AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Iron Duke]

1. Is the air OOB group sized units(usaaf) or squadron sized , already noted RAAF and RAF are squadron sized from screenshots

2. A/C that carry multiple torp's , attack multiple times or only once

3. will a/c having mixed loadouts ie carrying bombs and torps attack using both

4. will rockets be modelled as air to ground / air to ship weapons

5. will napalm be modelled

cheers

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

As it can be evident from many many tests I made in WitP months and years ago (and published here at the forum with quite big discussion following those) I am very interested in following issues:

#1 Search routines (ASW and Naval)...

"Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!":
tm.asp?m=967245

"Leo's air ASW Search TEST WitP v1.795...":
tm.asp?m=993313

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
tm.asp?m=1586330

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - NS vs ASW" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
tm.asp?m=1586983


#2 Land FLAK model coupled with bombing routines...

"Comprehensive City bombing testing WitP v1.77 (B-29's vs. Manpower)...":
tm.asp?m=987147

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... ":
tm.asp?m=763293

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing WitP v1.5 (98 bombers vs. warships and cargo ships)...":
tm.asp?m=856314


Can someone please answer, if possible of course, whether those problems were rectified?

Many thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke


1. Is the air OOB group sized units(usaaf) or squadron sized , already noted RAAF and RAF are squadron sized from screenshots

2. A/C that carry multiple torp's , attack multiple times or only once

3. will a/c having mixed loadouts ie carrying bombs and torps attack using both

4. will rockets be modelled as air to ground / air to ship weapons

5. will napalm be modelled

cheers

1. Squadron
2. One attack
3. No
4. Yes
5. No

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

As it can be evident from many many tests I made in WitP months and years ago (and published here at the forum with quite big discussion following those) I am very interested in following issues:

#1 Search routines (ASW and Naval)...

"Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!":
tm.asp?m=967245

"Leo's air ASW Search TEST WitP v1.795...":
tm.asp?m=993313

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
tm.asp?m=1586330

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - NS vs ASW" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
tm.asp?m=1586983


#2 Land FLAK model coupled with bombing routines...

"Comprehensive City bombing testing WitP v1.77 (B-29's vs. Manpower)...":
tm.asp?m=987147

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... ":
tm.asp?m=763293

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing WitP v1.5 (98 bombers vs. warships and cargo ships)...":
tm.asp?m=856314


Can someone please answer, if possible of course, whether those problems were rectified?

Many thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

Uhhhh, what was your question? [X(]

[Captain Cruft]

Just to clarify. Can Naval Search now be run at night?

Overall it's looking splendid! [:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

As it can be evident from many many tests I made in WitP months and years ago (and published here at the forum with quite big discussion following those) I am very interested in following issues:

#1 Search routines (ASW and Naval)...

"Leo's ASW TEST (and scenario) - problems spotted!":
tm.asp?m=967245

"Leo's air ASW Search TEST WitP v1.795...":
tm.asp?m=993313

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
tm.asp?m=1586330

"Leo's ASW Test on 1.8.0.6 - NS vs ASW" - Not done by me but my TEST scenarios were used:
tm.asp?m=1586983


#2 Land FLAK model coupled with bombing routines...

"Comprehensive City bombing testing WitP v1.77 (B-29's vs. Manpower)...":
tm.asp?m=987147

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing (98 B-29's vs. 50 ships in day and night)... ":
tm.asp?m=763293

"Comprehensive Port bombing testing WitP v1.5 (98 bombers vs. warships and cargo ships)...":
tm.asp?m=856314


Can someone please answer, if possible of course, whether those problems were rectified?

Many thanks in advance!

Uhhhh, what was your question? [X(]

OK... I sincerely hope that you guys did notice what we tested in WitP months/years ago and that some of the issues found in those tests were listed as problems and put on the ""to Do" list... [:D]



In nutshell the problems I listed are:

#1
As I discovered in my tests the search routines (both "ASW" and "Naval Search" are 100% approximations - each and every aircraft in search routine "flies" each and every HEX inside range of search zone and in every HEX it has possibility of finding something (this can be even be seen on screen as search aircraft "flying" in concentric circles or spirals if you want).

#2
The land FLAK is very very ineffective and even massing of many FLAK units the results are almost insignificant (due to so called "FLAK Gap" - I didn't list those tests of mine now because it would further "clobber" the list).

At the same time the bombers, apparently, target with every bomb and, thus, the tests shown above can verify that bombing are more like "shooting fish in a barrel" than anything else...


For full content please do read the original threads... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[pmelheck1]

can air units with no a/c be able to be moved  -  destroyed units able to withdraw to rebuild

[Brady]

From an old thread on this Piolet traing topick, posted by me:
 
.........
 
While it is true to a point, it does not tell you all the little details, it gives the begining and end but not the all important middle, and it genneralises both services and they did differ.

...........

Passages from The Japanese Naval Avaitor in WW2, which give more details about the Middle and begining, I have been reading Beads Pop, aka Bill Pop's memoiur about his time with VF 17 and am going over the training he receaved early on and it is interesting to compare the early war Japanese Training and the Navy training he receaved, while I havent got to the point of doing a direct comparasion it still looks like mid war Japanese training was certainily on a par with the US Navy training.

The Myth is that the Japanese had during the war very low numbers of piolets and very porly trained ones.

The reality is that initialy they had a slow perioud during the first year of the war whear they had piolets coming off the training line at prewar pace, then later in the first year 42, we see the ramping up of the programe, and then what was for Japan large numbers of piolets becoming available..then a Boom in numbers..somthing like slow...fast...warp drive..then very slow (Late 45).

Skill leval was good Beter than the west, then on par with the west then not so good.

This is a simplifacation to be shure but prety much how it happened, like many things were fighting an uphill battle aganst what has been for many years commonly preceived to be true of somthing that has to do with Japan in WW2.

From the Book, Imperial Japanese Naval Aviator 1937-45 by Osama Tagaya:


p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs)

Most all Japanese Naval avators were enlistedmen.

"In retrospect the IJN maintained a rigorously exclusive policy in it's avaitor programe for to long. The otsu Yokaren admitded little more than 200men anualy up to 1938, and class size did not excead 1,000 untill may 1941. Otsu Yokaren Class No. 19 of December 1942 still had only 1,500 recutes. The figure then sudenly Jumped to 2,951 in the following Class No. 20 of May 1943. Among the Ko Yokaren by far the largest of the Yokaren programs , anual class sizes remained in the 250-260 range for most of the China War perioud. Numbers did not excead 1,000 until class No. 10 od Aprial 1942. A year later Class no. 12 counted 3,215, divided into three groups. The figure then exploded to almost 28,000 in class No. 13, divided into two groups in Otc. and Dec. 43."

"The Leveal of piolet skill remained High throught most of 1943"

"In 44 Carrier piolets were being introduced to flight deck landing with barely 150 hours flying time under their belts."

Japanese Naval Airmen who were the product of Pre war and early war traing were exceptionaly well trained, it would be fair and accurate to say that those trained in the mid war period were still very well trained and then those in the late war period were only trained. Pre war anywhear from 500(priour to the China war) to 200(during and after, up to 44 when it went down to 150) hours was normal for piolet traing priour to Being introduced to Carrier landings.

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

Apendix C

Naval Fighter Piolets(By Class)

1. This table shows all Naval piolets who have specialized in fighters from the day that Naval avation was boarn through the Pacific war, aranged by class. Because of the fact that the Oficial records are not complete, we enlisted the help of many other people. It was not posable to prepare a complete list as such; in adation, because of page limations, the following have been omited: 40th class [also 41st and 42nd], Avation Student Course; Hei 7th class; Ko 8th class; Otsu 14th class; and classes after the 12th class, flight reserve student course.

2. Marks following the names have the following meaning:(H) Honors reciepent, (K) Killed in actioj, and (A) Accedential deth.

3. Parentheses around a name indicate piolets who changed from specialising in one type of aircraft to another. In 1936, with the seperation of the land atack forces,a large number of personnel changed to a diferent brach.

4. Piolets who converted from other specialities to that of fighter piolet are grouped together, at the end of each class listing. from the middel od the Pacific War on their were a large number of personel who converted from seaplane fighters and from two seat recon-float planes.

5. Piolets of Night fighters and flaot fighters units are not included.

6. Designations of types of aircraft are in acordance with practices of the perioud: Carier based planes, seaplanes, ect...

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

The book then goes into the listings for each clase example:

Hei 6th Class (flight trainee course 23rd class) (September 1942; Omura Air Groupe, graduates, twenity seven persons, Tokushima Airgroupe graduates 30 persons, Oita Air Groupe graduates, unknow number)

Hideo Iijima (K)
Tokio I-ishi (K)
Kane-ichi Ishi-i (A)
..........The list goes to name all these men...they ALL died, all but 4 in combat, the 4 were accendital deths.

This is just one class and a small one at that, another example:

54th Class (May 1941; Oita Air Groupe graduates, carrier fighter, twenity one persons)

55th Class (JUly 1941 Oita Air groupe graduates carrier fighters 9 persons)

56 th class ( (July 1941; Oita Air groupe graduates, carrier fighters, ninteen persons.)

So as you can just so far their were different names for the piolet training progame, and different clases running concurently, and as the preface above notes not all those are included hearin, and of those running not all the info is avilable.

Another example:

Otsu 11th class:

(21st class of flight trainee course; July 42 graduates 14 persons)

(23rd Class September 42 graduates Oita Air Groupe 48 persons.)

........

Ko 6th Class (July 1942 graduates of 21st class flight traniee, carrier fighters 41 persons)

All but two of this class KIA.

.......

Yo 11th Class November 43, total of all types 85 persons, and 37 Carrier fighter persons.

......

OK, as you can see it is complex and confuing at best to decifier, these clases ran concurently and their were different programes, the Yo for example were I beelave reserve piolet trainies, though asigned to front line units...Then we have the List's:


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

Their is on several pages a totaled list of piplets trained for various periouds, example:


Ko 13(class)

28,111(graduates)

Oct. 43-July 44 (time frame)

38-42 (Classes)


Now that is one of the biger ones, their are as I say several pages of such listings.

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

Some quick and shoty math generates a figure aproaching 2500 per month on average for the 8 years, this would of been much higher for the mid war perioud of course. And again this figure is not inclusive of all the programs in this time frame that fed piolets into the Navy, Officers came from other programs for example. These men were also funneled into the Following training programs specificaly geared toward their fininal assinements, Atack planes (Kats, Jills, ect), Dive Bombers, Fighters,Float planes, Ea planes, Land Atack Planes (Bettys, Nells,Peggys, ect...).

Some further coments on this insainly high figure:

A couple things to remember hear as we discuss this:

2500 is a rough estimate of the NAVY (Not Army)aircrew, it only refers to new inducties, not those drawn from withen the service as many were, nore the Oficers who were trained seperatly:

p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs"

About 20% of the entering number did not finish the programe in the prewar years, howeaver it should be noted that Pre war traing included up two 3 years of schooling before Flight traing was undertaken, during the war it was was around 1 year of classes before the flight traing was undertaken(and most admited made it). Pre war 200 to 500 hours of flight traing was the norm before the trainie was sent to a unit. During the war this was around 200 unit till 44 then it droped to about 150 hours. Also apon entering flight traing the men were divided into specific traing groups for the plane type they were to fly, Float plane, Atack, Fighter, ect...

The flight training part of their education lasted for 10 to 12 months, during which they got on avaerage 200 hours of flight time, the first 6 months was on initial flight traing whil the last 6 was on operationaly types advanced training. This was the routine in 41 (12 months on average) and in 42 and 43 (10 months on average). In 44 it droped to about 6 months of traing on average.

It should also be Noted that WiTP does not model the entire Japanese ecenomy, we dont have to bother witth the traing of Calvery troops and the nightmear that feading all those horses and acquiring them was, nore the traing of tank crews, paratroppers ect...

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


"still, for the planes, it was the fuel that made the planes top rate, weak, shoddy fuel, does not make a high performence plane (lots of reports on how the ground crew, used buckets to pore gas into the planes, what ever was in the bucket, was also in the fuel tanks) "

This is not entirely the case German planes as an example did not run on High octane fuel, their have been some very informative posts int he past regarding this Lemurs did some very good stuff on this, in a nut shell it depeneds on the fuel type the plane was designed to run on if designed to run a lower octane fuel at peak preformance a higher octaine fule is not going to realy give it a boost in preformance, do a search for the Ki-84 and Lemurs.

"test reports in the states, were getting 30-50 MPH more, then they were seeing in combat "

Again I beleave this had more to do with the condation of plane and not the fuel see the abve search tip thier is more on this their.

"and the landing gear was not a hassle that was corrected later, it was a hassle that was caused by the way the planes were being made "

Take the George for example, the N1K1 had a mid wing designe and very long landing gear that was complex and notiourios for being problem matic, the revised the airframe in the N1K2 and the landing gear changed as a result and the issue was largely stoped, thuse it was corected later...

"at least 2 of the testers has stated that, you are getting too many replacement pilots to start with, looks like the designers and the testers are somewhat in the same place as to how many should be given "

While it may be that initialy the Japanese are geting a few to many, these figurs are based to a degree on battles that the player may never fight, if you speaking from day one and refering to just those piolets available right before the war started you may well be corect, I personaly dont have a source that say they were short on day one, though I dont have reasion to question this at present, howeaver if you look above you will see that did not last to long, espichaly if you remove the losses from the batles that occured historicaly, given this they should have plenty of piolets and well trained ones at that.
 
...........
 
 So my question sry for the large post , is this how it will be or is it prety much the same?

[Andy Mac]

I will say any bomber that comes near a big flak unit at low level is gonna suffer (I had a japanese air unit bomb an Indian AA Bde at low level the other day - it wasnt pretty) / did the same thing with a Blenheim Sqn on a few Jap AA units again it want pretty - low level against defended targets = pain.
 
I will leave the rest to the air team

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Just to clarify. Can Naval Search now be run at night?

Overall it's looking splendid! [:D]

Yes.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Brady

From an old thread on this Piolet traing topick, posted by me:

.........

While it is true to a point, it does not tell you all the little details, it gives the begining and end but not the all important middle, and it genneralises both services and they did differ.

...........

Passages from The Japanese Naval Avaitor in WW2, which give more details about the Middle and begining, I have been reading Beads Pop, aka Bill Pop's memoiur about his time with VF 17 and am going over the training he receaved early on and it is interesting to compare the early war Japanese Training and the Navy training he receaved, while I havent got to the point of doing a direct comparasion it still looks like mid war Japanese training was certainily on a par with the US Navy training.

The Myth is that the Japanese had during the war very low numbers of piolets and very porly trained ones.

The reality is that initialy they had a slow perioud during the first year of the war whear they had piolets coming off the training line at prewar pace, then later in the first year 42, we see the ramping up of the programe, and then what was for Japan large numbers of piolets becoming available..then a Boom in numbers..somthing like slow...fast...warp drive..then very slow (Late 45).

Skill leval was good Beter than the west, then on par with the west then not so good.

This is a simplifacation to be shure but prety much how it happened, like many things were fighting an uphill battle aganst what has been for many years commonly preceived to be true of somthing that has to do with Japan in WW2.

From the Book, Imperial Japanese Naval Aviator 1937-45 by Osama Tagaya:


p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs)

Most all Japanese Naval avators were enlistedmen.

"In retrospect the IJN maintained a rigorously exclusive policy in it's avaitor programe for to long. The otsu Yokaren admitded little more than 200men anualy up to 1938, and class size did not excead 1,000 untill may 1941. Otsu Yokaren Class No. 19 of December 1942 still had only 1,500 recutes. The figure then sudenly Jumped to 2,951 in the following Class No. 20 of May 1943. Among the Ko Yokaren by far the largest of the Yokaren programs , anual class sizes remained in the 250-260 range for most of the China War perioud. Numbers did not excead 1,000 until class No. 10 od Aprial 1942. A year later Class no. 12 counted 3,215, divided into three groups. The figure then exploded to almost 28,000 in class No. 13, divided into two groups in Otc. and Dec. 43."

"The Leveal of piolet skill remained High throught most of 1943"

"In 44 Carrier piolets were being introduced to flight deck landing with barely 150 hours flying time under their belts."

Japanese Naval Airmen who were the product of Pre war and early war traing were exceptionaly well trained, it would be fair and accurate to say that those trained in the mid war period were still very well trained and then those in the late war period were only trained. Pre war anywhear from 500(priour to the China war) to 200(during and after, up to 44 when it went down to 150) hours was normal for piolet traing priour to Being introduced to Carrier landings.

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

Apendix C

Naval Fighter Piolets(By Class)

1. This table shows all Naval piolets who have specialized in fighters from the day that Naval avation was boarn through the Pacific war, aranged by class. Because of the fact that the Oficial records are not complete, we enlisted the help of many other people. It was not posable to prepare a complete list as such; in adation, because of page limations, the following have been omited: 40th class [also 41st and 42nd], Avation Student Course; Hei 7th class; Ko 8th class; Otsu 14th class; and classes after the 12th class, flight reserve student course.

2. Marks following the names have the following meaning:(H) Honors reciepent, (K) Killed in actioj, and (A) Accedential deth.

3. Parentheses around a name indicate piolets who changed from specialising in one type of aircraft to another. In 1936, with the seperation of the land atack forces,a large number of personnel changed to a diferent brach.

4. Piolets who converted from other specialities to that of fighter piolet are grouped together, at the end of each class listing. from the middel od the Pacific War on their were a large number of personel who converted from seaplane fighters and from two seat recon-float planes.

5. Piolets of Night fighters and flaot fighters units are not included.

6. Designations of types of aircraft are in acordance with practices of the perioud: Carier based planes, seaplanes, ect...

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

The book then goes into the listings for each clase example:

Hei 6th Class (flight trainee course 23rd class) (September 1942; Omura Air Groupe, graduates, twenity seven persons, Tokushima Airgroupe graduates 30 persons, Oita Air Groupe graduates, unknow number)

Hideo Iijima (K)
Tokio I-ishi (K)
Kane-ichi Ishi-i (A)
..........The list goes to name all these men...they ALL died, all but 4 in combat, the 4 were accendital deths.

This is just one class and a small one at that, another example:

54th Class (May 1941; Oita Air Groupe graduates, carrier fighter, twenity one persons)

55th Class (JUly 1941 Oita Air groupe graduates carrier fighters 9 persons)

56 th class ( (July 1941; Oita Air groupe graduates, carrier fighters, ninteen persons.)

So as you can just so far their were different names for the piolet training progame, and different clases running concurently, and as the preface above notes not all those are included hearin, and of those running not all the info is avilable.

Another example:

Otsu 11th class:

(21st class of flight trainee course; July 42 graduates 14 persons)

(23rd Class September 42 graduates Oita Air Groupe 48 persons.)

........

Ko 6th Class (July 1942 graduates of 21st class flight traniee, carrier fighters 41 persons)

All but two of this class KIA.

.......

Yo 11th Class November 43, total of all types 85 persons, and 37 Carrier fighter persons.

......

OK, as you can see it is complex and confuing at best to decifier, these clases ran concurently and their were different programes, the Yo for example were I beelave reserve piolet trainies, though asigned to front line units...Then we have the List's:


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

Their is on several pages a totaled list of piplets trained for various periouds, example:


Ko 13(class)

28,111(graduates)

Oct. 43-July 44 (time frame)

38-42 (Classes)


Now that is one of the biger ones, their are as I say several pages of such listings.

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

Some quick and shoty math generates a figure aproaching 2500 per month on average for the 8 years, this would of been much higher for the mid war perioud of course. And again this figure is not inclusive of all the programs in this time frame that fed piolets into the Navy, Officers came from other programs for example. These men were also funneled into the Following training programs specificaly geared toward their fininal assinements, Atack planes (Kats, Jills, ect), Dive Bombers, Fighters,Float planes, Ea planes, Land Atack Planes (Bettys, Nells,Peggys, ect...).

Some further coments on this insainly high figure:

A couple things to remember hear as we discuss this:

2500 is a rough estimate of the NAVY (Not Army)aircrew, it only refers to new inducties, not those drawn from withen the service as many were, nore the Oficers who were trained seperatly:

p.9: "During the 1937-45 war , some 18,900 Yokern of all classses were killed in action out of 241,463 entering trainess. (This figure does not include the old Sohren programe priour to its incorperation into the Hei-Class Yokaren, or any of he commissioned Officer programs"

About 20% of the entering number did not finish the programe in the prewar years, howeaver it should be noted that Pre war traing included up two 3 years of schooling before Flight traing was undertaken, during the war it was was around 1 year of classes before the flight traing was undertaken(and most admited made it). Pre war 200 to 500 hours of flight traing was the norm before the trainie was sent to a unit. During the war this was around 200 unit till 44 then it droped to about 150 hours. Also apon entering flight traing the men were divided into specific traing groups for the plane type they were to fly, Float plane, Atack, Fighter, ect...

The flight training part of their education lasted for 10 to 12 months, during which they got on avaerage 200 hours of flight time, the first 6 months was on initial flight traing whil the last 6 was on operationaly types advanced training. This was the routine in 41 (12 months on average) and in 42 and 43 (10 months on average). In 44 it droped to about 6 months of traing on average.

It should also be Noted that WiTP does not model the entire Japanese ecenomy, we dont have to bother witth the traing of Calvery troops and the nightmear that feading all those horses and acquiring them was, nore the traing of tank crews, paratroppers ect...

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


"still, for the planes, it was the fuel that made the planes top rate, weak, shoddy fuel, does not make a high performence plane (lots of reports on how the ground crew, used buckets to pore gas into the planes, what ever was in the bucket, was also in the fuel tanks) "

This is not entirely the case German planes as an example did not run on High octane fuel, their have been some very informative posts int he past regarding this Lemurs did some very good stuff on this, in a nut shell it depeneds on the fuel type the plane was designed to run on if designed to run a lower octane fuel at peak preformance a higher octaine fule is not going to realy give it a boost in preformance, do a search for the Ki-84 and Lemurs.

"test reports in the states, were getting 30-50 MPH more, then they were seeing in combat "

Again I beleave this had more to do with the condation of plane and not the fuel see the abve search tip thier is more on this their.

"and the landing gear was not a hassle that was corrected later, it was a hassle that was caused by the way the planes were being made "

Take the George for example, the N1K1 had a mid wing designe and very long landing gear that was complex and notiourios for being problem matic, the revised the airframe in the N1K2 and the landing gear changed as a result and the issue was largely stoped, thuse it was corected later...

"at least 2 of the testers has stated that, you are getting too many replacement pilots to start with, looks like the designers and the testers are somewhat in the same place as to how many should be given "

While it may be that initialy the Japanese are geting a few to many, these figurs are based to a degree on battles that the player may never fight, if you speaking from day one and refering to just those piolets available right before the war started you may well be corect, I personaly dont have a source that say they were short on day one, though I dont have reasion to question this at present, howeaver if you look above you will see that did not last to long, espichaly if you remove the losses from the batles that occured historicaly, given this they should have plenty of piolets and well trained ones at that.

...........

So my question sry for the large post , is this how it will be or is it prety much the same?

My God Brady...

[Captain Cruft]

I think it would be better if we ask simple "atomic" questions.

Like, to paraphrase part of Leo's expositions, have the Naval Search/ASW routines been toned down?

[Brady]

Well it is a simple question with an insainly complicated past, and at least three spelling erors in it[:)]

[TheElf]

In nutshell the problems I listed are:

#1
As I discovered in my tests the search routines (both "ASW" and "Naval Search" are 100% approximations - each and every aircraft in search routine "flies" each and every HEX inside range of search zone and in every HEX it has possibility of finding something (this can be even be seen on screen as search aircraft "flying" in concentric circles or spirals if you want).

It doesn't work that way anymore. I'll have to ask Michael to address this as my memory of all the changes is limited. Remember we've been at this for over a year and a half.

Planes on search perform search as if one plane is flying a spoke of the wheel. Once detect is made, the plane may return to base depending on distance flown; Simulates tracking contact or multiple searches if flown range is short.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Well it is a simple question with an insainly complicated past, and at least three spelling erors in it[:)]

Give me a minute to read it...

[TheElf]

#2
The land FLAK is very very ineffective and even massing of many FLAK units the results are almost insignificant (due to so called "FLAK Gap" - I didn't list those tests of mine now because it would further "clobber" the list).

At the same time the bombers, apparently, target with every bomb and, thus, the tests shown above can verify that bombing are more like "shooting fish in a barrel" than anything else...

The Air team did not touch land Flak. You may want to ask the Land team, but I seem to recall a fixit for the flak gap. Don't quote me.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

In nutshell the problems I listed are:

#1
As I discovered in my tests the search routines (both "ASW" and "Naval Search" are 100% approximations - each and every aircraft in search routine "flies" each and every HEX inside range of search zone and in every HEX it has possibility of finding something (this can be even be seen on screen as search aircraft "flying" in concentric circles or spirals if you want).

It doesn't work that way anymore. I'll have to ask Michael to address this as my memory of all the changes is limited. Remember we've been at this for over a year and a half.

Planes on search perform search as if one plane is flying a spoke of the wheel. Once detect is made, the plane may return to base depending on distance flown; Simulates tracking contact or multiple searches if flown range is short.

Excellent!!!

That's already great improvement and it can introduce "black holes" in search patterns because if, for example, one search aircraft is shot down - that "spoke of the wheel" route would then be not sarched (if area of search is big and number of available planes is small)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

#2
The land FLAK is very very ineffective and even massing of many FLAK units the results are almost insignificant (due to so called "FLAK Gap" - I didn't list those tests of mine now because it would further "clobber" the list).

At the same time the bombers, apparently, target with every bomb and, thus, the tests shown above can verify that bombing are more like "shooting fish in a barrel" than anything else...

The Air team did not touch land Flak. You may want to ask the Land team, but I seem to recall a fixit for the flak gap. Don't quote me.

Thanks for answering!

I will ask the "Land Team"... [:)]

BTW, did you guys checked and re-checked the level bombing of bombers against various kinds of targets (moving ships in opean sea, ships in port, land units etc.)?


Leo "Apollo11"

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Brady

Well it is a simple question with an insainly complicated past, and at least three spelling erors in it[:)]

Give me a minute to read it...

Ok, Brady I see what you are getting at. I am familiar with those sources, and have a few of them myself. Right now the short answer is that this is complicated. Pilot training alone is a monster, even when you ahve all the data. There were so many shifts, ebbs, and flows that building a sleek playable model is inherently difficult.

Pilot training as is stands now uses Stock replacement rates, but we are not done with OoB stuff yet. Still working.

The fuel issue. I am familiar with and have come to some of the same conclusions, but at this time we do not have a feature that models decreased performance in IJ Aircraft as the economic/industrial situation deteriorates.

I WILL say that all Aircraft are given their due when it comes to their performance. I think you will be satisfied.

Ultimately it will be up to the allied player to force the IJ player into an attrition war. If he waits til he gets his Zeke-killers he'll only make his job harder. YOU CAN'T GIVE THE IJ PLAYER BREATHING ROOM.

[Brady]

Thank You for taking the time to read that.
 
On to another topic...
 
Bomb's, The stock game is very generic in how it models ordance for all sides, has more atention been paid to this, for example their was no Japanese Army 50 kg weapon type, and the Army used the Japanese Navy 250 kg weapon type and their was no Japanese Army or Navy 500 kg weapon type.
 
 As noted above also their is not at present a mechanism to alow the Japanese to use larger bombs aganst war ships like the allied player, is this under consideration?, given it is a hard coding isue and one that can not be edited out, I thought perhaps it would be nice if we could make the suffering equile in this regard, espichaly given the lack of signafagant historical evidance to justify the inclushion of this for allies anyway.