PDA

View Full Version : Where are the United States and Japan Battleships?



Prof.Lokovich
12-22-2005, 09:40 AM
South Dakota, New Jersey, Phoenix ... ?
Kongo, Yamato, Musashi ... ?

Prof.Lokovich
12-22-2005, 09:40 AM
South Dakota, New Jersey, Phoenix ... ?
Kongo, Yamato, Musashi ... ?

Rudi_Jaeger
12-22-2005, 09:49 AM
To my knowledge, there are none yet. We just have to use whats' there and simulate (no pun intended). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Prof.Lokovich
12-22-2005, 09:52 AM
They are under work?

Airmail109
12-22-2005, 10:04 AM
heheh professor...you have awoken a hornets nest...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Prof.Lokovich:
South Dakota, New Jersey, Phoenix ... ?
Kongo, Yamato, Musashi ... ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If your looking for a good pacific ship simulator.. this aint it.. if your looking for a good pacific flight simulator.. this aint it either.. not one flyable navy torp plane in it from either side.

Airmail109
12-22-2005, 10:40 AM
However this is the best ww2 sim on the market, even thought the pacific front has its drawbacks in this sim.

AKA_TAGERT
12-22-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
However this is the best ww2 sim on the market, even thought the pacific front has its drawbacks in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill go one step further.. This is the best ONLINE flight sim that you dont have to pay for wrt 3D eye candy, flight modeling, damage modeling, and now AI.

but

As for OFFLINE campain game play this has to be one of the worst worst flight sims ever made.

Nimits
12-22-2005, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">best ww2 sim on the market, even thought </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the entire PTO, we have 2 IJN CVs, 2 IJN DDs 1 RN CV, 1 RN BB, 2 USN CVs, 1 USN CVEs, 1 USN CA, 2 USN DDs, 2 USN SSs. That's right, the dozens and hundreds of ship types that saw service in the PTO in WWII are reprsented by a total of 4 IJN, 2 RN, and 8 USN ships. Rather disgraceful if you ask me. Especially since most of the Pacific Fighter maps are NAVAL maps.

Supposedly they ran into possible copyright issues for some US ships (such as the Yorktown and the Liberty), but there several US warship and support classes not under any sort of copyright protection (Wasp, Independence, South Dakota, Colorado), not to mention the entire British, Australian, Dutch, and Japanese navies to choose from, they could easily find a few more ships to include without any legal hassles. I understand this is a flight simulator, and don't expect to every single ship type that served in the game. But this is also supposed to be a historical simulator,a nd a representative of the major fleet types for each side (CV, CLV, BB, CA, CL, DD, AP, AO, SS) os just as, if not more, neccessary as including 5 versions of the corsair.

Hoatee
12-22-2005, 01:26 PM
Still wish the rest were here though.But there's certainly a lot.

carguy_
12-22-2005, 05:45 PM
1C might be working on some ships but there are really few.

You cannot hope for more about PTO.PF was basically a reason to pack new load flyables up in a box and sell for a relatively high price as a product.IMO a Ubisoft marketing strategy - they obviously didn`t like giving out all those new planes and maps for free.

As a result we got mediocre maps,buggy game and fantasy FMs which although they had been reworked even till now.It seems hardly believable that there was a plan to really make PF a standalone because it is so much better as an addon.An addon that IMHO does not deserve to be a standalone.

ElAurens
12-22-2005, 09:49 PM
A 3D model of the IJN Haruna and USS Colorado were done. Where they are now is anyone's guess.

The USS Enterprise CV was done, but it fell afoul of the Northrup/Grumman debacle.

We could really get by with the addition of these:

1 US Battleship.
1 Japanese Battleship
1 Japanese Cruiser
1 British Cruiser
1 British Destroyer

And perhaps one ocean liner/troop transport

Tater-SW-
12-22-2005, 10:45 PM
You could even delete the british CA and DD. Put a RN paint job on the Ward---we gave 80 4 stackers to the RN Lend-Lease (including the Class ship, USS Wilkes). That'd give them a legitimate (if L-L) DD, a BB (in a few paint jobs) and a CV. They could also put a RN paint job/flag on a CVE since we gave some of them to the RN as well.

The others I agree with 1000%.

tater

PS--paint the current tanker Gray for us!

slo123
12-22-2005, 11:53 PM
ya if your gonna call it "Pacific Fighters"then you might need a few planes like hmm the torpedo planes theres like 2 flyable ones and they are land based

stansdds
12-23-2005, 04:11 AM
Gentelmen, don't get me started on the gross shortfalls of Pacific Fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

ElAurens
12-23-2005, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
PS--paint the current tanker Gray for us! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great idea!

jds1978
12-23-2005, 05:51 AM
now thats an idea...skins for ships.

not to hi-jack this thread, but does anyone have any links for ship skins?

my two cents: we need an IJN CA (Aoba),
an IJN BC (Kongo), USN BB (Iowa or South Dakota), auxilliary vessels for both sides

Hoatee
12-23-2005, 06:16 AM
Ship skins are probably about as rare as tank skins.

|CoB|_Spectre
12-23-2005, 08:37 AM
IBTL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Chuck_Older
12-23-2005, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo123:
ya if your gonna call it "Pacific Fighters"then you might need a few planes like hmm the torpedo planes theres like 2 flyable ones and they are land based </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, call me crazy, but with a name like "Pacific Fighters", then you'd need fighter planes, which we do

If the name of the game was "Pacific Divebombers and torpedo bombers" then you would have a valid point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

ddsflyer
12-23-2005, 10:52 AM
"Pacific Fighters" is woefully short on Japanese types. After all they were the chief protagonist in the Pacific.

Prof.Lokovich
12-23-2005, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jds1978:
now thats an idea...skins for ships.

not to hi-jack this thread, but does anyone have any links for ship skins?

my two cents: we need an IJN CA (Aoba),
an IJN BC (Kongo), USN BB (Iowa or South Dakota), auxilliary vessels for both sides </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CA Miyuki is a "must have" aswell.

actionhank1786
12-23-2005, 05:06 PM
The game could definitly use some more ship models.

And ship skins would be an excellent idea

goshikisen
12-23-2005, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Prof.Lokovich:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jds1978:
now thats an idea...skins for ships.

not to hi-jack this thread, but does anyone have any links for ship skins?

my two cents: we need an IJN CA (Aoba),
an IJN BC (Kongo), USN BB (Iowa or South Dakota), auxilliary vessels for both sides </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CA Miyuki is a "must have" aswell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Miyuki = DD. Maya, Mogami, Mikuma perhaps?

I was pretty disappointed when Oleg announced no additional ships for PF (seems like ages ago now) because, at the time, it never crossed my mind that Maddox Games wouldn't put some naval flesh on the bones of PF. You look at the pre-release list of ships and many of the major categories of ships (CA, BB etc.) were represented. It seems they just ran out of time.

But really... when you look at the way that ships have been incorporated into PF you realize that it would make a pi$$ poor torpedo bomber sim anyways. Ships can't evade an attack... and if they can't then the whole thing is rather pointless. PF does fighters really well but was never going to be good portraying torpedo attacks.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/ijncruisers.jpg

ElAurens
12-23-2005, 09:23 PM
Gray tanker?

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/color%20tanker.jpg
Our current tanker.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/Gray%20tanker.jpg
Not a bad idea. (even if my quicky Paint Shop job is, um, less than good...)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

slo123
12-23-2005, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo123:
ya if your gonna call it "Pacific Fighters"then you might need a few planes like hmm the torpedo planes theres like 2 flyable ones and they are land based </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, call me crazy, but with a name like "Pacific Fighters", then you'd need fighter planes, which we do

If the name of the game was "Pacific Divebombers and torpedo bombers" then you would have a valid point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
dange you!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

slo123
12-23-2005, 10:23 PM
its not called pacific medium bombers is it so i guess we'll have to get rid of those and i didnt see anything about pacific aircraft carriers so those gotta go to and the ohka suicide(phsyco)bomber gotta go to dont see anything bought it in the name

darkhorizon11
12-23-2005, 10:29 PM
This has been brought up time and again. The trademark problems basically froze almost all the development for PF. So as of right now were not getting anything really.

One modeler is working with IanBoys on the Norway map to make a small Norwiegian fishing boats and perhaps a small japanese cargo ship, besides that we gotta make due with what we got.

MiamiEagle
12-26-2005, 12:06 PM
Guys there wont bee any any more ships available for this program piriod. The reason is not the trade mark issue. The reason was the Oleg never really cared about the the Pacific Thearter.

This was the brain child of Luthier and not his. Its a incomplete program but in my opinion its has given this series much more life.

Even with its short commings it still a great addition to the world of world war two simmers.

It has given us that greater World war two flying experience. A total world diversity that this program series needed very badly. Now we can fly in the Eastern Front or the Pacific Theater whenever we want. Now we can takeoff fron a aircraft carrier or a Russian airfield and deffend the Russian Mother land if we wish in the same day.

Now we have not only European planes but also more American and Japanese planes to fly in.

Now you can experience what was it like to fly in the Eastern Front but also in the Pacific Theater.

I do not know about you guys but I get bore flying for the same Airforce and the same planes in the same Theater all the time.

Beside you can also have a lot of fun to fly planes that where signficant in the war that other wise you would not now how they flew and fought.

Now you can fly in a Bf109 and Ki43 in different settings against defferent enemies in tyhe same day. Now thats fun.

I recommend you merge this progrsms to get the most of what it can offer.

What I like most of this series it its deversity and quality planes.

Other program may offer you more and very fine planes but this program still offer you the best quality planes in my opinion.

Now if you want a better Pacific Theater program you have to go with Combat flight Simulator 2 after all the ugrades done by its community.

I still like to fly in Pacific Fighter/FB merge. I still think its a fine representation of the Pacific Theater. While not a complete program its still a great addition to the Sim world.

I hope to hear your opinion

James007

Hoatee
12-26-2005, 01:16 PM
The last good pacific fighter sim for me was WarBirdsIII. Pacific Fighters should perhaps be seen in relation to WarbirdsIII because it, too, had Japanese and American carriers from which you could take off from and land on, for example. PF is a considerable improvement.

CaptJodan
12-30-2005, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo123:
ya if your gonna call it "Pacific Fighters"then you might need a few planes like hmm the torpedo planes theres like 2 flyable ones and they are land based </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, call me crazy, but with a name like "Pacific Fighters", then you'd need fighter planes, which we do

If the name of the game was "Pacific Divebombers and torpedo bombers" then you would have a valid point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original title of the series was "IL-2 Sturmovik". We can certainly have every version of Sturmovik, but we'd better best go out and strip all of the other planes out of the game. With a name like that, it's all about the Sturmovik, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PBNA-Boosher
01-01-2006, 08:00 PM
As standard, my country's (USA's) companies are being doodieheads and trying to grab as much money as they can. This is the reason why we can't get more versions of anything produced by Vought, Grumman, or Northrop in game. Also several Shipyards are protesting the production of ships in our game. Cheap, yes.

I dunno about the Japanese ships, we just have to pretend.

VW-IceFire
01-01-2006, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ddsflyer:
"Pacific Fighters" is woefully short on Japanese types. After all they were the chief protagonist in the Pacific. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Based on some reasonably accurate rumors, the N1K-2J, J2M3, and Ki-43-II are going to grace our presence as flyables.

All we're missing is the Ki-61-Tei and the Ki-44. Ki-45 if you call that a fighter...

MiamiEagle
01-01-2006, 11:07 PM
I hope your rumors are accurate. That would bee a nice addition to the planes needed to make this program a better representation of the Pacific Theater.

Miamieagle

ElAurens
01-02-2006, 08:17 AM
Also much needed are the early war types. I know most virtual flyers seem to gravitate to the late uber stuff (F4U-1C, Ki84C are classic examples), the omission of the early war types, Ki21, Ki27, Ki30, A5M, G3M1, is unfathomable.
These are the types that won Japan her Empire in souteast Asia. Any early war scenario in Hong Kong or Burma, or anywhere for that matter, is impossible. Maps we can fake, aircraft we cannot.

Sturm_Williger
01-04-2006, 06:51 AM
I've no idea why. The early war planes are all lovable. Late war planes are all about speed.

More Cr@pplanes ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-04-2006, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Prof.Lokovich:
Yamato... ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.starblazers.com/images/gallery_images/10.jpg

Nimits
01-05-2006, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Based on some reasonably accurate rumors, the N1K-2J, J2M3, and Ki-43-II are going to grace our presence as flyables.

All we're missing is the Ki-61-Tei and the Ki-44. Ki-45 if you call that a fighter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even more serious, though, is that we are still missing the A5M4, Ki-27, Ki-21, TBD-1, SB2C, B6N, and D4Y.

Not to mention no IJN CAs or BBs and no USN BBs.