New Projekt: Phcas & AKRebels "PAK"-Mod - RELEASE v3.40

[Ballermann]

New Units -
https://www.mediafire.com/file/tq3pcubp ... 2.rar/file

Danke schön

[phcas]

better ?

Yes.
Sehr viel better

Gorgeous )


How about this ?
https://en.topwar.ru/43510-nemeckaya-re ... -1-ya.html


In general, everything is about the trophies that the Japanese collected and used
https://komandante-07.livejournal.com/23657.html

http://alternathistory.com/ispytano-v-y ... v-chast-2/

You can also throw them a bazooka ) Although in my opinion there is already the main thing to live until 1944 )))

After the captured American bazookas fell into the hands of Japanese designers, work began in Japan to create its own rocket-propelled anti-tank grenade launchers. In July 1944, a 74-mm grenade launcher was adopted, which received the designation Type 4.

https://weapon.temadnya.com/17159177052 ... voj-vojne/

Hi, can you post the .png file please

[phcas]

Wanted2.jpg (31.04 KiB) Viewed 3006 times

Hello everybody,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

What do we think about that?

[glaude1955]

Hello PHCAS,
The second "European" world war seems to be approaching the end, so I allow myself to come back to a theme which is dear to me; the campaign in the Pacific which would begin with the invasion of China by Japan.
Best regards
Yves

[ajs81]

Wanted2.jpg

Hello everybody,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

What do we think about that?

IMHO +5 is not enough.
I believe that for maps with 140-170 hexes, the distance traveled by the fighter should be at least 2x greater, the same for the close support planes. On the other hand, bombers should have up to 3x greater range than today. It can't be that planes need 10 rounds to fly from one end of the map to the other. This is illogical.

[RobertCL]

Hi PHCAS,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

No because you would ruin standard game using small maps.
or
Yes because it could be fun if ALL aircrafts benefit from the same extension, if coherency prevails, then why not...

[ajs81]

Hi PHCAS,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

No because you would ruin standard game using small maps.
or
Yes because it could be fun if ALL aircrafts benefit from the same extension, if coherency prevails, then why not...

This is the reason why I am in favor of extending the distance for all planes. The amount of fuel should be as is, but the distance should be greater. After one turn, the Bf109E will fly as far as the P-51D, but the Bf109 will fall due to lack of fuel and the P051D will continue to fly. Second, how can you talk about ruining small scenarios when the PC from the very beginning, unlike Panzer General, allowed planes to appear from all directions from time to time. After all, during the war it was not just that planes operated only over the front lines. Bombers bombarded the facilities, and fighters either supported them or engaged in combat with other planes or attacked airports.

[HHT1]

Hello everybody,
Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.
What do we think about that?

Hi PHCAS.
First of all: Phenomenal work, the mod. Respect.
Secondly, I think it would be better, especially for large maps, to increase the range of the aircraft, whether it's 5+ or 6+ or only 4+ - it doesn't matter. I just have to keep an eye on my fuel consumption, regardless of whether it's a standard or big map. In real life i could also fly in one go until I run out of fuel in real life. But hardly anyone does that.
So I would be in favour of a "range increase"

[ajs81]

BTW it is not a big deal to create two eqpt files "normal" and extend for fighters\close bombers\bombers\recon. If someone wants to play the small map, use "normal" if you want to play big maps then change the name of eqpt file and go ahead.

[RobertCL]

HI ajis 81,

Let's keep a unique e-file, it's easier for game designers, they should not waste their time to support and to make changes to two different e-files each time.
When I was busy with PeGWW2 I designed many e-files and it was a nightmare to maintain them.
No problem for me to extend distance for all planes, after all it could be fun in small maps too (and yes planes can fly long distances along frontlines, so it might not ruin the game, it might even be a funny experience).

[uzbek2012]

Wanted2.jpg

Hello everybody,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

What do we think about that?

Yes, at least + 10, but then you will have to hang up additional tanks and cut down the ammunition )
https://airpages.ru/ru/fighters.shtml
https://vladimirtan.livejournal.com/822522.html
http://airwar.ru/fighterww2.html


It's not a bomb, it's a gas tank )))
https://arsenal-info.ru/b/book/1343826101/10

A large fuel reserve allowed the pilot to be more calm in a combat flight in relation to an emergency landing due to a lack of fuel, but the increased volume of gas tanks made the defeat of the aircraft more likely.

The experience of air battles showed that the Yak-9D up to an altitude of 3500 m had an advantage over the Me-109G-2 and FW-190A-8 on turns, and when using up about half of the fuel reserve, and on a vertical maneuver.

On August 30, 1943, the Yak-9D was seriously damaged in one of the air battles with the FW-190A-8: the left root gas tank was pierced by a shell, the crankcase of the engine gearbox was pierced, the fuselage had several bullet holes. Despite the damage to the aircraft and the engine, the pilot brought the plane to his airfield and made a safe landing, which indicates the high survivability of the Yak-9D.

A small number of Yak-9ds were transferred to the Bulgarian Air Force at the end of 1944. The most outstanding Bulgarian pilot who flew Yak fighters was 3. Zakhariev, who received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

http://airwar.ru/enc/fww2/yak9d.html

.The Yak-9DD fully justified itself as a long-range fighter when a group of 12 aircraft of this type in August 1944, under the command of Major I. I. Ovcharenko, made a non-stop flight from Balti to Bari (Italy) with a length of 1300 km without suspended gas tanks to assist the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia. The leader was the Boston bomber, led by an experienced test pilot of the Air Force Research Institute M. A. Nyukhtikov. This flight and the subsequent work on escorting C-47 transport aircraft to the territory of Yugoslavia liberated by the partisans demonstrated the high operational and flight qualities of the Yak-9DD. During the entire period of stay in Vari, not a single case of breakdown or failure of the aircraft was noted, although in each combat mission (and there were 155 of them) it was necessary to cross the Adriatic Sea twice, passing over the water surface from 400 to 600 km, and land on sites of limited size located among high mountains with strong side and even tailwind. Yak-9DD at altitudes up to 3000...4000 m in speed and maneuver surpassed all the British and American fighters based at Bari airfield-Tempest I, Spitfire IX, P-63C-1 Kingcobra, P-40 Kittyhawk, P-47 Thunderbolt, etc., which was tested practically in training air battles. Almost all American and British fighters were high-altitude and at 3000...4000 m did not shine with their qualities.

British and American pilots spoke with admiration about the skill of Soviet pilots and the high qualities of the Yak-9DD. In 1944, the Yak-9DD was successfully used to escort B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberator bombers that made shuttle flights to targets in Romania without landing from Poltava (Ukraine) to Bari (Italy).

http://airwar.ru/enc/fww2/yak9dd.html


The fuel tanks of the US Navy during the war were able to withstand 0.50-inch (12.7 mm) bullets and, in some cases, shells from 20 mm (0.79-inch) autocannons Self-sealing fuel tank
https://ru.xcv.wiki/wiki/Self-sealing_fuel_tank

Yes.
Sehr viel better

Gorgeous )


How about this ?
https://en.topwar.ru/43510-nemeckaya-re ... -1-ya.html


In general, everything is about the trophies that the Japanese collected and used
https://komandante-07.livejournal.com/23657.html

http://alternathistory.com/ispytano-v-y ... v-chast-2/

You can also throw them a bazooka ) Although in my opinion there is already the main thing to live until 1944 )))

After the captured American bazookas fell into the hands of Japanese designers, work began in Japan to create its own rocket-propelled anti-tank grenade launchers. In July 1944, a 74-mm grenade launcher was adopted, which received the designation Type 4.

https://weapon.temadnya.com/17159177052 ... voj-vojne/

Hi, can you post the .png file please

The ping file of what exactly is Japanese trophies or a German Katyusha tank ( Russian slang name Vanyusha ))) ?

http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-V ... werfer.htm


https://litvek.com/genre/military_weapo ... ooruzhenie
https://arena-pilotage.ru/aviaciya/neme ... yusha.html

[Sapa]

Wanted2.jpg

Hello everybody,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

What do we think about that?

Hi like that idea a lot. In Modern Conflicts mod changed the jet fighters range to 8 and my opinion gives the mods much more player options for the battles.
Regards Mats

[uzbek2012]

Wanted2.jpg

Hello everybody,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

What do we think about that?

Hi like that idea a lot. In Modern Conflicts mod changed the jet fighters range to 8 and my opinion gives the mods much more player options for the battles.
Regards Mats

Modern conflicts are a great mod, but this is modern time , and here we are trying to derive a formula specifically for WWII-era aircraft ) So the comparison is not very correct


P.s. War correspondents.Photo and film equipment
https://smolbattle.ru/threads/%D0%92%D0 ... %B0.36317/

[Sapa]

Just made it an example! Like Phcas suggestion a lot for this mod....

[serezha]

What should have been done in the "Germany" scenario with the prisoners of the camps? I brought them all to the seaside, and with that my imagination ran dry

[ajs81]

Just made it an example! Like Phcas suggestion a lot for this mod....

Try this file (but please save your original eqpt file at DATA folder)

It is eqpt file from World at War scenario with long range for planes and ships

[ajs81]

What should have been done in the "Germany" scenario with the prisoners of the camps? I brought them all to the seaside, and with that my imagination ran dry

I was thinking about that. It is only an event. It is hard to give prestige to Axis if you move them to Denmark. This is just such a historical reminder that there was such a thing as "white buses"

[RobertCL]

Hi,

I tried the new equipment file in small maps, aircrafts are lacking of fuel sooner than before.

[cw58]

Hi,

I tried the new equipment file in small maps, aircrafts are lacking of fuel sooner than before.

Aircraft use at least 1/2 their movement points in fuel, even if they don't move at all (and not adjacent to an airfield).

An example: a fighter with 14 movement and 6 more points added to it (now 20 move points) will use a minimum of 10 fuel/turn even if it doesn't move. A recon plane with 18 move is even worse because it uses at least 9 fuel each time it moves. If it moves 14 hexes, it uses 14 fuel. Then move it 1 more hex, it uses 9 more fuel.

So depending on what effect you want to see, you may need to add more fuel. Or if you want them to travel far but refuel more often, you've probably already achieved that effect. This is an interesting concept and could probably use extensive testing to get the right balance. Thamks for sharing it

[phcas]

Wanted2.jpg

Hello everybody,

Due to the large scenarios and distances in them and the small difference in value between land and air units, the question is whether it would make sense for gameplay to give ALL aircraft a +5 movement range.

What do we think about that?

OK thanks everyone for your reactions. Remember airspeed = movement and range = fuel.

I did some testplay and I think it's better to increase the movement of ALL aircraft in the game. It will be done in update v0.55.

I see only positieve reactions about this in the forum so thanks for your opinions.

All aircraft will get a +6 movement.

Greetings PHCAS