Page 83 of 103
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:05 am
by langleyCV1
ORIGINAL: Splinterhead
The Dutch only received 12 Hurricanes. A quick websearch shows the Dutch ordered 72-100 Hurricanes; most were never delivered to them. This wasn't unusual. The Americans in the Philippines used "Swedish" P-35s in the Philippines. If Swedish forces were in the game the P-35s would be Swedish P-35s even though they were never in Swedish service in real life.
AE was designed by committee and the air team, according to Tim-Tom, decided to make Dutch purchased aircraft Dutch aircraft even if most were IRL delivered elsewhere, because they could have wound up in Dutch service. I don't have any source to prove such was the case with 288 sqn. But just because they were delivered to Singapore doesn't mean that they weren't part of the Dutch order. I was just trying to save the developers from having to answer the 5927th iteration of FAQ #143. If you have firm sources that indicate the Dutch only ordered 12 Hurricanes, by all means feel free to ignore me. I do not pretend to be the final authority, and apologize if I've wasted your time.[:)]
Note: If in any way that reply reads offensively, it's really not meant to.
Thanks for coming back to me.
Just so you know please do not think I take Offensive from your comments and yes I am may be wrong.
I have got my information from the Bloody Shambles book1 and Hurricanes over Singapore. I can see no sign in these books that these aircraft were to be used by the Dutch. When I first said about this you will see that they changed the artwork in scen1 to the British Version.
Many Thanks for your Time.
MJT
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:13 am
by Roko
what happend with 4th Kokutai ( g4m ) in scenario 1 & 6 ?
i cant find it
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:10 am
by Tanaka
ORIGINAL: treespider
ORIGINAL: RevRick
After all the recent discussions, I really hate to be the one to bring this up, HOWEVER, being full of either bravery, brilliance, or bovine scatology, I noticed that on the update, in only one scenario (#1) did the F4F-4 (ducks, looks around, pokes head back up) monthly production/replacement level increase to 45. The rest of the scenarios in my install still have production of 35. I have tried a reinstall, but the song remains the same. (I'll put on my romex suit now!)
[:D] Probably an oversight on the part of the person making all of the other database updates included in the Patch.
Won't do you any good for ongoing games - but for new games against the AI - simply make the adjustment in the editor until corrected in Patch 2.
er which is the correct number 35 or 45?
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:36 am
by Tanaka
The historical pilots in the smaller scenarios were never fixed in the new patch...
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:48 pm
by Cathartes
er which is the correct number 35 or 45?
45
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:10 am
by PeteG662
Air Team,
I have a question regarding the withdrawal versus disband function for some US air groups. I noted that some airgroups have both the withdrawal and disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal date process. These are fine as is. There are some groups though that have only a disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal process. Since you lose planes and pilots when you disband these groups, could the air team discuss the rationale between the two different types of mandatory withdrawal? The only reason I can think of with this variance is that we don't want thos pilots and planes to go back into the pool and still maintain historical accuracy of air groups in the US. Is there any thought about changing either the ability to withdraw or perhaps removing the airgroups as not relevant to the game? Appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
Pete
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:44 am
by Pascal_slith
Don't seem to have much success getting an answer in the normal forum, so I'm posting this one here.
In the aircraft database, if I multiply cruise speed times endurance divided by 60, why do I not get the same figure as the maximum range?
Could a WitP AE developer please answer? Thank you.
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:20 am
by JeffroK
Tallyman62
I also find this annoying. But I assume these are units which are withdrawn, both planes and pilots for use in the MTO or ETO as against those which are "disbanded" back into the pool.
As to not having them in the game, they provide the USA with a viable defence (along with various LCU like 3 Infantry Div) against a rampant JFB in the early days..
I'm being selective about the units I ship into the Pacific, avoiding those which withdraw in 1942, except that I NEED some of them.
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:15 am
by PeteG662
Jeff,
Understand the possible use of them for ETO or Med but I seem to recall that should the Japanese try an assault on the mainland there will be an automatic release of significant forces which presumably would encompass aircraft. The forces for this reaction are supposedly not on the map at present but would magically appear should that assault occur.
Since many of these squadrons cannot have their command changed as well as not be withdrawn, they are basically useless for all intents and purposes. They just sit there in the US and clog up the airbases and eat PPs unless disbanded. Maybe I should just disband all of them and lose the planes and pilots and forget about this but figure the Devs should hear some feedback from the rest of us.
Pete
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:57 pm
by Cathartes
ORIGINAL: Tallyman662
Air Team,
I have a question regarding the withdrawal versus disband function for some US air groups. I noted that some airgroups have both the withdrawal and disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal date process. These are fine as is. There are some groups though that have only a disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal process. Since you lose planes and pilots when you disband these groups, could the air team discuss the rationale between the two different types of mandatory withdrawal? The only reason I can think of with this variance is that we don't want thos pilots and planes to go back into the pool and still maintain historical accuracy of air groups in the US. Is there any thought about changing either the ability to withdraw or perhaps removing the airgroups as not relevant to the game? Appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
Pete
TimTom is the person you want to accurately comment on this, but here's my stab:
It's a design decision. The air OOB was very complex and historically lots of groups were withdrawn from service, retired, or reorganized over a long period of time. Some groups just disappeared from the Pacific for a very long time and were totally reorganized after a good chunk of time, or not at all, for a host of reasons. These groups are disbanded.
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:52 pm
by afspret
Whats the story with ACUs in slots 1635, 1636, 1642-1645, 1647-1650, & 1652? They're all USN VF(N) Sqds or Dets and have 9999 for arrival dates.
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:11 pm
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: Tallyman662
Air Team,
I have a question regarding the withdrawal versus disband function for some US air groups. I noted that some airgroups have both the withdrawal and disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal date process. These are fine as is. There are some groups though that have only a disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal process. Since you lose planes and pilots when you disband these groups, could the air team discuss the rationale between the two different types of mandatory withdrawal? The only reason I can think of with this variance is that we don't want thos pilots and planes to go back into the pool and still maintain historical accuracy of air groups in the US. Is there any thought about changing either the ability to withdraw or perhaps removing the airgroups as not relevant to the game? Appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
Pete
I often do the rounds and if the units are well out of harms way, disband/withdraw them early and pick up some PP bonuses.Help cover for not withdrawing the Tasker Bliss wic is crawling across the Pacific with 80 flot damage!
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:00 pm
by Herrbear
ORIGINAL: Pascal
Don't seem to have much success getting an answer in the normal forum, so I'm posting this one here.
In the aircraft database, if I multiply cruise speed times endurance divided by 60, why do I not get the same figure as the maximum range?
Could a WitP AE developer please answer? Thank you.
I an not an WITP AE developer, but Cruise X Endurance is not equal to Max Range any more. Each field is now separate.
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:04 pm
by jcjordan
I was going through scen 7 but assume the problem would be in most if not all of the long campaigns but in looking at the Marine air squadrons many of them are assigned to the USN Air West HQ but they come in at Pearl or even Nouema. Shouldn't they be either one of the Cent Pac or So Pac USN Air HQ's instead? Sometimes it was the first generation on the unit that comes in at one of the forward bases assigned to the west coast hq but then it's 2nd generation comes in at one of the west coast bases assigned to the west coast hq.
RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:01 am
by Pascal_slith
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
ORIGINAL: Pascal
Don't seem to have much success getting an answer in the normal forum, so I'm posting this one here.
In the aircraft database, if I multiply cruise speed times endurance divided by 60, why do I not get the same figure as the maximum range?
Could a WitP AE developer please answer? Thank you.
I an not an WITP AE developer, but Cruise X Endurance is not equal to Max Range any more. Each field is now separate.
Edit: TimTom replied in the regular forum. Endurance is a legacy field from WitP and ignored completely in WitP AE. Only the entered range figures apply.
Thanks to TimTom (I'm not mistaken he was part of the Dev Team, right?).
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:39 pm
by Pascal_slith
Perhaps this has already been addressed, but with Replacements on in some air units, the number of pilots is piling up. This was an issue in WitP, if I remember. I have all the saves and I'm doing Scenario 2 with the patch and hotfix applied.
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:53 pm
by erstad
I noticed in the replacement pool that the Val upgrade sequence goes from D3A1 Val to D3A2 Val to D5Y1 Myojo, skipping all of the Judys. Is that intentional?
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:29 pm
by witpqs
The Beaufighter TFX - FB has an error in the drop tank configuration.
Not using drop tanks has Normal=Radar+Torpedo, Extended=Radar+Bombs
Using drop tanks has Normal=Radar+DropTanks, Extended=Radar+DropTanks+Bombs
Either have to add torpedo to normal or delete bombs from extended, I don't know which.
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:02 pm
by Tanaka
Tainan group should be the most or one of the most experienced and highest morale Japanese air groups at the start of the game...
tm.asp?m=2239930&mpage=1&key=�
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:11 pm
by CJ Martin
There are significant differences in aircraft ranges between the "stock" 8 Dec start and the "quiet China" 8 Dec start. From what I have seen so far, the "quiet China" ranges are less - in some cases hundreds of miles so.
So I ask TimTom - which set of ranges are more correct?
I started poking around in these files to set the PH damage to match the stock 8 Dec files. I was also going to check the PBY max ranges, as they all seem off in AE. PBY's are incapable of self deploying to PH from the west coast in AE, and this is not historical. Given the newly aggressive AI subs (another change I am not fond of) and the inability to load air groups on more than one ship, this is a dangerous situation for the allied player.
-CJ