Scenario: Open letter to the AH community

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Karnak
...
I feel the same in some cases, but "feel" doesn't really cut it.  Would you be interested in testing the actual durability of the F4F and not just our feeling on it?  I'd be game on that.

All I know is I flew the F4F a few times in the CT and when I got the least bit careless I was dead awful damn fast. Not from tracking shots, but the M2 cut inside my turns and loops so hard that it was more like 1-burst pilot kills or wings getting blowed off.

If I got real slow and tried to dive away with less than 5K under me, the M2 could hang right on my tail because that wasn't enough room to dive real steeply.

I don't know if the M2 is modelled "right" or not. All I do know from testing is that it's a dangerous little plane against aircraft that it's supposed to be facing. And that's all I'm concerned with for the event.

[Westy]

"go kill something (or try to) then post your results."

I did in beta.  (note: I did not continue further with AH-II due to other IMO more serious gameplay issues such as suiciding heavy bombers for one example; fantasy main arena setup being another).

Anyway. I found each plane was delightfully different but using a 109, Zeke or KI-67 to get kills was a piece of cake.  

 From your last post however I think I see the root fo the problem. I'm hearing you base your presumptions about HTC's supposed "bad" modelling on your game ability and how long you've been playing "flight sims."

"... it's not about "feelings" It's about hundreds of hours spent in mostly Axis rides. Without a doubt the damage modelling on the ammo for those models is way off. look up my kills I'm sure they will corroborate what you call my "feelings"

 Sorry to say but "feelings" will never convince any developer  of any game anywhere out there that they modelled anything wrong. There very well may be but  your convictions that something is askew being based on feelings and game experience is kind of funny.

[Karnak]

DoKGonZo,

My experience from the A6M2's perspective is that unless I get lucky and take the F4F-4's elevators off it is a multi-minute struggle to kill it as the A6M2 only turns very slightly better and rolls substantially worse.  Once you have a good solution from very short range it takes about two seconds of fire, sometimes three, e.g. 40 to 60 rounds whereas when I am in the F4F it taks a quarter second or less and a lot less ammo to kill the A6M2.  The F4F-4 feels tougher than some GVs to me.

Westy,

Which 109 and which A6M?  The Bf109E and A6M2 do not carry the same cannons as the latter 109s or A6M.

I assume you meant Ki-61-I-Tei when you said Ki-67 given that the Ki-67 is a bomber.  The Ki-61-I-Tei has very good guns and I don't see how it is relevant to the MG/FF and Type 99 Model 1 issue Storch and I mentioned.

[Westy]

Karnak I flew all the fighters enabled during beta so whichever 109's and Zeke's were there I gave it a shot.  I only added the KI-61 (cc on the bonmber vs fighter error)  as I've read many posts over time from people saying they could not hit a barn with that planes guns too.

 My feelings are that HTC strives to model ballistics as accurately as they and I strngly feel that HTC most certainly does not fudge one side against another for gameplay purposes.
 I feel HTC does this very well with all of the weapons for all of the aircraft they have modelled.
 My feelings are if people have problems landing hits and getting kills in the MA it's due to thier hotas or skill.
 Furthermore, my feelings are that a lack of getting solid hits, or a kill, with a Zeke or 109  in a scenario is due to player inexperience, player being overly excited, player failing to coordinate with wingmen and/or a players lack of SA in a more WWII era type of environment (in comparison to the MA it is anyway)

 I've now matched feelings with feelings

 IMO AH feels right..

[straffo]

*Karnak don't forget this :

The Allied squadrons field 88 fighters and 9 scout bombers. The Japanese squadrons can launch 18-27 bombers and 148-157

The raw number favor the japanese.

[mechanic]

Originally posted by storch
Congratulations!!!!!!  Now try that in an axis ride  

lol. tried a 109F4 the other day, couldnt kill squat in that, the poor visability and slow responses made the 'non-fuel injected' RAF mk1 problems seems like a golden nose bleed!

Those crazy krauts who used to fly solo over the channel and bomb us limeys in thier BF109F/Es had just as much, if not more balls as the RAF pilots facing hundreds of enemy planes during BoB.

WW1: RFC flew offensive over axis land, LW stayed put behind thier lines.  Many RFC pilots died or lost

WW2: RAF stayed deffensive prior to D-Day, and LW flew offensive over enemy territory. Many lost on both sides.

not sure what im getting at, other than i feel i missed a period in historical combat that can never be seen again. ever.

i was born 85 years to early, and will most probably die 150 years too late

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it was quite astounding the developement over such a short period, or even the evolution from the birth of manned flight to the end of the war, and onwards.

will endevour to land some in an F4 forthwith.

Ki-61 is a doddle, a walk in the park mate! those guns shred buffs to pieces, let alone little spitty's and lala's.

and as for the zeke, one could out fly any plane in that.

if they have E and alt, you evade so easily.

if they are co-alt, they will never get on your 6 flown correctly.

F4-F VS Zeke?  you having a Girraffe??

A6 could beat 3 F4-s i reakon, given equal advantage aside from numbers.

anyhow, its getting late and they want to lock the cell door and give me my injections again.

what wrong or 'crazy' about talking to trees??



Batfink

[Karnak]

Westy,

It isn't a matter of ballistics or hitting.  I am sure those are correct, or close enough to make no real difference.  The issue is the over durability of the F4F-4.  It puts the P-47 to shame and seems nearly as tough as the IL-2.  Now it seems that either the 20mm cannon on the A6M2 are not doing as much damage as they should or the F4F-4 is overly durable.

The other issue is that the F4F-4 is only slightly less manuverable than the A6M2.  It seems impossible that an aircraft that is so over built as to be able to shrug off 20mm cannon hits should be so nearly a match in manuverability of an aircraft that has sacrificed any concept of durability for manuverability.

These two things combine to make the A6M2 have to really work for the kill, even if the F4F-4 pilot is an idiot, whereas the briefest crossing shot from an F4F-4 blows the A6M2 to bits.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by storch
Congratulations!!!!!!  Now try that in an axis ride  

Storch! You're slipping, `ol boy. I thought you'd gotten past all this. I guarantee you that the Axis planes in AH are every bit as deadly and effective as the Allied rides. You know how I know.

[storch]

Originally posted by Westy
"

"... it's not about "feelings" It's about hundreds of hours spent in mostly Axis rides. Without a doubt the damage modelling on the ammo for those models is way off. look up my kills I'm sure they will corroborate what you call my "feelings"

 Sorry to say but "feelings" will never convince any developer  of any game anywhere out there that they modelled anything wrong. There very well may be but  your convictions that something is askew being based on feelings and game experience is kind of funny.

  Westy,

apparently English comprehension isn't your strong suit.  Never the less as I said thanks but no thanks.

[Westy]

"You're slipping, `ol boy. I thought you'd gotten past all this. "


 lol Arlo.  Past all this? Looks like it huh?. He spouts alot of exagerated claims but he never backs it up with any shred of evidence. Not even a teensy little bit such as using the ingame film feature to record what he'd seen or experienced.
 A good example of a player using a minimal amount of time and low tech means was shown by a WWIIO player recently. He though the damage model was porked on the bombers so he used an 88 ack gun and fired directly on the wings and engines of the DB7. the less than a minute long video shows withouith a doubt things are fubared.

see:  http://mnemeth1.brinkster.net/DHB/Movies/ThisIsGay2.wmv

 One would figure Storch would had some of this figured it out by now. Especially after the time he accused HTC of giving the Spit an anti gravity device.  Only to discover he had the stall limiter on.  

http://216.91.192.19/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120211



 Karnak there may indeed be something wrong with the F4F damage model. You've been around long enough to know there is a process to go thru before they'll review something though.  Two players could test it out in just a few minutes easily enough. I'd volunteer but we'd have to meet in a H2H session.

[storch]

Originally posted by Karnak
Westy,

It isn't a matter of ballistics or hitting.  I am sure those are correct, or close enough to make no real difference.  The issue is the over durability of the F4F-4.  It puts the P-47 to shame and seems nearly as tough as the IL-2.  Now it seems that either the 20mm cannon on the A6M2 are not doing as much damage as they should or the F4F-4 is overly durable.

The other issue is that the F4F-4 is only slightly less manuverable than the A6M2.  It seems impossible that an aircraft that is so over built as to be able to shrug off 20mm cannon hits should be so nearly a match in manuverability of an aircraft that has sacrificed any concept of durability for manuverability.

These two things combine to make the A6M2 have to really work for the kill, even if the F4F-4 pilot is an idiot, whereas the briefest crossing shot from an F4F-4 blows the A6M2 to bits.

I recall a past post on this issue, I believe by wotan in which it was ackowledeged that the MGFF and the Type 99-1 were not modelled correctly and that it would all be set right in AH2.  Aside from that I have had occasions where I've behind an F4F-4 in an A6M2 under D100 firing cannon only, observed a dozen or so sprites out of 20 rds fired only to have the F4F-4 fly away with no apparent damage.  Actually the bbs are more effective at killing stuff than the cannons.  Most of my kills in the A6M2 are from "the bbs of death".  You can stay with them long enough to knock off an aileron then gnaw on them until the tail feathers come off.  In BoB maps I fly the 110C exclusively.

[storch]

Originally posted by Westy
"You're slipping, `ol boy. I thought you'd gotten past all this. "


 lol Arlo.  Past all this? Looks like it huh?. He spouts alot of exagerated claims but he never backs it up with any shred of evidence. Not even a teensy little bit such as using the ingame film feature to record what he'd seen or experienced.
 A good example of a player using a minimal amount of time and low tech means was shown by a WWIIO player recently. He though the damage model was porked on the bombers so he used an 88 ack gun and fired directly on the wings and engines of the DB7. the less than a minute long video shows withouith a doubt things are fubared.

see:  http://mnemeth1.brinkster.net/DHB/Movies/ThisIsGay2.wmv

 One would figure Storch would had some of this figured it out by now. Especially after the time he accused HTC of giving the Spit an anti gravity device.  Only to discover he had the stall limiter on.  

http://216.91.192.19/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120211



 Karnak there may indeed be something wrong with the F4F damage model. You've been around long enough to know there is a process to go thru before they'll review something though.  Two players could test it out in just a few minutes easily enough. I'd volunteer but we'd have to meet in a H2H session.

You fly H2H only???

[Westy]

"You fly H2H only???"

 No way.    And I closed my day-one account earlier this year as I grew intolerant (and bored to tears) with the current state of MA "gameplay."

  I was offering to plug in my joystick and fly some H2H to assist in coming up with a video showing anything noticeably wrong with the F4F. My thinking is that should there be anything amiss and it gets fixed now it would make AH-TOD better.

 H2H?  Yuck.  The type of "arcade entertainment" I encountered during my brief (*very* brief) forays onto H2H hosts was worse than anything I'd seen in the "MA".  I'd rather my CH hotas collect dust (which it has and in abundance too).

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by mechanic
this will be so awesome!

im signed up for spit/hurri mk1

FM2 as 3rd choice


(please let me have a spit/hurri )

thanks to all who make this possible



Batfink

When are you usually online?  I'd like to set up some practice sessions and get some time in before the scenario starts.  You can email me or post here on the BB.

[DoKGonZo]

(1) I think there's a general problem with gunnery on dead-6 shots. There've been a couple threads lately about gunnery effectiveness of various weapons and it always seems to boil down to "I dump half my ammo on so-and-so from dead 6 and nothing happens." I flew the F4F, P40E, and A6M2 in the CT a week ago and saw nothing that would indicate that given 3:2 odds that the A6M2 is at any kind of disadvantage. More often than not it took 3 US planes to bring down pesky Zero's, whereas a 2:1 on an Allied plane usually ended very quick.

(2) Pacific events - especially early war - are the most lopsided in terms of technology. You have completely divergent aircraft design philosophies facing each other. That also makes it one of the most interesting theatres to do scenarios in. Especially early war where things happen slower and closer in - it's a very different atmosphere. And it's also as far removed from the MA as possible.

(3) Because of the presumption of Pacific events being nothing more than staged "turkey shoots" these events are also harder to get people to fly in. I knew that going in - but they just did a Battle of Britain so that removed a bunch of options. And I didn't want to do a scenario that featured mostly planes that are the standard of the MA every night. That left the Pacific. This is a very interesting battle and the event design has a lot of fog of war aspects built in to keep it interesting (though I doubt that's the adjective the CO's are using at the moment ... hehe).

(4) A number of people stepped up to get this thing run in a hurry - terrain beds, jackets, CO's, skins, etc. - so I really am put off by those who seem to want to scare folks off from flying or who are otherwise portending doom or airing their own agendas at the event's expense. For a lot of people, once they play in a good scenario they can't get enough and the MA can never compete with the rush of scenario flying. So why ruin it for people who've never tried one before? If you don't want to fly because you don't like the planes or you only fly if you can fly with your squad - fine. But if you want big events (more than 4 missions) in the years to come, you better support (even if only vocally) what's being done or this stuff will whither and die.

(5) My events aren't like other people's. Historic match-ups are only part of what I go for. I also strive to recreate the atmosphere - the kinds of tactics, stresses, and decisions that the pilots 60+ years ago had to face. Some of the rules I am using don't make sense taken alone - but taken together there is a "big picture" which does make sense - though you may not see it until you start flying missions. In ways my events are like advanced flight school - everyone from individual pilots to CO's is in one way or another forced to think and perform outside the envelope they're used to.

(6) Following up on (5), scenarios also let people bring out skills that may not matter in the MA. Some folks are great scouts - somehow always able to find the enemy formations first. Some folks are great teachers of ACM while others are great flight leaders even if not the best dogfighters. The cool thing about a scenario is that it lets people who may otherwise be anonymous in the MA to shine through in a team-based environment. When all the clutter and noise of the MA is removed a lot can change.

(7) I'm not sure what expectations are given the way the CT and MA operate, but I won't send people up on a scenario mission if both sides don't have an equal shot of winning. If the IJA side doesn't fill then I'll adjust the aircraft types, altitudes, ordinance load-outs, radar or whatever else is needed to maintain balance and flow. I won't allow "gamey" mission plans to be run either, but neither will I ruin the flow of the event over miniscule rulesmanship. Bottom line: I take my responsibility to those who sign up to fly very, very personally.

OK. That's enough.