Does the first PTO installment/first installment with Japanese planes need to be a carrier battle?

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, Lupus said:

 

Battle of Wake Island (8–23 December 1941)--This had some carrier involvement on both the Japanese and American side.

 

The Philippines Campaign (December 8, 1941 to May 8, 1942) had carrier involvement on the part of the Japanese.

 

The Guadalcanal Campaign (7 August 1942 – 9 February 1943) had carrier involvement on the part of the US and Japan.

 

Are you trying to tell me that in a game (remember, we are not trying to have a 'virtual history simulation', this is a game) that the Carrier based sorties during those three campaigns was limited to 1 to 5 days?  I find that very hard to believe.

Carrier involvement in the Solomons was minimal. Both sides kept their carriers stashed out of harms way for a vast majority of that (pivotal mind you) part of the war.

We don’t need carriers out of the gate. I’d rather they establish the land-bases aspect, get the PTO revenue rolling in, then take their time developing carrier tech. The carriers can then be added in where appropriate and campaigns/career expanded.

 

For instance you can start the Battle of Guadalcanal just after Watchtower (landings) then add the landings later when carriers arrive.

 

I think the establishment of carrier tech out of the gate will overwhelm the team unless a 3rd party can be leveraged…even then…

 

There’s many ways to skin this cat.

[Lupus]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

You do realize though that those are all separate maps?

 

Yes.  And you do realize, with the exception of the Battle of Wake Island, they all lasted for several months?  AND, in a PTO, the maps should be much easier to build than in a land based campaign since most of them would be relatively featureless water?

 

For comparison, here are the historical dates for:

 

    Battle of Staliingrad: 23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943.

 

    Battle of Moscow: 2 October 1941 – 7 January 1942

[Enceladus828]

@Gambit21 I agree with your statement. When adding carriers into this game, it's best if they do an installment where carriers saw minimal action instead of major action such as at Midway and Malta so if it turns out halfway through the development cycle that carrier tech is too complex at the moment and won't be coming by the time the installment is fully released then a major component of the battle isn't being taken out.

[Bremspropeller]

6 hours ago, Lupus said:

Yes.  And you do realize, with the exception of the Battle of Wake Island, they all lasted for several months?  AND, in a PTO, the maps should be much easier to build than in a land based campaign since most of them would be relatively featureless water?

 

And BoNG lasted for as long as those campaigns combined and doesn't need a duckton of development time to come up with decent carrier-modelling.  You also do realise that carriers played a minor role during the Solomon campaigns, so making one would be an abysmal waste of developer-ressources for that franchise.

 

Again, making carriers is the longest path to release with the least economical sense for the fist PTO franchise. Make them a later add-on or even premium products and you'll have a more streamlined development process and everybody's gonna be happy about the end product.

[CountZero]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

And BoNG lasted for as long as those campaigns combined and doesn't need a duckton of development time to come up with decent carrier-modelling.  You also do realise that carriers played a minor role during the Solomon campaigns, so making one would be an abysmal waste of developer-ressources for that franchise.

 

Again, making carriers is the longest path to release with the least economical sense for the fist PTO franchise. Make them a later add-on or even premium products and you'll have a more streamlined development process and everybody's gonna be happy about the end product.

Battle of New what ? thats how mutch it would be known to ppl outside of this forum. So you think they would leve safe space of onother west front to do some PTO DLC that is not well known and it dosent have any famous us airplanes we already dont have in game... P-40 P-39 P-38 oh yes thats what ppl who wait for PTO wont and cant fly now... on top they have 0 info on japan army airplanes you would need... so campaign can last for 20 years, but it would not sell. 

Going to PTO without doing carriers is pointles as first PTO DLC.

[Lupus]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

And BoNG lasted for as long as those campaigns combined and doesn't need a duckton of development time to come up with decent carrier-modelling.  You also do realise that carriers played a minor role during the Solomon campaigns, so making one would be an abysmal waste of developer-ressources for that franchise.

 

Again, making carriers is the longest path to release with the least economical sense for the fist PTO franchise. Make them a later add-on or even premium products and you'll have a more streamlined development process and everybody's gonna be happy about the end product.

 

Taking on the BoNG first, spanning from Jan 1942 to Aug 1945 is essentially asking the developers to tackle the entire timeline of the war all at once.  I'm asking for carriers but your asking for them to develop all the aircraft used by Japan during the war, from Pearl Harbor to V-J day, and the same with the US.

 

No, I think it makes a lot more sense in terms of development to use the BoNG as a capstone once they have had the chance to already develop most of the aircraft through other battles.  Yes, decent carrier modeling will take some time, but they already have basic ship mechanics. they just have to figure out landing and take-off.  It's certainly not as demanding as asking for 14 different fighter aircraft, 6 attack aircraft, and 5 bomber aircraft.  That doesn't count all the transports and others, and that's for the Japanese side only.  So come on, you really think it makes sense to take on the BoNG first?

Edited July 8, 2022 by Lupus

[Bremspropeller]

44 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Battle of New what ? thats how mutch it would be known to ppl outside of this forum. So you think they would leve safe space of onother west front to do some PTO DLC that is not well known and it dosent have any famous us airplanes we already dont have in game... P-40 P-39 P-38 oh yes thats what ppl who wait for PTO wont and cant fly now... on top they have 0 info on japan army airplanes you would need... so campaign can last for 20 years, but it would not sell. 

Going to PTO without doing carriers is pointles as first PTO DLC.

 

Well, that's just...like...your opinion, man.

If you can't be bothered picking up a map and figuring out where places are then I'm afraid the PTO (or CBI) just ain't your kind of place.

I'm quite sure most people who are in the market of a PTO flight-sim experience have heard of most places before. And if they haven't, they'll figure it out.

 

I have never bought the "not enough info" argument. There are 120 million people in Japan. There's got to be somebody who can help make this happen.

 

46 minutes ago, Lupus said:

Taking on the BoNG first, spanning from Jan 1942 to Aug 1945 is essentially asking the developers to tackle the entire timeline of the war all at once.  I'm asking for carriers but your asking for them to develop all the aircraft used by Japan during the war, from Pearl Harbor to V-J day, and the same with the US.  Damn, and you claim I was being demanding.

 

Is it? It's the same old 5 vs 5 planeset. Just like Battle of Kuban, when bought in isolation. No! Wait! You can't use that one, as you're missing the 109E. Dayum!

Just kidding.

 

We already have a P-40 and a P-39 that are somewhat fitting into the timeframe. Sure, they'd need some mods, but that's not completely out of bounds, is it?

A P-38G and an early P-47D should easily make the list. That still leaves us with three slots for the Allied side. Two would be a later A-20 version and a B-25 with some sort of strafer mod. Still one slot to go. Easy.

 

The japanese side would also work quite well. One Zero (he got lost on the way to Rabaul), one Oscar and one Tony. Two slots to go.

 

48 minutes ago, Lupus said:

No, I think it makes a lot more sense in terms of development to use the BoNG as a capstone once they have had the chance to already develop most of the aircraft through other battles.  Yes, decent carrier modeling will take some time, but they already have basic ship mechanics. they just have to figure out landing and take-off.  It's certainly not as demanding as asking for 14 different fighter aircraft, 6 attack aircraft, and 5 bomber aircraft.  That doesn't count all the transports and others, and that's for the Japanese side only.  So come on, you really think it makes sense to take on the BoNG first?

 

Yes. And it's not just me. There's a lot of people who think the same.

 

 

 

[Eisenfaustus]

On 7/8/2022 at 6:47 PM, Bremspropeller said:

I have never bought the "not enough info" argument. There are 120 million people in Japan. There's got to be somebody who can help make this happen.

Not willing would be just as bad as not able.
 

And no - after years of firebombing and the thorough destruction of documentation before the occupation it is not so unlikely that the relevant information is actually lost. You are from a culture that is obsessed with preserving information - other places other times…

 

I guess you have as few knowledge about the devs actual procedure in creating planes as I do - so neither of us knows which information they are actually lacking and how crucial it is. But what would be Jason’s motive for lying about it?

 

Don‘t get me wrong - I also hope they get what they need and would very much like to fly Japanese WWII planes at GB standards. But I think it is very possible they actually won’t be able to in spite of sincere trying. 

[357th_KW]

Keep in mind with New Guinea, the campaign shifted geographically as it went on.  Things shifted from the Kokoda trail in 1942, northward along the coast in 1943, and then westward along the northern coast in 1944.  A Battle of New Guinea module would probably have to focus on just one part of the campaign.  It looks like you could do a pretty solid Port Moresby to Lae map in about 350x350km.  Lae to Wewak would be a bit bigger - maybe 450x350km.  A map focused on the early part of the campaign could feature both IJN and IJAAF aircraft, as the changeover happened around December 1942.  A later map could potentially feature a Ki-61 - which shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility, considering it shares an engine with the 109E-7 and MC202 we already have in game.

[Old49r]

48 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Not willing would be just as bad as not able.
 

And no - after years of firebombing and the thorough destruction of documentation before the occupation it is not so unlikely that the relevant information is actually lost. You are from a culture that is obsessed with preserving information - other places other times…

 

I guess you have as few knowledge about the devs actual procedure in creating planes as I do - so neither of us knows which information they are actually lacking and how crucial it is. But what would be Jason’s motive for lying about it?

 

Don‘t get me wrong - I also hope they get what they need and would very much like to fly Japanese WWII planes at GB standards. But I think it is very possible they actually won’t be able to in spite of sincere trying. 

Actually the firebombing of Japan was only 7 months long, from March 9th, 1945 to September 1945. By the way my father helped supervise the dumping of Japanize military weapons and equipment into the sea when he was stationed in Tokyo during the occupation.

 

Yes - lots of military weapon history was lost during the occupation, however I don't think Japan was not totally alone in this. Other countries lost valuable historical data from WWII as well including both allies and axis powers. It is in fact what happens in history, and as a genealogist I'm acutely aware of the issue around missing historical data.

 

To the question of difficulty creating the PTO due to lack of precise technical info on many Japanese aircraft, I personally think the bar has been set way to high for this combat simulation.  I think we have to remember it is in fact a simulation, not the real thing, and lowering the "quality" bar to "what is currently known about Japanese aircraft" should be ok with the community.  For example if very little is known about a specific aircraft then first hand accounts from those who were actually there should count for something - if we have those accounts. If we don't have first had accounts, then educated guesswork should be acceptable. Maybe the aircraft wasn't such an important part of history (and fudging it should be ok) if no first hand accounts exist. Again, it's a simulation, not real life. The goal should be to make it as close as you can to the real thing "with the historical information we currently have".  We have plenty of info on the ZERO, and certainly plenty of info on the other major Japanese aircraft.

 

I remember how fun it was to fly MS Combat Flight Sim back in the day. Especially since my father was a  P-38 pilot in the pacific. So I have a special connection the the PTO, specifically the 49th Fighter Group, and would buy the PTO for sure, even if it were a completely separate sim from IL-2.  If it was part of great battles that would be the best. So, I hope Jason, and the developers RELAX a bit, and consider the amount of interest there would be for a PTO. Perfection is impossible to attain, so let's go with what's possible. For those who demand absolute accuracy I say RELAX as well, your blocking something that many others would absolutely enjoy. It would help teach the history of the Pacific War, and provide hours of great fun for aviation simmers around the world, especially those in Japan and the US. 

 

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, Great Battles is a simulation that is as close to the real thing as you can get. That's what makes it "great". However,  it's not the real thing, so "being as close to the real thing as YOU CAN GET, should be close enough for everyone, both developers and the community. So I strongly encourage 1c game studios to relax and consider the possibilities.

 

I am a perfectionist, and can tell you being a perfectionist has really got in the way of enjoyment for much of my life. It's not a good thing to be obsessed with.

 

Now - with that off my chest - yes I would love PTO, starting the Army (49th Fighter Group for example), then  both Army and Navy, seriously why not?? Cause it's to hard with out ALL the DATA???

[Old49r]

Need to make a correction, Dad was stationed in Atsugi, just south west of Tokyo harbor. Just ran across the attached article written in July 1985 at Atsugi when dad visited his good friend Harold Toda. Japanese, Americans and Russian's might find it interesting.  Both my father and Harold Toda grew up in Portland Oregon. Harold was a teenage American citizen and his family was visiting relatives in Japan on Dec 7, 1941. 

 

I think now that it was Atsugi where the equipment was taken in boats and dumped in the sea. 

Dad, Donald Sanford below, will turn 99 in October this year. He hopes to make 100 and be last living P-38 pilot ? , not sure he would be the last, but he's always had goals.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Old49r
Add info about Dad

[DBFlyguy]

Gimmie!

1 hour ago, Old49r said:

 

To the question of difficulty creating the PTO due to lack of precise technical info on many Japanese aircraft, I personally think the bar has been set way to high for this combat simulation.  I think we have to remember it is in fact a simulation, not the real thing, and lowering the "quality" bar to "what is currently known about Japanese aircraft" should be ok with the community.  For example if very little is known about a specific aircraft then first hand accounts from those who were actually there should count for something - if we have those accounts. If we don't have first had accounts, then educated guesswork should be acceptable. Maybe the aircraft wasn't such an important part of history (and fudging it should be ok) if no first hand accounts exist. Again, it's a simulation, not real life. The goal should be to make it as close as you can to the real thing "with the historical information we currently have".  We have plenty of info on the ZERO, and certainly plenty of info on the other major Japanese aircraft.

 

 

I always go back to the point if, if this data is supposedly so rare, no one would know the difference anyway if a best effort was made to use what they could actually find.  War Thunder shouldn't be the sole modern flight game that includes Japanese aircraft from WWII ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Old49r]

1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

if this data is supposedly so rare, no one would know the difference anyway if a best effort was made to use what they could actually find.

The data probably is rare, but I agree - no one would know the difference. And if new information were to be uncovered that made a difference in the overall PTO sim, then an update may be called for, or not! It's a simulator, the best we have for WWI and WWII.

[Art-J]

A bit of a comparison reminder - everytime some studio made a P-47 Thunderbolt for whatever sim on the market in recent two decades, the plane always handled quite different from its representation in the other sims (only the top speeds being more or less comparable). Current situation with Jug in GB and in DCS is an amusing example. And all that because someone at Fairchild decided in 1987 that burning all Republic tech documentation archive dating back to Seversky-era was a great idea. Today, 3+ decades later, there's only so much you can squeeze out of few NACA reports and accounts of restored birds being pushed to a fraction of their potential for obvious reasons. That's that. There is no extra data available about this iconic, mass-produced plane anywhere, even in its homeland.

 

And yet, some guys still can't believe that there might be partial shortage of data on Japanese '40s aircraft even in Japan (apart from Zero, which, as Jason pointed, was lower hanging fruit).

 

I'm desperately waiting for any PTO content in any modern sim (well, OK, maybe not desperate enough to purchase MSFS2020 and Milviz Corsair yet ;)). That being said, I agree that we might indeed have to venture deeper into guesswork category here and mentally accept deeper corners cutting on the accuracy front. Will it "warthunderize" GB to some extent? Yes, it seem so. But if it's the only way to get JPN planes into this series - so be it, I guess. At this point even 1946-comparable flight models, but with current visuals, would be better than nothing.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Art-J said:

A bit of a comparison reminder - everytime some studio made a P-47 Thunderbolt for whatever sim on the market in recent two decades, the plane always handled quite different from its representation in the other sims (only the top speeds being more or less comparable). Current situation with Jug in GB and in DCS is an amusing example. And all that because someone at Fairchild decided in 1987 that burning all Republic tech documentation archive dating back to Seversky-era was a great idea. Today, 3+ decades later, there's only so much you can squeeze out of few NACA reports and accounts of restored birds being pushed to a fraction of their potential for obvious reasons. That's that. There is no extra data available about this iconic, mass-produced plane anywhere, even in its homeland.

 

And yet, some guys still can't believe that there might be partial shortage of data on Japanese '40s aircraft even in Japan (apart from Zero, which, as Jason pointed, was lower hanging fruit).

 

I'm desperately waiting for any PTO content in any modern sim (well, OK, maybe not desperate enough to purchase MSFS2020 and Milviz Corsair yet ;)). That being said, I agree that we might indeed have to venture deeper into guesswork category here and mentally accept deeper corners cutting on the accuracy front. Will it "warthunderize" GB to some extent? Yes, it seem so. But if it's the only way to get JPN planes into this series - so be it, I guess. At this point even 1946-comparable flight models, but with current visuals, would be better than nothing.

And thats why we aint gona see any PTO here, ppl would complain constantly about japan airplanes like they complain now about poor 47 represantation. We will get more of same 109+190 combo over europe.

[Enceladus828]

23 hours ago, Old49r said:

To the question of difficulty creating the PTO due to lack of precise technical info on many Japanese aircraft, I personally think the bar has been set way to high for this combat simulation.  I think we have to remember it is in fact a simulation, not the real thing, and lowering the "quality" bar to "what is currently known about Japanese aircraft" should be ok with the community.  For example if very little is known about a specific aircraft then first hand accounts from those who were actually there should count for something - if we have those accounts. If we don't have first had accounts, then educated guesswork should be acceptable. Maybe the aircraft wasn't such an important part of history (and fudging it should be ok) if no first hand accounts exist. Again, it's a simulation, not real life. The goal should be to make it as close as you can to the real thing "with the historical information we currently have".  We have plenty of info on the ZERO, and certainly plenty of info on the other major Japanese aircraft.

Exactly! Most people, I for one, won't really care if the FM/DMs for the Val and Kate, and any Japanese bombers aren't 99.9% accurate as the FM/DMs are less important than for a Japanese fighter like the Zero, a plane which Jason says they have enough info to build. Unless the devs don't have enough info to build the cockpit, as in there is next to no information, or lots of guesswork is required at an early stage and later work relies on this guesswork, which could jeopardize the project if they're wrong, then just build the aircraft or make it AI (if it's a bomber) to start off with.

 

For Allied and German (and Italian if they make any more) aircraft, since there is enough info to build them then I'd say "make them as perfect to reality", but for Japanese planes, "make them close enough to reality". As long as the FM/DMs for the Japanese fighters are better than how they were in IL-2 1946 and in War Thunder then that is totally fine.

 

I did a thread some time back about my requirements for the Pacific:

 

 

[Gambit21]

On 7/11/2022 at 9:43 AM, CountZero said:

And thats why we aint gona see any PTO here, ppl would complain constantly about japan airplanes like they complain now about poor 47 represantation. We will get more of same 109+190 combo over europe.

 

You know...PTO might not happen, but if it doesn't it won't be for any of the reasons you've stated in any of your posts.

[Trooper117]

On 7/11/2022 at 5:43 PM, CountZero said:

And thats why we aint gona see any PTO here, ppl would complain constantly about japan airplanes like they complain now about poor 47 represantation. We will get more of same 109+190 combo over europe.

 

Jason and team could have every single plane currently, or even PTO aircraft absolutely perfect in all respects, and believe me, people in this forum would still complain...

[BladeMeister]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Jason and team could have every single plane currently, or even PTO aircraft absolutely perfect in all respects, and believe me, people in this forum would still complain...

Agreed. If Jason or 1C we're that thin skinned, they would have run for the hills after the initial BOS debacle. I think they will do the Pacific sooner or later. Will it be the theater to be announced soon? IMHO, nope, not this go around. I honestly hope I am wrong though.

 

SBlade<><

Edited July 14, 2022 by BladeMeister

[Trooper117]

53 minutes ago, BladeMeister said:

I think they will do the Pacific sooner or later.

 

As no one is currently doing a dedicated PTO flight sim, I think they will have to do it at some stage.

If another game company launched a full blooded PTO theatre there would be an awful lot of people here who would jump ship... 

[Feldgrun]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

As no one is currently doing a dedicated PTO flight sim, I think they will have to do it at some stage.

If another game company launched a full blooded PTO theatre there would be an awful lot of people here who would jump ship... 

 

I'm not sure we'd "jump ship" but maybe we'd buy/play a decent PTO sim, as well as GB. Many here play DCS as well as IL-2 (and maybe some WT folks).

[Gambit21]

11 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

As no one is currently doing a dedicated PTO flight sim, I think they will have to do it at some stage.

If another game company launched a full blooded PTO theatre there would be an awful lot of people here who would jump ship... 

 

Yep

[BraveSirRobin]

12 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

As no one is currently doing a dedicated PTO flight sim, I think they will have to do it at some stage.

If another game company launched a full blooded PTO theatre there would be an awful lot of people here who would jump ship... 

 

Have to?  It feels like the possibility of anyone else doing a dedicated PTO sim to the GB level of realism any time soon is pretty close to 0.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Have to?  It feels like the possibility of anyone else doing a dedicated PTO sim to the GB level of realism any time soon is pretty close to 0.

 

Dedicated PTO, yeah I agree.

I also like that GB does WWI...I fully plan on sinking my teeth into this aspect of the sim at some point. 

[SYN_Vander]

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Dedicated PTO, yeah I agree.

I also like that GB does WWI...I fully plan on sinking my teeth into this aspect of the sim at some point. 

 

Do it Gambit! We need some more love for WW1. The history is super interesting, so many incredible pilot stories and funky aircraft designs. Also, I find the multiplayer experience the best since you have more time to spot and identify other aircraft so you can plan your attack. Then when you are actually engaging the action is incredibly quick and fierce!

When the FC2 map is released there will also be a very nice sandbox to play with....

Edited July 15, 2022 by SYN_Vander

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

 

@jason_williamstake my money ^^

Edited July 15, 2022 by Ala13_UnopaUno_VR

[Feldgrun]

10 hours ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

 

@jason_williamstake my money ^^

 

With that picture, maybe Battle of Guadalcanal!

[Lupus]

On 7/15/2022 at 6:15 AM, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

 

@jason_williamstake my money ^^

 

@Ala13_UnopaUno_VR Dude, you had me going to the Homepage looking.  Lol.  @Jason_Williams Yes, take my money.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Lupus

[DBFlyguy]

55 minutes ago, Lupus said:

 

Dude, you had me going to the Homepage looking.  Lol.  @Jason_Williams Yes, take my money.

you weren't the only one... I thought this was real when I first saw it ? If only...

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

On 7/15/2022 at 12:15 PM, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

 

@jason_williamstake my money ^^

My dream right now ... I don't see any other option, except Malta, that I would like as much.

We need aeronaval battles urgently.

[Irishratticus72]

On 7/15/2022 at 9:54 PM, Feldgrun said:

 

With that picture, maybe Battle of Guadalcanal!

 

[Ptolemy_Soter]

It is your right to dream but Jason stated in early 2020 (right before Covid crisis !) that making a PTO themed module is currently impossible.

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, Ptolemy_Soter said:

It is your right to dream but Jason stated in early 2020 (right before Covid crisis !) that making a PTO themed module is currently impossible.

 

2 years down the line and a lot could have changed since that statement... (unless of course, you had a cosy chat with Jason yesterday to confirm that's still the case?)

[IckyATLAS]

On 7/8/2022 at 2:48 AM, Lupus said:

most of them would be relatively featureless water?

It is mostly water yes, but surely not featureless. I hope that in a sim where water becomes the main map object we will have a water simulation, with transparency on coral reefs, better waves, and a sea that moves with wind, ocean swells etc. Because it will be THE visual thing, besides nice vegetation moving in the wind on the islands.

Who says nice sea means also better quality ship wake and bow water spray.

Edited July 26, 2022 by IckyATLAS

[357th_KW]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

It is mostly water yes, but surely not featureless. I hope that in a sim where water becomes the main map object we will have a water simulation, with transparency on coral reefs, better waves, and a sea that moves with wind, ocean swells etc. Because it will be THE visual thing, besides nice vegetation moving in the wind on the islands.

Who says nice sea means also better quality ship wake and bow water spray.

“The essence of this world in which both sides fought is encapsulated by US Navy officer and author James Michener, who wrote of his time there: This home of great battles is the most beautiful I know in the world. This may offend those who struggled in its skies. It may cause a shudder to those who fell into its waters and paddled their way on rafts to dismal islands. But during the war I flew The Slot, and so help me, it was beautiful, passionately wonderful with craggy islands, spangled lagoons and towering clouds.”

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

On 7/15/2022 at 3:54 PM, Feldgrun said:

 

With that picture, maybe Battle of Guadalcanal!

 

With the livery of a daitai commander from the Akagi most certainly the early April 1942 Indian Ocean raid over Ceylon.

 

 

 

Carrier Ops are a must for any PTO expansion in this or any other game. Understanding how and where Carrier Ops impacted planning and campaigns including the Solomons and New Guinea ones mentioned in this topic for both the IJN and the Allies are given a very good overview in the Kings and Generals Pacific War Series.

 

[DBFlyguy]

3 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

 

Carrier Ops are a must for any PTO expansion in this or any other game.

 

No, they aren't.

 

Carrier ops was only a small portion of the air war in the Pacific.  There are plenty of battles that didn't involve a single carrier based aircraft, plenty of these battles could/have been depicted in other games would work perfectly fine for this one.

[BladeMeister]

15 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

No, they aren't.

 

THAT IS YOUR OPINION.

 

 

 

 

Yes They Are!!!

 

That is my opinion.

 

S!Blade<><

[DBFlyguy]

2 minutes ago, BladeMeister said:

 

 

Yes They Are!!!

 

That is my opinion.

 

S!Blade<><

You can have whatever opinion you want, that doesn't change historical fact.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

No, they aren't.

 

Carrier ops was only a small portion of the air war in the Pacific.  There are plenty of battles that didn't involve a single carrier based aircraft, plenty of these battles could/have been depicted in other games would work perfectly fine for this one.

 

Yep

The pivotal 6 months of the war (Guadalcanal) was a daily, knock-down slugfest with almost no carrier involvement.