|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 1, 2016 11:56:38 GMT -6
Some good stuff in this thread! Very inspirational for RTW2. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 1, 2016 12:34:10 GMT -6
Some good stuff in this thread! Very inspirational for RTW2. Thanks! I just wanted to add something about research. Don't forget that as aircraft became more complex, research, development and testing expanded and became more complex. You might want to consider this as a research item for the new game. Individual components are not tested on the new plane, but usually on old ones at experimental stations. These test stations had to be developed and built to perform these complex testing procedures.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 1, 2016 13:31:02 GMT -6
Some good stuff in this thread! Very inspirational for RTW2. Thanks! I just wanted to add something about research. Don't forget that as aircraft became more complex, research, development and testing expanded and became more complex. You might want to consider this as a research item for the new game. Individual components are not tested on the new plane, but usually on old ones at experimental stations. These test stations had to be developed and built to perform these complex testing procedures. A good point, and applies to naval tech too. I have no doubt that the USN would have in hindsight spent more money on torpedo testing in the interwar years! Another random thought, in case it works. The feeling I get (and I'm not particularly well read on it, so please ignore if silly idea) is that there were more doctrinal 'choices' once carriers came on the scene (particularly in the switch from BBs to CVs as the central unit of a fleet). It could be cool if, in the game, rather than an automatic thing that happened through tech research, it was a choice that could be made at any time, but that the effectiveness of the choice would depend heavily on the balance of power between aircraft and ships (so go too early, and you risk your ships training to operate as a task force and having to fight in a battle-line slugfest, go too late and your CTFs aren't as well screened (particularly from an AA perspective) as they could be because the bulk of the surface fleet is off trying to do Tsushima again).
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 1, 2016 14:03:35 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts.
Another plane type to consider if the game is going to 1950 is the multi-role carrier attack plane like the AD Skyraider, AM Mauler, Westland Wyvern and the Aichi B7A. They could perform both dive and torpedo bomber missions.
Do we want to see building holidays and total tonnage limits added to the peace treaty options? Assuming it could be programmed, it would go well with the armor refits that people have asked for. Best reason to spend two years and a bunch of money adding to the deck armor of a ship is if you can't build a new one instead.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 1, 2016 14:12:54 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts. Another plane type to consider if the game is going to 1950 is the multi-role carrier attack plane like the AD Skyraider, AM Mauler, Westland Wyvern and the Aichi B7A. They could perform both dive and torpedo bomber missions. Do we want to see building holidays and total tonnage limits added to the peace treaty options? Assuming it could be programmed, it would go well with the armor refits that people have asked for. Best reason to spend two years and a bunch of money adding to the deck armor of a ship is if you can't build a new one instead. The AD Skyraider, or spad as we used to call her, was a natural outgrowth of the Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber since they were both designed, as was the A-4 Skyhawk, by Ed Heineman of Douglas Aviation. He is also responsible for the A-20, A-26, A-3 along with four others. It would be a natural outgrowth of the trend set by the SBD. Once 30 degree glide bombing had been established as more effective, a dive bomber like the SBD was not necessary. So, the AD-1 was a natural.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 1, 2016 14:48:31 GMT -6
By the way, we could insert the development of the helicopter. There are NACA records that show helicopter designs were being explored. I have encountered a document dtd May 1920 with the subject: The problem of the helicopter. There are more dtd 1921, 1922, then 1937. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Sept 1, 2016 14:54:59 GMT -6
Do we want to see building holidays and total tonnage limits added to the peace treaty options? Assuming it could be programmed, it would go well with the armor refits that people have asked for. Best reason to spend two years and a bunch of money adding to the deck armor of a ship is if you can't build a new one instead. Yes, very much. I'd like more or less the entire framework of the inter-war naval treaties to be possible. Optimizing designs within restrictions is fun, but the current set of restrictions doesn't make for the most interesting design space.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 1, 2016 15:17:25 GMT -6
As I see it, THE key decision for a naval power in the interwar years is, "Does the Navy control its planes or not?"
Answering 'Yes' were the US and Japan, both of whom developed highly effective carrier forces. Answering 'No' and then 'Yes' was Great Britain. Despite pioneering many of the elements that made carrier ops possible, the Royal Navy's carrier force was relatively weak and chronically plagued with obsolete aircraft. Answering 'No' were: France - whose naval operations in WW2 were curtailed by the country's surrender Russia - whose naval operations were seriously crimped by invasion Germany - whose naval operations were foiled by a lack of organic recon and fighter AC Italy - same as Germany only worse because they actually had a pretty usable fleet otherwise
So it seems to me that you can give naVal aviation to the Navy and have/use carriers or give it to the Army or Air Force and never have effective co-operation for recon, fighter cover and attack on enemy naval assets. That is one serious decision -
Dive bombers were effective against unarmored or lightly-armored ships in the early part of WW2. Once they were armed with 1000-pound bombs they could hurt battleships too. USS Arizona was blown up by a freak 'golden BB' that actually detonated black powder charges for the ships' aircraft catapult. Those were stored adjacent to the magazine but outside it - the ship's turrets and deck armor proved otherwise adequate. From the Wiki:
Torpedo bombers were favored early in the war because, well, torpedoes. They performed well up until the introduction of air-to-surface missiles. Modern aircraft can still deliver torpedoes but those are usually intended for submarines.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 1, 2016 15:31:39 GMT -6
director, in-game, I can't see anyone choosing to let their air assets be controlled by the Army or an independent Air Force. Are you suggesting there be an event causing that to happen? It would seriously peeve me to the point I would probably start another game. That may be morally weak but it would be crippling to have what happened to Italy's navy happen to the player.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 1, 2016 16:59:18 GMT -6
I don't know how complicated the NWS team wants to make the aircraft portion of the game. I've read several comments in this forum suggesting it should be made quite simple. I'd certainly be fine with that if the team decides to jump that way but it seems to me that they already have a great ship design/research system in place that could pretty comfortably be ported to support aircraft development. Here's my take on how the research and design aspect of the game could be handled using a system very similar to what is currently in place for ship design. There's a lot of detail here but really any one of the systems mentioned below could be simplified. This all probably sound quite complicated, perhaps too complicated for many but really it is no more complex than the system currently in place in RtW.
------Aircraft related areas of research
Engines - Fuel consumption, size, weight, thrust,
Structural Research - Research into building materials and engineering techniques used for planes. Some examples of aircraft design areas that can be created or improved with this tech would be: - Structural materials - new and improved versions of fabric, wood, metal or combinations of same used in the construction of the plane. This would impact weight interior space, durability, etc. - The number of wings used - tri-wing , bi-wing or mono-wing. The number of wings would impact air-to-air combat ratings, operational speed., etc. - Specific technologies could be discovered via this research such as: carrier capable landing gear, pontoons, flying boats, arresting gear, folding wings and drop tanks. - This tech could also allow for the development of some more unusual designs such as the P-38 and swept wings for early jets. - Other benefits might be more ambiguous such as the ability to create more rugged airframes allowing for the creation of more durable planes like the P-47.
Defensive systems - self sealing tanks, armor, non-flammable material, defensive weaponry
Navigation and Search - general improvements in methodology and theory as well as hardware such as radar, radio guidance, etc
Pilot training techniques - includes carrier rating, Using experienced pilots as teachers, number of hours training should be adjustable by player and have a direct impact on "green" pilot rating, as well as the maximum number of pilots trained per month
Air weapons - Research into new and improved torpedoes, bombs, skip bombs, air-droppable mines, anti-sub weapons, machine guns, as well as bomb sights, and theoretical and technique advances such as dive-bombing and skip bombing.
------Design screen Here is a brief description of the areas that would likely be available to the player on the Aircraft design screen using the curretn RtW design methodology. As a general rule, every component added will impact weight, available space, cost, development time and build time so I have not listed those effects.
Name - Player can name each plane type he creates.
Category - Select the general aircraft type you are designing - fighter, fighter-bomber, torpedo bomber, dive bomber, level bomber, search plane. Making this choice should add or eliminate some of the selections below. For instance, choosing a bomber and selecting 4 engines will automatically provide X number of defensive weaponry slots. This selection should also determine maximum size and types of weapons and other equipment carried or installed (For instance selecting a carrier-capable category would automatically add beefed up undercarriage and landing hook.) As with a ship, planes have limitations on size (especially for carrier planes), interior space for equipment and crew as well as penalties for excess weight. Because each category would have standard interior space and maximum weight you can't just put a giant fuel tank in to increase range unless you reduce some other function such as durability, protection and ordinance carried.
Structure - Number of wings, type of material used
Number of engines - (fighters 1-2, bombers 1-4, etc.) This would impact, range, cost, etc.
Engine type - This is a very complex subject and probably warrants its own research path although it could be substantially simplified and largely eliminate most of the associated research. (Probable engine characteristics - horsepower, duration, dependability, size and weight, inline vs. radial, efficiency, i.e. fuel consumption). May need different types for bombers, fighters, search planes.
Anti-air weapons - Crew required to operate defensive weapons will factor in, as does the number of weapon sites available, which is derived from plane type and size but somewhat adjustable by the player. This could also be a separate research area. This system could be quite simple (perhaps 3 or 4 levels of machine guns) or it could be an area the player researches with extensive differentiation between weapons. Probably simpler is better in this case.
Anti-target ordinance - Specify types, weight and number of offensive weapons that may be loaded - torpedoes, bombs of various types allowed if within specified weight range. There would obviously be many restrictions on which category of planes may carry which type of ordinance.
Misc. systems - These systems would be treated similar to the secondary director or cross-deck fire options in RtW, that is via a checkbox on the design screen once the tech is available via research. Like other components they would add to weight, reduce interior space and add to cost but would provide benefits to the player. Examples are drop tanks and radar. If radar is a researchable area then this would assume the latest version is installed automatically when the box is checked.
Picture - using vector graphics and/or pre-drawn plane parts to generate image of plane using default version for each category
Listed below are stats derived from other components of the design screen but visible to the player on this screen (this is similar to armor weight and monthly cost to build info currently found in the RtW ship design screen)
Operational range - Operational range would be derived from other stats. The player can modify this by adding or eliminating other components to provide additional interior space for fuel tanks. Drop tanks can be added (if researched). Staging range is derived from some multiple of this value (probably 2.5 to 3 times operational range).
Operational speed - used as part of formula to determine air-to-air capability. This would be derived from engine type and number, total weight, structural tech level, etc.
Navigation system - The navigational system would be automatically added based on current level of navigation research and plane category. This could also be abstracted based on other factors such as year and general level of national research.
Crew - The size of the crew is derived from other factors such as category, number of engines, number of defensive positions, need for bombardier, radio operator, navigator, etc. - Derived from the category, crew and components added. Weight will negatively affect other stats such as speed and range.
Launch and landing type - Specifies the type of landing surface required (land, water or carrier) and the type of takeoff possible (catapult, anchorage, airfield, carrier).
Anti-air rating - A simple number specifying overall capability in air-to-air combat. Derived from many different factors such as operational speed, air to air weaponry, defensive equipment, etc.. This value is just to allow players to quickly compare planes withing similar categories. It is further modified during battles based on crew training, experience and fatigue (Fatigue is a factor not currently taken into account in RtW but would have a much more direct impact on aircrews that have been asked to do too much over the course of a battle.)
Anti-ship rating , Anti-Sub rating, Anti-ground rating. As above, these ratings are simple, preferably single-digit rating, provided to allow the user to quickly asses the capability of this particular aircraft type and easily compare it to others of the same category. Modified at attack time by crew ability, aircraft damage, crew fatigue, etc.
------Production and strategic movement of aircraft - Designed aircraft are ordered into production and paid for in a manner similar to RtW (after they have been designed).
- Countries should have an aircraft production value that will serve to limit how many planes can be produced at one time (this is somewhat analogous to the RtW max dock size). This value should be modified over time and could be improved due to actions taken by the player such as investing in aircraft production but should be heavily influenced by the actual industrial capacity that was historically available to the nation in that time frame (think of Japan's limitations compared to the USA). Separate production quotas for each type of plane (i.e. 2 engine vs. 4 engine) may be warranted.
- Production of specific named aircraft must be ramped up over time (For example: 1st month = 4 planes, 2nd month 10 planes, 3rd 20 planes, etc.(just an example)), Production costs and time may be reduced as production ramps up.
- Produced planes are placed in an aircraft pool that applies to entire map region. Land-based planes are pulled from the regional pool when a mission takes place in region similar to how RtW currently works.
- Planes in regional pool may be assigned to ships in the region during the strategic cycle. Players can assign exact numbers and types for each plane type that will then become semi-permanent equipment on the ships (changeable only during strategic cycle).
- Movement (strategic staging) of planes between regions takes place during the strategic cycle (monthly turn) and may need to be limited especially in 1920's or early 30's when there was a lack of adequate staging airfields around the world.
- The presence or absence of airfields is an issue that will probably require a lot of research but can probably be simplified at the strategic level (monthly turn) by assigning an overall staging/basing value per region that would limit the number of aircraft that can be based in the region by that nation. Players should be able to invest to increase this value in a manner similar to improving bases in RtW.
- Prior to each tactical mission the location of individual airfields, as well as a determination of their current basing capacity and anti-air/anti-ship value is determined and the airbases are activated on the map. This is similar to how ports may or may not be active in any particular RtW mission. These tactical placements should not impact strategic basing of aircraft (except as the result of losses).
- Planes are assigned to airbases by the game (not the player) prior to the mission but using guidelines as specified below. However, it may be interesting to allow the player to stage planes between his land bases after they have been placed by the game but prior to the start of the mission. This might be a researchable ability with higher levels allowing more staging to occur.
- Players should be provided with a system similar to the Ammunition Usage screen for predetermining the typical assignment of plane types to each type of airfield. Players should be able to specify basing preferences based on airfield size and level of protection. They would set a preferred percentage of fighters, search planes, bombers etc. and the game would then assign aircraft to each available airfield while trying to keep to these guidelines.
- Players will have already assigned airgroups to his carriers and assigned search planes to his surface combatants where appropriate (this is done during the monthly cycle). These assignments cannot be changed prior to the mission but a player should be free to stage his planes from carriers to airfields (or to other carriers in an emergency) after the battle starts. Similarly once a battle starts players should be able to stage land-based aircraft as he wishes.
|
|
|
Post by amurtiger on Sept 1, 2016 17:38:46 GMT -6
A good point, and applies to naval tech too. I have no doubt that the USN would have in hindsight spent more money on torpedo testing in the interwar years! .... Actually, they probably would not have, as they had tested the concept and felt that heavily laden torpedo bombers were more vulnerable than dive bombers. They actually were correct, as the war proved. A 1000 lbs. or 2000 lbs. bomb well placed can be far more deadly than a torpedo. Arizona proved that idea. She was hit from 9831 feet, with a 1900 lbs. AP bomb and she blew up. Dive bombers, commencing dives at 60 degrees, with a 1000 lbs. AP bomb pulling out at around 2000 feet were much more accurate. Eventually, glide bombing at 30 degrees was more accurate and safer so it replaced the 60 degree dive angle. The fate of the Arizona has little to do with dive bombing, it was a Torpedo Bomber acting as a level bomber that dropped the bomb on her. Even the US didn't get the combination of a sufficiently large AP bomb and a sufficiently powerful dive bomber until mid war at which point there were battleships that had enough deck armor to protect against the 1600lb AP bomb. Indeed the AP bomb dropped on the Arizona, had at most an inch more penetration more then the Arizona had deck armor, a ship commissioned 25 years earlier. Put simply, while dive bombers were very effective against other smaller ships and at suppressing AA their ability to deliver critical hits to a battleship was pretty limited as it played into the already known need for deck armor to resist plunging fire. Aircraft had a much easier time with torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 1, 2016 17:57:32 GMT -6
Another idea. I'm sure someone's mentioned it for RTW 1 but it definitely should be considered for RTW 2.
Once oil powered ships are a reality, allow the development of underway replenishment. Once that is researched, allow the construction of Naval Auxiliary Oil Tankers. Any strategic movement by oil powered ships while accompanied by (X number of) tankers can move any number of ocean areas in peace or war without regard to the range of the ship. That assumes the strategic movement in game is the same or similar to RTW 1.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 1, 2016 18:16:49 GMT -6
oldpop, please give an example of another battleship destroyed by an air-dropped bomb at Pearl Harbor? If the 650-of-1000 rule holds there should have been several.
The other bombs that hit the Arizona did minimal damage. The bombs that hit other battleships did some - but not critical - damage. All battleships sunk at Pearl, with the exception of the Arizona, were sunk by torpedoes. And the critical bomb hit on the Arizona did not penetrate to or set off her magazine. Her own black powder charges, stored outside the magazine, did that. So - yes - it was a golden BB and not the 65% chance you cite. Had that been true then there would have been a series of detonated magazines at Pearl Harbor, and there were not. I was just responding casually to a prior comment and I'm not disposed to discuss this at length - wrong thread - but I don't agree with you.
bcoop, I agree that a single event with only 2 choices would be highly aggravating and would also not model the Royal Navy's experience. Instead there should be a 'control panel' such as that for training and ammo, and there should be clear and painful political choices to make - perhaps a series of events where the 'other services' keep trying to take away your aircraft and you have to agree to build various ship-types, or lose prestige and/or budget, in order to keep it. Or perhaps you could lose control by event and then scheme to get your planes back... I CAN see situations where you might think getting a lot more ships was worth depending on the tender mercies of the airforce for fighter cover, particularly if you were playing a nation with a very small budget.
In any case, I think that this is a case where we know the 'perfect solution' and, unlike the admirals of the time, will be tempted to beeline for massive carrier task forces. The use of 'variable' tech will help, but providing some strong and appealing reasons to make different choices would, I think, enhance gameplay.
jwsmith, I like your setup. I notice you do not list protection or size/weight, and was wondering if this was an oversight or if you accounted for them in other ways.
I do think there should be some automatic adjustments - selecting 4 engines locks out the fighter type, and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by Bullethead on Sept 1, 2016 21:47:38 GMT -6
director: Very important, true, but also inextricably linked to the size of naval budgets. Germany, for example, will always spend way more on the army than the navy thanks to having long land borders with potential enemies. Thus, at least for a game starting in WW2, German surface fleet will always be very small compared to those of the obligate naval powers, and will get overwhelmed or confined largely to the Baltic. Thus, I submit that it really didn't matter who owned German naval aircraft because the issue would have become moot as soon as the 1 or 2 German CVs put to sea the 1st time. Similar arguments can apply to all other countries that were obligate continental instead of naval powers. So I guess your question raises another: Should the decision about who owns naval aircraft be up to the player or not? I'd actually put it another way: This decision will not be part of the game because the game will assume the navies of all countries own their own airplanes. This would allow the players the freedom to build effective CVs or not as they see fit. Given that RTW is all about alternate history, I think allowing players freedom of choice is the best answer. I would rather have it this way than lock certain countries into historical precedent which wouldn't fit into the context of the game's own alternative history. And I would MUCH rather have the freedom of choice over a random research/political event. But you know, the differences in naval budgets as opposed to army budgets got me thinking..... How would WW2-style land warfare be handled in RTW2? WW2 wasn't about a few colonies changing hands, or the enemy government having a revolution, it was about driving tanks through the ruins of the enemy's capital city. Entire nations changed hands. So there you have a way for countries to increase their naval budget by drastically increasing their tax base (once they rebuild the conquered ruins anyway). And this will have a major impact on basing. For example, how effective would the German U-boats have been without the French ports? Thus, much of the naval war in European waters depended heavily on the European land war. But how much control can the player, as head of the navy, have over the European land war? That's a bigger question than yours, I think. jwsmith26Wow, you put a lot of thought into that. But I do indeed thinks it's too complicated. My personal preference would be to just have generic plane types, the stats of which increase in a random order at random times due to the same sort of research we have now. I feel this way because I view RTW as a naval game. I'd rather it be all about ships with highly abstract airplanes I don't have to spend much time messing with---they just happen as long as I pay to build them. However, that's just me. I realize that tastes can differ.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 1, 2016 22:03:25 GMT -6
Wow, you put a lot of thought into that. But I do indeed thinks it's too complicated. My personal preference would be to just have generic plane types, the stats of which increase in a random order at random times due to the same sort of research we have now. I feel this way because I view RTW as a naval game. I'd rather it be all about ships with highly abstract airplanes I don't have to spend much time messing with---they just happen as long as I pay to build them. However, that's just me. I realize that tastes can differ. I do get carried away sometimes (a lot of times I guess). I like the complexity, which is one reason I enjoy RtW, but simplicity and elegance works well, too. I've criticized RtW for some of its clumsy interface elements in the past, but in truth I find RtW a very elegant design and whatever path the RtW team finds to push this game into the 50"s I'm sure it will exhibit equal elegance.
|
|