Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: humble on March 01, 2008, 03:11:57 PM
-
I'm always curious at the way a given planes suitablity for the game is argued. This isn't a push for or arguement against any particular bird...
1) No question that there are certain planes that are obvious...
To me the 410 and G.55 are the best examples here...arguments for various russian yaks/migs I find less so since other very similiar planes already exist. Arguements for Japanese planes (late war) are somewhat similiar although less compelling....
2) The early war set is by far the weakest (outside of BoB) and from a scenerio/FSO perspective this is far and away the most needed aspect to beef up.
3) Looking at apparent game utilization the FSO/snapshot numbers are roughly 7-10% of the player base. As a general rule EWA/MWA runs significantly less then the LWA's often again in the 10% or less range. Looking at the LWA's plane useage is heavily skewed toward higher performance "late war" rides with the hurricane 2C & Tiffie being the most obvious exceptions.
The current perk plane set sees fairly consistant use but already has the 152 dropped (and the SpitXIV should be).
So....
Given the reality that the true "historical" needs are going to appeal to less then 10% of the player base I'm curious how things will progress as we move into the second decade of Aces High.
Other then a few obvious deficiencies most of the planes that will see wide spread use are already here. A few other possibilities do exist but for one reason or another dont really meet the "criteria" (which I dont recall ever seeing "officially" anywhere....
The most obvious historically correct "oddball" is actually an early war plane that did see combat and was fielded at "squadron" strength...but as a "private" airforce....
The H-100D was a 1940 plane with a top speed of 416 MPH and significantly better raage then the 109E it "lost" out to and was flown in combat by Henkle test pilots defending henkle factories...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/He_100D_colour.jpg/300px-He_100D_colour.jpg)
Going beyond that as myself and others have posted the F6F-5 was factory engineered with a 2 x 20mm option and over 1000 daytime fighters were so configured (primarily the P){however some standard F6F-5's left the factory with 2 x 20mm near wars end as well....
The germans had numerous "field mods" for a ton of planes that operated in non standard configurations as needed.
Again as already posted numerous places a couple of planes were fully operational but didnt "see combat". The meteor is the most notable since it owuld be the "other" jet but the F7F also fits here as well.
Another plane the DO-335 was ordered into production but the factory was bombed. The 34 actually built were not all "prototypes" but some in fact were early production birds.
It would seem looking forward that either we're going to get more and more "niche market" birds with limited use or at some point we'll need to revisit how "we" decide what gets included. Since the upcoming CT as well as the FSO/snapshot/scenario are the true "historical reenactment" somce weight should be given to continuing to "flesh out" the appropriate planesets....as for the MA....it really is the LWA's and some thought should be given to an occasional bone or two...which inevitably will need to be bigger/faster/badder to draw attention and use.
As much as I like the F7F I do think the D0-335 would be an interesting addition for LWA play...just some food for thought looking at the next 10 years...
-
I see the game going in another direction as you seem to...
As far as fighters go, honestly, were almost set. The only ones I could see would be some more Italian, Russian, and Japanese fighters, and maybe a D.520.
Given the reality that the true "historical" needs are going to appeal to less then 10% of the player base I'm curious how things will progress as we move into the second decade of Aces High.
Even though everyone may not want older planes for historical value/FSO/Scenarios, many like to fly early/mid war planes in the LWMA's.
Honestly, in the coming years, the direction I foresee AH going, as far as new plane additions are concerned, is bombers, bombers, and some more bombers. As far as our bomber fleets are concerned, the planeset falls just short of pathetic. America looks good, but every other country is lacking most of their bombers. Germany, Russia, and Britain are all missing some very good buff's. The Do-17/217, He-111, Tu-2, Pe-2, Wellington,... these are all essential aircraft, IMO, that are missing from the bomberset.
Once we obtain the last few bombers and the majority of the fighterset, I would like to see, though it may not nessecarily, move in the complete opposite direction that you suggested. Instead of moving into the 'one off' prototype LW monster direction, I would LIKE to see a move toward prewar aircraft- early German birds like the 109C and Ar68, earlier British and American planes like the P-36 and the Hawker Hart, which will eventually progress into a World War I planeset (oh, how I would like to fly around in an Albatross shooting down Spad's!)
-
I'd say less then 5% of the player base flies planes higher then ENY 20 on a regular basis. While the powers that be may certainly expand the "bomber fleet" very few of those additions will see any use in the LWA's at all...for the simple reason that they have less bomb load.
The Ki-67 is probably one of the the best tactical bombers of the war and gets almost zero use. The B-26 which is the most tactically correct and one of the most "survivable" buffs in the game gets minimal usage compared to the "big 3"...
Now tactical bombers like the Judy or one of the russian twins that have fixed forward firing 20mm will get useage like the A-20 does as a "dual purpose" ride based on the planes relativr agility and toughness. But you could add every tactical bomber that flew in WW2 and not impact the player base or gameplay at all IMO. The simple reality is almost no one aspires to be a buff driver. Not a single "box" sim focused on bombers has ever gotten any play.
If the game changes in any big way it will be toward the "1st person shooter". The new graphics for the 251 support better ground game play. HT & Pyro have a significant level of MMOG expertise and can probably create a "better" WW2online type game if they ever want to.
10 yrs of D520's, buffalo's and He-111's isnt gonna fatten the bank account much so I honestly dont see that happening...for better or worse most of the player base is "stuck on uber"...adding more "perkies" is where the customer satisfaction wilkl come from...so we get a firefly instead of a stock sherman...and a sk251 complete with rockets...more pop not less.
I think eventually you'll see the perk catagories disappear so a guy/gal can "buy" what they want vs having "skill" in a part of the game. That way a good GVer can use his perks on a 262 or a good buff driver can buy a tiger etc...but in the end 1940 isnt gonna make anyone any money IMO.
-
Originally posted by humble
I'd say less then 5% of the player base flies planes higher then ENY 20 on a regular basis. .
I don't think it's that bad:
(http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/849/fighterenyph7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
-
There is a scene in the movie "Patton" where Patton has just put the third star on his uniform even though his promotion is not yet official. Omar Bradley says something like (going by memory, forgive the errors), "George, if you were appointed Admiral of the Turkish Navy, I believe your staff could reach into their haversacks and pull out the appropriate badge of rank."
If that was true, I am quite certain Lusche could then pull out a chart explaining why Patton just took over the Turkish instead of the Greek navy.
-
There are relatively few late war aircraft left to be added that are bonafide WWII aircraft.
A-26 Invader
B-29 Superfortress
B7A2 "Grace"
Ki-102
Il-10
SB2C Helldiver
Tu-2
Yak-3
You could delve into the kinda/sortas:
Do335
F7F Tigercat
F8F Bearcat
He162
Meteor F.Mk III
Most of what we are left with is a massive number of early and mid war designs that haven't been done yet, some of which would do ok in the MA. I think the Me410, Ki-44, J2M3 and Pe-2 would all see respectable use, but not very high use.
-
Nice numbers lusche but they show k/d not usage...looking at the P-40E and P-38G (early war birds with some "dedicated" flyers they both have roughly 1500 kills this tour vs 32,000 for the la-7 and 33,000 for the spitXVI. The 109E has only 330 but the F goes right back up to 1500. The P-40B has 280...
The C-205 has roughly 5000 and is regarded as one of the great perk farmers in the game I think...the hurricane 2C has just over 9500 and its ENY is 10 now I think..
I think the K/D numbers are skewed by the higher caliber of pilots who fly it. My "5%" is a guess based on my experience in the A-20 in the LWA where I rarely run into much other then the "big 5 or 6" with the occasional 109/Ki-61/ki-84 or jug...
I was 130/32 in the A-20 this tour (I did fly some other stuff) and the vast majority of my kills are spits/lala's/ponies with nikkis and 38's next. The good high ENY drivers are going to sport K/D numbers as good or better then mine so I think it sways the stats a bit. But its certainly possible high ENY use is more then I think....but even if its 10% it doesnt change stuff much.
-
I think the 410 would get alot of use similiar to the A-20. The Judy and Tu-2 also...given that the yak9u we have is about as uber as it got for a yak it would be the same guys switching....same for the A-20 vs A-26 IMO. Ki-102 would get the ki-84 crowd but not many converts I think...same for IL-10. Better versions of what we have but not so much better that usage would change.
Based on how its modeled P-39 might shift stuff, but otherwiae it'll draw from the D-11/109F/P40-E/-1 hog crowd not really "change" the 85%+ that doesnt do "ok" planes.
As far as the "mainstream" player base its the last group that would get alot of play as perk rides.
-
Originally posted by humble
Nice numbers lusche but they show k/d not usage...
No, they don't. They do show total numbers of actual kills sorted by ENY, not a k/d ratio.
The K/D was only provided for additional info.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
No, they don't. They do show total numbers of actual kills sorted by ENY, not a k/d ratio.
The K/D was only provided for additional info.
So functionally the 10-25 range gets usage equal or greater to the top tier with the real fall off at the 30+ mark. I'd be curious what the actual sortie rate is for the higher eny planes, but would have to agree that useage should be higher then I'd have thought.
-
Originally posted by humble
So functionally the 10-25 range gets usage equal or greater to the top tier
Yes, but of course you have a lot more planes to chose from in the 10-25 ENY range than there are <10 ENY aircraft.
Apart from the perked ones, there are only P51D, La7, N1K, Spit 16, P-47N with ENY <10.
Plane by plane Pony, Lala & Spit are still at the top.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=223633
-
He-100D: Not a production craft. The company made 13, no orders place. Somebody has to order it for it to be "in production"... Those 13 used only for propoganda, and most likely UNARMED during this time. If not unarmed, they may have carried 2x 7mm guns in the cowling.
F6F: NO 20mms used on day fighters. A small % of night fighters had some, but most had all 50cals. The constant argument for 20mm on a Hellcat is like saying "The P-51 was designed to take the 20mm all along!" Try getting THAT past anybody.
Do335: Only 20 made it to any squadrons, and not any single unit (like the Ta152H). The factories where the production was taking place were over-run by allied soldiers and the plane ceased to exist. This is a late war bird, so late it didn't exist basically. Production was just beginning when soldiers shut it down.
F7F: A non-entity in this war. It was a dangerous plane, unstable, would spin out into non recoverable spins, and had MANY unfavorable handling problems. This plane flew so poorly that the request the military put out for which this plane was built had to be softened to allow it to even be pursued. It was bloody fast, climbed bloody fast, and flew bloody high, and had a bloody-huge punch (firepower). Those are the only reasons it was being developed. It didn't get anywhere until after the war was over. Sure, it flew "a sortie" on the day the surrender was signed, but by then we'd already steamed into Japanese harbors and there was no more resistance.
Meteor I: Chased buzzbombs. Was fast. None allowed off Britain for fear of losing any.
Meteor III: Some shot up some light ground targets with strafing duties over Europe. They were only allowed in Europe once it was "safe" and the threat of losing any was minimized.
EDIT: P.S. ENY changes. Used to be 40 for a 190, used to be 45 for a C205. Now the C205 is about 20. A lot of planes had their ENY shuffled over time, including the Hurr2c, the p-51, the 109s, the -47s, -38s, etc...
I wouldn't really rank planes by ENY, more by ... I guess "era" (early/mid/late)
-
No matter what is added, the average AH player is going to gravitate toward one of just a few planes. Adding another late war monster, especially one that is comparitively rarer types, doesn't do anything to improve the MAs. One type may replace another, but that's about it. There aren't going to be a lot more scenarios run including this or that late model of Jug or Spit, and I don't know that CT is in need of any more LW planes to get started. Net result of late war planes- one of the current top 4 becomes one of the top 5 or 6.
If the early and mid war planesets were fleshed out, that gives the special events guys greater variety in the events they recreate, and allows CT to offer something other than the later years in the ETO. The AvA gets a little more choice, the EW/MW get more complete sets, and the MAs have another option when ENY goes through the roof, but otherwise nothing changes there. Net result of early or mid war planes- MA use unaffected, additional use in AvA, FSO, Snapshots, Scenarios, EWA, MWA, and CT.
I'm all for having every plane that saw action added at some point, but I personally think the planes that saw a lot of action over periods of years should be a priority over the planes that saw little action over a period of months.
-
All the talk of latewar monsters and '1946' birds speaks volumes about the mindset of most folks playing the game. Whether it's good or bad is a matter of opinion I guess but in my mind it says that most players want to accomplish more in a hurry while learning and doing less to learn the game.
Give them a plane that has lots of cannon, goes really fast and encourage them to get their name in lights.
Why would anyone outside of a few die hards that don't care about those things, fly early or midwar birds?
I hope that HTC can balance the desire to increase the player base, and income with continuing to round out the plane set to cover those less then uber birds that fought most of the war.
And yeah I'm one of those die hards that won't fly a latewar bird on principle. I'd rather die in my 38G and the occasional 38J and about 300 of those 1500 38G kills in February were mine. :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
All the talk of latewar monsters and '1946' birds speaks volumes about the mindset of most folks playing the game. Whether it's good or bad is a matter of opinion I guess but in my mind it says that most players want to accomplish more in a hurry while learning and doing less to learn the game.
Give them a plane that has lots of cannon, goes really fast and encourage them to get their name in lights.
I have sometimes the impression that players who constantly say "We need the King tiger...We need the F8F... We need the P-80... We need the B-29 ect" do simply forget that everybody else would be able to drive/fly that things too. ;)
-
Krusty,
1st your not factually correct...
1) the He-100 was flown in combat by the henkle test pilots defending its factory and was armed.
2) the F6F-5 did fly with the 20mm during daylight, just not in squadron strength. It was designed to accomate the 20mm and was so configured for the original combat trials.
3) While the F7F was a non factor in the war the rest of your comment is 100% wrong. Both Corky Meyer and the chief test pilot for the navy considered it the best piston engined fighter the US ever built.
4) Like the F7F the DO-335 was a 1943 design that entered production in 1944. The original production factory was bombed and the tooling destroyed...it was not a "late war" bird (and neither was the F7F) any more then the P-51D, P-47N, P-38L or any other mid 44 plane. These two planes simply never made it to the party.
Again this wasnt about an individual plane, simply the mythical criteria for selection. Recognizing that a more structured style of game play is coming the MA will change even more. It's interesting that the two new GV's follow the trend I'm looking at. The wirblewind saw very limited production and the rocket armed 251 is an interesting choice. Compared to lets say a "stock" sherman or a PZIII.
There is a "hardcore" group of players who will greatly appreciate the expansion of the planeset for FSO/Scenerio/Snapshot and/or like Guppy in his P-38G that will ignore the new stuff and plug away in favorite rides...but the other 80%+ of the player base is looking for filet mignion not hamburger helper.
-
USA/RAF planeset is very well represented across the board.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the p39's, because it does dual duty for both the USA and Russia.
The German set could use bombers. Granted they didn't have many but I'd still like to see something else added. Ju-88 is a good bird, but stacked up against the US bombers its lightweight. As a result all scenarios, FSO's, Snapshots, and AvA setups are impossible to balance. USA and RAF planesets have the best bombers for each side right up to the B29. The same is NOT true for the rest.
Japanese set doesn't even have a bomber except for the lightweight ki-67.
It cry's for the betty, plus later war attack planes. Ki-44, 45, Betty, Judy would be a good start.
And its also true for the Russian set. P39's are going to help fill the Russian plane set quite a bit. But it really needs a bomber other than the iL2.
Early war planes for Japanese, Russian, and Italian sets would be a big plus.
Although they wouldn't get the use in the main's that others would. They would go a long ways towards adding balanced early war setups that could breath a breath of fresh air into FSO's, Snapshots and Scenarios.
-
Originally posted by humble
1) the He-100 was flown in combat by the henkle test pilots defending its factory and was armed.
.
Though there was indeed a "Industrieschutzstaffel" (Industry defending squadron) formed in Rostock-Marienehe but this was a private venture. And, to my knowledge, there is no account that of any He-100 having seen any kind of combat. The first major daytime raids into that are are happened long after we have the last mentionings of any He 100 in official documents.
-
A Frank or George would help out the Japanese plane set also. - GGhost
-
Originally posted by GGhost
A Frank or George would help out the Japanese plane set also. - GGhost
:huh
You mean that Frank and George that are already in game for a few years?
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Though there was indeed a "Industrieschutzstaffel" (Industry defending squadron) formed in Rostock-Marienehe but this was a private venture. And, to my knowledge, there is no account that of any He-100 having seen any kind of combat. The first major daytime raids into that are are happened long after we have the last mentionings of any He 100 in official documents.
I actually read a combat report somewhere (from US side) with a comment regarding an "unusual" me-109. Speculation was that it was a He-100...but no question there is no record of an actual combat I've ever seen involving one. I brought it up simply since it appears to meet the criteria:). It did serve in "squadron" strength and it apparently did see "combat" if it was scrambled vs bomber raids.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
USA/RAF planeset is very well represented across the board.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the p39's, because it does dual duty for both the USA and Russia.
The German set could use bombers. Granted they didn't have many but I'd still like to see something else added. Ju-88 is a good bird, but stacked up against the US bombers its lightweight. As a result all scenarios, FSO's, Snapshots, and AvA setups are impossible to balance. USA and RAF planesets have the best bombers for each side right up to the B29. The same is NOT true for the rest.
Japanese set doesn't even have a bomber except for the lightweight ki-67.
It cry's for the betty, plus later war attack planes. Ki-44, 45, Betty, Judy would be a good start.
And its also true for the Russian set. P39's are going to help fill the Russian plane set quite a bit. But it really needs a bomber other than the iL2.
Early war planes for Japanese, Russian, and Italian sets would be a big plus.
Although they wouldn't get the use in the main's that others would. They would go a long ways towards adding balanced early war setups that could breath a breath of fresh air into FSO's, Snapshots and Scenarios.
I dont disagree at all. I'd love to see both the Judy and the Tu-2 in the game. And for the 500 or so who participate in the Scenario's, FSO and/or snapshots continued development of the planeset is a big big plus. My "question" is what it does for the other 5,000+ subsribers and how does it get subsriptions up to double that?
We're currently in a Medal of Honor/COD4 world and the vast majority of new blood are conditioned such that as they "improve" they want "uber" not historical reality. So in effect the game would seem to have to evolve in two directions. The CT thread of more structured "box" game meets MMOG and the "old" AH which is basically a "1st person shooter" in planes already. The scenarios/FSO etc would be the real linkage between the two.
I'm not looking at the "1946 airwar" here...simply delving into the few planes that were historically correct but didnt see action or that had readily available configurations that could be considered "uper". Another example is the 4 x 20mm A-20 which did see action (think the 1st 200-300 G's were 4 x 20mm) especially on the russian front (which flew the A-20 more then anyone else) and had most of them with 4 x 20mm.
I'm in no way agruing against building out the historical planeset, I'm simply questioning the "policy" (mythical or otherwise) on what can be included as the game enters its second decade. A 100 perk F7F or DO-335 would see alot more use then a Ki-44 or a judy IMO.
-
Originally posted by humble
My "question" is what it does for the other 5,000+ subsribers and how does it get subsriptions up to double that?
How does adding a few late war planes do that?
-
I'm not saying that it will, simply looking at what seems to "sell" in the current market. Many of the box WW2 flight sims or expansion packs have a variety of these planes while various "bomber sims" failed to sell at all. Looking at COD4 and other 1st person shooters they all escalate the weapons as the game goes on...
So even though its a "niche market" game the reality is that the availability of these "uber weapons" may impact the retention of "2 weekers" who are used to the concept of needing to "earn" uberness...even though the only thing really uber in AH is ACM.
-
Humble,
How would the Ki-102 get Ki-84 converts? They are totally different aircraft. The Ki-102 is a twin engined ground attack fighter.
Originally posted by Ghosth
USA/RAF planeset is very well represented across the board.
I disagree. The RAF and RN still have significant holes in their sets and the US Navy lacks early war attack aircraft. The RAF needs an early war bomber such as the Wellington B.Mk III, one that a Bf109E can actually do something about. The Beaufighter, Firefly and Fulmar should also be added. Some Mosquito bombers would be nice. As for the US Navy, the TBD Devastator would be a good add for early war use.
The German set could use bombers. Granted they didn't have many but I'd still like to see something else added. Ju-88 is a good bird, but stacked up against the US bombers its lightweight. As a result all scenarios, FSO's, Snapshots, and AvA setups are impossible to balance. USA and RAF planesets have the best bombers for each side right up to the B29. The same is NOT true for the rest.[/b]
A Ju188A-2 or Do217 would be nice. Both had 1000+ produced. An He177A-5 would be, in my opinion, an unfortunate choice as it would see heavy use here whereas in reality it was one of the biggest failures as a weapon program that I can think of.
Japanese set doesn't even have a bomber except for the lightweight ki-67.
It cry's for the betty, plus later war attack planes. Ki-44, 45, Betty, Judy would be a good start. [/b]
The problem with Japanese bombers is that they are all "lightweights" by your reasoning. The G4M has the same bombload as the Ki-67, or slightly more depending on the source. The fact is that we have one of the two best Japanese bombers of WWII already. The only one that could be considered "heavyweight" was the H8K2 recon-bomber flyingboat with a max load of eight 250kg bombs or two 1500kg bombs, but barely over 100 H8K2s were built. Ki-43, Ki-44, J2M, D4Y, B6N, B7A, Ki-45 and Ki-102 would all be interesting additions. The extremely limited production B7A would probably see fairly heavy use.
And its also true for the Russian set. P39's are going to help fill the Russian plane set quite a bit. But it really needs a bomber other than the iL2. [/b]
Pe-2 in three versions could cover the whole war, though an SB-2 or Il-4 would be nice for early war. Earlier fighters such as the I-16, Yak-1, Yak-7, LaGG-3 or MiG-3 are needed too.
-
whoops, my bad...I'd read about the 102 but did a brain fart and was thinking of the Ki-100.
By point here isnt advocating a particular wishlist but looking at the underlying "criteria" and matching it up with what seems to already be happening and speculating a bit on the future. IMO it owuld be ideal to see some of both with the majority tilted to historical development. But realizing we actually have relatively few late war rides left with enough real documentation to accurately model and that were actual production aircraft not prototypes it really comes down to what will get used in the LWA's IMO. The firefly got used, the wirblewind will see a ton of use and so will the sk251. The B-25 gets more use in the 75mm sniper role then anything else IMO.
-
The 25H is a really good choice when sniping is the best type of attack, but I also use it anytime a vbase needs taking out, and there's no real hurry to get there. IIRC one 25H can take out all three hangars.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
All the talk of latewar monsters and '1946' birds speaks volumes about the mindset of most folks playing the game. Whether it's good or bad is a matter of opinion I guess but in my mind it says that most players want to accomplish more in a hurry while learning and doing less to learn the game.
Give them a plane that has lots of cannon, goes really fast and encourage them to get their name in lights.
Why would anyone outside of a few die hards that don't care about those things, fly early or midwar birds?
I hope that HTC can balance the desire to increase the player base, and income with continuing to round out the plane set to cover those less then uber birds that fought most of the war.
And yeah I'm one of those die hards that won't fly a latewar bird on principle. I'd rather die in my 38G and the occasional 38J and about 300 of those 1500 38G kills in February were mine. :)
Frankly Dan, you're as bad as the late war "uber" plane snobs. The plane
set is there to be used, using some over others doesn't make your flights
any more noble.
-
Agreed, its an "uber" ride within the proper scope of use. All I'm saying is that we're getting alot of stuff thats uber (and I think at low alt the P-39 will be as well)...so the trend points that way. While I'd love to see the G.55, 410, Judy and Tu-2 1st (as well as the A-26) as we continue to "grow" at some point the F7F/DO-335/Meteor and some of the "load outs" are going to get more use/have more appeal then the He-111 or other birds...thats all.
-
Guppy you forgot the simple corelation between speed and firepower, and adrenaline. Biplanes and early war stuff might make for some unique dogfights, but they're still snoozers. The only exceptions are some designs like the 109F, which IMO is the best dogfighting tool.
It's analogous to ragging on people who race gutted, well-sorted track machines rather than rental cars or normal road legal cars ballasted with all sorts of handicaps like foolproofing for average joe drivers and sound-deadening, safety and luxury mass.
-
Humble you seem to be predicting, if not outright calling for inclusion of late war prototypes over giving major weight to historically significant rides. The inclusion of the SdKfz might confirm your opinion because it's inclusion appears baffling other then for the wow factor. I for one suspect it was more a matter that it would be fun to build and watch the player reaction.
I'll admit you may turn out to be right, but I won't be betting with you for a couple of simple reasons. The typical life of an AH membership evolves over time and after awhile they become bored with the MA, and unless they discover yet another exciting aspect to the game, they'll cancel the membership.
Scenarios and special events provide the draw to retain subscribers for many years after they would otherwise check out of the MA and leave the game entirely. It is for this reason alone that I believe HTC will lean more toward adding missing early and mid war rides to the planeset. In addition, these special events attract players from competing games who are looking for better events then they can find among the competition, and so far the CM team has done a great job of building and retaining participants.
Further, at the moment, the changes in the AvA have become the most exciting event to take place in Aces High since the introduction of AH2. If that arena continues to attract players at noticeable rates, it will become apparent that further support, in the form of filling specific holes in the planeset, should become a priority for HTC. The German, Italian and Russian planesets are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to carrying ordnance to target and this stifles gameplay and discourages players participating in these setups. The now defunct, CAP series events were plagued with this problem, and it impacted retention of Axis players beyond the mid war time period.
For these reasons, I hope and expect many more "holes" in the planeset will be filled first, with the inclusion of "specials", such as the 163, to arrive as balancing elements or simply because of their wow factor.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Frankly Dan, you're as bad as the late war "uber" plane snobs. The plane
set is there to be used, using some over others doesn't make your flights
any more noble.
The odds of me having a noble flight are slim and none :)
Guess I'm not clear in my point. It makes far more sense to me to add a Ki-43 then it does a DO-335 for example. It's place in the overall history of WW2 aviation is much more important.
If this is only about the latest and greatest, then lets make it one plane with multiple cannons that turns well and goes fast and let everyone fly the same and see who is standing at the end.
Purely my opinion of course, and in the end it's HTC's call anyway.
-
I'm not advocating one aspect over another in any way. Hell, I spend 80% of the time tooling around in an A-20. I'm simply commenting on the apparent line of development and speculating on the future. I certainly support the continued expansion of the historical plane set, at the same time I'd love to shoot down an F7F in my A-20 also:D .
-
Originally posted by Krusty
F7F: A non-entity in this war. It was a dangerous plane, unstable, would spin out into non recoverable spins, and had MANY unfavorable handling problems. This plane flew so poorly that the request the military put out for which this plane was built had to be softened to allow it to even be pursued. It was bloody fast, climbed bloody fast, and flew bloody high, and had a bloody-huge punch (firepower). Those are the only reasons it was being developed. It didn't get anywhere until after the war was over. Sure, it flew "a sortie" on the day the surrender was signed, but by then we'd already steamed into Japanese harbors and there was no more resistance.
Krusty, I can't think of another person posting to these boards who so exudes negativity as does you. I cannot understand why you do that. That and the recurring issue of pulling so-called facts out of your rectal cavity...
Grumman's F7F-1 was one of the best prop fighters ever to take wing. 445 mph at altitude, damn near 400 mph at sea level (397 mph). A rate of climb that would make your nose bleed and your ears ache. Grumman figures show well in excess of 5k per minute when loaded as an interceptor. It was the fastest accelerating fighter in the US inventory, better even than the F8F-1.
Handling was considered outstanding, with a few quirks such as not spinning it more than three turns (manual states no more than two).
Corky Meyer, the program test pilot stated, "Because of its outstanding performance, handling characteristics, reliable engines and instant pilot acceptance, it had an exceptional safety record for such an advanced and powerful fighter." No one was having spin and handling issues...
It received rave reviews at the 1944 fighter conference. The biggest complaint was poor rearward vision. Other comments, "nothing can catch it". "Can beat the F6F in a dogfight."
The XF7F-1, circa August 1943.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/XF7F-1.jpg)
Consider that it is armed with 4 Hispanos and four .50s cal MGs. That's considerably more fire power than the Mosquito. That's basically the weapons of a C-Hog and P-51B rolled into one.
You can read Meyer's article on the Tigercat here. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200208/ai_n9120620/pg_1)
Here's a brief quote:
"Instead of delving into the details of the fantastic handling characteristics of the Tigercat, I will tell you of a totally unexpected and earth-shaking discussion that I had with the Navy's premier test pilot, Capt. Fred M. Trapnell. It will explain why all Tigercat pilots liked the airplane in spite of its failure to meet several important Navy SR-38D specifications for flight-handling characteristics.
For many years, Capt. Trapnell was the top test pilot in the Navy; his word was law, both in Navy and industry flight-test circles. An example of his influence: he came for a three-hour flight evaluation of the first XF6F-3 Hellcat soon after its first flight and he gave the official Navy go-ahead for mass production on that day! The Hellcat eventually passed all of its contractual demonstrations two and a half years later, after more than 8,000 aircraft had been delivered to fighting squadrons! Also, to his credit, the Hellcat racked up a record 19 to one kill-to-loss ratio-the highest recorded in WW II.
When he came to Grumman to conduct the preliminary evaluation of the Panther in early 1948, I was the only Grumman test pilot who had flown the company's first jet fighter. At every opportunity during his three-day evaluation, I tried to pry his opinions out of him; his only responses were grunts, which I interpreted as, "Cool it, Corky!" At the end of his evaluation, as we walked out to his F7F-4N Tigercat for his return trip to the Naval Air Test Center, I proudly told him that I was the Tigercat project pilot from 1943 to 1946. He immediately burst into a diatribe about the Tigercat's many deficiencies: the over-cooling of the engines; a lack of longitudinal stability; excessively high dihedral rolling effect with rudder input; the high, minimum single-engine control speed, etc. He ended his oration with: "If I had been the chief of the Test Center at that time, I would have had you fired!" Each criticism of the Tigercat was absolutely correct. I was devastated and fervently wished that I hadn't gotten out of bed that day.
Just as we reached his Tigercat, I blurted, "If you dislike the Tigercat so much, why do you always fly it?" He explained: "The excess power of its two engines is wonderful for aerobatics; the cockpit planning and the forward visibility in the carrier approach is the best in any fighter ever built; the tricycle landing gear allows much faster pilot checkouts; the roll with the power boost rudder is faster than the ailerons; and it has a greater range than any fighter in inventory." Again, he was absolutely right. As he climbed up the ladder to the cockpit, he turned around, grinned and told me, "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown."
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/Tigercats.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
So Guppy, ya think that beast would be no fun to fly or what? :)
Thanks for the writeup Widewing.
-
Too late for an edit.
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I'm all for having every plane that saw action added at some point, but I personally think the planes that saw a lot of action over periods of years should be a priority over the planes that saw little action over a period of months, with the exception of the Tigercat, which should be added in the next update along with my rocket-armed, facelifted Hurricane.
Fixed.
-
Originally posted by moot
So Guppy, ya think that beast would be no fun to fly or what? :)
Thanks for the writeup Widewing.
I think it's an absolute beauty :) So is the Spit 21, Bearcat and many other latewar birds.
I guess my 'snobbery' comes from wanting folks to learn more about the birds that actually fought WW2 is all.
I know that's just me :)
My dream bird has always been the Spitfire XII. It's a 43 bird but a rocket down low.
Only 100 built, and only 2 squadrons flew them, even though as a Wing they were the most succesful RAF wing in the fall of 43. I'd love to have it, and I'd never get out of it. But it would be silly to add it on top of the other Spits. I can't even begin to imagine the whines if that would happen.
Thinking about the game overall, my personal feeling is I'd like the early-mid war eras filled out. That's really when the airwar was won and lost. By the time the real latewar birds came around, the issue was much less in doubt.
Of course if I had my way it would be summer 1943 ETO and the only war would be fought in the air when it seemed to be an about even fight.
And i know it's a game. And I know most folks just want to win if they can and it's easier to do in a monster of a latewar bird which makes them the ones that get flown.
Can't help it that I just don't want to play it that way :)
-
I've always liked Rick Atkinson's quote of Kesselring in Army at Dawn, "It was in Tunisia," (~May, 1943) he later observed, "that the superiority of your air force first became evident."
-
Originally posted by humble
2) The early war set is by far the weakest (outside of BoB) and from a scenerio/FSO perspective this is far and away the most needed aspect to beef up.
Yeah! Bring a FAF Brewster and Polikarpov I16 :)
-
Originally posted by humble
but the other 80%+ of the player base is looking for filet mignion not hamburger helper.
More like looking for a crutch...
ack-ack
-
Krusty, I can't think of another person posting to these boards who so exudes negativity as does you. I cannot understand why you do that. That and the recurring issue of pulling so-called facts out of your rectal cavity...
Notice how he uses the words, "bloody this... bloody that...".
Now, also take heed to his favored expression, "blahblahblah, period.".
Oh yes, brutha. You've guessed it.
I'm assuming all the bloody stuff has something to do with his periods.
:D :D
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
More like looking for a crutch...
ack-ack
^^^QFT
IMO, since HTC didn't start out with the 1939 planeset and progess from there, certain people are never going to be happy no matter what we get. They've always had access to most of, if not the best of the late war rides and the thought of the next thing down the line not being more uber than what we already have just doesn't add up for them.
I say we take away the late war monsters in the mains for a while. If they must have their uber planes, make 'em earn 'em back. That might satisfy the "must achieve leetness" crowd. Give 'em a goal, some incentive, something to work toward. Plus it'll be funny to see how many fall over when the training wheels come off. :t :D
(J/K........a little.)
-
Widewing: That article and others like it are where I got my info.
Sure it might have been flying in 1943, but being tied up in testing for over a year and a half doesn't equate to combat.
Hell you might as well call the FW190 a 1939 plane, in that case. (insert old rolleyes here)
Read the article again, where the test pilot talks about forbidding any spins in the plane, how terrible the handling was. The ONLY reason this plane would have been an awesome fighter is the firepower, the speed, and the climb. If you can zoom over anything else in the sky, you don't have to handle very well, you can just BnZ and Rope all day long (and it would have gotten the job done, no doubt about it). That does NOT make it a great-handling plane. All the problems that came up in testing weren't "fixed" -- they were "bypassed" by easing the requirements issued in the plane request.
No argument that it's a fast plane, probably the fastest USN prop ever. No argument that it climbs like a rocket. None whatsoever.
But speed alone, and climb alone, do not a docile plane create.
My comments are based in the very article you throw at me. I used the term "bloody" to show that I was expressing my opinion, to differentiate from what the article says.
So before you post a 3-screen long rant about me and my comments, might wanna check that my comments come from the very source you throw in my face.
Negative? No. Realistic, sure. Pulling comments out my arse? Far from it.
-
"Because of its outstanding performance, handling characteristics, reliable engines and instant pilot acceptance, it had an exceptional safety record for such an advanced and powerful fighter." No one was having spin and handling issues...
It received rave reviews at the 1944 fighter conference. The biggest complaint was poor rearward vision. Other comments, "nothing can catch it". "Can beat the F6F in a dogfight."
Krusty the F7F had zero handling issues beyond spin recovery. It was however not a plane that spun easily nor was it difficult to recover. Not only could it outclimb and out accelerate any other plane in US service...it could out turn them as well and it was exceptionally docile at low speeds and high AoA. What kept it out of fleet service was issues related to carrier landing trials not anything else. It was accepted for operational deployment in May 1944 so it didnt lanquish at all...it simply wasnt needed so it didnt get pushed. Grumman had the F6F, F8F and was already working on the designs that eventually led to F9F so they didnt really care....
-
Off topic.
Please for the love of cod. Krusty or humble please change your avitard.
-
Location: Lost in the "hyperbole" zone.
LOL
-
Originally posted by moot
LOL
Figured it out didn't ya.:aok
Edit: moot check your PMs.
-
I find this hilarious these guys will argue squadron numbers and combat time to the inth degree "only 100 built" then go back to the MA and up an osti (45 or so built almost no recorded combat action mentioned anywhere) and happily shoot down aircraft. When I was a young soldier I had a commander who told us.. "oneday we may ask you to die on a beach somewhere.. dont spend your time dying on other beaches in your life."
Fight on the beach we are at now.. quit dying on beaches we havent attacked yet.
-
Humble, read the full article, all 8 pages or so. He goes into depth about spin testing, being unable to recover, and basically he gave up testing early because even the first step in an entire series of spin tests was impossible to recover without a spin recovery chute. He then says they made a rule against ever spinning the F7F, possibly with some wording about "acrobatics" as well. Also they had to get the plane request (the one the F7F was designed to fill) requirements eased up on spin recovery so that it could even be produced in the first place!
The Tigercat broke the safety requirements it was built for, in that it could not recover from spins after (I think it stipulated) 4 turns. This was the very request this plane was designed to fulfill.
Sure, it had speed, firepower, and rocket climb, but when the test pilot meets the other guy and asks him what his thoughts were, the guy belts out a laundry list of shortcomings and the test pilot guy admits that every one of these flaws was true. DESPITE that, he loved the plane for the good qualities (already mentioned), but don't gloss over the fact that these problems existed and were in some cases very serious problems.
-
For those that don't want to read it, this is from the very link widewing pointed out, and from where I got this info in the first place:
With the Tigercat's excellent performance and flight characteristics demonstrated, the Navy decided that, despite the fighter's minimum controllability and single-engine-failure takeoff speed (40mph more than the Navy requirement), it should go into production as soon as possible. Understand that, in early 1944, the War in the Pacific was far from over, so maximum production numbers were mandatory. After his four flights in November 1943, Bob Hall ordered the fin to be enlarged 29.2 percent to meet the single-engine criterion. But such a significant change could not be designed, groundand flight-tested, and then implemented in the production line until the 106th Tigercat F7F-3N BuNo 80365 was delivered in July 1945-two and a half years after the problem became apparent!
I had successfully spun and recovered the production F4F-4 Wildcat and F6F-3 Hellcat to 10 turns. Engineering did not consider the experimental anti-spin chute necessary for the Tigercat because of the powerful thrust of an offset engine in a twin-engine aircraft, which aids in spin recovery. Bob Hall strongly suggested that I proceed very slowly in building up the number of spin turns prior to recovery and to increase only a half turn at a time before attempting recovery. His wisdom was soon to be greatly appreciated. Let the spins begin.
The first half-turn spin attempt seemed to have sluggish, half-turn recovery to anti-spin control reactions. After a one-- turn spin, it took one whole turn to recover with full anti-- spin controls. An alarm went off in my head because, after one- to four-turn spins, the Hellcat and Wildcat recovered immediately when their controls were released. Even after 10 turns, those aircraft took only one turn for recovery!
At one and a half turns from right- or left-spin entries, the F7F's nose tended to rise during the last portion of the spin, and it took an all-too-long one and a half turns for recovery after "instant" full anti-spin control application. The continued need for an equal number of turns to recover from the same number of spin turns sounded a much louder alarm bell. I should have quit then and there, but being inexperienced, I completed two-turn spins. They required two slow turns for recovery. The nose was definitely rising toward a flat, uncontrollable spin in the second turn before recovery controls were applied. The two turns required for recovery seemed to take ages. I became very concerned about this new aircraft's spin-recovery lethargy, so I returned to base to talk to the engineers
One of the engineers suggested that we check the Tigercat NACA spin tunnel model report! I had never heard about a NACA spin tunnel or of such a report on the Tigercat's spinning tendencies; my education was expanding. That report detailed how the model F7F-1 tunnel spins indeed showed the nose rising in the first few turns and going flat and the plane becoming unrecoverable after four turns. Bob Hall decreed that we stop at two turns. He then promptly discussed the problem with the Navy and got the Tigercat requirement-to my great relief-limited to only a two-turn, upright spin. Because of the long and sluggish recovery cycle, the Navy stated in the pilots' handbook, "All spins and snap rolls are prohibited maneuvers in F7F aircraft." In spite of that warning, a few weeks later, a military test pilot at Patuxent decided to try spinning a Tigercat. As predicted in the wind-tunnel report, the plane went flat at the fourth turn, and it continued to spin for 20 more unrecoverable turns until it hit the ground, killing the pilot instantly.
Talking to Capt Trapnell during the Pather trials (post-war)
At the end of his evaluation, as we walked out to his F7F-4N Tigercat for his return trip to the Naval Air Test Center, I proudly told him that I was the Tigercat project pilot from 1943 to 1946. He immediately burst into a diatribe about the Tigercat's many deficiencies: the over-cooling of the engines; a lack of longitudinal stability; excessively high dihedral rolling effect with rudder input; the high, minimum single-engine control speed, etc. He ended his oration with: "If I had been the chief of the Test Center at that time, I would have had you fired!" Each criticism of the Tigercat was absolutely correct. I was devastated and fervently wished that I hadn't gotten out of bed that day.
After that he said he thought it was the best fighter ever, listing great forward view for carrier landings, tricycle landing gear for faster checks, boosted ailerons, and the wonderful engines. None of that includes handling, stability, or the dangerous aspects. Overall it was the best for a lot of things, but the worst in other things.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Handling was considered outstanding, with a few quirks such as not spinning it more than three turns (manual states no more than two).
My regards,
Widewing
Don't put it in a spin. Check
-
Krusty,
The spin portion was modified because the plane was so well behaveed otherwise. It was an exceptionally docile plane and very easily recovered from an inadvertent spin. The P-39 had similiar shortcomings with regard to spin. So much so that pilots were instructed to bail out immediately if/when it entered one. As already mentioned above, final recommendation....dont spin the thing and you'll be fine.
Bottom line the spin recovery was a standard boilerplate and not specific to the F7F was in the end was viewed as a minor flaw and altered accordingly.
-
Seems there was more than JUST a spin issue.
He immediately burst into a diatribe about the Tigercat's many deficiencies: the over-cooling of the engines; a lack of longitudinal stability; excessively high dihedral rolling effect with rudder input; the high, minimum single-engine control speed, etc.
Maybe in a level, power-on, full flaps, carrier landing it was steady [edit; I don't know what criteria they were considering it to be docile with], but let me make another comparison to show why that's not saying much about the rest of the flight characteristics. It's gentle on landing, but so is a 262 in this game, and that doesn't make it a very good plane in most other situations.
Not trying to compare the two, just pulling a really bad example that happens to have nice landing characteristics.
P.S. Humble, doesn't seem to imply that conclusion based on the article. Seems that they had an emergency meeting, and like they said on page 1, in 1944 the war was still very much in full swing. Production was #1. We've seen other planes with issues that were put into production despite a lack of favorable qualities. As long as fighting vehicles were pumped out, standards could be cut .
-
"It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown."
Hmmm did you miss this part Krusty?
-
Krusty, you are taking comments out of their context to support statements that have no resemblance to reality.
"Deliberate spinning is prohibited because the spin tends to flatten out after two or three turns."
Page 28, Paragraph 16 of the P-38 Pilot's Manual.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
"Never spin a P-47 intentionally."
Page 55 of the P-47D Pilot's Manual.
The P-61 manual also expressly forbids deliberate spins as the aircraft becomes unrecoverable after a spin fully develops (3 to 4 full spins).
Krusty, rather than reinforce your growing reputation as an uninformed windbag, do a little research and base your opinion on fact rather than your seeming narrow understanding.
My regards,
Widewing