AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]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

miv792
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by miv792 »

Who how does clean out the large air fields with the decent amount of fighters ? And put sweep... so they by installments fly that very not advantageously when enemies are much...
Sorry for my english
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Dili »

This depends on assumptions, but i am seeing Venturas, A-20's, Hudson's with a crew of 2. They had only one pilot position and usually only one pilot.
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7672
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by wdolson »

I believe the Ventura and Hudson had crew positions for a co-pilot, but it wasn't always used. The Lockheed bombers were converted airliners.

Bill
SCW Development Team
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Dili »

In the manual(Ventura) and pilot notes(Hudson) they don't have co-pilot position.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by m10bob »

Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]
Image

User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by m10bob »

Hello..When the North American A 36 was released, it was described as a dive bomber by the USAAF..It and the P-51A were built at the same time, but both purpose built for different functions.
The A36A and P51A both had the Allison engine, but the A36 was a dive bomber,the P51A a fighter-bomber.
The A36A even had dive brakes, both over and underwing.

The A36A carried 6x.50 MG's(as in game) while the P51A carried only 4x.50MG's(as in game.
Other than the MG's, the only really noticeable thing about the two in appearance, was the P51A had the Allison V-1710-81 engine.

50 of the P51A's ordered were acquired by the RAF as the Mustang II
35 others were converted to F6B recon planes.

If this area of the forum is meant for questions only, I am asking why this is not reflected in the game?(Both are listed purely as "fighters".)

Source:Combat Aircraft Of The World by John W.R.Taylor..ISBN 0-339-50471-0

This is on site of the USAF:

Unofficially named the "Invader," the A-36A Apache dive bomber was the first U.S. Army Air Forces version of the Mustang (the Mustang was officially developed for Britain in 1940). The first A-36 flew in September 1942, and North American completed production of 500 A-36As in March 1943.

Assigned to the 27th and 86th Bombardment Groups (Dive), the A-36A first saw action against the the island of Pantelleria in June 1943. During the Italian campaign, A-36A pilots flew bomber escort and strafing missions as well as ground support bombing attacks. A-36As also served with the 311th Fighter Bomber Group in India. In 1944 bomb rack equipped P-51s and P-47s replaced the A-36A when experience showed that these high-altitude fighters were more suitable for low-level missions than the A-36As.

TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns; 1,000 lbs of bombs externally
Engine: Allison V-1710 of 1,325 hp
Maximum speed: 365 mph
Cruising speed: 250 mph
Range: 550 miles
Ceiling: 25,100 ft.
Span: 37 ft.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 12 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 10,000 lbs. loaded
Serial number: 42-83665
Image

User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6415
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by JeffroK »

Change it in the editor and see if anything changes.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by m10bob »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Change it in the editor and see if anything changes.

Jeff..Thank you..I appreciate your time....(I am also happy to have such a fantastically simple editor with the game!!)
Image

User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by Symon »

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]
At the risk of being glib, Bob, the answer is ... because.

There's no way in the game system to set planes to do this or do that, it's one-size-fits-all. So is a plane a Fighter? or a FB? or something else? Pick one. And your choice is dispositive. Just imagine the howls from the community if we scarred the F-4U -1D and -4 with their actual performance specs while carying bombs in an FB configuration.

The game engine is all, and we must do the data to fit the engine parameters regardless of IRL situations. Sorry. JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues

Post by m10bob »

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]
At the risk of being glib, Bob, the answer is ... because.

There's no way in the game system to set planes to do this or do that, it's one-size-fits-all. So is a plane a Fighter? or a FB? or something else? Pick one. And your choice is dispositive. Just imagine the howls from the community if we scarred the F-4U -1D and -4 with their actual performance specs while carying bombs in an FB configuration.

The game engine is all, and we must do the data to fit the engine parameters regardless of IRL situations. Sorry. JWE
Since my fairly recent health-driven retirement..I finally have time to play with the editor in a big way..In past I have altered things, mostly ranges and cargo capacity of transport planes.(I have a great source book for this)..
Now, I am experimenting to learn if their might be some "bonus's" or functions of labeling things FB vs Fighter..
I have learned how to allow a plane to carry both drop tanks AND bombs both short and long range.(I did not know how till now.)
I am working to see how "attack bomber" affects a planes capabilities..Hoping it might be the "magic elixir" which allows the low-level missions of ground support planes without incurring the somewhat harsh morale drops.

I can honestly say that after all this time, I still learn new things every single time I play the game..

John, there is NOTHING to apologize about this game..Gadzooks, it is great..
Image

Anabella888
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 3:14 am

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Anabella888 »

Overall it's looking splendid! [:'(]
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5447
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Yaab »

What is wrong with the stock Wirraway?

This site says it carried 500 lb of bombs. This would translate into 2 x 250 lb loadout instead of the stock 2 x 100 lb loadout.

http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily. ... rraway.htm
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Dili »

User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7672
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by wdolson »

The Walrus wasn't an amphibian, it could land on a carrier or land with a landing gear kit. The Kingfisher could also swap floats for landing gear too.

Bill
SCW Development Team
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Dili »

I always read about it as an amphibian. It has retractable main wheels as shown in this pic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supe ... an2007.jpg

It is also classified as an amphibian in game.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Macclan5 »

Gentlemen

Geeky amateur historian type question.

Not understanding the editor et al...

Where does USAAF V Bomber Command start in the game ? About what date ?

I guess I am referring to both the HQ squadron and HQ LCUnit.

Does it start in Pearl; I cannot recall that far back.

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 14076
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by btd64 »

I don't have the game open right now but in most scenarios at an airfield just west of Townsville on Australia's East Coast or Brisbane....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
SCW Manual Lead & Beta Support Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
dave sindel
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Millersburg, OH

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by dave sindel »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Gentlemen

Geeky amateur historian type question.

Not understanding the editor et al...

Where does USAAF V Bomber Command start in the game ? About what date ?

I guess I am referring to both the HQ squadron and HQ LCUnit.

Does it start in Pearl; I cannot recall that far back.


Pretty sure it's Brisbane. I moved it to Charter Towers when it arrived. Playing stock scenario 1
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by Macclan5 »

Thanks GP / Dave.

Question: Is it possible or is there a variable that allows it to start in Pearl ?

Question: If it shows up there is it due to my ineptness as a player ? or some such variable ? Does the date / fall of Philippines affect it?

--

I am curiously asking only because in 'my first start' of the GC (before I knew anything - before I read anything) I seem to think I recall it showing up in Pearl.

What peaked my curiosity is that V Bomber (and possibly the HQ Squadron of B17) 'absorbed command' of the entire USAAF Hawaiian AF before the VII Bomber Command showed up.

This of course bothered the wanna- be- historian in me.

I made sure to move out the V Bomber Command Squadron to CONUS quickly in my 'for real game' and of course you are correct it spawned in Brisbane.

VII Bomber Command opened in Pearl and correctly took command of USAAF Hawaii.

--

Background:

Having captured Rabul I am contemplating moving V Bomber forward. I am the type of player that consults history and I am debating where to move it to..

i.e. Historically Jackson Airbase Port Moresby and or Nadzab Forward Airbase New Guinea.

Safe enough for now but I am considering Rabul



A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20313
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Post by BBfanboy »

For me, the point of playing the game is to see if you can do better than historical. That means deviation from what happened and any option you choose is a valid one. I am sure the USAAF would have considered using Rabaul as a major base if it could have been captured before it was too far behind the lines.

Nadzab, by historical accounts, was a muddy hell-hole with tent facilities that only really got functional after the fighting had moved on. Seems like a poor place to put an HQ, but maybe there was one there.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Post Reply

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