Anti-ship air missions

[macgregor]

These numbers: 240 for torpedo bombers, 120 for dive bombers, seem to be begging for an update. First torpedo bombing in WW2 was as close to a guaranteed suicide mission as they come. So maybe you could give them a high number but their survival would have to be doubtful. There should be some way of varying these numbers to account for all the different types of aircraft as well, no?

[Curtis Lemay]

These numbers: 240 for torpedo bombers, 120 for dive bombers, seem to be begging for an update. First torpedo bombing in WW2 was as close to a guaranteed suicide mission as they come. So maybe you could give them a high number but their survival would have to be doubtful. There should be some way of varying these numbers to account for all the different types of aircraft as well, no?

Mission survival is dependent upon the aircraft characteristics, not the torpedo characteristics (although the torpedo run itself could be an issue relative to other attack run types). Now, torpedo reliability was an issue early in the War (for the Americans). Probably will address those things down the road.

[Lobster]

Torpedo bombers did fairly well when attacking ships without air cover or by surprise. If there was air cover for the ships being attacked then yeah, torpedo bombers were shot to pieces and had little chance of delivering their torpedoes with accuracy although there was some success. Typically the plane was shot down anyway by the supporting fighters.

[macgregor]

I guess the thing about survive-ability is in the altitude flown, more than the aircraft type. It would be nice if the type of attack could be selected. Dive bombing,Torpedo bombing, high and low and level bombing, and have that affect defense and attack strengths.

[macgregor]

Ya know...a more simple fix for this would be to simply adjust the attack strength for aircraft based on their 'losses' setting. Torpedo bombing would be 'ignore losses' dive or low level bombing would be 'limit losses' and high altitude level bombing would be 'minimize losses'. The setting would have to affect the attack strength.

I have no idea how hard that would be to accomplish. But if you could do that, perhaps all units could have this. Maybe we stop calling them 'acceptable losses' and rename them to a tactic. Because the tactic used, kinda implies the acceptable losses anyway, no? If the losses setting can affect the unit strengths.

Perhaps minimize for ground units could be some sort of stealth, affecting movement allowance. Ignore losses could be called 'charge'. Naval units could have torpedo attacks as well, at 'ignore losses' because lining up for a torpedo attack is the most risky. Subs could be modeled using the acceptable losses as a depth: ignore is surfaced, limit is periscope, minimize is deep.

[rhinobones]

I guess the thing about survive-ability is in the altitude flown, more than the aircraft type. It would be nice if the type of attack could be selected. Dive bombing,Torpedo bombing, high and low and level bombing, and have that affect defense and attack strengths.

I think loss calculation is more complex than altitude. Aircraft losses are possibly calculated on the type of aircraft making the attack modified by the target’s hi/low AA capability, readiness, supply, proficiency, loss tolerance, orders emphasis, etc. As an example, my guess is that 20 level bombers attacking a cruiser would have an average loss different than 20 torpedo planes attacking the same target.

If you haven’t done so already, suggest you make a test scenario and see if the aircraft type makes a difference in aircraft losses. Please publish the results here.

Regards

[macgregor]

I guess the thing about survive-ability is in the altitude flown, more than the aircraft type. It would be nice if the type of attack could be selected. Dive bombing,Torpedo bombing, high and low and level bombing, and have that affect defense and attack strengths.

I think loss calculation is more complex than altitude. Aircraft losses are possibly calculated on the type of aircraft making the attack modified by the target’s hi/low AA capability, readiness, supply, proficiency, loss tolerance, orders emphasis, etc. As an example, my guess is that 20 level bombers attacking a cruiser would have an average loss different than 20 torpedo planes attacking the same target.

If you haven’t done so already, suggest you make a test scenario and see if the aircraft type makes a difference in aircraft losses. Please publish the results here.

Regards

I don't disagree with you at all. It's all by degree. Ideally you start with the different values of the plane type and have those values change, perhaps radically, by the type of attack. The attack type CAN be set by the current accepted losses mechanic for all types of units. Or so I would think. I mean, does loss acceptance only affect loss tolerance, or can it affect the other values of a unit? If so,I think that's a way of making a major improvement to the game.

[Edit] Something I'm only now considering. The thing about torpedoes, you can carry them or you can't. So instead of loss tolerance, most planes would only have high or low altitude options. Only torpedo bombers would have a third option.