Updated Patch v1.20 Items

[Paul Goodman]

I don't really think the main issue is whether a Corsair could, should, would fly off a carrier in 1943. The issue is whether or not aviators who are not carrier qualified could operate from a carrier, regardless of their flying capabilities otherwise. The answer is an unequivocal NO WAY. Many hours of additional training on land runways and many hours of classroom instruction are and were required for this. The Navy used auxiliary fields to simulate carrier decks. I don't know for a fact, but I doubt that these facilities existing anywhere closer than the West Coast.

Air groups should be identified as carrier qualified or not. Perhaps, if you chose to take them out of service for, say 90 days, send them to Pearl of additional training, they could then be deck qualified. Perhaps an idea for WitP, not UV.

We should also point out the Corsair than eventually made it to carrier decks was a greatly improved version. With some theoretical validity, the Navy always considered the Corsair rather risky for carrier operation, although I think the actual event proved the Corsair to be just as amenable to carrier operation as the Hellcat. The Kamikazi forced the navy to assume what it considered a higher risk to get a fighter with higher speed and rate of climb than the Hellcat. However, you can be **** sure that these people were deck qualified.

There was a cultural difference between these aircraft. As a kid growing up in a Navy town immediately after the war, we idolized the "airdails" (or brownshoes). The Corsair was called (always) the Marine Corsair. That was its name, period. After the war, the standard fleet fighter was not the Corsair, it was the Bearcat. The Corsair was really considered a fighter-bomber, a light attack aircraft.

Paul

[kaleun]

So: Is it coming out? The patch I mean.
Arf Arf Arf
Anxiously waiting
:p

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Allow me to explain. There is a routine that decides if the artificial intelligence will decide to make a submerged or surface attack with a submarine, if it encounters an enemy task force. Under the assumption that U.S. trained transport and cargo ship gun crews were a little better trained than Japanese counter parts, the chance of making a submerged attack was increased by five percent due to the threat of those gun crews when the historical submarine option is chosen and applies to cargo and transport task forces. It might seem like a small detail, but the game is filled with such little considerations.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

Originally posted by Yamamoto


Could you elaberate on that one a little, please? Was it a change to a formula or was it an increase in the weapons the ships carry or something else? If it was a formula change, does it involve ALL anti-sub actions or only those done by the US against the Japanese? I would assume that the Japanese would have just as much problems with US subs late in the war as the US is having with Japanese subs at the start of the war.

Everything else looks great.

Yamamoto

[Erik Rutins]

Existing PBEM games will work fine with the new patch and most of the new changes to the game system, but will not have all the OOB improvements.

In addition, some crashes turned out to be because of OOB glitches, so if you have experienced any instability we ask that you start a new game under v1.20 to confirm whether or not you are still experiencing crashes or other instability issues.

The patch will be released tonight. It's finished, but we need to test the final installer and auto update package. Hang in there...

Regards,

- Erik

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

One of the top four on our list. Should be addressed in the very next patch.

Good Luck...

Michael Wood
___________________________________________________

Originally posted by msaario
How about the bug which auto-creates a task force in Luganville if the Japan controls the base with ships in port and sends the TF to Noumea?

--Mikko

[Bernd Hesberg]

It's some time ago that this bug has been mentioned, and I don't see it on the list of updates for v1.20 .
I just would like to know if it will be addressed in the next patch. It would certainly relieve us of a lot of micro-management when navigating in that area.
I don't want to be ambiguous. I'm talking about the 'option' of sailing right through the djungle of Bougainville.

[1089]

Originally posted by Bernd Hesberg
It's some time ago that this bug has been mentioned, and I don't see it on the list of updates for v1.20 .
I just would like to know if it will be addressed in the next patch. It would certainly relieve us of a lot of micro-management when navigating in that area.
I don't want to be ambiguous. I'm talking about the 'option' of sailing right through the djungle of Bougainville.

Yes. that is a water hexside that should be a land hexside. The hexside between Vila and Munda is a land hexside that should be a water hexside. I've had Japanese troops retreat across the 25 miles of water there.

kp

[daniel123]

at present if you tell a lbu to march to the next hex and a enemy unit comes into the hex the lbu is presently in the march movement is reset to zero. is this the way it's supose to be or will a patch set it so that if the enemy unit is pushed out of the current hex is will resume it's march at the last movement number?

[Joel Billings]

I'm pretty sure that Gary intended that Vila and Munda be connected by land as it was close enough that very small craft often moved troops between these two areas. I assumed the passage was not wide/deep enough and that's why Gary didn't end up allowing both naval and land movement. As for the other hex that should not be water, you're right, and hopefully we will get that fixed in the next patch.

[1089]

Originally posted by daniel123
at present if you tell a lbu to march to the next hex and a enemy unit comes into the hex the lbu is presently in the march movement is reset to zero. is this the way it's supose to be or will a patch set it so that if the enemy unit is pushed out of the current hex is will resume it's march at the last movement number?

It should be storing its destination and distance to it, of course. Otherwise, the unit is teleported the 28 miles it just marched back to the starting point. But I think that it is part of the abstraction of land combat, and I doubt they are going to fix it, although I'd like them to, also. But if you think about it, what really happens in the situation that you just brought up?

Both units start 30 miles apart. Both units begin marching toward the other's base. Let's say one leaves a day earlier than the other, as happened in one case to me. My troops had marched 28 miles toward the opponents base, and his troops had marched 30 miles toward mine, when suddenly they met each other in my hex and started fighting. Both units march directly toward each other on the same 30 mile trail, and yet marched a combined 58 miles until they met. I just think this bug's going to be too hard to fix easily, and will end up written off as an abstraction for the game system. They'd have to have a mini-hex system to keep account of sub-hex moves.

I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see what they say...

kp

[Supervisor]

Both units start 30 miles apart. Both units begin marching toward the other's base. Let's say one leaves a day earlier than the other, as happened in one case to me. My troops had marched 28 miles toward the opponents base, and his troops had marched 30 miles toward mine, when suddenly they met each other in my hex and started fighting. Both units march directly toward each other on the same 30 mile trail, and yet marched a combined 58 miles until they met. I just think this bug's going to be too hard to fix easily, and will end up written off as an abstraction for the game system. They'd have to have a mini-hex system to keep account of sub-hex moves.

I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see what they say...

Not a big difference between this and the fact that when units are forced to retreat, they (in that turn) move the entire 30 miles to a nearby hex. That's quite a bit faster than normal travel (of course they're running then :p).

Trying to correct something like that would be, I quite agree, quite a major programming addition.

I think that it's a just a part of the overall abstraction. Because, for example, you are able to attack any enemy unit in the same hex and it doesn't matter whether they are in the vicinity of your base or 10 miles away. Now, when they move into your hex, you only see them when they arrive in the vicinity of your base, but when they leave your hex, you see them (and can attack them) during the whole 30 mile trip. (This is only my belief, since the only units that I attacked while they were voluntarily withdrawing were only about 2 days out from the base when I did. They retreated the entire way to the adjoining hex as a result the next turn. [Note: This information is derived from comments about the withdrawal from my PBEM opponent.])

[rdcotton]

OK guys ... I thought this was fixed but apparently not. I'm
playing the US early in the campaign. I've sent just about
everything I can out of Noumea to battle the submarine
threat. SC's DD's et al. I watch about 2 or 3 ships go down
on any given turn and almost NEVER even get a hit on an
IJN sub. I can practically walk to Brisbane on the shattered
hulks of the USN.

Historical? I'm not sure. Your thoughts ????

Ray

[1089]

Originally posted by rdcotton
OK guys ... I thought this was fixed but apparently not. I'm
playing the US early in the campaign. I've sent just about
everything I can out of Noumea to battle the submarine
threat. SC's DD's et al. I watch about 2 or 3 ships go down
on any given turn and almost NEVER even get a hit on an
IJN sub. I can practically walk to Brisbane on the shattered
hulks of the USN.

Historical? I'm not sure. Your thoughts ????

Ray

Are you playing with 1.20? If so, I believe they said that SCs are still pretty much worthless until you shakedown cruise for a couple months, but the DDs are supposed to do better. If not, it's available.

kp

[rdcotton]

Yeah ... I just downloaded 1.2 today ... it's probably
the shake down cruise ... thanks for the reply.

Ray

[Erik Rutins]

Rd,

While 1.2 does not have a magic wand that will sink subs, it does enhance ASW capabilities for the Allies. I had no trouble in testing sinking quite a few Japanese submarines for relatively little loss.

Don't send SCs/PGs after them until those ships have been on shakedown cruises for a month or two. Get their experience up, then they'll be much more useful. The experience boost they received should shorten the time necessary to train them up.

Use only DDs early on in the campaign and make sure you start with v1.2 if you want to received the full OOB updates that the Allied DDs received. If you are going to form an ASW TF, use only the DDs with at least two different depth charge mounts (for example a Mk 6 x 4 and a Mk 7 x2 or what have you) as they will have an even better chance at bagging a sub once it attacks.

Set air squadrons with good range and low cruise speed on ASW 100% at 1000 feet and start hunting the subs they spot with TFs of ASW-oriented DDs. If you keep to these tactics, I guarantee you'll get better results.

Regards,

- Erik

[rdcotton]

Erik .... Thanks for the post ... I'll certainly put all of that
info to good use.

Ray

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Paul

I don't really think the main issue is whether a Corsair could, should, would fly off a carrier in 1943. The issue is whether or not aviators who are not carrier qualified could operate from a carrier, regardless of their flying capabilities otherwise. The answer is an unequivocal NO WAY. Many hours of additional training on land runways and many hours of classroom instruction are and were required for this. The Navy used auxiliary fields to simulate carrier decks. I don't know for a fact, but I doubt that these facilities existing anywhere closer than the West Coast.


all I can basicly ask, is who do you think TRAINED the Marines

I would say most of the early war, pre war trained Marine Pilots were as "well" trained as there Navy counter parts, later war and during the rush to buildup, I am sure much of there training was cut back

oh, guess if the B-25 pilots could figure it out, some trained Marine pilot couldn't

Gee, I wonder why Marine Air flys off of CV's, since they were never trained to do so (ever wonder what happened to VMF-214 after Pappy got shot down and the rest rotated back to the states ?, most of them were kill when the USS Franklin was stuck by a bomb, most were in the Pilots ready room when the bomb went off)

HARD_Sarge

[Diealtekoenig]

As I understand the Corsair/Carrier problem:

The pilot position in the Corsair is fairly far back and he has trouble seeing right in front of/below the Aircraft as he makes his approach (poor forward-and-down visiblity with the angle of attack of the A/C.)

So it's hard to see the carrier on the last bit of the approach. Because of this Corsairs were forbidden to be used as Carrier Aircraft for a long while.

Then they developed this odd approach (see if you can find some videos) where the Corsair approaches at a steep, almost 90 degree angle to the carrier (coming from the Carrier's Port side, aiming at a point in the Carrier's wake) until the plane is almost directly behind the Carrier. When he does this he is real close to the carrier (not way astern of it).

The pilot then takes good look at the deck (which is to his left and which he can see in spite of the long nose of the aircraft), hangs a sharp left turn and lands (and I mean "hangs a left turn and lands" He doesn't fly any appreciable distance straight after he completes the left turn). Looks tough to do.

Once they figured out to land the Corsairs that way AND trained the pilots in this unique approach they would use the Corsair from Carriers.

At least that's how I understand it.

[Wilhammer]

Corsairs.

Its real simple, in my mind.

Basing them on Carriers is ahistorical and should not be allowed.

This is no different than not permitting the Japanese player the ability to use Kamikaze tactics.

And you know, the two are related.

They both happened at about the same time, the Kamikazes earlier by a few months, and both happened because the character of the war forced it to happen, not any serious technical issues to prevent it from being before that time.

However, as pointed out by other posters, it was due to technical issues and the near simultaneous rise of the Hellcat that the USN decide the Corsair would be issued to ground based units, not on CVs.

Strangely, another type of plane that flew from carriers to bomb port facilities is not permitted in the game, the B-25. Think of that as an armed transfer mission to a land base.

Certainly possible to employ P-40s, P-39s, P-38s, etc in this way. Why wasn't it?

It takes more than arrestor gear and pilot training to deploy a combat aircraft from a carrier. You got have the equipment and the training of the flight deck crew and maintenance shops ready to service a type of aircraft, and this just did not exist until Late 44 for the Corsair.

URLs:
http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hi ... ighter.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf

================================

Can you imagine Kamikazes in Mid -1943?

The USN would of been far more vulnerable then than they were in late-middle 1944.

[Gaius Marius]

If I understand correctly, a large number of the Corsairs produced did not have folding wings (and presumably other carrier gear) - while this would not completely prevent them from being used, it would make it pretty unlikely that a CV would go sailing around with Corsairs making up any large part of its contingent.