WW1

[SCTusk]

I know what you're saying.  But then again, you a relatively new to the AH environment.  The 3 sided MA has proven very successful over the years.  Its a proven design. 

Well I seem to remember being here at the start Wab, and I've dropped back in a couple of times over the years. Maybe what keeps pushing me away is the 3 country system 

Right now, this very second, if HT reconfigured the WWI arena so that one side only had DR.I and DVII and the other only had F1 and F2B do you think things would be balanced?  I highly doubt it.  The very fact that so many people choose to only fly the DR.I suggests to me that they wouldn't want to be on the team where its not available.  However, it would be an interesting test.  HT could try that with the current arena for a couple of week without any coding change.  Just change the configuration.  I suspect, however,  the results would be ugly.

In the old days, when you and I were playing FC, they could get away with that because the flight model code for the camel and DR.I were the same.  Exactly the same.  Same weight, HP, model, everything.  No difference whatsoever.  That's another approach to play balance but would surely violate your realism criteria.


If you could get it to work, I'd have no problem with it philosophically. However, from a practical standpoint, I think an MA works best with three sides with all available aircraft. 

Scenarios and such are where you get your historical fix.

$0.02,
Wab

For me personally, I'd be on a lot more and be prosecuting the war with more prejudice if the other side had the (historically accurate) superior aircraft, numbers etc. Although it's worth noting that I currently fly the F.1 often against Dr.1's flown by very capable sticks, so clearly I like a challenge. Maybe others would find the prospect daunting or discouraging, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But as far as I understand it WW1 was a constant to and fro of technical and numerical air superiority.... if you like realism then wouldn't you want to have this aspect built in to the tour? They could set up a fluctuating advantage in the arena very easily I suspect.... and winning or even giving a good account of yourself when the odds are against you provides enormous satisfaction.

At the moment I'm happy to enjoy the arena for what it is, and hopefully in the future someone will crank up the realism - c'mon it's a game nobody gets hurt - and we can experience some of the appalling one-sidedness that was WW1 in the air (as opposed to the appalling and historically inaccurate one-sidedness of the current Dr.1 scourge).

[Anaxogoras]

At the moment I'm happy to enjoy the arena for what it is, and hopefully in the future someone will crank up the realism - c'mon it's a game nobody gets hurt - and we can experience some of the appalling one-sidedness that was WW1 in the air (as opposed to the appalling and historically inaccurate one-sidedness of the current Dr.1 scourge).

While the Entente enjoyed a large numerical superiority during most periods, their losses were usually equally high in compensation, so I wouldn't call it appallingly one-sided.  After all, the Germans mostly stalked their own side of the line and waited for wave up wave of obsolete British two-seaters.

[Lusche]

  After all, the Germans mostly stalked their own side of the line and waited for wave up wave of obsolete British two-seaters.

Some Germans still do this today in the AH mains... 

[Hollywood]

Start with adding the SE5a and Albatross....then add some strat, tanks, balloons, bombers....jeeze.  I know you dozen guys want your own little private WW1 arena but lets kick it in the nuts here.  Get this thing going already.

I think Yeager has the plan here.  The one thing I would add to it is graphics improvement.  This goes for both the wwi and wwii arenas.  There are quite a few other sims out there of all varieties that are pushing the envelope on graphics.  Some are very pretty but I would go for realism.  I think this would improve the feel of immersion in the game tremendously.  One thing I would be curious about is if we could improve the way planes look at distance.  I am thinking that maybe clever averaging of the plane pixel/s with the background could give very realistic effects as a plane appeared in the distance and then moved closer, emulating a much higher (read mark 1 eyeball) resolution.  If we then could improve the ability to identify planes, perhaps using the same averaging tricks, from silhouette and color, then perhaps arenas without icons would become the most popular choice.

I am downloading the ROF demo right now, and probably will buy it, but I would really like to see HTC dominate in all flight sim genres.

[Sid]

I'm hoping it will develop along the lines of DOA, I'd love to have some balloons to shoot down and artillery to spot for.

March will be the first anniversary for the WWI arena, let’s hope HTC has something planned.

[BnZs]

The Dr1 should be a bullet sponge.  It did not rely on wire bracing for rigidity like the Camel, and its fuselage was constructed from steel.  For an aircraft like the Camel, damage to its bracing could cause catastrophic failure...  The D.VII should exhibit similar robustness to the Dr1.

What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.

Data for WW1 aircraft is notoriously unreliable.

This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?

I tried the WWI arena for the first time in a few months again tonight. Upped the Camel, scored exactly 0 gun kills and a few auger kills. Now I might be a bad pilot and a bad shot, but I don't believe I'm THAT bad. It was the same old frustration...even when you end up in the saddled position on a Dr1, they simply absorb the hits your wandering gunsight puts on them while their buddy pulls up behind you and knocks out your fuel, your pilot, or vital wing parts of your Camel in seconds. The ONLY Camels I saw all night on Knits were being flown by SCTusk and I saw exactly one one on Bish right before I logged. I did see F2Bs being upped by a couple of people though...the fact that a two seat scout is being flown in preference to a dedicated fighter in a dogfight arena should be telling. So I stand by my point that a primary factor holding the WWI arena back is that not only are there only 4 planes in the entire set, but only 2 of them are viable fighters, and they are both Axis.

[Tinribs]

What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.

This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?

I tried the WWI arena for the first time in a few months again tonight. Upped the Camel, scored exactly 0 gun kills and a few auger kills. Now I might be a bad pilot and a bad shot, but I don't believe I'm THAT bad. It was the same old frustration...even when you end up in the saddled position on a Dr1, they simply absorb the hits your wandering gunsight puts on them while their buddy pulls up behind you and knocks out your fuel, your pilot, or vital wing parts of your Camel in seconds. The ONLY Camels I saw all night on Knits were being flown by SCTusk and I saw exactly one one on Bish right before I logged. I did see F2Bs being upped by a couple of people though...the fact that a two seat scout is being flown in preference to a dedicated fighter in a dogfight arena should be telling. So I stand by my point that a primary factor holding the WWI arena back is that not only are there only 4 planes in the entire set, but only 2 of them are viable fighters, and they are both Axis.

I fly the d7 allmost exclusively in game and while I wouldnt disagree with the dr1 superiority I do not agree with the allied planes both being inferior to the d7 in fact I would suggest the opposite is more true.
1) the f2b and f1 will both out turn the d7 easily.
2) the d7 is more fragile in a dive than either of the allied planes.
3) the d7 takes a lot less hits than the f2b and marginally less than the f1
4) the f2b will out climb the d7 and though theres very little in it I think the f1 does as well.
5) the f2b is a lot faster than the d7,theres very little difference between the f1 and d7.
6) the d7 burns fuel a lot faster than either allied plane.
 the plus points,
1) the d7 does have a vastly superior role rate to either allied plane.
2) it has slightly better e retention.
3) it carries more ammunition.
4) the allround cockpit visibility is a lot better than the f1 and marginally better than the f2b.
5) the d7 is easier to fly than the other ww1 planes behaving more like the ww2 fighters no engine torque to worry about and less likely to stall.
The last reason above is why many prefer flying the d7 to the allied planes Im sure that its very little to do with the aircafts capabilities.

[BnZs]

As it stands now Tinribs, I'd say the WWI arena is roughly equivalent to a WWII arena where the Axis powers were equipped with the 109F and the 190A5 and the Allied powers got the B-25H and P-40B.

I think the best quick fix for the WWI arena might be a few new planes, hopefully including some Allied types like the Spad that might redress the balance of power abit.

I fly the d7 allmost exclusively in game and while I wouldnt disagree with the dr1 superiority I do not agree with the allied planes both being inferior to the d7 in fact I would suggest the opposite is more true.
1) the f2b and f1 will both out turn the d7 easily.
2) the d7 is more fragile in a dive than either of the allied planes.
3) the d7 takes a lot less hits than the f2b and marginally less than the f1
4) the f2b will out climb the d7 and though theres very little in it I think the f1 does as well.
5) the f2b is a lot faster than the d7,theres very little difference between the f1 and d7.
6) the d7 burns fuel a lot faster than either allied plane.
 the plus points,
1) the d7 does have a vastly superior role rate to either allied plane.
2) it has slightly better e retention.
3) it carries more ammunition.
4) the allround cockpit visibility is a lot better than the f1 and marginally better than the f2b.
5) the d7 is easier to fly than the other ww1 planes behaving more like the ww2 fighters no engine torque to worry about and less likely to stall.
The last reason above is why many prefer flying the d7 to the allied planes Im sure that its very little to do with the aircafts capabilities.

[Anaxogoras]

What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.

The Camel should be better in this area.  One of the weakness of the Dr1 is that its top wing creates more lift than the lower wings, so the faster you go, the greater the difference in lifting force between them all.  If you go really fast, then you shouldn't be surprised when the top wing fails.  This problem is distinct from the quality-control problems that plagued the Dr1 in the Fall of 1917.

This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?

You could just guess at performance data for WW1 aircraft and have a good chance of being more accurate than the official figures, in some cases.  German pilots noticed that the Dr1 was slower than other German fighters when it was introduced; but a good chunk of performance data says otherwise.  I find the 115mph at sea level figure to be very dubious.  WW1 aviation was a cottage industry where no two aircraft were exactly alike, not in their performance, and not in their handling.  Fuel quality varied, engines wore out quickly, and some aircraft were lemons right from the start.  One of the most eye-popping tests I ever saw was for the Sopwith Snipe.  Its level airspeed at 10k ft was retested after 24 hours of flight time, and it had lost more than 5% of its factory-fresh performance.

So, I agree that a little improvisation wouldn't be unreasonable.

[Tinribs]

As it stands now Tinribs, I'd say the WWI arena is roughly equivalent to a WWII arena where the Axis powers were equipped with the 109F and the 190A5 and the Allied powers got the B-25H and P-40B.
I think the best quick fix for the WWI arena might be a few new planes, hopefully including some Allied types like the Spad that might redress the balance of power abit.

Everyone agrees that a larger plane set would be a huge improvement but that is not an easy or quick fix,the suggestions in this thread are mainly looking at ways of adjusting what we allready have to attract and keep new players in ww1.It is very doubtfull that with the numbers as low as they are hitec is going to pump more time and effort into it as its a stand alone feature with no real bearing on all the other aspects of AH2.

[BnZs]

Everyone agrees that a larger plane set would be a huge improvement but that is not an easy or quick fix,the suggestions in this thread are mainly looking at ways of adjusting what we allready have to attract and keep new players in ww1.It is very doubtfull that with the numbers as low as they are hitec is going to pump more time and effort into it as its a stand alone feature with no real bearing on all the other aspects of AH2.

Ok, here is the *really* quick fix then: Nerf the Dr1 and Un-nerf the Camel to a certain degree.

Now I WILL be burned at the stake...

[Sid]

You could just guess at performance data for WW1 aircraft and have a good chance of being more accurate than the official figures, in some cases.  German pilots noticed that the Dr1 was slower than other German fighters when it was introduced; but a good chunk of performance data says otherwise.  I find the 115mph at sea level figure to be very dubious.

I have quite a large collection of WWI a/c books; searching through for references to the Dr.1 top speed: roughly half (6) list it as 185 km/h (115 mph) at sea level & the other half (5) list it as 165 km/h (103 mph) sea level.

Which is the correct figure?

I suspect both depending on which fixed pitch prop was fitted at the time.

[Anaxogoras]

I have quite a large collection of WWI a/c books; searching through for references to the Dr.1 top speed: roughly half (6) list it as 185 km/h (115 mph) at sea level & the other half (5) list it as 165 km/h (103 mph) sea level.

Which is the correct figure?

I suspect both depending on which fixed pitch prop was fitted at the time.

Funny, I've always seen that 103mph figure listed as speed at 4000m.  Now your document says 99.2mph.  Curiouser and curiouser.  Nice documents, btw.  Which book are they from?

[Sid]

Three Wings for the Red Baron: Von Richthofen, Strategy, Tactics, and Airplanes by Leon Bennett

[Tinribs]

Ok, here is the *really* quick fix then: Nerf the Dr1 and Un-nerf the Camel to a certain degree.

Now I WILL be burned at the stake...