So What if the Carriers are not in BOP ?

[1./KG4_OldJames]

I am bad enough at navigating over land, let alone over a featureless sea.

[Danziger]

Guys, what if the naval planes won't have functional tail hook yet? What will we do?

[Dutchvdm]

Guys, what if the naval planes won't have functional tail hook yet? What will we do?

 

Crash in the sea...? 

 

Grt M 

[Cybermat47]

Guys, what if the naval planes won't have functional tail hook yet? What will we do?

What if the planes don't have engines?

 

What if the pilots don't have limbs?

Edited June 2, 2017 by Cybermat47

[Danziger]

What if the planes don't have engines?

 

What if the pilots don't have limbs?

WHAT WILL WE DO?????

[Feathered_IV]

Although its still too early to pre order, its nice to know that now is the perfect time to pre panic.

[LukeFF]

Just create floating islands/pontoon/runways with AA on floating runways..... you can take off and land on those until the first carriers are developed.

There is absolutely no way in the world they are going to publicly release a Midway map without at least one functioning carrier. The game has already suffered enough negative PR crap with sites like Metacritic to last a lifetime, so there's no way they are going to risk further damage like that.

 

Geez, the crazy ideas some of you guys come up with...

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Guys, what if the naval planes won't have functional tail hook yet? What will we do?

We don't need no sticking hooks. I'm sure monostripezebra will have a Ju-52 aboard the Yorktown in fairly short order.

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[coconut]

If they release things as they have done so far, we'll have early access to the planes, probably all of them, before we get the map and the carriers. So in a sense, there's nothing special about "releasing without carriers", that's the way it will be. But asking full price for a full release without the carriers, that would make lots of people disappointed. Not likely to happen.

It's not like carriers are even the hardest to do as I understand. The problem seems to be more on the details of Japanese planes.

Anyway, where did people get the idea that the project would be delayed because of carriers? We are still more than one year away from release, right? Why start speculating about the potential difficulties already now?

[Haza]

Who needs carriers to launch aircraft?  I would like a submarine launched aircraft please!

Will these be in included in BOP?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogr0OaHIgvI

Edited June 3, 2017 by Haza

[Gambit21]

It's not like carriers are even the hardest to do as I understand. The problem seems to be more on the details of Japanese planes.

 

The Japanese airplanes are still just airplanes, unfamiliarity with them on the part of the team and the resulting challenges notwithstanding.

The carrier tech is a whole new ball of wax.

[AndyJWest]

Who needs carriers to launch aircraft?  I would like a submarine launched aircraft please!

Will these be in included in BOP?

 

It would involve a ridiculous amount of effort to model something that never played any part in the war.

[Cybermat47]

It would involve a ridiculous amount of effort to model something that never played any part in the war.

Actually, Japanese submarines had aircraft at the beginning of the war, and they were used quite often. For example, prior to the attack on Sydney Harbour, the Type B-1 submarine I-21 launched it's E14Y to perform reconnaisance.

 

It was the I-400 class submarines, which carried three M6A1s, which played no part in the war due to the Japanese surrender.

 

That said, I absolutely agree submarine-launched aircraft shouldn't be modelled for BoMW, as it seems they played no part in the battle, and it would take time and money away from more important matters, such as carriers.

 

If you want Japanese submarine operations in WWII, look no further than here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141869

Edited June 3, 2017 by Cybermat47

[Hirachi]

https://youtu.be/ToefGa3tagA?t=1m1s

[AndyJWest]

Thanks, Cybermat, I'd forgotten about the E14Y. As you say though it played no part at Midway, and seems not to have achieved much of significance during the war beyond appearing in a few unlikely places and starting a minor forest fire in Oregon. An interesting little tale, but not the sort of thing the developers will want to spend their time on. I think some people may need to scale their expectations back a little: we are getting a Midway air combat sim, not a recreation of the entire Pacific war. 

[Haza]

Gents,

 

Chill, I was joking as the film I attached clearly explains how much the "Super" submarines were and were not used.  It was meant to be light hearted, as with the talk about not having carriers, I thought i would throw the super submarine aircraft carrier in.  

Whether carriers are included or not in the first release of BOP (which ever battle), I for one will be pre-purchasing.  

 

Regards

Edited June 3, 2017 by Haza

[sinned]

Aluetian campaign as paid dlc would be awesome.

[RAY-EU]

Hold Super Destroyers in the position 0 .

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by RAY-EU

[Haza]

I'm starting to practice!

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Haza

[coconut]

The Japanese airplanes are still just airplanes, unfamiliarity with them on the part of the team and the resulting challenges notwithstanding.

The carrier tech is a whole new ball of wax.

 

In a flight sim the modelling ambitions of planes is higher than that of other vehicles. Carrier tech is a new thing, but there's no reason to believe the devs haven't factored that in their plans.

Look at ships we have now: No collisions between ships, and they can sail on land. Not ideal, but rather than pushing back a release they delivered them as they were. Then it's up to mission designers to work around these quirks. You can't do that with planes, but you can do that with other vehicles.

Here is a list of features in decreasing order of importance:

• Ability to spawn, land and take-off from carriers (must have)
• Simple damage model (must have)
• Ability for carriers to move following preset waypoints. Simplified movement, ignore physics (should have)
• Carriers respond to waves, physics-based movement (nice to have)
• Ability for planes to rest and taxi on carriers (tricky from a physics side, because the "ground" is not static)
• Autonomous movement: face wind, avoid bombs...
• Detailed damage model
• Inter-ship collisions (ideally these should never happen, so not really needed)
• Collisions with land/shallow water (same thing there, should not happen)
• ATC

I've left out things that are already working today, such as AA and beacons. I would say carriers are "good enough" once the two first items are available. Existing games go beyond the two first points, therefore I don't think they should be a problem. I'm thinking of carriers in War Thunder and Falcon BMS, I've tried those, but from videos of the old IL-2 and DCS, those also support at least the 3 first points.

[Barnacles]

​I think, during his scientific research, Monostripezebra managed to land on a train, so the physics should be able to handle it.

 

 

• Ability for planes to rest and taxi on carriers (tricky from a physics side, because the "ground" is not static)

[ShamrockOneFive]

In a flight sim the modelling ambitions of planes is higher than that of other vehicles. Carrier tech is a new thing, but there's no reason to believe the devs haven't factored that in their plans.

Look at ships we have now: No collisions between ships, and they can sail on land. Not ideal, but rather than pushing back a release they delivered them as they were. Then it's up to mission designers to work around these quirks. You can't do that with planes, but you can do that with other vehicles.

Here is a list of features in decreasing order of importance:

• Ability to spawn, land and take-off from carriers (must have)
• Simple damage model (must have)
• Ability for carriers to move following preset waypoints. Simplified movement, ignore physics (should have)
• Carriers respond to waves, physics-based movement (nice to have)
• Ability for planes to rest and taxi on carriers (tricky from a physics side, because the "ground" is not static)
• Autonomous movement: face wind, avoid bombs...
• Detailed damage model
• Inter-ship collisions (ideally these should never happen, so not really needed)
• Collisions with land/shallow water (same thing there, should not happen)
• ATC

I've left out things that are already working today, such as AA and beacons. I would say carriers are "good enough" once the two first items are available. Existing games go beyond the two first points, therefore I don't think they should be a problem. I'm thinking of carriers in War Thunder and Falcon BMS, I've tried those, but from videos of the old IL-2 and DCS, those also support at least the 3 first points.

 

Good list! Pacific Fighters/IL-2: 1946 has the first 5 points actually. Trying to land in heavy seas and wind was very tricky business in the original.

 

I think Jason wants to see if its possible to take things a few steps further than done before. I'm curious to see if features like a landing signals officer will be available, working elevators, anything below deck, etc. I'm not expecting any of these specifically just that Jason stated that the goal is to have the best simulation of a WWII aircraft carrier possible.

 

I also have no worries that they will do a good job and cut and trim features as necessary to make their deadlines.

 

I'm also interested to see how much the ships in Battle of Kuban end up having. They are doing a lot of work right now that will be important later on. Partially so they can focus on specific key features for Midway and be able to rest on an already good base. Even then, they already have some good stuff from Rise of Flight which has fairly convincing ships, ship movement, and waves.

Edited June 3, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[BlitzPig_EL]

Great list Coconut.

 

I would like to add the hope that the larger guns on carriers should also work properly.  Currently in IL2/46 the 5"/38 turret mounted guns do not fire.  These guns provided long range anti air protection and also can serve as defense against destroyers, or other small warships, that however improbably, might slip past the carrier's escort screen.

 

As these same guns provided the main armament of US destroyers they will have to work in any case, so they should work on the US carriers as well.  Also the larger 8" guns of the Lexington class, which were originally intended as the secondary guns of her battle cruiser design should work as well, though later in the war they were changed out for the 5"/38 caliber guns as these were dual purpose and worked so well for anti aircraft applications.

 

Lexington firing her 8" guns in 1928...

 

 

These 8" rifles gave the Lexington the same armament as a heavy cruiser of the time.

Edited June 3, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[ShamrockOneFive]

EL, I can't remember if this was right but didn't the Lexington or Saratoga or both have their 8" guns removed at some point? I remember something about that but I can't remember if that was actually a thing or not.

 

I guess it doesn't matter as it was all Yorktown-class carriers at Midway. Looking forward to flying off the Enterprise

[BlitzPig_EL]

Yes, the 8" rifles were replaced with the 5"/38 caliber guns at refits later in the war.  Not sure when.

[Rolling_Thunder]

I'm starting to practice!

Me too. You may scoff, and I'm sure plenty of folk here will, but I'm enjoying just flying carrier practice in warthunder VR. Warthunder offers the variety that is sorely missing with BoX at the moment. hopefully they'll get there some day as the BoX experience is growing stale for me with nothing but Eastern front. I've purchased BoK, in the hope my meagre contribution will help the development of BoM, but honestly I cant see myself playing it that much. I'm a SP guy and a campaign involving the Nazis or the Soviets just doesn't interest me. I find no affinity with either side. Personally I think sticking in one theatre for 3 releases, at the beginning of a franchise, was a mistake, but that's the way it is. I bought BoK eventually, for the spitfire, but even then the pilot will be in a Soviet uniform so aesthetically, for me, its just not a real spitfire, like the P-40 just doesn't look right, again to me, with a soviet pilot, call me weird. You cannot have the Pacific without carriers, its like having the battle of the Atlantic without the U-boats, it would be an unfinished product.

[TheElf]

In a flight sim the modelling ambitions of planes is higher than that of other vehicles. Carrier tech is a new thing, but there's no reason to believe the devs haven't factored that in their plans.

Look at ships we have now: No collisions between ships, and they can sail on land. Not ideal, but rather than pushing back a release they delivered them as they were. Then it's up to mission designers to work around these quirks. You can't do that with planes, but you can do that with other vehicles.

Here is a list of features in decreasing order of importance:

• Ability to spawn, land and take-off from carriers (must have)
• Simple damage model (must have)
• Ability for carriers to move following preset waypoints. Simplified movement, ignore physics (should have)
• Carriers respond to waves, physics-based movement (nice to have)
• Ability for planes to rest and taxi on carriers (tricky from a physics side, because the "ground" is not static)
• Autonomous movement: face wind, avoid bombs...
• Detailed damage model
• Inter-ship collisions (ideally these should never happen, so not really needed)
• Collisions with land/shallow water (same thing there, should not happen)
• ATC

I've left out things that are already working today, such as AA and beacons. I would say carriers are "good enough" once the two first items are available. Existing games go beyond the two first points, therefore I don't think they should be a problem. I'm thinking of carriers in War Thunder and Falcon BMS, I've tried those, but from videos of the old IL-2 and DCS, those also support at least the 3 first points.

 

Coconut this is a good list.  I'm going to pile on here though with some additional thoughts.

 

At the end of the day, if BoM is to be what it sounds like Jason wants, the Carrier Environment is the Russian Steppe, so the OP is smoking crack with the original premise of this post.  Sorry buddy...

 

First to amplify your thoughts:

 

• Spawning on a carrier is problematic, as life on a carrier is regimented and controlled.  IL-2 1946 was rife with CV spawn issues in MP.   Pilots don't get to perform "Taxi-way" departures on Mom.  The devs need to consider how to realistically implement MP spawning on a CV deck
• Moving via preset waypoints is good.  I'd say leave this to the editor and let mission makers decide how to position them.  But the capability has to be there.  And the escorts need to be able to maintain a believable US Navy or IJ Navy formation.
• Physics based waves, sea state, and pitching deck are all important to believable Carrier tech being modeled.
• Autonomous movement speaks to the Ships behaving as they would in a Real Life combat.  It was common practice for Ship COs to be on the bridge wing looking up at icoming dive bombers and ordering the helm "hard to Starboard" in order to complicate the approach of attackers.  They also attempted to comb the wakes of torpedo spreads to avoid hits.  This was all active and autonomous Maneuver.  It remains to be seen whether this level of AI can be implemented.  One solution might be to additionally provide simple controls ala tanks to Naval Ships. (at least for MP).
• Damage modelling needs to his a sweet spot, but should include Fire, Flotation, Hull integrity, and flight deck operation damage.  Keep in mind the MP gameplay aspects of your only Aircraft Carrier being stricken from play...
• Collisions and running aground go in the "nice to have" category as far as I'm concerned with ship to ship collisions being higher importance as they did happen, and at Midway was a decisive role in the demise of at least 2 ships.

Now my additional thoughts:

• You mention ATC, but in fact neither side used radio as a primary controlling mechanism for air traffic.  Even today Case 1 daylight recoveries are performed without radio transmissions.  Rather they used well trained Aviators who knew what to do in a given situation rather than someone telling them what to do.  besides these assumptions about who was to do what (rules of the road) they used hand signals and light signals (ALDIS Lamps).
• Where radio has a strong role for the US Navy in this sim will be in Fighter Direction.  The FDO controlled the CAPs and inner ASW patrols but operated on a single frequency.  The "Air Marshall" role the Devs speak of would be an ideal place to implement an FDO either with a tailored AI routine, or with a player performing the role in MP with limited Radar information
• The IJ Navy didn't use Radio at all to direct its fighters though several ships had Radar, they hadn't matured the technology or the training, tactics, and procedures to integrate it into their air defense.  Instead the Fighter leaders relied on a larger outer ring of escorts to point out incoming bandits with Flak.  This led to some major shortcomings in the defense of the Kido Butai at Midway.
• Now because Jason has said the Carrier IS the environment in BoM my sincere hope is that they work all their map and new technology efforts toward making that environment as visceral and alive as they can with their limited budget and manpower.

1. Working elevators and a functioning hangar deck
2. Hangar deck catapults would be a nice feature and perhaps alleviate the CV deck spawn issues somewhat.
3. Deck crew that actually behave and move like they would on the deck in terms of hand signals and roles.  The reference for this is abundant in WWII color footage of Carriers in the pacific.
4. Finally and most important is the correct modelling of the landing systems of both Navies.  LSOs and paddles for the US, and the optical landing lights for the IJ Navy.
5. Ambiance in the form of 1MC announcements and a rich sound library.

Thats it for now!

[Livai]

An issue or a solution for the first functioning carrier to use his funnel runway for landings and startings? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZoORaGc7wI

[Gambit21]

In a flight sim the modelling ambitions of planes is higher than that of other vehicles. Carrier tech is a new thing, but there's no reason to believe the devs haven't factored that in their plans.

.

Except in this case carriers are not just another non-aircraft vehicle.

Sure they're planning as much as they can - but getting aircraft to spawn land and take off from a carrier is a whole different thing like I said.

 

They have their work cut out for them.

As customers we need to be understanding of these challenges - that's all I'm saying.

[Mesha44]

Yes, the 8" rifles were replaced with the 5"/38 caliber guns at refits later in the war. Not sure when.

Both ships had the 8" guns removed in early 42.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Mesha44

[BlitzPig_EL]

thanks!

[senseispcc]

I can wait until the end of the universe for the carrier’s implementation in the game even if I did have a lot of fun with them in the previous "Pacific war" in the IL2 series.

How many battles between carriers in ww2?! Not so many. 

Most of carrier actions where against land objectives, Pearl Harbour, Midway and all landings attempts Japanese or US even if there was a interception from a opposition carrier force (like Midway by the way).

The longest campaigns air battles where China 1937-1945 and Burma 1942-1945.

Not the one day to one-month landing operations supported by carriers!

​But this is only my opinion, and only one opinion in so many, so if it is fun for You enjoy!   

[senseispcc]

 

 

This about Your signature. I am entirely in accord with it!

Late war in the Pacific (1944-1945) is even worse and should never be simulated because the non-Allied side has no chance of gainning the uper hand in any air battle.   

[GrendelsDad]

I hope the air marshall is on a ship which could be sunk making the player dead in that role for the round...someone else could take up the role and"takeover" another ship...not necessarily the carrier to make them harder to find....or give them a recon(float) plane to fly in.

[Herne]

Carrier landings in BoX sound like far too much fun, to even entertain the idea of having a game in the pacific theater where those carriers are absent. 

I cant wait to try and catch the wire in VR

[TheElf]

I hope the air marshall is on a ship which could be sunk making the player dead in that role for the round...someone else could take up the role and"takeover" another ship...not necessarily the carrier to make them harder to find....or give them a recon(float) plane to fly in.

 

You mean like this?

 

Where radio has a strong role for the US Navy in this sim will be in Fighter Direction.  The FDO controlled the CAPs and inner ASW patrols but operated on a single frequency.  The "Air Marshall" role the Devs speak of would be an ideal place to implement an FDO either with a tailored AI routine, or with a player performing the role in MP with limited Radar information

[=SIM=Ruttley]

I've just been thinking, navigating with no aids over Stalingrad etc is easy as you have numerous visual references and your map, how on earth does one navigate over endless ocean?

[ShamrockOneFive]

I've just been thinking, navigating with no aids over Stalingrad etc is easy as you have numerous visual references and your map, how on earth does one navigate over endless ocean?

 

Sans map icons?

 

Beacons from carriers and using compass and stopwatches as I understand it.

[=SIM=Ruttley]

Sans map icons?

 

Beacons from carriers and using compass and stopwatches as I understand it.

A little tougher than an RPK so xD

[TheElf]

I've just been thinking, navigating with no aids over Stalingrad etc is easy as you have numerous visual references and your map, how on earth does one navigate over endless ocean?

 

US and IJ naval aviators used dead reckoning as the most basic form of Navigation, something that is still taught in flight school in the US.

 

So basically the Carrier (Mom) would be at a certain Lat/long, turn into the wind and launch aircraft.  The flight leads would set a course usually in the direction Scout planes had reported the enemy and they flew that heading at a constant Airspeed.  Morning Weather briefings would also provide general wind patterns and trends so when navigating Aircrew could estimate how wind affected their outbound track over the ocean.  They timed their legs, keeping the plane trimmed up and in balanced flight as a matter of course, and plotted their presumed progress on a plotting board.  If you watch old WWII films of Carriers at war, like "The Fighting Lady" you might notice pilots walking or running to their planes carrying a large square board.  This is the Navy Mark 3A plotting board.  It typically slid into a slot in the dash in front of the Aviator in the cockpit so he could pull it out and track his progress.  Computations of Time/distance were done on a whiz wheel "computer" which also is still a basic skill taught today in the USN Aviation training.

 

If you ever happen to see old Japanese films of Nell or Betty Bombers, you'll see footage of aircrew eating their hot noodles and fish out of a can and taking readings using a sextant.  They would use dead reckoning as well, flying a constant heading and airspeed and update their position from time to time with the sextant. Turns were tracked and new heading marked with time and distance carefully logged so a return leg or another turn could be made and eventually a rough position would be known at all times so the return leg flown on a heading that took them back to where their carrier was known to be waiting, often times not necessarily the same position the ship was in when the plane left.

 

If returning to and island chain and you were off course one could use the terrain and coastline features on a chart to geo-locate actual position based on visual cues and matching terrain to chart, kinda like we do in BoS with rivers/lakes/forest shapes.

 

The USN Airman was also fortunate to have a beacon called a YE-ZB.  It was a ship mounted transmitter "YE" and aircraft mounted reciever "ZB.  It widened the radius of success for the return to "Mom".  All one had to do was dial the correct channel and listen.  When in range a morse code signal could be heard correlating to a certain radial from the ship.  "A" for instance or . _  (dot dit) meant the 000-030 radial, and "code of the day" information would indicate that to the pilot.  Each day the letters arranged around each 30 degree radial slice would change, but the pilot always had the coded translation, so IJN snoopers who might also recieve the signal couldn't trace a path back to the ship as they had no idea what radial slice a given morse letter was paired to.

 

All the aviator had to do once he knew what letter sector he was in, was to fly a reciprocal heading from 000-030 in this case.  As he got closer he might cross into a neighboring sector as the slices converged on the Carrier, and then he'd know where to look... 

 

The navigating of aircraft during WWII was not a sure thing.  The history of the Second World War in the Pacific is replete with incidents of aircraft never returning to the ship or making it from one island to the next.  In fact of all the aircraft lost in WWII (including the pacific) more were lost to operational loss than to combat loss.  That is errors in navigation, flying into clouds or thunderstorms and being lost at sea.  It happened quite often.  There are stories of entire squadrons of F4U Corsairs disappearing on a ferry flight to the Slot for example.  Some 24 planes and pilots...gone.

 

Japan lost approximately 60% of their total aircraft to non combat causes (training, ferrying, etc.) the US lost approximastely 32% of their aircraft to operational non-combat causes.