[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.

Exactly my point

Originally Posted by kapuhy

But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.

I definitely agree with you. Imo the ahistorical usage of fighters in game comes from two factors: misinterpretation of the max radius setting and lack of aircraft in game. See my thoughts below for more.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Edit: also, if this map (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)

Nice graph!

In order to simulate in game fairly realistic aircraft ranges, we must take into account three important factors:

• Aircraft MaxRadius setting. To the best of my understanding, this is likely to translate in game the combat radius in kilometers, i.e. «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 is a somehow aleatory variable though, because it might depend on the duration of the mission that must be accomplished, on the speed and altitude maintained during the mission itself, and on the weight of the armament carried (heavier ordnance implying lesser extra fuel reserves and increased fuels consumption). Interestingly, the aircraft range most commonly reported in warplanes' specs is either the combat range, i.e. «the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance» (that should be roughly two times the combat radius) or the maximal total range i.e. the «maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft»*. The combat range of WWII fighters is not always declared. Inferring it - and thus the combat radius - from maximum range is a matter of speculation, but I believe that a 0.4 to 0.5 ratio would be a decent approximation.
  

  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)
  

• Aircraft variant. Some long-lived WWII fighters, like the Hurricane, had many incarantions whose performances improved almost constantly. Having just one variant modelled in game which will spawn throughout the whole campaign, might lead to gross under/over estimations of aircraft range, speed and firepower.
  
  
• SH map projection. From my remarks above, we might get that MaxRadius = 1/2 Combat Range ≈ 1/4 to 1/5 Maximal Range. Unfortunately things are not that easy. In real world, one degree of latitude measures about 111 km. This is also the approximate length of one degree of longitude at the Equator but, due to the fact that meridians are converging, this distance decreases as we move from the Equator to the Poles where it is equal to 0. Coversely, in the SH world one degree of latitude/longitude will always measure exactly 120 km, no matter where we are on the map. This fact implies that, near the Equator, distances on the SH5 map are 108% bigger than real world ones, and the discrepancy gets much worser at higher latitudes where most of the campaign takes place.

All in all, I think that the best method for addressing the above shortcomings, would be having several proxy clones for each aircraft variant modelled in game, and setting their MaxRadius property according to the duties that, in real WWII warfare, those planes accomplished in each theater. In theory, we should have one aircraft clone with customized range (and armament) for each air group using it, but in practice several squadrons/air groups with similar deployment and missions would share the same aircraft "clone".

Talking more specifically about fighters, the plan I have in mind is as follows:

• Home defense interceptors / night fighters: only the fighter squadrons which are known to have been based near a port should be added to the game, and the radius of their aircraft should be just long enough to cover the air space above that port. No need to simulate inland squadrons, or squadrons whose base was located in areas of little interest for the game.
  
  
• Fighters and fighter-bombers defending coastal shipping: these are a bit trickier to be simulated; the circular range of action of airbase-spawned aircraft would involve that, rather than sticking to coastal areas, they would sweep in all the directions, also moving toward the open sea. Moreover, if the player is spotted within their range, there is a chance that they are called in for an ASW attack, decreasing the chance that better suited and more historically correct planes spawn instead. Maybe, if there are not too many of these "coastal patrol fighter squadrons", scripting them rather than adding them to airbases would be a better idea.
  
  
• Offensive long range fighters, either intruders or, later in the war, bomber escorts: my idea is definitely to script them where/when appropriate. In this category should also fall fighter squadrons that are known to have played a role in one-time historical events (like Dunkirk evacuation, D-day landings, etc.).

I hope I didn't forget anything. Probably yes, but we will discover it as I proceed with my analysis of RAF squadrons.