|
Post by tbr on Dec 21, 2020 18:32:11 GMT -6
We do not need a very complex set of values, simply one per decade for all carrier capable planes (tied to the base model year obviously) and a discount value (folding wings technology) e.g. 1910: 4 1920: 5 1930: 5 1940: 6 1950: 8 folding wings: -2
Giving different types (let alone models) different values might be "nice" but becomes too complex way too fast. "deck park" would then become a flat bonus on carrier capacity (e.g. 20%), with "flight deck catapults" and "angled deck" also providing such boni (due to the higher take off weight achievable without long run-distance and the easier and safer deck management respectively).
That would force the player to refit carriers to manage "heavier" aircraft and, with the option to set a maximum plane "weight" in the carrier design, allow the option to use older designs on older smaller carriers (though, those smaller older types being most likely flagged "obsolete", there might come the point where not enough old planes are available any more to maintain squadron sizes).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 21, 2020 19:59:10 GMT -6
I've put the basic characteristics of two aircraft: The F9F-6 Cougar vs the F6F-5 Hellcat. Keep in mind that the first squadrons of F6F-5 Hellcat enter service in early 1943, the F9F-6 enter service in 1952-1953. That is almost ten years later.
Note: Av gas weighs about 6lbs per gallon so a 150 gallon external would weigh about 900 lbs. Generally WW2 aircraft would carry such a tank on a single rack under the fuselage. Two 100 were carried under the wings.
F9F-6 Cougar Crew: 1 Length: 40 ft 11 in (12.47 m) Wingspan: 34 ft 6 in (10.52 m) Width: 14 ft 2 in (4.32 m) folded (tailplane span) Height: 12 ft 3.5 in (3.747 m) Height folded: 15 ft 10 in (4.8 m) (wing-tips Wing area: 300 sq ft (28 m2) Aspect ratio: 4 Airfoil: NACA 64A010 [61] Empty weight: 11,483 lb (5,209 kg) Empty equipped: 12,090 lb (5,484 kg) Gross weight: 15,800 lb (7,167 kg) Combat weight: 16,244 lb (7,368 kg) Max takeoff weight: 21,000 lb (9,525 kg) on land 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) from catapult Maximum landing weight: 16,000 lb (7,257 kg) on land 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) arrested landing Fuel capacity: 763 US gal (635 imp gal; 2,890 l
F6F-5 Hellcat Crew: 1 Length: 33 ft 7 in (10.24 m) Wingspan: 42 ft 10 in (13.06 m) Height: 13 ft 1 in (3.99 m) Wing area: 334 sq ft (31.0 m2) Aspect ratio: 5.5 Airfoil: root: NACA 23015.6; tip: NACA 23009[106] Empty weight: 9,238 lb (4,190 kg) Gross weight: 12,598 lb (5,714 kg) Max takeoff weight: 15,415 lb (6,992 kg) Fuel capacity: 250 US gal (208 imp gal; 946 l) internal; up to 3 × 150 US gal (125 imp gal; 568 l) external drop tanks Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0211 Drag area: 7.05 sq ft (0.655 m2)
I don't how this is going to relate to the game, but I thought this was important.
|
|
|
Post by dontmajorchem on Dec 22, 2020 2:53:19 GMT -6
We do not need a very complex set of values, simply one per decade for all carrier capable planes (tied to the base model year obviously) and a discount value (folding wings technology) e.g. 1910: 4 1920: 5 1930: 5 1940: 6 1950: 8 folding wings: -2 Giving different types (let alone models) different values might be "nice" but becomes too complex way too fast. "deck park" would then become a flat bonus on carrier capacity (e.g. 20%), with "flight deck catapults" and "angled deck" also providing such boni (due to the higher take off weight achievable without long run-distance and the easier and safer deck management respectively). That would force the player to refit carriers to manage "heavier" aircraft and, with the option to set a maximum plane "weight" in the carrier design, allow the option to use older designs on older smaller carriers (though, those smaller older types being most likely flagged "obsolete", there might come the point where not enough old planes are available any more to maintain squadron sizes). I like the idea of simplifying planes size to one value per decade. That would make it much easier for the player to calculate how many planes a carrier could take and how big each squadron would be. Also, when designing the carrier, there could be a value next to the hanger size option that automatically calculates how many of the latest planes it can handle. I reckon the hardest part to implement is older, smaller models being replaced by newer, larger models. I can't really think of a solution that isn't micromanaging every squadron when a new plane model comes out (Although I would like to pick which carriers get upgrade priority and have the option to manually choose the airplane model for each squadron). Perhaps upgrading could work as it does now but carriers get penalties for being over capacity. Penalties could be increased accident chance, slower spotting, slower taking off and landing, higher damage from bomb hits etc. End-of-turn notifications could warn you when carriers are over limit. I'm not a huge fan of this tbh and I'd rather keep the hard cap. There could just be end-of-turn notifications forcing you to change squad size, but that could get really frustrating late game with 10+ carriers I still think a change like this is important because a carrier built in the thirties could compete with brand new 50s carriers simply because it can operate brand new airplanes
|
|
|
Post by kriegsmeister on Dec 22, 2020 11:49:24 GMT -6
Imo, Carriers as a whole are not greatly implemented. First off, I dont like the squadrons system, its needlessly micromanagy if you want to move squadrons around to retain crew efficiency or fight the procurement system (which is its whole separate issue) to get modern planes on modern ships. Yet despite the micro of moving them around, we have no control over the aircraft composition other than numbers.
Secondly, there really is no growth or development to the carriers themselves past your first conversion(s). Once you get past that first 8in gun ship, you can make the exact same 100 aircraft, unarmored, +30kt, and maxed out heavy AA ship indefinitely. Hell, they get smaller over time due to further weight savings technologies. (Although, yes, armored carriers will grow as you increase armor to counter bigger bombs, arguements in another thread) And even many of the technologies that are supposed to increase carrying capacity or improve spotting are not even fully implemented like deck park or deck edge elevators, so it doesnt matter if you install them on new ships since they dont do anything.
Thirdly, actual control of carriers and aircraft within scenarios is a nightmare. It says a LOT that 2/3 of the manual is dedicated just to carriers and their operation. It's a constant fight against the AI in trying to make your ships sail anywhere other than upwind. It takes dozens of clicks and several minutes to organize recon missions and strikes. CAP is very limited in only providing a broad initial search pattern and limited fighter coverage over individual ships rather than formations. There's a lot of room for improvement.
Lastly, the primary subject of this thread, the lack of a size quantifier for aircraft. An extremely important factor in the design of carriers historically. Granted not as much to the early carriers in the 20's and 30's due to the relatively small increase in size of aircraft and the introduction of folding wings. However, in the 40's and beyond this becomes a much bigger deal due to the very rapid development of aircraft and introduction of jets necessitating much larger ships with longer flight decks and catapults.
I've made previous comments on possible implementation on stats for aircraft size and takeoff speed (https://nws-online.proboards.com/post/63236/thread) but I'll reiterate and simplify it even more here.
The biggest change is just a flat out elimination of the squadrons. The ability to shuffle around squadrons is unnecessary for anything other than roleplay reasons. Carrier and airbase composition should be determined at construction in the design menu of the former and in a new little menu for the latter. This new composition window will have a row for each category of aircraft (F, TB, MB...) and either 2 or 4 columns. Aircraft model and number of aircraft which would be selectable, and on carriers the size and weight of the selected aircraft/# (this can be omitted from airbases as it doesnt really factor much).
This ties aircraft selection directly to the design of the ship which has its ups and downs. Changing composition is not as flexible as just switching out squadrons but would require a refit, though it should be quick and cheap, with things like switching variants of the same model aircraft being almost free. This also makes sense historically as carriers would need dock time to transfer the aircraft and its parts and outfit it with any needed components such as stronger elevators or new ammunition handling equipment. The size of the aircraft(s) would subtract from a capacity stat on the carrier. This stat would be generally based on ship tonnage with adjustments for the amount of armor, deck park, and what not. My favorite part of this change, is that it allows the player to directly control what model of aircraft is loaded on the ship/airbase which imo is the most frustrating part of current air ops.
I'd also like to see changes to in-scenario carrier operations, namely the ability to ignore wind direction for flight-ops. While, yes sailing into the wind was generally the recommended norm to allow easier aircraft launch and recovery, but it is not completely and utterly mandatory to the extent that a captain would rather doom the whole ship by sailing into an enemy battleship line to recover that 1 fighter returning from its mission. For some strange reason, in real life it is possible to launch and land with a crosswind or even a tailwind, I do it all the time when operating my RQ-7's, which operates exactly as if it was on an aircraft carrier with a catapult launcher and arrestor gear. However, this does induce higher risks of accidents, and so ingame we should have a togglable option to ignore wind direction, but at the cost of increased risk of operational losses. And also an option to halt all flight ops, namely CAP ops, wouldn't hurt either.
I also think that strikes formation could be greatly simplified by introducing a new section in the doctrine menu similar to the ammo selection. That of setting percentage amounts of dive and torpedo bomber, and fighter escort strength for light, medium, heavy, and maximum strike missions. Then in a new strike menu, rather than configuring the exact composition of a strike, you would just select the carrier, select the target, and then the size of the strike or another mission such as recon or escort/cap to a friendly ship/formation. This would greatly reduce the number of actions required to let carriers actually do their job, which brings up another thing, also allow the ai to control carrier ops. It took me like 3 battles in my first game to realize that my carriers were doing absolutely nothing without me telling them what to do.
These are just my thoughts which I think would greatly improve the carrier gameplay which I think is probably the second weakest part of this otherwise great game. (First being lack of control over division/force organization but that's an argument for another thread.)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 21, 2022 14:35:02 GMT -6
I'm a bit sorry for bringing this horse back from the dead (I'm a good necromancer, I swear! :-P) but there is an obvious solution to the conundrum (namely: "how do we implement replacement of older aircraft models") we seem to have overlooked: it's called "let the computer do it".
My proposal (aka 0.02$) is basically this: (obviously, it's just for aircraft carriers: airfields have neither weight nor space limitations) Each carrier will (naturally) have a certain 'capacity' which will be filled up during squadron creation with planes' number * size of the newest model. Obviously, each carrier's 'capacity' will probably be only partly filled up - since it's not always possible to have nicely divisible numbers, and squadrons will have a 'total' size. So, when a squadron is replacing it's planes with a different model, computer can simply divide the (total squadron size + carrier capacity leftovers) with the size of the aircraft about to be added, and set the result as the new number of planes in the squadron.
So, for example, a carrier with 192 'capacity' could have 1 squadron with 18 size 8 TB's (for a total of size 144) and 1 squadron with 9 size 5 F's (for a total of size 45) - leaving (192 - 144 - 45) 3 capacity unfilled. Now let's say a brand new model of F's is coming to replace the older ones, and this one is a size 6. So, the F's squadron has a total size of 45 + 3 capacity unfilled / new size 6 = there are now 8 planes in the squadron. Naturally, if this new model's size was, say, 7 - we'd have only 6 planes in the squadron, and 6 capacity unfilled. And then the change is announced as a single line on the "list of the last turn messages" - not as a popup.
Anyway - that's the quick and dirty of it. The devil's in the details, of course, but ...
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 21, 2022 16:29:41 GMT -6
I'm a bit sorry for bringing this horse back from the dead (I'm a good necromancer, I swear! :-P) but there is an obvious solution to the conundrum (namely: "how do we implement replacement of older aircraft models") we seem to have overlooked: it's called "let the computer do it". My proposal (aka 0.02$) is basically this: (obviously, it's just for aircraft carriers: airfields have neither weight nor space limitations) Each carrier will (naturally) have a certain 'capacity' which will be filled up during squadron creation with planes' number * size of the newest model. Obviously, each carrier's 'capacity' will probably be only partly filled up - since it's not always possible to have nicely divisible numbers, and squadrons will have a 'total' size. So, when a squadron is replacing it's planes with a different model, computer can simply divide the (total squadron size + carrier capacity leftovers) with the size of the aircraft about to be added, and set the result as the new number of planes in the squadron. So, for example, a carrier with 192 'capacity' could have 1 squadron with 18 size 8 TB's (for a total of size 144) and 1 squadron with 9 size 5 F's (for a total of size 45) - leaving (192 - 144 - 45) 3 capacity unfilled. Now let's say a brand new model of F's is coming to replace the older ones, and this one is a size 6. So, the F's squadron has a total size of 45 + 3 capacity unfilled / new size 6 = there are now 8 planes in the squadron. Naturally, if this new model's size was, say, 7 - we'd have only 6 planes in the squadron, and 6 capacity unfilled. And then the change is announced as a single line on the "list of the last turn messages" - not as a popup. Anyway - that's the quick and dirty of it. The devil's in the details, of course, but ... Cheers! Yes, the devil's in the deail. Now, you have different aircraft and you need to look at their stat but need to evaluate how such stats will compare to same space as space is the limit and taking consideration money etc. At the end you will get same as it is now but hidden in several atributes which are difficult to compared in your mind.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 22, 2022 0:13:56 GMT -6
... Anyway - that's the quick and dirty of it. The devil's in the details, of course, but ... Yes, the devil's in the detail. Now, you have different aircraft and you need to look at their stat but need to evaluate how such stats will compare to same space as space is the limit and taking consideration money etc. At the end you will get same as it is now but hidden in several attributes which are difficult to compared in your mind. Aye - therein lies the rub: We already know the stats - it's the "how do we transfer them to game mechanics in as simple as way as possible" part that's the problem. And, in order to solve that problem, we need to be as brutally simple as we can be: The only stat we need to look at here is space. As in: how much space does this plane take up on the ship? That's it's size. And I'm not just talking about stuff like folded wings, either - that tech will just increase the 'volume' of the hangar & deck (once it's 'unlocked') - I'm talking about take-offs and landings, as well - so, full on, wings extended, runway space needed, size. Now, the original issue I meant to tackle - since that appeared to be the biggest hurdle - was the replacement of the aircraft models. And I threw in my 2 cents. But, if you'd like my full idea - here it comes: So, carrier, basically, gains two stats here: (Planes have just one more stat: size) 1. Parking Capacity (hangar and deck park space available) (this is the 'capacity' I was talking about earlier) giving us the total size in 'plane spaces' a carrier can carry, and 2. Handling Capacity (representing lift, take-off & landing space + catapults and arrestor wires) (I have no idea how to call this one) giving us the maximum size of a plane that a carrier can operate Both of these will be improved by the various techs - and, especially, Handling Capacity will be increased by ship's speed (obviously) Both of these will also be limited by the carrier's displacement with square-cube law in full effect. And, finally, both of these will limit each other by competing for the (always limited) displacement. (Wanna improve handling? No prob - just reduce parking, bro) I could be more detailed if you'd like, but I'd say this gets my point across pretty well. Brutal simplicity is the order of the day (with a special emphasis on the 'brutal' part of it ... brutal as in: "Oh the brutality of it all!)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 22, 2022 14:35:25 GMT -6
OK, I will go into detail. In this case as new aicraft being operating, squadron size change so either there is not enough space on carrier or there is remaining space on carrier. This means that either player need to adjust manually, which is certainly wrong as it is micromanagement hell, or system needs to do it. But how? Which aicraft should be taken away or added? Player would always have some expectation but very probably different what system will do. Another step. Even if we took this as acceptable which is a lot of effort to make such a system, there is another point. Now, we can have 2 aicraft which one needs 20 % more space, but eg. the smaller one has firepower of 5, the large 6, and we have a question which one is better. Is it the one with higher firepower? It seems strange as the smaller aicraft can be 20 % more embarged on carrier. Now it was just one atribute, aicraft have several ones and now it is clear that the single number previously relatively clear is not clear anyway as now there are several important things as attributes in absolute value, atributes per space, attributes per maintenance cost. Now it is system which is excessively complex, difficult to orientate with just a little gain that you have a little more historical feeling that aicraft being bigger and bigger and less aicraft are embarged on carrier. Now, question is if it is historically true? We look at Royal Navy, eg. Illustrous class, which embarged about 36 aicraft as commissioned. But we can look further that Illustrious class 2 years later operated around 50-55 aicraft. How it is possible with aicraft being bigger and bigger. So we need to do something with our system which is not historically accurate as there are other things which influence how many aicraft are embarged on carrier. So it being even more complicated, I would tell overcomplicated for a very dubious gain. OK, so we can look at system we tried to replace. Everything is OK except planes are bigger however it was not the only attribute about how many aicraft were on carriers so we can now see that our original system was not perfect but it was abstraction which is much more historical accurate than simulating aicraft size and only if aicraft size increase tremendously, there is something need to be done with the system. Voila.
|
|
|
Post by cabusha on Nov 22, 2022 17:16:04 GMT -6
Could made it a research unlock with a choice at different years. EG: Adopt larger aircraft, improving X stats Y%, but reducing Carrier Wing Capacity by Z% over 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 22, 2022 22:24:57 GMT -6
OK, I will go into detail. In this case as new aicraft being operating, squadron size change so either there is not enough space on carrier or there is remaining space on carrier. This means that either player need to adjust manually, which is certainly wrong as it is micromanagement hell, or system needs to do it. But how? Which aicraft should be taken away or added? Player would always have some expectation but very probably different what system will do.
Which is why I suggested that the computer automatically increases/decreases the number of planes in a squadron by the new assigned plane size - all the while keeping the total squadron size (i.e. number of planes * size of currently assigned planes) more or less the same. I'm sorry if I failed to get that point across - that was the entire purpose of my post. As another way of looking at it, I guess you might say that I'm proposing that each Squadron has it's own, individual, 'plane capacity' (i.e. the size it takes up on the carrier) which is then 'filled' by the currently designated planes' size. So, a squadron might have, for example, 150 'space' assigned - which can be filled with 30 size 5 planes, or 25 size 6 planes. Yeah - I definitely failed to get that point across - I apologise.
Another step. Even if we took this as acceptable which is a lot of effort to make such a system, there is another point. Now, we can have 2 aicraft which one needs 20 % more space, but eg. the smaller one has firepower of 5, the large 6, and we have a question which one is better. Is it the one with higher firepower? It seems strange as the smaller aicraft can be 20 % more embarged on carrier. Now it was just one atribute, aicraft have several ones and now it is clear that the single number previously relatively clear is not clear anyway as now there are several important things as attributes in absolute value, atributes per space, attributes per maintenance cost. Now it is system which is excessively complex, difficult to orientate with just a little gain that you have a little more historical feeling that aicraft being bigger and bigger and less aicraft are embarged on carrier.
Everything grows - it's only natural. We are playing a game which simulates growth of battleships - from 4x12" to 9x16" guns, from 18 to 32 knots, from (effectively) 8" to 16" armor, from basic fire control to radar-guided directors - and all within - what? 40 years? That growth, however, came with a price: displacement went up from 15000 to 60000 tons. Why should it be different with aircraft? The only difference here is: you need to carry aircraft on a ship - and that ship has a limited space in which to carry them. This is what we're talking about: the fact that you cannot fit a 6-ton plane into the same space you can fit a 1.5-ton plane. (folding wings notwithstanding) So (to put it another way & as a comparison) which would you rather have: 60000 tons of super-dreadnought or 60000 tons of pre-dreadnoughts (from the example above)? I know my answer.
Now, question is if it is historically true? We look at Royal Navy, eg. Illustrous class, which embarged about 36 aicraft as commissioned. But we can look further that Illustrious class 2 years later operated around 50-55 aicraft. How it is possible with aicraft being bigger and bigger.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the British didn't use Deck Park on the Illustrious class until they got to the Pacific - for the same reason they used armored decks: dive bomber scare. From Wikipedia: "In 1944/45 RN carriers began to carry a permanent deck park of similar size to their USN counterparts, and this increased their aircraft complement from 36 to an eventual 57 aircraft in the single-hangar carriers, and from 48 up to 81 in the double-hangar, 23,400-ton Implacable design"
So we need to do something with our system which is not historically accurate as there are other things which influence how many aicraft are embarged on carrier. So it being even more complicated, I would tell overcomplicated for a very dubious gain. OK, so we can look at system we tried to replace. Everything is OK except planes are bigger however it was not the only attribute about how many aicraft were on carriers so we can now see that our original system was not perfect but it was abstraction which is much more historical accurate than simulating aicraft size and only if aicraft size increase tremendously, there is something need to be done with the system. Voila.
I like the current system, too, but - unfortunately - the aircraft size did increase, and it did cause problems, and this system is not very good at handling it. Which is why we're looking into a possible replacement. Preferably one that's as easy and as painless as possible.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 23, 2022 1:27:10 GMT -6
Yes, automatic system which will adjust squadrons size would be optimal. Try to make one with decision tree diagram with all possibilities. You will find this is not easy as what to do if you have spare space and full squadrons of 20 aicraft. Or what to do. But this will not overcome issue with aicraft attributes being less clear as I mentioned.
But if you want to put such detail as aicraft size, you need to put deckpark issue, but this is another complex topic. The reasons for deckpark (partial, full) are clear but there are reasons for not to have it but without simulating such details as wheather, difficulties of RN vs. RAF etc. are really so detailed that there are not in game (you cannot simulate everything). But without this reasons, the reasons for deckpark is one sided thus not reasonable to implement. If you not implement deckpark, you are again put something out from number of squadrons related to size. So the main question is when to stop simulating details and start a little abstraction. The size of aicraft is good point. If the difference is 10 %, it is quite reasonable compared to simulate just some part of complex system which will give ahistorical results and will be difficult for player to compare aicraft to aircraft.
Even for battleship duels, game abstract a lot of things as main thickness of belt armour was not same everywhere, armour was tapered. Abstraction is even how high the armour goes, sometimes has several thickness not only belt, upper and casemetes armour etc.
You cannot simulate everything as it would not be a game. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Nov 23, 2022 10:28:23 GMT -6
While it is fair for many things to be abstracted in this game, I'm not sure that aircraft size is one of them. How to go about implementing it, I'm not sure, and will leave that to people who know more about the subject.
More generally, I would like to see less abstraction and more detail in several different areas, such as a proper interactive world map, more in depth shipbuilding arrangements, a more complex armor system,
and more control of fleet operations in wartime.
That isn't a simple ask, and I'm sure that everyone who plays this game probably has their own list of things they'd like to have. And while I can't really expect everything I suggested to be added,
I think that the RTW series does need more features if it wants to go toe to toe with a certain other game in its sphere.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Nov 24, 2022 10:31:25 GMT -6
Bear in mind that Jet aircraft in RTW3 do take up more 'space' than prop planes of the same type, so there is at least a nod to aircraft getting larger as time passes. Indeed we have indeed discussed (more than once) a more detailed 'size/space' system for the game...
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Nov 24, 2022 11:32:32 GMT -6
The tricky thing with aircraft is there is multiple ways to think of size. You have the standard way which is physical dimensions. Then you have weight. Then you start throwing in performance data like max take off and landing weights, data that isn't just payload but fuel carried and weight of the crew members and their equipment. This leads to take off and landing speed requirements. For instance the Avenger torpedo bomber. Anyone who has been close to one can agree that its a fairly large single engine carrier aircraft both in dimension and weight, yet it was operated off some of the smallest and slowest flight decks with the escort carriers. At the same time, the fighter of choice was generally the smaller, lower performance F4F Wildcat/Martlet with the exception of the larger and somewhat faster Sangamon and Commencement Bay classes carrying F6F Hellcats. Sure the smaller escort carriers could physically carry the F6F but operating them was a different story. A jet aircraft that is smaller and lighter than the Avenger could never operate from an escort carrier because of the landing and takeoff speeds required. Weight and dimensions are certainly important but performance is every bit as important if not more so. And I was late posting. William pretty much said it in simpler terms.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 24, 2022 23:25:49 GMT -6
I'm sorry, folks - it looks like I have been flogging a dead horse by trying to resurrect this thread. I should've known that it would be debated and hashed out a while ago: effort-to-benefits ratio was too low, so the developer made his call and that's that - got it. This is a game about naval development and battles - I was just kind of hoping it would spread the development part to the aviation, as well. Especially since the two areas are so similar: how to put as much stuff into an object without going over the limits (drydock size in case of ships - lift & hangar size in case of planes) not to mention the cost of building them. Sure, I get that the price of a plane is miniscule compared to a ship's - but, hundreds of planes built over the course of a ship's life? Not cheap at all. Especially Jets - there is a reason why we had a new generation of planes every couple of years up to the jet age: each WW2 plane was costing the US government about a million dollars (in today's money) - while current price of a modern F-35 is about 100 million. Then again, with the game timeframe ending in 1970, there won't be many generations of those, either, so ... not much of an issue, right? In any case: RtW is still a great game - and I'm still a fan.
|
|