Naval Aviation - Cross Post from NWS

[cwemyss]

I hope no one minds me cross-posting on here as well as NWS. Same set of devs seeing the input, but somewhat different population (I think?) for discussion. And I'd definitely welcome discussion! I have probably 1000+ hours across all three versions of RTW, and there's a million things about the game I love, so please take it in the spirit of constructive criticism that it's intended.

Original post(s) copied below:

*************************
RTW gets a bit clunky when it comes to aviation, particularly once your air establishment gets large, aircraft ranges increase, and the shriek of turbines replaces the growl of pistons. In the same vein as my "Guns!" post a few months ago, I have a couple suggestions for improvement in the air warfare arena. I'm going to separate this into a few separate posts because it got REALLY long.

The sections:
- What I consider QoL improvements to existing features, that wouldn't fundamentally change the way things work now.
- Reworks to existing features that would make a big difference in the realism of air warfare, particularly post-1940.
- Wish list stuff... fun things that exist in the real world, but don't in RTW

One caveat: I'm barely into the jet age, these are all issues I've seen with air warfare into the late 1940s.

[cwemyss]

QoL:

- Strip Aviation facilities out of the Coastal Fortifications tab, scrap the Air Groups window, and replace them with one integrated Aviation tab that covers both. Sortable (and filterable) by Zone/Territory/Base/Unit/Type.

- Make it possible to select and move air units directly from the strategic map. Flipping between the map ("Was it Takao or Tanga?") and your air groups window is tedious.

- Add a strategic map display option with aircraft range from your bases... same range rings as the Tactical map (or at least Patrol coverage) on the big map.

- Airstrike planning - graphics on the tactical map, strike labels, etc, to make it easier to coordinate a multi-carrier strike or a manual "hunter-killer" search. This is one of those "things I do on a spreadsheet" features.

- In the Tactical map add an on/off toggle for "all bases/groups search sectors" to allow better search planning.

[cwemyss]

Rework of Existing functions

- Make all air bases within range of the longest-ranged type on either side present in a battle, regardless of sea zone (ie, Singapore-based MBs or patrollers in an Indian Ocean battle). Conversely, omit air bases that aren't within range (I'm not using Pensacola in a far-eastern Caribbean battle 2000 miles away).

- Give us the ability to add carrier training to an existing non-carrier unit, with appropriate setback in unit quality... but without disbanding and starting a new squadron from zero.

- Base total national aircraft production on the number of aircraft currently in service. Maybe some basic minimum plus a factor from a rolling 6- or 12-month average, possibly with separate averages used for Prop and Jet aircraft. When you drastically cut strength post-war, you're decimating an industry, and it should take time to reestablish.

- Aerial raiding and counter surface-raiding, particularly with a strong MB presence in congested seas. Could be treated a lot like submarines, and gives a reason for the existence of Land-based Air (LBA) beyond ASW and occasional help in battles.

- Better coordinated and more responsive LBA during battles... we should be fighting off multi-regiment Beagle and Mitchell raids. Though I'm only in 1947, maybe this is coming.

[cwemyss]

More reworked features

- Time to move and reconstitute unit at new base, or at least a quality drop when you redeploy. Right now you can order a squadron from Boston to Fiji in 1930, and 30 days later have a fully capable unit on station in a completely new location. Even if the planes can get there in a month, it takes time to get fuel, supplies, spare parts, and maintainers to the new base. In 2024 there's vanishingly few air arms that could pull off that feat in a month and be fully effective, doing it in the 30s/40s is unrealistic.

- There should also be added cost for stationing air units outside home areas (or reduced cost in home area). Right now the units based in Fiji and in Boston carry the same maintenance cost.

- Make it possible to license-produce aircraft from a country with suitably good relations (though I've only played this deep into the game as the US, maybe this is already there) or to develop a derivative. AV-8B growing out of Harrier, French Bearcats and F-8s, British Phantoms, etc.

[cwemyss]

This one's important enough to me for a separate post:

- Please increase the ability to generate new models, maybe by paying for additional design studies beyond the first, or greatly increase the frequency of private offerings. By the 1950s we have a 9-month development cycle on at least 6 different relevant types (LJF, HJF, JA, MPA, MB, and Helo). Without an increase, that's a new model of each every 4.5 years, plus whatever private offerings you get. In that timeframe every air arm had multiple development efforts going simultaneously, and anything an engineer could put on paper was getting built by someone. The 1940-70 period was the equivalent for aircraft of the 1890-1920 era for ships. So much technological change in an incredibly short time. It's worth making this part deeper.

[cwemyss]

And completely new features

- Internecine conflict and power grabs. We already have *some* of this with the Army in wartime, but nothing with the Air Force (Air Corps). The RN lost control of aviation from 1918-39, the Italian AF neutered Italian Naval Aviation from 1937-1989, the USN and USAAC fought over funding, then were forced to try to cooperate, and I'm certain there's plenty of other examples. I'm not sure what form this should take, but it was a very real feature of the first 75 years of aviation.

- The ability to designate "training bases" for a particular role, once you have a certain quantity of that role in service. For some added maintenance cost, Active units of that role at that location have faster quality increase to Good. Full effect takes 18-24 months to manifest. Think of it as a dedicated cadre of experienced instructors stationed there passing on corporate knowledge for that particular role.

- Ability to build air bases in allied countries, possibly for reduced standup/maintenance cost; fully controlled by the building nation until alliance terminated, then revert to host nation control. This would have relationship/tension implications, both with the host and between the host and other nations

- Heavy Bombers... make those coordinated LBA raids Backfire and B-52 regiments. Level bombing by heavies in the pre-WW2 timeframe was mostly just a distraction, but with the advent of antiship missiles.... by the 60s/70s it coulda been nasty.

- Add "Spot Factor" to aircraft, and make that the definition of carrier capacity. Even with aircraft serving in the same era, Avengers and Swordfish were a heck of a lot bigger than Wildcats and Zeroes. This will drive decisions in carrier airgroup makeup and user/AI doctrine (CVLs could run with 12 F and 12 DB, or with 12 F and 7 TB, for instance), and it will make for a more natural progression (reduction) in airgroup sizes as new aircraft are introduced.

[cwemyss]

I'd pay money for a lot of these features... My daughter asked a couple weeks ago whether I like planes or ships better. No question, planes. "Why do you play the ship game so much?." Because there isn't a RTW for aircraft.

Thoughts?