Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MaSonZ on December 09, 2008, 01:02:10 PM
-
Why is the A6m's ENY at 20? other than it being fragile, its got good guns, can turn circles around any most any other plane, if not any other plane, and its climb is amazing. sure, its fragile and slow, but 20ENY due ti that? i must be missing something....
-
It may be the best turner.. but for most fighters in LW arena a A6M is easy to avoid. Just fly away from it. Ping it once and it will burn.
Lack of speed and the tremendous vulnerability are more than sufficient in justifying the 20 ENY. For comparison, 109K4, G14, Spit IX are ENY20 too.
-
In MWP its ENY 25 though, thats also nagging at me...why is it lower ENY in LW than in MW?
-
Meh.. dont pay any attention to HTC's system of scoring of ENY or OBJ in the late war arena. It is so FUBAR'd it isnt even funny. :rolleyes:
The Fw190A-8 is 31 ENY and the Fw190D-9 has a 15 ENY. Explain that one.
The P47N is 5 ENY, but the P47D-40 has an ENY of 20. Huh?
The Spit14 is perked, but the Spit16 is not... :confused:
The Mossie has an OBJ score of 10 but the IL-2 has a OBJ score of 25. Surely if the A20 and IL-2 have an OBJ score of 25 the Mossie deserves it as well and so do a whole host of other ground attack aircraft.
One would think that HTC would evaluate thier ENY system of scoring from time to time (4 times yearly?) and balance the scoring in some manner. I cant see it taking too long to glance at the stats and adjust the ENY accordingly. There is no reasoning behind their system. Is it based on the actual ability of the plane in WWII or the "ability" of a plane on paper? Maybe with some planes. Is it based on actual in game performance stats? Perhaps some, but even then it isnt balanced.
I wish they'd realize their OBJ scoring is screwy as well. Why would the IL-2 earn more perk points for taking out a building than a Mossie? Is it based on the ability of the plane in game, the actual role of the plane in WWII, or is it to balance those planes that are specifc to a role but are not at the top of the ladder for ability (case in point: SBD and D3A. Both are dive bombers but are easily surpassed by late war multi-purpose aircraft and they both have high ONJ scores).
The better OBJ scores should be given to those aircraft that actually perfomed those attack or bombing roles in WWII. The Fw190F-8 was meant to hit ground targets, the Fw190A-8 and D-9 were meant to hit bombers... yet they all have the same OBJ score. Aircraft like the P38J/L, P47D25/40/N, F4UD/C/4, F6F-5, Typhoon/Tempest, or any other diver bomber should have a higher OBJ score than the Spitfire I/V/IX/XIV, P40B, C202/205, etc. But currently... they all have an OBJ score of 10. :confused:
HTC should start from ground zero with their ENY scoring their fighter/attack aircraft. Have an unofficial scoring system. Score each individuals plane's in game ability 1-5 in each of the following categories: Average speed 20k>; Turn radius; Average Climb Rate 20k>; Range; Firepower/gun packages; ord packages/ability. Take the best and take the worst and score everything based on those standards. Anything with top marks in three or more categories earns a low ENY (12>). Obvious top performers are going to be the P51D, Spit16, George, and a few others already in the upper ENY ranks. However, some aircraft like the Fw190A-8, P38J/L, 109K-4/G-14, C205, P47D-40, and F6F5 would probably take a hike in ENY scoring. Many plane would see a decrease in ENY, like the Ta152, Spit14, P47N, F4F, FM2, and a few others.
HTC should also start from scratch with their bomber scoring. To perk the Ar234 for its speed and not the Lancaster for its ord tonnage seems a bit odd, really. Apply a similar scoring system to the bombers just like they would do for the fighter/attack aircraft with obvious flexibility towards a few of the attributes. Defensive armament would be a factor as well. Obviously, the Lancaster would be the top dog as no other bomber can come close to destroying as much in one bomber run as the Lanc can. Why not perk it? Apply the same rationale to the Lancaster as HTC does to the rest of the airacraft? The top dog gets perked. The destuctive ability of the Lanc is not appreciated and perking it would see to it that it would be. The speed of the Ar234 is perked... why not the ords of the Lanc? In the matter of OBJ scoring, each and every bomber or bomber/attack aircraft should have an equal or higher OBJ score than any fighter/attack aircraft. Aircraft specialized in bombing or attacking ground targets deserve a bit higher of a reward for doing so, IMO.
Wow.. I just wrote a book. Sorry. :frown:
:)
-
Meh.. dont pay any attention to HTC's system of scoring of ENY or OBJ in the late war arena. It is so FUBAR'd it isnt even funny. :rolleyes:
The Fw190A-8 is 31 ENY and the Fw190D-9 has a 15 ENY. Explain that one.Gee top spped would have nothing to do with it.
The P47N is 5 ENY, but the P47D-40 has an ENY of 20. Huh?Hmm no uber wep on that N ehh?
The Spit14 is perked, but the Spit16 is not... :confused:You're close on this but sadly off. Neither should be perked.
The Mossie has an OBJ score of 10 but the IL-2 has a OBJ score of 25. Surely if the A20 and IL-2 have an OBJ score of 25 the Mossie deserves it as well and so do a whole host of other ground attack aircraft.Now if we could just het the damn IL-2 and A-20 to be as fast as the skeeter ohh and quad hizookas.
:cry :cry :cry
-
Meh.. dont pay any attention to HTC's system of scoring of ENY or OBJ in the late war arena. It is so FUBAR'd it isnt even funny. :rolleyes:
The Fw190A-8 is 31 ENY and the Fw190D-9 has a 15 ENY. Explain that one.
Uhmmm... The D-9 can run away and catch almost everything, outclimbs most other fighters.. thus very often able to engage and disengage at will. Ít may just not have an even lower ENY cause that speed and acceleration is almost it'S inly asset. Powerful? Yes, but somewhat limited.
In an A-8 you have much less options. Basically. you can't outturn, you can't climb away and most often you can't run away either. The strengths it has (roll, firepower) need some very good SA and/or teamwork to make 'em shine.
-
Only reason why the other FW-190 series has a higher ENY than the D-9 is because of its speed. If you really want to look at it properly, why does the TA-152 have an ENY of 5, and all of the other FW-190 series have a higher ENY? especially the D-9, IIRC the D-9 is faster than the TA-152, at lower alts. And to really get technical, the 110 has more 30mm rounds than the TA-152 and it has an ENY of 10.
Back on topic, the A6M does not have strong guns, at range, you have to get real close to get any damage on a plane. It is a good turner, but like Snailman said, its like a match ready to light.
-
In an A-8 you have much less options. Basically. you can't outturn, you can't climb away and most often you can't run away either. The strengths it has (roll, firepower) need some very good SA and/or teamwork to make 'em shine.
The same applies for the A-5 too, though. What it might gain in turn and climb, it looses in speed, firepower, endurance. Yet it has a lower ENY rating. And if we look at the F-8, the A-8 is pretty much better in every aspect except tank busting, and it's ENY rating is even significantly lower.
Only reason why the other FW-190 series has a higher ENY than the D-9 is because of its speed. If you really want to look at it properly, why does the TA-152 have an ENY of 5, and all of the other FW-190 series have a higher ENY? IIRC the D-9 is faster than the TA-152, at lower alts
Well the D9 may be faster at lower alts, but the 152 has some things on the Dora though:
- not that much slower (even less when you need proper endurance)
- much better turner
- twice as lethal
- proper endurance without the need of a DT
While I dont wanna argue about specific ENY numbers, I can see why the 152 has a lower ENY as the Dora.
-
:cry :cry :cry
If you cant stop and read what I posted and take in the entire bit of notation, then go scratch your arse elswhere.
1> If "top speed" is your answer to my point regarding the A-8/D-9, then you obviously cant read deeper than the print. The Dora has a faster speed, the A-8 has far greater firepower. While we're at it, the A-8 can out turn the Dora, too. Not much, but enough for me to use vs a Dora while in an A-8. Say again why the 31 ENY for the A-8? I agree with the 15 ENY for the Dora, btw.
2> There is no difference between the P47N and P47D-40 'cept for range and WEP time. Guns and ords are the same. Say again why there is a 15 ENY spread? Your reply is as empty as your first.
3> Actually, I'm not vouching for the Spit16 to be perked but rather the Spit14 to be unperked. My main issue is the lack of consitancy. My bad in the lack of clarity. However, there are multiple fighter planes that are perked that the Spit16 can walk all over at all alts.
4> Again, you missed the point completely regarding the Mossi/IL-2/A20 OBJ arguement. We're not comparing guns, ords, and speed, we're comparing roles. Speed is a factor in ENY, and HTC has the Mossi at 25. Are you in 7th grade? You must be a Quake FPS veteran. The ENY is based off of HTC's perceived ability score for each plane (or so it seems), while the OBJ score seems to me scaled for a planes specific "role". Since the Mossi Mk6 was used mostly as an attack plane, ya know... vs ground targets... just like the IL-2 and A20 then why not a better score for it and many of the other ground pounders in the game? Why is it not being recognised as such? Same goes for all the ground pounders that have been grouped together with the fighters.
Consistancy and reasoning, I see very little of it in HTC's aplication of OBJ scoring and there are some major gaps in their application of ENY scores as well.
-
The Dora out runs and outclimbs the Anton-8 by a significant margin. And, despite what you say, the Dora has a tighter turn radius and higher turn rate than the Anton-8. The Anton-8 really is the black-sheep of the 190 family, IMO, almost like the 109G6. You'd be better off taking up the Anton-5 or the Dora for anything you want to do in the Anton-8 beside buff hunting.
-
The Dora out runs and outclimbs the Anton-8 by a significant margin. And, despite what you say, the Dora has a tighter turned radius and higher turn rate than the Anton-8. The Anton-8 really is the black-sheep of the 190 family, IMO, almost like the 109G6. You'd be better off taking up the Anton-5 or the Dora for anything you want to do in the Anton-8 beside buff hunting.
Shhh he is pontificating.
-
Shhh he is pontificating.
Another insightful and well thought responce. ;) Well spoken! :rolleyes:
-
If you cant stop and read what I posted and take in the entire bit of notation, then go scratch your arse elswhere.
1> . Say again why the 31 ENY for the A-8? Because it's a frigging brick with guns, unless flown by the best... all it can do is pick.The D9 is much, much more survivable.
2> There is no difference between the P47N and P47D-40 'cept for range and WEP time. Guns and ords are the same. Say again why there is a 15 ENY spread? Your reply is as empty as your first.Now tell me what wep does for it hmmm.. climb rate and speed are silly. Ohh and it is the fastest prop plane in the game.
3> Actually, I'm not vouching for the Spit16 to be perked but rather the Spit14 to be unperked. My main issue is the lack of consitancy. My bad in the lack of clarity. However, there are multiple fighter planes that are perked that the Spit16 can walk all over at all alts. Hyperbole. It comes down to the pilot, if you haven't figured it by now, you wont.
4> Again, you missed the point completely regarding the Mossi/IL-2/A20 OBJ arguement. We're not comparing guns, ords, and speed, we're comparing roles. Speed is a factor in ENY, and HTC has the Mossi at 25. Are you in 7th grade? You must be a Quake FPS veteran. LMAO AW since 97...and you? The ENY is based off of HTC's perceived ability score for each plane (or so it seems), while the OBJ score seems to me scaled for a planes specific "role". Since the Mossi Mk6 was used mostly as an attack plane, ya know... vs ground targets... just like the IL-2 and A20 then why not a better score for it and many of the other ground pounders in the game? Why is it not being recognised as such? Same goes for all the ground pounders that have been grouped together with the fighters. Dahhh. speed makes it more survivable. Ya know get in and out quick? Harder to intercept? Ohh and what does more damage to toolsheds? AP rounds from say an A-20 and the IL-2.... or the quad HE firing hizookas on the mossie? That's why less points for the mossie.
Consistancy and reasoning, I see very little of it in HTC's aplication of OBJ scoring and there are some major gaps in their application of ENY scores as well.
It's while not perfect, your whines are not pointing the inconsistencies. :aok Well.. cept for the Mk XIV.
-
1> If "top speed" is your answer to my point regarding the A-8/D-9, then you obviously cant read deeper than the print. The Dora has a faster speed, the A-8 has far greater firepower. While we're at it, the A-8 can out turn the Dora, too. Not much, but enough for me to use vs a Dora while in an A-8. Say again why the 31 ENY for the A-8?
...errr...from my experience, those two planes aren't even remotely in the same class. Dora is a ballerina compared to the A-8 (as is almost any other aircraft) (including many bombers).
- oldman
-
If we look at the A6m5 it had less then a 1/1 k/d ratio last tour (LWA) ~9500/10500 vs the hurricane IIc's ~8400/6200. The spitIX and 109F are both roughly 1/1. Realistically the zeke should be a 25+ ENY plane...
-
its got good guns - No it doesn't. The cannon have awful ballistics, rotten muzzle velocity and an anemic clip. Unless you're VERY good at managing the cannon all you're likely to hit with are the twin 7.7mms, which tickle and little else unless you get a lucky cockpit shot.
can turn circles around any most any other plane, if not any other plane - And unless you're in the Early War Arena that's not going to be much good. Any pilot with a quarter of a brain knows they can't out-turn a Zero at low speeds. And they won't NEED to. Noobie Spit dweebs may try it, but virtually every other aircraft starting in Mid-war dominate the A6M2 in virtually every other aspect of the flight envelope and you're not going to rope that many into it 1v1.
and its climb is amazing. - Again, MAYBE in the Early War Arena. But virtually all the American Iron from Mid-war forward will beat it uphill because the A6M2 doesn't have WEP. The F6F, FM-2, and any F4U, P-38, P-47 or P-51 all have superior rates of climb. This DOESN'T include zoom ability.
sure, its fragile and slow, but 20ENY due ti that? i must be missing something....
The A6M2 is hopelessly outclassed by anything that's not in the Early War Arena (and even by some of those planes, as well!)
-
It's while not perfect, your whines are not pointing the inconsistencies. :aok Well.. cept for the Mk XIV.
So again... the D9 has the speed and the A8 has the firepower. The A8 can take down buffs with a ever so slight burst while the D9 can get their faster but take longer to get the job done. The D9's speed equates to an ENY of 16pts less than the A8's firepower? No other single engine fighter can match the A8's firepower. Does the A8 still warrant the 31 ENY???
The P47N has about 15-20mph more speed w/ WEP at all alts, otherwise they are within spittin distance of each other on mil power. The WEP climb rate brings the N equal to the D-40 at 25k alt, otherwise the N climbs worse all the way around. I'm still not sure why the N deserves the 5 ENY and the D-40 deserves the 20 ENY.
Ah, the old "the pilot is the difference" arguement, now I call that *hyberbole*. I'll stand by the statment I've made since I soon realized just how "l337" some of these planes are: The plane choice makes for far more importance than anyone will admit. I'll grab the Spit16, YOU grab the P40B and lets see who wins? This average at best fighter pilot (extreme best is average, really) is confident enough to say "I'll win". When I win, the excuse will be ... ??? Well, it wont be because I'm better, it will be because I have a better plane. In a Spit16 v Spit14 battle between two similar skilled pilots, my money goes on the Spit16 everytime unless the bottom line alt is 22k then it becomes a "roll the dice" scenario. Above 22k, the Spit14 speed advantage kicks in.
Regarding the Mossi... you're now trying to anchor your arguement in the fact that the Mossi is faster than the IL-2 and A20 and can shoot-n-run better ... ... By your argument the P40E should have a 50 OBJ score. The more difficult it is for a plane to destroy an OBJ the better its OBJ score??? Again, I think you've miss my whole argument. I'm not in the realm of plane performance, I'm speaking from a role perspective point of view. I'm not saying the A20 shouldnt have the 25 OBJ (though I think the IL-2 35 OBJ is a bit too much), I'm vouching for raising ALL of the planes that performed the air to ground attack a boost in the OBJ score (and an all out readjustment). Again... HTC's applicaiton of those scores do not follow a pattern. Throw the burger pickle on the wall and lets see if it sticks. I picked the Mossi to ram-rod because to me that is the attack/strike aircraft that stands out as the best (in WII anyways) and yet it recieves no reward or benefit for performing that role.
-
Because it's a frigging brick with guns, unless flown by the best... all it can do is pick.The D9 is much, much more survivable.
I think you mean with friggin' big guns?! Seriously though, the "all it can do is pick (and run)" is pretty much a trademark of the D9 here in AH. So what the D9 has over the A8 in terms of run, the A8 has the clearer edge in terms of "pick". Again, does the difference in speed justify twice the ENY for the A8? I think it doesn't. I'm not saying the ENY should be same for both, but perfomance wise, the A8 is more in the 20 ENY area.
-
I've always wondered why the 109K4 is a 20 ENY, isn't it the best climber in the game? Turns pretty well, has heavy armament, fairly fast... the only thing it really can't do well is dive.
-
Ah, the old "the pilot is the difference" arguement, now I call that *hyberbole*. I'll stand by the statment I've made since I soon realized just how "l337" some of these planes are: The plane choice makes for far more importance than anyone will admit. I'll grab the Spit16, YOU grab the P40B and lets see who wins? This average at best fighter pilot (extreme best is average, really) is confident enough to say "I'll win". When I win, the excuse will be ... ??? Well, it wont be because I'm better, it will be because I have a better plane. In a Spit16 v Spit14 battle between two similar skilled pilots, my money goes on the Spit16 everytime unless the bottom line alt is 22k then it becomes a "roll the dice" scenario. Above 22k, the Spit14 speed advantage kicks in.
Instead of me (an average cartoon pilot) substitute widewing or levi or any other crazy "OMG how did they do that" cartoon stick. Still want to try it? IIRC Widewing was helping a certain corsair squad with "squad tactics". He fought them to s standstill in a P-39 Q, I believe there was more than 2 attacking.
So I guess it isn't so much hyperbole now is it.
-
I've always wondered why the 109K4 is a 20 ENY, isn't it the best climber in the game? Turns pretty well, has heavy armament, fairly fast... the only thing it really can't do well is dive.
It should probably be a bit lower than that. The MK108 is probably the single biggest factor in its relatively high eny- it's hard to aim.
SmokinLoon, you're digging yourself a pretty deep hole. The A8's akin to a medieval heavy sword vs a shortsword or foil. If it doesnt end the fight with an opening critical strike, it dies quick. The D9 can match the A8's damage rate/time and in the mean time still dictate the terms of the fight, whereas the A8 will be pretty much trading survival for positional dominance, thanks to having so little thrust and agility.
Now put this in MA circumstances, instead of 1:1 or bomber strikes, and the two planes' speed and agility are even more decisive.
The pilot/plane thing: You can stress this rule of thumb so that it breaks, with extreme examples like spit16 vs P40, but IIRC even that would be doable. Widewing or Bighorn or Stang could probably beat you up pretty bad, if not perfectly. So many old hands at this game have been playing the blindfold/one hand tied handicap game for so many years... If you need a still more undeniable example, I think it's Drex or Leviathn that would outfly a top stick (like AKAK or Manx or someone like that) in a 38L using a Ju88.
The 47N probably does deserve a slightly higher ENY, the 152 as well, that's true. The ENY and OBJ might need some tweaking but they're not fubar, tho.
-
So again... the D9 has the speed and the A8 has the firepower. The A8 can take down buffs with a ever so slight burst while the D9 can get their faster but take longer to get the job done. The D9's speed equates to an ENY of 16pts less than the A8's firepower? No other single engine fighter can match the A8's firepower. Does the A8 still warrant the 31 ENY???
The P47N has about 15-20mph more speed w/ WEP at all alts, otherwise they are within spittin distance of each other on mil power. The WEP climb rate brings the N equal to the D-40 at 25k alt, otherwise the N climbs worse all the way around. I'm still not sure why the N deserves the 5 ENY and the D-40 deserves the 20 ENY.
Ah, the old "the pilot is the difference" arguement, now I call that *hyberbole*. I'll stand by the statment I've made since I soon realized just how "l337" some of these planes are: The plane choice makes for far more importance than anyone will admit. I'll grab the Spit16, YOU grab the P40B and lets see who wins? This average at best fighter pilot (extreme best is average, really) is confident enough to say "I'll win". When I win, the excuse will be ... ??? Well, it wont be because I'm better, it will be because I have a better plane. In a Spit16 v Spit14 battle between two similar skilled pilots, my money goes on the Spit16 everytime unless the bottom line alt is 22k then it becomes a "roll the dice" scenario. Above 22k, the Spit14 speed advantage kicks in.
Regarding the Mossi... you're now trying to anchor your arguement in the fact that the Mossi is faster than the IL-2 and A20 and can shoot-n-run better ... ... By your argument the P40E should have a 50 OBJ score. The more difficult it is for a plane to destroy an OBJ the better its OBJ score??? Again, I think you've miss my whole argument. I'm not in the realm of plane performance, I'm speaking from a role perspective point of view. I'm not saying the A20 shouldnt have the 25 OBJ (though I think the IL-2 35 OBJ is a bit too much), I'm vouching for raising ALL of the planes that performed the air to ground attack a boost in the OBJ score (and an all out readjustment). Again... HTC's applicaiton of those scores do not follow a pattern. Throw the burger pickle on the wall and lets see if it sticks. I picked the Mossi to ram-rod because to me that is the attack/strike aircraft that stands out as the best (in WII anyways) and yet it recieves no reward or benefit for performing that role.
Actually I dont agree with that statement at all, I'll fight any and all comers in an SBD (or other plane) and do just fine. I'm not saying I'll win them all but I will bag more then a few pelts. While plane type confers certain advantages to one side in the end you have to get close enough to shoot the other guy...which leaves you close enough for him to shoot you back....
-
I
SmokinLoon, you're digging yourself a pretty deep hole. The A8's akin to a medieval heavy sword vs a shortsword or foil.
Ah Moot, sorry old boy, but you've forced me to go way off topic...bad choice of metaphor, nothing personal. :salute
The "Medieval heavy swords" you are talking about weigh on average 2 to 2 1/2 lbs. About the same as a Japanese katana for example, which is not really surprising, considering they both were built for the same duty, cut and thrust swordsmanship. Lighter than many handguns. Remember that velocity is a component of force and beyond a certain point, a ponderous weight actually lessons the impact of your stroke instead of increasing it.
The "foil" is a practice weapon, the heavier and stiffer weapon used in the sport of epee comes closer to an actually epee du combat/smallsword, although still a bit on the light and whippy side compared to the real thing.
Sorry folks, we now return you to your regularly scheduled airplane talk. ;)
-
I couldn't remember the names of the musketeer and heavy two handed types of sword. Thanks for setting me straight. The point of the analogy is in the tactical contrast, the way the former can just dance around the slow swings and just poke holes at will. i.e. The D9 can rack up just as much damage on its targets, safely, as the A8. So the 'big guns' advantage is pretty much nullified.
-
I's say the "saber" is probably the closest in both form and function to a real sword (and sword fight). Back when i fenced in college we'd normally take a busted epee and weld a small ball on the end and then epoxy a small hollowed out rubber ball over it. 85% of our "fun fights" were saber and dagger deals...
-
In MWP its ENY 25 though, thats also nagging at me...why is it lower ENY in LW than in MW?
don't know....
but i DO know that unless the guy falls for your fight, a zeke is harmless. i say this from the perspective of flying in it, and against it. stay fast, and he can't touch ya.
in a nice furball now..thats a different story
-
The A6M's ENY is lower in late war than in mid-war? :huh
-
The A6M's ENY is lower in late war than in mid-war? :huh
apparently.
in MW, when i fly the zeeks, i prefer the 5. it's a bit faster, so it can surprise guys that dont realize that. i can turn that plane with almost anythign in the game i think......cept a zeek2. if i'm goin into a furball in a zeek, and there's badguy zeeks, i take the 2.
<<S>>
-
I couldn't remember the names of the musketeer and heavy two handed types of sword.
Rapier and longsword, respectively. And you are SO lucky I missed that comparison 'cause I'd have ripped you a new one over it.
humble: sabre, foil and epee are all derived from training tools for specific weapons. I believe it's: sabre = backsword, foil = smallsword and epee = rapier. NONE of which were for martial purposes, but almost strictly dueling. Additionally, modern sport fencing evolved from the TRAINING practices of each weapon, not the actual dueling itself. So no, a sabre is NOT the closest in function to a real sword and sword fight. You want to get close to actual combat go take lessons in I.33 and German Longsword.
ANYWAY, this is a discussion for the O'Club but wanted to put my $.02 in.
-
I think I can bring this back to topic succinctly by putting it this way: I'd rather fight a duel for keeps with a sword&buckler against a guy with a rapier than with a Fw-190 A8 against a guy in a Spit16. A fellow in the latter situation is in MUCH deeper s@#$%&*. :D
Rapier and longsword, respectively. And you are SO lucky I missed that comparison 'cause I'd have ripped you a new one over it.
humble: sabre, foil and epee are all derived from training tools for specific weapons. I believe it's: sabre = backsword, foil = smallsword and epee = rapier. NONE of which were for martial purposes, but almost strictly dueling. Additionally, modern sport fencing evolved from the TRAINING practices of each weapon, not the actual dueling itself. So no, a sabre is NOT the closest in function to a real sword and sword fight. You want to get close to actual combat go take lessons in I.33 and German Longsword.
ANYWAY, this is a discussion for the O'Club but wanted to put my $.02 in.
-
I agree with Smokinloon's sentiment but he torpedoed his own message with his defense of his first post. 'Cause a lot of it was flat out wrong. For instance, all P-47 have the same WEP duration, its the effectiveness of the WEP that is better in the N model. As with any discussion, If he'd gotten his facts right he'd have a much better argument.
But yeah, the ENY system is long overdue for an overhaul. I think it should be changed after each tour based on popularity of aircraft in the game and have nothing to do with actual WW2 performance (except for perked aircraft, which should remain minimum ENY, but have the perk amounts variable based on popularity in comparison to the other perked aircraft).
Even if the ENY criteria isn't changed, some things are obviously wrong with it, the P-47N being a 5 ENY aircraft being the foremost example.
-
But yeah, the ENY system is long overdue for an overhaul. I think it should be changed after each tour based on popularity of aircraft in the game and have nothing to do with actual WW2 performance
I disagree. I think "popularity" criterion are part of the reason why a P-47N has an ENY of 5 while 109Ks have an ENY of 20, despite the huge performance disparity between the two at typical MA alts.
Another factor I believe which goes into ENY is production numbers for a given aircraft type. I believe this may be one reason why again the 109K has an ENY of 20, while the Ta-152 has an ENY of 5. I do not agree with this approach.
In conclusion, I can't see the logic in perking the P-40B just because one tour everybody eats some bad 'shrooms and decides to fly it exclusively.
Even if the ENY criteria isn't changed, some things are obviously wrong with it, the P-47N being a 5 ENY aircraft being the foremost example.
Yep. The Ta-152 is the most glaring example of an unfair ENY 5 IMO. On the other end of the scale, I think the ENY of the 109K/G-14 and Yak9Us is a bit absurd.
-
Rapier and longsword, respectively. And you are SO lucky I missed that comparison 'cause I'd have ripped you a new one over it.
humble: sabre, foil and epee are all derived from training tools for specific weapons. I believe it's: sabre = backsword, foil = smallsword and epee = rapier. NONE of which were for martial purposes, but almost strictly dueling. Additionally, modern sport fencing evolved from the TRAINING practices of each weapon, not the actual dueling itself. So no, a sabre is NOT the closest in function to a real sword and sword fight. You want to get close to actual combat go take lessons in I.33 and German Longsword.
ANYWAY, this is a discussion for the O'Club but wanted to put my $.02 in.
Yes and no...
The foil has no real counterpart and is strictly a training weapon. The epee is somewhat similiar but suffers in that its not really equivalent to any form of combat since it is one dimensional. The Saber having both tip and edge is closest to a true dueling weapon. Obviously there is a tremendous variety in actual swords and tactics but Saber/dagger pretty closely mimics sword play from the 1500-1700's overall...
-
The A6M's ENY is lower in late war than in mid-war? :huh
yea, LW is 20, MW is 25. dont see logic there. shouldnt the ENY be higher (say 30?) or at least stay same in LW if its 25 in MW?
-
I think that range and ability to carry ordinance is (correctly IMO) taken into account when assigning ENY values. This would be why the 109's, Yak's, etc. have seemingly high ENY.
I don't really understand why the Ta152's ENY is so low considering it can't take a single bomb and its performance isn't exactly stellar, especially in the hands of someone who doesn't have a lot of experience in it, but hey, it's not perked anymore, so I'm not going to complain.
-
I think that range and ability to carry ordinance is (correctly IMO) taken into account when assigning ENY values. This would be why the 109's, Yak's, etc. have seemingly high ENY.
I don't really understand why the Ta152's ENY is so low considering it can't take a single bomb and its performance isn't exactly stellar, especially in the hands of someone who doesn't have a lot of experience in it, but hey, it's not perked anymore, so I'm not going to complain.
Spit XIV is perked despite historical poor results obtained by it in AH, extremely short range and no bombs or rockets.
-
I agree with Smokinloon's sentiment but he torpedoed his own message with his defense of his first post. 'Cause a lot of it was flat out wrong. For instance, all P-47 have the same WEP duration, its the effectiveness of the WEP that is better in the N model. As with any discussion, If he'd gotten his facts right he'd have a much better argument.
Actually, regarding the P47's WEP duration I went by the data given in another thread and referenced Dr Gonzo's aircraft comparison chart (my bad for not double checking info). The WEP in the P47N only gives it a boost in speed and hardly enough to worth mentioning in climb (climb is still less than the other three P47 models). Regardless, take all the attributes of the N and compare it to the other three in game and the 5 ENY is completely inconsistant. At most, I would think it would be 15 ENY due to its extreme range capability and speed under WEP.
I'm curious to what else was "flat out wrong".
So if I am hearing correctly from a few of you, speed is the biggest factor in ENY scoring? Firepower is not? Turning rate doesnt matter? What about climb rate? Ord loadout ability? Range? What about game stats? If a plane consistantly shows month after month that it fairs much higher in scoring that its high ENY score shows, does that mean anything?
Oh, and for those of you who are asking why certain planes are scored differently in the MW and EW arenas it is real simply: they are the better (or best) at what they are doing in that time frame. If there are no Spit16's, P51D's, La7's, Typhoon, or other high performing plane to worry about, the playing field changes real quick. In the EW arena, the P38G is perked, iirc. Ditto for the Lancaster.
-
Actually, regarding the P47's WEP duration I went by the data given in another thread and referenced Dr Gonzo's aircraft comparison chart (my bad for not double checking info). The WEP in the P47N only gives it a boost in speed and hardly enough to worth mentioning in climb (climb is still less than the other three P47 models). Regardless, take all the attributes of the N and compare it to the other three in game and the 5 ENY is completely inconsistant. At most, I would think it would be 15 ENY due to its extreme range capability and speed under WEP.
I'm curious to what else was "flat out wrong".
So if I am hearing correctly from a few of you, speed is the biggest factor in ENY scoring? Firepower is not? Turning rate doesnt matter? What about climb rate? Ord loadout ability? Range? What about game stats? If a plane consistantly shows month after month that it fairs much higher in scoring that its high ENY score shows, does that mean anything?
Oh, and for those of you who are asking why certain planes are scored differently in the MW and EW arenas it is real simply: they are the better (or best) at what they are doing in that time frame. If there are no Spit16's, P51D's, La7's, Typhoon, or other high performing plane to worry about, the playing field changes real quick. In the EW arena, the P38G is perked, iirc. Ditto for the Lancaster.
The N's a hotrod with wep. It's also one of the toughest planes in the game, and has some of the strongest punch, as well as a very long reach, whose ballistics are the best in the game... It carries a ton of ord as well. Huge killing potential. It also has lots of range, and can maneuver with about 2/3s of the planeset. Definitely not deserving of more than 10 ENY.
-
The N's a hotrod with wep. It's also one of the toughest planes in the game, and has some of the strongest punch, as well as a very long reach, whose ballistics are the best in the game... It carries a ton of ord as well. Huge killing potential. It also has lots of range, and can maneuver with about 2/3s of the planeset. Definitely not deserving of more than 10 ENY.
The other P47 models all have the same gun packages and the N. The D-40 can carry the same ord. The other three can all out-turn and out climb the N.
Really, the N has longer range and slightly higher speed w/ WEP. I dont think that warrants a 5 ENY while the D-40 (the nearest the same as the N) earns a 20 ENY.
-
Rapier and longsword, respectively. And you are SO lucky I missed that comparison 'cause I'd have ripped you a new one over it.
humble: sabre, foil and epee are all derived from training tools for specific weapons. I believe it's: sabre = backsword, foil = smallsword and epee = rapier. NONE of which were for martial purposes, but almost strictly dueling. Additionally, modern sport fencing evolved from the TRAINING practices of each weapon, not the actual dueling itself. So no, a sabre is NOT the closest in function to a real sword and sword fight. You want to get close to actual combat go take lessons in I.33 and German Longsword.
ANYWAY, this is a discussion for the O'Club but wanted to put my $.02 in.
I thought the sabre was for martial purposes, isn't that what calvalry troops were equipped with?
ack-ack
-
The other P47 models all have the same gun packages and the N. The D-40 can carry the same ord. The other three can all out-turn and out climb the N.
Really, the N has longer range and slightly higher speed w/ WEP. I dont think that warrants a 5 ENY while the D-40 (the nearest the same as the N) earns a 20 ENY.
It may not deserve 5, but it certainly deserves a much lower ENY than any other jug. That wep performance makes all the difference IIRC.. WEP isn't just one independent aspect, it's a multiplier for every other aspect that depends on engine power. Durability doesn't benefit from it, but guns do (maneuvering for even more angles), the jug's generaly good disposition to exploit flaps also does, etc.
I don't know the jugs all that well, but I'm pretty sure the N can beat them easily, fighting on its own terms.
-
I thought the sabre was for martial purposes, isn't that what calvalry troops were equipped with?
ack-ack
As mentioned a sabre is a "backsword" meaning it has a cutting edge on just one side. There are specific advantages that evolve from such a design culminating in both the Katana and the Damascus saif. While the Sabre is often thought of as a cavalry weapon it was in fact the weapon of choice for sword play.
The Mameluke probably represents the final evolution of the saber in western/middle eastern development and is the pattern on which most current military sabres are based. The most famous probably being the Marine Corps Sabre which is based on the Mameluke sword presented to Lt. Presley O'Bannon in 1804.
-
I disagree with them being the "weapon of choice" for swordplay. Backswords had their advantages but they weren't perfect. Since there was only one edge following one cut with another meant turning the sword to present the edge again, compared to a two-edged sword which can cut both directions just by reversing direction.
The katana is especially an interesting case because of the mythology that's grown up of it being superior to Western swords. I can give you quite a few examples of ways in which the longsword is superior.
I love these discussions, but maybe we should move it to the O'Club and off this thread....
-
I knew a guy who was quite good with the katana and did a lot of SCA events. he said that a European longsword and shield combination was extremely difficult to overcome for the katana and almost impossible if skill was equal.
That said, the katana was a very good dueling weapon. Japanese armies pain yari (Japanese spear) men and naginata (short Japanese halberd, basically a wakizashi on a 5-6' pole) men more than katana men for a reason though.
-
You're mixing up your swords.
The longsword was primarily a two-handed sword. It COULD be used with a shield but the majority of longsword was two-handed with no shield. You're probably thinking about the arming sword. VERY common misconception, and you can largely blame it on D&D. :furious
That being said, the true longsword STILL has a large number of advantages over the katana.
ANYWAY, we really oughta move this out of this thread.
-
I knew a guy who was quite good with the katana and did a lot of SCA events. he said that a European longsword and shield combination was extremely difficult to overcome for the katana and almost impossible if skill was equal.
That said, the katana was a very good dueling weapon. Japanese armies pain yari (Japanese spear) men and naginata (short Japanese halberd, basically a wakizashi on a 5-6' pole) men more than katana men for a reason though.
Yes, there is a reason why they strapped those boards to their arm...the combination can be rather difficult for any single weapon to face. It was even possible for crack groups of sword&buckler men to pass the points of pikes and break up disciplined formations.
Two-handed sword evolution in Europe only began in earnest when head-to-toe mail and the beginning of plate additions made armor effective enough that a shield was less necessary and a two-handed weapon more desirable.
The katana was introduced in the Muromachi period when the maximum length of sword that could be carried was restricted by law. During the earlier warring periods, the Tachi and No-Dachi, swords more equivalent in length to European longswords/doppelhanders and more appropriate to the battlefield were the norm.
Back-swords/single edges-If you'll notice, the advantages or lack thereof of single-edge vs. double edge designs depends on cross-sectional blade geometry. If your blade is going to have a relatively thick ridge in it, then a single edge design will have a somewhat less obtuse edge geometry. If the cross-section is going to be relatively thin and flat, then it doesn't make any difference. The Liechtenauer (sp?) school of German swordplay makes heavy use of the false edge. That said, if I had to hazard a guess as to why symmetrical double-edged swords originally came to be standard in Europe, it would be for the very practical reason that you can simply turn the sword over and strike with the other edge when one becomes dulled.
Oh, this is kind of interesting. Here are a couple of late Medieval/Early Renaissance European swords of the type called "grossmesser" or "kriegmesser", depending on who you ask.
(http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=2809)
(http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/draekter/1520lknekt/i/5_balte_svard/IMG_2948.jpg)
-
The other P47 models all have the same gun packages and the N. The D-40 can carry the same ord. The other three can all out-turn and out climb the N.
Really, the N has longer range and slightly higher speed w/ WEP. I dont think that warrants a 5 ENY while the D-40 (the nearest the same as the N) earns a 20 ENY.
Also don't forget that the N model lacks the dive brakes that the D-40 has. So really the D-40 is the best Jabo of all the Jugs, the only exception being if you need to climbout with N model WEP performance or need more fuel than the D-40 can carry, which are both extreme cases.
I'd say the N should rate a 15 ENY, assuming the other Jugs are correctly valued.
-
Also don't forget that the N model lacks the dive brakes that the D-40 has. So really the D-40 is the best Jabo of all the Jugs, the only exception being if you need to climbout with N model WEP performance or need more fuel than the D-40 can carry, which are both extreme cases.
I'd say the N should rate a 15 ENY, assuming the other Jugs are correctly valued.
I'd say about 8-10. It is arguably the equal of the P-51D in the bnz niche. Performs about as well on WEP, better roll rate, heavier armed, better turn radius.
Really, it is the OTHER end of the ENY that gets me...something like the 109K or Yak-9U carrying 20 ENY, that seems ridiculous.
-
the A6M is a great plane.
-
I'd say about 8-10. It is arguably the equal of the P-51D in the bnz niche. Performs about as well on WEP, better roll rate, heavier armed, better turn radius.
Really, it is the OTHER end of the ENY that gets me...something like the 109K or Yak-9U carrying 20 ENY, that seems ridiculous.
I do agree with the K-4 ENY being too high (in my opinion), but not on the Yak-9U
While being a good all-round plane performance wise, it's not stellar in any category. Most fighters do have at least one single facet in which they match or excel the yak-9, be it pure speed, climb acceleration turn rate.
But the biggest drawback is it's armament. One 20mm and one 12.7mm with only 10 seconds firing time - you need to be a dam good shooter to make good use of that tiny package. In my opinion, ENY 20 isn't wrong for the -U
A more general word on ENY: While I do think there are some planes which should have it'S ENY value examined again by HTC ( Hurricane II in EW!!), you will never be able to get that list right for everyone. There's no way to get a completely objective ENY value for all the planes when compared against each other. There will always be some irregularities.
-
you will never be able to get that list right for everyone. There's no way to get a completely objective ENY value for all the planes when compared against each other. There will always be some irregularities.
Uh-oh. ;) Here we go again. While I agree that there will never be the perfect ENY value for all planes, I think it would be possible to have some independent standard by which to rate them, rather than "this one seems like a 20, this like a 10." I'd rather the errors be the result of something impersonal than someone's ad-hoc judgment.
-
Uh-oh. ;) Here we go again. While I agree that there will never be the perfect ENY value for all planes, I think it would be possible to have some independent standard by which to rate them, rather than "this one seems like a 20, this like a 10."
This has been suggested a few times. However, no one has come up with some objective standard yet. ;)
-
This has been suggested a few times. However, no one has come up with some objective standard yet. ;)
One of my squaddies has. But it involves math, so I can't exactly explain it properly and do justice myself. ;)
-
:lol
-
But basically turn performance, rate of climb, top speed, acceleration, range, weight of fire, firing time, roll rate, zoom climb, ordinance load*, muzzle velocity of rounds, all are things for which we already have solid numbers or could easily test.
It would be complex, it would involve a huge number of calculations, to apply all the numbers one would like to get to all aircraft in AHII. And it still would involve some judgement calls, but would probably arrive at something closer to the truth. Like I say, a squaddie of mine began applying a process like this to a few planes awhile back, with a few surprising results. For instance, just charting the basic attributes of the P-51D against other LW aircraft, it would seem it's ENY deserves to if anything be HIGHER...
*One important choice would be whether or not we want to one category to rate a given plane as a fighter, and then give it a separate attack rating, or all that is relevant for both fighter and attack together.
-
For those that STILL don't get it, the Spit XVI is a late model Spit IX with a US built Merlin.
The XIV is a Griffon engined and more than 2000hp vs the 1700-odd hp of the XVI's Packard Merlin.
-
This has been suggested a few times. However, no one has come up with some objective standard yet. ;)
Easy. Just use market forces. Evaluate how much each aircraft was used in the previous tour and set the ENY for the next tour accordingly. The more an aircraft is used, the lower the ENY gets. The less its used, the higher its ENY gets.
So some virtual planes will become "bargains" and savvy people who want to get some perks will fly it more, and if that catches on its ENY will get lower until its fairly valued.
After a number of tours each aircraft will achieve an equilibrium ENY that market forces will have dictated. Obviously it will fluctuate a bit based on what History Channel is showing on TV and what's going on in the special events arenas, but a little fluctuation is good as it gives bargain shoppers something to do and encourages people to try new rides.
Best of all it isn't something that HTC would have to do all kinds of analysis on, once the initial system was set up and working.
-
The standards for "rating" a plane should be obvious and it should be universal to all fighters (bombers are another monster). Three issues exist: First, what is the medium in which all planes are judged by. Second, just how broad is the scoring belt (currently, I think the basics are 5 to 50 ENY), and at what altitudes are we rating these aircraft at, or are we averaging the low, med, and high alts (5k/15k/25k)???
IMO... here are the categories and relative importance, IMO:
1. Speed
2. Turn rate
3. Armament *ability*
4. Ordnance *ability*
5. Climb rate
6. Range
Three very important categories have been left out of being scored because I am not sure how a statistical value could be assigned: Roll rate, ease of use, and Mg absorption. Fighters like the 190D-9 rely heavily on the roll rate, some fighters will allow a dead man to fly it, and some aircraft can take what seems to be tons of Mg while others seem to fall apart with a brush of .30 cal MG's. Those things are hard to rate due to the absence of hard data (to the public, anyways).
Also, most (but not all) of the fighters have the ability to perform both air to air and air to ground (attack) modes. For this purpose, air to ground = ability to carry ord no matter how small the ords are (FM2 w/ two 100lb bombs, etc). The planes that are air to air only (P40B, Spit1, Spit9, 190F-4, etc) should have a slightly different OBJ score than those that were multipurpose. With that being said, aircraft like the P40E, Spit 8, and 190A5 should be scored differently than the Typhoon, the later P38's/P47's/F4U's.
There have been seperate threads on this stuff before... but it appears, as usual, that it has fallen deaf ears. ;)
-
1. Speed: Spitfire Mk XIV: 448mph at 27,000ft, 358mph on the deck, La-7: ~380mph at 27,000ft, 380mph on the deck. Which one is higher rated?
Climb rates follow similar patterns.
P-51D handles fine at 437mph, Bf109K-4 is suffering heavy controls at 452mph.
Ki-84 and Mosquito shed parts in a dive.
IMO... here are the categories and relative importance, IMO:
That is why no system will escape being subjective. Re can matematically give values to each aspect of performance, but we cannot do so to the relative values of those performance aspects and thus turn to subjective values.
-
1. Speed: Spitfire Mk XIV: 448mph at 27,000ft, 358mph on the deck, La-7: ~380mph at 27,000ft, 380mph on the deck. Which one is higher rated?
Climb rates follow similar patterns.
P-51D handles fine at 437mph, Bf109K-4 is suffering heavy controls at 452mph.
Ki-84 and Mosquito shed parts in a dive.
That is why no system will escape being subjective. Re can matematically give values to each aspect of performance, but we cannot do so to the relative values of those performance aspects and thus turn to subjective values.
Exactly. As soon as you give a weight to each category, your getting subjective. And if you do not weigh them differently, but give the same importance to every category.. you might be in for some surprising results. In any case, people will start to argue again about the sorting.
Go to http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Planes.asp and you can do almost any weighted sort you like. See how the results do change. Have fun!
-
the ta defiantly needs a envy of about 15 not 5
-
1. Speed: Spitfire Mk XIV: 448mph at 27,000ft, 358mph on the deck, La-7: ~380mph at 27,000ft, 380mph on the deck. Which one is higher rated?
Easy to answer! Simply determine the average distribution of "action" in the MA at various alts and weight performances at those alts accordingly.
Climb rates follow similar patterns.
P-51D handles fine at 437mph, Bf109K-4 is suffering heavy controls at 452mph.
No, no. The 109K's controls are fine percolating along at 452mph TAS at it's critical altitude. Now if you dive it past 400 mph IAS that is a different story...but that airspeed is far beyond what you can get except from a power dive and all maneuvers are profoundly limited by black-out there anyway.
One of the few false note in the AHII flight model IMO is the fact that even in planes that had a reputation for stiffening controls at high IAS, you have to push it to really unreasonable speeds to suffer ill effects.
-
because the f4 with a good pilot can rip a zero in half and the zero is weak and a piece of well im just gonna give it too ya straight up its a piece of crap :( :uhoh :mad: :frown: :furious
-
Easy to answer! Simply determine the average distribution of "action" in the MA at various alts and weight performances at those alts accordingly.
Good luck with that.
And that still doesn't address the issue of the weighting of the values for climb, speed, turn, firepower, range and so on. They aren't all of equal value and there would be lots of contention as to which would get favored.
because the f4 with a good pilot can rip a zero in half and the zero is weak and a piece of well im just gonna give it too ya straight up its a piece of crap :( :uhoh :mad: :frown: :furious
A skilled A6M pilot will eat an F4F-4 for lunch.
-
Speed and climb would be averaged at 5k, 15k, and 25k, just like I suggested. The low, med, and high alts would all be averaged.
The thing is, currently, the ENY calues are pulled out of the air (or so it seems). They is no apperant rating system at all other than "it is fast" or "it has 4 20mm guns", etc. The stats that can be valued and applied to a scoring system should be, IMO. Once values are applied to all the aircraft, THEN the attributes that are not rated can be brought into effect and the "judges" can apply whatever fuzzy logic they wish. At least they would have a starting point as cold hard performance stats cant be denied (plane B can move X fast). Thanks to Karnak for bringing to light a "category" I had over-looked: compression.
Roll rate. (190 vs Spit I, etc)
Dmg absorbtion. (Spit vs 190, etc)
Ease of Use (Spit16 vs P38, etc)
Compression problems. (109, P38, vs P47, 190, etc)
For instance, take the 60 or so fighter aircraft in AH2 and simply divide the list by 10 in each category. I just happen have the turn list (no flaps) right in front of me so both zekes, Hurri I, Hurry IIc, Spit I, and Spit V would all get the best rate in turning: a "1". The next six would get a "2" (Hurri IID, FM2, Seafire, Spit8, Spit9, Spit16). The next six would get a "3" (Ki84, F4F, 190E4, Ki61, 110C-4, 109F4). And so on. This would be repeated with each and every category that is already established in a statistical manner. Average speed (5k, 15k, 25k), guns, ord ability, average climb rate (5k, 15k, 25k), etc. Oh, and what about acceleration??? That is well published. Another category to rate.
I've taken the liberty to just see how the planes score when compared to my very preliminary scoring system. I didnt take into account any of the "un-scoreable" data such as roll rate, compression, etc. Just the cold hard facts. Of the four planes I scored (P38J/L, the P47D-40, and the Fw190F-8), all would receive a lower number ENY based on the values alone. Those aircraft's speed, firepower, and ability to carry massed ord vaulted them up a few notches on the ENY scale. The only thing those aircraft cant really do well is... turn.
A quick bit on the way I scored the ENY. Since the ENY spread is 0-50, I simply converted the rating scale to 1-10 for scoring (Formula: 50 divided by 10 times scoring rate = ENY). Something with an average scoring "rate" of 5.5 is going to receive a 27.5 ENY (28). Something with a scoring "rate" of 7 will receive a 35 ENY. Under my formula proposal, the scoring will be more dynamic and the ENY spread will be greater. The C47 will get the 50 ENY, of course. Aircraft like the lowly Hurricane I and P40B would probably get the 45 ENY... but I dunno, I have yet to score them. :) Also, I'm not sure how the absence of ords for fighters would effect their ENY, that is something I'd have to brainstorm about. Hmm.
Some hard stats would have to be recorded like range and massed ords. I'd volunteer to up each and every fighter to determine the range on a full tank plus DT (if DT available) and convert to other than 1.0 burn rate if need be. :D
-
So you rate a A6M2 a 1 at turning and an La-7 a 1 at speed. Which "1" is more valuable? Turning and speed are not of equal value.
-
I have the vague feeling nobody did look at & used the link I provided... Would be of particular interest especially for the "rating" proponents.
Planes have been assigned numeric values in following categories:
Speed Low
Speed High
Rate of Climb Low
Rate of Climb High
Cockpit Visibility
Deceleration
Energy Retention
Dive Acceleration
Fuel Efficency
Fuel Range
Min Turn Radius
Max Turn Rate
Roll Rate
Gun Power
Killing Potential
Ordinance
Now if you do sort that list by simply goving each category the same weight you get following results:
1 Bf 109K-4
2 Ki-84-la
3 Bf 109G-14
4 Spitfire Mk XVI
5 F4U-4
6 F4U-1C
7 Fw 190D-9
8 Fw 190A-8
9 Me 262
10 Spitfire Mk VIII
FW 190A8 ENY 5? Hmmmm can't be right.... So of course you have to put different emphasis on different categories. And *bang* we are back at subjective judgments again, as now a big discussion will start which category is more important than another, and if yes, by how much?
You will get as many poposals on how to weigh the different categories as you are getting on changing ENY values "out if thin air".
-
So you rate a A6M2 a 1 at turning and an La-7 a 1 at speed. Which "1" is more valuable? Turning and speed are not of equal value.
Turning ability and performance are widely considered to be the two most critical areas in comparing the ability of two fighters, and not just in sims either.
If you can out-run it, you are okay, if you can out-turn it, you are okay, it is double inferior situations that are bad and conversely double-superior conditions that are the best engaging condition possible.
-
Turning ability and performance are widely considered to be the two most critical areas in comparing the ability of two fighters, and not just in sims either.
If you can out-run it, you are okay, if you can out-turn it, you are okay, it is double inferior situations that are bad and conversely double-superior conditions that are the best engaging condition possible.
That is why the A6M and Ki-43 dominated until the end.....oh wait...
-
Touche. However, in this example, you are talking about airplanes that came to be inferior to their opponents in every single category EXCEPT turning, there were tactical mistakes on the Japanese part and a real lack of experienced pilots towards the end.
In a sim, turning should be equally weighted with top speed because we have different priorities.
-
So you rate a A6M2 a 1 at turning and an La-7 a 1 at speed. Which "1" is more valuable? Turning and speed are not of equal value.
You're exactly right, Karnak. However, that is the reason each score is only one factor. If the zeke scores 1 in turn and the La7 has a 1 in speed, but the zeke scores an 8 in speed and the La scored a 5 in turn.... average that out. Oh, dont forget to bring into the mix climb rate, guns, range, etc. There is more to rating a plane than just its dogfighting capability. Surely, most in MA are not going to take the La7 or A6M2 for bomber escort for any numerous of reasons (high alt perfomrance and range for the La7, speed and sustained firepower for the A6M2).
Oh.. and Lusche, you're right. I didnt check out that link since I was too quick on the draw to answer Karnak's post. However, I just spent a bit of time on that website browsing over the numbers... I have to say I question the conversion of some of the ratings. In terms of logical transgretion, there seems to be number of inconsistancies even though they are based on "factual" numbers. Roll rate, ords, and range in particular. Also, the scale presented there incorperates ALL of the aircraft. I make a very distinct division between the two types (bomber/fighter), and then in turn also seperate the true fighters from the multi-purpose attack/fighters (Spit 9/109F-4 vs Spit 16/109G6, etc). That hasnt been updated since Nov of 2006, either. How much has changed? ;)
Something else has yet to be really established, or at least I have yet to see it, is what exactly the "ENY" or any score any of us is or are coming up with... what does that score denote? Dogfighting (air to air) capability? Versatility? Raw destuctive power? I'm leaning more towards a split, really. The fighters would be geared for the air to air and the multi-purpose/attack would be versatility. Planes like the P51D would score quite well typically for the fighter/attack category. Planes like the La7 would score very high in the fighter category. Thing is, how would a singular score be applied to 2 different categories (or 3 when bombers are brought into the picture).
-
Furthermore, you speak of "those who want to rate the planes". Well, the planes are already rated by the ENY system, which I think most of us agree could be a tad more logical than it is. It is easy to criticize and find the problems with any given approach to rationalizing the system.
Playing with the plane comparison matrix though, I can tell you that virtually any sort that puts speed, turn, and climb at "low" altitudes-and we all know that 80% of MA fights take place below 15K-puts the 109K and the Yak9U high on the list.
-
Oh.. and Lusche, you're right. I didnt check out that link since I was too quick on the draw to answer Karnak's post. However, I just spent a bit of time on that website browsing over the numbers... I have to say I question the conversion of some of the ratings. In terms of logical transgretion, there seems to be number of inconsistancies even though they are based on "factual" numbers. Roll rate, ords, and range in particular. Also, the scale presented there incorperates ALL of the aircraft. I make a very distinct division between the two types (bomber/fighter), and then in turn also seperate the true fighters from the multi-purpose attack/fighters (Spit 9/109F-4 vs Spit 16/109G6, etc). That hasnt been updated since Nov of 2006, either. How much has changed? ;)
There has been no major FM change since nov 2006. Some minor changes have been made to the 262 and the La-7. Basically, there are just missing the planes that were added after nov 2006. And the fact that the scale includes every plane, not only fighters doesn't change the purpose I have posted that link for: To show not only how difficult but most importartanly: How subjective even this "objective" approach is, because you have to give the different categories a different weight.
-
Furthermore, you speak of "those who want to rate the planes". Well, the planes are already rated by the ENY system, which I think most of us agree could be a tad more logical than it is. It is easy to criticize and find the problems with any given approach to rationalizing the system.
.
Well, you know what "those who want to rate the planes" really meant. ;)
It's just that some seem to believe that you can come up with a fully rationale and objective ENY calculation method. I have even read something like "it's easy" in this thread. But it ain't. ;)
I'm just trying to show that in the end, you will always come up with having to decide what kind of performance is rated more important than another. Thus even such an approach like the plane comparison matrix shows (even when doing it in a different manner) will still end up with the same arguments about the individual plane's ENY values as we do have now. That's my main point :)
All that do have followed my postings over the time know how much I am a numbercruncher, a stats freak, a bizarre proponent of being rationale and objective I am. If I would see any way to "get the ENY right" in a purely objective way, I would be all for it! :aok
-
All that do have followed my postings over the time know how much I am a numbercruncher, a stats freak, a bizarre proponent of being rationale and objective I am. If I would see any way to "get the ENY right" in a purely objective way, I would be all for it! :aok
It is impossible for me to know EXACTLY how much hay my cows will need this winter. Therefore I should quit trying to apply any logic to the process whatsoever. :D
-
:lol
-
The "market forces" method would probably be the most objective one available. It would have to be tracked separately for GVs, fights, bombers and boats while excluding perked units from consideration. Such a method could update the ENY values of units automatically and on whatever time interval desired, I'd suggest a week or month.
-
The "market forces" method would probably be the most objective one available. It would have to be tracked separately for GVs, fights, bombers and boats while excluding perked units from consideration. Such a method could update the ENY values of units automatically and on whatever time interval desired, I'd suggest a week or month.
And under that system the P-51D would be the highest ENY plane month after month, year after year, above planes that out-perform it in every way under MA conditions, simply because of "name recognition". That is just one example, off the top of my head.
-
All that do have followed my postings over the time know how much I am a numbercruncher, a stats freak, a bizarre proponent of being rationale and objective I am. If I would see any way to "get the ENY right" in a purely objective way, I would be all for it! :aok
Yeah, I could tell. I opened up the link you provided........and my eyes went all googly. :O
-
And under that system the P-51D would be the highest ENY plane month after month, year after year, above planes that out-perform it in every way under MA conditions, simply because of "name recognition". That is just one example, off the top of my head.
"Popularity" is a value. In addition, the market system removes as much human sentimentality from the equation as possible. I suspect the P-51D would drop in usage a bit as time went on and the P-51B might pick some of it up.
-
And under that system the P-51D would be the highest ENY plane month after month, year after year, above planes that out-perform it in every way under MA conditions, simply because of "name recognition". That is just one example, off the top of my head.
i do agree... I dislike pure "popularity" being the sole factor too.
The top 10 most "popular" planes (derived by adding kills&deaths) include the F4U-D, Seafire, F6F, Il2, P-38L (and even the Lancaster...bombers have ENY too ;) ). Hardly planes worthy of being at ENY 5 and thus the first ones taken away from the hording side when ENY limiter is setting in.
-
"Popularity" is a value.
Not in air combat.
In addition, the market system removes as much human sentimentality from the equation as possible.
Uhhhhh....where do I begin with that? Madison Avenue EXISTS because human sentimentality is a huge factor in a market system.
-
On that thought, I was always for "zones of a timeframe", - i.e. some fields mustering only some aircrafts etc.
Could add some depth into the game IMHO.
-
Not in air combat.
Uhhhhh....where do I begin with that? Madison Avenue EXISTS because human sentimentality is a huge factor in a market system.
It isn't perfect by any means, but it is miles better than your totally subjective suggestion.
-
It isn't perfect by any means, but it is miles better than your totally subjective suggestion.
A system based on performance numbers is "totally subjective"? :huh
More subjectivethan going by whatever plane is in fashion this month? :huh :huh :huh
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
(http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/pbr_025Inconceivable.jpg)
EDIT: I admitted my system has elements of subjectivity. Your system, however, dodges this objection only by passing the buck on all decisions on to the player base-the "market". There are endless examples of situations where both a good product is under-valued in relation to its efficacy and where other products are over-valued relative their actual attributes in side-by-side comparison. There is more agreement than division among ACM experts on what attributes represent greater efficacy in a dogfight. Better to hammer it out and compromise and come up with something workable and sensible than toss the whole thing out because "perfection" remains elusive.
-
its still flys good at high speed and alt but who wnts to climb 5 thousand ft above enemys just for good flyin
-
i personally think gv other than the tiger and firefly shouldn't have any envy because it just causes a pain in a gv battle area
la personaly should have an envy of 3
-
So Lusche... do you think the stats you provided are a good source of reasoning regarding the ENY (the more I read those the more I see LARGE gaps in reasoning)? What do you propose??? I've heard nothing but "let it be" from you. You counter and counter again anything anyone suggests about applying a scoring system. What is your suggestion for fixing the obvious errors in the ENY and OBJ scores??? If we or HTC or anyone cant come up with a statistical manner of scoring these aircraft, then just hwo do we do it?
btw... as I've said before: Seperate the bombers from the fighter and fighter/attack aircraft. They are two (three) different monsters.
-
If we or HTC or anyone cant come up with a statistical manner of scoring these aircraft, then just hwo do we do it?
The way it's done now. Educated arbitrary from the guys that wrote the code and have unrestricted access to the planes' full stats.
-
So Lusche... do you think the stats you provided are a good source of reasoning regarding the ENY (the more I read those the more I see LARGE gaps in reasoning)? What do you propose??? I've heard nothing but "let it be" from you. You counter and counter again anything anyone suggests about applying a scoring system. What is your suggestion for fixing the obvious errors in the ENY and OBJ scores???
I think I explained rather well in an earlier post what my main point / target in this discussion is.
And I don't think that there are that much "obvious" errors in ENY as you might think they are- And I do think that there is not one simple, easy, purely objective way to "fix" eny. I have my own opinion about a few individual values, and they stem from "usage" and performance under typical MA circumstances. I strive to be objective while doing that, but again I don't believe there is a purely objective way to do it, and certainly not one that will end all those ENY arguments.
Thats the reason I "counter" any way of simply computing ENY by a scoring system. And the thing I really critizise is the belief it's doable to be that objective. As soon as you weigh the different performance categories, you are getting subjective again.
BTW, I still didnt see a real proposal for such a scoring system yet. I just read "it should be done". But not how it actually should be done. That would be very interesting to see.
Why not put up a table with all the things you would factor in and how to weigh them. Add some flesh to your idea. A "this is how I would do it" is often more convincing than a "they should do it differently" :)
And then we can argue, squabble and pursefight about that details :P
-
not many people know that the a6m2 turns better than the a6m5b :noid :noid :noid
but both of thier "armor" makes paper look like steel
-
Lusche:
I did a "priority" sort five different ways and the 109 G-14 and 109 K-4 made the top ten every time. I also did several variations on a weighted sort. Those two made top ten there also. It is hard to make an "honest" search that doesn't put the K-4 and G-14 in the top ten. Even doing your weighted search with every single value set to "1" puts them up there.
-
Lusche:
I did a "priority" sort five different ways and the 109 G-14 and 109 K-4 made the top ten every time. I also did several variations on a weighted sort. Those two made top ten there also.
So that would indicate they both should have ENY 5 ? (assuming we would take that Matrix numerics as a base, just kinda thought experiment right now)
-
Alright Lusche, start a new thread on the matter and we'll get to work. I dont have a purse to bring, so you leave yours are home. ;)
I believe we CAN apply a "foundation" score to the aircraft and I believe that the current system of fighter-fighter/attack ENY can be proven to be less than stellar and definately not accurate across the board.
I have a whole table full of data already collected (both personal and borrowed and credit will be given where credit is due) and ready to be applied to the puzzle.
-
Lusche: I'd say more like 8-10. Planes which occupy a comparable niche in the AHII foodchain include the P-47N, P-51, and Fw-190D9. 5-15 in ENY.
-
a6m suks against the f4 what plane do think it was that killed the jap with 80 kills on his plane F4F
-
a6m suks against the f4 what plane do think it was that killed the jap with 80 kills on his plane F4F
I think you need to further your education. I suggest you start with English.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
a6m suks against the f4 what plane do think it was that killed the jap with 80 kills on his plane F4F
pass the bong please :aok
-
If he's saying it sucks against the F4U I definitely agree. Any halfway-competent F4U stick should own the Zero assuming equal pilots.
-
a6m suks against the f4 what plane do think it was that killed the jap with 80 kills on his plane F4F
In pure performance, the Zeke outclassed the Wildcat.
ack-ack
-
Defensively the only options the Wildcat has is to dive out, get help from a friend, or keep jinking to prevent the Zero from getting a good shot and make him waste his cannon shells. Once you get him down to his 7.7mm it's going to take either a whopping ton of BBs or a few really lucky hits for him to do much more than scratch your paint (in historical match-ups I've flown home with as many as 50-60 holes in my F4F after tangling with a Zero).
-
In pure performance, the Zeke outclassed the Wildcat.
Q: What is the best way for two Wildcats to fight one A6M2?
A: Fly in opposite directions. That way the Zeke can only get one of you.
- oldman
-
Defensively the only options the Wildcat has is to dive out, get help from a friend, or keep jinking to prevent the Zero from getting a good shot and make him waste his cannon shells. Once you get him down to his 7.7mm it's going to take either a whopping ton of BBs or a few really lucky hits for him to do much more than scratch your paint (in historical match-ups I've flown home with as many as 50-60 holes in my F4F after tangling with a Zero).
I've shot F4F-4s down in AH using the 7.7mms on the A6M2. It takes a lot of work and if there is another F4F there makes you an easy target. One on one it is just a matter of time though.
-
I've shot F4F-4s down in AH using the 7.7mms on the A6M2. It takes a lot of work and if there is another F4F there makes you an easy target. One on one it is just a matter of time though.
it is one hell of a way to practice canopy shots!
-
I've shot F4F-4s down in AH using the 7.7mms on the A6M2. It takes a lot of work and if there is another F4F there makes you an easy target. One on one it is just a matter of time though.
Unless that F4F is either A) lucky enough to have his armor soak it up or B) able to keep moving enough to prevent the sort of concentrated fire the BBs need to do their job (I've been on the receiving end more than a few times in FSO and Snapshots...)
-
not many people know that the a6m2 turns better than the a6m5b :noid :noid :noid
but both of thier "armor" makes paper look like steel
I FOUND THAT OUT THE HARD WAY :D
-
not many people know that the a6m2 turns better than the a6m5b :noid :noid :noid
but both of thier "armor" makes paper look like steel
And both are quite easy to defeat and burn very nicely.
ack-ack
-
no i think youv forgotten who really won the war
-
no i think youv forgotten who really won the war
And please explain to us, how that even matters in this thread?
ack-ack
-
I don't really think the ENY ratings depend on the planes themselves, rather, they depend on the average quality of their (the planes) use. But their 'fame' and supposed superiority still plays a role.
FOR EXAMPLE: The ENY rating of the 109 G2 and G6 are relatively high because most of the fighter jocks that up one can't bring it back down again (myself included, but I still think I fly them pretty well). It would make sense if there was a .2 ENY discrepancy between the two, seeing as the G2 has that ugly bellybutton head shield, but at high numbers the ENY score has a resolution of around 10.
The FM2, a relatively unused bird, has an ENY (if I recall) of either 20 or 30. It has nearly no faults (only four .50's, but they are well laid) except for it's lack of speed, and it's maneuverability more than makes up for it. But, it nearly never gets used! I have only around 66 kills so far this tour, and 12 of those are in the FM2! (14 in the G6, 4 in the G2, 5 in the C.205 and 14 more in a wirbly, plus a neat surprise; 3 kills vs fighters in the 234.) The FM2 doesn't really have a low enough ENY, but it really can't compete with faster fighters. It's more of a zeke with 4 .50's, heavy armor and great stability. (flew one for 10 mins with no tail end once!)
The Pony, however, is simply riding on it's laurels at 410 MPH with it's 8.0 ENY.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why the F4U-1, which out-performs the FM-2 in every way, has the higher ENY. Unless that's changed recently.
-
shhhhh quiet :)
-
I'm still trying to figure out why the F4U-1, which out-performs the FM-2 in every way, has the higher ENY. Unless that's changed recently.
Hmm turn radius with/without flaps... firing time.
-
I will beat an average F4U-1 pilot in an FM2 any day.
It's all in knowing to hit 'Q'.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
I will beat an average F4U-1 pilot in an FM2 any day.
It's all in knowing to hit 'Q'.
-
I'm still trying to figure out why the F4U-1, which out-performs the FM-2 in every way, has the higher ENY. Unless that's changed recently.
Another ENY oddity aye?
There must be considerations other than ENY, such as date of introduction.
-
A system based on performance numbers is "totally subjective"? :huh
More subjectivethan going by whatever plane is in fashion this month? :huh :huh :huh
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
(http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/pbr_025Inconceivable.jpg)
EDIT: I admitted my system has elements of subjectivity. Your system, however, dodges this objection only by passing the buck on all decisions on to the player base-the "market". There are endless examples of situations where both a good product is under-valued in relation to its efficacy and where other products are over-valued relative their actual attributes in side-by-side comparison. There is more agreement than division among ACM experts on what attributes represent greater efficacy in a dogfight. Better to hammer it out and compromise and come up with something workable and sensible than toss the whole thing out because "perfection" remains elusive.
You're method is entirely subjective. The moment you give a weighted value to each of your derived performance numbers, even if the performance values are weighted evenly, you are being completely subjective and have obliterated any objectivity the numbers had.
-
You're method is entirely subjective. The moment you give a weighted value to each of your derived performance numbers, even if the performance values are weighted evenly, you are being completely subjective and have obliterated any objectivity the numbers had.
It is true that there is a certain amount of doubt about how important one attribute is relative another in a fighter aircraft under typical AHII MA conditions, although I think there certainty than you credit.
Your argument however, is fatally flawed. You are essentially arguing that because it is impossible to find complete agreement on what matters in fighter design, then *nothing* matters in fighter design. If there is no objective value to different attributes in fighter airplane design, then everything engineers have come up with from the Eindecker to F-22 is folly. This is obviously absurd.
(This reminds me of that old philosophy class claptrap, since our knowledge is imperfect and limited, then nothing can really be known. Of course, the Prof expounding on this subject somehow knows *exactly* how to get from his driveway to his parking space, *exactly* how much his paycheck is supposed to be, etc.)
And your popularity-based ENY proposal does nothing to decrease uncertainty or subjectivity. It only passes all possible subjective choices onto the individual user. ENY related to usage also introduces the purely subjective values of taste into the equation-surely you realize that many airplanes will have higher ENY under this system not because of what they can do, but because of what they are. Ignorance will also be a factor in a system based on the plane selections of the entire player base.
-
That isn't my argument. My argument is that you cannot create a completely objective system. You claimed it could be done. If Lusche's numbers are right, your system puts the Bf109K-4 as the best fighter in AH and the Ki-84 as the second best. They are both very good, no doubt, but first and second best? I don't think you can reasonably place those aircraft above the F4U-4 or Me262.
Then there is the highly organic nature of WWII aircraft performance. We get huge changes in an aircraft's handling based on the speed and altitude. Factoring that in accurately would be very hard, yet it is a major part of the equation as to which aircraft is better. In the case of the Bf109K-4 and Ki-84 that alone drops them a number of places. Does the A6M5 out turn the F6F-5? Yes and no. Depends entirely on the speed at which they are tested.
-
That isn't my argument. My argument is that you cannot create a completely objective system. You claimed it could be done. If Lusche's numbers are right, your system puts the Bf109K-4 as the best fighter in AH and the Ki-84 as the second best.
Just a small disclaimer: That number's aren't mine. I didn't make the plane comparison matrix.
-
The chart that Luschey pointd out is hardly something I'd watch too seriously, I've studied that thing for hours now and applied many different formuli and it simply doesnt make sense and numerous occasions. It groups the Lancaster's ability to carry 14,000lbs of ord together with the P40E's ability to dive bomb w/ single 500lb eggo. Likewise, it compares the Lancaster's range with the range of the Spitfire I :huh . I'd seperate the level bombers from the fighter/attack for purposes of rating. We're talking about two completely different monsters. Motorcycles receive different safety standards and engine capability ratings than 4x4 trucks so for us to group a hvy bomber with a fighter or fighter/attacker for rating/scoring purposes is a bit odd, imo. The Lancaster would be at the top and would earn the highest ENY capable (probably), butif compared directly to a Spit16 it would receive the lowest. Quite absurd, really.
Also, taking or not taking an airplane based on the rear view is something I've yet to hear about, so the planes that have a great rear view but otherwie are sub par in performance... are getting a boost in score, and planes with a not so good rear view are getting brought down. The most obvious case would be the F6F5, the rear view in that is hardly forthcoming, but yet the aircraft ranks well in speed, turning, firepower, ords, etc, and it quite popular. Applying scores that are not needed and not really taken into consideration when selecting an aircraft is scewering the ratings, IMO. I'd remove the rating/scoring for cockpit views, deceleration, energy retention, fuel efficiency, and dive acceleration ***based on the methods there were used in testing*** (read up and you'll see why). I'd also score the ords a bit differently as well. For the fighter/attack aircraft, being able to drop a single 1000lb bomb on a target is not worth that same as an aircraft being able to drop 3 bombs equaling to 1000lbs. A Spit16 is able to drop 1k on a single target or is able to spread those 2/250lb and 1/500lb bomb over 3 gv's or on a single hanger. That P47D-11 is only able to drop on a single target. The Spit16 would get a better score under my system. To be honest, I have yet to really nail it down as to how I would score that but there would be a modifier to increase the value of teh Spit16 because it can in fact do MORE with its 1k ord than the P47D-11 (or F4U-1, 190A-8, etc)
I understand the arguement and agree to a certian extent that guaging aircraft solely on stats is not the most accurate way of rating. However, that is where I would only begin. Of course I'd leave room for aircraft server server stats: popularity (P51D), k/d ratios, etc. I'd also leave room for the "judges" to make adjustments for "extreme" performance envelopes like the Spit14 and P47N ability to perform at 27,000 ft and higher, the Me262's ability to move far faster than anything else (save for the 5min sprinting Me163), and the Lancaster's ability to carry %45 more ord than the nearest other bomber. In a sim-game setting, there always has to be some ability to adjust for what the stats wont or *cant* accurately rate.
Multiple things I'd change about those stats. First, I'd average out the roll rate between both with and against the torque of the engine. Being able to roll in both directions quickly is not something many aircraft can do. Those that can do it one way but not the other are still handicapped. Ditto for turning, although I wouldnt average out the two turning scores equally, I'd slant it toward the better turn rate by %25. By averaging the roll rate, the 190's (and Spit16) would get an obvious boost over other aircraft that can roll good one way and not the other. Likewise, aircraft that have one direction of turn that is aweful and the other that is average (Tiff is perfect example: turns right well, but turns left like an oil tanker) wont be penalized by the lopsided turn score if they are averaged out. The second big thing I'd change is how is speed is scored, I'd average out 5k, 15k, and 25k and rate it as one speed rate. Thridly, I'd also average the climb rate at the same altitudes.
*whew*, I'm going to take a break from all this. I've been mullin' those stats and comparing them to what I've got brewing and I'm a bit bored at the moment. :) I'm sure you guys are too of reading me long posts. ;)
-
You said any ranking according to plane performance would be *completely* subjective. That is different than what you are now saying, that it could not be completely objective, which is of course true.
Which doesn't bother me, I mean, come on, the peanut butter is not COMPLETELY free of grasshopper parts, but, hey, pass me a sandwich anyway. :D
That isn't my argument. My argument is that you cannot create a completely objective system. You claimed it could be done. If Lusche's numbers are right, your system puts the Bf109K-4 as the best fighter in AH and the Ki-84 as the second best. They are both very good, no doubt, but first and second best? I don't think you can reasonably place those aircraft above the F4U-4 or Me262.
I did sorts that didn't include bombers or perk rides, because they are, well, already perked.
Then there is the highly organic nature of WWII aircraft performance. We get huge changes in an aircraft's handling based on the speed and altitude. Factoring that in accurately would be very hard, yet it is a major part of the equation as to which aircraft is better. In the case of the Bf109K-4 and Ki-84 that alone drops them a number of places. Does the A6M5 out turn the F6F-5? Yes and no. Depends entirely on the speed at which they are tested.
I imagine it would be doable to figure out the alt band where the majority of people are flying in AHII. We all know that 0-15K is most of us, with some at 20K being the extreme, and that if you go 25K or more, you will be alone most of the time.
-
You said any ranking according to plane performance would be *completely* subjective. That is different than what you are now saying, that it could not be completely objective, which is of course true.
Which doesn't bother me, I mean, come on, the peanut butter is not COMPLETELY free of grasshopper parts, but, hey, pass me a sandwich anyway. :D
I apoogize, I did make a poor choice of words and it is my fault for not proofing properly prior to posting.
In the actual ranking and scoring of the stats, yes. In the final application of ENY points... no. There always has to be room to grade somethings not based on stats in a sim-game such as this. For instance, if there was some long lost and forgotten film footage of Bf109F-4's that suddenly appeared from the vaults that showed it to be a true killer of P51D's (dream with me here) and the History Channel or the Military Channel started to play that film non-stop... the popularity and success of the 109F-4 would increase (it is one of the best kept secrets in AH2m ya know). Likewise, the ENY of the plane would increase accordingly even though it isnt fast, its guns are average, it can turn average, and it climbs only marginally better than average. Point being, if the formula scores a plane at 30 and it is showing itself to be popular and successful as 25 ENY planes, there would be room to change the rating based on the circumstance.
-
I imagine it would be doable to figure out the alt band where the majority of people are flying in AHII. We all know that 0-15K is most of us, with some at 20K being the extreme, and that if you go 25K or more, you will be alone most of the time.
The changing maneuverability with changing speeds is a larger issue.
-
The changing maneuverability with changing speeds is a larger issue.
Is it even much of a problem/difference for the majority of aircraft?
Let me see, you have the Zero, P-38, Ki-84, 109 with various troubles in the elevator and/or aileron at high speeds, non CW Spits have a highly diminished roll-rates at pretty high IAS...most of the other fighters it seems to me are safe this side of the trans-sonic.
It perhaps SHOULD be a bigger issue. Honestly, I think issues of control stiffness are somewhat under-modeled in the game. For example, the A6M that started this thread. I took an A6M2 up offline just now. IIRC, the test on the captured Zero said it became impossible to roll right at ~290mph IAS. I dove this thing to 300 mph IAS and it was still rolling decently in both directions. I dove it to 450mph IAS, not only was there no structural failure, the controls STILL weren't locked up...roll rate and pitch authority was pretty darn low, but still there. The same proved to be true of the A6M5b, AND both airplanes survived a dive to 500mph IAS without damage. But I digress...
-
All aircraft in AH have changing performance as speed changes. The degree to which they change varies, but every single one of them does so.
-
All aircraft in AH have changing performance as speed changes. The degree to which they change varies, but every single one of them does so.
Hrrmmm? Most aircraft seem to have decent elevator and aileron authority at better than 400mph IAS or so, which is pretty darned faster, you don't get there in a prop job without opening the throttle and pointing the nose earthward. I named the exceptions I'm personally familiar with. For most planes in AH the limiting factor on maneuvering at most any practical airspeed is blackout at the high end, which of course occurs at the same Gs for everyone, regardless of what they are flying.
-
Yes, but a lot suffer from stiff ailerons and very few have elevators like the Spitfire that seem immune to speed changing their effectiveness. I know I've locked up P-47s due to speed.
There is also the issue of flaps, e.g. different levels of effectiveness and different speeds at which they can be deployed and how that changes an aircraft's value.
-
You have to be trying to break the sound barrier to lock up the controls in a Jug. Like I say, in most AHII planes the blackout becomes a limit on hard maneuvering long before the controls do.
It would be reasonable to measure an airplane's turn performance clean, with one notch of flaps, and with full flaps. That would usually give you a nice snapshot of how much the flaps help maneuvering. Or one could even evaluate at all flap settings if one wishes to be especially thorough.
There are a few odd situations with flaps to consider. First of, you have some airplanes, like the P-51D, that can deploy some flaps waaaaay above corner speed, where additional lift is not needed, thus their only real use is as something of a speed brake. In the real world, the fact that they can be deployed at such high speeds is a safety margin, but since the flaps auto-retract that is no factor and little advantage in AHII.
Then let us consider the Fw-190. The flaps on an Fw come out at speeds so far *below* corner speed that they are almost useless for anything except landing or helping you over a loop. Therefore, one would have to strongly consider giving the 190 a "N/A" for the one notch of flaps turn performance and almost certainly give it that grade for full flaps.
Then you have the Spitfires, which have only two flap positions, fully extended and fully retracted, who would thus rate an N/A for "one notch of flaps" performance.
I see no problems that a little reason and consideration cannot overcome.
-
You can describe them like that, but putting a numeric value to them is harder.
Spitfire flaps rate a 1, F4U flaps rate a 10, where do Ki-84, Bf109 or P-38 flaps rate in there?
-
You can describe them like that, but putting a numeric value to them is harder.
Spitfire flaps rate a 1, F4U flaps rate a 10, where do Ki-84, Bf109 or P-38 flaps rate in there?
Numerically, you can describe them in terms of turn rate and radius you can sustain with each setting.
Now, going back to some of the issues I discussed, since flaps are of so little use in the Fw-190, I'd make the judgment call to simply use the no-flaps numbers all three times to arrive at a numerical value for the Fw-190 in the turning category.
-
Numerically, you can describe them in terms of turn rate and radius you can sustain with each setting.
That over simplifies them. For example, that would make the Ki-84's flaps out to be better than the P-38's and I don't think one can reasonably claim that is true.
-
If the use of flaps do not vault the aircraft into a much higher perfromance envelope, then there is no use in scoring them, IMO.
The only aircraft that has flaps that really change the way it handles is the F4U. Otherwise, the benefits are minimal and inconsequential for most other planes, imo. Sure, the P51D can deploy one notch of flaps at 350mph (?), but does it turn as well as any Spitfire at any speed with any flaps? Nope. Those flaps make the P51D turn better, but not enough to score them as advantageous, imo.
The "dive recovery flaps" on aP38L do nothing but allow it (hopefully) to pull up from a high speed dive from high to low altitudes. It does not make the plane any better, it brings it up to par with other dive bombers for those pilots lucky enough to get the dive recovery flaps to work. ;)
A notch of flaps on the P40E allow it a bit more ability to remain stable at slower speeds, even then it doesnt sail like the other planes.
Also, imo, it takes that much more "skill" when flying a plane heavily affected by flaps like the F4U. It isnt easy, I see many guys trying todo it and instead of holding steady or floating... they are going belly up and/or nose down. It isnt like WEP when we can just hit a button and fly, there is much bigger learning curve to learn those flaps and to be able to use them effective.
Again... I'm not sure how flaps would be rated/scored because they dont really effect any aircraft other than the F4U. I'm guessing it would fall into the gray area, OR... have an actual category for flaps and rate the effectiveness of their usage on the plane on a lower scale comparitively. Aircraft like the 190, Spits, zekes, and a whole host of others probably have their flaps deployed only when landing and many times not even then. They are otherwise worthless.
-
That over simplifies them. For example, that would make the Ki-84's flaps out to be better than the P-38's and I don't think one can reasonably claim that is true.
The issue of how "good" the flaps are is unimportant, their effects on what the plane can do are the thing. The Fowler flaps on the P-38 are no doubt well designed, efficient, and may indeed improve the turning ability of the Lighting proportionally more than do the flaps of of the Ki-84, but the important point is the relative performance between the two planes.
-
This is patently untrue Loon. Virtually every plane in the game can employ flaps advantageously in when angles fighting slow. Even the nigh useless flaps on the Fw-190,which don't help all that much fighting other planes, will come into play in close duels between two good sticks in 190s.
BTW, the instability problems with full flaps are entirely caused by auto-trim. The system attempts to trim the aircraft to fly straight and level at the airspeed you are doing in *clean* configuration. The extra lift of the flaps causes alot of nose-up pitch under those conditions. So either manually trim, or, if when entering flaps-heaving maneuvering, hold down the "I" key to turn off auto-trim and input alot of nose-down trim. (It is easier by several orders of magnitude to fight and shoot holding a little back pressure when the airplane is trimmed somewhat nose-heavy is to have to push the stick forward constantly when the trim tendency is to nose up.)
If the use of flaps do not vault the aircraft into a much higher perfromance envelope, then there is no use in scoring them, IMO.
The only aircraft that has flaps that really change the way it handles is the F4U. Otherwise, the benefits are minimal and inconsequential for most other planes, imo. Sure, the P51D can deploy one notch of flaps at 350mph (?), but does it turn as well as any Spitfire at any speed with any flaps? Nope. Those flaps make the P51D turn better, but not enough to score them as advantageous, imo.
The "dive recovery flaps" on aP38L do nothing but allow it (hopefully) to pull up from a high speed dive from high to low altitudes. It does not make the plane any better, it brings it up to par with other dive bombers for those pilots lucky enough to get the dive recovery flaps to work. ;)
A notch of flaps on the P40E allow it a bit more ability to remain stable at slower speeds, even then it doesnt sail like the other planes.
Also, imo, it takes that much more "skill" when flying a plane heavily affected by flaps like the F4U. It isnt easy, I see many guys trying todo it and instead of holding steady or floating... they are going belly up and/or nose down. It isnt like WEP when we can just hit a button and fly, there is much bigger learning curve to learn those flaps and to be able to use them effective.
Again... I'm not sure how flaps would be rated/scored because they dont really effect any aircraft other than the F4U. I'm guessing it would fall into the gray area, OR... have an actual category for flaps and rate the effectiveness of their usage on the plane on a lower scale comparitively. Aircraft like the 190, Spits, zekes, and a whole host of others probably have their flaps deployed only when landing and many times not even then. They are otherwise worthless.
-
This is patently untrue Loon. Virtually every plane in the game can employ flaps advantageously in when angles fighting slow. Even the nigh useless flaps on the Fw-190,which don't help all that much fighting other planes, will come into play in close duels between two good sticks in 190s.
BTW, the instability problems with full flaps are entirely caused by auto-trim. The system attempts to trim the aircraft to fly straight and level at the airspeed you are doing in *clean* configuration. The extra lift of the flaps causes alot of nose-up pitch under those conditions. So either manually trim, or, if when entering flaps-heaving maneuvering, hold down the "I" key to turn off auto-trim and input alot of nose-down trim. (It is easier by several orders of magnitude to fight and shoot holding a little back pressure when the airplane is trimmed somewhat nose-heavy is to have to push the stick forward constantly when the trim tendency is to nose up.)
While I agree that flaps can be deployed at drastically low speed levels and they can help a most planes to turn tighter and a few plane a great deal tighter, it does however take that aircraft which in most cases needs speed to survive, to the other end of the spectrum and handicap them in terms of overall performance if the use of flaps is sustained. So again the case, at least in my opinion, goes back to the use of flaps as a major factor in %90 of air combat menouvers. Can those flaps be deployed at 250mph+? How many notches? What effect do flaps have at normal combat speeds?
Regarding the "combat trim". I alway have mine shut off unless in level flight on a long haul. There are a number of planes that can grab a few more mph if the trim is done manually. The Mossi being the first one to come to mind. Error in the flight model perhaps (naaaaaah)? :) But even with the F4U's flaps deployed without "combat trim" on, it still needs a steady hand. It is planes like the F4U that will shine if the pilot has the skill. Some planes like the Spit16 shine regardless of who is flying it ;)
-
I havent flown the pony all that much in recent years so I'm a bit out of date on the in game handling. However IRL (and to a degree in the game) the Ponies high speed rate of turn allowed it to turn circles around the spitfire at high speed. A pony in a 2G turn at 315 mph will out turn a spit. I dont remember if you use flaps there or not to be honest.
As for the entire ENY argument I think that it's simply a tool to enhance game play. While there is no question that a plane like the 109K4 allows much greater survivability and the ability to engage with some measure of impunity the 109F (and G2) are far superior fighters overall IMO.
-
But even with the F4U's flaps deployed without "combat trim" on, it still needs a steady hand. It is planes like the F4U that will shine if the pilot has the skill.
Like I say, the important part is some nose-down trim to compensate for the pitching-up tendency. Do that, and the airplane becomes a steady gun platform again.
You know, sometimes I wish you could turn off the auto-trim feature for all axes except rudder. Elevator is easy enough to trim out myself, being somewhat "out of trim" in roll doesn't really bother me, it's just trying to keep the ball centered with a twisty stick that gets annoying.
-
Regarding the "combat trim". I alway have mine shut off unless in level flight on a long haul. There are a number of planes that can grab a few more mph if the trim is done manually. The Mossi being the first one to come to mind. Error in the flight model perhaps (naaaaaah)? :) But even with the F4U's flaps deployed without "combat trim" on, it still needs a steady hand. It is planes like the F4U that will shine if the pilot has the skill. Some planes like the Spit16 shine regardless of who is flying it ;)
Using or not using combat trim does not affect the speed of a plane, so having it on will not 'grab a few more mph' over someone that doesn't use it. However, someone using combat trim in flap dependent plane will be at a slight disadvantage fighting against someone that doesn't have it on.
You really should read how CT works and the negative effects it has on flap dependent planes.
ack-ack
-
Using or not using combat trim does not affect the speed of a plane, so having it on will not 'grab a few more mph' over someone that doesn't use it. However, someone using combat trim in flap dependent plane will be at a slight disadvantage fighting against someone that doesn't have it on.
You really should read how CT works and the negative effects it has on flap dependent planes.
ack-ack
I dissagree. Try it sometime. The CT on a Mossie is not set up correctly, at least at the high speed level flight. The CT auto trim has the nose up, if you trim it down slightly and go manual only... you do sqeak out another few mph at level flight. It is much? Not enough for me to do it unless I am being chased at optimal alt (8500ft or 15000ft).
I'm well aware of how CT works and the negative effects it has on flap dependent planes.
-
The "dive recovery flaps" on aP38L do nothing but allow it (hopefully) to pull up from a high speed dive from high to low altitudes. It does not make the plane any better, it brings it up to par with other dive bombers for those pilots lucky enough to get the dive recovery flaps to work. ;)
Nope, at high speeds the dive flaps can aid in turns. Also, the flaps in the P-38 do change the flight performance of the aircraft a great deal.
ack-ack
-
it applys this way the zero was okay for experinced pilot but the japs were using themm too kamikaze yeah so the f4 was tasked with holding them back but the pilots that flew the zero for kamikaze wereyoung in expirienced pilots meaning they really didnt even know too turn when they were being shot at an experienced pilot could take down a plane but the f4 had bterer armor,speed,turning,and 6 guns instead of four and an expirenced f4 pilot could easily bring a zero down for sure
-
That post makes my brain hurt. :huh
-
Base ENY values on it's usage and K/D ratio? Have them adjust each month according to the previous month's usage. I dunno, shot in the dark here really.
-
Base ENY values on it's usage
Going by those figures, ENY would consistently rate the P-51D the "best" non-perked plane in the game.
and K/D ratio?
And going by the K/D ratio, the Fw-190D9 would probably be the "best" month-to-month.
-
Case being they would have the lower ENY's and as such be the rides not available as the limiter kicks in due to side imbalance. Getting people into other rides as a result. Just seems to me to be a fair answer to the question of how to rank them without relying on all the talk of guns, speed, turning, and whatnot that seems to cause the arguments in how they relate to ENY.
Make sense?