Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: TheElf
... serviceability ratings ...
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.
One could argue that that couldn't be true because they were flying from CVEs. Much smaller and more difficult to operate from...ORIGINAL: spence
Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.
The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....[8|]
The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.
We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.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.
ORIGINAL: TheElf
We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.
So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.
Pretty cool, I know...
This was discussed and a design document was written, but ended up OTS...ORIGINAL: 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.
Part of the design doc went as far as to allow the player to designate or assign the total value of the AF as a combination of 1s, 2, 4, or whatever size AFs he wanted. So you could have lots of small to medium AFs (ie. diespersed) or one or two larger. Even one GINORMOUS one.ORIGINAL: 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.
ORIGINAL: TheElf
The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...
I'm afraid I'll have to defer to Thomas...ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
ORIGINAL: TheElf
The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...
Does this mean that dates for upgrading aircraft for Dutch and UK are being debated/looked at or will they be the same?
Thanks. [&o]
EDIT: Sorry Ian, if the latter was directed at me, I skimmed through most of the thread but didn't see anything mentioned about upgrade dates for Dutch and UK.
YesORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: TheElf
... serviceability ratings ...
So the database now has a serviceability rating for each aircraft model?
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.
Does this mean that the life-time (flights) of each individual aircraft is tracked to influence the chance of an ops loss of that aircraft?
quote:
ORIGINAL: spence
Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.
The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....
The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.
One could argue that that couldn't be true because they were flying from CVEs. Much smaller and more difficult to operate from...
But I am having a hard time detecting a question in this post...
We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.
So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.
Pretty cool, I know...
ORIGINAL: TheElf
Part of the design doc went as far as to allow the player to designate or assign the total value of the AF as a combination of 1s, 2, 4, or whatever size AFs he wanted. So you could have lots of small to medium AFs (ie. diespersed) or one or two larger. Even one GINORMOUS one.ORIGINAL: 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.
Got to be complicated, so it was shelved.
ORIGINAL: spence
Fair enough. What justification is there for assigning USN CVE air group pilots experience levels in the 30's and 40's when the standard USN pilot experience is 60-70?
Theoretically yes. Lower FAT and Higher MOR should also help...ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "
I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?
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.
ORIGINAL: TheElf
Theoretically yes. Lower FAT and Higher MOR should also help...ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "
I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?
ORIGINAL: TheElf
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.
