Petition to make Mantas more like VTOL jets

[evilc1 10]

Reproduced from

http://www.carriercommand.com/feedback/view.php?id=409

Whilst I applaud the idea of hooks etc, I feel that the manta is just plain wrong.

The VTOL capabilities of the manta should be similar to contemporary VTOL jets - VTOL is only used when absolutely needed and chews through fuel at an alarming rate.

I am not sure if it already does, but flying with a hooked walrus should also cause extra drag and therefore more fuel use.

Thus a manta required to airlift a walrus would probably need an extra fuel tank (an item similar to an ammo box) in order to have enough fuel to be able to VTOL take off from the carrier, VTOL pick up the walrus, fly with the walrus hooked, VTOL drop the walrus, fly back to base and VTOL land at the carrier.

Maybe mantas should be allowed to take off with a walrus already hooked - such a mission could maybe be just about doable without extra fuel as you are doing one less VTOL maneuver.

This would also aid in control simplification. Most sticks will only have 4 axis analogue control, which does not leave enough axes for VTOL height control. For example when using an XBOX controller, you need to hold left trigger to make the left stick change from speed to alt, but it is not much use when you need it in a hurry.

Surely the solution is that VTOL is a separate mode - you normally fly like a jet (As in the original), then slow down - as you slow to below a speed threshold, an indicator lights up indicating VTOL mode is available. When you click a button, VTOL mode is engaged and controls change from jet style to helicopter style (speed control becomes alt, yaw remains same, pitch now controls forward/back motion, roll now controls left/right slip).

You pick up your load, gain a little forwards momentum in VTOL mode, and as you go back above the transition threshold, the VTOL light indicates that sufficient lift is available for normal flight - you hit the button and transition back to jet mode.

[R33GoNe 1]

they are fine as they are, you do take a fuel hit as when carrying a walrus it does cause drag which in turn take longer to move thus using more fuel.

[evilc1 10]

Air to Air combat just plain sucks - there's no dogfighting, just sitting in position strafing and taking pot-shots.

Air-to-ground is worse - the concept of having bombs on something which is essentially a helicopter is just plain silly - bombing runs should be all about timing the speed and lob of the bomb drop.

[Appogee 1]

They are fine as they are.

Mantas handle as VTOLs should.

Carrying a Walrus does use more fuel and slow you down. And hover-sniping is more interesting than yet another dogfighting/bombing sim.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Air-to-ground is worse - the concept of having bombs on something which is essentially a helicopter is just plain silly

The MI-24 packs a few bombs and mines :rolleyes:

Bomb-load

Bombs within weight range (presumably ZAB, FAB, RBK, ODAB etc.), Up to 500 kg.

MBD multiple ejector racks (presumably MBD-4 with 4xFAB-100)

KGMU2V submunition/mine dispenser pods

[evilc1 10]

Maybe if and when they sort the controls out, I may agree.

But in the current state, I cannot fly with a mouse - as you either have to put up with non-inverted y for flight, or inverted y for tanks (Plus the mouse acceleration makes me sick) and flying with a proper stick is not possible (Cannot remap). I love playing the game with an XBOX controller (I am a hardcore mouse and key purist, so that is a surprise!) but this BS where you have to hold the left trigger to make the left stick control alt is just driving me nuts.

[nww02 1]

Maybe if and when they sort the controls out, I may agree.

But in the current state, I cannot fly with a mouse....

Yeah, the Mantas take a bit of getting used to. Accurate shooting, and the very temperamental 'lock' makes air to air combat a pain. Inability to manually lock a missile as well is an irritant.

I understand your point, but the AAA in the game, just now, is far too accurate when you're moving fast. To enhance the usefulness of bombs and missiles, the AAA should become far less accurate when you're flying fast and/or high. There's some text somewhere in the game that says "if you don't put armour on your manta, then it'll move faster, great for recon!". So the devs are clearly assuming that speed will be effective at making the AAA miss you. Right now, if you took an unarmed manta over an enemy island to 'recon', all you'd get back would be some shots of the beach and a junk-shower ;-)

So wait a little while, and you may find that high-speed dogfighting may become a more valuable tactic, without losing the low-speed helicopter fun.

[kekar 1]

I remember in the classic CC you could put them on alert/ready on deck before launching them, and also you could launch them while the carrier was moving. I'm not sure why the latter is disabled, perhaps because it doesn't quite work yet. I hope launching them while moving the carrier will be implemented in the final release.

[scareya 1]

Zozo already confirmed that launching will be possible with the carrier moving:

Also, deploying Mantas will be possible even when the Carrier is moving at full speed.

For your reference you find that quote at CCGM Feedback Tracker Issue 0000086.

[Suranis 1]

The VTOL capabilities of the manta should be similar to contemporary VTOL jets - VTOL is only used when absolutely needed and chews through fuel at an alarming rate.

Not quite. VTOLs and Helicopters are used a lot on Amphibious Warfare Ships, which our dear Carrier here is a very good example of. It would not have the landing space for Jet aircraft. Tiawan's single 18 plane Carrier Uses VTOLS as well. The USA's new America-class amphibious assault ship will be using STOVL planes and helicopters and the WASP class uses Harrier VTOLS.

In fact, if you want to call on realism, the islands should be using jets against US as they have the space for landing strips, but that's a whole different ball game :D

But I think the VTOLS here work fine and are fun to use so far.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Suranis

[evilc1 10]

Yes but my point is that all these aircraft are only VTOL for landing and takeoff - fuel requirements for a hover preclude using it at other times.

In fact, the new F-35 (The STOVL 'B' variant) has 23% less fuel capacity than the conventional F-35A, further compounding the issue.

Also, as you pointed out, the F-35B is not even a VTOL, it is STOVL. The british Harrier is pretty much the only true VTOL jet in service, and it is not supersonic.

So here we are talking about a VTOL aircraft that is in VTOL mode 100% of the time, and can even VTOL itself and another vehicle.

Of course, this is all real world contemporary, whereas we are talking about a futuristic fantasy setting - but carrying these facts of life over to a game lend depth and credibility - there is "game" in these limitations. As it stands, planning a drop of a walrus holds little or no consequences in terms of fuel consumption - you could easily drop off a walrus then proceed on to a more conventional mission afterwards. The changes I am proposing would force you to plan around these issues more - a manta would probably need to refuel straight after dropping off a walrus, so you need to plan ahead accordingly.

[Suranis 1]

All or which can be explained away by the switch to electrical fuel. Without liquid fuel you can't use a jet aircraft, but there would be no need for extra weight for fuel tanks either nor would carrying a full load of fuel cost any extra weight as opposed to light loading.

Anyway, they could change the graphics to choppers no-one would complain much enough. They largely are helicopters anyway considering the lift is created from fans in the wings. They just aren't aircraft like you would think of them. And frankly they are fine the way they are imo.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Suranis

[Dajunka 10]

Mantas and walruses and the way they act are part of carrier command. If you start changing these things we could end up with M1 tanks, F?? jet fighters and have Carrier command renamed to "War in the gulf" :)

[max power 21]

Without liquid fuel you can't use a jet aircraft

Well, you can use elements or something to heat the air that's coming through the compressor, like they proposed to do with the nuclear powered bomber concept.

Yes but my point is that all these aircraft are only VTOL for landing and takeoff - fuel requirements for a hover preclude using it at other times.

In fact, the new F-35 (The STOVL 'B' variant) has 23% less fuel capacity than the conventional F-35A, further compounding the issue.

Also, as you pointed out, the F-35B is not even a VTOL, it is STOVL. The british Harrier is pretty much the only true VTOL jet in service, and it is not supersonic.

So here we are talking about a VTOL aircraft that is in VTOL mode 100% of the time, and can even VTOL itself and another vehicle.

Of course, this is all real world contemporary, whereas we are talking about a futuristic fantasy setting - but carrying these facts of life over to a game lend depth and credibility - there is "game" in these limitations. As it stands, planning a drop of a walrus holds little or no consequences in terms of fuel consumption - you could easily drop off a walrus then proceed on to a more conventional mission afterwards. The changes I am proposing would force you to plan around these issues more - a manta would probably need to refuel straight after dropping off a walrus, so you need to plan ahead accordingly.

(I'm not a BI employee)

I really don't see the value in applying hardcore simulator traits to the mantas. This is a game with an aircraft carrier that heals itself, amphibious trucks that can hack a command centre by staring at it, force fields, teleporting/materializing buildings, and yes, lasergun weilding drone aircraft with like 5 minutes of fuel. Maybe making them run out of fuel quicker when they're hauling walruses around makes sense, but I'm sure if it was decided that such a feature was valuable, it would be a gameplay/flow decision, not an aerodynamics based decision.

[kekar 1]

Zozo already confirmed that launching will be possible with the carrier moving:

Sounds good! I assumed it was just not finished/properly implemented :-)

[kremator 1065]

Fine as they are .... L2P !

[sorclord 1]

Having played for a while, I'd say mantas physics are mostly fine for me. Side effect of more heli style flyer is that it's damn slow (compared to jet), and battles are really not that exciting in current state.

I'd like an afterburner to recharge faster though so I can use f.x. zoom and boom more, or maybe some addon for manta that does it. It would shake it up a bit and make for some different tactics.

[Suranis 1]

I used a manta with no equipment for recon last night and yeah that thing is damn fast when you have nothing on it. You kinda have to be careful to skirt the coast and the range of any AA you find, but its a snap to AB out of its range and get back to the carrier for a repair job.