Aircraft Suggestions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Aircraft Suggestions

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Aircraft Suggestions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Aircraft Suggestions - 5/11/2000 10:43:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

Here's a few ideas about aircraft. 1. I would like to see a larger limitation of which aircraft can be changed to which group. For example, you could change American Fighter Groups to be equipped with Spitfire fighters (they arrive on turn 40, and are much better than any contemporary American fighter). Possibly dissallowing a-historical changes like this. Although the British/Australians/Dutch/New Zealanders/Indians/Chinese should be able to use American planes (lend lease). 2. I know that you are including more aircraft types than the original PacWar, and I am not sure which ones you are including, so, I will post some suggestions. A. P-43 Lancer (US built fighter sent to China) B. P-66 Vanguard (US built fighter, also sent to China) C. Martlet I and V (British manned F4F fighters) D. P-40, marks C, E and N E. Hurricane marks II and IV (IV was a ground support fighter-bomber, while the II was an interceptor) F. P-35 (Used by the USAAF in the Philippines) G. P-26 Peashooter (US Fighter used by the Philippine National Army Air Force) H. B-17E and G types (Different bomb loads and defensive weaponry) I. P-51B and D types (Different range, performance and weaponry) Having the extra versions of aircraft (P-40 and Hurricane) are important, as, they had different missions (P-40C and Hurricane II were interceptors) (P-40E/N and Hurricane IV were fighter-bombers). 3. Have hypothetical aircraft production. There were many projects cancelled or delayed by the Americans and the Japanese. The ability to choose which types of planes to be developed would be an asset. For example, the Ki-60 was heavily invested in, but, was superceeded by the Ki-61. There were also cancelled projects such as making modified versions of the G4M and the Ki-49 as long range bomber escorts (like the Blenheim IF) 4. I would like the auto-upgrade to be modified. It changes old groups to new aircraft way too quickly. Realistically aircraft had to be transported from one side of the Pacific to their destination, which took a long time. However, the way PacWar models it, you can have a squadron of P-36 Hawks at Java being upgraded to P-40's just built on the West Coast that very turn. There should be some delay in the transfer of aircraft types reflecting the group's distance from the production facilities. 5. Also, aircraft replacement is too thourough. Not every Hurricane squadron was changed into Spitfires (historically), but, by late 1942 the auto-upgrade changes every RAF fighter squadron into Spitfires. Many groups remained with certain (albiet obsolete) aircraft for certain reasons (ie. they performed a role better than newer planes). Somehow this should be reflected in the game. 6. I would also think it interesting to add some late war and pre-war aircraft. There were many American and Japanese aircraft that never saw operational service (as they were developed too late), and, some hypothetical scenario's will require them (USAAF Jet aircraft, Ki-115 Suicide fighter, etc...). Also, some pre-war aircraft (Ki-12, Ki-2, F3F, F4B, etc.) would be good for those creating scenarios about a war in the Pacific during the 1930's or 1920's. To complement this, I think the addition of ships never built (Montana, etc), or ships too late for the war (Midway, etc), or ships too early for the war (Hood, etc) could be added to complement a-historical scenarios as well.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 5/12/2000 6:12:00 AM

8ball

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/19/2000
Status: offline

YES and YES!! I agree Major Tom! I want options and choices. Looking forward to what the Matrix Team puts together for us! later, 8ball

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 2

- 5/12/2000 11:54:00 PM

A_Master

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: thornhill,ontario,canada
Status: offline

I agree with some of the points, but why would you add a dozen different versions of an aircraft. It would just complicate things. KEEP IT SIMPLE. KEEP IT SIMPLE. On way that could possibly reflect the re-tooling of squadrons could be an extended repair time. During this time the squadron would remain out of service or maintain a partially in service percentage, where upgrade/change could be tracked for each squadron. IE: a 50% upgrade of buffalo to warhawk would have say 10 buffalo and 10 warhawk. At 75% upgrade it would be 5 and 15, etc. Also, americans should not be allowed to use the long range wellingtons. Not historical. ------------------

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 3

- 5/13/2000 2:24:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

Well, the reason for all of these extra planes (ie. subclasses) is, that they GREATLY vary from type to type. The B-17E is VASTLY different from the B-17G. It had a much better defensive capability, but, suffered in bomb load and range. The P-40 versions were very different. The P-40C was purely an interceptor, while the P-40E was also capable of carrying bombs. The P-40N was an improved version, capable of standing up to later war Japanese planes better than the E or the C version. There are reasons for this, not just having multiple planes that have the same stats but, just different names. The Hurricane II was a fighter-interceptor, with drop tanks in place of bombs, therefore a longer range. The Hurricane IV was a fighter-bomber, had 40mm guns in place of the machine guns, as well as bombs instead of drop tanks. It's (Mark IV) performance as an interceptor would be less (than the Mark II) due to the load of the heavier guns, and bombs. I agree that many things are EXTREMELY complicated in Pacific War, but, wargames tend to get complicated. It took a while, but, I am fairly familiar with the difficult to understand clicking process. Also, trial and error does get you to understand what things do (ie Preparation points, leaders, etc..). But, I do really agree that things should be more explained to us through either a webpage or a manual.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 4

- 5/15/2000 11:37:00 PM

Supervisor

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline

I would second Major Tom's aircraft suggestions. He also makes a good point about the auto-upgrade for aircraft; I would leave the decision to upgrade a unit's aircraft up to the player. For instance, your factories start cranking out P-51's - the player should be able to decide which units get these aircraft first. Also, including a mix of aircaft that have significantly different characteristics would not add to the the complexity of the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 5

- 5/16/2000 12:33:00 AM

A_Master

Posts: 29
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: thornhill,ontario,canada
Status: offline

UPGRADE should be AUTOMATIC as close to historically possible. But player should be asked, via a pop up window if squadron is to be upgraded. This should happen only once per squadron per upgrade. A scrollable list of squadrons and airplanes should be available, where clicking a squadron will bring up aircraft statistics and option of upgrade/downgrade. Manufacturing should be handled the same way. It was a pain in the first PW searching for which city manufactured which plane. A squadron should not be magically upgraded. If at the front line, there should be a logistical factor for how fast planes are upgraded. Possibly for each 10 tons of supplies delivered, one new airplane is transported. How does that sound? Also the old upgraded airplanes should not go immediately back into the pools. Some mechanism should be made available to handle this. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Having 15 versions of a P40 and 10 versions of a B17 will just confuse most people. Gamers will immediately clue into which aircraft are the best interceptors , best fighter bombers, best short and long range bombers and will build these exclusively ignoring all other versions. Unless there is a wide variance of cost, most gamers will only construct a small percentage of available aircraft, so it seems a waist of time and effort to research all the variations. I do agree that many times aircraft performances were changed, either at manufacture or in the field. This could be reflected by a mission screen, which could control load out of aircraft, IE: short range cap, long range cap, bomber escort, long range bombing missions, short range bombing missions, with option of defensive (lots of guns for bombers, drop tanks for fighters) to offensive missions (less guns more bombs for bombers and no drop tanks for fighters). This mission should continue until turned off. If large number of casualties take place, a pop up warning window should occur. One must remember this game is weekly for the extent of the war. KEEP IT SIMPLE and try not to bog down on statistics and details. Cheers.... Howard

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 6

- 5/16/2000 2:51:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

I see where you are coming from. Keeping it simple will ensure quality. But, PacWar was one of the most complex, and still probably the best Macro-sized Wargame ever produced. Sure, it has it's faults (difficult to grasp control panel), but, adding extra bits of detail won't make this any worse. Fixing the problem about the menu's will. In reality there aren't that many more types of aircraft that they could add that I haven't already stated. There were many variations of the P-40 I neglected to mention, the Australian Kittyhawk group (variations of American P-40's), as well as differences in lend lease aircraft (P-36, F2A, etc.). But, these were very common to other aircraft (P-40C = Kittyhawk I, P-40E = Kittyhawk II, P-36A = Hawk-75A, etc..), so, they do not HAVE to be represented. But, if they were, it would make the game even MORE realistic, and attractive to Wargamers. Adding these extra aircraft (less than 10 for each side) will not complicate the program too much, and, they already stated that they were going to include many new types and variations. There are already upgrades of specific aircraft in PacWar (Ki-43 & Ki-43-II, P-38F & P-38J, A5M2 & A5M8, F4F & FM2) I have a lot of wargames on my computer, War In Russia, High Command, Clash of Steel, etc. The only games that I really maintain constant interest in is Pacific War and War in Russia, purely based on the fact that they are complex. Simplifying things too much knocks down the reality of the game and the time spent on it. The more different types of units, ships and aircraft, as well as options for orders along with other tangible aspects increases the replayability of the game. Indeed, Matrix games has proven their ability to create complex, and good games (Steel Panthers World at War). With Gary Grigsby working with them, how could they go wrong? Multiple people have been playing Pacific War for up to 8 years now, and, popular consensus is that the desire for an upgrade is to make it more detailed. More ships, planes, land units, bases, etc... I am sure they will add things to dercease the micro-management for those who desire it (giving duties to the AI), but, you must remember that many people want to have virtual full control, as well as an abundance of choices. Just check out some of the PacWar mods, and you will see the addition of many aircraft through editors, although they lack graphics. Individuals have created extensive charts when to change aircraft and ship types and armaments to other versions. When to change a P-40C to an E, and then and N. Long time players of the game have expressed the desire to have multiple types of aircraft not included in the game, and, I am sure that they will not complicate it much anyway. A few extra Japanese aircraft that I never mentioned... Ki-21-II (Had better armament than Ki-21, as well as slightly better armour) Ki-48-II (Was a dive bomber variant of the Ki-48, had increased bomb load) Ki-100 (a radial version of the Ki-61, it was an EXTREMELY good and popular interceptor, much better and easier to fly than the Ki-61, and was produced in fairly large numbers, but, late in the war) And the USN.... F8F Bearcat. Was a small aircraft (more can fit on a carrier) and was going to be the replacement of the F6F (?) PB4Y (?) Privateer. A modified B-24, changed to be a long range subhunter/recon aircraft. These were VERY important for later war USN operations. B-25J (?). This was armed with 12 or so 0.5 inch Machine guns in the nose. These aircraft were used to smash the IJN in the Bismark sea, Rabul and Truk. Their guns shredded light Merchant vessels, PT Boats and even Destroyers.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 7

- 5/17/2000 7:12:00 PM

Peter Bollmann

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/3/2000
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline

I am not sure that there is a common desire to make the new game more complex. As far as I can see everyone has some favorite features that should be added to the game. I have also some. But a wargame is a model of a military conflict. Adding more features does not make a model automatically better. For example if there are several Warhawks that implies that the production lines for Warhawks have to be split up. Hence also the production part has to be more complex. I would like to have logistics more complex. In PACWAR all ports have the same storage and load and unload capacity. In reality severe bottlenecks occoured and ships were used as stores which in turn reduced the overall available tonnage. I want to say that if all our wishes where included we might get a supergame. But because of the complexity of that game I will only have time to play this game after retirement.

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 8

- 5/18/2000 12:59:00 PM

Dunedain

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline

I like the idea of having more aircraft types and variants available. This will simulate the greater variety of capabilities that both sides had and allow for assigning of just the right aircraft for the job.

Just schedule the variants to be available at historically correct times and then the player can decide whether he wants to change over production or not (I assume there is a temporary production volume penalty planned when change overs are made). There will always be that strategic choice that has to be made whether to hold out for a better type/variant and suffer with the performance of current aircraft already fielded or to go with the first superior type that becomes available. But this, of course, would make it harder to change over when the next better type becomes available, since you don't want to spend too much time retooling for new aircraft instead of actually producing them in useful numbers. Decisions, decisions...

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 9

- 5/19/2000 3:45:00 AM

Major Tom

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

You can also do this to a limited extent in Pacific War. Retool all production toward a few, what you consider good, types of aircraft. Usually right away I transfer all Ki-21 and Ki-48 industrial facilities into Ki-49. I skip over the Ki-43-II as the Ki-44 or Ki-61 is a much better aircraft and appear soon after the Ki-43-II anyway. Why not add more aircraft so you can become even more specialized or choosy?

_____________________________

(in reply to Major Tom)

Post #: 10