Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Squire on December 12, 2003, 03:26:51 AM
-
"End at Rabaul, 1944" Version 1.1
Guadalcanal Map
Planseset:
USN/USMC/USAAF/ANZAC:
CVs: F4F, TBM, SBD.
Airfields: P-40E, birdcage F4U-1, SBD, BostonIII, A-20G.
IJAAF/IJN:
CVs: A6M2, Val, Kate.
Airfields: A6M5, A6M2, Ki-61, Val, Kate, Ki-67.
No perk points, standard arena settings. Formations enabled.
*The IJAAF get the Ki-67 to balance out the F4U-1, no B-26 in the setup for the USAAF.
I will be punting it untill its run, or something very darn close is run in its place. Its time we did a late 43/44 setup for PAC in the CT. If we can do BoF we can do this.
Regards.
-
Cool idea Squire.
-
Perk the F4U !!!!
sorry in light of the okinawa thread someone had to say it. :D
-
BTW, I would added F4U-1D for "F4U-1A" for the allied and the skin should be like Tommy Blackburn F4U-1A white one with jolly roger fly.
-
I'd run this one for sure when I become a CT staffer Warloc :)
Vote Bug!!:aok
-
When's the election? Do we need a recall first?
-
does any one remember that the P38 was in PTO???????????????
You could lose the A-20 and add the P38...would fit :aok
-
Actually a P-38 woud be nice in there too, but maybe a Phillipines setup for the P-38L.
-
It's next on my plate lads.
-
Outstanding:aok
-
Burma 1941 :D
-
Burma 1941
P-38 vs A6M2?... sweet:rofl
-
No P-38s untill late 42 and then it was Guadalcanal and New Guinea, but a 1944 setup could have them as a P-38J stand in I think. Both the F6F and P-38 can make appearances in setups. In my version above you could add a F6F certainly, as a replacement or addition to the F4U-1.
Burma 1942, Okinawa and 1942 Guadalcanal have been done at least 2-3 times each now.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Burma 1941
P-38 vs A6M2?... sweet:rofl
yea BABY!!!!!!!!!:aok :aok :aok :aok :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Punt.
1948 twice? is it that good?
-
Battle of Britain...
:aok
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
It's next on my plate lads.
Great. :D
-
Punt.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Punt.
????? Check the CT Devolpment forum Squire.
-
I have seen it, and I have no objections, but I want to see this one run soon. Maybe "PAC setup after the next one" then.
-
Which will be sometime in March.
-
Punted and punted till this setup happens.
You boys in the CT development group need to graduate from crayons to pencils.
Vote Bug:aok
-
Bug just check the thread in the CT Dev Forum about the next setup...Thanks again for your criticism as usual it helps in some way.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Punted and punted till this setup happens.
You boys in the CT development group need to graduate from crayons to pencils.
Vote Bug:aok
"Which will be sometime in March."
(http://jollyrogers.info/EORanibanner02.gif)
Maybe it can be whined up a notch or two and get here faster. :D
-
Maybe, just MAYBE if my project works out right there might be a new map to go with it...who knows but I wouldn't hold your breath on that part...I take a long time to get things like this done.
-
12-13-03
Originally posted by Mister Fork
It's next on my plate lads.
Must be a buffet.
-
Originally posted by tzr
does any one remember that the P38 was in PTO???????????????
You could lose the A-20 and add the P38...would fit :aok
Was the P-38 in thePacific used as a Jabo as much as this one would be?
just askin'
Sakai
PS
We do need some P-38s with OD skins.
Sakai
-
You could indeed have a setup with the P-38...but I would suggest "Phillipines 1944".
-
punt
-
punt
-
punt
-
punt
-
Need to convert better on 3rd downs
:)
-
-
-
(Stomping feet) "I want it and I want it now. I won't settle for anything less! I'm going to keep punting until I get it ... and get it NOW ... even if it takes FOREVER!" :D
-
-
( % )( * )
wardrobe malfunction!
-
LOL, hehe I get it Arlo. Boy you're quite the card.
-
:o Flag on the play.... Roughing the Kicker... 15 Yards... First Down... :rofl
Seriously Arlo... email me Email (colonelstream@comcast.net)
-
Maybe a fake field goal will work :confused:
-
Punt.
-
The IJAAF get the Ki-67 to balance out the F4U-1
Sorry but the F4U-1C will balance out the Ki-67.
-
Well the F4U-1C wasnt there, and there is no way it belong in a Solomons setup. As for the IJN bombers, you could go with either #1 Ju88 (Betties) or #2 Ki-67s. Either is fine with me. There are several variations of the setup that would work, including subbing the F6F for the F4U-1, or adding it.
...nearly forgot.
Punt.
-
ah yes, I forgot
-
Punt.
-
Less than one week to March! Maybe in between the two Fin-Rus setups that month we'll get to see this one.
After all the CT staff and their blow boys promised, buhaha.
Vote Bug:aok
-
I bet this thread can be punted a couple dozen more times before then. ;)
-
One Punt! Just to get things started.
-
Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff. Maybe if I actually never showed up in the arena I'd have a chance at being a staffer. Seems to be the number one qualification.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff. Maybe if I actually never showed up in the arena I'd have a chance at being a staffer. Seems to be the number one qualification.
Even I am getting tired of this, Bug. Remember Grandma's words of wisdom:
If you can't say something nice, STFU.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Was the P-38 in thePacific used as a Jabo as much as this one would be?
just askin'
Sakai
PS
We do need some P-38s with OD skins.
Sakai
P-38 was used in the ground attack role in all areas of the Pacific as much as it was used in the same role in the European and Meditteranian area of operations.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Squire
No P-38s untill late 42 and then it was Guadalcanal and New Guinea, but a 1944 setup could have them as a P-38J stand in I think. Both the F6F and P-38 can make appearances in setups. In my version above you could add a F6F certainly, as a replacement or addition to the F4U-1.
Burma 1942, Okinawa and 1942 Guadalcanal have been done at least 2-3 times each now.
By 1944, the P-38L was already well established in the PTO/CBI area of operations.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Squire
You could indeed have a setup with the P-38...but I would suggest "Phillipines 1944".
The Rabaul setup you propose would be perfect for the P-38. It was at the right time period for the P-38L in that area of operations. And the P-38 was very active over Rabaul in '44, either escorting buffs, flying fighter sweeps/interdiction or ground attack.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Even I am getting tired of this, Bug. Remember Grandma's words of wisdom:
If you can't say something nice, STFU.
- oldman
Don't really care what you're tired of. Take your own advice.
-
Im a big fan of the P-38L, I would like to see it done more especially in the PTO (Rabaul, Phillipines, Burma). We have not seen much of it in the last year, and thats too bad. As one of the most prolific US fighters in the PTO it deserves more screen time.
-
Not only was it one of the most prolific USAAF fighters in the PTO/CBI but the majority of USAAF PTO/CBI aces flew the P-38. It really is a shame that it's such a neglected plane in the CT setups but I attribute that more of personal bias either based on misconceived notions the setup designer has or just plane ignorance on the role it had in the war.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Not only was it one of the most prolific USAAF fighters in the PTO/CBI but the majority of USAAF PTO/CBI aces flew the P-38. It really is a shame that it's such a neglected plane in the CT setups but I attribute that more of personal bias either based on misconceived notions the setup designer has or just plane ignorance on the role it had in the war.
ack-ack
Isn't this due to our having a "late war" 38 that dominates the Japanese set we have?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
It really is a shame that it's such a neglected plane in the CT setups but I attribute that more of personal bias
Maybe. But maybe also it's because it's a very difficult plane to fly (as many of us are learning this week), so that it easily slips the mind because few ever fly it when it is available (hey, didn't we have the 38s in the recent Japanese Rocket Plane setup?).
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Isn't this due to our having a "late war" 38 that dominates the Japanese set we have?
Sakai
My kingdom for a P-38F!
-
Same as @ top but Japs get N1K and Yanks get P-38.:D
-
(hey, didn't we have the 38s in the recent Japanese Rocket Plane setup?).
Yep, I managed to take her up for a few sorties, but I spent more time in the F6F and the Tempest. Too many good choices.:D
Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff.
So what bugs crawled up your ass....Bug?
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff.
So what bugs crawled up your ass....Bug? [/B]
Damn and I thought I had made it so clear.
-
I think when we get the P38F or even the P38J we will see it a lot more in CT setups.
On the plane itself, I dont find it hard to fly at all, at least not any harder than anything else. Its huge rudder authority (thanks for the lesson Urchin), its great zoom ability, and proper use of the flaps and throttle make it very deadly. Once I realized that I was using the rudders incorrectly and fixed that, it all came together and I love the 38 now.
I love blasting along at high speed about 2-3k lower than a Niki heading towards me, zooming as they dive to me, reversing at the top with rudders and flaps and coming back down for the keel. Tis sweet indeed. :)
-
reversing at the top with rudders and flaps and coming back down for the keel. Tis sweet indeed.
I use the hell out of the flaps, but your gonna have to share this rudder secret with me.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
P-38 was used in the ground attack role in all areas of the Pacific as much as it was used in the same role in the European and Meditteranian area of operations.
ack-ack
Thanks Ack-Ack!
Now, what were loadouts for the most prevalent PTO types or was our model it? Don't we need like f,g,j variants????
Sakai
-
Its not really a secret, you are probably already doing it. I was using tons of rudder, but not at the very tops of loops and verticle manuvers. Urchin looked like he was going into a flat spin almost at the top of his moves, and it was like a light when off, and I understood what I was doing wrong, or at least not doing at the right time. All he was going was using rudder to get over the top, but not just straight over, he was adding some roll with the rudder and following my angle. Like I said, you were probably already doing that.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Damn and I thought I had made it so clear.
I am tweaking the setup and do plan to run it AS I HAVE ALL ALONG; but not because of some comments and punts on the CT Board. Simply because I made a comment/promise to Squire/Warloc to do so and even told him that it most likely wouldn't happen until my rotation in March.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"End at Rabaul, 1944" Version 1.1
Guadalcanal Map
Planseset:
USN/USMC/USAAF/ANZAC:
CVs: F4F, TBM, SBD.
Airfields: P-40E, birdcage F4U-1, SBD, BostonIII, A-20G.
One question about the above plane set. By 1943/44 at the time of the action around Rabaul the Carriers had already switched over to useing the F6F HELLCAT and the F4F Wildcat had restricted to Escort Carriers and second line jobs.
Why was the Hellcat not included?
-
Like I said, you were probably already doing that.
uh yeah, I was doing that too of course.......
now wheres my note pad?:D
-
Thats a good point Jester, let me explain the setup.
First off it was always considered "One" of a possible "Many" versions of Rabaul that could be done. Yes, you could have the F6F included and not have the F4F. You could also have the F6F and not have the F4U-1.
I tried to find a happy medium I thought would work, and post that as the version.
As for the F6F, it was only just coming into service in September 1943, and the F4Fs were still operating from most CVs in late 1943. So...it depends how you narrow down the timeline.
Many F6Fs that served in the Solomons were USMC and USN land based, as the USN F6Fs were being deployed on the new Essex Carriers, and were focusing on the Central Pacific. CV based F6Fs did see combat in the Solomons though, yes.
Playability and variety do play a part as well. I wont use the "B" word :)
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Punt yet again for these losers we call a CT staff. Maybe if I actually never showed up in the arena I'd have a chance at being a staffer. Seems to be the number one qualification.
Some of us actually have families and work for a living and can't spend all our time playing fighter pilot like we really want to every day. :p :aok
-
Thanks for the punt Reschke, at least your taking a little time to make yourself useful. :rolleyes: