Page 4 of 4

RE: PV-1 Ventura

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:32 pm
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid, the deduction of 5-10% sounds right (my vote is 10%)

I would also consider what is more relvant to the game, Ferry range or Combat ranges. I would rather see more accurate combat ranges, there are so many variables which can add to ferry range that make use it to base Combat ranges is "inefficient"

?? Don't Op losses increase with extended ranges??

We don't have the power to redo the code. Unless and until it is done, we must enter ferry range as the ONLY range value - and derive other ranges from it. The ONLY option open to us are these:

1) Use published (and normal - not wierd special case with 55 gallon drums aboard) ferry range?

2) Use a ferry range derived from extended range.

I think both are perfectly valid - but given the way code works the only "fair" thing is to use whichever concept for ALL planes.

Until we get three fields and can enter it for each plane. IF we ever do.

Didnt ask you to change code.

I was suggesting that your 2) answer was the best way. Combat ranges are vital, ferry ranges are IMO, open to be fiddled with. If I have to ship my B17/24 or C-47s to Pearl Harbor its a small hassle.

RE: PV-1 Ventura

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:50 am
by el cid again
OK - I get it. The problem is that we cannot go both ways at the same time:

EITHER we EXTEND ferry range (by about 11%)

OR we CUT ferry range (by about 10%).

UNLESS there is a consensus, we stay with ferry range data per history.

I don't hear a consensus yet. But it is a hassle not being able to ferry planes in PTO!