Pacific War 1946

[BigE]

Jeremy,
thanks for all the work, first of all...then, could you add additional air groups if you returned to the escort carrier groups, instead of individual ships? Certainly I would be in favor of that...

[Nomad]

how is ver 2.4 coming along? i know you are play testing it now, how does it look?

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Well, it has been upgraded to 3.0 due to the massive changes in the EXE file.

Yes, it is in playtesting, just sent it out to a few people. Hopefully it will not reveal many, if any, big bugs. I have tested the thing myeslf, and it appears to play ok, without any bugs, and the war does last until 1946, and has the AI actually invade the home islands.

Jeremy

[CynicAl]

Just out of curiosity, might one of those changes be the fixing of the Clemson-to-Manley conversion? (reference thread Clemson DD's to Manley APD's How? )

[frank1970]

I have to say, that I do not thinkit is a good idea to delete the Allied transportgroups. The British in Asia have big problems to supply their forces without the air capacity.
Deleting the Japanese transportgroups would help the Japanese player, the airgroups wonßt spread the supplies all over the bases.

Jeremy, have you thought about combining the buffalo-classes, too? Or combine all the early fighters (Hawks, Buffalo) into one group called "early fighters". This would give you 3 free slots for new aircraft.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Actually spaces for fighters and bombers is not a problem.

I was able to add just about every aircraft I could

(F7F, P-80, P-51B, P-51H, P-47N, J8W, Ki-83, Kikka)

Along with still having 2 empty spaces (i.e., there are two blank aircraft spaces still).

I am thinking about adding some more aircraft, depending on available aircraft icons.


I have yet to get into the Clemson/Manley thing, but Mika is working on it. He sent me an e-mail about where things are found, but I think it still requires some tinkering. It might, or might not, make it in for the 3.0 version.


Transport aircaft or not, China has been MUCH reduced (down to two air bases). It does not require supply from the air, since the only units that go their are aircraft (which can be built up outside the area, and take no supply to fly missions). Transport aircraft were interesting, but rarely used effectively by the PacWar tactical AI. Had they been like the WIR transports, then it would be a different story.

[CynicAl]

Well, since you've got empty spaces...

Here's something I've been pondering. Perhaps the current F4U could be changed to the F4U-1, a pure fighter - reflecting the way they were actually used through 1944. Then the F4U-4 could become available in Jan 1945 as a fighter-bomber with slightly higher performance. This would not only differentiate between the two Corsairs, but also between the early Corsair and the Hellcat. It might also be appropriate to make the F4U-1 a land-based type. This would actually penalize the Allied player slightly, but it's more nearly historical than filling the decks of the US fast carriers with F4Us from mid-1943 on.

I had thought about asking for the solid-nosed B-25s, whether the B-25G with the 75mm gun or the field-modified "strafers" with up to 12 forward-firing .50 cal MGs; but since it seems that aircraft in PacWar either bomb or strafe, but not both (at least, not in the same attack), it's unlikely that the tactical AI would use them to full effect.

[Ranger-75]

Jeremy, reference to not having any transport aircraft not affecting China:

The air groups require fuel to fly missions and they need supplies to take on replacements. I found this out the hard way once.

If there is no way to supply allied held China, then the air groups there will get reduced to single digits rapidly and won't be able to fly missions. Perhaps 1 or 2 transport group can be retained. (perhaps make them British and get rid of the British buffalo or the kittyhawk to make room).

[Philodraco]

Anyway, I hope to see the great cruisers Worcester class, Des moines class and the new CLK Norfolk (later DL-1) class join to the new scenario.

For Japanese, G8N Rita "Ranzan" a B-17 like new 4-engine bomber should be appear.

Oh! in the game, all the DD's ASW ability is same, I don't agree it and I hope it should be improved in next vesion.

[Dean Robb]

Well, one A/C slot could be freed for the transports by killing the B-18. Jeremy wrote that the 28th BG flew them, but I think some confusion has crept in here.

According to their official websites:

28th Bomb GROUP was a composite outfit in Alaska flying P-38/39/40s and, B-26 and LB30 (export version of the B-24) transitioning to the USAAF B-24 and B-25 in 1944. They never left the Frozen North.

28th Bomb SQUADRON was an independent squadron flying the B-18 in general support (training, target tow, etc.) of the Phillipine Dept until the 19th BG arrived in the summer/fall of 1941 at which time they became a unit of the 19th and transitioned to the B-17.

So...28th BG should have B-26/B-24s for a bomber path - no B-18!

Actually, the B-18 can be pulled because it was used for ASW patrol and general support - never as a bomber.

BTW: There were a goodly number of LB30's in the Pacific at war's start. These were export B-24s and were not significantly different from the "real" B-24. I've edited my own OBC to include one low-strength B-24 squadron to reflect this - with a limited pool and no new construction until Jun 42 - because the 19th BG after it fled Clark to Australia flew some LB30s as did the RAF/RAAF/NZAF.

[Dean Robb]

As an addendum, let me throw in my vote for transport A/C here. I've had a couple of iso-bases stay alive because of transport and so have the AI-Japanese!

Please leave us our Gooneys!