Is the Fubuki Destroyer gonna be updated? -1 reply

Please wait...

AntonioBora

GF makes me horny

50 XP

23rd February 2004

0 Uploads

108 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

I was just curious how the manual says it has 6 5inch guns, 25mm AA, and the 610mm torpedo. Yet, in game...I have only found them with the 6 five inch guns. The one on adak Island has two mg34s for AA defense. All of them seem to have depth charges though. Also prior to 1943, they didn't have the 25mm aa. Coming as is Fubuki destroyers has 2 13 mm Mgs, 6 five inch guns, and three triple tube mountings. Now, in 1943 one of the 5inch gun turrets was removed and the AA defense was increased to 4 13mm Mgs..and 14 25mm AA guns!! Obviously 14 25mm AA guns in the game would be too hard to do. Plus, there is no need since there are no Japanese destroyers in any 1943+ maps. However, I was wondering if those mgs and more importantly those tube mountings are going to be added? Because in maps like midway the Japanese destroyer is seriously undergunned compared to the American destroyer. I wonder if the Japanese will get a seperate model for their torpedo too, it was one of the best after all.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

Well, its not a Fubuki Class.

In fact that Destroyer as it comes in game does not exist.

Its a Akizuki Class missing the front turret. http://www.combinedfleet.com/akizuk01.jpg

8 x 3.9" DP guns, and up to 51 x 25mm AAA guns, and 4 x 24" torpedoes. http://www.combinedfleet.com/akizuk_c.htm

We dont get the torps or any real AA guns. In fact ast time I was on the Akizuke we didnt even have the 2 x MG34'S.




AntonioBora

GF makes me horny

50 XP

23rd February 2004

0 Uploads

108 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago
Anlushac11Well, its not a Fubuki Class. In fact that Destroyer as it comes in game does not exist. Its a Akizuki Class missing the front turret. http://www.combinedfleet.com/akizuk01.jpg 8 x 3.9" DP guns, and up to 51 x 25mm AAA guns, and 4 x 24" torpedoes. http://www.combinedfleet.com/akizuk_c.htm We dont get the torps or any real AA guns. In fact ast time I was on the Akizuke we didnt even have the 2 x MG34'S.

Yes I know the model only looks partially like a Fubuki, it is missing a smoke stack and looks a lot like a Akitsuki, but at least the picture in the manual has the 3 turrets which the fubuki had The mgs I only found in Adak Island, no other places. However, I had previously forgotten to check out the Invasion of the Phillippines map, there..we have destroyers that have 2twin 25mm aa, two quadruple tube mountings..and still the 3 twin gunned turrets. Now...this is neither Fubuki or Akitsuki hehehe. Want to know what class had exactly 2 twin 25mm AA, two Quadruple tube mountings and three twin 127mm turrets? Even if you say no, I'll still tell you it was the Kagero class destroyer. I have not killed anyone with this beefed up destroyer to find out what the game calls it. I only know the destroyer at wake is incorrectly called a fubuki.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

The destroyer in Invasion Of The Phillipines is a astep in the right direction.

I think they should just add the front turret, switch to one 4 x 24" torpedo launcher and add more AAA mountings and it will be the Akitsuki. I have looked and dont see how they could add a second stack without moving lots of stuff around or making it look goofy.

Im am glad to see that someone is paying attention to the Jap Destroyers though.




Dime_a_Dozen

FH Dev Team Member

50 XP

1st January 2003

0 Uploads

324 Posts

0 Threads

#5 15 years ago

I was playing around with the destroyers and I have noted that it isn't exactly historical. The ships are undersized and there aren't any plans for making a fleet of historical ships because there isn't plans or an outcry for a "Pacific" map in the spirit of "Atlantic". I share your sentiments but we are limited in this regard.

The reason why Adak is different is because it was made by a separate mapper and he controls what goes on the map. He either did not know of my changes or was too busy with RL to change them (I didn't want to change them for him).

There also weren't plans to make the 13mm AA option because we have the 40mm Bofors on the US side and the 25mm was the next (and only) option to "balance" that platform. Otherwise you start going into 75mm for the Japanese and 76-90mm for the allies, weapons that would really need to be in batteries (again no real maps yet for this setup) because of their slow rate of fire and train/elevation rates (remember 0.5 AA?). Simply stated, the AA is more a balancing act than historical.




AntonioBora

GF makes me horny

50 XP

23rd February 2004

0 Uploads

108 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago
Dime_a_DozenI was playing around with the destroyers and I have noted that it isn't exactly historical. The ships are undersized and there aren't any plans for making a fleet of historical ships because there isn't plans or an outcry for a "Pacific" map in the spirit of "Atlantic". I share your sentiments but we are limited in this regard. The reason why Adak is different is because it was made by a separate mapper and he controls what goes on the map. He either did not know of my changes or was too busy with RL to change them (I didn't want to change them for him). There also weren't plans to make the 13mm AA option because we have the 40mm Bofors on the US side and the 25mm was the next (and only) option to "balance" that platform. Otherwise you start going into 75mm for the Japanese and 76-90mm for the allies, weapons that would really need to be in batteries (again no real maps yet for this setup) because of their slow rate of fire and train/elevation rates (remember 0.5 AA?). Simply stated, the AA is more a balancing act than historical.

Still, you could get away with calling the phillippines destroyer's Kagero destroyers because they had the EXACT same armament (2 twin 25mm AA, two quadruple tube mountings, 3 twin turrets.) So, although it doesn't look too much like a Kagero class destroyer, you could get away with it because it has the correct armament.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago
AntonioBoraStill, you could get away with calling the phillippines destroyer's Kagero destroyers because they had the EXACT same armament (2 twin 25mm AA, two quadruple tube mountings, 3 twin turrets.) So, although it doesn't look too much like a Kagero class destroyer, you could get away with it because it has the correct armament.

I am not sure if it would be illegal as far as modifying DICE's model but it seems like it would be fairly easy to remove the existing smokestack, make a big one behind bridge and a little one back by the the AAA mounts. As good as some of these modellers are seems like the could have it done in no time.