RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4

RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (Full Version)

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

Message

Tanaka -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/22/2004 1:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm A delay of 9999 generally means that the "item" is not available in that particular scenario. Some of the later scenarios would have this set if the pilot had been killed off at some earlier time (before the start of the scenario). If there is some other philisohpical reason, pry would neeed to answer. Michael Scen 15 pilots should not have this then. And there are many many pilots that do. Including many of the bigger historical aces who DID start the war on the 7th. The pilots OOB is a BIG MESS in Scenario 15.

Feinder -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/22/2004 6:34:33 PM)
Oh, I almost fogot. As I recall, there are some knuckle-heads in Singapore, a BaseForce, that are prepped 100 for Hong-Kong. Mistake? Maybe should be prepped 100 for Sing (who cares, it's a baseforce anyways). Or were they really a glutton for punishment, and really planning on going to help relieve Hong Kong? -F-

BPRE -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/23/2004 12:05:43 AM)
Hi, The F4F-4 has a start of production date of 41-01 just like the F4F-3. Is this really correct or should it be something like 42-01? /BPRE

Herrbear -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/23/2004 5:22:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BPRE Hi, The F4F-4 has a start of production date of 41-01 just like the F4F-3. Is this really correct or should it be something like 42-01? /BPRE The F4F-4 should probably be November of '41 and the F4F-3 December of '40.

Jim D Burns -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/25/2004 12:54:13 AM)
How About including the Thai Navy for Japans side? Here's what I have, not sure if it saw much (if any) action, but it would be nice for historical interest to include it I think. Ratanakosindra and Sukhothai (886 tons) PG, 12 knots, 2x6inch guns and 4x3 inch DP guns. British built gunboats, extremely compact and more thickly armored than many cruisers (2.5 inch belt armor). The 6 inch guns fired 100lb shells to 20,430 yards. Sri Ayuthia and Dhonburi (2,265 tons) PG, 15.5 knots, 4x8 inch guns and 4x3 inch DP guns. Japanese design from same theory as the Ratanakosindras and similar in appearance, but much enlarged. the 8 inch mounts may have had 45 degree elevation; with 4 inch turret armor, they quadrupled the thickness given to Japanese cruiser turrets. Taksin and Naresuan (5,500 tons) CL, 30 knots, 6x6 inch guns and 6x3 inch guns, 6x21 inch TT, 2 AC. CL design from Italy (retained there as Etna and Vesuvio) with armor thinner than in the gunboat classes. the 6 inch guns would probably have been the latest Italian 55cal model. Sinsamudar, Vilun, Machanu and Blajunbol (370/430 tons, Displacement Surfaced/Submerged) Costal subs, 14.5/8 knots, 1x3 inch DP gun, 5x21 inch TT. Japanese built coastal subs; Their gun armaments may have consisted of ligght weapons only. Tachin and Meklong (1,400 tons) MSW, 17 knots, 4x4.7 inch guns, 4x21 inch TT. Japanese built sloops used for minesweeping and training, a sluggish but otherwise sound design. The 4.7 inch shells weighed 45 lbs. Phra Ruang (1,035 tons) DD, 35 knots, 3x4 inch guns, 1x3 inch DP gun, 4x21 inch TT. Thornycroft "R"-class DD purchased after WWI. The main guns fired 31 lb shells. Chow Phraya (840 tons) PG, 16 knots, light guns. Ex-British "Hunt" class sloop used as gunboat. Bangrachan and Nhongarhai (368 tons) ML, 13 knots, 2x3 inch DP guns, 142 mines. Italian built ML. Trad class (318 tons) MTB, 31 knots, 3x3 inch DP guns, 6x17.7 inch TT. Nine Italian built TB; one of the only Thai orders with high speed. Sriya Monthon (225 tons) PC, 14 knots, light guns. Coast Guard vessel. Kantan, Takbai and Kyongyai (110 tons) MTB, 19 knots, 1x3 inch DP gun, 2x17.7 inch TT. Japanese built TB. Sarasindhu, Thiew Uthock and Travane Vari (50 tons) PC, 9 knots, light guns. Fishery protection vessels designed in italy but built in Bangkok. Thailand bought two batches of 55 foot Thornycroft boats, 1-5 (11 tons, 2x17.7 inch TT, 37 knots) and the slightly updated 6-9 (16 tons, 2x17.7 inch TT, 40knots). The Thai's themselves may have completed boats numbered 10-12 to a Thornycroft design. The above was taken from Richard Worths book "Fleets of World War II". Jim

mikemike -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/25/2004 2:47:22 AM)
The CS Nisshin was able to carry 700 mines in exchange for her aircraft. This makes her the fastest,largest Japanese minelayer. I think this capability should be available in the game.

Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/26/2004 11:35:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Taksin and Naresuan (5,500 tons) CL, 30 knots, 6x6 inch guns and 6x3 inch guns, 6x21 inch TT, 2 AC. CL design from Italy (retained there as Etna and Vesuvio) with armor thinner than in the gunboat classes. the 6 inch guns would probably have been the latest Italian 55cal model. You wouldn't want to include these, as they never saw service with the Thai navy. In a "What if" scenario, yes, but in standard game scenarios no.

Brady -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/27/2004 12:21:18 AM)
Prince Rupert, Seams to be a bit under guned, that is if I am reading this right, it would seam a CD batery is in order for PR. http://www.geocities.com/naforts/bc.html

JSBoomer -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/27/2004 12:59:30 AM)
I have to agree with Mr. Brady about the defenses at Prince Rupert. Many of the bunkers and gun emplacements are still there to this day(minus guns of course), so they did exist.

Don Bowen -> Wrong artwork for USS Dixie (11/27/2004 1:31:45 AM)
The artwork (An...381.bmp) supplied for Destroyer Tender the USS Dixie is incorrect. It is an excellent representation of the OLD Dixie (AD-1) but this vessel was decommissioned in 1922. The Dixie in commission during World War II (AD-14) looked like this: [image]local://upfiles/757/Om343557721.gif[/image]

Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/27/2004 6:28:18 AM)
Yeah Don, I found that a good deal of the Allied artwork is incorrect, or depicts an outdated fit. I was also told beack in July that they weren't going to change the graphics, so the only recourse was to make my own. The Robert H. Smith DMs, Dorsey DMS, the list goes on and on.

Herrbear -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/27/2004 5:25:08 PM)
In patch 1.3 the Unicorn sortie was changed, but is the Unicorn in the game? I could not find a ship under that name or class #259.

Andy Mac -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/27/2004 6:37:43 PM)
Any chance of getting 70th UK Division as an entity with a conversiom option for those that want to convert to Chindit (i.e. I dont particulary want Chindits if I am fighting on the Indian Plain) another UK Heavy Division would be far more use to me there. Andy

Mike Scholl -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/28/2004 4:07:59 AM)
PLEASE! Fix "fixed" CD units so they make some historical sense in the game. ONE They were a great deal more accurate than their brotheren afloat. So either triple the number of guns in them, or triple the accuracy of the ones there now. TWO They start the game 0% prepared. This is silly---they haven't moved since they were built and they aren't going anyplace. Should be 100% at start. THREE The most rediculous of all. Coast Defense Units DON'T DEFEND ANYTHING! Any enemy force that enters the hex with a "bombardment" mission should have to engage them first and formost. If it want's to bombard an airfield instead of shooting back, fine. But the CD guns would still be shooting at the TF. And if it sticks around to bombard a port or some ground units, then the CD unit should continue to fire on it during these activities. The longer it stays, and the more targets it engages, the more time the CD artillery should have to shoot back! For that matter, it should be impossible for a TF to attack ships at anchor or docked without coming under CD fire.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/28/2004 5:36:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Yeah Don, I found that a good deal of the Allied artwork is incorrect, or depicts an outdated fit. I was also told beack in July that they weren't going to change the graphics, so the only recourse was to make my own. The Robert H. Smith DMs, Dorsey DMS, the list goes on and on. Why not add them now? You did them. Unbelievable.[&:]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Wrong artwork for USS Dixie (11/28/2004 5:38:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen The artwork (An...381.bmp) supplied for Destroyer Tender the USS Dixie is incorrect. It is an excellent representation of the OLD Dixie (AD-1) but this vessel was decommissioned in 1922. The Dixie in commission during World War II (AD-14) looked like this: [image]local://upfiles/757/Om343557721.gif[/image] They've known about this for a couple years now. Maybe get a naval buff to do the art for a naval game next time, or at least run it by people before finalizing it.

Herrbear -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/28/2004 8:46:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl PLEASE! Fix "fixed" CD units so they make some historical sense in the game. ONE They were a great deal more accurate than their brotheren afloat. So either triple the number of guns in them, or triple the accuracy of the ones there now. TWO They start the game 0% prepared. This is silly---they haven't moved since they were built and they aren't going anyplace. Should be 100% at start. THREE The most rediculous of all. Coast Defense Units DON'T DEFEND ANYTHING! Any enemy force that enters the hex with a "bombardment" mission should have to engage them first and formost. If it want's to bombard an airfield instead of shooting back, fine. But the CD guns would still be shooting at the TF. And if it sticks around to bombard a port or some ground units, then the CD unit should continue to fire on it during these activities. The longer it stays, and the more targets it engages, the more time the CD artillery should have to shoot back! For that matter, it should be impossible for a TF to attack ships at anchor or docked without coming under CD fire. Generally I agree with you on these points except for #2. Granted, they should not be 0 but I don't necessarily think that 100% would be correct. These units were used to peacetime duty. I look at 100% as being fully trained. Many of these units were probably understrength due to peace time budgets. used to a "9 to 5" routine and not used to the rigors of a wartime atmosphere. I think 50 to 75% would be more reasonable. This can, of course, be changed in the editor IIRC.

Jim D Burns -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/29/2004 8:22:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace You wouldn't want to include these, as they never saw service with the Thai navy. In a "What if" scenario, yes, but in standard game scenarios no. Yeah I agree if you're correct they shouldn't be included, but as written it was a bit ambiguous. I wasn't sure if the ships were retained in Italy and renamed or simply the design was retained and 2 additional ships built, so I included it. I didn't have another source to use to check it out for myself. [:(] Jim

Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/29/2004 8:38:14 PM)
As far as I understand it from Conway's, the ships were being built, but were then seized by the Italians. Work continued at a slow rate, until the uncompleted hulls were seized by the Germans in 1943. Never finished, though I do believe they were launched in 1942.

Blackhorse -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/29/2004 8:53:45 PM)
PROPOSED CHANGES TO US OOB IN ALASKA When the war began, the navy had three facilities in Alaska: the main naval base, equipped to service destroyers, submarines and seaplanes on Kodiak; an advance base at Dutch Harbor, on Unalaska; and a seaplane facility at Sitka. The army was headquartered on the mainland at Anchorage, and responsible for defending the three navy bases as well. Legend: (-) remove this unit from this base (+) add this unit to this base Anchorage / Ft. Richardson / Ft. Raymond: The main army and air base in Alaska Note: the Anchorage garrison includes units defending Seward, which served as the main military port serving Anchorage. Seward is not a separate base in the game. (-) 106th USN Base Force: Should be a USAAF Base Force. Anchorage was the main Air Force base (Elmendorf Field) in Alaska, and HQs of the Army�s Alaskan Defense Command. There were no naval installations at Anchorage or Seward. (+) New USAAF Base Force. This unit should start at full TO&E strength, but without radar. (ok) 4th Infantry Regiment: In the database, this Regular Army regiment is over strength in 155mm artillery and engineers and support. These additions accurately reflect the presence of the 81st Field Artillery Battalion (155mm) and one company of the 32nd Engineers that were stationed in Anchorage, but not included as separate units. The 17 Stuart tanks of B company /194th Tank Battalion stationed here should also be added to the regiment�s TO&E. (-) 37th Infantry Regiment: This unit started on Kodiak (+) 153rd Infantry Regiment, Arkansas National Guard: Should start at 2/3rd strength. The First and Third battalions were stationed at Seward, the port serving Anchorage. The Second battalion was in Washington state awaiting orders. The database has two 153rd RCTs: #2758 starts in Nome, and #2884 arrives as a 4/42 reinforcement. See the 37th Regiment on Kodiak for comments about experience and morale. (ok) 75th Coastal Artillery (AA) Regiment: No change. (-) 215th Coastal Artillery (AA) Regiment: This unit started on Kodiak (ok) 250th Coastal Artillery Regiment, California National Guard: This over strength unit (36x 155mm) should be reduced to normal size (24x 155mm) and start at � normal strength (12x 155mm). One battalion was here; the other battalion was split between Dutch Harbor and Sitka and should be incorporated in their base forces. The database has two 250th C.A. Regiments: #2746 starts in Anchorage; #2702 starts in Los Angeles. (ok) 802nd Engineer Aviation Battalion: No change. This unit actually started on Annette Island, an airfield guarding the approaches to Canada�s Prince Rupert. As Annette Island is not a separate base in the game, Anchorage is a good starting point. Kodiak / Ft. Greely: The main navy base (ok) 112th USN Base Force: No change (+) 37th Infantry Regiment, Regular Army: Should start here instead of Anchorage. Unit starts at 2/3rd strength. One of the three battalions was stationed at Dutch Harbor. An additional 12x 75mm howitzers and 12x support squads should be added to the regiment, as the 98th Field Artillery Battalion was stationed on the island but not included as a separate unit. The 37th should probably flip-flop its experience and morale ratings (60/60) with the two National Guard regiments (55/55). The 153rd and 201st were both on active federal duty for nearly a full year when the war broke out; the 37th was not formed until August, 1941. (ok) 201st Infantry Regiment, West Virginia National Guard: Should start at 2/3rd strength. One of the regiment�s three battalions was garrisoning Sitka and should be incorporated in that base force. See the 37th Regiment for comments about experience and morale. (+) 215th Coastal Artillery (AA) Regiment, Minnesota National Guard: Should start here instead of Anchorage. Dutch Harbor / Ft. Mears: The navy�s forward base (ok) 108th USN Base Force: Base force strength should include one battalion of the 37th infantry as well as the headquarters and 2 batteries of the 250th Coastal Artillery Regiment stationed here. (+) 206th CA (AA) Regiment, Arkansas National Guard: Should start here instead of Los Angeles. Should start at � strength. One battalion was here, the other was in Washington state awaiting orders. Sitka / Ft. Ray: A Navy seaplane base (ok) 111th USN Base Force: Base force strength should incorporate one battery of Coastal Artillery (250th), one battery of Anti-Aircraft (205th), and one battalion of the 201st Infantry, stationed here. Nome: No forces (-) 113th USN Base Force: Nome had no naval installations at start. (-) 153rd Infantry Regiment: At start, the Nome garrison consisted of a single infantry company. Most of the 153rd was based in Seward, near Anchorage. Juneau: No forces (-) 110th USN Base Force: Juneau had no naval installations at start. The nearest garrison was two companies of the Alaska National Guard (297th Infantry Regiment) at Chilkoot barracks in Skagway, about 50 miles away. The 297th Regiment never had more than four companies, (HQ and the other two companies were in Anchorage) and likely was not front-line quality as it was not activated until September 1941. It is probably best to think of it as part of the Anchorage base force. Missing Apart from the 297th �Regiment� the only other ground unit in Alaska at start that is not accounted for is the 151st Combat Engineers Regiment of the Alabama National Guard. The companies of the first battalion are scattered at Kodiak, Dutch Harbor, Seward, and Sitka, and can be considered part of the base forces. The second battalion arrived from Louisiana in the spring, and was sent to reinforce Nome in June when there were fears that Japan might invade after taking Attu and Kiska. There is no shortage of US engineer units in the game, and it is hardly essential to account for this missing 1/2 of 1 regiment.

Herrbear -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/30/2004 3:57:00 AM)
Just curious, but can you name your sources. Thank you.

Tomo -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/30/2004 4:12:47 AM)
IJN Yugumo class name. KAZEGUMO is incorrect. KAZAKUMO is correct IJN Akizuki class name. HARUZUKI is incorrect. HARUTSUKI is correct. SUSUZUKI is incorrect. SUZUTSUKI is correct. Japanese PC type C/D class should be divided because its endurance is very different. Type D is much longer.

Blackhorse -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/30/2004 5:13:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear Just curious, but can you name your sources. Thank you. My primary sources were two books available at the Library of Congress: The thousand-mile war; World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians / Brian Garfield. World War II in the North Pacific : chronology and fact book / Kevin Don Hutchison Then I also stumbled on excerpts from this book on-line (it also helped with the other State National Guard units assigned to Alaska). The Williwaw War : the Arkansas National Guard in the Aleutians in World War II / Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon. After that, "Googling" the units and the Alaska bases provided a wealth of additional information on-line -- an article on Ft. Greeley, for example, that detailed the garrison, by company-level unit and troop strength, in June, September and December 1941.

Herrbear -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/30/2004 5:57:44 AM)
Thank you

TulliusDetritus -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/30/2004 5:59:24 PM)
Another possible bug? => Playing as allies the big scenario (the "day after" till 1946). The "troop transport" => "pick troops" is doing weird things in 1.3 I try to evacuate land units in Wake (from Midway) and Brunei (from Singapore) using patrol planes. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't: when it doesn't, the planes transport supplies to Midway/Brunei. This did not happen in 1.2 And yes, everything is correct: I am using "pick troops", I selected the destination and land unit in that base.

Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/30/2004 10:00:39 PM)
This goes in the support thread, not the OOB thread. Just telling you before the mods do.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/30/2004 10:26:48 PM)
I see. Sorry and thank you [:)]

Don Bowen -> US Early Fleet Carrier errata (12/1/2004 6:33:25 AM)
Lexington, 6/42 Refit (Class 1254) and 10/42 Refit (Class 1255) 5in/38 in bow and stern quarters were in single mounts: Weapons 3 and 4, Turrets = 1 (see line drawing, below) Lexington (actually Saratoga) 1/44 Refit (actually 12/9/43 - 1/3/44 at Hunters Point) (Class 1256) 5in/38 in bow and stern quarters were in single mounts: Weapons 3 and 4, Turrets = 1 Correct Distribution of 40mm: 40 (10 Quads) Right Side 48 (12 Quads) Left Side 4 (1 Quad) Centerline 4 (2 Twins) Left Side Additions at this refit were: 2 Twin 40mm on sponsons, portside abeam island 7 Quad 40mm in former boat recesses to port 2 Quad 40mm in former boat recesses to starboard 3 Quad 40mm outboard of Island (starboard) at flight deck level 1 Quad 40mm in starboard forward gun gallery 1 Quad 40mm in part forward gun gallery Lexington (Saratoga) 1/45 Refit (Acutally after damage on 2/21/45, at Bremerton) (class 1257) 5in/38 in bow and stern quarters were in single mounts: Weapons 3 and 4, Turrets = 1 Light AA changed to 25 quad 40mm, 16 single 20mm - I do not have specific placement details but the total of 100 40mm barrels could be reached by replacing the two twin mounts from class 1256 with quads. Wasp (class 239) This outfit is about correct for 12/41 but Wasp was refitted in January, 1942 at Norfolk (well prior to deployment to pacific): 32 20mm singles added and 50Cal MG reduced to 6: 20mm in groups of 6, fore and aft, port and starboard, plus 4 on the island (2 port, 2 starboard) and two each under fore and aft ends of flight deck. 4 remaining 50Cal to Port and one to starboard, one unknown (possibly starboard, far aft): 20mm, 14X1 RS 20mm, 14X1 LS 20mm, 2x1 Front 20mm, 2X1 Rear 50Cal, 4x1 LS 50Cal, 2X1 RS Also, the speed (29) may be understated by 1 knot. Wasp's trial speed was 30.73 knots at 73906 SHP (average of three runs). Estimated service speed at 18,060 tons, with allowance for fouling, is given as 29.8 knots. Service speed at 18,450 ton full load is given at 29.5 knots. [image]local://upfiles/757/Bz769703657.jpg[/image]

Tanaka -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/2/2004 12:55:08 PM)
From Subchaser: Ki-59 data is completely wrong, it�s not so hard to figure that out. Normal take-off weight of Ki-59 was 4120 kg (2954kg empty), Ki-54 � 3900kg take-off weight and 2954 kg empty. So Ki-59 has 1166 kg of load and Ki-54 has 946kg, not very big difference (220kg). As you understand, this weight was fuel primarily. Both aircraft were equipped with the same engines Hitachi Ha-13a (Ki-59) and Ha-13b (Ki-54), with identical fuel consumption characteristics (civil version of Ki59 � TK3 was equipped with Kotobuki-3 engines (610hp), but this a/c is not Ki59). The question is � how these additional 220kg (this could have been something else, not necessarily fuel) could provide Ki-59 with almost double endurance of Ki-54? I guess the answer is clear�. In reality Ki-54 was able to spend more time in the air than Ki-59, poor aerodynamics and heavier weight of Ki-59 were the reasons why Ki-59 was almost 40 m/h slower than Ki-54 and had maximum range of only 800km (500 miles) with the same engines. Overall performance of Ki-59 was so poor that Koku Hombu ordered to stop production when only 59 a/c were assembled, these a/c never were in service with operation units, only flight schools and liaison detachments were using them in Japan and Manchuria until march �42 when all a/c were transferred to Great Japan Airlines company. I�ve deleted Ki-59 from the database in my scenario, there are not so much slots there to use one for this crap. These Ki-59 characteristics are much closer to the reality than those you see in the game. Max. speed � 187 Cruise speed � 120 Max alt � 14600 Climb � 750 Mvr � 8 Dur � 22 Armor � 0 Endurance � ~200-210 Load � 1300 I�m going to get rid of these two a/c as well. H6K2-L Mavis � 16 a/c produced in 40-41, + 20 H6K4-L produced in 1942-43, 36 total, the only difference between these a/c and standard Mavis boats was the number of hatches and 6 additional seats for passengers. In fact load capacities of standard Mavis and its transport variant were no so different as it modeled in the game, loads were almost similar actually, although transport boats were more comfortable for passengers, but is this worth a slot in database? Patrol Mavis boats can be used as transports if needed, what are the reasons why transport units cannot use standard Mavis boats? Ki-77 is a better candidate for this slot, if there will be enough Nakajima engines in early 1945 it will be possible to try to build a certain number of this unique aircraft, this a/c will help with evacuation of HQs and other valuable small LCU from the cutoff bases in the enemy rear, with endurance of 3300 Ki-77 could go really far. MC-21 Sally, I don�t know why this a/c was included. This is mistake I think. This was not a production model, it was some kind of field modification. About 60 old weary Ki-61-Ia were transferred by army to Great Japan Airlines during 1942, where they got new civil(!) designation � MC-21, transferring of the planes was proceeding simultaneously with IJA bomber units upgrade process, from Ki-21-I to Ki-21-II. It doesn�t worth a slot. Instead I�ll add Ki-56, japanese copy of Lockheed C-60, 121 were produced, very good transport a/c. Ki-54 as it was pointed out was multifunctional a/c, very good design if you�ll take into account that it was designed as a trainer, it�s impossible to model advantages of Ki-54 in WitP world.

supertankerr -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/3/2004 1:25:00 AM)
I do have just one suggestion for the patch 1.4. In the old game of Pacific War you could specifically target ships in port. I have not found this in WITP. Maybe that feature could be added as it was a real neat feature.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875