Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What we need

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: What we need Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 2:28:33 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline 		Hi,
I've always felt that the island of Helgoland was missing. AFAIK there was a radar installation there.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 61
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 3:45:10 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Hmmm


In 1947, British occupation authorities, after evacuating the islanders (mostly fishermen), blew up the fortifications and part of the island in one of the largest known nonatomic blasts. The island was largely rebuilt after British occupation forces returned it to West Germany in 1952. It is now a popular tourist resort and a center for scientific research, particularly ornithology.

we can ask, JC alway said not all the land mass was were it was suppost to be, and a Radar site there would make a mess out of some of the north sea bomb routes



_____________________________


(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 62
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 4:20:46 PM   
harley


Posts: 1700
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		but on the flip side - it suits your style of play, HS, as it draws up the bad guy more often...

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 63
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 4:30:12 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		HEHEHE

you know mate, THAT was the first thing I thought of when I seen where it would be placed

but he has a point, it is part of the land mass that is missing and should be in the game, and it was used by the GE as a Radar base :)



_____________________________


(in reply to harley)
Post #: 64
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 5:57:15 PM   
von Shagmeister


Posts: 1273
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: Dromahane, Ireland
Status: offline 		As well as radar Helgoland also had an A/F. Original base of Jasta. Helgoland (which later became 11/JG11). As of 17Aug43 it was based on the island.

I remember bringing this point up with JC a while back and he said that he would like to revamp the whole map and get in all the Ost and Nord-friesische Inseln.

von Shagmeister

< Message edited by von Shagmeister -- 11/17/2005 6:03:02 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 65
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 6:08:41 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		Link to wartime picture of Helgoland

Have linked to an RAF wartime photo of Helgoland / Heligoland (former is German spelling, latter British). Even from this distance, very clear just how crowded it was with military installations.

(in reply to von Shagmeister)
Post #: 66
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 6:10:20 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

I remember bringing this point up with JC a while back and he said that he would like to revamp the whole map and get in all the Ost and Nord-friesische Inseln.


well, okay

I know two of them words :)

but I agree

yea, JC wanted to redo the map if he could, how much, I am not sure, as it is also Loc's over top of the map



_____________________________


(in reply to von Shagmeister)
Post #: 67
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 6:59:58 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Odd that the Brits would go to that much trouble to destroy the obsolecent fortifications of a defeated enemy in a dawining nuclear age....

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 68
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 10:10:30 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		I think it was more a case of how to get rid of massive quantities of captured munitions - how better than putting it on an island which has annoyed the Royal Navy in two world wars, lighting blue touchpaper, and retiring swiftly...

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 69
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 11:02:49 PM   
otisabuser2


Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline 		Now, a photo during or after the bang, for comparison would be interesting.


(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 70
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 11:24:22 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		It was also bombed by Lanc B1 specials. I forget who (probably 617) dropped Tallboys or Grandslam on it in 1945. 2 days raids. I have lent my book out so I cannot check the details, but it has some photos of some large craters caused by the bombs,

Then, after the war, it was indedd blown up. Late in his career, my Dad met one of the explosive experts who did the job!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to otisabuser2)
Post #: 71
RE: What we need - 11/17/2005 11:49:56 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		But i cant explore blown up craters!!!!!!

those darn Brits!!!!



_____________________________


(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 72
RE: What we need - 12/19/2005 1:09:16 PM   
Augenstein

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/19/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Would it be possible to expand the current roster sizes (current max is 48 pilots, sometimes you get up to 54 pilots when you start a new campaign) in 8th AAF fighter groups to match the historical ones?

< Message edited by Augenstein -- 12/19/2005 1:11:18 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 73
RE: What we need - 12/22/2005 9:28:28 PM   
The Dude

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		What would be very helpful would be a highlight button for the allies to see which of the airfields you have recently recced highlighted for the presence of German planes. It suck to have to run my mouse over all 125 airfields that got recced the day before to find out which one has german planes.

(in reply to Augenstein)
Post #: 74
RE: What we need - 12/22/2005 10:34:30 PM   
wernerpruckner


Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline 		just use list of targets and let it sort by the day last photographed

_____________________________


(in reply to The Dude)
Post #: 75
RE: What we need - 12/23/2005 12:47:56 AM   
The Dude

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		In the after action reports the destroyed aircraft are estimates. What would be nice to see would be an estimate of aircraft destroyed on the ground during AF attacks.

(in reply to wernerpruckner)
Post #: 76
RE: What we need - 12/24/2005 1:44:37 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		Not sure if its been mentioned here or not but will the new BTR have the ability to target Power/Oil targets delayed like in USAAF? The programming should kinda already be there since V weapon lauching sites aren't listed at start & become available after some time. This may keep the Allies from getting a real early knockout punch so as to maintain as long game as possible for your viewing pleasure

(in reply to The Dude)
Post #: 77
RE: What we need - 12/24/2005 5:52:58 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Players generally don't like to have their control taken away. We already have Avalanche, Overlord, Upens and Vpens to distract our goals.

_____________________________


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 78
RE: What we need - 12/25/2005 5:25:46 AM   
The Dude

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		Isnt that what the CBO was to the heads of the respective bomber commands, nothing but a series of distractions away from their Douhet theories of air power

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 79
RE: What we need - 12/25/2005 5:28:58 AM   
The Dude

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		And another thing I wouldnt mind seeing at least for the Allies is a restriction of what aircraft can be changed to.

For instance my whole Med Air Command is flying P38Gs and the 2TAF is flying P51Bs. Whatever the merits of this arrangement are, this would simply not happen as each of the Allies would have thier own national interests at heart.

For the Axis this wouldnt be a problem as the Germans could generally get their way anyways

(in reply to The Dude)
Post #: 80
RE: What we need - 12/25/2005 3:22:14 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Well
got to disagree to a point

the Allies would only fly there own planes ? Half of the planes being flown by the Allies were not there own planes (just a General statement, not true numbers)

one hassle for something like Tac, is the old game does not really have any Tac targets, so why go heavy with Tac fighters, when you end up using 2nd Tac as a Stat Force ?

but if some of the things work out, we should have more reason to have a Tac force, so that may be a moot point

(my Current game, I am fighting myself, to keep a number of the lights and Med bombers in the game, I could of replaced them with Heavies a long time ago, but wanted to keep the Tac side in)

but for the interest of debate (and a chance to get some better ideas) what kind of plane upgrades should we be allowed to make ?

_____________________________


(in reply to The Dude)
Post #: 81
RE: What we need - 12/25/2005 9:46:25 PM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline 		Talking of TAC air, if the game doesn't simulate the real mission then it should not be included. So if the new one can't do this, take it out.

As a gamer it is easy to change every squadron to the bestest! But why in real life didn't they? Parts, training, didn't really have that many planes. To difficult to move them to another theatre? There are reasons why there were many types of aircraft. We, players, should not play the politicians but the commanders. That being said, I feel there should be some limits on what the player can change types too.

I would also like to see a listing at the end of the game turn of actions that occur, ie, playing a game now and at the end of the turn a squadron upgrades to something. It is gone so fast that I don't know what happened. I think the computer can put a sheet up so the player can review what transpired at the end of the turn.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 82
RE: What we need - 12/26/2005 1:52:02 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Well one hassle is, Tac air was still used for Stat targets, and in the game that means RR's

and we do have anti Troop strikes, interdiction, and hopefully we will be able to add bridges

for the planbe types, that one is HARD

but one hassle we have in a game is the Wastage, if you are not losing planes as fast as they did in Real Life, we get a stock pile built up and want to use them, also, the game does not take into effect, war weary planes, even the best planes only lasted so long and then were pulled out for parts, for scrap, for form up planes or for unit hacks, how do we model that ?

another hassle is, in RL, the air war was much bigger then even BTR is, it may get even bigger, and it will still not be as big as the real deal

what restickions should we make ? the US flew GB planes, the GB flew US planes, FB's changed to Med bombers, Fighters changed to fighter bombers (the GE, ground attack planes were used for bomber intercept, heck, there are reports of Stukas attacking bombers in 1943 !, GE bombers were seen to shadow US bomb raids)

what and how is realistic for a game ?



_____________________________


(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 83
RE: What we need - 12/26/2005 11:01:31 PM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline 		If I am not mistaked there was a large group of Brit planes that were only used for defensive purposes and are therefore not in the game?

Wastage:(you probably have already thought of this) one idea might be a % taken out at a given time frame. One question, how does the game model a damaged plane that can not be used again? Maybe a plane with damage of greater then X% is taken out of service.

Another idea is if the Allied losses are less then historically, reduce the replacements so there is not a large build up. OR if it is decided that planes can be changed to any squadron, make the transition time to get operational longer.

To me the game should allow the Allied player change plane types if he wants too. There needs to be some type of significant penalty on, time, or readiness, or morale. If the Allied player doesn't want to change then he won't. You can always lock down groups to only get certain plane types.

To much micro management in the game could make it unplayable. But it is fun though.

For the Axis, does the game model the dispersal of manufacturing, ie ballbearings? If not is this being considered? This will give the Germans the opportunity to move manufactoring and the Allies won't be able to find it!!

There were an awful lot to things done by both sides that fall outside normal operating proceedures, ie Stukas attacking. Should the be modeled in the game? I don't think so unless they are only a limited one or two time event.

Go Navy - Beat Army

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 84
RE: What we need - 12/27/2005 4:31:11 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Wasteage, Hassle, depends on your point of view, in most of my games, I kill way more 109's then the AI can bulld and keep in service, so should the GE side also have to live with a say 10% wastage rule also

planes that are damaged too much are indeed, killed off, (called the SAS bug)

yes, sites can be dispursed, debates abound on what is the best way to attack major Factories, do you let a 15 Engine site say in action, or try to take it out early, crush it and it turns into say 5 size 3, 7 size 2 sites (in about 30 days)

later in the war, you hunt them down, early and you are not going to be able too, so ...

but 450 engines lost early in the war, hurts, later on, it may not mean anything



_____________________________


(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 85
RE: What we need - 12/28/2005 3:37:23 AM   
Zort

 

Posts: 684
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline 		I can see one way of doing wastage but it all depends on programing. Tracking each individual plane, if it survives then after X amount of damage plus X number of sorties then the plane is taken out of service. This might be much too complicated. So to answer your question, yes the Germans would have the same process as the allies, % lost for wastage over a certain amount of time. But then the below might needed to be implemented.

Since we as gamers will throw the LW at the Allies much more aggressively then historical thus causing much more damage to the LW then historically done, have you guys thought about maybe either putting some type of throttle on the Axis to prevent this or increasing the numbers of planes based upon losses or something?

For dispersal, if the Allied player bombs a factory early in the campaign then the German can do a dispersal earlier then historical. Don't let the German disperse everything on turn 1 but some sort of phased dispersal plan but can be accelerated based upon a % of damage (this % is different each game so there is no gamey I know to stop bombing at X %).

Just some ideas. Thanks for responding. An improved interface would be great. Also having the airfields id'd with a/c in them during your portion of the turn would be great. I know now as I play I get a good idea where the planes are but having them highlighted would be better I feel.


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 86
RE: What we need - 12/28/2005 10:22:37 PM   
The Dude

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		Does anyone think that the Germans should have some sort of cross border capability?

I mean if you take that away then what is the point of fighter command. for example historically the Tempests were held back from the front to fight the V wpns. Without a German threat then all allied planes can be used and not held back as they were in real life

(in reply to Zort)
Post #: 87
RE: What we need - 12/28/2005 10:45:58 PM   
The Dude

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 7/28/2004
From: Abbotsford, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		by cross border i mean cross channel

(in reply to The Dude)
Post #: 88
RE: What we need - 12/29/2005 10:21:57 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		that is a HARD one, based on the game system (in BoB we could also have the BC and CC raids that were going on during BoB also)

ahhh where my notes

this time frame and earlier

say 1942

Rhubarbs 25-27 Squadrons of Spits would fly with no more then 30 bombers

April 30th, 38 squadrons of Spits flew with 24 Bostons on a Rhubarb

so, FC was being used in a Off role

which depending on how the OOB works out, not every Allied Squadron that was there, is there at the start, some are on other duties and not with the Off force

Would be interesting, if we could get the V1/V2 into the game some how (other then just a target)



_____________________________


(in reply to The Dude)
Post #: 89
RE: What we need - 12/29/2005 11:48:41 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

that is a HARD one, based on the game system (in BoB we could also have the BC and CC raids that were going on during BoB also)

ahhh where my notes

this time frame and earlier

say 1942

Rhubarbs 25-27 Squadrons of Spits would fly with no more then 30 bombers

April 30th, 38 squadrons of Spits flew with 24 Bostons on a Rhubarb

so, FC was being used in a Off role

which depending on how the OOB works out, not every Allied Squadron that was there, is there at the start, some are on other duties and not with the Off force

Would be interesting, if we could get the V1/V2 into the game some how (other then just a target)





You could just give Germany an virtual ( wrong word ) chnace to cause harm to allied forces/installations based on germans V-site rating. The allied player than could put some squadrons on V-weapon defense which will lower this chance for v-weapons to cause harm.

Or do it the other way round. The bigger the german v-weapon capabilitys the more fighter squadrons will be claimed for home defense and are not availible for the player. Like a kind of restricted command. May be easier to implement than my first idea.

_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: What we need Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.781