couple of a/c related questions

[Millsy]

I welcome the changes proposed for 1.04 and 1.05 having just played a Med campaign (1.03beta) which regularly saw over 200+ airstrikes in a months.


Does the 1.04/1.05 upgrade path take into account

a/c production of restricted (and useless) types such as the Lysander which despite 'restrict' from turn 1 was still being produced in mid-44 at around 10% of all a/c produced. Aso gave me meteors but no spitfires !
determination to launch strikes -I got bored after 10 times with aborting a raid that I knew that would either (a) suffer 100% losses or (b) continously hit Rhodes which got a 1000 bomber raid albeit spread over 4 years.
incorrect a/c on carriers - i noticed in a FR vs GN med game that MB200 (early 30s vintage med bombers) comprised the total air group of the Fr CVs. I also noticed that as the GB CVs mutiplied in my Med game that the odd Blenheim, Baltimore and Beufort appeared in the airgroups however if you try to do that manually it, correctly, says a/c is not carrier compatible.
Barracuda - I thought this was a DB (it's discussed in your refrence book as such Tony) but will only do low level bombing attack a la FB.
One other quibble - have you added French Med ports (e.g. Toulon) so the french can have a home port on french soil in a med campaign.

Last minor quibble - any chance of month in the admirals report when ships sunk by mines ?

Other than that I am getting more familiar with game mechanics and although can be a little frustrating overall still has very nearly paid for itself already (playing on the laptop on the daily commute so not buying newspaper @ £1 a day)

Regards and keep up the good work :)

[Warship NWS]

a/c production of restricted (and useless) types such as the Lysander which despite 'restrict' from turn 1 was still being produced in mid-44 at around 10% of all a/c produced. Aso gave me meteors but no spitfires !
A/C production is being looked into for v1.05


determination to launch strikes
I brought this up to Tony also and I believe that is one of the last minute items being worked on for v1.04 final.


incorrect a/c on carriers
This was also addressed with v1.04. No multi-engined aircraft should be shown on CVs.


Last minor quibble - any chance of month in the admirals report when ships sunk by mines ?
I will ask him to reply to this one.


Regards and keep up the good work :)
Thanks for the support. I will also foward your entire post to Tony for his notes.

Thanks.

[goodwood]

What I would to see go is Lysanders and one or other a/c disappear from SAS entirely. I have been fiddling with WW2 for near on 50 years, in the way modelling, reading and war gaming. This game is the first I have ever heard of Lysanders and Ducks etc. Maybe a slight exaggeration, but to have certain a/c that were only a quick blip on the radar screen of aviation history, to dominate the list of available a/c,while it is near impossible get spitfires and hurricanes is downright annoying.
And this is still after you check the restrict box.
What I would like to see, is the ability for the player to have the ability to choose the production. Have the program restrict the % of a/c. Some say giving the player the ability to select a/c production isn't realistic, nor is hundreds of duck drakes and seagulls. :D

Sorry about the poor grammar I hope I have edited this post before anyone had the chance to read my grammatical rubbish

[tony_glazebrook]

A/C production is being looked into for v1.05


I brought this up to Tony also and I believe that is one of the last minute items being worked on for v1.04 final.


This was also addressed with v1.04. No multi-engined aircraft should be shown on CVs.


I will ask him to reply to this one.


Thanks for the support. I will also foward your entire post to Tony for his notes.

Thanks.

A fuller report on mines is on the list. We will be publishing very soon a *very* detailed schedule of what we plan to do with various enhancements and improvements. Stay tuned ;)

[tony_glazebrook]

What I would to see go is Lysanders and one or other a/c disappear from SAS entirely. I have been fiddling with WW2 for near on 50 years, in the way modelling, reading and war gaming. This game is the first I have ever heard of Lysanders and Ducks etc. Maybe a slight exaggeration, but to have certain a/c that were only a quick blip on the radar screen of aviation history, to dominate the list of available a/c,while it is near impossible get spitfires and hurricanes is downright annoying.
And this is still after you check the restrict box.
What I would like to see, is the ability for the player to have the ability to choose the production. Have the program restrict the % of a/c. Some say giving the player the ability to select a/c production isn't realistic, nor is hundreds of duck drakes and seagulls. :D

Sorry about the poor grammar I hope I have edited this post before anyone had the chance to read my grammatical rubbish

Ron - improving the a/c production and deployment parts of the engine is high priority and as I have said elsewhere we will be publishing our schedule for enhancements and improvements. Your commnets generally, and specifically about the Lysanders, have been taken on board

1.0.4 which is due out *very* soon will in the meantime have some nice new goodies as well.

[Millsy]

Like Goodwood i haven't got anything against the lysander in particular other than it was an army co-opeartion a/c that the AI seems to have an unhealthy obsession with. :D

Call me greedy but i'd rather have Spitfires on malta than Lysanders.

As for the multi-engine on CV I would point out Sea Hornet, Tigercat and I believe the French were thinking about an navalised Bre693.

[Scott Chisholm]

Like Goodwood i haven't got anything against the lysander in particular other than it was an army co-opeartion a/c that the AI seems to have an unhealthy obsession with. :D

Call me greedy but i'd rather have Spitfires on malta than Lysanders.

As for the multi-engine on CV I would point out Sea Hornet, Tigercat and I believe the French were thinking about an navalised Bre693.

Millsy,

You are, of course, correct. However, those were rather late in the war; our concern was with A20s and some other aircraft appearing on carriers.

[thewood]

Is it a flag that says multi-engine or one that says "not carrier-capable"?

[goodwood]

Millsy,

You are, of course, correct. However, those were rather late in the war; our concern was with A20s and some other aircraft appearing on carriers.

I have actually had B17s parked on A/carriers, I think I sent this file to Tony a couple of weeks back. The problem was I would take them off and AI would put them back on the next turn.:mad:
Ron

[Scott Chisholm]

Is it a flag that says multi-engine or one that says "not carrier-capable"?

Honestly, I've lost track. I think it's both, but I'd have to defer to Tony. :o

[Scott Chisholm]

I have actually had B17s parked on A/carriers, I think I sent this file to Tony a couple of weeks back. The problem was I would take them off and AI would put them back on the next turn.:mad:
Ron

Ron,

Crazy. I've never experienced the multi-engine aircraft on carrier thing, even when I've tried to force the issue.

[Warship NWS]

All A/C have a "CV capable" flag. In v1.04 they were rechecked to make sure the flag was being read correctly by the code. Note, no 2+ engined aircraft served on CVs during WW2 in any real combat numbers. Both the F7FN Tigercat and F20/NF21 Sea Hornets saw very brief, and often problematic, service in very limited numbers at or after the end of the war. Neither made any real contributions when operated from CVs for a variety reasons.

Thanks.

[thewood]

I know you have been waiting for the question; What about B25's.

[William Miller]

I know you have been waiting for the question; What about B25's.

B-25s would obviously not count as an aircraft type that were able to be effectively operated on a carrier in any other manner than the single isolated incident they were used for: They could not routinely land on a carrier. They could never be struck belowdeck. They could not be maintained properly by the Navy personell/equipment/parts system.

[thewood]

It was a joke

[William Miller]

It was a joke

"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." Saavik in STII-TWOK ;)

[Christian Schwietzke]

"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." Saavik in STII-TWOK ;)

Actually not that difficult and illogical, once you get the hang of it. I recommend the works of Richard Wiseman, for example "Quirkology" (which, among other things, details the search for the world´s funniest joke).

[Warship NWS]

Actually not that difficult and illogical, once you get the hang of it. I recommend the works of Richard Wiseman, for example "Quirkology" (which, among other things, details the search for the world´s funniest joke).

WM was simply trying to imply, in a nice way, that he could not tell if "thewood" was joking or not. ;)

Emoticons.. can be quite useful on forums where you cannot see facial expressions and body language. ;)

Thanks.

[Scott Chisholm]

WM was simply trying to imply, in a nice way, that he could not tell if "thewood" was joking or not. ;)

Emoticons.. can be quite useful on forums where you cannot see facial expressions and body language. ;)

Thanks.

Ah, the old "The written word has only the tone the Reader reads into it"? :D

[thewood]

I have personally banned all "emoticons" from my life. The are just too girlie...that was a joke. I thought the openning of the post would key people in.