Jump to content
[ASOR]Pharoah

Battle of Midway and Battle of Okinawa

Recommended Posts

As far as I'm aware (and based on specification charts) F2A-3 is about as fast as F4F-4 but has quite a bit better rate of climb and reaches altitudes of 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet faster than Wildcat. Has four brownings instead of six, but I dont think its a big issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware (and based on specification charts) F2A-3 is about as fast as F4F-4 but has quite a bit better rate of climb and reaches altitudes of 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet faster than Wildcat. Has four brownings instead of six, but I dont think its a big issue here.

 

 

I think the problem with the F2A was once all the USN-required stuff was put on it it was a lot heavier.

 

We'll find out soon enough... :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I got a specification chart from January 12th, 1942. It gives gross weight for F2A-3 in standard fighter configuration as 7253 pounds (empty weight 4894) and in remarks it is stated that only in Ferry configuration its armor and purging system are removed, so I assume that it has all necessary goodies Navy expected in standard fighter configuration. It still makes 320 mph at 14,500 feet, reaches 10,000 feet in 4.6 minutes and 20,000 ft in 10.2 min. 

 

Wildcat (F4F-4, specification chart from July 1st, 1943) has a gross weight of 7975 pounds (empty 5895) and makes 320 mph at 18,800 ft, time to 10,000 ft is 5.6 min and to 20,000 ft is 12.4 min.

 

All depends what you prefer, though my concern is mostly about visibility. Which one is worse. Or which one is as bad as Corsair when you are blind to what is behind :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ship classes have to be included as well.  IL2: Pacific Fighter's had a real problem with this.

 

Ship classes have to include at a minimum.

 

Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu, all individual ships

 

Kongo Class BB

Mogami Class CA

Myoko Class CA

Kagero Class DD

 

These could be the main strike force of the Kido Butai at Midway.  Other BBs, like the Nagato Class and Yamato class would be nice but were back a ways and weren't directly involved in the battle.   

 

As for the US you have to have:

 

Yorktown class CV (obviously)

Northhampton Class CA

New Orleans class CA

Farragut class DD

Benham class DD

 

Others have talked about the aircraft needed.   I would love see cruiser launched aircraft sent as spotters but I'm not sure how recovery operations would be done.

 

Okinawa would be more complicated for the US side.  Not much for the Japanese.  Yamato, Yahagi and the same destroyers could be modeled.

 

The Americans would be more complicated.

 

You would need a lot more as far as naval assets go.

 

Nevada class (could be modified for Pennsylvania class) BBs

Tennessee Class (also modified for West Virginia Class.

Mississippi Class BB

South Dakota Class BB

Iowa Class BB

Essex Class CV

Independence Class CVL

Baltimore Class CA

Cleveland Class CL

Fletcher Class DD

Various APAs, AKAs, maybe some DEs and even a CVE class like the Sangamon or Casablanca class CVE

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ship classes have to be included as well.  IL2: Pacific Fighter's had a real problem with this.

 

Ship classes have to include at a minimum.

 

Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu, all individual ships

 

Kongo Class BB

Mogami Class CA

Myoko Class CA

Kagero Class DD

 

These could be the main strike force of the Kido Butai at Midway.  Other BBs, like the Nagato Class and Yamato class would be nice but were back a ways and weren't directly involved in the battle.   

 

As for the US you have to have:

 

Yorktown class CV (obviously)

Northhampton Class CA

New Orleans class CA

Farragut class DD

Benham class DD

 

Others have talked about the aircraft needed.   I would love see cruiser launched aircraft sent as spotters but I'm not sure how recovery operations would be done.

 

Okinawa would be more complicated for the US side.  Not much for the Japanese.  Yamato, Yahagi and the same destroyers could be modeled.

 

The Americans would be more complicated.

 

You would need a lot more as far as naval assets go.

 

Nevada class (could be modified for Pennsylvania class) BBs

Tennessee Class (also modified for West Virginia Class.

Mississippi Class BB

South Dakota Class BB

Iowa Class BB

Essex Class CV

Independence Class CVL

Baltimore Class CA

Cleveland Class CL

Fletcher Class DD

Various APAs, AKAs, maybe some DEs and even a CVE class like the Sangamon or Casablanca class CVE

Cough BPF cough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt we'll get that deep into the ships right out of the gate.

 

Probably most or all of the aircraft carriers, a battleship, a cruiser, a destroyer and a tender or oiler for each side. I'm sure if it sells well we'll get more. Oh, and I'm sure Jason said something about a submarine as well. You can simulate a task force with those six seagoing types until you can fill it out in the coming titles. If we get Pearl Harbor you might get a couple of BB for the American side. If you want to flesh it out a bit more you could include a Lexington class for Coral Sea and some carrier variety for both sides.

 

Your list is exhaustive and I'm sure they want to get there someday but it will likely be in steps initially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should not dismiss the TBD's usefulness out of hand, simply on the tragic result of one engagement, where it's attack was not properly co-ordinated, and lacked escort.

 

When it entered service it was, by far, the most advanced torpedo bomber in the world, and other than the events at Midway, it actually acquitted itself pretty well elsewhere, especially at Coral Sea.

 

Put some F4Fs above it for top cover and it will still be capable of doing fairly well.

 

iS3goT.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the tactic that was supposed to protect the TBDs was an aerial combined arms attack.  Torpedo Bombers were never intended to attack on their own.  A coordinated attack was generally precipitated by the SBDs moments before the TBDs so as to get the attention of the AA directors and also provide cover to the TBDs in the form of explosions and the splashes of near misses.  The entire attack was to be under a nominal Escort of F4Fs, usually 2 divisions of 4 aircraft each.  The Bulk of the Fighter force was kept back over Mom for CAP.

 

Circumstances are what led to the demise of VT-8 at Midway as none of the strikes that day ever achieved this level of combined arms coordination.  Additionally miscommunication meant that several Attacking elements went unescorted.  Coordinating a full deckload from one carrier was challenging to begin with and didn't really happen often in the early war owing to many factors, not the least of which was differences of opinion between the two Task Forces and their Air Wings.

 

There were two schools of thought on how to launch and asssemble a proper carrier strike:

 

A Deferred launch - Launched Firghters first, then the Dive Bombers, then Torpedo Bombers.  They all orbited overhead until the strike package was assmebled, then proceeded out along bearings that they expected to find the enemy TF on.  Deferred launched were more effective in getting the band together but sacrificed time, range, and search radius for a concentrated force.

 

A Running Rendezvous -  Meant The slower DBs and TBs launched first and headed immediately toward the enemy, while the faster fighters launched last and caught up.  Runners maximized range, loiter and search times, but in the age before Airborne radar made getting everyone together difficult as they intentionally started fragmented, and hoped to get together along the way.  

 

In both cases at Midway they were not executed well by the leaders of each strike and neither were proved or disproved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will never understand, why the devs chose these two battles to start off the Pacific. It just seems very odd to me.

 

For one thing, the two battles are so far apart in time frame, that there is no overlap in terms of planeset, unlike in BoM/S/K, where the planesets kinda overlap and serve to make all the battles more interesting and varied.

 

Then there is the issue of the battles themselves. Midway was a highly dramatic event with loads of action - that lasted for all of four days... How to build a meaningful campaign that won't be over in an instant, I don't know. Okinawa was a protracted battle, but the air action was pretty much limited to two things: USN and RN pilots fending off wave after wave of mainly Kamikaze attackers for a few weeks, and then ground pounding with practically no resistance in the air for several months. Then there is the question of the disparity between the two forces (BoM is nothing in comparison) The USN/RN pilots will be flying a large number of relatively short missions from carriers while the Japanese pilots will in general be flying 1 (one) mission, crossing a huge distance over an endless ocean trying to locate the islands and enemy fleet only to spend 1-2mins over the target area trying to crash into a ship. Provided we get an absolutely huge map containing Kyushu and/or Taiwan (Formosa), the Japanese pilots will have the choice between flying incredibly long, boring missions, with a huge risk of getting lost, or use immersion-killing airstart to speed things up. Realistic historical MP scenarios are out of the question.

 

There are plenty of awesome settings in the Pacific/Far East, the devs could have chosen, which would have made for great and varied historical campaigns and realistic MP. New Guinea, The Solomons, Burma, Rabaul. With Midway and Okinawa, they pretty much have to cheat to keep it interesting.

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dunno...but I'm assuming they've discussed this at length. Maybe Midway is easier because its purely ship v ship (no need to build a map or only a small one for Midway Is). Okinawa because its late war. I would have preferred either Guadalcanal or New Guinea ie. where there is a multitude of targets (air/land/sea). But we can only wait and hope. Remember they have to finish BoK first - maybe they might change their plans once BoK is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody asked for the good old Vindicator? The SB2U Took part in the Battle of Midway. But I guess the Japanese "decommissioned" it then.

 

SB2U_taking_off_from_Midway_Jun_1942.jpg

 

That one, June 1942 on Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In polls thread it was mentioned couple of times, Vindicator is cool aircraft and I want to see it as well :)

 

 

 

For one thing, the two battles are so far apart in time frame, that there is no overlap in terms of planeset, unlike in BoM/S/K, where the planesets kinda overlap and serve to make all the battles more interesting and varied.

Yeah, this is an issue from my perspective as well. No time or plane relation between the two. There should be a mid filler at least. Some 1943 campaign.

 

 

 

Then there is the issue of the battles themselves. Midway was a highly dramatic event with loads of action - that lasted for all of four days... How to build a meaningful campaign that won't be over in an instant, I don't know.

Hmm, as whole campaign system is going through major change I think its yet to see. But to fill campaign it would require presenting every strike that took place that day. I for one was hoping that actual Battle of Midway would include also other battles (Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz) to fill campaign and increase terrain variety.  

 

Overall both seem to place huge emphasis on ships and thats what Jason mentioned actually, that he sees ships as probably as important in this gamplay as aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walk before you can run. The thought process is fairly simple, Okinawa and Midway give the developers a chance to focus on producing the iconic aircraft and ships (and the extensive mechanics that they need) instead of wasting time producing a whole new stable of ground assets for a pacific theatre.

 

As for the battle "being too short" I fail to see the problem. Even if you somehow managed to fly all 4 days worth of fighting in every aircraft it's a moot issue as you can just spend the rest of your time in pseudo-historical MP scenarios anyway.

 

If you need 100% historical MP scenarios to have a good time you might want to rethink things. This is a game after all, compromises can and should be made for gameplay.

Edited by [ST]Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I see Midway as less problematic than Okinawa, and together with, let's say, Guadalcanal, I think it would have been a good choice.

 

Midway will certainly make for great semi-historical MP.

My main concern is the campaign. A "RoF-style" career mode as was promised in the last DD, will fit poorly with a battle where the pilots who saw the most action flew a grand total of maybe 7-9 missions over the cause of the battle.

 

Okinawa is a different story. I simply can't see how you can remain just slightly true to historical fact and still make this fun for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should not dismiss the TBD's usefulness out of hand, simply on the tragic result of one engagement, where it's attack was not properly co-ordinated, and lacked escort.

Agreed. Rome's Legions, the Persian Empire's armed forces, the Spartans, and Emperor Napoleon I all had devestating defeats, but are still regarded highly in military history.

 

I for one will never understand, why the devs chose these two battles to start off the Pacific. It just seems very odd to me.

Jason didn't say that Midway and Okinawa werecoming after Kuban, they're just somewhere in the future. We could well get something like Guadalcanal or New Guinea next.

 

Our long-term vision includes the following battles, but not necessarily in this order and final selection is not concrete.

 

Battle of Kuban

Battle of Midway

Battle of Okinawa

Battle of ??????

My main concern is the campaign. A "RoF-style" career mode as was promised in the last DD, will fit poorly with a battle where the pilots who saw the most action flew a grand total of maybe 7-9 missions over the cause of the battle.

It wouldn't surprise me if they called it Battle of Midway for the name recognition, but include Wake Island and the Coral Sea. And I managed to have a pretty fun A6M2 career in 1946 that went from Pearl Harbour to the Coral Sea, so something similar could happen in BoMw.

Edited by Cybermat47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although there were more -4 Wildcats at Midway, I hope we get the four gun -3 and it's better climb rate.

And its better roll rate without all of the folding wing hardware. Also, if they include Wake Island, we'll need the F4F-3 for that battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one hope they stick with Midway and Okinawa and then add more later on as fillers that way we can experience the island hoping campaign. I just think it would be cool to work your way from Pearl Harbor all the way to Okinawa in a campaign.

 

I don't mind if it's not 100% historically accurate, as long as they have an accurate plane set and maps then I'm all for "what if" scenarios.

 

Okinawa is a large island and there are plenty of medium and small islands around it, this presents alot of opportunity to create cool scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will never understand, why the devs chose these two battles to start off the Pacific. It just seems very odd to me.

 

For one thing, the two battles are so far apart in time frame, that there is no overlap in terms of planeset, unlike in BoM/S/K, where the planesets kinda overlap and serve to make all the battles more interesting and varied.

 

Then there is the issue of the battles themselves. Midway was a highly dramatic event with loads of action - that lasted for all of four days... How to build a meaningful campaign that won't be over in an instant, I don't know. Okinawa was a protracted battle, but the air action was pretty much limited to two things: USN and RN pilots fending off wave after wave of mainly Kamikaze attackers for a few weeks, and then ground pounding with practically no resistance in the air for several months. Then there is the question of the disparity between the two forces (BoM is nothing in comparison) The USN/RN pilots will be flying a large number of relatively short missions from carriers while the Japanese pilots will in general be flying 1 (one) mission, crossing a huge distance over an endless ocean trying to locate the islands and enemy fleet only to spend 1-2mins over the target area trying to crash into a ship. Provided we get an absolutely huge map containing Kyushu and/or Taiwan (Formosa), the Japanese pilots will have the choice between flying incredibly long, boring missions, with a huge risk of getting lost, or use immersion-killing airstart to speed things up. Realistic historical MP scenarios are out of the question.

 

There are plenty of awesome settings in the Pacific/Far East, the devs could have chosen, which would have made for great and varied historical campaigns and realistic MP. New Guinea, The Solomons, Burma, Rabaul. With Midway and Okinawa, they pretty much have to cheat to keep it interesting.

Midway and Okinawa will be two separate launches and there will probably be a middle title, or at least another title, to tie them together. Not entirely unlike what we have in the Eastern trio currently.

 

I'd be really surprised if Midway is the only map in the release. Pearl Harbor would be ideal (and there are several alternate history scenarios to play with - what if there was an undetected/inbound American carrier present?), Coral Sea, Wake, Aleutians. SP has the potential to be great and MP doesn't have to be historical. In many ways a-historical can be loads of fun with good map/scenario makers.

 

I actually have high hopes for the first Pacific release. Probably moreso than Okinawa.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Rome's Legions, the Persian Empire's armed forces, the Spartans, and Emperor Napoleon I all had devestating defeats, but are still regarded highly in military history.

 

 

Jason didn't say that Midway and Okinawa werecoming after Kuban, they're just somewhere in the future. We could well get something like Guadalcanal or New Guinea next.

 

 

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they called it Battle of Midway for the name recognition, but include Wake Island and the Coral Sea. And I managed to have a pretty fun A6M2 career in 1946 that went from Pearl Harbour to the Coral Sea, so something similar could happen in BoMw.

He didn't say Midway outright as the next release but it was so heavily implied as to certainly be the most likely. Plus, with all of the hoopla it stirred it would be something of a marketing disaster to NOT go there first. I'd like to not see that kind of press again in this series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will never understand, why the devs chose these two battles to start off the Pacific. It just seems very odd to me.

 

For one thing, the two battles are so far apart in time frame, that there is no overlap in terms of planeset, unlike in BoM/S/K, where the planesets kinda overlap and serve to make all the battles more interesting and varied.

 

Then there is the issue of the battles themselves. Midway was a highly dramatic event with loads of action - that lasted for all of four days... How to build a meaningful campaign that won't be over in an instant, I don't know. Okinawa was a protracted battle, but the air action was pretty much limited to two things: USN and RN pilots fending off wave after wave of mainly Kamikaze attackers for a few weeks, and then ground pounding with practically no resistance in the air for several months. Then there is the question of the disparity between the two forces (BoM is nothing in comparison) The USN/RN pilots will be flying a large number of relatively short missions from carriers while the Japanese pilots will in general be flying 1 (one) mission, crossing a huge distance over an endless ocean trying to locate the islands and enemy fleet only to spend 1-2mins over the target area trying to crash into a ship. Provided we get an absolutely huge map containing Kyushu and/or Taiwan (Formosa), the Japanese pilots will have the choice between flying incredibly long, boring missions, with a huge risk of getting lost, or use immersion-killing airstart to speed things up. Realistic historical MP scenarios are out of the question.

 

There are plenty of awesome settings in the Pacific/Far East, the devs could have chosen, which would have made for great and varied historical campaigns and realistic MP. New Guinea, The Solomons, Burma, Rabaul. With Midway and Okinawa, they pretty much have to cheat to keep it interesting.

 

 

I agree.  See my earlier post, but I believe Okinawa is too far removed form any of the other Battles (BoS, BoM, BoK) to make use of any aircraft.  This franchise needs to leverage Aircraft crossover to build on previous work and consistently add content that helps all theaters.  Okinawa would likely only make use of the Spitfire in the form of a Seafire variant, but there is no word yet if FAA aircraft are even planned.

 

This is why I HOPE the plan for Midway would be to include a large land-based map of Either New Guinea or the Solomons.  If you think about it a single Midway map would be a under-utilization of the map makers, who to this point have proven to be prolific in their skill and scope of work.  Midway Island is all of 4.7 sq.miles.  

 

While the Battle of Santa Cruz would make more sense to pair with a Solomons Land campaign and Battle of Coral Sea more sense to pair with a New Guinea '42 campaign, it seems Midway is the pivotal Early war chapter of choice.  If that is indeed the case, it would only take one Aircraft addition to any Midway planeset to then be able to run a Santa Cruz Campaign, and that would be the TBF-1 Avenger.  While they were present at Midway, the Carrier Groups still operated the TBD Devastator.  So from a planeset standpoint, it would make sense to do a New Guinea '42 land campaign in addition to Midway.

 

 

Battle of Midway + New Guinea '42

 

F4F-3/4

SBD-2/3  (also known as A-24 Banshee to the USAAC)

TBD Devastator

B-26 Maruader

 

Premium

TBF Avenger   

 

Crossover Aircraft available from previous installments would allow a Defense of Port Moresby Campaign (with Marauder)

 

P-39

P-40

A-20

 

IJ Navy 

 

A6M2 Zero

D3A Val

B5N Kate

G4M2 Betty

 

Premium

A5M4 Claude  (would allow a China Scenario with Nationalist Chinese I-16s, etc later)

 

F1M Pete (Mavis would be best but 4 engine craft seem to be off the table)

 

 

 Some of the benefits of going to the Pacific in terms of development and productivity are: 

 

1.  Maps are only one season.  Summer.

 

2.  Most of the places we'll fly have virtually no large cities or development of any kind.

 

3.  There is lots of water.

 

4.  Airfields are very basic, especially in the early war.

 

So while the Air War in the Pacific spanned massive areas, they should be simpler to map than Moscow and Stalingrad.

Edited by TheElf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From business pov, having devastator as premium wld be odd... no?

 

I understand dev want to stay away from pay to win models but who wld want to pay to be in disadvantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From business pov, having devastator as premium wld be odd... no?

 

I understand dev want to stay away from pay to win models but who wld want to pay to be in disadvantage?

 

Typo,  fixed.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Srry i didnt mean to be sounding aggressive. I read your post earlier re why pacific is a theatre to play. That post's content was really solid (i am a pacific guy supporting eu theatre quietly with some hope of seeing pacific theatre some day).

So i was just curious what wld be your rationale behind devastator being a premium. Bummer answer. I was looking fwd to another intuitive reason!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Srry i didnt mean to be sounding aggressive. I read your post earlier re why pacific is a theatre to play. That post's content was really solid (i am a pacific guy supporting eu theatre quietly with some hope of seeing pacific theatre some day).

So i was just curious what wld be your rationale behind devastator being a premium. Bummer answer. I was looking fwd to another intuitive reason!

 

Well, at first my rationale was in describing a Midway/Guadalcanal combo, and again the premier torpedo bomber was in fact still the venerable TBD Devastator, but only for 4 brutal days.  A longer player campaign in the Solomons of 1942 would have to center around a Cactus Air Force campaign and the Battle of Santa Cruz, where by this time the TBF was firmly the Torpedo Bomber of choice and the TBD had gone the way of the dodo.

 

So my rationale was that while "Midway" would be the marquis title in neon lights and always implies Devastator over Avenger, the meat of the game would be the Operation Watchtower/Guadalcanal/Santa Cruz which implies Avenger....then I decided not to describe the Guadacanal/Midway Pairing and went straight to the New Guinea map, because that campaign to defend Moresby came first chronologically, and if done right would give us a Coral Sea option in addition to Midway. 

 

Long story short...I forgot to switch the Devastator and Avenger until you astutely pointed it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is why I HOPE the plan for Midway would be to include a large land-based map of Either New Guinea or the Solomons.  If you think about it a single Midway map would be a under-utilization of the map makers, who to this point have proven to be prolific in their skill and scope of work.  Midway Island is all of 4.7 sq.miles.  

 

 

As much as I want it, and as much as it makes sense, from a development standpoint I doubt we'll get the Solomons that fast.

Point taken about the map makes but likely if this current plan hold they'll be getting a head start on Okinawa.

What makes sense is representing the early war fleet engagements, Midway, Coral Sea...Wake Island while not

offering much of a battle from a historical perspective makes a good map for semi-historical and non-historical CoOp missions. I used it quite a bit in the old sim.

Pearl would be fun for "what if" scenarios as said.

 

Then yes the plane set conveniently pretty much transfers over to the Solomons/Guadalcanal, where the 'meat' of the war is, where force parity made

for a brutal campaign on both sides. We'd need a few planes, including a few float planes to get that scenario rolling. You don't want

a Solomons map without float planes though...they're an important part of that campaign. So as much as I'm going to sound like a broken record over the

next year or two regarding Henderson etc, I wouldn't want the map without the proper planes. 

Carriers can still be used, they were just out of harms way launching patrols trying to find each other. Plenty of fodder for more "what if" missions.

 

Then add P38's and Corsairs for the march up the Slot, Blacksheep campaign, etc. - all with the same map.

 

Then Okinawa/Battle of the Philippine Sea makes sense.

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I want it, and as much as it makes sense, from a development standpoint I doubt we'll get the Solomons that fast.

Point taken about the map makes but likely if this current plan hold they'll be getting a head start on Okinawa.

What makes sense is representing the early war fleet engagements, Midway, Coral Sea...Wake Island while not

offering much of a battle from a historical perspective makes a good map for semi-historical and non-historical CoOp missions. I used it quite a bit in the old sim.

Pearl would be fun for "what if" scenarios as said.

 

Then yes the plane set conveniently pretty much transfers over to the Solomons/Guadalcanal, where the 'meat' of the war is, where force parity made

for a brutal campaign on both sides. We'd need a few planes, including a few float planes to get that scenario rolling. You don't want

a Solomons map without float planes though...they're an important part of that campaign. So as much as I'm going to sound like a broken record over the

next year or two regarding Henderson etc, I wouldn't want the map without the proper planes. 

Carriers can still be used, they were just out of harms way launching patrols trying to find each other. Plenty of fodder for more "what if" missions.

 

Then add P38's and Corsairs for the march up the Slot, Blacksheep campaign, etc. - all with the same map.

 

Then Okinawa/Battle of the Philippine Sea makes sense.

 

I agree with you.  But I really think Okinawa is an odd thing to go for even AFTER a Midway release.  There are so many other things to do before we hit Fast-fast forward to to April of 1945!  It makes no sense.

 

I really don't want to see Okinawa until Midway, Coral Sea, New Guinea, Solomons is covered.  I get the Yankees want heavier Iron in the sky thing, but that is where the planesets in real life started to make life tough for the Japanese.  I am a fan of building this sim in the same way WWII built and advanced technology.  It makes more sense, and the earlier war was more competitive for both sides, and technological progression makes more sense from a development standpoint and is in line with chronicling the war as it actually happened. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I want Okinawa and Leyte and Marianas too (as well as Malta, NA, Channel Front and more Eastern Front), but from a content standpoint, and a game technology standpoint (read: Carriers being modeled) it makes more sense for us to EASE into the pacific.  When you go to Okinawa you are talking all sorts of advanced ships, aircraft, and technology and weapons that took years to develop throughout the course of the war.  Think Catapults, Napalm, VT fuzes, wing folding, more ship classes etc.  That would be more challenging for the Devs, than early war where things were simpler.  For example only two aircraft (F4F, Avenger) had folding wings in '42.  

 

Anyway.  Just my thoughts.  I'm not a dev...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in total agreement with you - I just think we'll be lucky to get 3 Pacific titles, nevermind 4. So assuming Okinawa is an immovable object within that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midway will bring 7 carriers. Akagi, kaga, soryu, hiryu, yorktown, enterprise and hornet. So many carriers that were center of other pacific battle actions!

 

I think BOS team put this battle to prepare to so many other previous battles of pacific.

 

I cannot imagine the thrill of fly8ng off from one of these carriers on the dawn of the battle day....

 

I am jizzing in my pants.

Throw in shokaku and zuikaku, we automatically have pearl harbor and coral seas..... jesus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walk before you can run. The thought process is fairly simple, Okinawa and Midway give the developers a chance to focus on producing the iconic aircraft and ships (and the extensive mechanics that they need) instead of wasting time producing a whole new stable of ground assets for a pacific theatre.

 

As for the battle "being too short" I fail to see the problem. Even if you somehow managed to fly all 4 days worth of fighting in every aircraft it's a moot issue as you can just spend the rest of your time in pseudo-historical MP scenarios anyway.

 

If you need 100% historical MP scenarios to have a good time you might want to rethink things. This is a game after all, compromises can and should be made for gameplay.

 

Most of us actually do not fly MP at all, so they would have to be pseudo-historical SP scenarios. (I am fine with that).

 

I would have thought that producing a whole stable of ground assets is relatively trivial compared to modelling CVs, BBs etc. They will have to be done anyway: I am sure that we will want ground targets to bomb once the ships (ship?) has been sunk. Remember the whole point of the Midway battle was to attack and capture an island with a military garrison.

 

Anyway, part of the charm of BoX (or whatever we are supposed to call it now) is in the detail of the scenery. I buy the games mostly for flying around the maps now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

Notwithstanding my previous head-scratching re the $$$ viability of making the Devastator and Buffalo, you can't re-create the Battle of Midway without them. Both will be very interesting aircraft to fly given the current complexity of the flight models of the other kites in the series, and the willingness of the devs to build them is why I have supported every version of the BoX series to date.

 

Good hunting,

 

=CFC=Conky

Edited by CFC_Conky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But nothing is complete in that sense for either BOS or BOM either - I mean we get a representative sample of the aircraft types that were available, not everything.

 

So I presume Midway will be the same - and no Devastator or Buffalo.

Edited by kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way there will be a torpedo bomber for Americans either, regardless if TBF (less likely) or TBD (more likely). Part of all the carrier operations are torpedo squadrons and not adding any torpedo bomber is unbelievable. As for the Buffalo, usual set of aircraft is rather a standard now - 2 fighters, 1 attacker/dive bomber, 1 medium bomber + 1 collectors machine. Considering its Midway having bombers as collectors is reasonable and torpedo bombers should take their place in standard rooster. But there is still room for two fighters for each side. Of course it may change but imo its unlikely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But nothing is complete in that sense for either BOS or BOM either - I mean we get a representative sample of the aircraft types that were available, not everything.

 

So I presume Midway will be the same - and no Devastator or Buffalo.

 

A representative sample from Stalingrad and Moscow mean that we got some of the key types involved in the conflict. IMHO, the historical significance of the 41 TBDs launched against the Japanese fleet mean that the TBD Devastator would be guaranteed as a type. There were only 6 TBF Avengers meaning its an optional type. The Wildcat and Dauntless would be the other two that we would absolutely need. This all seems very achievable.

 

The Buffalo is somewhat less important although the devastating loss of the USMC Buffalos launched from Midway are also fairly significant - though, arguably, not as much so as what the failed torpedo strike did to the Zero CAP and what the SBDs that arrived just after were able to accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it HAS to be the TBD Devastator as the USN Torpedobomber( and levelbomber not to forget!) in Battle of Midway in my opinion.

As far i understand the main reasons for its very poor ( and tragic ) performance in this Battle were:

- very bad american torpedos, the TBF Avenger had thee same proplem till well into 1943 AFAIK

- bad tactics

 

And to release a torpedo you had to fly straight, slow and at a specific low altitude.

Some folks here can perhaps remember the change when in IL2 the complex torpedos were introduced........ much less hits :D

I hope 777 does remember that complex feature

 

Catched by an Enemy fighter the B5N2 will be no less a deathtrap for its crew!!

Even an F2A-3 will massacre it ;)

Edited by III/JG53Frankyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, unlike American Mark 13 torpedo, Japanese Type 91 Mod 2 torpedo could be launched at speeds below 260 knots (481 km/h) and in 1942 was introduced Type 91 Mod 3 that could be dropped at even greater speeds of 300 knots (though actual drops were carried carefully as it was not so easy to hit a moving vessel such as carrier and launch speeds varied from 350 to 450 km/h). B5N2 top speed was only 378 km/h, but attack would be carried in descent as torpedo squadrons cruising altitude was between 3,000 to 10,000 ft (depending on atmospheric conditions) and about 12-15 nautical miles from target an attack formation would usually split in two groups (to attack from both sides of the ship as to make sure that one group always hits) and start a descent. Torpedo bombers would often skid at high speeds to avoid AA barrage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not start with the battle that started the war in the Pacific > Pearl Harbor.

It's quite overwhelming. I mean I dont know the limits of objects for the engine, but even if Dx 11 will change everything for great ... Pearl Harbor is still a massive and complex thing to recreate that would consume a lot of resources. Besides, Pearl Harbor isnt all that fun for the US side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiro, would PH be any more massive and complex than Stalingrad?`

 

True the Americans would not be happy but is the real life script ever followed in the virtual world. For starters, the incoming Japanese could be intercepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×