Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: alpini13 on August 31, 2013, 12:00:06 PM
-
AN AXIS TRANSPORT/BOMBER WOULD BE NICE NOW before anymore fighters. JU-52 or SM-82(kangaroo) both historicaly used in large numbers by the germans,the italians,and other axis countries in ww2, simply have them armed as a bomber and unarmed as a troop or supply transport.
-
We have one.
L2D 'Tabby'.
:p
As to the actual content, Ju52, sure, but keep it armed. Makes a choice, fast and unarmed or slow and armed.
No to the SM.82 as it simply removes the C-47 from play.
-
AN AXIS TRANSPORT/BOMBER WOULD BE NICE NOW before anymore fighters. JU-52 or SM-82(kangaroo) both historicaly used in large numbers by the germans,the italians,and other axis countries in ww2, simply have them armed as a bomber and unarmed as a troop or supply transport.
:airplane: It would certainly give you something else to fly!
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/lufthansaju52_zpsaf4856f1.jpg) A restored Lufthansa Airlines JU-52 somewhere at an airshow!
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/291895ju52_zpsc6189b09.jpg)
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/ju52instrumentpanel_zps3c39a24a.jpg) Ah, for the good ole days! Simple and sweet! Wonder what all the water faucet handles are for in lower right side of panel?
-
Ju52 is a much needed plane for scenarios only.... However it would see NO use in the main arenas. Not when the C-47 is available.
Ju52 TOP speed is about 145-150 mph. That's TOP speed. Average cruising was about 100. Landing/stall speed was probably around down to 60 mph.
Compare to the 230mph of the C-47 and nobody would take Ju52. Heck, you'd get there faster in M3s than you would in Junkers'!
-
Ju52 is a much needed plane for scenarios only....
Good enough for me. :D
-
There is almost always a better/faster/cooler aircraft but some of us, as part of our gameplay make choices. One of the choices JG11 makes is we only fly Luftwaffe aircraft, so you would see us in it in the MA. Just as an example sirs <S>.
(Note:sometimes JG11 will be assaigned other than Luftwaffe aircraft for FSO's and you will see us run a few sorties in the FSO aircraft in the MA prior to the event.)
-
There is almost always a better/faster/cooler aircraft but some of us, as part of our gameplay make choices. One of the choices JG11 makes is we only fly Luftwaffe aircraft, so you would see us in it in the MA. Just as an example sirs <S>.
(Note:sometimes JG11 will be assaigned other than Luftwaffe aircraft for FSO's and you will see us run a few sorties in the FSO aircraft in the MA prior to the event.)
Same reason we take the blue-skinned C-47 when called upon for such duties. Represent even when not flying the squadron bird. :salute :cheers:
-
Ju52 TOP speed is about 145-150 mph.
I show 165 at top speed. Deck would probably be something like 140 or 145.
Some people would take it because it has guns and in the mission profile where the C-47 has to loiter the speed in transit matter less.
That said, I'd guess about a 80/20 to 90/10 ratio of C-47 to Ju52 use.
-
I show 165 at top speed. Deck would probably be something like 140 or 145.
Some people would take it because it has guns and in the mission profile where the C-47 has to loiter the speed in transit matter less.
That said, I'd guess about a 80/20 to 90/10 ratio of C-47 to Ju52 use.
It will be used as a prime example of a plane that never gets used at all no matter how much it gets used. :)
-
+1 on the JU 52 but would still like to see a few other things first!
-
Was looking for something with comparable performance to the C-47.
Ki-56 "Thalia". 121 built.
Half the weight of the C-47 and half the troop carrying capacity. Almost identical service ceiling but the Ki-56 has a worse climb rate (less-powerful engines). Top speed about 20 mph faster than the C-47.
(http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/images_a/ki56-main.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Kawasaki_Ki-56.jpg)
(http://forum.valka.cz/files/ki-56_thalia_foto_2.jpg)
-
Was looking for something with comparable performance to the C-47.
Ki-56 "Thalia". 121 built.
Half the weight of the C-47 and half the troop carrying capacity. Almost identical service ceiling but the Ki-56 has a worse climb rate (less-powerful engines). Top speed about 20 mph faster than the C-47.
(http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/images_a/ki56-main.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Kawasaki_Ki-56.jpg)
(http://forum.valka.cz/files/ki-56_thalia_foto_2.jpg)
Hey! I see ten troops! ;)
-
Hey! I see ten troops! ;)
It could actually squeeze in 14!
-
It could actually squeeze in 14!
:noid
-
There is almost always a better/faster/cooler aircraft but some of us, as part of our gameplay make choices. One of the choices JG11 makes is we only fly Luftwaffe aircraft, so you would see us in it in the MA. Just as an example sirs <S>.
(Note:sometimes JG11 will be assaigned other than Luftwaffe aircraft for FSO's and you will see us run a few sorties in the FSO aircraft in the MA prior to the event.)
how often do you guys take the sdkf 251?
semp
-
I actually love the Sdk, myself. I've survived multiple strafing runs from La7s in that baby. Much better armor than an M3.
Re: Ju52 top speed, I was citing deck speed rather than FTH. Nobody will fly it at FTH. Ever. In all of AH history. Even if it was already in game. I was, however, also comparing C-47's current deck speed in-game, so it is still a fair comparison.
-
Honestly, we don't need any other flying transport besides the Ju52, ever.
| C-47/L2D/Li-2 | - | Ju52 |
| America | | Belgium |
| Australia | | Finland |
| Britain | | Germany |
| Canada | | Italy |
| China? | | Romania |
| France? | | Spain |
| Japan | | |
| New Zealand | | |
| Russia | | |
I think that is beyond reasonable coverage.
-
Honestly, we don't need any other flying transport besides the Ju52, ever.
Need? Nope. Agreed.
Could use? Sure, we could use others. The Heinkel, for example, could very easily be used for supplies, AND paratroops. Only problem is formations throwing things out of balance. You'd need a separate entry in the hangar for it, or some extra code to disable formations when certain loads are selected (which would also be nice code to have on some other planes in-game as well!)
There are several bomber-type planes that alternately carried troops and supplies and bombs. The Ju52 is one that carried all 3! Though, considerably less bombs since it was so obsolete.
-
Need? Nope. Agreed.
Could use? Sure, we could use others. The Heinkel, for example, could very easily be used for supplies, AND paratroops. Only problem is formations throwing things out of balance. You'd need a separate entry in the hangar for it, or some extra code to disable formations when certain loads are selected (which would also be nice code to have on some other planes in-game as well!)
There are several bomber-type planes that alternately carried troops and supplies and bombs. The Ju52 is one that carried all 3! Though, considerably less bombs since it was so obsolete.
Why disable formations? Let the goon formations commence. :D
-
Hitech would simply adjust fields to require 30 troops for any single capture. Nu-uh. No thanks.
-
Hitech would simply adjust fields to require 30 troops for any single capture. Nu-uh. No thanks.
That's fine, actually. Now we have one last 'complication' regarding the transports
that doubled as bombers thing and HT has made the adjustment to maintain parity
.... and we're one step closer to AI troop vs troop action. Sounds like a potential
win-win-win. :D
-
But transports that DIDN'T double as bombers are now screwed royally. It would require 3x C47s. And what if you lose a drone? You simply can't capture it.
No, no... Better to have only one plane and one set of troops to take any given field. I think the code to "disable formations upon selection of certain hangar loadouts" would be best. It could also be used on the strafer-nose B-25s and so forth.
-
But transports that DIDN'T double as bombers are now screwed royally. It would require 3x C47s. And what if you lose a drone? You simply can't capture it.
No, no... Better to have only one plane and one set of troops to take any given field. I think the code to "disable formations upon selection of certain hangar loadouts" would be best. It could also be used on the strafer-nose B-25s and so forth.
If you lose one troop, no capture, as it is.
Options ... options ....
HT could set capture to 20 and you would have 10 to spare, with goon-bomber formations.
And perhaps we're looking at it backwards. Goon-bombers can simply have no formation ability, like TBMs.
-
They will never do that. One FULL load per base take. They've always said they will do that for gameplay considerations. You will never get a second chance in the same sortie to take a field.
What's more heart-breaking, waiting the 5 minutes for 30 troops to enter the map room only to see the very last strafed, or waiting 15 seconds for 10 troops and seeing the last strafed?
I think seeing 29 go in and losing it would be far far more punishment than seeing just 9.
-
If you lose one troop, no capture, as it is.
Options ... options ....
HT could set capture to 20 and you would have 10 to spare, with goon-bomber formations.
And perhaps we're looking at it backwards. Goon-bombers can simply have no formation ability, like TBMs.
hitech has said many times that they will up the limit to whatever is the most you can carry. so it's dumb to up the cap limit to 30 just because somebody wants to bring a formation. it will make the m3's and c47's and skd useless. so no, I dont think a formation would be allowed when it makes 3 other planes/gvs obsolete.
semp
-
They will never do that. One FULL load per base take. They've always said they will do that for gameplay considerations. You will never get a second chance in the same sortie to take a field.
What's more heart-breaking, waiting the 5 minutes for 30 troops to enter the map room only to see the very last strafed, or waiting 15 seconds for 10 troops and seeing the last strafed?
I think seeing 29 go in and losing it would be far far more punishment than seeing just 9.
There's still that other option. Goon-bombers get no formations (other than what it takes individual players to form).
Besides, seeing them in formation would be a dead give-away. No troop threat there. Unless ^.
Easier code. I'd still like to see the JU-52.
(It may be the inner SCW in me.) :D
-
hitech has said many times that they will up the limit to whatever is the most you can carry. so it's dumb to up the cap limit to 30 just because somebody wants to bring a formation. it will make the m3's and c47's and skd useless. so no, I dont think a formation would be allowed when it makes 3 other planes/gvs obsolete.
semp
Well ... there ya go then.
-
Raise capture requirement to 15, raise troop capacity of the C-47, M3 and SdKfz251 to 15, set troop capacity for hybrid bombers/transports to 5. :t
-
Raise capture requirement to 15, raise troop capacity of the C-47, M3 and SdKfz251 to 15, set troop capacity for hybrid bombers/transports to 5. :t
But if you lose a drone it's 'game over, man!' :)
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/geronimo_zps7acb1154.png)
-
But if you lose a drone it's 'game over, man!' :)
Yes, hence the :t
Under that rule I suspect that "pure" transports would retain their popularity.
Doesn't have to be 15 either. Could be 9 or 12. Any number divisible by 3.