Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Coalcat1 on April 07, 2014, 08:05:57 PM
-
It would be great to add float planes in general, but this gives them a launch location and purpose in the game. Here's an example of the float plane version of the zeke.
(http://warthunder.thefreeflightsimulatorgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/A6M2-N-Zero-2.jpg)
-
Take yer jap planes and stick em!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/OS2U-2_Kingfisher_in_flight_1942.jpg)
-
We've had threads on this before? Can you explain the purpose of adding them? I just wanna hear you say why. :)
:salute
-
These would be 100% useless. I would rather see a single runway with a limited selection of fighters without ord available at ports.
-
We've had threads on this before? Can you explain the purpose of adding them? I just wanna hear you say why. :)
:salute
I think the thread subject header pretty much explains why he's wishing for a float plane to protect the ports.
ack-ack
-
I shouldn't have asked why.
But, how do we expect these things to even do well against the fighters we tend to see attacking ports, such as P38's, F4U's, P51's, and 110's.
I don't think they'd do very well.
-
While we're at it:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Uk38LcGm3EE/Td6RGqyKRVI/AAAAAAAAAP8/ZzMqmf9XAe0/s1600/42-5671_DouglasXC-47C.jpg)
-
I shouldn't have asked why.
But, how do we expect these things to even do well against the fighters we tend to see attacking ports, such as P38's, F4U's, P51's, and 110's.
I don't think they'd do very well.
Token air defense is better than no air defense. It sometimes takes that one little pesky, thought to be completely useless/harmless, fighter to ballz everything up. :lol
-
Token air defense is better than no air defense. It sometimes takes that one little pesky, though to be completely useless/harmless, fighter to ballz everything up. :lol
I understand. Now coalcat, would you have wanted these to spawn along the docks or something?
-
Let me spawn B-17s off the docks :t
-
I like the idea of floatplanes just for variety but I don't think they would encourage air to air. Maybe they could be like a storch with super cv finding vision. If we get submarines we will need a Hudson and than a Condor and than a one way hurricane and Beaufighters. We'll also need merchant men and escort destroyers, maybe a few blimps too. This could get out of hand.
-
I shouldn't have asked why.
But, how do we expect these things to even do well against the fighters we tend to see attacking ports, such as P38's, F4U's, P51's, and 110's.
I don't think they'd do very well.
Its better than the fi156...
-
I understand. Now coalcat, would you have wanted these to spawn along the docks or something?
Yes or around the docks, and the Jap bi-plane and mono-plane float planes could dogfight pretty well in realty, although they where usually out numbered by our fighters in most fights. But you got it exactly right flyman where they could take off where the non-strat ships are now.This is what the "docks" at float plane bases looked like more so than any milatary port I've seen.
-
To all the spit fans...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Spitfire_VB_Floatplane_W3760.jpg)
-
I'm pretty sure they had a float version of the NiK1 or NiK2. Weight between landing gear and floats was negligible, so performance mostly the same, greater drag for speed with floats.
Would make for taking a port more difficult.
+1
-
Here's one
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/N1K1_in_biwalake_.jpg)
-
Brilliant idea. +1
-
While we're at it:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Uk38LcGm3EE/Td6RGqyKRVI/AAAAAAAAAP8/ZzMqmf9XAe0/s1600/42-5671_DouglasXC-47C.jpg)
Heck troops also +1
-
It would be great to add float planes in general, but this gives them a launch location and purpose in the game. Here's an example of the float plane version of the zeke.
(http://warthunder.thefreeflightsimulatorgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/A6M2-N-Zero-2.jpg)
-100--sorry coalcat
-
We've had threads on this before? Can you explain the purpose of adding them? I just wanna hear you say why. :)
:salute
Do you remember the NOE port take you help me and raynos try and attempt and the only thing that stoped us was fleet ack? Thoth got me thinking of how easy that this form of an attack on a port is...
-
-100--sorry coalcat
Any specific reasons?
-
Any specific reasons?
Other than the fact that both the speed and maneuverability would be severely hampered by the float, and that the floatplane hangar would likely be the first thing dropped, even before the VH, I can't think of anything. They probably would not be much fun to fly, and if I recall correctly, the Japanese at the very least used the float as an additional fuel tank, a.k.a. an enormous highly-flammable target.
-
Yep, but I'm thinking a couple "lines" of aircraft near the docks, acting as FHs, making them harder to kill plus, any of the mentioned planes are better than the storch. :D
-
It would be interesting to up the value of a port. Add in freighters and oil tankers for us to find and sink and the ports package would start looking up.
-
Yes or around the docks, and the Jap bi-plane and mono-plane float planes could dogfight pretty well in realty
On the Japanese fighter float planes, the float really hindered performance. For example, the Rufe, which is a Zeke with a float on it, performance by over 20%. I'm sure the N1K1 also had a similar performance hit due to the float attached.
ack-ack
-
Zinc Member
Reg: Mar 2014
Posts: 83
Offline
Re: Float planes to protect ports
« Reply #20 on: Today at 11:25:23 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: lunatic1 on Today at 10:31:24 AM
-100--sorry coalcat
Any specific reasons?
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proud Member of The 242nd Air Termanatiors
jeffdn
Nickel Member
Reg: Jan 2013
Posts: 354
Offline
Re: Float planes to protect ports
« Reply #21 on: Today at 11:30:54 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Coalcat1 on Today at 11:25:23 AM
Any specific reasons?
Other than the fact that both the speed and maneuverability would be severely hampered by the float, and that the floatplane hangar would likely be the first thing dropped, even before the VH, I can't think of anything. They probably would not be much fun to fly, and if I recall correctly, the Japanese at the very least used the float as an additional fuel tank, a.k.a. an enormous highly-flammable target.
the are no seaplanes tough enough or fast enough to out fly the eneny fighter's that would come in plus what jeffdn said
-
It would be interesting to up the value of a port. Add in freighters and oil tankers for us to find and sink and the ports package would start looking up.
ports are already a big value--win the port you get a cv group---unless somebody takes it and hides it..
i think ports are in the top three of attack list----strats-ports-airfields-v-bases--dr7--midway-rumal-zack1234 etc etc
-
I do think float planes would do nicely in film, and maybe scenarios. Possibly, they would be a more stable gunning platform to protect against Lvt's, due to its ability to skim water (not a historic but, possible game use :devil ).
So, I wouldn't object to seeing it added. I do however, believe that it would be a relatively low priority on list of additions, UNLESS........... U Boat / submarines are added, then it should be part of that patch IMHO.
-
ports are already a big value--win the port you get a cv group---unless somebody takes it and hides it..
i think ports are in the top three of attack list----strats-ports-airfields-v-bases--dr7--midway-rumal-zack1234 etc etc
Edit Ru to his new name :)
-
any of the mentioned planes are better than the storch.
Yup. Float Zeke might not match its wheeled brother, but it would be effective enough against the Avengers one often sees flying in to pork a port.
- oldman
-
I'm pretty sure they had a float version of the NiK1 or NiK2. Weight between landing gear and floats was negligible, so performance mostly the same, greater drag for speed with floats.
Would make for taking a port more difficult.
+1
You got it backwards, the N1K1-J and N1K2-J were versions of the N1K WITHOUT floats. The N1K1 (no -J) float fighter came first (the N1K1-J appears to have been the most-produced type, though).
-
+1 whether they are tied to ports or not. Would be some interesting adds...
-
You got it backwards, the N1K1-J and N1K2-J were versions of the N1K WITHOUT floats. The N1K1 (no -J) float fighter came first (the N1K1-J appears to have been the most-produced type, though).
In the IJN naming scheme an "N" as the first character of an aircraft's designation means it is a float plane fighter.
A = carrier fighter (A5M, A6M)
B = carrier bomber (B5N, B6N, B7A)
D = carrier dive bomber (D3A, D4Y)
G = land based bomber (G3M, G4M, G8N)
H = flying boat (H6K, H8K)
J = land based fighter (J1N,
N = float plane fighter (N1K)
A dash and a letter means that whatever its first letter indicates it was it has been modified to the new role, A6M2-N as a carrier fighter modified to be a float plane fighter and N1K1-J/N1K2-J as a float plane fighter modified to be a land based fighter.
-
In the IJN naming scheme an "N" as the first character of an aircraft's designation means it is a float plane fighter.
A = carrier fighter (A5M, A6M)
B = carrier bomber (B5N, B6N, B7A)
D = carrier dive bomber (D3A, D4Y)
G = land based bomber (G3M, G4M, G8N)
H = flying boat (H6K, H8K)
J = land based fighter (J1N,
N = float plane fighter (N1K)
A dash and a letter means that whatever its first letter indicates it was it has been modified to the new role, A6M2-N as a carrier fighter modified to be a float plane fighter and N1K1-J/N1K2-J as a float plane fighter modified to be a land based fighter.
Yes, I know this. My point was that the N1K1-J and N1K2-J were the variants and that the float fighter was the original version.
-
Interesting that the Nik1 was float first, had no idea.
In any case, some ports will find the nearest fighter cover a sector plus away, certainly if the CV has either been sunk or driven across the map. Having a float plane fighter cover option makes for a better fight. I've always like the idea of adding merchant ships to attack and sink.
-
I think they would be a fun addition. Not sure how the landing v ditch would be handled but I end most sorties missing a wing and on fire so it really doesn't matter.
-
If you're in a fight for your life and you don't have a gun, but there's a knife at hand, will you aschew the knife? I have often taken up a Dauntless as a last-ditch defense of an airfield, if the FH is down. Indeed, the reason there were float-plane fighters produced in number during WWII was an acknowledgement that any fighter is better than none, particularly in the Pacific theater, where land bases were scarce and incredibly difficult to build/maintain. For those who express dissdain for this addition to AH, let me ask this simple question: Would you up one at a port if it was the only viable weapon at hand to stop a base capture? As for an enemy dropping the FFH (float-plane fighter hanger) as the first step, how is that any different from the current method, i.e. to drop the VH first? And the fact that it, like the VH, would only be down for 15-minutes, it actually makes taking a port marginally harder. On the other hand, if you don't fear the float plane because it is not a match for late-war uber rides, why would you bother? :neener:
+1 from me
-
If we get float planes, I want one of these:
(http://www.animationsource.org/tssourcepage/images/aircraft/aircraft03/piratefighter05.jpg)
-
:lol
-
Trottel.
We've had threads on this before? Can you explain the purpose of adding them? I just wanna hear you say why. :)
:salute