Rocket inconsistencies.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Don
OK I see you are one step ahead of me. I dont know if you have already done so but as well as rockets, bombs would also benefit from having there "secondary blast effects" adjusted. Bombs are of course even less/much less accurate than rockets... when delivered by fighter bombers.
British unit 731, a typhoon has 16 60 pounders attached to it I find this hard to believe. Unit 730 a typhoon and 492 a tempest have a more believable 12. But... I have been unable to find any references anywhere for either of these planes ever carrying any more than 8 rockets.
And lastly do you think that the ground attack aircraft should be more accurate (have a higher FC) than the 'ad hoc' fighter bombers?

[DRG]

Rockets are the same weapon class as bombs, the difference is they have a range >1 which makes them "rockets" so lowering the secondary effects of that class affects bombs AND rockets.... yes?

Re Typhoons. There are twelve Typhoons in the game. 8 of which have the correct weapon loadout. You managed to find two of the four that didn't. They have been corrected

All Typhoons have 15 FC.( Shturmovik and HS129's are 15 as well ) There are 656 attack aircraft in the game with FC of 2 or more ( no.. the number is not made up )and 378 with 10 FC or more there are over 40 aircraft with higher FC than Typhoons. That's the way the game works and has worked for years and it's not going to be changed

OK?

Don

[chuckfourth]

Ok, pending new info of course.
Best Chuck

[DRG]

Don't bother looking for "new Info" to "prove" whatever point you are trying to make. We are NOT ( repeat.... N O T ) changing the way ground attack aircraft are set up

Don

[chuckfourth]

Hi Don
OK, but what about old points? In my thread "ME262 wrong guns?" if you read my last two posts you will see that I tested and proved that it is possible to give the ground attack aircraft guns their correct armour penetration characteristics by removing the HEK value and substituting a sabot value. With the current set up using a HEK instead of a sabot value they may as well be firing plasticine not tungsten shot.
Thanks for your time, Chuck

[DRG]

I'll tell you what Chuck, I will go back and wade through that thread, run some tests and make some decisions as to what may or may not be justified and then when the patch is release you can be happy, or not and if you're not then you can do what we have been telling you to do since you first started complaining about the OOB's in this game..... change your OOB's to suit yourself.

Sometimes we both wonder why it is you bother to spend so much time with something you so obviously dislike or disagree with so much of.

Don

[chuckfourth]

Hi Don

Here is an interesting table, table v page 75.
Please note that .05 percent of rockets fired on a firing range from a typhoon at a panther sized target hit the target.

Thats one rocket in every two hundred fired hit the target.

In your game a typical typhoon salvo lands about 2 "hits" on a panther tank.

Thats one rocket in every 4 fired hits the target.

You are out by two significant digits.

The book is "Air Power at the Battlefront By Ian Gooderson"
The URL is broken up as otherwise it doesnt disply fully

http://
books.google.com.au/books?id=0Eb_uqFyWBgC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=20mm+flak+engagement+range&source=web&ots=npFMCP3UIH&sig=xYvnMPkqVmToEymc7T2icEujtts&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA75,M1

I think that the correct portrayal of the effects of air power on the tactical scale will greatly enhance the playability of the game because it will emphasize playing good solid all arms ground tactics rather than relying on your ace up the sleave air power card. Especially for late war allied players, who always seem to be offerred plenty of air strikes every game.

The book later states how bombs are even less acurate than rockets.

Best Regards Chuck.

[DRG]

What you are suggesting is we "de-tune" air attacks in the game so they are virtually useless yet we get a dozens of complaints a year about both games from people who already think air attacks are a waste of time and points because they can never hit anything.

Strange though the Germans didn't consider the jabo threat to be insignificant.

Now go back and read post #14. Apparently you've forgotten what was written there then go back and re-read #16 becasue it's obvious you're forgotten that as well

Don

[PanzerBob]

Good day all,

Test vs. Combat conditions for WWII Rockets. IIRC rockets seemed to be a good bet during their trials, but when put into use the results were rather poor in so far as actual armour killed. With that being said, if I understand correctly, their main effect (outside of scoring direct hits on armour and soft skin vehicles) was scaring the bejesus of those on the receiving end of a rocket attack. IIRC the warheads tended to be equal to roughly 5inch naval shells or worse in effect. At times this caused troops to abandon equipment even if not destroyed.

As far as game play goes, I find roughly the same effect tends to happen. As a result I tend to target embarked or massed troops with rockets, saving cannons for actual anti-armour work. As the Germans I tend to fear cannon armed CAS aircraft more than rocket armed in regards to losing Panzers. The Hurricane with the 40mm Cannons, Typhoons and Stumoviks have had great effects on my units at times. Even when launching my own airstrikes kills are a bonus but breaking the enemy is always more my aim.

Bob out