Axis need a heavy bomber...

[Viriatus]

PLEASE, PLEASE, VERY PRETTY PLEASE!!!!

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero

I know it's not a heavy...but I would sell my mother-in-law to fly this beauty!  

[Fastbikkel]

"Pics were taken when American fighter-bombers were attacking againts base."


I have those same pictures in a book, it says that the engines caught fire while taxiing. This was always a problem with the engine types used in this beautiful plane.

But the book may be wrong.


JG5FaBi

[Dowding]

No, Staga that's not what I meant at all. I was explaining why scenarios with that balance exist. Also, I don't decide what scenarios run, I just happen to be part of a team that designs them.

But then, I seem to remember you taking issue with Hostile Shores' 54% to 46% balance.

You also didn't answer my question regarding how the He-177 will enable 1940 (LW majority) type scenarios?

[Staga]

Originally posted by Dowding:

You also didn't answer my question regarding how the He-177 will enable 1940 (LW majority) type scenarios?

Could you point me where did I binded He-177 and 1940 type of scenarios together?
I know and I hope you know too that bird came in operative use in late '42.

One thing I've alwas trusted is term "FairPlay".
Which in games meant you play by the rules (written AND un-written) and games I've played teams are equal sized.

AH is still a game IMHO.

[Dowding]

You were complaining about the balance in certain scenarios. I was pointing out that the LW would have a balance advantage if we could do more 1939/40 scenarios. But for that we need more early war aircraft that were present in large numbers, such as the Stuka. The presence of the Stuka would do more to realise those kind of set-ups, unlike the He-177 which saw less service and was produced in less numbers.

An He-111 would be a better choice, if you wanted that kind of scenario.

But in real life, things are rarely 'balanced'. My personal view of the purpose of scenarios is to provide an historical as possible 'snapshot' of a engagement, maybe with a slight 'what if' kind of change. For those people that want to experience maybe what it was like to be in a particular situation.

Campaigns, to me, are more a 're-write the history books' kind of set-up.

The LW were outnumbered throughout the latter years of the war - scenarios often reflect that. What would be the point of running a '1000-bomber raid' type of event, for instance, where you had 20 B17s, 10 P51s and 40 Doras? It wouldn't exactly be historical would it?

[Airscrew]

I wasnt going to add anything more to this but Lazs has to keep compounding things
 Lazs says "In AH the bombers can affect the fighter war drasticly.... This of course is silly unrealistic and never happened in the war..."   Lazs bombers did affect the fighter war in WW2,  that was one of the objectives of strategic bombing.  Bombing refineries, ball bearing plants, A/C factories, etc were designed to reduce the LW capablities to launch a defense against Allied attacks, Land or Air.  And so it is done in AH,  I bomb your factories and refineries and it affects your bases.  I bomb your precious fighter hangers and you cant fly and mount a defense.  Thats how its supposed to be.  That how we take a base,  resistence is futile.

Again a quote from Lazs ----
 "In AH, fighters can't effect the bomber war which is silly as your photos poing out. It is bassakwards now and you want to make it even worse.
lazs "  ---- Fighters did it in WW2 and here in AH affect the bomber war.  I think its called "shooting them down"  

It must really get to you,  all those bombers taking out your hangers so 'You' cant fly and play.

[Staga]

Dowding why dont you stop for a while and think:
There's already a early war axis levelbomber; We dont need He-111.
Also we already have early war axis divebomber, We dont need Ju-87.
In both cases I'm talking about Ju-88.

It sure makes me wonder why are you against He-177 ?
Is it because that certain plane or is it because I'm lobbying it?

Why do you want to add another axis early war planes which would be dead meat in MA where ppl still spend most of their time in AH?

IMHO it would be waste of resources to model planes like He-111 when we already have a plane from same era of war with better speed and bombload.

So why not use that time to model Axis bomber which saw action since late 1942 and was having a loadout which was in "par" with allied bombers and could be used in many different ways depending its armament ?

And Dowding:
Forget scenarios. I've seen them already and decided to stay in MA. As I said I prefer even sides in games more than "historical" numbers with some side having 15-30% more players.

[DingHao2]

Besides...where else can u get a name that sounds as cool as Grief--german for Griffon.

       

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Ding_Hao ]

[DingHao2]

Changed my signature--im for an He-177 instead of a Ju-388.  Grief saw more action than the Ju did.

[DingHao2]

Besides...where else can u get a name that sounds as cool as Grief--german for Griffon.

[AN]

Staga:
------------------------------------
Also we already have early war axis divebomber, We dont need Ju-87.
------------------------------------

'We don't need the Stuka', 'We don't need the F4F' -- I can't believe what I'm hearing on these boards.

What's next, 'We don't need the P-40?'

You guys are dismissing out of hand potentially the funnest planes in the planeset!

anRky

[DingHao2]

Certain countries need certain types of planes--right now, the Axis dont need another light or med. bomber, they need a hvy bomber!  and the US already have several acceptable fighters--we wont be needing another one for a while.

[Dowding]

Not at all Staga. You were arguing for its inclusion based on its potential in scenarios; I was pointing out that there are far better LW 'scenario' planes. The Stuka being just one.

I wouldn't mind seeing it here, but I'd prefer to see a Japanese or Russian level bomber first.

Strangely enough, this is just my opinion; I won't get the hump if it is criticised/contradicted.

[Kieran]

Staga, you are being very misleading about the balance issue in scenarios. Balance isn't only about numbers you know. Pit 40 LW fighters against 20 Allied fighters and 20 Allied bombers, set the mission for the Axis as defense, and you have an instant Axis win. The G10 and D9 can ignore escort fighters and tear bomber formations to bits- a fact well proven in numerous previous scenarios. In many of those cases the bombers were destroyed down to the last plane.

Now, if you want to eliminate radar and not tell the Axis where the raids are going, fine. You might have an argument on the numbers. The fact remains, if the LW are able to concentrate anything near their full strength near a formation of bombers the fighter escort is inconsquential, and you have a guaranteed Axis win.

Now I see in another thread you attack Dowding for disagreeing with you, and even question HTC's decision to allow him to CM. Pathetic. What are we to infer by those snide comments, BTW, that HTC is giving tacit approval to anti-Axis scenarios? I don't know about the others, but I sure smelled a hint of that nonsense.

So I ask, why have you not volunteered to help out in designing and running scenarios? You seem intelligent, a student of history of sorts, interested in aviation, and critical of the efforts of others, why not take a shot at it yourself? I have, and I suspect if you do you will find things not so black-and-white as you make them appear.

[AN]

Ding_Hao:
----------------------------------------
Certain countries need certain types of planes--right now, the Axis dont need another light or med. bomber, they need a hvy bomber!  and the US already have several acceptable fighters--we wont be needing another one for a while.
----------------------------------------

How do I join the Axis?  Or the US?  I must be missing something.

The only country choices I get when I'm online (or offline) are Bishop, Rook, and Knight.

anRky