|
Post by stratos on Feb 23, 2014 15:25:42 GMT -6
Seeing that a lot of people here is trying WW2 scenarios, I will like to hear how you guys thing we should control the aviation for inter-war and WW2 timeframes.
Thanks!
|
|
cobra
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by cobra on Feb 24, 2014 5:06:30 GMT -6
(sorry for my english)... In my opinion there are two possible ways to implement airplanes into the SAI: simplified tactical mode like in old Carriers at War II game and more complex mode actually emulating single airplanes on the tactical map
|
|
cobra
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by cobra on Feb 24, 2014 5:51:34 GMT -6
Player may control attack planes, incliding torpedo-bombers, fighter and recon wings. Recon can be perfomed automatically or after selecting search sector by a player along with some recon settings. Recon planes also may be used for strike missions if they are capable to perform such missions.
Attack aicrafts perform strike missions on shore targets or naval targets. Fighters can be used as CAP over ships or bases or escort strike aircrafts.
Each aircrafts sortie ends with a report about damaged targets ans lost planes + in campaign or long scenario player may recieve reports about losses and ready aicrafts each day. Aircraft wing also can rebase...
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 24, 2014 6:02:40 GMT -6
I would like to see this game system expand into WW2, but as aviation led to the demise of the battleship as the capital unit of the fleet, the addition of air power would destroy much of what this game offers in surface battles between individual ships, or fleets. Something like a stategic 'Thunder at Sea' element, with aircraft carriers, catapult launched aircraft from CAs and BBs, maybe even land based aircraft, providing an air search and attack capability, but with the tactical battle resolved in classic SAI form.
The aviation element (ship/fleet sightings, inflicting damage, sinking and removing ships from the OOB) would be resolved before the SAI battle commences. Aircraft intervening in the tactical battle would make SAI/WW2 pointless, there are already several games that already do carrier warfare, such battles being resolved without fleets sighting each other.
|
|
cobra
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by cobra on Feb 24, 2014 6:42:42 GMT -6
The demise of battleships is only natural as we attempt to progress the SAI further in future. It would be simply ahistorical to potray some WW2 era conflict as surface action with limited role of aviation. But in 20's the aviation is still not developed enought to play major role on the maritime battlefield. So this era will not be very different from the current state of SAI but not later (30's and 40's). And 20's still require to raise the significanse of aircrafts in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 24, 2014 7:57:17 GMT -6
The demise of battleships is only natural as we attempt to progress the SAI further in future. It would be simply ahistorical to potray some WW2 era conflict as surface action with limited role of aviation. But in 20's the aviation is still not developed enought to play major role on the maritime battlefield. So this era will not be very different from the current state of SAI but not later (30's and 40's). And 20's still require to raise the significanse of aircrafts in the game. Agreed that a 1920s scenario, with historically limited air involvement, will fit better into the SAI model, although there is little actual historical data to use in scenario design. The significant events, during the 1920s, were experimental bombing of stationary, unmanned and undefended ships, which didn't convince experts at the time and will provide little basis for game statistics. However, the original post refers to expanding SAI into WW2 and my comments are directed to how this might be done, for instance the Swordfish attack on the 'Bismarck' could take place during a strategic (TAS) phase of the game, whilst the tactical element of the game proceeds, after damage and losses from air attack have been applied. There is some possibility of WW2 scenarios, hunting the 'Graf Spee', 'Bismarck' chase, the North Cape and hypothetical fleet actions with 'Bismarck', 'Tirpitz' and others, in the Arctic, or North/South Atlantic, where air action cannot be ignored, but would be limited.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 24, 2014 12:04:10 GMT -6
The demise of battleships is only natural as we attempt to progress the SAI further in future. It would be simply ahistorical to potray some WW2 era conflict as surface action with limited role of aviation. But in 20's the aviation is still not developed enought to play major role on the maritime battlefield. So this era will not be very different from the current state of SAI but not later (30's and 40's). And 20's still require to raise the significanse of aircrafts in the game. Agreed that a 1920s scenario, with historically limited air involvement, will fit better into the SAI model, although there is little actual historical data to use in scenario design. The significant events, during the 1920s, were experimental bombing of stationary, unmanned and undefended ships, which didn't convince experts at the time and will provide little basis for game statistics. However, the original post refers to expanding SAI into WW2 and my comments are directed to how this might be done, for instance the Swordfish attack on the 'Bismarck' could take place during a strategic (TAS) phase of the game, whilst the tactical element of the game proceeds, after damage and losses from air attack have been applied. There is some possibility of WW2 scenarios, hunting the 'Graf Spee', 'Bismarck' chase, the North Cape and hypothetical fleet actions with 'Bismarck', 'Tirpitz' and others, in the Arctic, or North/South Atlantic, where air action cannot be ignored, but would be limited. I can't speak to how the team, if it intends to proceed with the interwar period, will address this issue of putting aviation into the game play. However, the 1920's and 1930's were a period of rapid change in technology for aviation. This was true of the US and Japan, along with GB, France, Germany and Russia. For the US, the first carrier introduced in 1922 was the Langley and she participated as a scout and gunfire observer in the initial Fleet Problems. I suspect this was true of all nations. IMHO, the starting point or historical node for different historical paths would be the Naval Disarmament Treaty of 1922. Over time, as aviation developed, it was decided that separate carrier groups should be formed and they should be separate from the battle line due to their vulnerability and speed.
I am starting a thread in the historical discussion area of the military history forum for this sort of discussion as per rules.
In my considered opinion, the team might just focus on continuing the development of the dreadnought era from the Spanish-American War through WWI. There is much to do in that period to keep everyone busy.
|
|
cobra
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by cobra on Feb 24, 2014 15:02:29 GMT -6
As for my mind hypothetical sea war in 20-s or 30-s is very interesting period of naval history (sorry for my english)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 24, 2014 16:26:45 GMT -6
For those of you interested in the interwar period with regards to the US Navy, here are some recommended books:
Agents of Innovation: the General Board and the design of the fleet that defeated the Japanese Navy. by John T. Kuehn
Battle Line: the United States Navy 1919-1939 by Thomas and Trent Hone
To Train the Fleet For War: The U.S. Navy Fleet Problems, 1923-1940 - by Albert A. Nofi
Military Innovation in the Inerwar Period by Williamson Murray and Alan R. Millett
Additionally, here are some ADM's from the Royal Navy that might interest you.
www.admirals.org.uk/records/adm/
www.admirals.org.uk/records/adm/adm239/adm239-261_Intro.php#preface
Also, here is the site for access to the Naval Review publications dating from 1904- 2003
www.naval-review.org/tblcont.asp
Hope this information helps all
|
|
cobra
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by cobra on Feb 25, 2014 1:02:48 GMT -6
Thanks.
Аs for me. I Think about this quiestion.. Aviation could be on operational level. In this case imagine such picture:
Player choose option of bombing loading. For example torpedo ore bomb load Then after readiness of strike planes, player can appoint fighters to escort and appoint a target of strike. And now player can saw little plane on map flaying to target, Then the player simply sees the picture that planes bomb the purpose (different pictures about bombing of the sea or coastal purpose)then he receive the official report about result (pilots too people and often see not that really occurs) and losses
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 25, 2014 9:12:04 GMT -6
Thanks. Аs for me. I Think about this quiestion.. Aviation could be on operational level. In this case imagine such picture: Player choose option of bombing loading. For example torpedo ore bomb load Then after readiness of strike planes, player can appoint fighters to escort and appoint a target of strike. And now player can saw little plane on map flaying to target, Then the player simply sees the picture that planes bomb the purpose (different pictures about bombing of the sea or coastal purpose)then he receive the official report about result (pilots too people and often see not that really occurs) and losses What you propose is not really operational level its tactical level. For operational level, you would be responsible for planning and moving the forces into position but actual fighting would be conducted by the computer, at least as far as air operations are concern. You could be responsible for tactical surface operations. Strategic targets could be the players responsibility along with operational, but not tactical.
|
|
|
Post by Rasputitsa on Feb 26, 2014 3:18:30 GMT -6
Thanks. Аs for me. I Think about this quiestion.. Aviation could be on operational level. In this case imagine such picture: Player choose option of bombing loading. For example torpedo ore bomb load Then after readiness of strike planes, player can appoint fighters to escort and appoint a target of strike. And now player can saw little plane on map flaying to target, Then the player simply sees the picture that planes bomb the purpose (different pictures about bombing of the sea or coastal purpose)then he receive the official report about result (pilots too people and often see not that really occurs) and losses What you propose is not really operational level its tactical level. For operational level, you would be responsible for planning and moving the forces into position but actual fighting would be conducted by the computer, at least as far as air operations are concern. You could be responsible for tactical surface operations. Strategic targets could be the players responsibility along with operational, but not tactical. It's not just aviation, it's also Wireless (W/T - morse code), Radio (R/T - speech radio) and Radar, all adding to the information flow available during WW2. W/T intercepts were available in WW1 (reading the enemy signals), but by WW2 direction finding (DF) equipment, based onshore and later fitted to ships (HF/DF), was able to provide a rough position for sources of transmission. Radar permitted detection without being seen, provided your enemy didn't have radar, at the Battle of Matapan the British fleet was able to close within 4000yds, at night, before opening fire on the unsuspecting Italian cruisers. Tactical effects were highlighted during the hunt for the 'Bismarck', when the shadowing British cruisers were tracking 'Bismarck' with radar, but lost radar sighting when manouvering. The British radar emissions were still being detected on 'Bismarck' although the range had become too far for the British to receive the echoes. Lutjens, assuming that he was still being tracked, sent a long W/T message to Germany, which was detected and plotted by DF stations in Britain. The 'Bismarck"s position was transmitted to the RN ships at sea, but incorrectly noted and the fleet spent many hours steaming in the wrong direction. Only air attack slowed the Bismarck to enable the final battle to take place. Aircraft carriers are radio hotspots, as they use R/T to direct their aircraft, especially in radar controlled CAP. So there is ample opportunity for more information, but also more dis-information, Fog of War. All of this is just to highlight how much more complicated WW2 could be to simulate, except that all of these features could be covered in a strategic/operational element to the game, to be played out before the fleets meet in tactical battle, indeed it will be some of these features which will bring them together. In the short term it would be simple just to throw ships together, in a series of actual and hypothetical scenarios, to see how the 'KGVs' would have fared against the 'Bismarck' and 'Tirpitz' in fleet action and the many other big-gun combinations that are available, when in reality the politics and technology of WW2 mostly conspired to keep them apart. There were only a handful of capital ship gun actions during WW2, so a too accurate game could be a boring process.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Feb 26, 2014 6:47:49 GMT -6
Well aviation battles as in the Pacific can be anything but boring. Also I'm thinking first in a "1920/30" expansion where the planes were not that decsive yet. Being able to select loadouts, assign CAPS and escorts, plot search cones... That would be amazing!!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2014 9:11:20 GMT -6
Well aviation battles as in the Pacific can be anything but boring. Also I'm thinking first in a "1920/30" expansion where the planes were not that decsive yet. Being able to select loadouts, assign CAPS and escorts, plot search cones... That would be amazing!! The problem with depicting the introduction of the aircraft into the 1920's-1930's is the pace of technological development. If you maintain the actual timeline, your aircraft are nothing but spotting and scouting platforms. The introduction of aluminum structures, cantilever wings, hydraulic actuated control surfaces, monoplanes, even cockpit instruments like the artificial horizon, turn and bank indicator, gyroscope, were present by the mid-1920's in aircraft. However, representative aircraft of the period had extremely low bomb loads like 4 x 20lb bombs. The only aircraft capable of carrying weapons loads with the possibility of damaging heavily armored ships were the horizontal bombers and their loads were around 1500 lbs. They were slow at around 150 mph and short ranged in the neighborhood of 500 miles. The F2B fighter for the US Navy could carry only 5 x 25 lb bombs, one .5 caliber machine gun and one .30 caliber MG. It had only five hardpoints. How much real damage can you do with such loads? The best you are going to do with such birds, is scouting for the battle line and spotting for gunnery. This was why the first carriers were tied to the battle line until the 1930's. If the team makes the decision to proceed with a version or upgrade adding in the 1920's and 1930's, it is perfectly feasible, with added work and interest. It depends on how much detail you wish to leave to the human and what will be assigned to the computer. I don't know how much individuals on this forum know about navigating over water, loadouts, launch and recovery operations, it can be daunting. The computer will have to provide some assistance to the human, to make proper decisions. Scouting over water is difficult, mostly done below 5000 feet at this point in history. Returning to the carrier or base can be fun, even with Zed Baker gear. Directing the air group to its target, possibly scouted hours before, and still moving can be fun also. Mission planning to ensure that all air groups arrive over the target at the same time, is really a matter of chance before and early in the war. While meteorological conditions affect surface gunnery, they are absolutely crucial in air operations. Radio silence is vital for the security of the carrier task force. All these and a host of other variable need to be considered, if you are going to make the game realistic. The team will have fun.
|
|
cobra
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by cobra on Feb 26, 2014 9:29:48 GMT -6
however already during Great war planes really heated the fighting and trade ships. The Russian fleet for example struck bombing attacks from hydroaviatransports on the Black Sea to the Turkish ports. Not to mention Mitchell's post-war experiments. When the battle ship was for the first time sunk by bombs. Though it and in fact was arranged, but nevertheless.
|
|