AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]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
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal

Post by Barb »

This could have critical impact on all japanese players as they planned their production based on Ki-44 using Ha-35. Altough if it is a Database change, it should not impact ongoing games, only the newly started after patch. My 0,02€
Image
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal

Post by JuanG »

Scenario 1;

Device 209 - "800kg AP Bomb" has Device Type set to 3 (GP Bomb), whereas other Japanese "AP" bombs have Device Type set to 4 (AP Bomb).

No idea if this has a practical effect, but just something I noticed.

Edit; Device 210 - "2000lb AP Bomb" has the same problem.
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal

Post by FatR »

A question about Japanese recon planes (sorry if it already has been answered): it seems, that no Japanese specialized recon planes carry camera devices, but Ki-51 and Ki-36 do have them. Is this intentional? And what exactly camera does?
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

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

Thank you for this explanation. This answered all my open questions/doubts I had concerning this topic. Highly apprechiated!
Image
somali
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Tachikawa, Japan

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal

Post by somali »

misspelling of IJN Air group

Maizura Ku T-1 miss

Maizuru Ku T-1 correct

Maizuru Ku was named after naval port Maizuru(110,58).
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by timtom »

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Question regarding A-24 Banshee
checked the dates for the A type (the first one you get, there are two), and it is listed as being available from 2/42 until 2/42; WAD? you get the second type (B ) in 3/43, so 2/43 would also make sense.

WAD. Limited issue only.
ORIGINAL: witpqs

Slot 339, the P-400. Has different machine gun armament for regular range versus extended range.

Wpn 1 is "1893 .30 Browning MG"

Wpn 11 is "150 .303 Browning MG"

Bug. Practical impact nill, though.
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

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.

Image

WAD. 40th Kokutai was an inshore patrol unit, not a divebomber unit per se.
ORIGINAL: mikemike

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.

Bug.
ORIGINAL: JuanG

Scenario 1;

Device 209 - "800kg AP Bomb" has Device Type set to 3 (GP Bomb), whereas other Japanese "AP" bombs have Device Type set to 4 (AP Bomb).

No idea if this has a practical effect, but just something I noticed.

Edit; Device 210 - "2000lb AP Bomb" has the same problem.

Bug.
ORIGINAL: FatR

A question about Japanese recon planes (sorry if it already has been answered): it seems, that no Japanese specialized recon planes carry camera devices, but Ki-51 and Ki-36 do have them. Is this intentional? And what exactly camera does?

The device allows the recon mission on a/c types that would otherwise not be able to do so. Also added to others to signal "this is a recon sorta a/c", however this is just chrome -the recon TYPE can undertake the recon mission regardless.
ORIGINAL: somali

misspelling of IJN Air group

Maizura Ku T-1 miss

Maizuru Ku T-1 correct

Maizuru Ku was named after naval port Maizuru(110,58).

[:)]
Where's the Any key?

Image
Milman
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:57 pm
Location: Serbia

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Milman »

I have one question.

When aircraft factory "consume" engine ? In turn when plane is produced and placed in pool or ....
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12430
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Sardaukar »

Seems that IJN "Pre-CAP-phase" AAA might be bit too powerful. I don't know if it's Air issue, but since it affects planes, I hope Devs would take a look.

Discussions:

tm.asp?m=2442114&mpage=1&key=�

tm.asp?m=2446654&mpage=1&key=

I have seen this in my own games (vs. IJ AI, Historical difficulty) and was at loss why it was happening until new "combat phase" was revealed.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
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 »

Good thing I looked in here...three posts up TimTom lists a bunch of bugs I can correct in my mod....[:)]
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
hbrsvl
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:29 am

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by hbrsvl »

Hi-I don't know how else to get the following into the right hands. So, if I'm in the wrong place, I appologise.

My problem has to do with an air unit having incorrect aircraft.

Details: Playing Allies, scen.9, 6/16/42, v1102a. I have unit # 2628 at San Diego. Unit name is VMSB 244, but aircraft assigned to the unit are 18-F4F-4.

Can this be fixed? If so, how-please know that I am not a computer programmer. Are there other glitches like this around?

Thanks, Hugh Browne

hbrsvl
User avatar
Iron Duke
Posts: 529
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 10:00 am
Location: UK

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Iron Duke »


Air group - slot 3131 - 80th Sqn RAAF renames to 440930 on 30th sept 1944 (440930)
"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore
User avatar
PzB74
Posts: 5069
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:00 am
Location: No(r)way

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by PzB74 »

Guess this has been discussed before but I'd just like to add my opinion to the fact that it's not possible to perform fighter sweeps over friendly bases.
- In my opinion it should be possible to sweep any hex on the map.

Any potential misuse of this option should be regulated through house rules.
That sweeps seems a bit too effective is another matter.

A few other questions I've noted;

Guess it's outside the boundaries of the code to include options like evasive action against enemy fighters and offensive actions against bombers!?

I also find air combat still be too bloody, in real life it was very rare that formations of 20-50 bombers were wiped out by 20-50 fighters.
- It was also very rare that bomber formations continued to contested targets if their fighter escorts didn't show up; which happens very often i AE despite escorting out of the same base.
The option of ordering bombers to turn back if escorts don't show is sorely missed.

I was also looking forward to see small packets of bombers slip through enemy CAP more often; this is not the case after much gameplay.
If there are 50 fighters on CAP they wipe out 99% of any bomber formation of 30 ac or less (from the Jap point of view).
- Suggest that there should be a random chance based upon e.g. strike size, strike altitude, weather, pilot skill and radar type and year regarding whether parts of a bomber strike manage
to bypass CAP. In early war radar mistakes and mailfunctions should also be quite high, especially in poor weather. In 42 Allied radar constantly reports most Jap strikes at 35-55 miles range and
allows ALL CAP fighters on standby to scramble and intercept.
Image

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10349
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

Radar

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: PzB
In early war radar mistakes and mailfunctions should also be quite high, especially in poor weather. In 42 Allied radar constantly reports most Jap strikes at 35-55 miles range and
allows ALL CAP fighters on standby to scramble and intercept.

The weather effect on radar ... is this modeled?

In any case, I agree that it appears that the allied radar in '42 does need to be toned down. Not the range, but simply the probability. The sets were cranky, spare parts tough to come by, techs even tougher to find ...
Pax
User avatar
Califvol
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 2:24 am
Location: The Land of Yore

RE: Radar

Post by Califvol »

I just saw I posted my orignal post in the wrong thread over at Tech Support Forum when it belongs here. So, please let me repeat it.

US Float Planes

I notice that the production for the Seamew appears "light" as there were over 700 made and production did not end until Jan '44. (Of course this was a universally loathed plane, but issued to the fleet never the less)

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/curtiss_model82.php

This is 2 for 1 production over the Seagull that only had 322 produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOC_Seagull

And the SC-1 Seahawk is not even in the game and yet there were near 600 of them made as a replacement for the Seamew (which in its turn was suppose to replace the Kingfisher). The Seahawk was well recived by the fleet in Oct. 1944 and was the last of the US float planes produced for ship catapult use in my readings. (Note it had a far less range than the Seamew, but was a much better flier)

http://plane.spottingworld.com/SC_Seahawk

Because the Seamew is "light" in production and because the SC-1 isn't in the game, the net result is that the US goes out of manufacturing float planes for ship use as of Nov 44 when the Kingfisher ends prodution.

This is a great game and I understand that a cut has to be made somewhere on aircraft. I also am not an expert on float planes and am a victim of what limited readings I have done, so my data may be suspect. But, is it game design intent that there be no US Float Plane being produced/supplied to the fleet after Nov '44 when the Kingfisher goes out of production?

Or have I totally misread the situation and in game the US is still producing a float plane for ship use after Nov '44?

Thanks for any response.
Why am I sharing my opinion? Because I am such a special snowflake that others need my knowledge. What…there are like a billion snowflakes? Oh, well isn't that special.
Gormadoc
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:58 pm

G5N & G8N heavy bombers

Post by Gormadoc »

HI, iam a newcomer to this game so parden me for any stupid questions. [:)]

I was wondering why these two airplanes are not added to game?

Both are 4 engine long ranged heavy bomber designs.

Nakajima G5N Shinzan codenamed LIZ by allies, first flight april 1941. (The few actually built where used as transports)
Nakajima G8N Renzan codenamed RITA by allies, only very few built by mid 1945, when allied bombing effectively ended development.

There are several other japanese prototype planes included, if war had gone differently, one could assume the G8N would have made it into real production.


A few links for these airplanes:
http://www.savagesquadron.com/JPpage/JP ... a_G5N1.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... aft_id=469
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Radar

Post by anarchyintheuk »

Can't speak as a developer but not many 'what if?' planes were included. Actually, I can't think of any. In effect the G5 and G8 were experimental planes. Besides the vast amount of resources that they would use if put in production, they would also represent a major shift in IJNAF/IJAAAF thinking from airplane design, air force composition and role from a tactical emphasis to a strategic one. Not likely with rl officers in charge of such decisions.

I think one of the mods has them (although I might be thinking back to WitP days).

Having read the links that you supplied, they offer good explanations for why it was doubtful that either aircraft would have ever entered operational service.
Gormadoc
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:58 pm

G5N & G8N heavy bombers

Post by Gormadoc »

There are several other airplanes included that never did enter production.

Example of this:
S1A1 Denko, no prototypes where ever finished, the two they where working on where destroyed in bombing raids.
Ki-94-II , only one prototype built but war ended before it was flown.

Both the two i mention above, had several prototypes completed and both airplane types where flight tested.

EDIT: The Ki-119 never left the drawing board, under assumption that source below are correct.

Quote: it was initially planned that the first flight would take place in September 1945, but most of the drawings were destroyed during air attacks on the Kagamigahara plant in June 1945. Despite this setback, Kawasaki stroved to complete a new set of drawings and it was hoped that the first prototype would be ready in November 1945 but the Japanese surrender halted further work.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32870
User avatar
invernomuto
Posts: 942
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Turin, Italy

RE: Radar

Post by invernomuto »

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


I think one of the mods has them (although I might be thinking back to WitP days).

Having read the links that you supplied, they offer good explanations for why it was doubtful that either aircraft would have ever entered operational service.

CHS mod for WITP has the Liz. Only 2 or 3 betty squadrons could upgrade to Liz, so the "balance" of the game was preserved IMHO.
Hope to see a mod for AE that include thos bombers.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: G5N & G8N heavy bombers

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Gormadoc

There are several other airplanes included that never did enter production.

Example of this:
S1A1 Denko, no prototypes where ever finished, the two they where working on where destroyed in bombing raids.
Ki-94-II , only one prototype built but war ended before it was flown.

Both the two i mention above, had several prototypes completed and both airplane types where flight tested.

EDIT: The Ki-119 never left the drawing board, under assumption that source below are correct.

Quote: it was initially planned that the first flight would take place in September 1945, but most of the drawings were destroyed during air attacks on the Kagamigahara plant in June 1945. Despite this setback, Kawasaki stroved to complete a new set of drawings and it was hoped that the first prototype would be ready in November 1945 but the Japanese surrender halted further work.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=32870

The game goes past 8/45. A plane design stopped from production or going in service by the rl end of the war is in a bit of a different category than a plane design cancelled during the war. Imo the former is a valid 'what if?' the latter is not.

It's just my opinion why the G5 and G8 were not included, I'm not one of the developers.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Radar

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk


I think one of the mods has them (although I might be thinking back to WitP days).

Having read the links that you supplied, they offer good explanations for why it was doubtful that either aircraft would have ever entered operational service.

CHS mod for WITP has the Liz. Only 2 or 3 betty squadrons could upgrade to Liz, so the "balance" of the game was preserved IMHO.
Hope to see a mod for AE that include thos bombers.

Thanks. Glad to see some of my memory is still operational.
Post Reply

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