RHS Allied Aircraft Thread: A Radical Proposal (at end)

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Jo: That is a very interesting fighter plane I was not aware of. It is implied it influenced the P-38 design - and in that sense it may already be in the game.

I do not understand any sense in which this aircraft might have been in service in PTO in either a historical mod or in the alternate history EOS mod. Only 62 were built grand total, all of them served in ETO (some in Spain, some in Dutch Air Force and some in Luftwaffe).

El Sid.

You have right that this plane not past in youre scenario's. But only in alternate scenario's like Iron Storm or scenario's without war in Europe.

[drw61]

El Cid, Is this idea of combining allied aircraft still in the works?

[CobraAus]

yes just on back burner at the moment

Cobra Aus

[m10bob]

Posting here only in that it pertains to aircraft.
While the Martin B 26 has a real life range maybe 2/3's that of the Mitchell B 25, in RHS, the range is cut another third!.
Further, the Douglas B 18 has (IMHO) too many planes in game, and the Canadians who also used them may not be getting any of them, (in the game).
The earliest P 38 photo recon model has an inaccurate range in game of 6 or 7 hexes,(IIRC). It should have the range with tanks that even the earliest external tank models enjoyed, otherwise it is pretty much an expensive Lysander.

Sources:

Combat Aircraft of the World,John W.R.Taylor

Aircraft of WWII, Stewart Wilson

[el cid again]

Things like range are complex and technical - and often misleading in a source like Taylor (who I prefer to use because he gives so many different planes of different nations - and common sources are something we like).

The problem is "range with what payload at what mission profile" is not often specified. RHS is using a USAAF set of technical definitions for range - somewhat modified in specific cases where we have very good data. In general, the range will be correct FOR THE PAYLOAD listed.

Now as for drop tank range, this is different. This is even harder to figure out - and I made a test bed just for that function. I have by no means added every possible combination of planes/drop tanks - and in some cases real combinations are not possible in this system. In the case of P-38 we had data provided by someone on the Forum about dates - you I think - and it seemed to imply this tank was not available in theater in quantity at the date this aircraft became available. It can be revised.

Indeed - any performance data can be revised. But we are not doing that just now - so if you want something specific be very specific - give the values you want and the reasons for it (and where you got your data from). It is faster to just approve than to research, calculate and then approve.

[wdolson]

I don't agree with the philosophy of providing aircraft in the game with the typical equipment on its arrival in the theater. I think that what would be best is to designate the aircraft as it was in its most common configuration. If you want to have a few early units with limited versions, you can always edit the details for that unit.

This is very dramatic with aircraft like the B-25. Most C/Ds to see combat were equipped as gunships with 8 .50s pointing forward. Though the aircraft that first arrived in theater only had a single .30 or .50 hand held in the nose. The A-20 went through a dramatic transformation too. Pappy Gunn dramatically increased the range by filling half the bomb bay with fuel and filling the nose with guns. The bomb load was decreased, but the effectiveness of the plane was dramatically increased.

Bill

[el cid again]

This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sufficient difference - it warrants a new type. Which can run afoul of slot limits - but this is a bigger issue for Axis than for Allies.

Even so, we can give units that appear with a type AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT a special loadout. This does NOT apply to a unit that upgrades - because it MUST have the typical loadout - being done during a game by a player the code will copy the aircraft type record. So in special cases we can have it both ways.

I just figured out how to have a combined type with different ranges. I had done this for recon planes - but not for transports. We have tiny units with the Empire Flying Boat - and one unit with the Boeing 313 Clipper - which is wrong for range (because it had more than the Empire). I now can fix that one unit - giving it an RHS invention - the "internal drop tank" - although it will take work (more than is really justified) to find the right combination using a test bed.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sifficient difference - it warrants a new type.

For aircraft such as the B-25C/D and A-20, isn't wasn't long before every single aircraft arriving in Australia was heavily modified. By late 1942, all 5th AF A-20s and B-25s had Pappy Gunn's modifications. Repair depots in other areas of the Pacific followed suit soon after. Even though they were not produced with the package guns and nose guns, they all had them by the time they reached combat.

The US had many modification depots to alter aircraft after production. In some cases these depots were in the US, in others, they were near the combat zone. In Anchorage, the USAAF had a facility that modified every aircraft arriving for Arctic conditions. In the case of those modifications, there were no changes that would be reflected in the game except possibly some performance decrease. All Alaska based aircraft were a lot heavier because they carried extra electronics for blind landing in the Aleutians.

In Australia, bombers were modified for low level strafing and attack roles. Similar changes were done in India for fighting in Burma.

When the B-29 campaign switched to low altitude attacks, all B-29s arriving on Saipan had their turrets removed.

In the US, the USAAF set up a modification center in Cheyenne, WY to modify all B-17s coming off the production line. This depot added some equipment and changed out the tail gun position for what became known as the Cheyenne Turret. All late model B-17Gs arriving in Europe and the Med had this turret installed before leaving the states, but after production.

I think it is best to provide the most common version to see combat. Yes, players will end up with a bit more capable aircraft for a few months when first introduced, but overall, I think this is best. If players are only given the production varient, without common field modifications later in production, then over the long haul, they are getting short changed. In the first few months after introduction, the aircraft will not be used much because there won't be that many of them available, except for a few types with huge production quantities.

Bill

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sifficient difference - it warrants a new type.

For aircraft such as the B-25C/D and A-20, isn't wasn't long before every single aircraft arriving in Australia was heavily modified. By late 1942, all 5th AF A-20s and B-25s had Pappy Gunn's modifications. Repair depots in other areas of the Pacific followed suit soon after. Even though they were not produced with the package guns and nose guns, they all had them by the time they reached combat.

Bill

This runafoul of the CHS/RHS standards for defining aircraft - as taught to me by Joe when he supervised my work on Japanese aircraft. We are supposed to use scholarly reference materials - or something close to it - and that means we tend to end up with the official production data. This is intended as an explanation of how this situation may have come to pass - not saying that we could not change the standard if we had very difinitive data sources to justify it. But remember a game is not the same as real life: if we give a player a plane on day xy, he can use it ANYWHERE in theater on day xy - no time to transit, no time to train, no time to modify. So as a mod designer I am wary of saying something that happened months later is germane to what is possible now. On the other hand, we could double modify a plane:
give it the modified armament (if justified by source data of sufficient quality we are sure it is true) at a modified date - that is AFTER the modifications were done in the actual operational area (not the day the plane came off the line).

This should be read to say I am open to changing a specific aircraft if enough data were provided of scholarly quality to justify it. I don't think it likely that "all units to see combat" were modified in time - and I am sure "combat" did not occur the first day the plane became available. But IF we knew when they saw combat - and people were content to move back to that date - and IF we knew all were modified by then - THEN we can adopt the revised version - regardless of how they came off the line.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is a difficult matter in several respects - as various valid principles conflict.

In general, I think an aircraft should be represented by its most common production model - which is approximately what you are advocating. But I don't like an aircraft model to have anything whatever it didn't have the first day it was operational - since it is available to players in that form and they will shamelessly upgrade to that standard. If there is sifficient difference - it warrants a new type.

For aircraft such as the B-25C/D and A-20, isn't wasn't long before every single aircraft arriving in Australia was heavily modified. By late 1942, all 5th AF A-20s and B-25s had Pappy Gunn's modifications. Repair depots in other areas of the Pacific followed suit soon after. Even though they were not produced with the package guns and nose guns, they all had them by the time they reached combat.

The US had many modification depots to alter aircraft after production. In some cases these depots were in the US, in others, they were near the combat zone. In Anchorage, the USAAF had a facility that modified every aircraft arriving for Arctic conditions. In the case of those modifications, there were no changes that would be reflected in the game except possibly some performance decrease. All Alaska based aircraft were a lot heavier because they carried extra electronics for blind landing in the Aleutians.

In Australia, bombers were modified for low level strafing and attack roles. Similar changes were done in India for fighting in Burma.

When the B-29 campaign switched to low altitude attacks, all B-29s arriving on Saipan had their turrets removed.

In the US, the USAAF set up a modification center in Cheyenne, WY to modify all B-17s coming off the production line. This depot added some equipment and changed out the tail gun position for what became known as the Cheyenne Turret. All late model B-17Gs arriving in Europe and the Med had this turret installed before leaving the states, but after production.

I think it is best to provide the most common version to see combat. Yes, players will end up with a bit more capable aircraft for a few months when first introduced, but overall, I think this is best. If players are only given the production varient, without common field modifications later in production, then over the long haul, they are getting short changed. In the first few months after introduction, the aircraft will not be used much because there won't be that many of them available, except for a few types with huge production quantities.

Bill

We do this on the larger scale - because we cannot represent every sub model - we pick the most common model - and then all the earlier models get too much performance too early. Thus a B5N1 appears as a B5N2, or a Ki-21 I appears as a Ki-21 II. If we didn't limit the introduction of a new type to its actual equipment when introduced, we would be in effect compounding this effect. It is a choice that can be made either way. For balance I elected to make it one way for type and the other way inside the type.


Some of the changes you describe can be represented (and indeed some of them already are) if you are willing to "cheat" and use the RHS multiple loadout system. However, it only applies to original equipment - not to upgraded units.


Some of the changes you describe probably should not be in the game. I refer in particular to the B-29 changes.
IF you think (choose) to force a doctrinal change on the Allies - THEN you should also make it a rule they MUST switch to low level bombing - cannot mine - cannot high level bomb or do proper naval attacks. And in that case the revised armament would also be appropriate. IF they elect to use their bombers more flexably - they will want and need the designed armament. This is philosophy: I believe in "power to the players" - but others believe "only what happened is an option and should be forced on players." There is merit in both attitudes. Because that is the case, and because RHS has various flavors, IF there were LOTS of interest, we could offer it both ways in different scenarios: say CVO might FORCE you to have the revised B-29s - and add a house rule you MUST use them for low level city bombing - after a certain date. IT would require a slot - an early B-29 would then upgrade to the later one on that date.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This runafoul of the CHS/RHS standards for defining aircraft - as taught to me by Joe when he supervised my work on Japanese aircraft. We are supposed to use scholarly reference materials - or something close to it - and that means we tend to end up with the official production data. This is intended as an explanation of how this situation may have come to pass - not saying that we could not change the standard if we had very difinitive data sources to justify it. But remember a game is not the same as real life: if we give a player a plane on day xy, he can use it ANYWHERE in theater on day xy - no time to transit, no time to train, no time to modify. So as a mod designer I am wary of saying something that happened months later is germane to what is possible now. On the other hand, we could double modify a plane:
give it the modified armament (if justified by source data of sufficient quality we are sure it is true) at a modified date - that is AFTER the modifications were done in the actual operational area (not the day the plane came off the line).

This should be read to say I am open to changing a specific aircraft if enough data were provided of scholarly quality to justify it. I don't think it likely that "all units to see combat" were modified in time - and I am sure "combat" did not occur the first day the plane became available. But IF we knew when they saw combat - and people were content to move back to that date - and IF we knew all were modified by then - THEN we can adopt the revised version - regardless of how they came off the line.

I'm not sure what qualifies as "scholarly". The best books avilable on individual aircraft are the Squadron "In Action" series which are designed for modelers. These books document each version of an aircraft and has lots of detail on weapons load outs as well as common field modifications. They are not as detailed on performance data since their focus is on helping modelers get their modelers looking right. I have about 50 books in the series, including many aircraft covered by the game.

As far as the B-25 goes, it was not used in the Pacific in large numbers until after Pappy Gunn started modifying them. It was not used in the CBI at all until well after those modifications became standard for the entire Pacific region. In North Africa and Europe they had a different mission profile and were usually equipped with far fewer guns.

The introduction date for the B-25 could be upgunned, then delayed a few months. Those units that flew the B-25 in the theater before Pappy Gunn's modifications became common can be introduced with B-25s before the production begins and have the stats modified for a more lightly armed aircraft.

The A-20 is a little tricker because it was in a bit wider use before Pappy Gunn's modifications became standard. It was still not all that widespread. The backbone of the USAAF for most of the first year of the war were B-26s, some A-24s, and a few precious B-17s. The B-26 was the most common twin engine bomber during this time and it was withdrawn completely as soon as enough B-25s were available. The B-26 had terrible rough field handling characteristics, whereas the B-25 was idea for primitive fields.

Bill

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Some of the changes you describe probably should not be in the game. I refer in particular to the B-29 changes.
IF you think (choose) to force a doctrinal change on the Allies - THEN you should also make it a rule they MUST switch to low level bombing - cannot mine - cannot high level bomb or do proper naval attacks. And in that case the revised armament would also be appropriate. IF they elect to use their bombers more flexably - they will want and need the designed armament. This is philosophy: I believe in "power to the players" - but others believe "only what happened is an option and should be forced on players." There is merit in both attitudes. Because that is the case, and because RHS has various flavors, IF there were LOTS of interest, we could offer it both ways in different scenarios: say CVO might FORCE you to have the revised B-29s - and add a house rule you MUST use them for low level city bombing - after a certain date. IT would require a slot - an early B-29 would then upgrade to the later one on that date.

I was using the B-29 modifications as another example of modifications in the field rather than suggesting it be done.

The game does force some doctrinal changes on the player, whether you like it or not. The Allies start out with poor multi deck carrier coordination and it improves through out the game, which reflects changes in doctrine. Similarly, Allied air defence gets better as the game goes on, reflecting different doctrinal changes. The Zero bonus exists because Allied fighter doctrine at the beginning of the war did not know how to handle the nimble Zero (also didn't know how to handle Oscars either, but there is no bonus for that). The Zero bonus goes away as Allied doctrine begins to adjust to their foe.

There are some other things that reflect doctrines of various kinds that a player has little or no control over. So the player has some control over doctrines, but on others, control is limited or non-existant.

Bill

[m10bob]

I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).
(On the Anson, I removed one of the MG's and gave it 2 100 lb bombs to use against subs as the Aussies used it.)
I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)
In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.

WITP is a great game, and in vanilla, it will appease the majority of players.
The mods go further for us grognards and allow more detailed and larger OOB's, (aerial and otherwise).
I am extremely grateful for both the fantastic published mods, and for the editor, (for us solitaire players.)[;)]

FWIW, I don't make any changes to my planes without being able to "back-up" the need for the changes, and have never subscribed to being a "fanboy" of anything except history regards WITP..

(EDIT):I am aware making some alterations may provoke interesting anomolies to the playing of the game, but I can tweak to my hearts' content.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson


As far as the B-25 goes, it was not used in the Pacific in large numbers until after Pappy Gunn started modifying them.
Bill

That is a problem. The "in large numbers" is a coach and four issue. Setting back the date means it isn't available "in small number" when it should be. Changing the loadout to the later value without setting back the date is the problem we should avoid (in my view). The moment the plane is set to be available, ANY unit that is permitted to upgrade to it can use it - until all are used - and that is true every month.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson



The A-20 is a little tricker because it was in a bit wider use before Pappy Gunn's modifications became standard.
Bill

Same problem, writ large.

To the extent the changes matter - give you a different out come - it is a vital principle of simulation they NOT be availabe BEFORE they were available to the historical force. To the extent they are trivial and won't have any impact, this is just a matter of chrome. You write as if they matter. Do they? If so, it is more important NOT to have them before the fact. On the other hand, no B-25s or A-20s after they were available is probably even worse. Are you beginning to see why made my choice? Whatever we do is a compromise (pending infinite slot availablity).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Some of the changes you describe probably should not be in the game. I refer in particular to the B-29 changes.
IF you think (choose) to force a doctrinal change on the Allies - THEN you should also make it a rule they MUST switch to low level bombing - cannot mine - cannot high level bomb or do proper naval attacks. And in that case the revised armament would also be appropriate. IF they elect to use their bombers more flexably - they will want and need the designed armament. This is philosophy: I believe in "power to the players" - but others believe "only what happened is an option and should be forced on players." There is merit in both attitudes. Because that is the case, and because RHS has various flavors, IF there were LOTS of interest, we could offer it both ways in different scenarios: say CVO might FORCE you to have the revised B-29s - and add a house rule you MUST use them for low level city bombing - after a certain date. IT would require a slot - an early B-29 would then upgrade to the later one on that date.

I was using the B-29 modifications as another example of modifications in the field rather than suggesting it be done.

The game does force some doctrinal changes on the player, whether you like it or not. The Allies start out with poor multi deck carrier coordination and it improves through out the game, which reflects changes in doctrine. Similarly, Allied air defence gets better as the game goes on, reflecting different doctrinal changes. The Zero bonus exists because Allied fighter doctrine at the beginning of the war did not know how to handle the nimble Zero (also didn't know how to handle Oscars either, but there is no bonus for that). The Zero bonus goes away as Allied doctrine begins to adjust to their foe.

There are some other things that reflect doctrines of various kinds that a player has little or no control over. So the player has some control over doctrines, but on others, control is limited or non-existant.

Bill

FYI - the "zero bonus" DOES apply to the Claude - in RHS.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).

REPLY: are you aware that makes them flying boats?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob


I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)

In RHS there is a ROC civil air unit with 6 machines at Hong Kong (and ground support which won't move from there).
We use a combined light plane for it: C-32 / C-36 / C-39 / C-40 and BT-32. The unit is called China Air because - that is what it was called.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.

Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).

REPLY: are you aware that makes them flying boats?

Have not noticed this yet..Thank you for the heads up.. I marked them for "patrol" to give them the patrolling AND transport capability. Most of the planes I mentioned had passenger seats or were converted airliners..Of course I do NOT want them to be seaplanes.. BTW, have you found a means to allow the amphib capability of the later Catalina? At present they will only land on the water, (but this question also applies to the later amphib models of the Mariner as well)..