Author Topic: Ban Ki-67s from Early War (Read 1164 times)

Halo · « **on:** April 10, 2003, 09:42:02 PM »

Combat theater is great, but its realism is severely compromised by planes too early for their time. The worst example is the Ki-67 that keeps popping up in early Pacific scenarios.

The Ki-67 is extreme overkill -- nothing can catch it, and its armament is too strong for early war.

The Ju-88 would be a much fairer approximation of early Japanese bombers.

brady · « **Reply #1 on:** April 10, 2003, 10:09:10 PM »

The JU 88 is in NO WAY like any early war Japanese bomber a quick look at preformane bombload defensive guns ect will clearly show that.

The Peggy is more alike the Betty than anything else except in terms of speed and it is a bit more durable.

The Big problem is we dont have a decent early war Allied buff either, the Boston is more uber that than the Peggy is in many way's realy, both are not compleatly approparate but both are equile in enough ways to balance each other out, neither have a signastudmuffinent effect on game play in the CT either. Both are faster than the fighter's that apose them.

Arlo · « **Reply #2 on:** April 10, 2003, 10:58:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady

The Big problem is we don't have a decent early war Allied buff either. The Boston is more uber that than the Peggy is in many ways really. Both are not completely appropriate but both are equal in enough ways to balance each other out ....

Interesting theory. I don't concur but what else is new.

Ki-67[/i][/size]

Country of origin: Japan
Crew: Eight crew
Type: Bomber
Normal loaded weight: 30,347 lbs.
Dimensions:
Wing span 73'10"
Length 61'4"
Height 18'4"

Internal fuel: 1,027 gallons
Armament:
5xHo-103 12.7mm 400 rpg
Nose gunner
Dorsal gunner with twice the gunarc of the A-20 dorsal
Stbd and Port gunners

1xHo-5 20mm 300 rpg
Tail gunner (with good gunarc)

15 50kg bombs
8 100kg bombs
3 250kg bombs
1 500kg bomb
1 800kg Torpedo

Whoops - let me fix this:

Boston III [/i][/size]
Country of origin: Britain
Crew: Three crew
Type: Bomber/Attacker
Normal loaded weight: 20,230 lbs.

Dimensions:
Wing span 61'4"
Length 47'6"
Height 17'7"

Internal fuel: 394 gallons

Armament:
4x303 cal 500 rpg
2x303 cal 1000 rpg
4-250 lb bombs
4-500 lb bombs

J_A_B · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2003, 11:11:53 PM »

Arlo, he wasn't even talking about the A-20G, he was talking about the Boston, which is an earlier, inferior version. He is making the claim that an Allied bomber from 1941 is superior to a late 1944 Japanese bomber that was widely considered the best the Japanese Army had built. Quite funny, actually.

While the early A-20 is certainly difficult for the Japapese fighters to intercept due to its speed, I can't see how it's improper in any but the absolute earliest of Pacific scenarios (such as Burma). While not the most numerous US bomber, it WAS there (unlike the Ki-67 which, as noted above, didn't even exist until almost the end of the war).

If the Ki-67 is too much for the early setups (and I would say it is), restrict the Japanese to the B5N Kate. It carries roughly the same bombload as most of their bombers at the time anyway. For the sake of parity (if not strict realism), the TBM can suffice as an Allied bomber.

Honestly the Ki-49 "Helen" would have been a better choice than the "Peggy"--it had a far earlier service introduction AND slightly larger bombload without the vulnerability of the G4M--but I don't pick which planes HTC adds.

J_A_B

Arlo · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2003, 11:20:43 PM »

I wondered at the inconsistancy between the stats on the game overview page and the actual description on the hanger page in the game. I looked for an older version in the plane and vehicle overview but there wasn't one.

(edit: DoH! Oh .... yeah .... British export!) *smacks forehead*

Edited above

I completely agree with your assessment and suggestions. Alas, we have about as much say in what gets used in CT setups as we do what plane gets modeled by HTC.

Arlo · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2003, 11:29:31 PM »

Of course there's also:

B26-B[/i][/size]

Country of origin: USA
Crew: Five/seven crew
Type: Bomber
Normal loaded weight: 37,000 lbs.

Dimensions:
Wing span 65'
Length 56'
Height 17'10"

Internal fuel: 962 gallons

Armament:
12x50 Cal M2
100 lb bomb
250 lb bomb
500 lb bomb
1000 lb bomb

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** April 11, 2003, 01:19:34 AM »

I do think that the Ki.67 is better than the Boston Mk III, but if you think the Boston Mk III is just fine and dandy you're nuts.

The A6M2 can't catch it. Period.

Hell, The Bf109E can't catch it at most of the altitudes.

We need:

B-25C Mitchell (early war US bomber)

G4M2 "Betty" (early war Japanese bomber)

Wellington Mk III (early war British bomber)

Ju188A-2 (mid to late war German bomber)

Cant Z.1007 or S.M.79-II (Italian bomber)

Pe-2 (early war Russian bomber)

Pe-2FT (mid war Russian bomber)

Pe-2B (late war Russian bomber)

(Three Pe-2s to maximize usage of polygon art work. The three are very different)

BTW, Arlo,

Having much time in the Ki.67 I would like to assure you that the tail guns are not 20mm. That is the dorsal gun. The tail guns are 12.7mm.

Arlo · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2003, 01:33:22 AM »

Sounds good but .... I think it's still up against the brick wall of nothing getting modeled until AHII is released, debugged and pays for itself.

So I'd say J_A_B's idea, in my opinion, is probably a good one (except I'd keep the SBD and Val as well). Nix all fighters but the F4F and A6M2 (then there'll be no "uber" what-so-ever).Yep, it trims the `42 slot even more but it would make it a better balanced arena. Downsize the fleets - they're a bit too bloated in size. And when they're combined it looks like a D-Day invasion. Keep `em just downsize `em.

There ya go - Slot `42.

Now ... for Slot `43 and Slot `44.

P.S. Kar - Sorry .. right ... it's the dorsal that mounts a single 20mm according to online data about the plane. It still hase more firepower and defensive arcs than the Boston ever dreamed of having. It carries a roughly equal bombload (except it can handle a torp - for what that's worth) and it's flight parameters aren't really inferior, either.

And yes, both bombers may fly with impunity against the "main" fighters of the arena if used correctly (get to alt - get to speed and run right past em). But the Peggy has a trump card the Boston doesn't have if it lets itself get caught.

LOL - also - picture the IJ players using the Peggy as a bomber interceptor (shiver).

Still, I suppose this could be a buff pilot's dream arena.

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** April 11, 2003, 01:51:24 AM »

The problem is that the Ki.67 can't intercept the Boston Mk III. It is too slow, look at the speed charts. The Ki.67 does about 285 on the deck, the Boston about 310. At 10,000ft the Ki.67's up to 300, but the Boston's up to 325.

I have had Boston's intercept my Ki.67s. They pull underneath where the Ki.67 is defenseless and blaze away with the upper turret.

'Course, if the Bostons screw up the Ki.67s blow them out of the air.

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2003, 01:55:07 AM »

Also keep in mind that the TBM-3 and SBD-5 are 1943 aircraft and the D3A1 is a 1937 aircraft and the B5N2 is a 1938 aircraft that we don't even have its big bomb for.

I think it would have been much better balanced if they'd added the D3A2 from 1942 and the B6N2 from 1943 instead.

Ah well.

Arlo · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2003, 02:13:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

I have had Boston's intercept my Ki.67s. They pull underneath where the Ki.67 is defenseless and blaze away with the upper turret.

'Course, if the Bostons screw up the Ki.67s blow them out of the air.

Which should be easy enough since the Boston doesn't have an upper turret, just a dorsal with a much smaller firing arc than most - and a pair of .303s ... and 4 .303s static for the pilot. I think it would be suicide for Bostons to do this. The Peggy, otoh, could still manage to do it.

Even being slower by 25 mph (not much disparity) the Peggy has a better chance of intercepting and killing the Boston than visa versa .... certainly a better chance than the Zeke (unless the zekes have climbed to alt and positioned well - which is easy enough). And with a gunner (or perhaps even without - depending on player skill), the Peggy can fire on the Boston from just about any angle while maneuvering to make sure the CPA is kept as close as possible, taking care not to get directly in front of or ten to twenty degrees high aft - ten to twenty degrees deflection, either side aft. Heck - directly behind a Boston is about the best place to be. So all you have to do is make sure you plot your intercept well - that 25 mph advantage will seem like a lifetime to the Boston pilot/crew ... even with just one 12.7 pinging away.

(At which point Arlo was shot by the Allies for helping the enemy.)

brady · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2003, 02:30:08 AM »

I was refering only to the Bomber isue in terms of balance over all, noting that both are faster than the planes they face and that the bomber issue it's self is an area of balance coonsideration. Withen that constraint the Boston is the better tool since not only is it faster than the Zero, it is capable of jaboing and being used offensively whear as the peggy realy is not, so in this since the alies have the advantage, it does not mater that both are not easly caught since they have little impact on game play and allow players to spend some time in a decent bomber platform if they want.

The TBM Kate match is not an equil one since the kate is about as defendiable as a C47 and the TBM is much more capable in a number of way's.

The B26 is totaly inaproparate for this type of set up.

These comaprasions are revelent only to the present set up or Burma.

Arlo · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2003, 02:57:25 AM »

Even taking into account your argument of "superior speed negating the defensive armament of the bomber" (which I don't happen to agree with), how is the B-26 any more inappropriate for the Slot than the Peggy? It's slower than the Peggy, it doesn't climb as well, it's bomb payload isn't any better, it doesn't "JABO", all it has is better defensive guns/arcs ... which you just said, doesn't matter (even though that is the half of the issue mentioned in the first post when dealing with the disparity of the planeset). The B26-B was first introduced in May, 1942 and it was used in the South Pacific.

Adding it would adversly affect the "balance overall" by shifting it in the Allies favor in your opinion?

Sorry, Brady .... that wasn't a very convincing argument.

brady · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2003, 03:29:46 AM »

It has twice the bombload, so in this regard it does shift the balance, Firpower is a factor relative to the fighters facing it, Zero's can be killed with the defensive guns on the boston, Wildcats can be killed by the defensive guns on the Ki 67, it is about more than just the bomber vs bomber issue it is about the fighters they face. The Ki 67 is more easly killed by a Wildcat than a Boston is by a Zero, providing of course they are in a position to do so. The B26 B that was in service in the Theater also had a much lighter aramament than the one we have in AH. Trying to knock down a B26 with a A6M2 would be prety much imposable.

In my openion over all the Alies have the advantage in this case already. Since the Boston is more capable in a number of way's than the ki 67 is. it is not ideal but the best we can manage at present.

If memorie serves the 22nd bomb groupe that was in New Gunie had the B26 ( not the A or the B but the B26), not that is totaly revelent to this argument, since all we have is the Curent machine in AH.

Batz · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2003, 03:48:21 AM »

max bombload for a peggy is 1102lbs x 3 = 3306 1 hanger

the b26 is 8 x 500lbs or 4 x 1000lbs x 3 = 12000lbs thats easily 3 hangers

The bostons carries 4 x 500 x 3 6000 and has 6 303s in the nose that can be used offensively.

The peggy doesnt have the bomb load to have any impact at all and can mostly be ignored.

The b26 is way better defensively armed and has 4 50 cals in the nose that are used offensively and it is very tough. You would end up with guys flying it not as a bomber but as the ultimate vulch plane like they have done in other similiar set ups where it was enabled.

The peggy is not disruptive in anyway. In fact it is rarely used. The Boston isnt disruptive either. The b26 would be.

I had suggested getting rid of the bombers altogether since they are rarely used in the first place. But some folks like to level bomb.

Btw the Bostons best alt is much lower then the peqqy. It reaches top speed at 13k where the peggy hits top speed at 21k.

The peggy would never catch a boston at 13k.

All 3 bombers outperform the ju88 in all but bombload.

The ju88 is slow, has weak defensive guns, is weak over all and has a problem with its fuel burn rate being to high.

Not to mention the type 99 mkIs on the a6m2 are very weak and even if it intercepted a boston or a b26 I doudt he could shoot down more the 1 with his ammo load.