RE: UPDATE III (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/25/2006 7:34:19 PM)

be quiet

nobody knows about that one yet






petgod1 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/26/2006 6:03:44 PM)

OOPS!

Sorry mate! [:D]



AmiralLaurent -> RE: UPDATE III (9/26/2006 7:23:10 PM)

In fact it would be fun to have the possibility to both attack and defend (like in WITP) at the same time. During most of the BoB period, RAF bombers also flew, often without escort, and suffered serious losses. In a great number of days, RAF bomber losses were higher than those of fighters.

Same in BTR period, German bombers and fighter-bombers were unable to do much to stop the Allied, but nevertheless were able to hit hard sometimes.




George Patton -> RE: UPDATE III (9/26/2006 8:08:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

In fact it would be fun to have the possibility to both attack and defend (like in WITP) at the same time. During most of the BoB period, RAF bombers also flew, often without escort, and suffered serious losses. In a great number of days, RAF bomber losses were higher than those of fighters.

Same in BTR period, German bombers and fighter-bombers were unable to do much to stop the Allied, but nevertheless were able to hit hard sometimes.




I agree. It should be fun to dispose of bombers for both parts in both campaign.



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/26/2006 9:51:43 PM)

Roger and agree, only our engine is not really set up to do so

we had some ideas and plans on how we could still add in Transports and Bombers (but Harley thinks I am nutts and don't see why we should waste the time :))

LOL, in the Med, there was a bombing raid on the Allies, that was so bad, it was called the 2nd Pearl Harbor

that raid is also part of a triva question, when and where was the only time posion gas was released during WWII

again, everybody wonders where there are so many nightfighters in the MED, reason was, they needed them !

so, over all, not sure what we could do, other then make them targets for the attacker, seeing how our engine does work





fochinell -> RE: UPDATE III (9/26/2006 10:57:56 PM)

LOL, in the Med, there was a bombing raid on the Allies, that was so bad, it was called the 2nd Pearl Harbor

that raid is also part of a triva question, when and where was the only time posion gas was released during WWII

Bari, 2nd December 1943 - 14 merchant ships sunk, 3 sunk and later salvaged, with another 7 damaged - the worst losses in port since PH.



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/26/2006 11:24:27 PM)

dat the one

caught a lot of ships in port/dock area, lot of ships were docked to other ships, so damage to one and fire would spead to others

forget all the details right now, but one of the ships had a load of posion gas on it (just in case) and the fires and fighting, released some of it

a nasty little clean up during and afterward, as "nobody" knew at the time what was aboard the ship





petgod1 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/28/2006 12:33:38 AM)

HS

So is that a no to a combined game then? Never gonna see the light of day?



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/28/2006 1:52:33 AM)

for right now, there is not going to be a game that goes from BoB and carries on into BTR

now, the both games are going to be playable from one game, but if you start BoB, you will not get to BTR

will we ever get it to work ?, I really can not even guess





petgod1 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/28/2006 7:26:30 PM)

Ok and thanks.

Damn shame though. Surely they can use the WITP game engine?

But until then i will live in hope.



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/28/2006 7:36:11 PM)

They ?

They don't help me or we :)

when we pull this off, maybe we can get a chance to do more, but not sure if we can just grab someone elses engine and tear it apart and rebuild it each time we want to do something (they got some silly rules about things like that)





Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 1:58:06 AM)

let see, how this look



[image]local://upfiles/1438/FD5100F3B27045DAA01484B44CE8A612.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 1:59:29 AM)

not sure, but



[image]local://upfiles/1438/E915B79AC071430E9EF230AAA46ADA43.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 2:00:15 AM)

and of course


[image]local://upfiles/1438/28E000F65D4D438CA99051D1BB4C7322.jpg[/image]



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 2:01:09 AM)

and of course that one that took the most work



[image]local://upfiles/1438/D5EA8BADD98B431799605D4C841B0D0A.jpg[/image]



Denniss -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 4:20:45 AM)

Some nice info about the Fw 190 Sturmbocks:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2339 (Registration probably required but it's worth it)

Fw 190 A-8/R2 is a standard A-8 with outer wing MK 108 cannons (no extra armor), A-8/R8 is the heavily armored Sturmbock with MG 131 removed; There's no A-8/R7.

Some minor: Fw 190D should be renamed Fw 190 D-9

Have you ever thought of adding the D-10 with Jumo 213C and MK 108 engine cannon ? (213C = 213A with secondary aggregates reshuffled to get some space for an engine cannon). It may be an early 1945 version to replace the D-9 on the production lines.



Fred98 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 4:30:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

and of course


[image]local://upfiles/1438/28E000F65D4D438CA99051D1BB4C7322.jpg[/image]



Look at the top left corner. Why is (squadron) in brackets?

When playing the game, how is this screen used in planning your turns?








SMK-at-work -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 4:40:10 AM)

Looks like it is the size of the unit - the previous text is the title of eth unit - look at the Do-17 further up the page - it is III/KG 2 (gruppe).

so conceivably there could be units that are flights (eg "A flight 617 squadron (flight)"), or stafflen (eg 1/III/KG2 (stafflen)")?



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 2:13:01 PM)

Roger, that is what it is, the bracked name is the unit size

that screen is just a info screen, if you want to use it that way, in fact pretty much, you never have to see it, if you do not want to, but it does tell you info about the unit, the plane type and what not

the buttons on the bottom, also let you do other things, like if you want to move the unit to another base (this is a 2ndary feature, there is a normal way to move units also) or you can change the plane type, if you have enough Spit IXs or XIVs in stock and want to change this unit over to them, you can do so here, basicly, planes upgrade based on type, fighters to fighter, Fighter bomber to Fighter bomber and so on

(so if you have a Squadron of Wellingtons, a Bomber, you can not change it into a Squadron of P-51s no matter how many 51s you have in stock)

the pilot button opens up the pilot page, if you want to look at your pilots in more detail, you can see how tired they are, how much exp they have, how many missions they have flown, how many kills they got, and again, if you want to, you can check it every day, or never check it, depending on what you want to do



Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 2:20:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Some nice info about the Fw 190 Sturmbocks:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=2339 (Registration probably required but it's worth it)

Fw 190 A-8/R2 is a standard A-8 with outer wing MK 108 cannons (no extra armor), A-8/R8 is the heavily armored Sturmbock with MG 131 removed; There's no A-8/R7.

you mean the outer wing 151 removed and replaced with the 108 ?

my books says there is, the R7 was a standard A-8, uparmored to the Sturmbock standard, the R-8 was depending on point of view, either a R7 with 30mm wings guns (not all Strums flew with 30mm guns) or a R2 armored up to the R7 standard

Some minor: Fw 190D should be renamed Fw 190 D-9

that is no hassle, for the name

Have you ever thought of adding the D-10 with Jumo 213C and MK 108 engine cannon ? (213C = 213A with secondary aggregates reshuffled to get some space for an engine cannon). It may be an early 1945 version to replace the D-9 on the production lines.

yes I have, think it was the D-11 or D-13 I was more interested in though, but I wanted to wait and see how all the other productions work out, the GE production lines are much more complex then they were before, plus, I am still toying with other jets that could of been used, right now the AI is handleing the production okay, if so, we can add in more






BigDuke66 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 3:37:31 PM)

About the Do 217...
Can the Top Turret really be a Top Turret like the ones on a B 17?
Looks to me that it has trouble firing to the front, the turret doesn't stick much out.

BTW look at this strange version
http://www.luchtoorlog.be/do217_n2.htm

And I think one of the MG 15 was mounted in the nose besides the stiff mounted MG 151.




Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 3:42:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

About the Do 217...
Can the Top Turret really be a Top Turret like the ones on a B 17?
Looks to me that it has trouble firing to the front, the turret doesn't stick much out.

BTW look at this strange version
http://www.luchtoorlog.be/do217_n2.htm


it is suppost to have a Turret, the pic I used may not be the best to try and show it, not really sure if in real life it could fire forward or not

looks like that may be a early model of the dive flaps, pretty sure the later models just had panels that opened up in the tail, sort of like the tail fins on a retarded bomb (LOL, now I know that is the right term, but it sure looks wrong)




BigDuke66 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 3:54:25 PM)

Here a pic of the turret

http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/nemecke/do-217/veza.jpg

Here you can see the stiff build in MG and the manual used MG in the nose

http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/nemecke/do-217/do217_02.jpg



Francis Drake -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 4:27:12 PM)

www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/dornier/do217.htm




Hard Sarge -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 4:47:15 PM)

Nice Site Francis, saved that one :)

Yeap Agree Duke, but a turret is a turret, it does not have to have 360 movement or field of fire to be a turret

the turret on the Defaint couldn't fire to the front either ?





Terminus -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 4:48:20 PM)

Nope...



BigDuke66 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 6:07:21 PM)

OK.
What about the number of guns vs. the number of gunners?
In German bombers a gunner often had to mount several weapons making the overall amount of armament less effectiv.
Was that already taken into account?



otisabuser2 -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 7:16:37 PM)

BigDuke is right.

The Ju88 for instance was credited with two single rearward firing mgs in the top rear of the cockpit. These had slightly different fields of fire left and right towards the tail.

They were served by the same crewman, so only one could actually fire rearwards at any given time. Effectively just one rear firing mg. . . . .



Terminus -> RE: UPDATE III (9/29/2006 9:48:48 PM)

Didn't know this... What a stupid, stupid arrangement...[8|]



Denniss -> RE: UPDATE III (9/30/2006 11:55:40 AM)

This strange two-gun rearward firing system was soon replaced by either a single MG 131 or a MG 81 "Zwilling" with an interruptor gear to prevent killing their own tail rudder.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875