Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Dili

I have wondered if more damaging air guns and more aircraft armor would somewhat make us able to have more degrees in airplane armor also making anti-ship strafing more efficient.

aircraft weapon devices with the ability to penetrate a ship target's armor (at the hit location specified) and with a bigger effect value will cause more damage on average per hit than weapons that penetrate but have less effect values. Non-penetrating hits will do little.

More armor to the plane won't do much if anything vs. most AA weapons.

I created a class of APDs for the same ships, thus getting around the respawn issue.

and he went back to the Me - just modifying its load.

Wrong, the Me-264A has a load of 20,000 lbs which makes it about as expensive as a B-29 to operate. Logistics are logistics are logistics.

ORIGINAL: afspret

I've experimented adding some RN, RAN & RNZN AMCs to a mod I'm working on and designated them as CLs as well, mainly because they still had transport capabilities (if in a fast transport TF), which they loose if classified as any other type of warship. The problem I encountered is when the RAN ones were sunk, they respawned as USN cruisers. It was kind of not right looking at the ship availability list and see a US CA named Kanimbla and a CL named Manoora!

IF you get rid of respawn, they won't do that. Just move the class slots for the US CLs - and they won't respawn.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Dili

I have wondered if more damaging air guns and more aircraft armor would somewhat make us able to have more degrees in airplane armor also making anti-ship strafing more efficient.

aircraft weapon devices with the ability to penetrate a ship target's armor (at the hit location specified) and with a bigger effect value will cause more damage on average per hit than weapons that penetrate but have less effect values. Non-penetrating hits will do little.

More armor to the plane won't do much if anything vs. most AA weapons.

Correct. More DURABILITY on the planes does that - which is one reason we did it that way. Armor can be a factor in your durability calculation too. So can structure of the aircraft.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

and he went back to the Me - just modifying its load.

Wrong, the Me-264A has a load of 20,000 lbs which makes it about as expensive as a B-29 to operate. Logistics are logistics are logistics.

Concur. Glad you feel that way. I remember you proposed the change - just as you proposed doing the G5N mods with less of a logistic burdon. Interesting that in the end you went back to the Me - while we went over to the G5Ns we did to replace the Me at your request. The reason for your proposal was you said feeding the Me was too expensive in supply point terms. And that is the message I meant to convey. It is harder to feed a plane with a big max load - and max load on a big bomber is always greater than normal load. In the case of the Me - the weight is dedicated to more to fuel; a B-29 carries relatively more bombs. Their missions were entirely different - a B-29 was supposed to be a high altitude city buster - in which form it failed - while the Me was to be a neusance raider - causing the enemy to divert relatively more assets to defense on the side of the ocean Germany didn't care about. Both could double as long range recon planes or (theoretically anyway) naval search platforms. Both were very expensive - and in the end the Me was too expensive in terms of plant or materials to actually get built.

Sorry, do you mean by moving the ship class to a different slot that it will not resawn? I have created different US CA & CL, using slots in the 400's and they respawn. I thought that it was coded to be that way reguardless (I've done the same with CVs.)

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: afspret

I've experimented adding some RN, RAN & RNZN AMCs to a mod I'm working on and designated them as CLs as well, mainly because they still had transport capabilities (if in a fast transport TF), which they loose if classified as any other type of warship. The problem I encountered is when the RAN ones were sunk, they respawned as USN cruisers. It was kind of not right looking at the ship availability list and see a US CA named Kanimbla and a CL named Manoora!

IF you get rid of respawn, they won't do that. Just move the class slots for the US CLs - and they won't respawn.

The respawn hardcoding is slot specific.

Nik is right. It is the CLASS slot that matters. IF you don't use the same class slot as stock - nor any other stock class slot that respawns - you are safe. We have no respawn for carriers or cruisers in RHS - but we do have it for some small vessels. We got rid of it by changing class slots.

I can't recall off the top which slots I put the ACM classes in but they were between the initial allied class slots and the first IJN upgrade ones.

Would it be possible to find out what the respawn slots are? Thanks.

Just look at stock

Cleveland 208
Baltimore 195
Essex 240