|
Please do not capture Winnipeg. My grandparents met there and my dad was born there.
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Please do not capture Winnipeg. My grandparents met there and my dad was born there. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Amazing. if the map stretched out farther, you could bomb Chicago from Winnipeg, which is really quite something.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Amazing. if the map stretched out farther, you could bomb Chicago from Winnipeg, which is really quite something. The map is insane like that, even without reaching the Great Lakes you can still conquer the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and all of the Canadian Prairie provinces. It's honestly pretty impressive how badly you can gently caress up Canada without the US caring at all. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:EDIT: It's also correct that you can technically occupy Canadian bases large enough to support land-based bombers and perform strategic bombing on American bases on the West Coast without triggering the emergency reinforcements. This is also the only way for the Japanese player to score strategic bombing points against the Allies. There's no way to do it in Australia? I'd have thought there were airfields there you could capture and then bomb uncaptured cities in australia.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
And 99% of the fighting in this game is taking place near Rabaul...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There's no way to do it in Australia? I'd have thought there were airfields there you could capture and then bomb uncaptured cities in australia. The trigger line in Australia is one hex south of Brisbane and Tasmania, everything else in the country is fair game.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
I meant, can you do strategic bombing in australia...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I meant, can you do strategic bombing in australia... Ah, I misread that, sorry. On the east coast, sure, that's the only place I can think of that's built up enough to be worthwhile in terms of points. Unlike the other places that Japan can strategically bomb on the map it's also fairly close to the Japanese supply lines. zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 07:33 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:I didn't know the Japanese had strategic bombers! Cool. Well, the thing with sending hot air balloons wtih firebombs aside. Strategic bombing is a mission, which means you can have your Betties and other (smaller) bombers do it, though they won't super effective at it. The alternate history scenarios do allow you to produce the G8N Rita, which was a Japanese heavy bomber design that's roughly comparable to the B-17 Fortress. Leperflesh posted:There's no way to do it in Australia? I'd have thought there were airfields there you could capture and then bomb uncaptured cities in australia. Okay, I double-checked, and I stand corrected: the Japanese player can score VPs by bombing industries in North America, Australia, and Hawaii. EDIT: and you can bomb any other city, and it produces the mechanical results that you would expect, such as no more production of supplies (which is useful in sieging Chungking), but it won't yield any VPs directly.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:And 99% of the fighting in this game is taking place near Rabaul... Is it possible to put more fighters in Rabaul and upgrade the airfields moreso than you already have or not enough of a payoff if the Allies continue to seige it?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Welp, see ya on the other side, granddad.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
Grey should send an invasion force to that little strip of Africa. They would never see it coming;.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Grey should send an invasion force to that little strip of
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
fak u penguins!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Question, why do the Japanese planes have such Anglo names? Oscar, Bettie, and now Rita? Or are they longer Japanese style names that happened to have Anglo names encased inside of them and allied airmen just nicknamed them?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Those were the names assigned to them by the US. Certainly not the names the Japanese gave them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Question, why do the Japanese planes have such Anglo names? Oscar, Bettie, and now Rita? Or are they longer Japanese style names that happened to have Anglo names encased inside of them and allied airmen just nicknamed them? They're code / reporting names so allied soldiers could yell oh poo poo a Zero and not have to memorize A6M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_Allied_names_for_Japanese_aircraft e: beaten e: quote:In an effort to make the names sound somewhat comical, McCoy gave many of the aircraft 'hillbilly' names, such as "Zeke" and "Rufe," that he had encountered while growing up in Tennessee. Others were given names of people the creators of the system knew personally; the Mitsubishi G4M bomber, with its large gun blisters was named "Betty" in homage to a busty female friend of Williams. Stay classy, Williams aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 16:29 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
I always wondered what the heck a Rufe was.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
They did use Japanese for one: the Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka, which they called the Baka.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
In terms of the Japanese naming system, lets take a look at the most famous Japanese fighter, the Zero. The American code name for the plane was "Zeke", but it's Japanese name was the A6M "A" meant it was a carrier based fighter, 6 meant that it was the 6th carrier based fighter, and M meant that it was built by Mitsubishi. The Betty was the G4M. G, because it was a land based attack bomber, 4 because it was the 4th of that type, and M because Mitsubishi. So that's how the Navy named their planes. For the Army, lets take the Oscar The Oscar was the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa Army Type 1 Fighter Every plane had a Ki number...This was a number assigned to all plane projects in order So, since it was the Ki-43, it was the 43rd plane conceived by the Japanese army. The "Type" was based on year. It came into service in year 2601 (1941 using the western calendar), so it was "Type 1". "Fighter" is put on the end in case it needs to be distinguished from any other planes that came into service in 2601. It was made by Nakajima, and the nickname for it was the "Hayabusa", or the "Peregrine Falcon".
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Maybe the raiders should visit Manus?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
   The Allies throw more men away at Truk.  The carriers are out sinking stuff.  Here's our friend from yesterday.  There are always ships in Milne Bay.  It's just the Connor in the afternoon.  Baroom!  Poor bastards.   Now here's an island that's not been raided in a while. The fighters based here put up a really good fight.   My god, we properly murdered those carrier based aircraft!  Screw it. Lets have a go.  21/100.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Now is an excellent time to attack, as they are 19 planes short.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Ah, so this is where Hunter's tongue gets bit off
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Is it time to get carrier'd?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
preemptive 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:preemptive Somebody is getting -ed either way.Is mutual complete sinking possible here? (I don't care about how improbable)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Omobono posted:Somebody is getting Teeeeeechnically possible? If one side got murdered by the morning strikes, their aircraft escaped to an airbase within range and then struck back and wiped out the other side in the afternoon? Or just a torpedo party all around that means everyone sinks after the event, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
The entire Japanese Carrier force being stomped by a pair of CVEs does seem nicely fitting. Or Intel has it a *bit* wrong and those two CVE's are actually the whole missing Allied super fleet carrier group.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
edit: whitewhale posted:The entire Japanese Carrier force being stomped by a pair of CVEs does seem nicely fitting. Or Intel has it a *bit* wrong and those two CVE's are actually the whole missing Allied super fleet carrier group. I think intel has to be wrong. We just saw 72 carrier-based airframes in today's attack, I don't think that 2 American CVEs could carry that many; I believe it would take at least 3 CVEs, or 2 full CVs or 2 CVLs could also carry more than 72 planes. fermun fucked around with this message at 19:19 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
fermun posted:I think intel has to be wrong. We just saw 72 carrier-based airframes in today's attack, I don't think that 2 American CVEs could carry that many; I believe it would take at least 3 CVEs, or 2 full CVs or 2 CVLs could also carry more than 72 planes. CVEs typically carried a Wildcat/Avenger air group, too, not Hellcat/Helldiver.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
whitewhale posted:The entire Japanese Carrier force being stomped by a pair of CVEs does seem nicely fitting. Or Intel has it a *bit* wrong and those two CVE's are actually the whole missing Allied super fleet carrier group. They're flying Hellcats and Helldivers, they're definitely fleet carriers.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Decisive battle incoming. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
hope grey hunter upgraded his carrier planes!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Great. Those guys show up just when the Yamato and the other carrier killers are being repaired. How are we suppose to sink those without battleships?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
It only needs a screen of destroyers to drop a few score torpedoes in the middle of the night and then gtfo.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Deep Dish Fuckfest posted:Great. Those guys show up just when the Yamato and the other carrier killers are being repaired. How are we suppose to sink those without battleships? Grey only needs to lure the Enemy Carriers to within 1km of Turk...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Omobono posted:Somebody is getting If both TFs send all their planes to attack and don't have any left to protect, then yes all the ships sink and then probably all the planes end up ditching in the ocean. This would cripple both navies and the war would probably last until late 1946 when the game ends on time.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
CannonFodder posted:If both TFs send all their planes to attack and don't have any left to protect, then yes all the ships sink and then probably all the planes end up ditching in the ocean. This would cripple both navies and the war would probably last until late 1946 when the game ends on time. gently caress yeah let's do this
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 21:46
|
|
