Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 2/21/2008 2:09:15 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

I do agree though that if you assign a ship to escort a cripple back to port it should be assume that a tow is undertaken if needed so a minimum speed of ? should be maintained until the flooding becomes catostrophic.


just what´s in my mind!

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 31
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 2/21/2008 6:32:08 PM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
Naval Task Forces use different formations to suit particular needs. If Air Operations are imminent for a predominantly CV TF, they adopt a formation which suits launches, recoveries and “plane guard” duties. When a CV predominant TF expects surface combat or serious ASW problems, the TF adopts a different formation to better protect their CVs and fight a different menace. An ASW or Surface Combat TF typically has weaker AA, Air spotting and other Air Defense capabilities than an Air Combat TF.
Add an additional Task Force mission of ASW. Allow any type of ship to be in Air Combat, Surface Combat, ASW, Transport or Fast Transport mode. When BB, CA, DD, etc types are in surface combat mode, they pay a penalty when they suffer an Air Attack, say a -10% chance to hit them and 10% reduction in their Antiaircraft strength. In surface combat mode, they also pay similar penalty when under submarine attack. When they are in ASW mode, they pay penalties against Air and surface attack and have enhanced abilities against Subs. CV type Task Forces, in surface Combat mode, should incur penalties against Air and ASW attack. An Air Combat CV predominant TF cruising between Santa Cristabol and Santa Cruz might sacrifice some Air Capabilities and go into ASW mode to better meet a greater threat possibility.
In tactical Air or Surface combat mode, the actual “on-screen” ship arrangement and placement for tactical combat should reflect the chosen TF mode. A TF in ASW mode would be placed on the tactical map surface arranged differently than if in surface combat mode. A CV predominant TF would keep CVs further away from the “front lines” if it is in Surface Combat mode. CVs might not even appear until a potential “Second round”. In Air Combat mode, it would be much more likely for CVs to be reachable by surface weapons in the Tactical mode, with less of the accompanying screening ships being likely in the “gun line”.
I am not familiar with the programming algorithms which are or could be used or affected by the above suggestions, but implementation should possible in many ways. Leadership could be manipulated. “To Spot” and “To Hit” formulas and the actual AA strength number could be modified to reflect the strengths and weaknesses of each type of formation against a particular threat.
The principle value of the above suggestions is to place the player in a better position to make useful game judgements which reflect actual real historical conditions, without useless overhead. A similar case in point is a more variable TF speed being possible. Sometimes it is more important to sacrifice potential systems damage in order to accomplish a mission faster. The player should be able to chose his TF speed up a maximum speed.

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 32
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 2/21/2008 6:55:27 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
another issue just pops in.
You guys should definitely reconsider the out-wearing of ships from employment at sea. I certainly understand that parameter as very important and historical correct in general but IMHO, it´s effect is far from real in UV. Given the poor repair rates even at level 9 ports, it´s just annoying. (how about additional repair ships?) Heard this is some toned down in WitP, so this should be integrated in CF too.

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 33
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 2/25/2008 4:38:53 AM   
gpannell


Posts: 20
Joined: 2/23/2008
Status: offline
Would like to see:
Editor able to adjust date/number of A/C available as replacements. At minimum be able to have reinforcements for all aircraft types as they come available (as in WITP).
Pilots shot down over a friendly base or TF not captured.
More control vis-a-vis WITP leader assignment (air group, ship & Ground troops).
Looking forward to a new Naval Sim!

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 34
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 2/27/2008 11:09:04 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
A complete editor that works like the one in WITP. For instance where we can add, delete or change devices.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to gpannell)
Post #: 35
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 2/28/2008 6:54:55 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

A complete editor that works like the one in WITP. For instance where we can add, delete or change devices.


And aircraft, and (ship) Classes!!!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 36
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/3/2008 6:10:00 PM   
Desertmole


Posts: 126
Joined: 10/3/2004
Status: offline
How about a realistic reinforcement rate for Japanese aircraft.  I know this alters play balance, but perhaps an ability to have the historical rates as a switch on.  It always bugged me that the Japanese received only 50 or so Kates in all of 1942, and this probably influenced the 14 July Fleet reorganization, but UV gives them 240.  I suspect this was the monthly average based on total production, but thats a big difference.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 37
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/13/2008 8:51:54 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2108
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Any plans for underway ammunition replenishment? I understand WITP has ships that perform that task.

Thanks.

_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to Desertmole)
Post #: 38
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/13/2008 8:56:26 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3669
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Any plans for underway ammunition replenishment? I understand WITP has ships that perform that task.

Thanks.


Yea, but even there they can't do it until well after the time period depicted by this game.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 39
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/13/2008 9:03:41 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2108
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
I didn't know the time period CF covers. Is their anywhere I can read about it? I've herard it spoken about but haven't read info on it. Thanks.

_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 40
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/21/2008 4:54:12 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
How about not allowing squadrons using naval type planes that the pilots aren't carrier qualified from being used on carriers. Corsairs weren't carrier planes until 1944 so they should be LBA only in CF too. Short of banning pilots who aren't qualified from carrier ops, how about a severe penalty in the area of operational loses?

< Message edited by tocaff -- 3/21/2008 5:21:35 AM >


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 41
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/21/2008 3:34:25 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I didn't know the time period CF covers. Is their anywhere I can read about it? I've herard it spoken about but haven't read info on it. Thanks.


Since CF is a tactical carrier game superimposed on the UV engine, it may be safe to assume the time frame and theater are the same as in the (old) UV.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 42
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/23/2008 12:53:04 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
...and another thing.  How about the Allied radar?  Can it be adjusted downwards in effectiveness as the equiptment was new and the operators green?  As the ships gain experience the radar could improve also.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 43
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 3/23/2008 2:31:14 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
I think I said that somewhere on this thread, but no matter.

Will there be clouds, as in CaW? You can't have carrier ops w/o knowing where the clouds are; you can toggle them on/off w/a wx filter.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 44
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/2/2008 7:09:04 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
I would like to see CF with all the extra features WITP has. Aircraft reaction range, more specific task force creation, etc., I think everyone would like to see that.

As well, I would like to have the ability to turn off, fighting the battles in the tactical mode and fight them out using the traditional combat resolution in UV. Fighting the battles in tactical mode might be great but then again it might not be so great. To some it may become tedious, or some may wish to speed a 2 player PBEM game along by skipping fighting the battle in tactical mode all together and use the traditional mode.


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 45
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/3/2008 4:22:28 AM   
OG_Gleep

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 12/27/2002
Status: offline
This might be too late at this point, but the main thing that sucked me into UV was two screens....the Pilot screen that showed the experience of the pilots in the Air Group, and the Top Pilots accessed via the intel menu that showed the pilots who have downed enemy planes and their fate.

Watching the pilots grow, the tension of the combat screen ....flinching each time a plane went down that I know my elite airgroups fly, and as soon as the new turn started rushing to the Top pilots screen to see if any of my aces were KIA is the whole game to me.

It made all the tedious stuff worthwhile.

Heres what I'd like to see:

Being able to quickly issue orders to my assets without having to click each one.

Example: Opening the planes stationed at a base menu, and being able to give orders from there. That should have all the info I need at a glance needed to make a decision.

The current way it takes way too many clicks. If I want to issue more complex orders I can open up the unit the way it is currently implemented. But 90% of the time I am issuing really simple orders. This process should be streamlined.

2) The ability to give a name to assets. This would allow me to at a glance quickly know what the asset is and what its supposed to be doing. Currently I have to cycle through each unit to find the one I want. At times I totally forget what I originally had planned with a task force when it finally arrives where it supposed to go. This would fix that. Also Airgroups that have names would remind me who they are without having to go into the pilot menu and look at their experience. I don't know if every Airgroup had a name like "Flying Tigers"...if the did, having that in the game would be awesome. At the minimum let us do it.

3) Figure out more ways to let enhance the attatchment to our Pilots .....
Example: In the air combat screen, when an ace is involved in combat, instead of saying "P-39 attacking Range:1" it would say "CMD. Johnson Attacking Range:1".

4) I would also really like a summary screen where it shows if a pilot has gained experience and by how much. Sort of like Madden, when you look at player progression, it lists the skill a +/- and the amount the skill increased or decreased.

5) Fatigue and Disrupition in Malaria bases makes too big of an impact. IMHO it should be slowed down.

6) When a unit loses men, or weapons due to disruption or combat there should be a chance that replacements come in when a supply convoy arrives. Either as a base chance for every shipment, or only shipments from Truk/Brisbane/Noumea.

7) IMHO the impact of bombers is fine.  There has been many complaints but imho it shouldn't get any worse.

8) System Damage when ships are at sea. I get why it accumulates, and the need to have it modled, but it should be re-examined. The rate at which it accumulates vs the rate it is repaired is off.

9) I would really like to see a detailed AAR from combat, particularly with Airgroups. This would let me adjust my tactics a lot better. For example, I have no idea why after Fighter vs Fighter combat, my Airgroups climb and dive on bombers and then  combat just ends. I see 36th FS Climbing, 45th FS Diving on Bombers, 36th FS Climbing on Bomers, 45th FS Diving on bombers, Air to Air combat ends. WTH!?!

Thats all I can think of now. If you can figure out how to connect us to our Pilots, and crew, streamline the amount and how we deal with micromanagement, and give us the tools we need and the best way to use those tools....that would be a game I'd love.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 46
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/3/2008 9:50:31 AM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OG_Gleep

Heres what I'd like to see:

Being able to quickly issue orders to my assets without having to click each one.

Example: Opening the planes stationed at a base menu, and being able to give orders from there. That should have all the info I need at a glance needed to make a decision.

The current way it takes way too many clicks. If I want to issue more complex orders I can open up the unit the way it is currently implemented. But 90% of the time I am issuing really simple orders. This process should be streamlined.

2) The ability to give a name to assets. This would allow me to at a glance quickly know what the asset is and what its supposed to be doing. Currently I have to cycle through each unit to find the one I want. At times I totally forget what I originally had planned with a task force when it finally arrives where it supposed to go. This would fix that. Also Airgroups that have names would remind me who they are without having to go into the pilot menu and look at their experience. I don't know if every Airgroup had a name like "Flying Tigers"...if the did, having that in the game would be awesome. At the minimum let us do it.

4) I would also really like a summary screen where it shows if a pilot has gained experience and by how much. Sort of like Madden, when you look at player progression, it lists the skill a +/- and the amount the skill increased or decreased.

5) Fatigue and Disrupition in Malaria bases makes too big of an impact. IMHO it should be slowed down.

6) When a unit loses men, or weapons due to disruption or combat there should be a chance that replacements come in when a supply convoy arrives. Either as a base chance for every shipment, or only shipments from Truk/Brisbane/Noumea.

7) IMHO the impact of bombers is fine.  There has been many complaints but imho it shouldn't get any worse.

8) System Damage when ships are at sea. I get why it accumulates, and the need to have it modled, but it should be re-examined. The rate at which it accumulates vs the rate it is repaired is off.



Nice things! I agree to them, especially bold to the last issue (wearing sys damage). Should be toned down IMHO.

(in reply to OG_Gleep)
Post #: 47
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/3/2008 9:53:24 AM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I would like to see CF with all the extra features WITP has. Aircraft reaction range, more specific task force creation, etc., I think everyone would like to see that.

As well, I would like to have the ability to turn off, fighting the battles in the tactical mode and fight them out using the traditional combat resolution in UV. Fighting the battles in tactical mode might be great but then again it might not be so great. To some it may become tedious, or some may wish to speed a 2 player PBEM game along by skipping fighting the battle in tactical mode all together and use the traditional mode.




want to stress my true desire for these suggestions too!

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 48
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/3/2008 4:36:46 PM   
OG_Gleep

 

Posts: 308
Joined: 12/27/2002
Status: offline
Oi! Forgot one that I've wanted since 2002:

10) When I look at the pilots in the Airgroup, I'd really like the option to see casualties from the Airgroup. The screen needs to have the experience of the pilot or it would be moot. Right now I have to count the number of +80 xp pilots and do a head check after each combat. Very tedious.

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 49
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/3/2008 5:16:19 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3669
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online
The ability to stage to a forward base, refuel, and then fly on to a distant base for bombing so that my assets don't clog up forward bases.

I been reading Fire in the Sky and Bergerud repeatedly refers to harrassment bombing raids on Rabaul by B-17s flying out of Townsville by staging into Morseby for refueling. The game does not facilitate this.


The ability to scramble planes from a base so they don't get bombed on the ground.

Again Bergerud mentions time and time again that the early warning system allowed the Allies to scramble the P-39s so they could fly out to sea and avoid getting bombed on the ground. They were sometimes referred to by the troops as the "fishing fleet" as a result of this tactic.

(in reply to OG_Gleep)
Post #: 50
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/3/2008 5:20:39 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3669
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I would like to see CF with all the extra features WITP has. Aircraft reaction range,





I've been playing WitP for a few weeks now and I was unaware it has a "reaction range" for aircraft.

Are you perhaps referring to the ability to limit range for concentration of effort? That is not a "reaction" range as it does not entail reaction, it just limits the distance flown so that searches are more concentarted.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 51
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/4/2008 5:55:10 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

I've been playing WitP for a few weeks now and I was unaware it has a "reaction range" for aircraft.

Are you perhaps referring to the ability to limit range for concentration of effort? That is not a "reaction" range as it does not entail reaction, it just limits the distance flown so that searches are more concentarted.


In WITP when you give your aircraft missions it has a range setting you can set your aircraft at. For example in UV I may want my betty bombers to react and attack shipping up to 10 hexes away and no more. ¨Naval Attack¨ Otherwise I want them to sit. A problem with the Japanese bombers in UV is they react all the way out to maximum extended range. Anything beyond their normal range and they carry bombs, not torpedos. You may as well be dropping rocks.

What sticks out in my mind is Japanese bombers at Lunga flying all the way to Noumea to attack Allied shipping when really I just want them to attack Allied shipping if they come within say 12-15 hexes. Luganville or above. In WITP you can set this range restriction. In UV you can´t.


< Message edited by Ike99 -- 4/4/2008 5:56:17 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 52
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/4/2008 6:48:30 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
So the inspiration for CF was Shattered Sword; how about a CF tutorial on carrier ops using Midway?

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 53
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/4/2008 7:38:58 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
It'll probably still be Coral Sea, just like UV, because the size is smaller and it's already in existance.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 54
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/4/2008 7:44:39 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3669
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

I've been playing WitP for a few weeks now and I was unaware it has a "reaction range" for aircraft.

Are you perhaps referring to the ability to limit range for concentration of effort? That is not a "reaction" range as it does not entail reaction, it just limits the distance flown so that searches are more concentarted.


In WITP when you give your aircraft missions it has a range setting you can set your aircraft at. For example in UV I may want my betty bombers to react and attack shipping up to 10 hexes away and no more. ¨Naval Attack¨ Otherwise I want them to sit. A problem with the Japanese bombers in UV is they react all the way out to maximum extended range. Anything beyond their normal range and they carry bombs, not torpedos. You may as well be dropping rocks.

What sticks out in my mind is Japanese bombers at Lunga flying all the way to Noumea to attack Allied shipping when really I just want them to attack Allied shipping if they come within say 12-15 hexes. Luganville or above. In WITP you can set this range restriction. In UV you can´t.



I understand what you mean now, by the fact that you categorize all naval attack missions as a "reaction". The way they describe limiting air range in the manual focuses on concentrating searches by the limitation, rather than preventing bombers from wasting effort and possibly suffering attrition from extended range missions so I wasn't thinking of it in the way you were. You are correct in categorizing naval attcks as a form of "reaction" but the game never presents in in that vein the way it does with surface TF "reaction".

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 55
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/4/2008 9:38:03 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

It'll probably still be Coral Sea, just like UV, because the size is smaller and it's already in existance.


Yeah, way too wishful thinking on my part.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 56
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/10/2008 12:20:21 AM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2108
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.



Will there be clouds, as in CaW? You can't have carrier ops w/o knowing where the clouds are; you can toggle them on/off w/a wx filter.



Excellent point!!!




_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 57
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/10/2008 10:27:06 AM   
Desertmole


Posts: 126
Joined: 10/3/2004
Status: offline
How about doing away with the "Zero Advantage" that has been in every game produced going back to "Great Naval Battles?"   The one that kicks in from Dec '41 to Dec '42.  GG is famous for it and it has been discussed in other threads.  This is over and above the normal advantage for more experienced pilots.  I have studied the F4F vs. the Zero extensively, and it just wasn't there, at least against the USN.  I once had a battle between about 100 Zeros against 100 Wildcats, and had 54 F4Fs lost to ZERO Zeros.  Never happened.  In fact, the actual loss ratios were just slightly less than one-to-one, with the Zero having a slight advantage.  I hate it when the Zeros will routinely get 2 or 3 to 1 kill ratios in fairly equal fights.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 58
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/10/2008 3:00:26 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3644
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Desertmole

How about doing away with the "Zero Advantage" that has been in every game produced going back to "Great Naval Battles?"   The one that kicks in from Dec '41 to Dec '42.  GG is famous for it and it has been discussed in other threads ...


There has to be something that gives the Zero an initial advantage to simulate the historical conditions/perceptions that resulted in real consequences for Allied pilots.

The Allies didn't learn the truth re the A6M until they recovered one intact in the Aleutians.


_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to Desertmole)
Post #: 59
RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? - 4/10/2008 4:08:28 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4664
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
The Zero's mystique was also earned against obsolete planes flown by the Allies at the start of the war and by the fact that it was recognized as the 1st carrier fighter that could compete with land bases ones.  The pilots superb skill was due to their extensive training and experience.  It was a relatively short superiority enjoyed by the Zero as the Wildcat eventually (when used properly) proved it's equal and then came the improved planes which made the Zero a flying coffin.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.131