Turnaround Times

[Krasny]

I just noticed that my turnaround times for Paveway 2 equipped Typhoons was 5+ hours, yet their AAW brethren had a much lower turnaround time.

Any idea why this is?

Thanks.

[Dimitris]

Because the ready time also includes the whole process of preparing for the strike, which is an elaborate and time-consuming endeavor. This way you get a realistic number of sorties per day depending on mission & loadout type.

[jpkoester1]

Because ground strikes typically take a lot longer to plan and prepare for than air to air missions. As far as I recall ready times are based on real world sortie rates typically achieved in past conflicts.

Regards,
JP

[Primarchx]

Without reasonable turn-around times for aircraft you find they quickly dominate the game even more than they do now. Command doesn't model the ATOs that are typically created on a daily basis for military air contingents, but only a few air forces can generate, let alone sustain, more than 2-3 strike sorties a day. This number goes down for carriers, too.

[incredibletwo]

Hi all!!

My first post in the forum of what looks to be THE BEST naval warfare sim to date. This is the platform I've been waiting for!
I'm a former Harpooner (haven't played for over 2 yeears though), but am going to switch over to Command due to the in-fighting and general discontent within the aforementioned "community".

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. If I may be so bold, would be it be possible to include a player-adjustable setting whereby aircraft ready/turnaround times could be set at a fixed time for all aircraft, e.g. minimum 30 mins, 45 mins, 1 hr, etc? It could maybe be a slider, check boxes, radial buttons or whatnot, with the maximum setting at full-realism. I understand it's "gamey" and certainly detracts from the realism, however it would be up to the individual to use it or not. Maintenance times or random unavailability of aircraft should remain unaffected. Also, I think it should be available in "Game Settings" (or whichever term Command uses. I haven't purchased as yet [8D] so not sure of the terminology) rather than only from the scenario editor, say.

I saw on another thread that aircraft logistics can be disabled to allow for "unlimited" ammo reloads, which is awesome, fun and the other feature I was hoping for.

The reason for my brash request is that I'm going to write a gargantuan scenario (think the ENTIRE WestPac, and which I started to write for Harpoon ANW) and having such a feature would kind of "speed things up". Also, I just love defending against saturation missile attacks, and trying to intercept the aircraft on ingress/egress.

So, pretty please (with sugar on top) consider my humble request?

[Dimitris]

Hello and welcome,

This is a very interesting suggestion. Please give us some time to consider how we could integrate it on our existing airops model without negatively affecting existing stuff. Thanks!

[incredibletwo]

Thanks! It's great to be here.

Awesome! I look forward to the outcome [:)]

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
This is a very interesting suggestion. Please give us some time to consider how we could integrate it on our existing airops model without negatively affecting existing stuff. Thanks!

Not to make things more complicated [;)], but this would be an interesting option for the scenario editor. On a plane by plane basis or even class by class it would probably be too complex, but maybe you could make it for a whole side (or both) to have a modifier for turn around times, maybe as a percent or just a multiplier. Click a button and you are presented with a field where entering "1" would leave things as they were, fractions less than one would be faster, numbers larger than one would be slower, etc. This way the scenario designer could tweak a scenario so rearming aircraft could be much faster (like the Israelis during the Six Day War, when they did hot re-arming) or much slower, to represent a third world country that has top notch aircraft donated to it, but little experience with re-arming.

[Russian Heel]

<Not a request, don't worry[:)]> It would be cool to increase the enemy's turn around time by hitting barracks, hangars, the the flightline, downtown payday loan joints, etc. and therefore killing/wounding the maintainers or at least put some guys on FOD duty on the flightline.

[Maromak]

...or the BOQ!

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Temple
This way the scenario designer could tweak a scenario so rearming aircraft could be much faster (like the Israelis during the Six Day War, when they did hot re-arming) or much slower, to represent a third world country that has top notch aircraft donated to it, but little experience with re-arming.

As stated by the devs the turn around time is not just the re-arming. I believe that part can be done quickly. It's all in the planning and I believe each strike is unique because it takes in to consideration analysis of recon reports, BDA of previous strike, threat assessment, etc. Also there is the aircraft maintenance aspect as well. Unlike AAW where you just really take off and look for things to shoot down. In the 6-days war, due to desperation, there isn't much pre-planning to be done with subsequent strike missions. Therefore the strike missions became like AAW where you just go out there and hit what you can.

Also, Command has yet to include any form of National Skill Modifier. It only simulates what the specific platforms are capable of doing and not the specific operators. I'm not too bothered with the lack of this feature as it makes for more exciting games. But I guess there are people out there who would like to routinely underestimate the military capabilities of 3rd World countries.

As linked in another thread, this article simulated a clash between China and US without any national skill modifiers. It's just a battle between strategies and technologies. Which I think is the main purpose of this simulation. And many lessons can be learned. If the designer put his bias against the Chinese and saying they have a sloppy armed forces, the results would be different. Poorly armed US will be able to withstand the Chinese navy because they are naturally better and don't need to bring the more powerful ships into the Pacific.

I am not completely against it as there is some merit for the modifiers. Putting in a skill modifier from "pilots skill" to "re-arm time" to "weapons systems reliability" would make it possible to simulate some historical engagements better (based on the designer's biases).

[Stevechase]

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Temple
This way the scenario designer could tweak a scenario so rearming aircraft could be much faster (like the Israelis during the Six Day War, when they did hot re-arming) or much slower, to represent a third world country that has top notch aircraft donated to it, but little experience with re-arming.

As stated by the devs the turn around time is not just the re-arming. I believe that part can be done quickly. It's all in the planning and I believe each strike is unique because it takes in to consideration analysis of recon reports, BDA of previous strike, threat assessment, etc. Also there is the aircraft maintenance aspect as well. Unlike AAW where you just really take off and look for things to shoot down. In the 6-days war, due to desperation, there isn't much pre-planning to be done with subsequent strike missions. Therefore the strike missions became like AAW where you just go out there and hit what you can.

Also, Command has yet to include any form of National Skill Modifier. It only simulates what the specific platforms are capable of doing and not the specific operators. I'm not too bothered with the lack of this feature as it makes for more exciting games. But I guess there are people out there who would like to routinely underestimate the military capabilities of 3rd World countries.

As linked in another thread, this article simulated a clash between China and US without any national skill modifiers. It's just a battle between strategies and technologies. Which I think is the main purpose of this simulation. And many lessons can be learned. If the designer put his bias against the Chinese and saying they have a sloppy armed forces, the results would be different. Poorly armed US will be able to withstand the Chinese navy because they are naturally better and don't need to bring the more powerful ships into the Pacific.

I am not completely against it as there is some merit for the modifiers. Putting in a skill modifier from "pilots skill" to "re-arm time" to "weapons systems reliability" would make it possible to simulate some historical engagements better (based on the designer's biases).

Good argument. I agree 100%. I think the devs did a really great job modelling all the aspects involved in mission prep and think they are accurate to real world. And I like the National Skills Modifier idea. At the same time if others want to play at a more "gamey" level (and I may wish to do so myself) why not have as realism option. Only thing I would say you would want all scenarios made based on player using most realistic settings.

[incredibletwo]

Only thing I would say you would want all scenarios made based on player using most realistic settings.

Yeah, for sure. Then, if the player so chooses, they can set their desired level of realism in the Game Options menu (or whatnot).

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: jomni

Also, Command has yet to include any form of National Skill Modifier. It only simulates what the specific platforms are capable of doing and not the specific operators. I'm not too bothered with the lack of this feature as it makes for more exciting games. But I guess there are people out there who would like to routinely underestimate the military capabilities of 3rd World countries.

Hmm just imagine the flamewars this would generate [8D]

[Tomcat84]

The truth hurts lol

[Wiz33]

A lot of modern weapons is made up of multiple components for reason of compact storage, safety or maintenance. In the case of a LGB, the seeker, fuse, fins and body are probably store separately and needs to be assembled before you have a functional weapon for launch. At they same time, someone would have to do the strike planning, figure out the ingress egress routes, arrange tanker support if necessary, brief the crew, etc so the 5 hours turnaround is not unrealistic.

On the other hand, unless the scenario dictates total surprise. Any commander would have thought about what he might need and should have the crew start strike planning and weapons prep before he enters the ops area. This should means that you should have a selection of ready aircraft with varies loadout at the start of the scenario.

Ideally, you might have some other ready weapons that can be used against target of opportunity. However, you do have to consider the space limitation on a ship so you probably can't have every weapon you might need fully assembled and ready to go, not to mention having all those "live" round sitting around is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

However. Things should be easier on an airfield on land. You'll probably have more secure storage for ready weapons and more personnel to ready aircraft so land based aircraft might have a faster turn around but I'll don't know if it's already setup that way in game.

[ComDev]

Yes the first wave is usually ready to go in Command scenarios [8D]