Are there construction and upkeep rules for aircraft?
Michael
Read in Meeting Room/Aircraft rules
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1872.0
Accept that the cost's aren't recorded in the rules thread and none of the mods clearly said these are now the rules...
Michael
1902 : Primitive flying machines (storyline stuff only)
AIRCRAFT: No cost, just sane numbers (maybe 100 or so max)
AIRFIELDS: No cost, but you can't use them for anything past this level
1906 :Historical 1910 aircrafts
AIRCRAFT: $0.10 for 100 single-engine aircraft (not really any 'types' at this level)
AIRFIELDS: $0.50 per airfield; basically, just a flattened piece of land
1910: historical 1914 aircrafts
AIRCRAFT: $0.10 for 100 single-engine aircraft
$0.20 for 50 multi-engine aircraft (with historical bomb load)
AIRFIELDS: $1.00 per airfield; includes hangers, fuel tanks, support personnel
1913: historical 1916 aircrafts
AIRCRAFT: $0.20 for 100 single-engine aircraft (fighter or bomber with historic loads)
$0.30 for 50 multi-engine aircraft (with historical bomb load)
$0.40 for 25 long-range bombers (with historical bomb load)
AIRFIELDS: $1.50/.5BP per airfield; includes hangers, fuel tanks, support personnel
1915: historical 1918 aircrafts
AIRCRAFT: $0.30 for 100 single-engine aircraft (fighter or bomber with historic loads)
$0.40for 50 multi-engine aircraft (with historical bomb load)
$0.50 for 25 long-range bombers (with historical bomb load)
AIRFIELDS: $2.00/1BP per airfield; includes hangers, fuel tanks, support personnel
No... no... I saw the thread... its only 3 or 4 down.... My question is will the moderators step up and say these are the rules please?
Michael
Those are the rules.
*Thunder rolls and lightning flashes*
A question if people want I can draw up some simple charts like the sub ones I did but for aircraft of various years? The charts would be generic.
The pattern is roughly as follows...
1914-15 aircraft, 80 hp and 100 hp engines, 80 to 100 mph, mostly 1 but a few w/ 2 mgs and range of 1.5 to 2 hours.
1916-17 aircraft, 110 hp upto 200 hp engines (a few higher), 90 to 120 mph, almost all 2 mgs and about the same range some higher.
1918 aircraft, other than the Folker DVII & DVIII atleast 180 hp engines, upto 130 mph and 25,000 ceilings, about same range in hours.
Note as the speed increases actual distance goes up its a howlong can the fighter do it?
Michael
Quote from: miketr on August 18, 2008, 08:48:42 PM
A question if people want I can draw up some simple charts like the sub ones I did but for aircraft of various years? The charts would be generic.
The pattern is roughly as follows...
1914-15 aircraft, 80 hp and 100 hp engines, 80 to 100 mph, mostly 1 but a few w/ 2 mgs and range of 1.5 to 2 hours.
1916-17 aircraft, 110 hp upto 200 hp engines (a few higher), 90 to 120 mph, almost all 2 mgs and about the same range some higher.
1918 aircraft, other than the Folker DVII & DVIII atleast 180 hp engines, upto 130 mph and 25,000 ceilings, about same range in hours.
Note as the speed increases actual distance goes up its a howlong can the fighter do it?
Michael
Ok I agree what you just quoted covers the majority of the fighters but the aircraft I am really interested in are the 1916-1918 Aircraft and they are not the fighters. The Gotha and the Handley Paige Bombers and some of the other Twin and Three Engined Bombers can carry a meaningful bombload or even a 16" Torpedo over a 100-200 Miles. Now hitting anything meaningful with the bomb or torpedo is much more problamatic but it doesnt mean we shouldnt try it just because we know historically it didnt really work all that well.
Besides by the end of WW1 the British were using combined armed attack with massed numbers of fighters and bombers attacking trenchlines and bombing and straffing machine gun nests.
Any contributions would be welcomed.
Now added to the Rules sections, with some quick and dirty maintenence and construction notes.
Fighter list s of the moment... Still working on it, then bombers...
http://mysite.verizon.net/~mtrohde/Iberia/other/fighters.PNG
Michael
I don't like the fact that we have to use BPs for airfields. It's not like high quality steel is required for a grass strip with huts.
My guess would be that higher quality airfields involve things like substantial earth moving and permanent structures.
BP's are a way to limit the proliferation of airfields. Otherwise, some people will build a gazillion airfields and build torpedo bombers by the 1000's.
I disagree - if that were the case, we'd also have BP costs associated with airships and airship hangers. Money, practicality, and the threat of divine retribution for power-gaming should be the limiting factors.
BP is the ability of heavy industry to produce goods; if the components of an airstrip don't warrant a significant amount of products from heavy industry, there shouldn't be a BP charge.
BPs wont be needed untill you get into the huge concrete WWII style bomber fields. And even then BP use is only warranted if you consider huge expanses of concrete to be related to heavy industry.
One other thing, Airship airfields (hangar sites) should count as regular airfield, as they probably already have more logistics in place than even a 1915 airfield.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 20, 2008, 08:54:27 AM
I disagree - if that were the case, we'd also have BP costs associated with airships and airship hangers.
Agree.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 20, 2008, 08:54:27 AMMoney, practicality, and the threat of divine retribution for power-gaming should be the limiting factors.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 20, 2008, 08:54:27 AMBP is the ability of heavy industry to produce goods; if the components of an airstrip don't warrant a significant amount of products from heavy industry, there shouldn't be a BP charge.
Agree.
Perhaps we should also add air-deployed torpedoes to the torpedo tech tree (it is anything but trivial).
I can draw up a rules proposal.
Quote from: P3D on August 20, 2008, 03:26:49 PM
Perhaps we should also add air-deployed torpedoes to the torpedo tech tree (it is anything but trivial).
I can draw up a rules proposal.
I think this is a good idea.
Borys
This is not me saying this is a bad idea (because it isn't), but if we're adding air propelled torpedoes to the tech tree, we need to add other flying thing related stuff to it as well, including (probably):
Dive bombing
Armor Piercing bombs (maybe dependent on advanced shell tech?)
and quite a bit later high altitude bombing
There's probably also an argument for course predicting gunsights (which would also be an AA tech). And there will one day be the matter of airborne wireless.
All things to think about.
Our alternative is to link all those techs to historical equivalent aircraft before the become useful tech, which is more or less how I understood it until now...
There's a separate tech for torpedoes so it makes sense to make the distinction. Rest of aircraft ordnance are much less specialized so could be included in the a/c tech.
I would prefer to have all aircraft-related technology contained in one tech tree. The tech tree has too many branches as it is, and I'm inclined to prune it.
Word.
less rules, more play
How about we deal with the rules issues in one shot instead of running into confusion and chaos down the road?
Hence my "Time Out!" post. Where problems exist, let's invest a couple of days in sorting them out so things go smoothly later.
Quote from: maddox on August 20, 2008, 08:33:48 AM
BP's are a way to limit the proliferation of airfields. Otherwise, some people will build a gazillion airfields and build torpedo bombers by the 1000's.
whistles inocently (quick hide thw b-17s)