PDA

View Full Version : Pacific Campaign



Brcn
14-01-2006, 12:32
Hello,

I am thinking of a Pacific Campaign scenario, consisting of many maps which will cover the important battles on this front. It will take all my time that I have for maps, so I want to hear how many people would want such a scenario.

It will start (obviously) with Pearl Harbour, and each side will have bonuses for the next map if they win one. This bonus will be more important than we have normally (can be an airstart, less targets to destroy, more targets to defend, two bonus planes). I am thinking about 7 - 8 missions, which will make more than 20 maps to design.

Thanks

Crashin'Sakai
14-01-2006, 13:21
This is great! I look forward to ANY and EVERY pacific maps.

I was looking for pacific maps in various servers last night. I found an interesting New Guinia map in "Historia" --- almost the same scenario as what Mouser and Ice suggested elsewhere (A6M3, Ki61-hei, G4, vs. P38J, P40, F4F, F4U, B17, B24, and B25, in 1943?). Red side flew B24's in a formation (!!) escorted by P38J. Boy, they were beautiful and formidable. I was badly burnt but had a good time.

Historia is a cockpit on server with externals, but more than 20 players were playing the pacific map at about 10pm here (3 am in UK). I understand that each player has his/her own taste/interest, but there are certianly many players who enjoy pacific maps. Some people already mentioned here that they "hate" pacific maps. The truth is, those who may not love some other maps in different theaters just don't express themselves so loudly, out of courtesy to other players. Life is "give and take," isn't it? :) "Wildcat vs, Zeke" server runs pacific maps exclusively with full-real setting, and their server also had about 30 players last night (their setting is too difficult for me, however).

If the rumor Ice brought us a few weeks ago proves right, Oleg may bring us more flyable pacific theater planes soon (N1K2, Ki43-II, etc. Oleg already said in his update a few months ago J2M is coming). They will certainly make late war scenario more interesting. (B29 vs. A6M5? I would disobey the commanding officer and basecamp..... )

Brcn
14-01-2006, 16:01
Hi,

I am thinking to make missions according to these battles;

1. Pearl Harbour
2. Wake Island
3. Philippines
4. Battle of Coral Sea
5. Battle of Midway
6. Guadalcanal
7. Burma 1942
8. China 1943
9. Liberation of Philippines
10. Battle of Okinawa

So that will make 30 maps, it will take some time.

NS-IceFire
14-01-2006, 17:40
Philipeans would be a good starting point with P-40B's and B-17E's against Zeros and Vals. Not much in terms of planeset but an interesting setup perhaps. I would wait till we see if a Philipeans map materializes before we do this one. There is one rumored from Luthier. Not sure if it covers Clarke Field but best to wait and see.

Coral Sea and Midway are quite doable. Since the Val is not as capable as the Dauntless we'll need to make the Japanese objective easier. Midway is going to have to be distinguishable from the Coral Sea scenario as much as possible.

I think I would do it....

1) Philipeans "Clarke Field Attack"
2) Coral Sea - Brcn
3) New Guinea 1942 - IceFire
4) Midway
5) Guadalcanal
6) Battle of the Bismarck Sea - IceFire
7) Burma 1944
8) Liberation of the Philipeans
9) Battle for Okinawa
10) Japan's Doorstep (Kyushu) - IceFire

Brcn
14-01-2006, 18:08
Hi,

Your list is much better than mine. I ll start doing the Coral Sea, perhaps someone else will also contribute to this.

Thanks

NS-IceFire
14-01-2006, 20:03
Ok...I've reserved a few for myself.

Grey_Mouser
14-01-2006, 20:22
I've done a campaign on wake island and the entire battle lasted only a few days and consisted of Nell bombers striking the island...all but a couple of wildcats were destoyed early on and a handful of very brave pilots stood their ground...they did sink a destroyer, shoot down some bombers.

Eventually a carrier showed up and there was some kates and Zeroes involved in the last day but only against 2 wildcats IIRC.

If I were making a map, and it was focused on the Cental Pacific, I'd go with

either Coral Sea or Midway...not both...I'd leave out Pearl actually...no fighting to speak of. 1942

I'd try a Burma/Rangoon map with Buffalos and P-40's vs Ki-43's and betty's to simulate the flying tigers... 1942

Pick one, maybe 2 of the Islands...Marshalls, Mariannas, Guam/tinian etc for invasion map...recreate late 43, early 44 map with Hellcats/Zekes

Battle of Bismark Sea...land based aircraft vs convoy with CAP out of Rabaul...mid 43 with Lightnings/P-40's/P-47's...A20's/Beaus/Mitchells vs IJN

Destruction of Truk....I think it was in 44...Corsairs/Hellcats vs IJN...lots of bombs!

Moritoria reincarnation to get some Spit Mk VIII's in the action vs IJA

A Philippine map to feature some late war stuff...P-38L, P47, P51 vs the Frank and late Zekes....late 44

Invasion of Okinawa....45....Hellcats, Corsairs vs. IJA

Grey_Mouser
15-01-2006, 00:59
I guess we all think about these things differently...I was trying to think of different scenarios from each year that would allow a map to be built with different aircraft....variety is the spice of life, so they say! That is why I fly at UK and not Warclouds.

Yellow 2
15-01-2006, 09:17
Destruction of Truk....I think it was in 44...Corsairs/Hellcats vs IJN...lots of bombs!

17th February 1944. Task force 58 launched strikes against the ships in Truk lagoon. Many Japanese naval units had been withdrawn from the base but it was packed with merchant shipping. 30 of whom were sunk giving a total of 200,000 tons of shipping either sunk or damaged. The Japanese had 365 aircraft including 200 parked nose to tail awaiting either ferry pilots or being readied for combat. At least 125 of these were destroyed either in the air or on the ground. The American attack continued day and night. The only Japanese retaliation came on the night of the 17th when 6 or 7 radar equiped Kates attacked the American carriers and hit the U.S.S Intrepid with a torpedo that jammed her rudder and left 11 dead and 17 injured.

Taken from Aircraft Carriers by Norman Polmar.

The problem is of course the lack of a flyable torpedo bomber for both sides but the Val and Dauntless would have to serve.

Cheers :)

Brcn
15-01-2006, 11:03
Coral Sea and Midway are quite doable. Since the Val is not as capable as the Dauntless we'll need to make the Japanese objective easier. Midway is going to have to be distinguishable from the Coral Sea scenario as much as possible.

I am doing Coral Sea and Midway. I will try to do my best to make them distinguishable, but not much can be done I think.

Brcn
15-01-2006, 14:11
Hello,

I am about to finish Coral Sea mission. Here is some information:

Red Team Naval Forces:

- 2 Carriers, USS Lexington and USS Saratoga
- 1 Cruiser, USS Indianapolis
- 6 Destroyers, 3 Kidd class, 2 Dent class, 1 Ward class
- 2 Liquid cargo carriers

Blue Team Naval Forces:

- 3 Carriers, IJN Shokaku, IJN Zuikaku, IJN Generic (should be a light carrier historically)
- 1 Battleship, as there are no cruisers available for IJN
- 8 Destroyers, 6 Akizuki class, 2 Nowaki class
- 3 Liquid cargo carriers.

Blue Team Available Aircrafts:

- A6M2a (carrier start only)
- A6M2b (carrier start only)
- D3A1 (air start only)
- Either B5N2 (carrier start) or G4M1 (air start) - waiting for comments

Red Team Available Aircrafts:

- F4F-4 (carrier start only)
- SBD (air start only)
- TBF-1 (carrier start only)

Objectives - Blue

9 ships out of 12. Blue team has to sink either one of the carriers or the cruiser to win. Destroyers can be sunk by 1 torpedo.

Objectives - Red

13 ships out of 16. Red team has to sink either one of the carriers or the battleship to win. Destroyers can be sunk by 1 torpedo.

Explanation on the Number of Destroyers

In the game, the only decent AAA destroyer for the IJN is Akizuki class. However it is not as good as the Kidd class destroyers. That's the reason IJN has more destroyers.

Further Notes

The cruiser and the battleship are there to provide more cover to the carriers. The AAA they have is weakened but it is still effective. The carriers do not have AAA.

I tested the accuracy of AAA by flying over them with unlimited ammo. I made two tests for each team. I flew the G4M1 for the blue team and in the first test, I managed to hit the carrier with a torpedo and flew back home. I got medium damage from AAA. In the second test, I first attacked the carrier, hit her and lined up for a destroyer. I sank the destroyer, and managed to hit the carrier again. I was then shut down when i lined up against another destroyer. I did the same test with a TBF for the red team. I sank 2 destroyers, hit 2 carriers, and crushed due to lost elevator controls. Note that all the ships were attacking only 1 plane. In a 30 player game you will have less AAA firing at you.

Waiting for opinions.

Thanks

NS-IceFire
15-01-2006, 14:12
Good call...

Might as well include the F2 Brewster USN/USMC version on Midway as part of the Marine contingent and then have F4F-3 and F4F-4 Wildcats and Dauntless' on the carrier decks.

The Japanese still have the advantage with the A6M2-21 but a disadvantage with the D3A Val. Maybe include the AI Kate torpedo bomber.

Brcn
15-01-2006, 14:17
There will either be Kate or Betty. I can't decide :D

NS-IceFire
15-01-2006, 15:00
The Japanese battleship is a British one. I wouldn't mind if u removed it.

Please take into consideration the limited number of slots on each carrier, in the range of 5/6.

If it's either or I'd prefer the G4M.

I think in Coral Sea the USN still used F-4F-3.

Akizukis have a lot of heavy AAA but only limited light AAA.

As you seem to have an airstart anyways, what about the inclusion of the A6M-2N?
Yeah...the F4F-3 was the mainstay of the USN fighter force at Coral Sea. Infact there really wasn't another fighter. The Buffalos had been given to the Marines. The F4F-4 arrived just intime for Midway but the fighter forces were divided between the two...many pilots prefered the F4F-3 because the 4 .50cals were enough firepower and they had a longer fire duration. The F4F-4 was beneficial from a carrier deck handling standpoint as they had folding wings allowing the USN carriers to take far more fighters into battle than previously.

Brcn
15-01-2006, 15:06
JtD,

Thanks for your comments.

I am aware of the slots on each carrier. This will make people fly bombers, which is a good thing IMO.

If I remove the battleship, I need 1 carrier firing, so this will make red team think, why their carriers don't fire.

I think the amount of AAA for both teams are only equal with Akizukis' presence in the map, but I am always open for new ideas.

I couldn't find information about the historical planeset so I have no reasons to think you are wrong :). I will change the Wildcats. Same goes for A6M-2N.

As for the Japanese torpedo bombers, I will wait for more comments.

If you want to have a look at the map, I will send it to you.

Thanks

NS-IceFire
15-01-2006, 17:15
JtD,

Thanks for your comments.

I am aware of the slots on each carrier. This will make people fly bombers, which is a good thing IMO.

If I remove the battleship, I need 1 carrier firing, so this will make red team think, why their carriers don't fire.

I think the amount of AAA for both teams are only equal with Akizukis' presence in the map, but I am always open for new ideas.

I couldn't find information about the historical planeset so I have no reasons to think you are wrong :). I will change the Wildcats. Same goes for A6M-2N.

As for the Japanese torpedo bombers, I will wait for more comments.

If you want to have a look at the map, I will send it to you.

Thanks
My first flight sim was Aces of the Pacific when I was somewhere around the 10 year old mark. If you have historical aircraft questions in the Pacific War...feel free to ask :D

norrismcwhirter
15-01-2006, 17:15
Hi,

I don't like the idea of a Beaufighter for the torpedo bomber due to it's dubious ruggedness + it has no rear gunner.

How does the Il-2T compare as an alternative?

Ta.
Norris

NS-IceFire
15-01-2006, 17:17
Hi,

I don't like the idea of a Beaufighter for the torpedo bomber due to it's dubious ruggedness + it has no rear gunner.

How does the Il-2T compare as an alternative?

Ta.
Norris
What about the A-20? Particularly if the A-20C shows up in the next patch?

norrismcwhirter
15-01-2006, 19:29
Not so much of a problem due to the number of gunners and it, at least, appears to have a reasonable DM.

Only real problem is the twin engines, still.

Up to the map designer :)

Ta,
norris

Brcn
15-01-2006, 22:25
Hello,

The A20 we currently have is faster than a Zero. The Beufighter is nearly as fast as a Zero, even if we don't think about its having a 'tough skin'. I think IL2-T will have a negative impact on the atmosphere. Yet, SBD is much better than a Val, so 1 side will have a decent dive bomber whereas the other side will have a decent torpedo bomber. I hope they include Avenger and Kate for the next map, then we will be having much better Pacific scenarios.

Thanks

NS-IceFire
15-01-2006, 23:16
I don't think we'll ever be seeing the Avenger or Kate. The whole trademark/IP rights/whatever problem that put a halt to other American planes has halted the Avenger too (a TBD Devastator AI was finished and ready but never implemented).

The Kate lacks resources. The Kate's successor, the B6N "Jill", may yet be a flyable.

The A-20G is fast indeed...perhaps the A-20C will be less of a threat.

Incisor
16-01-2006, 15:39
It would be nice to fly the A20G as a torpedo bomber. Maybe the weak tailsection and somewhat ineffective gunner make up for its speed.

bokatar
16-01-2006, 16:14
Ineffective against Fw's maybe, however it's enough to kill every single zero in town.. There is no way someone would be foolish enough to intercept one in a zero (if he manages to catch up with him ofcourse)

NS-IceFire
16-01-2006, 18:14
Ineffective against Fw's maybe, however it's enough to kill every single zero in town.. There is no way someone would be foolish enough to intercept one in a zero (if he manages to catch up with him ofcourse)
I'm that foolish actually...I caught one and blew his tail off before being hit ...A6M3. Its doable :)

Just not for the feint hearted. Nor for the dead 6 tail chasers.

Brcn
16-01-2006, 19:15
I don't think I will add A20. Red team will have to use TBF-1, externals.

Incisor
16-01-2006, 19:17
You have a point Bokatar, but though the A20G is fast it has indeed some very vulnerable moments, as NS-IceFire demonstrated, especially in turns. Besides, gunners do not seem to stop Zero's from attacking SBD's and B17's. Attacking the latter seems a quite hazerdous undertaking. The 0.28 K/D ratio of the A20G could do with a little improvement.

NS-IceFire
16-01-2006, 19:55
I don't think I will add A20. Red team will have to use TBF-1, externals.
Probably fair enough. Thats more historical anyways.