Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kirin on January 05, 2001, 08:03:00 AM
-
I know that's all but historical but MA doesn't care about history anyway. If I see allied and axis planes winging each other and N1K2 taking of CVs behind CHogs I can see 109s taking off the carrier as well! If the FM let's one plane take off and land it on a carrier - HTC should LET IT as well.
Where's the point of not allowing it? If in RL a plane would be capable of carrier launch and there were carriers avaible they would use it - wouldn't they? There are no artificial restrictions for 30k pin-point bombing or extensive use of a the quite rare (RL) CHog, we have ammo counters and imperial measuring system everywhere... so why can't we launch our LW planes of the carrier? This option won't unbalance MA - on the contrary it will bring balance to it (hmm, somehow that sentence sounds familiar (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ). I am kinda sick seeing swarms of F4Us coming off the carriers and not being able to up in a LW plane from the carrier when sometimes there is no other option. It really hampers LW squads in applying effective strategies. We Luftwobbles have to take off from the rear bases and cannot launch surprise attacks from the fleet or defend a fleet being attacked. Aside this 1.05 is all about the navy and LW being let out of this - just look at the map...
Unless we have a historical arena with historical planeset and restrictions I see no point in not letting LW planes take off from CVs. And I guess there is a very slim chance we get the 109T or Ju87C...
Kirin, Ende
-
and VVS too (I'm badly missing my trusty Yak (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif))
-
N1K's aren't takin off the carrier..
But hey Lettem have a 109 off the carrier! Which model 109 in AH is closest to the model the 109T was based on?
AKskurj
-
109"T" was basically a modified 109"E" but it was heavier and did not perform as well as an "E" Closest we have is the 109"F". Wouldn't bother me at all.
-Westy
-
Oops - sry 'bout the N1K2 but that's the first plane that come to my mind when I think of the annoying things in AH... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Zeke I meant of course!!
Yup, 109F4 maybe the closest thing we have to the 109T. Enabling VVS planes on carriers doesn't bother me at all - don't deny the dedicated pilots their fun in 1.05. As long it can take off a CV by its own power without any artificial help - let it fly!!
-
I am with Kirin here. With so many reality concessions already in place one more won't do any harm. The 109f could simulate the t.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
Not a HTC programmer, but I would think it would be a matter of finding a color scheme for the 109T, add alittle weight to the 109F (Landing gear toughened up?) and release it next version. Seems relatively easy to do in concept.
-
I'd rather see the 109T introduced as opposed to enabling the 109F on a carrier.
I'd also like to see the F4u-1C disabled from carriers. But that is purely for the sake of gameplay.
AKDejaVu
-
I'd like to see a fully modeled Bf 109T. Performance was actually a little better than the standard Bf 109E. It would still be a dog in this arena - only the A6M5 would be slower. But it would give the Waffles something to fly off the CV, and it DID see combat in WW2.
-
We could always get HTC to model the Fiesler Storch for em. Think thats the only historical German carrier aircraft.
But as it was only used as a test for the feasability of taking off/landing an airplane on a ship, you'd hear the whines that it should be perked cause it didn't see wide use.
Weave
-
Originally posted by funked:
I'd like to see a fully modeled Bf 109T. Performance was actually a little better than the standard Bf 109E. It would still be a dog in this arena - only the A6M5 would be slower.
If it's properly modelled, the Seafire II should be the slowest fighter, max speed less than 340mph
-
Max speed of IIc that I have.. 333 mph at 5000 ft
A6M5 343mph at 19,700ft
Akskurj
-
NO!
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPsI127zdfQrpnUcxlA3JwdurswdyuKkL2b1oC9IifgHlGH10m2*!jtTQ!E7)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-05-2001).]
-
Theres nothing "historical" about the main arena-enable all fighters from the carriers. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I am with jihad here. When we have more chogs in the air at one time than ever saw combat, I think it's pissing against the wind to whine about wrong plane types taking off from an aircraftcarrier in a *main arena that has made huge cutouts of realism for the sake of playability already*.
I thought the carriers would mean more dhogs, since I heard the chogs only few off normal bases. Guess I was wrong on both accounts.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
gotta agree here...
im limited to base operations or blue ugly planes for cv ops..i take zero mostly though purely because i hate f4's,
TBM's though, ive become very fond of because of carrier strikes but id much prefer ju88 with torps or 190F with torp.
how about a condor with mines? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
hazed
-
I encounter more dhogs than chogs these days I think. Don't think i've flown a dozen chog ops this tour either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
AKskurj
-
I am with Rip here bring on the 109T. Don't like the idea that everything can take off cv's.
And maybe 1 for the VVS-folks?!.
Maik
-
With the Luftwaffe guys here, since I prefer Luftwaffe. It sucks to have to take off 50 miles away when the rest take off 5 miles away. I sometimes fly teh D hog from the carrier but try to avoid it.
Either add the 109 T or Enable all planes on the carrier, it's up to the pilot to make them take off anyway.
There were B25's on US carriers during the war, they took off from them but landed on a land based base.
------------------
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson
III/JG5 "EisMeer"
-
Originally posted by Wilbus:
There were B25's on US carriers during the war, they took off from them but landed on a land based base.
Wilbus, there was only one historical example of this, Dolittle's raid on Tokyo in 1942. The pilots underwent special training for short takeoffs over a period of months. Even then some of them barely made it off the deck. "One pilot hung on the edge of a stall until we nearly catalouged his effects"... anyone recognise the quote?
Aside from that, B-25's were far too heavy for carrier ops.
-
and none of those B-25 made what you could consider a "good landing" most very far from anything friendly, especially bases (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
wow, I figured there would be a few more well known names to show up hereprotesting the mere thought of enabling all AC from cv's. I can think of one in particular that is a very active LW lobbiest (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
ammo
-
Heheh ammo... thought I get some more back-up as well... maybe I have to stirr up some more attention amongst the LW. We thinking of the same name??? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Sure....eneable all planes on the carrier. I don't mind.
However, along with that get rid of the easy-mode brakes. You know, brakes that magically ease off when the plane is about to tip over its nose.
There is a reason you are landing so easy, and it isn't something from reality.
Hans.
-
I bet we are Kirin (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
This is a repost, but I want to nail both threads with my opinion on this.
Here goes again:
Wildcats, Devastators, Dauntless', Hellcats, Corsairs, TBFs, Helldivers, Judies, Vals, Kates, Jills, Zeros, Seafires, Sea Hurricanes, Skuas, Swordfish, Fulmars, Fireflies and Barracudas should all be enabled from carriers.
The Grace, Reppu, Bf109T and the Stuka might be alright to operate from carriers because they were all equipped to do it, even if they never did.
No other aircraft should be able to fly from carriers. Period.
------------------
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
-
Karnak I may repeat myself aswell:
If the FM lets you take off carrier, HTC should let you do it.
What do you mean by "equipped to do it"? If in RL they had to apply modifications to make a plane carrer operable why is it so easy to take of and land any 109 on the CV? For one point I go wiht Hans, brakes may have to do something with it.
My point:
At the moment we have non-historical arena where every country flies every plane of the set. Each country has fleets. So, if in RL the germans (or any other country) would have had an operable carrier and the planes to use on them (not talking of any fancy model - just a plane that launches and lands on a carrier safely) they would have applied it - right? HTC gives us fleets and planes that technically (from the game engines point of view) can land and take-off from a carrier but implies some artificial rules which lets them out from doing it.
I am pretty sure (?) that german JU88-A4s didnt sink american carriers in the war - here I saw and did it. Carrier battles were not fought in guns range - here it's daily business.
The fleet is an integral part of MA now - nothing to do with any historical aspect. The setting nor the planeset do not reflect any occurance in the war - the fleet is a vital part of strategy - with LWs left out. As I already said - what we can do is furball around the center island.
Either do a pac only arena with pac planes, where only CV enabled planes can launch from CV - or enable them all.
Actually was thinking of another idea as well - let us buy carrier launches for non-carrier planes with perk points!!! How about that??? As Pyro stated on several occasions the perk system is to balance out things - introduction of the fleet unbalanced the plane selection - letting LW fly off carrier would bring some of the balance back!!
[This message has been edited by Kirin (edited 01-09-2001).]
-
Even if you're not allowed to take off just any airplane from a carrier (I don't particularly care either way personally), how about having the carrier re-arm and re-fuel any plane that successfully lands on it?
SOB
-
Originally posted by SKurj:
Max speed of IIc that I have.. 333 mph at 5000 ft
A6M5 343mph at 19,700ft
Akskurj
333 at 5000 ft is what I thought was max speed for seafire IIc also . But the seafire II we have is just as fast as the spitV . I posted it in the bug forum, but some dispute that speed data .
-
SOB,
Doesn't it do that now? You have to be back on the wires, but if you land a non-CV bird and overshoot it, just let it roll back into the wires and it should get re-armed/fueled no problem. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
I think what is needed is not the ability for non CV planes to be able to launch from a CV but more maps and I assume that is otw. If a map like the present is only used every other tour then CV jocks would get their joy on that tour and on the next map the land based guys would get their way. Say we are playing on a map with more land. Limit the CV's to one per side. Limit the CV plane availability to bases close to shore. I don't know but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see a La 5 on a carrier deck. I know the historical factors are twisted on here but dang it just doesn't seem kosher.
-
I have no problem with a close substituion like the 109F for the 109T. But the MA arena map really is small enough for land based fighters to be able to get to the action easily. Whether the MA is historical based or not at least stick to some basic realities such as CV aircraft from CV's only. Adding a plane like the FW190-A5, JU88 or B-26 to the list of CV enabled aircraft is akin to adding air-starts and pirate Zeppelins. All we'd need is the large "O" in the HOLLYWOD sign to fly through in our quest to rescue the damsel in distress on the run-a-way train.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 01-09-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Lephturn:
SOB,
Doesn't it do that now? You have to be back on the wires, but if you land a non-CV bird and overshoot it, just let it roll back into the wires and it should get re-armed/fueled no problem. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
heh...was thinking of a sortie last night where it didn't, but I just reviewed the film, and I was well past the wires (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Thx for the info!
-
Originally posted by Westy:
I have no problem with a close substitution like the 109F for the 109T. But the MA arena map really is small enough for land based fighters to be able to get to the action easily. Whether the MA is historical based or not at least stick to some basic realities such as CV aircraft from CV's only. Adding a plane like the FW190-A5, JU88 or B-26 to the list of CV enabled aircraft is akin to adding air-starts and pirate Zeppelins. All we'd need is the large "O" in the HOLLYWOOD sign to fly through in our quest to rescue the damsel in distress on the run-a-way train.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 01-09-2001).]
Yes Wesy that's what I think. Just how far do we wan to go with this. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I think it's fine the way it is really. I like to fly the 38 a lot. I haven't felt handicapped by anything but the STAR WARS defense systems on the CV's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Fine but...I NEVER want to hear a "realism" or "availability" post from any luftwhiner ever again..
lazs