|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 28, 2020 17:20:53 GMT -6
I'm still very much unsure of the value of the various aircraft traits relative to each other. Here's an example. I have seriously neglected the development of my torpedo bombers. It is 1944 and my pilots are still flying TBs developed in 1937. These models have turned in sterling service over the course of two wars, which is why I have let them linger, but they took a serious pounding in my last battle, probably due to their slow speed. Fortunately, I've had new TBs in development for half a year and now I have to decide on the prototypes presented. Of the three candidates presented, obviously the MAG 222 is out, its short range is a disqualifier. But that leaves me with a dilemma. Is 15 kts of speed enough to justify choosing the Berg 220 over the Berg 219, which has slightly better range, better maneuverability and is tougher? How do these attributes balance against each other? I don't have a lot of hard and fast rules for picking the appropriate aircraft traits during development. Range is important in early planes but once your carrier planes can carry out their primary mission at a distance of about 200 to 250 nm they've got enough range for most battles. After that I tend to pick other first attributes to emphasize. In general, I tend to favor speed over other attributes because it helps in several areas, but I really have no idea about how impactful superior maneuverability is in the game, or gunfire, or toughness. This is further complicated because each of those traits probably has different levels of importance for each plane type. There are a few other pretty obvious traits that i normally emphasize for specific plane types, but even those are often dependent on the era the game is in. Bomb load is important for dive bombers because you want to drop the biggest bombs, but once you get to that point you can probably back off on this trait and the bombs will continue to be large. Bomb load is less important for torpedo bombers and medium bombers, but once those bombers have achieved sufficient range, which other traits to actually emphasize in those bombers is less obvious. Fighters need speed, but after that, it is not clear which trait among firepower, maneuver and toughness will provide the best results. Scouts and and flying boats seem to be the most susceptible to pre-battle attrition and even if well equipped with bombs are unlikely to do much damage, so once range is selected I'll often pick durability as their second trait. What is really difficult though, is making decisions about prototypes that have trade offs in abilities like the TBs I'm examining. In the end it probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference which model I choose, but agonizing over these kinds of trivial decisions is half the fun of the game. So, which model would you guys pick?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2020 17:30:09 GMT -6
I'm still very much unsure of the value of the various aircraft traits relative to each other. Here's an example. I have seriously neglected the development of my torpedo bombers. It is 1944 and my pilots are still flying TBs developed in 1937. These models have turned in sterling service over the course of two wars, which is why I have let them linger, but they took a serious pounding in my last battle, probably due to their slow speed. Fortunately, I've had new TBs in development for half a year and now I have to decide on the prototypes presented. Of the three candidates presented, obviously the MAG 222 is out, its short range is a disqualifier. But that leaves me with a dilemma. Is 15 kts of speed enough to justify choosing the Berg 220 over the Berg 219, which has slightly better range, better maneuverability and is tougher? How do these attributes balance against each other? I don't have a lot of hard and fast rules for picking the appropriate aircraft traits during development. Range is important in early planes but once your carrier planes can carry out their primary mission at a distance of about 200 to 250 nm they've got enough range for most battles. After that I tend to pick other first attributes to emphasize. In general, I tend to favor speed over other attributes because it helps in several areas, but I really have no idea about how impactful superior maneuverability is in the game, or gunfire, or toughness. This is further complicated because each of those traits probably has different levels of importance for each plane type. There are a few other pretty obvious traits that i normally emphasize for specific plane types, but even those are often dependent on the era the game is in. Bomb load is important for dive bombers because you want to drop the biggest bombs, but once you get to that point you can probably back off on this trait and the bombs will continue to be large. Bomb load is less important for torpedo bombers and medium bombers, but once those bombers have achieved sufficient range, which other traits to actually emphasize in those bombers is less obvious. Fighters need speed, but after that, it is not clear which trait among firepower, maneuver and toughness will provide the best results. Scouts and and flying boats seem to be the most susceptible to pre-battle attrition and even if well equipped with bombs are unlikely to do much damage, so once range is selected I'll often pick durability as their second trait. What is really difficult though, is making decisions about prototypes that have trade offs in abilities like the TBs I'm examining. In the end it probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference which model I choose, but agonizing over these kinds of trivial decisions is half the fun of the game. So, which model would you guys pick? Based on what you have presented, I would rank my choice by Speed, maneuverability and firepower. I view firepower as defensive armament. So, firepower on all three are the same. I would choose #2. It's speed is better than #1 but its maneuverability is only slightly less. In a comparison of the TBD and the TBF, this is what gave the TBF the advantage, speed, maneuverability and firepower to defend itself when attacked. All air strikes from carriers must be a coordinated attack, dive bombers go in first to draw the fighters and flak, the torpedo bombers go in low at the same time. This takes much practice. Maybe fleet exercises can resolve this. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 28, 2020 17:51:50 GMT -6
I would choose #2. It's speed is better than #1 but its maneuverability is only slightly less. In absolute terms, sure ... but 8 Toughness is 11% worse than 9 Toughness and 9 Maneuverability is 10% worse than 10 Maneuverability whereas a top speed of 280 knots is only 5.6% better than a top speed of 265 knots and a cruise speed of 163 knots is only 5.8% better than a cruise speed of 154 knots (ballpark 5.5% less time taken for the faster plane to cover a given distance in either case), so the advantages that the Berg 219 has in Maneuverability and Toughness are relatively greater than the advantages that the Phonix Berg 220 has in top and cruise speed. Whether ~5.5% less time exposed to fighters and AAA is worth ~10.5% less toughness and maneuverability I don't know, but I'd be somewhat inclined to go for the Berg 219 because the relative advantages that it holds over the Phonix Berg 220 are greater in magnitude than the relative advantages that the Phonix Berg 220 has over the Berg 219 and I don't think that the absolute advantage that the Phonix Berg holds in speed is significant enough to make real a difference against c.1944 fighters and AAA.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2020 18:33:40 GMT -6
After the air wing is launched, the speed to the target is based on the slowest aircraft. The torpedo bomber generally has the largest and heaviest load, so it is the slowest. The speed of that air wing is one of its vulnerabilities. It must launch quickly, speed to the target before the enemy can discover the attack is coming. The faster the air wing gets to the target, the less time that enemy has to prepare. After launching the attack, the torpedo bomber's speed is determined by the parameters set by the torpedo but once dropped, the bomber can now accelerate, climb out and speed away from the target to the rendezvous point and join the rest of the air wing. Maneuverability is very critical in the opening phases of the flight to the target, positioning for the attack and leaving the target area. Firepower is necessary to enhance the defense of the torpedo bomber during its attack phase. So, based on this assessment, speed, maneuverability and firepower rank, in my humble opinion, the three most necessary attributes of the torpedo bomber.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 28, 2020 19:27:36 GMT -6
After the air wing is launched, the speed to the target is based on the slowest aircraft. The torpedo bomber generally has the largest and heaviest load, so it is the slowest. The speed of that air wing is one of its vulnerabilities. It must launch quickly, speed to the target before the enemy can discover the attack is coming. The faster the air wing gets to the target, the less time that enemy has to prepare. At a range of 300nmi, the difference in time-to-target between an aircraft with a cruise speed of 163 knots and an aircraft with a cruise speed of 154 knots is only six minutes, give or take (about 110.4 minutes versus 116.8 minutes). It will not make that much of a difference - certainly not within the game, where opposing forces are rarely much more than 100nmi apart and air defenses are pretty much constantly at maximum preparedness anyways.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2020 19:33:32 GMT -6
After the air wing is launched, the speed to the target is based on the slowest aircraft. The torpedo bomber generally has the largest and heaviest load, so it is the slowest. The speed of that air wing is one of its vulnerabilities. It must launch quickly, speed to the target before the enemy can discover the attack is coming. The faster the air wing gets to the target, the less time that enemy has to prepare. At a range of 300nmi, the difference in time-to-target between an aircraft with a cruise speed of 163 knots and an aircraft with a cruise speed of 154 knots is only six minutes, give or take (about 110.4 minutes versus 116.8 minutes). It will not make that much of a difference - certainly not within the game, where opposing forces are rarely much more than 100nmi apart and air defenses are pretty much constantly at maximum preparedness anyways. Ok. You know the game better than I, I am speaking from history, not the game. I guess the game is not following the actual historical sequence.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 29, 2020 0:09:46 GMT -6
jwsmith26Frankly, I will not disqualified MAG 222 on your suggestion of range, it is disqualified by fact it is overall the worst choice. In game however range is more important for land base aircraft to be able to get to there. I have no issue for carrier aircraft to get there. I would choose Berg 219 as being better in 2 from 3 important areas (speed, maneuverability, toughness) and it is not clear how each of the traits affect combat.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Mar 29, 2020 9:35:25 GMT -6
I guess you can´t do anything wrong. They are both good designs. But my chest says the Berg 219 is better. You have better toughness and manouverbility, so they can avoid damage if they deliver their payload (somewhere mentioned in the manual, isn´t it?). And range is the most important thing for bombers in general. And if you are lucky enough, the design improves after a few months, perhaps in speed
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 29, 2020 9:45:58 GMT -6
I'm still very much unsure of the value of the various aircraft traits relative to each other. Here's an example. I have seriously neglected the development of my torpedo bombers. It is 1944 and my pilots are still flying TBs developed in 1937. These models have turned in sterling service over the course of two wars, which is why I have let them linger, but they took a serious pounding in my last battle, probably due to their slow speed. Fortunately, I've had new TBs in development for half a year and now I have to decide on the prototypes presented. Of the three candidates presented, obviously the MAG 222 is out, its short range is a disqualifier. But that leaves me with a dilemma. Is 15 kts of speed enough to justify choosing the Berg 220 over the Berg 219, which has slightly better range, better maneuverability and is tougher? How do these attributes balance against each other? I don't have a lot of hard and fast rules for picking the appropriate aircraft traits during development. Range is important in early planes but once your carrier planes can carry out their primary mission at a distance of about 200 to 250 nm they've got enough range for most battles. After that I tend to pick other first attributes to emphasize. In general, I tend to favor speed over other attributes because it helps in several areas, but I really have no idea about how impactful superior maneuverability is in the game, or gunfire, or toughness. This is further complicated because each of those traits probably has different levels of importance for each plane type. There are a few other pretty obvious traits that i normally emphasize for specific plane types, but even those are often dependent on the era the game is in. Bomb load is important for dive bombers because you want to drop the biggest bombs, but once you get to that point you can probably back off on this trait and the bombs will continue to be large. Bomb load is less important for torpedo bombers and medium bombers, but once those bombers have achieved sufficient range, which other traits to actually emphasize in those bombers is less obvious. Fighters need speed, but after that, it is not clear which trait among firepower, maneuver and toughness will provide the best results. Scouts and and flying boats seem to be the most susceptible to pre-battle attrition and even if well equipped with bombs are unlikely to do much damage, so once range is selected I'll often pick durability as their second trait. What is really difficult though, is making decisions about prototypes that have trade offs in abilities like the TBs I'm examining. In the end it probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference which model I choose, but agonizing over these kinds of trivial decisions is half the fun of the game. So, which model would you guys pick? ok so while this might be wierd this is what i have found in my last 5 battles with carriers never once have i launched them at more than 150 nm range 99/100 times you never need that much range because by the time you spot them and the spotter returns and your strike force arrives they have already moved 50-100 nm and your strike force wont find them or they engaged your surface fleet which is barely 100 nm from your carriers (unless you let them sail in some random direction) 300 nm range IS FAR more than neccesary (your bomber can carry torpedoes as a medium load) otherwise its honestly kinda a mix the mag222 wont win anyway due to it having worse stats but just keep in mind range barely matters once you have 150-200 nm range with heavy load you will never use it berg 220 wins for me since it has more speed making it have an easier time with aa in my experience having a faster cruise and top speed massively helps with aa over a slight improvement in maneuverability and toughness also its faster so its better for scouting (torpedo bombers 99% of the time are recon) its better for land bases since there is a shorter scouting to strike arrival time and there is less slow on the whole strike since torpedo bombers usually are the slowest this means a slower torpedo bomber cruise speed will make the fighters and dive bombers slower and WAY more vulnerable to cap before their approach (when they split) this causes the dive bombers to receive higher losses than they would with faster strike speed where as maneuverability and toughness only effects the torpedo bomber and not the rest of the strike but honestly 220 or 219 wont really matter much and in the end will probably have basically the same performance in combat also please for the love of god update your torpedo bombers they are the most vulnerable plane in game to fighters aa and so on having outdated ones will hit you HARD
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 29, 2020 10:15:00 GMT -6
Survivability is one of the most important characteristics of any aircraft. Be it a fighter, torpedo bomber, medium bomber, dive bomber etc. Survivability of an aircraft is a combination of speed, maneuverability, firepower, toughness and reliability. It is of no value, if your loss rates due to operational and non-operational losses, deplete your land and carrier based air wings. It's worse for you with carrier air wings. Asked the Japanese who lost most of their best torpedo bomber pilots by the third carrier battle of the war due to lack of armor and self-sealing tanks, high drag because of the lack of a bomb bay and low maneuverability after the torpedo was launched. In fact, most of their torpedo bombers were lost during the bomb run and after the run, early in the war.
So, why not develop a survivability index based on the characteristics provided. I would include cruising and maximum speed, maneuverability, toughness, firepower. Some of you are math wizards, do it and then compare results. BTW, the US military defines Aircraft Combat Survivability as the capability of an aircraft to avoid or withstand a man-made hostile environment. It is a much more complex mathematical problem today, but it was still complex in WW2 and was calculated.
Just a note: In modern aircraft many more characteristics have been added to make the index far more complex to calculate but it is calculated for every aircraft and data from combat is used to change the aircraft to increase survivability. I cannot tell you what some of those changes were, I signed a NDA on leaving the government but if you search the internet for Military Aircraft Suvivability index you will find documents that calculate that index and provide the characteristics that are currently used.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Mar 29, 2020 14:32:59 GMT -6
I would also choose the Berg 219. Best maneuverability and toughness, longest range, and still a pretty decent speed.
|
|
|
Post by seabass on Mar 29, 2020 18:02:56 GMT -6
Berg 219 hands down
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Mar 29, 2020 18:03:45 GMT -6
Early in the game reliability should be the priority, mid-game low wing loading, high range and durability should become more important, late game speed and firepower should dominate... but I'm just going based on my impression of 1920s-1950s trends.
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Mar 29, 2020 21:23:35 GMT -6
At a range of 300nmi, the difference in time-to-target between an aircraft with a cruise speed of 163 knots and an aircraft with a cruise speed of 154 knots is only six minutes, give or take (about 110.4 minutes versus 116.8 minutes). It will not make that much of a difference - certainly not within the game, where opposing forces are rarely much more than 100nmi apart and air defenses are pretty much constantly at maximum preparedness anyways. Ok. You know the game better than I, I am speaking from history, not the game. I guess the game is not following the actual historical sequence. I'd argue that IRL the case he's making is mostly fair. Certainly the USN felt that survivability of the torpedo bomber was more important than its speed, though USN bomber development tended towards maximizing firepower above any other trait. The Avenger was not a particularly fast bomber for 1942, and the Skyraider that replaced it wasn't particularly fast either.
|
|
|
Post by warspite1995 on Mar 30, 2020 5:58:26 GMT -6
I would choose the berg 219, better stats and range, i find speed is nice but in this situation the others benefits outweigh the speed benifit.
|
|