P-63 KingCobra......again

[Butcher]

It is a bit different.  The Mighty Eighth is a popular event, as well as other American bomber offensive scenarios, which are usually placed in late 1943 through mid 1944.  Currently this is a very hard setting to balance as the Germans don't have any of their high altitude Bf109s.  Given that even the Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be at a disadvantage against the P-51s and P-47s you can imagine what it is like for the Bf109G-6 and Bf109G-14.  When I say "desperately needed" for a /AS Bf109 I am referring exclusively to this popular setting for events.  In the MA I agree it is not really needed.
This is only true for the MA.  If you are flying Luftwaffe for a Mighty Eighth event set in June of 1944 there is nothing you can pick that isn't struggling at the altitudes the American bombers and escorts come in at.

Well one of the reasons is the Buffs come in at 24 or so thousand fleet along with 40k escorts. I tried once flying a Ta-152 and struggled above 35k and I had P47s coming in above me.

[Megalodon]

I understand it perfectly.

Do you understand that even more late war monsters running around makes the game less fun for people who are fans of things that aren't late war monsters?  Did that even occur to you?  Adding the P-63 is fun for some, and the antithesis of fun for others.

 Hey I been a firm supporter for the D.520 which from what I hear ...the French are bonkers for a plane to fly that has true flight model. <shrug> and the Boomer.... their not late war monsters.

so the "New" criteria is

1. No more late war monsters
2. No french planes
3. Only planes that fill a gap
4. Only planes built over a certain number
5. Only planes that have a kill <<---a certain number  
6  No "Tactical" recon planes
7. No more 4 cannon fighters


Do I have it right?

No Fun,

[Butcher]

Hey I been a firm supporter for the D.520 which from what I hear ...the French are bonkers for a plane to fly that has true flight model. <shrug> and the Boomer.... their not late war monsters.

so the "New" criteria is

1. No more late war monsters
2. No french planes
3. Only planes that fill a gap
4. Only planes built over a certain number
5. Only planes that have a kill
6  No "Tactical" recon planes
7. No more 4 cannon fighters


Do I have it right?

No Fun,

Add planes that have to have a certain number of kills to that list.

[Megalodon]

Oh yes, because we should add what is essentially another F4U-4 for you to take our of the hangar one a month. That's much better than getting another aircraft that will have use in both the MA's AND special events.

I mean holy crap, do you really and genuinely believe your own roadkill?

the Ik-3 had 11 kills  there were 12 made 6 operational flew in squad form......this is about the same as the Ta... we should get this its not late war monster, its not from France, It could fill a gap <small crack> It has kills, It's not tatical recon and dosnt have 4 cannons ....
Oh Please Mr. Tank-Ace man can we have it perty please with sugar and honey on top?

Grrr and I'm gonna fix that 190F thread.

[Ack-Ack]

Add planes that have to have a certain number of kills to that list.

The P-63 killed tanks, so it would qualify.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

Hey I been a firm supporter for the D.520 which from what I hear ...the French are bonkers for a plane to fly that has true flight model. <shrug> and the Boomer.... their not late war monsters.

so the "New" criteria is

1. No more late war monsters
2. No french planes
3. Only planes that fill a gap
4. Only planes built over a certain number
5. Only planes that have a kill <<---a certain number  
6  No "Tactical" recon planes
7. No more 4 cannon fighters


Do I have it right?

No Fun,

Who is opposing the D.520, other than Krusty?

No, you do not have it right.  You do not seem to understand or accept that things are 1) not black and white and 2) different people can have different opinions that are both valid and correct for them.  That is what discussion is about, not obtaining total capitulation of all who disagree with you.

You tried to paint those of us who don't favor the P-63 as simply being against fun.  I tried to explain to you why it wasn't that simple, but you either didn't understand my point or, more likely, intentionally misunderstood it so you could troll some more.

[Arlo]

Frankly, this thread is all about trying to justify adding another Late War monster to an arena already oversaturated with them, and one that has ZERO use outside the Mains at that.

The P-63 is nowhere NEAR as important to add to the plane set as the "gap fillers" for that very reason alone.

Ayuh! 

[Arlo]

You use the word need when you mean want. Why does the game need planes that will be hangar queens? Why do you want planes just to "fill holes in line ups"?  That's the weakest argument for adding a plane.

Not so much. The MA is well stocked with planes that keep the masses content if not happy. In that arena there
will always be a 'hangar queen' ratio of probably 40%+ (ignoring that there are players that fly some of them making
those planes seldom used instead of just hangar queens). That leaves events. Scenarios. As long as there's still
subbing going on, there's a need for event aircraft and vehicle sets to have more models. BoB currently has late war
88s versus the right version. That's isn't, by far, the only example.

If HT didn't think events were important I doubt he would take the effort to provide SEAs or the AvA.

[Arlo]

 They don't understand that argument ..... you know the FUN for every one concept just evades them.

No it has to be for scenarios ..that if their lucky will get 2 off this year. Maybe 200 players twice a year...That's the basis for adding planes with these guys.... I have no doubt that the FSO would work it in.

 

And you almost seem to get it. When there is no longer a need to sub for events then wish for the Nazi moon base for all I care.  Yes, a LOT of players participate in scenarios. More will when there's less subbing.

[Arlo]

I understand it perfectly.

Do you understand that even more late war monsters running around makes the game less fun for people who are fans of things that aren't late war monsters?  Did that even occur to you?  Adding the P-63 is fun for some, and the antithesis of fun for others.

He practically begs for the D.520, a plane that would see a little bit of action in events and be fodder in the MA. *ShruG* Methinks he argues along the lines of whatever his current emotional trend is.

[Megalodon]

Who is opposing the D.520, other than Krusty?

No, you do not have it right.  You do not seem to understand or accept that things are 1) not black and white and 2) different people can have different opinions that are both valid and correct for them.  That is what discussion is about, not obtaining total capitulation of all who disagree with you.

You tried to paint those of us who don't favor the P-63 as simply being against fun.  I tried to explain to you why it wasn't that simple, but you either didn't understand my point or, more likely, intentionally misunderstood it so you could troll some more.

 You are always trying to explain to me arnt you 

[Megalodon]

He practically begs for the D.520, a plane that would see a little bit of action in events and be fodder in the MA. *ShruG* Methinks he argues along the lines of whatever his current emotional trend is.

[Tank-Ace]

the Ik-3 had 11 kills  there were 12 made 6 operational flew in squad form......this is about the same as the Ta... we should get this its not late war monster, its not from France, It could fill a gap <small crack> It has kills, It's not tatical recon and dosnt have 4 cannons ....
Oh Please Mr. Tank-Ace man can we have it perty please with sugar and honey on top?

Grrr and I'm gonna fix that 190F thread.

As I said, the P-63 is below MOST aircraft. Not this one in particular, but still most. Is it below something like the Hawk 75? Hell yes. The I-16, if we didn't already have it? Absolutely. High alt 109? You bet your sweet bellybutton its above the P-63 on the priority list. Panzer II? Probably.

[Arlo]

(Image removed from quote.)

Just bear in mind:



That and .... no, Meg, you can't have it both ways. 

[Butcher]

As I said, the P-63 is below MOST aircraft. Not this one in particular, but still most. Is it below something like the Hawk 75? Hell yes. The I-16, if we didn't already have it? Absolutely. High alt 109? You bet your sweet bellybutton its above the P-63 on the priority list. Panzer II? Probably.

It depends what you are asking, Hawk 75, Wellington and Beaufighter all served in multiple Theaters of operation as did the D.520. High alt 109 did not serve at all on the Russian front, so its limited to the Western front and would not get used much in the Main Arena (fact is low alt its a horrible aircraft) same as getting the Spitfire LF and trying to fly above 20k. So in terms of what is actually needed, the Fw-109a3 is only aircraft I can see the Luftwaffe actually needing that flew on multiple fronts (if not DO-17 or 217), however none are necessarily needed right now as many other aircraft are justified to be added well before anything more luftwaffe.

Italians, French, russians, australians and Britain all need to fill in spots.