Three planes, a tank and an arena

[Karnak]

Hajo posted this desire in the "He111 is HERE!!!!!!!!" thread so I thought it might be fun to have a wishlist conversation about it.

A free for all Axis vs Allies arena with two countries, one using all of the American, British and Russian equipment and another using all of the German, Italian, Japanese and Finnish equipment.  Yes, the Brewster is Finnish.  Other than that change this arena would be set exactly like the Late War Main Arena and balance, other than the additional units, would be left alone with the players expected to accept imbalances.

Additional units I think would be needed:

He177A-5 'Greif':  This would be the Axis' Lancaster equivalent. Decent speed, heavy bomb load and decent armament, but fragile and incapable of flying if it loses an engine.

H8K2 'Emily':  This would be the Axis' B-17G equivalent.  Tough (possibly even tougher than the B-17G), well armed, but with a lighter bomb load than the He177A-5)

B7A2 'Grace': This would give the Axis at least some useful striking power from CVs. Fast for a torpedo bomber, capable of dogfighting, but a lighter bomb load than the American CV aircraft.

M26 'Pershing': This would be the Allies' Panther/Tiger II equivalent.

For transports the Axis would get the SdKfz. 251, the LVT(2)A and the C-47.  The LVT(A)2 is pretty much required as a balance issue even though the Japanese did not have a tracked landing craft.  The Japanese did operate license built DC-3s as the L2D 'Tabby', which is functionally the same airplane as the C-47 thus making the C-47 completely appropriate for both sides.

[Karnak]

Not that I mentioned it, but I found it while looking at Japanese landing craft.

No. 103 class landing ship:


Per Wikipedia:
Capacity:
120 troops, 22 tons freight and
Example 1: 13 × Type 95 Ha-Go
Example 2: 9 × Type 97 Chi-Ha
Example 3: 7 × Type 2 Ka-Mi
Example 4: 5 × Type 3 Ka-Chi
Example 5: 220 tons freight
Example 6: approx. 280 troops
    
Armament:
No.104, 20 August 1944
• 1 × 76.2 mm (3.00 in) L/40 AA gun
• 16 × Type 96 25 mm AA guns
• 4 × 13 mm AA guns
• 12 × depth charges

Speed:
16.0 knots (18.4 mph; 29.6 km/h)

[alpini13]

  this is a nice wish...but completely out of the realm of possibility for a few reasons.   ONE the b7 aichi was made in very low numbers late in the war...about 115 total.....and it is FOR aircraft carriers...BUT it never served on an aircraft carrier...and so should not be available on our aircraft carrieriers if it ever comes in game.  TWO, the m-26 pershing was introduced very late war,i think only a handfull..something like 20-25 ever set foot in europe in ww2. the counterpart to the tiger 2 should be the js-2 russian tank.  THREE  the emily,while it looks good on paper,is a very large aircraft..how large?  about 30ft longer than a b-24 and about 15ft wider than a b-24, they were not intended to be flown in formation and bomb strategic targets, they were made in low numbers..about 115 and used for maritime patrol as they are flying boats. i would like to see this aircraft introduced...and other flying boats, but they should not be able to fly in a 3-plane formation like the b-17. they should fly as a single aircraft like the a-20.and so it is not comparable to the b-17 and falls short on performance to the a-20.  the he-177 would be a great addition to the plane set,and i am all for it being introduced.

[gyrene81]

  this is a nice wish...but completely out of the realm of possibility for a few reasons.   ONE the b7 aichi was made in very low numbers late in the war...about 115 total.....and it is FOR aircraft carriers...BUT it never served on an aircraft carrier...and so should not be available on our aircraft carrieriers if it ever comes in game.  TWO, the m-26 pershing was introduced very late war,i think only a handfull..something like 20-25 ever set foot in europe in ww2. the counterpart to the tiger 2 should be the js-2 russian tank.  THREE  the emily,while it looks good on paper,is a very large aircraft..how large?  about 30ft longer than a b-24 and about 15ft wider than a b-24, they were not intended to be flown in formation and bomb strategic targets, they were made in low numbers..about 115 and used for maritime patrol as they are flying boats. i would like to see this aircraft introduced...and other flying boats, but they should not be able to fly in a 3-plane formation like the b-17. they should fly as a single aircraft like the a-20.and so it is not comparable to the b-17 and falls short on performance to the a-20.  the he-177 would be a great addition to the plane set,and i am all for it being introduced.

the only thing i'm going say is...ta-152, me-163, tiger 2, f4u1c...invalidate your arguments.

[Karnak]

  this is a nice wish...but completely out of the realm of possibility for a few reasons.   ONE the b7 aichi was made in very low numbers late in the war...about 115 total.....

That doesn't disqualify it.

and it is FOR aircraft carriers...BUT it never served on an aircraft carrier...and so should not be available on our aircraft carrieriers if it ever comes in game.

An exception can be made for game balance purposes. 

TWO, the m-26 pershing was introduced very late war,i think only a handfull..something like 20-25 ever set foot in europe in ww2. the counterpart to the tiger 2 should be the js-2 russian tank.

JS-2's rate of fire and ammo load make it an unsuitable counter. The limited numbers issue was made moot by the Ta152.

 

THREE  the emily,while it looks good on paper,is a very large aircraft..how large?  about 30ft longer than a b-24 and about 15ft wider than a b-24, they were not intended to be flown in formation and bomb strategic targets, they were made in low numbers..about 115 and used for maritime patrol as they are flying boats. i would like to see this aircraft introduced...and other flying boats, but they should not be able to fly in a 3-plane formation like the b-17. they should fly as a single aircraft like the a-20.and so it is not comparable to the b-17 and falls short on performance to the a-20.  the he-177 would be a great addition to the plane set,and i am all for it being introduced.

Emily was used as a formation bomber at times.  I grant that was rare, but it did happen.  The size is irrelevant to being flown in formation.  That it is a flying boat is irrelevant to it being used as a bomber as it was, technically, a maritime patrol bomber.

[alpini13]

lol, this is funny. the limited number issue is relevent. other wise we would have the he-162,meteor,ar234C(four engined version)do-335,p-63,ki-100,bf-109T(aircraft carrier variant)re-2005,pantherII,t-44,kv-2,ki-84 w/ 4x20mm,and the list goes on. on several occasion hitech themselves have said that since an aircraft or vehicle was not made in enough number or see a substantial amount of combat.....then it wouldnt be added....i my self cited your very same argument in defence...showing the limited numbers and sometimes limited combat of some ingame rides...like the ta-152,p-47m,f4yc and-4 and the wirblwind. hitech seems to think otherwise.   the  js-2 was used in quantity in combat.has heavy armour and a giant gun...which is why it has a low rate of fire...but now our vehicles rates of fire are based on the vehicle..and reality  .not on it being a game. the pershing barely made it to europe ,barely saw combat. only about 20-25 being used. it really should be in game.however if it is...i want to see a BRUMBAR,or whatever the tiger1 chasis with the big 380mm rocket projectile firing gun  in game,they were used in combat more than the m-26 pershing,and made more of an impact in real life.   and your argumnet about the emily is really working agaist you.... you say that it was a rare occurance for them to flown in formation to bomb...but it did happen...ok...then the same goes for the sm-82, it flew in combat,resonable numbers were made.it flew formation for bombing and should then be added.your argument there is..there are other planes better than the sm-82 for the job....and the same goes here,there are better axis bombers for the job, he-177,do217,he-219,piaggio 108. the japenese already have two bombers. if we go the flying boat route, there are many for many countries that should be added to balance the sides....and finally the japenese torpedo carrier plane that did not serve on a carrier.   im all for it,if the bf-109t is added,heck if we are changing history we should go all the way,lets just let all aircraft and vehicles up from a carrier......NO.  if it didnt actually serve on a carrier.....it shouldn't in game. there are many carrier based aircraft we dont have in game...if you want more,we should add one of them.

[tmetal]

I like the suggestion but unforntunately I see it ending up like the WW1 arena. Awhile back I made almost this exact suggestion to the AvA guys to run it for a week when they asked some of us for ideas, but it ended up going nowhere due to lack of interest.

I even found some artwork off the net and added a title to it back then


Anyway, here's hoping we see a setup like this eventually; either AvA, FSO, scenario or arena. 

[Arlo]

I like the suggestion but unforntunately I see it ending up like the WW1 arena. Awhile back I made almost this exact suggestion to the AvA guys to run it for a week when they asked some of us for ideas, but it ended up going nowhere due to lack of interest.

I even found some artwork off the net and added a title to it back then


Anyway, here's hoping we see a setup like this eventually; either AvA, FSO, scenario or arena. 

I like this, I'm stealing what you stole. 

[tmetal]

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooo!!!!!!!     
I worked very hard-ish on adding that text to somebody's original artwork for an ENTIRE 10 minutes and you just come along and take it from me     

Anyway; here is the original if that is more useful to you:


gonna make a shirt out of it or something?

[gyrene81]

if i could afford it, i would...that would look pretty cool on a gray shirt.

[Arlo]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!     
I worked very hard-ish on adding that text to somebody's original artwork for an ENTIRE 10 minutes and you just come along and take it from me     

Anyway; here is the original if that is more useful to you:


gonna make a shirt out of it or something?

Oh no.

[Saxman]

I see it ending up like the WW1 arena.

WWI has particular issues which contribute to its current state:

1) Lack of play variety. All it is is a furball arena. No ground targets, no bombers (or even ordinance options for the fighters) to attack them with, no ground war, etc.
2) Lack of aircraft. The very limited plane set is going to severely impact player interest. No reason to not have the SPAD and/or Nieuport.
3) The Dr.I. Seriously. Every time I've flown in WWI, it's been 90% Dr.Is simply because the Dr.I so completely outmatches the other two unperked fighters. The Camel can sort of out-dive it (mainly because the Dr.I will break up a few MPH sooner than the Camel), but loses out in most every other performance category. The Brisfit is faster and has a tail gun, but the Dr.I otherwise outguns it, out maneuvers it, out-climbs it. And because manufacturer defects aren't modeled, the main drawbacks of the Dr.I (that it was prone to shedding wings if you looked at it funny) aren't present. The Dr.I BADLY needs to be perked, and another German fighter (*cough*Albatros D.V*cough*) added that will be more balanced with the Camel and F.2B.

[Blinder]

Instead of the M26 Pershing let's go with the JS-II. Everything else sounds good to me but then what do I know. 

[Arlo]

Instead of the M26 Pershing let's go with the JS-II. Everything else sounds good to me but then what do I know. 

(Image removed from quote.)

I'm noticing a trend. 

[Tank-Ace]

Id much rather have an IS-2 for such an arena. Much less of a threat than the Pershing.