Friday The 20th, Greace...

[Grits]

Lets take these one at a time shall we?

Originally posted by storch
Erg, thanks for replying in a nonArlo fashion. ("just don't happen with two shells") I should say not, not even with 60 hits either. look, the modelling in this game HEAVILY favors the allied in many ways.

Please explain this accusation that you throw around rather carelessly at regular intervals.

so no matter what, the allies always end up in a better set up.  
[/b]

Again, please explain, I dont see that at all.

the 202 is nice to fly and it is superior performancewise but the guns suck.  
[/b]

I agree there, but is that bias or is that correct? How good would an allied planes guns be with only 2 .30's and 2 .50's? Not any better thats how. Your arguement is made irrelevant by the fact that others, most notably TheBug, was LANDING[/i] 3-4-5 kill sorties in the 202. I[/i] couldnt do that, so does that mean its impossible? That is what you are argueing.

the low velocity MGFF HE round while not as good a performer as the later high velocity round was nowhere near as poor as the wonderful folks at HTC have modelled it to be.  this renders both the 110C and the 109E relatively ineffective.[/b]

Again,  the arguement that if YOU cant do it, then its broken. I think the MGFF is fine, you just have to get close.

I'm of the opinion that the A6M2 and the 109E should never again be featured in any setups.  I don't know of any dedicated axis flyers who enjoys them.[/b]

Im not an "Axis" player, but I for one loved the A6M and got plenty of 3-4-5 kill sorties in it last week, but I never, ever shot until the target was under D200. I have done well in the 109E doing the same thing this week (better than I have in the 202), you just have to get CLOSE, so close that you cant miss.

you guys will never admit it but it is a reality and there is plenty of WWII ballistics data supporting this opinion.  Axis weapons were at least the equal of the allied and in many cases actually superior.  why isn't it so here?  and brady knowing this why do you want to force me to use this crap?
[/b]

Nobody forces you to hit the "online" button, that is your choice.  I dont know HT, but I did know Pyro pretty well when we were in the Gunfighters in AW, and I can tell you there is no intentional "bias" regardless of what you claim he would not stand for it.  He was a critic of AW's modeling much as you are, but he did it in a constructive way, by collecting data that the programmers could use to make the product better not endlessly bleating like a stuck pig on the BBS that his favorite plane was "undermodeled". Are there problems with the modeling of some things in AH? Sure there are, but to say its intentional is patently rediculous and it makes people disregard everything you say.

Nobody listens to you at this point, your like the homeless guy that mumbles to himself in the park, people just ignore you and feel sorry for you because they know you are not in touch with reality anymore.

[Squire]

Armament complaints are almost always:

A6M2 c.1940
109E-4 c.1940
Hurricane I c.1940
Spitfire I c.1940
MC 202 c.1941

Some folks just cant get over that some fighters dont have 4 x 20mm or 6-8 50 cal MGs as armament. It comes from the endless hours (and therefore slanted expectations) flying LA-7s, N1k2s,Typhoons, P-51s ect in the MA, where these a/c are always available.

If the target doesnt explode after a 1 sec burst from 500 yards....the guns are "porked".

Rubbish. I have seen players (we all have) land 2-3-4 kills in all of the above a/c, so how is that possible if the guns dont work?

[_Schadenfreude_]

Nice setup - found that the 109e outpeformed the 202 in terms of climb, low speed turning and firepower - landed 2-3 kills on three runs over the weekend.

Used the 2000 rnds of bb's to spray anyone up to 800ft then used the 20mm at under 200ft.



Great setup imho.

[GRUNHERZ]

Its possible to land 8 kills in any of those fighters.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Squire
Armament complaints are almost always:

A6M2 c.1940
109E-4 c.1940
Hurricane I c.1940
Spitfire I c.1940
MC 202 c.1941

Some folks just cant get over that some fighters dont have 4 x 20mm or 6-8 50 cal MGs as armament. It comes from the endless hours (and therefore slanted expectations) flying LA-7s, N1k2s,Typhoons, P-51s ect in the MA, where these a/c are always available.

If the target doesnt explode after a 1 sec burst from 500 yards....the guns are "porked".

Rubbish. I have seen players (we all have) land 2-3-4 kills in all of the above a/c, so how is that possible if the guns dont work?

As I recall I landed five in the A6M2 last setup, all aerial kills, and I am not the best marksman, it was simply that all were close enough (need that in older planes), all were low so after smoking, losing any power at all they could not glide out and land, and it was in a scrum--Zero Weather.

Thing about oopsy/shane was he knew how and when to shoot.  That's the key, he can flat calculate a firing angle that boy and that is the trick.  Deflection shooting is lost on guys who are used to four cannons and insta pop shooting in the MA.  

I am such a pathetic shot I always tried for 6 shots, but I am working on my defelection shooting and my kills are slowly getting higher (though I don't fly enough to ever hang with you guys).

But really, planes do explode routinely in the MA with a few hits at extreme range.  If anything, I would say all guns are OVER modeled.  I doubt guys routinely killed dodging, twisting fighters at 300-500 yds in the war.  Gunnery is insanely easy at distance in this game.  Even a level aircraft with minor movement presents a difficult target in real life to cannon and MG fire.  

Last night someone killed one of my bostons because he got close and witha  spray knocked off both elevators and damaged an engine.  He was 200-300 yards out.  The Bredas seemed ot be plenty effective at that range and I have to say:

Did most of teh kills in real life explode into pieces within seconds of being hit?  Didn't most planes scoot off only to gradually descend and crash?  Did they all explode in flames like in the MA?  

In real life, with bases farther apart, you'd likely see crippled aircraft landing, many guys crash landing, and some lsses ot damaged AC gradually losing alt.  But, in the CT, it is unrealistically fast action and guys want instant results--also unrealistic, in my personal opinion.

Anyways, bring the Gloster Glad, Heinkel . . .what . . .153? and The Fiat CR42 in and let's start to have to maneuver to 80-100 yards to score.


Sakai

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Sakai
it was simply that all were close enough (need that in older planes)

Yup.  Even the Bredas and the MG FFs work fine if you wait until 200 yards to shoot.

Funny sensation when we move from a series of early- to mid-war setups into one of the 1945 scenarios, where the guns become insanely effective.  No doubt it's frustrating when you're mentally moving in the opposite direction.

- oldman

[ergRTC]

All good points (not including storchs, we posted at the same time, not even sure what he wrote).  Like I said this setup is a good one.  

Early war setups are great for this reason, even though the axis may have the speed and climb, the guns are not overbearing.  Now, *****ing about weak guns...

I was chasing a ju88 in a hurri 1 last night, what a hopeless endeavor that was.  At least in a 202 vs boston, you can keep up with the darn thing.  I must have dumped 400 303 rounds into those planes and didnt even get an engine smoking.

storch writes....
" shot your homosexual behind down a few times BTW so who should learn what. do me a favor address me no further. there is nothing i wish to hear from you or say to you either."

All I have to say to that is wow.  Arlo I think you have got undersomebodies skin....


by the way arlo, how is your homosexual anyway?  It sounds like he was shot down.  I hope he was not hurt badly.

[ergRTC]

storch...

2.  I think you are right, and in the new flight model of ah2 I think you may see this change.  Also in 'real' fights, pilots did not do the psycho stuff we do in a sim.

3.  Paranoia

4.  109s compress too easily to be b/zing at 450 mph.  We will have to ask widewing, but I think that is the way they performed.  If you want to talk about bad modeling lets talk about a6m2s doing 450 mph in a dive without losing their wings....

5. Extreme paranoia

6. Hurricane shot down more planes over england than any other fighter in the bob.  The russians were not thrilled with them.  Nobody flying a 109f or e was turn fighting with a hurricane, if they were they were too dead to come back and complain about it.

[Sakai]

#2. I read an account of a 20 minute dogfight between Josef Priller and Johnnie Johnson over the coast of France.  Priller was in a 190A3 I believe and Johnson was in a Spit 9.  It degenerated into a low altitude furball with neither man able to gain the advantage.  try taking a great stick used to the 190 here and place an average stick in spit 9 and see how long it lasts and who wins in the DA.
 

That is interesting, could you post a link to it or something?  Did they have equal e on the merge?  Perhaps Priller had an advantage?  He was flying the A3 when the Mk9 was out?  Is it that much more maneuvurable than say the 5?

#6.  Read the Finnish pilots accounts of how easy it was to kill the hurricane in the wars up in Finland.  Am I wrong in saying that the Hurricane is possibly the most overmodeled A/C in this game?  Even though I routinely shoot them down it doesn't change the fact that they could barely stand against the 109E4 and were totally outclassed by the 109F.  

Two things:  The Finns also thought the Brewster was god's gift to fighter AC and more importantly, German accounts during BOB of the Hurricane differ dramatically--they thought it was a capable AC (and as you know it recorded more kills than the Spits in the BOB did).  This setup is basically against BOB AC so it should be a capable aircraft (although it is hopelessly outclassed by the Ju88).  The Zerstorer, however, was thought to be less effective by both sides--it is a far more capable aircraft in this game than its reputation.  I think both AC had some early war merit, neither holds up in later war scenarios--about what I would have expected.

That pulling Gs stuff is interesting Storch man and I hope someone at HiTech will address that issue by responding to that point.

I too think the Hizookas are a tad overmodeled, especially as it pertains to firing trajectory.  But then again, that Spitfire was a beloved/feared plane throughout the war while many objective observers think the 109 design was done by about 1943, maybe early '44 and was simply required to soldier on due to need.   I know many 109 freaks will take umbrage at that, but I think the 109 was remarkable for what it accomplished, not because it was an amazing AC in 1944-45.

I also have to wonder how much late war 109 lore there would have been if guys had not been padding their scores on the eastern front or attacking bomber formations.  Ivan had some great pilots, but he also fielded some poorly trained slobs in anything he could toss into the air.   Not that attacking bomber boxes was light entertainment, those guys had balls, but would they have fared as well or better facing Spits and Stangs and 38s and Jugs???

In war writeups, all planes seem great.  the Jug in war reports turns with 109s, catches any 190 and can't be killed.  Try stall fighting a 109 in one in this game.

Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its possible to land 8 kills in any of those fighters.

Well . . .

for you freaks who know how to fly it might be!

;-)

Sakai

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Sakai
That is interesting, could you post a link to it or something?  Did they have equal e on the merge?  Perhaps Priller had an advantage?  He was flying the A3 when the Mk9 was out?  Is it that much more maneuvurable than say the 5?

I'm assuming that this is the fight Johnson describes in his book, "Wing Leader," although he certainly didn't know it was Priller when he wrote the book (wonder who figured that out).  Believe that the time was around the Dieppe invasion thing, and the British were first meeting FWs.  By Johnson's account, the FW was all over him, and he felt he was lucky just to survive, much less triumph.  His story does make it seem that it was very much a turning fight.  I have always wondered how this real-life event could be squared with AW's and AH's versions of the FW.  As Storch says, there ain't no way that the Spit is going to lose in either of those games.

- oldman

[Grits]

Originally posted by storch

Irrespective of what Arlo may say I seldom run from fights even when way out #'d

I have not seen you run, you fight all the time I have seen you so I agree with you there.

#1. The Hispano was very good ballisticly. ALL guns in AH get hits at too far ranges if you ask me, but that is a byproduct of gaming in general, not particular to AH. Very few WWII pilots of any country took D600 shots like we do all the time.

#2. Anecdotal account is not valid no matter who was flying. Lots of anecdotal AAC evidence says  P39's were the worst aircraft ever built while the Russians loved it. The USN/USMC loathed the F2A Buffalo whereas the Finns loved it. Anecdotal evidence is interesting but worthless in this discussion.

#3. Never noticed this myself, I think this is you seeing what you want to see.

#4. Correct me if Im wrong, but dont all AH models limit stick forces to 50lbs? I thought I read in another thread in the aircraft forum that all were limited to 50lbs except the Zeke because the test data was all recorded with regulations that limited pilots to 50lbs stick force because that way all data could be compared equally. Keep in mind the 109 BnZ'd Hurricanes, not P51's and P47's (and probably not Spits).

#5. Ever tried to kill a Ju88 in a Hurricane I? I've been shot to shreds in a Hurricane IIC buy the Ju88 in FinnRuss, its all buffs not just the Allied.

#6. See #2 above about anecdotal acounts.

I don't know Pyro.  it does however seems strange to me that all the best attributes on one side would be applied.  Then these would be countered by all the worst attributes to the other. Still you have people think that this would be coincidental. [/B]

Im not saying its coincidental, Im saying you are seeing the results you want to see to reinforce your agenda and are not being objective about it. What possible gain would they have to alienate the large (albeit smaller than the Allied) groups of customers that fly strictly Axis aircraft? Do you think they really want the Allied aircraft better than the Axis just out of pure bias?

Again, I can tell you Pyro does not care one dang bit that one side's planes are better than the others, his only goal (at least back when I knew him) was the accuracy of the things being modeled. If one gun or aircraft came out better than the anecdotal accounts had them, or another worse, so be it. REAL test data does not lie, while human's are notorius for being unreliable.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by ergRTC

by the way arlo, how is your homosexual anyway?  It sounds like he was shot down.  I hope he was not hurt badly.

He received a bruised ego and broke a nail. Other than that he figured he could still whup his lover 1 on 1 any day of the week. I went ahead and gave him the rest of the night off anyway.

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by Squire
"Come on Brady - give us the CV with Martlets and Sea Hurri's"

Maybe it would help if we got a Finnish squadron to request this.

Why do you say that?

[Slash27]

#5. Need I even go into the Allied bomber whine?


Please do. Address the A6Ms diving ability while your at it. Pull out some data on the N1K2-Js cannons too. You know, how a single hit will sever a F4Us wing at the root.