Jump to content


LEGO

Member Since 14 Aug 2005
Offline Last Active Jun 27 2014 06:09 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Japanese Fighter Planes.

03 June 2014 - 11:06 AM

That makes sense.

But Ki-43 is essentially of same level with Zero, perform pretty alike Zero, rather than a reasonable upgrade as the time frame suggests.

However if I were you, I'd make both navy fighter and army fighter buildale in each time frame, and give the navy fighter some specially advantage over sea but also make it more costy.

Perhaps let the carriers to offer a bonus to navy fighters, as Thor Gunship does in MO 3.0? I think that would be interesting, if carriers can swith modes between support figters and launch attackers, and it take some time to swith, then you get the possibility of Midway: Caught by your enemy while swithing modes! 


In Topic: Japanese ground attack and bomber aircraft.

02 June 2014 - 03:54 AM

There seems to be some normal problem at Fugaku's  left cockpit side?

And, G4M was first used in 1940, and was used extensively in early offensive in 1941-1942, it shouldn't be a late war unit.


In Topic: Japanese Fighter Planes.

02 June 2014 - 03:46 AM

Is there anyone also wonders why Shinden's cockpit is so backward in the fuselage? Its nose should have nothing but 4 cannons, and most fighters that have their cockpit placed before engine, have a smaller nose compared to Shinden.

 

And, you must have noticed that, in the above list, Zero is a navy carrier based fighter, while all others are land base army fighter.And the Zero A6M5 and Ki-61 may overlap too much in time frame.

So, ever considered to spit it into sub-factions as US Army and US Navy?

That may make sense because, as you may know, IJN and IJA view each other as most hated only next to their common enemy in the Allied forces, actuall IJN build tanks and IJA had a air carrier and submarines of its own---if WW2 didn't broke out they may fight each other some day :p


In Topic: Back in action

27 May 2014 - 02:27 PM

Life is not easy, but wish you all fine, Miggy :thumbsuphappy:

And, is that boat truck to be really amphibious in game? If so it would give a great advantage in scattered islands maps! Hope it to be so because that would quite fit the Jap faction flavor!


In Topic: Japanese heavy tanks

27 May 2014 - 12:59 PM

Great job for VXL, however for gameplay and history wise, I serious doubt heavy tanks would fit Jap faction. Because if you make their stats according to history, as you did for all other sides, Jap tanks suck as hell. A typical mid-war Jap medium tank, Chi-Ha II or Chi-He, is at best as powerful as an pre-war to early-war european light tank, but as mobile as a KingTiger...

Even so, I agree that an medium-light armoured force is necessary for gameplay, and some of them can have a Mirage Tank tag, as they did disguised into trees on Pacific Islands in real histroy.

But for Heavys or Super Heavys, no, there is no way for they to be effective and also close to history. I'd rather to have Suicide Bombers, booby traps, those poor guys who hide underground holding a heavy shell waiting for US tanks to rollover their head...... and whatever more "GLA like", to counter enemy heavys.