Launch Cycle

Launch Cycle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War

Message

Bert44 -> Launch Cycle (9/18/2007 6:19:54 PM)
Hi, First, excuse for my poor english writen.[8\|] I just download this great wargame and after many training i have some points of rules that i cannot understand. P.29 quote: Each CV and airbase has a spot number, representing the maximum number of planes that can simultaneously go throught a launch cycle.. I think that's it's no very explicite..[&:] So can you explain, for example, how work (in CAW) a "Launch cycle" with a spot number 28 ? (cv Shokaku). thx.

Joe D. -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/19/2007 2:15:21 AM)
I think "spot" number refers to what was called "spotting" (prepositioning) aircraft on the flight deck in preparation for launching a strike. Shokaku spot 28 probably means that this CV can lauch 28 aircraft at one time/in one strike. Frankly, after I arm and prep my planes at first light (dawn), I launch all my strikes from the interface; I rarely use the strike screen unless there's a problem and my planes don't launch.

Gregor_SSG -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/19/2007 4:48:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bert44 Hi, First, excuse for my poor english writen.[8\|] I just download this great wargame and after many training i have some points of rules that i cannot understand. P.29 quote: Each CV and airbase has a spot number, representing the maximum number of planes that can simultaneously go throught a launch cycle.. I think that's it's no very explicite..[&:] So can you explain, for example, how work (in CAW) a "Launch cycle" with a spot number 28 ? (cv Shokaku). thx. These carriers have no catapults, so planes waiting to launch are parked at the rear of the flight deck. You can only park so many planes before you take up so much space that there's no longer enough flight deck left for the front planes to get up enough speed to make a successful takeoff. So this puts a limit on how many planes can take off at once. The actual mechanics of arranging strikes and aircraft are somewhat complicated but we have abstracted this to the Spot Number, which is the number of planes that can take off at once. In the case of the Shokaku, it can launch a maximum of 28 planes at once. Most strikes will have more than 28 planes, so even if all the planes in the strike are already armed and fuelled, they will have to wait until the first 28 are launched before they can can start filling up the flight deck again while waiting for their own launch. Gregor

Joe D. -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/19/2007 3:23:10 PM)
So, assuming there is no combat damage or inclement wx, the larger the CV flight deck, the larger the spot number of the CV?

Gregor_SSG -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/20/2007 4:13:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. So, assuming there is no combat damage or inclement wx, the larger the CV flight deck, the larger the spot number of the CV? In general yes, I would have to ask Ian if we got down to precise details, but a larger carrier would have a longer flight deck and therefore more room for aircraft handling. Gregor

Ophion -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/21/2007 4:20:08 AM)
Just on this, I've noticed that planes seem to move through the various stages of launching and recovering pretty quickly. You can track their progress on the carrier screen and use the "run 5" button. It seems like planes cycle through the fuel - arm - launch - formup phases a little too quickly. Similar case when they return. Last night I saw the entire akagi airwing go from "on mission" to "recovering" in 5 minutes, then to "landed" in 5 minutes, then to "stowed" 5 minutes after that. Is this too fast?

Joe D. -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/21/2007 4:53:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ophion Just on this, I've noticed that planes seem to move through the various stages of launching and recovering pretty quickly ... Considering that these aircraft had to be moved/spotted manually by mechanics and flight crews, it sure sounds too quick.

MarkShot -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/21/2007 7:09:52 PM)
I recently read two articles following the history of the Civ series and Sid Meier's career. Sid spent the first half of his career to doing combat games associated with Microprose (founded by him and a former fighter pilot). One of the things which I took away from what I read was that combat games of the 1980s and early 1990s were much more about fun and a lot less about heavy realism. I think the way we view combat games such as CAW now, it is lacking a certain degree of detail. However, I think when viewed in light of its contemporaries at the time of its introduction, I think it fared very well in terms of realism. So, to understand and properly appreciate CAW, you need to understand the times. It is like watching old movies. Watch some of the early Bond films and you will see a lot less action and SFX. The movies were more cerebral and special spy equipment was nothing more than a fancy briefcase. So, I think the CAW system/engine has gone from being a serious wargame of the early 1990s to more of a light offering in 2007. Just my opinion ...

Joe D. -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/22/2007 2:18:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarkShot I recently read two articles following the history of the Civ series and Sid Meier's career. Sid spent the first half of his career to doing combat games associated with Microprose (founded by him and a former fighter pilot). One of the things which I took away from what I read was that combat games of the 1980s and early 1990s were much more about fun and a lot less about heavy realism ... On second thought, let's just say the "run 5 (min)" button is strictly for the player's benefit, and not part of CaW's abstraction for launching a strike. In reality, it could take an hour or more to properly arm, fuel and spot a flight, not to mention the additional time required to properly warm-up all the engines after the planes are on the flight deck; if this isn't done properly, the plane may end up in the sea right after take-off, which sometimes happened anyway despite all these procedures. Besides, after arguing for better IJ OOB in regard to the # of Zeros and proper placement of (random) wx patterns in the Midway scenario, I'm not about to quibble over abstracted launch cycles; as long as it's the same for your opponent, it should still play well.

Gregor_SSG -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/23/2007 3:38:44 AM)
On this subject, we haven't changed any code regarding plane cycles since 1990, and certainly have made no attempt to dumb things down. Gregor

Bert44 -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/23/2007 1:20:59 PM)
Thank's for the replies.[8D] Another remark about TOT. I made some experiences : Shokaku (28) - 09:40 I programed a Strike with 18 Kate (an entire squadron) armed and refueled. The TOT is 11:25. I launch a cohesive Strike, The planes reach the mission box at 10:15 and the Strike as occured at 11:35.(10 min late) Shokaku (28) - 09:40 . I programmed the same Strike with no planes armed and refueled but the TOT is the same !! -> 11:25. (The strike occured at 12:10) So (i think that) : -The TOT is always calculated with the condition of Armed and refueled planes. -You have to add 35 min at the TOT time if the planes are in hangar (not refueled and armed) -The planes are always 5 or 10 min late on the target.

Gregor_SSG -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/24/2007 3:21:39 AM)
When you are thinking about in game reporting such as Time over Target, remember that the strikes against naval targets don't fly to the target - they fly to a reported sighting location and start looking for their target. It might be right underneath them, but could just as easily be a few hexes away, given how sightings work. They could even fly over it before they reach the designated sighting location, in which case they will probably attack 'early', but mostly they will have to a bit of searching and so will be 'late'. Gregor

Bert44 -> RE: Launch Cycle (9/24/2007 12:33:07 PM)
In my exemple it's a strike vs a Port target.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125