|
|
Post by alpha2518 on Nov 27, 2019 21:25:22 GMT -6
Can you add to the OP reccomended or ideal squadron sizes and why they are ideal?
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 28, 2019 11:11:42 GMT -6
IIRC penalties should increase the greater the excess is over 100 - I will have to check to see if that is the current implementation.
Right now there is simply a flat increase in ready time and accident rates if you operate > 100 aircraft on a single CV.
After internal discussion that will be changed to a sliding scale (i.e. the greater over 100 planes embarked the greater the negative effect will become), and I think adding to it as to negatively affect other things (such as possibly fire chances, extra aircraft losses when the CV is damaged, etc) is a viable boost as well.
Suggestion to bear in mind the square-cube law. As you increase dimensions the area (deck and hanger space) go up as a square while the volume (displacement) goes up as a cube. This would suggest that the amount of aircraft interference is indeed not linear but will go up a curved equation. Example if 100 planes is the limit of normal deck handling then 250 planes has a handling of ( plane ratio) * (square-cube adjustment) (100/250)*( (250/100) ^ 2/3) = 73% rate or yielding 180 effective planes... or plane handling takes 1.37 times as long. Though that particular equation doesnt seem very limiting Also suggesting that the player get some sort of alert message for how much the delays will be... 101-120 planes = 90% handling rate = 1.1 action times = Slight delays 121-150 = 80% = 1.25 =moderate 151 - 190 = 60%= 1.67 = heavy 191+ = 40% = 2.5 = crippling |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 28, 2019 11:19:49 GMT -6
Additional Query:
How is spot calculated? If it represents the space available on a deck that is function of a CV/CVL ship's displacement not so much the number of planes carried. Or there should be an upper limit on spot based on square-cube law on the ship's displacement.
It should be possible for a carrier to have only a few planes in hanger that could then all spot at the same time on a large flight deck.
|
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Nov 28, 2019 14:46:06 GMT -6
Can you add to the OP reccomended or ideal squadron sizes and why they are ideal? Fun fact: Throwing a 20-plane Escort Fighter squadron at the enemy along with your attackers *BLUDGEONS* through enemy CAP. |
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on Nov 28, 2019 17:03:13 GMT -6
Can you add to the OP reccomended or ideal squadron sizes and why they are ideal? Fun fact: Throwing a 20-plane Escort Fighter squadron at the enemy along with your attackers *BLUDGEONS* through enemy CAP. That's good but what about my own CAP? Is a single 20 squadron good for CAP or multiple smaller squadrons? Same for other missions and types. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 28, 2019 19:22:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 28, 2019 21:02:55 GMT -6
Fun fact: Throwing a 20-plane Escort Fighter squadron at the enemy along with your attackers *BLUDGEONS* through enemy CAP. That's good but what about my own CAP? Is a single 20 squadron good for CAP or multiple smaller squadrons? Same for other missions and types. From what I can see once you set the level of CAP, default Medium, the game will pull off a number of fighters for that duty. The computer yanks them from squadrons in order leaving you with a mixed jumble of what fighters are left in what squadron. Thats the simplest way for them to code for various player set squadron sizes and the random factors on plane reliability within those squadrons. >>>> Bear in mind there is a trade off for a larger fighter escort as you are also self-reducing your attack group size. Its something the real world planners debated. Real world varied by nation and by time frame. Myself, as mentioned, I tend to assign 2,3 or 4 fighters per attack squadron with those attack squadrons now being small ~8 for dive bombers for attack recon and staying large squadrons 16-20 for torp bombers. Torp bombers in real life needed large numbers to set up criss-cross, or hammer and anvil, torp drops from different locations. Through most of the game the AI doesn't field anywhere near the number of carriers I do plus I hunt them down when possible to stop their numbers growing. Thus I tend to overwhelm their CAP which is more limited by the lesser number of carriers. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2019 1:22:38 GMT -6
I have a question about inner and intermediate patrols which were generally conducted by fighters but on occasion with a shortage of fighters, by dive bombers. Their task was to guard against submarines and low flying torpedo bombers. Does the game allow us to establish those patrols?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Nov 29, 2019 6:34:59 GMT -6
There is only CAP conducted by fighters. ASW doesn't seem to exist on the tactical level. If you want additional patrols, you need to do them manually, which is extremely tedious.
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 29, 2019 10:42:23 GMT -6
The games origins in the dreadnaught era with their formations to become thinly stretched by the end of the game's 1955 cold war era. The ideas of barrier cap (BAR CAP), ASW screen zones, SAM screen zones and close in screen zones as part of the Harpoon game (1990s era) aren't something this game engine has the mechanisms for. Part of why I think the 1955 really is a good cut off date as the tactical layer really changes.
Now then there are some manual BARCAP you can do but its tricky.
The AI does do a good job of CAP management over the carriers and whatever task force they are grouped in with. The carriers need to sail into the wind so often while the gun line maneuvers will lead to a widening separation.
What you can do for a BARCAP is to manually plot 2-4 fighter "strikes" at positions where you think the enemy planes will fly. I think this works but its hard to confirm.
You can also boost your gun line CAP by putting the extra fighters over where you think the gun line will sail.
If the battle develops with your gun line sailing in an unexpected direction this game doesn't allow a reassignment of the strikes.
In the game we start off with early planes, which didn't have radios, to various levels of technology where radios for short range or long range transmission are possible. That also risks signal intelligence (SIGINT) by the enemy hearing your radios, even if encoded, gives an idea of the direction to a weak transmitter (the planes) or a strong one (the carrier).
Personally I would love if in late game we could have a chance for radio redirection or a radio return-to-base.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on Nov 29, 2019 12:01:55 GMT -6
The games origins in the dreadnaught era with their formations to become thinly stretched by the end of the game's 1955 cold war era. The ideas of barrier cap (BAR CAP), ASW screen zones, SAM screen zones and close in screen zones as part of the Harpoon game (1990s era) aren't something this game engine has the mechanisms for. Part of why I think the 1955 really is a good cut off date as the tactical layer really changes. Now then there are some manual BARCAP you can do but its tricky. The AI does do a good job of CAP management over the carriers and whatever task force they are grouped in with. The carriers need to sail into the wind so often while the gun line maneuvers will lead to a widening separation. What you can do for a BARCAP is to manually plot 2-4 fighter "strikes" at positions where you think the enemy planes will fly. I think this works but its hard to confirm. You can also boost your gun line CAP by putting the extra fighters over where you think the gun line will sail. If the battle develops with your gun line sailing in an unexpected direction this game doesn't allow a reassignment of the strikes. In the game we start off with early planes, which didn't have radios, to various levels of technology where radios for short range or long range transmission are possible. That also risks signal intelligence (SIGINT) by the enemy hearing your radios, even if encoded, gives an idea of the direction to a weak transmitter (the planes) or a strong one (the carrier). Personally I would love if in late game we could have a chance for radio redirection or a radio return-to-base. But they do have a missile section under the additional armaments tab I think. It could be another tab that is under, but it is there. So I do think they eventually intend to get into missiles, but they want to work on what they have out now and once they deem it sufficient, then they will get to missiles. But you are right about the gunline. Which is why I wait til my gunline comes into contact and then proceed to support them with carrier aircraft. Though I must admit, this is due to me not mastering carrier warfare. I do want to pull off what was done at Midway at some point, not in sinking all 4 carriers in one battle, but in finding the main enemy battle fleet and sinking it with aircraft without my gunline coming into contact. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2019 12:15:37 GMT -6
... Personally I would love if in late game we could have a chance for radio redirection or a radio return-to-base. I assume you are talking about a YE-ZB Hayrake Radio Navigation system for carrier aircraft to find their way back to the ship in open seas. Both the British and US developed such equipment. However, the system was not reliable at close range, it was used when it worked to find the carrier task force then the Mark One Eyeballs did the rest. Now we use TACAN. |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 29, 2019 13:10:42 GMT -6
alpha2518 Yep they have plans for missiles. I think this game engine can do the early missile age but will collapse in the middle and late missile ages. Planes are complicated enough though functional in this game. Not only would we have ship launched missiles but airplanes launching missiles at ships with the ships launching missiles at those missiles. CIWS or short range SAM escorts need better screen positions then are wiggly ones for our gun line. >>> oldpop2000 or ye olde "Go to rally point Baker" voice or morse ... or "Shift attack to 032 N 025 W" (insert various security codes and possible enemy spoofing).
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2019 13:39:11 GMT -6
alpha2518 Yep they have plans for missiles. I think this game engine can do the early missile age but will collapse in the middle and late missile ages. Planes are complicated enough though functional in this game. Not only would we have ship launched missiles but airplanes launching missiles at ships with the ships launching missiles at those missiles. CIWS or short range SAM escorts need better screen positions then are wiggly ones for our gun line. >>> oldpop2000 or ye olde "Go to rally point Baker" voice or morse ... or "Shift attack to 032 N 025 W" (insert various security codes and possible enemy spoofing). Most strikes were conducted with radio silence until the enemy was within sight, the same goes for the trip back to the carriers. Unless there was a problem, radio silence was the word. The IJN was listening, at all times. |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 29, 2019 17:18:00 GMT -6
oldpop2000 or ye olde "Go to rally point Baker" voice or morse ... or "Shift attack to 032 N 025 W" (insert various security codes and possible enemy spoofing). Most strikes were conducted with radio silence until the enemy was within sight, the same goes for the trip back to the carriers. Unless there was a problem, radio silence was the word. The IJN was listening, at all times. Yes which is why it would be used sparingly. Which is why things like pre-arranged rally points would be useful, the enemy doesn't get the co-ordinates but the pilots can look up on list. The radio burst giving a direction where the carrier is now but not where they are going. One situation which happened in RTW2 is sending out a few hundred planes in an attack to a wrong guess. Meanwhile my gun line did get engaged. I certainly would risk a brief radio transmission to steer the alpha strike to an actual battle. As it was the alpha strike spent a lot of time circling the empty sea then flying back to the carrier needing to be readied, launched and fly back all of which took a couple of hours where 20 minutes of flying would have put them onto target. Currently our planes automatically know how to fly back to the carrier which is something RTW2 doesn't teach (to paraphrase from Scott Manley). Also, the historic radio silence is a WW 2 thing which is only a part of this game. Im curious going into the cold war when, not if, strike and CAP redirection became an active technique. |
|
