Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well this is why we have Kuban, Stalingrad and Moscow map. There is never going to be only Midway. Personally I hope New Guinea with Beufighters and Hurrycanes will pop up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t wish to make more work for the map makers, but I will point out that the distance from Midway to the Kure Atoll (which has an airfield) is just a little greater than the distance between Kerch and Anapa (on the Kuban map).

 

The field on Green Island can easily suit some “what-if” scenarios where the IJN has a land base.

Edited by Faust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any map which requires aircraft to "spawn-in" in flight over water to keep flight distances reasonable for a simulator product, 

 

is a bad idea.

Well, that's certainly an opinion but flight sims have been doing airstarts for the 25 years I've been flying them - both SP and MP. It may not be realistic but it's apparently not a 'bad' idea.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's certainly an opinion but flight sims have been doing airstarts for the 25 years I've been flying them - both SP and MP. It may not be realistic but it's apparently not a 'bad' idea.

And airstarts are very "gamey" to the point it feels warthunder'ish. If they are dead set on adding heavies that need land I would be far more accepting of an idea like Faust just suggested than I would flying a plane into the edge of a map and call it "landed". This new generation IL-2 is pushing boundaries and that idea is going back in time by 20 years because "it worked". This Dev team isnt one for half assing stuff like that I'd id frankly be a bit disappointed if they went that route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don’t wish to make more work for the map makers, but I will point out that the distance from Midway to the Kure Atoll (which has an airfield) is just a little greater than the distance between Kerch and Anapa (on the Kuban map).

 

Sure, but airfield on Kure Atoll was build in 1960, not before or during WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t wish to make more work for the map makers, but I will point out that the distance from Midway to the Kure Atoll (which has an airfield) is just a little greater than the distance between Kerch and Anapa (on the Kuban map).

 

The field on Green Island can easily suit some “what-if” scenarios where the IJN has a land base.

 

Like I keep saying over and over, scaling down maps will be necessary in many cases I believe.

Let's face it, nobody is going to sit there for a 'short' 3 hour flight, let alone 6.

Plus you start getting into errors/problems when a map get's beyond a certain size (unless you have Star Citizen money)

Thus I don't see real world distance as a factor really...maps are going to have to be scaled down no matter what.

Well, that's certainly an opinion but flight sims have been doing airstarts for the 25 years I've been flying them - both SP and MP. It may not be realistic but it's apparently not a 'bad' idea.

 

It works here as a tool for timing purposes, especially for multiplayer, but if it's the only option for a particular kind of aircraft or coalition then it's an immersion killer.

I certainly wouldn't want to find myself flying a campaign where every start was in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I keep saying over and over, scaling down maps will be necessary in many cases I believe.

Let's face it, nobody is going to sit there for a 'short' 3 hour flight, let alone 6.

Plus you start getting into errors/problems when a map get's beyond a certain size (unless you have Star Citizen money)

Thus I don't see real world distance as a factor really...maps are going to have to be scaled down no matter what.

 

 

It works here as a tool for timing purposes, especially for multiplayer, but if it's the only option for a particular kind of aircraft or coalition then it's an immersion killer.

I certainly wouldn't want to find myself flying a campaign where every start was in the air.

Certainly not suggesting it for all or even most scenarios but it's worked for a quarter century and it's already in the game. I don't tend to use them except in MP as a last resort but airstarts are ideal for bombers who are at a significant MP disadvantage due to time constraints and relatively short maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking for problems and what if´s, you gonna find it.

This is midway, Carriers render airstart not needed if not wanted. For the rest of the PTO , well I never lacked fun in old IL 2. So I am not going to read all this negativity thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, I've gone for an 'unbalanced' lineup. The Premium edition could be 6:4 in favour of the US; no important Japanese plane is left out.

 

...

 

Premium:

 

20x F2A-3 Buffalo

6x TBF-1 Avenger

 

Sorry, but this is a really terrible idea.

Aside from the lack of options and the lopsided nature of the game that would result, all I can see this achieving would be to put people off flying for Japan.

 

People have already expressed their concerns that the current multiplayer Luftwaffe crowd will just switch to the US Navy and we'll end up with a load of people flying CAP circles in the stratosphere while the game goes on beneath them. If there are less choices on the IJN side to begin with, there's less variety and potentially less appeal, making it more likely that people won't bother.

If no-one flies IJN then the USN crowd will eventually dry up and the idea of a range of Pacific releases will be over.

 

Also for singleplayer there will be less choice of roles, less mission types and less to keep people there, regardless of what form the campaign takes.

 

Not to mention the overall feeling that the IJN is the 'second-tier' release which won't attract many people towards them to begin with.

Also, any potential Japanese market for the sim may be put off if they feel that a European Dev team doesn't value their contribution to the war, or think it interesting enough to provide aircraft for.

Then we'd lose out on an untapped market that may be out there.

 

 

In addition, I'm not sure that the choice of premiums is right.

The Buffalo may have served at Midway but is less capable than the Wildcat while functioning in a very similar way. Unless limited by missions, there isn't a compelling reason that I can see to choose it over the Wildcat in any situation.

That being the case, it may not sell well enough to justify the time spent on bringing it to life.

 

Besides which, it's another fighter and the sim needs a greater diversification of roles rather than more of the same.

 

The Avenger has almost the opposite issue... it outperforms the TBD to the point where the latter would be an unlikely choice. Rather than providing options it makes one of the core aircraft redundant and uses up a space in the standard release, with attendant 'pay to win' complaints.

And again, if we already have a torpedo bomber, why have two? Go for something we haven't got yet.

 

 

Just my thoughts but I don't think that's the right approach to take at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this is a really terrible idea.

Aside from the lack of options and the lopsided nature of the game that would result, all I can see this achieving would be to put people off flying for Japan.

 

As I have said before, the Japanese will always be outnumbered online, it was ever thus in the original IL2 and will be in this version as well, just like the VVS is vs. the Luftwaffe online now.

Hence, I see no issue with non balanced plane types available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be a far better idea to avoid big-name monikers like “Midway”. The reality is that the singular air battle that occurred does not lend itself well for interpretation of campaigns, multiple mission types, or map development. It is a choice that has been made for name recognition and marketing, only.

 

A far, far better idea would be a “Battle of Guadalcanal” or “Battle of the Solomons” - which could incorporate the Battle of Coral sea, as well as the Battle of the Eastern Solomons - both major carrier engagements - and still have room for a large contingent of land bases and island attacks and other campaign action centered on Guadalcanal, which was 7mos long, rather than one day or three days long like these carrier engagements.

 

Midway is by its nature a isolated island and there will be serious suspension of reality compromises made, no matter how one looks at it, if the designers choose to focus the expansion solely on this particular very isolated carrier action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for planes. A far better plane set would include army AND navy planes.

 

This would easily balance the issues that become obvious when one examines the purely carrier-borne types on both sides.

 

For the Japanese fighters, Oscar for land fighter, and Zero. Kate for torpedos and Val for dive bombing. Betty for land-based twins.

 

For the Americans, Tomahawk for land fighter, and Wildcat. Avenger for torpedoes and Dauntless for dive bombing. Mitchell B-25C for land-based twins.

The reality is that the team needs to show up strong for the first installation of the expansion into a totally new theater.

 

EVERY one these aircraft is representative of the early war period and also is well balanced against the others. There are no lame choices here and everyone will find his or her favorite. All have their good points.

 

German “ugly duckling” humor aside, this is the best approach to my analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for planes. A far better plane set would include army AND navy planes.

 

This would easily balance the issues that become obvious when one examines the purely carrier-borne types on both sides.

 

For the Japanese fighters, Oscar for land fighter, and Zero. Kate for torpedos and Val for dive bombing. Betty for land-based twins.

 

For the Americans, Tomahawk for land fighter, and Wildcat. Avenger for torpedoes and Dauntless for dive bombing. Mitchell B-25C for land-based twins.

The reality is that the team needs to show up strong for the first installation of the expansion into a totally new theater.

 

EVERY one these aircraft is representative of the early war period and also is well balanced against the others. There are no lame choices here and everyone will find his or her favorite. All have their good points.

 

German “ugly duckling” humor aside, this is the best approach to my analysis.

 

 

If the US gets a land fighter I'd really like to see a P-38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said before, the Japanese will always be outnumbered online, it was ever thus in the original IL2 and will be in this version as well, just like the VVS is vs. the Luftwaffe online now.

Hence, I see no issue with non balanced plane types available.

If you've already identified a problem, I would have thought it was obvious that exacerbating it is the wrong way to tackle it.

 

Considering this from every angle, this approach is wrong.

 

If more people are flying USN because they have more familiar aircraft, it won't persuade people to try IJN if there's less choice to begin with.

 

Or, if people feel like their favourite Japanese plane has been left out and aren't keen to try another, then it's more likely they'll find something they can get excited about out of five choices rather than four.

 

If people aren't drawn to Japan because they are seen as a second-rate force, deliberately treating them like one by giving them less aircraft won't encourage people to give them a chance.

 

If the 'important' Japanese planes are already included (D3A, B5N, A6M + floatplane) and there's 'no need to include more', then remember that the same logic works both ways and with the F4F, TBD and SBD + floatplane, there's no need for any more American designs.

 

One could argue that there's less need for US aircraft anyway as by then there will already be a P-39, P-40 and A-20 to choose from. So with that amount of choice, maybe the first plane set could be asymmetric towards the Japanese and they could get two further fighters and a level bomber?

 

This could attract a new market, or put them off and make them decide not to bother. Relatively easy way to alienate an untapped market.

 

Capitulation in the face of a problem and then letting it get worse by accident is a flawed approach.

Or, deciding that you're not bothered is close to admitting that the problem isn't worth fixing if it doesn't affect you.

 

If less and less people fly IJN then people will stop flying USN as well as there's no point flying in an empty map, and eventually no-one will be in-game and we won't get any further releases in the Pacific.

Then, either we'll be consigned to endless reruns of eastern front scenarios full of endless 109 variants, or the series will end there after running out of money.

 

I'm not keen on either of those outcomes, really.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be a far better idea to avoid big-name monikers like “Midway”. The reality is that the singular air battle that occurred does not lend itself well for interpretation of campaigns, multiple mission types, or map development. It is a choice that has been made for name recognition and marketing, only.

 

A far, far better idea would be a “Battle of Guadalcanal” or “Battle of the Solomons” - which could incorporate the Battle of Coral sea, as well as the Battle of the Eastern Solomons - both major carrier engagements - and still have room for a large contingent of land bases and island attacks and other campaign action centered on Guadalcanal, which was 7mos long, rather than one day or three days long like these carrier engagements.

 

Midway is by its nature a isolated island and there will be serious suspension of reality compromises made, no matter how one looks at it, if the designers choose to focus the expansion solely on this particular very isolated carrier action.

I agree entirely about it being a much better idea to go to a different theatre rather than just Midway itself, which differs from all the problems of scale and scope that you've mentioned.

However, I think the name recognition is a big part of the choice to go to Midway and if it works as a marketing decision, gets people's attention and persuades them to buy into to the idea of a new chapter to BoX set in the Pacific, then it'll be worth it.

 

But, beyond that, there are a lot of new things being developed here, carrier ops and a convincing naval dimension being the big ones ehich will take a lot of work.

 

With that in mind, a smaller, more focused release dealing entirely with these areas is a sensible way to start.

The devs and community have already shown they can make a solid and coherent land-based theatre with campaigns and missions etc that all work together.

The sea is an untested area of development.

 

If we got an Eastern Solomons theatre with a really good land-based component and some bugged, glitchy carriers that no-one uses because they were bolted on as an afterthought, or was too ambitious and couldn't be made to work, then I would be very disappointed.

 

Keep it small-scale, do Midway and make it work before moving too far ahead of ourselves.

 

Also, given that there are now contractors building extra content separately to the dev team, what I would hope and expect to see is for the devs to be working on the next instalment while contractors can make extra maps and aircraft, then slowly Midway will fill up with content and will end up being different battles and mid-war carrier/naval ops in general, under the Midway banner.

Then, I agree, a land-based army aviation theatre, Guadalcanal, New Guinea, I would rather see China Burma India to finally get some Commonwealth representation in the series. Rather than jump straight to Okinawa which would be a stupid next choice.

Okinawa can come last in the trilogy after the middle has been filled.

 

TL;DR I agree that another setting would be better for us as pilots but from a dev/meta/business/technology point of view, Midway is a sensible next choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US gets a land fighter I'd really like to see a P-38

 

Obviously. It came a little later than Midway though, I believe their combat debut in the PTO was Dec 42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it small-scale, do Midway and make it work before moving too far ahead of ourselves.

 

TL;DR I agree that another setting would be better for us as pilots but from a dev/meta/business/technology point of view, Midway is a sensible next choice.

 

If this is the case, then it needs to include the Dec 7 strike at the Hawaiian islands as well. Just so that there is a large enough land component and enough engagement diversity. Midway is tiny and a very limited subset of aircraft were present.

 

A Dec 7 inclusion would also throw Tomahawks and some twin engined bombers into the fray, to add to the existing A-20.

 

These were the American aircraft present at the Hawaiian islands during the attack. The strike by the Japanese encompassed multiple airbases across the island of Oahu.

 

B-17D - 12 aircraft (four engine)

A-20A -12 aircraft (twin engine)

B-18 - 33 aircraft (twin engine)

P-40B - 87 aircraft

P-36A - 39 aircraft

F4F3 - 21 aircraft

SBD-1 - 20 aircraft

PBY-5 - 54 aircraft (twin engine)

Edited by Venturi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously. It came a little later than Midway though, I believe their combat debut in the PTO was Dec 42.

 

Yeah, it was more of a statement on the idea of a broader theater and not super specific "Battle of Midway". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal_Flight,

 

My point is that you could give the Japanese every single aircraft type they had in their entire inventory, Army and Navy, at the time of the Battle of Midway and it would not matter, more people will fly the Allied types in the Pacific.

 

That was the experience in multiplayer in the original IL2, and I don't think it will change in this iteration of the franchise.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm being a little slow here (!), but it just occurred to me that with the F2A-3 Buffalo, it might not be too much of a stretch to make the B-239 export variant flown by the Finnish in the Continuation war, which had much success there. 

Edited by Iceworm
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal_Flight,

 

My point is that you could give the Japanese every single aircraft type they had in their entire inventory, Army and Navy, at the time of the Battle of Midway and it would not matter, more people will fly the Allied types in the Pacific.

 

That was the experience in multiplayer in the original IL2, and I don't think it will change in this iteration of the franchise.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.

If they bring the A6M2-N to fruition then I'll fly IJN a LOT more than USN. The Wildcat and Buffalo are what I look forward to the most with Dauntless not far behind. But a floatplane zero takes the cake.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm being a little slow here (!), but it just occurred to me that with the F2A-3 Buffalo, it might not be too much of a stretch to make the B-239 export variant flown by the Finnish in the Continuation war, which had much success there. 

 

Sure, and why not the P-36, which was a much better aircraft and also used by the Finns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they bring the A6M2-N to fruition then I'll fly IJN a LOT more than USN. The Wildcat and Buffalo are what I look forward to the most with Dauntless not far behind. But a floatplane zero takes the cake.

 

 

+1 to that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal_Flight,

 

My point is that you could give the Japanese every single aircraft type they had in their entire inventory, Army and Navy, at the time of the Battle of Midway and it would not matter, more people will fly the Allied types in the Pacific.

 

That was the experience in multiplayer in the original IL2, and I don't think it will change in this iteration of the franchise.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.

 

Especially when you consider that for purely carrier-borne types, there were really only three Japanese aircraft: Zero, Val, and Kate. Everyone will get bored very quickly of only one aircraft type per category.

 

This is just another argument why a pure "Battle of Midway" expansion is a bad idea, and why a full new set (not counting any existing American planes) of army AND navy planes need to be included, on both sides. 

 

The Battle of Guadalcanal was early enough in the war to also be inclusive of all the types of aircraft present from Dec 41 to Midway. Therefore the devs can include all those battles as well as the Guadalcanal planes.

 

But any "pure carrier" expansion will be of very limited appeal from the Japanese planeset perspective.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially when you consider that for purely carrier-borne types, there were really only three Japanese aircraft: Zero, Val, and Kate. Everyone will get bored very quickly of only one aircraft type per category.

 

This is just another argument why a pure "Battle of Midway" expansion is a bad idea, and why a full new set (not counting any existing American planes) of army AND navy planes need to be included, on both sides. 

 

The Battle of Guadalcanal was early enough in the war to also be inclusive of all the types of aircraft present from Dec 41 to Midway. Therefore the devs can include all those battles as well as the Guadalcanal planes.

 

But any "pure carrier" expansion will be of very limited appeal from the Japanese planeset perspective.

 

Did you think about how Japanese Army planes will take off ? There wasn't some because it isn't there combat area and there was nowhere to take off

 

Did you think about how far is Rabaul and Bougainville from Guadalcanal to make this battle an extension ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take-off is not a problem Tomio :)

 

 

jzgzhP.jpg

 

ClE6Zq.jpg

 

 

That's how 68th Sentai made half of its way to New Guinea, 45 machines were ferried to Truk and from there launched for over 1300 km trip to Rabaul.

 

It's landing that would pose a real issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal_Flight,

 

My point is that you could give the Japanese every single aircraft type they had in their entire inventory, Army and Navy, at the time of the Battle of Midway and it would not matter, more people will fly the Allied types in the Pacific.

 

That was the experience in multiplayer in the original IL2, and I don't think it will change in this iteration of the franchise.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.

And my point is that to write it off before the threaten has even entered development is foolish, based on a different game set in a different context released in what is now almost a different era.

You're more than likely right anyway, especially if the Hartmanns all fly for the US, but I'm saying that there's no point in surrendering already.

 

If it's left to myself to fly for the side that's underrepresented I don't eat to be short-changed because people decided to write off the whole faction before the game was even started.

 

We obviously disagree, which is fine.

I'm likely to be flying Japan anyway, I'd jump into the US side if we get a FAA Martlet skin, but failing that Midway will be like the Eastern Front - at greater that I gave no connection to or stake in, so I'm content with either side.

I just want to have two sides that aren't deliberately unbalanced by design.

 

Especially when you consider that for purely carrier-borne types, there were really only three Japanese aircraft: Zero, Val, and Kate. Everyone will get bored very quickly of only one aircraft type per category.

 

This is just another argument why a pure "Battle of Midway" expansion is a bad idea, and why a full new set (not counting any existing American planes) of army AND navy planes need to be included, on both sides.

 

The Battle of Guadalcanal was early enough in the war to also be inclusive of all the types of aircraft present from Dec 41 to Midway. Therefore the devs can include all those battles as well as the Guadalcanal planes.

 

But any "pure carrier" expansion will be of very limited appeal from the Japanese planeset perspective.

Yes, I understand this and as I have already stated I agree. I'd rather a more interesting theatre.

But I think we will get one in due course. Guadalcanal, New Guinea, China/Burma/India. My preference is the latter but any would do... as a second release.

 

If done properly, Midway brings enough to the table as it is. And the thrill of getting away from the Eastern Fromt will be a great appeal too.

But I don't want carriers to be static objects with no interaction, I don't want ships to move in straight lines regardless of being under air attack, I don't want fleets to be just scenery and window dressing on a flat blue background.

I trust the devs to add that and make it work, in return I'll accept whatever plane set we initially get.

 

Especially as I expect that we'll have more added as we go. If the devs can churn out the eighth 109 derivative I'm sure we can have other aircraft added to Midway - G4M, B5N, D4Y, B7N, J2M, A6M2-N; Avenger, Corsair, Helldiver, Catalina, Seafire, Firefly, Barracuda, Beaufighter... so many good choices to bridge the gap between Midway and Okinawa, and to pass the time while we're waiting for the Army aviation in the second expansion.

 

Whenever Battle of Stalingrad shipped it only had three fighters, a bomber and an attacker per side but it did alright until BoM was released. BoMidway will surely be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever Battle of Stalingrad shipped it only had three fighters, a bomber and an attacker per side but it did alright until BoM was released. BoMidway will surely be the same.

 

The real issue here is that historically, we can't get to those numbers with carrier-borne aircraft, at least from the Japanese side.

 

And that might be OK - as long as the devs acknowledge that there are only going to be 3 Japanese aircraft in any initial "battle of midway" expansion. The first release of the Zero will certainly find its share of proponents, especially against the rather ugly F4F3 and other US naval aircraft.

 

But let's be honest, it will be a much smaller scope expansion than BOS, BOM, or BOK - and the question will be what amount of content will consumers demand for their money. Of course I am a fan, but I am speaking of the masses.

I too consider the Chinese / Japanese / Burmese theater to be a better "initial" foray into the Pacific theater, for many reasons.

 

You have the assault on Singapore, the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse (which allowed the assault on Singapore to proceed), of course the AVG with Tomahawk and Warhawks, the first Battle of the Philippines, etc.

 

But that's just one man's well-reasoned suggestion. I just hope that going after the "Midway" moniker at the cost of content doesn't disappoint too many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the Pacific, there is the Carrier battles... and then only the others battles...

Aircraft Carriers battles rocks ! Nothing beat that

 

Other battles is interesting too of course but the ground warfare goes after the naval one in the Pacific for sure

Edited by 64sTomio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the Pacific, there is the Carrier battles... and then only the others battles...

 

 

When it comes to the Pacific it is much more complex than that.

Let me know if you need a few book suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that in terms of environment on Midway, there will hardly be any land masses at all. All we have is the ocean, the sky and the ships. Considering that these are the only ingredients in the air war soup we will find us in, I wonder if the team will work towards a more advanced cloud tech, opening up more possibilities for different layers, cloud types and what not. It looks like they have come a long way with water physics, even though I guess that they might also improve and develop this as well.

 

As land is nowhere to be found, I think these two elements; air and water, need a lot of attention in order to present a authentic sensation - even though they look sweet aleady.

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomio, the typical carrier vs. carrier engagement lasted a few days, at most.

 

The air war over New Guinea lasted over two years, the air war over China lasted almost eight years.

 

There is a LOT more to the Pacific than just carriers, a whole lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's got to be a Betty in there at some point. PTO without her does not make sense. Not for Midway though, but later yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - no carrier actions between

Oct 1942 and June 1944.

 

Japan never recovered from mistakes made in the Solomons campaign, which is where the tide turned. Coming out of Midway it was a dead heat.

A transient situation no matter what given the U.S.'s industrial might and the ships already in the pipeline - but Japan hastened her demise somewhat. Writing was on the wall no matter what though.

 

I'm very much looking forward to Midway and carrier ops. I think it will be an eye-opener for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC there were only 5 carrier versus carrier battles during the war....at least USN vs IJN.

 

 

I'm assuming the following...

  • Coral Sea -- May'42
  • Midway -- Jun'42
  • Eastern Solomons -- Aug'42
  • Phillipine Sea -- Jun'44
  • Leyte Gulf -- Oct'44

 

I'd possibly add to that...

 

  • Batticaloa -- Apr'42

 

... although that did not involve the USN.

 

Any others?

 

 

Also, I wonder if there were carrier-v-seaplane-tender battles? Or seaplane-tender-v-seaplane-tender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed one, Santa Cruz.

 

Also, this whole discussion makes me wonder what kind of modifications can be expected with both Japanese and American aircraft.

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very well history, I meant nothing reach the carrier battles in terms of local intensity...

 

Of course Midway is too short for a campaign

To make a reasonable long enough campaign, devs should make the campaign throughout few 1942 carriers engagement with Midway being the climax, for example :

 

Wake - February 1942 with USS Enterprise (midway map if they include Wake on it)

Coral Sea - May 1942 (water map)

Midway - June 1942 (midway map)

Solomons Sea - August 1942 (water map)

Santa Cruz - October 42 (water map)

 

Southern pacific map can be slightly "more green" than North Pacific sea colour.

Edited by 64sTomio
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Of course Midway is too short for a campaign To make a reasonable long enough campaign, devs should make the campaign throughout few 1942 carriers engagement with Midway being the climax, for example :

 

Wake - February 1942 with USS Enterprise (midway map if they include Wake on it)

Coral Sea - May 1942 (water map)

Midway - June 1942 (midway map)

Solomons Sea - August 1942 (water map)

Santa Cruz - October 42 (water map)

 

That is still campaign with some 10 missions, 15 maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is still campaign with some 10 missions, 15 maximum.

15 missions total from February to October? 

e02e5ffb5f980cd8262cf7f0ae00a4a9_press-x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...