Carrier capabilities

[Gerbilskij]

Dear all, I think this is my very first post after a while of passive presence, so get easy on me if this has already been discussed before.

This is something I realized a while ago when playing with a Vladivostok/Mistral LPD and I found out I could actually load Mig-29K on it, apart from Ka-52K and Yak-141.

Ok, getting on topic... As of now, the carrier capability is just a binary option, either an aircraft is carrier capable or not and either a ship is able to lunch/recover aircrafts - Carrier (Aviation Ship) - or not. This regardless of the kind of deck/equipment/specific capabilities of the unit: Catapult/Sky Jump/Only VTOL.

So, I was wondering why we just have this simple binary option instead of a more realistic representation of the actual capabilities of each ship/aircraft, maybe just according to four simple categories: VTOL only/STOVL/Sky Jump and arrested recovery/CATOBAR.

Is this a deliberate choice (let's leave player do as they please, if they want to add F-14s in an Invincible class or SU-33 to a Kiev Aircraft Cruiser), a limit of the engine (which I doubt) or is just something that takes too much time to implement for such a little benefit?

Thank you all.

[Mini_Von]

I think it is a matter of priorities for the devs. They only have a limited amount of time/resources and have constantly been updating CMANO since its release.

You can put your request in the Feature Request thread. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3437496
If the devs deem it a high priority then it will likely be added in a future update.

[Gerbilskij]

ORIGINAL: Mini_Von

I think it is a matter of priorities for the devs. They only have a limited amount of time/resources and have constantly been updating CMANO since its release.
If the devs deem it a high priority then it will likely be added in a future update.

Thanks, I imagined this is the most likely reason as well.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Gerbilskij
So, I was wondering why we just have this simple binary option instead of a more realistic representation of the actual capabilities of each ship/aircraft, maybe just according to four simple categories: VTOL only/STOVL/Sky Jump and arrested recovery/CATOBAR.

Personally, I think of the opened-endedness of things as a feature. It allows one to experiment with hypothetical options which might not necessarily exist in the present day. It isn't necessarily an advantage for a simulation to constantly constrain a scenario designer in the name of present day or known capabilities. Sometimes you might want to play with something like, "Suppose an aircraft with MiG-29K equivalent performance was based on platform X. How does that change your decision making?" That leaves it up to the scenario designer to decide if they want to hold themselves to currently known present day capabilities for a given platform, or if they want to experiment with adding on new capabilities and platforms. It's just as important as being able to add sensors or weapons in the scenario editor to platforms.

[Randomizer]

I think that the simulation is fine as is and see zero requirement to follow up with the OP suggestion any time soon or ever. It's incumbent on scenario authors to determine which aircraft operate from what platforms and the Players will ultimately decide whether a given situation is valid within the context of the situation or not. If you do not want Tomcats flying off Invincibles, the solution is easy; don't put them on board when the scenario is written. As Sea Queen states, the status quo allows for experimentation and I submit that it need not offend even the most fanatical rivet-counter if they choose to write their scenarios within the confines of the real world.

-C

[thewood1]

Don't underestimate the power and drive of the "fanatical rivet-counter".

[mikmykWS]

There is no net gain for anybody in us doing this.

Mike

[Gerbilskij]

Thank you for the answer. It was just something running into my head. Indeed as it is we have full flexibility for both realism and experimentation.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Gerbilskij

Thank you for the answer. It was just something running into my head. Indeed as it is we have full flexibility for both realism and experimentation.

No problem. Thanks for posting!

[:)]

Mike