Next new plane

[Arlo]

If they were going to introduce the Yak-1, they would have done so with the recent Yak update. I don't understand why the Yak-1 would be desperately needed. The Yak-7 was a two seat derivative of the I-26, which was the prototype of the Yak-1. In terms of performance, the current Yak-7 is very similar to the Yak-1. It has a second MG, so is better armed (not much better). Easy to create, so there's not the labor of a new plane. Still, little different from the Yak-7....

TBD... Sure, it was significant in the first 6 months of the war. Just remember that the TBF was used at Midway too (and fared no better than the TBD). Aside from occasional scenarios, this will be the Queen Bee of Hanger Queens. Almost no bang for the programming buck..

I don't believe that we will see either any time soon, if ever.

Whatcha think about an IJN carrier and cruiser?

[999000]

1. PBY..with torps, dep charges when we get subs, earn big perks for picking up down pilots at sea.
2. Normandy gliders with troops supplies and jeeps,  howliters?
3. fleets with 2-3 CV's
4. Subs again
5. Large LVTS where a whole squad of tanks are landed at once.
6. Flame throwing anything!
7. Blimps!
8. Shawk Fatheads for everyones wall!

[Karnak]

Whatcha think about an IJN carrier and cruiser?

Problem with them is that they wouldn't have the proximity fuses that the US ships have.

Now, for scenarios it would be great to be able to turn off the proximity fuses on American ships as well as they didn't arrive until late in the war.

For MA purposes I'd suggest each nation getting two American CV task forces and two Japanese CV task forces.  The Japanese ones would be easier to sink, but with each side getting two of each it would be even.

If a British CV group were also added then 3 or 6 CV groups per side, even divided between the three types.  I don't know if the Brits ever got the proximity fuses, but their CVs could be modeled as tougher to compensate for being physically smaller, and therefor harder to operate off of, than the USN and IJN CVs.


999000,

You might enjoy the H8K2 'Emily' as well.

[Arlo]

Problem with them is that they wouldn't have the proximity fuses that the US ships have.

Now, for scenarios it would be great to be able to turn off the proximity fuses on American ships as well as they didn't arrive until late in the war.

For MA purposes I'd suggest each nation getting two American CV task forces and two Japanese CV task forces.  The Japanese ones would be easier to sink, but with each side getting two of each it would be even.

If a British CV group were also added then 3 or 6 CV groups per side, even divided between the three types.  I don't know if the Brits ever got the proximity fuses, but their CVs could be modeled as tougher to compensate for being physically smaller, and therefor harder to operate off of, than the USN and IJN CVs.


999000,

You might enjoy the H8K2 'Emily' as well.

Players (some) have been complaining for years about carrier flak. In that regard, perhaps it would alleviate (in part) another 'problem' ... not be one. Three types of carrier tasks forces sounds wonderful to me. Add battleships and have five or six types of task forces, overall (put the LSTs in the battleship TFs). It may draw in some of the surface fleet type of players. It would certainly enhance things for event players, as is. This is a wishlist conversation (in this thread and others). 

[Brooke]

If they were going to introduce the Yak-1, they would have done so with the recent Yak update. I don't understand why the Yak-1 would be desperately needed. The Yak-7 was a two seat derivative of the I-26, which was the prototype of the Yak-1. In terms of performance, the current Yak-7 is very similar to the Yak-1. It has a second MG, so is better armed (not much better). Easy to create, so there's not the labor of a new plane. Still, little different from the Yak-7....

TBD... Sure, it was significant in the first 6 months of the war. Just remember that the TBF was used at Midway too (and fared no better than the TBD). Aside from occasional scenarios, this will be the Queen Bee of Hanger Queens. Almost no bang for the programming buck..

I don't believe that we will see either any time soon, if ever.

They might lack the flight-test data to model the Yak-1, or it might be more difficult to obtain or to implement than just copying the Yak-7b with minor modifications.

I'm not sure if the Yak-7b is close to the Yak-1, but in scenarios, we like if possible to have the planes that were there.  80% of fighting in WWII in Europe was Germany vs. the Soviets, but we don't have some of the main Soviet fighters from 1941 to 1943, the Yak-1 being one of them.  It's why we wanted the He 111 for Battle of Britain, and why we want the TBD as well.  For two of the most-important naval battles of WWII -- Coral Sea and Midway -- the TBD was the US torpedo bomber.

Bang for the programming buck depends.  For people who don't care about any special events, yes, anything involving special events has no bang for the buck.  But special events are very important to a significant number of people, not just for scenarios, but for FSO's (which has a large draw), This Day in WWII, SEC's, Snapshots, etc.

My feeling is that HTC does over time want to fill out plane sets for special events, or we wouldn't have the G4M, He 111, P-39, P-40, B5N, D3A, Ju 87, B-25, etc., and maybe not the Bf 109E, Spit I, Hurri I, C.202, A6M2, etc. as well.  I'd bet that we do eventually get the Yak-1 and TBD. 

[Brooke]

By the way, Widewing, when are we going to be able to entice you to play in a scenario? 

[Wmaker]

And I agree. Western Europe really doesn't need any particular attention right now, and arguably neither does the Eastern Front. ....The Japanese plane set is still full of glaring holes that there's no substitute for. They have no mid/late-war carrier bombers (B6N/D4Y). No high-altitude fighters/interceptors (Ki-100, J2M). No heavy fighter (Ki-45).

Completely biased statement. You mention holes in the Japanese planeset and at the same time dismiss similar holes in the Eastern Front as "not needing attention".

For example there still isn't a representative Soviet bomber for special events. For example the need for J2M/Ki-100 is history/speacial event-wise completely non-existent compared to the need for a Pe-2.

[-ammo-]

Yeah, the lack of the SPAD in WWI is pretty glaring.

And I agree. Western Europe really doesn't need any particular attention right now, and arguably neither does the Eastern Front. You could make some arguments for the Italians, but one that's mediated by any scenario legitimately being able to fill gaps with German aircraft. The Japanese plane set is still full of glaring holes that there's no substitute for. They have no mid/late-war carrier bombers (B6N/D4Y). No high-altitude fighters/interceptors (Ki-100, J2M). No heavy fighter (Ki-45).

Yea, but have you sent a bribe to HTC like us ETO weenies did?  Good luck.  Your response is well thought out and relevant.

 

[Reaper90]

Crikey says HI!

 




 

[F77]

If a British CV group were also added then 3 or 6 CV groups per side, even divided between the three types.  I don't know if the Brits ever got the proximity fuses, but their CVs could be modeled as tougher to compensate for being physically smaller, and therefor harder to operate off of, than the USN and IJN CVs.

Give us an Illustrious Class! Armoured flight decks  None were lost during the war.  Illustrious herself launched the Taranto Raid on the Italian fleet in harbour using Swordfish.  This brought a massive reprisal attack from the Germans that, given her armour, she survived despite direct hits from multiple 1000lbs, and, unfortunately gave the Japanese the idea for Pearl Harbour.

[Greebo]

I think an escort carrier would make a more interesting MA addition. Just have the lighter fighters like Sea Hurricanes, A6Ms and F4Fs plus the naval bombers operating from it but no F6Fs or F4Us. Maybe give the fleet an AA cruiser or even a battleship to compensate.

[bozon]

I think an escort carrier would make a more interesting MA addition. Just have the lighter fighters like Sea Hurricanes, A6Ms and F4Fs plus the naval bombers operating from it but no F6Fs or F4Us. Maybe give the fleet an AA cruiser or even a battleship to compensate.

Could be an interesting addition. Did they also sail faster than the large CVs?

[Lusche]

Did they also sail faster than the large CVs?

Most classes of light/escort carriers were significantly slower than regular CV's with few exceptions like the Independence class, which was about as fast.

For MA use i think CVL/CVE carriers might not be too much of use. Less defensive capabilities and much smaller (smaller than our CA), thus even easier to sink

[Lusche]

Give us an Illustrious Class! Armoured flight decks   None were lost during the war.

None was hit by 42x1000lb bombs from a low level Lancaster formation... 

[F77]

Neither was anything else 

The Illustrious class was designed to be self reliant for defence, i.e. not dependent on it's fighter cover.  Hence the armour and an armament that would put the cruiser to shame!