Great way to use perks..

[Kweassa]

I'm pretty sure this was suggested before, but in light of some recent posts by HTC on how they will work on perked ordnance/weapon options I thought it may be worthwhile to bring this up again.

 ...

 We've had almost countless arguments involving which plane used which grade of fuel, which engine boost setting, and which of those settings in game are acceptable for "balance" or not.


 For example, on the earlier 109s such as the 109F-4, the 1.42 ata boost rating wasn't cleared until much later. Now, when HTC modelled the Friederich, I'm pretty sure the intention was to add in a represantative Bf109 variant of 1941, but for some reason they've graciously modelled it upto post-'41 standards using 1.42 ata. However, in contrast, our SpitV has reverted once more to 1941 standards, and the +16 boost setting was dropped.

 As an avid Luftwaffle fanboy who hates Spitfires and who thinks there can never be too much advantage in performance when it comes to fighting those mega-HO Hizooka planes , seeing the 109F-4 or G-2 "derated" to 1.30 ata as per its initial setting before clearance would probably make me cry. However, that does not mean I'm an unfair person, and if the SpitV in the game is under 1941 standards as per its original introduction, then there's no reason why the 109s shouldn't be using the same standards.

Then, perhaps a more interesting solution can be suggested. Why not model all planes to its initial/represantative flight condition, and then give the pilots an option to use higher boost/fuel setting by paying a certain amount of perks?

 In the above case, the Bf109F-4 or G-2, would then probably be "derated", (or "limited", rather) to 1.30ata as it should be. And then, in the hangars, there would be an option concerning the grade of fuel/engine setting, in which the pilot can pay the set price. In this case, the pilot would be able to select a "1.42ata" option at perhaps.. let's say 2 or 3 perks?

 This basic concept could probably be applied all sorts of planes.

* The Bf109K-4 would be using 1.80 ata as AH default, as this would be more closer to the "initial performance". The 1.98 ata would be perked slightly.

* The Typhoon we have, should be using original 1941 Typhoon standards as default.. the higher boost ratings (the 1944 Typhoons we have) will also be perked slightly.

* The various Spitfires, P-47s, P-51s, P-38s.. and etc etc.. would be 100 octane as standard. However, the perked options will make the 150 octane be available. In this case the significant increase in performance due to better grade fuel would have much higher impact in the MA than others.. so their perk prices would be somewhat heavier.. perhaps 10~15 perks. (Looking at the figures, seems like 150 octane, even if it was common for the USAAF or RAF after 1944, would make our AH planes even more monsterous than what we have now!)
 
 ... and etc etc.. for almost every plane we have.


 ...


 While this would probably be a very tedious and time-consuming process for HTC, it still has some very positive aspects for the overall gameplay IMO.

1) Any arguments or accusations concerning impartiallity in modelling standards will stop. All the planes will use their "standard", or "introductory" boost/fuel settings as a rule. And then, they will be given the option to use historical, higher boost/fuel options by paying perks. Ofcourse the perks will vary according to their impact/balance in the MA.

2) It would greatly benefit any historical Events, Tours, Scenarios...since the historical representation of each planes according to a timeline would be easier to manage. When we are playing 1941 Scenarios, nobody would be complaing about a "uber", '44 standard Typhoon out performing every plane. Likewise, early "Battle of the Channel" fights won't have to pit '41 Spit5s against '42 Bf109F-4s.

3) It would get rid of any future troubles when HTC decides to introduce a plane that had a same airframe, but differing performances according to timeline due to different grade of fuel/engine setting. There would be no difficulties in deciding on what standard would have to be used. Just model the 'initial' or 'standard' setting, and then add in a perked option.

4) It would give players a new way of spending perks at.


 ...

 If there is any chance that introducing the higher grade fuel/engine setting would become problematic in that the more 'elite' grade of AH pilots will make exclusive usage of it, then the perks prices could easily factor in some "penalties", like having a substantially higher K/D than the average pilot would result in increase of the perk cost for such options.. or etc etc ideas.

 
 If we're going to see perked ordnance/weapons, might as well see perked fuel grade/engine settings too.. Wouldn't that be great?

[Krusty]

I'm pretty sure it's been brought up before:

The 109F we have is the 1941 model, which is one reason why the over-boosted SpitV was so dominant. I believe the dial reads one thing but the performance is another. Way back when the spits were being discussed this was brought up.

HTC has said they can't give options to engines or wingtips (to paraphrase) so that includes boost in my mind.

I'm against it in general. You're supposed to get the same tools, and you do what you can with the tools. If you can have a P47 that flies faster than a 109K-4, just because you have a lot of perks to spend, then it's really no better than having "power-ups" for completing the lower levels on an arcade game. This is only my opinion, however.

[corpse]

im all for that but will it happen.....no just like all the other ideas that pop up in the "wish list" as ive seen with this game and wish list it falls to the old say take a dump in one hand and wish in the other and see what ya get first

[Nilsen]

Gimme the anti-tank cannons for the stuka and ill pay perks for em if i have to.

All Ostwinds must die.

[Xasthur]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Gimme the anti-tank cannons for the stuka and ill pay perks for em if i have to.

All Ostwinds must die.

I agree with Krusty about the fuel/boost perking, I don't really think that would be a good idea.

I'm with Nilsen though, The JU-87 G2 would be a great addition for when a base was under attack and order has been porked.... it would give the tanks something to worry about.

[corpse]

already have the il2 for tank canons

[Kweassa]

Krusty, you really gotta stop dwelling on the negatives, and perhaps spend some more consideration in what the changes some people suggest might offer as a whole.

The 109F we have is the 1941 model, which is one reason why the over-boosted SpitV was so dominant. I believe the dial reads one thing but the performance is another. Way back when the spits were being discussed this was brought up.

 What you say is true, but it is all the more reason why this confusing mismatch of performance and boost pressures should be cleaned up. For example, compare the figures for the Bf109F-4 below.

(Aces High performance figures)
* 335mph w/emergency power (1.42ata) at deck
* 394mph w/emergency power (1.42ata) max speed

(Messerschmitt documents)
* 326mph at combat power (1.30ata) at deck
* 394mph at combat power (1.30ata) max speed
           
* 335mph at emergency power (1.42ata) at deck
* 416mph at emergency power (1.42ata) max speed

 As you can see, the instruments on our Bf109F-4 reads 1.42ata, but its performance is clearly on the levels of the F-4 using only 1.30ata. However, both Messerschmitt data and Rechlin flight test lists the Bf109F-4 at about 330~335mph at deck, and 410~415mph max speed using the 1.42ata emergency power rating which was cleared in 1942.

 This means four changes are required to set it right, in case of the F-4;

1) Our Bf109F-4, should be showing 1.30ata on the instruments
2) As the 1.30ata rating is combat power, not emergency, the Bf109F-4 (like the Yaks we have in the game) should reach and maintain current performance numbers without the use of WEP.
3) WEP - 1.42ata - itself, should be removed from the Bf109F-4, as the '41 standard Bf109F-4 was prohibited from using them
4) The 1.42ata WEP rating, should be added only as an optional perked setting, for depicting Bf109F-4s of post-'41 standards.

 This sort of 'correcting' should be applied to all planes with similar discrepancies in its performance levels and instrument readings. At a glance, obviously the above suggestion seems like it would be to the benefit of the Bf109F-4 - which it is. However, many other planes like the Spitfires, would also benefit from it as they would be allowed to use higher boost settings/grade of fuel which was 1) in no way uncommon, but 2) only left out of AH due to balance issues.

 The same holds true for the US planes using 100octane performance figures. According to many discussions, the 150octane, by later years of the war, was in no way uncommon. However, the only reason I can think of why 150octane grade is not used, is due to balance issues and represantativeness - IMO HT doesn't want some of the planes getting more 'uber', and he wants to see P-51s or P-47s or P-38s performing as they did when they were introduced. But the problem is, these planes have increased performance throughout the war!

 This particular suggestion is a way to kill two birds with one stone.

1) retain the "initial performance" of planes as a default performance limit
2) allow more historical depiction of such planes changing its performance throughout the war - albeit by making people pay for the upgraded performance with perk points.

 In essence, this is nothing different from the recently announced 'perked ordnance/weapons' idea. The only difference is the variety of 'special equipment' which can be mounted on a certain plane by way of paying perks, is not only limited to weaponery, but also the engine setting.

HTC has said they can't give options to engines or wingtips (to paraphrase) so that includes boost in my mind.

 He also said AH cockpits will use generic instruments since the game's player base is primarily American. Obviously, his opinion changed, and now our planes have arrived at an truly remarkable point of compromise where the aesthetic cockpit layout closely resembles the real planes (truly beautifully, if I might add), but the figures are still using miles and feet.

 It's not as if everything's set in stone.

I'm against it in general. You're supposed to get the same tools, and you do what you can with the tools. If you can have a P47 that flies faster than a 109K-4, just because you have a lot of perks to spend, then it's really no better than having "power-ups" for completing the lower levels on an arcade game. This is only my opinion, however.

 How's it a arcadish power up, when the planes are flying as they should?

 It's not as if the additional/optional boost/fuel ratings I'm asking for are unhistorically jacked-up like illegal street-racing cars or something. All of the figures are as the planes flew in real life.

 It's not like I'm asking for Robert Johnson's "Lucky" to be the model of every P-47D-11s(although technically, Lucky was a D-5). It's just that those planes had one set of performance standards when they were introduced, but it has changed over time during the war. Both are historical and factual. If the 'boosted' performance levels are dangerous to the point of imbalance, then it is only a matter of pricing the perks required to a right level. If 150octane P-51D is too ubder for the MA at only 5 perks, then perk them at 10, or 20 even. It's a matter of price, not principle.

[1K3]

Wait. If you have enough perkies then you can fly *overboosted* Spit 16s and Tempests?  The Spit 16 btw used +25 boost.  The climbrate for +25 boost Spit 16 was calculated at ~5700 feet/min up to 10,000 feet.

[1K3]

And 109K-4 with 1.8 ata boost should only top at 440mph

[1K3]

Originally posted by Kweassa

 If we're going to see perked ordnance/weapons, might as well see perked fuel grade/engine settings too.. Wouldn't that be great?

Yes!

It would be nice to pay perks for...

1.  +70Hg boosted P-38Ls.
2.  +25 boosted Spit XVIs
3.  +21 boosted Spitfire XIVs
4.  A Ki-84 doing 420 mph using 150 octane fuel
5.  An Fw 190A-8 that produced 2080hp in full war emergency power
6.  (waaay too many to list, but I'm just giving samples)

[Kweassa]

Wait. If you have enough perkies then you can fly *overboosted* Spit 16s and Tempests? The Spit 16 btw used +25 boost. The climbrate for +25 boost Spit 16 was calculated at ~5700 feet/min up to 10,000 feet.

 The term 'overboosted' may cause a confusion. It would be 'overboosted' if the Spit engines were never meant to go over +18 all throughout the war. However, some time after those planes were introduced, and the war still raged on, the RAF HQ cleared the use for higher grade fuel which allowed more powerful levels of boost.
 
 Essentially, both the +18 and +25 are official and standard, and not an 'overboost' as the term leads people to believe the planes might be using 'illegal' field mods or something.

 The problem is, our Spits are already very capable at +18. What will happen to the MA if they are allowed at +25?

 ...
 
 This does call for a careful consideration of setting the prices. Perhaps, some sort of a perk modifier may also be active - much the same with how our perk planes change price according to the perk modifier values. For instance, if your country's pilots are overpoweringly numerous, than perhaps a multiplier can set in to modify the prices for the higher boost rating, making it more expensive. Also, there may be a penalty set for a very capable pilot - perhaps the perks will increase with his K/D ratio.

[1K3]

Oops I said it wrong.  +25 in Spit16 is not overboost, it's part of the official ratings.

[Krusty]

[EDIT: I'm voicing my opinion here. I disagree with you for many reasons. I will post the bulk of them here.]

You'll notice cockpits are still in feet and mph. The placement of the dials is a cosmetic change, that doesn't give a plane +50mph.

Also his comments about this refer to a limitation in the code itself, not simply an arbitrary choice. His comments also came out when the Spitfires were being discussed, so this is after KI84s, P38s, P47s and P51s, well after the cockpit were being redesigned on a plane-per-plane basis.

Aside from the fact that it's not possible, it's not a good idea.

If you want a Spit9 with late-war boost just fly the 8 or 16. If you want a 16 with more boost fly the 14. It's not the same, you say? Well neither is flying a spit9 with +21 boost, even though late war versions might have had it, it wouldn't be a representative spit9. When you go up against a P51D in combat you know it's a P51D, not a Tempest that can outrun every plane in the game without trying, just because somebody had 12,000 perks stored up and can buy their way out of trouble.

The point of the game is to use the tools given to achieve victory. If you have an unfair advantage (as perks-for-boost gives you) then it's not you that achieved victory, the game did.

It's the same principle if there were 300 AI bots flying around on the server, and you fought against them and shot down one then died to another. It wasn't you outwitting or outflying the next man, it was the game code that made you win or lose.

To me a P51 should fly like a P51, a spit like a spit, and anything else like itself. If you want to add a +25/+28 spit that's something that needs to be in its own flight model. That's something that needs to be added separately.

That way you know what you're up against. That way you can see what he's in and what you're in and if it's the same ride you have only yourself to blame if you die in a fair fight.

What if a boxer could pay a fee to put brass knuckles inside his gloves? He paid the fee, but I still see something wrong with it.

[Kweassa]

You'll notice cockpits are still in feet and mph. The placement of the dials is a cosmetic change, that doesn't give a plane +50mph.

Also his comments about this refer to a limitation in the code itself, not simply an arbitrary choice. His comments also came out when the Spitfires were being discussed, so this is after KI84s, P38s, P47s and P51s, well after the cockpit were being redesigned on a plane-per-plane basis.

 But it's sure a big change since those days when hails of requests for historic cockpits falling on deaf ears. Why did the new Ki-84s have to come out suddenly with historic interiors? Something along the way sure has changed. The point is HT is also human. He has his opinions, and sometimes they change.

Aside from the fact that it's not possible, it's not a good idea.

 Are you the one making this game?

If you want a Spit9 with late-war boost just fly the 8 or 16. If you want a 16 with more boost fly the 14. It's not the same, you say? Well neither is flying a spit9 with +21 boost, even though late war versions might have had it, it wouldn't be a representative spit9.

 The Spit9 and it sub-variants served since 1942 till the war's end. Who are you to say that only the Spit9s of the first introduction year is to count as 'represantative'?

When you go up against a P51D in combat you know it's a P51D, not a Tempest that can outrun every plane in the game without trying, just because somebody had 12,000 perks stored up and can buy their way out of trouble.

 And how would it be any different from a seasoned veteran with gazillion perks using a Tempest that already outruns every plane in the game without trying? The argument you're making acts against every perked plane in the game, not just this particular discussion.

The point of the game is to use the tools given to achieve victory. If you have an unfair advantage (as perks-for-boost gives you) then it's not you that achieved victory, the game did.

 Bollocks.

 If using a high performance plane is supposed to be unfair, then every La-7 pilot in the game has been essentially using an 'unfair tool' to their advantage for years, upto date, without paying even a single perk point for it. Not to mention the 'unfair' argument is itself baseless. The planes were made that way, and they flew that way. How's it unfair when a certain plane is merely using it historically performance figures?

 If we had it your way, then the Bf109K-4 should have been derated to 1.80ata a long time ago. Tell me how its 'fair' for the people fighting K-4s, when the AH Kurfurst uses a high-end performance standard of 1.98ata that was way more uncommon and unrepresentative than the standard 1.80ata for free - not even perked. I sure as hell didn't see you complaining about the AH 109K-4, so why the sudden contempt towards some allied planes using high-end boost figures as well?

 I call it a double standard.

To me a P51 should fly like a P51, a spit like a spit, and anything else like itself. If you want to add a +25/+28 spit that's something that needs to be in its own flight model. That's something that needs to be added separately.

 So basically you're saying the only P-51 you ever acknowledge as a P-51 is a worse performing P-51, and the only Spitfire you ever acknowledge as a Spit is a worse performing Spit. If they ever even get close to their late war performance standards, then you refuse to acknowledge them as they are.

That way you know what you're up against. That way you can see what he's in and what you're in and if it's the same ride you have only yourself to blame if you die in a fair fight.

 So you're saying if someone brings up a 150octane using P-51D and you lose to it, it's not your fault but because the other guy was uber?

What if a boxer could pay a fee to put brass knuckles inside his gloves? He paid the fee, but I still see something wrong with it.

 That's because you're so accustomed to one way of playing the game, that you've never actually realized that there may be another. To me, this is not a ring fight with a referee in it. To me aerial battles are always no-holds-barred, and whatever the process the winner takes it all.

 To me, the rules of the game already include a brass knuckle in any 'form' possible. A timid flying cherry picker is using his own brand of brass knuckles in form of altitude and speed - we have enough of them in the game already. It's the same thing with higher performing planes. Whether they fly 20mph or 200mph faster than me, I like being in my 109s and if a higher performing Spitfire or a P-51 should be my opponent, as it was in history, then so be it.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Kweassa
If we had it your way, then the Bf109K-4 should have been derated to 1.80ata a long time ago. Tell me how its 'fair' for the people fighting K-4s, when the AH Kurfurst uses a high-end performance standard of 1.98ata that was way more uncommon and unrepresentative than the standard 1.80ata for free - not even perked. I sure as hell didn't see you complaining about the AH 109K-4, so why the sudden contempt towards some allied planes using high-end boost figures as well?

This is interesting.  I have heard a great deal of complaining from certain Me-109 fliers I know, complaints that the Aces High II 109K is "only" rated at 1.8 ata.  Are you certain that we have the 1.98 ata Kurfurst?