AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Dutch_slith
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:21 am
Location: the Netherlands

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Dutch_slith »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

And in RL they did. Most of the GVTs using the Dornier 24K-1 upgraded to the PBY-5 Catalina during January/March 1942.
Image
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

Yep...would be cool.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
GaryChildress
Posts: 6932
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool. [&:]
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool. [&:]

Nope. I'm patched to 1.806 and the Dutch groups have been arriving in Sydney equipped with aircraft from another dimension. Only reason I keep the squadrons is because I still hold the DEI in July 42 but I won't use them until upgraded...aside from training of course...my mod has pilot exp massively reduced so these guys arrived between 7 and 15 exp!.[:D] Otherwise if DEI is conquered I withdraw them or ground them in some lonesome hole and only use the historical Dutch reinforcement squadrons.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Yakface
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:43 am

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Yakface »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool. [&:]

Yes, only Aliied. Not only do their carriers, cruiser and the entire chinese army respawn, but so does every aircraft.
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool. [&:]

Yes, only Aliied. Not only do their carriers, cruiser and the entire chinese army respawn, but so does every aircraft.

Only Allied? Guess this needs to be sorted pronto if we are to see any changes to the Japanese production model.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Yakface
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:43 am

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Yakface »

Hi Elf.
 
I understand that the air combat routines are being tweaked to reduce the effectveness of CAP...... I say I undersatnd it to be so simply because I've seen fairly non-specific anecdotes about it.  Are there any more details?
 
Also, if they are being changed, won't this mean that the effectiveness of bombing a base needs to be toned down to keep any sort of balance between attacker and defender (rather than IJ and Allied) .  It already seems taht one good strike will close a base and destroy huge numbers of aircraft based there.  
 
Hmmm - if that's changed then we come to the speed with which engineers can repair the damage.....
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Hi Elf.

I understand that the air combat routines are being tweaked to reduce the effectveness of CAP...... I say I undersatnd it to be so simply because I've seen fairly non-specific anecdotes about it.  Are there any more details?

Also, if they are being changed, won't this mean that the effectiveness of bombing a base needs to be toned down to keep any sort of balance between attacker and defender (rather than IJ and Allied) .  It already seems taht one good strike will close a base and destroy huge numbers of aircraft based there.  

Hmmm - if that's changed then we come to the speed with which engineers can repair the damage.....

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by mdiehl »

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.


For example......?
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.


For example......?
See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
Yakface
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:43 am

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Yakface »

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.


For example......?
See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example

I can well believe that atol bases can fairly easily be put out of action, as you say. To be honest the whole atol thing doesn't reallty work for me - at the moment too many aircraft, men etc can be based at a single atol. I am really talking about the Rangoon's, Wuchow's, Nanchang's, Manila's. Full land bases which often represent a number of air strips, with aircraft that may be dispersed etc. If CAP is less effective the whole balance point shifts between defending a base and the incoming bombers. Expectations of bomber/escort lossese go down whilst damage to the defender goes up (more aircraft get through). It's just a personal opinion but I already think that generally the bomber has the whip-hand in this struggle, so with comparative forces (and recognising I am ignoring a whole load of variables), I find it is better to be attacking a base to close it than it is to be trying to defend it. Reducing only the effectiveness of CAP could IMHO make one of the critical (and fun) struggles in the game rather one sided.
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Yakface
ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: mdiehl



For example......?
See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example

I can well believe that atol bases can fairly easily be put out of action, as you say. To be honest the whole atol thing doesn't reallty work for me - at the moment too many aircraft, men etc can be based at a single atol. I am really talking about the Rangoon's, Wuchow's, Nanchang's, Manila's. Full land bases which often represent a number of air strips, with aircraft that may be dispersed etc. If CAP is less effective the whole balance point shifts between defending a base and the incoming bombers. Expectations of bomber/escort lossese go down whilst damage to the defender goes up (more aircraft get through). It's just a personal opinion but I already think that generally the bomber has the whip-hand in this struggle, so with comparative forces (and recognising I am ignoring a whole load of variables), I find it is better to be attacking a base to close it than it is to be trying to defend it. Reducing only the effectiveness of CAP could IMHO make one of the critical (and fun) struggles in the game rather one sided.

The key factor was "theoretical" capacity. If you took an atoll (like Kwajalein) and bulldozed a B-24 strip (which we did for operations against Truk), you basically flattened an island. You didn't have *any* room for dispersal or for hardening the facilities. The next time it was hit by large Betty raid, it might have to be rebuilt from scratch. Being passively resistant to that sort of stuff depended on three things: room to spread out, a significant local population or garrison (to do a quick rebuild), and investment in facilities (for example, added land area). These issues also applied to naval bases. Ships needed undisturbed time to refit, resupply, and refuel. You could stage through a front-line base that was under air attack, but you couldn't base there. So your forward airbases controlled where his usable naval bases were and allowed you to smother any forward airbases that lacked adequate active air defences and were not passively resistant to your raids.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Ron Saueracker »

IMO, AF damage models are too simplistic. No matter what size, 1-10, they are viewed as a single entity. I'd change it so that each numerical increment is a seperate entity (lvl 10 airfield has ten actual seperate airfields). As such, each lvl has to be knocked out, not just a single airfield that happens to have a size 10 capability. Added to this, the AF's levels do not get smacked from the highest to lowest, but can take damage simultaneously (ie Rabaul is a lvl 9 AF...after a B-17 strike the damage might look like this 1: 50% runway, 12% service; 2: 2% runway, 41% service) Knockout one level, it becomes a lvl 8 field until repaired, not a smouldering ruin as we have now.

This should make AFs much more resilient to both air and bombardment attacks.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by witpqs »

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? [:'(]]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3739
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by Captain Cruft »

Good ideas but none of that will be happening for AE I'm sure.
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Will we no longer see the message 'unable to find target' when the primary target is arlready sunk but other ships are in the TF that the ammo could be used at?

This is a good question that I'd like to see addressed...
OTS. Small potatoes.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Hi Elf.

I understand that the air combat routines are being tweaked to reduce the effectveness of CAP...... I say I undersatnd it to be so simply because I've seen fairly non-specific anecdotes about it. Are there any more details?

Also, if they are being changed, won't this mean that the effectiveness of bombing a base needs to be toned down to keep any sort of balance between attacker and defender (rather than IJ and Allied) . It already seems taht one good strike will close a base and destroy huge numbers of aircraft based there.

Hmmm - if that's changed then we come to the speed with which engineers can repair the damage.....
No. No more details to give out. If you want to ask a specific question a bout a detail you are interested in I can make an attempt.

No, the effectiveness should not need tweaking. All we did was break up the strikes. Still need to test to make sure it is WAA (Working As Advert.). Raids will be increased in number (ie smaller), but the number of sorties over a target has not been toned down, except by generally making A/C less available than stock. Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c.

There are some other things thrown in like damage from a round of combat being retained from one phase, and one turn to another. That was not happening in stock.

There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

Yep...would be cool.
What you are describing is more tactical in nature and, OBTW, OTS for this expansion. It also assumes an integrated air defense, which while possible during WWI was the exception not the rule, and even then was limited to Europe. It just isn't worth the effort to try and emulate for the scope of this project.

This is triage...
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.
The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”