Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Matt1221b on October 29, 2002, 03:36:27 PM
-
the kate can carry torps....right, well i have no idea im not much of i kate fan but i would love to fly it more than i would a val, well when is this thinkg coming out
:D :confused:
-
2 Weeks
-
Might get a special "plane only" patch for the Midway scenario.
Who knows......
Werent Kates dual purpose? What was the medium alt level bomber used at Pearl with such deadly effectiveness?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Werent Kates dual purpose? What was the medium alt level bomber used at Pearl with such deadly effectiveness?
B5N2. It could carry an 800kg bomb or three 250kg bombs.
From the screenies shown we're getting a B5N1 which can carry two 250kg bombs.
They could both carry a torpedo.
The B5N1 entered service in 1938.
The B5N2 entered service in 1939.
-
Originally posted by Matt1221b
the kate can carry torps....right, well i have no idea im not much of i kate fan but i would love to fly it more than i would a val, well when is this thinkg coming out
:D :confused:
Kates are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, kates are very careful and precise.
-
Another discushion on the kate:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68346
-
As far as I'm concerned, It could carry a 5000lb bomb. It would still suck. MA cannon fodder is all it is. ENY value should be 200+.
Paradoxically, it is needed for events though. I just don't want to fly it however well modelled/pretty it is. Glad I fly Allied in events BTW.
Gatso
-
gatso,
The thing is, it is not needed for events.
There are no events that can be run that require the B5N without subbing in later war US stuff and thus hopelessly stacking the deck against the Japanese.
The B6N2 would be a much better addition. The B5N is just useless.
-
Well . ..
We did get the Early SDB and the VAL first.
Then the KATE . . .
Maybe in the future they can continue to round out the plane set to make it more balanced.
I am more than willing to wait till they get it completed.
Until then I have no problem making do with what we got.
-
Well it is good to want things right, I have been waiting over two years myself, some longer and some not, i do know that what we dont get this patch is still a long way off.
We did NOT get the early SBD.
Jordi check out that link above and look at that thred:
From that thread by Karnak:
Is this setup considered balanced?
IJN/IJA:
A6M2 (1941)
B5N1 (1938)
D3A1 (1937)
vs.
USN/USAAF/RAF
Boston Mk III (1942)
F4F-4 (1941)
F4U-1 (1942)
Hurricane Mk I (1940)
Hurricane Mk IIc (1941)
P-40B (1940)
P-40E (1941)
SBD-5 (1943)
TBM-3 (1942)
-
Karnak,
Pearl Harbour? B5N definitely has a place there and many other places and it damn well is needed for early war events, maybe there's early war US stuff on the way too. The Kate was a significant aircraft even if it is a big pile of poo by MA standards.
I find the diversity in the planeset produced by HTC encouraging, even if it means we get MA Hanger queens like the Kate.
Gatso
-
My leading Coment from that thread:
I do In general agree Karnak, howeaver I must say this:
Politics, the fleshing out of the Pearl harbor plane set is good for the CM's, we all saw Tora Tora Tora, and Mate Damon was just so cute in the pos movie Pearl harbor, the setting is a popular one, and those three planes the Val the Kate and the A6M2 were the primary tools with which the Japanese Navy wreaked it's destruction in the early part of the war in the Pac.
Pyro: In his defense he was damned no mater what plane he chose for Japan, that is If he only chose one to add this patch, their may be more. He did do somthing by chusing this plane he filled the Early war Japanese CV planeset, and made it possable for the CM's to do a number of events that represent with far more imershion battles that are very prevelent in the American psychie.
Personal: I fear we may be stuck with the Kate, what I mean by this that we may not see the Jill, or the Grace, since we alread have a Japanese torp bomber. Clearly the Jill would of been a better Balancing choice when set aganst the Mid war US CV planes we have at present, and Ultimately the Best choice for Main Areana utility would of been the Grace.
Balance, the imbalance curently could be construed as more of an issue that the US does not have early war planes(or models) to set oppset those being represented by Japan, for some the mear fact that this is a reality could be considered a slap in the face. Howeaver I can not see how on earth this could be intentional.
It's kinda like that Tiger tank we got, she was not the best German tank, certainly the Panther was far more deadly and produced in far greater number's but less well known, it is the Hollywood efect.
-
I know, It was that Ben dude:)
-
Originally posted by jordi
We did get the Early SDB ....
Bull.
That is precisely the kind of BS Allied blindness that I am talking about.
We got a SBD-5, which is a 1943 version of the SBD that is 40mph faster than the SBD-2 and SBD-3 that fought the Battle of Midway. Checking my sources I find that not only did we not get an "Early" SBD, there is hardly a later version of the SBD than the one we got.
In counter balance to this we got the 1937 D3A1, not the greater production D3A2 from 1942 (post-Midway) that is, like the SBD-5, 40mph faster than its Midway kin.
Now we get the B5N1 from 1938 to counter not the TBF Devastator that was its contempoary, but rather the TMB-3 which had only just begun to trickle to combat units at the time of Midway.
When the counterparts are always selected in such a way, intentional or not, as to maximize the USN's advantage we will see all Pacific Theatre setups die on the vine as nobody will volunteer to be one of the few sacrifical lambs who are there only to fulfill the fantasies of the Allied fliers who imagine themselves in a Marianas Turkey shoot.
I will never fly the B5N1. I have no wish to participate only so that I enhance somebody else's fun. As an example, one VF-27 pilot already exclaimed how much fun it was going to be to shoot Kates down.
You Allied fliers had best start thinking about balance if you actually want any opponents to show up. You're lobby far, far outguns ours, but soon our wallets will do our speaking as we simply leave.
-
Originally posted by brady
Personal: I fear we may be stuck with the Kate, what I mean by this that we may not see the Jill, or the Grace, since we alread have a Japanese torp bomber.
How many Jills or Graces operated off of Carriers in WW2?
None.
Some of us are interested in the planes that actually fought in the major battles of WW2. Your goal seems to be to create some type of Fighter Ace arena.
-
B6N2's operated off:
Hiyo,Junyo,Shinyo,Shokaku,Taiyo,Unryu,Unyo, and Zuikaku.
The following land based kokutais also operated the B6N2:
551st,301st,653rd,705th.752nd,903rd.
Over 1,200 Jill's were produced and used operationaly.
The Grace is best suited for MA use, and or any late war event,as I stated and realy has no place on a CV unless it is in the MA, It does represent a great late war Japanese plane and could be used by all to great effect and would be very fun plane in the MA, I do not see why wanting it added means I want FA, I cerainly do not.
-
Originally posted by brady
B6N2's operated off:
Hiyo,Junyo,Shinyo,Shokaku,Taiyo,Unryu,Unyo, and Zuikaku.
Hmm.. I don't have my books here but I assume you are correct.
Regardless, I think adding the kate was important since it was the biggest hole in the 1942 'carrier duel' plane set. I can see how you might think that the B6N would be a better choice since the TBM subs in for the TBD in those battles anyway.
It does not matter that much. They are torpedo planes, it is pretty much a 1-way trip no matter what :)
-
Well they both have the same bombload(aprox.) The Jill is only 70mph(aprox.) faster and had a 50cal defensive MG as apposed to those 7mm show gun's. Imo 230 and 300 mph are prety different, all that extra time to target in the kate, which was also weaker in a number of ways compared to the Jill, in other words the Jill was much faster and more survivable, and better defended.
But as I stated earler(above) it is not so much a matter of us having the wrong Japanese planes as it is the issue of us having the wrong allied planes to set oppset from them in an event or CT set up. Imagine the howling if we used Spit I's aganst 109G6's in an event.
Also we only know 3 of the planes(one tank) so far included as new in the next update, who know's all this argument about Japan geting screwed may be about nothing more than the potential of it geting screwed.
-
I am pretty sure that one of the main reasons they modeled a B5N is because it was a priority on the CM list of needed AC. I am not saying I know why HTC came to that decision, but I know that the Kate was identified by the CM group as a need, that is all I am saying with that statement. I believe it fills a needed whole for early pacific battles. I am glad they modeled it.
-
Another Quote of mine from the formentioned thread:
One thing we must remember is that the CM's have a slightly different nead than we do, while the CT may nead a plane set that is more ballanced in nature to help us create week long plane match up's that are both historical and fun to play. The CM events are of shorter duration but they are Big draws, so withen that framework plane preformance issues like mid war US planes(models) VS peral harbor Japanese models is less of a factor. That is to say the preformance issues present would not be as noticed when fighting squaderon sized battles for 5 to 10 min of engagement time after flying around for 45 min looking for love. In the CT this is the compleat oppset, we fight all the time all week long and these issues become very apparent, and are examplified in the Kate.
-
Originally posted by brady
Is this setup considered balanced?
IJN/IJA:
A6M2 (1941)
B5N1 (1938)
D3A1 (1937)
vs.
USN/USAAF/RAF
Boston Mk III (1942)
F4F-4 (1941)
F4U-1 (1942)
Hurricane Mk I (1940)
Hurricane Mk IIc (1941)
P-40B (1940)
P-40E (1941)
SBD-5 (1943)
TBM-3 (1942)
Brady if your gonna moan about something at least get your dates right. For instance:
P40B- 1st flight 1938
A6M-2- 1st flight 1939 Production models in combat China 1940
Hurri I- 1st flight 1935 Squadron service 1937
Hurri II- Squadron service 1940
F4F-3 - 1st flight 1939 Squadron service 1940
F4F-3 and F4F-4 were identical for AH purposes. Real life changes were wing folding mechanism and 2 extra .50 cal MG's
These changes in effect made the plane slower and less manuverable.
Anyway my point is that the aircraft are in fact representative of the aircraft that fought during the early part of the war. It has nothing to do with balance.
-
-ammo-,
In order to actually have a proper setup in the CT that uses the D3A1 and B5N1 we need these Allied aircraft that we do not have:
SBD-2 Dauntless
TBD-1 Devastator
I have never seen any call for either of those aircraft from the CMs, or anybody else. Everybody seems quite content to allow the Allies to sub in the TBM-3 and SBD-5 instead. Yet when an equivilent subbing is suggested for the Japanese by adding the B6N2 we get a whole load of crap about it not being the right aircraft.
If we do a Midway setup as is, the Japanese are getting jacked. Not only do we have to use the A6M2 in place of the A6M3, but we get to defend against aircraft that are far more potent that those they are standing in for.
-
Joker,
Those were my dates, not brady's.
I use service entry dates, not first flight of a prototype dates. You are correct about the Hurricane Mk I. I messed up on that one. The Hurricane Mk IIc entered service in 1941.
The A6M2 barely out turns the F4F-4 as it is, and you say that the F4F-4 is at an unfair disadvantage. You're killing me.
Yep, the SBD-5 that can do 280mph sure is representative of the SBD-2 that could do 240mph. I'll have to remember that in future discussions. 40mph has no effect on WWII combat.
The TBD-1 Devastator was just as good as the TMB-3. The USN only replaced it because they felt like it. Sure, that makes sense.
The A6M3 that was at Midway is adequately represented by the A6M2. Funny how all the US substitutions are later aircraft in place of older aircraft and all the Japanese substitutions are older aircraft for later aircraft. None of that will have any affect at all.:rolleyes:
-
I am not a plane expert here so sorry for any historically INACCURATE info I may have posted.
I am pretty sure that the CM group DID Ask for all the EARLY US Planes used in Pearl, Coral Sea and Midway. I would have LOVED to have gotton ALL of those historically Correct planes !
Now which ones HT decides to produce we have ZERO Control over. 6 months ago I would not have even TRIED to do a Midway Scenario with the planes that were avaialbe then. We are closer to a correct plane set than we were 6 months ago and I would bet we will be even CLOSER in 6 more months !
Yes they do know what Scearnios we have in the pipeline and this may influence thier decesion on what planes to produce.
In TIME ( More than 2 weeks ) HT will prodice all the planes THEY feel are correct for the game.
We are still on the slow developement stage of producing all of them.
-
I personally think more the merrier....The argument about needing uber A/C to survive the MA is irrelevant imho.
Not every flys La-7's, 51'a, or N1k1's and why?
Because some like a challenge.
It' funny how people want new planes, but complain when they're not MA friendly. Like the argument over the T-34 - it's not MA freindly it doesn't have an AAMG (Geez if your in a position where a laden Tiffie, or Mosquito is bearing down on you - and you think you've got a chance with your tank peashooter .... you're in the worng buisness).
If this was the final a/c introduced by HTC then there is an argument...but in six months who could tell whats available.
Tronsky
-
tronski,
I have no problems with aircraft being added that are not MA friendly. That isn't my complaint at all. My compliant is that in scenarios and CT setups the Japanese and US aircraft they are choosing to add are massively imbalacing in favor of the US, and make no sense from a simply "what fought against what" stance.
HTC needs to create planesets that are appropriate opposition for one another.
Instead we're getting a 1941 Japanese planeset to use against a 1943 US planeset, and people are saying its all fine and makes no difference. The funny thing is, none of those players will be playing on the Japanese side.
-
Joker,:
"Anyway my point is that the aircraft are in fact representative of the aircraft that fought during the early part of the war. It has nothing to do with balance. "
Exactly it has nothing to do with balance, the plane set's are not ballanced for all the reasions stated above, and realy Like I said for a CM set up in an event it is far less a factor than it is for a CT staffer, my gues it will never ocure to 90% of those people that the planes their flying in were not even in the air at the same time aposing one another, they will see Zero's and SBD's and it will stop at that. This has been stweing a long time and I certainly hope non of you are taking this personaly.
Balance is a term tosed around on the CT forum public and private, when we do set up's we try and creat a Balance so that one side is not at a serious disatvantage when we creat historical battles, or represent time frames, certainly the above planes are representive of PAC planes from WW2 they are howeaver by no means balanced, the torp bomber to add to acheave ballance aganst the alleid planes was cllearly the Jill, not the kate. But again this is realy only aparently important to those who frequant the CT and to those who have to plan those set up's.
I do appricate the hard work that goes into these plane adations and I certainly respect all the hard work the CM gent's do, my issue is certainly not with them. Like I said earler:
Personal: I fear we may be stuck with the Kate, what I mean by this that we may not see the Jill, or the Grace, since we alread have a Japanese torp bomber. Clearly the Jill would of been a better Balancing choice when set aganst the Mid war US CV planes we have at present, and Ultimately the Best choice for Main Areana utility would of been the Grace.
Well we can sub the Kate for the TBF......:)
-
Brady - stiff upper lip and all.
6 months ago we had 3 FEWER IJN Planes than we do now - what is to say we will not have MORE ( and balanced / JILL ) IJN PLanes 6 months from now ?
I would be discourged if over the last 6 months we saw NO NEW IJN PLanes - but we have and I see no reason why we will not see more.
Just because the plane you REALLY WANT is not out does not mean it will NEVER be produced.
Jordi
-
Which type would fit better to current planeset?
-
"Brady - stiff upper lip and all."
I am a paticent man, I am still hear:)
"6 months ago we had 3 FEWER IJN Planes than we do now - what is to say we will not have MORE ( and balanced / JILL ) IJN PLanes 6 months from now ? "
Not realy, the peggy was added a year ago, over that realy, the Val is new yes, the A6M2 is a varient, how many US varients did we get last update. I do se your point though.
"I would be discourged if over the last 6 months we saw NO NEW IJN PLanes - but we have and I see no reason why we will not see more."
I have repeatedly said that I feal that we will in effect see more plaens for Japan, but i would wager that a New torp plane for them espichaly a CV torp plane is a long shot.
"Just because the plane you REALLY WANT is not out does not mean it will NEVER be produced."
It is not realy about the plane I realy want(the Ki 102), it is about balance and the tools to acheave that parity, or a sembalance of it closer to what we can see between the German and Allied plane set.
-
Staga, the Jill would fit the curent plane set best.
-
I totally agree Pyro's plane set.
Kate is very nice for first Japanese carrier-based bomber.
If B7A2 Ryusei is released first, everybody won't ride B5N2 even if it's out.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Bull.
That is precisely the kind of BS Allied blindness that I am talking about.
We got a SBD-5, which is a 1943 version of the SBD that is 40mph faster than the SBD-2 and SBD-3 that fought the Battle of Midway. Checking my sources I find that not only did we not get an "Early" SBD, there is hardly a later version of the SBD than the one we got.
In counter balance to this we got the 1937 D3A1, not the greater production D3A2 from 1942 (post-Midway) that is, like the SBD-5, 40mph faster than its Midway kin.
Now we get the B5N1 from 1938 to counter not the TBF Devastator that was its contempoary, but rather the TMB-3 which had only just begun to trickle to combat units at the time of Midway.
When the counterparts are always selected in such a way, intentional or not, as to maximize the USN's advantage we will see all Pacific Theatre setups die on the vine as nobody will volunteer to be one of the few sacrifical lambs who are there only to fulfill the fantasies of the Allied fliers who imagine themselves in a Marianas Turkey shoot.
I will never fly the B5N1. I have no wish to participate only so that I enhance somebody else's fun. As an example, one VF-27 pilot already exclaimed how much fun it was going to be to shoot Kates down.
You Allied fliers had best start thinking about balance if you actually want any opponents to show up. You're lobby far, far outguns ours, but soon our wallets will do our speaking as we simply leave.
A couple of points:
SBD: It seems that hairs are being split here. HTC’s modeling of the SBD-5 gives a maximum speed of about 260 mph. This is backed up by Navy data, which you can find here: SBD-5 (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/sbd-5.pdf)
Furthermore, it is limited to the same bomb load as the SBD-2/3, not the full loading the –5 was capable of. Indeed, later in the war, the SBD-5 was fitted with rocket launching rails allowing it to carry 8 five inch HVARs. I'd sure like that option here! So, as it's currently modeled, it seems to me that this is close enough for scenarios.
Torpedo bombers are another issue. Yes, we need the TBD. However, the TBF-1 did participate at Midway, and did no better than the old Devastator. Moreover, the TBM-3 is actually slower than the TBF-1. Likewise, the B-26A was also employed at Midway. We don’t have the Brewster F2A-3, and that would be a nice addition (preferably an export model Buffalo for its use in other scenarios).
Another point. By 1943, the SBD was being phased out of service with the USN in favor of the SB2C Helldiver.
Let's not get too myopic on these issues.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Obviously this was not a plane designed for the main arena (without question the majority of HTC business). Certainly HTC isn't spending a majority of their time making things for a small minority of players. I am sure much more interesting planes are on the way and this was just something that was ready to show.
-
Originally posted by Turbot
Obviously this was not a plane designed for the main arena (without question the majority of HTC business). Certainly HTC isn't spending a majority of their time making things for a small minority of players. I am sure much more interesting planes are on the way and this was just something that was ready to show.
I wonder what the ratio of players in the Main Arena will be compared to those in the Special Events Arena come Frame Day ?
With 400+ registered even if just 75% show up I bet there are more in the SE than in the MA.
So I would not call Scenario pilots a "Smal Minority"
-
Special event's are a Huge draw, and they are well done.
From above:
Politics, the fleshing out of the Pearl harbor plane set is good for the CM's, we all saw Tora Tora Tora, and Ben was just so cute in the pos movie Pearl harbor, the setting is a popular one, and those three planes the Val the Kate and the A6M2 were the primary tools with which the Japanese Navy wreaked it's destruction in the early part of the war in the Pac.
Pyro: In his defense he was damned no mater what plane he chose for Japan, that is If he only chose one to add this patch, their may be more. He did do somthing by chusing this plane he filled the Early war Japanese CV planeset, and made it possable for the CM's to do a number of events that represent with far more imershion battles that are very prevelent in the American psychie.
Ultimately what is good for the CM's is good for all who attend special events, and they have a very good attandance.
-
Originally posted by jordi
So I would not call Scenario pilots a "Smal Minority"
I didn't.
Without question the 24/7 MA is the prime business (read: what pays the bills) of AH. Events run a few hours here and there. CT is an oddity a couple of dozen players fool with. I worded the orginal in a way to confuse some people, but in terms of time and use - MA dwarfs them all.
I am sure a great deal more significant and interesting things are on the way. HTC knows where the money comes from.
-
I took the Liberty of quoting, oboe, fromanother thread on this topic:
You can't argue with the fact that the Japanese are being given apparently the earliest possible model of attack planes while the U.S. forces are being given much later-war models. WTH? What conclusions are we supposed to draw from that?
I know you Allied flyers don't pick which models are introduced, and I'm sure you're happy with what you get. But believe me, it would be in your best long term interest to also encourage HTC to give the Japanese flyers better equipment and choices in the game, because frankly its pretty discouraging. You guys could end up with no dedicated opposition in the PTO.
Good grief, the LW is so far developed they're down to getting the Me163 rocket plane, and the IJAAF is STILL without its best fighter of the war.
I think that sums it up prety good.
Turbot, is of course corect, and it is the excepetion that a plane like the kate be introduced, one who has no late war varient, most early war planes we get are ones who have a late or later war model that can be done at the same time, thier are some exceptions to this rule going both ways of course.
-
stuff to fix your signature Jordi
Mike "DmdJordi" Bowman
Scenario CM Staff
To Join the AH Special Events Email list (subscribe@topica.com)
For more information about this list (http://www.topica.com/lists/AHSpecialEvent )
AH Events Calendar (http://events.simladder.com/calendar.php)
when you do a "quote" you will see the code you can cut and paste.
-
Originally posted by Turbot
stuff to fix your signature Jordi
Mike "DmdJordi" Bowman
Scenario CM Staff
To Join the AH Special Events Email list (subscribe@topica.com)
For more information about this list (http://www.topica.com/lists/AHSpecialEvent )
AH Events Calendar (http://events.simladder.com/calendar.php)
when you do a "quote" you will see the code you can cut and paste.
I am lost - you want me to QUOTE my signature text like you do yours ?
Jordi
-
I think he means if you hit the quote function, the method to input the code into your signature, will be handed to you, so you can make those links work like he has them above, prety slick, realy nice looking, and a nice jestor Turbot.
-
I see.
Thanks,
-
Brady,
I didnt mean to seem like I took your remarks personal. I am in full agreement that we need the Judy, Oscar, Jack, and Betty to be able to run some really accurate Snapshots, TOD's, Scenerios, ect.
What I am trying to say is that with every plane addition by HTC we get closer to where we all want to be. There are so many marks of some of these planes that it would be crazy to expect HTC to model them all. So we make do with an F4F-4 instead of an F4F-3. Same goes for the SBD, Kate, Val, ect.
We also have different sources for our info and those performance numbers are very suspect. For instance most speeds quoted in publications for WW2 aircraft were attained in unloaded, new, tweeked planes right off the assembly lines. In most case the planes in the field had no chance to duplicate those results. I have seen the the sustained turn rate of the F4U-1 differ by as much as 2.5 degrees a second at a given altitude.
The bottom line is we will never have or know the true performance of these aircraft but we do have types that squared off against each other. Learn the planes capibilities and you can have some fun fighting it in the MA, SEA, CT, It matters little if your Val is a -2 or a -1.
Just my opinion, all.
-
Joker. I beg to differ with your last statement though -
sometimes there are pretty significant differences between marks of an A/C. Note the ordnance difference between the B5N1 and B5N2:
Originally posted by Karnak
B5N2. It could carry an 800kg bomb or three 250kg bombs.
From the screenies shown we're getting a B5N1 which can carry two 250kg bombs.
They could both carry a torpedo.
The B5N1 entered service in 1938.
The B5N2 entered service in 1939.
That's an extra 500 lbs of HE per plane, or the choice to trade it all for an 1600lb blockbuster. I do hope we get the B5N2 and not the B5N1.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
I am pretty sure that one of the main reasons they modeled a B5N is because it was a priority on the CM list of needed AC. I am not saying I know why HTC came to that decision, but I know that the Kate was identified by the CM group as a need, that is all I am saying with that statement. I believe it fills a needed whole for early pacific battles. I am glad they modeled it.
Well, not completely true, Ammo. There was some disagreement on the CM staff about whether to ask for the B5N or the B6N. Myself and a few others were lobbying for the B6N, so it would be a more accurate foil for the TBM. Keep in mind, also, that we are planning our scenarios out about a year in advance now, so we have a huge list of aircraft and vehicles we need to keep producing new scenarios. We don't have the luxury of asking for a B5N and a B6N when we don't even have say, a Stuka yet. So we basically ask for planes to fill huge holes....like a Japanese torpedo bomber, a Russian level bomber, etc...
Also keep in mind that while Pyro tries to balance planesets between what the CM's want and what would be good for the CT and the MA....he always produces what he wants to produce given his own logic and perspective.
I have never seen any call for either of those aircraft from the CMs, or anybody else. Everybody seems quite content to allow the Allies to sub in the TBM-3 and SBD-5 instead. Yet when an equivilent subbing is suggested for the Japanese by adding the B6N2 we get a whole load of crap about it not being the right aircraft.
Karnak, that's because you don't have access rights to the CM forum! :) We argue about planes and vehicles all the time. As I said before to Ammo, it's not that we wouldn't ask for a SBD-2 or a TBD Devastator. It's just that we need certain plane types to fill out holes to allow certain events to be held. So, while we would certainly prefer to see the TBD Devastator in AH, our lists of priorities dictates that we end up putting that on the lower end of the priority scale, and instead asking for things like a Russian level bomber, the Stuka...etc.
There is certainly not a "pro-US" bias on the CM team. You'll notice that the Japanese level bomber produced by HTC was the Ki-67 Peggy, not the slow, vulnerable G4M Betty. We lobbied Pyro to give us a good, late war Japanese bomber that would be more survivable than the Betty.
BTW, I'll be flying in my very first AH scenario on Saturday, having been a CM for every previous one. I'll be flying the Val and I will be sinking those Yankee dog American carriers! Banzai! :D
-
Look my correct Kate information. :/
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=68551
-
Originally posted by banana
There is certainly not a "pro-US" bias on the CM team. You'll notice that the Japanese level bomber produced by HTC was the Ki-67 Peggy, not the slow, vulnerable G4M Betty. We lobbied Pyro to give us a good, late war Japanese bomber that would be more survivable than the Betty.
Actually, that is one of the few cases in which I feel the Allied forces are getting unfairly shafted. The P-40E and F4F-4 simply cannot deal with the Ki.67. It is too fast and too well gunned. I feel guilty using it in early war setups.
We need the G4M2 for early war setups so the Allies can actually have a chance of intercepting it.
The same is true of the Boston Mk III. It is simply too fast. Bf109E-4s, Bf110C-4s and A6M2s simply cannot intercept it.
We need the B-25B so that the Axis can intercept the Allied bomber.
Further, we need an engine model that prevents aircraft from simply being run at full throttle all the time. There is a reason Ju-88s were only flying at 200mph in the Battle of Britain. There are reasons that B-17Gs cruised at 180mph. In AH bombers always simply firewall the throttle and leave it there. If the relationship between fighters and bombers in AH is ever going to resemble the relationship between fighters and bombers in WWII the engine management will need to be fixed.
Hell, maybe just fixing the engine management would be enough and the Boston Mk III and Ki.67 would then be interceptable by early war fighters.
-
OK I am spet, personaly I think we have betten this one to death, the following apear to be universaly true:
We have a good Early War Japanese CV plane set.
We have a ton of Early War Alied Equipment.
We do not have Ideal plane match ups time frame wise for Pac set up's.
We are advancing toward that howeaver.
We have not sean all that is coming for the next patch.
We all want more Japanese planes.
The Peggy was a great Choice for a Japanese Bomber.
We all nead to take pause and consider this, obviously we are all pashionate about this hobby and we all are indead lucky to even be in a position to debate the valadity of the adation of the Kate at this time to the existing plane set.
-
Pearl Harbour? B5N definitely has a place there and many other places...
So in a Pearl Harbor scenario, we'd have 114 A6M2s, 117 D3As, and 117 B5Ns against, what, five P-40s and gunners for every position available on the ships in the harbor? Not going to be particularly interesting for most of the US side, I think. You'd need to set up conditions so that the outlying fields would have to be suppressed (since the Zekes don't have the bombload, field durability would have to be cranked way down to give them a chance to close the fields), or the planes would be able to launch.
I don't know if the host would be able to handle making planes 'launch' in rows around the airfields, so that the US side would have planes spotted in a historical manner so they could be strafed historically (and X minutes after the first attack, the planes could take off, if any remain flyable -- perhaps some random allocation, to represent the different amount of time it took pilots to get to the planes, so you'd have planes rolling out of the lineups in ones and twos as the Zekes dropped in on them).
-
Here is how we did it in Air Warrior.
It was a VERY Successfull Scenario.
http://www.newport-packaging.com/pearl/
In fact we ran in 1999 AND 2000.
Jordi ( 1999 and 2000 Winning CO )
-
You know guys, if HTC would just model the H8K2 Emily for us, most of our problems would be solved, agreed? :D
-
the pby-5 black cat would be much more fun.
:)
-
I'm not an expert on the Pacific theater, but ponder these two ideas:
Perhaps the reason HTC put the early Japanese planes in AH first folloewed by late planes, the early planes would get used more in the MA (where all planes get most of their use).
Perhaps another reason is because the IJN fighters outperform the USN fighters of similar year. By making the USN bombers better, they might be trying to balance the two teams. Although this is less historical, it might improve gameplay.