Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:53 am**

Here is a screen shot of the plane losses to show you how wildly inaccurate they can be:

Edit: I wish I had shot down 31 B-24Js. [8|]

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:03 am**

Mike, I believe that when you set a target, that overrides the range restrictions. Not sure if that carries true for all missions thou...definitely for LRCAP. I have hundreds of time designated a LRCAP at 0 range and the planes flew.

When you set a range for LRCAP, I think then you are dispersing your fighters from the target hex to cover the rest of the range.

Therefore, you want to enable drop tanks and set range to 0 to concentrate your fighters in the target hex.

Cheers!

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:47 am**

Waiting for the next turn. If it doesn't work, I'll try that next! [:D]

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:22 pm**

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Mike, I believe that when you set a target, that overrides the range restrictions. Not sure if that carries true for all missions thou...definitely for LRCAP. I have hundreds of time designated a LRCAP at 0 range and the planes flew.

When you set a range for LRCAP, I think then you are dispersing your fighters from the target hex to cover the rest of the range.

Therefore, you want to enable drop tanks and set range to 0 to concentrate your fighters in the target hex.

+1. That's how mechanics works.

Also, if LRCAP does not do anything maybe it is because transports do not fly?

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:24 pm**

That could very well be true. I have 3 units that can keep this up (1 sentai, 2 chutai). I'll probably rotate them if there is no luck next turn. They're all stuck in China. May as well do something useful with them.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:52 pm**

If it's reporting you maybe shot down 31, you may have actually shot down 31. Or 20. Or 40.

Even 20 would be plenty good.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:29 pm**

Nothing should prevent supply paradrop to the base hex if airlift is also possible range-wise.

But that's not how the game rules define it. A paradrop and airlift seem to follow two different range rules.

Edit: Then again that's what you said "range-wise".

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:30 pm**

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The post didn't show any combat ensued. Remember there are two elements, the first indicating the presence of aircraft in the hex. The existence of a message display bug can't be totally dismissed either.

Have you ever seen a dedicated sweep mission finding and combating enemy bombers? Nor does a dedicated sweep mission loiter over an enemy airfield to increase the operational losses of RTB enemy aircraft. A dedicated sweep mission has only one purpose, to find enemy fighters protecting the airfield.

Where the potential for bugs arises is that the transport operation module is even more abstracted than the standard night (1x) and day (2x) phases. It is run as a separate module after the night and day operations.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred. Makes sense.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:03 pm**

I got to thinking about the transports, and depending upon your mod, the Nick might well be a good choice.

And then, I checked some of the Japanese ugly ducklings, that almost nobody every builds like the Dinah Fighter, the 93 (well they come so late most games are done by then). But the Dinah fighter has great range and a big honking gun (that is inaccurate) but perhaps it would do well LRCAP enemy bases?

The 93 has even better range...

Perhaps those big honking guns could really wreck damage among transports?

Don't know.

Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:56 am**

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I got to thinking about the transports, and depending upon your mod, the Nick might well be a good choice.

And then, I checked some of the Japanese ugly ducklings, that almost nobody every builds like the Dinah Fighter, the 93 (well they come so late most games are done by then). But the Dinah fighter has great range and a big honking gun (that is inaccurate) but perhaps it would do well LRCAP enemy bases?

The 93 has even better range...

Perhaps those big honking guns could really wreck damage among transports?

Don't know.

Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

With the lowest accuracy weapon in the game, I wonder if the Dinah KAI could hit a battleship let alone a transport plane [:D]

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:17 am**

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

Guess what, you just lost the bet [:)]
Bombers behave exactly the same way as transports when on supply mission. Drop fine in non-base hex but do not fly at all when target airfield is closed. Same range and place, target base changed in the editor between tries.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:32 am**

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.
Guess what, you just lost the bet [:)]
Bombers behave exactly the same way as transports when on supply mission. Drop fine in non-base hex but do not fly at all when target airfield is closed. Same range and place, target base changed in the editor between tries.

So you're saying that with Chungking's airfield closed, the transports aren't flying there?

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:19 pm**

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
So you're saying that with Chungking's airfield closed, the transports aren't flying there?

I think I did it here couple days ago already

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Transports and bombers can drop supplies at a base even with the runways destroyed, they just air drop, and suffer a penalty in capacity...pretty sure that this is clear in the manual somewhere.
I am testing this right now and you won't believe what happened! [click here][:)]

Fully developed base, several transport groups transporting supply to an island base in range. Level of runway damage on the island is set in the editor. No enemies on the map. All that jazz.
Contrary to common sense, transports do not fly at all towards the base with the severely damaged runway. I'm currently trying to determine the amount of damage that stops transports.
This pretty much amounts to a bug. Because as you have said nothing prevents supply paradrop in this case. Yet zero supply is transported

Edit: I do not remember what is the formula for airfield closing due to damage, but transports do not fly e.g. with 50% damage on 5 level airfield. And do fly with 50% damage on the 6 level
Edit2: Formula for airfield closing is damage>20+(Airfield Size *5) for strike missions (Manual 9.4.1). So apparently receiving airfield is treated the same way as starting airfield for transports. Both should be open for transports to fly. No paradrops of supply heh.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:05 pm**

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I got to thinking about the transports, and depending upon your mod, the Nick might well be a good choice.

And then, I checked some of the Japanese ugly ducklings, that almost nobody every builds like the Dinah Fighter, the 93 (well they come so late most games are done by then). But the Dinah fighter has great range and a big honking gun (that is inaccurate) but perhaps it would do well LRCAP enemy bases?

The 93 has even better range...

Perhaps those big honking guns could really wreck damage among transports?

Don't know.

Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

With the lowest accuracy weapon in the game, I wonder if the Dinah KAI could hit a battleship let alone a transport plane [:D]

I had three squadrons of her in my game against Tiemanj, and they did very well as an earlynight fighter. They have about the worst climb rate of any Japanese fighter, and so would never actually engage the night bombers, but still count for disrupting the attack. Wonderful limited use plane.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:06 pm**

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.
Guess what, you just lost the bet [:)]
Bombers behave exactly the same way as transports when on supply mission. Drop fine in non-base hex but do not fly at all when target airfield is closed. Same range and place, target base changed in the editor between tries.

Thanks for checking, and dispelling my urban myth rules of WITPAE![&o]

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:49 am**

My money is on the the likelihood that there are no transports flying to Chungking. With the airfield shut down by damage, they can't drop supply there. Airdrop only works for friendly forces outside friendly bases. The only item that has led Mike to assume there are transports flying in supply is the Chinese AV increasing from time to time. This is most likely due two factors (neither of which is air transported supply). First there are destroyed Chinese LCU's respawning in Chungking with relatively small numbers of combat squads. They will boost the raw AV when they arrive. Second, in Stock Scen 1, Chungking generates 400 supply/turn, aside from any that might be created via industry present in the hex. This would allow some disabled squads to recover and boost the raw AV.

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:34 am**

It does not take supply to repair disabled devices, such as squads.

Chungking also has a nominal level of supply that is produced every day, regardless of industry status, which would help prevent units from suffering disablements from having no supply for a long period of time.

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:14 pm**

Mike, I never knew you couldn't fly supply into a shut down airfield until this all came up and everyone chimed in. Guess I'll switch those Oscars to ground attack. May as well do something useful. By the way, I'm still working on the turn. Getting there....

Loka, thanks for that reminder. I never can remember if supply is needed to repair disabled devices. It makes sense that the raw AV is increasing then, from repair and the rebuilt units.

Just got an email from Ted. He's working the turn. [:)]

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:00 pm**

Just finished shoveling the foot of snow out of my driveway and came back in to find the turn. Only 3 more football games left (I don't count the pro bowl) and 2 are today. Can't miss my football! I'll run the turn later. [;)]

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:47 pm**

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Just finished shoveling the foot of snow out of my driveway and came back in to find the turn. Only 3 more football games left (I don't count the pro bowl) and 2 are today. Can't miss my football! I'll run the turn later. [;)]

[:(]

Priorities?????[:D]

Matrix Games Forums

Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)