Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Crumpp on December 20, 2003, 07:36:24 AM
-
Why wasn't the Spitfire added to the allied planeset in Tunisia? Seems to me it was much more prevelant in North Africa than the P47D.
I believe last Tunisia it was included. Thanks!
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) / JG 3
"Good Flying never killed an enemy yet"
Major Edward "Mick" Mannock, RAF
"There are two types of Aircraft - Fighters and Targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC
-
Well, the axis guys are killing our bases and there is nothing that the allies WILL do about it but furball. Does this mean that they are better?...no it means they control the allies actions. Does this mean the sides are ballanced based on dicision making...lol, but no. The allies are playing not smart so this makes it look as if the sides are not balanced.....however if thats the way it is then its NOT balanced based based on how its being played...so bring in the SPITS!
Did I just say that?
-
No, clearly the Spit has no place in this setup of the Historically based CT.
:rofl
-
Let me chime in with the pat answer before it surfaces from it's usual sources.
"The CT has absolutely nothing to do with historical accuracy. It's all about combat hence the name Combat Theater (not to be confused with "Theater of Combat" which "Combat Theater" is a shortened form of and denotes different historical and quasi-historical settings in different theaters of combat during WWII)!"
"Play balince is moor impotent then hysterical acurucy. We ... meening me (Brady) .... indevuor to make tings as belinced and playsant for the Axis ... errr ... I meen .... CT playars as pussible."
:D :D :D :aok :rofl :lol :D
-
For whatever reason there is a deliberate policy of limiting the Spitfire in the CT, sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes not (like here). I suspect it has something to do with the MA experience although I cant be sure.
-
Whenever the Spit is included the Axis guys start bawling their eyes out. Histrionics the likes of which are rarely seen. So yes the CMs balance things by not including one of the greatest planes of WWII.
They also keep P51s, F4U-1Cs, 262s, Tempests, Typhoons, YAK-9Us and LA7s, etc down to a dull roar. These planes are unbalancing in their opinion. Makes me crazy!
-
Well we had N1k's-a-plenty last week in the CT. Annoying at times but fun to shred, the spit would be used alot and whining could ensue.
I'd just like my Hurri to be able to catch something. I looked down and an M-3 passed me this afternoon:eek:
-
I'd just like my Hurri to be able to catch something. I looked down and an M-3 passed me this afternoon :rofl :aok
-
Oh, I know damn well the Typhoon is on "the list" too...you never see it unless the LW can counter it with a Me262 or a 109G-10, despite the fact it was in service 2 years earlier.
-
AFAIK, USAAF had P-38(F/G), P-39, P-40 and Spit V Fighter Groups in Mediterranean in late -42/early -43. Bomber types: A-20, B-25, B-26 and B-17.
RAF had mainly Spit V's, P-40's and Hurricanes.
Axis had 109G-2's, early Fw190A's and C.202's.
Mosquito and P-47 don't really belong here.
-
The RAF had Spit IX's in Tunisia as well. Im not asking for them to be included (why bother), but I am pointing it out.
-
TimRas,
I agree the P47 and the Mosquito have no place in a N Africa scenario.
Since HTC policy of not modeling any plane that wouldn't be "useful" in the late war dominated MA those of us looking to reproduce History are left wanting.
Ideally we would be able to have the 190A3/A4 for the Axis. IMO the fighter line up should be:
Axis (all of which can carry bombs)
109F
109G2 (in a Luftwaffe skin NOT the Finnish finish :) )
190A5 (perked to 5 points)
C202
C205 (not sure of the timeline on Italian birds)
Jabo's
JU 87 Only - 110 wasn't really a jabo bird and was regulated to nachtjager/defense of the Riech duties Although just as ALL GE fighters flew Schlachtflieger missions 110's did drop some bombs.
I agree with your Allied set up TimRas but would include the
Spit IX perked. It was a 1942 AC, at least the first versions. It should be a very even match for the 190A5 with almost all flight parameters being equal except for sustained turn radius which the spit wins hands down. I Think HTC has it modeled pretty good. Dietmar Hermann who has written several books on the 190D series and the Ta 152 development just finished a book on the 190A series. All are Schiffer Military Histories and cost about 50 bucks apiece and run 200 pages plus. They are extremely good references and not only include the Flight graphs but the test flight parameters. They tell you the state of the engine, propeller, fuel, loadouts, etc..
Taking the average of the Test flights I tested HTC's 190D and it was with in 10 percent of the Flight data. Sometimes a little better sometimes not as good. Pretty good IMO for a flight sim.
Got the 190A series on order and will check it out.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Whenever the Spit is included the Axis guys start bawling their eyes out.
Don't think of myself as an "Axis guy," but count me among them for this statement. Fact is, whenever Spits are enabled, they are practically the only plane flown by the Allies. Makes for a very dull CT.
- oldman
-
I agree the P47 and the Mosquito have no place in a N Africa scenario.
I'm sorry to say but those of you that feel that the P-47 doesnt belong are full of ****T.
The 325th Checkertails flew them there:
Soliman, Tunisia (Nov '43 - Dec '43)
They shot down a wide veriety of aircraft but mainly;
102 Bf-109s
9 Fw-190s
12 MC-202s
11 Ju-52s
However, not all a/c may have been shot down in Tunisia
-
The Axis Forces Surended in mid May of 43 in Tunsia, so the P47 did not particapate in the Fighting for North Africa.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Fact is, whenever Spits are enabled, they are practically the only plane flown by the Allies. Makes for a very dull CT.
- oldman
But Axis pilots don't fly the plane that gives them the best overall package in any given setup?
-
What was that Magee?
Creeeeeeeek Creeeeeeeeek Creeeeeeeeek.....
Huh? Nothin but the crickets.
Crumpp
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove it"
-
What is the overall best package for Axis? Take this setup for instance... I can use a 109F but the guns are so weak that killing anything takes forever. Still I can turn with a Hurri if I'm at corner speed. Could use the 190A5 at least then I can kill something but now I have to play BnZ games. Could use the C202 can't turn with Hurri's now at least I can outrun em but the guns, being gratuitous calling them guns more like over powered slingshots, leave more than a little to be desired.
Spitfires are a good package for firepower, manuverability, speed, and acceleration. This is why Allies use them. Still don't mind having them around and would rather have them here instead of this totally screwed plane set.
-
In any given setup, there's one or two planes on either side that are considered "the best package".
The intimation is that only the Allies would have the dweebery to fly the "best package" while manly men fly something less than the "best package".
Sounds pretty phony to me. Some guys will take the "lesser" planes out because they seek the challenge. Most, however, take what they think they'll have the most success with in combat. The CT is just like the MA in that respect and it applies to both "sides".
IMO.
-
I see where I may have made my mistake. Sorry :eek:
III. Italy
Between 1 and 3 December, the ground echelon moved from Soliman to the staging area at Bizerte where it bivouacked until 25 December at which time it embarked on LST’s for Italy. While in Bizerte re-equipment was carried out, and vehicles were repaired.
Meanwhile, on 9 November Lt. Colonel Baseler led the pilots and the air echelon in a move via transports to the new base at Foggia Main. Weather interrupted the schedule so that it was not until the afternoon of 11 December that this phase of the move was successfully completed.
It was soon discovered that Italy is no more immune to winter rains than North Africa and the field at Foggia Main was a semi-quagmire. But this condition was of no aid in digging foxholes for, a few inches beneath the mud was a layer of rock that defied penetration. To add to the disconcertion the field was overcrowded with all types of allied aircraft.
On 14 December, 325th Fighter Group flew its first Italian mission which was also it s first operational mission with P-47s The mission – an uneventful one – was escort for four groups of B-17s returning from a raid on the Kalamaki Airdrome, Athens, Greece. Operations continued whenever weather permitted.
-
Both sides will take what they believe to be the best fighter. I think that is what scJazz is saying. Allies just have it all in one plane where as Axis have to chose their plane and fly it to it's strengths more carefully. Both sides had great planes and only the Allies superior numbers won. Besides it is the pilot that makes the difference.
This being said......
The allies should get their Historical plane line up's. Any gross imbalance should be corrected with a FM adjustment NOT exclusion of a plane from it's proper theater IMO.
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) / JG3
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Any gross imbalance should be corrected with a FM adjustment NOT exclusion of a plane from it's proper theater IMO.
What? :eek: Any imbalance should be "corrected" with a flight model adjustment?!
I'm glad you're against aircraft model exclusion and all but adjusting an aircraft's flight model in AH for the sake of balancing the field doesn't seem like a rational solution. That would just lead to all of us flying Spitfires that look different.
-
There were no MC205s in the Tunisian campaign either. 1st action was during the invasion of Sicily in July 1943.
The best USAAF (US built) fighter there was the P-38F/G, which we dont have. That leaves the Spitfire (and Seafire) as the only other "correct" air superiority fighter for the allies in that setup. The P-40 and Hurricane were largely relegated to ground attack missions by this time, although they still did some air to air actions of course.
-
No
Arlo it wouldn't. You seem to think I am for changing a FM into something it wasn't. I am not. IF a plane doesn't perform to its Historic levels then it's FM should be adjusted accordingly.
Example: (Taken from COMBAT LEGENDS: FW-190 by Peter Cayhill - a noted Spitfire Historian)
According to the RAF test flights of a 190A3 the 190 was rated as more manuverable than the Spit 9 and "hopelessly outclassed the Spit V". Why?
It could change direction faster (roll rate), accellerate faster, and with its superior zoom climb turn its speed to altitude faster than the Spit 9.
The Spit 9 was faster in level flight at some altitudes, could outclimb the 190 above 14000 feet and outturn the 190 at all speeds and altitudes. Most prominantly to the left. In turns to the right the 190's turn circle was tighter.
If a spit driver tried to follow a 190 up at its best climb speed of 220 mph IAS It would soon be left behind. HOWEVER if the Spit pilot backed off and climbed at his best climb speed of160 mph IAS then he would soon end up above the 190.
IF under AH FM the Spit just runs circles around a 190A5 then most likely the Spits FM is needing tweaking somewhere. I believe spits had horrible roll rates. Didn't they attempt to clip the wings to improve it? Maybe the 190's need to roll faster and not tip stall as quickly?? I don't know NOR am I advocating at this time a FM change for any AC.
I am saying lets fix the problem. Lets not cover it up with false plane substitutions that pork immersion for the scenario. Warfare tends to gravitate towards balance until one sides will to resist collapses. If it's not "balanced" somehow, it's over quickly.
Give the Allies the Spit IF it was present in the Theater.
Crumpp
StaffleKaptian, 10 (Sturm) / JG3
-
Nyup nyup..
These debates are getting tiresome.
Just give them the Spit5 and say adios to the '44 P-47D-11.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No
Arlo it wouldn't. You seem to think I am for changing a FM into something it wasn't. I am not. IF a plane doesn't perform to its Historic levels then it's FM should be adjusted accordingly.
Which has actually has absolutely nothing to do with CT arena balance and more to do with crusades and agendas that various factions of AH players have to improve their favorite planes or clip the wings of their most hated adversaries.
Why not just learn the strengths of one's own plane, the weaknesses of your opponents, utilize tactics that make up for percieved imbalances and leave the technical whining to the A&V forum?
Getting things "fixed" to suit your own preferences won't fix the CT anymore than staff "balancing acts" will. Just put the planes that fought each other in their settings and let the players work out how to do their best without having to have their hands held or their opponents hands tied. :D
-
Who said ANYTHING about agenda's to get some favourite plane remodeled??
HOW is asking the Spitfire to included in CT scenario's it was actually in "fixing" things on my own agenda?? Might make a good plot for "AH Conspiracy Theory"!
PASS THAT PIPE, SON! YOU'VE SMOKED TOO MUCH!
IF you put your quote back into the context it was taken from you will read on that I am in fact NOT advocating changing ANY FM.
ALL I am saying is that IF the spit is such an unbalancing plane then an open mind should be kept and the problem solved. I don't have the answer and I personally don't think it is all that unbalancing. HENCE, being an AXIS pilot I am asking for it back.
Keeping it out of scenario's it was Historically included in is not the answer.
Arlo, use that high powered perception to actually percieve the argument.
:aok
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) / JG3
-
Originally posted by Crumpp [/COLOR]
HOW is asking the Spitfire to included in CT scenario's it was actually in "fixing" things on my own agenda?? Might make a good plot for "AH Conspiracy Theory"!
PASS THAT PIPE, SON! YOU'VE SMOKED TOO MUCH!
IF you put your quote back into the context it was taken from you will read on that I am in fact NOT advocating changing ANY FM.
ALL I am saying is that IF the spit is such an unbalancing plane then an open mind should be kept and the problem solved. I don't have the answer and I personally don't think it is all that unbalancing. HENCE, being an AXIS pilot I am asking for it back.
Keeping it out of scenario's it was Historically included in is not the answer.
Arlo, use that high powered perception to actually percieve the argument.
:aok
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) / JG3
Whoa. All this defensive sensitivity is just to say that all that extra 190 vs. Spit porkage flightmodel irrefutable proof filler was just a mere preface to you saying you agree with me about agreeing with you that we should just fly the fuggin planes that were supposedly participants in the settings that are supposedly presenting a specific theater from WWII and wasn't really advocating any sort of flight model fixing thereby spilling over any ongoing endless technical argument in the A&V forum over here into the CT forum in hopes that if HTC is bombarded with enough irrefutable technical data from one's own faction that that faction will somehow get their way and fix the game making it a better experience for all. (Whew ... deep breath)
Very good.
Carry on. :D
Just leave out the errata next time.
Thanks.
:aok :lol :cool: (insert no offense smiley face)
-
:lol
Read the post next time! Whew!;)
BTW It's not irrefutable proof. That comes in in the form of Test Flight graphs from multiple test flights under controlled conditions.
Pilot testimony is far from exact proof.
On a another note:
Noticed you troll the NG quite a bit? Like your in almost every thread........Ever think of looking in the Personals, getting out of that chair, and finding a life?? I mean really, Arlo, you spend way too much time in the BB for a game. Hope your on the HTC payroll!! Call me I'll give you my Ex-wife's number.....
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) / JG3
:p
-
Too all...
The Spitfire MK V or Seafire belongs in this scenario. The freakin P47 bloody well does not. Including P47s and removing Spits in the sake of balance is complete garbage. I for one would love to have the damn Spits around since they fall apart much more easily than the stinking Hurricane's. At the very least I'd like to have a normal CT setup where one side gets the fastest planes and the other gets the best turners. Right now the Allies have...
Best Bomber
Fastest Plane
Best JABO
Best Turning Plane
Best Gun Packages (damn well near every aircraft, on further thought EVERY aircraft)
Axis has... well nothing really, oh wait I thought of something!!! Our planes can out accelerate 2 of your 4 planes. I can still fly and succeed in catching my limit of Allied AC but it gets pretty dull. Launch 25 miles behind lines and grab to 15 to 20K. Dive down on Allied aircraft not paying attention and blast em. Repeat as long as fuel and ammo hold up. Leave moment that I even vaguely approximate Co-E.
Crumpp has made a point saying that there MIGHT be something screwy with the Spitfire's FM. Fairly reasonable thought given the amount of data available in the Aircraft and Vehicles Forum. On the other hand it might just be the fact that we have the 190A5 not the 190A3.
Arlo don't flame me on this, or do I don't really care, but seriously you do seem to be fairly combatative. I understand that, I am as well, mostly directed toward our esteemed colleagues the CT Moderators. Do try to chill. Crumpp said in the post that made you go off that he wants Spits around and then questioned the FM for the Spits based on objective data. After that you went and slammed him for things he didn't say. Read, Ponder, Respond.
-
Is the staff going to offer up an explanation on the Spit issue here?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) / JG3
:p
Just got here, eh? I see you're hitting the boards at a run yourself. Good luck, I'm rootin' for ya. :D
-
Originally posted by storch
Yea arlo and remove the banana from ur tail pipe too.
So there! Eh? lol:rofl
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Too all...
The Spitfire MK V or Seafire belongs in this scenario.
[size=8]BUT![/size]
Right now the Allies have...
Best Fastest Best Best Best
Axis has... nothing ... nothing at all. Oh woe!
[size=8] And shame shame shame on you Arlo! Because ... [/size]
Crumpp has made a point
Arlo don't flame me on this or do
Do try to chill.
Read, Ponder, Respond.
Nice lecture about reading things the way you want me to.
Yay Allies! Home of the bestest turning, fastest flying, heaviest ordinance carrying, bestest looking, favored-son status planes in the game. :D
Hey ... I love all my AH brethren ... even the axis whiner side of the family.
:aok
Read, Ponder, Respond. :)
-
IIRC, initially the Allied fliers in the Asia/Pacific theaters found the Zeke "unbalancing" didn't they?
You'd think they'd have play balanced that scenario before using it.
Sheesh.
-
Just landed a 6 kill single sortie in a Franz in the CT. Boy that plane just sucks sooooo bad. ;)
-
This thread has changed direction completely from when it was started.
To the CT staff
Put the correct planes in the correct scenario's. If its unbalanced then fix the problem.
Now Arlo....
YOUR the one with an agenda it seems, Arlo. Why would you rush right out to try and prove claims that were not even made about LW Aircraft?
Why would you so emotionally and vigirously defend a point that isn't even the topic of discussion?
Cause it doesn't advance your agenda? You accuse Brady of not allowing open discussion and here you are throwing a temper tantrum to squelch it.
Maybe your are pissed cause I responded in kind to your sarcasm, Don't know and frankly don't care. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
No wonder the staff ignores you. You prove yourself worthy of being ignored.
I'm done reading anything else you post Arlo in this thread. You've just made the idiot catagory. Buh Bye!!
:aok
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) / JG3
-
No ... Franz. :D And thanks, Storch. Of course, I wasn't fighting Shane or Eskimo or even you at the time.
Is your squadie, Crumpp really this twisted outa shape or is this some sort of initiation ritual he has to go through during JG3 hazing week? :aok
Too bad he can't see (ptp) that I didn't take this thread to the "uber allied planeset/poor widdle picked on axis plane modeling" level. I just coasted along with it.
to Crumpp ... another brave soul of the BB, squelching away all threats. :lol
-
Arlo...
What you need to do is just plain old fashion SHUT THE F UP!
I point out something that is true and you ya frickin BBS monitoring got no life, halitosis havin, acne scarred bein, reject from a trailer park garbage can, need to go off on me? Can I get you a microscope for that? How abut some tweezers?
WTF is your problem? Your momma didn't breast feed you? Oh that is right amoeba don't have breasts. Damn that is scary means that you can reproduce an exact clone by fission. Great scary thought buncha yippin lil jerkwads like you running around.
Big hairy deal... you landed 6 kills in the 109F. Wow. Wait wait... wow. There I'm finished. Don't bother to respond 30seconds after I post... Best thing about this board is that you can perma-squelch non-IQ having, sit around watchin screen, porn whackin, dipwads like you!
-
Originally posted by brady
The Axis Forces Surended in mid May of 43 in Tunsia, so the P47 did not particapate in the Fighting for North Africa.
Ehh....
What does the word "Surended" mean"?
I don't believe it's in any dictionary of the English language.
-
I don't believe it's in any dictionary of the English language.
Its in Websters Bradyspeak edition.:D
-
Duh......
me so sorry and vry kornfuse ed ...:confused:
tanks...
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Arlo...
What you need to do is just plain old fashion SHUT THE F UP!
(Followed by a buncha yammerin' and pissy-pants gradeschool insults)
WTF is your problem?
(Followed by more pissy-pants gradeschool insults and stuff)
My problem? Hehehe ... hahahaha ... lololol ... this is rich! :rofl :aok
-
First off, it's a game...remember?
Second, I scripted this set up, on the fly because the CT Staffer who was supposed to come up with something had some personal hardship he had to deal with. It was literally a last-minute gig, with no time to consult with each other or with the community. Don't like, blame me.
Third: "No Spit?" "Yeah, no Spit." Why the P-47 instead of the Spit? First of all, the Spit has seen usuage in numerous set ups, being regularly available in BoB, BoR, BoF (where it had no business being). One of the complaints I hear time and again from some of you is, "You never try anything different." Well, I set this up to give people a chance, indeed, a requirement to fly some match ups we don't see that much. I don't mean that there is no potential to see these match ups; just that when other choices are available people don't fly these birds as much.
I clearly acknowledge it is not a completely historical match up for the time and place. Guilty as charged, your Honor. I believe in my set up announcement on these boards, I implied as much. I included the Jug (the earliest model available, which is fast but not particularly nimble in most pilots' hands...and climbs like a pig), because otherwise I felt the Axis would have a significant advantage air to air. The Hurri is too slow, the P-40 is a pitiful climber and also a tad slow. The 109F can easily handle both the Hurri-IIC and the P-40, and is a decent match for the P-47. P-47 has fire power, but a mediocre A2G load, poor turning (again, in all but the most skilled hands), and poor climb. Fw190A-5 has a good gunpackage, is fast, accelerates well, and is the nimblest of the 190 series we have. Mossie was added to give Allies some jabo capability to counter 110 and Ju87. Bombers are a similar story, with the more versatile Ju88 pitted against the more rugged Marauder.
You can point to any one of these a/c and point out something that makes it superior in some way to some opposing a/c. It's the aggregate that matters, not one aspect alone. I've not heard alot of Axis complaints. I flew Axis over the weekend, and felt neither over or undermatched. In the end that intangible assesment, a mental summing up of gut feeling (seasoned with what facts and stats are availbable), is what I call balance.
To sum it all up, I acknowledge that it is not a completely historical set up, but believe it to be pretty balanced on the whole. You have the right to disagree and I will not think less of you for it.
-
Ok, well good summary there, thank you. But in terms of what you are saying, I think it is prudent for me to give my thoughts on it.
I look to the combat theatre for a re-enactment of the fighting done in many historical events. With that being said, if we aren't doing this correctly as far as history goes, why are we even citing certain battle events? I mean if we change the pieces of the puzzle, then the whole thing won't fit together anymore.
There are going to be some lopsided fights. Lets face it, if you were designing aircraft for the luftwaffe or the RAF in the WWII years, you'd want to give your planes an advantage over the enemies' planes. The pilots in the real battles had to deal with it and overcome, so should the pilots reenacting these fights.
The only real way I could endorse to trying to even the sides, if it even is necessary, would be to either slightly perk the better spits or give the underdogs a few more guys. I for one would be more than happy to fly for Axis if they needed guys, if for nothing else than to try to adapt and overcome the allied fighters by using better ACM and flying smarter.
I guess to summarize, if we add and subtract planes that were not involved in the real battle, then all you are keeping consistent is the terrain and the general goal. That being said, the entire statement mostly negates what the "Combat Theatre" is supposed to be about, or at least what I thought it was.
--Howitzer
-
Howi and Storch. Point taken.
-
Playabality takes precedent for the most part in the CT, sabers set up is an exception not all the set up's are like his, which imo is a good one it is well balanced and offers some nice plane match up's were rarely see.
Some truly historical match up's would simply not play at all well, and harken back to the early days of the CT whear Historical precedent led the way to creating the set up paramaters, and the CT had like no folks flying in it, particulary during PAC set up's. Realy many CT set up's for given times and areas had in reality almost no opasation in the air form the allies or the axis(depending on the time and place), it is as sabre said above a game, one that boith sides nead be able to have fun with.
Hince the dictum: "Never sacrafice playabality for historical acuracery " when creating a set up for the CT.
-
Originally posted by Howitzer
I for one would be more than happy to fly for Axis if they needed guys, if for nothing else than to try to adapt and overcome the allied fighters by using better ACM and flying smarter.
That's very much appreciated, Howitzer, but you often find that there are quite a few people who don't share that view. When one side has a clearly-superior fighter, numbers often flock to that side.
- oldman
-
Hehe ... flocks of sheeeeeeep. Mbaaaaaaa. :D
-
This is what I have seen for the past few nights with this set-up.
Allies keep getting pushed back and get thier bases taken away!
Why? Because all the allies want to do is furball with the Hurrican. If you dont like it, dont turn with them or fight them at all. Cant help ya with the P-47...maybe the Spit should be there.
Unlike the last several maps, I see more allies landing kills this week compared to the last several maps.
BoF week- Bf-110s landed most kill sorties
Finn- axis landed most kill sorties
PTO-N1K2-Js landed most kill sorties
Correct me if I am wrong, I just simply payed attention to the text buffer kill credits.
This map, so far, I see 109F kills about equal with Mossie and P-47 kill sorties. Dont see many Hurricans landing kills in the text buffer. Chasing speedy 190s and 109s in a HUrrican, one tends to waist ammo, what little it has multiple kills dont come easy.
Not a complaint from me, simply an observation
IM TALKING LANDING KILLS THAT APPEAR IN THE TEXT BUFFER!
-
I think your right Magee.
Axis has been doing just fine in the past few scenarios. I especially like the Russo-Finn map. La-5 vs 190 is a sweet fight.
Howitzer I totally agree with your statements. This is about recreating History. If it's not a fair fight which I don't think HTC has recreated the planes to actually have "unfair" fights in WWII. IMO those would be Poland, Holland, Norway, and early Malta til the Hurricanes arrived. Fights were one side had made a profound leap in technology and the other had not.
Maybe HTC can add a score bonus if you fly for the underdog.
Sabre, I have had some fun fights in your room set. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I disagree with your substituting ac that weren't present however thanks for the time and effort you've put into making the game more fun for all.
Crumpp
StaffleKaptain, 10 (Sturm) JG 3
-
It's a matter of balance, literally, Crumpp. That's why there is so much heated debate about these matters, remember? :)
Historictiy is one drive(at least, for people like me) in the CT. Facing the challenges of being in an inferior fighter(which unfortunately in most cases, turn out to be Axis planes), against the better fighters, is an interesting experience. Especially when the plane set is limited, the combat experience becomes subtly different from what is expected in MA.
But the problem is, historic plane sets also bring out historic results - mass slaughter, high casualty rates, and frustrating odds for one of the opposing sides.
That problem is often amplified by the fact that typical CT conditions regarding attrition, squad operation and military discipline/organization , is non existent. It can be said that the TOD arena suggested in upcoming AH2 is a direct alternative to the CT regarding 'historic engagements' - the 'role playing mentality' is encouraged, in HTs own words.
Fighters of multiple nationality and type, are rarely engaged in a single battlefield. Some of the historical tactics that worked in real life cannot work in the CT because of this. Let's take the Tunisia map for example - a group of desert-operating Bf109F-4/Trops of the Afrika corps, meet a group of patrolling RAF Hurricanes - when judged that they are in a disadvantage, the Gruppenkommander will order his flight to extend away diving. This tactic obviously, will not work when there are mixed match-ups of P-47s around.
I'm not suggesting an Axis disadvantage - just stating a loose example. The same thing can happen to Allied - as seen in Okinanwa: the total number of N1K2s used up by the Axis side in the duration of one week, probably exceeds the total number of N1K2s produced historically. Groups of Navy Hellcats or Corsairs are into very nasty odds when they will meet a N1K2 in hordes.
Thus, balance is suggested to offset possible issues - which are unfortunately, subject to a lot of distrust and misunderstandings. Sometimes it seems overdone, sometimes it seems nonexistent - but the only real way to cope with it is hope the CMs arrange a setup which you can enjoy.
A little bit of digression, at times like these I wish there was a system in AH which limits the numbers of planes 'present', rather than their absolute numbers of usage. Obviously we cannot seem to expect an attrition of fighters in an environment like CT - numerous fighters are shot down in mere minutes, as opposed to reality.
If it was possible to limit the numbers of certain planes 'present' - instance, if certain fields can accomodate 'squadron' settings, the problem of balance may not have been so pronounced. For instance, in a setup like Okinawa, there could have been an option to limit plane numbers by type as in something like "20% N1K2s, 80% A6Ms" or "40% F4Us, 60% Hellcats" - which as some of you might recognize, is exactly the way how AH Events operate. However, since this aspect is not welded into the game as a internal system, COs and CMs must look over it to enforce proper ratios of plane types.
Or, if some form of basic organization would force the gameplay into semi-scripted environment - such as requiring people of certain sides to simply "register/volunteer" inside the game to operate in squad strengths of certain planes, the problems may have been few. However, since that does not exist, in many setups, planes that were rarely seen in action become prevalent(N1K2), planes that were limited in operational area or usage become a popular choice for the masses(Me262s or such 'special' planes), planes that were widely used gets ignored(P-47s usually, and F4Us), planes that offer excellent play quality gets seriously overused(Spitfires), and planes that boasted historically potency are sometimes castrated under such destruction of balance(109s). All of the little bits and problems contribute to the larger problem of 'balance issues'.
The CT inherently posesses the problems of trying to mix a loose and action paced, fun combat experience with a tight, not fun, organized aspect of military operation(which, is usually what makes up 'historic feeling'). Unless some sort of control is excercised(as one might expect in the military), the collision of balance and history is really impossible to reconcile. We can just hope that some setups come close to what we may want.
We've entrusted that role to the CMs and staff of CT - if we have clear intention that the CT should be really different from the MA, then I dare say we do not have any rights to complain unless we are willing to let the CM/staff to excercise militaristic control over our butts, as described above, to forcibly depose the problems the CT has.
In short, the CT will always have problems, and a certain side, or certain people will always feel discontent. But if we don't want to enlist ourselves virtually into the CT and act exactly in the way real pilots under military rule did(which, is the only way that will cure the problem of balance(more various planesets can certainly help, but it will not fundamentally change how CT is)), then we shan't complain - suggest, maybe.
So the question is, are you ready to follow orders from appointed COs or flight commanders, if you are willing to do away with current 'editorial slants' excercised by CMs?
What, makes you think you'll do any better, and people will not complain, when you become a CM?
ps) To be fair CT staff, I must point out that to a certain extent, I must agree with 10bears. The increasing excercise of control or 'tweakings', have become more pronounced over time. I sincerely respect you guys like brady, sabre, jarbo et all, and will yield to your every decision without complaint, but the pressure of control is becoming heavier every setup. While your intentions are good, notedly for benefit for all, sometimes it does seem to grow out of hand.
Might I suggest some breathers? Try the setups the other people suggest in their form - let the people decide themselves if they cannot really handle the imbalance. Or, let go of 'substitutes' and 'limiters' and throw in a setup "exactly the way it was" - no Bf110Cs in BoF, no P-47Ds in Tunisia, yes SpitVs in Tunisia, yes C-hogs in Okinawa etc etc.
Sometimes it seems the 'agenda' is taking too much of a grip upon you guys :) Let it go! Grab a deep breath and let the people suffer! :D
-
What's this "score" thing some people always talk about? :D
Ahhhh, Crumppie .... if only you could see how much I've come to love you since your last post. If only you'd shave your mustache and wear a white dress .. I'd marry you. :D
Hehe ....
Good for you. :aok ;) :D
-
Ahhh ... then there's Kweassa who thinks all things must be artificially balanced or the world will end and can throw up a nice wall of text to prove it which as it drone's on seems less and less certain of it's purpose.
Hail to the players who love a challenge. And pity the one's who chant "balance" out of fear.
:D
-
Arlo et. all, if we let the setup's be dictated by the vocal minority, in Europe for June 1944 we would see Tempests and Spit XIV's versus Bf 109G-10's and Fw 190A-8's. Is that balanced?
How about July 1944 in a PTO? P-51D, F4U-1D, F6F, P-38L, P-47D25/11 vs A6M5 and Ki-61's. Is that balanced?
We often use the ability to add, limit or remove aircraft for balancing gameplay. History sometimes needs to be sacrificed to make the arena playable for BOTH SIDES.
If we had over 400 historically accurate aircraft for the time periods, then yes, we would be adding every aircraft to make setups historically correct. But we don't have 400 aircraft, we got just over sixty (with almost 40% more allied aircraft).
-
Fork et al "balance fanatics"
This ain't chess or bridge.
Here's a real eye-opener:
Each plane in AH is different possessing their own unique strengths and weaknesses. AND opinions of what gives one an advantage over the other vary. AND most players that gravitate to a model do it for one of two reasons ... they either are crazy about that model (be it late or early ... be it slow or fast ... whether it has the "deadliest gun package" or not) OR ... they're looking for a model that makes up for their lack of skill and experience in the game. Quite often it's the latter when dealing with new players that may come over to give things a go (some AH "vets" as well) and that little "balance factor" seems to evade the logic used by most "fanatic balancers."
So don't gimme this "If the CT staff didn't constantly 'balance the field' by picking and choosing plane models that are, in their opinion, an equal and fair fight for all (what a joke) then the sky would fall, the seas would all dry up and the universe would implode."
Most everyone here can actually handle some imbalance in the Combat Theater and have emphatically stated so for some time now. Anyone who can't handle a planeset that isn't "perfectly balanced" ... can't handle numbers fluctuations, differences in skill/experience or any of the other factors that have proven to have less of a direct relation to an "uber" plane being in the setup than you think. Balancing the CT arena like you would a chess board adds nothing to immersion.
The sweetest kills truly are the ones against the "better" planes.
:D
-
All opinions are noted everyone. Feedback and observations are taken into account and we appreciate the community involvement in our setups.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Arlo et. all, if we let the setup's be dictated by the vocal minority, in Europe for June 1944 we would see Tempests and Spit XIV's versus Bf 109G-10's and Fw 190A-8's. Is that balanced?
How about July 1944 in a PTO? P-51D, F4U-1D, F6F, P-38L, P-47D25/11 vs A6M5 and Ki-61's. Is that balanced?
We often use the ability to add, limit or remove aircraft for balancing gameplay. History sometimes needs to be sacrificed to make the arena playable for BOTH SIDES.
If we had over 400 historically accurate aircraft for the time periods, then yes, we would be adding every aircraft to make setups historically correct. But we don't have 400 aircraft, we got just over sixty (with almost 40% more allied aircraft).
Or is there an agenda?
IMO there is an agenda, and brady is the high priest. Brady prefers axis rides, and wants to win. Brady has the power to make things the way he wants. It happens.
WHAT THE F$$K is WRONG with an historical setup? We get historical setups when the balance favors the axis--spit 1s and hurri 1s vs superior early war axis planes, P40Bs vs A6M5s, the list goes on and on--but not when that balance favors the allies. What!!?? Allies get F4u-1Ds!!?? Then the axis MUST have N1Ks for "balance". WE MUST HARDEN THE BASES, and SOFTEN THE CV GROUPS, for "balance". Umm-hmm.
That is the real issue, as I see it. Allied flyers get screwed on both sides of the equation.
I spend less and less time flying in the CT based on that, and I am sure the low numbers are affected by the simple fact that nobody with eyes or half a brain can miss the obvious bias of the CT staff.
shubie
-
Originally posted by rshubert
That is the real issue, as I see it. Allied flyers get screwed on both sides of the equation.
Excuse me, but I think that this statement is pathetic. If the Allied planes were so inferior, why would the Axis typically have the low numbers when you log into the CT?
I haven't seen anyone address Fork's example. He's right. Historical matchup was unbalanced in real life, as it would be imbalanced here.
I'm also with the "run it anyway" crowd, if they're willing to live with their convictions. Play the historical setups. When you log into the arena, go for the side with the lower numbers. Check back every 15 minutes, and switch to the side with the lower numbers, if necesssary.
- oldman
-
Why is there no 109G2? Why is there a P47? Why no spitfire V?
-
I haven't seen anyone address Fork's example. He's right. Historical matchup was unbalanced in real life, as it would be imbalanced here.
How good are the CMs? As I have said many times before...start early war, BoF etc (axis advantage), and progress to late war...sure axis may be the under dog after the BoF and Tunisia but limit the ubber allied rides to certain ares...so to speak. At one point or another, the tides will turn and both side will have fun having some sort of advantage.....guess what, they also have the Tiger!
Same with PTO, the N1K2-J rules over all but the F6F. Any high George is a deadly Geroge. The fast ubber A6M5 aint no DAISY! ;)
-
Why is there no 109G2? Why is there a P47? Why no spitfire V?
Do what I just did and go read every reply...there you will find the answers.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Excuse me, but I think that this statement is pathetic. If the Allied planes were so inferior, why would the Axis typically have the low numbers when you log into the CT?
I haven't seen anyone address Fork's example. He's right. Historical matchup was unbalanced in real life, as it would be imbalanced here.
I'm also with the "run it anyway" crowd, if they're willing to live with their convictions. Play the historical setups. When you log into the arena, go for the side with the lower numbers. Check back every 15 minutes, and switch to the side with the lower numbers, if necesssary.
- oldman
Oldman, the only "pathetic" thing here is the pathetic refusal to see the truth. Is it because you don't want to see it because it suits your desires, or that you cannot see it?
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Oldman, the only "pathetic" thing here is the pathetic refusal to see the truth. Is it because you don't want to see it because it suits your desires, or that you cannot see it?
IMO Oldman has a better handle on the truth than you Shubie. I've seen plenty of pathetic things in the CT (including my flying skills) but Oldman's thoughts on this subject are far from it.
Sqrl
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Oldman, the only "pathetic" thing here is the pathetic refusal to see the truth. Is it because you don't want to see it because it suits your desires, or that you cannot see it?
...er...in retrospect, I wish I had not used the term I did, and I apologize to you, rshubert.
I'll stick with the substance of my statement, though.
- oldman