What ammo restrictions should be placed on carrier aircraft?

[usecase]

Voted: 1 ammo point per sortie.

I've played UV since release, and I'm looking forward to WITP. However, it is going to be a monster of a game, and I'm just not going to be able to handle too much micro-management.

Cheers,

John.

[Brady]

......................................................................................................

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I beleave in WiTP we are going to see the Japanese # 80 bombs employed in more instances, Japan also has 500 KG bombs as well, as the 800KG bombs... ...all these larger Bombs have the potential to adress the bomb effect desparity isue.

How do you figure that? They're too heavy for the Vals to carry, and the Kates, well... Level bombing is not the most accurate means of attacking maneuvering warships.

............................................................................................................................


They are coded to be used (afik) whenever ships are atacked in ports(part of the kates use these and part go with torps), also they would be used for port strikes (or should be and for land atack mihions, as they were the favored land atack weapon for the kates.

If we get the option to arm Kates with or without torps we should see these weapons used more. Hopweaver I do not know how They are intending to handel this.

[Xargun]

Just a quick word to back up what Rendova said.. Last I knew (and I am no means an expert) the F-14 can carry 6 or 8 Phoenix missiles at takeoff, but it cannot land with this same loadout, without the missiles on the bottom pylons bouncing off the carrier deck. And from all then pics I've seen of dive bombers and Torpedo Bombers, those things are mere inches off the deck - there is no way they can land safely with their loads...
But thats just my two cents worth...

Xargun

[pad152]

without the missiles on the bottom pylons bouncing off the carrier deck. And from all then pics I've seen of dive bombers and Torpedo Bombers, those things are mere inches off the deck - there is no way they can land safely with their loads...
But thats just my two cents worth...

All WWII carrier aircraft dropped their load out before landing.

[panda124c]

So how are scout SBD's to be handled did they load up (as usual) with 500 Lb's and drop them before landing???

Ususally the bombers were only loaded when a strike was on, so if not finding a target the bombs were dropped. Simply because the search would go on until the A/C could make it back to the carrier without the load. So any armed strike, would not logicaly return with a bomb load. Scout A/C may be different. Also looking a American Carrier Operations in WWII I think you will find that they only hung around a target area for one or two days before withdrawing to rearm and refuel (you have to take on more avation gas). So the limit for Carrier strikes before rearming should be in the order of 4 to 6 strikes.

so much for my 2 cents. [:)]

[Mr.Frag]

Scout planes such as SBD's would be flying with just fuel to stretch their ranges to maximum.

[madflava13]

Oftentimes the scout SBDs took off with 500pounders. I know they did at Eastern Solomons. The issue with the F-14 isn't that the missiles will hit the deck on landing - its the weight. An F-14 with 6 Phoenix missiles is too heavy to trap. Generally that's the problem with all carrier aircraft - not actual deck contact with the weapon system, but the weight upon landing. I don't know the height of an SBD with a 500 lb. bomb, but perhaps this was still within safe limits to trap aboard the carrier again? I have no idea, but its a possibility.

Anyone know for sure? I'll see if I can find anything as well.

[Nikademus]

for the most part, aircraft dumped their ordinance before landing however there were some times when they did land with them. I wouldn't call it standard practice though because even an unarmed bomb or torpedo coming back on board would be a potential hazzard.

[Joel Billings]

After thinking about our options and hearing some of the comments and concerns from people on this forum and from our testers, we've decided what we wanted to do with this issue. We looked at the issue of aviation gas and bomb ordninance and decided that we wanted to keep things relatively simple. We've added an item called aircraft ordinance to each carrier. This represents aviation gas and bombs. We didn't want to have carriers run themselves out of the ability to put up CAP and search, so we only deduct 1 point from the aircraft ordinance whenever a plane launches on a strike mission (including escorts). Typical carriers have a value around 500, meaning they can launch 500 aircraft on strike missions. It didn't seem worth the trouble to add the 4 ammo types (especially since aviation gas was in some ways more limiting than the bombs) given some of the issues brought up and the risks involved in adding that code. I think the one ordinance value will work best within the spirit of the level of the game. Thanks to all for participating in the discussion and for voting.

[Zeta16]

That makes real good sense

[Drex]

I applaud the decision to keep things simple in this complicated, challenging game.

[Rendova]

Thanks for listening! I think that idea is a great compromise! Looking forward to it.

[madflava13]

Gentlemen,
That is an elegant solution... My hat is off.

Just had to try another smiley... Those things are addictive.

[redman1]

Like the others, I think you avoided making the perfect the enemy of the good. Good work. I can't wait to see it in action in the final product.

[tsimmonds]

Excellent decision. Good going, guys[&o]

[pasternakski]

Thank you, Joel, I applaud this decision.

But would you please, please call it "aircraft ordnance" instead of the incorrect "aircraft ordinance?" "Ordnance" is "armaments." "Ordinances" are (among other things) municipal codes.

[Brady]

It is good to know their will be alimiting factor on CV air op's, howeaver I a would of prefered a bit more detail.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Thank you, Joel, I applaud this decision.

But would you please, please call it "aircraft ordnance" instead of the incorrect "aircraft ordinance?" "Ordnance" is "armaments." "Ordinances" are (among other things) municipal codes.

Sorry, Gary got it right in the data files. And to think I'm the son of an English Professor and a high-school English teacher. Shame on me.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Thank you, Joel, I applaud this decision.

But would you please, please call it "aircraft ordnance" instead of the incorrect "aircraft ordinance?" "Ordnance" is "armaments." "Ordinances" are (among other things) municipal codes.

Sorry, Gary got it right in the data files. And to think I'm the son of an English Professor and a high-school English teacher. Shame on me.

Hey - you can't be expected to be perfeck all the time.

[tsimmonds]

howeaver I a would of prefered a bit more detail.

[:)]Brady, I think we knew this about you already. You should make this phrase your signature....[;)]