AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Cathartes]

bsq- AE tries to do it ALL, but it can't do it ALL perfectly well. Unfortunately, AE can't fully simulate the scope and complexity of strategic bombing that occurred in the Pacific late in the war for a number of reasons.

That said, I had the same concern some time ago and I did a sandbox test with the Marianas airfields completely built out to capacity,fully fortified with air support, and the 21st Bomber Command HQ sitting at Tinian.  Here's what I found:

1. I was able to get all the historical squadrons packed in the Marianas, on the appropriate bases. 
2. Airfields were overstacked and there were penalties, but the B-29s did fly strikes against Japan in significant numbers. 
3. I could not mimic the massive, and very rare raids that did occurr over Japan, but I did get raids of 200+ planes to occur (in waves).
4. If you are overstacked, you can rest all your units and you are not suffering from overstack penalties between raids.
5. You CAN mostly mimic the scale of ops in AE, but don't expect the results to perfectly match historical.
6. In a PBEM you had better find a way to escort your bombers, because you can bet that a Japanese player will be defending his Home Island air space more thoroughly than the Japanese were able to historically.

[wworld7]

Now that is a good explaination.

Thanks.

[sven6345789]

Question regarding fighter altitudes

Is it possible to split the fighter altitude into one altitude for CAP and one Altitude for escort?
for example, the escort altitude could be entered the same way you enter search arcs now (in the screen where you set the percentage values).
The altitude you set in the squadron overview could be for offensive (escort and sweep missions)
do not know if it can be implemented, just an idea

[Mike Solli]

Break the unit down and give different squadrons/chutai different missions with different altitudes.

[sven6345789]

well spoken. Could have thought of that myself.

[SuluSea]

I have an issue with transferred carrier planes off map.
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2290390
 
It's late in the game but will ask anyway, was this issue known/ make it in the patch?
 
If not, I'm weighing all my options, if I disband the units will they come back as an independent HQ in 60 days or still  be West Coast (R).
 
Since there's no independent HQ if I change them to AirSOPac will their performance off carriers be less than independent HQ?
 
Thanks for any and all assistance.
 
 
 

[jcjordan]

ORIGINAL: 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.

As a follow up to this, the units are now set to arrive but the ships are currently in PH getting the Mar/Apr upgrade so the unit just keeps getting set to arrive on the Lex & Sara 7days later. I'm waiting for the ships to come out of the upgrade to see if the units do come onto the carriers or if they just keep getting set to come back 7days later.
Also in a similar problem, I w/d the 6th Phil FS back when I had the PI & it was set to arrive at Manila but Manila fell before it's date of rearrival. On the date it was supposed to arrive it then reset it's arrival place to SF 7 days hence & it never arrives at SF, it keeps resetting it's arrival date 7 days later. Something weird w/ some arrivals when arrival base is lost[&:] I've got a few dutch units set to arrive at Tjilitjap in a couple of weeks also & think the same thing might happen to them as I'm about to lose Tjilitjap as well as the rest of DEI.

There's also several VFB units set to arrive in Jan 45 that arrive on the different Essex class carriers but they show in the air reinforcement queue. I wonder if, with the above problem w/ the VMF squadrons on Lex & Sara, if they will arrive or not? I've also found some FAA units the same way - FAA 1830,1836, 1835, 1841, 1842, VBF units - 1,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,82

Also found that VBF6 is set to come in on Essex, shouldn't that be Enterprise?

[Fishbed]

Hello Air chaps!

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I wondered what was the official position on the "uber single-engined carrier torpedo bombers" issue? Namely the fact that Kates and Avengers have a distinctive tendency to be better at 20.000 ft horizontal bombing than Val and Dauntless crews are at dive bombing ^^

Cf my earlier post
tm.asp?m=2294064

Any plan to look into this, if it hasn't been done yet?

Thanks in advance!

[Walloc]

In the beta patch, this is scn 1, havent checked the others. The Recon version of the Mustangs, F-6C/D are listed/designated as figthers where as for example F-4x are listed as recons. Is this intended?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

In the beta patch, this is scn 1, havent checked the others. The Recon version of the Mustangs, F-6C/D are listed/designated as figthers where as for example F-4x are listed as recons. Is this intended?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

This is intentional and the Recce Mustang was in fact a fighter armed with 4 x .50s. As the code requires a fighter designation for A2A combat to occur, we classified then thus. They also have a camera device which triggers a recon role as well allowing for DL level bonuses. These are Tac Recon units.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

In the beta patch, this is scn 1, havent checked the others. The Recon version of the Mustangs, F-6C/D are listed/designated as figthers where as for example F-4x are listed as recons. Is this intended?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

In a previous patch they fixed a bug so that, now, any plane with an appropriate camera device can fly a Recon mission. So, being a fighter or recon plane might not really matter. maybe the choice of category has to do with configuration of guns on board?

EDIT: Overlapping posts, Elf!

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: TheElf


This is intentional and the Recce Mustang was in fact a fighter armed with 4 x .50s. As the code requires a fighter designation for A2A combat to occur, we classified then thus. They also have a camera device which triggers a recon role as well allowing for DL level bonuses. These are Tac Recon units.

Ok and thx both for answering,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

Hi TheElf/ Air team,


I got a question about the intend regarding a side effect of the changes in the patch.
Pre patch u in many cases of the early withdrawls of airunits all of both lost pilots and planes. Via disbanding and withdrawls without the PP option.
Well im an evil schemer(TM) [;)] so it comes naturally to me. Considering that u now can if i understand the workings of the pilot management post patch correctly, move the pilots from the groups into the general pool.
That means as far as i been able to detect. That you can both train pilots in these early withdrawl airunits and remove those pilots. Plus remove any pilot alrdy in the groups usually of better quality and put them into the general pool just before the withdrawl date.
Stripping them for "qualified" pilots.

Is this intended or an unintended side effect of the post patch pilot management?
So possibly some thing to be fixed or make HRs about.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walker84]

Hoping to get help with a problem upgrading elements of Chitose Ku S-1 from A5Ms to A6M2s. The unit is assigned to 24 Air flotilla which it is sitting in the same hex with. Base has a lvl 4 airfield and 32k of supplies and the upgrade is green and switched on but the 'upgrade now' button is greyed out and even leaving it over a turn end has no effect. These guys are 70+ exp & would love to get them into some better airframes before they encounter too many F4Fs. Any suggestions what I should do to get the upgrade working?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Hi TheElf/ Air team,


I got a question about the intend regarding a side effect of the changes in the patch.
Pre patch u in many cases of the early withdrawls of airunits all of both lost pilots and planes. Via disbanding and withdrawls without the PP option.
Well im an evil schemer(TM) [;)] so it comes naturally to me. Considering that u now can if i understand the workings of the pilot management post patch correctly, move the pilots from the groups into the general pool.
That means as far as i been able to detect. That you can both train pilots in these early withdrawl airunits and remove those pilots. Plus remove any pilot alrdy in the groups usually of better quality and put them into the general pool just before the withdrawl date.
Stripping them for "qualified" pilots.

Is this intended or an unintended side effect of the post patch pilot management?
So possibly some thing to be fixed or make HRs about.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Interesting....

[Pascal_slith]

Yes, this is going to be a pet peev. I've seen this error since WitP.

The Catalina flying boats (almost all versions) are not given enough range compared to actual, historical ranges (verified by actual test documents from WWII which can be found at

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight ... 14239.html

Not just the PBY-5 could make it to Pearl Harbor from the West Coast, but so could the PBY-5A. This has an influence on strategic flexibility.

Similarly, according to Francillion's work on Japanese aircraft (and some Japanese sources), both the Mavis and Emily flying boats are also under-ranged in WitP AE.

I've looked at the DB all the way up to the 1094 beta patch.

I'll post revised data shortly.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Hoping to get help with a problem upgrading elements of Chitose Ku S-1 from A5Ms to A6M2s. The unit is assigned to 24 Air flotilla which it is sitting in the same hex with. Base has a lvl 4 airfield and 32k of supplies and the upgrade is green and switched on but the 'upgrade now' button is greyed out and even leaving it over a turn end has no effect. These guys are 70+ exp & would love to get them into some better airframes before they encounter too many F4Fs. Any suggestions what I should do to get the upgrade working?

Move them too a supplied level 7 AF or have the HQ on that and in Range. Read more on it on page 257-8 in the manual.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walker84]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Walker84

Hoping to get help with a problem upgrading elements of Chitose Ku S-1 from A5Ms to A6M2s. The unit is assigned to 24 Air flotilla which it is sitting in the same hex with. Base has a lvl 4 airfield and 32k of supplies and the upgrade is green and switched on but the 'upgrade now' button is greyed out and even leaving it over a turn end has no effect. These guys are 70+ exp & would love to get them into some better airframes before they encounter too many F4Fs. Any suggestions what I should do to get the upgrade working?

Move them too a supplied level 7 AF or have the HQ on that and in Range. Read more on it on page 257-8 in the manual.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Thanks for the quick reply Rasmus, and also pointing out the correct place in the manual. Makes perfect sense now.

Kind regards,

Walker

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Yes, this is going to be a pet peev. I've seen this error since WitP.

The Catalina flying boats (almost all versions) are not given enough range compared to actual, historical ranges (verified by actual test documents from WWII which can be found at

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight ... 14239.html

Not just the PBY-5 could make it to Pearl Harbor from the West Coast, but so could the PBY-5A. This has an influence on strategic flexibility.

Similarly, according to Francillion's work on Japanese aircraft (and some Japanese sources), both the Mavis and Emily flying boats are also under-ranged in WitP AE.

I've looked at the DB all the way up to the 1094 beta patch.

I'll post revised data shortly.

According to his bio by Potter, whenever Nimitz had to attend meetings in the San Francisco area he flew in a PBY. That is until one time when upon landing they struck a submerged log (not visible to the pilots). The plane flipped over and seriously injured the pilots and Nimitz himself had minor injuries. After that the 'even higher' brass detailed a 4-engine land based transport for his personal use.

Pascal - they set aircraft ranges to get the mission ranges as correct as possible. Perhaps (due to the formulas in the code) they simply had to sacrifice some transfer range?

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Yes, this is going to be a pet peev. I've seen this error since WitP.

The Catalina flying boats (almost all versions) are not given enough range compared to actual, historical ranges (verified by actual test documents from WWII which can be found at

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight ... 14239.html

Not just the PBY-5 could make it to Pearl Harbor from the West Coast, but so could the PBY-5A. This has an influence on strategic flexibility.

Similarly, according to Francillion's work on Japanese aircraft (and some Japanese sources), both the Mavis and Emily flying boats are also under-ranged in WitP AE.

I've looked at the DB all the way up to the 1094 beta patch.

I'll post revised data shortly.

According to his bio by Potter, whenever Nimitz had to attend meetings in the San Francisco area he flew in a PBY. That is until one time when upon landing they struck a submerged log (not visible to the pilots). The plane flipped over and seriously injured the pilots and Nimitz himself had minor injuries. After that the 'even higher' brass detailed a 4-engine land based transport for his personal use.

Pascal - they set aircraft ranges to get the mission ranges as correct as possible. Perhaps (due to the formulas in the code) they simply had to sacrifice some transfer range?

Each range in the database can now be set individually, not like in WitP. So transfer range, extended range and normal range are now independent of each other. In WitP everything was dependent.

Yes, I read in a number of books the story of Nimitz and his PBY flipping. He was very lucky.

Here are my range numbers based on original military docs and published sources for the PBY's

PBY-5
Max range: 2850
Extended range: 2350
Normal range: 1950
Max DT: 3350
Ext. DT: 2650
Norm. DT: 2350

PBY-5A
Max: 2790
Ext : 1940
Norm : 1650
Max DT: 3300
Ext DT: 2540
Norm DT: 2290

The Catalina I's (PBY-5), Dutch PBY-5's and Canadian Canso A (PBY-5A) have to be modified accordingly.