I like the idea of being able to pull pilot from one sqouadron and assigning him to another (of the same type ,ofcourse fighter to fighter). Thatway we would be able to create elite sqouadrons in mos endangered areas. I don't like the idea of unit experience. Keep the individual pilot experience!
Just as long as you understand this should be coded NOT to work!
Real life ops caused the Allies to believe this was a bad idea - and the Axis did think this way - and you know what happened to them!
Turns out the model is correct - a unit performs approximately as the best pilot in the unit does - or as the unit leader does. Spreading experience around was the American secret. They sent good pilots back to TEACH what they knew - not get killed. Combat is not a survival activity - do it enough you will die.
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Just as long as you understand this should be coded NOT to work!
Real life ops caused the Allies to believe this was a bad idea - and the Axis did think this way - and you know what happened to them!
Turns out the model is correct - a unit performs approximately as the best pilot in the unit does - or as the unit leader does. Spreading experience around was the American secret. They sent good pilots back to TEACH what they knew - not get killed. Combat is not a survival activity - do it enough you will die.
The germans also sent back their experten to teach. I think you are exegarating the role of this 'secret'. The allied 'secret' was to produce way more planes (and other war material) than your enemy. Plain and simple. After 1943 no wonderweapon/wunderwaffe could have turned the tide, not even an axis A-bomb. After the germans have lost their edge in Russia ther was no way to beat the united industrial strength of the Allied nations.
Currently with the combat replays, summaries and text report, you know exactly how many aircraft are involved in an attack (eg LBA airfield raid). With FOW on, this info should not be so accurate, especially if the attack was at high altitude on a cloudy day with no CAP, or even at night. The information we are presented with should be linked directly to the intel available to us, not the complete picture given to us for free by the game's mechanics.
Could we have a 'detection level' set for each incoming raid, using factors such as radar, CAP level, visibility, recon of originating base, maybe even experince, to vary/randomize the reports. This should also be true for the attacker identification of defending CAP.
"Ground attack on BFF Bde by 50+ 2e bombers at 12000ft"
"Attack on PM airfield met by CAP of 30+ fighter, mostly Kittyhawks"
If playing with no FOW (or a low setting) then reports could remain as at present.
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Just as long as you understand this should be coded NOT to work!
Real life ops caused the Allies to believe this was a bad idea - and the Axis did think this way - and you know what happened to them!
Turns out the model is correct - a unit performs approximately as the best pilot in the unit does - or as the unit leader does. Spreading experience around was the American secret. They sent good pilots back to TEACH what they knew - not get killed. Combat is not a survival activity - do it enough you will die.
The germans also sent back their experten to teach. I think you are exegarating the role of this 'secret'. The allied 'secret' was to produce way more planes (and other war material) than your enemy. Plain and simple. After 1943 no wonderweapon/wunderwaffe could have turned the tide, not even an axis A-bomb. After the germans have lost their edge in Russia ther was no way to beat the united industrial strength of the Allied nations.
The secret was having enough AVGAS to allow the trainees enough time in the air before they hit the front line.
Plus the safe and wide open spaces of OZ, Canada, Southern Africa & the USA to learn in.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Like it or not the germans lost the war after Kursk, and not after Luftwaffe was broken in early 1944. I dont like the russians but they were the ones who beat the Wehrmacht (with significant british and american help which they loathe to admit).
It is no surprise that even knowing about the jap threat FDR agreed to 'Germany first'. No matter what you do in the air at the end you always have to send the infantry in. See Iraq.
Not sure this is the right thread, but why have missions limited by plane type. For example, a patrol bomber cannot fly a daylight Naval Attack mission but a Level Bomber can. Why? I can understand that you woudn't want to send a PBY out on a naval attack in daylight (slow, would eat a lot of flak, lower ceiling), but you cannot do it. Why shouldn't you be able to send a fighter out on a recon mission or naval search mission. I know it's not the best use of the fighter but why not? Have all missions choosable.
Not sure this is the right thread, but why have missions limited by plane type. For example, a patrol bomber cannot fly a daylight Naval Attack mission but a Level Bomber can. Why? I can understand that you woudn't want to send a PBY out on a naval attack in daylight (slow, would eat a lot of flak, lower ceiling), but you cannot do it. Why shouldn't you be able to send a fighter out on a recon mission or naval search mission. I know it's not the best use of the fighter but why not? Have all missions choosable.
Why shouldn't you be able to send a fighter out on a recon mission or naval search mission. I know it's not the best use of the fighter but why not? Have all missions choosable.
Fighters on supply missions should not increase supply level but rather morale. Typically fighter supply missions involved mail, booze, and small luxury items.
Yes, I would love to see a better interception model. The turn is already broken down into 2 12 hr phases, so why can't something like this be broken down? As for the plane to plane combat: I say leave it alone and add the dispersal effect of combat over a larger area.
Now this part may sound like too much and it may be in the current game already, but what about the different kinds of attacks? What I mean is if you take a Marine Corsair squadron and run it on bombing runs continously they would get better and better at it. The down side would be they loose their edge in the air combat role. Do this instead of the generic overall experience rating you currently have. You could still have the overall rating on the main squadron window, but have a more detailed window to open that would give more detailed stats (the pilot window comes to mind).
And please fix the night fighting option!! Suggestion: If you want a squadron to become a night fighter (VP-9 Black Cats comes to mind) then the player would have to have it on training for a certain period of time. Say 4 to 6 weeks in some rear area base. The squadron would then restart with a base proficiency of say 65 (you would also have to lower the night proficienty level for this to work as well). This would at least give the players a reason to use them. And they did play a bigger roll in the Pacific than in Europe. An easy fix for this may be to employ the same method as with ship conversons (AS, AR, AE).
SGT Swanson
U.S. Army, Infantry
B Co 4/502d Inf. Berlin BDE (87-90)
A Co 5/502d Inf. Berlin BDE (90-93)
B Co 2/502d Inf. 101st Airborne Div. (93-95)
Make the number of aircraft (or by engine count) able to take off in one raid based on base size. Yes that is how it is now but it should be much lower. The number of aircraft you should be able to park would be greater than the number which cabn take off at one time. Not real clear. As an example lets say you have 200 aircraft at a base but you are limited to a 50 plane strike. You can order all 200 to attack a target but this would result in 4 strikes of 50 planes each. Each strike would not be 50 but reduced by aome of the factors which reduce the number of flights now.
This would entail a more realistic CAP system but applying the same limitations would also limit the number of CAP in the air at any one time.
I think Number of engines would more appropriately modify a "maintainability" attribute for 4E bombers. If an undamaged aircraft fails a mainainability check it goes "Unservicable" and it does not fly during the next Air phase.
40% modifier for 4E
30% modifier for 3E
20% modifier for 2E
10% modifier for 1E
Something to chew on from the Allied Isues thread i started:
If you want to creat a plane vs plane model you nead to not imo use real world combat results to arive at a base line, you should use preformance stats and curves, exct. A-la flight sim's. The game already has variables for Fatigue,leadership and experance, and moral. If you again base the comparative preformance expications on a situation whear the Japanese were streached to the limit in all reasionable areas one might look to compare them, and then aply that to the whole, your going to creat in this instance a Pro Allied model, because the comparasion is Pro Allied.
...........
want to try and be as objective as posable, and to me to look to base my assement of the relative comparative values of the two planes in question hear, when one was clearly at it's worst do to operational constraints is not imo fair.
Another example is the AVG, clearly inferiour P-40B's of the AVG in game wreak havoc on Signafagantly beter Japanese types, in situations of Equil odd's and Numbers. This is in part because the AVG as been tweked to meat player expatations rather than designed based on the real world strengths of the planes as a base line.
As noted above the game has Variables for:
Experance
Fatigue
Morale
Endurance
If we pre tweak the planes taking into acount situations whear they operated when one side was at a distanct disavantage, already suffering from extreams of all or some of the variables noted above were double dealing.
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
