Author Topic: Plans for the Combat Theater (Read 4723 times)

keyapaha · « **Reply #30 on:** December 19, 2001, 08:59:00 AM »

wont be there on sat but will be soon after

thanks to all who worked hard on this. this and the snapshots (which are hard for me to make) is the main reason i pay 14.95 a month.

i am sure it wont be perfect to all ( that would be impossible) but this set up sounds like it will work for me. again thanks to all

J_A_B · « **Reply #31 on:** December 19, 2001, 10:11:00 AM »

Buzzbait--actually the P-38L is a bit slower than the P-38J. This is not really important as the real 1943 P-38 was the P-38H. Also, the two versions of F6F are so similar as to render any argument over their version pointless (there is a whopping 2 MPH difference in top speed).

That said, whether they use them or not is up to the CT team.

J_A_B

Rude · « **Reply #32 on:** December 19, 2001, 10:28:00 AM »

Heyas HB!

Looks like a fine setup. I'm not unhappy in the MA like some, however, I do like the idea of a CT if for nothing else, to just have options.

13th TAS will give it a go from time to time...hope it works out for everyone concerned.

Oh...thanks for the hard work...CT staffs efforts are appreciated by this pilot.

Nifty · « **Reply #33 on:** December 19, 2001, 10:30:00 AM »

If you like planes that aren't in this set, I'd encourage you to fly anyways. There's no way everyone will have their favorite plane in every setup. The LW guys need people to shoot at this time around, and when a PAC theater happens, we'll need those LW fans to jump into some IJN or USN aircraft for the PAC fans.

LePaul · « **Reply #34 on:** December 19, 2001, 10:40:00 AM »

Count me in.

Sure there's a few things I'd like to see, but you know what? I see more Pros than Cons and from the feedback, some very experienced players will be participating

I'll miss my Lancaster, but I'm told the Jug climbs almost as fast

martell0 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 19, 2001, 10:43:00 AM »

Mmmm....
No Niki?????
No La7????????

I dont will play so!!!

CRASH · « **Reply #36 on:** December 19, 2001, 11:12:00 AM »

It all sounds pretty good guys, cant wait to try it out.
I'm curious as what the reasoning was to leave out the p-38 considereing there were a bunch of 'em in europe in '43 I believe.

I'd like to see friendly dot dar on if possible just to keep from wasting alot of time merging with friendlies.

Tac · « **Reply #37 on:** December 19, 2001, 12:24:00 PM »

"The P-38L is quite a bit faster than the P-38J"

P-38J was faster.

"This is not really important as the real 1943 P-38 was the P-38H"

No, the J version was in service by Aug. 1943. The -25 (last batch) of 38J's had the boosted aleirons and dive flaps, those I believe entered service in early '44.

Still, its a shame the 38 is not in this setup, as it is now its basically a J that can roll better at near compression speeds.

When you add the 38, let me know, ill live in the CT.

Sabre · « **Reply #38 on:** December 19, 2001, 12:25:00 PM »

Crash, since scenario icon setting gives friendly icons at much longer range than it gives enemy icons, the lack of friendly dots probably won't be a huge issue for most. Besides which, part of the philosophy of the CT is to recreate some of the Fog of War that is lacking in the MA.

As for the reason for leaving the P-38 out, we just felt that the Allies had plenty of aircraft choices already in this set up, particularly in the JABO catagory. Don't worry about the Lightning...It'l get used in another set up, and soon I'd wager. I've already got a set up on the drawing boards that uses it.

J_A_B · « **Reply #39 on:** December 19, 2001, 01:04:00 PM »

Tac--look up what the first P-38 groups in the 8th airforce were flying when they went active in late 1943. It was the P-38H.

Was the P-38J already in use in the 9th airforce at this time? It is possible we are both correct. Or, perhaps the P-38J was used earlier in Italy or the Pacific?

J_A_B

daddog · « **Reply #40 on:** December 19, 2001, 01:34:00 PM »

38 driver all the way here and I sure would like to see it in the CT, but if not I will "force" myself to fly something else.

Don't see any reason "not" to have it, but I understand the reasons and like I said I will fly in the CT anyway.

<S>

popeye · « **Reply #41 on:** December 19, 2001, 01:54:00 PM »

"part of the philosophy of the CT is to recreate some of the Fog of War that is lacking in the MA."

IMO, the proposed settings create more FoW than existed in WWII. Radar and ground control were vital elements in homeland defense. For realistic FoW, there needs to be some kind of dot dar over friendly territory, and no dar of any kind over enemy territory.

Tower-only dot dar (or infrequently refreshed inflight dot dar) would be much more realistic than the bar dar "somewhere in 625 square miles at an undetermined altitude", while still removing the SA crutch that so many oppose. I hope HTC will implement one or the other in some future release.

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** December 19, 2001, 02:35:00 PM »

Blair,

I'll probably fly it some. The question will simply be where do I have more fun, fun being an entirely subjective assessment made soley by my own little self.

If I have more fun in the CT, I'll fly it the most. If I have more fun in the MA, I'll fly it the most.

Once again as I mentioned in a previous thread, there is ONE thing that will keep me TOTALLY out of the CT.

If I perceive that the CT's more "manly"

icon and dar settings are generating a divisive attitude in the player group, I'm out. I'll not support something that splits the player base. Saw it once in another ACM game, based on an equally ludicrous assumption; I'd hate to see it get started here.

CRASH · « **Reply #43 on:** December 19, 2001, 02:41:00 PM »

Hmmm,...If I'm readin' ya right, what I'm getting here is that it was left out for the sake of arena balance, which is ok, no problems with it here, but if balance is the issue, and I'm sure I'll catch hell for this one, but it might have been wiser to remove the p51b. Not sure when the p51b's starting showing up in numbers in theatre but it sure would make the arena more interesting. The spit IX would more than make up for the lack of a p51b. BTW, just to demonstrate that I'm not just trying to get my favorite ride introduced, if you check my stats you'll see my primary and by far favorite ride is the p51. The p38, imo would be by far the better choice for arena balance and fun quotient. As far as balancing jabo, how bout using the il2 to duplicate the ju87 stuka? Just some thoughts.

CRASH

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre:
Crash, since scenario icon setting gives friendly icons at much longer range than it gives enemy icons, the lack of friendly dots probably won't be a huge issue for most. Besides which, part of the philosophy of the CT is to recreate some of the Fog of War that is lacking in the MA.

As for the reason for leaving the P-38 out, we just felt that the Allies had plenty of aircraft choices already in this set up, particularly in the JABO catagory. Don't worry about the Lightning...It'l get used in another set up, and soon I'd wager. I've already got a set up on the drawing boards that uses it.

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: CRASH ]

hblair · « **Reply #44 on:** December 19, 2001, 03:01:00 PM »

Toad, the stuff about the icons radar being "manly' is usually just friendly banter when it does appear, which is rare anyway. Something not to be taken seriously by guys like you and me.

Ok men. The P38. It was dumped out of my original setup in an attempt to bring the air-to-ground abilities of the axis and allies more in line. Also, it will be featured in a soon-to-come planeset. I know the pony-B is the better of the two air-to air, but that's not the only factor that was considered.

Don't let this keep you away guys, there's several other allied planes to choose from.