Page 13 of 103
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:25 pm
by spence
The RAF didn't use the BAT. You're thinking of the Razon/Mezon bombs...
Maybe that is what of which I am thinking but what about the other questions?
1) USN 2E/4E training/operations against shipping versus USAAF training/operations against same.
2) Privateers
3) The Bat Bomb (as opposed to the bats with bombs).
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:45 pm
by spence
I saw somewhere that torpedos carried are tracked now at least as far as CV's are concerned. Are they in some fashion tracked for bases as well?
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:35 pm
by Yakface
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Yakface
ORIGINAL: TheElf
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?
No problem - thanks for the answer. Would it be best to post the question in the general forum?
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:41 pm
by wworld7
ORIGINAL: Knavey
Placekeeper for marking where I left off reading.
Hi,
Rather than fill up the forum with posts like yours above (I thought about doing this myself). Instead I created a Word Doc with the LAST post number I read.
Easy to find, and doesn't add to the the volume of posts.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:42 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Yakface
ORIGINAL: TheElf
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?
Uh, this would be assigned to the "Fog of War Team" [:D][:D][:D] hastily defined to be Michaelm and Joe !!! [:D][:D][:D]
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:26 pm
by Yakface
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Uh, this would be assigned to the "Fog of War Team" [:D][:D][:D] hastily defined to be Michaelm and Joe !!! [:D][:D][:D]
Can't spot an FOW thread. If I sit and stare at the screen without blinking for 2 minutes will my DL go up enough to see it?
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:30 pm
by VSWG
ORIGINAL: Knavey
Placekeeper for marking where I left off reading.
[;)]
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:55 pm
by Brady
TheElf-lol[:)]
...............
Ref-rotate piolets...very cool indead!
...............
1) Were the relative gun values for aircraft looked at?
2) Just how patrole planes be aloted search radar, given not all with a squadron were so equiped always.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Yakface
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Uh, this would be assigned to the "Fog of War Team" [:D][:D][:D] hastily defined to be Michaelm and Joe !!! [:D][:D][:D]
Can't spot an FOW thread. If I sit and stare at the screen without blinking for 2 minutes will my DL go up enough to see it?
The FOW thread is in the developers forum. [:)]
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:01 pm
by Woos
ORIGINAL: VSWG
Actually the pop-up is misleading. The forum designers took some short cuts. What the icon is really bringing you to is the first posting appearing after you logged out last time (or so). Simple to test. Log into the forum, don't read anything and log out again. After next login everything is marked read.
BTW, if you ever used UseNet and had a look at the .newsrc Files (which tend to grow dramatically over time) you understand why the forum does not track read progress in individual threads.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:20 pm
by 1EyedJacks
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Brady
The question might be in game terms why would you want to, or care to, do you get some in game benifift from doing so?
In my game I will want to.
1. I want to preserve select High skill pilots
2. I want to build a buffer between my Training Schools and the fleet
3. More and higher EXP veterans in the Training Command pool will positively affect the EXP levels of newly trained replacements, and can ever so slightly increase production.
4. The Japanese contrary to popular opinion and however belatedly DID increase the intake of pilot training candidates through out the war. We intend to try and match this as accurately as possible. If game conditions (read into this how you will) allow it the IJ player will be able to fully train pilots after the historical decline of the aviation pipeline began
This is a feature, and is forces the Allied player the ATTRITE japanese planes on a large scale. If he does not do this he is making his own bed for 43', 44' and 45'...better get your favorite pillow.
Hi Elf,
Can I ask what will be important for skills along with EXP for a vetran in the Training Command Pool?
It sounds like I'd have several vetrans in the pool - one with high EXP for Low Level Bombing, one with high EXP in ASW etc. - right? But the vetran pilots also have skills like Naval, Air, Admin, Agression, etc. - right? Are any of the skill sets used for training "student pilots?" Would a vetran trainer with a higher Air skill be a better than a vetran trainer with a higher Admin skill (as an example)?
Also, would I be able to assign a HQ to the Training Command Pool to help increase the number and/or quality of the newly trained pilots?
And thanks again for taking the time to answer questions with this thread. It looks like a wave of excitement has washed over this forum with the AE announcement <laughter>.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:31 pm
by Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: TheElf
included
Did I just read this right? There is now a difference between IJNAF carrier trained pilots and IJNAF non-carrier trained pilots?
No there is no difference. We currently do not track individual pilots Carrier Quals.
It is tracked in the units.
So does this mean that if you pull a pilot from a non-carrier qualified unit, place him into the reserve pool and then place him into a carrier qualified unit, he's now carrier qualified? I guess it's the same as now?
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:33 pm
by Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
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?
The player does not know how many of which type is in the pool.
Pilots become instructors when a player selects him and sends him to the Training Command pool.
Then what happens if the player tries to put a pilot into a certain unit and there are no pilots available for that unit type?
Thanks for the enlightenment on the instructor thing.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:34 pm
by Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Does this mean that Japanese pilots will now rotate home to be instructors? Will the players be able to rotate pilots home to be instructors?
Not Automatically. Players will be given the option. IJN and IJAAF did rotate veterans back to the HIs to train new pilots but not approaching anywhere near the regularity or the numbers the US did.
Very cool. Thanks. [:)]
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:36 pm
by Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: Brady
The question might be in game terms why would you want to, or care to, do you get some in game benifift from doing so?
In my game I will want to.
1. I want to preserve select High skill pilots
2. I want to build a buffer between my Training Schools and the fleet
3. More and higher EXP veterans in the Training Command pool will positively affect the EXP levels of newly trained replacements, and can ever so slightly increase production.
4. The Japanese contrary to popular opinion and however belatedly DID increase the intake of pilot training candidates through out the war. We intend to try and match this as accurately as possible. If game conditions (read into this how you will) allow it the IJ player will be able to fully train pilots after the historical decline of the aviation pipeline began
This is a feature, and is forces the Allied player the ATTRITE japanese planes on a large scale. If he does not do this he is making his own bed for 43', 44' and 45'...better get your favorite pillow.
I like this a lot. I can see AFBs hating it even more.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:43 pm
by Fletcher
Excuse me if you asked this question before...
Any skip-bombing improvement ? ... this tactic will be exclusive or bonused at 5th Air Force (Kenney´s)?
Excuse me for my poor english, it is not my native laguage.
Thanks in advance
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:50 pm
by timtom
ORIGINAL: spence
Elf -
The USN was prohibited (by interservice agreement) from possessing land based bombers (except seaplanes) prior to the war. Starting around the end of 1942 the USN started operating squadrons of patrol bombers of various types. Though much of the equipment was in pretty much the same as the USAAF equipment the training was quite different. The USN/USMC multi-engine bombers operated and attacked at low levels and were quite proficient at attacking ships/submarines. Basically though they did not make mass attacks on enemy fleets (though that may be a result of the IJN not presenting such targets). Previously you mentioned that low level naval attack proficiency would be mostly restricted to the USAAF 5th AF. I should hope that the USN 2E/4E bombers would also be given their due.
Though not addressed to me, I'm sure our pointy-eared friend wont mind. I believe what he was talking about was the attack bomber, ie a type of aircraft, as opposed to the low naval attack skill. It's possible to have one without the other. In OOB terms the arrival date of large number of units will use their formation date rather then the date of overseas deployment. This is in particularly the case with for the USN & USMC. In these cases it's down to the player to prioritise training of a particular skill.
ORIGINAL: spence
Is the PB4Y-2 Privateer included now? Is the BAT radar guided bomb? If so is it useable against land targets as well (apparently the RAF used it against bridges on the Burma railway somewhat successfully)?
Yes on the Privateer. No on the BAT I'm afraid. Would be cool, but it's the kind of thing where we have to weight the time needed for research, coding and testing against the potential gain given that reseources are finite.
As for individual aircraft types, I'd suggest that you all go away a count all the different aircraft types you think should be included and see how close to the 500+ number you get
ORIGINAL: Brady
2) Just how patrole planes be aloted search radar, given not all with a squadron were so equiped always.
A good question and one that's being chomping on. When we're through we'll let you know
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:08 pm
by pad152
Will aircraft art be handled like ship art, were each plane has it's own bmp file?
This would make custom aircraft art a lot easier.
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:18 pm
by spence
A good question and one that's being chomping on. When we're through we'll let you know
I know, I know...let it be. Just thought maybe a BAT bomb could be sort of an OHKA with a hard coded pilot skill of thus and so. It seems to me that OHKAs were finally made to work though I've never played any of the game in 1945 to know how it is that they do work. OOPs wrong question
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:39 pm
by Fishbed
ORIGINAL: TheElf
I hear what you are saying Fishbed, but given that AE players will be starting from scratch, we priortized any adjustment to the Kamikaze routine to a later patch. AS it will likely not require any OoB work, and thus no restarts, we could code any changes at a later date. Bigger fish...
Thanks Elf