AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: greycat

Air units are currently able to transfer to a new base and fly a mission on the same day. This seems rather unrealistic to me - surely rebasing would involve a certain amount of organisational disruption? As it is, an area which was devoid of air units can suddenly be swarming with them! Is this something you are going to look at for AE? It could be something as simple as setting all or a percentage of the aircraft to 'under repair' when they fly to new base.

That models the scenario where an air unit based in the rear stages through a forward airbase.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: greycat

Air units are currently able to transfer to a new base and fly a mission on the same day. This seems rather unrealistic to me - surely rebasing would involve a certain amount of organisational disruption? As it is, an area which was devoid of air units can suddenly be swarming with them! Is this something you are going to look at for AE? It could be something as simple as setting all or a percentage of the aircraft to 'under repair' when they fly to new base.

Wasn´t this done by the IJA in Burma and by the Allied at Port Moresby. Seems not so much unrealistic to me.

[bradfordkay]

There were a lot of instances where aircraft staged through forward bases in order to make attacks. However, we can all agree that this is easily exploited in WITP, so a lot of people use house rules on that. While my PBEM game does not have an HR on this, I play with a personal HR that allows aircraft to operate from the new airbase on the first day only if the transfer distance could be covered within four hours at cruise speed. I consider that to be a reasonable compromise...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: greycat

Air units are currently able to transfer to a new base and fly a mission on the same day. This seems rather unrealistic to me - surely rebasing would involve a certain amount of organisational disruption? As it is, an area which was devoid of air units can suddenly be swarming with them! Is this something you are going to look at for AE? It could be something as simple as setting all or a percentage of the aircraft to 'under repair' when they fly to new base.

Have you read Tom Blackburn's "Jolly Rogers"? In it he tells of when they arrived at Ondongo (IIRC)how they reported to the senior Air Officer, a Marine I think, and stated that they would be ready to fly an operational sortie as soon as they could refuel and arm. The Marine remarked to the effect of "but you just got here", and Blackburn said his boys were ready to go. And they did.

I am paraphrasing heavily, but you get my meaning.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: greycat

Air units are currently able to transfer to a new base and fly a mission on the same day. This seems rather unrealistic to me - surely rebasing would involve a certain amount of organisational disruption? As it is, an area which was devoid of air units can suddenly be swarming with them! Is this something you are going to look at for AE? It could be something as simple as setting all or a percentage of the aircraft to 'under repair' when they fly to new base.

Its in there (as it always has been actually). Transferring bases raises fatigue. The further you go the higher it is. Higher fatigue results in more operational losses and detrimental effect on combat results (air-to-air and bombing both). Always has been this way. I could never see a reason for a house rule on it myself.

[doc smith]

In WitP, I often had problems with air units not flying missions.  Example, I had Bettys and Nells in the Marshalls Islands, I KNEW there were enemy TFs in range (transport TFs I'd sighted the previous turn with recon assets).  I set strike range at something like 9 or 10 (a range the TF could not evade) and after action - no friggin' strike!  Not just this turn, but several turns in a row!  Or Allied torpedo/strike aircraft at Moresby, assigned an anti-shipping mission, and they do nothing against Japanese TFs streaming into Buna!  AAARRRGGGHHH!!

Will this be dealt with somehow?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: doc smith

In WitP, I often had problems with air units not flying missions.  Example, I had Bettys and Nells in the Marshalls Islands, I KNEW there were enemy TFs in range (transport TFs I'd sighted the previous turn with recon assets).  I set strike range at something like 9 or 10 (a range the TF could not evade) and after action - no friggin' strike!  Not just this turn, but several turns in a row!  Or Allied torpedo/strike aircraft at Moresby, assigned an anti-shipping mission, and they do nothing against Japanese TFs streaming into Buna!  AAARRRGGGHHH!!

Will this be dealt with somehow?

I suspect not--it has to do with the core design of the game engine. It's a way of limiting tempo to realistic values.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: doc smith

In WitP, I often had problems with air units not flying missions.  Example, I had Bettys and Nells in the Marshalls Islands, I KNEW there were enemy TFs in range (transport TFs I'd sighted the previous turn with recon assets).  I set strike range at something like 9 or 10 (a range the TF could not evade) and after action - no friggin' strike!  Not just this turn, but several turns in a row!  Or Allied torpedo/strike aircraft at Moresby, assigned an anti-shipping mission, and they do nothing against Japanese TFs streaming into Buna!  AAARRRGGGHHH!!

Will this be dealt with somehow?

Most likely cause of your planes not flying was large numbers of CAP by the target. Other possible problems would be having your planes set to naval attack with 100% search, no supply at the base, bad weather over starting base or target, there are a few other possible causes. And any of these would still apply.

[doc smith]

Thanks to you and herwin for commenting.

I had clear weather on one of the eastern Marshalls islands, island airbase of 4, and an American TF spotted by flying boats at the island and reported as transports and escorts. No apparent a/c there. TF was may 10 hexes away - well within range. As I said, the TF and a few following ones just passed blithely by on a straight line nor'est to sou'west and were not attacked at any point along the line. Should have been a cheap/easy kill!

I WAS ROBBED!

[rockmedic109]

The longer range may have been an issue {whether in range or not}.  Your planes may have left but not been able to locate the tf.  Weather may have been bad over your airbase.

[anarchyintheuk]

Quick question: are VR squadrons still going to start with less than half-trained pilots/morons?

[Bliztk]

Is the pilots replacement experience yearly change be kept harcoded as is in WITP or will be fully moddable ?

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: R8J

[font="times new roman"]Good day.[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]My search for this turned up empty.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Will the AI be limited on how many units and types of units that can be converted to kamikaze? As most of us know most AI units are converted to kamikaze by mid 44.[/font]

I just completed a campaign against the Japanese AI in November 1944 and the AI never used a single kamikaze! The air units were converted to Kamikaze units, but the AI then changed their status back to other roles. For example G4M bombers still flew naval search and strikes with torpedos.

I think I read somewhere that one of the more recent patches was intended to address the all Kamikaze issue, but it seems to have gone too far and prevented any use of kamikaze attacks by the AI.

[greycat]

I have now noticed the increased fatigue that occurs when a unit makes a long distance transfer; this goes a long way towards addressing the problem![:)] However, short range transfers result in only a tiny increase in fatigue and I still think that there should be more disruption.[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: greycat

Air units are currently able to transfer to a new base and fly a mission on the same day. This seems rather unrealistic to me - surely rebasing would involve a certain amount of organisational disruption? As it is, an area which was devoid of air units can suddenly be swarming with them! Is this something you are going to look at for AE? It could be something as simple as setting all or a percentage of the aircraft to 'under repair' when they fly to new base.


Its in there (as it always has been actually). Transferring bases raises fatigue. The further you go the higher it is. Higher fatigue results in more operational losses and detrimental effect on combat results (air-to-air and bombing both). Always has been this way. I could never see a reason for a house rule on it myself

[John Lansford]

I've noticed the fatigue go up on transferred air units, especially on heavy bomber and LR Recon units that I transfer very long distances.  One B-29 unit I transferred from India to Darwin gained a fatigue level of around 70 IIRC!  Once I noticed that I began checking other transferred units for high fatigue and standing them down for a day or two to get rid of it prior to giving them an offensive mission.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: zuikaku

I don't really know if this issue have been adressed before- the air thread is a bit long now...
Will the speciality of instructor pilots withdrawn from combat duty affect the ratings of fresh pilots.
e.g. if I withdraw 50 dive bombing specialist, will they increase statistic only for dive bomber rookies,
or all rookies are gonna be effected. This could ba a possible exploit- one can withdrawn a 100 patrol plane pilots
with 90+ experience, set them as instructors, and get highly trained fighter pilots that way... [:(] [X(]

No not as it stands now. Replacement pilots aren't going to be much better than there National average in any one skill. Think of them as a blank slate to be filled in when they reach their operational units.

This would be where, in a future incarnation (AE-II), you would get rookie pilots being able to be allocated to an OTU (Operational Training Unit) where they would get in-type training for a few months

AE will allow modders to set up OTU's of a sort in that units can be given the "training" attribute. This means that the unit can only fly training missions, or, in the case of the Japanese, Special Attack missions. At the same time the unit can hold three (or four, I forget) times the normal number of pilots.

ORIGINAL: pad152

Japanese Carrier Air Groups

1.Didn't the large Japanese Carriers have a few C6N?

2. Will the C6N be Carrier capable in AE?

3. Are the Japanese C6N1-S and C6N-3 Night Fighters in AE?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes, the C6N1-S at any rate.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

OK, I did the search thing, which led to nothing, so sorry if this has been asked already.

Will the Q1-W1 Lorna (Tokai) be included in AE? There were ~150 built by war's end.

Yes.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Quick question: are VR squadrons still going to start with less than half-trained pilots/morons?

Fully trained, ie XP = replacement XP for that year.

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Is the pilots replacement experience yearly change be kept harcoded as is in WITP or will be fully moddable ?

Fully moddable.

[JeffroK]

Thanks TimTam
 
Next question would be do the Allies get the obsolete aircraft used by these OTU? (In the game rathe than moddable)

[anarchyintheuk]

Thanks for the response timtom.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Next question would be do the Allies get the obsolete aircraft used by these OTU? (In the game rathe than moddable)

Nice try [:D]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Thanks for the response timtom.

No problem. If we don't answer your questions, it's not that we wish to be dismissive. It's likely that either we don't know the answer or aren't completely sure. Either way, rather than misinform, we'd have to go off pester the Code Gods and I'm sure we can all agree that their time is best spend, well, coding.

[CV Zuikaku]

And another pilot question:
does the survivability of the pilots in AE depends wheather they fight over friendly or enemy TF/airbase. Do the defending pilots take less MiAs and KiAs?