Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SAS~Storebror]

sounds like a lot of work for someone

Yep.
I've just mentioned it, please don't mistakenly think I was already working on it or would promise that anyone else was.
Next BAT (at least) will still be with "monolithic" WAW module.

there simply were no German/Italian types in the PTO (with the exception of some very very early Italian stuff like the BR-20 bomber or some fighters) and equally, no IJA/IJN aircraft in the ETO;
you also do not need many USN aircraft, in fact all you need is the F4F/FM-2 series, the Avengers and some Hellcats to cover pretty much every combat mission, the USN undertook in the ETO;
for the British, we have the Corsairs, Martlets and Hellcats in their own slots of course;
also, the Russian aircraft types can be thinned out for a PTO module, as there is only a need for the early types (Nomonhan) and the late types (Manchuria); all the in between birds are not really needed;

A little bit of overlap isn't a big issue.
Say if we cut WAW in half and could get rid of 1/3rd of the planes in each module that way, with 1/3rd remaining exclusive to each module and the other 1/3rd being shared between both "halfs", then we'd win 440 empty plane slots.
That'd be enough for a couple of years to come.


Mike

[Kopfdorfer]

Without burdening any of you with my own particular preferences , I would simply point out
that any movement toward specificity in one direction , degrades the ability
towards effective general performance and representation.

This relationship is the essence of this discussion , and suggests to me that perhaps
WAW is more completely representative as it is , and any movement towards greater specialization
risks a less effective representation of the ( entire ) critical time period - which is WW2.

The first step in a determination of this subject requires an agrred upon definition of what WAW is meant to represent.
I assume (risky , I know ) WAW to mean the conflicts representing the period which we call the Second World War ;
defining WW2 will vary from person to person , but for example , for me the obvious timeline (especially within the dossier
of air warfare )  starts with the Italian Invasion of Ethiopia Oct 1935 , the  beginning of the Sino - Japanese War 1937 ,
the Spanish Civil War , and continue on through the Nazi rise in power to the Japanese surrender to the Soviets Sept 3 1945.
BUT
This does not include alternate history possibilities , and ignores the extended major conflicts of the Chinese Civil War , and the
Israeli War of Independence which were ( as far as I know ) mostly fought with WW2 era equipment than Jet War era equipment.

For me a modpack intending to serve the broadest base of users should be more general , and allow those with more specific agendas
to tailor their games individually to their own needs.

Just my 10 cents worth.

Kopfdorfer
 

[bomberkiller]

IMHO it would make more sense to split WAW into a Pacific War part and a European War part;

This would be a great solution! 

 

[Shakaali]

Say if we cut WAW in half and could get rid of 1/3rd of the planes in each module that way, with 1/3rd remaining exclusive to each module and the other 1/3rd being shared between both "halfs", then we'd win 440 empty plane slots.
That'd be enough for a couple of years to come.

Hmmm.. to add to the confusion. What about splitting to "WAW historical" (historical WW2 aircraft only) and to "WAW non-historical" (non-historical aircraft from 1930 - 1946/1948, plus a selection of historical aircraft)?  I reckon that too would do the trick.

[SAS~Storebror]

any movement toward specificity in one direction , degrades the ability towards effective general performance and representation.

True that.
It won't happen if we don't need to do it anyway, but the general consensus is that we're on the verge of having no choice.


Mike

[genXgamer]

I know we're talking about fiction here, but with nuclear bombs being dropped in 1945 how could the war even go into 1948?

Epervier best summed it up in reply #2.

[SAS~Storebror]

I know we're talking about fiction here

...and fictionally they haven't been dropped at that time yet.
Or the country that "received" them got note that the two U.S. nuclear devices were the only two they've had.
Many possibilities... welcome to "what if".


Mike

[Radoye]

I know we're talking about fiction here, but with nuclear bombs being dropped in 1945 how could the war even go into 1948?

Well, there have been actual plans to continue the war right away against USSR, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Keep in mind that in 1945 there have been a total of 4 nukes:

1. The first one detonated as a test a.k.a Trinity
2. The one dropped on Hiroshima a.k.a Little Boy
3. The one dropped on Nagasaki a.k.a Fat Man
4. The "demon core" which was being rushed for the potential third bomb, and instead caused two separate criticality incidents killing two people and injuring a number of others; finally used in the first Bikini tests in 1946 (together with another bomb that was assembled since, and there was one more being readied).

There were estimates that it might be possible to produce enough material for an additional 3 bombs before the end of the year if the war dragged on, but of course this was stopped once Japan has surrendered. Given the criticality incidents experienced with the rushed 3rd core, who knows if additional three bombs would be achievable or if it would lead to a major accident. In any case, it would've taken some time until additional nukes would be operational. So, it is not exactly far-fetched that, if the war situation was somewhat different (somehow the Axis had the upper hand) that the nukes historically available in 1945 alone would not be enough to turn the tide / win the war for the Allies. It is also debatable if just one or two nukes against USSR would be enough to win a potential war in Europe in the immediate wake of WW2.

So there's still plenty of room left for speculation.



So,

[NobleNerd]

I'm on the fence about splitting WAW into separate modules... Aircraft and vehicle options would become painfully limited, especially in what-if scenarios.

If we split it by time period, that cuts down on older aircraft that were still being used in the latter half of WWII and beyond. It might work, but there would still have to be some decent overlap, mainly with recon planes and the like.

If we split it by theatre, that cuts down on "what-if" possibilities, such as Japan expanding operations into the Atlantic (they do this to a minor extent in my own alt-history since they're part of the Allies in it), or even Germany managing to squeeze their way to Asia. After all, this is World at War.

The former would be the best option for a module split. I could also see it working for JTW; 1946 to mid-Cold-War for one, mid-Cold-War to present day for the second, once again with some reasonable overlap.

[sturmbock]

This "Java wall" is like a sword of Damocles, especially since I know it exists   

You can't have everything, that's life. Dammit!

Hmmm.. to add to the confusion. What about splitting to "WAW historical" (historical WW2 aircraft only) and to "WAW non-historical" (non-historical aircraft from 1930 - 1946/1948, plus a selection of historical aircraft)?  I reckon that too would do the trick.

But if that's enough, I think this is the best idea, in my opinion.

[cbradbury]

There is another argument - is no one ever satisfied? You are right - we can't have everything.

What we do have is a sim representing the four key eras of flight, including the two World Wars and many other lesser conflicts. Each era, and especially WAW contains a very representative range of aircraft of the specific period. There is plenty of room for 'what ifs' within those periods, including transport, recon, and adventure type missions. Can't we just be happy with that? Most of us have only ever flown a small percentage of the aircraft already available anyway.

Personally, if we need more aircraft slots in WAW, why not get rid of some of the endless variants of the Spitfire, 109s, and 190s? Do we really need all those? (heresy - I know).

[Andy H]

                                           This.