Aircaft Ordinance Historical Requirement

[Baumer]

Given some of the recent threads about requests/information about different aircraft loadout's got me thinking. I wasn't able to find anything using the search button so please excuse me if this has been discussed before, but my question is this;

Given that this is not a World War 2 historical game why is there a requirement for a specific loadout to have been used in WW2 to have it included in Aces High?

I'm not trying to be silly or contrite, I understand that a lot of work and effort has to go into modeling the ordinance when HTC builds a new plane. I also understand that there are limits to the ordinance model weather we're talking about the old model or the new model. And I am sure we'll see some exciting new stuff as the new Ord model starts to be used as the other parts fall into place.

I was just curious if there was more to it, or if it's just simply a point for clear delineation between what's allowed and what's not.

Thanks, and flame away if need be!

[Raptor]

I'm not trying to be silly or contrite, I understand that a lot of work and effort has to go into modeling the ordinance when HTC builds a new plane. I also understand that there are limits to the ordinance model weather we're talking about the old model or the new model. And I am sure we'll see some exciting new stuff as the new Ord model starts to be used as the other parts fall into place.

The way the game is played is not historical but the vehicles that are in the game perform as closely to reality as HiTech can make them. It is like saying "if it isn't realistic, why make the a6m turn tighter than a P51?"

[boomerlu]

I see your point.

How enforceable would historical loadouts be for FSOs/Scenarios/Snapshots though? How do we draw the line between what makes it and what doesn't? It's a can'o'worms.

[Simba]

It's ORDNANCE, as you're using English and not French: 'Artillery, cannon or big guns of all sizes, as distinguished from small arms; military stores, equipment and material'. An ORDINANCE is 'that which is ordained or ordered by authority' (Webster Universal Dictionary).

"Given that this is not a World War 2 historical game why is there a requirement for a specific loadout to have been used in WW2 to have it included in Aces High?"

Granted, the main arenas are mosh-pits, but AH does make some attempt at simulating World War Two military aircraft - and, soon, some from World War One - so it's convenient to make the ordnance loadouts appropriate to those aircraft, then old farts like me won't get too confused. A Spitfire would just look silly to me if it carried a 2000 lb bomb under each wing, a torpedo under its belly and an armament of eight 20mm cannon mounted in a turret behind the pilot, so I like to fly something approximating to the real thing rather than a mutant version of the Starship Enterprise.

 

[Masherbrum]

It's ORDNANCE, as you're using English and not French: 'Artillery, cannon or big guns of all sizes, as distinguished from small arms; military stores, equipment and material'. An ORDINANCE is 'that which is ordained or ordered by authority' (Webster Universal Dictionary).

 

[Baumer]

Thank you for the spelling correction, I believe you should take that up with Firefox as well. I will endeavor to spell it correctly in the future Simba.

However, you miss my point, I am not looking to include nonsensical guns or bombs.

As an example, I have the B-25C/D service manual from March 1943. It lists 9 standard bomb loads and 22 overload bomb loads, it also had all the details for carrying a torpedo. This torpedo configuration was not a "what if" field modification but a well thought out factory design and installation. Every part of the retractable torpedo rack is identified with an "AN" part number and the manual describes servicing and care instructions. To me this is something that could be included if HTC choose to, but since it was not used operationally it falls outside the current requirements.

As to enforcing loadouts that is all ready tracked in the logs for a special event so that would not be a problem. Matter of fact, most of the bomb loads listed for the B-25C/D would be more helpful for special events. As it is currently, most of the bomb loads are on the heavy side, making it a challenge to limit the bomb capacity of each side.

[boomerlu]

So you are saying to allow historically AVAILABLE loadouts in addition to historically/operationally USED ones?

Sounds good to me.

Couple it with perked ords and you've got a good system.

[Strip]

So you are saying to allow historically AVAILABLE loadouts in addition to historically/operationally USED ones?

No, judging by his wording I would say he is not asking for that....

[Baumer]

Actually I am asking for exactly what boomerlu said. Given that there is documentation that the loadout was designed and tested by the manufacturer, I don't see a reason to not include it.

[hammer]

I'm currently reading a book by Walter Schuck about the war on the Artic / Northern front in which he constantly and consistenly speaks of attacking torpedo armed (Soviet) Boston's which were attempting to attack German supply convoys. I don't know if the Boston was designed to carry torpedoes or if it was Soviet modification, but it certainly appears it was a Soviet standard for Bostons in the Artic.

Regards,

Hammer

[Guppy35]

Actually I am asking for exactly what boomerlu said. Given that there is documentation that the loadout was designed and tested by the manufacturer, I don't see a reason to not include it.

That it was designed and tested does not mean it was ever used in combat that way.  Using the P38 that was tested with Torpedos by Lockheed. They proved it could work.  Never used operationally.  As much as the rallying cry of the 38 pilots is "Torps on the town!" I kinda doubt folks want 38s running
around with a pair of torpedos just cause testing showed they could.

[hammer]

...I kinda doubt folks want 38s running around with a pair of torpedos just cause testing showed they could.

As a dedicated Luftwaffe pilot, I would prefer to find P-38s running around with a pair of torpedos!   

[Baumer]

I don't quite follow Guppy35, so you think players would be upset if a P-38 were carrying a torpedo in the MA's?

Would it be any worse than seeing Lancaster's used as dive bombers, or tanks in neutral going 100 miles an hour downhill?

I think that with the new ordnance model this would be a relatively easy way to add a new dimension to the MA game, without a large amount of development (I know that's an assumption on my part).

[RTHolmes]

personally I'd like to stick to "what was commonly, historically used" as the criteria. theres still plenty of common loadouts we dont have (28x500lb for the lanc, 8x250lb + 4x500lb for the havoc spring to mind.)

why? it helps promote historical usage and encounters. eg. if torps were available for 38s, who would bother using TBMs?

[Guppy35]

I don't quite follow Guppy35, so you think players would be upset if a P-38 were carrying a torpedo in the MA's?

Would it be any worse than seeing Lancaster's used as dive bombers, or tanks in neutral going 100 miles an hour downhill?

I think that with the new ordnance model this would be a relatively easy way to add a new dimension to the MA game, without a large amount of development (I know that's an assumption on my part).

I'd rather not encourage the silliness you mention such as Lancstukas.  Adding things that weren't historically used would only add to those things that seem ridiculous now.

A bunch of torpedo laden 38s would not improve game play.  10 rockets on a 51 isn't for adding to the immersion, it's for making it easier to take out an airfield.  Funny how that wasn't how rockets were used historically

To me when folks ask for this kind of stuff, it's just a means to an end to get from point A to point B faster.  It has nothing to do with improving the immersion or the gameplay.