Author Topic: Changes to the setup, 10/04/03  (Read 949 times)

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2003, 11:06:01 AM »
Ty Skyfoxx, I appricate that:)

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9418
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2003, 11:24:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shane
fighter dweeb!! u forgot the uber ki-67 ack star....  haven't seen any kates/vals, not even sure if they're enabled.

Ah.  You're right, I forgot.

Saw one enterprising lad flying a Kate the other night, and a couple of people in SBDs.  Would be fun to ditch the twin-engine fluffers, see what happens then.

- oldman

Offline talliven

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2003, 11:32:09 AM »
well, i finally made it to 10 perks yesterday, saw no dar bar at a30 so jumped in p38 only to get shot by an m16 on takeoff roll, so now back to 2 perks and counting. :( very frustrating.

Offline Kegger26

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 553
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2003, 12:35:45 PM »
The poblem here is Brady. I hate to say it, but from what I have seen he seems to think the P40 is an even match up for the IJN AC. That the P51B and P47 would be unfair becuase they are too fast.  Never mind the fact that in both the P47 and P51 E is ever so important. I am tired of seeing CTs like this.... Its just sad, whats more sad is an unfair CM. The CTs.... ahh screw it we have all been down this road many time... all I have to say is I know its not eddies fault this set up is as one sided as it is. 4 perks for a Tony.... 10 perks for a 38....sad.... ever so sad....

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Awww..
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2003, 02:07:50 PM »
Put the A-20 back in.  That is my SECOND favorite plane, and I can't afford a P-38 with the 10 point perk...

Offline delta

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2003, 03:04:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kegger26
The problem here is Brady...  

...  this set up is as one sided as it is. 4 perks for a Tony.... 10 perks for a 38....sad.... ever so sad....



I have to agree 100% on this.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9418
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2003, 03:46:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kegger26
The poblem here is Brady. I hate to say it, but from what I have seen he seems to think the P40 is an even match up for the IJN AC. That the P51B and P47 would be unfair becuase they are too fast.  Never mind the fact that in both the P47 and P51 E is ever so important. I am tired of seeing CTs like this.... Its just sad, whats more sad is an unfair CM. The CTs.... ahh screw it we have all been down this road many time... all I have to say is I know its not eddies fault this set up is as one sided as it is. 4 perks for a Tony.... 10 perks for a 38....sad.... ever so sad....

Hmmm.  Have we not just recently witnessed a number of people criticizing the CT because it values balance over historical accuracy?  This week we have a scenario which appears to me, at least, to be fairly accurate, history-wise.  Let's look at what eddiek said in his initial post:

"Also, please read closely the descriptions of aircraft deployment:
The Lightning and Tony will be enabled at rear bases only at first, but I will enable them at more and more forward bases as the week progresses. I was toying with the idea of having the Lighinings perk points removed as the week progressed to indicate that it was more and more common as time went by, but that would be a LOT of work for Skuzzy, so the perk cost will remain in place through out the setup. Only change that I will make is to enable the Lightning at more bases. "

"Now, as Sabre told me in the CT Staff forum, this is an imperfect setup, but all the major players are represented for both the IJAAF/IJN and the USAAF.
The A6M5b is faster than the A6M3 which was in service at the time, but I added it add flavor and a touch of equality to the planesets.
Initially, I expect to see mostly Zeroes against P-40's, which was pretty much what you would have seen had you been there. Later, there will be more Ki-61's and P-38 matchups. "

I think this is a fine way of doing things.  Fact is, for the first part of 1943, if you were an AAF pilot in SWPA, you were flying a P39 or a P40.  Sure, there were some 38s, but we all know that if 38s were generally enabled here, everyone would be flying them and there wouldn't be any P40s.  By Thursday, if eddiek is to be taken at his word, we will have most people flying 38s.  Seems a very imaginative way of duplicating history, so far as I'm concerned.

So I say:  If you don't enjoy the challenge of flying P40s, or if you are score-conscious, then just wait until later on in the week.  If you are one of those who thinks that historical accuracy should prevail over balance, then I expect to see your butt in a P40.

- oldman  (PS:  While there was one group of 47s in SWPA in 1944, there were no P51s until we invaded the Phillippines, so far as I know.)

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2003, 04:35:01 PM »
*This is a good setup, but one wonders why a similar setup with a F4U-1 (which served in this setup) perked at 10 pts, could not be done also, esp looking at the capabilities of the P-38L...

*The formations need disabling on the uber bombers...a single Ki-67 or B-26 is still better than a TBM, Kate, or SBD is.

*As for the P-40E, it does surpisingly well sometimes? but is not in the same class as the A6M5 and Ki-61...still, its "doable".

*Why not add the USMC F4F btw? why keep it out? Its slower than a P-40E with the same armament.

The CT staff has come closest to a good Rabaul 1943 (late) setup here...a few more tweeks, and some more variety, it would work.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2003, 04:40:25 PM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Löwe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
      • http://www.geocities.com/duxfordeagles
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2003, 04:47:59 PM »
Wow Oldman!!! Thats the most I've ever seen you say. :D  I have to agree with most you say too. As a guy who flys Axis most of the time , I think the P-40E A6M2/5 setup is pretty good.

I am not much of a furballer, I'm more of a boom and zoomer, so I have been getting my teeth kicked in by P-40s. I think all I've landed this weekend was 5 kills total , and two of those were in a KI-61.

I do think the 10 perk points are way too much for the P-38. I think having them down at 4 like the Ki-61 would be reasonable. I do like Eddiek's idea though and think as the P-38 becomes more available , things to complain about will become less available.

 However if you really think the CT is Axis biased........ Fly Axis for at least a month. See if you still have that opinon. Guys complain about the KI-67 when there is a PTO , yes it's a lousy sub for the G4M, and it's hard to shoot down.  However as a guy who's always having to deal with B-17s, B-26's, Lancs, and A20's, it's fun to see the whining go on when the KI-67 is present. Plus add to the mix there are people out there using the A20 , and SBD as fighters with success, makes the complaints about the KI-67 absurd.

 No matter how hard these CM's try somebody is always upset.

Each side can find something they don't like. The grass is just greener on the other side of the front.

If you think the P-40/A6m matchup has been unfair fly with Skatsr, and Storch . They been knocking down A6M's like theres no tommorow.

Offline kesolei

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2003, 05:32:47 PM »
10 perks is a lot of points for some people to get; myself included in that. I agree with the people saying to lower it some.

Other than that... 3 cheers to Oldman and Lowe.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2003, 05:47:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Oldman731
Which is...two Zekes and the Tony...?

- oldman


Yes ... fighter vs. fighter it's pretty much the P-40e vs. the A6M2, the A6M5 and the Ki-41 Tony. You've got it! Throw in the formations of Peggies lowflying and bombing the spawnpoints then circling to get another 4-5 kills and the picture is even more complete. :D

It's definately a character building setup. Which is great. I just can't abide any rationalization by IJ players or supporters that try to play the "it's perfectly balanced but you guys just plain suck" card. It's not perfectly balanced. But like I've already said ... so what? "Balance" is highly over-rated. ;)

Once again ... it's all good. :D

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Changes to the setup, 10/04/03
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2003, 05:51:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Oldman731
Hmmm.  Have we not just recently witnessed a number of people criticizing the CT because it values balance over historical accuracy?  This week we have a scenario which appears to me, at least, to be fairly accurate, history-wise.  


Well if you wanna go that route ... it'd probably be alot more historically accurate to swap the perk point values of the Tony and the Lightning. Just sayin'. ;)