Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: funked on December 27, 2000, 12:57:00 AM

Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: funked on December 27, 2000, 12:57:00 AM
Val
Kate
Dauntless
Bf 109T
Ju 87C
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Toad on December 27, 2000, 01:18:00 AM
Don't forget the Russian carrier planes!!!!

We need WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more LW carrier planes TOO! WAAAAAAAAAAAY more!
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: brady on December 27, 2000, 01:19:00 AM
well.....no kate..please can we have a...

  (http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPIHYle4d0bFHEsbK5ApMfVGRrxTA7l*3zxsz0eB6R!cODIvCJNL!XV*0sZb)  

and instead of a vall a B7A2 would be nice  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)


     Brady

------------------
  (http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPsI127zdfQrpnUcxlA3JwdurswdyuKkL2b1oC9IifgHlGH10m2*!jtTQ!E7)

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 12-27-2000).]
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: SKurj on December 27, 2000, 01:27:00 AM
Be nice if we can open canopy on the dauntless too!!!

AKskurj
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: RAM on December 27, 2000, 02:38:00 AM
I really think that we need a dedicated divebomber, two for carriers and one for land based missions:

-Helldiver
-Judy (a val will be less than dead meat in MA)
-Ju-87D (good base to bring up a Ju87G  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))

Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: juzz on December 27, 2000, 02:42:00 AM
Oh fine give the US a 1944 Navy while everyone else gets their 1941 gear!  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

How about:

B6N2a "Jill" (B7A would be nice too, but only 114 made and didn't equip any carriers unfortunately)
D4Y1 "Judy" (maybe D4Y3 with radial engine?)

Stuff the LW, they never finished their carrier, ha ha!  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

And like - how about some more Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm gear?!

Firefly I
Corsair II
Swordfish II  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Vermillion on December 27, 2000, 07:57:00 AM
umm Juzz, look up the "Battle of the Phillipine Sea".  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

There were plenty of Jills in that battle on CV's.

109T? why? Also the same for things like Swordfish. Until we get a planeset that fits around them, they're all totally useless.

If we want the ultimate torpedo bomber we need the:

Aichi B7A-2  Ryusei (Shooting Star) Codenamed: 'Grace'

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 12-27-2000).]
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: juzz on December 27, 2000, 08:42:00 AM
I said "Grace" never saw a carrier deck!  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Vermillion on December 27, 2000, 09:06:00 AM
Ah, thought you said "Jill"  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Karnak on December 27, 2000, 10:10:00 AM
Grace was carrier capable though.

If our F4U-1C gets carrier status and most players seem cool with the Bf109T and Ju87C there can hardly be a fair argument that the B7A-2 should not be carrier capable.

It had the hook and associated equipment.  Model that and let the players do what they will with it.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Sisu
-Karnak
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: SKurj on December 27, 2000, 10:31:00 AM
Seahornet +)

AKskurj
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: juzz on December 27, 2000, 10:55:00 AM
There's no problem with putting "Grace" on the carrier.

Point is that the B6N2 should be first since there were about 10 times as many produced and it equipped many IJN carriers during WW2.

PS: The F4U-1C was actually operated from a carrier during WW2. B7A, Bf 109T and Ju 87C never were.
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Sundog on December 27, 2000, 11:40:00 AM
A Seahornet would be cool...however, since we don't even have a Mossie yet...!  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

I would definitely like to see the Jill added. A Helldiver as well.

I wouldn't add the Val, Kate, or Dauntless unless HTC was going to do an early/mid war plane set release which included the Ki-43,
P-40, LaGG-3 or MiG-3, Hurricane, Do-217, Betty, etc.

I know they have the perk point system, but regardless of how perked something is, I wont fly the MC.202 because the guns are damned bb shooters. We would need a complete early/midwar planeset that we could make the only planes flyable in the historical terrains in the SEA. Just my $.02 worth.

SD
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: funked on December 27, 2000, 11:52:00 AM
Oh yeah I forgot, Seafire Mk. XV.
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Torgo on December 27, 2000, 12:04:00 PM
All of the (limited to those 200 or so, of course) F4U-1Cs that saw combat in WWII were carrier-based off Okinawa, I believe.

Basically, without a Rolling Plane Set (which I assume we'll never see) I don't see any dedicated dive bombers as being relevant at all.

They all were irrelevant by 44/45 (which is essentially the AH planeset) because by that time fighters were faster, could carry as many bombs, and could dive bomb just as well.

Who cares about a Helldiver? You can divebomb with a Hog with the gear down and put 2x1000 lb. with ease. Which is one reason why by the end of the war you were seeing US CVs with nothing but fighters.

Divebombers are nothing but targets in this MA. Heck, the TBM is nothing but a target, too.  It's 1000x more efficient to sink an enemy fleet taking some big American Iron with 2x1000 lbs and divebombing than trying to torp a CV.
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: brady on December 27, 2000, 06:22:00 PM
  Aichi B7A2

  (http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcIAIwGRvmuoQJK!oVWw7FzlZPl!iWd9RTseSr1ddKMeRWuMRq9!ICHycL!tO)  

       Brady

------------------
  (http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPsI127zdfQrpnUcxlA3JwdurswdyuKkL2b1oC9IifgHlGH10m2*!jtTQ!E7)

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 12-27-2000).]
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: jihad on December 27, 2000, 10:52:00 PM
 
Quote
Originally posted by funked:
Val
Kate
Dauntless
Bf 109T
Ju 87C

 This list isn`t complete w/o the F4F or an even better choice would be the FM-2.

 Then add the KI-61 and we could run a New Guinea scenario in the SEA.  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: -lazs- on December 28, 2000, 08:39:00 AM
Yep... FM2 or -3 wildcat.  They both perform about the same.   No carrier sim is worthy of the name without em.
lazs
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: BUG_EAF322 on December 29, 2000, 02:27:00 PM
How big was the chance to find the Chog on a carrier in woII. (200 build) hmmmm weren't they send for landbased operations.

Could have been on service for only a trial period is my guess.
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Hans on December 29, 2000, 10:31:00 PM
You don't really need dive bombers.  The Corsair and Hellcat have enough bombs for that use.  I am sure this is why there are no dive bombers.

Untill we get an early war planeset the dive bombers are probably going to have to wait.

Hans.
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: juzz on December 29, 2000, 10:49:00 PM
Ju 87D is worth doing because it can carry a 4,000lb bombload.  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Title: Need More Carrier Planes
Post by: Torgo on December 30, 2000, 08:31:00 PM
Bug,

I more than anyone would like to see the CHOG made a perk plane, and feel its addition to the game was a mistake and blatant "look what we have that WB doesn't"-ism.

However, the CHOG WAS carrier based in combat..not land-based.

And while it wasn't in combat for very long, the 200 CHogs built were in intense combat around Okinawa for several months, with quite a few kills of Japanese AC.