Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I do not think the planesets need to be matched. People have talked about get an OS2U-Kingfisher to match the F1M Pete, or an H6K Mavis to match the PBY Catalina. I don't see why it needs to be so.

Certainly for the competitive-furballers, having a perfectly matched (or at least relationally non-transitive) set is a requirement. But for the planes on the periphery of that activity, there is a possibility to put diversity across both sides of the conflict... at least initially.


 

{...} is really Pete your choice for planeset? I bet that answer is no, not before Zero, Oscar, Val, Betty, Kate, Sally, Rufe, Lilly, Nell, Nate ...


For me at least, the answer is 'yes'. I would far rather have a F1M Pete before any of the ones you list. (Better still would be an E13A Jake!)

Or, put another way: for me, an F1M Pete makes flying BoMid compelling. An A6M Zero does not.

 
 
 

I disagree. You can do recon or ASW patrols with combat types like Val or Dauntless, just as it was routinely done in real life. Only type of mission you cannot do is SAR. Here is a question - do we really need airplanes like Pete or Kingfisher just because they can execute ASR? I don't think so.

 
Reciprocally, we could ask: do we really need "yet-another-fighter"?

I am not advocating a seaplane-only sim, but the point I am trying to make is that adding a bit of diversity will broaden the entire environment and make for a more compelling, immersive atmosphere and thus broaden the appeal of the series.


 

The Ju-52 doesn't get anywhere near enough use in BoS/M/K but it deserves a place and I'm glad it's included.


The Ju 52 would get more use if its flights got more recognition. As has been mentioned before, you can fly a Ju 52 for an hour delivering cargo or dropping troops. At the ned of the flight you get 0-0-0-0-0-0 points... the same as sitting in a Bf-109 for 5 seconds with the engine off.


 

I'll fly recon floatplanes for sure, even out of curiosity. If there's a recon mechanism that works, or a SAR mechanism then I will even more so.
I have no interest in flying fighters but I have consistently been calling for more non-fighters, more non-combat a/c and a greater variety of roles.
It may increase the appeal to other sim pilots who aren't into combat flight sims, it will provide much greater depth of immersion as you will feel like you are in an active and populated area of operations, and it will create a much more dynamic environment where everything can be represented in greater detail.

"Do we really need airplanes like [this]?"
'Need' is subjective so your mileage will vary. But I think what we need is more things going on and more choice, rather than less. If not specifically these aircraft then certainly something else they can fulfill a similar role.
Just not more of the same.

We definitely don't need any constraints on our thinking.


Well said. I agree with all of this completely.

 
 

Adding a 4 engine plane is not completely out of the question but would take many more hours than anything done before. For that reason its narrowed down our heavy A/C expectations to twin engine crafts. So H6K does not seem likely.


As far as I recall, Jason said that there would be "no 4-engined heavies". So probably it is best to forget that H6K Mavis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i geuss the most work would be the flightmodel as a -3 modification. around 300kg more weight have to count.....

 

 

EDIT:i checked it again, a PBY would have 4 Gunpositions, not "only" 3

i guess, we can forgett These flyingboat things totaly !

Even it was fun in Rise if Flight :)

Edited by III/JG53Frankyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the DC-3/C-47s fly supplies to Midway?  Getting the Dak in early would be a big bonus for the series and one which would find a home in every subsequent theatre that the team produces.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D4Ys in Battle of Midway were preproduction UNARMED airplanes, ARMED Judys didn't reach combat units in any significant numbers until 1943, I think you all know that. If you are talking about armed Judys in Battle of Midway, you are bending history to get at least some Japanese combat airplane.

I've somehow missed that one. D4Y1s that were taken aboard Soryu were not unarmed preproductions machines. Those were two prototypes taken for combat trials while mass production was intended to begin. Those two had their machine guns both in engine cowling and in gunner/navigator position installed. They were not provided with bombs indeed, since in this operation they were only meant for reconaissance and tests in combat environment rather than direct bombing. Which is quite obvious, loosing a precious aircraft in combat was not desired.

 

What you seem to be referring tho, is related to technical issues that were discovered during testing. D4Y1 at steep angles and high diving speeds had problems with recovery and integrity and thus it was prohibited until resolved, to put aircraft in steep (beyond 60 deg) and prolonged dives (so its designed dive bombing role was out of question for some time). Thus for the following months only D4Y1-C variant was manufactured, for long range and high speed reconaissance. Considering Po-2 addition it makes sense to get aircraft that can perform such missions. Also, it might be needed from a gameplay perspective since Allies will enjoy the benfits of radar.

If reconaissance will become the thing in this sim that makes this aircraft a valid option.

 

 

And another topic is its bombing equipment and armament. This could be solved in same manner as with F4F-3, basically a modification. In campaign (if any would be developed for Midway) bombs can be prohibited and aircraft would play its actual duty, while in multiplayer it would be left up to server owners whether they wish to have a mission with Judy armed with bombs or not. It's a win win situation.

 

 

I disagree. You can do recon or ASW patrols with combat types like Val or Dauntless, just as it was routinely done in real life. Only type of mission you cannot do is SAR. Here is a question - do we really need airplanes like Pete or Kingfisher just because they can execute ASR? I don't think so.

Val was not intended nor used very much in reconaissnce role, for that during Midway Japanese used B5N2s, and only because the intended machine was only beginning to reach production status (D4Y1-C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideal planeset is easy if you base it on numbers present (including IJN Striking Force,Occupation Force and Main Body):

 

Standard edition:

 

128x SBD Dauntless

85x F4F-4 Wildcat

42x TBD-1 Devastator

20x F2A-3 Buffalo

 

93x B5N2 Kate

85x A6M2 Zero

72x D3A1 Val

27x E13A1 Jake

 

Premium:

 

26x PBY-5 Catalina

0x G4M1 Betty

 

Possible Extra Collector Planes:

 

12x A6M2 Rufe (on seaplane tender CVS Chitose)

11x SB2U-3 Vindicator

6x TBF-1 Avenger

4x B-26 Marauder

2x D4Y1 Judy

 

Others:

 

14x B-17E - not going to happen.

Assorted US floatplanes - not necessary if we have the Catalina.

 

9x E8N2 Dave - another floatplane.

8x B4Y1 Jean - obsolete biplane torpedo bomber.

 

I've included the Betty for 'what if' scenarios. Ten of them from 22nd Chutai, Mihoro Kokutai

(Wake Island) were earmarked for transfer to Midway after it was captured, along with 6x H8K1 'Emily'

of 21st Koku Sentai, Toko Kokutai from Jaluit - another aircraft we won't see.

 

Three problems with this set though:

 

Premium planes might not have the greatest mass appeal thus don't sell well.

Seaplane technology.

Catapult launching technology for the Japanese floatplanes.

 

I'd imagine that decisions regarding the Premium and Collector planes would be influenced in what was hoping to be sold in further instalments; e.g. the Avenger, Marauder, Betty and Rufe would fit into a lot of other scenarios quite easily.

 

Midway without seaplanes/floatplanes will be missing a great part of it's appeal, plus we need them retrospectively for Kuban. Fingers crossed!

Cheers.

 

Cheers.

Edited by 216th_Cat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12x A6M2 Rufe (on seaplane tender CVS Chitose)

According to Parshall and Tully IJN Chitose had 16 F1Ms and 4 E13As during the operation. Production of A6M2-N only started in April 1942 and as far as I'm aware first A6M2-Ns debutred when 5th Ku (soon renamed to 452nd Ku) was reassigned to Aleutian Islands. That unit moved to Kiska on 15th June 1942 and their first contact with Allied aircraft occurred on July 5th when they engaged a single B-24. 

 

27x E13A1 Jake

Even Pete is better than this ...

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You cannot use Betty on Battle of Midway map (one US base on atol and ocean around), therefore we cannot have Betty unless we get another map. Remember, you need to use all airplanes in singleplayer campaign.

 

Sorry You are right, Betty´s got nothing to do with Midway I mixed up the battles, but Pasific without it seems to me a bit odd 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midway without seaplanes/floatplanes will be missing a great part of it's appeal, plus we need them retrospectively for Kuban. Fingers crossed!

 

Agreed!

 

Kuban definitely needs seaplanes!!

 

 

The easiest way to do this would be to implement the Junkers Ju 52/3m g5e (See).

 

This is only changes to an existing model, rather than a complete new build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I do not want to be a party pooper , but being stuck on Russian side because of imbalance I would get very frustrated if German side who has Transports and multiple bombers would be the one selected to have sea plane aswell. Russians used MBR extencively both north and south. And I be damned if a JU 52 is the only seaplane we will see.

It simply would not be fair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for stand ins, the A20B we are getting with Kuban could be placed at Midway to replace the B26s there.

 

Frankly I'm all good with the F1M and Curtiss SOC Seagull.  You rarely hear anything about the Seagull, yet is was widely used on cruisers, and their crews liked them better than the Kingfisher as their lower stall speed and generally good low speed handling made them easier to operate in rough seas.

 

x7evqY.jpg

 

Note the bomb load.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I do not want to be a party pooper , but being stuck on Russian side because of imbalance I would get very frustrated if German side who has Transports and multiple bombers would be the one selected to have sea plane aswell. Russians used MBR extencively both north and south. And I be damned if a JU 52 is the only seaplane we will see.

It simply would not be fair

 

I hear you, Lusekoft.

 

The point with the Ju 52 3m g5e See is that it seems to be the least amount of work for the Devs. We keep getting more Bf-109 variants because they are easier given the starting point of the previous one. In a similar manner, getting another Ju 52 seems the simplest/fastest way to get any seaplane from where we are now.

 

With that said, there is supposed to be a Po-2 under development. If that development actually comes to pass, then perhaps the U-2M or U-2P variant of the Po-2 would be the way to get a seaplane in Kuban.

 

 

 

 

Frankly I'm all good with the F1M and Curtiss SOC Seagull.  You rarely hear anything about the Seagull, yet is was widely used on cruisers, and their crews liked them better than the Kingfisher as their lower stall speed and generally good low speed handling made them easier to operate in rough seas.

 

Note the bomb load.

 

Although I think the Kingfisher would be better and more versatile, I agree that the Seagull would be good too.

 

But what I don't understand is the exact distinction between the Seagull, Seamew, and the other variants. Are they all variants of the same plane, or are they really distinct types?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But what I don't understand is the exact distinction between the Seagull, Seamew, and the other variants. Are they all variants of the same plane, or are they really distinct types?

 

Seagull was a biplane, Seamew was a monoplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It flew like it looked, apparently. Just to add to the confusion, according to Wikipedia the U.S. Navy also referred to it as a 'Seagull'. And there have been (at least?) three different aircraft types named 'Seamew'. The first, Reginald Mitchell's design for Supermarine, was a nice-looking twin-engined amphibious biplane. The second was the Curtiss design above, and the third was an 1950s effort by Short's which should probably have stayed on the drawing board. It's only saving grace seems to be that it was slightly less ugly than the Fairey Gannet.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SO3C_Seamew

https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seamew

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/flyboat/seamew.html

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Seamew

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks AndyJWest and others.

 

I've now done some more trawling through Wikipedia and have come up with eight different Seagull/Seamew variants.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seagull_(1921)-- Supermarine Seagull pre-war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SOC_Seagull -- Curtiss SOC Seagull

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Walrus -- Supermarine Walrus (originally Seagull V)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SO3C_Seamew -- Curtiss SOC3C Seamew (originally Seagull)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seamew -- Supermarine Seamew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seagull_(1948)-- Supermarine Seagull post-war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Seamew -- Short Seamew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flygfabriken_LN-3_Seagull -- LN-3 Seagull

 

The Curtiss SOC Seagull biplane certainly seems a good choice. Even within that type, there are several variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO they should have went with battle of Midway before kuban. I understand kuban needed to be made first due to water physics ships ect but come on.. I'm sick of hearing Russian on the radios none of the gauges being in English ect. Once they release Midway it's going to open up a huge group of sim fans that only want American aircraft ect. Plus landing on carriers is going to be real decent with some aircraft damage ect . Would really like an update on a time we could possibly see a beta of midway

Edited by shaun2004173

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, look at all the activity.  I love it.  

 

I've been a supporter (hopeful one) of a Pacific release since early access started.  I've purchased everything this team has produced since day one at the earliest opportunity.  I am still hopeful that the Pacific will come.  But those of you who are going on about the plane-sets and matching this to that are not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

Our dearly beloved Pacific Release faces some basic challenges, let alone becoming the Sim to end all Sims in the Pacific.  One of them, and I say this without malice in my heart, is the choice to focus on Midway as a starting point.  I know why though...more on that later.

 

If I were king for a day, I would do a couple things differently.

 

1. Build it and they will come.  The main issue is the NATURE of Air Combat in the Pacific.  The main focus in the Early campaign in the South Pacific were Port Moresby, Rabaul, Guadalcanal.

 

-  Despite the impact Midway had strategically, the battle only lasted a few days.  And for god's sake the Judy was a NON-FACTOR, so kindly please stop going on about it as a plane the Devs need to spend VALUABLE time and resources on.  Non-factor...in case you missed it....

 

2.  So the Map is the main concern.  Where will the community get the greatest bang for the Dev's time?  The Solomons and Papua New Guinea.  PERIOD.  So I say that, and people say, "but what about Midway...?"  Well, if planned and resourced correctly, how long do you think it would take the team that has mapped half of the Eastern Front to create a 25.6 square mile Island as a Bonus Map?  My professional opinion?  Not long.

 

3.  What could we do if we had Guadalcanal and the majority of the Solomon's Island chain?  

 

-  We could fight the Air War in the South Pacific from early '42 to Mid'43.  To include every Japanese and Allied plane form the beginning of the war to Late '43.

-  Including: Operation Watchtower, the Battle of Cactus (henderson field) , Battle of Santa Cruz, The Allied advance in the Solomons against Ballale and Buka, toward Rabaul,

 

....AND the Battle of Midway if they produced it as a Bonus or secondary Map.

 

4.  If the map were ambitious, and they included Port Moresby and Rabaul, well, do I have to say more? 

 

So, why are they focusing on Midway?  Well that is simple.  This Dev team has LIMITED resources.  They are small, and they are working on an ambitious franchise.  A Pacific pivot is extremely challenging in several ways.

 

1.  The Technology required to model Naval Aviation is vastly different from a mechanics standpoint.  There are things that are REQUIRED for it to work properly, and provide the sense of immersion that the community is looking for, so my Theory is that Midway is purposely scoped to be a small release so that technology can be developed and implemented.  Ie. more resources have to into things that don't exist on the Eastern Front.  Some examples:

 

-  Catapults

-  Functioning Torpedoes

-  Over water Navigation for the EXPERT level players.  YE-ZB nav system and nautical charts.

-  Seaplanes and Water Physics and Effects.  Recovery of said floatplanes...

-  Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Oilers, Transports

-  Radar and Fighter direction  (to include Radar on Picket ships)

-  Landing Signal Officers

-  The Japanese Optical landing system

-  Ship Task Force AI and formation keeping

-  Spawn-points for MP aboard a CV  (good luck with THAT one!)

-  the Air Marshall Feature tailored to a Pacific Title

-  Search and Rescue, and Maritime Recon features

-  Arresting gear Physics and effects

-  Functioning elevators

-  Functioning deck crew

-  Wingfold

-  Ship maneuvers while under attack

-  and finally, Researching the Planes.  This has to be the tallest order.  The material to properly model the aircraft and provide the FIDELITY I believe this team wants to produce is VERY difficult to find and verify.

 

It is the above list that we should be discussing, and how to do them.  Planes will come to the pacific, but ONLY if these things are done well enough to warrant a release at all.

 

Just my two cents...


IMO they should have went with battle of Midway before kuban. I understand kuban needed to be made first due to water physics ships ect but come on.. I'm sick of hearing Russian on the radios none of the gauges being in English ect. Once they release Midway it's going to open up a huge group of sim fans that only want American aircraft ect. Plus landing on carriers is going to be real decent with some aircraft damage ect . Would really like an update on a time we could possibly see a beta of midway

 

 

Shaun, have you purchased anything this team has produced?  I ask because I don't see any icons under your avatar...

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's the problem from the opposite view:

 

Creating some of those other maps opens up a huge can of COMMUNITY problems. First and foremost, the planeset is daunting. The research of so many aircraft from multiple nations is overwhelming. And lord forbid they don't include some iconic or "crap" plane on a community member's personal list. Don't think for a moment there isn't another S!gg! type waiting in the wings to take a DEV decision as a personal affront and form an agenda to sabotage the entire effort.

 

There are IJN, IJA, Brit, Aussie, American- both Navy and Army, NZ, Dutch and that's just off the top of my head. Add in; building island maps with accurate airfields and limited reference materials is tricky for the one or two map makers on the team. It becomes a $#!7storm very quickly and we go down the BoS/CloD flamewars avenue. This team, honestly, might not survive a third round of that kind of early negative "press." We are without a doubt our own worst enemy on occasion.

 

Midway makes a TON of sense for a number of reasons. The planeset is rather finite other than what the premiums might be. The research is focused. There is a huge body of literary work to draw from. The other map suggestions just aren't as focused from a research or production standpoint. Make no mistake, I want them too. I'm just patient and recognize how the workflow might look.

 

The likelyhood we only get Midway Island is, well, unlikely anyway. In EA we probably get a carrier for each side, a destroyer, the Zero, Wildcat, Dauntless and Val (*my prediction). The seaplane tech and torpedo tech probably means those are later in the Midway release. Remember, this team is under enormous pressure and constraints regarding funds and time. The first couple of months will be focused on carrier vs carrier and not the long game (*again, my prediction).

 

As the release is fleshed out you can bet we get at least some other island chains. You all know how hard I advocate for Hawaii as a prime candidate for MP and Pearl Harbor purposes. This would be the one time I can see a generic "Islands Map," being a good thing for both SP and MP. 

 

Remember this is really Battle of Midway for the name recognition. It is a hugely recognizable battle, "The Turning Point in the Pacific," and makes a ton of sense from a marketing standpoint. This is essentially Il2 Sturmovic, Battle of the Pacific, Midway Edition. The others will come later as the series develops. Remember, though, getting more content lives and dies on how Midway sells. So, stop arguing for things that aren't happening in this title, it is fruitless and actually detracts from the development. Argue for a middle title between BoMi and Okinawa because I think it makes sense timeline-wise and financially for the DEVs. And tell everyone you know how great the title has become and all of the promise it shows going forward. Play for the long game - you don't take the king on the first or second move. EVERYTHING, other than Midway, in this discussion ideally fulfills a middle title and looks like a better seller to me than Okinawa.

 

Parting thought - Your average high school senior has heard of Midway. Almost none of them have heard of Bougainville or could even place it in the proper hemisphere. The only thing comparable for name recognition in all of WWII air combat is the Battle of Britain. We need to sell this product to a broad base, with little to no marketing, and Midway has the name recognition to get the butts in seats and code on hard drives. Almost nothing else in the Pacific does this for a casual buyer or new flyer.  

 

EDIT: Plus everything Elf said about developing Pacific specific technology.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

huge can of COMMUNITY problems.

Trust me they know , this site have made more fuzz than a hurricane for far less.

 

 

And lord forbid they don't include some iconic or "crap" plane on a community member's personal list.

This I think is a bit over the top, I feel most people accept the plane list presented, but people love sharing what they want themselves, but not really believe they get it. I feel I am among those guys. I am in a mood that want to say, if the Devastator not there , I will not buy it. But knowing this community, I think Axis will go allied in Pasific meaning people like me get stuck in Axis side. Well I really do not mind as long as the "Kate" is there, and if not well . Is it really Midway.

But I see what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching this video got me thinking, how will torpedoes perform in-game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8XYZoR9ABE

 

Will they model US torp issues? And will we be able to set torpedo depth, etc?

 

 

 I am in a mood that want to say, if the Devastator not there , I will not buy it. 

 

This is how I feel, if they don't have the Devastator I'll be extremely disappointed, I'd rather have a Devastator than an Avenger.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torpedo issues will likely not be modeled as the Devs have already stated random engine failures and weapon stoppages add nothing positive to the games playability.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torpedo issues will likely not be modeled as the Devs have already stated random engine failures and weapon stoppages add nothing positive to the games playability.

Yea I think adding the torp issues eliminates the US sides torp plane of choice from being useful on any level other than scouting for a player. I can see them doing that for single player in like a scripted campaign in order to tell the story accurately, but once you get into multiplayer you need a working torp for players to want to use the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for single player I think adding scripted campaigns is a great idea to fully utilize the new tech. If they can manage to cover Wake Island, Midway island, the Aleutians and maybe even Pearl Harbor That's a lot of possibility for extra money if they can make campaigns for each of those maps. But who am I to know if the profit will exceed the cost of making such maps (Pearl Harbor would obviously be a massive effort, with the Aleutians coming in a close second). Just an idea. More than anything I want a Wake Island campaign. Seems reminiscent of the 10 Days of Autumn campaign with a sadder end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated above, doing Midway is basically going to be Il-2 Mid-war Pacific Carrier Operations. It already has an obvious 'core' 3+3 planeset of the obvious fighter, the obvious dive-bomber and the obvious torpedo bomber. Then seemingly a floatplane and a collector plane which could be anything but ideally a multi-engine bomber or something a bit different.

Then we'll have the Midway map. This is all in addition to all the work that'll go into the extra mechanics that will make carrier operations work.

 

What I would expect to see after this release is for new maps to be created to offer more theatres and new aircraft released as premiums to broaden the options that we have, while the focus remains on carrier ops.

If this could be done by third-party devs like we've been told the Po-2 and Li-2 will be, then the 777 team can work on the mechanics and the theatre itself. I'd be content to let Midway run for a bit longer with that in mind.

 

Then the same model for New Guinea, Guadalcanal or whichever one is next, launch that with a noteworthy battle for the title and for sales purposes ('Il-2 Battle of ...'), which will effectively be an Il-2 Pacific theatre land-based operations release.

That would allow for various Allied AF to be represented vs the IJAAF. Then a steady drip-feed of aircraft to fit the theatre and maps to use to fill it out, then if Okinawa was going to be the next theatre, it will serve as Il-2 Late Pacific War and the same process can occur.

 

Ultimately I would want to see a ChinaBurmaIndia theatre as well as that has never been properly reflected in a sim and adds something new, plus offers a fourth area of interest in the wider war in the Far East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideal planeset is easy if you base it on numbers present (including IJN Striking Force,Occupation Force and Main Body):

 

Standard edition:

 

128x SBD Dauntless

85x F4F-4 Wildcat

42x TBD-1 Devastator

20x F2A-3 Buffalo

 

93x B5N2 Kate

85x A6M2 Zero

72x D3A1 Val

27x E13A1 Jake

 

Premium:

 

26x PBY-5 Catalina

0x G4M1 Betty

 

Possible Extra Collector Planes:

 

12x A6M2 Rufe (on seaplane tender CVS Chitose)

11x SB2U-3 Vindicator

6x TBF-1 Avenger

4x B-26 Marauder

2x D4Y1 Judy

 

Others:

 

14x B-17E - not going to happen.

Assorted US floatplanes - not necessary if we have the Catalina.

 

9x E8N2 Dave - another floatplane.

8x B4Y1 Jean - obsolete biplane torpedo bomber.

 

I've included the Betty for 'what if' scenarios. Ten of them from 22nd Chutai, Mihoro Kokutai

(Wake Island) were earmarked for transfer to Midway after it was captured, along with 6x H8K1 'Emily'

of 21st Koku Sentai, Toko Kokutai from Jaluit - another aircraft we won't see.

 

Three problems with this set though:

 

Premium planes might not have the greatest mass appeal thus don't sell well.

Seaplane technology.

Catapult launching technology for the Japanese floatplanes.

 

I'd imagine that decisions regarding the Premium and Collector planes would be influenced in what was hoping to be sold in further instalments; e.g. the Avenger, Marauder, Betty and Rufe would fit into a lot of other scenarios quite easily.

 

Midway without seaplanes/floatplanes will be missing a great part of it's appeal, plus we need them retrospectively for Kuban. Fingers crossed!

Cheers.

 

Cheers.

 

I think this is the key to why add the Betty.  Remember this is a game, and it is not all about recreating the battle exactly as it played out.  What if the Japanese had captured the island and the US had to try to retake it at a later date.  What if... add your own variation here.  The plane set should include enough of the important aircraft of the time period to recreate various battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think this is the key to why add the Betty. Remember this is a game, and it is not all about recreating the battle exactly as it played out. What if the Japanese had captured the island and the US had to try to retake it at a later date. What if... add your own variation here.

 

There is no other variation on Battle of Midway map for Betty, or is it?

 

I understand why developers choose Battle of Midway, less work on map so they can focus on new things around ships. However, new things are fine if you can use them. What is for example idea for single player campaigns? Two days of fighting and that's it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I would love to return to New Guinea and much as I would love to fly Bettys & Beaufighters & Emilys & Catalinas,   I will be very happy to be given two or more Carriers per side plus supporting fleet and four matched aircraft per side all set in just a huge expanse of water.  Essentials are arrestor hooks & cables,  homing beacons (or equivalent aid), torpedoes.  Aircraft  Elevators would be nice but I can live without them as long as I have a sensible system of spawning & despawning on deck.  Land bases & land based aircraft can come in a second expansion. Perhaps have a scattering of unique small islands just to help with navigation, maybe to make a crash landing that allows you to live but not take off again.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

However, new things are fine if you can use them. What is for example idea for single player campaigns? Two days of fighting and that's it? 

That is a good question Farky. The intention with Kuban is to bring campaign in a Rise of Flight style which was fantastic, had depth and feeling. But it also was applicable due to design and continuity of events. Midway provides no such thing and in my humble opinion the only campaign possible with Midway will be based on heavily scripted missions focusing around not only specific units but pilots. This again gives an opportunity to show how some experienced this battle, but will require completely different approach to what we have and what we will have with Kuban.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are way too focused on an insignificant island in the middle of nowhere. I'll put a five spot down that AF is not the only target for this DEV team. If only there was a way send a fictitious message in the clear and decrypt Jason's answer.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very fond of the history of Battle of Midway and the planes fought there. General purpose planes set the standard.

But my hope is New Guinea, Burma Even China, Korea pre WW2 . But that is futile in my mind, but I feel New Guinea is worthy if economics in this endeavour allowes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two challenges are attracting new players but also getting the existing player base to move to the new theatre.

 

But if Midway is a success I don't see why we won't at least get New Guinea, as it'll be able to combine all the new mechanics up to that point, from Midway, Kuban and before (naval operations, shipping, reconnaissance, land-based aircraft, ground targets, floatplanes, cargo aircraft).

 

To be honest I think New Guinea is more likely to be a longer-term success at least amongst the current community, but Midway is a bold statement and is a more obviously self-contained release so it makes more sense to come first. Both should then be given a compliment of extra premium aircraft to fill them out and the focus of the game could stay in the Pacific for a long time.

 

As for the future beyond ... if the devs choose Okinawa then that's up to them. But if we have late-war IJAAF aircraft then not much effort could give us a 'Sturmoviks over Manchuria' release like in the old series, with an Il-10 and P-63, then were setting the scene for a move to the Korean War and the jet age, potentially.

Very long-term thinking but that would be ideal.

 

As you mention, there's also CBI theatre, off the back of New Guinea, or we could go the opposite direction and drop in early war aircraft for a Khalkhin Gol scenario.

Loads of ground to cover if the devs want to stay in the far east and the community are on-board with our support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ideal choice of main expansions for the Pacific would be:

 

Midway (1942)

New Guinea Campaign (1942 - 1944)

Philippines Campaign (1944 - 1945)

 

Main reason I chose these three is because two of them are already on the list and New Guinea will act as a bridge to fill the timeframe between the two other expansions.

 

Extra Expansions added later on to fill out the Pacific Theater:

 

Solomon Island Campaign

Mariana and Palau Island Campaign 

Marshall and Gilbert Islands Campaign

Okinawa 

etc.

 

It would be nice to see all of these in the game at some point but my main three are the ones I hope to see (especially New Guinea)

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are way too focused on an insignificant island in the middle of nowhere. I'll put a five spot down that AF is not the only target for this DEV team. If only there was a way send a fictitious message in the clear and decrypt Jason's answer.......

Ha ha, that's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if it's an ignorant suggestion, but wouldn't a Wake Island map/campaign be able to use most or at least some air and naval assets from Midway? Since it lasted for two weeks players could start at Wake then move onto Midway, thus giving the campaign some longevity.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Battle of midway will probably not play out historical at all if numbers of carriers and planes are equal to the history. So I think we will have quite many battles of Midway. But I like the idea of expanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no other variation on Battle of Midway map for Betty, or is it?

 

I understand why developers choose Battle of Midway, less work on map so they can focus on new things around ships. However, new things are fine if you can use them. What is for example idea for single player campaigns? Two days of fighting and that's it? 

Well the developers can make a campaign that recreates the battle exactly as it happened, but how many times will you play through something that for each squadron is only going to be 2 sorties?  In a multi player server there are going to be endless variations on the theme, unless you don't provide the scenario maker with the tools (maps, and planes) that they need to do that.  

 

This page http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar//USN/USN-CN-Raids/index.html#CONT is a great source for the list of raids that were carried out between Jan 1942 and March.  I would love to see maps included for all these raids.  Many can be reused later.  Such as Rabaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...