AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Montbrun]

Australian Spit VIII:

[Montbrun]

Australian v. British Spit VIII:

[Cathartes]

methinks bug... TimTom?

[sspahr]

The Aussie Spitfire bug is fixed as of v.1084 for Scenarios 1&2, but in Scen 6 it's still a night fighter. It seems that the scenario 6 aircraft database wasn't completely updated to the same state as the other scenarios'.

[afspret]

The Det of 5 Sq RNZAF at Singapore has its HQ listed as a RNZAF Base Force (the one thats based at Suva). Intentional or error?

[MechFO]

Scenario 2

262nd Sentai arrives in March 1942 with Helen IIa's. They are either arriving too early or with the wrong planes, since Helen IIa's only become available in September 42.  

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Scenario 2

262nd Sentai arrives in March 1942 with Helen IIa's. They are either arriving too early or with the wrong planes, since Helen IIa's only become available in September 42.  

Was that the unit used to do the operational testing?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Cathartes
methinks bug... TimTom?

Was a data error. It was an older vs newer aircraft file thing in scen006. Fixed for patch-2. Sorry 'bout that.

[Jonathan Pollard]

Malang in Java has a level 1 AF and also a medium bomber squadron. I doubt the Dutch would have assigned a bomber to where it could not engage in offensive operations.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Scenario 2

262nd Sentai arrives in March 1942 with Helen IIa's. They are either arriving too early or with the wrong planes, since Helen IIa's only become available in September 42.  

Was that the unit used to do the operational testing?

That is my presumption, but if so, they should have Ia's instead of IIa's

[fbs]

What happened to my beloved VMF-211? Before patch 1 it used to be in Pearl Harbor, but now I can't find it anywhere on the map nor in the list of units per HQ/nationality/etc or in the reinforcements list... (scenario 1, 1.0.1.1084).

When I load that scenario on the editor, I see:

Unit #2588 (VMF 211 Det)... HQ #6778 (USN Forwd AirCenPac), Location #611 (Wake Island)
Unit #2587 (VMF 211)....... HQ #102 (Central Pacific), Location #6778 (USN Forwd AirCenPac)

It is right to have an HQ as the location? Someone help find my poor VMF-211

Thanks,
fbs

[fbs]

The 58th PG at March Field is assigned to the 10th USAAF on Dec-1941, but the 10th USAAF was formed in Feb-1942.

Thanks,
fbs

[oldman45]

Perhaps I am reading the editor wrong, the Barracuda's are listed as DB but only seem to carry Torps.

[jcjordan]

Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but the 2 marine airgroups that start the game on the Lex & Sara create some problems. I transferred them off to land bases but later on in the game I withdrew them to get some planes in the pool for other units but later on I noticed that when they are in the reinforcement queue they are set to come back onto the Lex & Sara instead of at SF [&:] This is scen 1 patch 1 so would assume any long campaign that has them starting on the carriers would have same problem should they be w/d or disbanded & allowed to come back.

[Local Yokel]

Guadalcanal scenario, patches up to date.

Early on I appointed Lt Sasai Junichi to command S-1 detachment of the Tainan Ku (seemed historically appropriate). During current turn (14 Sep 42) I decided to draw some reinforcement a/c and pilots. First I drew additional a/c to bring the unit's strength to 18, then began to draw additional pilots. As I was doing so, and when the pilot total reached 16, Lt Sasai was displaced by LtJG Hirano - before me very eyes! What's more, Lt Sasai appears to have take a fast trip to Yasukuni, as he no longer appears in the list of available leaders, so that I cannot re-appoint him.

I've attached a screenie to show the 'before' and 'after' of this. Scarcely a game breaking issue, but why on earth should the code connected with drawing pilots have the effect of replacing the existing leader with another, and moreover one of inferior rank?

[&:]



<edit> Reloaded and went about it a different way. This time I drew the additional pilots I required, then additional a/c. This time Lt Sasai remained in charge. Curioser and curioser. </edit>

[bsq]

I know this has been mentioned before, but the answers seemed inconclusive and in some cases evasive.


So I will ask it again - Why is the largest airfield ever built (up to that point in history) only being portrayed as a Size 7?

With 6 x 9000 feet runways and nearly 1000 B29s being operated from the island in 1945, what gives with Tinian in the game?

At Size 7 there are stacking penalties and group admin penalties for operating more than 84 B29's (stacking) or more than 7 Sqns (admin - which amounts to 49 B29's).&nbsp; I don't think the USAAF operated with such penalties, after all how would LeMay have mounted the huge fire-bombing raids of 1945 given such constraints.

This needs a proper answer or it needs addressing in a future patch.&nbsp; The problem is that B29 groups now come as Sqn's and not BG's - this makes the group admin issue a real pain and turns Tinian red really quickly.

Even using Guam, Saipan and Tinian, it is not possible to base all the B29's the game will make available to the player by August 1945 without suffering a penalty, which just was not there IRL.

Sure I can just base the 1000 B29's there if I want to - but what I really want to know is what are the penalties for doing so and more to the point why am I penalised for doing something that happened (without penalty) in real life?

To my mind, no one has satisfactorily answered that last point.

[wworld7]

WITP-AE is a game not real life.

[witpqs]

As far as the admin penalties go - they won't kick in at 7 squadrons as you say if you have an air HQ there or nearby. They certainly did IRL. [:)]

[Barb]

Use Air HQ and administrative penalties will be out of question.
As to stacking penalties, they are intended to be in place.
For example: 8th USAAF squadrons were sending some 3-6 planes for a mission, not all of them. That way a Bomb group usually produced one or two Boxes (18 planes).

5th USAAF Medium bombardment squadron usually sent 6 plane missions.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

WITP-AE is a game not real life.

Granted it's game - but that adds nothing to the debate.

It's supposed to be a highly accurate simulation of real life - so it should stand scrutiny.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As far as the admin penalties go - they won't kick in at 7 squadrons as you say if you have an air HQ there or nearby. They certainly did IRL. [:)]

OK, so part way there but only insomuch as the admin limit now equals the stacking limit and you can only count your best HQ. We now get:

(Base) 7 + (Best Air HQ Command Radius) 5 = 12 Sqns (84 B29's) and
(Base) 7 * 12 (max stack of 4E per AF Point) = 84 B29's

So my question remains - when Tinian (the largest airfield complex in WW2) goes red, what penalties am I under because in mid 1945 I will have around 110 Sqns I want to base there!

ORIGINAL: Barb

Use Air HQ and administrative penalties will be out of question.
As to stacking penalties, they are intended to be in place.
For example: 8th USAAF squadrons were sending some 3-6 planes for a mission, not all of them. That way a Bomb group usually produced one or two Boxes (18 planes).

5th USAAF Medium bombardment squadron usually sent 6 plane missions.

See above for worked Air HQ example. As for the low numbers per BG, then there are two issues.
1. We do not get BG's as in WITP, we get BS's
2. The firebombing raids used all available frames.

Thing is if I get there and find I cannot conduct an effective Strategic Bombing campaign because my B29's are crashing left right and centre on take off/landing or they are taking longer to repair than Boeing take to build them, then I am not going to be overly happy [&:]