Author Topic: New Setup: Caught in a Rut: Stagnated Solomon Island Campaign (Read 1539 times)

brady · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2003, 07:53:05 AM »

I would very much like to see the early P-38, P-39, and early B-26, a devesator, and a Wiraway, but what I want more than all those is the A6M3, and a Ki 43IIb, right now we have in the plane set more allied planes that are close to being approparate and only 3 Japanes planes that are all of which are such early models that they are almost universialy 6 months to a year behind their allied counterparts that are modeled.

Eagler · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2003, 10:26:45 AM »

which way to Finland?????????????

and are we going there soon .... pls

two days of island hoppin is one day too many for me

hazed- · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2003, 10:47:32 AM »

take the f6f and ki-61 out. why add them if they werent there?

the p38 was there but it wasnt the J so dont add it even as a 'replacement'.

If you then find no one likes the setup then dont attempt to re enact the solomans. Am i really alone in thinking this?

I know we used to suffer a problem with japan having no dive bombers or torpedo bombers and therefore had to put something in, but now we DO have them.

the way i see it

f4f/F4u-1 is a fair match to zero
D3A is a fair match to SBD
B5N is a fair match for TBM.
P40E for the p39 is ok as it wont outperform anything japanese significantly

you dont NEED ki67, you dont NEED ki61 and you sure dont NEED F6F(which will dominate totally).

the point is if you feel the zero (a6m2) is too inferior then you had best fly allied. If not enough people fly as japanese then you have not got the interest to sustain a solomans map, simple as that really.

I think the lack of a variety of fighters of this era for the japanese is the cause of most problems not their performance.I tend to not like being IJN because it means very little choice in what you fly BUT since the new planes arrived I have enjoyed flying them immensely.What i dont like is flying a B5n only to come face to face with a F6F! its too discouraging to maintain a dcent enjoyment level.

ergRTC · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2003, 10:58:44 AM »

I am not going to even get involved in this one.

Slash27 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2003, 02:28:59 PM »

Gee why erg? Is it the lack of facts?

"Yeah, sure a good old jap rape... err rumble, by navy blue that has buffs (A-20?) what out dive, out run, and damn near out shoot what would be left of the IJN/IJAF..."

We dont have the A-20*

"Oh yeha Jarbo...?!?! Why is it the Allies can man their fleet guns and the Axis cannot? Whyn't YOU lock the fleets on predesignate patrols within striking distances of fields, but not right fediddleing next to them, eh?"

Axis can man fleet guns. Ask the guys shelling A5,V4, and A1 yeserday.

"(biting my tongue bfore I say something like, "amazinhunk designers should test their products on their family first!"
But I would never ever really say something like that because it wouldn't be P.C.)"

Should have bit your tounge awhile ago:D

* We do have the Boston. It aint blue and Axis have the Ki-67.

ergRTC · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2003, 02:49:07 PM »

No slash, I think I am on your side if you think they are whining a bit too much.

Personally I think the f6f is a fine plane for this setup. Now that f4u1 is what I thought you guys would be complaining about.

erg

jarbo · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2003, 03:28:33 PM »

Ill check the issue with fleet guns enabled on Carrier Task groups, its not supposed to be that way (i'll check setup).

As for the issue with the F6F, I dont think it imbalances the setup, so I am leaving it in.

Again, ALL of my setups focus on trying to create a BALANCED setup even if it means we don't have a truly by-the-book-historic matchup.

Jarbo
CT Staff

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2003, 03:30:48 PM »

This is a good setup, lets just stop arguing and go fly. You can have success in all of the planes - the side who wins any particular engagement I've been in for this setup was the side who fought together better and who supported each other more.

jarbo · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2003, 03:34:32 PM »

Odee, your information is incorrect.

I just checked the setup, and the "mannable" guns are disabled for BOTH sides on the Carrier Task Groups. The destroyer task groups have the guns enabled for BOTH sides. As for controlling the fleets, I have left that decision up to the players on line on how best to use the fleet assets.

Jarbo
CT Staff

Slash27 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2003, 04:40:33 PM »

"This is a good setup, lets just stop arguing and go fly. You can have success in all of the planes - the side who wins any particular engagement I've been in for this setup was the side who fought together better and who supported each other more."

Exactly.

Shane · « **Reply #25 on:** January 26, 2003, 06:06:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jarbo
Odee, your information is incorrect.

I just checked the setup, and the "mannable" guns are disabled for BOTH sides on the Carrier Task Groups. The destroyer task groups have the guns enabled for BOTH sides. As for controlling the fleets, I have left that decision up to the players on line on how best to use the fleet assets.

Jarbo
CT Staff

cr tg's have mannable guns, too... no biggie... as for leaving the fleets controllable, thx... it made for some really interesting tactics... i've seen both side waste fleet resources badly, while i used them quite effectively.

we sunk the jap fleets yesterday because they were exposed. then today we sunk the uns fleets and drove them back to spawn for the same reason.

it was a lesson in naval ops. i really like how you had unmannable cv's and mannable cr tg's... it made things a lot more realistic in terms of how to use tg's properly. only thing (dunno if possible) would be to leave the 5" mannable at the cv's fleets... but no biggie if not.

you expose those cv's too close, you'll lose them, i kept usn cv's about 30-40 miles off bases we were working on... never lost any.

i think the setup is just fine, and for the most part #'s fairly balanced. coordination wins the day.

now about them bands of clouds.... can u lessen the density next time this map rolls around? real framerate killer.

tzr · « **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2003, 07:39:05 PM »

WHAT happened to plane set????????????? YOU for got to put in spits and LAs....got eveything else 109,JU88 P47 ,P51 WHAT HAPPENED??????????????????

J_A_B · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2003, 08:12:44 PM »

Grunherz has the right idea; the planeset is fine for both sides.

IMO some people just want a "bang the japanese" setup.

J_A_B

brady · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2003, 08:56:28 PM »

Jarbo, has imo created a good plane match up for a time and place that were "planeset challanged" as far as creating good match up's is concerned. I flew both sides on saturday and had good fun and killed as much as i was killed in hellcats and in Zero's. I even sank a BB and a DD with a Kate, that was the best part, avoided two hellcats and got my torp off before they could come around and kill me, the funnest part in a kate is living to get it off, after that a wholy expect to die.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2003, 09:08:07 PM »

Here's the main thing that I care about, and the number one reason why I fly in the CT.

I want to fly a plane (almost any plane) against one of its historical oponents (or a reasonably close version).

I'm not crazy about fights that involve 5 or more different aircraft types on each side. I want to relive battles and fights that I've read about for most of my life. Those fights typically involved one, or sometimes two, fighter types per side, perhaps with one bomber type in the mix being escorted.

I don't mind fighting against superior numbers.
I don't mind fighting higher cons.
I don't mind fighting against somewhat superior aircraft.

However, fighting higher cons in somewhat superior aircraft and in superior numbers all evening long, gets old. The odds are, if I'm not having fun because of this issue, few others on my country are either (I almost always have fun). If most players on one side are not having much fun because of an imbalance, that country is going to have poor numbers. Poor numbers on one side gives the uber side few targets. Few targets for them is also no fun, and they also log off as well.

My point, a ballance is essential for a fun set up and to encourage good numbers. Its even more important than historical accuracy simply because historicaly, most battles were very lopsided and "unfair" in one way or another.

Who wants to play the guys who defended the Alamo?

I think this set up has a good ballance, and I'm having fun.

If players perceive that the Japanese have it pretty good in this set-up, then please switch to Knights. I really would like to fly the big blue planes too, but probably won't unless the Axis get, and holds, numbers over the Allies.

eskimo