|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 12, 2020 20:30:07 GMT -6
I have been considering for quite some time a new AAR, once Life allowed me to, but now that I am approaching the starting mark I am finding I would like to establish something first; some deeper details for aircraft development. I feel the aircraft development system is one of the most fun creations for RTW2, and I want to be able to develop it with some narrative depth. Ideally I would love to have a mod that allowed you to 'click' on an aircraft type and be presented with many more design characteristics than are present in or necessary for the game. Not having this though, I would still like to be able to use the raw numbers the game provides to be able to extrapolate these unknown qualities. I would like to solicit better minds than mine to hone my rough draft of this methodology into something better, perhaps even widely utilized. Mind- I am NOT suggesting this should be in the game; this kind of detail is excessive & unnecessary for game play. So, what the game gives us about aircraft; Speed (knots), Loaded Range (radius in nm), Firepower, Maneuverability, Toughness, Ordnance Load (pounds), Reliability. From this we can develop parameters to estimate the desired depth of detail, though some qualities are easier than others. Firepower is to me the easiest. A '1' quite neatly converts to a .30 MG, with a '2' being either a pair of .30s or equating to a .50. The top end WWII era aircraft do not map well, since a P-47 would be a '16', but then where do you put a Typhoon with 4 20mm or a Me-262 with 4 30mm? Therefore the scale cannot be linear, but must be non-linear. 1-8 = 1-8 .30 cal. 2-8 = 1-4 .50 cal. 9-12= a very subjective combination of above and below. 13 = 8 .50 cal 14 = 4 17mm 15 = 4 20mm 16 = 4 30mm The change from .30 to .50 caliber should probably have to do with the evolution of speed, as bigger faster opposition aircraft highlighted the decreased effectiveness of the smaller caliber. Arbitrarily I might suggest this point is 275 knots. Speed will hint at engine type, but I believe it should also include Toughness (assisting with an engine durability indication) and Reliability. Initially almost all engines would be radial, with the introduction of liquid cooled engines as radial development stalls, and then by sheer numbers the end of the prop era would be mostly radials, with the supreme liquid cooled aircraft being an exception. There will be some hard overlap as well, so the best I can come up with is that there will be some odd/even randomness. My initial thoughts (without getting too complex); <120 knots Toughness 1-2 Reliability Poor = Liquid Cooled, all other Radial 120-275 knots Toughness 1- 5 Reliability Poor/Avg = Liquid Cooled, all other Radial 275-350 knots Toughness 1- 7 Liquid Cooled, all other Radial 350-409 knots Toughness 1- 6 Liquid Cooled, all other Radial, 1-8 Liquid Cooled if Reliability = Poor 410 + Jet I think subsequent sub-types of aircraft model would retain their engine type. I know some (for example P-47) developed advanced engine models that switched their type, but I'm not sure for my narrative purposes I would worry about this. The switch from Biplane to Monoplane should happen 200-220 knots I would think, but there is so much variety in this that I think it is a coin toss. I decided on including construction type here for ease of use; I know it is a compromise, but it is not too far off. Speed <1 50 = Biplane (canvas) Speed 1 50-225, Maneuverability 10+ = Biplane, (Toughness odd=aluminum, even=mix) Speed 225+ = Monoplane (aluminum) Rate of Climb is really unnecessary but rather fun I think. Some kind of total of Firepower, Speed/10, and Range/10 modified by Maneuverability somehow would be a fair approximation for aircraft weight to provide rate of climb. (illustration inserted below) Sopwith Pup 100 knots FP 2 M 9 Rng 160 2+10+16 *9 = 252 (need 1000'/min) P-51 Mustang 400 knots FP 12 M 15 Rng 375 12+40+37 *15 = 1335 (need 3200'/min) F-4 Phantom 600 knots FP 15 M 14 Rng 420 15+60+42 *14 = 1638 (43,200'/min)
(Mass Factor = (FP + MS/10 + RngL/10 +1 if Floatplane) x 1.1 if Carrier Capable)
Ok. ...so, this gives us numbers that don't at all indicate a direct way to calculate RoC, so we will need a modifier. Biplane, Total x4, example = 1008'/min Piston Mono, Total x2.5, example = 3337.5'/min LJF, Total x20 HJF, Total x30, example = 49,140'/min
Not terribly close, but close enough simply for flavor text.
Horsepower will equal the same mass factor for the aircraft * speed & modified;
Piston = MS/10 x MF x .67 in hp
LJF = MS/10 x MF x 5 in lbs.thrust
HJF = MS/10 x MF x 6.7 in lbs.thrust
Number of engines will equal Range/Speed rounded down. 5=4, 6+ = 6 if Toughness Odd, otherwise = 4. So, these are my notions for a way to come up with the interesting details that a story writer would want but which the game need not provide. If anyone has any notions or observations, I welcome them.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on May 13, 2020 9:18:09 GMT -6
Subbed! Really looking forward to following this!
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on May 13, 2020 10:38:39 GMT -6
I will hesitantly mention that the French and Germans did have cannon armed biplanes during WWI, so it wouldn't be too ludicrous to have an AAR biplane with a 20mm or 37mm cannon of some type.
Looking foreword to your new AAR!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 13, 2020 16:36:39 GMT -6
"Rate of Climb is really unnecessary but rather fun I think. Some kind of total of Firepower, Speed/10, and Range/10 modified by Maneuverability somehow would be a fair approximation for aircraft weight to provide rate of climb."
Here's a first draft at Rate of Climb, beginning with 3 examples. Yes, they are rather arbitrary examples, and I doubt I can come up with a formula that handles props AND jets, but lets see. With INCREDIBLY off-the-top-of-my-head & subjective numbers, lets try something. -and no aircraft has a super sonic max speed yet in RTW, so I am picking 600 as my max subsonic number.
Sopwith Pup 100 knots FP 2 M 9 T 3 Rng 160 2+10+16 / 9 = 3.11 (need 1000'/min) P-51 Mustang 400 knots FP 12 M 15 T 9 Rng 375 12+40+37 / 15 = 5.93 (need 3200'/min) F-4 Phantom 600 knots FP 15 M 14 T Rng 420 15+60+42 / 14 = 8 (43,200'/min)
Ok. ...so, this gives us numbers that don't at all indicate a direct way to calculate RoC, so we will need a modifier.
Pup needs to be about 300, Mustang about 600, and Phantom about 5,000. So lets imagine-
'10s 300 '20s 400 '30s 500 '40s 600 '50s 1200 '60s 5000
Ok, so this formula would work in the Grossest sense now. I recognize it white-washes the fact that the method implies a Mustang's engine system is 45% of its weight, fuel is 42% of its weight and guns are 13%, but the total number "works", and furthermore I will be using this simply to generate an interesting number for my narrative. Given that that is my sole goal, I think this might be usable. I will test it in my current game to see if it generates anything weird.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 14, 2020 3:44:28 GMT -6
I've to say this is really help for helping me working out how I FtD some aircrafts in my latest updates as well . I'd also consider some rough parameter for toughness/maneuverability? I feel most toughness 1-4 planes generally be considered wooden/canvas framed perhaps? Where as at higher level we can look at all metal construction, self-sealing fuel tanks, armored cockpits, etc...
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 14, 2020 8:02:10 GMT -6
That is sound, I hadn't thought yet of what the canvas/aluminum transition would be. I would probably go with airspeed, say 225-250 is canvas if Toughness is odd, Aluminum if even. Above 250 I would make it aluminum.
The formulas will need to be adjusted based on my experiences though, the Toughness threshold for Radial/Liquid-Cooled is too high.
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on May 14, 2020 18:28:33 GMT -6
That is sound, I hadn't thought yet of what the canvas/aluminum transition would be. I would probably go with airspeed, say 225-250 is canvas if Toughness is odd, Aluminum if even. Above 250 I would make it aluminum. The formulas will need to be adjusted based on my experiences though, the Toughness threshold for Radial/Liquid-Cooled is too high. Rule of thumb would be after 1916 it could be aluminum, by 1923 it is probably aluminum, and by 1927 it is definitely aluminum. The Swordfish and other planes like it were really flukes of lack of funding causing replacements to either be too expensive or just not designed, forcing their services to use whatever they had on hand. As for engines...
In the grand debate over which was better, radials tended to be more resistant to battle damage but could cause considerable drag on the aircraft if it wasn't designed or shrouded properly and they were massive in size. Inline engines caused far less drag and were generally smaller, but were comparatively fragile and a bit more expensive to produce.
Radials, and their inbred cousin the rotary engine (lets make the engine spin and keep the crankshaft stationary, what could go wrong?) came first, with inlines showing up just as WWI was kicking off. There was a big fad during the late 10's and early 20's to stick inlines in everything thanks to advances made during late WWI causing radials to fall behind in terms of speed. However, tests after the war showed that air-cooled radials could put out more power than an inline, making the US Navy declare that it would only accept radial powered aircraft and a lot of other nations decided something similar. While inlines weren't completely abandoned, the radials eventually won out and became the dominant engine during WWII until being replaced when everyone switched over to jets. That said, WWII radials and inlines could have comparable power outputs, with speed demons powered by both types existing throughout history. So the question really comes down to how tough the plane is.
Early planes should have radials or rotaries, with inlines coming in around 1915 and after. Fast planes during the late 10's and early 20's should have inlines over radials. After that, a plane with a higher toughness rating would most likely have a radial, especially if it is slightly slower than its competitors. An inline engine would be best suited for a plane that is slightly faster but with less toughness.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 14, 2020 18:51:13 GMT -6
Thank you for that thumbnail ieshima, you brought more light on the subject than I had thought to cast. I will probably follow your summation without much dissent, and use a toughness factor which will result in the appropriately fielded ratio of types.
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on May 14, 2020 19:27:38 GMT -6
Thank you for that thumbnail ieshima , you brought more light on the subject than I had thought to cast. I will probably follow your summation without much dissent, and use a toughness factor which will result in the appropriately fielded ratio of types. No problem, happy to help.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 17, 2020 15:03:36 GMT -6
I've edited the 'extra numbers' rules formulae, and I think this set will now produce useful results. Now I am only waiting on the next 'most mature' version update, and I think I will be ready to go.
If anyone wants to try to decipher my arcane ravings and apply it to aircraft in their own games please feel free, it would be interesting to see what folks come up with.
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on May 19, 2020 9:49:37 GMT -6
I know it doesn't really have anything to do with aircraft, but can I recommend something with ships?
CLs are often interchangeably called protected cruisers and light cruisers in most AARs. Rule of thumb, at least for me, is that until Light Cruiser Armor Configuration is researched, which is normally about 1906ish, all CLs built prior to a nation getting that tech are protected cruisers. So a 1900 start legacy CL will not be, under any circumstances, a light cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 19, 2020 9:52:33 GMT -6
CLs are often interchangeably called protected cruisers and light cruisers in most AARs. Rule of thumb, at least for me, is that until Light Cruiser Armor Configuration is researched, which is normally about 1906ish, all CLs built prior to a nation getting that tech are protected cruisers. So a 1900 start legacy CL will not be, under any circumstances, a light cruiser.
That is actually something I semi-intuitively used as well. While I retain the 'CL' designation for clarity, I either address them as 'protected cruisers', or utilizing the local classification 'small cruisers', rarely 'scout cruisers' etc.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 19, 2020 10:34:56 GMT -6
I will try to remember that when I start writing, that's an excellent point. I'll have to go back and look at the PLC and see what I did. ...knowing me, I probably started correctly and then forgot.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 19, 2020 14:52:55 GMT -6
I know it doesn't really have anything to do with aircraft, but can I recommend something with ships?
CLs are often interchangeably called protected cruisers and light cruisers in most AARs. Rule of thumb, at least for me, is that until Light Cruiser Armor Configuration is researched, which is normally about 1906ish, all CLs built prior to a nation getting that tech are protected cruisers. So a 1900 start legacy CL will not be, under any circumstances, a light cruiser. Personally, I prefer the first class/second class/third class and scout cruiser classifications over the armored/protected/unprotected cruiser classifications since the former are more about the role of the ship whereas the latter are more about the armor scheme, though first/second/third class does mostly align with armored/protected/unprotected.
I also don't see much of an issue with calling early-period small- to perhaps mid-size cruisers "light cruisers" as long as you're looking at it as a role- or capability-based classification rather than as an armor-scheme-based classification; a light cruiser like HMS Caroline filled much the same fleet role in the mid-1910s as a second class cruiser like HMS Highflyer did a decade or two earlier, and I don't know that "protected cruiser" is really any more of a period-appropriate naval classification than "light cruiser" is for cruisers of the 1890s and early 1900s - a ~4,000t protected cruiser built in the late 1890s or early 1900s would most likely have been classified as a Cruiser or possibly Scout Cruiser by the US Navy, a Second Class or possibly Scout Cruiser by the British Royal Navy, and a Kleiner Kreuzer (Small Cruiser) by the Imperial German Navy, for example. I might go so far as to argue that "protected cruiser," taken literally, is actually a worse classification than "light cruiser" - "protected cruiser" is too broad to be particularly useful as a classification seeing as it covers small cruisers like the ~2,100t Pelorus-class third class cruisers, midsize cruisers like the ~5,600t Highflyer-class second class cruisers, and even some large cruisers like the ~14,200t Powerful-class first class cruisers, whereas the ships encompassed by the term "light cruiser" are more homogeneous in capability, especially if you ignore that the US Navy initially classified its ~10,000t 8" cruisers as "light cruisers" and acknowledge that the ~10,000t 6" 'light cruisers' are heavy cruisers in all but name.
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on May 19, 2020 21:23:47 GMT -6
I know it doesn't really have anything to do with aircraft, but can I recommend something with ships?
CLs are often interchangeably called protected cruisers and light cruisers in most AARs. Rule of thumb, at least for me, is that until Light Cruiser Armor Configuration is researched, which is normally about 1906ish, all CLs built prior to a nation getting that tech are protected cruisers. So a 1900 start legacy CL will not be, under any circumstances, a light cruiser. Personally, I prefer the first class/second class/third class and scout cruiser classifications over the armored/protected/unprotected cruiser classifications since the former are more about the role of the ship whereas the latter are more about the armor scheme, though first/second/third class does mostly align with armored/protected/unprotected.
I also don't see much of an issue with calling early-period small- to perhaps mid-size cruisers "light cruisers" as long as you're looking at it as a role- or capability-based classification rather than as an armor-scheme-based classification; a light cruiser like HMS Caroline filled much the same fleet role in the mid-1910s as a second class cruiser like HMS Highflyer did a decade or two earlier, and I don't know that "protected cruiser" is really any more of a period-appropriate naval classification than "light cruiser" is for cruisers of the 1890s and early 1900s - a ~4,000t protected cruiser built in the late 1890s or early 1900s would most likely have been classified as a Cruiser or possibly Scout Cruiser by the US Navy, a Second Class or possibly Scout Cruiser by the British Royal Navy, and a Kleiner Kreuzer (Small Cruiser) by the Imperial German Navy, for example. I might go so far as to argue that "protected cruiser," taken literally, is actually a worse classification than "light cruiser" - "protected cruiser" is too broad to be particularly useful as a classification seeing as it covers small cruisers like the ~2,100t Pelorus-class third class cruisers, midsize cruisers like the ~5,600t Highflyer-class second class cruisers, and even some large cruisers like the ~14,200t Powerful-class first class cruisers, whereas the ships encompassed by the term "light cruiser" are more homogeneous in capability, especially if you ignore that the US Navy initially classified its ~10,000t 8" cruisers as "light cruisers" and acknowledge that the ~10,000t 6" 'light cruisers' are heavy cruisers in all but name.
Okay. Time to use all that I have learned. Useless facts and meaningless knowledge, don't fail me now.
A protected cruiser is a cruiser that doesn’t have an armored belt, instead relying on a protective sloped armored deck over the magazines and machinery at roughly the waterline. An armored cruiser does have an armored belt, just like a battleship. This is how the naming conventions came about. However, in the late 00’s and early 10's navies began to run into a problem: the old tried and true protected deck wasn’t cutting it anymore. So, they started to add light armor belts, 1”-2”, onto their smaller cruisers. But now they had a second problem: are these new cruisers armored cruisers because they have a belt? They can’t stand up to a real armored cruiser, and if we call them armored cruisers then some moron like Beatty is going to get them slaughtered. What do we call them? Their solution was to stick the words heavy and light in front of armored, with armored eventually being dropped because of convenience. It became more about gun size after the Treaties. Therefore, a light cruiser is actually a light armored cruiser, as it has an armored belt. But early CLs in game are stuck with the Protective Cruiser armor scheme, I.E. the protective sloped armored deck, until the Light Armored Cruiser Configuration tech is researched. This tech allows CLs to have proper belt armor, making them true light armored cruisers.
Therefore, any CL built prior to this tech being unlocked must be a protective cruiser and should be named as such. Now, you can clarify this further by labeling them 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class cruisers, but you have to put the word protective in there because a 1st class armored cruiser is wildly different to a 1st class protected cruiser. This is why the British made it a point to say protected or armored regardless of whether the ship was a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class vessel. Just calling them by their class was a very good way to get a lot of ships sunk.
|
|