SB2C - How bad were they?

[mdiehl]

This will be reflected to some degree in AE. More complex planes will require more maintenance.

To what empirical data will the scale of maintenance effort be indexed?

Or will this be another micromanagement factoid widget indexed to nothing?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
To what empirical data will the scale of maintenance effort be indexed? Or will this be another micromanagement factoid widget indexed to nothing?

I don't know for certain, but it seems to be indexed to number of engines/durability rating.

[wdolson]

The values are in the editor, but can't be modified in game.  The air team put a lot of work into coming up with the values and balancing them.  Since the air team is headed up by a USN F/A-18 pilot on active duty (and the overall knowledge of the team is quite high), I believe the results are pretty good for the scale of the game (this is not a flight simulator).  I've been doing some play testing and the maintenance times seem pretty reasonable to me. 

Bill

[bradfordkay]

I am concerned that the more complicated American planes will be sitting on the ground far more than the Japanese ones. According to Bergerud's Fire In The Sky, in the real war the americans did a far better job of providing maintenance parts and support at forward bases than did the Japanese. Has this factor been considered in the new version? 

[spence]

I am concerned that the more complicated American planes will be sitting on the ground far more than the Japanese ones. According to Bergerud's Fire In The Sky, in the real war the americans did a far better job of providing maintenance parts and support at forward bases than did the Japanese. Has this factor been considered in the new version?

The very same concern occurred to me as soon as I read that. Higher durability would seem to function as a negative factor for serviceability: therefore the tinfoil and chewing gum Japanese aircraft would maintain much higher serviceability...exactly the opposite of historical reality.

[Bogo Mil]

This can easily be corrected by much more AV support available to the Allies. If the USA can maintain a aircraft-support ratio of 1:2 easily, while the Japanese have trouble to field 1:1, such a system might work very well.

[wdolson]

I am concerned that the more complicated American planes will be sitting on the ground far more than the Japanese ones. According to Bergerud's Fire In The Sky, in the real war the americans did a far better job of providing maintenance parts and support at forward bases than did the Japanese. Has this factor been considered in the new version?

ORIGINAL: spence
The very same concern occurred to me as soon as I read that. Higher durability would seem to function as a negative factor for serviceability: therefore the tinfoil and chewing gum Japanese aircraft would maintain much higher serviceability...exactly the opposite of historical reality.

Durability and service rating are completely different fields and are not directly related. A high durability aircraft might have a high service rating, or a low one. The F4F was a very reliable airplane, the B-29, not so much. Both were fairly durable for the type of airplane.

Bill

[Xxzard]

Uh-oh!
An adjustment based on the maintenance and reliability of aircraft would absolutely kill just about all Japanese hopes of having an effective aircraft counter in the later war years. Hello oscars! The Tony had so many teething problems, and quite a number of other aircraft had landing gear and engine problems.

That is how it really worked though, so I can't complain from a historical aspect, although I think I will have to start playing as the Allies!

[TOMLABEL]

Xxzard - as in Skynard???[8D]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

Uh-oh!
An adjustment based on the maintenance and reliability of aircraft would absolutely kill just about all Japanese hopes of having an effective aircraft counter in the later war years. Hello oscars! The Tony had so many teething problems, and quite a number of other aircraft had landing gear and engine problems.

That is how it really worked though, so I can't complain from a historical aspect, although I think I will have to start playing as the Allies!

Everything is exposed in the editor, so people can always do a mod with more reliable aircraft if they want.

Bill

[mdiehl]

Everything is exposed in the editor, so people can always do a mod with more reliable aircraft if they want.

That attitude rather reminds me of the guidelines in "Eagle Against the Sun." (Make up any rules you like. ITS YOUR GAME.) Why is the product supposed to be attractive if a person has to Beta test it, after purchasing it, in order to find out where the errors are and fix them?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Everything is exposed in the editor, so people can always do a mod with more reliable aircraft if they want.

That attitude rather reminds me of the guidelines in "Eagle Against the Sun." (Make up any rules you like. ITS YOUR GAME.) Why is the product supposed to be attractive if a person has to Beta test it, after purchasing it, in order to find out where the errors are and fix them?

That's not what he implied.

[Panther Bait]

I got more the sense that the values to be incorporated into the AE scenarios are the design team's best estimates of the correct historical values, not that the users will have to fix known a-historical information.
 
If you disagree with those values, or if you wish to deviate from the historical for whatever purpose (play balance, strengthen one side, what if scenario, etc.), than the editor allows the modder to do that.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Everything is exposed in the editor, so people can always do a mod with more reliable aircraft if they want.

That attitude rather reminds me of the guidelines in "Eagle Against the Sun." (Make up any rules you like. ITS YOUR GAME.) Why is the product supposed to be attractive if a person has to Beta test it, after purchasing it, in order to find out where the errors are and fix them?

In this case, it appears that the comment was in response to a post worrying that the game's attention to historical reality would make it less playable for one side. Considering how you are always coming down on the side of historical accuracy, I'm surprised that you are making this complaint...

[mdiehl]

In this case, it appears that the comment was in response to a post worrying that the game's attention to historical reality would make it less playable for one side. Considering how you are always coming down on the side of historical accuracy, I'm surprised that you are making this complaint...

If the game becomes less playable for the Allies because of some widgety, poorly researched "maintenance index" then the game won't reflect historical reality at all. Poor research resulting in a poor simulation of a real historical problem doesn't make the simulation more realistic. It just makes it poorly researched and more complicated.

[bradfordkay]

Yes, I am sure that you are right... however, the response that you are attacking was to someone who was concerned about reports in this thread that there is a difference between allied and japanese maintenance rates and that this difference hurts the japanese player's chances.

You may recall that I posted a question along the lines of what you are griping about, and the response appears to be that - while allied aircraft tend to have greater durability they also tend to have a lower maintenance requirement. 

[mdiehl]

No, my response was to the suggestion that the responsibility for getting the values right ultimately lies with the user who can use the editor. The actual INDEX that we're discussing was described thusly:

I don't know for certain, but it seems to be indexed to number of engines/durability rating.

Since allied a.c. were almost without exception more durable for any given class of a.c., I share Big B's sentiments expressed earlier.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

No, my response was to the suggestion that the responsibility for getting the values right ultimately lies with the user who can use the editor. The actual INDEX that we're discussing was described thusly:

I don't know for certain, but it seems to be indexed to number of engines/durability rating.

Since allied a.c. were almost without exception more durable for any given class of a.c., I share Big B's sentiments expressed earlier.

The person saying that it seems to be indexed to #of engines/durability rating was incorrect, according to this post by Bill Dolson:

"Durability and service rating are completely different fields and are not directly related. A high durability aircraft might have a high service rating, or a low one. The F4F was a very reliable airplane, the B-29, not so much. Both were fairly durable for the type of airplane."

The response that it was up to the modder to change this was aimed at a player who was concerned that this factor would adversely affect the japanese player's chances...

[mdiehl]

A high durability aircraft might have a high service rating, or a low one. The F4F was a very reliable airplane, the B-29, not so much. Both were fairly durable for the type of airplane.

Ah. My bad then. I took "fields" to mean, "areas of inquiry" rather than "variables in the database."

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I would venture to say that there was a bit favoritism for the SBD, just thru familiarity and "peer observation" (won't call it pressure).  If a pilot had trained on the SBD, and had been flying it for 18 months, and then given a new aircraft that all his buddies were complaining about, you're probably very likely to find faults with it.  Whereas crews that had only known the SB2C from flight school (perhaps those on Franklin and Tico), might be less included to b_tch about it.

-F-

Agreed but the SBD was one of the most successful aircraft designs of all time. It was an easy aircraft to fly, easy to maintain, incredibly durable, and capable of delivering its payload with reasonable accuracy. That doesn't mean the SB2C was all that bad but when you replace a legend, it's hard to fill those big shoes. Just ask Gene Stallings or Earle Bruce about that (and no I am not going to tell you who those guys are that is what WIki is for).

The SBD had more than two years of an excellant record in terms of survivablity, flyability, and deadliness by the time the Helldiver appeared. Every "wart" the a/c had was going to get magnified just becasue it wasn't the SBD.

Would love to know if the Bear would beat Woody.