ORIGINAL: witpqs
Question about C-46 Commando:
In CHS and I think (if I remember correctly) in early versions of RHS the C-46 Commando had a 50% greater payload and a slightly greater range than the C-47.
Currently, the C-46 has the same payload and a much shorter range than the C-47.
Does this sound correct or is it errata?
This is a much more difficult question to answer than it sounds like. There are all sorts of ways to measure transport capacity - and WITP does not use any of them properly! Capacity should be related to range - and it essentially is not in our game system! This is because there is no field to define "normal" cargo capacity for "normal" range. ALL we have is GROSS cargo capacity - and code does what it pleases with that - and not entirely rationally. Worse - it lets you carry to 50% of transfer (ferry) range. That is a very crude rule of thumb and essentially false in a technical sense. We have adjusted that in RHS: our transport transfer ranges are reduced by 8% so that de facto transport range = 42% of what the transfer range ought to be. The Forum decided operational ranges are higher in priority.
Anyway - BECAUSE we don't get to enter the "normal" cargo OR the "normal" range - you cannot see that data for either (or any) transport type. Nothing I can do about it either. For better or for worse, we have entered the maximum cargo for both types. It might be better to enter the normal cargo for all transports - and if the Forum agreed I will do that.
But that isn't the stock WITP system. Since air transport capacity is too efficient - possibly this is a good idea. A variation would be to enter the extended range cargo - since 42% of transfer range is for REDUCED cargo loads.
