The Long Reach of the Vindicator

[wdolson]

I was doing some research on the Vindicator and came across this information: http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/sb2u-3.html

The SB2U-3 had a combat radius of 560 miles with a 1000 lb bomb. I haven't checked RHS, but in CHS, its range is way too short.

Bill

[m10bob]

Yep.. A lot of us have found fault with the ranges of planes in WITP.
One reason (IMHO) is that if a range if a plane is 600 miles and each hex is 60 miles, you might think that should equate to 10 hexes,(10x60=600), but the moddders insist on sticking to an alleged "calcualtion " used by the original designers.
Remember the problems this caused trying to get certain modders to get the A6m2 from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, which it did on a regular basis.
The A6m2 was referred to as the "long-range" model in Richard B Franks' book GUADALCANAL.

BTW, while some have accused the Americans of foisting the Vultee on the Aussies, the Australians actually like the plane and did great things with it, (much as the Finns did with the Brewster fighter).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yep.. A lot of us have found fault with the ranges of planes in WITP.
One reason (IMHO) is that if a range if a plane is 600 miles and each hex is 60 miles, you might think that should equate to 10 hexes,(10x60=600), but the moddders insist on sticking to an alleged "calcualtion " used by the original designers.

Well, if you are discussing a single aircraft (no time lost in forming up a strike) with perfect navigation (no time lost getting blown off course) and perfect speed control (no headwinds or having to adjust from your best cruise speed to maintain formation) plus a perfectly cooperating target (no time lost finding it, or fighting through it's defenses), then 600 miles might be acceptable. However, in the REAL WORLD, "maximum range" virtually never translates into "maximum effective range".

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Yep.. A lot of us have found fault with the ranges of planes in WITP.
One reason (IMHO) is that if a range if a plane is 600 miles and each hex is 60 miles, you might think that should equate to 10 hexes,(10x60=600), but the moddders insist on sticking to an alleged "calcualtion " used by the original designers.

Well, if you are discussing a single aircraft (no time lost in forming up a strike) with perfect navigation (no time lost getting blown off course) and perfect speed control (no headwinds or having to adjust from your best cruise speed to maintain formation) plus a perfectly cooperating target (no time lost finding it, or fighting through it's defenses), then 600 miles might be acceptable. However, in the REAL WORLD, "maximum range" virtually never translates into "maximum effective range".

C'mon, MIke, I have flown too. I am referring to planes like the B 26 that has been given a range maybe 2/3's of real life,(or worse). This is NOT about a hex or 2, and I am referring to a LOT of planes.

[TulliusDetritus]

Wdolson, months ago this issue was raised (I am talking about RHS development). El Cid Again asked: "should the planes have their correct, historical operational range or not?" Almost everyone (if not the 100% of the contributors) agreed: "yes, we want the correct range". Which was a good decision, I think. So in theory we have that "correct" [operational] range.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Yep.. A lot of us have found fault with the ranges of planes in WITP.
One reason (IMHO) is that if a range if a plane is 600 miles and each hex is 60 miles, you might think that should equate to 10 hexes,(10x60=600), but the moddders insist on sticking to an alleged "calcualtion " used by the original designers.

Well, if you are discussing a single aircraft (no time lost in forming up a strike) with perfect navigation (no time lost getting blown off course) and perfect speed control (no headwinds or having to adjust from your best cruise speed to maintain formation) plus a perfectly cooperating target (no time lost finding it, or fighting through it's defenses), then 600 miles might be acceptable. However, in the REAL WORLD, "maximum range" virtually never translates into "maximum effective range".

C'mon, MIke, I have flown too. I am referring to planes like the B 26 that has been given a range maybe 2/3's of real life,(or worse). This is NOT about a hex or 2, and I am referring to a LOT of planes.

I didn't say they were all correct. I said that some shortening of the "textbook maximum range" was needed to reproduce the "real-world practical range". One thing I always notice is that you hardly ever see a range reduction based on the number of A/C assigned to a mission in any game..., but it takes time (which costs range) to put together a large strike. Always thought it might be the answer to the 4-engined bomber problem in the game---if assembling a 100 bomber strike cost 150 miles of range it might not be so popular...

[m10bob]

I certainly agree with this logic Mike, and maybe it could be reflected with a penalization against the 4 engine planes, or may be a slight penalization dependent on number of engines alone, but a near uniform miscalculation is not a fair answer.
The recon planes should of course be considered to be flying some kind of a grid, not one plane per 60 mile hex, anyway.
(But then again, IIRC we never have been told if a sea hex is 60 statute or 60 nautical miles.)??
You have hit on a good point, (ref the massing of formations by size), counting both ground and air time, but since not all planes should be "penalized, too bad it cannnot be "read" by the program dependent on airfield size, (as opposed to ALL planes getting the short-shrift.)

[el cid again]

The game system inherently factors in what Mike wants: by giving us 33% of transfer range = extended range, and 25% as normal range, it is even very reasonable - for fighter plane operations (where, in addition to factors Mike listed, there is the necessity of combat maneuver time and patrol time and high speed intercept time).

RHS modified that system for bombers: we increased the transfer range 9% so that the new 33% is actually about 42% of the original transfer range. "Bombers" here means "non-fighters and non transports". That also increased operational normal range to about 32%. These are closer to operational range limits for non-fighter aircraft. Since ferry tanks and even on board fuel drums can be used to extend transfer range, even the added transfer range is not impossible - just not normal.

RHS also modified transport (note this is non flying boat transport because RHS classifies flying boat transports as patrol)
so that ranges were reduced by 8%. That because code lets you move cargo 50% - and we wanted 42% - of transfer range. [Worse, that is full cargo, in the sense the most it will ever let you move.] This is less satisfactory a compromise - transfer range is now too short - and there is nothing we can do about it. But at least we don't get to drop paras at vastly too much range any more.

I would prefer a third range - maximum load range - and I would prefer hard code doing the calculations differently for non-fighters and fighters and transports. But that is for Matrix to fix - if and when.

Vindicator should be right - if we have not used bad data - it should have the correct operational range to the nearest hex (rounding down) - and "too much" transfer range by 9% (to the nearest hex, again rounding down).

I believe in fuel reserves, and I proposed shortening all ranges by 5-10% - but only a few went for that - so we didn't do it. But Mike's points are all very well taken - and I would still like to see fuel reserves factored in - universally. [Meaning here we want not only relatively correct ranges for different types, but all types only get shortened, including fighters]. Mike is thinking of the simple system we use: if hard code could be written we could come at his issue another way: give players a "cohesive/non-cohesive" option for air group missions (see Carriers at War). That way you could launch a squadron all alone - and not wait for a group or wing to form up - and get full range - but if you want a lot of planes over target together - you lose another 10% of range.

[el cid again]

In RHS SB2U range = 24 hexes (transfer) - which gives an extended range = 8 and a normal range = 6.

In CHS as I inherited it SB2U range = 14 hexes (transfer) - which gives an extended rand = 4 and a normal range = 3.

Looks like we doubled the operational ranges when we modified the CHS plane set.

[herwin]

Combat radius is about 40% of the maximum distance the plane can fly with the same load.

[el cid again]

Correct. It varies with a number of factors, but I use 42%. So in RHS we lie to the code, increase the transfer range, and when it does its multiply by 33% thing - we end up with 42% of what would have been the original transfer range.