Full Rolling PlaneSet Rough Draft

[4510]

Originally posted by TheBug
Keep the opinions coming.  I think this one done right has the chance to draw the best numbers seen in AvA since AH1.  But it's going to take putting our heads together.

Thanks for the replies so far.

Bug,

Obviously there are going to be issues with the rolling plane set because we don't have the "whole" historic plane set.  I think what we might want to try and replicate is the historic change of "balance" that took place.

Using the FWs as an example, if we don't have an A3/A4 then bring in the A5 for a day or two.. then the MKIX to counter the FW advantage.

Perhaps we could also not do the WHOLE plane set in one dash.. but in one camp focus on just 1940-43 and the 43-45... still with a rolling introduction?

[4510]

Originally posted by gear
May be old info to the vets but not for noobs.




Me109e

Me 109E. A major change came with the Me 109E, which used the 960hp Daimler-Benz DB 600 engine (an inverted V-12 like the Jumo) but had a three-blade propeller and a markedly different radiator arrangement under the nose. Production Es with 1,100hp DB 600A engines entered service with the Luftwaffe early in 1939. During its production life, a wide variety of armament was incorporated in the E, and the nose-mounted cannon was standard equipment.

Certain other Es had cannon in their wings. Provision was also made for the installation of under-wing bomb racks, and a 300-liter drop tank or a 550-pound bomb could be carried under the fuselage.

 

Gear,

I would agree with your source on the armament for the 109E but like to add the following.

I am quoting from THE GREAT BOOK OR WWII AIRPLANES

Armament of the early BF109E-1 included the standardized pair of cowl mounted 7.9-mm MG17 machine-guns and a pair of the same weapons installed in the wings.  However, based on the successful results of both testing with the V14, and favoring of heavier armament by the RLM, later batches of the E-1 were produced with a pair of 20-mm MG FF cannon in place of the wing-mounted machine guns. The next variant of the Bf109e to reach production was the E-3, incorporating the improved DB601a... and had the provision for the installation of an MG FF cannon  between the powerplants' cyclinders.  Problems of jamming, overheating and vibration, however, still plagued this modification, and most of the installations were either removed in the field, or seldom used.
Because of the apparent failure of the nose-mounted MG FF cannon, and its subsequent removal after installation, it was decided to produce the Bf109E-3 without the center-firing weapon.  The result was the designation change to Bf109E-4, with production deliveries beginning during the summer of 1940.

In short, my source doesn't say they got rid of the wing mounted cannon when they introduced the center firing MG FF, but it does indicate that the center firing MG FF was universally disliked and not used.

[HoHun]

Hi Bug,

>Ok here's a rough draft:

Looks good! :-)

>Also planes could be added based on service dates alone, not necessarily waiting till their respective nation was at war on the timeline.  

I think that's a good idea. Outside of non-combattant nations' aircraft, I'd prefer the use of "first combat mission in squadron strength" instead of service date, but my first impression is that this is close to what you have suggsted.

Here is a link to a thread discussing that topic (containing potentially useful data on service introduction dates etc.):

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26235&highlight=Service

>Again this is a rough draft and open to conctructive criticism, I am certain it needs tweaking from  a gameplay perspective.  

Though I'm a great fan of historical accuracy, I admit that there might be some setups that suck. This might be made worse by the (necessarily imperfect) modelling in the simulation.

Krusty's comment on the Emil points out one possible area of weakness which could have an impact on gameplay because early in the war, the Emil is virtually the only competent Axis fighter type. Unlike Gear's posts suggest, the Emil was quite competetive against the contemporary Spitfires, including the Spitfire V. If that's not the way it is in Aces High, for example because the DB601N engined variants aren't modelled yet, we might have a playability problem there.

>There are no subs represented at the moment but may need to take that into consideration.

As has already been pointed out, the absence of an early Focke-Wulf model is really noticable on the axis side. I believe the Fw 190A-5 could be safely substitute the Fw 190A-3, as the difference comes down to external weapon capability and radio equipment. However, since there is the still unresolved issue of the extent of engine derating on the Fw 190A-3, this might be controversial :-)

Thanks for starting an RPS discussion! :-) I always thought that the shifting tactical balance dictated by competing technologies was one of the most interesting aspects of WW2 air combat!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Urchin]

I like the looks of that, personally.  Not that it matters, since I don't play, but I think it does a fairly decent job of representing the back and forth swing of the ETO.

[4510]

Well,

Just for the sake of discussion...

How difficult is it to add a new plane.. whose artwork would be so similar to the A5 as to have negligible differences?

I mean, what in the code has to adapt to another airplane?

I would expect that there is a performance specifications "shell" into which the different data is loaded for each plane.
The same thing for the weapons etc.

Wouldn't it be relatively easy to add the FWa3 and FWa4 into the game?

Obviously not as difficult as putting in the Spit MK VIII (is that the one with the clipped wings?)

Especially with Tour of Duty coming...
And the interest in Special Events... it would be nice to fill in the early year plane sets...

109E-3/7 109F-2/4  Tropical Models
JU-57
190A-3/4/7

Etc.

I'd like to see a French Detwoine ...

[JAWS2003]

Over 1800 FW-190 A3's and A4's were delivered to Luftwaffe by the end of 1942. Aircraft like Spitfire MkIX, La-5fn, Typhoon were rushed in production to restore the balance.  A5 should be introduced before  Spit mk IX and la-5 fn.
 I don't see why someone would introduce the A5 more then one year after Spit Mk9. Our A5 may be a bit better then A3 but is no better then A4.
 I think We should introduce a FW-190 somewhere at the begining of 1942.

[TheBug]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
I don't see why someone would introduce the A5 more then one year after Spit Mk9.  

If you check their actual service dates maybe then you might see why "someone would introduce the A5 more then (sic)  one year after Spit Mk9".

But other than that you and many others have made some valid points and I will update my rough draft sometime this week and garner new opinions based upon the changes.  I've meant to get back to this post sooner but RL has been a bit busy.

I do appreciate the responses and hope to develop a community created and supported setup.  Without the input and fostering of the guys and gals that fly in the AvA, this setup shouldn't happen.

[storch]

ya what he said and he's an ackllied player also

[HoHun]

Hi Bug,

>But other than that you and many others have made some valid points and I will update my rough draft sometime this week and garner new opinions based upon the changes.

Here's a bit of advice from someone who has been flamed big time for RPS suggestions: Avoid to make it look like anything is based upon your personal decision :-)

Best define rational criteria for which type of date to pick and which type of substitution to make, and apply them uniformly over the entire planeset.

(Sounds simple, but it only occurred to me when I had been thoroughly scorched already :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[TheBug]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Bug,


Here's a bit of advice from someone who has been flamed big time for RPS suggestions: Avoid to make it look like anything is based upon your personal decision :-)

Best define rational criteria for which type of date to pick and which type of substitution to make, and apply them uniformly over the entire planeset.

(Sounds simple, but it only occurred to me when I had been thoroughly scorched already :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hehe, I do appreciate the advice...  But my history has shown I'm pretty good at shooting some flames back myself.

[Platano]

Originally posted by Krusty
That was another problem I had with the setup. Malta showed us that the 109E just cannot stand up to spitVs or hurr2s. It's no comparison.

I'm not here to argue but I dont think this is true...


BTW wats Malta?

Only malta I know is a drink

[storch]

Originally posted by Platano
I'm not here to argue but I dont think this is true...


BTW wats Malta?

Only malta I know is a drink

lol you little oye.  malta is an island strategically located 1/2 way between africa and europe.  the malta you are thinking about and drinking is malt.

[Kev367th]

Malta scenario was bit skewed -

1st frame we had the old AH Spit Vc with as was mentioned was a huge advantage.

2nd and last frames we had the new Vb, things were a lot more balanced.

[sparow]

Hi chaps!

Fine idea this RPS, only minor tweaking and fine tuning to make it the best possible one available. I'm all for it!

Forgot who said it, but saw a nice idea of moving from one front to another in a dinamic way, I mean, avoiding the exhaustion caused by the same scenario from beggining to end...And it would be nice to vary, one week in Europe, one week in Tunisia, one week in the Pacific, back to the Baltic, again back into the Pacific, and so forth...This would not be boring, really.

When in doubt, shoot, I mean, if you have to skip a few months because we don't have the planes, change to another theater of operations! Works everytime!

Good job!

Sparrow

[bozon]

Service dates is a good basis for a RPS.
However, gameplay tweeks are needed since as mentioned, Spit V vs. 109E and Spit9 before the 190A will not be much fun.

The real interesting thing is the historical matchups. So the time frames should be selected so planes are added together with their historical matchups. Start with The Bug's list but group it differently. This will be "war era" frames instead of linear time scale in months. This will also solve holes in the plane set by "jumping" over them. For example:

1st frame (early BoB):
as it is

2nd frame should include (late BoB and pacific begins):
Spit5/hurri2 - 109F
A6m2 - F4F
P40B

3rd frame (africa planeset added):
P40E
C202
Hurricane IId
Bf 109g-2

4th frame (canal war era):
Spitfire MkIX
Seafire
190A5 (as A series representative)

5th frame (US joins ETO)
P-38G
P-47D11
109G6

.
.
.
etc

No need to religeously stick to actual service date of our specific model. 190A5 is close enough to represent all early A models and so it is in the era frame of the Spit9. The F6F-5 is very close to enter the era of F6F-3. I'm not familiar enough with the eras in the russian front or exact yak models, but I'm sure we can find the right era for them.

Most important is to sustain good matchups and good gameplay.

Bozon