PDA

View Full Version : Updating midway map-Devastator!



Eagle1_Division
15-08-2007, 23:57
I was wondering if the Midway, or any other early pacific maps, could have the TBM-3 manualy changed into or have the B6N2 added as the Devastator. Since the server requires correct markings, there should be US markings and with US markings and one of the default skins the B6N2 turns into the devastator. I think this would really spice up gameplay since the current midway map has no torpedo bombers, and despritely needs them. And also, ever notice that the B6N2 is a twin the the B5N2? The only real reason I could think the devs would add(and make an entirely new model and everything) it is to "sneak" in the devastator...

I think we'd all love to see a torpedo bomber, or such a nice looking one specificly, on the midway map. Who doesn't want to fly this brand new plane and use it to its full ability?

Firelok
16-08-2007, 00:18
First of all welcome to the forums:)

I'm not quite clear on which server you mean. On UK2 we have the TB-F aircraft as a torpedo bomber for the US, The IJN has the B5N2 torpedo bomber.

Eagle1_Division
16-08-2007, 16:29
All of the ukd midway maps. The TB-F was a lot later in the war though, was it not? Anyhow, on all, or any of my early-pacific maps im going to use the B6N2 as the devastator.

Yellow 2
16-08-2007, 17:34
All of the ukd midway maps. The TB-F was a lot later in the war though, was it not? Anyhow, on all, or any of my early-pacific maps im going to use the B6N2 as the devastator.


The first Avengers took part in the Battle of Midway flying from the island itself. I believe they were badly shot about. :)

MajorDamage
16-08-2007, 19:23
Hi Eagle, welcome to the forums :) . The B5N2 probably makes a slightly better TBD substitute than the B6N2. I've been thinking about using it as a TBD on a Coral Sea map - there are quite a few 'hack' skins for it on Flying Legends and Mission for Today, like this one:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/TBDHack.jpg

It's not that convincing looks-wise though and the flight model is one of the most horrible in the game. Also there's a massive difference between the Japanese Long Lance torps and the American ones, most of which were duds in 42 IIRC!

irish
16-08-2007, 20:49
I always thought it was the submarine launched torps that gave the Navy headaches-not the air launched

Firelok
16-08-2007, 23:04
Hi Eagle, welcome to the forums :) . The B5N2 probably makes a slightly better TBD substitute than the B6N2. I've been thinking about using it as a TBD on a Coral Sea map - there are quite a few 'hack' skins for it on Flying Legends and Mission for Today, like this one:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e320/matthill999/TBDHack.jpg

It's not that convincing looks-wise though and the flight model is one of the most horrible in the game. Also there's a massive difference between the Japanese Long Lance torps and the American ones, most of which were duds in 42 IIRC!

Do I see rain around that devastator? :D
Overall it can cause a fair amount of confusion using skin hacked' planes.
People will say ' Why is there a Japanese plane flying for the US.' and probably fly IJN markings on it anyway. For some reason all of the Pacific AI Torpedo bombers have appalling flight models, The TBF does too, thank crikey all these have level stabilizer option.

MajorDamage
16-08-2007, 23:31
I always thought it was the submarine launched torps that gave the Navy headaches-not the air launched

You could be right mate, I was speaking from (my very unreliable) memory. I imagine the torps would have had pretty similar problems with their detonators though. Even disregarding the dud problem, and whether air- or ship- launched, it has to be said the Long Lance was vastly superior to any allied torpedo.

Eagle1_Division
17-08-2007, 00:05
The B5N2 is better as the devastator but does not come with the devastator skin by defualt, you cant expect everyone that plays to have it... plus, its not the best model in the game.

Every time I see MajorDamage's sig I think of how neat it would be if IL-2 made the game mod-able... :p

Anyhow, I remember in the North Sea when British torpedo bombers tried to attack an allied battleship, thinking it was the bismark(didn't they notice lack of AA? or did the AA fire? cant remember...) every one of the new magnetic detonator torpedoes exploded when they hit the water... But lets keep on subject, if you want to talk about that then say something about the devastator aswell plz.



...People will say ' Why is there a Japanese plane flying for the US.' and probably fly IJN markings on it anyway... As for that, won't they be kicked if they fly with wrong markings on UKDed servers?

irish
17-08-2007, 00:38
You could be right mate, I was speaking from (my very unreliable) memory. I imagine the torps would have had pretty similar problems with their detonators though. Even disregarding the dud problem, and whether air- or ship- launched, it has to be said the Long Lance was vastly superior to any allied torpedo.

No doubt about the Long Lance. The US knew the Air Launched version was superior after analyzing Pearl Harbor. One of the pitched night battles off Guadalcanal (Savo Island?) in Oct 1942 taught us that they also had a sea launched version that was as effective.

Eagle1_Division
17-08-2007, 03:02
stay on subject plz... If you want to talk about that talk about the Devastator at the same time.

NS-IceFire
17-08-2007, 03:43
Problem with the B6N is that its a fair bit faster than the B5N and the Devastator. For an early war matchup that means a plane like the Zero is exposed for a much longer time to a pair of rear gunners.

Because of the way that the skin downloads go...it doesn't matter if there is a skin included because it will have to be downloaded again anyways.

BTW: The US Navy had a hell of a time with the Mark 13 air launched torpedoes failing, dropping to the sea, and so forth.

Algorex
17-08-2007, 11:29
With the TBF in the game, the devastator/B6N hack is functionally useless. As firelok said it's not worth the hassle.

Yellow 2
17-08-2007, 11:40
Sorry just exercising my pedantry but the 'Long Lance' was a purely surface ship borne weapon as it was liquid oxygen fueled. All other Japanese torpedoes, submarine and aircraft launched were standard weapons.

This link explains more

http://www.combinedfleet.com/torps.htm

Despite the link saying so I'm not convinced that Japanese submarines carried the 'Long Lance' perhaps someone can confirm? :)

MajorDamage
17-08-2007, 11:41
With the TBF in the game, the devastator/B6N hack is functionally useless.

I disagree with this. The TBF wasn't really used till after Midway, so a TBD stand-in would be, in principle, a useful thing but....


As firelok said it's not worth the hassle.

...I do agree with this. Having a Japanese plane on the red side is just asking for trouble and confusion. By sticking the B5N2 or even worse the B6N2 in, you are making it the best ship killer on either side, which is sad because it's such a horrible plane to fly.

MajorDamage
17-08-2007, 11:48
Sorry just exercising my pedantry but the 'Long Lance' was a purely surface ship borne weapon as it was liquid oxygen fueled. All other Japanese torpedoes, submarine and aircraft launched were standard weapons.

Doh, yep you're right. For some reason I had it in my head that the Type 91 (which the Kate carries), was the Long Lance :o, it is in fact the Type 93. Thanks for pointing this out :)

It's still the most effective ship killer for the Japanese in game though - it takes 6 hits to sink the Lexington as opposed to 16 hits from a fully loaded Val!

Firelok
17-08-2007, 14:21
Does the in water run time vary between in game torpedos? In fact have we any evidence to suggest the in-game torpedo isn't just a generic torpedo. From memory the A20G, He111H6,IL2M-T, B5N2,B6N2,H8K,TBFs,TBMs are the torpedo carriers. So US,USSR,German,Japanese Torpedoes are they different strengths? in-game.

Maybe using the B5N2 is in if anyone does pre-Midway carrier maps ,Hint Hint.;)

Firelok
20-08-2007, 03:42
one of the default skins the B6N2 turns into the devastator.

The B6N2 has a US skin but it's the 'US Air Tactical Intelligence Unit'
The J2M3 has a skin like this also, the ATIU tested captured planes.

MajorDamage
20-08-2007, 11:42
Does the in water run time vary between in game torpedos? In fact have we any evidence to suggest the in-game torpedo isn't just a generic torpedo.

I'm actually not sure, I haven't bothered to test it as yet. It's quite possible it's just a generic torpedo, but the Kate's loadout specifically says 'Type 91 Torpedo', so it would be a bit of a cop-out if it was just the same as all the other torps IMO.

Gordano
20-08-2007, 11:54
I'd assume their different because the HK8 specifies a weight for the torp, which is a bit on the heavy side for something single engined to carry.

Firelok
20-08-2007, 12:50
I'm actually not sure, I haven't bothered to test it as yet. It's quite possible it's just a generic torpedo, but the Kate's loadout specifically says 'Type 91 Torpedo', so it would be a bit of a cop-out if it was just the same as all the other torps IMO.


I'd assume their different because the HK8 specifies a weight for the torp, which is a bit on the heavy side for something single engined to carry.

Both very valid points but to pick a similar example SC and SD bombs are supposed to be Hi-EX and Armour-Piercing but actually in game they're exactly the same.

MajorDamage
20-08-2007, 14:56
SC and SD bombs are supposed to be Hi-EX and Armour-Piercing but actually in game they're exactly the same.

Wow, I had no idea they were the same. That's a bit rubbish.