CHS Allied 4E Bomber Changes

[witpqs]

I read Mike Woods description of how bombloads work.

It then occured to me that many of The Allied heavy bombers had their 'maximum payload' (or whatever it's called) reduced in CHS as part of reducing their effectiveness. According to Mike Wood's post, the 'maximum payload' only affects the size of the airfield required. So, the heavies should be changed back to real 'maximum payload' to make their airfield requirements be correct again (for example B-29 = size 7, B-17 = size 5, etc.). Currently in CHS the big heavies can use smaller airfields than in stock game.

Please note I am referring to the value that is given in pounds ('8,000', '18,000', whatever), not the value that specifies what bombs are normally carried.

[el cid again]

I was asked to review Allied heavy bomber ranges by Joe. This turned out to also involve understanding cruising speed and payload - as range is a function of both.
Allied heavy bonbers were usually rated to carry 4,000 pounds of bombs to normal range - but actual normal bomb loads should be 5,000 pounds for the range data in references. And in spite of this light load, actual ranges were (with one exception) understated - one bomber had too much range. So I increased normal bomb load to the correct value in each case, and stated the correct endurance for the cruising speed in the refereences. At the same time, I noted that virtually all maximum loads were off by a much greater factor. This probably dates from the UV days when Matrix degraded heavy bombers because players complained they were too effective. I raised these to the correct value as well. Now it appears more work is being done on these - by Andrew - who seems to have renamed some for example. Since the project is delayed, more polishing is possible.

Separately, lacking a CHS assignment, I have decided to do all Allied planes - since I have to get their altitudes rated on the same basis as Japanese ones I already did. You may be assurred that RHS will have text book data unless there is some clear reason not to. I don't need any approval for RHS. It now appears RHS may release sooner than CHS - if only I can finish the massive data entry tasks I assigned myself. And if I can get someone to help me move some aircraft art in to the right file. I have the art - but my tools won't work to the pixel.

[witpqs]

Sorry, I'm not capable of helping with the art.

Regarding the maximum payloads, I believe they (many) were reduced from stock as part of the effort to reduce heavy bomber effectiveness. That might be why they are so far off actual specs.

I would love to see all the changes implemented, including your proposal for aircraft and flak altitudes. Perhaps with the longer lead time CHS might even include them (change of plans from current intentions I know).

[el cid again]

I would love to see all the changes implemented, including your proposal for aircraft and flak altitudes. Perhaps with the longer lead time CHS might even include them (change of plans from current intentions I know).

Andrew, current CHS coordinator, suggested releasing them as a separate mod first. He is afraid of major problems with too many changes, and he wants to see what is popular and what is not. Also, and mainly, he has a problem getting everything reviewed - a shortage of expert labor. I need a full time person to keep up with my data entry if it must be reviewed! And since many things had been put on the agenda for the current mod, adding many more is not an option. No matter how badly needed, work takes time to execute. In effect, RHS is a test bed for things that might become part of CHS one day. Further, CHS is a test bed for future official releases, or so it is hoped by some CHS people. There is no way Matrix can spend a lot of money getting these mods made and tested - if we want them we must make them - and by using them - test them.