Matrix Games Forums

I have always felt that once Iwo was taken by the allies B-29 op losses from the Mariannas should be less. Is this being looked at or is it even possible?

MichaelM did a feasibility study on a similar issue (in code terms) and found that it couldn't be done with the current code. So in my uneducated opinion, no.

Will USAAF long range recon assets (B-24 and B-29) be included?

F-7 & F-13 both, along with the appropriate OOB. See also post #256

I'll read that to say if it was used in the Pacific most likely it is in! USAF background is 100 SRW and it bugged me that the long range recon was left out of WitP I.  Thank You.

SAIEW.... SAIEW... SAIEW...

c'mon, guys, Stop Making Sense!

Hi all,

Shameless BUMP... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

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: hvymtl13

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.

Recon should be very difficult to shoot down. WITP is an operational game - players don't control tactics as such - but clearly recon pilots will attempt to come in at the "wrong" altitude - at a time when escape into darkness or clouds is feasible - etc. Note that the lowly Glen was able to do not only pre Pearl Harbor recon - but post strike recon as well - in spite of being low and slow and the enemy having many fighter planes and being on such a high state of alert no aircraft was safe (including those in US markings). Recon aircraft have a number of tactical advantages and assets, and figuring out in time that they can be intercepted at all is difficult - and rare. In the normal case in WWII no intercept was made. When it was, in the normal case it failed.

Actual intercept - from the ground - is difficult indeed. But it is quite true that CAP has a shot - IF it is high enough and IF it sees the recon plane. The problem is - a single aircraft coming in optimizing the chances not to be seen inherant in the situation often is not seen in time. Another problem is that recon will normally be above the altitude CAP should be at if it is to be effective against bombers.

ORIGINAL: spence

Spence, there's a big difference between shooting down practically no minelayers and having 0% chance of ever shooting down a minelayer.

The total loss of minelaying aircraft during the 6 month campaign against the Home Islands was 15 aircraft to all causes. Since all mining missions occur at night I'll wager that the ops losses provided by the game engine mechanics exceed the actual losses considerably.

Spence, I'm not arguing history. I agree that 15 aircraft lost is inconsequential. My argument for trying to fix this is for alternate history purposes. If the Japanese are able to field a capable air force in 1943, then the Japanese should be the ability to contest the Allied aerial minelaying campaign.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: spence

Spence, there's a big difference between shooting down practically no minelayers and having 0% chance of ever shooting down a minelayer.

The total loss of minelaying aircraft during the 6 month campaign against the Home Islands was 15 aircraft to all causes. Since all mining missions occur at night I'll wager that the ops losses provided by the game engine mechanics exceed the actual losses considerably.

Spence, I'm not arguing history. I agree that 15 aircraft lost is inconsequential. My argument for trying to fix this is for alternate history purposes. If the Japanese are able to field a capable air force in 1943, then the Japanese should be the ability to contest the Allied aerial minelaying campaign.

No one should be arguing anything on this thread...[:)]

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: TheElf


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

No one should be arguing anything on this thread...[:)]

Thanks.

Bravo! Bravissimo!

Nor should they be arguing on any of the AE specific threads.

Forgot to ask before: PV-2 Harpoons in AE?

Will the following bug be fixed:

Fighters trying to escort Recon missions but getting "UNABLE TO LOCATE TARGET". Thereby exhausting themselves and also rendering themselves unable to participate in the actual air combat phase.

It happens all the time, you must have seen it ...

SAIEW.... SAIEW... SAIEW...

c'mon, guys, Stop Making Sense!

Hehe, I also wondered whether SAIEW was a Talking Heads reference. [8D]

Back on-topic: I can't remember whether this has been asked/answered -- will there be any change to the procedure for transferring aircraft? I think Elf or someone acknowledged working on the fog-of-war aspect of air transfers (the player moving second gets more info about transfers than the player moving first). Will AE address the question of whether transferred aircraft should immediately be able fly missions?

Forgive me if this has been asked; I've read all these threads but it's easy to lose track.

Hi,
can we have night transport flights only (to contested bases)? Can the Japanese use the transport float planes for attacking enemy bases (i.e. non paratroop units but they are not paradropped of course).

I like the idea of Lizzies being used as light bombers [8D] I don't know if this has been covered yet, but here's some stuff I would like to see that either isn't really in the current game or isn't there at all:

Blenheim MkV
A few of the unarmed Beauforts that were in Singers at the start of the Pacific war and were used for recce missions
Some of the modified Buffaloes that were used for similar missions IIRC
Thunderbolt MkI & MkII
Liberator GRV etc for proper anti-sub missions
Ansons
Hurricane IIb
Hurricane IIc
Hurricane TRII
Hurricane IV
Spitfire PRIV
PR Mitchells
Beaufighter MkIc
Beaufighter MkX (I don't think the RAF used them for lugging torps around in SE Asia)
Beaufort transports as used by the RAAF

One for the JFBs out there: How about the ability to employ a limited number of prototype a/c before their general introduction (a la the Tojo in China), may be beyond the limits of what is poissible though...
A proper RAF Tiger Force [&o]
Maybe sticking 8 Sqn under a restricted command to stop the Allied player moving them from Aden where they spent most of the war carrying out ASW.
Royal Navy MONABs and shore based squadrons

I know some of this is probably in already and some of this is obviously far more likely than other stuff, but as the actress said to the bishop 'If you don't ask you don't get'. [;)]

You will learn to dread my posts [:D]

EDIT: What Brady said in the post under mine [:D]

Forgive me if this was covvered, but I cant see that it has been thus far:
 
Has the tell tail red line present for recon flights been done away with, and given that most recon flights went compleatly unnoticed, is their a rutine that would alow for this in game, that the enemy might not even see the flight.
 
 Also can we do recon flights at night?
 
   

Is there a cap on total number of pilots as in WITP?  I think it was 20,000 initially and one upgrade improved that to 30,000.  Just wondering because if so many new air units are being added, won't that affect the cap on pilots?

ORIGINAL: Brady

Has the tell tail red line present for recon flights been done away with, and given that most recon flights went compleatly unnoticed, is their a rutine that would alow for this in game, that the enemy might not even see the flight.

I would like to second this and take it one step further:

The red lines lines showing the origin of air attacks should only be shown when the origin of the attack is detected. And, if the attack is detected (say) halfway, then the red line should only be drawn halfway. The red line should also be subject to Fog Of War - it could be displayed incorrectly!

I don't know if the current engine can accommodate these suggestions, but it would be great if they could.

ORIGINAL: spence

Forgot to ask before: PV-2 Harpoons in AE?

Yup.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

SAIEW.... SAIEW... SAIEW...

c'mon, guys, Stop Making Sense!

Hehe, I also wondered whether SAIEW was a Talking Heads reference. [8D]

Not a reference, but an influence.

Back on-topic: I can't remember whether this has been asked/answered -- will there be any change to the procedure for transferring aircraft? I think Elf or someone acknowledged working on the fog-of-war aspect of air transfers (the player moving second gets more info about transfers than the player moving first). Will AE address the question of whether transferred aircraft should immediately be able fly missions?

Wasn't me. They are available to fly, but still subject to ops loss and damage.


[/quote]

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
can we have night transport flights only (to contested bases)? Can the Japanese use the transport float planes for attacking enemy bases (i.e. non paratroop units but they are not paradropped of course).

OTS

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Brady

Has the tell tail red line present for recon flights been done away with, and given that most recon flights went compleatly unnoticed, is their a rutine that would alow for this in game, that the enemy might not even see the flight.

I would like to second this and take it one step further:

The red lines lines showing the origin of air attacks should only be shown when the origin of the attack is detected. And, if the attack is detected (say) halfway, then the red line should only be drawn halfway. The red line should also be subject to Fog Of War - it could be displayed incorrectly!

I don't know if the current engine can accommodate these suggestions, but it would be great if they could.

Last time I played WitP the red line was gone. Maybe I am thinking of AE. Can't remember now... I haven't played stock since we started this little project.