Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: WLockard

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?

I think it should, what would you do with an R&D factory for an aircraft you are producing?

Change it to a new AC type you want to accellerate research on? [;)]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?

Becomes a production facility.

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?

Becomes a production facility.

And you lose a R&D ervery time you research one random AC? erstad do you change to another AC type right before to avoid
that or use the production points for the new planetype. I guess the second option but the you lose the R&D and you wont get it back right?

Doh! This again proved that Japanese industry is still a mystery to me... [8|]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

And you lose a R&D ervery time you research one random AC? erstad do you change to another AC type right before to avoid
that or use the production points for the new planetype. I guess the second option but the you lose the R&D and you wont get it back right?

So far, I always let them go into production because if I'm researching it, by definition it's a plane I want and I usually want a bunch of them. Might do it differently later on if what's being researched is a plane that will have a lot of factories auto-upgrade to the new model.

Thanks erstad. Yet another wrinkle to Japanese production to muddle......

Question on getting new pilots.  Playing Allied side in 8 Dec scenario.

Game doesn't seem to work as the manual suggests.&nbsp; When I try to get a replacement pilot for a frontline sqdn, I'll set the type as "Trained/Rookie 50+", "Manual" and "Any" source.&nbsp; Sometimes it works, sometimes I get a newbie with an overall experience < 50 - not what I've ordered.

When this happens, I'll try to pick a veteran.&nbsp; I click on a name and it disappears from the selection array but isn't listed as a future reinf. on the sqdn list of pilots.&nbsp; I've been in the case where I click 3 consecutive names in the array (i.e, which are in row X, row X+1, row X+2), I don't get the 1st or 3d but do get the second??? (1 and 3 disappear from the master list) All have the same experience, all are in "xxx reserve", and have a "1" under the "days" column.&nbsp; I've found that if I find someone with the experiences I need who is assigned to a sqdn not currently in play, I'll get that person (even when trying to get someone from reserves with higher skills and that fails).

I hope someone can help me.&nbsp; I also hope this plea made sense to potential helpers.



Doc Smith

ORIGINAL: doc smith

Question on getting new pilots.  Playing Allied side in 8 Dec scenario.

Game doesn't seem to work as the manual suggests.  When I try to get a replacement pilot for a frontline sqdn, I'll set the type as "Trained/Rookie 50+", "Manual" and "Any" source.  Sometimes it works, sometimes I get a newbie with an overall experience < 50 - not what I've ordered.

When this happens, I'll try to pick a veteran.  I click on a name and it disappears from the selection array but isn't listed as a future reinf. on the sqdn list of pilots.  I've been in the case where I click 3 consecutive names in the array (i.e, which are in row X, row X+1, row X+2), I don't get the 1st or 3d but do get the second??? (1 and 3 disappear from the master list) All have the same experience, all are in "xxx reserve", and have a "1" under the "days" column.  I've found that if I find someone with the experiences I need who is assigned to a sqdn not currently in play, I'll get that person (even when trying to get someone from reserves with higher skills and that fails).

I hope someone can help me.  I also hope this plea made sense to potential helpers.



Doc Smith

On part 1 what normally is happening is that there are no pilots that fit the experience lvl setting due to wounds etc.
On part 2 what I've noticed (not sure if it's true or not, dev type would have to say for sure) but in my game when that happens (pilots disappearing when asking for a vet) it'll show up in the pilot list but will take some time (maybe a few days to a week) & then he'll still show due in a few more days but will show on the pilot roster. I'm not positive if this is what's happening or not but I think all pilots in the selected pilot pool will show regardless of whether he's available in the game ie Bong doesn't come in till mid 42 but in Dec 41 you can request a veteran & be able to select him into a unit but he probably won't show on the pilot roster till the time he's set to come in. I think wounded pilots show as well in the request a veteran so they won't appear on unit's pilot roster until they're healed. I've not conclusively tested this but just things I've noticed & done a very basic check on so all might not be true.

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?

Becomes a production facility.

Why would you ever have a game set up to use "realistic R&D" then ... it's basically the same as not. I'm confused and will test this myself cause it seems strange to me at least.

Realistic R&D means you can not change a R&D factory to a production factory. But, when the aircraft for the R&D factory is available, it then becomes a production factory.

ORIGINAL: WLockard

Realistic R&D means you can not change a R&D factory to a production factory. But, when the aircraft for the R&D factory is available, it then becomes a production factory.

But when it becomes a production facility, I assume you can't then change it to another production choice only another R@D facility ... right ? Which means that to continuously use that facility to R&D, and produce planes that you've R&D'd you are expending double the supplies ... not something I'd care to undertake.

ORIGINAL: n01487477
But when it becomes a production facility, I assume you can't then change it to another production choice only another R@D facility ... right ? Which means that to continuously use that facility to R&D, and produce planes that you've R&D'd you are expending double the supplies ... not something I'd care to undertake.

Realistic R&D means that you can't change a R&D factory to a production factory, and vice versa. Other changes are allowed (that is, you can change an R&D factory to another R&D factory, and you can change a production factory to another production factory).

Turning this off means that any changes are allowed, as in the original game.

Andrew

I just got this reinforcement. Note that it is a Val unit but upgrades to a Kate unit. Is this correct? I'm using the last official patch (not the beta that just came out).

Thanks.

Don't know about that particular one, but there are lots of British/Australian, etc. air units that up grade to different types (bombers->fighters, fighters->bombers, search->transport, and so on).

I think its correct for this unit

BTW
L2D2 Tabby max and cruising speed is in knots ( 191-140 ) insted of miles

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/l2d.htm

Apologies if mentioned before; does anyone know why the three Spit V squadrons that start in Melbourne in 1942 do not increase in plane numbers. The a/c type is not in production for either the RAF or the RAAF at this date, but I believe that the squadrons did get to full strength and fight (with varying success) the IJN over Darwin well before the end of 1942. Should they perhaps have arrived as complete?

If I remember right, that was a wing that was hastily transferred to Australia as an emergency, but they either saw no combat or only limited combat because most of their planes were delayed on delivery and there were few Spitfires in Australia until the threat to Darwin was gone.

Later there was a lot of friction between the RAAF and the 5th AF because this wing was one of the highest experienced in the theater (it was very active against the Germans before getting transferred home), but the Americans refused to put them on the front lines.&nbsp; They spent the rest of the war cooling their heels in Darwin.

Bill

Thanks wdolson: The problem is that I have a recollection (I may be wrong) that the squadrons went up to Darwin in full force in 1942. There they got thumped by the Zeros in the 1st battle (they were ex Battle of Britain pilots using tactics that worked against Me 109's); then, being experienced corrected and achieved equality or better in losses. Hence my issue over only having SIX Spit 5's in three squadrons in October 1942!

Here's a history of No 1 Wing RAAF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1_Wing_RAAF

Initially only 6 Spitfires arrived with the pilots in early October, the rest being diverted to Egypt.&nbsp; Another batch of Spitfires did arrive in late October.&nbsp; The Wing was not ready for combat until the end of January 1943.

Bill

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

To my knowledge (correct me if I' m wrong), all patrol planes are also seaplanes in game terms (not sure bout the ZPK and the Ka-1).

The original question however is related to patrol planes. To put it more concretely:
will a PBY unit flying patrol missions from an airbase size 0 without Air HQ (the presence of aviation suport/tenders doesn't seem to be relevant for overstacking) suffer from administrative (or physical) overstacking?

If so, setting up a forward patrol/float plane base will always be hampered by the overstacking penalties.

Cheers,

Moss

IIRC, this was the main reason for treating float-equipped planes slightly differently.
Seaplanes in a coastal base hex don't count towards the physical stack (assumed floating on the surrounding water[:D]) and count as 1 administratively regardless of how many groups present (assumption is that the command/operational support is coming from outside the base e.g. AV/AVD/etc).

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

Michael,

Thanks for the feedback!

I'm probably a bit slow [&:], but do I understand correctly that a seaplane-tagged float plane squadron will be administratively overstacked if no seaplane tender is available, and not overstacked if there is one available? And if one is available, is the administrative overstacking dependent on the amount of aviation support offered by that tender?

Moss

Since I feel this is important (due to the nature of search missions), I sort of bump this back into the Air thread , hoping to get a definitive answer...

To put the question as simple as possible: consider a float plane squadron (fi PBY Catalina) operating from a level 0 airfield with no HQ available to reduce/avoid overstacking and no seaplane tender present:

1) will the unit suffer from overstacking penalties (ie fewer planes taking off on a mission, more casualties from attack, slower aircraft repair)? This is particularly important for search missions, since if less planes than planned perform a search mission, certain search arcs will not be covered.

2) if 1) is true, will the presence of a seaplane tender have any effect on the administrative/physical overstacking and is this effect related to the amount of seaplane support?

3) if 2) is true, how will the presence of a seaplane tender affect airfield overstacking on level 1-10 airfields?

Thanks,

Moss

Something I only just realized:

All variants of the Ki-44 Tojo have the wrong engine: in the official scenarios they are defined as having the Nakajima Ha-35 (Device 1932) while in reality they had the Nakajima Ha-34 (Device 1931). This is an important difference because the Ha-35 is used in a lot of planes while the Ha-34 is used only for the Ki-49; if you don't build the Ki-49 you can stop building the Ha-34, whereas in real life that would cost you the Ki-44. This should be corrected.