Its April 1928 and I have no torpedo bomber

[pcasey]

I have fighters.
I have flying boats.
I have float planes.
I have medium bombers.
Every other european power is on like their 4th generation of torpedo bombers.

I have no torpedo bomber and cannot ask for a prototype because my aircraft companies are unaware of the existence of Torpedo bombers.

Is this a bug, or is something gameplay specific going on?

I am playing with random research rates on.

[orkel]

>random research rates on

Well there's your reason

Variable research makes it very random, when I played with on I didn't get 2000lb dive bombers until the 1950s.

[williammiller]

Yes, 'random research' can change progression rates to a major degree, which can make the game more unpredictable (which is the reason for including the option).

[aeson]

If you have an ally with a torpedo bomber, you could buy theirs for your own use as a bit of a workaround, and if it works like buying ships with tech you don't have overseas it might also encourage the development of the technology that allows for domestic torpedo bomber design.

[jma286]

It's 1933 and I have no dive bomber even though random research is off and I'm at 12% research rate with a high priority assigned to heavier than air. Every other country has had one for a few years at least.

[aeson]

Jun 27, 2019 11:38:58 GMT -6 jma286 said:

It's 1933 and I have no dive bomber even though random research is off and I'm at 12% research rate with a high priority assigned to heavier than air. Every other country has had one for a few years at least.

Dive bombers are a c.1930 tech with a 30% chance to be skipped, and are not set to be more likely to be researched when other powers have them. Getting to 1933 without developing dive bombers even though everyone else has them is not particularly unusual.

[yemo]

Jun 27, 2019 11:59:13 GMT -6 aeson said:

Jun 27, 2019 11:38:58 GMT -6 jma286 said:

It's 1933 and I have no dive bomber even though random research is off and I'm at 12% research rate with a high priority assigned to heavier than air. Every other country has had one for a few years at least.

Dive bombers are a c.1930 tech with a 30% chance to be skipped, and are not set to be more likely to be researched when other powers have them. Getting to 1933 without developing dive bombers even though everyone else has them is not particularly unusual.

Maybe some of the tech spreading flags could be revised.

Eg early airships and deck edge lifts are not exactly invisible either.

[mycophobia]

Jun 27, 2019 12:13:20 GMT -6 yemo said:

Jun 27, 2019 11:59:13 GMT -6 aeson said:

Dive bombers are a c.1930 tech with a 30% chance to be skipped, and are not set to be more likely to be researched when other powers have them. Getting to 1933 without developing dive bombers even though everyone else has them is not particularly unusual.

Maybe some of the tech spreading flags could be revised.

Eg early airships and deck edge lifts are not exactly invisible either.

I think a lot of these are not chosen because they are "invisible", but rather fleets being unwilling to adopt them. There was some skepticism over dive bombers initially, and even then some countries like Italy never did develop a working mass production dive bomber afaik. 

Just like superfiring, its not a matter of "we don't know how", but rather "we don't think that's a good idea" kind of thing. Player would think differently ofcourse, but I think it is a fair modelling to show the conservatism that exists in many navies.

I do think that a major conflict should possibly make all nations pick up what works, however. Its fair to laugh at someone's idea to build dive bomber at peace time, but when they drop those 2000 pound bomb on your precious BBs, I don't think its that hard to convince the top brass that these planes are probably a good idea.

[deeznuts]

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

[ramjb]

In real life some nations were just not fond of the Dive Bomber principle until quite advanced date, putting far more emphasis on torpedoes or level bombing. A good instance would be the UK, they had a deep love for the carrier based torpedo bomber (in fact they were quite the first to try the concept of torpedo dropping planes in WWI), but didn't care at all for dive bombers. Their first one was the Skua, which was an atrocious design intended to be a Divebomber/Fighter (just the mesh of roles should tell you a lot of things about how little the british cared for dive bombing, AND how wrong the design was). The Skua only entered service in 1939.

I guess the UK player was very annoyed with the game not giving him the chance to get DBs until so late . JK; the point is that you don't control which techs you unlock when, and that you're given the chance to set research priorities doesn't mean you'll automatically get all the goodies all the time .

[dorn]

Jun 28, 2019 6:30:08 GMT -6 ramjb said:

In real life some nations were just not fond of the Dive Bomber principle until quite advanced date, putting far more emphasis on torpedoes or level bombing. A good instance would be the UK, they had a deep love for the carrier based torpedo bomber (in fact they were quite the first to try the concept of torpedo dropping planes in WWI), but didn't care at all for dive bombers. Their first one was the Skua, which was an atrocious design intended to be a Divebomber/Fighter (just the mesh of roles should tell you a lot of things about how little the british cared for dive bombing, AND how wrong the design was). The Skua only entered service in 1939.

I guess the UK player was very annoyed with the game not giving him the chance to get DBs until so late . JK; the point is that you don't control which techs you unlock when, and that you're given the chance to set research priorities doesn't mean you'll automatically get all the goodies all the time .

The only issue I can see is having carriers by technology (CVL conversion, CVL, CV conversion, CV) and not having torpedo bombers. It means that whole 20s you are stuck as you have carrier technology but you have no aicraft for carriers that can use bombs as having fighters with bomb is possible usually later.

[Fredrik W]

Jun 27, 2019 19:37:35 GMT -6 deeznuts said:

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.

[dorn]

Jun 28, 2019 10:38:21 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Jun 27, 2019 19:37:35 GMT -6 deeznuts said:

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.

I agree with you that not all nations developed torpedo or dive bomber but could it be more about availability of these researched fields more random dependent by nation (some variable by nation +-random)
It is strange to commission carrier and not have any plane to use it.
Another thing is that UK, USA, Japan and a little France did focuse on carriers and developed at least some carrier bomber. If you miss torpedo bomber research you are stuck for long time no matter if you have carrier or not.

Difficult was developing carrier warfare not bomber itself. Nation ať least develops bomber for glide bombing.



So the reasons was mainly internal in Navy as dive bomber in RN but any nation which develops carriers have some type of bomber for carrier use.

UK having no carrier bomber at early 30s is something strange in game and practically impossible if they decided to do it.



EDIT:
I think that this is something outside excellent way how RTW treats inventions and Naval thinking. I will be not suprised Italy, Russia, A-H were slow to develop carrier warfare, but it is not case of UK, USA, Japan. And having no bomber is full stop for that area. One of important things is geography.

[mycophobia]

Jun 28, 2019 11:11:17 GMT -6 dorn said:

Jun 28, 2019 10:38:21 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

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.

I agree with you that not all nations developed torpedo or dive bomber but could it be more about availability of these researched fields more random dependent by nation (some variable by nation +-random)
It is strange to commission carrier and not have any plane to use it.
Another thing is that UK, USA, Japan and a little France did focuse on carriers and developed at least some carrier bomber. If you miss torpedo bomber research you are stuck for long time no matter if you have carrier or not.

Difficult was developing carrier warfare not bomber itself. Nation ať least develops bomber for glide bombing.



So the reasons was mainly internal in Navy as dive bomber in RN but any nation which develops carriers have some type of bomber for carrier use.

UK having no carrier bomber at early 30s is something strange in game and practically impossible if they decided to do it.



EDIT:
I think that this is something outside excellent way how RTW treats inventions and Naval thinking. I will be not suprised Italy, Russia, A-H were slow to develop carrier warfare, but it is not case of UK, USA, Japan. And having no bomber is full stop for that area. One of important things is geography.

As Russia I was stuck in that situation for a long time, but resorted to using fighter for that role(I was given an early fighter with 250lb capacity, which became my standard through out the 20s). It is not unimaginable that "fighters" that can carry a decent load be represented as the glid bombers that countries without dedicated dive/torpedo bomber chose to use.

However in that case it may be necessary for us to be given ways to choose the models of aircraft a particular airgroup uses to retain older fighter models that can carry heavier loads. Bottom line is I think bomb carrying fighter can adequately addressed bombers that does not fit into dive/torpedo bomber category, but we need to be able to assign them to airgroups from them to work.

[dorn]

Jun 28, 2019 11:31:46 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

Jun 28, 2019 11:11:17 GMT -6 dorn said:

I agree with you that not all nations developed torpedo or dive bomber but could it be more about availability of these researched fields more random dependent by nation (some variable by nation +-random)
It is strange to commission carrier and not have any plane to use it.
Another thing is that UK, USA, Japan and a little France did focuse on carriers and developed at least some carrier bomber. If you miss torpedo bomber research you are stuck for long time no matter if you have carrier or not.

Difficult was developing carrier warfare not bomber itself. Nation ať least develops bomber for glide bombing.



So the reasons was mainly internal in Navy as dive bomber in RN but any nation which develops carriers have some type of bomber for carrier use.

UK having no carrier bomber at early 30s is something strange in game and practically impossible if they decided to do it.



EDIT:
I think that this is something outside excellent way how RTW treats inventions and Naval thinking. I will be not suprised Italy, Russia, A-H were slow to develop carrier warfare, but it is not case of UK, USA, Japan. And having no bomber is full stop for that area. One of important things is geography.

As Russia I was stuck in that situation for a long time, but resorted to using fighter for that role(I was given an early fighter with 250lb capacity, which became my standard through out the 20s). It is not unimaginable that "fighters" that can carry a decent load be represented as the glid bombers that countries without dedicated dive/torpedo bomber chose to use.

However in that case it may be necessary for us to be given ways to choose the models of aircraft a particular airgroup uses to retain older fighter models that can carry heavier loads. Bottom line is I think bomb carrying fighter can adequately addressed bombers that does not fit into dive/torpedo bomber category, but we need to be able to assign them to airgroups from them to work.

May be I was doing it wrong and focus every plane request to fighters with max. bomb load. I did it only once per 2 years.