Patrol vs Bomber?

[Dili]

I am thinking of classifying some long range land based aircraft like as Patrol instead of Level Bomber any ill effects?

[m10bob]

Their mission capabilities will change and that is not such a bad thing.

The New Zealanders had a 4 engine version of the De Havilland transport, but they used it as a maritime bomber/searcher at a time when range was important, but in game, the 2 engine "Dominie/Dragon" is only listed as a transport and cannot carry out the spotter missions.

The 4 engine model, (the Express) had a greater range.

My point is their are many aircraft within the game which might be considered for other than the "vanilla" listed missions, and at least one of the more popular mods takes advantage of this idea.

[Dali101]

yes...

[Alfred]

Besides the different missions which are available to patrol vis bomber, you need to take into account how you treat their float/amphibious status in the editor.  It will impact on which airfields they can operate from.
 
Alfred

[Dili]

Thanks i am seeing patrols tagged as "float", i guess if i do not put that tag in a PV1 Ventura it is only land based so not a problem. One of the advantages of Patrol classification is that the can do naval search at night, a Level Bomber do not so for long range land based patrol aircraft with radar even makes more sense to classify them as patrol.

[m10bob]

In the editor, you can also consider classifying planes as "attack" capability to avoid the low altitude fatigue penalty in case that penalty is still active below 6000 feet because IRL those sub hunters definitely flew at low altitude.
As noted above, you must be careful when giving planes special attributes to avoid unwanted consequences.

In the early war, the USN used Douglas Dauntless's for close fighter protection, but this is not possible in game unless you make some of those earlier SBD's "fighter bombers"..(If you do this, you will lose the "dive bomber bonus", but IMHO that is also more realistic because in the southern seas the bomb sight fogged up to hinder accuracy anyway.)

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks i am seeing patrols tagged as "float", i guess if i do not put that tag in a PV1 Ventura it is only land based so not a problem. One of the advantages of Patrol classification is that the can do naval search at night, a Level Bomber do not so for long range land based patrol aircraft with radar even makes more sense to classify them as patrol.

It does not work like that. It seems I wasn't clear enough before.

1. The "amphibian" check box, if checked, allows that aircraft model to operate from any size 0 and above airfield which is located on a coastal hex or a non-coastal hex.

2. The "float capable" check box, if checked, allows that aircraft model to operate from any size 0 and above airfield which is located on a coastal hex. That aircraft model cannot operate from a non-coastal hex.

3. Any aircraft model which is classified as a PA (patrol), FP (float plane) or FF (float fighter) is automatically treated by the code as being "float capable" and does not need that check box checked in the editor in order to operate from a coastal size 0 airfield.


If you reclassify the PV1 Ventura to be a PA type, it will be able to fly from a coastal size 0 airfield. It will not be possible to restrict it to fly only from a non-coastal airfield. If, in addition to reclassifying it to be a patrol type, you also check the amphibian check box, it will also be able to fly from a non-coastal airfield.

With the current game code, it is not that obvious that it makes more sense to reclassify level bombers to the patrol classification. This is another of the many occasions where you just have to accept the game engine's limitations do not allow your ideas to be implemented without opening a can of worms.

Alfred

[Dili]

Understood.

The idea wasn't for all level bombers, just those dedicated to land based maritime patrol to be able to search at night like flying boats can. So from outside it seems an unnecessary mistaken code addition to Patrol since it does already exist the float option and it precludes other uses like this.

[Alfred]

You should consider splitting the level bomber models you have into mind into two separate models, one being the existing bomber type and the other a new dedicated patrol type model.  Plus making some of the existing air units which currently use the level bomber into a dedicated patrol squadron which can't use level bombers (or alternatively making it an upgrade option to go into the patrol path but with no return path back to level bomber).
 
Doing these two things will keep to a minimum the code compatibility issues.  With two separate lines, you will however have problems with the game's existing historical aircraft production rates for the British bombers (and bomber units).  They may need to be revisited.
 
Alfred  

[Dili]

Thanks, i'll have to think about it. As you say they can go to costal 0 size hex and that might be a bigger problem.

[el cid again]

Generally, you will find all these types defined, and air art, in RHS.
Feel free to borrow any. Note that RHS defines speed in knots and range
in nautical miles rather than in mph and statute miles. If you use the
latter, convert the data.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Their mission capabilities will change and that is not such a bad thing.

The New Zealanders had a 4 engine version of the De Havilland transport, but they used it as a maritime bomber/searcher at a time when range was important, but in game, the 2 engine "Dominie/Dragon" is only listed as a transport and cannot carry out the spotter missions.

The 4 engine model, (the Express) had a greater range.

My point is their are many aircraft within the game which might be considered for other than the "vanilla" listed missions, and at least one of the more popular mods takes advantage of this idea.