The Halifax

[Ciaphas]

That is because these things are self evident and shouldn't need to be pointed out.

If the question was asked then it's obvious that it was not as self evident as you may have assumed.

Thanks for sizing these up but it seems that your nay saying is do to settings that AH II uses or at least that is how your post reads.

 

[Karnak]

Then why did we receive the B-24, when we already had the B-17?

The differences between the B-24 and B-17 are much greater than between the Lancaster and Halifax.

@ the loss rate, they were just used more than the Lancaster (and earlier for that matter), I think

No, Lancasters were used more and loss rate is a per sortie statistic, so that wouldn't affected it anyways.

As I recall it was about 30% higher than the Lancasters, but aircrew had about a 30% better chance of getting out of a doomed Halifax.

[ShrkBite]

  It isn't filling any holes because it serves the exact same function as the Lancaster at the exact same times the Lancaster did in exactly the same ways the Lancaster did.

Hmm interesting. Cause there are several planes thats serve the same function that we have in the game. Example, The A-20 and Boston. May be different planes but the only differance in the Game is the Boston holds only 4 500lbs?, (i forget, dont have the excat information on hand) and has a formation when the A20 has more Payload, No Formation, and is slightly faster isnt it? Another Example, the D3A and B5N. Different Planes, Same Function. Both Dive Bombers/Torepedo Bombers. Another Example, 39D and 39Q. Why put in two of the same planes (slightly different, but i mean same models) when you can put in one. Sure the Lancaster serves it's purpose but i believe the Halifax deserves to be in this game as much as any other bomber (He-111, Betty, 410 etc). Adding this plane wouldnt hurt the game one bit.

[Karnak]

Hmm interesting. Cause there are several planes thats serve the same function that we have in the game. Example, The A-20 and Boston. May be different planes but the only differance in the Game is the Boston holds only 4 500lbs?, (i forget, dont have the excat information on hand) and has a formation when the A20 has more Payload, No Formation, and is slightly faster isnt it? Another Example, the D3A and B5N. Different Planes, Same Function. Both Dive Bombers/Torepedo Bombers. Another Example, 39D and 39Q. Why put in two of the same planes (slightly different, but i mean same models) when you can put in one. Sure the Lancaster serves it's purpose but i believe the Halifax deserves to be in this game as much as any other bomber (He-111, Betty, 410 etc). Adding this plane wouldnt hurt the game one bit.

Those are all different.  Not one of the pairs you mentioned fill the same roles at the same times.

The Boston Mk III is an early war glass nosed level bomber.  The A-20G is a solid nosed, mid-war attacker.

The D3A1 is an early war carrier dive bomber.  The B5N2 is an early war  carrier torpedo bomber or level bomber.

The P-39D and P-39Q served at different time periods.

None of those fail to fill holes.

[ShrkBite]

I said they fill the same duties in the Game. we have a alot of 109 models and we cant just add another bomber, that looks like and fills the same duties as the lancaster?

[Karnak]

I said they fill the same duties in the Game. we have a alot of 109 models and we cant just add another bomber, that looks like and fills the same duties as the lancaster?

They don't have the same duties in the game.  That is the point I made.

Those Bf109s all fit into different times.  You can't use a Bf109E in an 8th Air Force bombing campaign setting, you can't use a Bf109K-4 in a North Africa campaign setting.

As to the Halifax and Lancaster, take a Lancaster up.  It is very much the same.

Four engined bombers take a lot of work to add due to their complex graphics requirements.   The next four engined bomber HTC should do is the....Lancaster Mk III.  Other than that, aircraft should be added that fill in empty holes in the various services and various campaign settings.

It isn't that the Halifax should never be added, it is that it is lower on the priority list than many other aircraft.

[Ciaphas]

Those Bf109s all fit into different times.  You can't use a Bf109E in an 8th Air Force bombing campaign setting, you can't use a Bf109K-4 in a North Africa campaign setting.

As far as campaign play goes, I guess your right in a sense but typically when people are making requests it's probably more for the MA. The individuals setting up the specific campaigns have the option to allow particular plane sets. So the point about any aircraft or asset not fitting a particular campaign is a moot argument.

Now if planes were being added based on specific campaigns I reckon there would be a lot less aircraft options in this game. as an aircraft's role in any specific campaign that it was involved can be argued depending on the source and the time period the facts were presented.


 

[ShrkBite]

It isn't that the Halifax should never be added, it is that it is lower on the priority list than many other aircraft.

i guess thats where the halifax is. down on the bottem. Sad thing but also very true. i rest my case.

[Motherland]

The individuals setting up the specific campaigns have the option to allow particular plane sets. So the point about any aircraft or asset not fitting a particular campaign is a moot argument.

If the plane does not exist in Aces High, then it is pretty difficult to allow it. Well, it's easy to allow it I guess, but impossible to use it.

If the planeset were 100% geared toward the MA then all that the CM's would be able to run would be Battle of Germany 1945 and Battle of Japan 1945. Having only two options in this field would get pretty boring...

edit; now that I think about it, if the planeset were to be geared 100% toward the MA I imagine all we'd have would be a hypothetical postwar conflict between the US and the UK

[Ciaphas]

now that I think about it, if the planeset were to be geared 100% toward the MA I imagine all we'd have would be a hypothetical postwar conflict between the US and the UK

I agree, but yes or no answers to a request should be based off of a majority and not solely on campaigns needs.

 

[Karnak]

I agree, but yes or no answers to a request should be based off of a majority and not solely on campaigns needs.

 

Not at all.  If it was up to the majority the game would have nothing but US aircraft and maybe the token British, German and Japanese aircraft.

A popular vote is fine once in a while, but as a general rule, HTC should be authoritarian about what gets added.

[SmokinLoon]

We SERIOUSLY need the Betty first.

I agree.  While it be a welcomed addition, I think HTC should devote their time elsewhere.  There are other important bombers that are missing from the lineup.   

The Japs need the Betty, Ivan needs the Pe-2, and the pesky Italians could use the Z.1007.

[Ciaphas]

well at least we can agree that we need new airframes 

[Tilt]

No, Lancasters were used more and loss rate is a per sortie statistic, so that wouldn't affected it anyways.

As I recall it was about 30% higher than the Lancasters, but aircrew had about a 30% better chance of getting out of a doomed Halifax.

The Halifax did enter service prior to the Lanc and it was plagued with unstable (when stressed)tail configurations during its early years (MkI's  & early MkII's). Years which also saw it participate in some daylight raids prior to bomber commands total adoption of night time bombing.

Its average loss rate per sortie would be biased by this. As loss rates of all bomber types were higher in early war sorties and this was not any fault of the airframes.(apart from the early Halifaxes unstable tail configurations)

Indeed the early Halifax was a contempory of the Manchester (marginally pre dating it depending upon where the line is drawn chronologically speaking).

The Lanc evolved out of the two engined Manchester.

It could be argued that the Halifax  MkIII & Mk VI were different air craft to the earlier MkI & MkII. In this case it could be argued that the MKIII and MkVI Halifaxes were true contempories of the Lanc. Fullfilling identical roles with near identical abilities to do so.

Actually neither the lanc or the Halifax have much use in scenarios as we do not seem to run Night time bomber interception scenraios.

The Lanc fullfills its role in the MA adequately.

Then apart from the B52 (which would be seriously abused in the MA and seriously boring in scenarios) the only 4 engined bomber of any remote benefit may be the Condor but then only if we could run  battle of the atlantic or battle of the North sea type senarios.

But there are medium/heavy two engined bombers  a plenty still waiting to fill the game set.

[caldera]

I told you guys the B52 was in WWII but you all laughed. 


Any new bomber would be nice. The Halifax is cool but the Wellington might be a better choice seeing as it's not so much alike to the Lanc.