perception of traffic in diferent mods

[Fifi]

Well, the JU88 could pass the 1500 km as well as the ME210
Unfortunately for Doenitz, Luftwaffe didn’t really supported submarine warfare, except in very few cases...
Big Goering had better occupations elsewhere

I remember once i asked for help (sending contact report) and few time later a bunch of Stukas appeared to bomb very successfully my small convoy...but it was close to Denmark coasts.

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by Fifi

Well, the JU88 could pass the 1500 km as well as the ME210
Unfortunately for Doenitz, Luftwaffe didn’t really supported submarine warfare, except in very few cases...
Big Goering had better occupations elsewhere

I remember once i asked for help (sending contact report) and few time later a bunch of Stukas appeared to bomb very successfully my small convoy...but it was close to Denmark coasts.

Those two could do the range decked out to do so; extra fuel, stripped down, etc. but with a bomb load probably not.

Goering was a big, fat drug addicted idiot.

[Aquelarrefox]

In wac I seem condor patroling biscay in the middle of the war. Plane traffic is other feature, I believe gw is a bit more balance, nygm is focus in enemy planes and air wac is hard to say.
Really I never play ccom, sounds interesting.
That's another mega mod I never downloaded.
Rooster is another topic and is true that adding ships as madman is not a solution. Nygm gw and if it's true ccom ships are stable things with test, wav ships I breakouts that not. Few packs of ships out of there are well tested like fmf 3 and von doss ships.

What about the amount of traffic in convoys and in us coast? Is similar to gw?

[John Pancoast]

Yes, I have Ccom installed just haven't got around to it yet. Definitely mean to. Think I'll edit the Allied squadrons though to get rid of the ahistorical multi-aircraft attacks.

[gap]

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

Those two could do the range decked out to do so; extra fuel, stripped down, etc. but with a bomb load probably not.

Goering was a big, fat drug addicted idiot.

I must agree with both your assertions lol

Talking about aircraft ranges, I have always wondered on the correctness of their setting by several mods/modders.

In most cases, the range figures stated by websites and books are the ferry range. According to Wiki's definition, this is «the maximum range the aircraft can fly. This usually means maximum fuel load, optionally with extra fuel tanks and minimum equipment. It refers to transport of aircraft without any passengers or cargo».
Nonetheless, I believe that the MaxRadius stored in air units' cfg file is meant to represent (more or less) the combat range i.e. «the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance. Combat radius is a related measure based on the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves».

This confusion might have led to some completely wrong settings. Even considering that distances from point A to point B are remarkably longer in the SH-world than they are in real world (especially near the poles and for W-to-E/E-to-W courses), I think that halving aircraft ranges as stated by many sources before entering them in game, would provide a more realistic gameplay.

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by gap

I must agree with both your assertions lol

Talking about aircraft ranges, I have always wondered on the correctness of their setting by many mods/modders.

In most cases, the range figures stated by many websites and books are the ferry range. According to Wiki's definition, this is «the maximum range the aircraft can fly. This usually means maximum fuel load, optionally with extra fuel tanks and minimum equipment. It refers to transport of aircraft without any passengers or cargo».
Nonetheless, I believe that the MaxRadius stored in air units' cfg file is meant to represent (more or less) the combat range i.e. «the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance. Combat radius is a related measure based on the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves».

This confusion might have led to some completely wrong settings. Even considering that distances from point A to point B are remarkably longer in the SH-world than they are in real world (especially near the poles and for W-to-E/E-to-W courses), I think that halving aircraft ranges as stated by many sources before entering them in game, would provide a more realistic gameplay.

Agreed.

I also believe the same "problem" can occur in the game with modded ordinance or equipment specs; sometimes, they're based on paper/testing specs vs. actual in use/field specs and the two rarely are the same.

[gap]

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

Agreed.

I also believe the same "problem" can occur in the game with modded ordinance or equipment specs; sometimes, they're based on paper/testing specs vs. actual in use/field specs and the two rarely are the same.

Sure, gun ranges, train/elevation rates and rates of fire are often set up according to trial stats rather than on performances attained in field conditions. Even worse are ammo loadouts. Take aircraft bullets or naval depth charges as an example. In-game figures are totally fictional, and in most cases they are ludicrously exaggerated. I realise that they might offer better in-game challenge, but that's not always the case...

[John Pancoast]

Originally Posted by gap

Sure, gun ranges, train/elevation rates and rates of fire are often set up according to trial stats rather than on performances attained in field conditions. Even worse are ammo loadouts. Take aircraft bullets or naval depth charges as an example. In-game figures are totally fictional, and in most cases they are ludicrously exaggerated. I realise that they might offer better in-game challenge, but that's not always the case...

[nik112]

Hi guys
what about the appearing of capital ships in ccom 12? In wac there are few
of them


cheers