Two 109 wishes.

[Anaxogoras]

P.S. LA7s have nothing to do with it

No, they have everything to do with it because they prove a double standard.  Let me spell it out.  If the La-7 has different weapon loadouts to represent early and later versions, then the same should go for other aircraft where applicable.

[Krusty]

Not so. Consider:

The 109K-4 was introduced into the game as a G-10 with a 20mm option and gondolas. It was a K-4 in every way performance-wise, and the only reason it was called the G-10 is to add 2 planes into the game at once, because there wasn't much of a representative lineup.

This was a way of beefing up the planeset and the options when there were still only a few of them.

You'll notice that as the planeset is flushed out, the inaccuracies are remedied.

Further, consider:

The VVS planeset has been stagnating for a while. We've just received 2 USAF aircraft used in large numbers by the VVS (P-39s) but on the whole you have LA5/7 and Yak9T/U. That's really only 2 planes with 2 variants each.

As soon as we start getting early yags, laggs, migs, whatever, and as soon as the planeset can hold its own, the 3-gun option will probably be revisited.



P.S. Don't discount it as a perked ord option, like the c-hog is intended to be. They may have left it in for a reason.

[Wmaker]

AHs G-6 has features that suggest it being from early production (high antenna mast and the lack of D/F) and it also has glass armor in place of the steel armor which suggests that it's a mid production aircraft. Most of the later production aircraft had the Revi 16B gunsight while the early production aircraft had the gunsight that is on AH G-6 right now, the Revi C/12D. Although many G-6s that were produced as late as mid-44 still had the C/12D sight and the same canopy that is featured in AH (can be seen in many G-6s that went to Finland, for example). Glass armor was added as a number of players (me included) wished its inclusion as we saw the preview shots that featured the steel armor.

Copy-pasting D/F-loop antenna's 3d-model from G-14 to G-6 and clipping its radio mast a bit would essentially make it an accurate representation of a mid-production G-6. Of course one could argue that changing the Glass armor back to steel armor would then make it an accurate early-production plane, but I have to ask...what purpose exactly would that serve? Right now we have a nice selection of all the major mass-produced canopy-variations which adds nice variety. G-6 was the most produced variant of the BF 109. Why should it be only restricted to depict the earliest model possible? Saying that 30mm gets abused in events doesn't really fly as long as we have P-51s with 4 .50s and 3xB-20 La-7s for example. There should rather be efforts for adding tools for CMs to define the available loadouts in events than for removal of loadouts that actually saw a lot of use. Lets think about a re-run of The Ruhr-scenario for example without the MK-108 option. By late summer of '43 the cannons were available. Again, there were plenty of G-6s flying with 30mm cannons AND featuring the exact same canopy that AH's G-6 already has (Canopy is the only feature that changed in production that matters AH-wise.). So, as it really isn't in HTC's interest to add 5 different G-6 subvariants they chose the one we have now. Weather it has the shorter antenna mast/d/f-loop or not shouldn't really matter...hell, it doesn't have a pitot tube either and since last version it started having a retractable tail wheel!

I think the reason why the MK-108 was removed in the first place was because Wotan suggested it when pyro asked about the 109-load outs and pyro went ahead with it. I disagree with the decision for the above reasons. Since it is removed I doubt it will be re-introduced anytime soon unfortunately.