 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Patine
|
 |
Edmonton, Canada
Mar 2002
time: 22:16
|
|
That is definitely a valid point. I think that should work, but if you do come up with a neat canal graphic, it might be more esthetically pleasing to have that instead (but I'll use the city idea otherwise).
Now, I do need one more graphic. I know this is nitpicking, but Jamaica appears on the map I'm using (I chose Jim Panse's map, ultimately), and, whereas for neutrals, I just build their capital, convert it to a barbarian city with Mercator's city editor, and put immobile 'N Garrison' units to defend it. Jamaica, however, was a Commonwealth country, and the few units they contributed were to Europe. I thought I'd have it defended by immobile British 'Jamaican Infantry,' but I actually need a Jamaican infantry graphic. I don't know what Jamaica's colonial flag looked like, or what uniform or equipment they used, but I've heard their troops were permitted to wear dreadlocks. Can someone please help me? Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
AGRICOLA
|
|
Canadian bush & Florida
Feb 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
The only US bomber shown is the B-29 which came along in '43 and IIRC was used primarily against the Japanese homeland. From the start, there were B-17's and, later, B-24's in the Pacific, used for both recce and bombing.
I would agree with Case that you can cut back on some of the more esoteric Allied ground units and perhaps add a USAAF bomber and a Sherman tank to the list of US units. Both the US Army and Marine Corps used Shermans or light tanks for infantry support wherever possible.
I don't think that the red and white striped rudders on USN aircraft are at all appropriate for this scen. That was a pre-war color scheme which would have been most helpful to the Japanese in advertising the presence of American planes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
typhoon
|
 |
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
I agree with what Agricola and Case have pointed out. For most of the Pacific War, Britain's main concern was keeping the Japanese out of Burma - most of the fighting was done there. There should be more Americans in there, and less Commonwealth.
A few suggestions to the ones already given:
- Flamethrowers... these were nearly if not more important as tanks in the island fighting the Americans encountering. At Guadacanal, Saipan, and Okinawa, they were used to clear Japanese soldiers dug into caves with less casualties than by conventional methods. Added to the extremely terrifying affect it had on enemy morale.
- P-40 Warhawks... remember Claire Chenault's Flying Tigers?
- LVTs... give them the amphibious warfare flag.
Canadian infantry isn't really too good use of a slot, IMHO. Most of the Candian war effort was directed to Europe, their only notable contribution to the Pacific theatre being the short and utterly pointless battle of Hong Kong. Otherwise it was the RCN helping the US Navy in the Aleutians. Having a Candian infantry unit in Hong Kong do nothing but get slaughtered in the first turn and garrisoning Victoria and Vancouver for the duration of the scenario, which the Japanese human player will probably be not crazy enough to attack. Plus the whole fact about them toting SLRs, which only came into service in the 1950s.
Two versions of the same units?  IIRC the Royal Malay Regiment had only two battalions in it at that time. One unit should be sufficent to cover them.
There seem to be an overabundance of infantry, and not enough tanks, aircraft and ships. More suggestions (bear with me please):
- It wasn't just Spitifires there you know. Early in the war, the RAF mostly relied on obselete Brewster Buffalos and the more modern Hurricane. Spitfires only started arriving in 1943 I think. While we're at, the Commonwealth air forces (Australia and New Zealand) had also a significant part to play, so perhaps you could give the Australians a fighter (maybe the CAC Boomerang- Case?)
- Blenheim bombers for the Commonwealth... Britain, Australia used them.
- Australia should have two infantry units- the one you have is the 1942 onwards ANZAC infantry. Before that the AIF in Malaya wore the same uniform as the Brits. Speaking of which, the British used the jungle green uniform in Burma too.
- More Japanese tanks/tankettes. Although they may not seem important from the American perspective (most of the time they were carrier battles), had Japanese industry produced better designs like the Type-5 later in the war in greater quantities, they could have changed the direction of the land war (or at least delayed the outcome.)
- Since the focus in the scenario is on Japan, more Japanese aircraft would be welcome. How about the Ki-43 Hayabusa, the IJAAF's equivilant of the Navy's Zero? It was cheaper and more manuverable, produce in larger numbers and has the distinction of the only Japanese aircraft to have served on all fronts. Better performing designs like the Ki-100 Hien and the Ki-84 Hayate (already in there), J2M Raiden and, for the hypothetical portion if Japan hangs on longer, the Nakajima Kikka and the J8M1 Shusui (reversed engineered Me-262 and 163 respectively.)
There are a lot more ideas that I can think of, e.g. Yamato battleships and escort carriers, but then there would not be enough space. Please don't take this as personal criticism, but I feel that TOT or even multi-events files would be better suited for protraying the Pacific theatre in its entirety.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Case
|
 |
The backlash starts here
Feb 2000
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by typhoon
- Flamethrowers... these were nearly if not more important as tanks in the island fighting the Americans encountering. |
Given that flamethrowers were, at the end of the day, nothing more then standard infantry weapons, I don't think that they deserve their own slot. Just incorperate their effectiveness into the Allied units stats (the USMC were especially fond of flamethrowers).
quote:
Otherwise it was the RCN helping the US Navy in the Aleutians. |
The Canadian Army also sent an infantry Brigade to the Aleutians, but the fighting was over before it got there. So yeah, Canadian infantry certainly don't deserve a slot.
quote:
While we're at, the Commonwealth air forces (Australia and New Zealand) had also a significant part to play, so perhaps you could give the Australians a fighter (maybe the CAC Boomerang- Case?) |
All the Australian fighters, including the Boomerang, sucked and were never used in areas where they were likely to encounter Japanese fighters. The Kittyhawk (1942-45), Spitfire (late 1942-45, small numbers only) and Mustang (1945) formed the backbone of the RAAF's large and important fighter force.
quote:
- More Japanese tanks/tankettes. Although they may not seem important from the American perspective (most of the time they were carrier battles), had Japanese industry produced better designs like the Type-5 later in the war in greater quantities, they could have changed the direction of the land war (or at least delayed the outcome.) |
I'd disagree with that. Even the 'heavy' Japanese tanks were greatly inferior to the Sherman and would have been slaughtered. The Japanese Armored force's only significant contribution to the war effort was in 1941-42 when their medium tanks played critical roles in the Malayan and Philipines campaigns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patine
|
|
Edmonton, Canada
Mar 2002
time: 22:16
|
|
Say, could someone make me an American P-40 Warhawk, British Hurricane, and Australian Kittyhawk. As well, Erika, could you tell me which of your planes are a Ki-43 Hayabusa, Ki-100 Hien, Nakajima Kikka, and J8M1 Shusui, if they're all even there. And are those grey bombers below a B-17 and B-24, respectively. If they aren't all there, could someone please create some for me.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-12-2004 23:26
)
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
|