Jump to content
Wolf8312

Be specific about why you want the pacific?

Recommended Posts

 

7 hours ago, Jorge_S said:

How would the game deal with the super long cruising hours?

 

Did the planes in the Pacific have longer range than the planes we currently fly? Or is the concern just that people don't want to fly for very long over open ocean? Just curious.

 

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Maps can be/should be scaled down.

 

If flying long distances is an actual issue, then I agree that this is the only practical solution and it's how flight sims have always solved it as far as I know. Other solutions seem convoluted to me, but who knows, maybe there are other solutions these days 🤷‍♂️

Out of curiosity, why is scale a concern? Assuming our current BoX maps are true scale - which seems to be fun for everyone - why would Pacific maps need to be scaled down? I guess I'm just not understanding what's different about Pacific. I know that the carriers themselves travelled over long distances and fought in various places throughout the Pacific, but did the planes fly further than our current planes? Couldn't the maps focus on areas where opposing carriers were close enough so that scale wasn't a problem?

 

Genuinely curious. Be kind if it's something blatantly obvious =P

Edited by obit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The naval aircraft flown in the Pacific far out ranged anything we currently have in the sim, especially the Zero. 

No single seat fighter made in Europe could even come close to it.

It varies some by what version of the A6M you look at, but usually between 1600 and 1900 miles or so.

 

Wiki says  3,104 km (1,675 nmi, 1,929 mi)

 

The distances flown in the Pacific were FAR longer than in Europe, it isn't even close.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The naval aircraft flown in the Pacific far out ranged anything we currently have in the sim, especially the Zero. 

 

Yeah, I figured it had to be their range. Thanks for confirming. I'm still learning all those sorts of details and I guess I could've just searched lol.

Edited by obit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Pacific theater ranges were significantly longer. There is another thread called:"Pacific battle areas compared to Bodenplatte map size"

it show Guadalcanal area roughly the same size as Bodenplatte. However to add Rabaul (which is from where the Japanese air strikes came) you will need to add at least another 1 1/2 sized map

 

That being said, if they use another forward base instead of main base Rabaul; somewhere like New Georgia, it can work, after all who cares which base is being used? it is not that we need to deal with the logistics of using forward bases instead of proper ones.

 

An advantage of Guadalcanal is that there was also some carrier battles fought nearby (Solomons and Santa Cruz) so it is not out of the question to include carriers ;)

 

Edited by Jorge_S
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way to look at it...

 

The Kuban map is the largest one we have so far.  The distance fro Sochi to Kerch is approximately 200 miles.

 

The distance from Guadalcanal to Rabaul is 660 miles.

 

From

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jorge_S said:

An advantage of Guadalcanal is that there was also some carrier battles fought nearby (Solomons and Santa Cruz) so it is not out of the question to include carriers ;)

 

 

Operation Watchtower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Jorge_S said:

after all who cares which base is being used?

 

Plenty of people do, including myself. If that means scaling down the maps a bit to make the idea workable, then I'm all for it.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jorge_S said:

That being said, if they use another forward base instead of main base Rabaul; somewhere like New Georgia, it can work, after all who cares which base is being used? it is not that we need to deal with the logistics of using forward bases instead of proper ones.

 

 

 

I had enough "pretend and make due" in the old sim, fighting battles between Guadalcanal and Florida Island thank you very much.

New Georgia is fine for R-Area Air Force,  and later Black Sheep/Corsair stuff - bring it on.

Guadalcanal needs to be GUADALCANAL however.

 

I'm all for generic island maps too, those have their place as stand-ins, but that's different than trying to move Henderson/ Cactus Air Force up the slot.

That said we're talking theoretical here with regard to maps. We have no idea what we're getting, so I don't want to get into second-guessing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Plenty of people do, including myself. If that means scaling down the maps a bit to make the idea workable, then I'm all for it.

 

I'd prefer accurate bases too. A large part of what makes this sim great for me is the level of detail and accuracy the devs put into the bases and units. I'd prefer that to continue and will deal with minimized scale. Especially considering we're talking about mostly ocean anyway.

But gambit's right... all hypothetical at this point. Just giving my opinions for what they're worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

You're not going to sit there for 4 hours escorting an AI Betty from Rabaul to Henderson.

Frankly, I really don't want to recreate the boredom and fatigue of such missions. I've seen a video interview with an old Japanese ace pilot, who told that they were so much exhausted that from time to time they fell asleep, and as they didn't have radios, many of them crashed without regaining conscience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I'm not talking scaled down so that you can see the entire Solomon chain from 3000 feet...I mean half scale or something, which is still HUGE.

There won't be any "look" to it all other, other than really cool. :) 

 

As far as time accell goes, 2X is all we functionally get in a fully fleshed out mission, so in practical terms that's not gong to make your life easier on a full

size Solomon's map. You're not going to sit there for 4 hours escorting an AI Betty from Rabaul to Henderson.

 

So in practical terms, even smaller than half scale might be in order.

I think the 1946 Solomons map (added years later...and too late for me)  is 3/4 scale.

So how much to scale it is debatable, whether or not to scale it is not IMO.

You missed the golden times of first Gen. Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre content! Countless times I have flown that Solomon map up and down, as well as many other enthusiast-made maps. The selection of stock maps "Pacific Fighters" came with really was its limiting factor.

Exactly for this reason, and because many missed the true Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre in first Gen., I have great hopes for BoX, but also expectations.

 

The Solomon Islands are a good example why scaled maps are unfavourable:
Scaling the water areas easily destroys the overall picture because the island groups are too close together. Scaling down will be noticeable. It's not like scaling down from 1000 to 500 km. The island groups are just ~50 - 100 km apart.
Ok, so let's scale down the islands as well - not working. Airfields can't be scaled and in many places they wouldn't fit their location anymore.

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

had enough "pretend and make due" in the old sim

And so do I. Let's hope they can rework time-acceleration as it's the only way suiting this game's ambitions.

 

The distance problem is one of the reasons I'd favour New Guinea over the Solomon Islands.
Lae, an important airfield, and Port Moresby are 300 km apart, Buna (limited use) and Moresby just 160 km.
The closest opposing airfields in the Solomon Islands, Munda (limited use) and Henderson, are 330 km apart. Next would be Ballalae - Henderson at 530 km.
Even Rabaul - Port Moresby are much closer at "just" 800 km compared to 1050 km Rabaul - Henderson.

And yes, I'd fly my Nell or Betty from Rabaul to Port Moresby and (hopefully) back, or vice versa my B-25 or B-26.
Many are constantly asking about strategic bombing - here you go.

 

6 hours ago, Jorge_S said:

That being said, if they use another forward base instead of main base Rabaul; somewhere like New Georgia, it can work, after all who cares which base is being used?

I care much about it. Rabaul remained home base to pretty much all Japanese landbased aerial units involved in the Solomon Campaign.

 

 

Never going to happen, but I'd love both:

G3M__Attack_Bomber_Nell.thumb.jpg.023e23577f4ad63a5e70266e1a2d62cd.jpgG4M_Attack_Bomber_Betty.thumb.jpg.2592e529a15a127cb33325672da2992a.jpg

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not scaling down maps for pacific is wrong, it would kill game for all exept few fanatics.

 

so midway is then best as you can do 1:1 map and just place enemy carrier group how ever close you wont to play online missions in under 30 min like now and do sp misions in realsitic flyt time if you wont, carrier vs carrier battles would be best option :)

 

in 46 i played with B-29 taking of from okinawa and bombing japan or taking of from japan and bombing n.korea, just because mod maps made of thouse areas are scaled down, so players can expiriance that online or offline in normal time of play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okinawa and Korea are 900 km apart. Obviously you won't notice scaling in the same way you would notice it on a Solomon Island map where the rendering distance is much greater than the islands are apart.

I'm happy to admit I'm a fanatic, but it's not all about multiplayer. Even there I use(d) to fly long-distance flights and return to my home base instead of landing at the closest airfield.
Just place the aircraft on closer airfields or add air-spawns online. No need for scaling. I even hope maps can be made much bigger considering the limited populated areas and no seasons.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Even Rabaul - Port Moresby are much closer at "just" 800 km compared to 1050 km Rabaul - Henderson.

And yes, I'd fly my Nell or Betty from Rabaul to Port Moresby and (hopefully) back, or vice versa my B-25 or B-26.
Many are constantly asking about strategic bombing - here you go.

Honestly, it would take more time than the sum total I can spend on flying in one week.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have 2 good candidates for an early war period: Guadalcanal or New Guinea, scaling won't work, as already mentioned it would need to be at least half size and that will make the area of operations tiny

 

I would like the idea of one big detailed map, where most of the multiplayer will happen, plus additional small maps. some connected by "teleport" under conditions (you need to be at a certain place, at a certain altitude to start the "teleport", avgas and time will be consumed) so then you can start a mission in smaller map "Rabaul" take off, go to cruise speed and altitude, after maybe a 5 min flight, you are in the "teleport" zone, and can then fast forward to Guadalcanal map for your mission  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, sniperton said:

Honestly, it would take more time than the sum total I can spend on flying in one week. 

That's unfortunate and the reason I called for a reworked time-acceleration.

Scaling down the map wouldn't help here at all if you don't want to place Rabaul next to Port Moresby or Guadalcanal/Henderson.

Carrier battles wouldn't help because they are long-distance as well:

Coral_sea.jpg.e751db229d5b10026607e7e7a896a1ed.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

That's unfortunate and the reason I called for a reworked time-acceleration.

Scaling down the map wouldn't help here at all if you don't want to place Rabaul next to Port Moresby or Guadalcanal/Henderson.

Carrier battles wouldn't help because they are long-distance as well:

Let us be pragmatic.

Scaling down is certainly feasible given the current game engine, better time acceleration or time-warps are not. You may call for it, the devs might venture it, and they can even succeed with it, but it's still on the moon.

We want to recreate tactical situations (both online and offline) as close as possible, but most of us are certainly not willing to watch the water for 4+ hours. This is our pastime, not our job.

RL-size maps would seriously limit both offline and online play. A Midway run for instance would take one hour from takeoff to landing, provided you use 8X time acceleration en route, and would not be playable online unless you place both carrier forces much closer to both Midway and each other. As you have to put carriers more close to recreate the tactical situation within our life limits, you also have to place islands closer. Optimizing a map for gameplay doesn't mean universal scaling, it's rather a sort of distortion where landmasses retain their size, while their distances to each other are significantly reduced to get rid of that 1 to 3 hours of extra travelling time that we generally don't have.

 

Edited by sniperton
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wormholes?  Could be disguised as clouds. You fly into one on one 1:1 map and emerge from the wormhole on another 1:1 map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sniperton said:

Let us be pragmatic.

Scaling down is certainly feasible given the current game engine, better time acceleration or time-warps are not. You may call for it, the devs might venture it, and they can even succeed with it, but it's still on the moon.

We want to recreate tactical situations (both online and offline) as close as possible, but most of us are certainly not willing to watch the water for 4+ hours. This is our pastime, not our job.

RL-size maps would seriously limit both offline and online play. A Midway run for instance would take one hour from takeoff to landing, provided you use 8X time acceleration en route, and would not be playable online unless you place both carrier forces much closer to both Midway and each other. As you have to put carriers more close to recreate the tactical situation within our life limits, you also have to place islands closer. Optimizing a map for gameplay doesn't mean universal scaling, it's rather a sort of distortion where landmasses retain their size, while their distances to each other are significantly reduced to get rid of that 1 to 3 hours of extra travelling time that we generally don't have.

 

 

Yep

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sniperton said:

Optimizing a map for gameplay doesn't mean universal scaling, it's rather a sort of distortion where landmasses retain their size, while their distances to each other are significantly reduced to get rid of that 1 to 3 hours of extra travelling time that we generally don't have

My personal optinion on this I stated already:

5 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

The Solomon Islands are a good example why scaled maps are unfavourable:
Scaling the water areas easily destroys the overall picture because the island groups are too close together. Scaling down will be noticeable. It's not like scaling down from 1000 to 500 km. The island groups are just ~50 - 100 km apart.
Ok, so let's scale down the islands as well - not working. Airfields can't be scaled and in many places they wouldn't fit their location anymore.

5 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Okinawa and Korea are 900 km apart. Obviously you won't notice scaling in the same way you would notice it on a Solomon Island map where the rendering distance is much greater than the islands are apart.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, sniperton said:

We want to recreate tactical situations (both online and offline) as close as possible, but most of us are certainly not willing to watch the water for 4+ hours. This is our pastime, not our job.

The Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre is neither the European Theatre nor only 4+ hour flights and water. My favorite New Guinea for example provides both, short- and long-range missions. As mentioned several times in this thread and explained in detail on page three, I'm not particularly interested in BoX carrier scenarios myself.
Solomon Island missions tend to be more long-ranged, that is, as already explained, one of the reasons I prefer New Guinea.
The Battle of Buna-Gona, Battle of Wau, and the Salamua-Lea campaign are pretty much as tactical as the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre can get. Only Burma and China are equally versatile in this respect. During 1943 the IJAAS operated Ki-51 in the area. Not only one of my most favorite aircraft, but, together with the Ki-36, of the rarer (in Japanese terms) army-cooperation type. The RAAF could get the cool Boomerang, or the Beaufighter if you prefer two engines, to do the same job. And obviously many US fighter, fighter-bomber, and bomber/strafer aircraft.

All that on a map not really much bigger than any of the ones we have or will get. If you want to properly include the 1942 phase and Port Moresby raids you would have to add Rabaul, but no one forces you to fly this distance. Other Asiatic-Pacific-Theatres, including Solomon Islands and anything carrier, would do.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Wormholes?  Could be disguised as clouds. You fly into one on one 1:1 map and emerge from the wormhole on another 1:1 map.

 

Don't complain if then your Zero get bounced by a pair of time-traveling Tomcats :rolleyes:

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seams best option is to posponed PTO for more time, and just do one more east front 1944 or 45 1:1 400x400km area with well reaserched airplanes and short action radiouses untill we get all info on thouse opscured IJA airplanes and get 1:1 2000x2000km+ map build, and make BB and CV with 50+ AAA each able to shoot without cosing fps drops :) 

i cant even imagine how bad this would lok if we went for PTO insted geting BoBp now, doing BoBp insted Midway is their best call by far.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

it seams best option is to posponed PTO for more time, and just do one more east front 1944 or 45 1:1 400x400km area with well reaserched airplanes and short action radiouses untill we get all info on thouse opscured IJA airplanes and get 1:1 2000x2000km+ map build, and make BB and CV with 50+ AAA each able to shoot without cosing fps drops :) 

i cant even imagine how bad this would lok if we went for PTO insted geting BoBp now, doing BoBp insted Midway is their best call by far.

 

A - We're not going to get a map that large.

B - you'll never see "50+AAA each able to shoot without causing FPS drop"

C - PTO is produced within the limitations of the game engine, just like every other release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =27=Davesteu said:

The Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre is neither the European Theatre nor only 4+ hour flights and water. My favorite New Guinea for example provides both, short- and long-range missions. As mentioned several times in this thread and explained in detail on page three, I'm not particularly interested in BoX carrier scenarios myself.

Solomon Island missions tend to be more long-ranged, that is, as already explained, one of the reasons I prefer New Guinea.

I mostly agree, and I myself am more enthusiastic about New Guinea than about Midway (let alone Okinawa). But this game was designed as a tactical air combat simulator and can thus only recreate a limited aspect of aerial warfare. The Pacific stresses its limits, and the more we want, the more concessions we have to make. Realistic time and realistic space come first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Salomons map would offer lots of opportunities for shorter ranged, tactical missions, well manageable by the current game engine. Just focus on the Allies islands hopping campaign in 1943, we can't get the ultimate Pacific flight sim in one installment anyway.

 

Russel islands to Munda (New Georgia) 230 km

Munda, or Ondongo to Treasury islands or Balalae 200 km
Munda to Kahili 240 km

Barakoma to Kahili 170 km
Barakoma to Empress Augusta Bay 260 km

Green Islands to Rabaul 230 km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

untill we get all info on thouse opscured IJA airplanes...

IJAAS aircraft are as obscure as IJNAS ones are; no more, no less.

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

...get 1:1 2000x2000km+ map build

Aitape: NW corner - Horn Island and Bamaga (Northern Peninsula Area, Australia): SW corner - north of Rossel Island: SE corner - east of New Ireland and incl. Green Islands: NE corner

2000 x 800 km would be sufficient enough. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

The Solomon Islands are a good example why scaled maps are unfavourable:
Scaling the water areas easily destroys the overall picture because the island groups are too close together. Scaling down will be noticeable. It's not like scaling down from 1000 to 500 km. The island groups are just ~50 - 100 km apart.

 

I don't think you'd need to down scale the whole map like that. You can leave some islands their actual sizes and if islands are close they can still be their true distances apart from one another. It's only the long distances that would be scaled down, meaning the map makers would just make them closer on the map then they are in real life.

 

For example, Guadalcanal and Rabaul might be closer together on the map than they are in reality, but the Solomon islands could be accurate distances apart from each other.

Edited by obit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, obit said:

 

I don't think you'd need to down scale the whole map like that. You can leave some islands their actual sizes and if islands are close they can still be their true distances apart from one another. It's only the long distances that would be scaled down, meaning the map makers would just make them closer on the map then they are in real life.

  

For example, Guadalcanal and Rabaul might be closer together on the map than they are in reality, but the Solomon islands could be accurate distances apart from each other.

 

It won't work that easily since the other Salomon islands are between Guadalcanal and Rabul. You can decrease the gap between Bougainville and New Ireland/Britain, but will help only marginally if people really want to fly from Rabaul all the way to Henderson field.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cunctator said:

 

It won't work that easily since the other Salomon islands are between Guadalcanal and Rabul. You can decrease the gap between Bougainville and New Ireland/Britain, but will help only marginally if people really want to fly from Rabaul all the way to Henderson field.

 

Yeah, I don't remember actual locations of those islands and forgot that Guadalcanal was part of the Solomon Islands, but my point was just that the whole map doesn't necessarily need to be scaled down. You can place certain things closer on the map than others and leave other parts in true scale.

 

Regardless of how it's done, I agree with others that the only practical solution seems to be to scale down somehow, but I'll leave that to the pros to decide. I personally just don't see any other simple way to solve the problem. Agree to disagree I suppose. Not a debate for me to decide anyway 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the Japanese fly missions to Okinawa from one of the islands between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, or maybe Jeju?

 

Compressing the distance between Okinawa and Jeju would seem to be doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes scaling distances is what I had in mind - not scaling the islands.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well these things, are already been discussed by the dev´s . We do not have to worry about it. I flew a lot of pacific mission in the old game. I am still here. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cunctator said:

A Salomons map would offer lots of opportunities for shorter ranged, tactical missions, well manageable by the current game engine. Just focus on the Allies islands hopping campaign in 1943, we can't get the ultimate Pacific flight sim in one installment anyway.

You are absolutely right about one instalment not being sufficient enough to even only broadly represent the air war(s) fought in the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre.
Regarding the Solomon Island Campaign, I think the late 1942 - 1943 timeframe indeed has its advantages. But only with reservations I would call the aerial war fought there tactical. Unfortunately the distances would still be daunting to many even after the forward bases were constructed:

1 hour ago, Cunctator said:

Russel islands to Munda (New Georgia) 230 km 

Munda airfield was neutralized by the time Renard and Banika airfields went operational.

1 hour ago, Cunctator said:

Munda, or Ondongo to Treasury islands or Balalae 200 km

Stirling airfield on Treasury Is. was build by US Seabees, not the Japanese. Ballalae was neutralized by the time any Allied airfield on New Georgia was operational.

1 hour ago, Cunctator said:

Munda to Kahili 240 km

Kahili pretty much neutralized by the time Munda was reconstructed and operational.

1 hour ago, Cunctator said:

Barakoma to Kahili 170 km

Kahili neutralized by the time.

1 hour ago, Cunctator said:

Barakoma to Empress Augusta Bay 260 km

Allied airfields only.

1 hour ago, Cunctator said:

Green Islands to Rabaul 230 km 

Rabaul neutralized by the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, obit said:

 

 

Did the planes in the Pacific have longer range than the planes we currently fly? Or is the concern just that people don't want to fly for very long over open ocean? Just curious.

 

 

If flying long distances is an actual issue, then I agree that this is the only practical solution and it's how flight sims have always solved it as far as I know. Other solutions seem convoluted to me, but who knows, maybe there are other solutions these days 🤷‍♂️

Out of curiosity, why is scale a concern? Assuming our current BoX maps are true scale - which seems to be fun for everyone - why would Pacific maps need to be scaled down? I guess I'm just not understanding what's different about Pacific. I know that the carriers themselves travelled over long distances and fought in various places throughout the Pacific, but did the planes fly further than our current planes? Couldn't the maps focus on areas where opposing carriers were close enough so that scale wasn't a problem?

 

Genuinely curious. Be kind if it's something blatantly obvious =P

 

16 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The naval aircraft flown in the Pacific far out ranged anything we currently have in the sim, especially the Zero. 

No single seat fighter made in Europe could even come close to it.

It varies some by what version of the A6M you look at, but usually between 1600 and 1900 miles or so.

 

Wiki says  3,104 km (1,675 nmi, 1,929 mi)

 

The distances flown in the Pacific were FAR longer than in Europe, it isn't even close.

 

Yeah - Zero, and practically all of those carrier based planes have accent on flight endurance... that huge ocean water mass does not forgive navigation mistakes much.

 

IIRC, and I think I am, we got "Time Skip" function with Pacific Fighters in old IL-2 1946...:)

It (campaign/career) really couldn't be done without it as I really doubt that people could regularly fly 6-8hrs without some sort of time acceleration, it would be just massive time waste with no real purpose... ok maybe as a screen saver🤪.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Munda airfield was neutralized by the time Renard and Banika airfields went operational.

Stirling airfield on Treasury Is. was build by US Seabees, not the Japanese. Ballalae was neutralized by the time any Allied airfield on New Georgia was operational.

Kahili pretty much neutralized by the time Munda was reconstructed and operational.

Kahili neutralized by the time.

Allied airfields only.

Rabaul neutralized by the time.

 

That's not really the point, you just have to fly to the battlefield to get plenty of opportunities for shorter ranged missions. The airfield on the Russels was operational when the New Georgia campaign begun, with months of fighting, months of missions over New Georgia, ahead until the islands could been secured. Even Munda point become operational before the campaign was concluded.  

 

Fighters operating from the New Georgia bases supported the Allied landings on the Trasury Island and so on.

 

Kahili was bombed by the Allies well into 1944. Still lots of air combat over the base during late summer and autumn of 1943, when the New Georgia bases were operational. You can easily build an entire chapter of the career mode around it.

Edited by Cunctator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cunctator said:

That's not really the point, you just have to fly to the battlefield. The airfield on the Russels was operational when the New Georgia campaign begun, with months of fighting, months of missions over New Georgia, ahead until the islands could been secured. Even Munda point become operational before the campaign was concluded.  

[...]

Ah ok, sorry, I didn't quite get your intention. In this case your numbers are correct of course. Thought you were talking about distance between opposing serviceable airfields.
The problem being many players are primarily into air combat, especially those playing online, were distance between opposing serviceable airfields defines the combat area.

Looking at it this way, distances are much greater again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cunctator said:

 

Kahili was bombed by the Allies well into 1944. Still lots of air combat over the base during late summer and autumn of 1943, when the New Georgia bases were operational. You can easily build an entire chapter of the career mode around it.

 

We have Watchtower (Guadalcanal landing) at the beginning, which utilized carriers.

Then carries were put away on both sides and the war is fought by land based aircraft for another 18 months before carriers see action again.

 

So after Watchtower we have the battle for Guadalcanal itself (epic) which lasted for 6 months, with daily, brutal fighting over Henderson. Coastwatchers would warn of incoming bomber flights "Henderson, 16 bombers and escorts, headed yours!" Scramble, climb, fight, try not to die...

That's a hell of a campaign right there on it's own. Maybe you don't want to fly it from the Japanese side (flight times) but in a Wildcat you're fighting right over Henderson!

In the midst of that we also have maritime patrol, (PBY's) R-Area Air force (Japanese float planes. Rufe's etc) supply interdiction, etc...again...epic.

 

Then when Guadalcanal is secured, we  have the march up the slot, Corsairs come into the picture, and we have the setting for a Black Sheep career etc, etc.

I've done my best not to think about this, or post/speculate over the past months...but damn it just get's my blood flowing.

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm withya of course Gambit21, but Hellcats over Henderson? Did you misspeak or do I have to learn to fly a plane other than a Wildcat? 😉

Cloyd

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

×
×
  • Create New...