www.navalism.org

It would take a huge amount of effort to attempt to create something like the Generic Sub table we use for Aircraft and I suspect the results would be hotly debated.  So how about a series of tables like we have for armies?  The idea is to show the relative effectiveness of air units between each other but not necessarly between ground units or naval units.  I have some ideas for what to do with ground units but before I flesh the idea out I wanted to get peoples thoughts.

Michael

	Fighter (single engine)
	Date	Air to Air	Ground Attack	Naval Attack	Strategic Attack	Cost, 100	Cost, 25	Cost, 10
	1902	0	0	0	0	$0.0	$0.000	$0.000
	1906	10	0	0	0	$0.1	$0.025	$0.010
	1910	20	0	0	0	$0.1	$0.025	$0.010
	1913	30	0	0	0	$0.2	$0.050	$0.020
	1917	40	10	0	0	$0.3	$0.075	$0.030
	1921	50	10	0	0	$0.4	$0.100	$0.040
	1926	60	10	0	0	$0.5	$0.125	$0.050
	1931	70	20	0	0	$0.6	$0.150	$0.060
	1936	80	20	0	0	$0.7	$0.175	$0.070
	1941	90	20	0	0	$0.8	$0.200	$0.080
	1946	100	30	0	0	$0.9	$0.225	$0.090

	Fighter (twin engine)
	Date	Air to Air	Ground Attack	Naval Attack	Strategic Attack	Cost, 100	Cost, 25	Cost, 10
	1902	0	0	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
	1906	0	0	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
	1910	17	0	0	0	$0.40	$0.10	$0.04
	1913	26	0	0	0	$0.60	$0.15	$0.06
	1917	34	10	0	0	$0.80	$0.20	$0.08
	1921	43	10	0	0	$1.00	$0.25	$0.10
	1926	51	10	0	0	$1.20	$0.30	$0.12
	1931	60	20	0	0	$1.40	$0.35	$0.14
	1936	68	30	0	0	$1.60	$0.40	$0.16
	1941	77	30	0	0	$1.80	$0.45	$0.18
	1946	85	40	0	0	$2.00	$0.50	$0.20

	Ground Attack (Single Engine)
	Date	Air to Air	Ground Attack	Naval Attack	Strategic Attack	Cost, 100	Cost, 25	Cost, 10
	1902	0	0	0	0	$0.0	$0.000	$0.000
	1906	10	10	0	0	$0.1	$0.025	$0.010
	1910	10	20	0	0	$0.1	$0.025	$0.010
	1913	10	30	0	0	$0.2	$0.050	$0.020
	1917	20	40	10	0	$0.3	$0.075	$0.030
	1921	20	50	10	0	$0.4	$0.100	$0.040
	1926	20	60	10	10	$0.5	$0.125	$0.050
	1931	30	70	20	10	$0.6	$0.150	$0.060
	1936	30	80	20	10	$0.7	$0.175	$0.070
	1941	30	90	20	10	$0.8	$0.200	$0.080
	1946	40	100	30	20	$0.9	$0.225	$0.090

	Ground Attack (twin engine)
	Date	Air to Air	Ground Attack	Naval Attack	Strategic Attack	Cost, 100	Cost, 25	Cost, 10
	1902	0	0	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
	1906	0	0	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
	1910	8	30	0	0	$0.40	$0.10	$0.04
	1913	8	45	0	0	$0.60	$0.15	$0.06
	1917	15	60	15	0	$0.80	$0.20	$0.08
	1921	15	75	15	0	$1.00	$0.25	$0.10
	1926	15	90	15	15	$1.20	$0.30	$0.12
	1931	23	105	30	15	$1.40	$0.35	$0.14
	1936	23	120	30	15	$1.60	$0.40	$0.16
	1941	23	135	30	15	$1.80	$0.45	$0.18
	1946	30	150	45	30	$2.00	$0.50	$0.20

	Strategic Bomber
	Date	Air to Air	Ground Attack	Naval Attack	Strategic Attack	Cost, 100	Cost, 25	Cost, 10
	1902	0	0	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
	1906	0	0	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
	1910	0	0	0	0	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
	1913	10	30	0	10	$1.60	$0.40	$0.16
	1917	10	40	0	20	$2.00	$0.50	$0.20
	1921	10	50	0	30	$2.40	$0.60	$0.24
	1926	10	60	0	40	$2.80	$0.70	$0.28
	1931	20	70	0	50	$3.20	$0.80	$0.32
	1936	20	80	5	60	$3.60	$0.90	$0.36
	1941	20	90	5	70	$4.00	$1.00	$0.40
	1946	20	100	5	80	$4.40	$1.10	$0.44

 

Quote from: miketr on December 07, 2009, 10:22:20 AM
It would take a huge amount of effort to attempt to create something like the Generic Sub table we use for Aircraft and I suspect the results would be hotly debated.  So how about a series of tables like we have for armies?  The idea is to show the relative effectiveness of air units between each other but not necessarly between ground units or naval units.  I have some ideas for what to do with ground units but before I flesh the idea out I wanted to get peoples thoughts.

Michael

As always, impressive. 

However, I'm really unsure if it's a good route to go.  A simple purchase of X#, of type Y, specialty Z is fine with me. 

Looking at the table, one winds up with questions - is it a low elevation fighter (more wing area) or a high elevation fighter (less wing area, better supercharger0?  Is it MG/light cannon armed for anti-fighter work, or heavy cannons for anti-bomber. How accurate are the bomb sights. Is there a dedicated navigator? Whats the maximum payload on a single hardpoint? What is the combat range and ferry range? Is it fitted with air brakes for dive bombing? Is there armor worked in? Radial engine (more damage res) or in-line (faster).

That flight journal article did have some price ranges for types, though your ratios look reasonable.

My issue with the purchase of X number of Y type with a specialty of Z is how do we handle combat between them?

As to your more specific questions, the answer is its a Generic System.  If nation X and nation Y both have Z tech level then they would even out in combat.  I lean towards relative combat factors because an odds table for combat resolution is fairly simple to do.

I can not claim credit for the costs as they are the current costs just displayed with different group sizes.

Michael

I was thinking, how about having some sort of very simplistic SpringSharp for planes? Say...

A 1916 plane gets you X amount of points, with those points you can buy range, armament, crewmen, armor, speed, and performance. Based on what you buy, the program spits out a set of Attack and Defence values, which would then be used to handle combat between planes.

Yeah it would involve some work at the begining, but would make stuff simpler in the end. While I can't make said program myself, I would be more than willing to cooperate with someone on such a program. After this week (finals) I'll be pretty free and could work on it for the next month.

I like DF's idea; If needed I would be willing to help with such a program too  (it should be noted I am terrible when it comes to aircraft things, so the technical stuff, I cant help with)

I understand the design to customize aircraft but what good is it if we have no way to do combat?

Michael

Well one of the things the program would spit out, would be combat values. A fighter would have an attack value vs another fighter, and a different attack value vs a bomber, etc.

*crumples of the Chart I was working on*

Well I agree on a chart system mine was different but since mike went through all the effort of formating his nicely.  :P  And his is finished it makes a good starting point from which to start our discussion.

[Ramble on]
I dont want to have to Springsharp my Aircraft.  I am an aircraft fanatic and I absolutely donot want to have to use a computer to design my aircraft types.

About the only thing that people have mentioned that is vaguely realistic is that a Fighter Armed with Cannon is a better Bomber Interceptor then one without Cannon.   But is it really worth the effort to find one of us with some serious programming skills to write a program we are all going to argue about.

A Chart Here works just as well but I would add after the 1917: 1918 Tech a dedicated Naval Attack Aircraft.....  they wont be very effective but they start to come into existance.

[/Ramble Off]

But its just assigning points to an aircraft's stats. Not a big deal IMO.

QuoteI dont want to have to Springsharp my Aircraft.  I am an aircraft fanatic and I absolutely donot want to have to use a computer to design my aircraft types.

So am I, which is why I brought it up in the first place. Better than being stuck with vanilla planes.

QuoteBut is it really worth the effort to find one of us with some serious programming skills to write a program we are all going to argue about.

What I have in mind isn't that sophisticated, Excel could probably handle it. It would add more flavor than a chart, and for those who wouldn't want to design their own planes, a set of vanilla designs could be provided.

*Chuckles*

We could argue all day about the Comparitive supperiorit of the Sopwith Pup or better yet the Sopwith Snipe compared to say the German Fokker D.VII but realistically the stats dont matter as the Better Pilot or the one with Position is likely to win.   Same with the P51 Mustang and the FW190 it all comes down to which pilot can get his aircraft to do what it does better then the other and achieve the killing shot.  Experience and luck and supprisingly numbers can be the deciding factors.   Even in mass combats involving hundred of aircraft fighter on fighter relatively few kills are actually achieved.  We celebrate the Pilots who achieved 4 or 5 or more kills in a single flight simply because they are the exception.

Now if we are talking about planes the Mitsubishi AM6 vs. a Corsair or even a Hellcat we are looking at a plane that is as outclassed as say an Fokker Eindecker against that Sopwith Camel.

I've got no idea how this would plug into the ground combat system Rocky uses. So we should probably wait for him to comment.

As far as cost: I desperately want to get away from handling aircraft on a per aircraft basis and to get to some sort of standardized unit, to make keeping track of aircraft inventories a lot easier. Right now they're basically an afterthought, but as we push ahead that will become important. So specifically I want to find a way to inventory what everyone has, so you can look in a report and see "oh well, he's got 9 squadrons" or whatever, and not have to guess based on what's been acquired when, etc.

This would also lead back to the combat system, as a fighter built under the 1926 aircraft tech (or whatever) would have the same combat capabilities, no matter what. I recognize that some may not like that idea, and want to argue "well my 1926 fighters have double flux capacitors, so they're better!". Given the infinite variations of available aircraft, custom tailoring without a useful tool for said custom tailoring just seems like a bad idea, especially given the numbers we're dealing with.

So along those lines, something like Mike's table is probably a good idea, minus the costs, which in my way of thinking belong on the unit scale, not the individual machine scale. The great advantage of doing it this way is we need not worry about attrition, we build that instead into the unit's maintenance costs. Upgrading the unit would entail upgrading all the unit's aircraft, spare parts, pilot retraining, etc.

I understand that fighters of the same year, would be pretty much the same. But how about medium sized aircraft? Specificlly such stuff as range and payload? That is not covered anywhere. Is your plane taking 1,000 lbs of bombs 100 miles? Or 500 lbs 300 miles? Or going 1,000 miles just to take pictures?

These values could be driven by some sort of range vs. payload table. Ie range factor x + load factor y = total load carried z. This would likely be table driven by tech year and "type" (which to me is still best described by number of engines).

But again, my guess is existing in use combat systems may already have all this.

The main problem i see with the table is the minor increase in capability for each tech level. Honestly, each tech level Air to Air should be DOUBLE that of the one before. A fight between air forces two levels apart would not be a fight at all.

The latest group of conversations and this set of posts show why I wanted to limit aircraft abilities. This is supposed to be a Naval game. Around 1935, war finally became all about aircraft. The technical abilities of aircarft reached a point where the writing was on the wall(even if many chose not to see it). If abused, which it will be... you can't deny it... this point could be reached earlier(such as the massive application of the Cuckoo).

Strategic level aircraft encounters are ALL we should be concerned with. With hindsight it will be impossible to limit encounters. Everyone will want the best airforce with the best planes and pilots. This has already begun with no logical reasoning behind it. It will only get worse.

Many players will try to start each war with a new 'Pearl Harbor'. *But my aircraft can carry two torpedos 2000 miles! Your ships were on active and reserve status! so your fleet would be wiped out!* It will lead to many arguments and players leaving over 'unfair' results. Someone will always be dissatisfied with the results.

The ground war has been simplified down to sets of numbers, so should the airwar.

The ground combat system has an air component.  It is generalized and large-scale - nicely complementing the division/corps level scale of our ground war.

I agree with Blooded.  Aircraft are a complement, not a decisive weapon nor replacement for the battlefleet.

Each time people talked about an Nverse IV, alternative settings were proposed, where aircraft were useless or not even feasable.
Just to avoid Pearl Harbors or Tarantos.

Miketr's chart is a good start, as we use the same idea for Airships, MAS boats, Submarines and Tanks.

Desertfox, I do like your "Vanilla plane" example.

I know at least 2 people on the forum who can talk about aircraft from a pure technical point, with you as resident up and comming engineer.
We can use that knowledge, especialy behind the screen to deduct the "real capacity of vanilla planes".
Imagine a Sopwith Pup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Pup) with the Bentley BR1  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley_BR1) engine.

I kinda like Fox's vanilla plane idea as well.

As Bavaria I see "standard" planes being quite passable. A "1916 fighter" is really all I need.  However, over in WW as the Dutch, range was and is a real issue. The second part is range with bombloads that hit certain breakpoints. A decent point system that would allow such tradeoffs could be of merit for folks.

Quote
The latest group of conversations and this set of posts show why I wanted to limit aircraft abilities. This is supposed to be a Naval game. Around 1935, war finally became all about aircraft. The technical abilities of aircarft reached a point where the writing was on the wall(even if many chose not to see it). If abused, which it will be... you can't deny it... this point could be reached earlier(such as the massive application of the Cuckoo).

Taranto and Pearl Harbor happened the British were planning a raid using their 4 Carriers on the German fleet in Port in late 1918 or early 1919 the war ending prevented us from having fleets attacked in port before the end of World War 1.

The Wright Brothers first Plane sale was to the US Army.   Since the Invention of Ballons and planes people have seen the use of such fragile device as a tethered hot air baloon when connected to a telgraph cable.

Here we have already limited the Aircraft race.  Nobody can build a real Aircraft Carrier until sometime mostlikely in the Mid to late 1920.   The best we can do is sea plane tenders.  I think people are too scarred of Carriers to realize land based aircraft are more likely to sink something before a carrier based one ever does.

Now as for the arguements of without a WW1 aircraft development would have been slowed.  That is undoubtedly true, however the counter argument is without a WW1 all technological development would have been slowed.  We would have no Tanks, No 1918 Infantry Divisions and we certainly wouldnt have incrimental improvements in the size, fire power of the Naval Ships.  Armor development, guns, firecontrol, night fighting, submarines all would been developed at a significantly slower rate as well.

I agree on a Chart similar to the Sub Tech you  have Aircraft Tech Years and a few different types of Aircraft on the chart and as time progresses new types of Aircraft get added to the chart.  In most cases the Aircraft are flavor text that add to the results of land battles  they are not decisive war winner yet !!!!!  But there will come a time when you wont be able to win a battle without controling the air over that battlefield.

Unless you  believe the old joke about two Russian General staring out across the straits of Dover and won says to the Other.. so who won the airwar.

Charles

I have no objection to the idea of a program or system to "design" aircraft but we need a system to make use of whatever is produced.

Rocky could you give a little more detail on the combat system you use?

Michael

Yes, but it may take a couple of days - I've got family showing up this afternoon for pre-Christmas visiting.

Letting family get in the way of gaming... BAH! ;)

Have a good time.

QuoteHere we have already limited the Aircraft race.  Nobody can build a real Aircraft Carrier until sometime mostlikely in the Mid to late 1920.   The best we can do is sea plane tenders.  I think people are too scarred of Carriers to realize land based aircraft are more likely to sink something before a carrier based one ever does.

So true. Which is why during a discussion about aircraft carriers, I made a comment about using the money I couldnt use on a CV on unsinkable carriers. The cost of a 20k ton carrier will get you 20 airfields, which are unsinkable, and have more and better aircraft. If anything, the lack of aircraft carriers will lead to MORE ships being sunk by aircraft.

QuoteNow as for the arguements of without a WW1 aircraft development would have been slowed.  That is undoubtedly true, however the counter argument is without a WW1 all technological development would have been slowed.  We would have no Tanks, No 1918 Infantry Divisions and we certainly wouldnt have incrimental improvements in the size, fire power of the Naval Ships.  Armor development, guns, firecontrol, night fighting, submarines all would been developed at a significantly slower rate as well.

I have made the argument against all those cases. Why do we have tanks at all? Some developments would have happened, because we have had some wars. Night fighting, minewarfare, and subs have seen considerable action in the last few wars.

QuoteIn most cases the Aircraft are flavor text that add to the results of land battles  they are not decisive war winner yet !!!!!  But there will come a time when you wont be able to win a battle without controling the air over that battlefield.

Depends on the war. A WWI type war between land based powers, air power will play a small part. But how about a war which involved an amphibious assault against say NS, where I can deploy around 500 planes against an invasion force with none?

Quote
Depends on the war. A WWI type war between land based powers, air power will play a small part. But how about a war which involved an amphibious assault against say NS, where I can deploy around 500 planes against an invasion force with none?

That would all depend on the aircraft but realistically you have a great way to harass and attack the enemies beach head with only weather and a bunch of Light AAA guns to stop you.  On the other hand the Red Barron was shot down flying low with .303 rifle bullet probably fired from a Light Machine Gun mounted on a simple mount so that it could engage aircraft.

Your Level bombers will have little effect on Ships unloading off the beach head but will cause alot of chaos and some casualties heck you might even damage some merchants or sink a ship with no deck armor.

Your Torpedo Bombers will find that as I pointed out they have to be within about 50 miles of you airfield or you just wont be able to attack reliably but by 1918 that moves up to about 100 miles operating from land bases and seaplanes.

All told the harassment and additional chaos you cause could be the decisive edge you need to throw the Invasion back into the sea.

By the mid 1920's that will completely change.

Charles

Don't forget straffing fighters, and the unarmored landing crafts that would be used. Also all of the landing ships would be stopped, making easy targets for torpedo bombers. With 1918+ aircraft and no decent AA, such a landing could turn into a real massacre.

Landing ships would be stopped, but in very shallow and potentially confined waters. A smart invasion force would rig barrage balloons and other defenses as well. I don't think aerial torpedoes would have quite the decisive effect you might think, at least not until the state of the art improves.

Now dive bombing: that's another story. Fish in a barrel as you might say.

Well, the British solution at Taranto was fairly good, and was not really dependent on technology. But yeah, I agree.

Barrage Ballons might work...

If I am mooring my ships in a confined area off a beach head I am deploying Torpedo Nets to protect them.  And once we develop aircraft that can withstand the riggors of a steep dive with a bomb load and not tear their wings off when pulling out then yes we can contimplate dive bombing.  Like I said by the Late to Mid 1920 things will begin to change.

The Combination of defenses taken to prevent MTB and Sub attacks on my achorage off shore will completely thwart the Airborne Torpedo Bombers.
The Best approach will to be constantly attack the beach head where all the supplies are pilling up on the beach.  Straffing Fighters work to harrass troops and they can cause casualties but the fighters are nearly as susceptible to ground fire as the troops.  The highest losses among aircraft is attacking low and slow that is both for good straffing or a torpedo attack.

Lets go with one of the best airborne attack by Torpedo Bombers ever that I can quickly think of Taranto.  12 Torpedo Bombers managed to make 11 torpedo attacks for 6 hits and 1 Dud they sank 3 Italian BB all three were raised.  By Comparison the Japanese launched 40 aircraft armed with Torpedoes and manged 13 hits.  6 On West Virgina, 5 on the Target Accomidations Ship USS Oklahoma and 2 more on USS Neveda.  Considering all the targets accept Nevada were sitting ducks.

Anyway I really dont see the torpedo bomber being a serious threat until we start to get into the 1920's.  They can attack unarmed merchants at sea they can try to attack slow combatants at sea but the weapon is a 16" Topr not the latter 18" Torps designed for use by planes.