Author Topic: Any late war PTO's in near future? (Read 2823 times)

kanttori · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:21:28 AM »

Okinawa terrain is coming in the June. Ma size is 512 x 512 miles and the scale is about 1:1.5. Here's the "Raw" Clipboard map from the area (Korea and China Coastlines are not edited):

HFMudd · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:53:10 AM »

Sweeeeeeeet!

ergRTC · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:05:46 AM »

Brady, in all due respect...

whatever.

When i started in the CT we had setups with f6fs and 109s and 190s. Sure they were wierd, but at least it was a fun match up. (tough one too).

If you think the 84 is so uber pop in the g6 or g10 as its replacement.

I havent seen a nik in ages. I dont see a problem with a a6m5, nik and ki vs f4u1 and f6f and fm2. I for one would be happy flying the zero in that scenario.

Fastest plane is not the only advantage.

tzr · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2003, 12:06:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ergRTC

Fastest plane is not the only advantage.

in Finn/Russ winter they were complaining that the FM2 turned to good...thats what I flew against La5 and Yaks...who was faster??????????????????????

ergRTC · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2003, 12:09:00 PM »

yeah tazer and those 4 50s vs the cannons....

Slash27 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:38:37 PM »

N1KJ-2 vs F4U-1 a bad match up? Have you fought against a George in F4U-1? Not really trying to insult you Brady, just seems like a good match to me. Why not give it a try? Just a thought:)

brady · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:57:26 PM »

We have, and I have.

And we will again, and I will again:)

Slash27 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2003, 07:24:59 PM »

Thanks

Karnak · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2003, 07:38:47 PM »

najdorf,

You're new to the game so you wouldn't know why that setup won't work. It wont work because the Allies will whine endlessly about how the N1K2-J shouldn't be there because there were only 400 built and they didn't see combat until 1945. After this whining goes on for a bit the CT guys will cave in and either remove the N1K2-J entirely, perk it, or limit it to the very rearmost fields. The Allies will then proceed to use their 5 to 1 numerical advantage to crush the Ki.61s and A6M5s.

tzr · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2003, 07:59:10 PM »

Karnak,
I hope they do get more IJN planes.

We in the VF-27 just like to fly FM2, F6 and F4U
I know that I'm kinda tired of the F4F. I would like to see a PTO of KI-61 ,N1K2-J and theA6M5 vs FM2,F6 and F4Us
I think this would be fun

brady · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:25:09 PM »

Karnak, is partly right, the allies will complain(or some will), and If I have any say they will get slaped. We have had several Ct set up's featuring numiours allied types fielded aganst Just those three Japanese rides, and in some the N1K2-J was limited but that was long ago, and like everything in life we learn as we go, I seriously doubt that that kinda of bad set up will be created again. We (the Staff) try and not pork the puppy but we do on ocashion.

tzr · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:29:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady
Karnak, is partly right, the allies will complain(or some will), and If I have any say they will get slaped.

and be stuck in the F4F for life:rolleyes:

Arlo · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:42:58 PM »

Brady will never support any version of the F4U in the CT until the Japanese have the ubers he'll[/b] feel more confident in. As far as "speaking for the Japanese player" goes .... (checks once again who started this thread and supports the late war PTO Niki and A6M5 vs. F4U and F6F matchup) ... eh heh heh heh.

Brady: The F4U was being abused.

Arlo: By that you mean being used, right?

Arlo · « **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:56:30 PM »

Would this whining be similar to the whining done to get the F4U nixed from it's one rearward base the last time "because those Allied players were 'abusing' (read 'using') the plane setup?" I mean ... not like the Axis players who would have never dreamed of doing the same thing with their rear-based superior aircraft.

Yes ... yes ... it should have just had 1942 planes - but funny how the "fixing" started by limiting the Allies after the Axis players whined to the pro-Axis moderator.

Ahem ....

Yep .... no F4U in the CT if it can be helped by some of the CT staff. Like that's supposed to stop late PTO players from advocating it.

Quote

Karnak condenscendingly adds
najdorf,

You're new to the game so you wouldn't know why that setup won't work. It wont work because the Allies will whine endlessly about how the N1K2-J shouldn't be there because there were only 400 built and they didn't see combat until 1945. After this whining goes on for a bit the CT guys will cave in and either remove the N1K2-J entirely, perk it, or limit it to the very rearmost fields. The Allies will then proceed to use their 5 to 1 numerical advantage to crush the Ki.61s and A6M5s.

_____________________________ ____
An advocate for a beefed up IJ planeset
_____________________________ ____

Karnak · « **Reply #29 on:** April 04, 2003, 12:41:05 AM »

Arlo,

Maybe you'd not noticed that the F4U-1 so dominated the A6M2 that it was something like 45-8 against it. Further there was no escaping from the presence of the F4U-1. True, F4U-1s entered service in 1942, but they were not present at every fight.

Further, when we had the N1K2s whined away from us they were pretty close to breaking even in K/D ratios. They weren't utterly and completely dominating the setup. True, the N1K2 is a 1945 fighter, but the better Ki.84 was an early 1944 fighter and we don't have it!!!!!!!!! The N1K2 must therefore be used as a sub-par stand in for the Ki.84.

Sorry if that damages your desire to recreate the Marianas Turkey Shoot.