Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: gilmaor79@gmail.com

Hey

Well sorry for the delayed resposnse.
Weapons in peace time are not assembled and theier different components are scattered. but command simulates War time. (at least in 99% of the scenarios) so weapons should be ready to be place on plane at a moments notice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gilmaor79@gmail.com
Well, for large bomber I guess that it takes a lot of time to prepare them,

As for the fighters,

In today's reality in command one of the major rules of war cannot be excuted and its the ability to contantly hit the enemy until he cannot take it anymore - continuation.

in command each plane can attack three times a day (6 hour ready time) and if the mission changes even less.
the gournd crew's job in to give the planners (i.e. the player (We) in command) the agility to decide and change the battle plan in accordance with the results and the movments of the enemy. the israeli air force pulled some 18,000 sorties in 33 days! bare in mind that there about 600 planes in the IAF. ground crew worked around the clock, and I read that the every men in the air bases that could be spared helped assembling munitions.

Lets say we're in the 80' the russian attack east germeny, if each NATO plane could be used up to 2-3 times a day then west will be overrun days.

Gil,

Facebook
Twitter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Sunburn,

That is very good rationale, but it fails (in my opinion) in one frequent case: you have, say, and FA-18 with a combat load for ground strike, and you switch to a different ground strike configuration (ex. from Mk82 to Mk84 bombs) -- and you have to start getting ready from scratch. Much of the rationale is to limit sortie rates, and I get that. However, once an aircraft is in a ready state, and it has paid the "penalty" of the long turn around time, the sortie rate isn't going to be impinged upon by reducing the ready time for an aircraft that is modifying its load.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: nimitz68

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Sunburn,

That is very good rationale, but it fails (in my opinion) in one frequent case: you have, say, and FA-18 with a combat load for ground strike, and you switch to a different ground strike configuration (ex. from Mk82 to Mk84 bombs) -- and you have to start getting ready from scratch. Much of the rationale is to limit sortie rates, and I get that. However, once an aircraft is in a ready state, and it has paid the "penalty" of the long turn around time, the sortie rate isn't going to be impinged upon by reducing the ready time for an aircraft that is modifying its load.

Regards,
Feltan

That's the problem I had with it initially, but it would be a big fix to address 'properly.' If we take the example you give, the re-wait time is an unfair penalty. But if we look at a Nagumo situation where you're going from bombs (land attack) to torpedoes (ASuW strike), the wait time isn't nearly as unfair as your briefings, etc. would have to be redone, not just a reload. So do you introduce a post-sortie maintenance period and then separate target briefing/loadout times? OK, great solution, but more complexity and a significant revamp to the database and another host of numbers to debate/argue.

There is a workaround - you can open the game save in scenario edit mode (if you don't play it in that mode) and manually set a ready time you feel is realistic based on what sort of swap you're doing. If you care about the 'validity' of your gameplay, you'll make it reasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


nimitz68,

Fair points, but I am not suggesting the change in load-out for free. Rather, what about 3 hours instead of 6 in the example above? It would allow for the Japanese results at Midway.

While I am not familiar with the code for the game, what I am suggesting would be some pretty simple logic to insert (famous last words from someone who has sworn off such statements at work).

Regards,
Feltan