Matrix Games Forums

Generaly speaking each 20mm cannon round shold depending on the cannon in question be two to three times as dealy as a .50 cal round, this is a very basic and simplified view, but it stems from a German report on comparativce lethality, Tony Williams has a great sight that offers a very good comparative analiss of noumerious Aircraft weapons, I try and dig it up...His book's are also very recomended.

Link:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-pe.html

Sure - but you missed my point: I have the data worked out even where it is in NO book or paper - that is my point.

An outstanding source of aircraft NOT in Francillon's book (if they are, they were deliberately not covered) is Putnam published Japanese Aircraft, 1910-1941 by Robert C Mikesh and Shorzoe Abe.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I have a book on work done between 1910 and 1941 - explicitly packaged NOT to duplicate Francillons work - and I have used both these works,

Cid. Would you share the name of this book, it's author(s), and publisher with the rest of the WITP world so we can cross check the data. "I have a book" is pretty vague....

Sounds like Abe and Mikesh, published by the NIP.

Brady:

Can give that right now:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Tony Williams is very knowledgeable and fellow Tank-Net forum member.

His main site hurts my eyes, but is full of info...as are his books:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

His article of "Ideal WW II Fighter armament" is very good too:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm

CC, got it dug it out of my favorate's, I have like hundreads of them takes a while to find anyhting[:)]
 
I only hvae one of his books so far Flying Guns of WW2, I was lucky enough to corespond with him a few years back very nice fellow.

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Yakface

How is air-recon being handled? Do the Allies still get the advantage of seeing what aircraft the Japanese have at a base whereas the Japanese only see what was there before the Allied order phase?

Not anymore. “Air balance” is limited to current player.

Hi Elf

Thanks for the answer, but it's not so much the air balance numbers that concern me, its these:








Because of the way detection levels work and because the Japanese see what is at the base before the Allies do their aircraft transfers, but the Allies see the numbers after the Japanese do their turn, it gives Player 2 an advantage.

For example - say the Japanese are reconning Changsha. The allies can still move in 100 bombers, (the Japanese player won't see them arrive) fly them on a mission immediately. The next turn the Japanese player sees them listed at Changsha, launches a misssion, but will bomb an empty base because the Allied player has transferred them away. If the situation is reversed, the Japanese player can not do the same thing. Instant CAP causes a similar problem - Allied player always knows how many fighters are at a base he is reconning, Japanese player can easily be caught out if the Allies suddenly transfer 100 fighters to a base. He just won't see them until the next turn.

In experienced hands, it is a very substantial advantage gained only because player 2 issues orders after player 1. With more Allied recon aircraft, it's a feature of the game that needs changing.

Sorry Yakface.

yes we are addressing this, though it is not an air team Item. I can't remember whihc team had the hammer on this.

Joe?

nite all...

How about limiting IJA aviation support to support only IJA a/c, IJN aviation support to support only IJN a/c?

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

How about limiting IJA aviation support to support only IJA a/c, IJN aviation support to support only IJN a/c?

That would be cool, could we extend this to Not alowing FAA Units to be suported on US CV's and vice versa, and Comenwealth Units to only be suported by Comenwealth unit's?

It almost sounds like more trouble than it's worth.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Elf, so to be clear...Pilots can be trained for different A/C missions?

Yes. When a bomber group is created in the editor the pilots in that group are given an overall EXP (what we use now in WitP) AND priority in the skills (listed in a previous post) they will use. There is an entire screen you can view for each pilot with all his skills, and the colors even change when they improve...

So for a DB group their primary skills are, in no particular order

• Naval search 75
• Air defensive 65
• Ground bombing 85
• Naval bombing 90

How cool is this - @ Japanese have a Betty unit that is 95% exp. against ships, but when you need to take out an airfield and it is only has 65% exp (Rats[:(]). Aircraft group mangement will be more important than ever.....[;)]

Also it might slow or even shut down 4E Naval attacks.

So, Using the Chats you can see at a glance that, the Japanese Ho-5 is worth about 2.5 US 50 cals in terms of over all lethality, and the gun is over twice as effecent as a US .50 cal.
 
 A Type 99 MK II (Zero Cannon), is worth two .50 cal's and about twice as effecent.
 
 

Gentlemen, my apologies for being very fashionably late for the party.

The AE's landbased Air OOB is a team effort, but special commendation is due Steve "ChezDaJez" Sanchez and Brian "BigB" Wisher for their outstanding research contributions, and to Mike Kraemer and Bruce Powers for the rather less glamorous but no less crucial job of database entry.

Yet none of this would have meant anything if not for the unfailing courage of our programmer, Michael "MichaelM" McFarland, in the face of unrelenting pestering for new code or elucidation of old.

Responsibility for all faults and shortcomings of the landbased Air OOB - and the shear size of the beast makes it nay certain that there'll be enough of those to keep the forum lively - rest with me and me alone.

Please direct questions pertaining the OOB of carrier- and other shipbased aviation to the Navy Team. I won't repeat this. For at least the next 24 hours.

Between us we'll try to answer your many, many questions as best we can. We're about as excited as you are about coming out into the open, but please be patient with us, and bear in mind that every minute spend answering questions here is a minute less spend on improving the AE.

A few years back 2by3 launched a supertanker called WitP. Supertankers don't habitually turn on a dime, but we strive to dock all 300,000 tons of it while running over the bare minimum of pleasure boats and if possible not mounting the pier. We've had to choose our battles with care, and the AE won't be everything everybody ever wanted, but I dare say that everybody will find something to love.

Now to play catch-up. My apologies in advance if I left anyone out. Cricky, 211 post already!

ORIGINAL: drw61
1) "configurable resize for squadrons" could you expand on this one?

All air units can/will resize - akin to the CV squadrons of old - as applicable.

ORIGINAL: drw61
Will production of allied aircraft be on the map (disabled) and then start building up production on the date it is available. (I hate it that on 11/43 I automatically have 250 SB2C Helldivers in production)

Many more aircraft allows for a more graduated approach to replacements, if that's what you're asking

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Are there seperate TR kites like the Hurri TRII, or is it performed by the usual suspects?

Separate - and more kinds of Hurri than you can shake a stick at.

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig
Will the allied have to pay PP to transfer their heavies to China? Else they can start their bombing campain early 42 and bomb everything to dust till middle 42.

PP = SAIEW. Allied player will have fewer heavies to burn, though.

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
Something which always bugged me was the limited number of aircraft types. The classic example of this was the Mavis transports that started at Jaluit (in CHS). Since they were of type Transport if you moved them elsewhere you couldn't then move them back again since Jaluit was a size 0 airbase. The answer to this of would have been a new type called "Floatplane Transport" or some such with some subset or superset of Transport and Patrol attributes.

Get the AE and thou shalst be bugged no more. At least as far as float tranports are concerned. Hopefully.

ORIGINAL: Weidi72
Some Navy squadrons are only carrier capable not trained because they arrive on land. Is this fixed?

Yes

ORIGINAL: Brady

Did the Anson make the cut?

Yes

OTS. Kamikazes have not been touched. Read some AAR's later in the war, they work. One thing we did that may help is alter AAA so that during attacks only AAA in the quadrant being approached may fire.

Hello Elf. Thanks for all your answers so far.

Watching PzB's AAR, I think we noticed that slow ships are definitely chosen as a much more valid kamikaze target, with not much consideration for size. PT-boats and LCI may get targeted instead of an Essex simply because they are slower than the Essex (while there's hardly something bigger than a CV to notice and to target from the air, especially instead of a barge ^^)

Did the team check this a little bit? I admit kamikazes do work (well they hit stuff) but we definitely need both this to be looked after (maybe there is something like a value to increase for the kamikazes to pay more attention to sheer size) and, of course, the land-attack kamikaze bug, that is not as uncommon as we'd like it to be... This land-attack mass suicide may prove to be quite problematic is Japan is really meant to lack pilots!

Thanks in advance!

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Also can you change weapon loadouts a la BTR?

No.

Can you list the different areas of pilot experience?

• Air attack
• Air defensive
• Naval bombing
• Naval torpedo
• Naval search
• Recon
• ASW
• Transport
• Ground bombing
• Low level naval bombing
• Low level ground bombing
• Strafe

So which of those experience levels are most important for a Kamikazi - Low level naval bombing? <laughter>

And how do I train up my kamikazi squadrons... [:D][:D][:D]

Sorry - it must be past my bed time... <more laughter>

Stock WiTP Figurs for:

50 Browning MG

Range 4
Accuracery 23
Effect 3
Penatration 2
Load Cost 75

....................

Type 99 MK II

Range 5
Accuracery 23
Effect 4
Penatration 3
load cost 100

....................

Ho-5

Range 5
Accuracery 28
Effect 4
Penatration 3
load cost 100

.................

Hispano

Range 5
Accuracery 26
Effect 4
Penatration 3
Load cost 100

So if we take the formentioned chart and compare them to the WiTP figures, thier are some isues:

Range, the Hispano and the US 50 should have equiel ranges I belave 5 is the max and that should be about right, the Ho-5 and the type 99 should be less, 4 I should think, but the isue hear is that these guns were designed to operate efectively withen the standard expected range envelope of around 400m, the Germans determined that prety much all a t a combate took place at that range or less, so designing an A t A weapon to operate at greater than that range was a waste.

Acuracery, the Hsipano and the US 50 were fairly accurate, as was the H0-5 the Type 99's were not generaly as acurate but the longer barel on the Type 99 MK II helped so were not to far off hear.

Efect,The type 99 nad the Hsipano should be prety equiel, the Ho-5 slightly less, it makes up for hitting power per shell with a higher rof, the US 50 should be about half, say a two to their 4.

Peneration, all should be about equiel, the Hispano and US 50 for obvious reasions, the Japanese guns because they only nead to penatrate far enough to alow their shels to detonate to acheave the desired results.

Load cost: The weapons load costs shold be looked at well, not shure who much this matters in game.
.............

Fun Day at the Museum: Ho-5 Farthest, Type 99 MK II and MK I.



Picture taken in the Oregon MIlitray Museum.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Brady,

I understand your point and we want to be as historical as possible. However, there is so little data on the aircraft. It does appear that it wasn't a particularly successful aircraft. Francillon listed it as a minor type and devoted only a short paragraph to it. To accurately model its performance, we need more data than what is available. If you have any specific data such as wing loading, ceiling, cruise speed, fuel capacity, please provide it to me via PM and I will discuss it with the air team. Any data on the 33rd would also be appreciated.. especially data concerning what aircraft replaced their B5Ms and their war record.

We could include the 33rd as a Kate equipped unit but as you say that wouldn't be quite the same.

Also, be advised that much of the aircraft data and the air OoB is still a work in progress. Just because we say it is not currently included, doesn't mean that it won't be. We just have to make a strong case for it.

Thanks,

Chez

I have a book on work done between 1910 and 1941 - explicitly packaged NOT to duplicate Francillons work - and I have used both these works, along with a number of books devoted to specific planes, and file materials in the form of articles or documents shorter than books devoted to Japanese aircraft, to build a database. Where data was missing, I have equations that calculate the empty hole using other data we do have. For example, weight and power yield power loading, etc. Using methods I learned working at Boeing Software Integration Laboratories, I even can fill in holes for things like Rate of Climb, maximum dive speed, etc - although these must be said to be estimates rather than calculations (like loading is - that isn't an estimate because it is using hard data in the right way to yield the true loading - wether or not any reference gives it to us). I can give you any of this data on any aircraft - there are a couple of hundred sub types - in any form required - with (usually) the holes filled in. [If a crticial factor is missing, my formulas will produce an error instead of a result however - a symbol not on the keyboard but which does appear on the screen]

We have Mikesh's book also. Indeed between all the members of the Air Team, I don't think there is a reference available in English that hasn't been begged, borrowed, stolen or purchased. Name a top researcher in the field, including Japanese authors, and we have used it. Indeed, we have even used original source documents in Japanese to verify some data.

Thanks for the offer for the formulas but we have an aeronautical guru on the team that has been able to provide formulas to calculate various aspects of aircraft performance. I think that when you see the finished product, you will agree it is pretty dang accurate.

Chez

ORIGINAL: TheElf

when in the TrainING pool, pilots are un-named, and un-designated. Generic if you will. Once they area drawn to an operational unit they are designated as TB, DB, FF, MB, REC etc. Once this happens they remain designated as a "Type" of pilot. And when they are moved from pool to pool they are in seperate pools based on their type.

The one exception is where they are in the Training Command pool as "instructors". Here is where they affect the output of "students" in the TrainING pool.

Very interesting. Once a pilot is designated by being assigned to an operational unit and then transferred to a pool, does the player know how many of each type of pilot is in that pool. Example: There are 20 pilots in the reserve pool. Will the player know that 12 are fighter, 3 TB, etc.?

How does a pilot become an instructor?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

- The pilot pools needs to be separate for General Naval Aviation and Trained Carrier Pilots.

included

Did I just read this right? There is now a difference between IJNAF carrier trained pilots and IJNAF non-carrier trained pilots?

Placekeeper for marking where I left off reading.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

4) How are aircraft defined as carrier capable? Currenlty they are fixed to a slot. Will there be similar limitations?

The editor has a new field that allows an A/C to be designated as such. It is no longer slot-based.

I think this just answered my question.