AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: faraonej
Although the Wirraway (an Aboriginal word meaning "Challenger") was designated as the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) advanced trainer during World War Two, its usefulness as a makeshift frontline fighter was secured on 26 December 1942 when a converted example shot down a Japanese navy A6M 'Zero-Sen' fighter. Wirraways saw convoy duty from Darwin, in Malaya, New Britain and New Guinea until mid-1943.


Could you find us at least one more example?

Dauntless' shot down Zero's too and B-17's shot them down as well...[;)]
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
tanjman
Posts: 668
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Griffin, GA

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by tanjman »

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

ORIGINAL: erstad

There can be a delay.

Variable upon . . . ? But should they all arrive? Reason I ask is I want to double check in my game that its WAD.

Thanks for the reply.

Chad

From WitP AE Manual (EBook version), page 258, last paragraph:

The number of old aircraft being replaced in the group will be added back to the Aircraft Replacement pool, but they will slowly reappear with a delay of up to 7 days. A message will appear in the player’s Operations Report when they arrive. This is an attempt to represent the time required to repair and service the old aircraft, and to make them combat ready to be sent out as replacements.
Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.
User avatar
Chad Harrison
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:07 pm
Location: Boise, ID - USA

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Chad Harrison »

ORIGINAL: tanjman

The number of old aircraft being replaced in the group will be added back to the Aircraft Replacement pool, but they will slowly reappear with a delay of up to 7 days. A message will appear in the player’s Operations Report when they arrive. This is an attempt to represent the time required to repair and service the old aircraft, and to make them combat ready to be sent out as replacements.

Well by golly, someone is better at retaining information when they read through the manual than I am [:D]

Thanks for the reply and clarification.

Chad
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates

Post by timtom »

General note: When reporting issues, please state which scenario the issue pertains to. Thank you. And keep 'em coming.
ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

In Scen 6 or 9 why is 488 Squadron still upgradeing to Dutch Hurricanes!

MJT

Clearly someone's been asleep on the job ;).
ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

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.

Actually it's the other way round :) - apologies if I gave the wrong impression.
ORIGINAL: Roko

what happend with 4th Kokutai ( g4m ) in scenario 1 & 6 ?
i cant find it

The Takao Kokutai K-1 Hikotai detachment becomes 4th Kokutai. This isn't exactly what happened - 4th Ku's Hikotai was put together from two Buntai's of the Takao Ku and one from the Chitose Ku's attack Hikotai.
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

From an older thread ->

...underpinning the OOB design is a set of methodological guidelines which serves as rules-of-thumb when tackling the multitude of design decisions involved. Not only does this mean that the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented with every new unit, but it also ensures that there's one set of rules is applied to all, and hopefully leads to a structured design for which at least plausible defense can be mounted.

So, with the "useless" WC units, how does this methodology go? Well, the first question is whether we're dealing with a combat- or combat-support unit operating in a manner explicitly modelled in the game on-map. In the case of the "useless" units, the answer is yes - these were combat units either fully formed or in the process of forming, temporarily assigned to the defense of the US western seaboard at the outbreak of war. Once the press realised that invasion wasn't imminent, these units reverted to full-time training and/or transferred east.

The basic contention that these units are "useless" begs the question "to whom and by what definition". Some players might enjoy the attention to detail and historiosity (is that a word?) and think it a quality in itself, or take note of the woeful state of many USAAC units as a didactic point in its own right. And of course the a very slight chance that they might be used in other than a patrol capacity - a posibility which would only increase if these units were not there.

However accepting the basic contention that the air units in question are useless, the OOB designer is then left with the problem of formulation a workable methodology which can be applied across the board without prejudice. How do you define whether a unit is "useless" or not? If it's a question of location, should then the RCAF units go as well? What about Alaska? Exactly where does this imaginary line of "uselessness" run? Is it that they never left the US? Then what about units which never left metropolitan Japan, Australia, New Zealand or Canada? Is it the number of aircraft in a unit? Does this mean that all small or understrength units should be eliminated? How many aircraft is enough be "useful"? Same question with the short availability dates. So rather than make a number of arbitrary decisions on the behalf of the player, this OOB designer chose go back to the simple starting point: Is the unit in question combat- or combat-support unit operating in a manner explicitly modelled in the game on-map? If yes, leave the decision whether a unit is "useful" or not to the player.

Anyone is obviously at liberty to disagree, but there is - I believe - a considered reason for the current setup which has nothing to do with overblow egos or a lack of comprehension. That said on my personal top-three list of fix-its is making the withdrawal procedure automatic like the way it works for LCU's unless the player invests PPs to keep a unit in play, but I don't set patching priorities or do the coding so can only promise to push for it.

The total number of restricted WC air units called on to withdraw (this is, disband) is 65. This out of 2011 Allied units.


tm.asp?m=2197214&mpage=2
ORIGINAL: 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.

Someone started fiddling with the USN carrier aviation OOB, then thought the better of it. For now.
ORIGINAL: 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.

Will fix for patch 2.
ORIGINAL: 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?

Yup.
ORIGINAL: 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.

Arhh, drat. The difficulty is that the torp is slung under the fuselage as is the drop tank (= centreline). The bombs however are carried under the wings (= external). So to get round the inconsistancy you're seeing we'll have to define/fudge the TT/DT as "external", thus the code will call either the DT or the TT/bombs.
ORIGINAL: 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?

Hi Martin, how that's '43 mod coming? [:'(]

The former. Slighty (just) puzzled why they should differ. Methinks me got a Scotsman to skin ;).
ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

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

Hmm, the -5 should be able to reach PH but not the -5A prior to getting drop tanks. Will investigate.
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

v1084 - Unit 4293 - 34th BG / HQ Sqn - This unit has no W/D requirement.

Wilco.
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

There appears to be 2 x WCDR R.N. Batesons...

[:D]
ORIGINAL: Pascal

No RNZAF Hudsons were on Fiji at the beginning of the war.

The first ones arrive on the 9th, no?



Where's the Any key?

Image
fbs
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 am

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates

Post by fbs »


Little typo.. aircraft type "Hurricane II Trop" instead of "Hurricane IIb Torp".

This is on Scenario #001, 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks [:D]
fbs
sspahr
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:21 pm

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates

Post by sspahr »

ORIGINAL: fbs


Little typo.. aircraft type "Hurricane II Trop" instead of "Hurricane IIb Torp".

This is on Scenario #001, 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks [:D]
fbs

"Trop" is short for tropicalized, with the Vokes filter, so it's not a typo.
User avatar
cantona2
Posts: 3749
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Gibraltar

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates

Post by cantona2 »

ORIGINAL: sspahr

ORIGINAL: fbs


Little typo.. aircraft type "Hurricane II Trop" instead of "Hurricane IIb Torp".

This is on Scenario #001, 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks [:D]
fbs



"Trop" is short for tropicalized, with the Vokes filter, so it's not a typo.

Notice first spelling 'Trop' second spelling 'Torp'!
1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates

Post by timtom »

ORIGINAL: 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=�

It is top-of-line, isn't it?

One might wonder whether in some part the Tainan Kokutai's reputation springs from having received greater publicity in the English-speaking world than most through Sakai's book (nevermind that he didn't write it himself).

If the footnotes are anything to go by, the Wiki article is primarily based on Hata & Izawa's chapter on the Tainan Ku in "Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II". Hata & Izawa only states that the Kokutai was the "best known and...with the largest number of aces" rather than explicitly stating that the unit was the best of the landbased fighter units - in fact they also state that "compared to Tainan Air Group personnel, the ratio of senior, experienced personnel was higher [in the 3rd Kokutai]" (p.123).

Considering the four aces mentioned, only Sakai had previous combat experience as of December 7th '41. Sasai had only graduated from flight school that November. Nishizawa had yet to see combat and in any case wasn't assigned the Tainan Ku until April.
Ota, though having been assigned to 12th Ku in June '41, had seen no actual combat. In any case the Tainan Ku saw more combat than any other IJNAF fighter unit (such as they were) '41-'42, so it is perhaps not surprising if it came to have the "largest number of aces".

Looking at the some of the Tainan Ku pilots killed prior to the unit being posted to Rabaul suggests that the picture wasn't uniform:

Hatanaka, O.: Month graduated: 6/41 - Date of death: 24/11/41
Nakamizo, R.: 4/36 - 08/12/41 (ex-Kaga Kitai)
Hirose, Y.: 2/38 - 08/12/41 (ex-12th Ku)
Sato, Y.: 8/38 - 08/12/41
Kawano, Y.: 3/39 - 08/12/41
Aoki, Y.: 7/41 - 08/12/41
Higa, M.: 2/38 - 10/12/41 (ex-12th Ku)
Kuratomi, H.: 1/39 - 13/12/41 (ex-12th Ku)
Kikuchi, T.: 3/39 - 24/12/41 (ex-14th Ku)
Harada, Y. 5/33 - 24/01/42
Wakao, A.: 4/40 - 25/01/42
Seki, A.: 10/41 - 25/01/42
Sakai, T.: 8/38 - 29/01/42 (ex-12th Ku)
Kobayashi, K.: 7/41 - 03/02/42
Asai, M.: 7/38 - 19/02/42 (ex-12th Ku)
Ueda, M.: 10/41 - 24/02/42
Sakai, T.: 8/38 - 27/02/42

(Hata & Izawa, Appendix B, C)

Making a couple of presumptions about the data, of the 17 pilots, five were recent graduates and seven potential combat vets. That the picture wasn't entire monochrome is perhaps not surprising if one accepts Mark Peattie's argument in "Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power" that "By the time of Pearl Harbor, half of the Japanese naval air service was, by its own reckoning, insufficiently trained, a situation that had lead to widespread allocation of inexperienced aircrews. Because the carrier units demanded the highest level of training, the could be supplied on at the sacrifice of the quality of many of the land-based air groups. At the opening of the Pacific War, for example, the table of organization for the first-line air groups was nearly complete, but if one looks at the composition, particularly those of the Eleventh Air Fleet, it is clear that they contained a fairly high percentage of aircrews assigned before their training was finished. In part this was a consequence of the recent commissioning of the carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku, which borrowed a number of the best air group leaders for their participation in the Hawai'i operation" ( p.166-7). It should be noted that the IJNAF's idea of "sufficient training" was a 12 months apprenticeship with a combat unit on top of basic flight training, at what point the pilot was considered combat-ready.


Where's the Any key?

Image
fbs
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 am

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates

Post by fbs »

ORIGINAL: sspahr

ORIGINAL: fbs


Little typo.. aircraft type "Hurricane II Trop" instead of "Hurricane IIb Torp".

This is on Scenario #001, 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks [:D]
fbs

"Trop" is short for tropicalized, with the Vokes filter, so it's not a typo.


Ah.... sorry, forgot about tropicalized aircrafts. As I saw the Hurricane IIb Trop as an upgrade for a torpedo-carrying Vildebeest III unit, I thought it was the fighter-bomber with some sort of aiming device based on the torpedo-bomber aim.

Now that I think again of it, that wouldn't make any sense, hahaha.. I'm a moron... [:D]


Cheers [:D]
fbs
User avatar
Montbrun
Posts: 1506
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Montbrun »

v 1084 - Campaign Game - Unit 2660 "VMF-441"

No matter what I do, I can't get this unit to retain more than 20 pilots. I can fill the squadron to max planes (24), but the pilots don't hang around. The turn after I add pilots, they are gone. I'm not sure if they're returned to the pool or not.
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
sspahr
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:21 pm

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by sspahr »

V1084 Scenario 4 Guadalcanal --

I've noticed a few problems with this one:

The 19th BG squadrons are scheduled to withdraw, but when I withdrew them, they came back the next turn (with no planes or pilots).

The Rufe is classified as a Float Plane rather than as a Float Fighter.

The F4F-3P unit doesn't have a recon mission option.  I checked the camera device in the editor, and it has effect of 0.

This may be intentional, but I've noticed that a lot of the aircraft in Scen 4, such as the Betty and B-17, have much longer range than they do in Scen 1.
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Mynok »


All float planes have been given the ability to do 'fighter' missions now, which they actually did at times. In that context, I think the devs will argue the Rufe is appropriately categorized.

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
sspahr
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:21 pm

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by sspahr »

ORIGINAL: Mynok

All float planes have been given the ability to do 'fighter' missions now, which they actually did at times. In that context, I think the devs will argue the Rufe is appropriately categorized.

Maybe so, but the Rufe is classified as a Float Fighter in scenario one. It probably doesn't make much difference to a human player, but the AI probably handles Float Planes and Float Fighters differently.
Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Walloc »

Hi Elf/airteam

Quoting for another thread.

Hi JWE,

I've noticed some differences between scn 1 and 6 in regards to DB stuff.
2 examples. There are more.

Dutch Do-24K-1 has ranges 14/18 in scn 1 and 9/11 in scn 6.
Brit Hurricans start 16 replacements in 1/42 in scn 1 and first 3/42 in scn 6.


So since i can assume they arent put in by the scn designer, as seen by his responce, should i start making a list of inconsistancies and post here?

Kind regards,

Rasmus
davbaker
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:54 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by davbaker »

Air Base Overstacking cookie again.

I see a lot of confusion over this , but no real definative answers.

Here's what I'm seeing:

Rangoon 7 (7) Assigned to SE Asia
221 Group RAF HQ (3) - SE Asia
10th USAAF HQ (5) - SE Asia

I have 14 Airgroups present, none training.

Have been there for several turns.

The manual (and lots of posts) clearly state that a Lvl 9 AF does not suffer from overstacking.

7 base + 5 command radius of best Air HQ > 9

Why am I getting 'Base Administration 14 of 12 supported groups" mesages.

a) Does it mean anything, is the base actually overstacked?
b) if the base isnt overstacked , why the confusing message?

Cheers!
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Hi Elf/airteam
Quoting for another thread.
Hi JWE,

I've noticed some differences between scn 1 and 6 in regards to DB stuff.
2 examples. There are more.

Dutch Do-24K-1 has ranges 14/18 in scn 1 and 9/11 in scn 6.
Brit Hurricans start 16 replacements in 1/42 in scn 1 and first 3/42 in scn 6.


So since i can assume they arent put in by the scn designer, as seen by his responce, should i start making a list of inconsistancies and post here?

Kind regards,
Rasmus
Whoops, sorry to have you post here, and then just follow right behind you, but the problem was found, and will be taken care of for patch-2. It was just an older vs newer aircraft file thing. Sorry about that.
Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Walloc »

Ok thx John, glad it will be fixed.

Ill go moan to my PBEM opponent about my lost production.[;)]
Now i have an excuse when i lose. [:D]

Kind regards,

Rasmus
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Mynok »

ORIGINAL: sspahr
ORIGINAL: Mynok

All float planes have been given the ability to do 'fighter' missions now, which they actually did at times. In that context, I think the devs will argue the Rufe is appropriately categorized.

Maybe so, but the Rufe is classified as a Float Fighter in scenario one. It probably doesn't make much difference to a human player, but the AI probably handles Float Planes and Float Fighters differently.

Interesting. Guess the devs will have to address that then. I would suspect one of those classifications is an error.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
Montbrun
Posts: 1506
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Montbrun »

Australian Spit VIIIs are classified as "Night Fighters" - the Brit Spit VIIIs aren't. Is this correct?



Image
Attachments
Spit8a.jpg
Spit8a.jpg (184.91 KiB) Viewed 271 times
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
User avatar
Montbrun
Posts: 1506
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Montbrun »

Australian Spit VIII:



Image
Attachments
Spit8b.jpg
Spit8b.jpg (181.81 KiB) Viewed 271 times
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”