Author Topic: wierd plane substitutions (Read 2413 times)

Squire · « **Reply #30 on:** September 05, 2003, 09:08:56 AM »

I know Karnak would blow his lid if the next AH IJ fighter wasn't a Ki-84

(and I couldnt blame him)...but the Ki-43 is a key Japanese a/c if you are trying to do historical stuff due to its prolific use in WW2. Its incredibly manuevarable, and would be a great foil to the Allies in a 1942-43 setup. But ya, so many good planes to add...but I hope the Ki-43 gets in there at some point.

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 05, 2003, 10:11:29 AM »

So wait a minute.... since the -3 outperforms even the Fm2.... the axis guys here would still insist on substituting the -4 for the dash three if HTC gets around to modeling the -3?

why the axis guys think that a plane with worse turn, climb, speed and acceleration is a good match for the A6m2 is beyond me. As for the zeke cannon.... what does HTC say? if you axis guys are right then why isn't your data looked at by HTC?

Does the 109e suffer from the same "problem"?
lazs

brady · « **Reply #32 on:** September 05, 2003, 11:01:18 AM »

The A6M2, does not outpreform the F4F-4 at all Alt's the F4F-4 is faster under about 5K, whear most sombat takes place, and has other advantages as mentioned above over the A6M2.

On the Cannon isue, HTC is aware of the Cannon isue and is looking into it( They said they will fix it). Yes the 109E would suffer from the same problem, it's MGFF's are basicaly the same weapon as a TYpe 99MK I, they fired slightly different ammo though, like I mentioned above their are a number of weapons that are suffering from this.

Batz · « **Reply #33 on:** September 05, 2003, 02:54:32 PM »

Quote

So wait a minute.... since the -3 outperforms even the Fm2.... the axis guys here would still insist on substituting the -4 for the dash three if HTC gets around to modeling the -3?

No one is subbing the 4 for the 3. The slot map was aug 42 the -4 was there it fought a6m2s as well as a6m3s which we dont have. There is no sub. The -3 is isnt in ah so it aint in that set up. The a6m3 aint in ah so it aint in that set up.

The -4 match ups well with the a6m2 and they actually fought each other, so saying theres some conspiracy to keep the -3 (which isnt in ah out) is nutty.

So what if the a6m2 out climbs the -4 by 300 fpm under 5k. 300fpm isnt all that. If the Fm2 were used it would out climb the a6m2 by more then 300fpm under 5k. You are just trading one "advantage for another". The Fm2 is faster then the -3 at sea level and climbs better. It gets worse as you get higher but at the alts the fights are using the fm2 would be an "improvement" over your -3. So "How fair is that.....". If the -3 were in Ah I am sure it would be used.

If you are upset about the -4 then ask ht why he didnt bring the -3. If the the Fm2 were included in the slot set up or any time theres an early pac set up then no one would ever fly the -4. There would be no need to include it in anything that ah does (ct event etc....).

You dont see anyone calling for the a6m5 to subbed for the a6m3 do ya?

Also if the Fm2 were here the a6m2s would go up as high 20k where they have the advantage they aint gonna stay otd flying in circles trying to catch runners. The Fm2 may get a boost at lo alts but the fights would get higher that advantage would drop off, you would get longer flight times and hi alt bore zzzzzzzzz'rs. Or folks wont fly at all.

As is the f4f-4/a6m2 is good lo alt furballing. And you want to fek that up? Over a 300 fpm climb difference?

Slash27 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 05, 2003, 03:38:55 PM »

presently their are like 5 early war rides facing off aganst the A6M2, the F4U-1,F4F-4, P40E & B and the Huricane, . The F4U-1 does not face off against the A6M2.

Whats your take on a "FM2 vs A6M5" match up? Kind of like the Slot set up with those 2 being the primary fighters. Or maybe add the P-40E and Ki-61. Would that be balanced?

Batz · « **Reply #35 on:** September 05, 2003, 04:12:20 PM »

I believe the f4u-1 is actually a f4u-1a performance wise and a '43 plane.

The a6m5 vrs the fm2 or any allied plane is good for me. The ki-61 vrs the p40e would be too much of an advantage to the ki-61.

The a6m5 ki-61 vrs f4u-1s fm2s p40e is good. If the dhog is out and reduces field porkage. With that out of the way the only thing to do is fight so even if a few guys are timid runners the odds of a good fight increase as long as the field porkage and war winning are kept to a minimum.

On the slot map its gets better because those fields are tough to kill. Fleet parking is always an issue but it also reduces flight time which is good for fights.

So a slot with ki-61/a6m5 vrs fm2/f4u-1/p40e and no bombers would work.

Some would orefer the niki to be added here but I dont care but is it is the whining would start. Ofcourse the calls for the f6f would be loud. So what ever the setup somethings will just be "unfair" to some. Theres always a group that feels anything less then having the advantage is unfair.

Look at this thread, the a6m2 has a 300fpm climb advantage below 5k and turns well so its unfair for the -4 pilots. Even though 90% of pac set ups the japanese types are at a far greater disadvantage across the board. That doesnt seem to bother them.

Slash27 · « **Reply #36 on:** September 05, 2003, 04:32:19 PM »

So a slot with ki-61/a6m5 vrs fm2/f4u-1/p40e and no bombers would work. Wouldnt that hinder the Japanese as far as taking out enemy CV's?

Batz · « **Reply #37 on:** September 05, 2003, 04:58:20 PM »

Yup but its a double edged sword as i mentioned fleet parking is always a problem but close fleets mean good fights.

By including a ki-67 or even a ju88 as a replacement you end up in the same situation as if a dhog just porked a land base.

For the most part bomber san be ignored until they start suiciding a fleet or porking an af at the good fights.

When I say no bombers I mean no tbm/sbds/vals/kates/bostons/b26s/ju88s/ki67. If you include any 1 of those then the other side needs a counter. Instead of debating and arguing what sub for what bomber just get rid of them all together.

If field capture and base porkage is accepted then both sides need the ability to partake in it or you will have 1 side that gets rolled up on and all his fields porked. Ultimately thats the 1 thing that would end up "unfair".

You dont get more folks in the ct by denying flight to one side. Thats why the war winning is out of place in the ct. Thats why purely "historical" set ups are a poor sub for good gameplay.

Ofcourse theres a debate about what = good gameplay.

Apache · « **Reply #38 on:** September 05, 2003, 07:24:32 PM »

This debate is far and away beyond my knowledge. With that said, it did produce a scenario that, IMO, would be a helluva good time. That being the a6m5 ki-61 vrs f4u-1 fm2 p40e.

brady · « **Reply #39 on:** September 05, 2003, 07:34:30 PM »

Except that I think the F4U-1 vs the Ki 61 is not a good match, prety much nead a George when you start adding the F4U's. When we start talking this kinda late war set were run into a big balance issue, just like we walways do in PAc set's do to our limited Japanese Plane set, The FM2's can easly dog fight the Geore's and Tony's, their Faster than the A6M5's down low and turn very well with them as well the F4U's are way faster, and so and so on....

Squire · « **Reply #40 on:** September 05, 2003, 11:34:07 PM »

I read these posts, and I can see the deep, deep intractable hole that the CT has fallen into with the "it has to be fair all the time" strategy which clearly does not work.

A real shame too, for those of us that would like to see some other rides from time to time.

I say let the Axis have its day, and then the Allies, in ETO and PAC, and if they want 100 percent fair, the MA is all setup for just that purpose.

"We have the TBM but it has a bigger load than the B5N does, so we have to add the Ki-67, but the F4F is too slow, so we will add the F6F, but then we need the N1K2, but if we add that we have to add the F4U, and so we need the Ki-84, with AH doesnt model, so we cant do a PAC setup!"

To quote Brady: "and so on and so on..."

Cripes almighty.

brady · « **Reply #41 on:** September 06, 2003, 12:04:34 AM »

No Ct set is ever fair, for any number of reasion's they are or we do endevore to creat good fight's howeaver hince the term "balance", if you want lop sided set up's then I think their are many that can be found being run on various nights by The CM's in the sea, thats what it is their for:), The CT is an open areana one that has a historical feal, many set up's are bnased on historical precedent but they are generaly concieved with good "balanced" game play in mind it better for atandance, better for the players and better for the planet, it cuts down on global warming and helps to lower my sperm count all good thing's.

Squire · « **Reply #42 on:** September 06, 2003, 12:11:28 AM »

SEA events are both lopsided, and popular.

All you can eat with 1/2 the calories!

brady · « **Reply #43 on:** September 06, 2003, 12:48:35 AM »

I realy have enjoyed the Scenarious, and have been lucky to particapate in the way I have, but I must say I dont care for the other event's at all(because their lopsided:) ).

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 06, 2003, 11:07:28 AM »

no axis vs allied fights are ever fair or balanced. some small slices of history come close but even then... the axis vs allied thing is very simplistic... everyone does exactly the same thing and that is all you have to worry about. That and getting caught outnumbered.

so let me get this straight.... if HT made a -3 then we would have it in these early scenarios?
lazs