Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Reschke on September 24, 2003, 10:39:58 PM
-
If you are interested some of us are getting together and forming a CT group called PACDEVGRU. Thats short for Pacific Development Group (Combat Theater) and no we all don't live on the west coast of the US either. ;)
The overall goal of this group is the advancement of CT setups and possible scenarios coming out of it. Right now we are in the infancy of this group and have some ideas being bounced around about where we would like to start.
To me the idea of the PACDEVGRU not only encompasses IJ vs. USN/USMC air units but also USAAF/FAA/RAAF/RNZAF forces and not only just the islands of the Pacific. One thing I would like to do as part of this is to incorporate the whole Pacific Rim sort of area. Where it might one day bring an early 1940 setup with AVG vs. IJAAF aircraft and a possible late 1945/early 1946 'what if" IJNAF vs. USAAF/USN/USMC along the western United States coastline.
If you are interested in becoming a part of this and would like to advance the CT within and start working on new Pacific setups please contact either myself of Sakai (board name).
-
I also would like to see more PTO set-up's in the CT.
Be glad to help out all I can. I have a pretty good library on the subject (especially Navy & Marine air) and can help out doing research as well with the set-up's in the CT.
Just let me know what I can do to help.
Guys for getting this organized and working to do something to better the CT for all rather than just sit around and whineing about it.
-
See if skuzzy might set you up a forum as well.
GL all.
-
I can ask Skuzzy for the forum if you like.
-
I would be happy to join such a group. Please count me in.
-
sounds dangerous count me in
How about this for a what if
Lets say that the Japanese have invaded and captured the Hawaiian Is. post 12-7-41 they have 4 cv groups the USN has 2 cv groups. make a map of the s calif area include Los Angels,and San Diego areas.The Japanese fleets can spawn 3 sectors away from calif coast the USN 2 sectors away from the Hawaiian Is.Have several very close air/gv fields in the LA and SD areas and a few further out.
The plane set for US would be P40b and f4f4 wildcats and TBM,LVT,M16,M3 no mannable ack but lots of AI ack
The plane set for the Japanese A6M2,D3Y,B5N,LVT,M16,M3,also no mannable ack but alot of AI ack
Ship guns would be mannable
The only problem would be that the cities of LA and SD would have to very large(lots of bldgs and strat targets)could be a hit on some ppls comps.
anyway this is a rough draft maybe you guys can add to it.
I think it would cool to be furballing over hollywood .
-
OK Here is who we have so far.
1Duke1
scJazz
Jester
Sakai
Arlo
Reschke
keyapaha
Brady (possibly)
Batz (possibly)
Najdorf (possibly)
The first thought that has been put forward to me by Sakai was an AVG vs. IJAAF setup. Its almost doable now but we need a map and locations for the various bases. Also wouldn't hurt to have a few early war IJAAF aircraft like the A5M and Ki-27.
-
I would say a D3A and a KI27 are close resemblence but upon further review there not as close as I thought,but closer to the a5m
D3A top speed 242
Ki27 top speed 292
A5m top speed 273
D3A arm 2x7.7 ff 1x7.7 rf
KI27 arm 2x7.7 ff
A5m arm 2x7.7 ff
D3A range 1119 mi
Ki27 range 388 mi
A5m range 768 mi
both the a5m and D3a have fixed landing gear not sure about the Ki27.
Yes the Ki27,43,44,45,84,100,and 102 would be great additions
along with many others on bot sides
-
Lol, Reschke... would that make you CINCPACDEVGRU? :) You must be miltary, huh?
I'd be interested in being part of this group. I will be the CM Terrain Team leader when AH2 comes out, I may be of some help setting something like this up.
-
Wow with Dux onboard you will have a heck of a team. Especially with his indepth knowledge of the TE.
I will certainly help where I can. Do you have an outline of what it is you want to do?
S!
-
I'll be happy to joined whatever you guys need help about PTO and any aircraft in PTO. Email me at aaust35van@aol.com
!
Ensign Rafe35
-
Here is what we have on the table so far:
Proposed CT setup by Keyapaha for an West Coast US attack by IJN forces in what appears to be the late 1941 time frame.
Proposed CT setup for AVG vs IJAAF in China during 1940-1941 time frame.
Personally I like both ideas and think they would do well. Both need a fair amount of research done and will also need maps.
Lastly here is the list of people that have said they would help out and be a part of the PACDEVGRU. No Dux not military at all I just thought the accronym summed up the intentions that Sakai and I started off with nicely. Sometimes it gets old flying over the same Guadalcanal and Okinawa area and it might be nice to have a different setup than something that was historically based...ie Keyapaha's thought above.
1Duke1
scJazz
Jester
Sakai
Arlo
Reschke
keyapaha
Brady (possibly)
Batz
Najdorf
Dux
Rafe35
-
I got some more ideas but the plane sets are not right yet
1) Alutian Is Campgine 42-43with wicked surface/aloft winds low clouds and lots of snow but we have no B24 early p38 float planes for both sides.
2) Invasion of Hawaii 41-42 this we could probally do if we had a map
3) Fight for the Zone USN vs IJN at the Pamama Canal Zone need a map this could be used for any time period just put in 4 land bases that are nutral once taken u get land base planes for the time period u set up.
the two main problems are lack of plane set and lack of maps at least we can do somthing about the later one.
-
count me in.
-
Keyapaha!!
Yes the KI-27 was fixed landing as well. You could also sub the A6M2 for a Ki-43 if there was just a way to get rid of the cannons on an A6M.
The only way I can think off would be the IJ guys would have to fire off the cannon rounds prior to take off. However like everything else on the honor system theres always a joker who won't go along.
-
Key I like your ideas. Except no mannable ack guns on the west coast. Didnt you see "1941" ? sheesh:D
-
lol slash thats where I got the idea from,I wonder if you can set up the HOLLYWOOD sign on a hillside,I guess the allies could have mannabe ack but it will blow up you own bldgs whan fired.:)
-
Wasn't NUTTZ working on a Pearl map awhile back?
-
Yes I am in, had a long day:)
-
HOLLYWOOD
Horrywoooooood!!!!:rofl
Im in Reschke. <>
-
Heres New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and Bourganville (sp?) Its 256 x 256 and a good size for the ct. I have a 512 x 512 as well. It needs to be cleaned up a bit to get the land masses to better match rl but its good enough for the moment. Running through the center of New Guinea is a mountain range. I should adjusted the sun so you could see the shadows but oh well.
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/map.jpg)
I dont have time to research all the field placements but heres a map with some info. If someone can research air field/base locations and mark them on the map above it would be helpful.
Also to get the field laid out historically we need some one to research pictures of the airfileds and bases. This way we can create custom fields.
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/guinea.jpg)
We will need good jungle/pac tiles as well. I just dont have the time to really get into it so if anyone has good tiles or if some one can make some it would be great.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
HOLLYWOOD
Horrywoooooood!!!!:rofl
Im in Reschke. <>
Bwahahahahahaha
Sakai
-
how do you get the actual map to show up on the TE,or do you just look at a map and copy it in to the grid,it looks as if you can copy a map to the grid field.
My conclusion is that the TE looks to be difficult at best to do at least for me,but ill poke around in the TE forum and see what I can find out.
to the map makers
-
there's no hocus-pocus involved... It's simple once you've done it once or twice. :)
Batz, I've experimented with some jungle tiles, but haven't made a complete set. I'll post a pic later to see what you guys think of it.
By the way, I have access to an extensive DTED library, so we can make some very accurate maps.
-
Wasn't NUTTZ working on a Pearl map awhile back?
Yes he was. Something I requested. He was just about done then had to leave for some reason or another.
-
I'm almost hesitant to say .... no .... no ... I'm not ... so I'll just say it.
First thing's first. Are we, in reality, a camp divided or united in this venture? After all, there are two distinct beliefs in this party. One that believes that the F4U unbalances any setup with the IJ aircraft set as is (even with the N1K2J available without restriction) and one that doesn't believe that the F4U unbalances anything whatsoever in a setup that has all of the IJ aircraft in it(with the possible exception of the F4U-4).
Are we to address this before we get too deeply into this or not? I mean, this is a project that was suggested to get an acceptable enviroment for the F4U to be regularly featured without the restrictions placed on it currently. If the two "sub-groups" within the whole group approach things from distinctly different mindsets, I can't see us avoiding disputes later that would threaten the entire project.
We're talking about trying to create a terrain (or terrains), skins for substituting in order to fill in the IJ aircraft set gaps, etc. But there really is a reasonable limit we need to agree on to help make this idea a practical reality that appeals to all players. Is the LA-7 or Spit IX actually the best choices for subbing the Ki-84 (fast, maneuverable plane - post war testing showed the Ki84 to be faster at 20K than either the P51 or the P47 according to some sources)? Would Allied players be just as put off about facing hordes of "Japanese Lalas and Spitties" as IJ players are apparently put off about facing F4Us? Are we going to simulate the Ki-84 problems with production and maintenance with perkies or other methods? If that's the case, what will we do to "balance" the Allies?
Unfortunately, I still believe that some within this group believe and promote some mistaken ideals and platforms. I'm sure they feel the same about me and my fellow F4U proponents who dispute their claims.
Maybe we can first come up with a reasonable way to put our differing beliefs to the test? A way to convince one group or the other (or even reach some middle ground) that their belief about what is truly balanced and what is not holds merit?
Najdorf and I discussed the other night about running some group-wide tests dealing with speed, acceleration, handling, tactics, etc. with all the various models of Pacific planes that we plan to use (even potential subs). F4U proponents can fly opposition birds, those convinced the F4U unbalances things can fly it. The groups can switch back and forth. And once we've reached what we all comfortably agree is common ground in what is and isn't balanced ... then we can actually design something that we all can support whole-heartedly. Then if players wish to challenge it, we can provide exacting and specific data that applies to these planes WITHIN the AH enviroment.
Just sayin'. I don't want anyone (self included) to invest alot of thier valuable time in a project only to throw up their hands somewhere along the line in frustration and quit.
-
If you want my 2-cents worth...?
I don't think it's any one plane set or another that unbalances things, it's the majority's desire to fly Allied all the time that does the worst bit of unbalancing. Any plane 1v1 is going to be a relatively balanced fight, each plane using its strengths. But 3 F4Us against even an N1K is a hopeless match.
Now there is a handful of hardcore Axis pilots, a handful (incl. myself) that will look at the numbers and go to the weaker side (always the Axis), but the rest seem to pick Allied no matter what.
That, IMO, is the biggest factor in CT unbalance.
okay, maybe that's 3-cents.
-
Thats it Dux,
There just arent many axis guys who will just fly to end up as "cannon fodder". Its just not that fun.
But regardless, Arlo is most likely referring to Brady and myself.
The best thing to do is develop a few terrains and develop various plane match ups. Take for example the New Guinea. What I would do first is list all the aircraft involved in the different "battles" around the area. Then go through and see how many of those we have, then look at what planes we have available as substitutes.
This will form an OOB. Then you start a "gameplay" discussion. Outline what it is you want to achieve or represent. Not every one will agree, thats a given. But Reschke can be a "team leader" and have the final descision. Then build the map based on that.
Then after the map, the write up and the skins are done he presents it to a CT CM or Scenario CM (what ever the case maybe). He may have to work with the CM to get everything how he wants it (Take kanttori's example with his work on the Finrus maps). Once thats done it gets run.
Brady certainly didnt say he run any 'ole thing, or that he would run it all. He said he would help develop certain set ups along with the rest of us. Just dont expect him just to run exactly what ever we come up with. That wont happen.
Jester
Fork
Eddiek
Brady
are full time CT CMs
Sabre
Jarbo
are retired/part time.
Brady isnt the only guy and the buck doesnt stop with him. He has said that when he does his set ups he uses his judgement. Other CMs have their own approach.
Right now its best to come up with what it is this group wants to do 1st. Then layout it out.
We can do an island hoping thing where we take a single map and add wake is, midway and various other island and go that way. We can do a new Phillipine map or New Guinea or Fantasy Alutian/Alaska, West cast US, Panama Canal or Formos/Mainland China etc......
-
Lets hope this is the last post in this thread about the Corsair. I truly did not want this discussion to devolve into a "Anti/Pro Corsair" argument as others have in the recent past. So please guys keep this thread on track and lets get together on setups and not just one plane.
From my point of view this group we are putting together is only about furthering the expansion of Pacific region player friendly setups within the CT. It not only includes making the Corsair part of future CT setups but I also believe that we have an opportunity to present to HTC grounds for adding more aircraft than just US, Brit and German. I really wouldn't care if the CT setup was for the Banana Wars in Central America where we had P-51's flying against F4U's.
Do I love to fly the Corsair? YES! If I wouldn't have liked it so much I seriously doubt I would have started VF-17 within Ace's High and recruited guys who like flying the Hwag as much if not more than me.
Now do I think it unbalances the CT setups? I'll have to take a middle of the road stance. On one hand I think that has a chance to unbalance the arena due to players in general. While on the other hand I think it is the players who are the detriment to putting it in because many guys who are just now coming into the flight sim scene only want to fly for the "winning side" historically that is.
The Corsair was a great aircraft in real life. Can it be an unbalancing force within an arena? Probably if left unchecked by limitations of some sort. Can it be added without making it a detrimental aircraft? Absolutely; the CM's can limit it to certain bases and carriers but it shouldn't matter if a group of guys want to fly the thing 75+ miles on a map just to get to the fight. They want to fly their bird just as much as anyone else. If perking the bird at front line areas to make it available but still limit it is needed then so be it.
Now lets move on and get this thing going down the right road so we don't spend all our time arguing a point that right now in this thread is moot.
-
1Duke1
scJazz
Jester
Sakai
Arlo
Reschke
keyapaha
Brady
Batz
Najdorf
Dux
Rafe35
Slash27
Erg
If you guys want me to head up the group I will do so. I can ask Skuzzy for forum space here or someone else may have already brought this to his attention and gotten the ball rolling for us. Either way we need a place to start talking over future setups and ideas other than this thread and email. Maybe we can get Skuzzy to move this thread to that forum once it gets started as well.
If I missed someone please let me know. I am at work and have a few email addresses at home from guys who emailed me through my profile. I will be sending out an email from work with to the ones I have here. Then tonight I will add all the others at home on that list.
Thanks guys for responding to the call. [Crisp ! and tilt of the old bottle of scotch]
-
I think it would be better.
Brady and I have have "known" you for sometime and a few of your squaddies will be involved and I am sure they trust ya.
If anything you wont hear the cries of "bias" like you would if a Japcentric player were to assume the lead.
-
*sigh*
My post wasn't intended to start a fight or to put others on the defensive (though it seems that it unfortunately did). My post was a sincere suggestion that the members of this group test (or re-test in some instances) the actual abilities and limitations of all the aircraft we intend to include in our planesets (which could very well mean every damned plane in the HTC inventory) ... so we can all be in agreement when it comes the designs. Granted, some setups may change in what planes are offered where due to one particular CT staffers opinions ... but I would hope not.
THAT is the reason for my suggestion. Let's get together and test theories ... or let others experience for themselves, firsthand, what others claim they KNOW to be true. That way when it comes to Brady's or Eddie's or Jester's or anyone's turn to run the setup, there's more of a chance of everyone running it the same way and less of a chance of players challenging changes that could be perceived as biased in nature.
An even better reason is to help newer members to get up to speed in learning the strengths and limitations of the AH planeset.
And as a side issue .... it could be fun.
Sure I mentioned the differences some of us feel about the F4U (oh damn .... he said the "F" word ... grrrrr .... woof .... hissssss ..... meow .... hisssss) - but that is just the most obvious (maybe the only evident) example of opinions of AH aircraft capabilities and balance that the group isn't in agreement over that I could think of. If there's others we should explore them as well - hence running tests on all sorts of model matchups. Don't trust the statistical information in the books or on the websites. Test them yourselves. Let's see what they do in AH!
So there ... if you wanna get all offended by this idea or get defensive ... that's your call. But don't do so on my account since I'm just working. ;)
-
I wasnt aware I was being "defensive".
I was explaining how it "is". Theres no need to bring up the F4u thing until theres a clear set up or idea expressed. So far I havent read anything that would even have the f4u included.
Alutians, Panama, Hollywood etc....... How do you see f4us there?
If you think theres an "opportunity" to change the minds of the so called "anti-f4us" guys (which is only Brady and I) that aint gonna happen. We are as constant as the tide....:p
If whatever comes out of this group isnt something a particular cm wont run then just move on to another. Because 1 wont run it that doesnt mean all the work gone into it is wasted as there are a number of other CMs.
I dont think the "f4u" issue needs to be discussed at all. Its old ground. Thats not gonna prevent me from helping in research, maps, skins etc... Those are seperate issues all together.
If you wanna test accellerations and speed etc of each plane go for it, but its been done. Look for whels speed tests and Forks accelleration tests. Lethality has been covered several times and Jazz is currently doing it again.
What I think is fun is having a few folks researching and sharing stuff. I not much on pac stuff but I like learning new things.
The players will always challenge the set ups. Everyone always thinks they know more then the guy who set it up.
I didnt offer to help so I can keep the "f4us out from the inside". I suggested this type of approach because I thought it would be fun.
I am having fun already...... ;)
-
I think first off we nead a seperate forum to discuss this on, and I think Reschkey should ask Skuzzy if he can set it up for us and then have reschkey as the moderator of the forum, I have no problem with Reschkey heading the groupe, since I veiw my cpaacity on it as an advisor, provider of refrence data, and leasion between the Groupe and the CT Staff, who ultimately will run any set up created by this groupe.
It should be noted right hear and now that any set up put forth will be aprovied by the entire CT Staff before it is run, it will be reviewed just like any setup we ourselfs run. Even Kanttories FinRuss set up's were not run compleatly as he put forth, some miniour changes were made by the staff, but his set up was so good it dident nead much tweaking.
The Biggest Pluss hear is the learing experance that will be provided for one and all who partake in this endevor, and I think Reschkee should be comended for atempting to creat a process with the players whear it is posable for them as a grope to creat a map, a plane set and have some fun doing it.
-
Originally posted by Batz
So far I havent read anything that would even have the f4u included.
The really funny part is I think you're actually being serious. :D
-
Originally posted by Batz
I wasnt aware I was being "defensive".
If you wanna test accellerations and speed etc of each plane go for it, but its been done. Look for whels speed tests and Forks accelleration tests. Lethality has been covered several times and Jazz is currently doing it again.
If it has already been done where is it?!?!? Searched high and low and have found nothing on the subject except some vague references. Please I'd love not to reinvent the wheel if possible. Where is the stuff?
-
Whels and forks stuff is in the A&V forum search their nics. The lethality stuff was done by guys who no longer play ah.
AH is 3 years + aint nothing that you are doing that aint been done. :p
Arlo I re-read the thread and the various setup suggestions and havent seen where in those an f4u would be included. If I missed something quote it for me.
That doesnt mean no f4us ever. The trick is as Reschke described, find a place for it as part of a setup. If you have a suggestion then why havent you posted it? Theres no sense in re-hashing why brady doesnt bend over for you. That just aint gonna happen.
The island hoping thing may be it but no one has put up anything solid.
-
I have emailed Skuzzy about the forum and should know something soon. scJazz can you get me your email address...just drop me an email through my profile. Thanks!
Guys lets move off the F4U issue. It will come up again soon enough when ideas for setups start happening more.
-
Fork's Deck Exceleration Chart:
Accleration Rates: Test Results
Test Environment
Altitude: 150 ft
Winds: 0
Fuel Burn Rate: 0.01
Fuel: 25%
Vo: 150Mph
Vf: 250Mph
WEP: On
Description
All aircraft were loaded with 25% fuel and with minimal MG loads if available. Aircraft were auto-levelled at 150 feet and speed reduced to 125mph, except the Me 262* and Me 163*. 100% throttle was applied and WEP engaged (if available). At 150mph the timer was engaged to 250Mph. This was repeated five times for every aircraft. The average time was recorded to accelerate through 100 mph.
* Vo was 200, Vf was 300 due to stall conditions.
Forumla
Acceleration
a = (Vf - Vo) / t m/s^2
where
Vf - final velocity
Vo - initial velocity
t - time in seconds
Vf = 250mph = 111.8 m/s
Vo= 150mph = 67.1 m/s
a = (111.8m/s - 67.1m/s) / t
a = 44.7m/s / time
Results (in order of acceration)
Aircraft | Seconds | Acceleration
Me 163 | 7.7 | 5.8
Tempest V | 16.7 | 2.7
La-7 | 16.9 | 2.6
Spit XIV | 16.9 | 2.6
Bf 109G-10 | 17.1 | 2.6
La-5FN | 17.6 | 2.5
Me 262 | 19.5 | 2.3
Fw 190D-9 | 20.2 | 2.2
Bf 109G-2 | 20.5 | 2.2
F4U-4 | 20.8 | 2.1
Typhoon | 21.5 | 2.1
Bf 109G-6 | 21.8 | 2.1
P-38L | 22.0 | 2.0
Bf 109F-4 | 22.1 | 2.0
C205 | 22.2 | 2.0
Fw 190A-8 | 22.8 | 2.0
Fw 190A-5 | 23.0 | 1.9
P-51D | 23.3 | 1.9
NIK2-J | 23.4 | 1.9
Spit IX | 23.6 | 1.9
F4U-1D | 23.8 | 1.9
F4U-1C | 24.0 | 1.9
Ta-152H | 24.0 | 1.9
Yak-9U | 24.0 | 1.9
P-47D-30 | 24.5 | 1.8
F6F-5 | 24.6 | 1.8
Bf 110G-2 | 24.9 | 1.8
C202 | 24.9 | 1.8
Fw 190F-8 | 25.1 | 1.8
Spit V | 26.0 | 1.7
Mosq VI | 26.1 | 1.7
Yak-9T | 26.2 | 1.7
F4U-1 | 26.5 | 1.7
P-47D-11 | 26.9 | 1.7
Seafire IIC | 27.0 | 1.7
P-47D-25 | 27.1 | 1.6
A6M5b | 27.9 | 1.6
P-51B | 28.0 | 1.6
Hurr IIC | 29.1 | 1.5
FM2 | 29.9 | 1.5
Bf 110C-4b | 30.0 | 1.5
Ki-61-I-KAIc | 30.4 | 1.5
Bf 109E-4 | 33.2 | 1.3
Spit IA | 33.5 | 1.3
Hurr IID | 34.9 | 1.3
P-40E | 36.0 | 1.2
Hurr Mk 1 | 37.0 | 1.2
A6M2 | 40.3 | 1.1
F4F-4 | 40.9 | 1.1
-
Updated OTD Speads from Whel's
Re: CORRECTED Updated OTD speeds for fighters with 1.10s
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by whels
MIL:
TEMPEST 372
LA-7 358
F4U-4 358
TYPHOON 355
YAK9-U 355
P-51D 354
F4U-1 350
P-51B 347
190D-9 346
F4U-1D 343
F4U-1C 342
109G-10 337
LA-5 336
P-38L 333
P-47D-11 333
SPIT-14 332
TA-152 332
P-47D-25 329
P-47D-30 329
190A-8 327
YAK9-T 327
190F-8 326
190A-5 326
MOSQ 325
C205 321
109G-2 320
F6F-5 320
109G-6 317
N1K2 313
109F-4 310
SPIT IX 310
C202 307
KI-61 305
110-G2 305
SEAFIRE 293
SPIT V 293
110-4b 290
FM2 290
A6M5 288
F4F 278
P40B 275
A6M2 275
P40E 276
HURR IIC 262
HURR IID 253
HURR I 253
WEP:
TEMPEST 386
LA-7 380
F4U-4 378
190D-9 375
TYPHOON 370
P-51D 367
109G-10 366
TA-152 361
SPIT-14 358
F4U-1 358
P-51B 358
F4U-1D 357
F4U-1C 356
LA-5 356
YAK9-U 355
190A-8 349
190F-8 349
P-38L 344
P-47D-11 344
P-47D-25 340
P-47D-30 340
109G-2 340
190A-5 339
MOSQ 338
YAK9-T 336
109G-6 336
109F-4 332
C205 331
F6F-5 330
N1K2 324
SPIT IX 319
110-G2 316
C202 315
KI-61 313
SEAFIRE 302
SPIT V 302
110-4B 300
FM2 297
P40E 297
109E-4 292
SPIT I 291
A6M5 288
F4F 275 no wep
A6M2 275 NO WEP
P40B 275
HURR IIC 273
HURR IID 265
HURR I 261
-
Check this out:
http://www.jannousiainen.net/online_sims/jg_4/index.htm
-
Very nice Java applet charts there on that page.
-
Ya, I use that chart alot.
-
The charts and the java applets are nice. I don't think they reveal what you really want them to ... but nice. Thanks. Some of us may elect to go ahead and test things under different variables. It never hurts to try different things to gain a broader perspective.
-
I can't assure my constant attention, but I'd like to give suggestions and feedback too.
-
Cool Karnak. We don't need constant attention just people with a willingness to help further the CT and specifically Pacific area setups. So just drop me an email through my profile and I will get you on our email list and once we get a forum you will be part of the access group there also.
-
I would like to help. Anything that makes the game more playable for more people is a worthwhile effort.
shubie
-
rgr that Shubie. I thought I had your email address here after all the Okinawa stuff but I can't find it. Drop me another through my profile sir and I will get you on the list.
-
Anybody working on anything?
-
Was wondering the same. I havent heard from anyone in awhile.
-
Originally posted by Dux
Anybody working on anything?
Just me.....working on Squadron history, I just finish more USMC history in WW2 and still working on USN and Army Air Corps group. It will take me forever to finish them lol.
-
Heya,
I've got some time this weekend (on watch 0630-1830, today and tomorrow) and can do some googling (research) if there is any that need's to be done. Already bored stiff and I have 9 more hours to go (probably just jinxed myself!)
Slash,
you gonna be on later tonight?
-
I got a great book put out by the USMC in the 50's that has all the history of every Marine Corps Squadron in WW2. Fighter, Bomber, Scout, etc.
If you are looking for something specific let me know and I will try and help.
-
you gonna be on later tonight? More than likely.
-
Yep still putting some info together. I really would like to try and run something in the China area...BUT we don't have all the aircraft.
Another I would like to find out more about is the Lae area in New Guinea and see what we can do about a map for that area as well. I tried but apparently I don't have the map making gift like some people. Trust me you don't want to see my poop colored region of the South Pacific.
However hunting season has seriously interferred with my researching and free time on the weekends....:D :aok
-
Dont forget with AH2 Comming all new map work will be basicaly a waste of time since everything is different in AH2.
-
Do you think we will be able just to upgrade current maps easily?
-
Rumor has it that there will be a conversion utility... it will convert the landscape and all the standard object groups, but anything custom (like most of Kanttori's maps) will have to be redone from scratch.
I wouldn't say your time will be completely wasted, but there will be some backtracking.
-
Found at http://www.redtailcanyon.com/default.aspx
(http://www.redtailcanyon.com/map.aspx?BBOX=127.901406828973,-21.3239448782706,166.098593171027,7.32394487827058&SRS=EPSG:4326)
-
Key also brought up an idea about a Japanese invasion of Hawaii or even an attack on the West Coast in early 1942. I would be up to seeing something like that happen as well and would do all I could to help get it moving towards a real CT setup.
-
While Fantsy set up's are cool they typicaly are not well receaved, it's not like we dont have plenty of real set ups we could do on real war map's or a lack of areas that could be maped particulary in the Pacific.
-
Actually it is like we don't have very many real world setups. The battles of Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal can only be revised and rerun so much. Mention the Battle of the Solomons and IJ players chant "Turkey Shoot" (which is what it was). Pearl Harbor and Doolittle's Raid never were practical given the impossibility of actually achieving complete surprise on the enemy. And by the time the invasion of Japan rolls around, the Japanese were really on the ropes when it comes to putting up any sort of significant air forces (though we usually fudge that to balance things). A dynamic campaign where each setup can affect the next at least changes things up some. But then .... that's CAP.
-
Battle of the Marianas was the "Turkey Shoot", the Solomons involved some pretty tough fighting. The Solomons has some of the best PTO setups, due to the AH planeset limitations, imo.
-
Are we going to have a private forum for the group on the BBS? I havent received an email in awhile and am curious how much is going on.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Battle of the Marianas was the "Turkey Shoot", the Solomons involved some pretty tough fighting. The Solomons has some of the best PTO setups, due to the AH planeset limitations, imo.
Oops ... my bad ... had VF-17 and Bunker Hill on the mind alot lately.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Are we going to have a private forum for the group on the BBS? I havent received an email in awhile and am curious how much is going on.
Yeah I didnt get any email for a while and still waiting for private forum for whatever is.
-
Haven't heard back form Skuzzy on that at all yet. I will email him again and see. If not we will make one available on the VF-17 site somehow.
Also for Arlo and Thebug
the Battle of the Phillipine Sea is what is known as "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot". This is also what is known as the first battle of the Phillipine Sea; when the invasion of Saipan begins in June 1944. The second battle happens when the US lands troops on Luzon in Oct 1944.
-
The simple fact of the matter is this. There were very little in the way of air battles after mid 1944. Sure there were a bunch of small time engagements that both sides over-claimed what they killed but nothing on the scale of what the Allies faced in the air over Germany. The primary time for PAC setups in the CT would be early in the war with whatever we can get in the way of new aircraft.
-
If you do not hear from Him I will call or E mail him and ask , let me know I am shure sonmthing can be done.
-
Did you hear anything Brady?
-
Well?
-
I havent heard from Skuzzy on this mater, Reschky was doing the asking if he wants me to see about I will...
-
Go with it Brady. See if you can get Skuzzy on it for me. I think my message got lost in the wild world of the intardnet. :D
-
OK I will try him Tomarow.
I will ask he set you up as moderator for it.
-
And we are where on this?
-
It's up and running has been for some time.
-
A whole 10 days I see. Too hard to post it was up and running too I guess.
-
Slash you were added the first day I knew it was up; so you should have seen it in the open forums listing. Sorry for not jumping through hoops for everyone since I only have internet access from the office now. :p
-
I'm not sure what I can add anything to the group that isn't allready covered in spades with exsisting roster you have here. But if there's anything I can do to help out count me in.
-
No prob Soulyss. We got you added onto the list.
-
Slash you were added the first day I knew it was up; so you should have seen it in the open forums listing.
yeah, I wasnt looking:D