Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut
To address stratosphere cap:

If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude.

Every aircraft has a "best range" airspeed and "best range" altitude.  We can pretty much discount consideration for the the "best airspeed for range" in the combat die rolls, because as soon as you sight the enemy those throttles get adjusted. 

We have altitude based maneauver bands - perhaps having altitude based range bands would be a thought.... because an aircraft that flies to max altitude is going to take "forever" to get to altitude, and max flight altitude is not your 'max range' altitude.  Also, 100ft is not going maximum range altitude either. 

So, like we have different maneauver ratings at altitudes for each aircraft... having different ranges for each altitude band might address the "Stratosphere Altitudes for Fighters". 

If you want to fly all your aircraft on a sweep of Rangoon at 38k feet.... grats, you have enough fuel to barely get there, make one pass at the enemy, then fly home.  If you flew at 15k feet, you have fuel to get there, fight for 10-15 mins, then go home.



For CAP - then I'd suggest that the higher the altitude setting, the "less planes" are available on CAP (cuz to get to 38k feet, you might be flying for an hour burning up all your fuel, and only have 10 minutes of patrol-time, before you have to come down and land.)

All these numbers and ranges I've spoken of are hypothetical - I dunno how long it'll take for a P40 to reach max altitude, and how long it can patrol at that alt.  Etc. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


That happens quite often..and is also quite historical. Problems that Zero had against B-17 were basically 2-fold. First was inadequate firepower, since even when Zero had 20mm cannons, round velocity, ammunition and effective firing distance were quite limited. This augments the second shortcoming, which was that the Zero was horribly vulnerable to B-17 defensive armament.

Often overlooked..., and very valid. In general, you had to really chew up a B-17 to have a chance to bring it down..., but a lightly built flying gas can such as most Japanese Fighters basically were was an explosion and fire just waiting to happen. That huge range and maneuverability came with a pricetag.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

another force at play here is relative force allocation. A CAP will not expend it's entire strength against a smaller force. It may. It may not. There is a line of code in there that will keep an entire Escort of 45 fighters from trying to engage one lone interceptor.

The idea that 47 Zeros would all engage 3 B-17s simultaneously is ludicrous.

Thanks for your reply, these are really useful infos.
So the 47 Zeros in CAP are not all engaged in combat.
Could you also confirm that if CAP outnumbers the escorts part of the CAP could be reserved for bombers only?
Thanks in advance!

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I love the AE CAP.

To address stratosphere cap:

If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude.

Every aircraft has a "best range" airspeed and "best range" altitude.  We can pretty much discount consideration for the the "best airspeed for range" in the combat die rolls, because as soon as you sight the enemy those throttles get adjusted. 

We have altitude based maneauver bands - perhaps having altitude based range bands would be a thought.... because an aircraft that flies to max altitude is going to take "forever" to get to altitude, and max flight altitude is not your 'max range' altitude.  Also, 100ft is not going maximum range altitude either. 

So, like we have different maneauver ratings at altitudes for each aircraft... having different ranges for each altitude band might address the "Stratosphere Altitudes for Fighters". 

If you want to fly all your aircraft on a sweep of Rangoon at 38k feet.... grats, you have enough fuel to barely get there, make one pass at the enemy, then fly home.  If you flew at 15k feet, you have fuel to get there, fight for 10-15 mins, then go home.



For CAP - then I'd suggest that the higher the altitude setting, the "less planes" are available on CAP (cuz to get to 38k feet, you might be flying for an hour burning up all your fuel, and only have 10 minutes of patrol-time, before you have to come down and land.)

All these numbers and ranges I've spoken of are hypothetical - I dunno how long it'll take for a P40 to reach max altitude, and how long it can patrol at that alt.  Etc. 

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I love the AE CAP.

To address stratosphere cap:

If I were to change anything about the game wrt to aircraft, it would be to make the "normal and extended range" based upon the aircraft altitude.

Every aircraft has a "best range" airspeed and "best range" altitude.  We can pretty much discount consideration for the the "best airspeed for range" in the combat die rolls, because as soon as you sight the enemy those throttles get adjusted. 

We have altitude based maneauver bands - perhaps having altitude based range bands would be a thought.... because an aircraft that flies to max altitude is going to take "forever" to get to altitude, and max flight altitude is not your 'max range' altitude.  Also, 100ft is not going maximum range altitude either. 

So, like we have different maneauver ratings at altitudes for each aircraft... having different ranges for each altitude band might address the "Stratosphere Altitudes for Fighters". 

If you want to fly all your aircraft on a sweep of Rangoon at 38k feet.... grats, you have enough fuel to barely get there, make one pass at the enemy, then fly home.  If you flew at 15k feet, you have fuel to get there, fight for 10-15 mins, then go home.



For CAP - then I'd suggest that the higher the altitude setting, the "less planes" are available on CAP (cuz to get to 38k feet, you might be flying for an hour burning up all your fuel, and only have 10 minutes of patrol-time, before you have to come down and land.)

All these numbers and ranges I've spoken of are hypothetical - I dunno how long it'll take for a P40 to reach max altitude, and how long it can patrol at that alt.  Etc. 

I considered this originally. But at some point you have to draw a line between tactical wargame and operational, and there is little doubt we lean heavily toward the tactical side, often to the chagrin of those who prefer the "simpler" Operational aspects of WitP as it was originally envisioned.

It has also been discussed as a possible fix for the Strato-sweep, but Fixes for code tweaks are turned off right now, and I am not actually 100% convinced that anything is really wrong. But I have not played in some time. It would be a whole other thing to figure out how to display to the players...essentially the UI would be affected and more room would be needed to display the range figures either graphically or in text on the AC Unit display. Overall more complication in an area that is already more complicated than the Non-Airminded want it.

quote:

I wouldn´t even include 100ft because then the discussion starts if the planes don´t use higher altitude on cruise anyway...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK


Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Beaufighter IC bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 lb SAP Bomb