Matrix Games Forums

Have you given any thought to drawing 2 pilots from the pool for each 4E plane? This would go a long ways toward making the pain of losing one of these reflect the larger loss of life involved when one of these is lost. It might make WITP commanders more careful with these valuable assets, just as careful commanders in real life were.

In a related issue ( I know, wrong thread) the production cost of a large bomber should be more than the 4X a pursuit plane in WITP. In RL it was on the order of 8X-10X.

Thanks

Dave Bradley

Hi all,

I don't think this was asked before regarding upcoming WitP-AE...


Is there any modification to airbase overstacking rule?

Are there any modifications that differ 1-engine planes from 2-engine and 4-engine aircraft (all regarding stacking rules of airbases)?


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: TheElf

3. The TrainING Pool: This is the equivalent of the current Pilot pool where new recruits are being trained at varying schools. They are represented as in "classes" each class is at a different stage of training and thus has differing current EXP level. YOU MAY DRAW PILOTS TO COMBAT UNITS FROM THIS POOL. But you can imagine what that means...

Edit: Pilots in the TrainING pool are not named until they finish training or are drawn into an operational unit.

Since there is a training pool, does this mean that japanese pilot experience will no longer be dependent upon the year that they are drawn and instead is dependent upon length of time in training?

ORIGINAL: 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. [:)]

...Which we cannot see due to FOW! [:'(]

Catch-22...

Hi all,
 
Can't recall seeing this puppy in here.
 
Are there any tweaks to Minelaying missions in terms of whether CAP will be able to intercept them?

In the upcoming Matrix game update "GG's Bombing the Reich", there is a thread for players to submit names to be used as filler pilots. Has this been considered for "AE"? Seems like a good way to pull in some new players (and sales) for a small amount of work. Of course, historical pilot names are preferred, but I would guess that there are many non-historical pilot names in the database.

ORIGINAL: apbarog

In the upcoming Matrix game update "GG's Bombing the Reich", there is a thread for players to submit names to be used as filler pilots. Has this been considered for "AE"? Seems like a good way to pull in some new players (and sales) for a small amount of work. Of course, historical pilot names are preferred, but I would guess that there are many non-historical pilot names in the database.

That was done in War Plan Orange with ships. Lot of forum members gave their names to COs of many ships. I am the CO of BC Lion, for example [8D]. Also, lot of family members and Matrix staff appear as pilots or commanders in WitP too.

Fletcher-You might be interested to know that the Japanese conducted skip bombing as well, the Japanese army even had boombs built just for that use.

ORIGINAL: apbarog

In the upcoming Matrix game update "GG's Bombing the Reich", there is a thread for players to submit names to be used as filler pilots. Has this been considered for "AE"? Seems like a good way to pull in some new players (and sales) for a small amount of work. Of course, historical pilot names are preferred, but I would guess that there are many non-historical pilot names in the database.

A decent idea as long as Capt. Flipper or his wingman Snoppy in their Sopwith Camel's never get shot down.

That would be like matter and anti-matter touching....POOF...the end of everything as we know it.

Besides keeping track of planes lost daily and for the whole campaign, could they keep track of pilots killed?? It's nice to know that as the planes are easier to replace.
 
If you play a non-historical first turn, you can go around to all your squadrons and add pilots without it effecting your pools. Is this loophole going to be closed??

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Brady

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.

Brady, You are hired for the purposes of speculating answers to questions in this thread for me...

You could look at it that way. OTOH, you could also look at it as a cheap and cheerful way to knock out a bit of the unrealistic IJA/IJN co-operation the AFBs are forever whining about [;)]

Been here, read this.

Did I see somewhere in the avalanche of emails over the weekend that air units will be squadron size?  Does this mean that Japanese air units will be chutai or daitai/chutai?

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Did I see somewhere in the avalanche of emails over the weekend that air units will be squadron size?  Does this mean that Japanese air units will be chutai or daitai/chutai?

Generally air units are portrayed at their lowest, non-organic level. For the Japanese this means that things stays much the same as always.

Is any time being spent on making air losses more realistic.  IMHO they are quite excessive.  I believe others agree.

ORIGINAL: jshan
Is any time being spent on making air losses more realistic.  IMHO they are quite excessive.  I believe others agree.

While we can't turn lead into gold, the overaching goal of the reworked A2A code (less bloody), the new service rating (more downtime), and the revised OOB (fewer aircraft) is to lessen air combat lethality.

Given what has been disclosed above - including things like altitude ratings for aircraft - I think you HAVE turned lead into gold. Which is to say - outstanding work.

Great plan on this expansion. Sounds great.
 I read all the previous posts and good questions and answers. So I have only a couple:
Recon was mentioned fairly often so far, but no mention of intercepting them. I've noticed myself and read a few threads on this subject that imply they are overly difficult to shoot down. If they operate within the same altitude band as cap is set, will they be more likely to be intercepted than they are now?
 Will reconansiance information be more accurate or detailed? Including unit names, moving direction NE 10 knots etc..  Depending of course on pilot experiance how accurate the info would be..
 
Biggest question I have is- I've read where some ordanance will be tracked, ie mines and possibly torpedoes etc. concerning thier availibility; but no option to control the air strikes specific loadout of available ordnance? Is this set in stone already or not possible to include? The player defined loadouts on airstikes would be seriously cool stuff.
 

One of the problems with the CV based air model I've encountered regularly has been the inabilty of the model to handle the exacting data pertaining to the aircraft (range and endurance specifically) with TF movement and the hex grid map. This always resulted in Japanese CV TFs, with their longer range/endurance aircraft, enjoying the ability to strike with impunity at long range because the Japanese aircraft range is marginally over four/five hexes while Allied range is marginally under four/three hexes. The Allied CV TFs don't launch because of the nature of the map (hex grid) and the 'reaction mechanism' designed to deal with this real data vs hex grid mapping just can't cope with the situation...it either fails to react or goes bounding off to it's doom. Has the reaction model been improved to allow for this tactical level detail within the more strategic format the game phases represent...can Allied CVs launch despite the aircraft being shorter ranged, or have the naval based aircraft been given a rounded up/down reange/endurance (ie...all Japanese/Allied CV TF aircraft strike range maxed at 4 hexes) to ensure launch.

In conjunction with this desire to equalize Jap/Allied strike range for CV based aircraft to alleviate the limitations of the hex grid, why not use the range/endurance to determine coordination/strike size and weapon loadout only instead of allowing the extra hex range simply because the data, when translated into hexes, allows for an extra hex range as the stated range/endurance of certain aircraft barely cross the range needed for the extra hex?