Matrix Games Forums

Thanks for the response Mike amd Weidi you're correct. Not sure why I thought 20 when I only read about this event again in more detail yesterday[8|]

I have a suggestion I wonder if it could be implemented. I have run tests on Japanese Aircraft Research and I have found the following to be true. Aircraft marked rd do not cost supplies as they increase. I placed an Ki44rd factory at a base and made sure it never had 10,000 supplies, as the turns went by the number of aircraft increased even with this lack of supply. When the Ki44 finally came on line 9 days early the factory was producing at 100%. Here is my suggestion: Could the count on the aircraft factory be reset to 1 or 10% or and appropriate value when the factory first comes online and then the factory could ramp up at the usual cost of 1000 supply/airframe?

Also are carrier squadron fragments created on another CV or land bases after a battle now convertible to the core squadron when the carrier sinks? If not, can they at least draw replacement air frames now?

Jim Burns asked this question on page 2 during the initial onslaught of posting, but I did not see an answer. [:(]

I just had a CV vs CV and 2 fragments landed on another CV.
Will I be able to disband those fragments into existing squadrons?? I don't want fragments running around for 15 months waiting for the respawn version to come back. [:D]
If not, can they accept replacements??
Will I be able to destroy planes on a CV so I get below the 110% threshold to continue to launch missions??

There's mention in one of the other AE threads about the ahistorical coordination between the IJAAF and the IJNAF.  Is there the possibility that the IJN and IJNAF base forces only support the IJNAF and the IJA base forces only support the IJAAF?

Will there still be a limit on how many (total) of breakdown-units or will you be able to divide all your units?

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

There's mention in one of the other AE threads about the ahistorical coordination between the IJAAF and the IJNAF.  Is there the possibility that the IJN and IJNAF base forces only support the IJNAF and the IJA base forces only support the IJAAF?

This is basically needed for all nations and all services...personally I'd like to see base forces be limited to specific aircraft types as well (at least suffer maintenance and armament penalties if aircraft other than those which you specialize are present), multiple types within a given service of course. Expenditure of supply needed to add an aircraft type, maximum number of types which a unit can support...etc

Of couse I'm in lala land.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Of couse I'm in lala land.[:D]

With the announcement of AE, I think we all are in lala land. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
With the announcement of AE, I think we all are in lala land. [;)]

It's certainly brought on a truely remarkable spate of "wishfull thinking"....

Hey Guys. Thanks for all of you answers and the time you took to further my desire for AE.

The sub-launched Glen floatplane was a reconnaisance plane; not a search plane. It should be limited to the recon role only (2 missions a day, 1 in each air phase, probably exceeded its capabilities).

With its cruise speed of just over 100 miles/hr, its need to be assembled prior to launch (and disassembled for stowage in the "hangar"), use of the Glen as a search plane with a 4 hex range (in Stock) flying 2 missions a day is beyond even the realm of fantasy (into the realm of utter impossibility). Any possibility that its mission capabilities could be limited to recon and training only. I know that the plane launched an attack on the US but in the event it was ineffective and not repeated.

I think I read herein that the later float attack planes that the IJN put on the I-400s is going to be included in AE. Let them have the honor of being an IJN "wunderwaffen".

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Also are carrier squadron fragments created on another CV or land bases after a battle now convertible to the core squadron when the carrier sinks? If not, can they at least draw replacement air frames now?

Jim Burns asked this question on page 2 during the initial onslaught of posting, but I did not see an answer. [:(]

I just had a CV vs CV and 2 fragments landed on another CV.
Will I be able to disband those fragments into existing squadrons?? I don't want fragments running around for 15 months waiting for the respawn version to come back. [:D]
If not, can they accept replacements??
Will I be able to destroy planes on a CV so I get below the 110% threshold to continue to launch missions??

Good question!

will the database include art and specifications for "what if" aircraft and German/Italian planes for example.

There's a healthy helping of the kind of aircraft that would/might have been deployed post-8/45.

No Germans or Italians though, I'm afraid.

Oh well guesstimating again

Sorry if this has been asked before: Currently all air operations except "transfer" are round-trip missions from/to the same air base. Will the AE allow for "shuttle bombing" (admittedly rarely used in the PTO) and "stage through" (very common) missions? Like basing B-17s at Townsville, landing at PM to refuel and then bombing Rabaul - as was done historically?

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Sorry if this has been asked before: Currently all air operations except "transfer" are round-trip missions from/to the same air base. Will the AE allow for "shuttle bombing" (admittedly rarely used in the PTO) and "stage through" (very common) missions? Like basing B-17s at Townsville, landing at PM to refuel and then bombing Rabaul - as was done historically?

No. OTS

Hi,
any chance that fighters on escort will stop to escort Recon flights ?

EDIT:Additionally will fights between (very) small numbers of planes become more bloody on occasion (i.e. when the fight only stops with elemination or running out of ammo?)

Is the 'bounce routine' being changed at all.  Ive noticed it is very one dimensional: 
 
If you are sending a big sweep to an enemy base protected by large number numbers of fighters, you can pretty much guarantee that the first unit will get bounced to buggery and wiped out - doesn't matter what they are flying or what their experience is.  The second unit into fight will suffer much the same fate.  However all your other units will fight on a fairly even footing.  Very easy to work around as the Japanese - you send a couple of army squadrons (I favour using the 3rd and 209th partially sighted Sentais) in ahead of your zero's.  As army fighters always fight first tfhe IJN pilots to clean up once the bounce is gone.
 
I'd like to see a bit more of a random element allowing the attacker to be able to gain the bounce occassionally but with the defender more likely to have the advantage because of radar/sound detector.

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Is the 'bounce routine' being changed at all.  Ive noticed it is very one dimensional: 

If you are sending a big sweep to an enemy base protected by large number numbers of fighters, you can pretty much guarantee that the first unit will get bounced to buggery and wiped out - doesn't matter what they are flying or what their experience is.  The second unit into fight will suffer much the same fate.  However all your other units will fight on a fairly even footing.  Very easy to work around as the Japanese - you send a couple of army squadrons (I favour using the 3rd and 209th partially sighted Sentais) in ahead of your zero's.  As army fighters always fight first tfhe IJN pilots to clean up once the bounce is gone.

I'd like to see a bit more of a random element allowing the attacker to be able to gain the bounce occassionally but with the defender more likely to have the advantage because of radar/sound detector.

Yes.

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Is the 'bounce routine' being changed at all.  Ive noticed it is very one dimensional: 

If you are sending a big sweep to an enemy base protected by large number numbers of fighters, you can pretty much guarantee that the first unit will get bounced to buggery and wiped out - doesn't matter what they are flying or what their experience is.  The second unit into fight will suffer much the same fate.  However all your other units will fight on a fairly even footing.  Very easy to work around as the Japanese - you send a couple of army squadrons (I favour using the 3rd and 209th partially sighted Sentais) in ahead of your zero's.  As army fighters always fight first tfhe IJN pilots to clean up once the bounce is gone.

I'd like to see a bit more of a random element allowing the attacker to be able to gain the bounce occassionally but with the defender more likely to have the advantage because of radar/sound detector.

Actually my belief is different - thought not necessarily better.

It turns out - that well over a year ago - after extensive testing - I was able to determine that - all other things being equal - which was tough to get to in the first place - took a pile of time in the editor - a large sweeping fighter group would always win big against a defending fighter group. When we traced the cause of this - it turns out that it is hard coded that a given sweeping fighter will shoot first 2/3rds of the time. So turns out this is totally on purpose.

Another aspect of this is that multiple sweep attacks - launched from multiple ranges - so they come in separately will "wear out" the defenders such that subsequent bombing attacks can be successful.

I finally sold Moses on all this in our game - when he sent 100+ fighters to Port Morseby and I unhinged this beast - by launching a small fighter sweep from Lae (which always got slaughtered) following by a smaller fighter sweep from the admiralties - which didn't do too well - and finally followed by a huge raid from Rabaul with escorted Betty's ... I think one turn I killed 250 planes in the air and on the ground (he also had staged a big pile of bombers to PM) and I think I lost under 100. This convinced him that multiple - small sweeps - exploiting the sweep bonus - was the way to crack fighter defenses. He has used it successfully against me ever since. Check out my AAR - I know it is demonstrated there.

===

So what about this "sweep bonus" ... does it make sense??? Some say yes - I'm still not convinced. But I think it is still there. I have raised this to Ian.

===

And BTW - I'm not sure how accurate the "bounce messages" are - I never pay attention to those - I just look at the results. I think at one point we determined some of the bounce messages were backwards - not sure whether that has been corrected or not.