Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 1/20/2007 7:55:19 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Jo: That is a very interesting fighter plane I was not aware of. It is implied it influenced the P-38 design - and in that sense it may already be in the game.

I do not understand any sense in which this aircraft might have been in service in PTO in either a historical mod or in the alternate history EOS mod. Only 62 were built grand total, all of them served in ETO (some in Spain, some in Dutch Air Force and some in Luftwaffe).


El Sid.

You have right that this plane not past in youre scenario's. But only in alternate scenario's like Iron Storm or scenario's without war in Europe.


_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 61
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/27/2007 12:35:29 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		El Cid, Is this idea of combining allied aircraft still in the works?

< Message edited by drw61 -- 5/27/2007 12:39:09 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 62
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/27/2007 1:26:36 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		yes just on back burner at the moment

Cobra Aus

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 63
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/27/2007 1:34:15 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Posting here only in that it pertains to aircraft.
While the Martin B 26 has a real life range maybe 2/3's that of the Mitchell B 25, in RHS, the range is cut another third!.
Further, the Douglas B 18 has (IMHO) too many planes in game, and the Canadians who also used them may not be getting any of them, (in the game).
The earliest P 38 photo recon model has an inaccurate range in game of 6 or 7 hexes,(IIRC). It should have the range with tanks that even the earliest external tank models enjoyed, otherwise it is pretty much an expensive Lysander.

Sources:

Combat Aircraft of the World,John W.R.Taylor

Aircraft of WWII, Stewart Wilson


_____________________________




(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 64
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/27/2007 9:27:34 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Things like range are complex and technical - and often misleading in a source like Taylor (who I prefer to use because he gives so many different planes of different nations - and common sources are something we like).

The problem is "range with what payload at what mission profile" is not often specified. RHS is using a USAAF set of technical definitions for range - somewhat modified in specific cases where we have very good data. In general, the range will be correct FOR THE PAYLOAD listed.

Now as for drop tank range, this is different. This is even harder to figure out - and I made a test bed just for that function. I have by no means added every possible combination of planes/drop tanks - and in some cases real combinations are not possible in this system. In the case of P-38 we had data provided by someone on the Forum about dates - you I think - and it seemed to imply this tank was not available in theater in quantity at the date this aircraft became available. It can be revised.

Indeed - any performance data can be revised. But we are not doing that just now - so if you want something specific be very specific - give the values you want and the reasons for it (and where you got your data from). It is faster to just approve than to research, calculate and then approve.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 65
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 1:34:28 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		I don't agree with the philosophy of providing aircraft in the game with the typical equipment on its arrival in the theater. I think that what would be best is to designate the aircraft as it was in its most common configuration. If you want to have a few early units with limited versions, you can always edit the details for that unit.

This is very dramatic with aircraft like the B-25. Most C/Ds to see combat were equipped as gunships with 8 .50s pointing forward. Though the aircraft that first arrived in theater only had a single .30 or .50 hand held in the nose. The A-20 went through a dramatic transformation too. Pappy Gunn dramatically increased the range by filling half the bomb bay with fuel and filling the nose with guns. The bomb load was decreased, but the effectiveness of the plane was dramatically increased.

Bill


< Message edited by wdolson -- 5/28/2007 1:35:00 AM >

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 66
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 1:56:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sufficient difference - it warrants a new type. Which can run afoul of slot limits - but this is a bigger issue for Axis than for Allies.

Even so, we can give units that appear with a type AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT a special loadout. This does NOT apply to a unit that upgrades - because it MUST have the typical loadout - being done during a game by a player the code will copy the aircraft type record. So in special cases we can have it both ways.

I just figured out how to have a combined type with different ranges. I had done this for recon planes - but not for transports. We have tiny units with the Empire Flying Boat - and one unit with the Boeing 313 Clipper - which is wrong for range (because it had more than the Empire). I now can fix that one unit - giving it an RHS invention - the "internal drop tank" - although it will take work (more than is really justified) to find the right combination using a test bed.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/28/2007 8:40:19 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 67
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 2:29:20 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sifficient difference - it warrants a new type.


For aircraft such as the B-25C/D and A-20, isn't wasn't long before every single aircraft arriving in Australia was heavily modified. By late 1942, all 5th AF A-20s and B-25s had Pappy Gunn's modifications. Repair depots in other areas of the Pacific followed suit soon after. Even though they were not produced with the package guns and nose guns, they all had them by the time they reached combat.

The US had many modification depots to alter aircraft after production. In some cases these depots were in the US, in others, they were near the combat zone. In Anchorage, the USAAF had a facility that modified every aircraft arriving for Arctic conditions. In the case of those modifications, there were no changes that would be reflected in the game except possibly some performance decrease. All Alaska based aircraft were a lot heavier because they carried extra electronics for blind landing in the Aleutians.

In Australia, bombers were modified for low level strafing and attack roles. Similar changes were done in India for fighting in Burma.

When the B-29 campaign switched to low altitude attacks, all B-29s arriving on Saipan had their turrets removed.

In the US, the USAAF set up a modification center in Cheyenne, WY to modify all B-17s coming off the production line. This depot added some equipment and changed out the tail gun position for what became known as the Cheyenne Turret. All late model B-17Gs arriving in Europe and the Med had this turret installed before leaving the states, but after production.

I think it is best to provide the most common version to see combat. Yes, players will end up with a bit more capable aircraft for a few months when first introduced, but overall, I think this is best. If players are only given the production varient, without common field modifications later in production, then over the long haul, they are getting short changed. In the first few months after introduction, the aircraft will not be used much because there won't be that many of them available, except for a few types with huge production quantities.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 68
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 8:44:33 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sifficient difference - it warrants a new type.


For aircraft such as the B-25C/D and A-20, isn't wasn't long before every single aircraft arriving in Australia was heavily modified. By late 1942, all 5th AF A-20s and B-25s had Pappy Gunn's modifications. Repair depots in other areas of the Pacific followed suit soon after. Even though they were not produced with the package guns and nose guns, they all had them by the time they reached combat.

Bill



This runafoul of the CHS/RHS standards for defining aircraft - as taught to me by Joe when he supervised my work on Japanese aircraft. We are supposed to use scholarly reference materials - or something close to it - and that means we tend to end up with the official production data. This is intended as an explanation of how this situation may have come to pass - not saying that we could not change the standard if we had very difinitive data sources to justify it. But remember a game is not the same as real life: if we give a player a plane on day xy, he can use it ANYWHERE in theater on day xy - no time to transit, no time to train, no time to modify. So as a mod designer I am wary of saying something that happened months later is germane to what is possible now. On the other hand, we could double modify a plane:
give it the modified armament (if justified by source data of sufficient quality we are sure it is true) at a modified date - that is AFTER the modifications were done in the actual operational area (not the day the plane came off the line).

This should be read to say I am open to changing a specific aircraft if enough data were provided of scholarly quality to justify it. I don't think it likely that "all units to see combat" were modified in time - and I am sure "combat" did not occur the first day the plane became available. But IF we knew when they saw combat - and people were content to move back to that date - and IF we knew all were modified by then - THEN we can adopt the revised version - regardless of how they came off the line.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/28/2007 9:01:54 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 69
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 8:53:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sifficient difference - it warrants a new type.


For aircraft such as the B-25C/D and A-20, isn't wasn't long before every single aircraft arriving in Australia was heavily modified. By late 1942, all 5th AF A-20s and B-25s had Pappy Gunn's modifications. Repair depots in other areas of the Pacific followed suit soon after. Even though they were not produced with the package guns and nose guns, they all had them by the time they reached combat.

The US had many modification depots to alter aircraft after production. In some cases these depots were in the US, in others, they were near the combat zone. In Anchorage, the USAAF had a facility that modified every aircraft arriving for Arctic conditions. In the case of those modifications, there were no changes that would be reflected in the game except possibly some performance decrease. All Alaska based aircraft were a lot heavier because they carried extra electronics for blind landing in the Aleutians.

In Australia, bombers were modified for low level strafing and attack roles. Similar changes were done in India for fighting in Burma.

When the B-29 campaign switched to low altitude attacks, all B-29s arriving on Saipan had their turrets removed.

In the US, the USAAF set up a modification center in Cheyenne, WY to modify all B-17s coming off the production line. This depot added some equipment and changed out the tail gun position for what became known as the Cheyenne Turret. All late model B-17Gs arriving in Europe and the Med had this turret installed before leaving the states, but after production.

I think it is best to provide the most common version to see combat. Yes, players will end up with a bit more capable aircraft for a few months when first introduced, but overall, I think this is best. If players are only given the production varient, without common field modifications later in production, then over the long haul, they are getting short changed. In the first few months after introduction, the aircraft will not be used much because there won't be that many of them available, except for a few types with huge production quantities.

Bill


We do this on the larger scale - because we cannot represent every sub model - we pick the most common model - and then all the earlier models get too much performance too early. Thus a B5N1 appears as a B5N2, or a Ki-21 I appears as a Ki-21 II. If we didn't limit the introduction of a new type to its actual equipment when introduced, we would be in effect compounding this effect. It is a choice that can be made either way. For balance I elected to make it one way for type and the other way inside the type.


Some of the changes you describe can be represented (and indeed some of them already are) if you are willing to "cheat" and use the RHS multiple loadout system. However, it only applies to original equipment - not to upgraded units.


Some of the changes you describe probably should not be in the game. I refer in particular to the B-29 changes.
IF you think (choose) to force a doctrinal change on the Allies - THEN you should also make it a rule they MUST switch to low level bombing - cannot mine - cannot high level bomb or do proper naval attacks. And in that case the revised armament would also be appropriate. IF they elect to use their bombers more flexably - they will want and need the designed armament. This is philosophy: I believe in "power to the players" - but others believe "only what happened is an option and should be forced on players." There is merit in both attitudes. Because that is the case, and because RHS has various flavors, IF there were LOTS of interest, we could offer it both ways in different scenarios: say CVO might FORCE you to have the revised B-29s - and add a house rule you MUST use them for low level city bombing - after a certain date. IT would require a slot - an early B-29 would then upgrade to the later one on that date.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/28/2007 8:59:46 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 70
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 1:24:50 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This runafoul of the CHS/RHS standards for defining aircraft - as taught to me by Joe when he supervised my work on Japanese aircraft. We are supposed to use scholarly reference materials - or something close to it - and that means we tend to end up with the official production data. This is intended as an explanation of how this situation may have come to pass - not saying that we could not change the standard if we had very difinitive data sources to justify it. But remember a game is not the same as real life: if we give a player a plane on day xy, he can use it ANYWHERE in theater on day xy - no time to transit, no time to train, no time to modify. So as a mod designer I am wary of saying something that happened months later is germane to what is possible now. On the other hand, we could double modify a plane:
give it the modified armament (if justified by source data of sufficient quality we are sure it is true) at a modified date - that is AFTER the modifications were done in the actual operational area (not the day the plane came off the line).

This should be read to say I am open to changing a specific aircraft if enough data were provided of scholarly quality to justify it. I don't think it likely that "all units to see combat" were modified in time - and I am sure "combat" did not occur the first day the plane became available. But IF we knew when they saw combat - and people were content to move back to that date - and IF we knew all were modified by then - THEN we can adopt the revised version - regardless of how they came off the line.


I'm not sure what qualifies as "scholarly". The best books avilable on individual aircraft are the Squadron "In Action" series which are designed for modelers. These books document each version of an aircraft and has lots of detail on weapons load outs as well as common field modifications. They are not as detailed on performance data since their focus is on helping modelers get their modelers looking right. I have about 50 books in the series, including many aircraft covered by the game.

As far as the B-25 goes, it was not used in the Pacific in large numbers until after Pappy Gunn started modifying them. It was not used in the CBI at all until well after those modifications became standard for the entire Pacific region. In North Africa and Europe they had a different mission profile and were usually equipped with far fewer guns.

The introduction date for the B-25 could be upgunned, then delayed a few months. Those units that flew the B-25 in the theater before Pappy Gunn's modifications became common can be introduced with B-25s before the production begins and have the stats modified for a more lightly armed aircraft.

The A-20 is a little tricker because it was in a bit wider use before Pappy Gunn's modifications became standard. It was still not all that widespread. The backbone of the USAAF for most of the first year of the war were B-26s, some A-24s, and a few precious B-17s. The B-26 was the most common twin engine bomber during this time and it was withdrawn completely as soon as enough B-25s were available. The B-26 had terrible rough field handling characteristics, whereas the B-25 was idea for primitive fields.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 71
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 1:34:19 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Some of the changes you describe probably should not be in the game. I refer in particular to the B-29 changes.
IF you think (choose) to force a doctrinal change on the Allies - THEN you should also make it a rule they MUST switch to low level bombing - cannot mine - cannot high level bomb or do proper naval attacks. And in that case the revised armament would also be appropriate. IF they elect to use their bombers more flexably - they will want and need the designed armament. This is philosophy: I believe in "power to the players" - but others believe "only what happened is an option and should be forced on players." There is merit in both attitudes. Because that is the case, and because RHS has various flavors, IF there were LOTS of interest, we could offer it both ways in different scenarios: say CVO might FORCE you to have the revised B-29s - and add a house rule you MUST use them for low level city bombing - after a certain date. IT would require a slot - an early B-29 would then upgrade to the later one on that date.


I was using the B-29 modifications as another example of modifications in the field rather than suggesting it be done.

The game does force some doctrinal changes on the player, whether you like it or not. The Allies start out with poor multi deck carrier coordination and it improves through out the game, which reflects changes in doctrine. Similarly, Allied air defence gets better as the game goes on, reflecting different doctrinal changes. The Zero bonus exists because Allied fighter doctrine at the beginning of the war did not know how to handle the nimble Zero (also didn't know how to handle Oscars either, but there is no bonus for that). The Zero bonus goes away as Allied doctrine begins to adjust to their foe.

There are some other things that reflect doctrines of various kinds that a player has little or no control over. So the player has some control over doctrines, but on others, control is limited or non-existant.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 72
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 4:41:30 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).
(On the Anson, I removed one of the MG's and gave it 2 100 lb bombs to use against subs as the Aussies used it.)
I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)
In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.

WITP is a great game, and in vanilla, it will appease the majority of players.
The mods go further for us grognards and allow more detailed and larger OOB's, (aerial and otherwise).
I am extremely grateful for both the fantastic published mods, and for the editor, (for us solitaire players.)

FWIW, I don't make any changes to my planes without being able to "back-up" the need for the changes, and have never subscribed to being a "fanboy" of anything except history regards WITP..

(EDIT):I am aware making some alterations may provoke interesting anomolies to the playing of the game, but I can tweak to my hearts' content.

< Message edited by m10bob -- 5/28/2007 4:44:16 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 73
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 5:43:36 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


As far as the B-25 goes, it was not used in the Pacific in large numbers until after Pappy Gunn started modifying them.
Bill


That is a problem. The "in large numbers" is a coach and four issue. Setting back the date means it isn't available "in small number" when it should be. Changing the loadout to the later value without setting back the date is the problem we should avoid (in my view). The moment the plane is set to be available, ANY unit that is permitted to upgrade to it can use it - until all are used - and that is true every month.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 74
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 5:46:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson



The A-20 is a little tricker because it was in a bit wider use before Pappy Gunn's modifications became standard.
Bill


Same problem, writ large.

To the extent the changes matter - give you a different out come - it is a vital principle of simulation they NOT be availabe BEFORE they were available to the historical force. To the extent they are trivial and won't have any impact, this is just a matter of chrome. You write as if they matter. Do they? If so, it is more important NOT to have them before the fact. On the other hand, no B-25s or A-20s after they were available is probably even worse. Are you beginning to see why made my choice? Whatever we do is a compromise (pending infinite slot availablity).

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 75
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 5:47:54 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Some of the changes you describe probably should not be in the game. I refer in particular to the B-29 changes.
IF you think (choose) to force a doctrinal change on the Allies - THEN you should also make it a rule they MUST switch to low level bombing - cannot mine - cannot high level bomb or do proper naval attacks. And in that case the revised armament would also be appropriate. IF they elect to use their bombers more flexably - they will want and need the designed armament. This is philosophy: I believe in "power to the players" - but others believe "only what happened is an option and should be forced on players." There is merit in both attitudes. Because that is the case, and because RHS has various flavors, IF there were LOTS of interest, we could offer it both ways in different scenarios: say CVO might FORCE you to have the revised B-29s - and add a house rule you MUST use them for low level city bombing - after a certain date. IT would require a slot - an early B-29 would then upgrade to the later one on that date.


I was using the B-29 modifications as another example of modifications in the field rather than suggesting it be done.

The game does force some doctrinal changes on the player, whether you like it or not. The Allies start out with poor multi deck carrier coordination and it improves through out the game, which reflects changes in doctrine. Similarly, Allied air defence gets better as the game goes on, reflecting different doctrinal changes. The Zero bonus exists because Allied fighter doctrine at the beginning of the war did not know how to handle the nimble Zero (also didn't know how to handle Oscars either, but there is no bonus for that). The Zero bonus goes away as Allied doctrine begins to adjust to their foe.

There are some other things that reflect doctrines of various kinds that a player has little or no control over. So the player has some control over doctrines, but on others, control is limited or non-existant.

Bill


FYI - the "zero bonus" DOES apply to the Claude - in RHS.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/28/2007 5:48:35 PM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 76
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 5:51:17 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).

REPLY: are you aware that makes them flying boats?



(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 77
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 5:56:02 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)


In RHS there is a ROC civil air unit with 6 machines at Hong Kong (and ground support which won't move from there).
We use a combined light plane for it: C-32 / C-36 / C-39 / C-40 and BT-32. The unit is called China Air because - that is what it was called.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 78
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 5:59:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.



Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 79
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 6:34:47 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).

REPLY: are you aware that makes them flying boats?





Have not noticed this yet..Thank you for the heads up.. I marked them for "patrol" to give them the patrolling AND transport capability. Most of the planes I mentioned had passenger seats or were converted airliners..Of course I do NOT want them to be seaplanes.. BTW, have you found a means to allow the amphib capability of the later Catalina? At present they will only land on the water, (but this question also applies to the later amphib models of the Mariner as well)..

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 80
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 6:38:32 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)


In RHS there is a ROC civil air unit with 6 machines at Hong Kong (and ground support which won't move from there).
We use a combined light plane for it: C-32 / C-36 / C-39 / C-40 and BT-32. The unit is called China Air because - that is what it was called.


This is the RHS unit I use for the C 45, which I placed in Chungking to represent the civilian types which were there..It is a fact the Chinese had C 45's, so, I call them this. Your idea to name some of the units, to represent several types was IMHO a good one.
It was no mean feat to check load capacity,range,etc, and just make allowance with just how many planes I gave the unit to avoid "cheating"(even solo).


_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 81
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 6:54:03 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.



Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.


NO!..The Oscar does not need a "Zero bonus", it just needed to have the maneuverability tweaked to the extreme good, which few on the forum seemed to understand or accept.
While a "bonus" is a good temporary fix, it wears out after a few months, but the inherent ability for this under-armed but nimble dogfighter to present itself as a hard target was IMHO never addressed.
The plane was more maneuverable than many bipes, and certainly more than the A6M2, but with a maneuverability in game of "29" just made it cannon fodder.
In fact, many of the other planes in game show "29" to be on the "average side", as fighters go.
For now, I am working with 33-34 being more practical for this particular plane.
My old flying instructor, Tommy Thompson was based all over this theatre and swappped stories with me about the stuff he flew against over there, (in the early days), and this was relevant enough for me to pay attention as I had just built my new Revell 1/72nd scale Hayabusa "Oscar"..
Tommy taught me the value of sideslipping when landing as a means to pretty much "stop" in mid-air and lose altitude fast, (which some of the P 39 pilots had to do to avoid "Oscar"..)
With the "butterfly flap on the Oscar deployed, the plane could do this all day long and then out-accelerate any Allied plane in the air, in the direction of its' choice.

There were very sound reasons for the Allies to avoid dogfighting, and use the "zoom and boom" or "boom and zoom" tactic, (whichever it was called).
The forte of the Allied planes were their guns, not maneuverability, so "29" just was not cutting it for the "Oscar", IMHO.

Sid, you are the last guy who needs any lecturing about planes in WITP, so accept my diatribe for those who cannot accept the Oscar for what it was, and why.


_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 82
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/28/2007 11:48:41 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).

REPLY: are you aware that makes them flying boats?





Have not noticed this yet..Thank you for the heads up.. I marked them for "patrol" to give them the patrolling AND transport capability. Most of the planes I mentioned had passenger seats or were converted airliners..Of course I do NOT want them to be seaplanes.. BTW, have you found a means to allow the amphib capability of the later Catalina? At present they will only land on the water, (but this question also applies to the later amphib models of the Mariner as well)..


Unless I am confused, all "patrol" are flying boats and all will operate from any port. The only way to tell they are flying boats is they will operate from a level zero airfield in a port hex - that is an undeveloped port airfield wise. This designation has other effects - probably - in search, ASW, air combat, etc - and you probably don't want to classify land bombers this way. RHS did this early on - and we were forced to change back. There is no way to get such an aircraft to be amphibious (code issue). FYI in RHS a wierd Soviet plane - historically a bomber - used as a transport and as a patrol plane - is classified as "patrol" - to permit it to do either type of mission. But it cannot be TRANSFERRED to an inland airfield - which is quite wrong - but the way the cookie crumbles. But look at the 23rd Independent TBAE - a Soviet transport formation at Irkutsk: in spite of the patrol classification it can OPERATE - hence it might be said to be "amphibious." [Note an ANT-3 is assigned patrol for mission reasons and should not be used as a flying boat - which it most certainly is not]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/29/2007 12:02:33 AM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 83
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/29/2007 1:36:08 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Again, thank you for the heads up on "patrol" being for seaplanes.
I had not noticed this as the planes were all based on coastal locations anyway.(The icon of the catalina should have been a dead giveaway!)
Made them all bombers again and all works again, (I included the Anson as a bomber to allow attacks on subs- it was maritime coastal patrol for Australia, never a "recon" plane..
Too bad any p[lane that can transport "supplies" cannot do so for "people"..

As for tweaking the fighters, gee, so many of the later American planes have a super high rating they never enjoyed in real life..While the turning attributes of the Zero declined with the need for speed, a Hellcat or Mustang NEVER could turn with an old A6M2, yet in game, they have that high "over 30" maneuverability rating.
The thought of that huge P 47 out-turning nearly everything in the air is simply ludicrous.

Thank God for the editor, and for the modders who have taken flak for daring to show altering can be a good thing..

I will either publish my changes here in the forum, or consider e-mailing them to anyone interested, this will not be a published mod, just an alteration from somebody who has studied the nuts and guts of these warbirds for over 50 years, (starting with Aurora, Monogram, Hawk, Revell, Pyro, Strombecker,Airfix,Frog,Palmer,etc.)

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 84
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/29/2007 2:52:08 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I refer you to three or four threads in which we (after several failures) managed to define aircraft maneuverability formally. The final formula is also in the RHS Manual.

The basic problem is that we get only a single value for "maneuverability" - also that it matters a great deal - more than you might guess - in the air combat code (according to a Matrix programmer). Ideally we should separate horizontal and vertical maneuverability - and rate both at different altitude regimes (low, medium and high?).

The solution when we must combine them is to give a plane credit for various abilities - but then a plane with a good ROC has a high value just like a plane with good abilities to turn and roll does. They are not the SAME - but they have a similar value. Some people find this confusing because ROC is a separate field - but then so also is speed - and speed is the primary factor in maneuverability. Not to rate speed, ROC, roll rate, turn rate (etc) is unfair and incorrect in this system. HOW to rate them fairly is a big problem - an almost endless debate - and we worked hard to get this right. Note in particular the impact of multiple engines NOT on the centerline.

Ultimately the Forum - at great agony and effort - was able to suggest mechanisms which finally were tweeked by Mifune in such a way that we get what appear to be relatively fine values. We also partly were able to put in altitude as a factor in a different way: we invented a "operational cieling" derived from "service ceiling" definition/rating. This altitude is halfway between optimum maneuvering altitude and service ceiling - and I was able to build a model of many planes to show that this is very close to a fixed percentage based on plane power plant type (that is, regular piston engines, turbosupercharged piston engines, rockets and jets) - so we could apply that % even if we only had service ceiling data and be very very close (withing 1%). This means that planes cannot fly in combat with a high maneuver rating at an altitude where they behave like dogs. And we adjusted AAA ceilings to effective (vice maximum) to permit planes to overfly AAA even without going to true absolute ceilings (if they could).

In the end, turning is not as useful as speed and ROC - and indeed a Japanese plane shows this - look at the Ki-44 Tojo - DESIGNED from original specs for speed and ROC and not in the Oscar/Zero class for turning. The system works well for both sides - not just one side - and for both kinds of maneuverability. Someday Matrix is going to give us more vairables, and we will then be able to do a better job of modeling this.




< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/29/2007 3:01:00 AM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 85
Amphibous Flying Boats (Transport) - 5/29/2007 4:23:48 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		In a sense you CAN have an amphib flying boat - and it is the standard in stock and CHS. Mavis transport flying boats are rated as transports - and fly from any inland or coastal airfield - but they will not fly from an undeveloped coastal airfield like a patrol flying boat can. Still - it is an option. RHS went the other way - and is unique as far as I know in the WITP club (except for RHS derived scenarios like Empire's Ablaze) - and made transport flying boats "patrol" - since

a) these can still act as full transports

b) they can patrol - which transport flying boats can and did do on both sides

c) they do NOT operate from inland - which transport flying boats (sans amphib) could not do

We added this type to the Allies in the form of the Empire Flying Boat - and also a variant of the Emily for Japan

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 86
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/29/2007 4:25:42 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)


In RHS there is a ROC civil air unit with 6 machines at Hong Kong (and ground support which won't move from there).
We use a combined light plane for it: C-32 / C-36 / C-39 / C-40 and BT-32. The unit is called China Air because - that is what it was called.


This is the RHS unit I use for the C 45, which I placed in Chungking to represent the civilian types which were there..It is a fact the Chinese had C 45's, so, I call them this. Your idea to name some of the units, to represent several types was IMHO a good one.
It was no mean feat to check load capacity,range,etc, and just make allowance with just how many planes I gave the unit to avoid "cheating"(even solo).



But you have lost history here: six China air BT-32s (I think) were lost at Hong Kong. They really should start there.
I have no data on planes at Chunking - what did you find?

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 87
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/29/2007 4:28:51 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.



Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.


NO!..The Oscar does not need a "Zero bonus", it just needed to have the maneuverability tweaked to the extreme good, which few on the forum seemed to understand or accept.
While a "bonus" is a good temporary fix, it wears out after a few months, but the inherent ability for this under-armed but nimble dogfighter to present itself as a hard target was IMHO never addressed.


REPLY: It WAS addressed. And this "nimble" fighter was NOT unique. The Ki-27 was in fact even more maneuverable - as was the Ki-10 before it. The Ki-43 represents the popularity of this feature with JAAF pilots - who demanded it - and rejected fine (perhaps better) planes because they were not so good in terms of extreme maneuverability. The problem is that you are not understanding that there is more than one kind of maneuverabilty - and we cannot be fair to the planes of both sides that have other sorts of maneuverability advantages.





(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 88
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/29/2007 4:32:11 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.



Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.


NO!..The Oscar does not need a "Zero bonus", it just needed to have the maneuverability tweaked to the extreme good, which few on the forum seemed to understand or accept.
While a "bonus" is a good temporary fix, it wears out after a few months, but the inherent ability for this under-armed but nimble dogfighter to present itself as a hard target was IMHO never addressed.


REPLY: It WAS addressed. And this "nimble" fighter was NOT unique. The Ki-27 was in fact even more maneuverable - as was the Ki-10 before it. The Ki-43 represents the popularity of this feature with JAAF pilots - who demanded it - and rejected fine (perhaps better) planes because they were not so good in terms of extreme maneuverability. The problem is that you are not understanding that there is more than one kind of maneuverabilty - and we cannot be fair to the planes of both sides that have other sorts of maneuverability advantages IF we ONLY consider turning (etc) in the factor.

Consider, if you will, that a bi-plane has more wing area - and more horizontal maneuverability in consequence - than a monoplane does. Some of these are in the game. But speed alone can outweigh this feature if the difference is great enough. It is classic: in a different form I ran into it in Viet Nam (when MiG-17s could out turn everything we had so radically we could not engage effectively in many flight regimes - and we went five months in a row with a score of Zero vs all enemy types - while losing planes to them ourselves). It CAN be hard to catch a maneuverable target. But untimately speed gives you a great advantage. In our system - we came up with a combined rating that works because virtually no planes have enough maneuverability in any sense to compete early on - only later do they arrive.

Consider further that the Oscar DID have a TEMPORARY advantage during the period of the Zero bonus - it SHOULD sunset as it does in the code. The "turning in maneuver" was effective even against a plane of greater performance -
and it was deadly until we learned to cope with it. That advantage did not last - and an Oscar late in the war (particularly an Oscar I) was not in a good situation at all.

I myself am a fan of the Oscar ("Almost as great a technical surprise as the Zero" - Francillon) and put the Oscar II in the set (in spite of cries of wasting slots) to show how it developed into a fine fighter-bomber. But just as I resisted over reacting to the P-38 with special ratings for a long time (until we finally came up with a way to measuring ratings that worked for all types and showed the relative P-38 advantage) I resist changing the Oscar from that base formula. I think there is something sound about defining standards and then honoring them. This system is working well - many say better than what came before RHS - and I am loth to mess with it.








< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/29/2007 6:26:31 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 89
RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread - 5/29/2007 4:54:21 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Well the engines is a completely wrong rule in RHS mvr model and that can be perfectly seen in WITM: Italian bombers that have 3 engines just because they have less power
are artificilaly downgraded by that rule. Specially SM-79 was more maneuvrable than the He-111.

Speed is already rated in independently. The RHS mvr makes the game rate it twice.  The main items of mvr for a simple system is Weight/Power relation , Wing Loading and  lesser weight Drag(can more or less be calculated by Max Speed Vs Power).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS Allied Aircraft Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078