May i ask how the oscar is handled -do we see it stuck in its 1942 configuration for the rest of the war?( asort of oscar3?)
No.
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
May i ask how the oscar is handled -do we see it stuck in its 1942 configuration for the rest of the war?( asort of oscar3?)
ORIGINAL: 1275psi
May i ask how the oscar is handled -do we see it stuck in its 1942 configuration for the rest of the war -or some improvements to reflect modifications as the war went on ( asort of oscar3?)
ORIGINAL: Dili
How AE will handle the extended range weapons? lets say a plane has 3x1000kg bombload at normal range will it get a 1000kg plus 1x500kg for extended or will halve all bombs? And if it does that implies fixed slots for that?
ORIGINAL: timtom
ORIGINAL: 1275psi
May i ask how the oscar is handled -do we see it stuck in its 1942 configuration for the rest of the war -or some improvements to reflect modifications as the war went on ( asort of oscar3?)
Every single production version of the Hayabusa is in there, plus the projected Mk IV.
ORIGINAL: Dili
How AE will handle the extended range weapons? lets say a plane has 3x1000kg bombload at normal range will it get a 1000kg plus 1x500kg for extended or will halve all bombs? And if it does that implies fixed slots for that?
Extended loads are no longer hardcoded, and we currently have no hard&fast method on their exact configuration, ie a bit of both.
AE coders are waging a general war on hardcoding, btw.
ORIGINAL: Fishbed
Hello people
I have just a simple question. I hope it wasn't asked before, but it has to do with the air search system.
Last night I got a TF chewed up by the KB because I wasn't careful enough. Still, the KB was sighted the day before - the only thing is that it was said to contain only CA and AP (you know the old tricky search thing) and I didn't pay attention enough.
But I wondered if this logic would be a little bit altered in AE. What I mean, is that in my view and AFAIK spotters tended to be much more alarmist and/or over-enthusiatic than the opposite. The Neosho strike is probably the most famous case of such a behaviour, of course. Microprose games such as TF1942 or 1942:PAW tended, in my view, to recreate the whole incertainty a little better than the stock WitP. What I mean, is that in my view, maybe pilots should tend to see CVs everywhere instead of CAs... What do other members of the forum with much more knowledge than I have think of this?
On the opposite, the BB business seems about right, with CAs seen as BBs and vice versa. But I have hard time believing CVs could be systematically misidentified as CAs, what do you think? [&:]
AE coders are waging a general war on hardcoding, btw.
ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
btw, how is land based FLAK coded into AE?. Do we have the same lame land based FLAK as in WITP, or do we get more deadly FLAK like NIKmod ?
ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
btw, how is land based FLAK coded into AE?. Do we have the same lame land based FLAK as in WITP, or do we get more deadly FLAK like NIKmod ?
would like to have something in between! [;)]
ORIGINAL: JeffK
re; Bristol Beaufort.
Gday Guys, In vanilla & CHS the Beaufort shows as poorly armed with 2 x .303 FF & 2x .303 Upper turret MGs.
Has your research discovered any improvement on this, I read "Beaufort Story" which related to a heavier defensive armament, up to 10 MGs, but wasnt clear where they all were.
I identified 2 x FF(nose) .303s (probably Vickers K's), 2 x .303 Browning Wing Mounted, 2 x Upper turret (Vickers Ks), 2, Cupola mounted, firing rearward and below .303 Brownings and ??2?? Hand held Vickers Ks firing from beam positions just forward of the rear turret.
The later Australian builds had .50cals replacing the wing mounted .303's.
IMHO, the weak weapons were the early 1940-41 models used from Britain.
Can any more light be shed on thier armament??