|
Post by bcoopactual on May 6, 2019 18:34:25 GMT -6
Seems to me the safest bet would be Space Force. Then again, I think the Germans had an idea for a two-stage, manned rocket capable of hitting New York. Pilot was supposed to eject or bail out once he had the rocket lined up. You know what, I'm thinking that emigrating to Sweden or Switzerland might not be a bad idea. Allied bomber "navigational errors" might make that a bit less than ideal. Haha, maybe but I still like my odds better than joining maachlan 's naval air service.
|
|
|
Post by maachlan on May 6, 2019 19:04:21 GMT -6
OK, navy as an officer then! The Navy has an all pilots are commissioned officers policy. Every young line officer is per definition flight qualified, at least for 40miles. In Kamikaze mode that means life expectancy after commissioning is -erm- very low. Don't let the political officers hear this, but I'm beginning to think the war is not going well.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 7, 2019 6:00:56 GMT -6
Hey, guys? Funny as this conversation is, it's not exactly on topic. I'm still waiting for answers.
|
|
|
Post by maachlan on May 7, 2019 6:31:38 GMT -6
Hey, guys? Funny as this conversation is, it's not exactly on topic. I'm still waiting for answers. With the info we have currently the answer is "no". I'm basing that on the following post: nws-online.proboards.com/post/35315and specifically this portion: It sounds like the changes will always come when you are presented with prototypes. At that point you can choose to put the new prototype with the updated characteristics into production.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on May 7, 2019 10:28:48 GMT -6
As I understand it, aircraft development happens as follows: 1: The player submits a requirement to the aircraft manufacturers, specifying what they want the aircraft to specialise in. 2: After a brief wait, the aircraft designers present prototypes, and the player can select one for mass production. 3: After another brief wait, the aircraft starts to become available for active squadrons.
My question is, can the characteristics of the aircraft (primarily speed) change between steps 2 and 3 (similar to how a ship can be 1 knot faster or slower after construction)? Or would that part come between steps 1 and 2, during the initial prototyping stage? I'd think that major problems would be solved before step 2, but then, once a design has been selected, minor adjustments might be made which could perhaps change speed by a few knots, or slightly extend range, or something. As I say, though, I'm no expert.
It probably wouldn't have much of an effect on gameplay, but then, how much of an effect does making a ship 1 knot faster or slower have? It might be just fast enough to catch that cruiser it's chasing, rather than just keep up with it. Or maybe losing a few knots would stop your fighters from arriving in time to stop those bombers sinking your precious battlecruiser.
-------------------------
Mostly unrelated question; How are aircraft designs named? Can we name them manually, or are names automatically generated? Or is it like ships, where we can generate a name from a namelist, but overwrite it if we choose? Yes, changes can occur between acceptance of the prototype and delivery of the production model. You get a message along these lines: "After testing it was determined that the aircraft could easily exceed the maximum speed of the prototype."
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on May 11, 2019 16:02:46 GMT -6
I’m thinking something along the lines of the Brewster Buffalo. The USN selected it over the Grumman offering as the Brewster outperformed it. The only problem is then the Navy made changes. It got beefed up structure and landing gear as well as heavier armament. The in service Brewster was an underperformer that then had to face the A6M with predictable results. In Europe, Finland ordered the original Buffalo, a handful of which did go into service and performed very well against the Soviets including some of the lend-lease fighters they used.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 11, 2019 16:33:40 GMT -6
The first problem with the Brewster Buffalo was the company. Brewster's production facilities were not capable of producing the number of aircraft the Navy required in the time they needed them. That was a major problem.
Now, what were the technical issues that probably doomed the plane. If you look at the landing gear, that landing gear was not strong enough to handle carrier landings day after day. The next issue was the fact that when armor protection was requested, the Buffalo's performance was affected. It became unstable and then became hard to handle on landings and take-off.
The solutions were 1. Put a new engine in the aircraft like the Pratt and Whitney but it was much larger and longer so the whole fuselage would have to be redesigned and rebuilt. I haven't read this but I suspect that the bird did not have self-sealing tanks. If not, more weight and this will decrease the power to weight which translate into climb rate and level speed.
The last issue is the fact that European nations that had purchased the fighter were not very happy with its performance.
All in all, the plane was a big disappointment to the Navy and its allies. It was the first Navy aircraft monoplane but it just could not live up to the changing requirements of operations. My personal belief is that the biggest factor was the lack of adequate production facilities. Grumman had far more experience in producing Naval aircraft than Brewster which gave her an edge.
The issue of the Buffalo over the Grumman was more that the Navy was waiting to see the improvements in the Grumman Wildcat and due to the European requirements, went ahead and ordered about forty-nine of the aircraft. I think it was more of an interim step to begin replacing the biplane fighters that they had.
It is difficult to judge an aircraft on specifications using those to compare aircraft. Air combat will determine the success of an aircraft and the tactics. When the Grumman F4F first entered service, it had problems in the air but once we developed the Thach weave, along with boom and zoom tactics, all things changed. We had only added self-sealing tanks and armor behind the cockpit. So, it was the air combat maneuvering that changed everything. The Buffalo was probably a good land based aircraft with the proper tactics. The Finnish Air Force proved that but they were not facing the Japanese or the German's. They were facing the Russian Air Force. That made a difference.
Brewster had no experience with building naval aircraft. That also made a difference.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on May 11, 2019 17:55:42 GMT -6
The first problem with the Brewster Buffalo was the company. Brewster's production facilities were not capable of producing the number of aircraft the Navy required in the time they needed them. That was a major problem. Now, what were the technical issues that probably doomed the plane. If you look at the landing gear, that landing gear was not strong enough to handle carrier landings day after day. The next issue was the fact that when armor protection was requested, the Buffalo's performance was affected. It became unstable and then became hard to handle on landings and take-off. The solutions were 1. Put a new engine in the aircraft like the Pratt and Whitney but it was much larger and longer so the whole fuselage would have to be redesigned and rebuilt. I haven't read this but I suspect that the bird did not have self-sealing tanks. If not, more weight and this will decrease the power to weight which translate into climb rate and level speed. The last issue is the fact that European nations that had purchased the fighter were not very happy with its performance. All in all, the plane was a big disappointment to the Navy and its allies. It was the first Navy aircraft monoplane but it just could not live up to the changing requirements of operations. My personal belief is that the biggest factor was the lack of adequate production facilities. Grumman had far more experience in producing Naval aircraft than Brewster which gave her an edge. The issue of the Buffalo over the Grumman was more that the Navy was waiting to see the improvements in the Grumman Wildcat and due to the European requirements, went ahead and ordered about forty-nine of the aircraft. I think it was more of an interim step to begin replacing the biplane fighters that they had. It is difficult to judge an aircraft on specifications using those to compare aircraft. Air combat will determine the success of an aircraft and the tactics. When the Grumman F4F first entered service, it had problems in the air but once we developed the Thach weave, along with boom and zoom tactics, all things changed. We had only added self-sealing tanks and armor behind the cockpit. So, it was the air combat maneuvering that changed everything. The Buffalo was probably a good land based aircraft with the proper tactics. The Finnish Air Force proved that but they were not facing the Japanese or the German's. They were facing the Russian Air Force. That made a difference. Brewster had no experience with building naval aircraft. That also made a difference. So with that being said, that would be an interesting, if slightly frustrating, random event to add to the game. In service this aircraft isn’t performing and/or manufacturer is unable to meet production requirements. Let’s say it allows us to revisit a competing design or make a new design with the option to omit anything from the first manufacturer.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 11, 2019 18:15:08 GMT -6
The first problem with the Brewster Buffalo was the company. Brewster's production facilities were not capable of producing the number of aircraft the Navy required in the time they needed them. That was a major problem. Now, what were the technical issues that probably doomed the plane. If you look at the landing gear, that landing gear was not strong enough to handle carrier landings day after day. The next issue was the fact that when armor protection was requested, the Buffalo's performance was affected. It became unstable and then became hard to handle on landings and take-off. The solutions were 1. Put a new engine in the aircraft like the Pratt and Whitney but it was much larger and longer so the whole fuselage would have to be redesigned and rebuilt. I haven't read this but I suspect that the bird did not have self-sealing tanks. If not, more weight and this will decrease the power to weight which translate into climb rate and level speed. The last issue is the fact that European nations that had purchased the fighter were not very happy with its performance. All in all, the plane was a big disappointment to the Navy and its allies. It was the first Navy aircraft monoplane but it just could not live up to the changing requirements of operations. My personal belief is that the biggest factor was the lack of adequate production facilities. Grumman had far more experience in producing Naval aircraft than Brewster which gave her an edge. The issue of the Buffalo over the Grumman was more that the Navy was waiting to see the improvements in the Grumman Wildcat and due to the European requirements, went ahead and ordered about forty-nine of the aircraft. I think it was more of an interim step to begin replacing the biplane fighters that they had. It is difficult to judge an aircraft on specifications using those to compare aircraft. Air combat will determine the success of an aircraft and the tactics. When the Grumman F4F first entered service, it had problems in the air but once we developed the Thach weave, along with boom and zoom tactics, all things changed. We had only added self-sealing tanks and armor behind the cockpit. So, it was the air combat maneuvering that changed everything. The Buffalo was probably a good land based aircraft with the proper tactics. The Finnish Air Force proved that but they were not facing the Japanese or the German's. They were facing the Russian Air Force. That made a difference. Brewster had no experience with building naval aircraft. That also made a difference. So with that being said, that would be an interesting, if slightly frustrating, random event to add to the game. In service this aircraft isn’t performing and/or manufacturer is unable to meet production requirements. Let’s say it allows us to revisit a competing design or make a new design with the option to omit anything from the first manufacturer. I would agree that something along those lines should be a part of the game. We know that the F6F was not originally planned until the Navy realized that the Vought Corsair had some problems so they asked Grumman to work up an improved f4F Wildcat. The F6F was modified in its design after the Koga Zero was found and repaired then flown over San Diego. I wouldn't call them random events but that could be the way to implement it. Production capability, performance reduction with newly added modifications could require the plane to be completely redesigned, or scrapped. It can happened. This why aircraft are tested at the factory, then sent to the Navy test facility at Pax River, Maryland. However, many times it takes combat to find out about this issue. Simple example is the LAU-7A missile launcher. It was tested in the desert at Nellis and Yuma. Nice but then it was sent to Vietnam with the F-4s. Totally different climate and the missile launcher was never coated against moisture. It had to be retrofitted. These kinds of problem happen all the time.
|
|
|
Post by randomnessinc on May 13, 2019 9:50:29 GMT -6
Perfect Kamikaze aircraft, the armor and speed ensure they reach the target and the hand grenade adds a bit of oomph. Also 20 miles is greater than effective gun engagement range so the carriers can launch them from safety. I'm imagining a bucket-brigade of logistical aircraft carriers funneling replacement aircraft to your fleet carriers some 20-miles ahead during kamikaze operations.
Hilarious.
I don't recall seeing it, are kamikazes going to be representated?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 10:36:02 GMT -6
what about a national naval/land based aircraft research focus? Is there a different land based/naval plane research tree? For example if I play as Italy or Au-Hu, I would really like to have a good land based planes, and I can live without newest naval planes and for example as Japan I would really like to have the best naval planes possibly of all.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 13, 2019 11:20:55 GMT -6
Is there a different land based/naval plane research tree? Apparently no. All the single engine aircraft are assumed to be carrier capable.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 13, 2019 12:25:04 GMT -6
I'm imagining a bucket-brigade of logistical aircraft carriers funneling replacement aircraft to your fleet carriers some 20-miles ahead during kamikaze operations.
Hilarious.
I don't recall seeing it, are kamikazes going to be representated? 2 chances! On the one hand, it's a very specific case and no good for morale. It is however historically precedented and could easily be modeled as either an aerial torpedo or a very slow carrier-launched missile.
|
|
|
Post by randomnessinc on May 13, 2019 12:30:13 GMT -6
I don't recall seeing it, are kamikazes going to be representated? 2 chances! On the one hand, it's a very specific case and no good for morale. It is however historically precedented and could easily be modeled as either an aerial torpedo or a very slow carrier-launched missile. I was asking if the devs confirmed it or not, sorry for my terrible wording.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 13, 2019 13:29:16 GMT -6
From RTW2 Beta 26 notes: "Land based MB and TB will perform Kamikaze attacks if bad war situation, fascist regime and Kamikaze trait."
There may be other unusual situations where suicide aerial attacks may occur, but I offhand do not recall the specifics...
|
|