Will the databases be more accessible?
For example, currently, after having looked up a plane in the plane database the only way to get back is to push the Allied planes/Japanese planes button again which nullifies your sorting choices and sends you back to the top of the list agian, so you have to sort again and scroll all the way back down the list to, for example, look at a different version of the same plane.
Can get quite tedious... but could be solved by having the plane list and plane details screen on the same page...

Also, will there be sorting options in the databases like 'show only bombers' or 'show only british planes' like there are in lists in other parts of the game?

[pionkki]

I hated in WITP when my bombers made an attack against naval units in a hex with a strong CAP. Is it possible to define a hex in which the unit is not allowed to perform a naval attack? Or is the naval attack system the same, meaning an attack against any naval unit in any hex in certain range?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: pionkki

I hated in WITP when my bombers made an attack against naval units in a hex with a strong CAP. Is it possible to define a hex in which the unit is not allowed to perform a naval attack? Or is the naval attack system the same, meaning an attack against any naval unit in any hex in certain range?

SAIEW.

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Yakface

How is air-recon being handled? Do the Allies still get the advantage of seeing what aircraft the Japanese have at a base whereas the Japanese only see what was there before the Allied order phase?

Not anymore. “Air balance” is limited to current player.

Hi Elf

Thanks for the answer, but it's not so much the air balance numbers that concern me, its these:








Because of the way detection levels work and because the Japanese see what is at the base before the Allies do their aircraft transfers, but the Allies see the numbers after the Japanese do their turn, it gives Player 2 an advantage.

For example - say the Japanese are reconning Changsha. The allies can still move in 100 bombers, (the Japanese player won't see them arrive) fly them on a mission immediately. The next turn the Japanese player sees them listed at Changsha, launches a misssion, but will bomb an empty base because the Allied player has transferred them away. If the situation is reversed, the Japanese player can not do the same thing. Instant CAP causes a similar problem - Allied player always knows how many fighters are at a base he is reconning, Japanese player can easily be caught out if the Allies suddenly transfer 100 fighters to a base. He just won't see them until the next turn.

In experienced hands, it is a very substantial advantage gained only because player 2 issues orders after player 1. With more Allied recon aircraft, it's a feature of the game that needs changing.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: pad152

1. Pilot Pools Japan

The numbers never make any sense to me because, every naval aircraft type gets it pilots from the same pool. I doubt a carrier figther/bomber pilot got the same level of training as the pilot flying a float plane or tranport plane.[;)] Japan starts the war with a lot of understrength naval air units I always hated to waste a good naval carrier pilot on some float plane group!

when in the TrainING pool, pilots are un-named, and un-designated. Generic if you will. Once they area drawn to an operational unit they are designated as TB, DB, FF, MB, REC etc. Once this happens they remain designated as a "Type" of pilot. And when they are moved from pool to pool they are in seperate pools based on their type.

The one exception is where they are in the Training Command pool as "instructors". Here is where they affect the output of "students" in the TrainING pool.

- The pilot pools needs to be separate for General Naval Aviation and Trained Carrier Pilots.

included

2. Operational losses vs pilot replacements

- Losing more pilots to Op losses than you get in a month is just wrong, no airforce in world could operate like this! If Japan is losing 30 pilots a month to op losses then they need to generate more then 30 a month. It's all to easy to break the back of the Japanese air forces in 1942 due to this. This makes the Japanese air forces a dog that eats it's self.

Ops losses have been totally revamped. When lost during a mission pilot survival rates are per Stock. If an A/C makes it back to base and is Ops Lost, on landing pilot survival is slightly improved. Additionally to increase the effect on A/C Availability we wanted, A/C that have sustained high levels of damage but still returned check for "Write Off". A "Write Off" is a new type of Ops loss that is tracked on the Air unit screen and preserves the pilot.

BTW pilots who bring back damaged A/C and survive gain EXP.

CV Air Groups that experience the loss of their CV out of range of a suitable friendly divert field will mass ditch which is normal. However Mass Ditchings now benefit from Pilot survival checks at their CT TF. The larger the TF, the more ships, the higher the survival rate. Pilots are then transferred to the Reserve Pool to be detailed to operational units after a nominal "travel" Delay.

3. Editor

- Allow setting the experince level for the pilot pool for each year of the war.

I believe this is in there.

4 Airgroup Experince

Allied Airgroups seem to go from can't the broad side of a barn to killers that can't miss, Japan's Airgoups go through the same process in reverse. I beleive this is due to the Japan bonus in 1942.

- I say let (pilot experince + aircraft type + HQ air) define the airgroups performance not some hard coded trigger in 1942.

There is no Bonus, and you equation for Air group performance is a little narrow for my tastes....[;)]








[/quote]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: scottott999

1) Are cohesive attacks possible from land bases or CV TFs located at different ranges from the target?

Without going into too much detail, yes they are, however due to the shift in the basic conduct of Air Combat from Target-based to Raid-based, A/C of wildly differing performance and mission profile are much less likely to be successful. SBDs at 15k' will almost never coordinate with B-17s or B-24s at 25k', or even at the same altitude for that matter...

Altitude settings are important. They are now a player control, or influence I should say as it isn't a given. So two groups of Betty's set to the same Target Hex at the same altitude will strive to coordinate, though they still face the normal challenges of distance and Weather when coordinating.

2) Can squadron returning from a bombing run be diverted to non-originating carrier or base?

Not by the player. CV Air units will divert as per normal if they have the range to do so. If the only suitable divert is another CV in the TF then they will land until the CV reaches 115% it's max load at which time the remaining A/C will ditch and be picked up using the Mass ditching rule, or A/C will be pushed over the side to make room.

3) Is there some sort of fighter patrol feature that would allow for chance encounters to occur outside of a base or target hex. I thinking some thing along the lines of two fighter patrols engaging over the slot or a fighter patrol intercepting a returning bomber flight or transports returning to base

No, but there is now the possibility of Air Combat AFTER the target is hit. Aircraft that scrambled at "First Detection" of the raid but did not make it up to engage before the target was hit will attempt to attrite enemy A/C as they egress the target area. You could think of this combat as a "Chance encounter" after the battle is decided.

4) How are aircraft defined as carrier capable? Currenlty they are fixed to a slot. Will there be similar limitations?

The editor has a new field that allows an A/C to be designated as such. It is no longer slot-based.

5) I love the new pilot rating system. Is there something to define if a pilot is carrier trained or is a fighter pilot a fighter pilot?

At this time it is determined by the tyoe of unit the Pilot is drawn to. Once a Naval Aviator, always a naval Aviator.[;)]
[/quote]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

This mostly an AI type question on air - will the "die roll" for air units to attack something that has a strong CAP being worked on/changed? In most of my games vs AI I set a very exp/morale unit to Nav Atk & it won't attack something like the KB Death Star TF the AI uses in the next hex w/ or w/o escort yet it will attack this single ship AP that is at the extreme range & in no danger to the base. IRL the air units would attack the KB as it's the most dangerous. This seems to plague land air more than naval air that if there is a strong cap presence or fighter presence, the unit fails the "die rolls" to attack a target very regularly while IRL they would attack the target.

That whole dynamic was one of the first things to go. Better be sure before you send units unescorted...

I just realized I misunderstood what you were asking. We did not touch the targeting routine. Sorry for the confusion.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Another air recon question (sorry if it has been posed already, there is too much to read at the moment...): currently, you always have a general idea of force levels at enemy bases since symbols indicate the presence of LCUs, airgroups or ships in port, even if no recon or search mission has been flown over those bases, and you have exact info on base size. Has this been eliminated? [/align]Only actual missions flown over a base should gather intel, and it should be indicated how old the most recent recon info is - like in Battle of Britain or Bombing the Reich. For example, it wasn't known that the Japanese were constructing an airbase on Guadalcanal until a recon/search plane discovered the (unfinished) landing strip, and the Japanese did not know about the base at Funafuti until they followed American bombers that had struck the Gilberts back home to their home base. That would make for a more realistic FOW.[/align]

[pionkki]

Thanks for the answer.

Another question. What about leaking CAP? In WITP, I have a CAP with range 0, but some of the planes leaves their position and go after enemy, which is 2 hexes away. Is the system going to be the same in AE too?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Another air recon question (sorry if it has been posed already, there is too much to read at the moment...): currently, you always have a general idea of force levels at enemy bases since symbols indicate the presence of LCUs, airgroups or ships in port, even if no recon or search mission has been flown over those bases, and you have exact info on base size. Has this been eliminated? [/align]Only actual missions flown over a base should gather intel, and it should be indicated how old the most recent recon info is - like in Battle of Britain or Bombing the Reich. For example, it wasn't known that the Japanese were constructing an airbase on Guadalcanal until a recon/search plane discovered the (unfinished) landing strip, and the Japanese did not know about the base at Funafuti until they followed American bombers that had struck the Gilberts back home to their home base. That would make for a more realistic FOW.[/align]

“Air balance” is limited to current player.

FOW has been increased to address this issue. Details to come.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: pionkki

Thanks for the answer.

Another question. What about leaking CAP? In WITP, I have a CAP with range 0, but some of the planes leaves their position and go after enemy, which is 2 hexes away. Is the system going to be the same in AE too?

Leaky CAP is actually a previously added feature, not a bug, though it doesn't tend to have a positive connotation on this forum. We are working on this at the moment, so no comment.