Bloody shambles !

Bloody shambles ! (Full Version)

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

Message

mr reed -> Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 1:27:23 AM)
Am I the only one frustrated "despite much modding" (so it s not only stock stuff i m pointing out)with how aircrafts in RAF service (and RAAF and RNZAF)are represented. Just comes to my mind after reading much threads on how poorly represented are some japanese aircrafts (Nate, Oscar, etc...) Just finished reading a few new things to me on air war over malaya, NEI and Burma, and I have to confess that despite what the legend says neither pilots nor some of their machines are to be blamed. Just to make myself clear with a precise example. I'm pretty sure the Brewster Buffalo wasn't the outclassed and outdated flying barrel like most books describe them. IMHO its stats are "quite inaccurate" and it s basically fighting against overwhelming numbers and appaling leadership (to make it short) that actually wiped out the RAF early in the conflict. any comments ?

Rafael Warsaw -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 1:43:52 AM)
Buffalo is not the best example. It was a great plane of his times but just on paper. They had some .... quality control problems with this one [:D][:D][:D]

Rafael Warsaw -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 1:57:05 AM)
Well, "Btw" Bloody shambles! is a great name to a new thread for all those frustrated with some aspects of this software like User Hostile Interface, ALL THOSE DAMN COUNTLESS CLIKS ON THOSE DAMN SMALL SCREENS!!!!! DAMN!!!! HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CLIKS just to make all plane transfer from ONE air base to another base or 20 out of 40 LCUs to move somewhere, ALL, ALL THOSE HUNDREDS CLICKS JUST TO GATHER SOME INFO FROM ALL OF THOSE SMALL SCREENS!!!! AND ALL OF THOSE ENDLESS CLICKS AND SCROLLS JUST TO POINT AIR FIELD TO TRANSFER SOME AGs CLICK CLICK CLICK SCROLL! ITS STUPID! ITS A WASTE OF TIME! ITS FUBAR! THIS GAME'S INTERFACE IS RIDICILOUS AND PATHETIC! anyone have heard about multiple selection? - no gentlemen, we like when You click and scroll thats why ALL OF THOSE IN GAME SCREENS ARE SO SMALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PING!!!!!!!!!!!! I love this game.

Big B -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 1:58:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw Buffalo is not the best example. It was a great plane of his times but just on paper. They had some .... quality control problems with this one [:D][:D][:D] Well, ...the Buffalo really did do well earlier in Finland. I don't think it was a bad airplane per se - but a goodly number supplied to the RAF in S.E.Asia did have engine problems and other irritating items that needed to be worked out (and there was little time to do it). But having read a deal about the S.E.Asian air war, I think early on it would be very fair to say the British usually fought well outnumbered, and often enough, at the disadvantage of getting attacked while taking off or landing. To sum up, I don't believe the RAF in Burma/Malaya, in the first several months of the war, ever enjoyed numerical or other material advantages over the Japanese... so, I don't think the poor showing of the RAF in those days was due to the aircraft they flew - so much as disadvantages they labored under. Brian

wdolson -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 2:42:48 AM)
When Hurricanes arrived just before the fall of Singapore, they did better than the Buffalos. However, nobody will ever know for sure how much of that was the plane and how much was experience. All the Hurricane squadrons arriving in early 1942 were transferred from the Mediterranean and had more experience than the Buffalo pilots who, in most cases, had none. By the fall of Singapore, the British were also beginning to learn just how good their opponent was and they were beginning to compensate for Japanese tactics. THe Buffalo squadrons were smashed learning how good the Japanese were. The Finns quite liked the Buffalo and kept it in front line service as long as they could keep them flying. As Rafael said, Brewster had a lot of quality control problems. The Buffalo was retired from front line service in the Navy because the Wildcat was cheaper to build and more reliable. When all Brewster designs went out of production, the Navy gave Brewster some contracts to build other company's aircraft. They built a number of Corsairs, as well as some othe aircraft. The quality of Brewster built planes were so bad compared to those made by others that the Brewster planes were all kept stateside for training. Brewster had the ignoble distinction to be the only aircraft company in the world to go out of business during World War II. Bill

Terminus -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 2:45:14 AM)
quote: To sum up, I don't believe the RAF in Burma/Malaya, in the first several months of the war, ever enjoyed numerical or other material advantages over the Japanese... so, I don't think the poor showing of the RAF in those days was due to the aircraft they flew - so much as disadvantages they labored under. Such as poor support infrastructure, lack of combat experience, inept senior leadership and lack of numbers... Bloody Shambles vol. 1 and 2 offer many, many examples of immense bravery on the part of British and Empire (and Dutch) air crews under colossal adversity. And no, the Buffalo wasn't necessarily a bad airplane. More than a few examples of badly damaged Buffalos making it home can also be found in the above-mentioned books. They could certainly survive damage that would prove fatal to a Zero, Oscar or Nate, which were their primary opponents...

Rafael Warsaw -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 2:59:48 AM)
Finns and Buffalo: Well, I can tell something about this subject: a) Its true that buffalo was the first modern US navy plane. b) Its true that it did much better in Finland than in Pacific but: i) We should not compare these two conflicts, its like a water melon to a plum. air war over finland was of much lower intense plus Red Army was an uneducated, technology hostile mob not a disciplined power like japanese. More over much colder climate and much lower alt. of fights come to my mind too. ii) Fins didnt have had a better plane and they put lots of maintanance care into buffalos. BTW: Most of buffalo kills in Finland was vs old unescorted LBs not fighters, looks like WITP Japanes air strike model was based on Russian one. [;)] any way brewster was a bummer but buffalo was a breakthrough design thats true. and yes they sucked in pacific like lightings in europe but its a completly different story. In WITP: does a buffalo really sucks agains nellys, claudes and sonias? does a mig21 sucks vs f18?

Brady -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 3:22:05 AM)
Your best bet is to play a Mod, like NickMod, for example, it does a much better job imo of recreating the A to A aspect of the War than the stock mod, which imo is kinda like the Taco Bell of Mexican food, that is Taco Bell is mexican food made for Americans, WiTP Stock, is a war game made for the American consumer in many ways. Some of my favorate parts of Blody Shambels are the passages that relate Nell's shooting down PBY's in running battles.[:)]

Cuttlefish -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 3:45:28 AM)
What always comes to my mind when the quality of the Buffalo is debated is the (perhaps understandably) bitter opinion of one of the survivors of VMF-221 at Midway. He wrote: “It is my belief that any commander who orders pilots out for combat in an F2A should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground.”

wdolson -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 4:02:14 AM)
I've also read that those comments were from before the battle and they were based on the Buffalo's poor showing in the hands of the RAF and Dutch. I believe VMF-221 was also full of green pilots who were not quite prepared for what they were going to face. Bill

rtrapasso -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 4:12:04 AM)
quote: By the fall of Singapore, the British were also beginning to learn just how good their opponent was and they were beginning to compensate for Japanese tactics. According to what i've read in Bloody Shambles, the Brits did not learn much about fighting the Japanese fighters then... they continued trying to dogfight Hurri against Oscar and generally losing badly in the attempt. It was well into 1943 when they finally decided to look at this, and an expert was sent out and told the front line squadrons: "DON'T DOGFIGHT!!" He went on to tell them the same things Chennault had said years earlier. British Unit commanders were very angry at this advise and tried to get it removed from official recommendations. Reading the accounts of Hurris vs. Oscars is depressing... the Oscars pretty much ruled the skies. The Hurris did clean up on IJAAF and IJNAF bombers, though. It was only in the fall of 1943 (after the usual 6 months of monsoon) when Hurris were being replaced with Spits and Thunderbolts, and numbers of USAAF P-38s showed up that the pendulum abruptly swung the other way.

Dixie -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 5:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso According to what i've read in Bloody Shambles, the Brits did not learn much about fighting the Japanese fighters then... they continued trying to dogfight Hurri against Oscar and generally losing badly in the attempt. It was well into 1943 when they finally decided to look at this, and an expert was sent out and told the front line squadrons: "DON'T DOGFIGHT!!" He went on to tell them the same things Chennault had said years earlier. British Unit commanders were very angry at this advise and tried to get it removed from official recommendations. Reading the accounts of Hurris vs. Oscars is depressing... the Oscars pretty much ruled the skies. The Hurris did clean up on IJAAF and IJNAF bombers, though. It was only in the fall of 1943 (after the usual 6 months of monsoon) when Hurris were being replaced with Spits and Thunderbolts, and numbers of USAAF P-38s showed up that the pendulum abruptly swung the other way. Officers [8\|] [:D] I read that RAF pilots actually found that the Curtiss Mohawk could dogfight with Oscars, being able to turn inside the Oscars at around 180-200mph.

bradfordkay -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 9:03:17 AM)
What I got from reading Bloody Shambles vol 1 was that the greatest reason for Buffalo losses (and later Hurricane losses) in the air over Malaya and the NEI was the lack of a decent early warning system. There was no radar nor a decent system along the lines of what Chennault created in China - so by the time the Japanese raids were detected, the defending fighters were unable to climb to their altitude (for the most part). The commonwealth pilots were all getting clobbered while attempting to climb.

Sardaukar -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 9:33:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson The Finns quite liked the Buffalo and kept it in front line service as long as they could keep them flying. BW (as it was designated in FAF, also called Pylly-Waltteri (Butt-Walter [:D])) was not bad plane per se (at least variant we got). It served well and was superior to Soviet planes until late 1942/early 1943 when advanced fighters from Soviet factories and from lend-lease started to arrive to theater. In late 1943 and especially in 1944 it had no use in front line combat and was deemed as "pilot killer" when facing modern fighters. It could still provide rear area bomber defence and some recon, but it was finished as front line fighter then. Only the high quality of pilots kept the casualties relatively low then. As why it was kept in service so long was because then FAF commander Gen. Lundqvist made erroneus decision to wait home-built fighter replacement called Myrsky (never got into production, it was based on BW) instead of buying Me-109Gs from Germany (yes, we had to buy our planes) There was only 1 squadron of Me-109G2 in service in 1943, all others had obsolete planes. In 1944 summer battles, almost all frontline combat was done by Me-109G2/G6, hastily aquired from Germany. BW was also sent in battle sometimes when situation was advantageous enough, but kill-to-loss ratio was not good enough against huge Soviet advantage in numbers. Me 109G was good in hit and run attacks, gaining very good kill-to-loss ratio too, but not as good as BW enjoyed in early war. One interesting tidbit it that no Finnish bomber escorted by FAF Me-109s were ever lost to enemy fighters despite huge air superiority of Soviets in 1944. BW served FAF very well, gaining kill-to-loss ratio that was not matched by any other plane. I don't know what was wrong with Buffalos in Pacific and why they performed so badly..pilot quality, lack of knowledge about enemy planes and tactics, wrong fighter tactics ?

mr reed -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 12:16:43 PM)
quote: British Unit commanders were very angry at this advise and tried to get it removed from official recommendations. quote: By the fall of Singapore, the British were also beginning to learn just how good their opponent was and they were beginning to compensate for Japanese tactics. quote: According to what i've read in Bloody Shambles, the Brits did not learn much about fighting the Japanese fighters then... they continued trying to dogfight Hurri against Oscar and generally losing badly in the attempt. It was well into 1943 when they finally decided to look at this, and an expert was sent out and told the front line squadrons: "DON'T DOGFIGHT!!" He went on to tell them the same things Chennault had said years earlier. British commanders [:D] Can't remember who said something "like donkeys leading lions". At least I won't complain on how poorly rated is Gal Percival [:D] Shame so many good men lost to the inexperience of others. Like This Sqdn Ldr so passive that he refused to scramble his aircrafts at Sungei Patani on dec the 8th, ignoring everyone advice, allowing the japanese bombers to catch most blens and buffaloes parked on the airstrip. What about this other brilliant idea they had sending the poor Vildebeests on an anti-shipping mission in daylight at Endau (jan the 26th 42)... very few returned !!!. I disagree on the fact that RAF pilots were a bunch of greenies. after the initial shock, most pilots clearly identified the threat and did their best with the little they had. For instance some like Sgt Geoff Fisken (243 sqn RNZAF)figured out how to deal with the agile japanese fighters : dive shoot and scoot !!! Just like Chennault taught his AVG pilots in China and Burma. 6 planes shot down credited to the kiwi buffalo pilot ! Unfortunately Not much you can do, when fighting against such odds. Anyway my point was, why only tweak Nates and Oscars and such ("japanese fanboyism"[sm=00000622.gif]) I d like to see my brit buffaloes stand a chance and not fall like flies to the IJA and IJN without taking their toll on the latters. These fighters did have some armour removed and their 50.cal replaced by 303. MG, but according to documents, not all of them and not right from the beginning of the campaign. I won't discuss MNVR and speed and such things I have a hard time to understand how matrix and modders calculate this. Anyway ain't these a bit underated too? just asking ! "Reading the accounts of Hurris vs. Oscars is depressing... the Oscars pretty much ruled the skies". Very true but Hurris seem to have more accurate stats in WITP ! Bradfordkay nails the major reason for RAF losses in Malaya, but I'm not sure if this is modelled in WITP. As Brady advise playing mods is the best bet, though I thought I could point out something few people discussed yet.

m10bob -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 2:30:53 PM)
Back around 1964, I read a Brit magazine on a monthly basis called FLYING REVIEW INTERNATIONAL. I was an aviation nut and learning to fly soon after this. I became intrigued by accounts of this plane which (at the time) I had never heard of. The pics of the Buffalo looked like a flying barrel, and the exploits of Finn ace Eino Luukannen were very intrigueing! I fell in love with the plane and began a study of it. Different models of all American planes which were sold to other nations were equipped as those other nations requested.(In game, this explains different ranges and arms for the different mods of the same plane). The Brit pilots fighting in Malaysia stated the plane was like trying to turn a rhinoceros on a slippery mud bank.The plane had a tendency to skid in a turn, which could be very fatal to a pilot being chased. A fellow forum member has a Brit pilots statement in his posts which sez something like:"Bombers out-running fighters, you've got to f**ing well laugh". This was a moment of angst concerning the slow speed of the Buffalo compared to the sometimes faster Japanese bombers, already at altitude. As for Curtiss planes, they all had a superior rate of roll, (the ability to initiate a turn and change direction of momentum), but the wing to power ratio and the planes' actual stall speed are what determine how long* the plane can continue a turn. Once a plane, in a turn, reaches its' stall speed, the pilot must choose to end his turning, or put the nose down to increase speed. If he fails to do either, the plane stalls on its' own. If he ends his turning, the following enemy plane with a better turning ability is still there,turning, and firing at an "easy target". Non pilots have a difficult time understanding the concept of these physical forces which determine a planes ability to turn. Not so much the speed of the plane, nor power of the engine, but how long it can turn before it stalls. ALL planes lose speed in turns or climbs.. ALL planes approach stall speed in turns and sustained climbs,(the latter dependent on angle of climb.) When a plane stalls, it actually can reach a speed of "ZERO" momentarily, (especially if stick pulled back for an intentional hammerhead stall), which with a sideslip is a great way to lose altitude quickly, and allow a following enemy to zip past and over you. I personally believe the Buffalos in-game are pretty well represented.. IRL the Nates, Claudes, Zekes and Oscars could all "out-turn" a Buffalo. The Americans had the worst of the bunch, because they had armor, which increased the weight to power ratio, bringing stall at a higher speed than the "stripped" export models. The trade off in a combat plane is armor or performance or tactics to avoid dogfighting entirely. Generally, the lower the stall speed, the better it can turn. The plane with a low stall speed, and still possess a good top speed, will nearly always be the best "dogfighter". IIRC the Oscar and the A6m2 could hold flight at somewhere around 45-50 MPH, which is pretty damned slow...

rtrapasso -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 4:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso According to what i've read in Bloody Shambles, the Brits did not learn much about fighting the Japanese fighters then... they continued trying to dogfight Hurri against Oscar and generally losing badly in the attempt. It was well into 1943 when they finally decided to look at this, and an expert was sent out and told the front line squadrons: "DON'T DOGFIGHT!!" He went on to tell them the same things Chennault had said years earlier. British Unit commanders were very angry at this advise and tried to get it removed from official recommendations. Reading the accounts of Hurris vs. Oscars is depressing... the Oscars pretty much ruled the skies. The Hurris did clean up on IJAAF and IJNAF bombers, though. It was only in the fall of 1943 (after the usual 6 months of monsoon) when Hurris were being replaced with Spits and Thunderbolts, and numbers of USAAF P-38s showed up that the pendulum abruptly swung the other way. Officers [8\|] [:D] I read that RAF pilots actually found that the Curtiss Mohawk could dogfight with Oscars, being able to turn inside the Oscars at around 180-200mph. Reading volume 3 of the series - the Mohawks come off pretty well (until they got replaced).

rtrapasso -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 4:14:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay What I got from reading Bloody Shambles vol 1 was that the greatest reason for Buffalo losses (and later Hurricane losses) in the air over Malaya and the NEI was the lack of a decent early warning system. There was no radar nor a decent system along the lines of what Chennault created in China - so by the time the Japanese raids were detected, the defending fighters were unable to climb to their altitude (for the most part). The commonwealth pilots were all getting clobbered while attempting to climb. At first... later, they were still losing planes even with good radar and warning systems, radar intercept vectors provided by ground control, etc. - and it was because they kept on trying to dogfight.

panda124c -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/3/2007 7:56:04 PM)
So does anyone have any data on how many Buffalo's were destroyed on the ground as opposed to the one's destroyed in air-to-air combat. From what I have read most of the Commonweath A/C were caught on the ground and destroyed.

wdolson -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/4/2007 6:01:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso According to what i've read in Bloody Shambles, the Brits did not learn much about fighting the Japanese fighters then... they continued trying to dogfight Hurri against Oscar and generally losing badly in the attempt. It was well into 1943 when they finally decided to look at this, and an expert was sent out and told the front line squadrons: "DON'T DOGFIGHT!!" He went on to tell them the same things Chennault had said years earlier. British Unit commanders were very angry at this advise and tried to get it removed from official recommendations. Reading the accounts of Hurris vs. Oscars is depressing... the Oscars pretty much ruled the skies. The Hurris did clean up on IJAAF and IJNAF bombers, though. It was only in the fall of 1943 (after the usual 6 months of monsoon) when Hurris were being replaced with Spits and Thunderbolts, and numbers of USAAF P-38s showed up that the pendulum abruptly swung the other way. There was a book written about the poor British tactics called "Engage the Enemy More Closely". Someone decreed that any pilot seen diving away from a fight would be court martialed. The British were slow to learn about dog fighting the Japanese. However, by the fall of Singapore, I expect they learned something, even if it was just more respect for their foe. I think Bloody Shambles says that the Hurricanes at Singapore had close to a 1:1 victory to loss ratio, which while apalling compared to later in the war, it was much better than the Buffalo's record, which was lopsided the other way. Bill

Scott_USN -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 1:56:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw User Hostile Interface, ALL THOSE DAMN COUNTLESS CLIKS ON THOSE DAMN SMALL SCREENS!!!!! DAMN!!!! HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CLIKS just to make all plane transfer from ONE air base to another base or 20 out of 40 LCUs to move somewhere, ALL, ALL THOSE HUNDREDS CLICKS JUST TO GATHER SOME INFO FROM ALL OF THOSE SMALL SCREENS!!!! I love this game. [:D] That was funny and true but I do love this game also. Oh and I can see a dead mouse before 1944.[:'(]

Vladd -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 2:12:25 AM)
Some British / Australian pilots preferred the Buffalo over the Hurricane, having flown both types (See Hurricanes over Singapore and Buffaloes over Singapore by Brian Cull). The Buffalo could certainly turn tighter than the Hurri, but was deficient in some other respects. On the whole, there does't seem to be much in it between the two types. But the Buffs had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, whereas when the Hurris arrived the Allies had a better idea about what they were up against and what not to do when taking on a Ki27 or Ki43...

Rafael Warsaw -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 2:46:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Scott_USN quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw User Hostile Interface, ALL THOSE DAMN COUNTLESS CLIKS ON THOSE DAMN SMALL SCREENS!!!!! DAMN!!!! HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CLIKS just to make all plane transfer from ONE air base to another base or 20 out of 40 LCUs to move somewhere, ALL, ALL THOSE HUNDREDS CLICKS JUST TO GATHER SOME INFO FROM ALL OF THOSE SMALL SCREENS!!!! I love this game. [:D] That was funny and true but I do love this game also. Oh and I can see a dead mouse before 1944.[:'(] Well, Man, This is SERIOUS to me. I mean its not about a mouse its about a DAMN Time issue. I have an observation - 60% of time I spend playing this game is WASTED by HOSTILE and RIDICILOUS INTERFACE. Its just stupid, its like to put a great engine into a car You cant drive just because some of the designers put a damn triangle /\ seats into. Its ridiculous. Its STUPID beyond all recognition SBAR. DEV TEAM - FORGET ABOUT machine gun ranges or even a leader bug, DO SOMETHING WITH AN INTERFACE. Jeeez, its like a talking about a mosquito bite when tiger took Your damn leg. If You wont it is simple - no matter how hard You will work on different other aspects of this genius game (like a leader bug) it will die. You cant attract new players in 2007 with this type of approach. Sorry, You cant.

bradfordkay -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 7:18:35 AM)
The GUI in this game is far, far superior to it's spiritual predecessor, Pacific War. This long after the release of the game system (with Uncommon Valor), you will not see any changes to the GUI, so you'd best learn to live with it and find something else to gripe about.

Terminus -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 10:52:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw You cant attract new players in 2007 with this type of approach. Sorry, You cant. And yet... Somehow... It continues to attract new players with no problems whatsoever... If this was an FPS, then you'd be right, but it isn't...

wdolson -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 1:25:06 PM)
Real time games are fashionable right now because the technology is there. Not every gamer wants to play those sorts of games. This board is the biggest on the Matrix site. It's almost busier than every other game combined. Even if you factor out The Thread, the volume here is still huge. The second busiest forum on this site is for Steel Panthers, which is a fossil of the gaming world. Few high school kids are going to take an interest in a game that could last longer than the rest of their school career. Most of the people buying the game have an interest in the subject and want to explore it. The trick to making a good long term profit is to find a new niche and serve it well. Matrix is doing that. Their most popular games aren't full of high tech goodies, they cover something in a way no other game does. There are things I'd like to see improved with the game. When I was learning the game, I groaned at all the micromanaging. As I learned the interface, I learned some tricks to reduce the micromangement and for the rest, I learned a pattern of what to check in which order during a turn. It works. Bill

m10bob -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 4:20:47 PM)
Hmmm..Thread went from the Brewster plane to an "interface problem"? What problem? Having to move individual units manually is not an "interface problem". This is a monster wargame, with tens of thousands of individual units on a mapboard covering maybe a third of the earth? Maybe a game of checkers would be more desired?[sm=00000924.gif] [image]local://upfiles/7909/2A868BDEC3A948BB897473EA6F84E230.jpg[/image]

m10bob -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 4:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Hmmm..Thread went from the Brewster plane to an "interface problem"? What problem? Having to move individual units manually is not an "interface problem". This is a monster wargame, with tens of thousands of individual units on a mapboard covering maybe a third of the earth? Maybe a game of checkers would be more desired?[sm=00000924.gif] [image]local://upfiles/7909/2A868BDEC3A948BB897473EA6F84E230.jpg[/image] YEAH!!!!...A GAME OF "CHECKIES"!!!!! [image]local://upfiles/7909/B354CE04D4E949C89E66D470286F9F3E.jpg[/image]

DSwain -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 4:45:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw quote: ORIGINAL: Scott_USN quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw User Hostile Interface, ALL THOSE DAMN COUNTLESS CLIKS ON THOSE DAMN SMALL SCREENS!!!!! DAMN!!!! HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CLIKS just to make all plane transfer from ONE air base to another base or 20 out of 40 LCUs to move somewhere, ALL, ALL THOSE HUNDREDS CLICKS JUST TO GATHER SOME INFO FROM ALL OF THOSE SMALL SCREENS!!!! I love this game. [:D] That was funny and true but I do love this game also. Oh and I can see a dead mouse before 1944.[:'(] Well, Man, This is SERIOUS to me. I mean its not about a mouse its about a DAMN Time issue. I have an observation - 60% of time I spend playing this game is WASTED by HOSTILE and RIDICILOUS INTERFACE. Its just stupid, its like to put a great engine into a car You cant drive just because some of the designers put a damn triangle /\ seats into. Its ridiculous. Its STUPID beyond all recognition SBAR. DEV TEAM - FORGET ABOUT machine gun ranges or even a leader bug, DO SOMETHING WITH AN INTERFACE. Jeeez, its like a talking about a mosquito bite when tiger took Your damn leg. If You wont it is simple - no matter how hard You will work on different other aspects of this genius game (like a leader bug) it will die. You cant attract new players in 2007 with this type of approach. Sorry, You cant. All that said, it's a heck of a lot sleeker than the old counters and maps of WG's "Pacific War"; about to deliver an Allied coup de grace against the Empire and here comes the cat and WHOA there goes several months of work

m10bob -> RE: Bloody shambles ! (5/5/2007 5:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DSwain quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw quote: ORIGINAL: Scott_USN quote: ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw User Hostile Interface, ALL THOSE DAMN COUNTLESS CLIKS ON THOSE DAMN SMALL SCREENS!!!!! DAMN!!!! HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CLIKS just to make all plane transfer from ONE air base to another base or 20 out of 40 LCUs to move somewhere, ALL, ALL THOSE HUNDREDS CLICKS JUST TO GATHER SOME INFO FROM ALL OF THOSE SMALL SCREENS!!!! I love this game. [:D] That was funny and true but I do love this game also. Oh and I can see a dead mouse before 1944.[:'(] Well, Man, This is SERIOUS to me. I mean its not about a mouse its about a DAMN Time issue. I have an observation - 60% of time I spend playing this game is WASTED by HOSTILE and RIDICILOUS INTERFACE. Its just stupid, its like to put a great engine into a car You cant drive just because some of the designers put a damn triangle /\ seats into. Its ridiculous. Its STUPID beyond all recognition SBAR. DEV TEAM - FORGET ABOUT machine gun ranges or even a leader bug, DO SOMETHING WITH AN INTERFACE. Jeeez, its like a talking about a mosquito bite when tiger took Your damn leg. If You wont it is simple - no matter how hard You will work on different other aspects of this genius game (like a leader bug) it will die. You cant attract new players in 2007 with this type of approach. Sorry, You cant. All that said, it's a heck of a lot sleeker than the old counters and maps of WG's "Pacific War"; about to deliver an Allied coup de grace against the Empire and here comes the cat and WHOA there goes several months of work Not to mention screwing up your counters with those magnetic counter clips..

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125