Unperk the Spitfire Mk XIV

[moot]

Originally posted by Lusche

I call shenanigans! This chart is not up to date and cannot be used in the present debate! If it was we would all see the 152's k/d is in the toilet and cannot be used to support the aforementioned posts.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
(2.) In a flat scissors', much like the one I described above, I tried to match a turn with Oldman in a KI-84, Myself in a Spitfire XIV. We entered into the manuever at about the same speed, around 250, at about 4k. Right at the edge of blackout, I had both outer wing peices' break off...and this is the only Spit I myself have ever had this happen in. Oldman's KI made the turn without incident. He mentioned to me that he'd never seen anything of the like in a spit, either.

I just tested this offline using the Spitfire Mk XIV, Spitfire Mk VIII and Mosquito Mk VI, all at 50% fuel.  The Spitfire Mk XIV easily sheds its wings.  The Mk VIII creaked a bit, but didn't lose anything.  The Mosquito didn't even creak.  The Spitfires should be able to take as many Gs as the Mosquito, if not slightly more.

[Solar10]

I think interesting points have been made on both sides.  An interesting fact about statistics is that they typically generate more questions than they answer.

For example
Why did the C-hog kill to death go from 1.38 – 1 to 2.56 – 1 after it was perked?
Was it because the plane got deadlier? Or was it that the people that didn’t know how to fly it well stopped flying it because they didn’t see the benefit of paying the perks.  As a result all those people with low K/D ratios left resulting in the average K/D ratio going up.

Another question I have is why is my prime ride (Mosquito) only ranked 38th in K/D ratio with a K/D well less than 1?  Am I mad? (That question is not to be answered) Why do I fly this plane? Well my K/D ratio in the Mossie this tour is 3.23.  Hmmmm better that the C-hog.  Then again why is my C-hog K/D ratio only 0.5 – 1.  We should really be talking about perking the Mossie and freeing the c-hog?

Well no!

We really need to look at more factors than just the final stats.  Why are my K/D so high in the Mossie as opposed to the average?  Well I have flown it a lot.  I know its strengths, I know its weaknesses, and I fly it in the envelope that maximizes my success.  Did I always have a good K/D in a Mossie, well no!  In tour 79 when I started to fly it my K/D was 1.6.  So what changed?  I learned to fly it well as mentioned above.

I think this is the point Krusty is trying to make.  He (and others) has flown the Spit XIV quite a bit and has leaned its flight model.  As a result he can fly it to its strengths and sees it as a formidable plane.  On the flip side though the average usage and K/D numbers are bad.

So another question!  Why is that?  Well, one possible answer is that a new player might see spits as being a great plane to learn in so he/she flies the 16.  Then they get some perks and think I’ll upgrade to the 14 (cause it’s perked) and try to fly it the same as a 16.  Not smart!  They have a bad experience and don’t fly it again.  So, low usage and low K/D ratio.

So that all being said is the 14 really going to make a big difference to game play if unperked.  Perhaps not initially, but maybe overtime as the flight model is learned and people will learn to fly it, not like a spit, but more like a P51 (I don’t know if this is how it should be flown, it’s just an example), we may see the K/D ratio grow.  Enough to put it in the top 5 category?  Don’t know, but then again my Mossie is.  

So as stated earlier stats generate as many questions as they answer.  To answer these questions you sometimes need to experiment.  Maybe a valid experiment is to unperk the 14 and track its usage (understanding there will be a spike initially) and then see how it effects game play as skill in the plane increases.

[Rebel]

There is only one reason for the Spit 14's low numbers-

The pilots that fly it.

This is simply because 9 out of 10 guys who jump into it to try it out don't have any idea what they're getting into.  

It's a red-hot drag racer hell bent for leather.

Flown right, it's a terrible monster in a fight.  All you have to do is wait for someone to do something stupid- like turn.  Then keep 'em committed in the turn, and haul back on the stick, come over the top, unload and punch wep.  You'll go from 150 to 350 in no time flat in an unloaded acceleration dive.  

Next thing you know you're right on their ass, hispanos blazing, and they fall.  

Against an LA7 raid it's the best thing in the inventory.  I *LOVE* this spit.  

Unperking it because of it's low k:d is rather premature, but the idea has merit.  Why punish the guys who know how to fly it well?  

The answer is "because the performance is too great"- and *that* point has a lot of merit too.  

Trust me- if left unperked, the word would get out, and you'd have a new nightmare in the arena.  I rather like it being the dark horse of the apocalypse that it is- a  misunderstood death machine on a wing.   :

[Gabriel]

XVI would still get, I think quite more usage than the XIV, even if the XIV had no perk cost.

The XIV would probably get more usage as a base defense/interceptor because of it's climb but even then,,, I still think most would use the XVI anyway.

I don't see how this plane would become omnipresent or unbalance anything if free.

Unperk it.

As an aside the XIV is my favorite Spitfire, and if I take up a Spitfire it's this one.

[Kweassa]

I think this is the point Krusty is trying to make. He (and others) has flown the Spit XIV quite a bit and has leaned its flight model. As a result he can fly it to its strengths and sees it as a formidable plane. On the flip side though the average usage and K/D numbers are bad.

 Individual pilot performance is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 Bring in Widewing and his SBD Dauntless and he'd have a K/D of over 5.0 in that thing, whereas I can barely manage a K/D of over a 1.0 in a Bf109K-4. Surely, Widewing has learned to fly it to its strengths and sees it as a formidable plane - does it mean what he can do in that thing should be used as a basis for determining the SBD is more of a dangerous plane in the MA than the Bf109K-4?

 K/D ratio may not reflect everything there is to, but compared to the garbage reasoning Krusty is spewing the thread with, the K/D at least attains a good amount of objectivity in that it reflects the gross average of what kind of results the people are getting in the MA - whereas Krusty doesn't have any point to his arguments at all.

 He adds nothing to the present discussion whether the Spit14 should be perked or not - he argues the K/D cannot be used as an objective factor for determining perks.

 Then what?

 Karnak and others have questioned him - he casually refuses to answer. All he's adding to the thread is needless arguments against a factor which HTC already has used time again as an important part of the baseline datamining used to perk ACs and vehicles. True, K/D is not the only factor. But it is one of the most important. He refuses to accept that as a fact.

So that all being said is the 14 really going to make a big difference to game play if unperked. Perhaps not initially, but maybe overtime as the flight model is learned and people will learn to fly it, not like a spit, but more like a P51 (I don't know if this is how it should be flown, it's just an example), we may see the K/D ratio grow. Enough to put it in the top 5 category? Don't know, but then again my Mossie is.

 You're not acknowledging the fact that massive arenas are dominated by the rule of the average. You assume an unperked Spit14 would start to have more impact - since people will have more chance to fly it and get to know its strengths better.

 Unfortunately, the rule of the MA average dictates that when a plane does not present some amount of combatworthiness under typical MA conditions, people don't fly it in the first place.


 Again, like others have mentioned, the most powerful example of this happening is the Ta152. The Ta152 is to the Fw190s what the Spit14 is to the Spitfires.

 The Ta152 has distinct advantages over the 190s in that it is a high-alt fighter. It turns marginally better than the  Fw190D-9. It's faster than the 190s over 25k, and as a matter of fact, is the fastest prop-plane in the entire plane set.  Unfortunately, this is all a moot point as the Ta152 is missing all the factors which makes the Fw190D-9 such a popular plane in the MA; the D-9 is faster at typical MA engagement altitudes, rolls faster, and accelerates faster.

 The end result is what we have.

 The Ta152 has been unperked for a while. We're not seeing many people "learning to fly it to its strengths", since they have no reason to choose it over the Fw190D-9 in the first place.

 So tell me why the Spit14 should be any different.

 Go to the AH Fighter Performance Comparison page and select the Spit16, Spit14, and the Bf109K-4 side-by-side.

 By all means, the Spit14 is actually closer to the Bf109K-4 rather than the Spit16. The K-4 is superior to the Spit16 in almost all areas except the turning ability, and yet people flock to the Spit16s.

 This is because the traditional strength of the Spitfires is in its manueverability - one of the best turning planes in the game, and yet has some amount of comparable speed performance, unlike the other "pure turners" such as Hurricanes or Zeros. The Spit14 gives up that trait to push its performance specs upto 109K-4 standards.
 
 You think the average MA folk who fly Spitfires will give up their Spit16s and change to the Spit14?

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Solar10
I think interesting points have been made on both sides.  An interesting fact about statistics is that they typically generate more questions than they answer.

For example
Why did the C-hog kill to death go from 1.38 – 1 to 2.56 – 1 after it was perked?
Was it because the plane got deadlier? Or was it that the people that didn’t know how to fly it well stopped flying it because they didn’t see the benefit of paying the perks.  As a result all those people with low K/D ratios left resulting in the average K/D ratio going up.

Another question I have is why is my prime ride (Mosquito) only ranked 38th in K/D ratio with a K/D well less than 1?  Am I mad? (That question is not to be answered) Why do I fly this plane? Well my K/D ratio in the Mossie this tour is 3.23.  Hmmmm better that the C-hog.  Then again why is my C-hog K/D ratio only 0.5 – 1.  We should really be talking about perking the Mossie and freeing the c-hog?

Well no!

We really need to look at more factors than just the final stats.  Why are my K/D so high in the Mossie as opposed to the average?  Well I have flown it a lot.  I know its strengths, I know its weaknesses, and I fly it in the envelope that maximizes my success.  Did I always have a good K/D in a Mossie, well no!  In tour 79 when I started to fly it my K/D was 1.6.  So what changed?  I learned to fly it well as mentioned above.

I think this is the point Krusty is trying to make.  He (and others) has flown the Spit XIV quite a bit and has leaned its flight model.  As a result he can fly it to its strengths and sees it as a formidable plane.  On the flip side though the average usage and K/D numbers are bad.

So another question!  Why is that?  Well, one possible answer is that a new player might see spits as being a great plane to learn in so he/she flies the 16.  Then they get some perks and think I’ll upgrade to the 14 (cause it’s perked) and try to fly it the same as a 16.  Not smart!  They have a bad experience and don’t fly it again.  So, low usage and low K/D ratio.

So that all being said is the 14 really going to make a big difference to game play if unperked.  Perhaps not initially, but maybe overtime as the flight model is learned and people will learn to fly it, not like a spit, but more like a P51 (I don’t know if this is how it should be flown, it’s just an example), we may see the K/D ratio grow.  Enough to put it in the top 5 category?  Don’t know, but then again my Mossie is.  

So as stated earlier stats generate as many questions as they answer.  To answer these questions you sometimes need to experiment.  Maybe a valid experiment is to unperk the 14 and track its usage (understanding there will be a spike initially) and then see how it effects game play as skill in the plane increases.

Not knowing you personally, and only going by your stats in the LW MA... I'd say you do well in the Mossie by flying it very cautiously, and probably with a lot of company around you.  Bear in mind the only real evidence I have for this is your K/T of 4 kills an hour, which is less than my K/T of 8.5 ish - which I've gotten in the G-6 and Ki-61.  Both of those planes are crap for the MA, so I've been flying them much more cautiously than I normally would.  Hench the decent K/D and low K/T I have in them.

[BaldEagl]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Again, like others have mentioned, the most powerful example of this happening is the Ta152. The Ta152 is to the Fw190s what the Spit14 is to the Spitfires.

True and not true.  

The 152 is to the FW's as the XIV is to the Spits in that they are both excellent high-alt performers (over 23K).

At normal MA alts, the D9 is faster that the 152, the A5 out turns it, the A8 hits harder and the F8 is a better attack platform and they all outperform the 152 in a dive and in roll rate.

Conversely, the XIV out-accelerates, is faster than and climbs better than any other Spit.  Yes, it does give up it's turn rate to do so, but unlike the 152, it's the top of the Spit performance ladder in a number of respects (much like the C-Hog (hitting power) and 4 Hog (Speed) are to the F4U's) and that's why I think it was (and is) perked, and why the 152 was unperked.

The question is, is that enough reason to keep it perked.

I think, given it's performance envelope, and with the time and perks to learn to fly it that it is worthy of the small perk it now carries, but again, I could go either way on this.

I think that if the perks were actually increased, you'd see the K/D go up with little impact to use, while if it were unperked, the K/D would go down with a reasonably large increase in use, at least initially.

[moot]

Splitting hairs, but the 152 dives better than any of them past 400mph or so.  It only rolls less well but more importantly retains its E better.

Urchin is going to disagree with me, but I think the 152 edges out the 190s.  1:1 it will only consistently lose if the fight starts out very slow.
Versus an A8 it can maneuver for a killshot; and only needs one.  Versus an A5 it is most likely dead in the water unless it manages a solution early on.  Versus a D9 it is done for only if it mismanages its E.

At this point the 152 out does the D9 in any sustained maneuver I can think of.  Not by much but enough in my opinion to really be the best of the 190s...  Even more so if its FM changes for the better if it ever sees a revision more towards AH1-agility.

[Squire]

The unperked Spit 16 is 1200 lbs lighter than a Spit 14 with performance that is similar, same armament, same range.

I could see perking it if it say had 4 x 20mm, like the Tempest, but it does not.

To have the 190D-9, 109K-4, and the LA-7 unperked in comparison is a joke, (all fighters that came into service LATER, btw).

[moot]

So what.. It's not WWII in the MA, it's a performance-biased dogfighting arena.  Chronology has little to do with it.  The 152 would still be perked if people bothered to learn proper ACM and tactics.

[Karnak]

BaldEagl,

The Spitfire Mk XVI actually out climbs the Spitfire Mk XIV at very low altitudes and there is little to choose between them until well above AH combat altitudes in terms of climb and acceleration. The Spitfire Mk VIII is right there with them too.  Only once you pass 320 or 330mph on the deck does the Spit XIV really start to pull away from the others.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by moot
So what.. It's not WWII in the MA, it's a performance-biased dogfighting arena.  Chronology has little to do with it.  The 152 would still be perked if people bothered to learn proper ACM and tactics.

Not more than La-7, Spit-16, 109K-4 ect ect...

[moot]

None of them are as smooth as the 152 at very high speeds and able to hit as hard (and with as much ammo) and do it at all altitudes.
IMO the reason (not HTC's, but effectively) the 152 is unperked is because it's too difficult to control.

I think the closest analog is the 47N, which also falls short of a perk because of its thrust/mass.

And back on topic, I think the XIV would eat a fair share of the total spit usage.. I think it's worth a perk point or two at most.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by moot
None of them are as smooth as the 152 at very high speeds and able to hit as hard (and with as much ammo) and do it at all altitudes.
 

But each of them has other strenghts : acceleration, turning radius, maneuverability, climb rate - Very important assets in the MA environment, especially when most combat is way below 10k.

The 152 particular strenghts just do not justify a perk price as they do not raise the TA that much above the competition. A well flown 152 is akilling machine - but so is a 47, a Spit 16, a 109K-4. And neither does the 14 has advantages that it has a edge that big that aperk price is justifed. The would be an increase in usage for sure when being unperked, but it wouldnt be detrimental to gameplay, unbalance the arena or whatever. A fair share of usage as such should never be a reason of restricing it. Only balancing.

Many arguments against unperking the 14 are more of a subjective kind , a la "people use it the wrong way" "it's much better than K/D indicates" - you say that about a whole lot of other, highly capable but unperked planes too.

And like in many discussions about planes, people lose objectivity when talking about planes they do like or despise, often confusing their own skill level and the corresponding results in the arenas with general capabilities of a plane. (Remember that guy constantly claiming Ki-61 does easily outturn all Spits but Spit I? Well he may easily outturn most other Spit V pilots, but that's because they suck and he doesn't )