Author Topic: P-47N vs Ta152H-1 (Read 1397 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2005, 10:11:36 AM »

Well Pyro, Personally I'd lower the perk cost of the Ta152 to something small (smaller than the C-Hog) and then match the P47n to it.

As it is right now, it's probably the best porker. If it's free, it'll be the best suicide porker.

GuyNoir · « **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2005, 10:25:53 AM »

You should perk the p47n only if it takes 1000lbrs and/or rockets

Wilbus · « **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2005, 10:28:16 AM »

Neither the N or the Ta152 needs to be perked. Non of them will be overused I think. Only reason to perk the N would be for people to still fly the D40.

Thanks for brining it up Karnak, I didn't dare. Would only be called luftwhiner again.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2005, 10:35:06 AM »

Well, don't forget to analyze the F4u4. While I don't think it performs quite as well, you have to factor in other things.

1.) It performs a lot better at high altitudes.
2.) It carries more ordinance.
3.) It flies further and longer.
4.) It carries (possibly) 2 more .50's.

The F4u4 is heavily perked, while the P47n isn't.

Also, one more factor. The use of something or the amount they had during WW2 is not a factor in deciding whether or not to perk something.

It's just a coincidence that most of the planes we have perked had very low numbers.

Mustaine · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2005, 10:37:11 AM »

but you ARE wilbus

hehehe. jk bud

the 152 can be a smokin hot plane in the right hands, but i am gussing the 47n will be the same.. ok most of the time, but in a really good pilots hands; kick ass.

just my thoughts

lazersailor... i will comment that the f4u4 climbs awsome, and accellerates great, and does pretty much everything. i do not hvae enough time in the 47n (noone does) to see what it truly can do, and if it is a match for the f4u4. right now, the u4 can dominate an la7 even, and it's only real non-jet match is the tempest.

coyo · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:00:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raptor01
If P47N does not recieve a perk tag, the P47D40 will never be used.

Guess that means the La5 is currently never used.

They gona perk the 'N' soon as they perk the Niki and Ki84 and La7:aok

Halo · « **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:10:57 AM »

(QUOTE)

I originally envisioned the N as a perk but after playing around with it, I didn't think it was all that would be necessary. I think the comparison to the 152 has some validity. We'll see how the N plays out and then I expect the 152 to follow it into a similar category.
__________________
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

(UNQUOTE)

Well done, well said. When in doubt, don't perk. Perking was done to rectify gross imbalances in game playability (e.g., too many CHogs).

However, even as a proponent of no perks, I remain surprised the 3-cannon La-7 is not perked. There weren't many of them historically and sometimes there are proportionately too many of them in Aces High.

Perhaps it's because opponents can't tell which armament a bogey is carrying? And the two-gun La-7 might be just as lethal with less weight from the absent third gun?

Karnak · « **Reply #22 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:17:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
I originally envisioned the N as a perk but after playing around with it, I didn't think it was all that would be necessary. I think the comparison to the 152 has some validity. We'll see how the N plays out and then I expect the 152 to follow it into a similar category.

It is just a matter of where you guys want to set the performance bar that requires perking. All I was looking at was consistancy. Personally I would probably perk both at about 5 just to limit the jabo usage of the P-47N, but whatever you feel is appropriate is certainly unobjectionable to my $14.95/month.

lasersailor184,

I didn't see a reason to test the F4U-4 against it. I tested the bottom end perk plane (discounting the F4U-1C as it was not originally perked and it is perked due to the guns and CV capability, not raw performance) and the P-47N was better, so we moved up to the second to last perk plane (looking at K/D and kills/tour not at perk price) and the Spitfire Mk XIV dominated the P-47N. If the Spitfire Mk XIV dominated it, why test the F4U-4 which is superior to the Spitfire Mk XIV?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:43:08 AM »

F4u4 is not superior to the Spit 14. Not even close.

But all planes have strengths and weaknesses.

You can't just say La5
It just doesn't work that way. You need to know at what you'll be using them. The F4u4 was never something great in my opinion. Especially at the perk cost its at now.

From what I understand the F4u4 wasn't perked because of it's capabilities, but a combination of its capabilities and it's ordinance abilities.

Karnak · « **Reply #24 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:21:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
F4u4 is not superior to the Spit 14. Not even close.

Usage and stats say otherwise.

Widewing makes a pretty compelling argument that the F4U-4 is superior to the Tempest Mk V.

moot · « **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:24:01 PM »

I'd say the 152 will get priced around the same as the chog.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 21, 2005, 01:20:08 PM »

I can load a bunch of retards into Spit 14s and send them out against any plane and they'd get slaughtered.

The usages and stats don't mean anything. F4u4 can't outperform the Spit 14 except in Ordinance delivery.

Karnak · « **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2005, 01:40:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I can load a bunch of retards into Spit 14s and send them out against any plane and they'd get slaughtered.

The usages and stats don't mean anything. F4u4 can't outperform the Spit 14 except in Ordinance delivery.

This seems highly unlikely to me. It seems to me that this argument hinges on a "Superior people like the F4U and only crappy people like the Spit." It is an unprovable position so you take it as a refuge from the only hard data we have, which is that the F4U-4 gets used more often than does the Spitfire Mk XIV and that the Spitfire Mk XIV does not obtain as high a win/loss record as the F4U-4.

Any group of people tends to average out the extremes. This suggests your claim about the F4U-4 pilots just being better is wrong. You're claim also does not explain why people would choose to fly the F4U-4 more often than the Spitfire Mk XIV given that the hordes in AH gravitate towards that which is best.

Unless you can give some evidence beyond your wishful thinking, I am not prepared to accept your theory.

Some examples of ways in which the F4U-4 is superior to the Spitfire Mk XIV:

Faster on the deck.
Tougher.
Greater fuel endurance.
Better visibility.
Better balistics.
Better roll rate.
CV capable.
More ordnance.
Better turning capability with flaps?

Examples of Spitfire Mk XIV superiority:
Slightly better climb rate.
Better firepower.

Wilbus · « **Reply #28 on:** July 21, 2005, 02:08:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Halo
Perhaps it's because opponents can't tell which armament a bogey is carrying? And the two-gun La-7 might be just as lethal with less weight from the absent third gun? [/B]

The B20 guns actually weight less then the Shvak. Total extra weight of the 3 gunned LA7 is 75kg's (165lbs) extra, and I suspect this is from ammo.

DipStick · « **Reply #29 on:** July 21, 2005, 04:10:07 PM »

Perk the jets and the temp, the rest are targets...