|
Post by Bullethead on Aug 31, 2016 9:04:33 GMT -6
@fredrik W -- Yay! axe99: Wow, thanks for the tip on the AA book. I'm ordering it right now. bcoopactual: On the types of planes to include, I can see having generic types, kinda like how we have various generic submarines already. So say CV fighters, torpedobombers, and divebombers, BB/cruiser scout floatplanes, medium and heavy flying boats, and land-based fighters, medium and heavy bombers. These various types would then be subject to incremental performance improvements over time due to research. I would assume that aircraft would have a set of stats like range, speed, air attack, surface attack, and defense. This is what the incremental improvements would tweak over time. However, it might be nice if you could specify one of these stats to improve at the expense of all the others. For example, giving the A6M extra range but knowing it will be pretty limited in other areas. On the micromanagement side of things, I can't help but recall the ingenious system used by the ancient Task Force 1942 game. In that game, you never had airplanes attacking ships during sea battles, which allowed a very simple and fairly abstracted system. You had some number of planes of various types, which you could assign to various missions. IIRC, it worked like this: * Scouting: You selected a pie slice area of whatever width desired out from your base and assigned however many planes to it. They would all take off simultaneously at dawn, fan out evenly within the pie slice, fly out to the limit of their range, then return (usually). If they spotted enemy ships, you got a sighting report, which was usually fairly inaccurate as to location, course, speed, and numbers. RTW already has similar reports, like when the enemy is shelling your base but your ships are too far away to see them. So this seems pretty simple to do. * CAP: You assigned some number of planes (not necessarily fighters) to the CAP and the game would try to keep about 1/2 of them in the air over the base all the time, the other half refueling. That all happened automatically from dawn to dusk (TF1942 didn't have any night air ops). * Airstrikes: You could only launch airstrikes at a "known" target. Land targets were always known, sea targets were only spotting reports so the airstrike might get there bur not find anything. Then you just assigned however many of various types of planes to the airstrike. The strike moved at the speed of the slowest planes and went to the range of the plane with the shortest legs. The airstrike had to be home by dark so would abort if it was getting too late in the day. One of the nice features of this system was that there were zero squadrons, you just had a total pool of aircraft at a base. So there was no worry about having to replenish, merge, or rotate squadrons in and out. You were free to assign however many planes to whatever missions. When new planes arrived, they were just added to the existing pool. I think this goes well with the RTW battle generator, which doesn't use player-defined squadrons/divisions of ships, either. The micromanagement would come in the logistics, but getting airplanes out to the front lines seems relatively simple compared to keeping fleets and bases supplied way out in the Pacific. There have been quite a few strategic-level WW2 games that have been far more about moving supplies than fighting battles, so don't tend to hold the attention of most players for very long. Sure, such naval campaigns really were more about moving supplies, but there were massive staff organizations to take care of all that without heaping it all on 1 player. I'd much rather have that abstracted down to a minimum. such as how RTW currently has random convoy battles without the player having to plan the convoys. Then it would just be a matter of moving planes around the same way we already move ships around.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 31, 2016 9:17:39 GMT -6
Bullethead, that all sounds good to me. Generic types was what I was thinking too. Didn't mean to imply otherwise by including specific names, I was just giving examples. Assuming the turns stay one month long, moving airplanes from one zone to another should be a simple as ordering ships is now. Especially if you aren't trying to keep individual squadrons supplied but just the overall pool of planes of each type.
|
|
|
Post by amurtiger on Aug 31, 2016 9:34:20 GMT -6
That doesn't make AA useless! Musashi proved that a single carrier's worth of planes is still required to take out a 'modern' BB, and she was terrible with AA! Iowa would likely suffer massive damage by a single carrier still, but she would NOT be easy to take out. AA or no AA armor plays a pretty big role as well, dirty little secret is that dive bombers weren't particularly good at getting their bombs through the armor of the post-Jutland battleships since the plunging fire problem that deck armor was thickened to protect against ended up as good insurance against dive bombers as well. The Arizonas famous end was actually done in by a Kate torpedo bomber in level flight as diving with a bomb that large would have been tricky. Depends on the ship class. RN DDs certainly struggled though this wasn't due to a lack of heavy AAA ( that's what the 4.7" guns were designed for after all ) but some design limitations based on how they expected that AAA to be used. The RN expected that the heavy AAA on DDs would primarily be for defending other fleet units and so limited the elevation, a mistake they struggled with on occation. RN CLs were just fine in terms of heavy AAA, compare a Town to a Cleveland and you're looking at 4-6 dual 4" vs 6 dual 5". RN CAs weren't as well off due to their age, the youngest being the Yorks which were commissioned in 1930, similar aged US CAs had the same sort of issues. RN battleships were.... complicated. The RN had two different DP guns fitted to battleships ( three if you count the Warspite actually ) and varying degrees of refits. The KGVs certainly suffered in terms of heavy AAA, losing a couple dual turrets compared to a SoDak because they wanted big beefy 5.25" guns. You might not think that .25" adds up to much but there's a 44% advantage in shell weight for the RN gun there, operating at the same velocity. This made everything heavy and RoF slower then is desirable. The Nelsons & Revenge didn't have the refit space, considerably worse off to their Colorado peers that at least in one case got a bunch of dual 5" The Queen E & Renown classes though did have refit space and managed to get the other DP mount, the 4.5". This was the RN equivalent to the US 5", shave off a bit of RoF and muzzle velocity and there you have it. The full refits to both these classes offered 10 dual turrets, as much as could be found on the most modern US battleships. RN CVs had drastically more heavy AAA then USN CVs. Illustrious uses 8x2 4.5" where Yorktown used 8x1 5", USN would only surpass this when it got to the Midway class. Heavy AAA aside it's also worth noting that 'coming into the war' the USN didn't have any Bofors, they signed the contact for that in 1941, stripping away the medium AAA removes close to half the weight of fire from a ship as light AAA rarely contributed much substantial. Mostly true but overlooking a key point. The deck park. The deck park exaggerates the difference between the RN and USN carriers by a fair bit, when you look at ships that both used it Implacable and Essex, you see the difference in aircraft carried narrows to 10-20. More interesting then the numbers game however is how the RN used their CAP and Radar more efficiently. Basically the RN would use radar to help direct their CAP towards the target and had a particular way of organizing it that was admired by the USN when the HMS Victorious sailed as the USS Robin alongside the only proper USN fleet carrier in service at the time ( 1943 ) , the Saratoga. There's a common misconception that the RN leading up to and during WWII wasn't particularly forward looking, I hope I've disabused anyone of that thought as they remained right up to the war at the leading edge on thinking about naval warfare. Their biggest drawback was that the RAF wasn't nearly as prepared for WWII as the navy was and so the FAA had to wait a long time before either development or production effort was directed towards it, given the prominence of those planes it certainly made the RN look behind the times. In spite of that the FAA's biplanes sported the world's first aerial surface search radar.
Suggestions -Since carriers have been confirmed I'd like to ask that heavier aircraft options not be neglected, both in the form of level bombers and twin engined light bombers. Obviously with suitable penalties for numbers carried but I'd very much like to have a Sea Hornet equivalent in game. -Heavy AP bombs, to deal with those pesky post-jutland battleships, possible tech cross-pollination from shell technology -More ways to combat kill. By WWII ships were vastly more deadly and vastly harder to sink, yet much of this technology was fragile and prone to battle damage. See how quickly the Bismarck was combat killed by the Rodney, the electrical troubles of the Prince of Wales and South Dakoda, the unavoidable vulnerability of radar arrays and large range finders. Then there's the tremendous vulnerability introduced by aviation fuel and bombs in carriers, though that was much more liable to result in sinking. -A bit more flex in refitting, namely in allowing improvements to deck armor and ( if machinery is refitted ) range. This is especially true if refit to carrier is possible which would be lovely. -Tweaks to the scenario maker. I found that it was a bit too easy, and ultimately important, to take advantage of ship class to get the best setup from the start. Battlecruisers dominating all the cruiser battles being the obvious example while similar speed fast battleships are excluded. It felt like it was a liability to make CLs that would only end up drawn into battles that they could lose when you could instead focus on very beefy CAs and BCs. -Given all the AAA talk in here, a fairly robust set of technologies supporting Heavy AA and Medium AA. RPC mounts, basic AA directors as well as Tachymetric directors developed individually for the Heavy AA mounts and the clustered Medium AA mounts. PS Hi Axe99
|
|
|
Post by davedave on Aug 31, 2016 10:06:59 GMT -6
@fredrik W -- Yay! axe99 : Wow, thanks for the tip on the AA book. I'm ordering it right now. bcoopactual : On the types of planes to include, I can see having generic types, kinda like how we have various generic submarines already. So say CV fighters, torpedobombers, and divebombers, BB/cruiser scout floatplanes, medium and heavy flying boats, and land-based fighters, medium and heavy bombers. These various types would then be subject to incremental performance improvements over time due to research. I would assume that aircraft would have a set of stats like range, speed, air attack, surface attack, and defense. This is what the incremental improvements would tweak over time. However, it might be nice if you could specify one of these stats to improve at the expense of all the others. For example, giving the A6M extra range but knowing it will be pretty limited in other areas. On the micromanagement side of things, I can't help but recall the ingenious system used by the ancient Task Force 1942 game. In that game, you never had airplanes attacking ships during sea battles, which allowed a very simple and fairly abstracted system. You had some number of planes of various types, which you could assign to various missions. IIRC, it worked like this: * Scouting: You selected a pie slice area of whatever width desired out from your base and assigned however many planes to it. They would all take off simultaneously at dawn, fan out evenly within the pie slice, fly out to the limit of their range, then return (usually). If they spotted enemy ships, you got a sighting report, which was usually fairly inaccurate as to location, course, speed, and numbers. RTW already has similar reports, like when the enemy is shelling your base but your ships are too far away to see them. So this seems pretty simple to do. * CAP: You assigned some number of planes (not necessarily fighters) to the CAP and the game would try to keep about 1/2 of them in the air over the base all the time, the other half refueling. That all happened automatically from dawn to dusk (TF1942 didn't have any night air ops). * Airstrikes: You could only launch airstrikes at a "known" target. Land targets were always known, sea targets were only spotting reports so the airstrike might get there bur not find anything. Then you just assigned however many of various types of planes to the airstrike. The strike moved at the speed of the slowest planes and went to the range of the plane with the shortest legs. The airstrike had to be home by dark so would abort if it was getting too late in the day. One of the nice features of this system was that there were zero squadrons, you just had a total pool of aircraft at a base. So there was no worry about having to replenish, merge, or rotate squadrons in and out. You were free to assign however many planes to whatever missions. When new planes arrived, they were just added to the existing pool. I think this goes well with the RTW battle generator, which doesn't use player-defined squadrons/divisions of ships, either. The micromanagement would come in the logistics, but getting airplanes out to the front lines seems relatively simple compared to keeping fleets and bases supplied way out in the Pacific. There have been quite a few strategic-level WW2 games that have been far more about moving supplies than fighting battles, so don't tend to hold the attention of most players for very long. Sure, such naval campaigns really were more about moving supplies, but there were massive staff organizations to take care of all that without heaping it all on 1 player. I'd much rather have that abstracted down to a minimum. such as how RTW currently has random convoy battles without the player having to plan the convoys. Then it would just be a matter of moving planes around the same way we already move ships around. ^ this, as ver kidz are wont to say. Christ I loved TF1942... Also: hey Bullethead! I used to hang around the DG/Jutland forums back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 31, 2016 10:08:53 GMT -6
IIRC, basically HE bombs and rockets were used to suppress AA, then torpedo bombers mopped up the job.
HOWEVER...
In theory you could mount guided AP bombs on WW2 planes, which managed to OVERPENETRATE a battleship (Warspite) and hit the magazines of another (Roma).
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 31, 2016 10:41:30 GMT -6
With a one minute battle cycle I think you could provide a lot more detail than generic air points. You want to keep it interesting for the player and you have incredibly powerful processing power so why keep it at this highly abstract level? The game could easily track every single plane in use, keeping track of every value for each plane. This info could be provided to the player in an organized manner that simplifies the information unless the player wants to drill down to the next level. This is similar to how the Hit chance, ROF and Ship's log currently are presented. The player doesn't have to examine this info but for those who want a better understanding of how that final single value is calculated it's provided.
With one minute turns it will take several turns for an attack group to launch and form up for a strike. It would be great to provide ongoing information to the player about the progress made in this process. Something along the lines of:
04 15:04 12(15) DB, 8(8) TB and 15(18) F are aloft and forming for strike against target B2. 04 15:05 15(15) DB, 8(8) TB and 18(18) F are aloft and formed for strike against target B2. 04 15:06 15(15) DB, 8(8) TB and 18(18) F strike against target B2 has departed. Estimated arrival 15:56
The internal operations of the carrier could also be detailed in this manner. While probably not pertinent to the results of a battle it would be really interesting to see these operations recorded and, for me at least, it would really increase my enjoyment of the game. For instance, the ship's log could include message like this.
04 15:06 4 DB armed 04 15:06 3 DB moved to flight deck 04 15:06 3 F moved to hangar 04 15:06 2 F landed 04 15:06 14 DB, 4 TB, 8 F on flight deck
The same kind of reporting could occur during an attack, which assuming 1 minute turns, would typically play out over a number of game turns as enemy planes line up for a dive bombing attack and torpedo planes attempt to generate a scissors attack (assuming the pilots had sufficient experience). This could be a relatively simple text report such as: "5(13) DB attack - 1 near miss". (number in parenthesis indicate planes that have not yet attacked.
It would be really superb to provide some visual representation of this process. Though the development cost to provide this would be substantial I think the payoff in enjoyment for the player would be substantial. But even without the visuals, a text description of the action would be very welcome.
I would expect the entire process of the air strike to be automated once it is launched. There was not much ability to control these strikes once in the air (though they tried). CAP is another matter. In the latter years of WWII the Americans in particular had the ability to move their CAP to respond to incoming attacks. Given the current scale of the game I would think that the player should be provided with similar abilities (though this could also be automated) after researching the appropriate "technologies". Technologies in this case would represent training and experience with new techs as much as the new techs themselves.
I wouldn't expect players to be able to develop specific planes types such as Bettys or Wildcats. The difficulty may be arriving at a satisfactory level of abstraction that captures the unique flavor of each time period (30 years saw a lot of aircraft development) without overwhelming the player with minutia. I don't think it would be very satisfying for the player to have one generic fighter or dive bomber when historically there were often dozens of planes types, each with its own strengths and weaknesses available to the militaries of the time but this may be the only real solution.
I suspect the game developers will need to provide, at a minimum, the following aircraft categories that would have their own characteristics and development path.
Float planes (small, lightly armed planes launchable via catapult used primarily for search and spotting) Seaplanes (2 or 4 engines, primarily used for searching but also capable of carrying ordinance) Carrier-capable fighters Carrier-capable torpedo bombers Carrier-capable dive bombers Land-based Fighters Land-based 2-engine bombers Land-based 4-engine bombers
Here are some of the characteristics that might be needed for aircraft
Range Anti-air attack strength - derived from firepower, maneuverability, speed?, experience Defense strength - simulates self-sealing tanks, armor, maneuverability (each could be researched separately)
Anti-ship attack strength - derived from aircraft characteristics, weapon carried, pilot experience Anti ship weapons: Torp - greater damage (researchable) but also greater vulnerability Bomb - Better accuracy and survivability, less damage Skip bombs - specific tech that needs to be researched Aerial mines - specific tech that needs to be researched Rockets - specific tech that needs to be researched
Land/carrier/float planes - Affects type of base that can be used Size - primarily affects carrier capacity Number of engines - researchable tech that primarily affects range and bomb load Experience - per plane/squadron/air group
Other special abilities that can be researched Night fighters Aerial radar
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 31, 2016 16:07:43 GMT -6
This is a great conversation (at least from my angle - I'm no expert, but the standard seems pretty good to me . Bullethead - you can get that on Kindle as well, if that helps. I've only skimmed through a couple of bits on USN and RN AA, and I haven't read any Friedman before (but he's heavily and positively referenced by some of the best in the field, so I'd be very surprised if it wasn't quality all the way through), but the pages I skimmed seemed very good. amurtiger - Hello hello, and great post . I decided against getting too carried away in a "USN vs RN at date X" comparison of AAA capability, but I agree - in terms of net guns on ships, there wasn't a huge difference in similar classes of vessels (and I vaguely recall the older RN BBs may have up-gunned a little better than the older USN ships). I always wonder whether if the RN hadn't decided to just go "all in" on refining it's 4" Mk XVI, 5,25" Mk I, 4.5", or 4.7" DP, rather than trying to maintain and develop them all at once, it wouldn't have had better luck in developing a more reliable DP weapon over time (as the 5"/38 in its original mounts wasn't bad, but it's a long way from the late-war 5"/38 in power-controlled mounts with integral hoists and radar-directed fire control that everyone remembers). On the aircraft control, if it doesn't tank performance, I like jwsmith's ideas, but with a high level of automation, at least as the standard setting (although I'd add engine power/quality/however-you-phrase it to aircraft characteristics, as afaik (I'm no expert, just read it elsewhere) engine power had a significant impact on the size of the bombs and the like that aircraft could deliver, as well as on speed, capability to climb to altitude for CAPs quickly and the like). Not knocking TF1942 though, it's a good system as well . One of the good things about RtW's mission system is that the size of the battle maps is comfortably large enough to cope with carrier or land-based aircraft becoming involved from as far as is sensible . One thing that I feel distinguishes WW2 from WW1 is that a lot the naval operations were even more heavily based around interdicting/defending convoys, either for supplying war industry (Battle of the Atlantic) or combat units (Guadalcanal, Leyte, Philippine Sea), and that the game could perhaps benefit from adjusting the mission system to fit this. For example, a mission might involve a fast transport mission at night to deliver supplies to units, where the ships need to have delivered the supplies and retreated before daylight (or if they haven't, land or carrier based air becomes an issue). Something like the Japanese missions at Guadalcanal, or the attempt to smash through Surigoa Strait. Spotting is something else that comes into things, and aircraft will change it up substantially (and then the impact of other air on limiting the capacity of spotting). Going back to Surigoa Strait, it could have been a very different Leyte if the US didn't know that force was coming. Finally, there's also things like radio intercepts. Would it make sense (I'm not sure about this, just throwing it out there, spank it down hard if it sounds silly) to have notifications along the lines of "signal intelligence suggests there may be an enemy fleet somewhere around X" during a battle?
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 31, 2016 16:28:06 GMT -6
When I think of aircraft in RtW2 my mind instantly jumps to WWII and especially the Pacific. Being able to recreate those kinds of battles would be great but what really excites me are the wars that are sure to occur in the 20's when carriers were still experimental. I mean, some carriers had 3 flying off levels - how cool is that? OK, not so successful but definitely cool. Planes had short ranges, navigation in the air was primitive, weapons weaker - what would carrier battles look like with these weapons? I can't wait to find out.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 31, 2016 17:11:01 GMT -6
When I think of aircraft in RtW2 my mind instantly jumps to WWII and especially the Pacific. Being able to recreate those kinds of battles would be great but what really excites me are the wars that are sure to occur in the 20's when carriers were still experimental. I mean, some carriers had 3 flying off levels - how cool is that? OK, not so successful but definitely cool. Planes had short ranges, navigation in the air was primitive, weapons weaker - what would carrier battles look like with these weapons? I can't wait to find out. Oh aye - how does a mixed battleline/CAG clash look?!
|
|
|
Post by mllaneza on Aug 31, 2016 17:13:41 GMT -6
Multiplayer, multiplayer, multiplayer. In tactical it's essential, in campaign or RtW2 it's merely Very Good.
The ability to try bad ideas in naval aviation: Ise, Hyuga, various never-launched designs of the USN and RN. Catapults on top of turrets. Setting your own floatplanes on fire during a night action.
Make carriers useful out in front with the cruiser scouting line.
Run a Kickstarter with Really Cool Graphics as a stretch goal.
|
|
|
Post by amurtiger on Aug 31, 2016 19:25:58 GMT -6
amurtiger - Hello hello, and great post . I decided against getting too carried away in a "USN vs RN at date X" comparison of AAA capability, but I agree - in terms of net guns on ships, there wasn't a huge difference in similar classes of vessels (and I vaguely recall the older RN BBs may have up-gunned a little better than the older USN ships). I always wonder whether if the RN hadn't decided to just go "all in" on refining it's 4" Mk XVI, 5,25" Mk I, 4.5", or 4.7" DP, rather than trying to maintain and develop them all at once, it wouldn't have had better luck in developing a more reliable DP weapon over time (as the 5"/38 in its original mounts wasn't bad, but it's a long way from the late-war 5"/38 in power-controlled mounts with integral hoists and radar-directed fire control that everyone remembers). Refining wasn't the key problem, though it certainly contributed. The real issue was that the RN wouldn't leave well enough alone in terms of secondary gun performance. That drove them past the workable 4" and 4.7" guns that with some effort could have made perfectly DP guns, past the near 5"/38 equivalent in the 4.5" and to the ultimately disappointing and expensive in terms of displacement and cost 5.25". It's a less extreme version of the debate the Germans had over deciding to keep a few 6" secondary turrets instead of going exclusively for DP weapons which the 105mm guns would have been passable at. There's KGV designs that went for 10x2 4.5" instead of the final 8x2 5.25" which became available during the design period of the KGV. Subsequently you can see the RN evolve backwards on this issue, with the 1938 Lion carrying as many or less 5.25" turrets as the KGV but by 1944 they'd opted for 12x2 4.5" once they'd gotten around to deciding that yes, AA performance was more important then a potent secondary battery. Of course the fact that the early KGV designs also had the 4.5" secondaries as well as 3x3 15" is another aspect that makes me long after that almost-built design.
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on Sept 1, 2016 2:43:50 GMT -6
Any suggestions about national specialties in aircraft carrier operations.
In BNat.dat adds a new characteristic - "Aircraft carrier doctrine", similar to existing, for example "Accuracy" or "DamageControl", etc.
In 01/01/1925 "Aircraft carrier doctrine" = : Great Britain = 0 USA = -1 Japan = -1 France = -2 Germany = -2 Italy = -2 USSR = -2
"Aircraft carrier doctrine" affects to: - search mission probability to meet contacts; - management of air raids and missions (less early return probability, less loosings of contacts); - hangar service (less time to preparing strikes); - management of ships in carrier forces; - quality of attacks - accuracy of fighters, divebombers, torpedobombers. - -10% of aircraft carrier building and maintenance cost.
"Aircraft carrier doctrine" of nation may be improved with training "carrier ops" every year, similar to existing "gunnery practice".
The question about carrier battles gameplay and mechanics is very sophisticated. I was playing in most of thematic games, including Great Naval Battles Guadalcanal, Pacific Air War 1942, Carriers at War old series, Carriers at War 2007, Midway Naval Campaigns (HPS), Pacific Storm, Pacific Storm Allies, War in the Pacific Admirals Edition, Harpoon ANW and Harpoon Commander Edition, Naval War: Arctic Circle.
I hardly convinced, that in this listed games carrier battle is works enough good, but no optimal. In each of this listed games existing a interesting realistic features, but each of this games has a marked weaknesses in carrier battle model&gameplay.
Because RTW has a minimal turn length = 1 minute, this is a big question, which will be a elements of player commands to carrier forces/airbases/squadrons. It`s necessary to analyze a big quantity of aspects of gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Sept 1, 2016 3:11:56 GMT -6
First of all and most important, thanks for working on this new product! Greatly apreciatted.
About development, I will like to see the hability of the player to investigate doctrines like naval search, radio comunication, carrier doctrines, etc. Improving this using research points will get the player better results in finding enemies, comunicating this finds, having faster refuelled carriers (and carriers that launch and recover planes faster) etc.
The hability to investigate different types of carriers like escort carriers (ideal for small nations)
The hability for the player to design new planes (and add them a pic)
Land bombers and naval search planes.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Sept 1, 2016 4:13:10 GMT -6
I do not think aircraft design has to be very complicated, and I have to admit I would love to be able to design specific types.
The designer would look like ship designer, where player would pick plane type, number and type of engines and crew number and obviously weapons (forward firing and turrets) and payload.
Airframe would be automated by checkboxes where player would pick from range/payload/agility/speed/ruggedness priority with each giving benefits (according to class) and maluses. Plus a checkbox for floats (if you want to put regular fighter/bomber on floats to save some cash on designing)
This would obviously be available for fleet aircraft, army planes would be designed and built by AI (or just made with historical templates).
Research is a bit complicated, as most of it would be done by the army (like engines, airframe trials etc). Definitely there should be research for plane tactics (or separate cv tactics, fleet/air support, antishipping attack tactics etc), flynig boats or anti ship weapons
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Sept 1, 2016 6:38:19 GMT -6
i figured aircraft would be handled like subs are currently - you just build whichever type of aircraft you want from a list, they'l take x turns to build, then they'l auto-populate in their destination. their reliability will get better as their tech gets better (again like subs) so there'l never be 100% of the aircraft available for duty
maybe there'l be an option to build land-based aircraft or carrier aircraft and you'l have a separate tab to allocate which aircraft go to which airfield or carrier
perhaps aircraft would be handled by the ai like current support ships and the player can 'request' aircraft assistance or they might randomly show up, all of which would be limited by their range and navigation skill (they might fly off to some other wrong location early game when air navigation tech is still not available)
they might be a greater risk to call them in early game as if weather is obscuring the area they may mis-ID your ships as the enemy and attack YOU lol
|
|