Matrix Games Forums

Beyond Andy's comment that it was needed for the AI, I think it is the right call anyway, as there are lots of incidents historically when airsupport was done "on the move" from the back of the truck.

I don't know of any inceidents where ships where don this way (thats what AR, AE,AS are for).

Engineering requires planning and preperation and isn't done on the move. Units step forward and deploy.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Mike Naval support and engineers is only effective if the unit is in combat mode. Aviation support works in any mode.

Why should Aviation support work in any mode?

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

ORIGINAL: Helldiver

Greetings, Cathartes.

In post # 208, the Aden RN Base Force shows a "Garrison Unit (0) x1." What's the significance? Purpose? Are these actual troops or a representation of some value native to some static base forces?

I do not remember seeing this in stock. If I've missed a previous post on this, sorry. My mind is in a haze of new info...

Regards,
Helldiver

If Andy and Bill are reading, they would be the most qualified to answer this one, but I'm guessing it relates to the fact that if this unit was attacked, it could retreat and then be mobile to avoid destruction(code thing). Not that it would be--it's in Aden, but others of its ilk in other bases would function accordingly.

Cathartes is correct. In AE there are two (2) ways to make a unit stay at its assigned base.

1. Designate the unit as "static" in the editor. If forced to retreat, this unit will be eliminated. Used primarily for large, fixed, coastal defenses (Singapore, Bataan, Pearl Harbor, etc.)
2. Add a "static" device. A "garrison" is a static device with no combat power -- just a nail to hold the unit in place. If the garrison devices are all destroyed, the unit can move. For the US, I use this to help represent the largest base forces (Pearl Harbor, San Francisco,
Los Angeles) and the multi-division training centers (Ft Lewis, Ft. Ord, Camp Luis Obispo, Camp White/Adiar).

For off-map bases it doesn't matter which approach you use.

Will be there any problem in using drop tanks in bombers? i am thinking of giving that to bombers to simulate bomb bay extra tanks, i guess a problem could be that drop tanks weight doesn't cut into bomb load.

[/quote]

Hokay.... If you send them up on LRCAP over your own base with drop tanks on, does that extend the loiter time on station CAP - hence more time to make attacks on incoming raids?

[/quote]


Interesting question, Was this ever done in real life ? or is it just simpler to land and refuel more often to ensure sufficicnt fuel for interceptions. etc.

I actually wonder if the game mechanics are as developed for this as you suspect.
Can any one comment on the actual game mechanics for CAP ie what variables affect the number fo aircraft that actually intercept a raid etc ?
This may be in the manaul for Witp but its not handy.


cheers
Jorm

I suspect that it would a bad idea. Loiter time is not explicitly modelled. So just setting them to CAp over a base means that a couple will be up when the enemy comes, and others will scrable as available.

If they had drop tanks they would perform worse.


I think the variables are RADAR/Sound equipment/observers (this determines how far out a raid is detected), the number assigned to CAP, the number performing other missions (In A unit can actually perform several missions at the same time), presence of an airHQ I think also helps.

Cheers

Rob

ORIGINAL: Jorm

Hokay.... If you send them up on LRCAP over your own base with drop tanks on, does that extend the loiter time on station CAP - hence more time to make attacks on incoming raids?

[/quote]


Interesting question, Was this ever done in real life ? or is it just simpler to land and refuel more often to ensure sufficicnt fuel for interceptions. etc.

I actually wonder if the game mechanics are as developed for this as you suspect.
Can any one comment on the actual game mechanics for CAP ie what variables affect the number fo aircraft that actually intercept a raid etc ?
This may be in the manaul for Witp but its not handy.


cheers
Jorm





[/quote]

Everything is a supposition at this time until we all get to experience AE.

It is possible to anticipate many things earlier than patch 2.4 (for example).
In my opinion normal range it's range without drop tanks and extended with them.
If:

Extended range means less combat time

Zero has extended radius about 65 miles and with drop tanks about 109 miles. This difference where from?

ORIGINAL: Dili

Will be there any problem in using drop tanks in bombers? i am thinking of giving that to bombers to simulate bomb bay extra tanks, i guess a problem could be that drop tanks weight doesn't cut into bomb load.

Historically, Avengers would carry an internal drop tank that filled half of the bomb bay. The remaining half was available for bombs, 2x 500lb, I believe.

Edit: I don't believe it was a drop tank.

I think there is some confusion on the part of those of us that are on the outside looking in as far as drop tanks. We know that you have the option to use them or not but why? If using drop tnaks does not affect performance, fatigue, or any other factor other than increasing range, why would you not use them. Have I missed something here?

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think there is some confusion on the part of those of us that are on the outside looking in as far as drop tanks. We know that you have the option to use them or not but why? If using drop tnaks does not affect performance, fatigue, or any other factor other than increasing range, why would you not use them. Have I missed something here?

It eats up supply to use them.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think there is some confusion on the part of those of us that are on the outside looking in as far as drop tanks. We know that you have the option to use them or not but why? If using drop tnaks does not affect performance, fatigue, or any other factor other than increasing range, why would you not use them. Have I missed something here?

If players goes drop-tank crazy, they will not only eat up supply, but they will push pilots and machines closer to the limits. If you're carrying drop tanks, you're typically flying farther and longer, accruing more fatigue for man and machine. As a consequence combat effectiveness will suffer, ops losses will be higher. Extended range is not a freebie. This is the design as I understand it, and testing continues.

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I think there is some confusion on the part of those of us that are on the outside looking in as far as drop tanks. We know that you have the option to use them or not but why? If using drop tnaks does not affect performance, fatigue, or any other factor other than increasing range, why would you not use them. Have I missed something here?

If players goes drop-tank crazy, they will not only eat up supply, but they will push pilots and machines closer to the limits. If you're carrying drop tanks, you're typically flying farther and longer, accruing more fatigue for man and machine. As a consequence combat effectiveness will suffer, ops losses will be higher. Extended range is not a freebie. This is the design as I understand it, and testing continues.

Primary purpose for DTs is to extend range for Shorter range fighters to escort Longer range bombers.

Secondary purpose is to extend loiter time for CAP

Tertiary purpose is to Provided extended ferry ranges

In AE DTs do all three of these things though the 3rd purpose is an assumption as far as the code is concerned. In other words it just does it, you don't have to select DTs.

Flying longer distances or for longer periods increases pilot fatigue. It also increaes supply used in the form of AVGAS, and perishable Drop tanks. Assumptions here are that DTs are dropped priot to combat, thus the Supply/logistics piece of AE requires they be replaced.

The give and take here is obvious and simple...feel free to fly long range missions fx:

Fly your P-47s to Wewak, you can only do it with DTs
Fly your A6M2-21s to Guadalcanal, you'll only make it with DTs
Fly Sweeps over Singapore from indochina with you Oscars, but make sure you have DTs and plenty of supply!

Do these things, but watch your Air units for pilot fatigue, increased Ops losses, & A/C wear and tear.

Are DT's expended (i.e. not reused) when used for a ferry (base transfer) mission (in the game)?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Fly Sweeps over Rabaul from indochina with you Oscars, but make sure you have DTs and plenty of supply!
Do these things, but watch your Air units for pilot fatigue, increased Ops losses, & A/C wear and tear.

I hope this is a typo, because this would mean that with droptanks, they can fly halfway around the world .....

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Fly Sweeps over Rabaul from indochina with you Oscars, but make sure you have DTs and plenty of supply!
Do these things, but watch your Air units for pilot fatigue, increased Ops losses, & A/C wear and tear.

I hope this is a typo, because this would mean that with droptanks, they can fly halfway around the world .....

typo...fixed

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Are DT's expended (i.e. not reused) when used for a ferry (base transfer) mission (in the game)?

You read too much into this. There are droptanks in the code. They are in the database as devices, but when the code runs and A2A is performed there are no DTs that are tracked or even AVGAS going into the A/C. It is assumed to happen. A given. All that happend is the Supply burn while DTs are selected is doubled. Ferry missions are not subject to double supply as far as I know. In this case DTs would be retained.

Ok the results from the first two days of war.

The Peral Harbour strike gives results a bit on the Low side, 1 BB and 1 DD sunk, but we get a fair few aircarft on the ground:

BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 3
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires
CL Detroit, Bomb hits 1
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 2
AV Tangier
DM Breese
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 4, on fire
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 8, on fire
CM Oglala
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Selfridge, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL St. Louis, Torpedo hits 1
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AV Wright, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 1
PC Taney, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Strikes on the second day are also disapointing... ah well! ( In testing I have sunk between 0 and 6 BB's)

Nell Strikes on Singapore face a heavy CAP of Buffaloe... but get good lot of hits and a number of aircraft on the ground.


Japanese aircraft
G3M2 Nell x 54


Allied aircraft
Buffalo I x 17


Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2 Nell: 17 destroyed, 36 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 17 damaged
Buffalo I: 3 destroyed on ground
Blenheim IV: 1 destroyed on ground
Hudson I: 1 destroyed on ground
Vildebeest III: 2 destroyed on ground
Catalina I: 1 destroyed on ground


Allied ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)


Airbase hits 19
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 51


Invasion wise my troops land at Kota Bahru north as per the Japanese plan.

I land at Laog (rather than Batan Is).

I land at Sorong to protect my flank as I go into the DEI

Otherwise that is it! The "warpmode" invasions of everywhere just don't happen in AE (unless you modify the scenario).

I do have a large force moving into a DEI Target... they should land at the end of the next two day turn.

KB didn't use too many torpedoes (hence not so many ships sunk) so I don't HAVE to send her home (The closest base to rearm is in Japan, nowhere else can do it yet).

Rob any screenies please?

Here is Malaya with the default invasions.

Are the Tf icons slightly smaller or do my eyes decieve me?

And the Phillipines.