Page 2 of 4

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:16 am
by EAF331_Starfire
6S.Cipson wrote: On the Contrary we are thinking to put limitation in carring Bombs on fighters, (also for Zero) use only max size 250kg Bombs (as Val can do), use Avengers only for torpedos, giving to Bombers his max payload but only in small Bombs, set special definited Team for Kamikaze, increase the ROF for ships... etc etc
Do you really want to deny us strategic flexability? Most of jap aircrafts can carry bigger bombs that the USN a/c.
You are kidding, right :roll:

Okay I buy it if you agree to historical % allocation of aircrafts seats based on US and Japanese front-line aircrafts strenght in the Pacific :wink:

EDIT:
Image
The table are from "Brute Force" by the historian John Ellis


6S.Cipson wrote: Moreover, regarding Marianas, due to the fact that this Campaign was mainly strategic, based on the possibility to imagine what the enemy had to do for taking the opponent by surprise, regaming the same Campaign risks to lose the main factor of Game, just the surprise, resulting afterall to a sort of reheated Soup,
I disagree! I think you are affraid of losing. I dare you to a rematch :wink:
Notch, notch :wink:
We will be having the crappy planes, crappy ships, understrenght. We will be there for the taking. Come on Cipson. Be a sport :wink:
6S.Cipson wrote: The "Battle of Leyte Gulf just quite ready"
I think you are selling it short. in my experiance of work allocation in an SEOW campaign are that the compaign document takes 60% of the work.
Politics take time.

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:40 am
by Cipson
Answer ONLY FOR MY FRIEND /ENEMY CLASSIC :wink:

My preferred Enemy, you are an Experten, and we admire your skill since long time, are you sure you prefer to be know for the use of Tricks than of your ability?
In your position I shouldn't have this doubt!
Classic EAF19 wrote:Just a quick note, but I do not think the Avengers were ever used in a dive bombing capacity by allied pilots. We used shallow bombing attacks and skip bombing, both produced satisfactory results.


I see your first attack on our two carriers becouse I was there as the only Zero trying to stop you, and I followed the diving of two Avenger on Zuikaku placing easily 3 bombs aboard in a complete absence of flak, due to the fact the attack was carried longitudinal, where the flak doesn't work.
Therefore this attack was all but not a skipping attack.
Pls see the track, now at disposal. :wink:

Airstarts... give it up mate, give it up!
This is the Realistic Simulation you intend? Better Dogfight Servers :wink:

You object to Avengers defending themselves? should we fly straight and level waving a white flag of surrender?
If the wing load/wing resistence was setted to the real as we asked from time to our friends of Daedalos Team, I am afraid that you will end to use Beaufighter and Avenger in Dogfighting... :wink:
you did use Zeros to bomb with

If a zero carry a Bomb (1 small 250) cannot carry any tank.
Would you confrontate the max payload of Hellcat and Corsair you carried in flight full of heavy Bombs, Tanks, rockets moreover using airstart becouse a take-off from a Carrier with this payload is quite impossible, in particular if you are the first of 24 aircraft? (read Carrier Mode).
In anycase our actual position is that Navy fighters have to operate as fighter (with tank), as mainly operated in reality.
you did use P1Y1's to dive bomb our ships with,
It was the only medium bomber with a sufficient payload 1500 kg of Bombs in condition to damage an Allied Carrier (4000 kg need against 2000 of a Japanese Carrier) but it is very uneffective: when the speed go up 400km/h he has a climb tendency impossible to neutralise also with full trim, infact the only success action was carried by Maraz in skipping from side, (of course shot down by flak immediately after) :wink:


you did sacrifice your top fighters in kamikaze attacks,
Yes, it was a real sacrifice, putting away our personal statistic badly, for using the only way we had to close your ships becouse the incredible air superiority of your Planeset.
Probably it was similar to the Hystorical, therefore also the answer was.
As in Hystory, our Pilots, exasperated by the unbalanced situation, took the same decision of real young and desperate Japanese Pilots: "Dead for dead, at least you dead with me! "

you never used the IJN's primary dive bomber
IJN's primary dive bomber has a max speed of 300 km/h a as max payload of 250kg of bombs. To sink an USA Carrier we need 4000 kg of bombs on target, it means 16 Val, all in condition to hit.
If you consider an Hit ratio of 30% of success (very optimistic considering Flak, Fighters and Errors) you need 48 Val for a defended Carrier.
Wanna try to do better? :wink:


you did use airstarts etc etc.
We didn't use airstart tricks for the whole Campaign
I personally (against the contrary opinion of our pilots) planned 1 fly start ONLY the last Mission for 4 George on Guam, only to know if this "tecnic" works.
It works very well, becouse avoid the enemy reaction, but I CONSIDER IT AN IRREALISTIC TRICK, suitable for a Dog Server, not for a serious SEOW Campaign.
On the USN side, we never used Avengers with torpedos,
we did arm our fighters with bombs,
we did have airstarts,
we did use the Corsair to attack carriers
A real list of Historic Reenactment.
Do you think that we have to mantain for the future "Realistic and Historical Campaigns"?
Can we add other interesting options like Nuclear Bombs?
At the end of the day, two Nuc Bombs were really used during the IIWW... :wink:
In an ideal world when we come to attack your CV's we will send 24xSBD, 12xTBF and 48xfighters but that is not possible, therefore we have to have multi-purposed a/c. In a game with only 42 a/c per side we must use multi-purpose a/c.
For the first time I agree with you, unfortunately on Axis side were not multipurpouse aircraft therefore having 42 planes you have to use 21 specialized Bombers (without guns as Tenzan) and 21 Fighters. Not so balanced... :wink:

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:57 am
by Cipson
EAF331_Starfire wrote:Come on Cipson. Be a sport :wink:
Ah! ah! ah! :lol:

I gained a new Friend/Enemy, without fear.

Nice to know you Starfire!

Don't worry, you will have soon the possibility to compare yourself against Kamikaze team. Stay at disposal.

But before remember that the Scriptures say:
"Those who believe stand, be careful not to fall".... :wink:

Best Regards to you and to all our Enemies/Friends.
:D

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:42 pm
by Classic EAF19
I see your first attack on our two carriers becouse I was there as the only Zero trying to stop you, and I followed the diving of two Avenger on Zuikaku placing easily 3 bombs aboard in a complete absence of flak, due to the fact the attack was carried longitudinal, where the flak doesn't work.
Therefore this attack was all but not a skipping attack.
You are right that was not a skip bomb attack, I would call that a shallow dive attack at between 30 and 50degs (I shall have to watch the track to be more precise) Not a skip attack and not a dive bombing attack (80-90degs)
Airstarts... give it up mate, give it up!
This is the Realistic Simulation you intend? Better Dogfight Servers
Cipson this is getting tedious and I shall hopefully present you with enough information right now to put this to bed!

Deck capacity of USN CV's
USS Lexington = 6xTBF
USS Saratoga = 6xTBF
USS Intrepid = 5xTBF
USS Essex = 5xTBF

ANYTHING MORE THAN 5 or 6xTBF GETS AN AIRSTART AND THAT IS THE FAULT OF IL2 NOT ANY PLANNING 'TRICKS'

Deck capacity of IJN CV
Akagi = 10xB6N2
Shokaku = 11xB6N2
Zuikaku = 11xB6N2

Anything more than the 10/11 Jills will also get an airstart. This is IL2 coding, not an exploit, not a trick just a game limitation!

If the wing load/wing resistence was setted to the real as we asked from time to our friends of Daedalos Team, I am afraid that you will end to use Beaufighter and Avenger in Dogfighting...
Yes I am sure the same will apply to the Hs.129, 110, 210 and 410. But that is not the point, the point is this. The Bristol Beaufighter had two fighter roles. It served as a fighter as either a long range convoy escort fighter or Night Figher both of these roles pitted the Beaufighter against bombers. In our campaigns I do not need to dogfight in my Beaufighter there are enough bombers before me to shoot at, and the fighters that I shoot down are just unlucky individuals who put themselves in front of me :wink:

The Avenger was well liked by its pilots, it had excellent handling and maneuverability for an aircraft of its size and weight. Text book theories do not always make for accurate real world science. Remember for decades Bees could not fly!
If a zero carry a Bomb (1 small 250) cannot carry any tank.
Would you confrontate the max payload of Hellcat and Corsair you carried in flight full of heavy Bombs, Tanks, rockets moreover using airstart becouse a take-off from a Carrier with this payload is quite impossible, in particular if you are the first of 24 aircraft? (read Carrier Mode).
In anycase our actual position is that Navy fighters have to operate as fighter (with tank), as mainly operated in reality.
Anything is possible with the catapault! We flew heavily laden Avengers from the short escort carrier. Impossible to takeoff unless we use the Catapault. Yes we also had to use the catapault for our fighters. Would you prefer if we did not use the catapault?
We didn't use airstart tricks for the whole Campaign
There is no trick! it is a setting within SEOW and saves time for the planner. I was sole planner at the end of this campaign and I value my time and therefore use it effectively, why plan two flights when I can save time and plan one?

There is nothing stopping the admin from turning off the setting that enables airstarts for escorts, whether it is turned on or off makes no difference I would still use it because it saves time.

The second issue about airstarts comes from supply points. I see in the last mission you used 36a/c with airstarts!

Enough of this nonsense, besides you are in no position to talk about tricks and exploits especially considering

1 - Axis radar that is repaired between missions
2 - Axis AAA hiding in forests

I am not sure how realistic it is to deploy anti-aircraft artillery in forests, it would be ok to hide in the forest but to fire from the forest? I dont think so!

Anyways as I said elsewhere, you guys think this campaign is badly balanced. I say you talk the talk lets see if you can walk the walk!

No changes, no new rules just take the campaign template (with all of the reinforcements) and let us fight it again. You can prove to us how badly balanced the campaign is.

EDIT: Anyway this is all very off topic and if we wish to carry on any further lets do so by PM. This topic was to discuss future rules and on that matter I have already given my view

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:18 pm
by EAF331_Starfire
as In write I have just lat e friend slep on y couth and I am drunk as a skunk. I won't comment on anything since I an unable to stand on my feet and seriously think I love you all

God I love the music of the 80's :wink:

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:16 am
by *{64s}Takeshi_I

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:32 am
by EAF331_Starfire

Maybe not that much :wink:

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:11 pm
by EAF331_Starfire
Basola wrote:for me only "fair play" and dont use game bugs ad limit!

usually (excpet setting rules) rules are maded to avoid player (and planner) bugs use.
if we dont use, no rules are needed.....

No rule = No limitation
I have never played any game where rule have not been nessesary.
I never seen a business transaction where contracts have not been nessesary.


The problem is that people percieve things differently. What you think is a bug, I might see as a rule. We have no knowledge of what is really going on inside the other parts head. We might be able to imagine, but it would be pure speculation. Not a fact.

This is why we need rules! To make sure we all are on the same page, so that nothing are unsaid :!:

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:34 pm
by IAF.ViFF
EAF331_Starfire wrote:as In write I have just lat e friend slep on y couth and I am drunk as a skunk. I won't comment on anything since I an unable to stand on my feet and seriously think I love you all

God I love the music of the 80's :wink:
I nominate this post as the best post of the forum ever!!!!! 8)

I love you too Starfire!!!! 8)

S!

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:18 am
by 102nd-YU-devill
IAF.ViFF wrote:
EAF331_Starfire wrote:as In write I have just lat e friend slep on y couth and I am drunk as a skunk. I won't comment on anything since I an unable to stand on my feet and seriously think I love you all

God I love the music of the 80's :wink:
I nominate this post as the best post of the forum ever!!!!! 8)

I love you too Starfire!!!! 8)

S!
You two realize that you have entered into your middle age and that the misguided love for the music of the eighties is just nostalgia for childhood/teens when everything was much less complicated and hard?

If that is not the reason, then anyone who likes the eighties for their artistic value or aesthetics should be summarily executed by a Beaufighter strafing run.

:twisted:

P.S. Yeah, ok, ok, I love you too... :( :D

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:23 am
by EAF331_Starfire
102nd-YU-devill wrote:
IAF.ViFF wrote:
EAF331_Starfire wrote:as In write I have just lat e friend slep on y couth and I am drunk as a skunk. I won't comment on anything since I an unable to stand on my feet and seriously think I love you all

God I love the music of the 80's :wink:
I nominate this post as the best post of the forum ever!!!!! 8)

I love you too Starfire!!!! 8)

S!
You two realize that you have entered into your middle age and that the misguided love for the music of the eighties is just nostalgia for childhood/teens when everything was much less complicated and hard?

If that is not the reason, then anyone who likes the eighties for their artistic value or aesthetics should be summarily executed by a Beaufighter strafing run.

:twisted:

P.S. Yeah, ok, ok, I love you too... :( :D

I am affraid that this post are going to hount med forever

I should stop posting when I am loaded :roll:

lol

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:49 am
by Apollo_EAF331
Starfire. You are old enough to know that making important decisions or actions whilst drunk should never be attempted. What you say comes straight from the heart unfiltered.

Hope we can fly another SEOW soon as I had fun even with wooden boxes and AAA in the forest.
But turning and trying to dogfight with KI 44's in the TBF was hilarious and exciting. I'm just pissed that I did not hit him with my APHVAR's!
Should have saved them for the wooden box!

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:39 am
by Classic EAF19
I must admit they were very very tough wooden boxes :)

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:02 am
by Cipson
Gentlemen, you smile easily for events that evidently you don't know deeply.

Better you demand to those Marines which had really to front the menace of Jap nests.


Image


This is only a game, and the warfare in Jungle is bad simulated, but reality is beyond every immagination:

For your convenience:

Image


Image


Image

Image


Image

Image

Image


Image


Image

Image


Image

Image

Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image

Image

Image

Image


Image



Still, do you think that the poor IL-2 engine is in condition to simulate the dramatic reality, or anyone should have to make a little effort of imagination to have a far sensation of what was a War?


Image


Regards

Cip

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:42 am
by EAF331_Starfire
Nice pictures, but if the limitations are your excuse for not playing a rematch you might as well stop using strategic addons (SEOW) to IL-2 and try addons like Ghost Skies or Lövengrins DCG. Both addons will give you endless hours of fun and action and there won't be any strategic element to influence the groundwar. You won't have to think of groundwar limitation and there will be plenty of air action. You don't have to worry about cheating since you can only fly.

SEOW is about strategy. Not a FPS to simulate personal ground combat.
If you want simulated ground combat, go join an WWII reinactment group. If you want the real thing, join the forces in Afganistan.

I am sorry Cipson, but nothing I have read in your posts relates to the issue at hand. If you are so mad at the restriction/issues/parameters with IL-2 and SEOW then don't play. Just dont fuck around with rules after the campaign have started.
If you change the rules (assumption) in the middle of a campaign, the changes are just as drastic as changing gravety.

6S.Cipson wrote:Gentlemen, you smile easily for events that evidently you don't know.

Better you demand to those Marines which had really to front the menace of Jap traps.

This is only a game, and the warfare in Jungle is bad simulated, but reality is beyond every immagination:

For your convenience:
PICTURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED IN THIS QUOTE
6S.Cipson wrote: Still, do you think that the poor IL-2 engine is in condition to simulate the dramatic reality, or anyone should have to make a little effort of imagination to have a far sensation of what was a War?

Regards

Cip