Bomber Range

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Bomber Range

      Can the support team look at bomber ranges and aircraft range in general to make them more realistic. For example in game the HE-177 has a range of 400km when in actuality it was over 5000km.. The ranges are entirely too short.

    • That is true for a lot of units I guess, but I think they brought it down, to keep it in ratio with the map being smaller.

      Because the distance between some provences are not realistic, etc so they had to bring them down, maybe that why



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • oceanhawk wrote:

      That is true for a lot of units I guess, but I think they brought it down, to keep it in ratio with the map being smaller.
      True. But even allowing for the scaled down map size to allow for greater "play-ability," there are a number of historical problems with aircraft ranges in the game as presently structured:

      1. The first and most obvious problem to anyone who has ever been a pilot (or even wanted to be a pilot), is that the ferry range, i.e., the one-way distance an aircraft can fly without refueling, should be close to double the effective combat range. The combat range requires a return trip on the same tank of gas; the ferry range does not.

      By way of illustration, Charles Lindbergh had enough avgas to fly the Spirit of Saint Louis from Long Island across the Atlantic Ocean to Paris; he did not have enough gas to fly to Paris and then back to New York without landing in France to refuel. If Lindbergh had to make a return trip without refueling, he would have had to begin his return to New York somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

      2. The effective ranges for naval patrol bombers are completely f---ed up, apparently because the game developers have hopelessly conflated and confused two distinctly different kinds of naval aircraft: (a) long-range naval patrol bombers that were used for long-range reconnaissance, search & rescue, ant-submarine warfare, and anti-merchant ship patrols (PBY Catalina, PBM Mariner, Short Sunderland, Fw 200 Condor, Do 24, HK6 "Mavis"), which were multi-engine aircraft and often amphibious, and (b) much shorter-range naval attack aircraft, usually single-engine, which were designed to fly from land-based runways or aircraft carriers (e.g., TBF Avenger, Nakajima B6N, F4U Corsair, etc.). The long-range patrol aircraft were too large to land on aircraft carrier decks, and the amphibians were usually supported by a special class of ships called seaplane tenders that could forward deploy in remote areas to provide aerial reconnaissance over vast areas such as the Pacific.

      In order to do this right, these two types of naval aircraft need to be separated.

      3. Some late model piston-driven fighters, with drop tanks, had nearly the same range as multi-engine bombers. The perfect example of the long-range fighter is the P-51 Mustang. Early model jet fighters such as the Me 262 had relatively short ranges because they were gas-hogs built for speed. I'm not sure how to resolve this conflict with a single class of in-game fighter.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      That is true for a lot of units I guess, but I think they brought it down, to keep it in ratio with the map being smaller.
      True. But even allowing for the scaled down map size to allow for greater "play-ability," there are a number of historical problems with aircraft ranges in the game as presently structured:
      1. The first and most obvious problem to anyone who has ever been a pilot (or even wanted to be a pilot), is that the ferry range, i.e., the one-way distance an aircraft can fly without refueling should be close to double the effective combat range. The combat range requires a return trip on the same tank of gas; the ferry range does not.

      By way of illustration, Charles Lindbergh had enough avgas to fly the Spirit of Saint Louis from Long Island across the Atlantic Ocean to Paris; he did not have enough gas to fly to Paris and then back to New York without landing in France to refuel. If Lindbergh had to make a return trip without refueling, he would have had to begin his return to New York somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

      2. The effective ranges for naval patrol bombers are completely f---ed up, apparently because the game developers have hopelessly conflated and confused two distinctly different kinds of naval aircraft: (a) long-range naval patrol bombers that were used for long-range reconnaissance, search & rescue, ant-submarine warfare, and anti-merchant ship patrols (PBY Catalina, PBM Mariner, Short Sunderland, Fw 200 Condor, Do 24, HK6 "Mavis"), which were multi-engine aircraft and often amphibious, and (b) much shorter-range naval attack aircraft, usually single-engine, which were designed to fly from land-based runways or aircraft carriers (e.g., TBF Avenger, Nakajima B6N, F4U Corsair, etc.). The long-range patrol aircraft were too large to land on aircraft carrier decks, and the amphibians were usually supported by a special class of ships called seaplane tenders that could forward deploy in remote areas to provide aerial reconnaissance over vast areas such as the Pacific.

      In order to do this right, these two types of naval aircraft need to be separated.

      3. Some late model piston-driven fighters, with drop tanks, had nearly the same range as multi-engine bombers. The perfect example of the long-range fighter is the P-51 Mustang. Early model jet fighters such as the Me 262 had relatively short ranges because they were gas-hogs built for speed. I'm not sure how to resolve this conflict with a single class of in-game fighter.
      Yea, I know. I know my aircraft. And I know, we have talked about the ferry range before



      I even made a thread, about adding more specific naval units. The air craft, need more diversity and work. I agree with ya mate :)



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • oceanhawk wrote:

      Yea, I know. I know my aircraft. And I know, we have talked about the ferry range before . . . . I even made a thread, about adding more specific naval units. The aircraft need more diversity and work. I agree with ya mate
      Smart man.

      How do we go about getting the attention of the game developers? Too many of the official "interlocutors" around here seem a little too vested in play-ability, simplicity and the game as it presently exists. Part of the problem, as I see it, is the developers are somewhat conflicted in creating a better game and finding a way to pay for their activities. Some of this would require taking another look at the present "research" system, which includes so many different types and evolutionary levels of weapons systems that could only be fully exploited in a game of 6 to 7 weeks with extensive use of "gold." Adding additional weapons systems, including new aircraft types, only aggravates that issue, but you would think it would make the developers happy -- more need to use "gold" for research purposes.

      I love the capabilities of the naval patrol bomber, but it should be made more reflective of the WW2 realities.

      The comments I made about the aircraft issues need to be addressed by someone with the authority and knowledge to fix them. So, how do we go about getting the attention of the game developers?

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • @oceanhawk, the goofy historical anomaly du jour is one I discovered playing the new Pacific map, with which there are many problems. The historical goofiness I noticed today is the map has over 2 million (2,000,000) people living on Attu and Kiska islands in the Aleutian island chain in Alaska. The native population was never more than a few hundred, and even during WW2, the military population was measured in thousands, not tens of thousands or millions. And just for giggles, the developers have the Aleutian troops wearing Soviet battledress. LOL

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      @oceanhawk, the goofy historical anomaly du jour is one I discovered playing the new Pacific map, with which there are many problems. The historical goofiness I noticed today is the map has over 2 million (2,000,000) people living on Attu and Kiska islands in the Aleutian island chain in Alaska. The native population was never more than a few hundred, and even during WW2, the military population was measured in thousands, not tens of thousands or millions. And just for giggles, the developers have the Aleutian troops wearing Soviet battledress. LOL
      Yea I know haha

      there are soo many goofs



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye