WW1

[CptTrips]

I’m all for adding some new planes to the WWI arena.  That can never hurt. However, while I think it would create a temporary bump in interest, I don’t think it would solve the fundamental problem.  I think the WWI arena needs some strategic game-play more like the WWII MA.  If the current WWI Arena is left for furballing and a WWI MA is added, that’s fine with me.  However, WWI pilots should have access to some semblance of the depth of game-play that the WWII players have.  I think this could be started with a modest amount of effort.


I’d like to see a field layout similar to:
(I suck at drawing.  Ideally these should be exactly spaced evenly and the circles should just be touching....)


I’d guess fields would be ~12 miles apart.  

Fields have light ack.  They should be protected with aircraft.

Hangars are destroyable. (Standard rebuild times.)

Each field is associated with a nearby command post (instead of town). With some 17lbs gun emplacements, a light ack, and a tethered observation balloon



that functions as field dar.  There is no country dar.

The current plane-set would be allowed to carry 2 x 20lbs bombs.  The F2B maybe should carry 4 x 20lbs.  



Each country would have access to a single model of tank:



and a troop truck:



These vehicles spawn from a field vehicle hangar into the no-man’s zone.  They will fight their way towards an enemy field.  If the defenses are suppressed and the troop truck gets close enough to release its cargo of commando’s, they can capture the command post and the associated airfield changes ownership.

Is this absolutely historically accurate?  No.  But no less than P-51 vs. P-51 vs. P-51 in a 3-way WWII MA.  Scenarios are where historical accuracy can rule.  The MA needs fun game-play.  What the modest changes would do is give a structure and purpose to the fighting.  It would give a framework on which to hang the action.  A context.  Goal-Oriented-Combat.


With these limited changes I think we could greatly improve the WWI arena experience and give it a depth of game-play that some of those ~450 WWII MA players that occasionally visit the WWI arena might find interesting enough to visit more often.  If 1/4 of those decided to come play regularly,  a WWI MA would rock.  

Regards,
Wab

[Tinribs]

I like the field layout a lot even though I still believe a 2 sided arena would work best, country dar is a nonsense for ww1 the balloon acting as field dar idea is inspired.A very well thought out plan Wab that could easily be introduced in stages if the powers at be wished.

[Sid]

Funny, I've always seen that 103mph figure listed as speed at 4000m.  Now your document says 99.2mph.  Curiouser and curiouser.

The problem is, most of these books just list a speed, not the conditions under which it was measured.

I found another "Fokker V5/Dr.1" ISBN 0-7643-0400-3 which although only 51 pages has some nice technical data.

[DrBone1]

The problem is, most of these books just list a speed, not the conditions under which it was measured.

I found another "Fokker V5/Dr.1" ISBN 0-7643-0400-3 which although only 51 pages has some nice technical data.

(Image removed from quote.)

some1 likes the WW1 

[JOACH1M]

some1 likes the WW1 

Better question is who doesn't like it?

[CptTrips]

I like the field layout a lot even though I still believe a 2 sided arena would work best

Well I assume at some point USRanger is going to have us several WWI maps in rotation.  If we ever get enough variety in the plane-set to keep it balanced, I don't see why the setups couldn't  alternate.  One map 3-county, next map AvCP. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The changeup might keep things interesting.

Cheers,
Wab

[USRanger]

I’m all for adding some new planes to the WWI arena.  That can never hurt. However, while I think it would create a temporary bump in interest, I don’t think it would solve the fundamental problem.  I think the WWI arena needs some strategic game-play more like the WWII MA.  If the current WWI Arena is left for furballing and a WWI MA is added, that’s fine with me.  However, WWI pilots should have access to some semblance of the depth of game-play that the WWII players have.  I think this could be started with a modest amount of effort.


I’d like to see a field layout similar to:
(I suck at drawing.  Ideally these should be exactly spaced evenly and the circles should just be touching....)
(Image removed from quote.)

I’d guess fields would be ~12 miles apart.  

Fields have light ack.  They should be protected with aircraft.

Hangars are destroyable. (Standard rebuild times.)

Each field is associated with a nearby command post (instead of town). With some 17lbs gun emplacements, a light ack, and a tethered observation balloon

(Image removed from quote.)

that functions as field dar.  There is no country dar.

The current plane-set would be allowed to carry 2 x 20lbs bombs.  The F2B maybe should carry 4 x 20lbs.  

(Image removed from quote.)

Each country would have access to a single model of tank:

(Image removed from quote.)

and a troop truck:

(Image removed from quote.)

These vehicles spawn from a field vehicle hangar into the no-man’s zone.  They will fight their way towards an enemy field.  If the defenses are suppressed and the troop truck gets close enough to release its cargo of commando’s, they can capture the command post and the associated airfield changes ownership.

Is this absolutely historically accurate?  No.  But no less than P-51 vs. P-51 vs. P-51 in a 3-way WWII MA.  Scenarios are where historical accuracy can rule.  The MA needs fun game-play.  What the modest changes would do is give a structure and purpose to the fighting.  It would give a framework on which to hang the action.  A context.  Goal-Oriented-Combat.


With these limited changes I think we could greatly improve the WWI arena experience and give it a depth of game-play that some of those ~450 WWII MA players that occasionally visit the WWI arena might find interesting enough to visit more often.  If 1/4 of those decided to come play regularly,  a WWI MA would rock.  

Regards,
Wab

Care if I use that field layout for a new WW1 terrain?

[CptTrips]

Care if I use that field layout for a new WW1 terrain?

No problemo.

,
Wab

[SCTusk]

Is this absolutely historically accurate?  No.  But no less than P-51 vs. P-51 vs. P-51 in a 3-way WWII MA.  Scenarios are where historical accuracy can rule.  The MA needs fun game-play.  What the modest changes would do is give a structure and purpose to the fighting.  It would give a framework on which to hang the action.  A context.  Goal-Oriented-Combat.

With these limited changes I think we could greatly improve the WWI arena experience and give it a depth of game-play that some of those ~450 WWII MA players that occasionally visit the WWI arena might find interesting enough to visit more often.  If 1/4 of those decided to come play regularly,  a WWI MA would rock. 

Regards,
Wab

What Wab suggests is not exactly the way I would approach it but I have to give him a  because his ideas seem to be a good alternative, disregarding my bias for 2 country play.

As for the old 'Camel vs Dr1' issue I would support some minor detuning of the Dr1. I've learned to live with the F.1 as it is, the physics and math have been done and dusted, fair job, I'm not going to waste more of everyone's time arguing about it. But the Dr1 does dominate the Camel even when it's flown reasonably well and even against the best Camel jockeys. If there's a counter to the Dr1 in the Camel I haven't found it.... no doubt I'll get fried for this but check out my stats before you light the gas (and oh yeah, subtract 14 kills this tour for that little misunderstanding on the island lol) I'm going to back myself here as probably the most experienced Camel jockey, strictly to make the point that if I can't be competitive against the Dr1 in an F.1 who can?

If it's modelled correctly then fair enough, but I can reference quotes from actual Camel pilots who seemed convinced that the Camel was superior in a turnfight to the Dr1. Possibly there is also contrary evidence, but the fact is that the Dr1 in AH has become the ride of choice, and if you fly something else in support of better historical and varying gameplay then you pay the price. If the objection to reducing the effectiveness of the Dr1 is due to the belief in the accuracy of the FM, then reduce it's impact by restricting it's availability (I believe in the WW2 arenas you call that 'perking' it?) as was the case in the real world.

For my part, I try to make a habit of congratulating anyone flying something other than a Dr1. Not that I don't respect the guy that shoots me down in his Dr1, just that I respect the guy that I shoot down in his DVII/Camel/F2b more, for his willingness to rely on his skills rather than the UFO effect. Dr1 drivers will chime in with tales of woe regarding how skilled you have to be to control the little devil, that's not in debate.... I've always said that in the hands of a capable pilot the Dr1 wins hands down. The real issue here is that even very capable pilots of the other types struggle against the Dr1's, if that's ok because of historical accuracy in the FM then it's not ok because of historical accuracy in Dr1 availability (you can't argue one without the other).

   

[Anaxogoras]

SCTusk,

If you look at the data that has been posted in this thread, both the Dr1 and Camel are too fast in AH, especially the Dr1.

Camels with British-made Clerget's did not live up to the performance data that we see all over the internet, which was gathered with a French-made Clerget.  

And when IdFlieg tested the Dr1, it was slower than the Fokker handbook.

Do we see a pattern developing here?  Both sides' aircraft manufacturers made their tests with pumped-up aircraft in order to obtain a contract, and then sold their governments inferior machines.

[Sid]

I'd be against artificial "detuning" any aircraft purely for the sake of game play, where we have good historical information for climb rate, top speed, etc, AH should reflect it.

But I agree with BnZs point of view.

What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr.1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.

This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?

"What about robustness in dives or under Gs?"

I think this is one area that really could do with a review in AH. There's no doubt a WWI aircraft should shed a wing if pushed too far, and AH wouldn't be representative of WWI flying if the aircraft didn't, but the point at which this happens is subjective at best.

"under Gs"

Like BnZs, I've also seen nothing to suggest the Camel was any worse than the Dr.1 in this respect, or in fact the D.VII was weaker still than either of them. Yet in AH in a sustained spiral dive the D.VII can only pull until approximately half the screen is blacked out before shedding a wing, the Camel fairs slightly better pulling until just a small circle of day light remains, while the Dr.1 fairs much better pulling all the way to blackout and more.

Without historical data for how much "G" a factory fresh aircraft could pull, (remember we don't model poor quality control construction methods, engines that regularly failed or quickly lost performance after use, airframes that quickly rotted and lost strength in the wet weather of the Somme, only a factory fresh perfect example of the design every sortie) I would like to see the aircraft "evened out".

It probably isn't representative for WWI to be able to pull G with impunity, so say using the Camel as a bench mark, adjust all the aircraft so they can "pull until just a small circle of day light remains" and level the playing field in this respect.

"robustness in dives"

I've read many accounts of both sides recommending a high speed diving attack as the preferred fighting method, yet in AH this seems to be a highly suicidal approach. Whether they were be able to dive to a higher (unloaded) speed before suffering damage or whether the rapidly increasing drag at speed meant they just reached a terminal velocity sooner, I don't know.

Take this example from the notes given to student Camel pilots.



1b. goes to great pains to advise the student not to turn right until he know the machine thoroughly

yet

2c. advises to learn to shoot whist diving as steeply as possible

Note: No warring here about the likelihood of the wings coming off.

It's not the advise I would give a student pilot flying the AH Camel!

[Tinribs]

Ok,a big <S> to Wab, SCTusk, USRanger and Sid great stuff from all you fellas truly well thought out ideas on the way that the arena should be heading and balanced unbiased opinion on the current tools at our disposal.The problem now appears to be the distinct lack of reaction from anyone other than Ranger on the AH2 staff.
We need a ww1 forum so that all this doesnt get lost in the mountains of moaning from our ww2 pals.

[SCTusk]

Wow Sid, you've made some very astute observations and conclusions there mate 

We need a ww1 forum so that all this doesnt get lost in the mountains of moaning from our ww2 pals.

Again, 

[R 105]

 I like AKWabbit's idea for the map and changes. However the big reason I don't like WWI is the planes performance. They all seem to fly the same speed to me. The DR-1 is way to fast in AH (102 mph for real) the DR-7 is 15 to 20 mph faster than the DR-1 the Camel at 113 mph it about the same as the DR-7. There are also clime rate and dive speed differences in real life but not in AH. You can't get separation once engaged. Then if you are not flying the DR-1 you get shot down most times.

 I learned a long time ago not to confuse HTC with aircraft performance facts and figures. It is there company and it is what it is and there may be a technical reason for it I don't know about. That said I am still amazed at this way cool game. For a guy who grew up in a time that a toy with a battery in it was hi tech this game is great. Where else are you going to fly a ton of war birds anytime you want for $14.95. So I guess if the modeling is off some here and there oh well.

[Anaxogoras]

I like AKWabbit's idea for the map and changes. However the big reason I don't like WWI is the planes performance. They all seem to fly the same speed to me. The DR-1 is way to fast in AH (102 mph for real)

The airspeed you're referring to was 102.5mph at 13100ft (~4km), and that was with a Swiss-made LeRhone engine.  The Oberusal copy was of inferior quality and did not yield the same performance.

The reason why you can't gain separation is because the machine gun dispersion for the WW1 fighters is tighter than any of the aerial tests you can find from WW1.  Every WW1 sim I have ever seen suffers from this lack of fidelity to the historical data.  I.e. compared to a Vickers mounted on a tripod, aerial tests found the Vickers to be 3% as effective at hitting a target the size of a man.  On a calm day, with an expert pilot, only 60-70% of bullets landed in a 100ft^2 box at 2-300 yards.