| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
W@S Enthusiast
Posts: 522
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
Awesome set ideas! Nice work!
I really want to see some new carriers, especially Bearn!
_________________
"When in doubt, win the war." |
|
 Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:34 am |
|
|
Posts: 21
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
WOW!!
It would be nice see some ARA ships in a set....
Wich side could they play?
_________________
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." |
|
| Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:13 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 299
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Weedsrock2's Sets IV to X
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: |
Oh, and no Surcouf! I do not like that sub. I do not like it in a box. I do not like it with a fox. 
|
It may be necessary to fill a Rare slot. Many could argue that it is a "singleton" but we have a number of "singletons" anyway so may not matter. |
|
| Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:48 pm |
|
|
Posts: 947
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I like the set lists, good job as usual. This game is going to get a lot more complex with each new set. For example, new SAs that give a +1 to existing units (AA, bombs, torps) will make those older units more cost effective and have to be re-evaluated for their use in the game. |
|
| Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:26 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: Weedsrock2's Sets IV to X
|
|
|
| towcritter1966 wrote: | | weedsrock2 wrote: |
Oh, and no Surcouf! I do not like that sub. I do not like it in a box. I do not like it with a fox.
|
It may be necessary to fill a Rare slot. Many could argue that it is a "singleton" but we have a number of "singletons" anyway so may not matter. |
For her tonnage she would be an uncommon. That is why she is not on my lists. There are too many units competing for thos slots. If Surcouf was a rare it would be easy to include her in the lists.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:11 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 299
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I think she would have to be a Rare despite tonnage just because she is such a unique unit. Almost all sides can say they had a Carrier but nobody else had a cruiser submarine. As long as it is included with SA's that make sense. Someone had a custom card that you have to declare at the beginning of each turn whether it is a sub or a ship and subject to all pro's and con's of each. And was Unique - only one can be included in any fleet. Of course it brings up the question: "What if I pull more than one"? Well, that will be trade fodder. Although I would probably keep more than one just for SAG! |
|
| Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:19 pm |
|
|
I refuse to sit here and have my ship shot out from under my ass!
Posts: 1009
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
needs an R class for the UK and the USSR
_________________
Official Bismarck Class Fanboy |
|
| Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:05 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Schlachtschiff Bismarck wrote: | | needs an R class for the UK and the USSR |
Resolution and Arkangelsk are both in the sets already.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:46 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Lord_Naga-Naga wrote: | | Nice lists. But what does that leave for the new starter set? (and maybe a third starter later on?) |
A third starter later on? You get the award for being even more optimistic than I am! 
Here is my guess on the starter. But really, the choices for sister ships are enormous. My guess is there will be an airplane, sub, cruiser (already revealed) and a destroyer (or at least one unit with ASW) on each side so you could actually play a small game right out of the box. This is what they did for the second starter in the land game.
New Starter
*USS Montpelier - Cleveland Class CL reprint - U
*HMAS Nizan - Javelin DD reprint - C
*TBF1 Avenger - Avenger reprint - C
HMS Taurus - Truculent submarine reprint - C
*Haguro - Myoko CA reprint - R
G4M2 Betty - reprint - U
Samidare - Shiratsuyu class DD - (Shigure reprint) - C
I37 - B1-class submarine I-19 reprint - C
*Already revealed by WotC
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:53 am |
|
|
Posts: 1
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Awesome lists
But isn't so that Hr. Ms Java is revealed for the Dutch for set IV instead of Hr Ms Tromp?
Keep on the good work. |
|
| Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:01 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Koeleed wrote: | Awesome lists
But isn't so that Hr. Ms Java is revealed for the Dutch for set IV instead of Hr Ms Tromp?
Keep on the good work. |
I you are right although I never heard where that prediction came from.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:35 pm |
|
|
Posts: 32
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
To be honest I really don't care what new ships are coming....just they keep coming. I used to play VS (a super hero card game) but they stopped coming. I'm serious hooked on WAS and want more...more...MORE!!!! 
_________________
Life is what happens while you make other plans |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:32 am |
|
|
Posts: 1772
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
what about poor Thailand?
It would be able to eat up.......commons and....rare? I dunno what'd you'd classify Sri Ayuthiya as......Certinally could be either rare or uncommon, most likely uncommon. Hilarious as a Rare...tiniest rare ever. RB would probably rate his differntly than ours though...
but they'd be the angriest, thinist navy in the game, with pleanty of bite to compensate for their lack of bark
Sri Ayuthiya Class
Ratnakosindra Class
 |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:59 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6918
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Ren lets do the rest of the Fleet (Siam) now that we have small stuff guidelines
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:08 am |
|
|
Posts: 1772
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Why not.
They got the mini Coast ships there, umm Torpedo Boats, and some subs....
I'll open the topics since both teh ones I have there are "technically" finished....just need cards.
Does Sri Ayuthiya need anything now that we look back as well? |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:38 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
R.B.s revelation of the River class frigate for Set V required only a minor swap. I had the HMCS Swansea (River class) in Set VI. So I just swapped HMCS Swansea from Set VI to Set V, and HMS Hotspur (G,H,I class DD) from Set V to Set VI. I updated the lists at the beginning of the thread.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:45 am |
|
|
I AM the Mad Scot! None are my equal! Many are my betters!
Posts: 1664
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Highball wrote: | | I would love to see a fantasy USMC F7F Tigercat! That would be the most PERFECT plane! |
Agreed! It would be the bane of damn near any IJN aircraft, even fighters! But! Here's the problem... The Tigercat only saw two or three operational sorties against Japanese aircraft.
Then the war was over. It was so late war that for all purposes it did not have the opportunity to REALLY be "Combat tested"
The Tigercat saw more action in Korea than in WW2, and it turned out that it really was not that effective of a fighter against Jet aircraft. With the Phantom, Voodoo, and Panther's in service, or coming into service, the Tigercats ended up being put into reserve, or the Navy changed their mission to more of a ground support role.
IIRC there was one report of a Tigercat facing a MiG16 or 17, and the Tigercat got it's tail flamed. She made it home (barely) only because a couple of F-86's were passin thru comin back from a sortie, and responded to the TC's call for help with a MiG.
_________________
The SCA: Just an excuse for getting dressed up in Medieval clothing and beat each other up with padded sticks! |
|
| Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:46 pm |
|
|
Caesar Americanus II Munchkin Wrangler
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2975
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Mig15, there was no 16 and the 17 wasn't ready until postwar.
_________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Frickin' cookie crap...
IJNCVLF: 'Cuz my Avengers wanna bust more'n just BB's... |
|
| Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:07 am |
|
|
I AM the Mad Scot! None are my equal! Many are my betters!
Posts: 1664
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Diamondback wrote: | | Mig15, there was no 16 and the 17 wasn't ready until postwar. |
Stand corrected, MiG 15.
It was while since reading the account. MiG 17 was a further refinement of the 15. Tho the 17 did make it's first flights in 1952, it served thru out the Vietnam war either in NVA or Chinese air forces along with other ComBloc nations.
Either way, The Tigercat was not as effective of a fighter as had been hoped in the end.
Here is the Wiki:
The Grumman F7F Tigercat was the first twin-engined fighter aircraft to enter service with the United States Navy. Designed for the new Midway-class aircraft carriers, the aircraft were too large to operate from earlier decks. Although delivered to United States Marine Corps (USMC) combat units before the end of World War II, the Tigercat did not see combat service in that war. Most F7Fs ended up in land-based service, as attack aircraft or night fighters; only the later F7F-4N was certified for carrier service. They saw service in the Korean War and were withdrawn from service in 1954.
The contract for the prototype XF7F-1 was signed on 30 June 1941. Grumman's aim was to produce a plane that out-performed and out-gunned all existing fighter aircraft, and that had an auxiliary ground attack capability.[1] Armament was heavy: four 20 mm cannons and four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns, as well as underwing and under-fuselage hardpoints for bombs and torpedoes. Performance met expectations too; the F7F Tigercat was one of the highest-performance piston-engined fighters, with a top speed well in excess of the US Navy's single-engined aircraft—71 mph faster than a F6F Hellcat at sea level.[2] The opinion of Capt. Fred M. Trapnell, one of the Navy's premier test pilots, was that "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown."[3]The Grumman F7F was originally named the "Tomcat" but this name was rejected as it was considered at the time too suggestive.[4] The name would much later be used for the Grumman F-14.
I was looking in the bibliography for the name of the book from where I read that account from. I can't remember if it was from a Tigercat pilot's account or if it was from a Sabre pilot's account. I just recall that the F-86 pilots chased off the MiG from the Tigercat..
_________________
The SCA: Just an excuse for getting dressed up in Medieval clothing and beat each other up with padded sticks! |
|
| Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:27 am |
|
|
Posts: 32
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Weedsrock. Do you think you could find room for the 2 UK WW2 monitors. HMS Roberts and her sister. They would be great additions for the commonwealth.
Cheers,
Locksrule |
|
| Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:10 pm |
|
|
|
.jpg)
