Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Sakai on September 23, 2003, 11:52:21 AM
-
We want a new map.
Please.
The F4U was one of the storied rides of the Pacific and needs a featured setup, it is one of the dominant craft of its type and yet is the only major CT ride that has no featured setup. Time to make one that fetaures the Marine Air Wing, Time for Island Hopping and we need lots of help.
So, how hard is it to take an existing Pacific map and provide a constellation of small island bases, close together for steaming purposes of ships, lots of fleets, one or two (3?) airbases and a VH or 2 on each, lots of SBs and acks?
How hard, what needs to be done and would we be allowed to run it?
Say to represent early war the US has to get a few bases using only Wildcats and SBDs once done they get the whole suite?
Come on, let's make an Island Hopping map, it was the whole Pac war, how can we not have one?
Sakai
-
its been done
they used the main "island map". It was brady and I in a6m5s (no nikis because they were whined away) vrs 35 others using every plane available to the us including b17s and b26s.
Guess what, it sucked. It was these setups that shaped brady into the cm he is today. Read hazed's comments in the other thread, ask karnak how it was or Nifty.
The whole pac war wasnt f4us there were plenty of other planes flown by the us. But even so theres no real ground war in ah. The ct isnt a"war" where folks enlist and most carry forth not matter how crappy it is. While most us types would be fine building battling in an empty arena not many folks will fly japanese planes. Thats what happened before and thats what will happen again.
The only way to get more diverse pac set ups is with more planes on both sides. But it certainly wont ever work if say the next us plane is a p47n and the japanese get a claude. There are other variants of the ki67 and hell even the n1k1 would be good. But with out new planes there is no way to put on a historical pac set up.
In an open arena balance is more important then strictly historical match ups.
These arent mini scenarios or events. It called the combat theater and any set up that shifts from combat to main play or unbalanced gameplay sucks.
Now you certainly can build you a map and research the planes skins and all that. Get it built and send it to skuzzy to be put up for download. Then find a receptive ct cm to put in on. I doudt brady would waste any time on such a map or set up. Or any ct cm would either. But take a clue from kanttorri and build the maps you want and see what happens.
-
Unit locations, TO&E's and time frames are easily found with a little digging and I have some in a notebook somewhere in my attic.
Also lets not limit it to just a few plane types. It needs to be realistically setup... in a geez here is that word...balanced way. Not only with US only aircraft but also Aussie and Kiwi aircraft. Plus it will ruffle some feathers but there were only a few areas that had more than a couple of aircraft types within it from the Allied perspective.
BUT the biggest thing (if I understand what I have read of the Terrain Editor) is finding sufficient terrain data. We all know that the Guadalcanal area has pretty good information but areas like Rabaul and Bouganville (sp?) in New Georgia are lacking from what I have found. I have been working on a scenario for the Battle of the Phillipine Sea for a while in my spare time. Unfortunately I haven't found adequate FREE terrain data for the area around Saipan.
-
I can draw you up the map but I dont have time to do the whole thing.
What you can do is decide on a size of the map
draw it out grey scale (white being land and highest elevation black being water)
I can help you get it through the te. But be aware that a new version should be out shortly.
You need remember some simple things when laying out the bases
bases beyond 25 miles mean long flight times and boredom.
So when laying out your fields go through and layout the "historical" ones then go back and add fields (even if they arent historical) so you create areas where flight times are short so folks can find a fight.
Its not that hard. The ct maps should be 256 x 256 (main small maps) bases need to be close enough to prevent boredom and all coastal fields need sbs and lotsa aaa.
I get home form work late and will be busy all week but you can email me and I will help you.
I already did up a map that was set for the "battle of the bismark sea" . It had the North eastern tip of New Guinea, New ireland new britain etc.
I deleted it a while back because the planeset isnt no where complete enough but I am sure I can easily redo it
-
I got most of the info for the bismark sea here
http://www.historicwings.com/features99/bismarcksea/
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Unit locations, TO&E's and time frames are easily found with a little digging and I have some in a notebook somewhere in my attic.
Also lets not limit it to just a few plane types. It needs to be realistically setup... in a geez here is that word...balanced way. Not only with US only aircraft but also Aussie and Kiwi aircraft. Plus it will ruffle some feathers but there were only a few areas that had more than a couple of aircraft types within it from the Allied perspective.
BUT the biggest thing (if I understand what I have read of the Terrain Editor) is finding sufficient terrain data. We all know that the Guadalcanal area has pretty good information but areas like Rabaul and Bouganville (sp?) in New Georgia are lacking from what I have found. I have been working on a scenario for the Battle of the Phillipine Sea for a while in my spare time. Unfortunately I haven't found adequate FREE terrain data for the area around Saipan.
Ran across a pdf file on the Navy's history site that would help tremendously. I just with the terrain editor wouldn't crash on my machine or I'd already have had this done. ;)
-
Originally posted by Batz
I can draw you up the map but I dont have time to do the whole thing.
What you can do is decide on a size of the map
draw it out grey scale (white being land and highest elevation black being water)
I can help you get it through the te. But be aware that a new version should be out shortly.
You need remember some simple things when laying out the bases
bases beyond 25 miles mean long flight times and boredom.
So when laying out your fields go through and layout the "historical" ones then go back and add fields (even if they arent historical) so you create areas where flight times are short so folks can find a fight.
Its not that hard. The ct maps should be 256 x 256 (main small maps) bases need to be close enough to prevent boredom and all coastal fields need sbs and lotsa aaa.
I get home form work late and will be busy all week but you can email me and I will help you.
I already did up a map that was set for the "battle of the bismark sea" . It had the North eastern tip of New Guinea, New ireland new britain etc.
I deleted it a while back because the planeset isnt no where complete enough but I am sure I can easily redo it
Your first post was pretty whiney. Glad to see the turn around. Who knows, maybe you can be an asset in this endevour after all. :D
-
And herein lies the rub. You can submit any map you want, but the CM's determine what planes are available and what restrictions are to be placed on that availability. I'm not sure why anyone thinks changing maps will alter any restrictions on the rides available. It will still be the same people making that determination.
I mean, look at Batz first reply,"It's been done and didn't work, we ain't gonna do it again."
In a reply to that, we aren't asking for a setup featuring F4U4's vs. B5N's. What we would like is one with widely available F4U's vs. whatever IJN rides you wish to throw in against them. Please let me know why this is impossible.
-
Rgr that Batz. My initial thoughts once I saw Sakai's proposal on the other thread was to wait till the new TE comes out but to have the ground work finished up before actually starting on something new. The same as I hope to do with the scenario I was wanting to work up also.
-
It's been done and didn't work, we ain't gonna do it again
I have nothing to do with the ct. I said I doudt anyone would. If you want a map or a setup you go out and do the work to get it added. I also know brady pretty well and know he wont do it for ya either. There are those other ct cms. Try to get them to agree with ya.
Thats what I said.
Also I said look at kantorri he and his squaddies and others not only made the map, skins and custom fields but they developed the planeset and write up. Nothing is stopping you from doing the same.
Tardlo,
I have np helping folks even if i dont agree with what it is they are doing. The ct ceratinly isnt hurt by addign more variety. I just think that until we get more plane variety most of what is done in the ct in regards to pac stuff is as good as it gets.
Once new planes arrive then more doors open.
-
Np rechske
I dont think the way the te functions will change much. Most likely new objects and tiles etc will be added to bring it up to ah2 standards.
I am sure you can get some practice time in. Search the TE forum for a link to the akbmp2map. I believe pokie has it on his ftp. This program is very easy to use. You can use ogres map maker but it spits out only 512x512 maps. It allows public domain elevation maps to be imported to the Aces High terrain format.
Brady and I are working on a scenario that will run some time in 2004.
For okinawa brady spent time going to museums to get images of the field layouts and the guy who did the skins spent lotsa time researching for correct paint schemes.
Just let me know if you need help, I will do what I can.
-
Found a good link for the GPS points of Papua New Guinea and am downloading it now to try and rebuild that map. Also found the image for the map as well.
-
I was able to find an Intelegance report on Okinawa at The Oregon Milityary Museum, one that was caried into combat on the Island by a US Army Captain, who donated it to the museum, it contained detailed arieal photos of the entire Island and all it's airfields, and those on Ie Shima, these were scaned by me and sent to Kanttori, the intell report also contained detailed topagrifical data and info on all the towns, ect.
All the Plane Skins for the Slot map and The Okianwa map were reseached by me and sent to the skiners, while in some cases different skins were used than the ones I provided refrences for 90% of them are ones I looked up, I also looked up Ship and Vehical skins refrences, and reseached unit historys to some extend to verify those which were or should of been included in the area. This is somthing I have done for most all the maps we presently use in the CT and for the skins on several of those map's, notable exceptions are the Fin Russ map's.
I could most likely dig somthing up on any of the areas your interested in Reschke in terms of skin refrences and or Map data, also if you are intending to use these map's in the CT I would very much like to advise you on things like base placemt and simply take a look at the map priour to it going to Skuzzy, this is intended to simply help in the development process to sugest CT friendly things is all, this is somthing I also do on most all the maps we use in the CT.
najdorf: As Batz as mentioned in the past the CT ( Yes some of my own set up's) have had Unlimited F4U's of all types in them aganst the present Japanese plane set, as he mentioned these set up suffered from a serious lack of atandnce. We also had the same problem in set up's for other theaters featuring plane set's that had the same problems. Those problems are ....Namely huge preformance differances between the planes. What we discovered is that when these diferances exist players get frustrated and log out, so we through the learning curve have discovered that if we try and creat a set up whear each side has a fighting chance that each side is likely to feal good and stay and fight. A big problem we have in the PAC set up area is of course a lack of Japanese planes from all times of the war to set aganst the comparatively huge allied plane set AH has. In the Early/mid war and Late war set up peroouds the Japanese are Missing their best preforming planes from the AH plane set, while the Allies have their's, this creats magor set up problems for the CT if we wish to adheaer to the concept of fair for both sides plane set's. In the present set up I wanted to include the P47 and the F4U both of which have a huge preformance advantage over the Japanese planes, but the problem is that if left without restrictions we would see a lot of runing cheary picking and other un-fun things hapining, which puts us back to the low atandance levals from our past, so I limited both their availabalitys and focused the magority of the fighting on the Hellcat and the FM2 which when fighting the present Japanese set forces good fights and good action, this combined with the Much Faster F4U's and P47's makes for a real chalange to the Japanese plane set.
-
Originally posted by najdorf
In a reply to that, we aren't asking for a setup featuring F4U4's vs. B5N's. What we would like is one with widely available F4U's vs. whatever IJN rides you wish to throw in against them. Please let me know why this is impossible.
Exactly, I think rolling planeset through the week. The US starts with F4Fs, TBMs and SBDs on CVs and has to take an Island or two, then they can have P-40Es, etc. On Tuesday, F4Us and every plane for the Japanese. Let the Japanese start with teh Ki-67 and BOTH A6Ms, add the Ki-61, then the Niki. If they lack too much in bombloadout, let them have the Ju88 in Nipponese livery.
Do you start in your corner or end run up the map? Split up your CVs to try and split defender strength? Might be fun.
Does not have to be historically accurate, just has to have Island Hopping as an opportunity for both sides.
Hey, Japs have boats too. They can re-capture.
How does resupply of bases work? Can we have a few big centers of resupply that feed certain sector so fthe map, once those are destroyed you can pound a base and it withers away?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by brady
Inajdorf: As Batz as mentioned in the past the CT ( Yes some of my own set up's) have had Unlimited F4U's of all types in them aganst the present Japanese plane set, as he mentioned these set up suffered from a serious lack of atandnce.
Brady, is this true if it is simply the Corsairs? I mean, Hogs are fast but low and slow you can kill them. If they don't have the Fm2/Hellcat combo to "hold the leg whilst we skin her" then could we have a more even up fight?
Sakai
-
Brady drop me an email and I will tell you what I am looking for in the unit and terrain department.
-
Saki, I am afraid I dont compleatly understand you question, I think I do but could you clarify...
-
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think what Sakai is saying is to have all 3 IJN birds vs. the F4U variants and not include any hellcats or FM2's. That could be interesting. I might even forgo asking for a Chog and definately wouldn't need the 4.
What I meant by widely available F4U's is that you can get one at any allied field or CV on the map. I did not intend to say you could get any F4U you wanted.
And just to flog this horse one more time before it finally gives up the ghost, I don't see the problem of allowing F4U's at land bases in the Okinawa CT if you are allowing P-47's from them. In facing these planes from the IJN perspective, what's the real difference except the P-47 has more firepower? Meaning, allowing F4U's from land bases that also allow P-47 is possibly redundent, but definately not unbalancing.
-
I am sure this will not work with how the Aces High system is set up, but could it work?
Lets say we have a setup similar to Oki. Where allied starts out in the corner with hardly a base. I know that when a country takes a base that country is given whatever planes are active at that base. But can the system be set up so that if X number of bases are captured by the allied forces then late war aircraft are then available?
-
Originally posted by brady
Saki, I am afraid I dont compleatly understand you question, I think I do but could you clarify...
Najdorf picked up on it:
I mean simply some Corsairs only vs. The Jap planes, I mean make it Marines vs. The Japanese, you know? It's those sissy air force and Navy rides that get in the way of these corsair setups.
Make them start with Wildcats, progress to Corsairs.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Jebo44
I am sure this will not work with how the Aces High system is set up, but could it work?
Lets say we have a setup similar to Oki. Where allied starts out in the corner with hardly a base. I know that when a country takes a base that country is given whatever planes are active at that base. But can the system be set up so that if X number of bases are captured by the allied forces then late war aircraft are then available?
That would be cool.
-
The old perdonia setups worked this way.
The deeper into enemy territory you went the better planes were available from those captured bases. It was problematic because I believe the side losing fields would get worse planes. So you ended up with nikis fighting f4fs etc. You could create "rings or sections of a map that represented different time periods etc....
Resupply in the ct is mostly turned off because it rarely works. All it really ever effects in fuel/troops and if those are all down most guys just would log.
You can come up with alot of creative ways to design a map and field layouts to get the type of gameplay you desire.
If I may make a suggestion some of you guys seem real interested in developing certain aspects of the ct. In this case pac setups.
You all might benefit by forming some kinda "CT pac development group" where by you share research, map making etc. Doing it alone can be kinda rough.
There are lotsa guys that would help researching aircraft skins, field layouts oobs etc.
You might even ask skuzzy if he would give you a private forum.
But gameplay has to be at the top of any CT setuop you develop. Scenarios are different and gamplay can be manage by rules and aircraft useage rules.
I know brady would do a lot to help out.
Good luck.
-
"Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think what Sakai is saying is to have all 3 IJN birds vs. the F4U variants and not include any hellcats or FM2's. That could be interesting. I might even forgo asking for a Chog and definately wouldn't need the 4. "
Well this would be an Un balanced set up one whear the best preforiming Blue plane would be set aganst the far slower Japanese planes creating a set up condation remenicent of those we ran in the past that had poor atandance do to bad game play which was brought about by the huge spead advantage of the aposing planes.
"I don't see the problem of allowing F4U's at land bases in the Okinawa CT if you are allowing P-47's from them. "
The F4U's are the best preforming of all the planes in the present set up spead wise and exceleration wise for the allies( withen the normal CT combat envelope), alowing them to be widely available would be counterproductive to above mentioned premis and mess up the balance that is acheaved withen the curent mix. P47's are alomst 15- 20mph slower than the F4U-1D and have a lower exceleration rating.
The bases can be set up to suport any one or every plane in AH, each base can be custom set up inother word's, this is a pain to do but it is posaable.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
It's those sissy Navy rides that get in the way of these corsair setups.
Do I have to send you my copy of "The Jolly Rogers" in a crate fulla bricks ... c.o.d? :D
-
Originally posted by brady
Well this would be an Un balanced set up one whear the best preforiming Blue plane would be set aganst the far slower Japanese planes creating a set up condation remenicent of those we ran in the past that had poor atandance do to bad game play which was brought about by the huge spead advantage of the aposing planes.
The F4U's are the best preforming of all the planes in the present set up spead wise and exceleration wise for the allies
ARGH! (Damn Brady's broken record flawed logic!)
Wrong.
and
Wrong.
-
Originally posted by Batz
You all might benefit by forming some kinda "CT pac development group" where by you share research, map making etc. Doing it alone can be kinda rough.
There are lotsa guys that would help researching aircraft skins, field layouts oobs etc.
You might even ask skuzzy if he would give you a private forum.
But gameplay has to be at the top of any CT setuop you develop. Scenarios are different and gamplay can be manage by rules and aircraft useage rules.
I know brady would do a lot to help out.
Good luck.
Damn fine idea.
I know they would all be tons of help and I am really excited about doing something productive that we can enjoy rather than have all guys complianing. I think if many people contributed to these terrains, it would be outstanding fun.
For me personally, I don't mind a japanese deisgned setup or a US predominate one, simply I want some active participation from all of us who are spending time on the boards. We could be doing more and having more fun, all I'm thinking, you know?
Do we have a nice China map?
Sakai
Sakai
-
Brady I see what you are saying about setting certain bases with for example a late war plane. But wouldn't that just wind up being an exploit where other bases are bypassed so that only the base with the P51D, for example, is the first base that is taken?
Your answer to my question is no I get that but would the idea of number of bases being taken to advance the time frame of the map and make late war planes available as a result, be something that could be passed on to the dev's?
I have no clue of how to do any of the dev stuff for maps or skins, but I am willing to give it a try. Sakai if you see a hole that needs filled keep me in mind and I will do my best to help.
-
One of the biggest reasons I want the Ki-84-I-Ko is so that a fully competetive Japanese fighter will be available in order to free up the use of the better USN aircraft. Yes, even occasionally the F4U-4.
As long as we keep getting more and more US stuff or mismatched stuff it won't happen though.
We don't need a 1941 A6M2, a 1938 B5N2 and a 1937 D3A1 added at the same time as the USN gets a 1942 F4F-4, 1943 SBD-5 and 1944 FM2.
While all of those are nice airplanes they do not work well together. We need Pacific Theater planesets that actually work together.
Also, as Wotan pointed out in his first post, the current planeset simply did not work for F4U based island hoping. I remember way to many setups back in the early stages of the CT where the Japanese were forced to use only the A6M5 and Ki-61 against the whole USN, USAAF and RN forces. Needless to say there simply were not many Japanese players. It was that very fact that led to the creation of the now defunct 27th Sentai and the now effectively defunct 13th Sentai. The F4U fans, unfortunately, must accept that there will be some gameplay considerations that affect them. I'm sure brady and the other CT guys will re-evaluate those considerations once we get to see what AH's version of the Ki-84 performs like.
-
I am with Karnak although I would like to see a Ki-100 added as well along with a J2M3. In another game (FA) those were some potent aircraft if flown correctly in a scenario. Against B-17's J2M3's were murderous aircraft in the Battle for Manilla event I flew in over there many moons ago.
Sakai if you want to get a CT Pacific Development Group (PACDEVGRU) together I am all for it. Drop me an email through my profile and I will get you a few ideas for some CT setups I have in my mind.
-
Jebbo, I see (I think) what you trying to do or have happen rather, and no it does not work that way, if X number of bases are taken this plane sudenly becomes available, the tools we have to use are available to you offline, all the setings are their for you to tinker with, if you want to understand how it work's.
Karnak, is bang on if we get a Ki 84 it will free up many if not all of the restrictions presently being placed on the US plane set, it also would open up China as a CT set up area for a face off with P51's. The Japanese also nead Better late war atack aircraft, Juddy's, Jill's, Graces, Ki 102's ect...
Simply Put we nead more Japanese Planes.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Sakai if you want to get a CT Pacific Development Group (PACDEVGRU) together I am all for it. Drop me an email through my profile and I will get you a few ideas for some CT setups I have in my mind.
Hehe ... with an acronym like that, I'm hooked already. :D
Where do I sign?!
-
Originally posted by brady
Simply Put we nead more Japanese Planes.
We certainly do, but surely we could identify a competitive arena that featured a Corsair or two?
Sakai
-
as long as brady keeps saying this
----------------------------------
Well this would be an Un balanced set up one whear the best preforiming Blue plane would be set aganst the far slower Japanese planes creating a set up condation remenicent of those we ran in the past that had poor atandance do to bad game play which was brought about by the huge spead advantage of the aposing planes.
The F4U's are the best preforming of all the planes in the present set up spead wise and exceleration wise for the allies( withen the normal CT combat envelope), alowing them to be widely available would be counterproductive to above mentioned premis and mess up the balance that is acheaved withen the curent mix. P47's are alomst 15- 20mph slower than the F4U-1D and have a lower exceleration rating.
------------------------------------------------
its not worth discussing anything about new plane matchs.
-
What we need is a different CM to implement it. Brady has made it clear he won't allow free access to any F4U because of it's alleged uberness in comparison to the IJN planes. Unfortunately, it seems like all the other CM's are interested in Euro sets only meaning Brady does the PTO's.
Any CM willing to host a Corsair setup, please sign on to the thread.
-
it seems like all the other CM's are interested in Euro sets only meaning Brady does the PTO's.
Maybe they avoid pacs all togetehr to avoid hearing from the blue plane mafia. They take a safer route and rather hear from the spit whiners rather then the "I demand an f4u and if you dont give it to me you are biased and if i could find some one to tell on you I would" crowd.
Theres 6 CT cms (2 non regulars) all ya got do is get 1 to work with ya. Badgering brady over it aint gonna do crap for ya. That should be obvious. Or hell volunteer and email skuzzy and HT and ask to be added to the cm staff.
Sakai, Reschke and I believe Arlo are going to try and put something together. Hell brady and I will even help. Find you a cm whiling to run it and your are all set.
Brady didnt steal your christmas. There is 4 other elves making rounds. Convince them you deserve something more then coal. :p
-
Call me two faced but I would like to see more Corsairs in the skies of AH CT arena as well but I want to see more meatballs to paint on the side of my bird as well. Simply put here is the breakdown of what I would like to see in AH for some IJ aircraft.
Fighters:
Ki-100
Ki-84
J2M3
Ki-43
J1N Gekko
Attack/Bomber:
P1Y Ginga
G3M
-
To keep it simple, and get the most bang for the Buck, and to free up the present restrictions often placed on Allied Aircraft:
Ki 61 Ib (MG 151's), easly added since it is a varient. (New Gunie)
A6M3 (Type 99 MK II's), easly added since it is a varient. (Slot. New gunie)
Ki 84, a Must for all areas in 44/45 plane set's.
Juddy, much better atack plane than the Val becomes available in late 42.
I would avoid the Ki 43, it helps not all in adreasing present set up issues, The J2M is a nice plane but it is available at almost the same time as the George and it is not as good a plane, the Japanese canceled it in favore of concentrating on the George. The Ki 100 is a nice plane but not as good a preformer as the Ki 84 and not even as good as the late model Ki 61's. Non of these planes (J2M,Ki 100,Ki 43) help adress balance issues when set aganst the present allied plane set.
If the Ki 61-Ib were added and the A6M3 big early war balance issue would be adreased, espichaly if coupled with a Juddy adation, and a Ki 45.
If you want to adress a ealr war Pac Bomber issue and dispence with the Boston Peggy combo, a G4M (Betty)/ Beaufort combo would be best to take their place.
For Late war the Ki 84 is defentaly Key, the Ki 44 is nice but depending on what model and when it is used the Ki 61-Ib is better than it early and the Ki 84 later.
Adding more competative atack platforms is defenatly a good idea, the Francis,Jill, Grace, Randy are all exceelnt planes, espichaly the Grace and the Randy, these would certainly help in the ordance gap issue.
But I think to keep our wish list withen the relm of the posable in the short term:
Ki 84, Ki-61-Ib,A6M3, Juddy
Just these 4 planes would do a lot and requier only two new aircraft.
-
While I agree Brady that the planes you mentioned would do a good bit by giving the IJ guys something else to fly that would be competitive. They also need the rides that would allow a varied and wide range of early war scenarios in the CT to happen. As well as later war scenario's that had several of the other aircraft in there like the J2M series which was a pretty prevalent bird in the Phillipines from what I remember.
Plus there are some guys (ME ME ME) who like flying underdog virtual aircraft and winning fights in them. If I didn't then I wouldn't be playing flight sims 90% of my game time on the computer.
Also my list was incomplete as I did it right before I left work and didn't have time to finish the thought. More will follow later tonight.
-
Well ya the more toy's the better:), I just tryed to keep it as short and simple as posable in the hopes of seeing it sometime soon.
-
How about something like:
FAA:
F4U-1D
TBM-3
vs.
Bf109G-10
Bf110G-2
Fw190A-5
Fw190A-8
Fw190F-8
Ju87D-3
Ju88A-4
That would give F4Us against a planeset that would be competetive.
I guess this would be about as good as an F4U oriented Pac setup can be with the current planeset:
FAA
F4U-1
TBM-3
USN:
F4U-1D
F4U-4 (50 perks)
SBD-5
TBM-3
USMC:
F4U-1C (25 perks)
IJN:
A6M5b
B5N2
D3A1
N1K2-J
IJA:
Ki-61-I-KAIc
Ki-67
-
well with the problem the pac setups is also a problem of the limited (yes limited) US planeset.
A more diverse planeset offsets the effect that certain planes have on the own in "unbalancing" gameplay.
An early b26, a b25, earlier p38s, p400/39s. Earlier sbd or tdm etc.... Then add to the mix the new japanese aircraft and the ct can be set up to offset the unbalancing effects of certain planes.
As I mentioned above as the USN was get late version of their planes the japanese got the val and kate.
More diversity in plane types and map and set up designs will reduce alot the stuff that gets argued over now.
But everyone has a favorite plane and no one wants to wait. I trust brady to do whats right, you all call him a biased blue plane hater etc. But his unbalanced unfair and biased pac setups have a lot more folks flying them then the old open planeset pacs of the past.
-
Personally I would like to see P-39/P-400 variants along with some Boomerangs (sp?) and a couple of others in the Allied section. BUT I still want more IJ aircraft to shoot down and would like for them to get say 5-6 aircraft in the aircraft update that will surely happen one AH2 gets rolling good. I realistically expect to see 1-3 IJ, 1-2 Italian and 2-3 Soviet aircraft.
BUT as I told Sakai earlier this evening I don't expect new aircraft types before the first of the year.
-
You get the last two E mial I sent?
"I realistically expect to see 1-3 IJ, 1-2 Italian and 2-3 Soviet aircraft. "
I certainly hope we get it as good as that, my concern at present is that since the MT will be doing a 8th Airforce type of Europe set up for it's first go run were likely to see more planes for this area first(Europe), or at least I am fearing that this is so.
-
Yep brady I got 'em and replied to one of them. Not sure what is taking so long with them getting to you but my ISP has dropped a few emails of mine both incoming and outgoing in the last couple of days. They say its something to do with one of the routers within their network.
Even though the first setups as mentioned by HT in TOD are going to be ETO. I seriously hope they don't add more ETO aircraft to the mix. That arena is pretty well covered for now on both the allied (US/Brit) and German side. I really hope he brings in more Italian, IJ and Soviet aircraft.
-
I just got the one E mail from a bit agp, I have been having realy slow e-mail deleverys lately as well, playing h!ll with my PBEM UV game.
Ya I realy hope so to.....
-
I'd be surprised if we don't get a Ki-84 by AH v2.03.
-
Until then, I hope some of us can accept some reasonable substitutes. After all, face it, it's probably gonna be a long time before we see new planes added. We could take a look at what we have to work with and work up some skins. That being said, that doesn't neccesarily commit any CT staffer to enabling those planes ... but it would be nice to have the skins ready just in case we decide to try some subbing for awhile. They can always be turned back off. I would like to see all the terrains worked up including all of the skin subs that are developed. It's always nice to have options.
I've also liked the idea of game dynamics including research and development that is directly linked to a country's resource reserves. That way both sides can start out with early planesets and from that point on the introduction of new planes and vehicles is hinged on their own decisions to invest in R&D as well as their ability to keep their industrial infrastructure intact.
For instance ... if the Japanese players (or their ranking commanders) decide to develop the Tony as fast as possible, they can invest resource points from their industry to do so. Since this would be a constant map, we can't actually model material being attrited from strat bombing nor can we actually model the shifting of resources from a production line to a research facility. But maybe we can simulate it by assigning key industrial centers "research points" or "production points." These factories would then be specifically tasked to build a certain type plane or vehicle *(ports ships even?) and the number of fields that can up that type of plane or the number of ports/fleets that are activated or shut down can be directly related to the points assigned and the distribution of those points by the players. This, of course, would have to be maintained by the CT staff.
Conversely, the players could decide to develop newer and better planes by taking production points and redesignating them as research points. Then that particular facility is working on the development of the new plane or vehicle.
Such a system would make things more dynamic and instead of introducing planes on a predetermined calendar date, either side could try to bump it up a bit (or they could even decide to slow it a little and have more bases providing the types of planes, vehicles and boats they already have available).
This also adds some dimension to the strat bomber dedicated players (given each side has developed decent bombers to do this). Of course, the precise information of what factory is building or developing what should remain a secret of the CMs that are being entrusted to maintain the system, I suppose. Unless we get even fancier and try to come up with some way to implement intelligence gathering.
Yeah .... it's a tad bit but I think it's doable and may be worth looking into. But then again, think tanks often come up with all sorts of pipedreams. One player's pipedream is another's pipe filling. ;)
Whew!
*(By this we could make sure that the map or maps actually have several ports and fleets designed into them but not all of them neccesarily have to be activated until the fleets are actually built. Each side starts out with a certain number of fleets - I suppose in an early war setting the Japanese would have a considerably larger amount of tonnage afloat than the Allies - and as industry is managed, whatever is put into fleet production can enable new fleets. Conversly .... fleets that are sunk may actually stay sunk until they are replaced with new fleets built.)
-
But what would "investing research points in the Tony" do? The Ki-61 is still going to be a Ki-61. Its performance would not change.
Are you suggesting subing in a Bf109 or some such? If so I think many, if not most, Ki-61 fliers will stick with the old Ki-61 as it handles better. There's a reason we don't fly Bf109s...;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
But what would "investing research points in the Tony" do? The Ki-61 is still going to be a Ki-61. Its performance would not change.
Are you suggesting subing in a Bf109 or some such? If so I think many, if not most, Ki-61 fliers will stick with the old Ki-61 as it handles better. There's a reason we don't fly Bf109s...;)
You're not getting me. Investing in a Tony will eventually enable it for use. This is a seperate issue from the first paragraph promoting substitutions. The Tony is still the Tony.
Picture this:
The map starts out chronologically before the Guadalcanal campaign. The Japanese players have the A6M2, Val and Kate enabled. The Allied player has the F4F, SBD (Boston maybe? Maybe not.) As the "war" progresses, each side invests in development and they receive newer equipment (it could be the Tony - which already exists in the AH lineup - it could be something we subbed and skinned ... of course, if it's a better, later model {uber} plane ... then it'll take more resource points and cost more to produce).
Then if, by chance, the IJ players decide they want to skip working on the A6M5 and work on the Tony instead, they can. If the Allied players want to develop the FM2 and wait on working on the F4U (I would suggest that variants can't be skipped) - they can. If the development group has worked up an acceptable substitute for the Ki-84 ... and the IJ player has the research points available to invest and wants to .... he can.
-
Ok ... another example:
The Japanese player's industrial infrastructure is intact and factory 12 is producing Kates using 240 points to supply 4 forward fields with them at the cost of 60 points per field (it could be producing other stuff as well). The ranking IJ players decide that they want to use 180 of the Kate points for development of the A6M5. Doing so, they have to inform the CT staff of not only their decision to do this but which three fields will no longer have Kates available.
Likewise, if the IJ players decide to keep the production of 240 points worth of Kates out of that factory ... and lets say that that factory gets destroyed by a bombing raid .. then the CT staffer should make Kates unavailable at those 4 fields (and whatever else that factory is supplying to other places). If those points are already transferred to research, then the IJ side loses 280 points of A6M5 research until that factory is rebuilt.
Yeah .. this would take some effort on the staff's part. I dunno ... maybe there could be an easier variation. This has been more of a scenario idea of mine than a regular arena idea. I'd still like to see R&D dynamics though.
*edit* On second thought .... neh .... this'd be way to much for a one week run.
I *still* like the idea of incorporating as many options for variation into the map as possible, though. Substituted skins, multiple fleet compositions, etc. It would be a fair amount of work at first but it would give the staffers more to work with without having the whole terrain reworked to add something or take it away. Wanna try the Ki-84 (La-7) sub? It's there and skinned - turn it on and give it a try. Don't like? Look - we also skinned an La-5fn *click**click* Has the war progressed and the Allies built some fleets? *click* Did the Japanese side lose a fleet? *click*
*ShruG*
-
Sakai's post above got me thinking of how to get the F4U into a set-up....
How about this as a future PTO set-up....
MAP: Guadalcanal yet we imagine it later in the war say 1943.
1. As stated above - the Allies will start out on the Bottom Rung of the ladder with only F4F's, SBD's & TBM's from the CV's till they take a field on the canal. The IJN will get the A6M2 & 5 & KI-61 from the start.
2. Once the canal is taken & secured, the Allies will get the P-40E & Boston bombers. P-40 & Boston could also be manually added after the whole island is secure to represent the time when only USN & USMC air was on the island. Later on the early model F4U might be manually added.
3. As the fight moves up the Island Chain - Somewhere in the middle will be a couple bases for the F4U pre-set up. Catch is they will not be announced. The Allies will have to take all the islands up the chain to that point or "Island Hop" to get to the F4U bases.
4. Midway through the set-up the CM's can manually enable the Hellcat on the CV's & remove the Wildcats. Same for Wildcats from land basses as well as upgrading to the A-20 or B-26 to represent the B-25's in the area.
5. Maybe also the last or next to last day of the set-up, the P-38 will be enabled on the canal. Tough to do as it is a late model 1944 version but possible. Maybe B-17 as well to represent the B-24's.
I would be willing to run a set-up like this if there will be enough people to fly it.
As I said I would also like to see more PTO set-up's in the CT. I am an old Hellcat driver by heart. I just fly the Japanese stuff to help out with the numbers.
Real weakness you are going to find with ANY PTO set-up is that hardly anyone wants to fly the Japanese side. Too bad - there is alot of potential out there for PTO set-ups.
-
Potentially, I think there are two problems with the rolling planeset based on base capture idea.
1. I don't think a week will be long enough.
2. And most importantly, what if the allies don't advance? Or, they capture a base, get a new plane and then lose it.
-
Other potential problem:
P-38Ls (July, 1944 fighter) and F4Us brutualize the A6M5b and Ki-61-I.
N1K2 would have to show up as well or you wont have any Japanese players. Even the N1K2 can't handle P-38Ls that have a slight clue.
Arlo,
Ok, got it now. Interesting.
-
would be cool to have a pacific theatre up all the time in a seperate arena,maybe once AH2 is up to full speed they will have a pac theatre up all the time.
jester I like the idea stated above,but like naj said I dont think you will have enough time to capture all the bases needed to fly the f4u's but I could be wrong lets try it.
-
Najdorf, usually base capture isn't that big a problem with Allies vs. Japan. Depends on weather they want to try and take ground or just "Furball."
But, another solution might be to manually move the front so much each day if it has not done so own it's own. IMO the Allies should take and hold their own ground to get the planes they want but it isn't necessary.
Karnak, the 38 is just an idea. Not necessary to include but the George could be added at the same time to offset it. Maybe even the LA-5 skinned as a KI-87 till we get the real thing.