Author Topic: The Slot 1943 - Friday 13 Sep (Read 3030 times)

Miska · « **Reply #15 on:** September 13, 2002, 09:55:02 PM »

I absolutely agree!! By all means, make every plane as ugly as it was. The more (historically accurate) problems for each side, the better. I especially agree that AH (and any other sim) is badly in need of weapon stoppages and unreliable engines.

And this is not a "side" thing, either (that's quite insulting actually). 880 flies both sides, purely based on numbers in the arena.

But please, stick to historical setups. If one side is losing badly because it should (ie France 1940) I will fly that side and be happy to do my best in the historical situation. Did you hear me complain about fighting 109s in Hurricane Is all last week? No! I loved Norway. One of my favourite setups so far. But if you call something The Slot 1943, don't give me a Ray Bradbury set up where a 1944 Japanese engineer travels back to 1941! Call it Ray Bradbury's Time Traveller set-up. Then I'll know to do something else with my time. Again, I fly the CT for the historical atmosphere.

brady · « **Reply #16 on:** September 13, 2002, 09:55:10 PM »

Our Ki 61 and the A6M5 are 44 planes, although The Ki 61 we have is not named corectly so I may be mistaken on that one.

Miska · « **Reply #17 on:** September 13, 2002, 09:58:41 PM »

Several posts popped up while I was writing:

This has NOTHING to do with being a "fan" of some side or other!!!!!! If you feel you can't do a 1943 PAC setup, then don't! Do something that you feel you CAN do. Again, we fly both sides. When is the last time I have complained about ANYTHING around here? Get a clue.

brady · « **Reply #18 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:01:12 PM »

Miska,

I appricate your point but in the interest of gameplay we follow this premis, "Never sacrifce gameplay for Historical Accuracery" No In the CT we always strive for the most part to make our sets as historicaly accurate as possable, but frankely we do not have all the tools to do that all the time espichaly in the PTO and VVS type set up's, also early war is still lacking severly, no good Italian and a compleat lack of anything French. Bearing this all in mind I do think that the above set up is ballenced plane wise, a bit of historical license was taken to creat it but it is not that far outa wack, Hellcats did fight Georges after all.

Miska · « **Reply #19 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:06:10 PM »

Change the name and I'll withdraw my objections

This is NOT the Slot 1943. So what's on tap for next week?

brady · « **Reply #20 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:10:30 PM »

Well I am up next week, I am going to do a Tempest vs 109e setup using the DA map.

Soulyss · « **Reply #21 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:12:39 PM »

All and all it is my general feelings that the sides are reasonably well matched up in most the scenarios I've seen since I started flying in the CT a little over a month ago (starting with the original slot setup).

As for modelling engine failure, etc. etc. etc. bad idea all around. Just think how miffed you get when you have a succesful sortie going and you get a disconnection. Adding things like engine failure and so forth just multiplies those issues. No one wants to fly for 5 minutes to get to a battle only to have their engine seize on them and have to do it all over again. Gun jamming is the same way, if you're flyin a Yak for example and you line up on someone and your 20mm jams you're outta luck, you're left with 2 little MG's. Gun jams and engine failure just sound like quick trips to high blood pressure to me.

Miska · « **Reply #22 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:17:55 PM »

or you would learn to fly differently instead of always being right at the edge of performance. Before committing to a fight, you might ask yourself "if my guns jam in this situation, can I get out"? You might learn to avoid some fights and take advantage of others. All in all a richer gaming experience, and more factors to favour historical flying on everyone's part = more immersion = more intense fun for all. Just my opinion.

Oh, and Brady, have fun next week

Karnak · « **Reply #23 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:23:32 PM »

miska,

The point is that the CT crew can't do a 1943 US vs IJ setup. The Japanese aircraft simply aren't there and the US will have an atifically easy time of it.

(Did you like having Spit Is added to Norway?)

brady,

The A6M5b and Ki-61-I-KAIc are both 1944 aircraft, but they are also both early war airframes. In the case of the Ki-61 it is, performance wise, prety much a 1942 Ki-61, but it has better guns and bigger bombs. Its no Ki-61-II though.

The A6M5b still suffers all the high speed handling issues, and with the over optimistic turning F4Fs it can't even be used in turn fights. Hell, the A6M2 can barely be used to turn against the F4Fs.

I'm with soulyss on the engine and gun bits. You're fantasizing if you think it would lead to a richer game experience. It'd just lead to empty arenas as people canceled their accounts, or avoided the arenas where it was enabled. Its no fun to be climbing out in your P-51D/Fw190D-9/Spitfire Mk IX/La-7/N1K2-J only to have the engine seize after 10 minutes of flight. Why would people want to log on to that after a stressful day of work?

It would also put an end to any concept of a "fair" fight.

I'm all for engine heat management that works in a predictible way and only punishes people for abusing the engine, but random failures outside of their control would add nothing good to tha game.

Miska · « **Reply #24 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:29:45 PM »

Karnak,

If that's true, then I would urge them not to do a 1943 PAC until they feel they can.

I wasn't aware that the Spit had been added to Norway. I wouldn't have flown it anyway. I only flew the Hurri in there. I was looking for the gladiator so I could fly off a frozen lake, but no such luck.

PS: Have you looked at some subs for the Ki-43 and such? How does the 202 stack up? I'll have to look that up.

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:37:39 PM »

The C.202 is much, much faster and handles vastly poorer when compared with the Ki-43. It is also very much tougher.

Miska · « **Reply #26 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:39:57 PM »

Yes, I just saw that. Armament is wrong too. 320 vs 370 mph!

Squire · « **Reply #27 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:40:29 PM »

* The tactics of FM-2 vs George is not the issue.

* The Ki-61 and A6M5 are 1943 technology a/c. You are splitting hairs by calling them 1944.

The issue here is having *ANY* pacific setup without the N1K2 and some 1944/5 US type involved.

Why cant we have this setup?:

USN: FM-2 (CV)
F4F-4 (CV)
TBM (CV)
SBD (CV)

USAAF: P-40E
BostonIII (early A-20A)

USMC: F4U-1A (perked at 1 pt) land only
F4F-4 (land)
SBD (land)

IJN: A6M2/A6M5 (CV and land)
VAL (CV and land)

IJAAF: Ki-61
Ki-67

No Hellcats, No Mustangs, No Nikkies For once.

It may be a semi fudge setup (like most are), but its interesting, and workable I think. Could represent late 1943 or early 1944 in some parts of the SW Pacific.

I would be interested in hearing from the 27th Sentai on this.

Regards.

brady · « **Reply #28 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:59:49 PM »

Plane sets can be debated till were all blue in the face, I think wahats important hear is that this one is balenced, no side has a clear advantage over the other.

Yes the Zero and the Tony are 43 ish planes but both models would never of seen combat till 44 that we curently have not to be anal about it all, I think my point is if were going to anal abot the historical license taken to creat this balenced set then we shoud look at how it was arived at and why, we dont have a good Japanese plane set to work with and we have to do som things we would rather not do to creat balenced set up's.

The George is rarely included in CT set ups, Most Pac set ups lately have been early war, and the one I did in AUG 45 was a couple months ago.

Next week we are doing what I posted we would be doing this week, VVS vs Luftwaffe 43, another A hsitorical set done because we do not have the proper aircraft to do it 100% accurately, see the right up on the forum.

Löwe · « **Reply #29 on:** September 13, 2002, 10:59:53 PM »

IMHO
If you want to sub something for a Ki-43. Grab a A6M2 and empty the cannon rounds on the runway and fly with just the two MG, or fly the Vals. Those are about the best way I can see to sub the Oscar as things are now.