Unit requests thread

[troytheface]

Perhaps a Torpedo mod would go a long way- any unit armed with a torpedo can attack enemy ships in a city.

That would make carriers (torpedo planes/dive bombers) and submarines more relevant-allowing a pearl harbor style attack. -try to wipe out an enemy's fleet while it is in port.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Mamba, you've completely neglected my multiple referances to using single-engined light bombers as carrier bombers... perhaps because it actually makes sense and you don't want to concede that point?

If it wasn't for carriers, I wouldn't have even bothered with light bombers in the first place... because, as we all know, it's pretty hard to distinguish the differance between dual-engine light and dual-engine heavy bombers anyways.

90% of the reason why I am using single-engined light bombers is because they make sense on a carrier... the main reason I am putting them in-game. If it's just going to be "yet another" dual-engine bomber making land-based raids, why even bother trying to split hairs in Civ4 between a light and heavy bomber if they both have two engines?

I'm sure you'll counter with something that has nothing to do with carriers, because I keep saying that's why I'm choosing single-engine bombers, and you keep talking about everything but that.

Honestly Mamba... I'm ONLY doing Light Bombers in my mod because of carriers... if carriers weren't in the game, I wouldn't have tried to split hairs with light and heavy bombers (especially if they both have two engines)... and hence my decision to model single-engine light bombers... that makes the most sense regarding carriers.

 

[mamba]

If it wasn't for carriers, I wouldn't have even bothered with light bombers in the first place... because, as we all know, it's pretty hard to distinguish the differance between dual-engine light and dual-engine heavy bombers anyways.

Actually we agree here, no need to distinguish two unit types which are that closely related in Civ. Carriers are the reason for light bombers, no need for light bombers in and of itself.

I just prefer the light bombers to more closely resemble bombers than fighters so they can more easily be told apart.

I'm sure you'll counter with something that has nothing to do with carriers, because I keep saying that's why I'm choosing single-engine bombers, and you keep talking about everything but that.

Actually I am talking about anything but that because we agree that the reason to introduce light bombers is the fact that they can be put on carriers

It's not like there weren't any twin-engine light bombers on carriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F7F_Tigercat

At the very least they should not just look like a fighter imo, i.e. they should have very noticeable rear gunner, e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Roc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TBM_VT-90_CV-6_Jan1945.jpg

 

[Wolfshanze]

I'm fully aware of the F7F Tigercat, and in fact I challenged you about dual-engine carrier bombers earlier in the post and you (naturally) ignored the challenge.

I keep speaking of 99% percentiles and you always counter with a 1% percentile.

I'll use some Mamba-logic here and mess you up... looks like you're going to have to redo all the WWII fighter graphics in your mod... because we all know WWII fighters are dual-engine pusher-puller fighter aircraft.

What do I have to do to make you concede the average carrier bomber is single-engined? If you're going to grasp the F7F as the norm, I'll counter with the Do-335 that all fighters are dual-engined.

If my main reason for including light bombers is carrier bombers... then naturally I'm going to want to model said light-bomber as a carrier bomber... ie: single-engined.

 

[dutchking]

You guys argue to much, I'm just here to make airplanes.

 

[Ambreville]

You guys argue to much, I'm just here to make airplanes.

By the way, thanks again for completing the He-177. Terrific!

Any chance you could turn to the Me-110 and the Hawker Typhoon (or Tempest)?

Cheers!

 

[dutchking]

I already have a Tempest 1/2 done, I don't really like it that much so I may start over again, and I could make any other thing you request.

 

[Wolfshanze]

You guys argue to much, I'm just here to make airplanes.

Actually Mamba and I agree on most things... we're just nit-picking a silly issue... you go-on making planes you crazy-plane-making-man!

Oh... and Mamba and I agree on the need for a Martin B-10*, so you should spit one of those out today and satisfy us both!






*A dual-engine bomber no-doubt... see I am reasonable!

 

[dutchking]

Yes yes I'll do whatever everyone wants.

 

[mamba]

I'm fully aware of the F7F Tigercat, and in fact I challenged you about dual-engine carrier bombers earlier in the post and you (naturally) ignored the challenge.

You challenged me to list all carrier based light bombers and then to give you a percentage of how many were single-engined and how many twin-engined.

For one I do not know how many there were of either, for another, the single-engine will easily win, nothing to argue about - and we both know it.

I keep speaking of 99% percentiles and you always counter with a 1% percentile.

What do I have to do to make you concede the average carrier bomber is single-engined?

Nothing, I never argued with that, I rarely argue over points I agree with. You however interpreted that as ignoring your point

If my main reason for including light bombers is carrier bombers... then naturally I'm going to want to model said light-bomber as a carrier bomber... ie: single-engined.

I gave you my reason why I want them twin-engined all along, namely that most single-engine light bombers look too much like fighters for my taste. That is all there is to it. Yes, the twin-engine ones can easily be mistaken for regular bombers, but hey, in that case you mistake one bomber for another, that imo is no big deal.

I agree that the vast majority were single-engine. I already said that when going with single engines, they should at least have a very noticeable rear gunner (something many do not have, noticeably that is) so they can be told apart from fighters. Nothing wrong with going with those, but many look almost like regular fighters (with a somewhat longer glass cockpit).

Too close to fighters for my taste :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.23_Karaś
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_Ba.65

Longer cockpit, no (sufficently noticeable) reargunner :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Skua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB2C_Helldiver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_B17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-2

If they are modelled with an open rear it would be easier to tell them apart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultee_Vengeance
http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/a31.php

 

[Wolfshanze]

I still have no-idea where/how you're making models so fast... you must have a secret source from somewhere... but I've been brainstorming obscure, yet needed models that you can't possible "cheat" and import from a common database (or could you?).

How you make such good models so fast is astounding DK... don't forget, when you're caving-into requests to try these on for size... remember, they're single-engine light bombers... that should drive Mamba crazy! Do make the Martin B-10 first though... I don't want to make Mamba feel left-out!

Fairey Battle
LN 401
A-31
Ba 65
Fokker CV
Su-2
Saab B17

 

[Chuggi]

I still have no-idea where/how you're making models so fast... you must have a secret source from somewhere... but I've been brainstorming obscure, yet needed models that you can't possible "cheat" and import from a common database (or could you?).

Import>Modify>Export.

Easier than making from scratch I suppose. I use firaxis units as a base to make mine usually.

 

[dutchking]

I still have no-idea where/how you're making models so fast... you must have a secret source from somewhere... but I've been brainstorming obscure, yet needed models that you can't possible "cheat" and import from a common database (or could you?).

How you make such good models so fast is astounding DK...

Well, there is no "secret source". I import an existing model into blender, and make it my own/look like the plane I want. Then I export it into nifskope, where I export a template of the UV and then I make a texture using a tutorial asio showed us (wrote?): http://www.colacola.se/howto_texttut.htm
The model takes about an hour and the texture is just like this:
1. get the diagram of hte airplane, screws etc.
2. paint on basic colors, camouflage
3. decals
4. rust, damage, and dirt
5. finishing touches.
That takes 2-3 hours depending on how lucky you get with the diagrams in Russian.

 

[Wolfshanze]

they should at least have a very noticeable rear gunner (something many do not have, noticeably that is) so they can be told apart from fighters. Nothing wrong with going with those, but many look almost like regular fighters (with a somewhat longer glass cockpit).

Too close to fighters for my taste :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.23_Karaś
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_Ba.65

Whoah... hold the horses!

All three of those... the PZL.23, the Ju-87 and the Breda-65 have rear gunners... now they're not "noticeable enough" rear guns for you? Yet, you can distinguish the differance between dual-engine bomber #1 being light, from dual-engine bomber #2 being heavy?

I'm at a loss here Mamba... I guess you win... now we're debating whether or not a rear gun on single-engined light bomber #1 is more noticeable then a rear gun on single-engined light bomber #2.

You win... I give up.

At least the Ju-87, perhaps one of the most famous and recognizeable dive bombers of WWII, and the epitome of precision aerial bombing in WWII is already done and I don't have to ask for it... I never knew folks would confuse the Stuka for a common fighter because the rear gunner wasn't noticeable enough.

You win Mamba... I can't top that argument.

 

[dutchking]

I don't even understand what you guys are arguing about...

 

[Wolfshanze]

Well, there is no "secret source". I import an existing model into blender, and make it my own/look like the plane I want. Then I export it into nifskope, where I export a template of the UV and then I make a texture using a tutorial asio showed us (wrote?): http://www.colacola.se/howto_texttut.htm
The model takes about an hour and the texture is just like this:
1. get the diagram of hte airplane, screws etc.
2. paint on basic colors, camouflage
3. decals
4. rust, damage, and dirt
5. finishing touches.
That takes 2-3 hours depending on how lucky you get with the diagrams in Russian.

I haven't seen anyone else make models so fast around here (well, and still look good anyways).

What you do is beyond me DK... just keep doing whatever it is you're doing!

I don't even understand what you guys are arguing about...

After Mamba's last post... I'm not sure anymore either... I thought it was... well... no... I don't know anymore. I think Mamba won though.

 

[dutchking]

lol thank you.

 

[mamba]

Whoah... hold the horses!

All three of those... the PZL.23, the Ju-87 and the Breda-65 have rear gunners... now they're not "noticeable enough" rear guns for you?

Yes, they are not sufficiently noticeable, and this is not a sudden change, I said that all along. I even gave examples where I considered them sufficiently noticeable to tell the light bomber apart from a fighter.

Yet, you can distinguish the differance between dual-engine bomber #1 being light, from dual-engine bomber #2 being heavy?

No I cannot, but at the very least they both are still bombers. I'd rather mistake one bomber for another than one bomber for a fighter. This also is something I never argued against

At least the Ju-87, perhaps one of the most famous and recognizeable dive bombers of WWII, and the epitome of precision aerial bombing in WWII is already done and I don't have to ask for it... I never knew folks would confuse the Stuka for a common fighter because the rear gunner wasn't noticeable enough.

If you have them up close yes, but given the size in civ 4 I for one think they do look very similar to fighters. If you ask any civ player what this unit is he will say a fighter, because we have learned that single-engine aircrafts are fighters

 

[Wolfshanze]

Mamba... stop... you win...

I'm even believing that most (probably 90%) of carrier bombers were dual engined in WWII.

I'm so confused!

 

[SlimDuece]

Has anyone attempted to make the Enterprise (CV-6)? The USS Cabot would be awesome as well. Well...while im at it how bout the IJN Nagato? Thanks all.