Author Topic: Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C  (Read 1651 times)

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2000, 06:50:00 AM »
Actually, I said.... waaaaa "I want the F4U-4 AND the P-47N"  

If your going to quote my whine, please quote the full whine, not just part of the whine   kidding of course.

 
Quote
Seriously, i think the real uber at the moment is the NIKI.

I definitely agree with this, this plane scares me MUCH more than a F4U-1C



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #46 on: September 28, 2000, 07:56:00 AM »
True, but you know that a N1K will be flown and will ACM you. That is what makes it dangerous.

A CHOG on the other hand will almost always HO and play wing commander "point and spray" with you... unless its one of the FEW vet pilots that fly it regularly.

It scares the crap out of me to imagine when all those CHOG quakers migrate to the N1k.. brrr!

Italians should have the Fiat Cr. 42 in the planeset too.. it was one of the most widely produced fighters... even if it was a biplane  

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2000, 10:29:00 AM »
You got the point Tac    

so F4UDOA can raise his K/D ratio in Chog.    

p.s.
Sorry Vermillion, if i misquote you, but as i recall you said :"whaaaa !!! i want f4U4 and p47N, whaaaa"  

You said "whaaa" twice, to be correct, and i take only the first  


[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 09-28-2000).]

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2000, 11:05:00 AM »
Agree with Niki being uber, My vote would be in this order:

Niki
G10
F4U-1C (ONLY because of awesome firepower)

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2000, 12:40:00 PM »
G10?

Seen its popularity and effectiveness?

Perk it if ya want, but statistically, it ain't an abomination. Performance wise, it's fast has accelreation and got good climb, but all other characteristics suck.



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #50 on: September 28, 2000, 01:51:00 PM »
Wow,

I am really confused now.

Let's address these issues one at a time.

TAC said
     
Quote
A CHOG on the other hand will almost always HO and play wing commander "point and spray" with you... unless its one of the FEW vet pilots that fly it regularly.

Spray and pray? First due to a slower rate of fire spray and pray is definitly not the preferred method of firing especially in a snapshot or a tracking shot. Also Pyro has said he turned down the cannons to be historically accurate so the lazer cannon issue should be done. If LW cannons are not as effective then someone better wake up Herman Goering and tell him to fix it. I'll go get Chance Vought and tell him to make the F4U-1 climb better too. Like I said. It's a dead issue.


Naso said:      
Quote
Pointing at the fact "the F4U-1C was produced in the same number of the mc205" is pointless because the 200 mc205 produced are the TOTAL number of this kite produced, the 200 F4U-1C produced were PART of 12.000 total.

Go back in time and imagine you as a allied pilot over Italy, if you encounter a mc.205, you encounter a mc.205V.
As a Japaneese pilot if you encounter a corsair you have 1/60 of possibility to encounter a C model, more probably you will fight with a D model.

So using that same logic you are saying that we should limit the number of planes available based on there total production numbers? With that logic then it should be reasonable to say that since there were 12,000 F4U's built and only 200 C205 that for every 60 F4U's allowed in the game there should be 1 C205? And we could use the same math for the LW pilots since there was only a small percentage of G10 and K4 built compared to the rest of the production. I suppose they would fly BF109E's for 5 missions before getting a G10 or a K4?
You can't just apply that logic to American Iron you know. Remember the US produced 11 major fighter types during the war(not including varients) 9 of which had production numbers of 3,000 or higher. The Soviets I'm sure would be second in fighter types produced in that kind of quanity. Don't you think each country should be represented historically? This is the logic you are using to determine representation.

     
Quote
so F4UDOA can raise his K/D ratio in Chog.
My K/D is 1/1. Not very uber ehh. Would anyone like to try it and prove it's uberness by raising there own K/D?

StSanta said:      
Quote
Perk it if ya want, but statistically, it ain't an abomination. Performance wise, it's fast has accelreation and got good climb, but all other characteristics suck.

It has good speed and accelleration
and climb? It has the best. What could be other than that? Just because it can't turn like a NIK2 and dive like a Mustang doesn't mean it doesn't have the most significant FM advantages in the game. And besides I don't want to perk it. I just wonder why not have the F4U-4 and P-47N if your going to have a late war Uber 109? Neither one of those A/C could exceed the top speed or climb of the 109G10.

Hristo said:  
Quote

F4UDOA, the range of 262 is greater than range of G-10.
Now, since we have C version of Hog, we should have MK 103 + MG 151/20 version of 262.

A deal ?

Deal, but the F4U-4. So what is the range of the 109G and the 262. I'm not so sure about that statement. Will look it up.

whoow,
F4UDOA

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 09-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 09-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 09-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 09-28-2000).]

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #51 on: September 28, 2000, 02:02:00 PM »
F4UDOA,
No offense man, but Naso was talking about varients within type, not comparring all aircraft on equal footing.

He means that since HTC included the C.205 in AH, and AH allows you to fly whatever you want, if you encounter a C.205 it will be what an Allied pilot encountering a C.205 whould have encountered.

In the Japanese pilot example, he is saying that the sorry sot only had a 1/60 chance of the Corsair being a F4U-1C.  It was already a given that it was a Corsair.

The error is that his formula would have a 109K pilot meeting a Spitfire having a 1/4 chance that it was a MkV, in reality it would almost certainly have been a MkIX, MkXIV or MkXVI.

Sisu
-Karnak
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #52 on: September 28, 2000, 02:08:00 PM »
   
Quote
Originally posted by StSanta:
G10?
Seen its popularity and effectiveness?

Perk it if ya want, but statistically, it ain't an abomination. Performance wise, it's fast has accelreation and got good climb, but all other characteristics suck.



Don't forget its not only one of the fastest accelerating, but flat out the fastest next to the Pony...
Thank you, you just proved my point   ...a famous WW2 ace said this, see if you can name him:
"Anytime you can engage, and disengage the enemy at will, 1/2 the battle has been won"

Another note, the G10 isn't used to strafe vehicles (which count as bomber kills in stats) nearly as much as the F4U-1C, so your stats are meaningless unless you subtract bomber kills from both planes.


[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-28-2000).]

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #53 on: September 28, 2000, 08:42:00 PM »
"If LW cannons are not as effective then someone better wake up Herman Goering and tell him to fix it. I'll go get Chance Vought and tell him to make the F4U-1 climb better too. Like I said. It's a dead issue."

I do not consider the 109g10 to be uber at all. Its a plane thats challenging to dogfight, but the 109g10 HAS to ACM you (or HO you) if he wants to shoot you down. Its really rare to see a snapshot kill in a g10... I have to see one yet. Probably this is because the great majority, if not all g10 drivers are ACM'rs and vets.

"Spray and pray? First due to a slower rate of fire spray and pray is definitly not the preferred method of firing especially in a snapshot or a tracking shot. Also Pyro has said he turned down the cannons to be historically accurate so the lazer cannon issue should be done."

Yes, not the "Preffered" method of firing. You think quakeChogr's care about "preffered". You are talking with a bias on your own way of flying, which is ACM as its meant to be. Give any Fighter Ace or any other arcadelosersim pilot a Chog and you will see him roll up the kills... low rate of fire and other fixes, THEY DONT KNOW ABOUT THEM.. THEY DONT CARE! All they know is they got THE guns and THE ammo and THE killing power to smack nearly anything in the game with a round or 2. THATS where the CHOG got its bad reputation, and thats why in my opinion its an unbalancing plane.

Thought experiment: Give the CHOG 8 (or hell, even 10) .50 cals and see what happens... keep the same performance as IF it had the 4 cannons (weight and drag wise). Would it still be so "dweeby" to fly? I believe it wouldnt.. although it has MASSIVE firepower (like the 4 hispanos), but it has no snapshot ability. REMINDER: Its a THOUGHT experiment  



Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2000, 01:07:00 AM »
Dump the icons and see how our gameplay benefiting C-Hog does:

- no more ID from miles away
- no more laser range finder to adjust gunnery

These two will reduce firing ranges to where all aircraft have same chance. And more historical, actualy. No more 700 yards kills on regulsr basis. It might prove why MG 151/20 was considered such an excellent weapon. This is one of the AH paradoxes - while in real life MG 151/20 was considered better than the Hispano, this is not the case in this sim. Icons are to blame.

- distinct shape and coloring will actually put C-Hog at disadvantage, it will be easily recognized from far away (like it should)
- poor 6 view to spot enemy sneaking behind

Icons are C-Hog's best friend. Losing them will most likely mean losing C-Hog unbalancing the Arena.

Just my thoughts.

Offline Torque

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2000, 01:41:00 AM »
I luv Big Blue don't you Fishu!!!!

How come alot of Allied AC had no camo while most of or all the LW AC had camo?

Run and hide in terrian factor?

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #56 on: September 29, 2000, 01:57:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak:
F4UDOA,
No offense man, but Naso was talking about varients within type, not comparring all aircraft on equal footing.

He means that since HTC included the C.205 in AH, and AH allows you to fly whatever you want, if you encounter a C.205 it will be what an Allied pilot encountering a C.205 whould have encountered.

In the Japanese pilot example, he is saying that the sorry sot only had a 1/60 chance of the Corsair being a F4U-1C.  It was already a given that it was a Corsair.

The error is that his formula would have a 109K pilot meeting a Spitfire having a 1/4 chance that it was a MkV, in reality it would almost certainly have been a MkIX, MkXIV or MkXVI.

Sisu
-Karnak

well karnak, you got the point perfectly, but regarding your last sentence, i was implicite about the time variable, of course we need to considerate the time we are immersed in (1944).

But seem F4UDOA is voluntarly ignoring the objection (whhaaa??).

No reason to speak to a wall.  

 
Quote
From Torque.

I luv Big Blue don't you Fishu!!!!
How come alot of Allied AC had no camo while most of or all the LW AC had camo?

Run and hide in terrian factor?

Yes, a wise pilot will never fight 1 vs 10.  

When life is the stuff involved.

Nobody touch your toy, man.  

Nath-BDP

  • Guest
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2000, 02:10:00 AM »
 
Quote
How come alot of Allied AC had no camo while most of or all the LW AC had camo?

Run and hide in terrian factor?

Most P51D/B were painted in camo during the summer, and having the natural metal finish during winter.

F4U has camo, water camo.

Cuz we're smarter. ;p

------------------
 

Stab/Jagdgeschwader 77
"Herzas"

[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 09-29-2000).]

Offline Torque

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2091
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #58 on: September 29, 2000, 02:23:00 AM »
Naso u getting kinky on me?  

<cough> er 47 and 38, B-17, liberator, I've never seen a camo 51 escorting buffs.

Blue on Hawg wasn't for camo I think it's was some navy tradition.

You wish nath.

[This message has been edited by Torque (edited 09-29-2000).]

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Stats revisited; comparing A5 to F4U-C
« Reply #59 on: September 29, 2000, 03:12:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Torque:
Naso u getting kinky on me?  


Ehmm, sorry i dont understand the meaning of "kinky", but if you feel offended i was joking (as the smileys show).

Maybe "Touchè" ?