Slitherine

AKRebel wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 9:15 pm New Units -
https://www.mediafire.com/file/tq3pcubp ... 2.rar/file

uzbek2012 wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:05 pm

HHT1 wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:23 am

AKRebel wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 9:43 pm

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/

phcas wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:38 am 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?

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.

RobertCL wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:35 am 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...

phcas wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:38 am 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?

phcas wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:38 am 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?

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.

.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).

phcas wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:34 am

uzbek2012 wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 6:05 pm

HHT1 wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:23 am

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 wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:38 am 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?

Sapa wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:06 pm

phcas wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:38 am 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

Sapa wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:45 pm Just made it an example! Like Phcas suggestion a lot for this mod....

serezha wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:08 pm 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

RobertCL wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:34 pm Hi,

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

phcas wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:38 am 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?