Aircraft Design Requirement

[Adseria]

Maybe add a checkbox to say whether you want it to be carrier capable? It seems like specifying whether the plane should be carrier capable should be an option available to the player, rather than hoping the coin flip gives you a decent design that can be used on a carrier (or not, depending on your needs).

Incidentally, I don't suppose you can tell us how many prototypes will be provided for a request?

[corsair]

Depending on how much land-based naval air options there are, that might be a good addition.

Also, personally, I'd like to have three priorities to focus on rather than two. Having only two seems just a bit low when there are six possible priorities. Three out of six seems better to me.

[Adseria]

Feb 12, 2019 6:16:54 GMT -6 corsair said:

Depending on how much land-based naval air options there are, that might be a good addition.

Also, personally, I'd like to have three priorities to focus on rather than two. Having only two seems just a bit low when there are six possible priorities. Three out of six seems better to me.

They've already shown that we'll be able to have NASs, which, presumably, will be able to operate all aircraft, carrier-based or otherwise.

I agree with having more options to prioritise. It could even be nice to just be given a list of all 6 and say "this is high priority, this is low priority," the same as with research.

[akosjaccik]

I'll play the devil's advocate here and say I don't see a lot of point asking for such in-depth customization if you then still can't delegate the given specialized types to exact locations anyway. Just pick the aircraft that fits your needs the most above the requested specifications when the companies present their plans.
However, I _do_ wonder how will different types get the "CV checkbox" if the player can't directly ask for a deck-based craft.

[Adseria]

Feb 12, 2019 7:04:38 GMT -6 akosjaccik said:

I'll play the devil's advocate here and say I don't see a lot of point asking for such in-depth customization if you then still can't delegate the given specialized types to exact locations anyway. Just pick the aircraft that fits your needs the most above the requested specifications when the companies present their plans.
However, I _do_ wonder how will different types get the "CV checkbox" if the player can't directly ask for a deck-based craft.

I'm not saying that you should specify exact stats, I'm saying that you say what you want the plane to be good or bad at and then the details are ironed out by the manufacturer, but different manufacturers use a different approach. Like, if you say you want a plane with good bomb load and speed, but you don't mind the range being low, one option might be for a very fast plane with a pretty good bomb load, and the other will have an excellent bomb load, but sacrifice some speed, while keeping speed above average, and both designs will sacrifice range to achieve that.

Having an "I don't mind" option could also be fun, to give the designers some leeway when making a design.

"However, I _do_ wonder how will different types get the "CV checkbox" if the player can't directly ask for a deck-based craft."

Not sure what you meant by this. Maybe "how will the game determine what planes are CV-capable if my checkbox suggestion isn't implemented?" If so, I assume it would be a coin flip.

[garrisonchisholm]

All TBs, DBs, & Fs will be CV capable. Medium Bombers, Flying Boats, and Float Plane Scouts are not CV capable. (we can make our arguments for a Billy Mitchell medium bomber event after release).

The game does not go into the detail of Land Based fighters having superiority over carrier based. The only fighters you will see in the game will be able to fly out of both Naval Air Stations and Carriers.

[oldpop2000]

Just a quick note. If you compare the F7F Tigercat, which was a twin-engine naval fighter, with the B-25 you will find that they weighed about the same: F7F- 21425 lbs. and the B-25 Combat Weight of 27,400 lbs. Wing span for the F7F was about 51 feet, the B-25 was 67 feet, just a little larger. Point is that you can design a twin-engine fighter/bomber for a carrier and it can launch and recovery on the carrier, if is designed for that purpose. Your aircraft design research could provide for such an aircraft with sufficient engine power, hydraulics and other important technology especially airborne radar.

[cwemyss]

Feb 12, 2019 9:38:12 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Just a quick note. If you compare the F7F Tigercat, which was a twin-engine naval fighter, with the B-25 you will find that they weighed about the same: F7F- 21425 lbs. and the B-25 Combat Weight of 27,400 lbs. Wing span for the F7F was about 51 feet, the B-25 was 67 feet, just a little larger. Point is that you can design a twin-engine fighter/bomber for a carrier and it can launch and recovery on the carrier, if is designed for that purpose. Your aircraft design research could provide for such an aircraft with sufficient engine power, hydraulics and other important technology especially airborne radar.

Wasn't the F7F designed for the Midway class? While probably possible to operate off an Essex, it might have struggled to do so efficiently (shipboard handling, sortie gen rates, etc). I dont know if the USN ever actually operated them regularly on any carriers, large or small.

Not saying you're wrong by any means, just that in addition to airplane characteristics you'd have to have very large carriers as well in order for aircraft that size to be operationally useful.

[oldpop2000]

Feb 12, 2019 10:21:15 GMT -6 cwemyss said:

Feb 12, 2019 9:38:12 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Just a quick note. If you compare the F7F Tigercat, which was a twin-engine naval fighter, with the B-25 you will find that they weighed about the same: F7F- 21425 lbs. and the B-25 Combat Weight of 27,400 lbs. Wing span for the F7F was about 51 feet, the B-25 was 67 feet, just a little larger. Point is that you can design a twin-engine fighter/bomber for a carrier and it can launch and recovery on the carrier, if is designed for that purpose. Your aircraft design research could provide for such an aircraft with sufficient engine power, hydraulics and other important technology especially airborne radar.

Wasn't the F7F designed for the Midway class? While probably possible to operate off an Essex, it might have struggled to do so efficiently (shipboard handling, sortie gen rates, etc). I dont know if the USN ever actually operated them regularly on any carriers, large or small.

Not saying you're wrong by any means, just that in addition to airplane characteristics you'd have to have very large carriers as well in order for aircraft that size to be operationally useful.

Yes, she was designed for the Midway class carriers because she was too large for the Essex class. However, at the time of her design, the Midway's were in design also so it worked. My point is that you could do the same thing. Develop a twin-engine fighter/bomber for a carrier but ensure that the carrier is large enough to handle it. Only the N model for the Tigercat was carrier certified. She was actually used by the Marines as a night fighter. They were converted later as firefighting role. 

The problem with an aircraft like the F7F is weight and directional capability with one engine.  The F7F was almost twice as heavy as the F4U corsair so the deck had to be reinforced and capable of handling that weight. The Midway decks were thicker and heavier to account for such extra weight. They also had to solve the directional problems when landing with one engine.

[corsair]

Feb 12, 2019 6:54:51 GMT -6 Adseria said:

I agree with having more options to prioritise. It could even be nice to just be given a list of all 6 and say "this is high priority, this is low priority," the same as with research.

I don't think your second idea would work in practice; what if someone selected all six areas as 'high' priority? I don't mind the focus idea, I think it feels quite good. It'd be better in my view if three areas could be focused upon instead of two. Half of the areas available is nicer than one-third.

[director]

The player should have no aircraft options if he does not have a separate naval air arm.

[noshurviverse]

I'd be a supporter of having the option of specifying one area that you could set as an area of least concern. It might also be interesting if different designs could result in higher or lower monthly upkeep costs, to abstract more complex designs.

Feb 12, 2019 18:40:22 GMT -6 corsair said:

I don't think your second idea would work in practice; what if someone selected all six areas as 'high' priority? I don't mind the focus idea, I think it feels quite good. It'd be better in my view if three areas could be focused upon instead of two. Half of the areas available is nicer than one-third. ;)

It'd probably work the same as having all research areas set to high, nothing would actually get prioritization and you'd end up with the F-35.

[Adseria]

Feb 12, 2019 18:40:22 GMT -6 corsair said:

Feb 12, 2019 6:54:51 GMT -6 Adseria said:

I agree with having more options to prioritise. It could even be nice to just be given a list of all 6 and say "this is high priority, this is low priority," the same as with research.

I don't think your second idea would work in practice; what if someone selected all six areas as 'high' priority? I don't mind the focus idea, I think it feels quite good. It'd be better in my view if three areas could be focused upon instead of two. Half of the areas available is nicer than one-third.

If someone selected all as high priority, then it would be the same as leaving everything at medium priority, or setting everything to low. Again, the same as with research.

[mycophobia]

While I understand the team probably have a lot on their plate so close to release, I do think OP’s suggestion for research like prioritization in aircraft design is a good idea. Historically many air craft designs are very specific and indeed demanding.

While we do not need extreme detail like a specific range or speed requirement, being able to ask for multiple things is not a bad idea. It means that we can end up planes that essentially horribly underperforms in the unspecified area, or one that is so mediocre that it does not stand out. I think the possibility to get terrible or flawed designs can keep the aircraft progression very interesting.(the other side of the coin is ofcourse that you may end up with an amazing plane that fit most of your priority without major shortcoming in other area, abiet highly dependent on technology)

[dorn]

Feb 14, 2019 4:06:48 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

While I understand the team probably have a lot on their plate so close to release, I do think OP’s suggestion for research like prioritization in aircraft design is a good idea. Historically many air craft designs are very specific and indeed demanding.

While we do not need extreme detail like a specific range or speed requirement, being able to ask for multiple things is not a bad idea. It means that we can end up planes that essentially horribly underperforms in the unspecified area, or one that is so mediocre that it does not stand out. I think the possibility to get terrible or flawed designs can keep the aircraft progression very interesting.(the other side of the coin is ofcourse that you may end up with an amazing plane that fit most of your priority without major shortcoming in other area, abiet highly dependent on technology)

Question is when you can order new design? As I understand as it was never written it could be around half year. So you can have requested new design every half of the year. You can add improvements on current designs (mentioned by devs) and you can get a lot of designs. Now go through designs used by any navy.

You can check of list of design for FAA.

You can dismiss several type of aircrafts including ex RAF, trainers etc. and you will find that there is not so much designs which would be used by game.