|
Post by srndacful on Mar 26, 2020 2:38:13 GMT -6
Hello folks!
Well, with all the coronavirus quarantine stuff going on, I finally got the time to 'mull over' an idea I've been holding onto for ... well, a long time now. Basically, it's (i.e. I envisioned it as) an answer to all the people asking: "Why do I get X ships instead of Y when I fight battles?" - and please note that this covers a wide amount of questions: from "Why are my worst BC's involved instead of my best?" through "Why is only a part of my fleet actually fighting?" to "Can we have task forces so I can put specialised ships in?" So, my thought was (essentially): 'Why don't we show them just how stretched they really are?' with a side bonus of 'And give them what they want at the same time.' ... Yep - a 'carrot and a stick' all in one - it's just how my mind works, I suppose.
Anyway, the basics of the idea is this: Players will get to assign Missions to their available ships - or send their available ships on Missions, depending on how you look at it - every turn of the war.
Now, since they'll have to do this every turn (month) - and since there will probably be those among us who are uninterested in (and/or actively annoyed by (*cough* me *cough*)) excessive micromanagement - the available ships will automatically be distributed by the AI to the available Missions at the start of the turn, and the player will be able to re-organise them at his leisure (or not at all). Available ships would be all those ships on AF in the Area not currently in transit.
Missions are, basically, a 'battle type' (e.g. Shore Bombardment) in a given location (e.g. 'Sicily') which would then be assigned any number of ships (including none at all) to it. Each available ship could only be assigned one Mission per month. Missions should be divided into 'Defensive' and 'Offensive' (ho hum) - with each Offensive Mission generating a Battle against the appropriate enemy Defensive Mission. Missions should be grouped by Area - by Territory (or even Port(s)) is also possible, but would be a bit (way) more complicated - with all the possible Missions in that Area (Territory/Port(s)) listed, and ships assigned to them listed right underneath them - so as to enable group selection and drag-and-drop shuffling.
So, for example, if I was playing A-H, and at war with Italy, a possible list of Defensive Missions would be: Coastal Defense of Dalmatia (against Italian Coastal Raids, Bombardments and Invasions), Coastal Defense of A-H (against Italian Coastal Raids, Bombardments and Invasions), Defense of Convoy no.1 (against Italian's Convoy no.1 Interception), (if there is any) Defense of Convoy no.2 (against Italian's Convoy no.2 Interception), (if there is any) ... etc ... depending on how many Convoys the RNGods generate that turn - I'd say 1 per 10 ports per turn, but that's just my 0.02$.
Then there are Offensive (ho hum) Missions available to me: Coastal Raid on Italian East Coast, (defended by Italian Coastal Defense of Italian East Coast) Coastal Raid on Italian West Coast, (defended by Italian Coastal Defense of Italian West Coast) ... etc ... as I think you got the picture, and don't want to bore you with (bigger) wall of text.
In any case, this would provide a nice visual overview of how stretched your fleet really is, along with a possibility of making your own task forces (with all the specialised ships you want) and making the best of the situation.
Please note that I'm not wedded to this idea, and I don't expect Fredrik will have the time (or even inclination) to add this into RtW2 - since, I expect, it will be tricky and time-consuming to configure and balance the AI - but if it sparks a discussion (and possible improvements) - I'm happy.
All comments/insults/ideas/threats/thoughts/preaching/criticisms welcome. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 21, 2020 23:59:15 GMT -6
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but: Don't we already have a variable that tracks the availability of the deck space? I believe it's called "AA Positions used"? Doesn't it already go up and down according to the amount of positions of ... well, just about anything mounted - guns, torps, mines, minesweeping or ASW gear?
IMHO, renaming it "deck positions available" and using it to track ... well, just about anything mounted - like it's doing so far - would provide a 'soft' cap for the number of primary, secondary, tertiary and AA guns, as well as fire control, mines, torps and ASW.
Just my 0.02$ anyway. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Dec 28, 2019 0:09:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Dec 25, 2019 0:15:51 GMT -6
I've been thinking about suggesting this, but I figured that, IMHO, it would only pi$$ off the majority of players, so I kept quiet.
Still, if you'd like to press on, there is a really simple solution to the problem: Have each and every ship roll against 1-in-a-million (well, more like 100.000, really) chance to have an accident each and every month. If Fredrik's up to it, you could even add modifiers to the roll - like ships in Reserve having half this chance - or ships in Mothballs having five times less chance - or ships in colonies having 1.25 times the chance - or perhaps a penalty for nations with Hidden Flaws or Poor Shipbuilding or Poor Education or both.
Again, just my 0.02$ really. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Dec 5, 2019 0:31:31 GMT -6
Currently for Fighters and Dive bombers the default loading when selecting N Strike is Medium. Noticed even more with mid-game fighters that have only a H(eavy) and no M(edium) bomb option. Those fighters were defaulting to a bomb load of air. IMHO, the planes should default to the heaviest bombload they can carry to the designated target - this would make preparing an airstrike even quicker. Then again, if this can't be included, then defaulting to H(eavy) bomb load would be my preference as well. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 5, 2019 23:37:21 GMT -6
IMHO, 'crossing the T' is nothing but a simple exercise in mathematics: The side that's doing the crossing will be able to bring more guns to bear, and thus inflict more pain on the enemy - and since wars (and thus battles) are won by the side that inflicts the most pain on the enemy - the side that's doing the crossing will automatically win. The reduced chance of hitting is still offset by the additional number of guns able to fire on the enemy. Hell, let's make a mathematical model - Lanchester style: Is it, though? Do we have any substantial empirical evidence (because the attrition coefficients for Lanchester-style models are usually derived from empirical analysis, AFAIK) that double the amount of guns would suffice to make up for the difficulty aiming? Moreover, how do you determine the amount of hits to be allocated? The amount of hits needed to sink/disable a ship? Your approach is mathematically sound, I suppose, but makes a set of assumptions that might not necessarily be in place when considering a practical situation. If you don't mind me nitpicking, I'd also dare say that winning battles does not necessarily correlate with winning wars - as certain Pyrrhus once said, "One more such victory and I will be undone". As a matter of fact - and looking at the page I found and posted in the answer to Tortuga's post above - I now think that I might have seriously miscalculated and that the odds of hitting are even more in favour of the side doing the 'crossing the T'. Based on a gun's dispersion pattern, it certainly seems to be much easier to hit a ship when it's facing towards you, than when it's facing sideways - even if we take the height (and the chance of hitting the superstructure even if it misses the hull) into account. As for being a nitpicker - being a kind of a nitpicker myself, I certainly don't mind. With that said, though, I'll invite you to take a better look at that part of my post above, and note that I said 'wars are won by the side that inflicts more pain on the enemy' - which is the most important part here because, as I'm sure you'll agree, winning wars is the most important part of the whole story -with battles being only the means to achieve this end. So, with that in mind, would you kindly tell me which side suffered more pain: Pyrrhus for losing 10.000 out of his 100.000 potentially recruitable men, or Rome for losing 20.000 of it's 400.000 potentially recruitable men? (note: numbers mostly derived from my a$$ - but with a serious attempt to make it as close to reality as my mk.1 eyeball will let me)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 3, 2019 23:18:41 GMT -6
dorn: you are absolutely right - in any kind of battle, the 'crossing the T' advantage would not last more than a round - still, that round might just prove decisive, since it still gives Side A the chance to strike a significant blow that will start a 'death spiral' for Side B. OTOH, it's now irrelevant since: tortugapower: quite right - I was pulling my math out of my a$$, contributing nothing to the discussion, and I hereby apologise for derailing the thread. That said: have you taken a look at the dispersal patterns of land artillery? I've done a quick Google search and it came up with www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/dispersion.html. I don't know just how much it'd be helpful but ... Best of luck and cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 2, 2019 23:57:17 GMT -6
IMHO, 'crossing the T' is nothing but a simple exercise in mathematics: The side that's doing the crossing will be able to bring more guns to bear, and thus inflict more pain on the enemy - and since wars (and thus battles) are won by the side that inflicts the most pain on the enemy - the side that's doing the crossing will automatically win. The reduced chance of hitting is still offset by the additional number of guns able to fire on the enemy.
Hell, let's make a mathematical model - Lanchester style: Side A is 'crossing the T' on side B. They both have 8 ships with guns in 4x2 configuration - however, Side A will, naturally, have all it's guns available - but Side B will only have 1/2 of it's guns initially available - so, basically a 2x2 configuration. Let's take into account the reduced chance of hitting by giving Side A 10 guns to make a hit - while Side B needs only 8 guns to make a hit. Each hit will take out a turret (with 2 guns in it) - so, basically, Side A will lose a ship in 4 hits, and Side B a ship with 2 hits. Yes, I'm aware that Side B's ships will be a lot less damaged than Side A's, but their turrets will be out of action - and thus they will (basically) be sitting ducks - to be taken out later.
With those rules in place - let's fight!
Round 1: Side A has 8x4x2 = 64 guns available = 6.4 hits - let's say 6, with the .4 carried over. Side B has 8x2x2 = 32 guns available = 4 hits total. So, basically, Side B has just lost 3 ships (5 ships remaining) - and Side A only 1 (7 remanining).
Round 2: Side A has 7x4x2 = 56 guns available = 5.6 +0.4 (leftover from last round) = 6 hits Side B has 5x2x2 = 20 guns available = 2.5 hits - so, 2 hits, with 0.5 carried over. So, Side B again loses 3 ships (2 remaining) - while Side A loses 0.5 ships (let's say damaged)
Round 3: Side A has 6.5x4x2 = 52 guns available = 5.2 hits & more than enough to wipe out the enemy. Side B has 2x2x2 = 8 guns available = 1 hit
And the Side B has been wiped out - while Side A has barely had a quarter of it's strenght taken out. I'd take a victory like that any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Aug 7, 2019 21:23:28 GMT -6
Pfft, you got it all wrong. There is a strong argument for issuing spam to troops, very convenient. Serious now: I did not intend to imply that in my statement. My dream game is actually pretty close to the one you described. That said - I do think certain elements couldn't be covered adequately *without* significant land/naval presence, but your game I suspect has about as much chance of being made as mine. IMHO, it's virtually impossible to make this kind of game without (at least some kind of) land/naval presence - especially since about 75% of all possible airforce missions are tied to the army/navy's needs. Not to mention the fact that an Air Force is tied to it's airfields which can (relatively easily) be captured by the enemy, and any planes on them taken out of action/service. True, the Navy suffers the same thing, but in it's case the main ports are (usually) deep within the home territory, and if the enemy ever gets that far, it means the war has gone pear-shaped and you're about to lose, anyway. Still, even a rudimentary spreadsheet system of checks and balances (based on unit HQ's - giving some basic tactical targets) is pretty easy to make (and tune up) - I should know, since I basically coded one. I actually can't believe noone has coded it yet, really - since there is a multitude of flight simulators available out there, and (when compared to the system requirements for the flight part of the game) a dynamic & persistent (and reasonably accurate) simulation of Army / Navy activity should not be that hard to code - nor take that much time or system power, all the while providing a deep immersion by providing the player with permanent (and tangible) consequences of their actions. I mean, yeah, successfully defending your bombers against three times as many enemy fighters is awesome - but knowing those bombers then took out a bridge (or an Army Depot) and thus stalled the enemy offensive by cutting off their supply (for example) is even more awesome. Since, basically, you get to play two games (tactical and strategic) and get to win at both at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Aug 6, 2019 22:26:43 GMT -6
Well, for a start, it would have to be removed from just 'naval' aspect and take over the land-based operations as well. I don't know if you've ever played the 'Ancient Art of War in the Skies' game but the basic idea is similar: you are supporting the land and naval forces in their quest to beat the ... stuffing ... out of the enemy and win the war. To do this, you get a monthly budget which you can spend on designing and purchasing (government-designed&built) planes, building airfields, factories and squadrons and taking up (or refusing) civilian designs. Basically, think of it as a combination of current RtW2's Ship Design / Plane Order part of the game. And if you think for a second designing planes would be boring - think again: While the ships have a 'natural' propensity to float on water - aircraft have to actively work on keeping themselves up by using wings: so, which ones would you like? Small (lighter) ones - giving you smaller drag - and thus more speed, but making your plane less maneuverable and prone to stalling - or larger ones - reducing it's speed and available weight, but making it more maneuverable and forgiving. How about structure? You'd like to have a stronger one to maneuver better (and be shot down less) - but it costs a lot of preciuos weight, so ... who needs self-sealing fuel tanks, anyway, right? There's a ton more choices in here, but not enough room to write them down (without being too boring with the wall of text). Then, naturally, comes the war and battles, and you have to deploy the Squadrons to the airfields near the front lines and support your friendly troops / ships with reconnaisance, VIP transport, reconnaisance, bombing, reconnaisance, interdiction, reconnaisance, Close Air Support and occasional supply drop to the encircled troops - oh, and, did I mention reconnaisance? On top of which all comes the CAP and fighter sweeps and escorts and actual battle for air superiority - which is really just a sideshow for the more important part of your job of supporting your troops & ships, but hey - you can't support them if all your planes get instantly shot down, amirite? Anyway - it's just a distant dream of mine - 0.02$, really. Cheers! You've got no ambition. It should be "Rule the Lands" and have a complete strategic and operational/tactical suite where you design and build your hardware, lay out your TO&E and battle over areas in the classic RTW top down view (with the land elements suitably enhanced) but with each tank, plane and infantryman modelled. How hard could it be? Now look who has no ambition! Making the game called "Rule the Lands" and not including an RPG-like model of every single person (along with it's abilities, strenghts and weaknesses to be used/exploited) in said lands for you to manage? Revolting! Also, you seem to have forgotten logistics and supplies, my friend - those tanks, planes and people can't do anything without fuel, food and ammo, you know - and (naturally) it's your job to supply it to them, carefully weighing them out down to the last grain of saltpeter, last lamb (and it's chops) and (most importantly) last pint of beer ... uh ... gasoline - yeah, gasoline. I mean - really - how could you have forgotten them? Seriously, though: reading through the lines I get the impression that you think my game idea is a bit too much to handle?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Aug 4, 2019 22:05:33 GMT -6
I'm not sure how 'Rule the Air' would work. You need a lot more pieces to put the puzzle together. Air superiority is invaluable in any military operation, but it is only a part of the equation if you want to do anything other than break stuff. A large part of the Pacific naval actions in WW2 were about ruling the air, so in a way we're already playing that game. You can't rule the air without an airfield or carrier underneath it. Well, for a start, it would have to be removed from just 'naval' aspect and take over the land-based operations as well. I don't know if you've ever played the 'Ancient Art of War in the Skies' game but the basic idea is similar: you are supporting the land and naval forces in their quest to beat the ... stuffing ... out of the enemy and win the war. To do this, you get a monthly budget which you can spend on designing and purchasing (government-designed&built) planes, building airfields, factories and squadrons and taking up (or refusing) civilian designs. Basically, think of it as a combination of current RtW2's Ship Design / Plane Order part of the game. And if you think for a second designing planes would be boring - think again: While the ships have a 'natural' propensity to float on water - aircraft have to actively work on keeping themselves up by using wings: so, which ones would you like? Small (lighter) ones - giving you smaller drag - and thus more speed, but making your plane less maneuverable and prone to stalling - or larger ones - reducing it's speed and available weight, but making it more maneuverable and forgiving. How about structure? You'd like to have a stronger one to maneuver better (and be shot down less) - but it costs a lot of preciuos weight, so ... who needs self-sealing fuel tanks, anyway, right? There's a ton more choices in here, but not enough room to write them down (without being too boring with the wall of text). Then, naturally, comes the war and battles, and you have to deploy the Squadrons to the airfields near the front lines and support your friendly troops / ships with reconnaisance, VIP transport, reconnaisance, bombing, reconnaisance, interdiction, reconnaisance, Close Air Support and occasional supply drop to the encircled troops - oh, and, did I mention reconnaisance? On top of which all comes the CAP and fighter sweeps and escorts and actual battle for air superiority - which is really just a sideshow for the more important part of your job of supporting your troops & ships, but hey - you can't support them if all your planes get instantly shot down, amirite? Anyway - it's just a distant dream of mine - 0.02$, really. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Aug 3, 2019 22:16:48 GMT -6
Have the devs said how they will model jets, missiles etc? And if they have, where can I find their posts about them? Welcome to the forum, rtwairversionwhen - and I fully agree with your screenname: when are we going to Rule the Air, williammiller and Fredrik W?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 13, 2019 0:35:07 GMT -6
I'm fine with that in principle, but I have some practical concerns. For one, how will your system will handle geographic issues? It feels like Russia should be easier to blockade than the US, but I'm not sure if it actually would be under those mechanics. Also, raider interceptions aren't really treated like battles right now, so that would likely want to change. The nature of suggestions is that we don't know the code base, so we're just stabbing in the dark. So perhaps yours is better than mine here - I'm willing to let the NWS guys figure out which one seems better. But I'd prefer a fix here, and either of those (if done right) would be fine by me. If I remember correctly, RtW1's Raiding/Patrol system ran on the principle of Raiding/Patrol points - i.e.each Area was dotted with points where Raiders/Patrols (and merchants?) would be distributed, and the losses/thwartings would be determined by which forces found themselves on which point. So, basically, (as it stands right now) Russia would be just as difficult to blockade as any other nation - since it's all a numbers game. However, if Fredrik is to, say, code in the fact that Raiding forces (especially those supported by Active Fleet - representing actual Blockade instead of just running around harassing sailors) tend to favour points closest to enemy ports (like within 100 miles, for example) - you could quickly see that there are only 1 or 2 points a fleet blockading Russia would have to picket - as opposed to something like 10 (or more likely 20) points you'd need to picket to blockade Britain. So, basically, if (for example) 10 Patrol ships oppose 20 Blockaders in Russia, a typical Raider Interception would be something like 2 Patrollers vs. 4 Blockaders. While in Britain, OTOH, it would be something like 4 Patrollers vs. 1 Blockader (for example - with the same amount of ships) - you see where I'm going here, surely. Again, not sure if I remember correctly - somebody correct me if I'm not. Cheers! P.S. personally, I'd love something like SaI's campaign system bolted into RtW - where you assign the locations of Patrols and Raiders and select missions/targets for your main fleet and have operation points budget to manage - but, then again, I can see it's not everyone's cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 12, 2019 23:03:48 GMT -6
Looking at the latest blockade thread, I have an idea for how blockade could work more realistically, and address some of the problems they outline. And while I can't say for sure, it seems like it wouldn't take all that much work either. 1) Blockade is not automatic. Instead, ships can be set to blockade (either with a "Blockade" status, or with a button somewhere). If enough ships in a zone are on blockade, the enemy is being blockaded. "Enough" will vary by fleet size setting, and by the geography of the target nation - for example, with Very Large fleets you might be able to blockade Russia with 20 ships, Germany with 30, and the UK with 50 (because of their relative access to the sea). This should only count your raw number of hulls, not tonnage or effectiveness - a KE can stop a merchie just as well as a BB can. An inferior fleet may even choose to blockade if it wants to and has enough hulls(though points 2-3 will make it unpleasant to try). As an optional extra here, you can also make it possible to blockade colonies. If it's implemented, use similar rules, and this should replace the "Dominate sea zones around..." events. 2) New mission types will exist for blockaded nations. I'm thinking of two in particular: - Blockade Runner missions, where the goal is to escort fast transports to a target destination (past the blockade), and break contact with enemy forces - this can use similar logic to invasion missions, but with a different target location. - Blockade Raid missions, which will basically be Coastal Raid missions where the enemy ships you're trying to kill are the blockading forces, not transports and such. These missions could be more variable than most in terms of the force available to the blockading nation - sometimes the blockaders will be light forces with little nearby support, but any battle fleets in the area will have a chance of being available to reinforce the blockade, and a small raid can be outnumbered badly if it hits the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) If the blockading power refuses or loses blockade missions, they may suffer penalties as a result. Implementation can vary, but reasonable penalties would include the loss of prestige, additional VP penalties, loss of ability to blockade for some time, increased tension with third parties (due to frustration at a "paper blockade"), and/or unrest in extreme cases. Certainly it should include the loss of any blockade bonuses for the month. Refusal, in particular, should have large penalties, which are spelled out in the popup asking if we want to accept battles. This prevents the issue of a "blockade" that always refuses battles, creates a pretty realistic system, doesn't add a ton of complexity, and I think it might also be nice to mix up the battle types a bit. Why complicate things, though? IMHO, there is an existing mechanic already in place to deal with this kind of stuff: Raiding & Trade Protection roles. (No, I'm not kidding - and, please, at least read the next paragraph before rolling your eyes and hitting the 'back' button on your browser) Basically - and as far as I can tell - Raiding and Blockading have the same goal ('eliminating' enemy merchant traffic) which they accomplish by using the same methods (cruise around an area, and 'eliminate' any enemy merchants you find & can intercept) - the only major difference here is that Blockaders are assigned an specific area to Patrol (and are based off a port) - while 'proper' Raiders 'range' across an entire Sea Zone. Similarly, the best way to defeat a Blockade (as mentioned before) is to run Convoys through it (which is nearly the exact same way in which Raiders are defeated - for the most part) so - again, basically - Trade Protection is the role best fit for this. So, what I propose is: 1. Remove the Blockade mechanic entirely, and rely solely on 'amount of merchants sunk causes starvation and the populace is revolting' mechanic. 2. Further amplify the 1. part by the increased amount of Convoy missions (possibly with an auto-resolve button for those among us not taking sadistic pleasure in slaughtering innocent merchantmen) - especially in the Home Area (and possibly major colonies - like India, for example - as well) 3. Have ships with Raiding (on the attacking side) and Trade Protection (on the defending side) orders included in Convoy missions under 2. alongside the ships on Active (Fleet) Duty in that area - which are the only ones that pop up in these kinds of battles at the moment. 4. Have all merchants sunk in battles (Coastal Raids as well as Convoy Defense) counted in the unrest mechanic under 1. 5. (just a cherry on the top, really) Remove the 'two escorting DD's' in convoys - the duty of defending the helpless merchants should fall only on the player's shoulders - not to mention the fact that (when there is no DD's in the Sea Area the battle is to take place in) the battle generator throws in DD's from other areas (like the ones half a world away - just as a random example) 6. Have the (current) blockading modifier represent the difficulty of blockading the nation (i.e.'how many merchants would you have to sink to create a point of unrest?' kind of thing) - USA, for example, would be really difficult since they are capable of sustaining themselves - Japan would be relatively easy, since they need to import just about everything. 7. Show (at least in numbers) the amount of merchant traffic for yourself and the nation you're at war with in each Area - so we can tell what the odds of a convoy mission in any given Area is, and how many Patrol ships to put in there. This could be as easy as tracing the value of each and every colony through sea Areas on the way to Home Area - i.e. India is producing 1000 points, so there will be 1000 points of traffic in Indian Ocean, Meditteranean and Nothern Europe. In this way, you can generate far more actions (which is a huge benefit for all) while reducing the code (IMHO, anyway - Fredrik has sole access to the actual guts, and might disagree) increasing player participation by (actually) 'fielding' a proper colonial defense and removing an annoying, bean-counting and illogical mechanic that created nothing but trouble for a long, long time. Oh, and, in the interest of making things clearer, you might as well rename the roles - Raiding to, say, Interception (Interdiction?) - and Trade Protection to, say, Patrol. This gives the respective 'shorthands' as 'I' and 'P' which (if I'm not mistaken) are easily distinguishable from all the rest. Just my 0.02$ anyway. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 29, 2019 22:36:54 GMT -6
It’s not just random research rates I’ve suffered from similar issues twice before. Occasionally some techs will be skipped(this is a normal in game thing, for example you might never get 4 centreline turrets, but then skip past it to 5+ centreline), unfortunately if early air launched torpedoes gets skipped it can take up to ten years till you unlock later air launched torpedoes and will thus be able to get torpedo bombers Hopefully it will be changed in a future update Many nations in WW2 did not develop effective dive bombers or torpedo bombers. There is no guarantee in the game that you will develop either of them. This is fully intentional. The idea in the game is to put players in the shoes of real heads of navies, that had to work with what they had. Still, the only reason I can see why they didn't develop dive/torpedo bombers at all is that they had no carriers to put them on. Even Germany and Italy (once they decided to build carriers) started developing dive/torpedo bombers - everyone else (who operated carriers, naturally) already had them. So, IMHO, the question of having Dive/torpedo bombers (and possibly fighters) at all is tied to the question: "are you currently operating, building or developing aircraft carriers?" (And I suppose this includes williammiller as well) Also, any word on the multipurpose aircraft? We already have torpedo-carrying Medium bombers and bomb-carrying fighters in the game - but when are torpedo-carrying dive bombers and fighters (not to mention dive-bombing torpedo bombers and fighters) coming along? Cheers!
|
|