|
Post by brygun on Aug 3, 2020 7:29:24 GMT -6
Found one of the B-17 references so posting here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhIGuE530gsIt talks about the early days of B-17 design and thoughts about trying to use it for naval uses, which it wasn't so good at bombing moving ships. Note that by "naval uses" I meaning uses relevant to at sea military operations; spotting, bombing ships and other actions influencing sea power; and not necessarily being organized under the Navy's direct control. The video also talks about the interwar period 1920s and 1930s which itself can be of interest to RTW2 players. It also appears that earlier in the discussion I had mixed up B-25s for the B-17.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Aug 3, 2020 7:48:57 GMT -6
Getting back to some ideas for implementing heavy bomber affects in the game:
= Heavies are actually bad at bombing moving ships. = Heavies do have numerous accounts of attacking ships in being static such as in harbors, in fjords (im looking at you Tirpitz), under repairs or being constructed
Thinking of those heavy bombers could appear in the between turn messages. Based on your heavy bombers vs the other nation's anti-aircraft research there are messages that could pop up including: = Heavy bombers hit ship construction [vessel] is delayed = Heavy bombers hit yard of [vessel], repairs are delayed = (unusual) Heavy bombers hit [vessel] during resupply, it needs repairs = (rare) Heavy bombers sunk [vessel] during resupply!
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 3, 2020 8:54:20 GMT -6
Getting back to some ideas for implementing heavy bomber affects in the game: = Heavies are actually bad at bombing moving ships. = Heavies do have numerous accounts of attacking ships in being static such as in harbors, in fjords (im looking at you Tirpitz), under repairs or being constructed Thinking of those heavy bombers could appear in the between turn messages. Based on your heavy bombers vs the other nation's anti-aircraft research there are messages that could pop up including: = Heavy bombers hit ship construction [vessel] is delayed = Heavy bombers hit yard of [vessel], repairs are delayed = (unusual) Heavy bombers hit [vessel] during resupply, it needs repairs = (rare) Heavy bombers sunk [vessel] during resupply! This is a good suggestion brygun , thanks.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Aug 3, 2020 12:56:40 GMT -6
This is a good suggestion brygun , thanks. Thanks It also would of course be that the nation at war with you could be receiving the damaged from the heavy bombers.
Possibly... the heavy bombers could rarely trigger a message about strategic bombing shifting the war much like we have the army message pop up
Which also could mean their could be those budget diversion questions between you the navy and the air force for strategic bombers.
>>>
Less certain would be good heavy bombers giving you spotting bonuses for your submarine attacks. While the heavy bombers like B-17 sucked at hitting moving ships they were wonderful on having the endurance to spot them, especially circling a convoy like in the movie "The Cruel Sea" (might have been a 2 engine medium bomber in the film)
though that is a point that good medium bomber research could actually give bonuses to your submarine attacks and penalties to the others though not as good as the flying boats they could have "some" impact, mostly in that spotting-warning duties.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Aug 3, 2020 13:19:08 GMT -6
Thinking of the mine warfare talked about here the medium and heavy bombers could be set to affect the mine warfare scores.
Heavy bombers could also trigger a pop-up for either you or your enemies along the lines of:
= [You/them] Heavy bombers conduct a blitz of aerial mine laying in [sea zone]
While I dont know the details of the mine warfare a spike or a stockpiling of mines could be done. This then would be done before that turns check for the affects of mine. The jump of numbers then might or might not lead to more ships hit mine messages.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 3, 2020 13:59:01 GMT -6
In 1935 specifications for a four-engine flying boat with a large bomb capacity by BuAer. In 1938 a much larger flying boat was ordered, it was the Martin PB2M Mars and it was described as a bomber and a scout. The Mars could carry over 25,000 lbs. of payload which is 25 x 1000 lbs. bombs. The problem for the Navy at the time was cost and a General Board still entranced with battleships. It was the depression.
So, why not just add large four engine flying boats and let the Navies use them as bombers. Let's explore the " path not taken" by history.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Aug 12, 2020 13:10:29 GMT -6
In 1935 specifications for a four-engine flying boat with a large bomb capacity by BuAer. In 1938 a much larger flying boat was ordered, it was the Martin PB2M Mars and it was described as a bomber and a scout. The Mars could carry over 25,000 lbs. of payload which is 25 x 1000 lbs. bombs. The problem for the Navy at the time was cost and a General Board still entranced with battleships. It was the depression. So, why not just add large four engine flying boats and let the Navies use them as bombers. Let's explore the " path not taken" by history. It could be implemented as unlocking a research technology for "Heavy flying boats" with the player then deciding to research them or not. However, there was in one version of the game the ability for later flying boats to be armed with torpedoes. Which, is true to real world and yet swapped the skies with in some places, like the Northern Europe, having hundreds of aerial torpedoes in the skies. The heavy flying boats could be kept as bombers though to avoid the aerial torpedo flood. >>>> Which also raises the question of the missile age of ASM (anti-shipping missiles or air-to-ship missiles) being a valid load for flying boats of either normal or heavy versions getting into the same in-game affect as having a flood of aerial torpedoes. Which is part of what the Soviet bomber swarms of the late cold war were trying to do and why the F-14 Tomcat was equipped with the horrendous range Pheonix missile. In one computer game after launching an F-14 from the carrier catapult I already had bombers in 100+ km missile range.... fired my salvo... and looped back to the carrier deck to rearm within a perhaps 5 minutes of actual time in the air.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 12, 2020 14:30:41 GMT -6
In 1935 specifications for a four-engine flying boat with a large bomb capacity by BuAer. In 1938 a much larger flying boat was ordered, it was the Martin PB2M Mars and it was described as a bomber and a scout. The Mars could carry over 25,000 lbs. of payload which is 25 x 1000 lbs. bombs. The problem for the Navy at the time was cost and a General Board still entranced with battleships. It was the depression. So, why not just add large four engine flying boats and let the Navies use them as bombers. Let's explore the " path not taken" by history. ... Which is part of what the Soviet bomber swarms of the late cold war were trying to do and why the F-14 Tomcat was equipped with the horrendous range Pheonix missile. In one computer game after launching an F-14 from the carrier catapult I already had bombers in 100+ km missile range.... fired my salvo... and looped back to the carrier deck to rearm within a perhaps 5 minutes of actual time in the air. Just a note: Only one nation has actually killed a target with an AIM-54 Phoenix missile and that was Iran. We only fired three times and no kills that I know of. It was a heavy missile and most times, it wasn't carried. It was only active homing for the last 11 miles, INS for the first couple of miles and semi-active homing for the mid-course meaning the F-14 had to illuminate the target. It was not a maneuverable missile but only good against bombers, it was very expensive and it was actually built for the F-111B which the Navy did not buy because it was too heavy. The missile was built specifically for the AWG-9A Fire Control so when the A model F-14 was retired, so went the AIM-54
|
|
alant
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by alant on Nov 23, 2020 10:30:00 GMT -6
Heavy bombers in RtW2 would have one useful purpose that I can see - attacking land bases. They should be fairly effective at suppressing enemy air bases.
But the game would have to force this mission.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2020 10:39:10 GMT -6
Heavy bombers in RtW2 would have one useful purpose that I can see - attacking land bases. They should be fairly effective at suppressing enemy air bases. But the game would have to force this mission. You could use them to attack slow moving convoys.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 23, 2020 10:49:28 GMT -6
Those both seem something that could work with the text-book behind the scences. Rather than the player taking part in a tactical battle with them there could be the messages for:
- Heavy Bomber air raid! Base [name] heavily damaged.
I think convoys would fall into the merchant shipping report.
- This month Heavy Bombers have sink [x] merchant ships.
The chances of getting the heavy bomber messages would go up if you built more of them. Assuming the player, the nation's top Admiral, is involved with them. Though they do impact the naval war most nations put them into a department separate from the ships.
[insert history lesson from oldpop2000, looking forward to it]
|
|
alant
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by alant on Nov 23, 2020 10:53:45 GMT -6
has ANYONE ever seen a heavy bomber in RtW2? I thought they were unicorns, just put in as a tease for some future version/upgrade?
|
|
|
Post by fossilcon on Nov 23, 2020 11:08:47 GMT -6
Don't be overawed by the FW-200 Condor. While it claimed about 90,000 tons of shipping and 343,000 in total, it had heavy losses especially after the British put hurricanes on catapults. It also had structural issues. It really wasn't that effective. >Scourge of the Atlantic >Not that effective Considering the amount of effort that Admiralty put into preventing Condor attacks, it must have been quite effective.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 23, 2020 11:15:11 GMT -6
has ANYONE ever seen a heavy bomber in RtW2? I thought they were unicorns, just put in as a tease for some future version/upgrade? Currently they do not exist in the game. There is a mention of them if you are looking up the types of airplanes for comparison that a "Heavy Bomber" option exists. The general impression is this was a possibility being considered during development but passed over to put dev-coding time on other matters. There is also the question whether heavy bombers would or would-not be controlled by the nation's Admiral so I can see that. Twin engine "medium bombers" certainly do appear with naval versions including torpedo launching. 4-engine "heavy bombers" were rarer and tended to be more in extremely long range patrols such as many hours patrolling for submarines. That though may in part be that their production was ramped up more late war.
|
|
alant
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by alant on Nov 23, 2020 12:39:52 GMT -6
Has anyone been able to build heavy bombers in RtW2? If not = unicorn.
|
|