**Unofficial AE Air Team Lead Update**

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Very very nice - many many thanks (for AE effort and this info)! [:)][&o]

One quick question - can you please show us how the new 5-band maneuverability data for aircraft will be shown for player in side game WitP-AE?

Looks like this. As you can see, it's a modifier to combat rolls:

Thanks "T"! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus




1): Not sure what you mean.
2): See 1.
3): No. One airfield per hex, as always.
4): See 1.
5): To a point. There's such a thing as CAP being reinforced.

1. The Air Tasking Order is written in terms of sorties. Wings, squadrons, etc., are sortie-generators. I think that was the case in WWII, too.

2. CAS is most effective at the shortest mission radius, as long as the aircraft are not under fire at their base. That's one reason the USMC adopted the Harrier--it could land just behind the MLR and be available for immediate CAS.

3. Many missions were staged through a forward strip. See 2 for why.

4. Currently, one side can be socked in, while the other experiences OK weather in the same hex. If the side with OK weather is the attacker, the result is an unopposed airstrike on a base or CVTF supposedly defended by CAP (and AA artillery).

5. OK.

Weather can most certainly affect both sides in AE, causing split-up raids, bombers getting lost, fighter escort getting lost... You name it.

As for CAS, what you're suggesting, in WWII terms, is the cab-rank system, which we're not modelling. Remember that there's no hour-by-hour run-down of the turn.

The problem with weather as it is now modelled is that--and everyone has had this happen--it can be so bad for the CAP that nothing flies and yet be so perfect for the attackers that everything on the ground is smashed.

I'm not suggesting a cab rank system, but I am suggesting that the distance from the airfield to the battlefield be factored into the effectiveness of the CAS. In particular, air units based in a hex under attack should be particularly effective, rather than suppressed as they now are.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Would be nice to have different weapon loads, like "Use Rockets" etc. Or have different weapon loads for different missions. Like PBY Catalina, Night Naval Atack -> use torpedo, ASW patrol -> use depth charges etc.

This is an Air Team Priority for Patch 1...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

Awesome stuff Elf. Thanks for the update.

Are there maneuver penalties for Drop Tanks, or are they assumed to drop them if engaged in combat? 

What does the "Refresh a/c" button do?

No MVR penalty, they are assumed to be dropped.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: herwin

1. Do you model sorties?
2. Do you model how CAS is most effective close to the perimeter of the air base?
3. Do you model the use of forward strips for refuelling/refitting?
4. Do you make weather affect both sides?
5. Do you model strip alert?

1): Not sure what you mean.
2): See 1.
3): No. One airfield per hex, as always.
4): See 1.
5): To a point. There's such a thing as CAP being reinforced.

1. The Air Tasking Order is written in terms of sorties. Wings, squadrons, etc., are sortie-generators. I think that was the case in WWII, too.

2. CAS is most effective at the shortest mission radius, as long as the aircraft are not under fire at their base. That's one reason the USMC adopted the Harrier--it could land just behind the MLR and be available for immediate CAS.

3. Many missions were staged through a forward strip. See 2 for why.

4. Currently, one side can be socked in, while the other experiences OK weather in the same hex. If the side with OK weather is the attacker, the result is an unopposed airstrike on a base or CVTF supposedly defended by CAP (and AA artillery).

5. OK.

1. Having written an ATO, I can say with some certainty that the architechure of this game does not lend itself to replicating one.

2. There has been discussion of tying distance flown to the number of sorties generated. But we decided this would/could swing the balance of gameplay in a direction we don't want to go. This is an operational game that toys with tactical aspects.

3. Again the structure of the game does not lend itself to shuttle missions and staging. It could be done, but the problem would be how do you make it the exception rather than the rule?

4. Weather is SAIEW. We are looking at it in the next patch. If you have specific issues send me a detailed summary and I can look into solutions. I'd be particularly interested in what you submit is unequal treatment.

5. Actually T is mostly right. Strip alert is modelled in the sense that a portion of CAP is Airborne and the rest are on "Strip Alert" That is rearming/refuelling or getting ready to relieve the airborne CAP. Further. Other A/C not assigned a mission, can be drawn into the CAP however at a much greater delay owing to not being "ready" or "strip Alert". this is of course driven by early warning, else they won't be up in time.

[herwin]

Amen, bro. (I was system engineer for a system that wrote ATOs.) Looks like my concerns are being addressed as far as they can be.

[cantona2]

Thank to T and The Elf and all the others involved. If loose threads that are causing delays are being seeing to then you guys carry on. Better dealy the release till you guys are happy. I'm sure the community as a whole would appreciate the end product and extra effort. Yet again thanks.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Weather can most certainly affect both sides in AE, causing split-up raids, bombers getting lost, fighter escort getting lost... You name it.

Is this in any way reported to the players so they know what happened during a turn? Or is it as before, only occuuring behind the scenes in the code with no way for players to know about or appreciate what happened?

Jim

It's shown in text during turn resolution, i.e. you might get a message telling you that an escorting fighter squadron can't find the bombers it's meant to escort and has turned back.

[Terminus]

As an addendum to the CAS discussion above, the whole point of Close Air Support in the game is kinda moot, isn't it? I submit that there is no CAS in the literal sense in WitP or AE, since that would have to take place in the land combat phase. What we have is more correctly Battlefield Air Interdiction, or BAI.

[Dili]

I concluded that we needed to implement Drop Tanks. I drew up a rough draft design doc, and we created a build to complement the data. So we now have Drop Tanks. So far so good, but this change has occurred late and is one of many loose threads across all areas that has induced delay.

How game will handle a mix of drop tanks and bombs? Let's say i have a fighter bomber with 3x250kg bomb and that i can replace 2 of them with drop tanks will the game allow the remaining one when i choose ground attack and will delete the bomb increasing the range when i choose transfer or any of air combat modes? Also can we make all those bomb bay tanks in bombers as drop tanks to have extended ferry range in bombers? or will it means that they will still take the bombs too? and when half a bomb bay can be a tank and the other half bombs? Issue here is how many bombs a bomb bay tank represents we would need to tell the game in plane editor an alternative let the game assume by tank weight.


Separate issue. Aircraft radar(anti ship and air to air will it work?) I ask because i think there were some issues in Witp that i dont know if they were adressed in patches.

[witpqs]

Thanks Elf! Thanks Terminus!

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Would be nice to have different weapon loads, like "Use Rockets" etc. Or have different weapon loads for different missions. Like PBY Catalina, Night Naval Atack -> use torpedo, ASW patrol -> use depth charges etc.

This is an Air Team Priority for Patch 1...

Although why you guys are so intent on getting them is beyond me. During trials (WWII) the hit rate for rockets against tank-sized targets was 5%. In combat, this dropped to 0.5%.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Would be nice to have different weapon loads, like "Use Rockets" etc. Or have different weapon loads for different missions. Like PBY Catalina, Night Naval Atack -> use torpedo, ASW patrol -> use depth charges etc.

This is an Air Team Priority for Patch 1...

Although why you guys are so intent on getting them is beyond me. During trials (WWII) the hit rate for rockets against tank-sized targets was 5%. In combat, this dropped to 0.5%.

I meant more appropriate mission specific loadouts in general.

[Terminus]

I know you did, but when we're talking alternate loadouts, the first thing on people's wish lists seems to be rockets.

If it were me, I'd make napalm a priority.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Would be nice to have different weapon loads, like "Use Rockets" etc. Or have different weapon loads for different missions. Like PBY Catalina, Night Naval Atack -> use torpedo, ASW patrol -> use depth charges etc.

This is an Air Team Priority for Patch 1...

Although why you guys are so intent on getting them is beyond me. During trials (WWII) the hit rate for rockets against tank-sized targets was 5%. In combat, this dropped to 0.5%.

They were decent against small ships, Coastal Command Beaufighters and Mosquitos used to sink quite a few small ships with them in Europe.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I know you did, but when we're talking alternate loadouts, the first thing on people's wish lists seems to be rockets.

If it were me, I'd make napalm a priority.

Napalm? That's nowhere near as cool as rockets [:-][:-][:D]

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I know you did, but when we're talking alternate loadouts, the first thing on people's wish lists seems to be rockets.

If it were me, I'd make napalm a priority.

Napalm? That's nowhere near as cool as rockets [:-][:-][:D]

I'd have to say the Napalm isn't very cool. It gets a mite hot, in fact.[:D]