No, we need these..

[sharp8th]

yet more dweeb rides..........

[Kweassa]

Though I'm a total Yak-man in game (well, WAS a total Yak-man anyhow) I don't think we'll really need any of the 7 series. I think I'd rather just have a contemporary -1. And, as has been mentioned swapping the 9M for the 9D makes everything easier for HTC.

 By all means and purposes the Yak-1 and the Yak-7 are indeed near identical in performance. However, the reason I support the -7 (either -7A or -7B) over the -1 is that the -7 covers a lot wider timeline than the Yak-1.

 The first Yak-1s were constantly being modified under the pressure of matching superior Luftwaffe aircraft such as the Bf109F, and as a result a "Yak-1" by the end of 1941 would be quite different from the first Yak-1s in combat during the opening phases of Barbarossa, now equipped with the improved Klimov M-105PA engine (over the old M-105P), but stripped of the underwing armament options. By spring of 1942, the Yak-1s in combat would be totally stripped of various ordnance options, with a designation nicknamed as 'lightweight Yaks', and would soon introduce significant modifications including the M105P-F engine and the bubble canopy, which would be officially designated as a separate variant - the Yak-1B.

 Therefore, if HTC were to model a "Yak-1", they'd have to choose between the various phases of the Yak-1 development. If they choose to model the earliest Yak-1 of June, 1941, then that Yak-1 would be somewhat inadequate for scenarios or events that its timeline is set between, perhaps something like late '41 to early '42. If they'd choose to model the much improved 'Yak-1' then its performance margin between the Yak-1B of 1942, would make it pointless.

 However, enter the Yak-7A, equipped with a M-105PA, with its raw performance somewhat between the earliest Yak-1 and the significantly improved Yak-1B. It would easily cover the entire 12-month period between Barbarossa and the summer of '42, a very close match and 'substitute' for the contemporary Yak-1s (improved than the original Yak-1, but not quite reaching Yak-1B standards) of this period.

 Besides, 3D modelling wise, the Yak-1 is no more easier for HTC than the Yak-7A - both of these aircraft being significantly different than the Yak-9T or -9U we have, also very different from the Yak-1B (which should make its way into AH sooner or later).

 Then, would the Yak-7A not be a wiser choice than the (somewhat) 'vague' Yak-1?

[Kweassa]

We don't need a Yak1, Yak3, Yak7, and 3-5 types of a Yak9. I'm sorry, despite some differences, they are mostly the same.

 That's like saying the Spit5, Spit9, Spit8 and the Spit16 is 'mostly the same', which ofcourse, is no where near the truth.

I can definitely see an argument for a Yak1 or a 3, but not both. Then I can also see arguments for maybe a different 9, but if we already have 2 -9s already, why do we need the 7? Also why do we need the long-range D?

 First of all, if there would be arguments against a Yak, then logically the argument against the Yak-3 would make most sense. By the end of 1944 the Yak-9U and the Yak-3 reached quite similar performance specs, with the Yak-9U having faster top speed, but the Yak-3 having faster climb, acceleration, and slightly better maneuverability.

 However, the Yak-3 and the Yak-9 are a result of different line of Yak evolution, and the Yak-9U represents the 'final phase' of the 'heavy Yaks'. Then by all means, both in game utility and historical/iconical significance, the Yak-3 has strong grounds for being introduced into the game, as the final phase of evolution of the 'light Yaks' line.


 Secondly, whether or not we have "two Yak-9s already" is pointless. We can easily argue that the three different Spitfires - the Spit9, Spit8, and the Spit16 - are essentially all "Spit9s". The Mk.8 is almost identical to the LF.Mk9 of '43, and the clipped-wing Mk.16 is a LF.Mk9 of '44 originally. I don't see anyone complaining that we have three Spit9s, nor, for that matter, anyone complaining of having three Bf109G models.

 Besides, the Yak-9T armed with the 37mm cannon can never be considered represantative of the Yak-9s of 1943. Nor can the Yak-9U ever be compared with the Yak-9. The -9U is a totally different beast and the performance difference between the -9 and the -9U is roughly equal to that of the Bf109G-6 and the G-10.

 So what are we gonna give the VVS in scenarios of based in '43?

 A -9T? (which would be like allowing all the G-6s of '43 scenarios to be armed with the MK108)

 ...or a -9U? (which would be like substituing the Bf109G-6 with the G-10 in a '43 scenario)

I agree we need some more soviet planes, but we don't need EVERY soviet plane. Just my logic.

 A very biased logic, if you ask me.

 I don't see anyone complaining about the fact that we have essentially 'every RAF plane' or 'every German plane'. The Spitfires are fully represented from 1940 to 1944 with (essentially) three separate Spit9 models. The Bf109s are also fully represented from 1940 to 1944 with three different Gustavs models. Even now the LW fans are asking for an earlier Fw190A to finish off its evolutionary cycle.

 So then, why should asking for the most significant and represantitve of Yaks variants during the Great Patriotic War, be any different from the Spitfires or 109s? The Eastern Front was as important, if not more, as the Western Front. Why should the Yaks not be represented fully?

 Besides, if I was really asking for EVERY Soviet plane, believe me, the list would grow helluva longer than this. The large list of planes I posted simply means the VVS is that much under-represented in AH.

I think the same applies to the LA series. We don't need an LA5, an LA5F, and LA5FN, and an LA7. I'd rather see the LA5FN re-engined to the LA5, or -5F. The FN is too close to the 7 as-is. (*opinion alert!*)

 The difference between the La-5 and the -5FN is somewhat akin to the difference between a Merlin-engined P-51 and an an Allison P-51 (not performance wise, but situationally). The P-51 gained its wings with the Merlin, and was transformed into a totally different beast. Likewise, the real 'glory' of the Lavochkins begin with the La-5FN.

 However, the difference is that the Allison engined P-51s were nowhere near on the same level of significance in the role it played in the war compared to the P-51 with Merlins, but the La-5s filled in a full year or combat. The La-5, being the successor to the LaGG-3s of '41, took on the hard fight for more than a full year from 1942 to 1943, before the La-5FN finally arrived.

 What are we gonna give the VVS when we ever do a 1942 scenario? Just fill all of the slots with Yak-1Bs? Give them a '41 standard LaGG-3 to substitute the La-5? Or substitute it with the '43~'44 La-5FN and overmatcg everything else in the scenario?

I would like to see an earlier LA, we just don't need every minor update.

 The simple truth is, they are not 'minor' as you think they are. They are significant differences.

 Just as the P-38J or L is significant enough over the P-38G to be designated as a new variant, or the P-51B is significant over the old Allison engined P-51s.

[Krusty]

I don't see anyone complaining about the fact that we have essentially 'every RAF plane' or 'every German plane'.

You must have missed those. There were plenty. Hell even I was against adding too many nearly-identical spitties. I argued against including a 109G14 and a G14/AS because despite different power curvers they were too similar. I do remember the arguments that "there are too many similar planes!" because I took part in a few.

Kweassa, please note when I said "every minor version" I was referring to the real war, not the specific versions you have suggested.

[A very biased logic, if you ask me.

Really? So we need every plane? Every plane ever built? We need the T-6  texan, a training plane? We need the storch, an unarmed recon/mail plane? We need the thousands of minor and unimportant planes that served in the war, yet contribute nothing to the gameplay? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new planes. However I think one has to budget what is really needed with what would be cool to have. Some folks come in and make a post spelling out every variant from A to Z and my default answer is: We need some of those but not all, definitely not all.

EDIT: That paragraph is getting off subject, but I couldn't resist replying. We returne to the regularly scheduled post now. /EDIT

Specifically to this post: You've agreed that maybe there's an argument for just one of the two early models and clarified your thinking on the -9D (good reason, I agree)

As for the LAs, I'm all for the earlier version of the LA5, I was suggesting replacing the -5FN with the -5 or -5F, not that we don't add anything new.

[Yoshimbo]

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

bring em all!


BUT MOST IMPORTANLY BRING THE I-16!!!!!!!!!

i luv da "Fly"




haven't flow the FLY since i had the 1943(?) russian front mod for AOE (aces over europe)

*chants* I-16, I-16, 1-16, I-16

[Kweassa]

You must have missed those. There were plenty. Hell even I was against adding too many nearly-identical spitties. I argued against including a 109G14 and a G14/AS because despite different power curvers they were too similar. I do remember the arguments that "there are too many similar planes!" because I took part in a few.

 Well I took part in every one of those discussions where people asked for new Spitfires or 109s since HTC announced they were redoing Spits and 109s, and also when Karnak first came up with the list of Spitfires. According to my version of the tale, nobody was unhappy about having seven Spitfires and six 109s. What people argued was about what they'd do with the G-10. It wasn't about having more or less RAF or LW planes.

Kweassa, please note when I said "every minor version" I was referring to the real war, not the specific versions you have suggested.

 Then it would make your comment pretty much irrelevant, since all of the types I asked for are in no way a 'every minor version'. Like I said in the original post, those planes are bare minimum.

 Any WW2 combat sim would have to include at least a Spit1, Spit5, Spit9 and a Spit14. Likewise, no combat sim would ever say they simulate historical planes without the 109E, F, G-6, and the K-4. These plane types and variants are iconic, as well as with great historical significance.

 The same can be said of every one of those planes I've listed. It is indeed, the bare minimum.

Really? So we need every plane? Every plane ever built? We need the T-6 texan, a training plane? We need the storch, an unarmed recon/mail plane? We need the thousands of minor and unimportant planes that served in the war, yet contribute nothing to the gameplay?

 You on medication?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for new planes. However I think one has to budget what is really needed with what would be cool to have. Some folks come in and make a post spelling out every variant from A to Z and my default answer is: We need some of those but not all, definitely not all.

 Which part of the concept 'bare minimum' do you not understand? The above seven planes I've suggested are only the most significant of VVS plane types which should have been in the game long ago. It's nowhere near being 'every plane type' as you seem to suggest. Those seven planes are what finishes the VVS fighter set.

 We have most of the entire US fighters set of the war, most of the entire RAF fighters, most of the entire German fighters, but for some reason we should not finish the entire VVS fighters set because it is against the 'resources'?

 We have four VVS fighters. Two Yaks, one from '43, one '44. Two Las, one '43, the other '44. Then look at the Spitfires and 109s.

 We have seven Spitfires, ranging from 1940 to 1944;

 Spit1('40)
 Spit5('41)
 Seaf2('42)
 Spit9('42)
 Spit8('43)
 Spirt16('44)
 Spit14('44).

 We have six 109s, ranging from 1940 to 1944;

 E-4('40)
 F-4('41)
 G-2('42)
 G-6('43)
 G-14('44)
 K-4('44)

 How about the US planes set? The Army Air Corps alone has;

 P-40B('40)
 P-40E('41)
 P-38G('42)
 P-38J('43)
 P-38L('44)
 P-47D-11('44)
 P-47D-25('44)
 P-47D-40('44)
 P-47N('44)
 P-51B('43)
 P-51D('44)
 
Is there some reason the Yaks and La/LaGG series should not be treated the same?

[Krusty]

You're missing my points. I'm done here. I *WAS* agreeing with most of what you said, by the way. You come of as way too combatitive, though.

[Nightshift82]

if you want russian I only have one word......MiG

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Kweassa

 Then, would the Yak-7A not be a wiser choice than the (somewhat) 'vague' Yak-1?

Yes. But it still looks pregnant

My preferance for the Yak-1 is based on Sex Appeal alone  

And to add to the Krusty debate (and Krusty is the official poo-pooer of all proposed plane additions), give me a contemporary Yak for the 109s we have, and I'll be more than content.

Of course I would guess that any modelling is severely limited not only in general popularity, but also the availability of whatever performance data there is, and whether or not it meets whatever criteria HTC has established.

-Sik

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Nightshift82
if you want russian I only have one word......MiG

The Mig is pretty low on my list. It would be novel to have a high-alt plane for the Reds, but I'd rather have the early Yak.

-Sik

[Tilt]

I would tend to work back in time........

1) Yak3 (MA & any 44 scenario)
2) Yak 9D (Any post Kursk scenario)
3) Yak 7B (Stalingrad to Kursk)
4) Yak 1 (Late Barbarossa to Kursk)

The I 16 will get MA usage IMO particularly if cannon mounted its good for any scenario upto Stalingrad.

But if only to fill the 44 set I would be keen to see just the Yak3, Yak 9D (maybe the DD) and the Pe 2