-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
sleept from 5 in the morning to four in the evning today, got so caugth up in the comming of HOI3, should be a gasping smiley, but this one would to the trick:wacko:
Did you not see my response referencing the Panthers? Proof that there are historical equipment names.
Actually, Lothos, can you tell us what restrictions/sanity checks are in the division designer (is STR/FIST >=5k required, frontage atleast 1? etc...)
At least he picked two planes picked from the same country.
The Zero also was a tin can that wasn't particularly durable because they stripped everything down from it to ensure the range. This was common amongst a lot of Japanese planes.
Splitting hairs over different models is futile because at it's core, in HOI3, techs are common between countries. If you wish to have CAGs that have the intense range that the Japanese planes did, the best bet is to hope that the tech tree (which seems to support research for things like fuel tanks) applies to CAGs and you can make a more historic Zero. Though it seems like it'll also be possible to focus your research elsewhere, and perhaps have a more durable zero.
Last edited:
And used as the primary ftr's by their respective air arms at the end of the war, which is why I thought it was the only real valid comparison I could make using the US. Also 'durable' and 'Zero' never belong in the same sentence
How about a little more in-depth comparison then for earlier in the war that isn't just a USAF technology showoff?And used as the primary ftr's by their respective air arms at the end of the war, which is why I thought it was the only real valid comparison I could make using the US. Also 'durable' and 'Zero' never belong in the same sentence
Here are some of the most common and iconic/representable Carrier and Land based variants of single engine air planes.
CAS/Divebomber
JAP D3A "Val" (1940) Range: 1,472 km
USN SBD Dauntless (1940) Range: 1,240 km
vs
SOV IL2 (1941) Range: 720 km
GER Stuka (1940) Range: 600 km
FTR/Fighter
JAP A6M "Zero" (1940) Range: 3100 km
USN F4U Corsair (1942) Range: 1,634 km
vs
GER Messerschmitt (1939) Range: 1,000 km
UK Spitfire (1941) Range: 760 km
USAF P40E (1942) Range: 1,100 km
Average CAG range: 1860 km vs Average landbased range: 836 km.
The difference is really astounding when it comes to the Divebombers. Anyone still think CAGs should have 200km range like in HoI2? (400km using these numbers since they are not radius but oneway trip). I can't see how anyone would want the CAGs to have shorter range then land Divebombers. Same range as land fighters are understandable since CAG Divebomber elements would limit them somewhat, but not shorter.
Relax! You seem to fail to realize that I am agreeing with you that CAG should easily match the range (if not go further) of land based aircraft. I said this earlier. Thats why I used same country comparison, just to prove it was possible.
My only point was that CAGs having this range was more so they could stay AIRBORNE longer rather than attack things farther away. They sacrificed ordinance and durability (ESPECIALLY the Zero) for this range, so they could HUNT ships or other CAG groups (in the vast ocean) versus dive bomb tanks (who's locations are being told to them via radio). Or are you going to tell me 1 Val would be as good at tank killing as 1 JU87? Or that you'd expect a squadron of corsairs wouldn't be smarter to NOT engage a squadron of FW190 (all things being equal)?
End point of this off topic discussion: CAG Range should come at the expense of HA, SA and AA. And that range should let the planes stay up longer than less ranged counter parts (land based or otherwise)
Actually, Lothos, since you have the press copy (thats your version right) how are CAGs stats (range and attack values) relative (just start a 1941 campaign as US or Jap, and compare to int and cas of say SU/Ger)
They're also of different countries with very different requirements out of their airplanes!
If you're going to claim that CAG's have longer range than standard aircraft, the best way to do so is to compare the standard aircraft and the CAGs of a particular country.
Showing that the CAGs for Japan fly farther than the CAS for Germany isn't evidence that CAGs fly farther than standard aircraft (even if it might seem to be). It's evidence that planes created by Japan fly farther than planes created by Germany. Former is a confounding variable to the latter.
This review also renewed my hope. I was very skeptical following the release of EUIII and Rome. I'm still a bit skeptical but less so. I really hope, and expect, that this game will be a great game again, compared to the mess that EUIII and Rome were at release. But I'm still wondering if I should get this game at release or wait a few patches and expansions to get it. I'll get it eventually tho.
I pre bought the game on steam today, I am very pleased you decided to partner up with valve to sell the game in the U.S.
I did see, and you omited my responce.
Anyone here has no gut to see and say where this information came.Like I did say there will be no T34 ,Sherman...
Anyway thanks for this information,I respect Lothos very much,thats why I interpreted hist NoNoNo about T34... as a ofitial status.
This was the first time he played HoI3..., so your expectations were bit unfair.
- Status