« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Say NO to the G.55  (Read 3022 times)

VWE

  • Guest
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2007, 01:57:38 PM »
Quote
Am I the only one that sees the irony?


Ooooo Krusty got pwnd
Logged

Offline LancerVT

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 335
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2007, 02:03:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VWE
Ooooo Krusty got pwnd


Indeed
Logged
SAPP

JG5 "Eismeer"

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2007, 02:13:37 PM »
hardly
Logged

Offline Simaril

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2007, 02:14:18 PM »
Hate to hijack back to the topic....(is that an "unhijack'? Or, "two hijacks make a whole"? Or "Three lefts make a right"? NM)

The G.55, like many others, would be nice...but what does it add to the game? As a 1943 plane, it would fit best in the MW; in the LW, would it function all that differently from the 190A's?

I'm afraid it would be a niche ride, useful only for a few fans. Same problem faced by most other options, IMHO.

In contrast, the P39 and B25 have development and variant history that covers most of the war. The Yak would contend for uber plane, and might generate its own "perk the threads. So, even though it would be LW only its entertainment value would serve AH'ers everywhere.
Logged
Maturity is knowing that I've been an idiot in the past.
Wisdom is realizing I will be an idiot in the future.
Common sense is trying to not be an idiot right now

"Social Fads are for sheeple." - Meatwad

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10470
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2007, 02:19:36 PM »
The axis need an A/C to compete in CT,the G55 would do nicely,speed at alt,handles reasonably well. If ya think it wasnt a "real player" in WW2 then vote for the  ME410..... oppps I guess I just Hijacked this thread.:O

:furious :furious :furious  The axis will be cannon fodder,err 50 cal fodder,cuz they just don't have anything to compete at high alt.:furious :furious :furious
Logged

Offline Simaril

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2007, 02:24:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by morfiend
The axis need an A/C to compete in CT,the G55 would do nicely,speed at alt,handles reasonably well. If ya think it wasnt a "real player" in WW2 then vote for the  ME410..... oppps I guess I just Hijacked this thread.:O

:furious :furious :furious  The axis will be cannon fodder,err 50 cal fodder,cuz they just don't have anything to compete at high alt.:furious :furious :furious



But Morfiend, the G55 is irrelevant to CT. Combat Tour is set to be Eighth AF vs Luftwaffe. The Italian front just isnt on the radar screen for CT.

And in the 8th vs LW battles, the 109s and 190s caused plenty of trouble on their own.
Logged
Maturity is knowing that I've been an idiot in the past.
Wisdom is realizing I will be an idiot in the future.
Common sense is trying to not be an idiot right now

"Social Fads are for sheeple." - Meatwad

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2007, 02:28:24 PM »
The real problem is, Morfiend, that hardly anyone in the MA's fly's any of these aircraft in their designed envelope(15-30k) They try to Furball with them under 10k.

Try flying the Dora, or the 109K4, or the Ta152 with some alt, and you'll see completely different planes.
Logged

Offline -CodyC

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2007, 02:39:11 PM »
I have already placed my vote, but i am curious to know what plane you are advocating for and why bodhi.  If you have stated in another thread then redirect me to it and ill read it there.

I do agree with your argument that based on numbers it was relatively insignificant, but so was the C.205 for that matter since it had relatively similar numbers.  P39 and B25 would be good additions to the game.  P39 adds another fighter to a well represented American side and the B25 adds another bomber to again, a well represented American side.  Your argument against the G.55 could be used against the B239, as far as numbers are concerned.  So what should we vote for and why?

lwcody
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2007, 03:06:24 PM »
Vote for what you want to see.

I said no on the Brewster and the G.55.  I think they add very little to the game aspect, and more importantly, the long term goal of CT.

I have yet to decide what I would rather see, as there are many aircraft represented that could add a lot to an already deficient set.

I could argue for the He-111, as it is needed for the historical side of several different scenarios played in here.  

I could argue for any of the Japanese fighters, as they are extremely deficient, and besides filling out many possible scenarios in the PTO several are would be players in the MA.

I could argue for the P-39 as it also would fill scenarios across the board owing to it's uses as a lend lease aircraft as well.  It might even see use in the MA.

I could argue for the Yak 3 as it will fill many Eastern Front scenairos as well as be an MA fighter.

I could argue for the Russian Bombers as they are woefully under represented and again fill scenario as well as limited MA usefulness.

I could argue for the B-25 as it was so widespread and used by British, Russians, Australians, and US.  It's usefulness in scenarios and CT would be more than enough.  It's variants might also see use in the MA in one way or another.

I could argue for the A-26 as again it was widely used and would see scenario usage and CT would warrant it, plus it would be used in the MA for sure.

The Me410 could be used especially in CT and scenarios.  I am unsure about it's place in the MA though.

All in all, I really do not know what I will vote for.  I am still at work, (and am working on a Corsair right now) and no blue planes are being suggested for vote, so thats a quandry.  In the end though, I will probably lean towards the He-111 or another allied bomber, Russian or US, just not sure.  Will see tonight.
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2007, 03:33:52 PM »
The IAR series (80&81) had more of an impact than the G.55.
Logged
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2007, 03:53:20 PM »
And we could use the I.A.R. on a Ploesti scenario, too.
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2007, 04:01:05 PM »
It just seems silly to me that the an aircraft that was so limited in production, and barely saw service in a hardly standardised production configration should be considered.

Then again, according to our resident know-it-all, it is not total numbers produced, it is the percentage of the force that counts.

Well hell, 10% of 10 is still 1...  :rolleyes:

By that reasoning, the F4u which is less than 2% of total aircraft produced by the US during WW2, it really should not count...
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2007, 04:47:36 PM »
Thats funny, we lost the gun pod G-10 and now there is a "no G.55 petition". Fear of something, on the axis side, able to kick US bomber's arse at 25-30K?  :)
Logged
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2007, 04:54:30 PM »
HE-111 makes sense.
Logged
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2007, 04:56:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by gatt
Thats funny, we lost the gun pod G-10 and now there is a "no G.55 petition". Fear of something, on the axis side, able to kick US bomber's arse at 25-30K?  :)


It is not that, it seems that the Americans want more US bombers for you to shoot down.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 7   Go Up
« previous next »