Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

Since some things will always be there and can be exploited, would it be worthwhile, in the case of PT Boats, to increase the point value of sinking them? That way if a player uses some of the exploits for the PT boats, at least there would be an offset. What do you think?

Jimmy, This is a bit of a hail marry. I'm trying to contact you about returning that book. Either you're not getting my emails, or you're not responding. Please check you inbox on both your email account and the forum, thanks.

I am sure the "Brewster Buffalo Bonus" will remain intact thru the AE testing.

No such thing. Remember that WitP is a total JFB game...[8|]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No such thing. Remember that WitP is a total JFB game...[8|]

THAT TEARS IT!!!!!![:@][;)]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I am sure the "Brewster Buffalo Bonus" will remain intact thru the AE testing.

Is the "BB Bonus" that it can get off the ground? [:D]

The "Shinyo" suicide boats taking precedence.

How this will work in game? Hits a ship and disapears?

If you read the post properly, Joe was saying that the Japs didn't build as many MTB/MGB as they could have, because they built suicide boats instead. There are no suicide boats in the game.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you read the post properly, Joe was saying that the Japs didn't build as many MTB/MGB as they could have, because they built suicide boats instead. There are no suicide boats in the game.

Why not? We have kamakazi aircraft that attack airfields, we should have kamakazi boats that attack army troops in the jungle. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The "Shinyo" suicide boats taking precedence.

How this will work in game? Hits a ship and disapears?

IIRC essentially they are like a torpedo boat with only one torpedo. This means they might actually survive the attack - though I think this would be rare - I think it would be rare that they even GET to attack. But since the numbers in the game are very small - essentially an abstracted presence - then having one survive every now and then does not produce any super a-historical situation overall. A port that had some - would probably have a few that didn't attack during a given attack - so the survivors would represent new boats the next time they attack.
One day maybe we will write special code to enable something better for these guys, but as they are designed to be a side-show - will an ability to do about what they did in the real war - we didn't think it worth a whole new section of code.

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I am sure the "Brewster Buffalo Bonus" will remain intact thru the AE testing.

Is the "BB Bonus" that it can get off the ground? [:D]

It has been said the plane handled like a rhino turning on a slippery mud bank.[:D]

We must remember it beat the F4f for the contract in 1940 !

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Why not? We have kamakazi aircraft that attack airfields, we should have kamakazi boats that attack army troops in the jungle. [:D]

This is fixed in 1.807 btw. Dont know about AE (I assume so, but you know about ass u me I assume?)

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I am sure the "Brewster Buffalo Bonus" will remain intact thru the AE testing.

Is the "BB Bonus" that it can get off the ground? [:D]

It has been said the plane handled like a rhino turning on a slippery mud bank.[:D]

We must remember it beat the F4f for the contract in 1940 !

Wasn't it originally a biplane design?

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Why not? We have kamakazi aircraft that attack airfields, we should have kamakazi boats that attack army troops in the jungle. [:D]

This is fixed in 1.807 btw. Dont know about AE (I assume so, but you know about ass u me I assume?)

1.807????

Wasn't it originally a biplane design?

No. The F4F wildcat was originally a biplane design (the Grumman F3F1). The Brewster (F2) was designed as a monoplane at the behest of the Royal navy. The F2 started out decent enough but its performance suffered greatly as weight was added in various ways (armored glass, substitution of .50s for .30s, more cockpit protection) without substantial increases in power. It was a design that could have perhaps been saved by adding engine power, but Brewster aircraft was so thoroughly incompetently managed that it had to be managed by teams assigned by the USN. By the time Brewster got back in the business of making aircraft at a reasonable pace, designs had moved on to newer frames. Brewster made corsairs (F4Us) under the designation F3A1 for a bit during the war, but these a.c. were deemed "not combat worthy" because of egregious production quality flaws.

Here is a link to some photos of biplane Grumman F3Fs.

http://www.historicaircraft.org/Navy-Ai ... -F3F1.html

That's pretty bad management to have trouble selling military aircraft during WW II. You could sell almost anything to the US GOV at that time. It's as easy as managing a whore house during a gold rush.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

That's pretty bad management to have trouble selling military aircraft during WW II. You could sell almost anything to the US GOV at that time. It's as easy as managing a whore house during a gold rush.

Wasn't the Covenanter tank (UK) built by a boiler-maker? Eventually they were used for training.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Why not? We have kamakazi aircraft that attack airfields, we should have kamakazi boats that attack army troops in the jungle. [:D]

This is fixed in 1.807 btw. Dont know about AE (I assume so, but you know about ass u me I assume?)

1.807????

Yeah, you know... 1.807... You haven't patched up yet?

What?? [X(]

Wise guy. [:'(] [:D]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Wasn't it originally a biplane design?

No. The F4F wildcat was originally a biplane design (the Grumman F3F1)...

That's incorrect. The F3F-1 was the fighter that the F4F-1 biplane and the F2A were in competition to replace.