Author Topic: Pyro: Request for Brewster Buffalo (Read 385 times)

oboe · « **on:** September 21, 2004, 07:23:20 AM »

Pyro,

Please consider the Brewster Buffalo when developing planes using the newer, faster AH2 approach. The Finnish contingent has been asking for one for some time, as well as a few other Brewster lovers. But mainly because its needed for the Rangoon '42 scenario. The SBD is planned as a sub, but I think the SBD may be too durable, has external view enabled, has only 1/2 the forward guns, and has a rearseat gunner.

Not faulting DoK for choosing it at all, but it would be great if AH2's fast build features could be used to crank out a Buffalo before the scenario starts in late October.

Thank you for considering it!

Panzzer · « **Reply #1 on:** September 21, 2004, 09:02:16 AM »

I'll second that request.

Dux · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2004, 10:19:01 AM »

The two most substituted planes in all of the scenarios and CT setups are the Buffalo and the Betty... in fact, those two make up about 90% of the total substitutions ever. It would be wonderful if those two could be officially included.

I'll third that request.

[edit: btw, Oboe... not sure why you think they can "crank stuff out" now... maybe they found a standardized system, but there is still an awful lot of work that goes into a model. It's much more than just polygons and textures. ]

LLv34_Camouflage · « **Reply #3 on:** September 21, 2004, 12:44:25 PM »

Yes please!

Camo

oboe · « **Reply #4 on:** September 21, 2004, 01:54:59 PM »

Dux:

IIRC Pyro stated quite awhile ago that there were some changes with AH2 in the way aircraft would be produced that would make it easier/faster to get new a/c into the game. He wasn't specific with any details however. Its been a long development cycle, but Pyro's recent post said "...We expect further plane production and overhauls of current planes to go much quicker."

I'm sure there's alot of work involved in producing planes; I was just lead to believe there is a new way of doing it that will allow for much faster production of a/c. Hope I haven't misinterpreted anything!

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2004, 02:03:40 PM »

Yes on the Brewster B-239, no on the Betty.

Only add the Betty at the same time, or after, an appropriate Allied bomber is added. The only reason there is more whining about the Ki-67 than the Boston Mk III is because three times as many players fly American than fly Japanese. The Boston Mk III is just as invulderable to A6M2s as the Ki-67 is to P-40Bs. The Japanese already labor with much older aircraft than the Allies. Why exacerbate the problem?

Dux · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2004, 03:09:07 PM »

Oboe: Cool, I missed that part from Pyro... I hope it is much easier for them to make new planes. Good news, thanks

Karnak: I see your point, but you're thinking in terms of MA... I'm looking at it from the scenario side, whether they are competitive or not. If we don't need a Betty, then why are we substituting it so often? It goes without saying that other planes are needed, too.

Karnak · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2004, 03:19:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dux
Karnak: I see your point, but you're thinking in terms of MA... I'm looking at it from the scenario side, whether they are competitive or not. If we don't need a Betty, then why are we substituting it so often? It goes without saying that other planes are needed, too.

No, I am thinking in terms of the CT. In terms of the MA no Japanese bomber, other than perhaps the H8K2, matters at all. Certainly the Boston Mk III is a non-entity as far as the MA is concerned.

The fact is that there were not hordes of Boston Mk IIIs flying around the CBI or Pacific theaters at 340mph in 1942 like it is in AH CT setups (and I'd imagine Scenarios).

LLv34_Camouflage · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2004, 04:48:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The fact is that there were not hordes of Boston Mk IIIs flying around the CBI or Pacific theaters at 340mph in 1942 like it is in AH CT setups (and I'd imagine Scenarios).

This is a matter of fuel consumption. If the fuel multiplier is too low, the players can run with their throttles wide open, without having to worry about running out of fuel. If the fuel multiplier is set a bit high, the players will have to conserve fuel, resulting in more realistic cruise speeds.

The problem is that this mostly affects fighters. Bombers have big fuel tanks and usually can fly at full throttle. It would be great if we could have separate fuel multipliers for fighters & bombers.

Camo

1K3 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 22, 2004, 09:54:29 PM »

Re: Pyro: Request for Brewster Buffalo

You mean one for the U.S. Navy and one for the Finnish?

P.S. if we only get the Finnish version and use it againt the japs in setups, its "cheating"!

Stone · « **Reply #10 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:22:20 AM »

Yes please

debuman · « **Reply #11 on:** September 23, 2004, 08:20:50 AM »

It could also be used for a "First Days of WWII" type scenario.
Could YOU have been the one to change history if you were one of the pilots in Malaysia (or wherever the British had them...)? How would YOU have stood up to the new Japanese Zero?
Okay - I'm done daydreaming...