More Complex Points

[The Rock Doctor]

There is no significant strategic capability for aircraft and airships "now" and really won't be within the likely lifespan of this game.  Yes, there are zeppelins and four-engine bombers on the horizon, but are they capable of inflicting serious damage on enemy territory?  Not really.  Nor will there be enough large transport aircraft to allow for significant troop/cargo airlifts.  The utility is tactical, supporting the ground game and to a lesser degree the war at sea.

So I'd fold our existing air units into the existing land units.  Fold the mechanization and logistics techs into land unit tech as well.  We end up with one land unit type with (if it is advanced enough) its organic, tactical air capability, and one tech to govern it.

BUT...

We could create a few naval-specific aerial units, tied to the Aircraft/Seaplane Carrier Architecture - as some units are already partially captured there anyway.

-Zeppelin for long-range recce and light attack
-Blimps for medium range recce and ASW
-Fixed-wing fighter
-Fixed-wing attack/recce

And these would be bought with cash and BP, and they'd be assigned to a specific carrier or province depending on whether they're land or ship-based.  Maybe we'd pay more for ship-capable units to reflect higher training and attrition rates, I dunno.

And we'd keep them fairly generic - a table of capabilities just like we have for MTBs and submarines.

That's where I'm at.

[snip]

I would be ok with continuing to explore Rocky's proposal, as it refocuses the complex aspects on naval while keeping the Non-naval tracked, but functional. The tracking feels to me kinda like how Rule the Waves 2 does it, and I found that system to be agreeable. I think folding in more techs is also an interesting thought.

[TacCovert4]

This is my thought for LAND Based units only.  I'm not going to dive into the complexities of sea units.

There are basically 3 types of aircraft at this point in time, with some variations.  Most variations are based on role and armament, not aircraft capability.  And yes, specializations like fighters will eventually fully manifest, but not yet.

1)  Zepplins.  Whether being used for scouting or strategic bombing, this can be considered a unitary type of aircraft.  These would be some of your longest-ranged scouts and bombers.  Also some of your highest flying aircraft.  But with all the usual drawbacks of flying inside a large bag of combustible gas.  On land they're pretty much a recce or strategic bombing asset.  Over water they're a long-endurance naval patrol asset and good for ASW work.

2)  4-Engine Bombers.  While not necessarily having 4 actual engines, they might have more or less, it's the type that's important.  Things like the Vickers Vimy would fall in this category, as would the Lancaster or B-24.  They can be used for scouting, patrol bombers over water....including potentially ASW, level bombing, or even torpedo bombing.  Over land they're best as a strategic bombing asset though they could be used for interdiction, and over water they're a naval patrol and bombing asset.

3)  "Multi-Role".  This is sort of the grab bag in this time period of 1 and 2 engine aircraft.  They can strafe, they can carry a few light bombs, they can fight other planes.  There are so many minor differentiations that we can assume that the generic representative plane has a modest range though higher maneuverability, has guns that can fight other aircraft offensively, and can carry light ordnance which can be used in conjunction with those guns to interdict logistics (DP damage) or direct ground support (LP damage).  These could do Interdiction, Air Superiority, and Ground Support roles.

I would keep the costs the same, consider that they level out between the types and call it a day.

As for the 'roles' when talking about AP in the Land Combat Environment (not talking about AP's effects on sea combat, that's Kirk's bag).  I see these as the actual 'jobs' that you can detail your AP that are within range to engage in a land war for. 

1)  Air Superiority.  AP designated during a PvP 'land war' combat would fight other AP over that region.  Only open to Multi-Role.

2)  Ground Support.  AP designated would directly support friendly LP in fighting enemy LP.

3)  Interdiction.  AP designated would attack DP of an enemy to cut his logistics and force his LP to withdraw due to lack of supply.

4)  Strategic Bombing.  AP designated would attack IC in the target region.  Only open to Long Range Bombers and Zepplins.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Since we have ships with specific armor amounts, TDS amounts, and numbers of AA, then the payload ability of the plane is relevant.
The range is also very important.

You may be right that what MG armanent is may be irrelevant.

I'll go back to - I haven't gotten there yet.  So it's a little hard to discuss while I'm taking a break in the GIS trailer.

[TacCovert4]

Since we have ships with specific armor amounts, TDS amounts, and numbers of AA, then the payload ability of the plane is relevant.
The range is also very important.

You may be right that what MG armanent is may be irrelevant.

I'll go back to - I haven't gotten there yet.  So it's a little hard to discuss while I'm taking a break in the GIS trailer.

If you were replying to my note, that's why I said that I was speaking about Land Based operations, rather than naval strike.  Understandably Naval Strike would be different.  Especially since we care about naval effects on a scale far beyond land effects.

As to the MG armament, Fighters, Fighter-Bombers, and presumably small bombers (and prior to the 20s there's precious little difference betwixt the three) I'd say to just tie it to whatever land tech is available.  So currently rifle-caliber MGs.....and when people get the 1915 tech, larger-caliber MGs.

[Desertfox]

The big issue I have is while you can mostly lump most period aircraft together, zeppelins are an entirely other beast. So another hybrid type of proposal:

Only 3 types of air units

Land Air - no change, can only affect land battles, does not need an index

Sea Light - includes carrier air wings, more detailed with aircraft index primarily detailing payload-range, can attack and defend ships as well as short-range recon

Sea Heavy - includes zeppelins, same as light needs index, but primarily focused on long range scouting

[The Rock Doctor]

Thinking on it a bit more:

Since we're looking at fairly close detail, I figured zeppelins and blimps might be bought as single units, whereas aircraft might be bought in small groups - a flight of four is what comes to mind for me.  When we get to fights, it allows easy orders along the lines of "two flights on CAP, one flight on escort, three flights of attack planes" or whatever.

Thinking on seaplanes:  We wouldn't buy individual planes to represent a battleship or cruiser's single spotter (or two).  The carrier tech would simply allow for an inherent, aerial gunnery spotting function and a bonus to long-range detection of ships if the capital ship/cruiser has a certain amount of tonnage set aside for the plane(s) and catapult.

If you want a battleship/cruiser with systemic aerial recce capability, like a Tone class cruiser,, then you buy a flight or two of seaplanes and design the ship like a Tone.

Given how floats impair performance, seaplanes could simply be one "level" behind wheeled aircraft in terms of speed, combat capability and range.

If we wanted to, we could scale cost and BP to reflect the growing size of aircraft over the years.  This would let us work around the old Springstyle notes about carrier capacity.  I'm not certain this is a big issue for types of aircraft in the likely scope of the game, though.

[Kaiser Kirk]

If you were replying to my note,

Sorry I was responding to Fox's "What I'm trying to say is that those capabilities do not need to matter at all (except for anti-ship combat)" on page 1, hadn't even realized there is a page 2.

Scouting vs. Bombing vs Air Superiorities Ranges are capability I think you need, particularly for inter-island conflicts, regardless of land or air.
Further the range of land based units will matter for naval supply routes and amphibious points, regardless of specific warship presence.

I now return you to your ongoing discussion.