Water we can land and take off from - and aircraft to match.

[druski85]

It would give us something to hunt the secret  S.A.P.P. submarines with....Uhoh did I say too much..
 

Fixed.  Anti-blender warfare at its finest.

[Raptor]

Having the ability to up an amphibious A6M would be a decent form of port defense (better than nothing once the only VH is taken down).
Emily would be used to attack CVs wondering too close to ports.

[Simba]

"Having the ability to up an amphibious A6M"

The Nakajima-built floatplane version of the A6M2 (codenamed 'Rufe') wasn't an amphibian, it had a single central main float with no wheels and could only operate from water.

Now the ol' Grumman Duck, Goose and Widgeon, they were amphibious, same as the Supermarine Walrus - but you wouldn't have wanted to take on a fighter in any of them.

 

[Martyn]

Emily wouldn't be fighter bait anymore than a B-17 or B-24 is fighter bait.

...and the Short Sunderland or the N1K1 wouldn't be a pushover either - but these planes were generally slower. Others, like the Catalina, AR-196, Walrus or the (Grumman) Duck could be really useful in real life - especially when flown far away from enemy fighters. Unfortunately one can fly relatively long distances in AH - which means that these planes become impractical in the game, unless we can find a way to make having these guys worthwhile.

[Templar]

+1 

[Eric122]

+1 and mabe the OS2U Kingfisher

[MadHatter]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280952.0.html

there's a post I did about the PBY, it got refined more over the course of the thread. Maybe something like this is what you're looking for?

[LLogann]

What he said, times 10!   

+1000000000000000

[Karnak]

...and the Short Sunderland or the N1K1 wouldn't be a pushover either - but these planes were generally slower. Others, like the Catalina, AR-196, Walrus or the (Grumman) Duck could be really useful in real life - especially when flown far away from enemy fighters. Unfortunately one can fly relatively long distances in AH - which means that these planes become impractical in the game, unless we can find a way to make having these guys worthwhile.

Sunderland and N1K1 would be, in my opinion, pushovers.

H8K2 Emily is better armed, better protected, faster and has a better climb rate than the Sunderland.  Its climb rate is, in fact, about twice that of the four engined aircraft we have in AH now, and its top speed is close to the same.

Sadly, it would be a monstrously large task for HTC to make it so I cannot think of it as anything other than an extreme longshot to ever be added.

[LLogann]

Karnak makes an incredibly valid point that I had not thought about previously........  The AH water is not ground, it has a completely different structure in game, allowing ships to move through it, but gv's to get "stuck."  They would actually have to create a new plane group in order for it to work.  It isn't quite like slapping on pontoons and we're all set.  The new plane set would have a different code to allow them to land on water and take off again.  HUGE TASK.

Sadly, it would be a monstrously large task for HTC to make it so I cannot think of it as anything other than an extreme longshot to ever be added.

[BaldEagl]

Found on the Internet re: PBY Catalina:

"During WW-II, they were rigged for bombing, strafing, and torpedo runs."

Why couldn't they do that?

BTW, I also like the idea of using the ports as seaplane bases although the Catalina could also be equipped with wheels making it versitile in this area.

[Karnak]

Karnak makes an incredibly valid point that I had not thought about previously........  The AH water is not ground, it has a completely different structure in game, allowing ships to move through it, but gv's to get "stuck."  They would actually have to create a new plane group in order for it to work.  It isn't quite like slapping on pontoons and we're all set.  The new plane set would have a different code to allow them to land on water and take off again.  HUGE TASK.

Heh.  Actually that isn't want I'd been saying.  I was referring to the work needed to add the H8K2 'Emily'.

As to the water landing, I don't think that would take much work.  The PT Boat already has some of the code needed and I don't think it would be excessively hard to modify it for flying boats.

[LLogann]

Nah, you just made me think about it differently.....   

But the PT doesn't need to fly.  A plane hitting the water will slide to a stop, with gear down, I believe the gear tears off.  They would have to code a way to have "wheels" (that look like pontoons) to be able to touch the water the same way they touch land. 

Although I'm no coder, it sounds like it would take some work. 

[morfiend]

Heh.  Actually that isn't want I'd been saying.  I was referring to the work needed to add the H8K2 'Emily'.

As to the water landing, I don't think that would take much work.  The PT Boat already has some of the code needed and I don't think it would be excessively hard to modify it for flying boats.

  Karnak,remember the flying PT boats???

   

[Karnak]

Nah, you just made me think about it differently.....   

But the PT doesn't need to fly.  A plane hitting the water will slide to a stop, with gear down, I believe the gear tears off.  They would have to code a way to have "wheels" (that look like pontoons) to be able to touch the water the same way they touch land. 

Although I'm no coder, it sounds like it would take some work. 

I don't see why there would be any issue with that.  It isn't like an H8K2, Sunderland or PBY lowers gear to land on the water.  In addition, aicraft in AH are quite capable of taking off again after belling landing if they are on a slick enough surface, or a slope that simulates it, and they keep their engines working.

  Karnak,remember the flying PT boats???

   

Yes, yes I do. I used the N1K2-J to combat them, one UFO against another.