Japanese floatplanes in RHS

Japanese floatplanes in RHS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design

Message

Bogo Mil -> Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/4/2008 10:33:13 AM)
Right now I'm setting up a game as Japanese, and I'm quite stunned about all those Pete float fighters. I have several "scout cruisers", but they carry 80% fighters and only a few search planes. This won't be much of an issue in AE any more, because fighters will be able to do search missions (if I understood it correctly). But I have an idea for an "interim solution" until AE comes out: RHS depends on PDU on anyway. Thus it would be possible to set the default upgrade of all floatplane-squadrons to the Pete, and of all float fighter squadrons to the Jake or Alf. If I want to upgrade a Pete unit to Rufe, I can still do so (with PDU on). But via the default upgrade I can convert it to searchplanes, too. Thus the player had the option to decide whether he wants a unit to be search plane or fighter. This decision would be irreversible, because after the first upgrade you can not cross the FF-FP-"border" any more. But this is still much better than not having any options at all...

herwin -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/4/2008 11:05:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil Right now I'm setting up a game as Japanese, and I'm quite stunned about all those Pete float fighters. I have several "scout cruisers", but they carry 80% fighters and only a few search planes. This won't be much of an issue in AE any more, because fighters will be able to do search missions (if I understood it correctly). But I have an idea for an "interim solution" until AE comes out: RHS depends on PDU on anyway. Thus it would be possible to set the default upgrade of all floatplane-squadrons to the Pete, and of all float fighter squadrons to the Jake or Alf. If I want to upgrade a Pete unit to Rufe, I can still do so (with PDU on). But via the default upgrade I can convert it to searchplanes, too. Thus the player had the option to decide whether he wants a unit to be search plane or fighter. This decision would be irreversible, because after the first upgrade you can not cross the FF-FP-"border" any more. But this is still much better than not having any options at all... My experience with the Petes is that they're nearly useless.

Bogo Mil -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/4/2008 11:48:43 AM)
They are not that useless. In an invasion TF they are very valuable indeed. Set them on CAP at low altitude (and some real fighters above them), and they can fend off or at least disrupt those dangerous Dutch and British torpedo bombers. In a few months they can upgrade to the Rufe, which is a lot better. But I would still like to have a few AV/CS which carry many searchplanes for scouting or for ASW-protection of big convoys. Especially then the initial expansion comes to an end, I will probably not need so many float fighters any more. Thus I'd like to have the option to convert those units.

Terminus -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/4/2008 12:12:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil This won't be much of an issue in AE any more, because fighters will be able to do search missions (if I understood it correctly). Other way around. All floatplanes can fly CAP.

herwin -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/4/2008 12:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil This won't be much of an issue in AE any more, because fighters will be able to do search missions (if I understood it correctly). Other way around. All floatplanes can fly CAP. Anything could fly CAP; most weren't that good at it. On the other hand, one of the float plane missions was air superiority over the TF--to allow other float planes to spot the fall of shot.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/4/2008 11:37:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil Right now I'm setting up a game as Japanese, and I'm quite stunned about all those Pete float fighters. I have several "scout cruisers", but they carry 80% fighters and only a few search planes. REPLY: I think you refer here to CS - seaplane carriers. They have 16 Petes and 4 E13s. Part of the problem is the Pete is both a bomber and a fighter - but WITP code does not permit such a creature to exist. It was a quite good dive bomber - in spite of its small payload. The air group makes more sense historically. This won't be much of an issue in AE any more, because fighters will be able to do search missions (if I understood it correctly). But I have an idea for an "interim solution" until AE comes out: RHS depends on PDU on anyway. Thus it would be possible to set the default upgrade of all floatplane-squadrons to the Pete, and of all float fighter squadrons to the Jake or Alf. If I want to upgrade a Pete unit to Rufe, I can still do so (with PDU on). But via the default upgrade I can convert it to searchplanes, too. Thus the player had the option to decide whether he wants a unit to be search plane or fighter. This decision would be irreversible, because after the first upgrade you can not cross the FF-FP-"border" any more. But this is still much better than not having any options at all... This is a problem in terms of historical scenarios: I try to have units upgrade "correctly" as they did. On the other hand - in EOS family - it makes some sense. I will think about this as I wrap up 7.9

el cid again -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/4/2008 11:42:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil This won't be much of an issue in AE any more, because fighters will be able to do search missions (if I understood it correctly). Other way around. All floatplanes can fly CAP. Anything could fly CAP; most weren't that good at it. On the other hand, one of the float plane missions was air superiority over the TF--to allow other float planes to spot the fall of shot. Floatplanes often flew ASW missions - and also did significant search missions. IJN preferred floatplanes to carrier bombers for search - and also developed special long range carrier search planes. But the floatplanes were considered multi-role - sort of like sea control ships - seaplane carriers were to control lesser contested waters. They could bomb land targets - or even ships. I want a Pete that can do that - but WITP code does not treat seaplane fighters properly.

Terminus -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/5/2008 1:40:26 AM)
It does now: [image]local://upfiles/16369/4AC979D919A4470A8941469BBF964842.jpg[/image] Also note that there is no such thing as a "float fighter" anymore.

Bogo Mil -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/5/2008 9:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again This is a problem in terms of historical scenarios: I try to have units upgrade "correctly" as they did. On the other hand - in EOS family - it makes some sense. Floatplanes often flew ASW missions - and also did significant search missions. IJN preferred floatplanes to carrier bombers for search - and also developed special long range carrier search planes. But the floatplanes were considered multi-role - sort of like sea control ships - seaplane carriers were to control lesser contested waters. They could bomb land targets - or even ships. I want a Pete that can do that - but WITP code does not treat seaplane fighters properly. Yes, we have a conflict here. We can choose do use the historical correct plane types (well, at least before the ahistoric mass upgrade from Pete to Rufe) - but then we don't have the historical correct mission types available. With my proposal, the player would get at least a one time decision which of the historically used mission typess he wants a squadron to fly, but it gives up the correctness of the plane types, of course. AE will solve this dilemma - great. Until then, we have to grasp one nettle, but can decide which one. I would give the decision to the player. If he thinks that using the historical plane types was more important - nothing hinders him to keep all FF as FF and all FP as FP.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/5/2008 11:38:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It does now: [image]local://upfiles/16369/4AC979D919A4470A8941469BBF964842.jpg[/image] Also note that there is no such thing as a "float fighter" anymore. Which defeats the primary mission of a float fighter - and is very unfortunate. Do we really want to play with no float cap? A seaplane carrier is a sea control ship - and it is supposed to operate alone. A seaplane tender is supposed to set up minimum air control at an island/islet - are we not to be able to do that any more? What was the thinking here? These aircraft were significant early in the war - and we no longer are to be able to fly their primary mission? Then there is the matter of escort - a seaplane group is supposed to go in with its own organic (if limited) fighter cover.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/5/2008 11:42:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again This is a problem in terms of historical scenarios: I try to have units upgrade "correctly" as they did. On the other hand - in EOS family - it makes some sense. Floatplanes often flew ASW missions - and also did significant search missions. IJN preferred floatplanes to carrier bombers for search - and also developed special long range carrier search planes. But the floatplanes were considered multi-role - sort of like sea control ships - seaplane carriers were to control lesser contested waters. They could bomb land targets - or even ships. I want a Pete that can do that - but WITP code does not treat seaplane fighters properly. Yes, we have a conflict here. We can choose do use the historical correct plane types (well, at least before the ahistoric mass upgrade from Pete to Rufe) - but then we don't have the historical correct mission types available. With my proposal, the player would get at least a one time decision which of the historically used mission typess he wants a squadron to fly, but it gives up the correctness of the plane types, of course. AE will solve this dilemma - great. Until then, we have to grasp one nettle, but can decide which one. I would give the decision to the player. If he thinks that using the historical plane types was more important - nothing hinders him to keep all FF as FF and all FP as FP. We are always limited by something. Apparently in AE we won't have true seaplane fighters at all. This is very wierd -but no doubt related to the fact Japanese thinking (and not implemented American thinking) is alien to whoever did this change. They don't understand that there really was a float fighter concept - and not being able to fly cap or escort or lrcap is to gut it completely. This means we have different unfortunate limits in AE - not that it has fixed the problems we now have. But in a broader sense, that is likely to be the case to some extent. Everything is compromise, and programmers don't like to turn us loose completely (with soft controls for as much as possible).

Terminus -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/5/2008 11:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It does now: [image]local://upfiles/16369/4AC979D919A4470A8941469BBF964842.jpg[/image] Also note that there is no such thing as a "float fighter" anymore. Which defeats the primary mission of a float fighter - and is very unfortunate. Do we really want to play with no float cap? A seaplane carrier is a sea control ship - and it is supposed to operate alone. A seaplane tender is supposed to set up minimum air control at an island/islet - are we not to be able to do that any more? What was the thinking here? These aircraft were significant early in the war - and we no longer are to be able to fly their primary mission? Then there is the matter of escort - a seaplane group is supposed to go in with its own organic (if limited) fighter cover. Let me repeat myself: all floatplanes can fly CAP now, thus the float fighter type is no longer needed (the Rufe and the Rex, former FF's, are FP's in AE). Look at the "patrol levels" panel at the bottom right of the screen shot.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/5/2008 11:51:11 PM)
OK - Because any normal (non fighter) floatplane can upgrade to any other - we will define the upgrade path of the E8N to Pete - which is in fact a historical one - Pete is the replacement for E8N - as an observation plane. IF you want to get to Pete from any other floatplane, convert to E8N first, then to Pete, then upwards to Rufe or whatever. This is historical enough to put in all scenarios. In fact this ONLY works in the strictly historical mods - because there is no E8N in EOS family. Because production changes with upgrade - we have a problem doing this the reverse direction too - cannot make F1M upgrade to E8N - or all Pete production would instantly and forever convert (there is no E8N production - so no problem). We can do the same sort of thing in EOS - with E7 instead of E8 - and that it isn't as historical is less a probem in these scenarios. What you lose is in AI scenarios - they will never upgrade E7 to E13 - unless we exempt them - which we should do - since no human is making a choice in them anyway. OK - what you lose is nothing that matters - if humans make control in human scenarios. That gets you the ability to go to seaplane fighters - which FYI will sometimes upgrade to land fighters late in the war (on a unit basis - if they really did that). But I don't see how to go the other way? Except maybe on a unit basis - if I ever find the time for that.

herwin -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/6/2008 1:53:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It does now: [image]local://upfiles/16369/4AC979D919A4470A8941469BBF964842.jpg[/image] Also note that there is no such thing as a "float fighter" anymore. Which defeats the primary mission of a float fighter - and is very unfortunate. Do we really want to play with no float cap? A seaplane carrier is a sea control ship - and it is supposed to operate alone. A seaplane tender is supposed to set up minimum air control at an island/islet - are we not to be able to do that any more? What was the thinking here? These aircraft were significant early in the war - and we no longer are to be able to fly their primary mission? Then there is the matter of escort - a seaplane group is supposed to go in with its own organic (if limited) fighter cover. el cid is correct. Unfortunately, Petes are almost useless as CAP.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/7/2008 12:48:30 AM)
Not really. In particular they are effective vs low fliers (e.g. torpedo planes and very low level horizontal bombers) IF you set them to fly at a low altitude - I use 6000 feet usually. Also if they gain experience. I have had entire air strikes unable to penetrate Pete CAP - rare in RHS - and also I have a Pete with a B-17 kill - also rare - but not at all useless. More often they damage or kill a few of the attackers - and reuce the chances of a hit - not only directly - but also indirectly (hp goes down if there is ANY air opposition, and the longer it lasts, the more hp goes down). More germane, the upgraded Rufe and Rex are significant seaplane fighters. The Wild Catfish is a dog - although probably better than a Pete.

el cid again -> RE: Japanese floatplanes in RHS (6/7/2008 12:50:55 AM)
Because of slots I can probably give you both true seaplane fighter and seaplane versions of Pete (and Rufe and Rex and Wild Catfish) in AE. In the case of Pete we can make them upgrade to each other - meaning you can switch lines by backfitting to Pete, then upgrading forward. One version is really a carrier plane - the other really a floatplane. You use the carrier plane on CS type ships (although in fact you could use it on a real carrier too - and some AVs - and not just Japanese - US AVs were designed with a catapult for this application - and in BBO family they appear in this form).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.1875