RE: Checking the fleet.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


Kitakami -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (4/12/2013 1:52:33 PM)

I, for one, I am happy that this is slowly moving forward. It will be an interesting mod, that is for sure :)




MateDow -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (4/12/2013 4:00:34 PM)

Is it safe to assume that this mod will be based on the Babes as well?




FatR -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (4/12/2013 8:30:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

Is it safe to assume that this mod will be based on the Babes as well?


Yes, it does. Its naval side is based on Scen 28C. The ground side uses the stock unit structure (base forces instead of many small units), though. As far as I can see - didn't have much interest in ground OOB.




ny59giants -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (5/4/2013 11:40:32 AM)

Instead of this being permanently restricted to the West Coast of USA until being withdrawn in early '45, can just 'one' American armoured division be able to be bought out (PP)?? [sm=Tank-fahr09.gif]

[image]local://upfiles/15133/EEA1C524F60746378E3B9C209BC36376.jpg[/image]




Lecivius -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (5/6/2013 3:23:58 PM)

Having played RA into March '45, have you considered increasing allied air production slightly? In this mod, with all the streamlining of Japanese air production, you can get airframes almost a year ahead of RL production( the M8 Zero comes to mind, sitting here at work). As Allies, you have so many LSI's and LST's you can walk across the pacific if you put them bow to stern. But virtually every air campaign will come to a halt due to a lack of airframes. Fighter pools are very tight, so are heavy bomber pools, and light bomber pools will dry up. Reducing Landing Ship inventories and increasing airframe production would seem an intelligent trade off. Real Life production was drawn down due to the fact that the Japanese economy, and by association it's war machine, was noticeably being impacted by early '44. Air superiority had been achieved. That is not the case here, where the Japanese war machine can sustain itself with "banked" industry far beyond historical norms.

Just an opinion.


<edit>

Dang, I thought I was in the RA post. Having IT issues at work, took 3 tries to even upload this




John 3rd -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (5/6/2013 4:27:09 PM)

Those are EXCELLENT observations. Can you Post more specific recommendations over on the RA Thread? I think you have gone farther into the Mod then just about anyone. WELL DONE!




ny59giants -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (8/7/2013 7:31:25 PM)

Day dreaming here, but how about switching the FM-1 (30/month)& 2 (128/month) Wildcats over to Corsairs?? Those two models are too slow and pretty much useless for Allied players.




RevRick -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (8/7/2013 8:04:59 PM)

One problem in Real History - they wouldn't fit on CVE's.




ny59giants -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (8/7/2013 8:15:30 PM)

quote:

One problem in Real History - they wouldn't fit on CVE's.


I can make a HR that doesn't put them on. I'll keep Corsairs on my CV & CVLs and Hellcats on CVEs.

This is a simulation, so lots of things are not historical.




VManteuffel -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (8/10/2013 10:54:03 PM)

Nice work, and addictive theories [:D]




Terminus -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (8/10/2013 11:03:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

One problem in Real History - they wouldn't fit on CVE's.


This is not 100% correct. The biggest US CVE's could, and did, carry them.




RevRick -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (8/11/2013 7:34:53 PM)

I don't think it was a whole lot of them, though. By and large, most F4U's went to the fleet carriers and CVLs, didn't they? The only CVE's that I know of that could hand F4U's were the Commencement Bay class and they were commissioned in late 44 and on.




Symon -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (8/12/2013 3:41:49 PM)

Thing about the Commencement Bays was they were designed and fitted with catapults. Otherwise they were very similar to, and of a size with, the Sangamon class. Their flight deck lengths were within 1 foot of one another, only the designed-in catapults allowed F4U operations.

I too would limit the availability of F4Us on CVEs to the Commencement Bays and perhaps the Sangamons, but would make the Sangamons get an “upgrade” that includes a virtual catapult before allowing F4U ops from them.

just mho. JWE




John 3rd -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (3/3/2014 3:33:28 PM)

BUMP

Bringing this forward to read with discussion on the new Treaty Mod.




Jellicoe -> RE: Checking the fleet.... (3/7/2014 6:57:55 PM)

As a marginal aside could I put in a suggestion that as a reaction to the much increased Japanese naval strength posited in RA that the USN would put rather more effort into their negotiations with the Chileans to purchase/lease Almirante Latorre and the 6 Serrano class destroyers (equivalent to RN A class - HMS Arrow in the game. Discussions certainly took place but the Chileans were reluctant due to issues with Argentina. A more pressured situation may have pushed the US to up their price. I am a real sucker for those classic 5 turret RN dreadnoughts and it would be great to see one in the game. Shouldn't make too much balance difference either as she is about the equivalent of a Fuso at best.




Page: <<   < prev  22 23 24 25 [26]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1