AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[timtom]

I agree with Robert that a "purist" interpretation would properly be to set up the two sqns in "withdraw -> return as" relationship.

Sqns which were reformed in the UK are generally called on to withdraw on the date which this happened rather than their historical dates of disbandment since there's no knowing what the exact situation will be in any one game. Further to this attempt to built a bit of elasticity into an OOB which is properly more purist than some might prefer, 100 Sqn RAF is set up to become 100 Sqn RAAF to smoothe the flow ofthe game. In any case I believe there's a reasonable argument for doing this on historical grounds. Along similar lines, 488 Sqn is set up to become 14 Sqn RNZAF which I grant is something more of an interpretation.

[dwbradley]

Initial thoughts on the new A2A system.

SUMMARY: HURRAH!!

My experience with AE is limited to a two scenario runs so far, one with the Coral Sea scenario and one with the Guadalcanal scenario. Both were against the AI and I played the Japanese side in both. I completed Coral Sea and have gotten into early September in the Guad. scenario. So what I am offering are obviously early impressions based upon limited data. I hope it isn’t too soon to be offering these impressions.

Overall impression of the new A2A routines:
I am very, very impressed to say the least. The overall sense that I get from each A2A encounter is of a fragmented battle, broken down into individual mini-battles. The breakdown can vary from encounter to encounter so that one cannot expect advantage based solely on weight of numbers in the overall encounter. The dynamic nature of the CAP response adds to the sense of quasi-chaos that is my idea of what it would have been like in the cockpit of one of these machines (especially in the battles of ’42)

Detail thoughts and impressions in no particular order:

1.Wildcats slaughter Bettys. Exactly what one should expect although still a lesson I had to learn. Escort can keep the fighters away from the Bettys but when/if they get to them expect to lose a bunch.

2. Zeros are about where I would expect in fighter vs. fighter duels. About even with Wildcats, a little better than P-40s, and a little better than P-39s. The last is a little bit surprising since I would have ranked the P-39 below the P-40 in its performance and would have expected a bit more Zero kills against this plane. Yes, yes, I know altitude matters, etc., etc. blah, blah. Remember I’m just giving impressions here not fact-based research.

3. Zeros against B-17s. A bit of underperformance by the Zero is my impression. The Japanese inability to deal with the tough and well-armed B-17 is well known. So I would expect Zero CAP to be largely ineffective against these planes. And so it works in AE. But with hundreds of B17 sorties (mostly unescorted) in the books I have not yet seen a single B-17 fall. A few (approx 5) damaged aircraft have not made it back to base. I have seen a few Zeros destroyed by the defensive firepower of the B-17 and I would indeed expect that. I would equally expect to see the occasional downing of a B-17. So this is working well in my estimation but may (repeat MAY) require some tuning of something or other (don’t know what).

4. One of the nice features of the new A2A routines is the relatively high probability that an individual engagement may be broken off. This is in sharp contrast to the duel-to-the-death engagements of its predecessor. The little messages are nice also, or were for a while. This is carping, I know, but after a while the messages detract from the overall fun of watching the battle proceed as they seem to be repeated endlessly. If the messages truly reflect the results of discrete events then I would say there is good purpose in keeping them. If they are window dressing, randomly chosen, when the result of the engagement is the retirement of one of the planes from the battle then maybe a different scheme could be looked at long term. Don’t know exactly what that might be, maybe mostly a standard message (e.g., “Wildcat breaks off engagement”), mixed in with the other messages a low frequency.


Overall, high marks indeed, and please don’t take my comments as anything but constructive (I hope) criticism. This total revamp of the A2A system is a major advance.

Dave Bradley

edit: just ran a few more turns and I did see a Zero on B-17 kill. So the probability is non-zero (no pun intended). Further playing ( maybe a lot more playing) will help me firm up some sort of opinion as to whether this might deserve some tweaking.

[R8J]

Curious. Why no SC Seahawk?

[langleyCV1]

May I start by saying THANKYOU AE IS JUST GREAT!

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?

Now I will shut up and go back to this Great Game.

Many thanks again.

MJT

[ussdefiant]

Hey there, really good game this is, but a few nit picky things i've noticed while playing Scenario 2 as the Japs:

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?

2. The 266th Sentai, for whatever reason, appears to be set to come onto the board with 122 Helens in reserve.

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?

[vettim89]

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?

[DBS]

ORIGINAL: bsq
The specials are in the game and as for 617 being the only ones to drop the 12000lb, that's more down to circumstance than any thing else as they were not the only Lancaster Sqn equipped with specials, 9 Sqn also carried weapons to 12000lb and could have dropped either the Tallboy (as it did on the Tirpitz raids) or the larger HC.
My research so far has turned up the following Squadrons with B Mk I and B Mk III aircraft which were fitted with the mods to allow the carriage of weapons to 12000lb
[snip]
9 Sqn
44 Sqn
57 Sqn (from where 617 often had to borrow trolleys!)
75 (NZ) Sqn
617 Sqn

I may be wrong, but I am by no means convinced that the aircraft modified for 617 to use the 12000 lb HC actually equates to those modified for Tallboy and Grand Slam carriage; the problem may be in the use of "special" vs "Special" to describe the mods. My source for the statement that only 617 were equipped to carry the 12000 HC is the excellent history of UK bombs by Hogben and MacBean, and given the latter was the wartime armament officer for 57 Sqn, I think he might be expected to know whether his own squadron could carry the weapon!

Anyway, the bottom line remains that the 12000 HC was a weapon which had been wholly superseded by Tallboy by 1945. The only use considered vs Japan was for harbour attack, in 1944, but that required a weapon which could carry a delayed action fuse and tests confirmed that the 12000 HC instead would break up on impact so the idea was binned.

The interest in AAR was chiefly a little earlier in the war when the RAF was exploring the possibility of bombing Japan from Burmese bases. Although the experiments had worked well, I think it would have been another matter entirely to have refuelled even small formations reliably.

As for the 8000lb HC, relatively few were carried since it was of dubious effectiveness over and above what could be achieved with the 4000lb, and also it was incompatible with H2S - the diameter of the 8000lb was 4" greater than the 4000lb and I believe the doors had to be slightly bulged as a result.

[Fletcher]

Could an air group to jump to other air base and to realize anywhere air operation the same day or it must wait next day to do it. ?
In this case, how many hexes must be considered to avoid any air operations after transfer ?. This is to my own home rules, of course.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: DBS

ORIGINAL: bsq
The specials are in the game and as for 617 being the only ones to drop the 12000lb, that's more down to circumstance than any thing else as they were not the only Lancaster Sqn equipped with specials, 9 Sqn also carried weapons to 12000lb and could have dropped either the Tallboy (as it did on the Tirpitz raids) or the larger HC.
My research so far has turned up the following Squadrons with B Mk I and B Mk III aircraft which were fitted with the mods to allow the carriage of weapons to 12000lb
[snip]
9 Sqn
44 Sqn
57 Sqn (from where 617 often had to borrow trolleys!)
75 (NZ) Sqn
617 Sqn

I may be wrong, but I am by no means convinced that the aircraft modified for 617 to use the 12000 lb HC actually equates to those modified for Tallboy and Grand Slam carriage; the problem may be in the use of "special" vs "Special" to describe the mods. My source for the statement that only 617 were equipped to carry the 12000 HC is the excellent history of UK bombs by Hogben and MacBean, and given the latter was the wartime armament officer for 57 Sqn, I think he might be expected to know whether his own squadron could carry the weapon!

Anyway, the bottom line remains that the 12000 HC was a weapon which had been wholly superseded by Tallboy by 1945. The only use considered vs Japan was for harbour attack, in 1944, but that required a weapon which could carry a delayed action fuse and tests confirmed that the 12000 HC instead would break up on impact so the idea was binned.

The interest in AAR was chiefly a little earlier in the war when the RAF was exploring the possibility of bombing Japan from Burmese bases. Although the experiments had worked well, I think it would have been another matter entirely to have refuelled even small formations reliably.

As for the 8000lb HC, relatively few were carried since it was of dubious effectiveness over and above what could be achieved with the 4000lb, and also it was incompatible with H2S - the diameter of the 8000lb was 4" greater than the 4000lb and I believe the doors had to be slightly bulged as a result.

With respect your bottom line is nothing of the sort. The Tall Boy was an AP weapon whereas all of the Cookies were HC's or blast weapons, both could be carried by aircraft that were not specials, just modified with the bulged doors. The original specials were designed with the Upkeep in mind, with the latter batch being built specifically with Grand Slam in mind.

We are dealing here with what ifs... so who is to say that only 617 would carry the bombs in a what if scenario. The fact that a Sqn had modified (modified mind not specials) means that it was fitted for the weapon...

My sources, apart from the various books, relate to the fact that I grew up within a couple of miles of where a lot of these weapons were filled and for the last 14 years I have lived at the spiritual home of the aircraft itself. Many of my 'word of mouth' sources are now regrettably 'gone'

There is a lot of hype about 617 Sqn and they may have been the first specialised Lancaster Sqn and the most famous outside of RAF circles, but they were not the only ones. The critical component is not the Sqn's or the crews, it was the ubiquitous nature of the aircraft and it's single uninterrupted weapons bay.

The Lancasters with the bulged doors could carry the 8000lb or 12000lb weapon and it was designed for area effect not pinpoint destruction. The tests were discontinued because of a lack of need as much as the fact that there were issues with the fusing. Technical issues would (had the need been there) have been overcome.

There are a myriad of sources out there claiming this and that, but they relate to what actually happened and in this context we are dealing with potential capability.

[DBS]

Fine. We will have to agree to disagree. Don't mistake me for a 617 worshipper please.

But my bottom line is indeed sound if one is talking about what should go into the game for official release - there is no evidence that I am aware of that the 12000lb HC featured in the plans for Tiger Force. If you choose to mod it in, good luck.

My basic point is that Tiger Force was drawn from a Bomber Command that had become the peerless destroyer of cities (with all due respect to the B-29s' efforts). They knew what worked. And what worked was the 4000lb HC and the 4lb incendiary. Of course other weapons could and were carried for specific targets. But this game cannot, as I understand it, model that level of flexibility. So if one had to choose one loadout as representative of Tiger Force, it isn't going to be the larger sizes of Cookie. Nor should every squadron be toting Tallboys.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

Hey there, really good game this is, but a few nit picky things i've noticed while playing Scenario 2 as the Japs:

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?

2. The 266th Sentai, for whatever reason, appears to be set to come onto the board with 122 Helens in reserve.

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?

1. This is correct. That unit did exist, made up of prototypes.

[John Lansford]

My only minor gripe so far about AE's air combat is the dearth of fighters in Australia early on.  There are absolutely no squadrons anywhere!  It makes getting ships to Port Moresby much more difficult once Rabaul is handling long range attack planes; even a squadron of Buffalos would help since from time to time Betty comes without her little friends...

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: DBS

Fine. We will have to agree to disagree. Don't mistake me for a 617 worshipper please.

But my bottom line is indeed sound if one is talking about what should go into the game for official release - there is no evidence that I am aware of that the 12000lb HC featured in the plans for Tiger Force. If you choose to mod it in, good luck.

My basic point is that Tiger Force was drawn from a Bomber Command that had become the peerless destroyer of cities (with all due respect to the B-29s' efforts). They knew what worked. And what worked was the 4000lb HC and the 4lb incendiary. Of course other weapons could and were carried for specific targets. But this game cannot, as I understand it, model that level of flexibility. So if one had to choose one loadout as representative of Tiger Force, it isn't going to be the larger sizes of Cookie. Nor should every squadron be toting Tallboys.

We are, perhaps, closer to agreement than this trail would suggest. When I modded in the Lancaster in WITP, I used a cookie, 6 x 1080lb incendiary clusters (although I placed them in as individual 4lb devices) and 4 x 1000lb GP's. I didn't even consider the special devices.

I think more than anything, I wanted to point out the fact that the load-out of the Sqns with the special/modified Lancaster's could include these interesting weapons. Equally, the bit that's been overlooked, if the bomb bay fuel tank is being used then the points are all moot as it occupied the space and the weight of the weapon.

At no point did I state that every Lancaster Sqn should go round toting Tallboys, I said that this was for 9 and 617 Sqns. What I actually said was that the 8000 HC and even the 12000 HC should be considered as well as the 4000 HC. Point of fact for the official release - it uses a 4000lb GP - wrong - it should be HC, higher explosive content and less shrapnel. So perhaps at the expense of its anti armour stats it should have its anti-soft one increased?

The proposed role of Tiger Force appears muddled. As you point out they were the ultimate proponents of total war, but as stated earlier - what was left to burn?

They would have required a niche, something they could do and no one else could or they would have been sidelined. The big bay and variety of weapons would have provided that.

One final point here concerns the special as modelled in the stock game. It carries Tallboys but only appears to have the range of a Lancaster carrying a Grandslam. With the smaller weapon it would have had the range of the standard (non-FE) model.

[DBS]

ORIGINAL: bsq

At no point did I state that every Lancaster Sqn should go round toting Tallboys, I said that this was for 9 and 617 Sqns.

Apologies, misunderstood your listing of squadrons earlier.

Point of fact for the official release - it uses a 4000lb GP - wrong - it should be HC, higher explosive content and less shrapnel. So perhaps at the expense of its anti armour stats it should have its anti-soft one increased?

Good point.

One final point here concerns the special as modelled in the stock game. It carries Tallboys but only appears to have the range of a Lancaster carrying a Grandslam. With the smaller weapon it would have had the range of the standard (non-FE) model.

Another good point.

[bsq]

When looking at the drop tanks for all aircraft, the weight seems to be on the light side across the board...

Just taking the 100 litre tank as an example.

100 Litres of AVGAS = 70 Kg (assuming average SG of 0.7 (I know the range is 0.65 - 0.72 but most use 0.7 as best average))

70 Kg = 154 lb

Load cost of the 100 Litre tank is 150 lb - like I say a bit light as an empty tank weighs something.

Nit picking maybe, but as the tanks get larger so does the discrepancy.  By the time you get to the largest tank you're looking at 50lb out just on the fuel...  so probably nearer 200lb when the tank weight is considered.

[ART11]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?

I got the same bug. VF-3 and VF-6 have almost 60 pilots. Strange but VF-71 pilots remains at normal level (25). It happends after carrier battle and severe casualities on my side.
It looks like that accept replacements did this.
Also I have a problem with Havoc groups, which on their own decided to move to Port Moresby. I did not anything with this groups, because I have PM overloaded by fighters. After this I move them back to Australia but somee of the damaged planes stay for a while in PM. Game without my involvement created Transport TF to bring them back. How it can happend?

[ussdefiant]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

Hey there, really good game this is, but a few nit picky things i've noticed while playing Scenario 2 as the Japs:

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?

2. The 266th Sentai, for whatever reason, appears to be set to come onto the board with 122 Helens in reserve.

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?

1. This is correct. That unit did exist, made up of prototypes.

oh, i knew about the prototype squadron and such, i just question the factory in Harbin only building more of them without upgrading to anything better.

[DBS]

Sad to say, fear you have been far too generous in giving 27 Sqn's Blenheim IFs AI III radar. I have never come across any evidence that they sported radar; neither Bloody Shambles nor Warner's encyclopedic history of the Blenheim mention the radar; the one photo I have seen of a 27 Sqn aircraft shows it very much minus the aerial fit; and in any case only 25 sets of AI III were ever built and they were used by Fighter Command 1939-40. Given that 27 Squadron converted to the Blenheim in India; had not been home since; the struggle to equip the entire Fighter Command night fighter force with radar in 1941; and the absence of any major perceived Japanese night bombing threat, I would be very surprised if the squadron had any AI sets or personnel trained in its use.

Instead, the IF should have a residual bombing capability - this is the role in which they served when Malaya was invaded. Although the bomb bay was unavailable thanks to the MG pack, they could carry two external Light Series Carriers further aft, each carrying 4x20lb (Device 1875) or 4x40lb GPs (not in database as far as I can see).

Difficult to say whether or not the Blenheim IVs should have the chin turret or not - 24 Sqn's in 1941 did not, but 113 Sqn's aircraft did in 1942.

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.

David

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: R8J

Curious. Why no SC Seahawk?

I blame the naval team...[;)]

An oversight, but the time this was pointed out the art team was already in lockdown, lets-just-get-the-other-550+-sides/tops done, awright-mode.

Tomlabel is the resident Seahawk fanboy and I doubt he'll leave it alone

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: HMSImperator

3. The withdrawal date for the Mogami's second floatplane detachment came up, so i sent them off. However, i am failing to see them on the reinforcement list to come back later, whether in December or ever. Is this a bug of some kind, or something to do with Mogami having historically turned into a FP carrier after Midway?

Bug (typo). Wrong value in withdraw field.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?

Hmm, the player is supposed to be able to to allocate a 1/3 (IIRC) pilot overstrength, but this might be a bug. Please post with tech support.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

My only minor gripe so far about AE's air combat is the dearth of fighters in Australia early on. There are absolutely no squadrons anywhere! It makes getting ships to Port Moresby much more difficult once Rabaul is handling long range attack planes; even a squadron of Buffalos would help since from time to time Betty comes without her little friends...

Well, there's a reason why the US send three PG's to Ozland post-haste

ORIGINAL: bsq

When looking at the drop tanks for all aircraft, the weight seems to be on the light side across the board...

Just taking the 100 litre tank as an example.

100 Litres of AVGAS = 70 Kg (assuming average SG of 0.7 (I know the range is 0.65 - 0.72 but most use 0.7 as best average))

70 Kg = 154 lb

Load cost of the 100 Litre tank is 150 lb - like I say a bit light as an empty tank weighs something.

Nit picking maybe, but as the tanks get larger so does the discrepancy. By the time you get to the largest tank you're looking at 50lb out just on the fuel... so probably nearer 200lb when the tank weight is considered.

All true, but DT load costs don't actually do anything AFAIK

ORIGINAL: ART_11

Also I have a problem with Havoc groups, which on their own decided to move to Port Moresby. I did not anything with this groups, because I have PM overloaded by fighters. After this I move them back to Australia but somee of the damaged planes stay for a while in PM. Game without my involvement created Transport TF to bring them back. How it can happend?

Bug. Please post in tech forum.

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

1. Is it really meant for the one Tojo unit in Canton and the R&D factory in Harbin to be set to the Ki-44, which has no upgrade path at all, instead of the Ki-44-IIa, which activates at the same time and upgrades through all the rest of the Tojo models?

1. This is correct. That unit did exist, made up of prototypes.

oh, i knew about the prototype squadron and such, i just question the factory in Harbin only building more of them without upgrading to anything better.

Ah, I'm not entirely up to speed with everything the Scot has done on scn 2. An Ki-44 -> Ki-44-IIa autoupgrade would seem to be in order for this scenario.

ORIGINAL: DBS

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.

Hmm, I have 113 Sqn receiving Mk V's from October and phasing the Mk IV's out by end December (from Jefford)

[Dili]

This is a good place for UK squadrons info http://www.rafweb.org/SqnMark113-115.htm#113

Clicking in Aircraft & Markings shows side views of planes and it's employ dates.

Also 113sqn Website:

http://113squadron.com/home_of_113_squadron.htm