TechSgt
Posts: 306
Joined: 9/19/2008 From: Los Angeles Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge quote:
ORIGINAL: TechSgt HS; Last night while plotting & planning... Per the rules, an allied fighter can fly two missions per day. These can be a bombing or sweep as one, with the other mission as an escort; or two escorts. Three items: 1) Why not two missions of any types? Two bombing, two sweeps, etc. I think you are misreading/misdoing, I thought it was it couldn't lead two missions (I thought if the 79th and 80th FG flew a bombing missions, with the 79th in the lead, the 2nd mission couldn't have the 79th lead the 2nd mission, I'll double check) 2) Currently, you have to plot the bombing or sweep mission first, then go back and plot the escort. Not knowing the code, IMHO can't this be "smoothed" into plotting any mission regardless? 3) As a bonus question: Why can't fighter/bombers be plotted for two missions per day? depends on the size of the plane, lights and Meds flew double missions (sometimes more when importent and weather was good) in new game, lights and Meds can fly double missions Heavies took too long to set up and circle to form a misson (and that is the biggest thing we can't model that I wish we could) so there was massive planning the whole way, just to get a raid up into the air, besides the timeing, which unit formed the lead, the follow up, the timing to have the fighters join and where, where to break off, route to and route back, sub and 2ndary targets, really a Heavy raid was a massive thing BC, just too much stress on the crews to fly a 2nd mission so, fighters and Light/Meds can flew two missions, Heavy, BC can fly one TS 1) My mistake, I should have "read" lead! 2) This is the main question. Think of how we plot the two missions described above. a) Plot 79th to lead, b) Plot 80th to lead, add 79th as escort, c) Go back to 79th and add 80th as escort. Currently, if you add the 80th as an escort in step a), it will not display in Select Lead -- #80FG -- in step b). Can this be made "smooother"? 3) That was the answer I was hoping for... and IMHO for the "right" reasons. Thanks! TS
|