Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nemisis on January 09, 2010, 09:05:18 PM
-
I ask because I see what looks to be a USN skin for the brewster. Or was it possibly used by the USN, but never carrier based?
-
According to the USN Aircraft Location Reports, VF-2 had 16 F2A-3's aboard the Lexington on February 2nd 1942. However the Brewster (B-239) we have in the game is rather different the F2A-3.
Some time after the 10th and before the 17th of February VF-2 left the Lexington and was replaced with VF-3 (F4F-3) while at sea.
-
I believe it's a marine skin, since they were land-based. The "version" of the brewster we have in-game is not cv-capable, and no naval skins will be allowed for it.
-
Ok, just wondering. Thanks guys.
-
I think its worth having the proper Brewster and the Devastator if ONLY for the Midway scenario. I know Id fly the TBD...it may have been slow, but it looked cool trying to get there.
-
Actually, it's not that no Naval skins will be allowed. It's that there's only one US squadron's markings that will be allowed PERIOD, because only one saw combat with the Brewster. Both our "Blue" skins for the Brewster are for the same squadron (VMF-221, I believe). One was their colors at the time of Midway, the other--with the red/white rudder flash--was from when they were loaded on Saratoga for Kimmell's aborted Wake relief force, which was rerouted to Midway after Nimitz called off the operation en route (so technically, they WERE deployed to the combat zone in those colors).
-
I believe Greebo's own comments mentioned these are allowed because they are Marine units, and that carrier-based skins won't be allowed due to the lack of arrestor gear and so forth.
EDIT:
BTW Pyro has written back regarding what is an acceptable skin for the Brewster. USN skins are not allowed although VMF-221 skins are OK. RAF, Dutch and RAAF skins are fine as well.
-
Saxman and Krusty are correct...
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/3_3.jpg)
The markings like these and red/white stripes on the rudder were used till May 15 1942, prior to Midway.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g270000/g271041.jpg)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g270000/g271049.jpg)
-
I ask because I see what looks to be a USN skin for the brewster. Or was it possibly used by the USN, but never carrier based?
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/Najbong/g12906.jpg)
-
maybe this skin would be cool
(http://www.cygnetic.com.au/diecast_models/buffalo.jpg)
-
I believe Greebo's own comments mentioned these are allowed because they are Marine units, and that carrier-based skins won't be allowed due to the lack of arrestor gear and so forth.
EDIT:
In that case OTHER USMC birds would be valid as well. However I believe the official statement was that the only American skins allowed were VMF-221.
And by your argument, any skins known to have been used by FG-1As (which IS usually recorded so it would be possible to tell) shouldn't be allowed for the F4U-1A, since most FG-1As were built without the arrestor gear and folding wings.
-
Anyone else think it would be worthwhile to get the brewster changed to an F2A-3 version? Just a discussion topic, not a wish or anything.
-
Not really. Even for scenarios, the F2A-3 wouldn't have much use (really, the only scenario it would figure into is Midway). Additionally, B-339 used by the Dutch and B-339E used by the British and Commonwealth are two different animals as well.
I'd say despite the performance differences, the 239 we already have is more than adequate to fill the various roles the Brewster is needed for.
-
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/Najbong/g12906.jpg)
hey hey hey! Let me get out first. :D Perk the brewster.
-
Anyone else think it would be worthwhile to get the brewster changed to an F2A-3 version? Just a discussion topic, not a wish or anything.
Hell no. By far the most significant service the Brewster saw was as the B-239 in Finnish service.
Not everything is US centric.
I would like to see the F2A-3 version added though, to properly separate the two. The B-239 isn't really fair to the Japanese in scenarios.
-
It would be interesting to select the tail-hook (and the extra weight, armor, self-sealing fuel tanks) in the hanger as an optional load out. Maybe that will be possible with the new ordinance model and then HTC wouldn't have to model another separate aircraft.
-
It would be suicidal to select the tail-hook (and the extra weight, armor, self-sealing fuel tanks) in the hanger as an optional load out. Maybe that will be possible with the new ordinance model and then HTC wouldn't have to model another separate aircraft.
There, corrected that for ya!
The last thing BW with its 1000hp lawnmover engine needs is more weight. :D
-
I would like to see the F2A-3 version added though, to properly separate the two. The B-239 isn't really fair to the Japanese in scenarios.
And sticking American pilots with a lead-footed beast that can't even perform a simple loop is fair to the Americans?
There's a reason the F2A-3 isn't in the game, and that's because it was 1. So useless that'd never leave the hangar, even in scenarios, and 2. Only used in one battle of the entire war, at Midway.
The F2A-2 was a good fighter, and very similar to the B-239 in capabilities (a little more engine power balanced by a a little more weight from the naval gear,) and in my opinion would benefit the game much more by enabling some "what-if" scenarios- in particular, what if the Wake Island relief force hadn't turned back? I think the F2A-2 would have acquitted itself well.
The F2A-2 is clearly not a priority for HiTech, but since it's sister ship the B-239 is already in the game, perhaps it'd be low-hanging fruit. In either case, I think the F2A-2 has more value in scenarios then the F2A-3 ever will.
-
The problem with that is by the time the war started ALL squadrons equipped with F2As were flying the F2A-3. NO F2A-2s were deployed operationally during the war. Which means that it won't be added, no matter how much value it might have.
-
I know not everything is U.S. centric. But it would be pointless to create a new plane with same preformance (didn't know for sure, but your post DID suggest that the preformace is different so I will remember it) just with the addition of an arester hook and (possibly) rearanged cocpit.
-
I know not everything is U.S. centric. But it would be pointless to create a new plane with same preformance (didn't know for sure, but your post DID suggest that the preformace is different so I will remember it) just with the addition of an arester hook and (possibly) rearanged cocpit.
Performance was drastically different. All of the gear that the Navy threw on the Brewster made it a dog of a fighter. The B-239 was very stripped down. I would like the F2A-3 just for the point of placating, at least some of, the whines about the B-239's performance in game, since everybody seems to think 'Brewster=F2A=Dog' instead of 'Brewster=B-239=long time mount of the highest scoring non-German ace of the war'.
-
F2A was a better option than the B339E, the model upon which the Brewster's reputation foundered. They were sent RAAF and RNZAF squadrons with second-hand partly reconditioned DC-3 engines that would pop and spray oil all over the windscreen at random intervals. The RAF piled gear they thought vital onto an already underpowered airframe and threw them in piecemeal and disorganised fashion at an experienced enemy, despite knowing it's shortcomings and having already decided to replace them with Hurricane IIAs which somehow never made it to Singapore in the projected time frame.
That would be the aircraft to add.
-
And sticking American pilots with a lead-footed beast that can't even perform a simple loop is fair to the Americans?
Yes, it is fair because it is historical. It isn't fair for the Japanese players to be tossed at opposition flying fighters that should be out matched by their A6M2s, but aren't.
-
Yes, it is fair because it is historical. It isn't fair for the Japanese players to be tossed at opposition flying fighters that should be out matched by their A6M2s, but aren't.
So one engagement near Midway is "historical?" Who cares? Even if the plane was implemented, if "history" is HTC's watchword, it could only be used in one scenario anyways.
Apparently it is:
The problem with that is by the time the war started ALL squadrons equipped with F2As were flying the F2A-3. NO F2A-2s were deployed operationally during the war. Which means that it won't be added, no matter how much value it might have.
-which means that HTC won't implement one and won't bother with the other.
I would like the F2A-3 just for the point of placating, at least some of, the whines about the B-239's performance in game, since everybody seems to think 'Brewster=F2A=Dog' instead of 'Brewster=B-239=long time mount of the highest scoring non-German ace of the war'.
People who can't take ten seconds to look up the history of the Brewster Buffalo on Wikipedia (and realize how good the early B-239 and F2A-2 was,) don't deserve any pandering at all.
-
So one engagement near Midway is "historical?" Who cares? Even if the plane was implemented, if "history" is HTC's watchword, it could only be used in one scenario anyways.
Apparently it is:
-which means that HTC won't implement one and won't bother with the other.
People who can't take ten seconds to look up the history of the Brewster Buffalo on Wikipedia (and realize how good the early B-239 and F2A-2 was) don't deserve any pandering at all.
First off, your name is kind of ironic. Just pointing that out.
Second, HTC focuses on historic realism of PLANES, not on the ARENAS. If you want realistic battles and engagments, fly in the scenarios and snapshots, and the like.
Third, wiki sucks, period. Learned that the hard way in school and here in the forums.
-
Demetrious wrote, some time ago:
And sticking American pilots with a lead-footed beast that can't even perform a simple loop is fair to the Americans?
Interesting quote there.... so "fairness" only applies to American pilots? Hmmmm....
I always laugh at how, in the early war of many sims, there's all this cry for "balance" and "fairness"... things that were in short supply in the real war.
Then, come late war, nobody's talking about shaving some speed off of Ponys or making P-47s softer or anything to offset their superiority over contemporary Axis aircraft.
That's one of the classic doublestandards of flight-simming....
=====================================================
And, to actually answer the question... the British and New Zealanders in Singapore and the DEI didn't find it 'fair' either. But those planes that were "good enough for Malaya" were all they had, for the most part.
-
What supriority are you talking about? I can name 2 axis aircraft VASTLY supperior to both of those, or any U.S. late war ride: the legendary 262 and 163.
Stigler, you need to remember, he wasn't talking about shaving some speed or turn rate off the jap planes, he was suggesting we let them use the more powerful versions of their aircraft (FM2 as opposed to the F4F for example)
-
Stigler, you need to remember, he wasn't talking about shaving some speed or turn rate off the jap planes, he was suggesting we let them use the more powerful versions of their aircraft (FM2 as opposed to the F4F for example)
The B-239 was never operated by the USN and the F2A-2 was never operated in combat.
-
The Me162 and Me163 were a bit faster than all the others, and it helped them a lot in their interceptor role... but they couldn't turn very well... they were extremely vulnerable when not fast... and the technology was still a bit young.
Especially the 163, which was pretty much shot up at the bomberstream like a rocket, had a very short "maneuvering window" of time, and then had to try and land. Even fueling them was an invitation to disaster...
No, I bet the P-51 and P-47 drivers were not too anxious to trade places with the first jet jockeys...
But, getting back to the "fairness" argument, how come there's all this careful planning about "jet day"? Shouldn't the 262 or 263 simply be available at the part of the tour time where it would have figured in history? Or, is it just because there's no ALLIED jet to make things all "even Stephen", that's why they're all perked up and tightly controlled???
More holes poked in the tired, unimaginative Arena Paradigm
====================================================
I also realize what's being bandied about in this Brewster discussion. Point is, if a plane's going to be made available, don't you think all the representative versions... the ones that actually saw combat... should be in the set, giving people a choice of which to use?
As for the FM2, that's a viable one for late(r) war, like for the Jeep CVs... provided everyone doesn't stop using F4Fs in earlier war action. That would simply be a more subtle kind of 'ueberplaning'. Flying only the 'best' version of a type instead of soldiering on with the most representative version.
-
I also realize what's being bandied about in this Brewster discussion. Point is, if a plane's going to be made available, don't you think all the representative versions... the ones that actually saw combat... should be in the set, giving people a choice of which to use?
I'm kind of curious to why HTC didn't include the F2A-3 in the first place. I feel like a bit of an bellybutton making this kind of comment about something i've never done but, 'how much work could it take'? The B-239 was essentially a stripped down F2A-3 wasn't it? Wouldn't it be even EASIER to find information (weights etc) on the American version of the aircraft? Adjust the weights, add the tail hook into the 3D model, get Greebo to make another fantastic skin, and voila? Somehow I imagine it wouldn't be quite that simple, but...
-
I'm kind of curious to why HTC didn't include the F2A-3 in the first place. I feel like a bit of an bellybutton making this kind of comment about something i've never done but, 'how much work could it take'? The B-239 was essentially a stripped down F2A-3 wasn't it? Wouldn't it be even EASIER to find information (weights etc) on the American version of the aircraft? Adjust the weights, add the tail hook into the 3D model, get Greebo to make another fantastic skin, and voila? Somehow I imagine it wouldn't be quite that simple, but...
Well, pretty much, it IS that simple (and I'm developing both a B339 Brit export and a Navy F2A3, Midway-era, for use in Target:Corregidor and Target:Rabaul). You have to do the research to find the cosmetic differences, and model those... like, f'rinstance, the Navy F2A3 has a floor vision port that other versions lack. The cockpits have a few differences, too, especially if you go into instrumentation... ooops, sore subject here in AH... sorry... ;)
The real differences, as people have stated, are in the flight models: especially the weight, and where it's distributed, any differences in the engines and armament...
There's not a huge difference in the 3D model, besides the skins...
-
Yay Stigls back :rolleyes:
-
Me I'm just happy we got Brewster in general. I thought I wouldn't like it at first try but now I fly 90% of my sorties with it.
Can be frustrating when late war birds run but when you catch them turning oh boy it's fun.
-
I'm kind of curious to why HTC didn't include the F2A-3 in the first place. I feel like a bit of an bellybutton making this kind of comment about something i've never done but, 'how much work could it take'? The B-239 was essentially a stripped down F2A-3 wasn't it? Wouldn't it be even EASIER to find information (weights etc) on the American version of the aircraft? Adjust the weights, add the tail hook into the 3D model, get Greebo to make another fantastic skin, and voila? Somehow I imagine it wouldn't be quite that simple, but...
Actually, the F2A-3 was a totally different variant with a different engine, a few inches longer fuselage and bigger tanks. The cockpit would need a new gunsight (possibly could be taken from the existing Navy birds, tho), different seat armor, etc. Still, of course, it could be done using the B-239's shape. The wings are basically identical, for example. As far as the references goes, there is/were enough information to model all variants if the need be. But it still takes time, time that HTC didn't have as they were in the process of updating the terrain engine at the same time. Anyway, the B-339 -variants saw far mode action than the F2A-3 ever did and should be a priority as far as Brewster variants go. Of course, if there's a desperate need for CV-Brewster, then F2A-3 could be added...but I can't really see "a need" there no matter how hard I look.
-
First off, your name is kind of ironic. Just pointing that out.
Uh.... a greek name? How so? :noid
Demetrious wrote, some time ago:
Interesting quote there.... so "fairness" only applies to American pilots? Hmmmm....
I see I was overly ambiguous. Let me clarify my point.
Since the F2A-3 only participated in one battle in the Pacific, at Midway, then there's only one historical scenario that HTC could make for it- and given the incredibly laughable performance of the F2A-3, the side flying them would be slaughtered in a matter of seconds.
Yes, that is very historical and all, but who's going to bother playing it? :banana:
First off, your name is kind of ironic. Just pointing that out.
Second, HTC focuses on historic realism of PLANES, not on the ARENAS.
:rofl
So THAT'S why the P-40E in the game has War Emergency Power, eh? Because it's so historical.
Not that I think that's a bad thing, mind you, but it does highlight the fact that the arena's are the domain of cartoon aircraft, and the value of any aircraft there is purely invested in the aircraft's characteristics itself. Now we're not going to get the F2A-2 in there, because the B-239 is already in, it's a capable ship, and it's very similar in performance to the F2A-2. (I don't know if "historically deployed" is an HTC criterion for inclusion in the cartoon war.) And we won't get the F2A-3 because it's such a dog that it's nigh useless, and nobody except perhaps the occasional drunk two-weeker is going to touch that thing when the B-239 is sitting right next to it.
Now that leaves us with scenario uses, and we've already covered that.
-
Since the F2A-3 only participated in one battle in the Pacific, at Midway, then there's only one historical scenario that HTC could make for it- and given the incredibly laughable performance of the F2A-3, the side flying them would be slaughtered in a matter of seconds.
And we won't get the F2A-3 because it's such a dog that it's nigh useless, and nobody except perhaps the occasional drunk two-weeker is going to touch that thing when the B-239 is sitting right next to it.
Good point. That's why nobody flies planes like the P-51B, La-5, F4U-1 or P-47 D11. Not everybody prefers the best plane for the job.
-
Demetrious wrote:
Since the F2A-3 only participated in one battle in the Pacific, at Midway, then there's only one historical scenario that HTC could make for it- and given the incredibly laughable performance of the F2A-3, the side flying them would be slaughtered in a matter of seconds.
Yes, that is very historical and all, but who's going to bother playing it?
Maybe those who actually ARE interested in history, and don't want to be "gifted" a better plane by revisionists who think Americans always have the most-est, best-est, ueberest aircraft in every situation.
Also, you know an intelligent scenario designer might know something about the concept of "handicapping" so a point structure could be devised to make it worth some players' while to fly the crappy little Buffalos... and maybe kill the odd Val or Kate before being overwhelmed by Zeros.... y'think? :wink:
Also, the Navy Buffalo might be used in any number of plausible "what-if" scenarios of the period. Having a historical focus doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a "re-creationist".
*Anything's* better than another silly arena where the Zeros are fighting other Zeros, with a Spitfire or two appearing "over Midway" for grins and giggles.... :rofl
-
Good point. That's why nobody flies planes like the P-51B, La-5, F4U-1 or P-47 D11. Not everybody prefers the best plane for the job.
Hey don't leave out my C.202! LOL
-
Hey don't leave out my C.202! LOL
Love the 202, it's a fun plane. 109 E4 is a blast too. :aok
-
Love the 202, it's a fun plane. 109 E4 is a blast too. :aok
One of these days I am gonna have to spend time with Uncle Emil!
:salute
-
One of these days I am gonna have to spend time with Uncle Emil!
:salute
Most fun of the 109s, IMO. Prepare to be ganged. :D
:salute
-
Good point. That's why nobody flies planes like the P-51B, La-5, F4U-1 or P-47 D11. Not everybody prefers the best plane for the job.
Maybe those who actually ARE interested in history, and don't want to be "gifted" a better plane by revisionists who think Americans always have the most-est, best-est, ueberest aircraft in every situation.
Oh, I see. I'm just a knuckle-dragging AMURRRECUUNN who is whining becuase his factions planes aren't TEH MOST UHBER.
So let's ignore this post (http://"http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272699.msg3414435.html#msg3414435") or this post (http://"http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271987.msg3407673.html#msg3407673") where I'm defending the Brewster Buffalo as a highly capable fighter, or this post (last one on page) (http://"http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,265934.255.html") where I defend the I-16 and I-153 as capable and dangerous performers in their own right, or this one (bottom of page again) (http://"http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,265934.210.html") where I frown upon my countrymen for dissing P-39s and P-40s that the Russians put to spectacular good use, or this thread in the training forum (http://"http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,257213.msg3182504.html#msg3182504") were I ask for help with funny stall issues in the P-40, which was (and is) one of my favored mounts in this game.
The reason I oppose the F2A-3 is because everything I've read has indicated that the F2A-3 was at such a performance deficit that it was essentially a suicide crate. I freely admit I don't have hard evidence to present at the moment (I'd find it for this post but I don't have the time,) but the impression I've gotten is that with the 1,000 pounds or so of added weight from all the fuel, the wet wing, and various other tacked-on equipment, the aircraft couldn't even perform a simple loop. I don't see how such an anemic aircraft could hold it's own against a Gloster Gladiator, much less anything in the AH lineup short of a C-47.
EDIT:
I was tremendously amused by all the before/after Brewster threads. Before: "lol the Brewster is a dog so worthless lol." After: "OMG the Brewster keeps on killing me omfg HAX!!1!" I'm aware of the trend. But I'm not pleased at all by this habit of pinning any argument made- for or against (!) an American bird on "American 'we're so awesome' revisionist history."
-
Uh.... a greek name? How so? :noid
So THAT'S why the P-40E in the game has War Emergency Power, eh? Because it's so historical.
Name is ironic because it was held by kings and scholars. Probably going to get an edit, but you did ask. I was going to let it go with the coment.
If the P-40E didn't have WEP, then let HTC know, and provide material that proves you correct. Can't guarantee that all the info out there will be correct. Just look at wiki.
As to you oppinion that no one wants the F2A, it would get use because it is avalable on the carrier. If it has simmilar turn rates, firepower, and ammo loads, but sacrafices some in the verticle, then it will still get use.
The B-239 was never operated by the USN and the F2A-2 was never operated in combat.
I know, but the B-239 is a close relative of the F2A. It is very simmilar, if not identicle, to saying that in place of the F4F in scenarios and snapshots, we should give them the FM2.
-
Demetrious wrote:
The reason I oppose the F2A-3 is because everything I've read has indicated that the F2A-3 was at such a performance deficit that it was essentially a suicide crate.
So, a plane has to be capable to be included then? Even if it was representative over a certain period of time? So, you'd never want to see a Blenheim, for example? Or a Battle? Or a LaGG-3?
Well, that seems to buy into the "ueberplane" mentality you took so much linespace to rail against...
Ever occur to you that a lot of people don't really consider the Winter War and Continuation War to be important parts of WWII, and thus the Finnish Brewster service might not interest them much? Horses for courses. I'm sure there are also some who wouldn't care if NO Buffalo of any version were included in the planeset.
By the way, I'm not specifically suggesting YOU have ueberplanitis... but a lot of people who fly online certainly DO.
-
Did the brewster ever see combat with the a6m? If it did what was its success at shooting down the zero?
-
Not very much. The Dutch performed admirably, but there were just too few. The British and Americans were slaughtered. However the American Brewsters also faced about 10-1 odds in one concerted attack.
-
However the American Brewsters also faced about 10-1 odds in one concerted attack.
It's not like the Finns usually had much better odds...
-
It's not like the Finns usually had much better odds...
The Finns were not flying the F2A against the cream of Japanese Naval aviation. They were flying the B239 against the Russian Air Force. There is a slight difference.
-
Ever occur to you that a lot of people don't really consider the Winter War and Continuation War to be important parts of WWII, and thus the Finnish Brewster service might not interest them much?
Fortunately, this wasn't a problem to this particular community. There is a sizable Finnish contingent in the game that have been requesting their Taivaan Helmi for years.
-
In addition to use in Finland and at Midway, the Brewster was also used early war in Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and Dutch East Indies by the RAF, RAAF, and RNZAF. There are AH scenarios, FSO's, snapshots, and SEC's that are based on those battles, including Rangoon, a scenario that has run a couple of times.
-
But, getting back to the "fairness" argument, how come there's all this careful planning about "jet day"? Shouldn't the 262 or 263 simply be available at the part of the tour time where it would have figured in history?
There isn't a rolling plane set for any of the main arenas. If you actually played this game at any time, you would have known this. Even if you had played at the time you claim to have, there wasn't a rolling plane set back then either. That's why their not available at part of the tour where they would have figured in history.
Or, is it just because there's no ALLIED jet to make things all "even Stephen", that's why they're all perked up and tightly controlled???
Again, if you had played this game at any time, you would have known why the perk exists and how it works. Basically, planes are perked because of possible game play issues if they were unperked. This is the only reason why the ME 262 and the Komet are perked, no tin foil hat conspiracy like you try to allude to.
It's clear that you have some pathetic axe to grind with Dale and Aces High and you're failing miserably at it. Maybe it's because you really aren't a very good game designer (personally, it's clearly evident you have no idea about game development or design) and you're jealous of Dale and just striking out like a petulant 5 year old.
ack-ack
-
I won't even get into the idiocy of the perk concept (the rich getting richer, the highest scoring pilots getting even greater weaponry and technology to feast on the others below him in ability...)
As you say, no, I don't play the game. Sorry I was misinformed.
-
I won't even get into the idiocy of the perk concept (the rich getting richer, the highest scoring pilots getting even greater weaponry and technology to feast on the others below him in ability...)
As you say, no, I don't play the game. Sorry I was misinformed.
Scores have nothing to do with gaining perks. Perks are gained by shooting down someone as each plane is worth a certain amount of perks. For example, if I was in a Mid War plane like the P-38J and shoot down a Late War plane like a P-51D, I would get XXX amount of perks. However, if I was in a Late War plane like the P-51D and shot down an Early War plane like a A6M2, I would only get XX amount of perks. You actually gain less perks per kill flying a Late War plane than you would flying a plane from the earlier eras. The perk system actually encourages the flying of early and mid war planes.
As I mentioned in my previous post, planes are perked because the developers have come to the conclusion that if unperked these planes could potentially cause a game play unbalance, as shown when the C-Hog was unperked.
The perk system in this game is actually very well designed, the only objections I have about it is some of the planes that are perked. Personally, I feel that the only planes that should be perked is the ME 262 and the Komet as unperked these two planes would create an unbalance in the game play.
It all boils down to game design. It seems lost on you but game design entails more than just creating models and graphics.
ack-ack
-
I won't even get into the idiocy of the perk concept (the rich getting richer, the highest scoring pilots getting even greater weaponry and technology to feast on the others below him in ability...)
As you say, no, I don't play the game. Sorry I was misinformed.
Actually, the best players in the game tend to fly a particular aircraft, such as Ack Ack's P-38, and are "rich" because they don't fly Me262s.
The few days where the Me262 has been unrestricted, for whatever cause, have been utterly unplayable for those of us who are not great sticks yet don't want to fly Me262s.
I know, you probably think a rolling planeset or scenarios are the solution, but HTC is a business that has to make money and for that, there have to be actual subscribers.
-
It's clear that you have some pathetic axe to grind with Dale and Aces High and you're failing miserably at it. Maybe it's because you really aren't a very good game designer (personally, it's clearly evident you have no idea about game development or design) and you're jealous of Dale and just striking out like a petulant 5 year old.
ack-ack
Harsh :confused:....
-
As you say, no, I don't play the game. Sorry I was misinformed.
You don't play, yet you feel qualified to hurl all sorts of opinions. :rolleyes:
-
Actually, the best players in the game tend to fly a particular aircraft, such as Ack Ack's P-38, and are "rich" because they don't fly Me262s.
Yea Perk the FM-2 slapshot has way to many perks. :D
-
Ack-ack wrote:
The perk system in this game is actually very well designed, the only objections I have about it is some of the planes that are perked. Personally, I feel that the only planes that should be perked is the ME 262 and the Komet as unperked these two planes would create an unbalance in the game play.
It all boils down to game design. It seems lost on you but game design entails more than just creating models and graphics.
First off, thanks for the explanation of perks.
Second, if the game design, of which you seem to think I have no inkling, were designed more around history and less around satisfying attention-deficit entitled-feeling gamers, then you wouldn't have much of a problem with deciding which planes to "allow" when. History dictated when planes were in service, and sometimes, no, it wasn't fair and even. Sometimes, the real guys had to soldier on and make do with pieces of crap against better technology. And sometimes, they came out on top.
Also, if a game is well designed, you can have a lot of room for intelligent what-ifs, like "What if Plane x had appeared 6 months earlier?" or "What if this one fact were different before Battle X?" With the "arena" concept you get none of that, just idiots chasing around other idiots flying the same country's planes, for the most part. Pfffft.
It's more than, "[Beavis and Butthead-style chuckle] This plane was kewl..." when it comes to game design. But, since the advent of the 'arena' concept, not many developers have taken a shot at improving on it, or replacing it. And the players have become accustomed to it, being even less able to think outside the small box, and used to having more choice and less challenge.
I'd prefer to see more sims that aimed to really make people appreciate the efforts, sacrifices and skills of the real men involved, instead of trying to make John Wayne-style statements and creating a biased, pre-determined outcome.
But, I guess that's just me....
-
Stiglr,
Game design is also about making a game that can make money and what you suggest, and Targetware so aptly demonstrates, is a design that is not viable for profit.
AH has the tools to run historical events, but the bills are paid by the MAs.
-
Stigma, have you every participated in an AH snapshot, or scenerio? How many players during the primetime hours are you pulling in over there at targetware?
-
Did the brewster ever see combat with the a6m? If it did what was its success at shooting down the zero?
The Singapore B339Es went up against Ki27s and Ki43s mostly. Did OK against the Nates, but struggled badly with the Oscars, particularly because there were so many of them. I think about 4 243 Sqn B339Es survived Singapore out of around 30. There were a few freshly minted aces amongst the B339E Singapore pilots but the lack of coordination between RAAF, RNZAF and RAF led to a miserable time for all of them. Couple that with poorly reconditioned second hand engines originally destined for airline service in DC3s which were supposed to be rebuilt by airline mechanics but went unmodified into the B339E airframe and you have an unreliable overloaded liability. Bear in mind that combat reports around the time tended to label all Japanese fighters as "Zeroes" and it's difficult to build a specific picture of capability vs. certain airframes. From talking to Geoff Fisken (Flew a P40 called the Wairarapa Wildcat a bit later on) a few years ago, I don't think any Commonwealth B339Es ever went up against A6M2s. He was convinced he wouldn't be here today if he had.
-
the Wairarapa Wildcat
(http://www.warbirdsite.com/NZ3072painting.jpg)
-
So THAT'S why the P-40E in the game has War Emergency Power, eh? Because it's so historical.
You imply it should not have WEP, that it should be slower.
Whether or not it should have a WEP toggle, when USING this setting, it is fairly close to historical performances. It reaches a bit over 350mph with WEP, historically matches the F's top speed of 352mph. The Es historically did 362mph. If anything it's too slow, even using the in-game WEP.
So those saying it shouldn't have wep are really saying it should run at WEP full-time (like the P-40B and Yak-9 in-game do now), but still make the same performance. I don't know which is historically correct, but WEP in-game is close to historic top-speeds for P-40E models.
-
"The Singapore B339Es went up against Ki27s and Ki43s mostly. Did OK against the Nates, but struggled badly with the Oscars, particularly because there were so many of them."
I spent nearly four years in Singapore during two accompanied drafts with my father; 1959-61 and 1964-65. During the latter tour we lived at Sembawang, just up the road from the site of the old RAF airfield where the Buffaloes were based. There was nothing left to indicate they'd ever been there, but Dad was keen on history and he and I spent quite some time on the island and up-country in Malaya searching for wartime relics. I must've sat in at least half-a-dozen jungle aircraft wrecks (got a real blast of deja vu when I saw Spielberg's Empire of the Sun) but I can't remember which types they were other than they were all single-engined and at least two were Japanese. Wish I still had Dad's photos of them, but he died in Singapore in 1965 and Mother left them behind when we were quickly returned to the UK after the funeral. That started an interest in the war in SE Asia that I've maintained ever since.
For those interested in the story of the air fighting over Singapore, I thoroughly recommend two books: Buffaloes Over Singapore by Brian Cull, with Paul Sortehaug and Brian Haselden; 2003, Grub Street, London, ISBN 1 904010 32 6; and Hurricanes Over Singapore by Brian Cull with Paul Sortehaug; 2004, Grub Street, London, ISBN 1 904010 80 6. Both books also cover the fighting over the Netherlands East Indies.
:cool:
-
You imply it should not have WEP, that it should be slower.
Whether or not it should have a WEP toggle, when USING this setting, it is fairly close to historical performances. It reaches a bit over 350mph with WEP, historically matches the F's top speed of 352mph. The Es historically did 362mph. If anything it's too slow, even using the in-game WEP.
So those saying it shouldn't have wep are really saying it should run at WEP full-time (like the P-40B and Yak-9 in-game do now), but still make the same performance. I don't know which is historically correct, but WEP in-game is close to historic top-speeds for P-40E models.
And to support krusty, as I said before: if you find an error in flight modeling, or weaponry, or preformance, then get info to prove that it really is an error, and not just you being poorly informed.
-
Well, just playing Devil's advocate...
What if you're familiar with a certain plane, enough to know that it doesn't have WEP, therefore in game you never try to use that command? Is it your fault the game can't get the modeling correct so that the aircraft performs properly not only on a max performance level, but on a systems level as well? Needing to use WEP that a plane didn't have to get it to hit historical performance figures... I'd call that an error. In fact, being informed on type would be a disadvantage in this case, wouldn't it?
Taking this dodge a step further, are we to assume that an early Hurricane would have ability to use maneuver flap settings in game, when it only had full UP or DOWN flaps; even if the overall stall speeds for the plane turn out to be right on, doesn't the game plane get advantage from using maneuver flaps it didn't have?
Sounds to me like you're simply providing excuses for poor modeling and lack of attention to detail.
-
Taking this dodge a step further, are we to assume that an early Hurricane would have ability to use maneuver flap settings in game, when it only had full UP or DOWN flaps; even if the overall stall speeds for the plane turn out to be right on, doesn't the game plane get advantage from using maneuver flaps it didn't have?
I'm not sure if you think it is like this or you're just using it as an example, however the Hurricane and Spitfire do have two position flaps in game.
-
Taking this dodge a step further, are we to assume that an early Hurricane would have ability to use maneuver flap settings in game, when it only had full UP or DOWN flaps; even if the overall stall speeds for the plane turn out to be right on, doesn't the game plane get advantage from using maneuver flaps it didn't have?
Sounds to me like you're simply providing excuses for poor modeling and lack of attention to detail.
If you had played this game at any time, you would know that the Hurricane is modeled with only 2 flap settings, up or down. Honestly, you're just looking like an bellybutton commenting about a game you've never played.
ack-ack
-
look kid, just go back to playing your air warrior. Oh yeah, thats right... YOU CAN'T :neener:!!!!! At least go back to your war birds, just leave us alone.
-
now its getting real funny
-
If you had played this game at any time, you would know that the Hurricane is modeled with only 2 flap settings, up or down. Honestly, you're just looking like an bellybutton commenting about a game you've never played.
ack-ack
Well, the question is still apropos, when you relate the earlier story of how P-40 WEP DOESN'T work as it ought to... yet somehow, the plane still hits its historical numbers. It was also rhetorical: I didn't ever say the hurri in AH had one or the other type of flaps; I wondered aloud how it was handled.
But, yes, you are right that I don't play the game. Had enough of it when it was new to know it wasn't for me.
-
ack-ack is right.
-
Simba wrote:
For those interested in the story of the air fighting over Singapore, I thoroughly recommend two books: Buffaloes Over Singapore by Brian Cull, with Paul Sortehaug and Brian Haselden; 2003, Grub Street, London, ISBN 1 904010 32 6; and Hurricanes Over Singapore by Brian Cull with Paul Sortehaug; 2004, Grub Street, London, ISBN 1 904010 80 6. Both books also cover the fighting over the Netherlands East Indies.
And let's not forget the 3-part Bloody Shambles series by Cristopher Shores, along with Brian Cull, et. al. Those provide a great education on the entire DEI, theatre, as well as the CBI.
-
look kid, just go back to playing your air warrior. Oh yeah, thats right... YOU CAN'T :neener:!!!!! At least go back to your war birds, just leave us alone.
Don't be taking knocks on Air Warrior...it was the game that started it all and where a great deal of us first cut our teeth on playing online flight sims, including HiTech and Pyro. If it wasn't for Air Warrior, there probably wouldn't have been Warbirds and Aces High let alone that piece of crap TW with the craptastic flight and damage model.
ack-ack
-
you forgot TW's 6 players...just saying.
-
Don't be taking knocks on Air Warrior...it was the game that started it all and where a great deal of us first cut our teeth on playing online flight sims, including HiTech and Pyro. If it wasn't for Air Warrior, there probably wouldn't have been Warbirds and Aces High let alone that piece of crap TW with the craptastic flight and damage model.
ack-ack
OK ack ack. I'm sorry sir.
-
See Rule #4
-
Whats a "superior" damage model with no one to shoot or shot at you? Those trees are pesky little guys aren't they. :joystick:
Stigl, I really wish you would go back to trolling the boards at TW.
-
Without actually fueling the anti-TW fire here, I have to say Stiglr's looking a bit hypocritical here...
TW is so flawed that the individual damage points are given weights, and the durability is tied to that weight. It's hard to explain, but there've been countless issues with tweaking settings because people trying to add planes can't do what they want (or what is historically correct). On top of that, custom ammo belting, almost all folks were loading the best rounds all the time (not overly historical, eh?).. it would be like loading mgechoss for every round, or HEI for every round, when historically these were dispersed every 5th round or less.
On top of that, the underlying flight model is so buggy that ALL planes suffer the same radiator cooling drag (it's coded in) despite the actual drag from actual cooling flaps -- and we all know different planes have different drag.
Then there's the black box style of programming.. Creators set parameters and the game engine "creates" the plane out of those... Half the folks putting the planes in coulnd't even tell me what the proper cruise, WEP, max continuous, etc, settings were for the very engines they had "programmed" in... They had no idea whether their creation was accurate or not, they just plugged in horsepower and a few other variables and left it up to a generic model to make it fly properly.
Frankly, there's almost nothing historically accurate about TargetWare. There's more interest in player-created content, for sure, but there is no quality control, no vetting of information or historical authenticity. It looks nice, but frankly so does IL2 (and that isn't very historically accurate either).
So when he comes in here harping about how inaccurate AH is I have to wonder: Why doesn't he turn a critical eye to these very glaring flaws in TW?
I wish TW had been better, but frankly it wasn't. As far as flight sims go it's a failure. Even the game code is so obsolete (The TargetWare itself, not the sub-divided game packs Tobruk, Poland, etc) that they've stopped working on it. The game coders disappeared last I read, or moved on to other things. Heck, I even seem to recall Target Tobruk shut down indefinitely until the new code was released because folks were hacking it (yes, with a player base of 5, they were hacking).
IMO, where TW went wrong was trying to promote itself as an online game. Might have worked out really nicely as an offline (AI-based) campaign type game.
I really don't want to add to the flaming of TW here because I wanted it to succeed (competition breeds technological improvements!), but I did want to point out to Stiglr that he's throwing a lot of stones while living in a house full of broken glass.
-
Stiglr knows the flight and damage models is porked in TW, that's why he keeps on changing subjects whenever the flight or damage model are brought up.
ack-ack
-
He seems to have a rather flawed understanding of WWII engines as well.
-
But our gauges are all in imperial measurements! :rolleyes:
-
Well, the question is still apropos, when you relate the earlier story of how P-40 WEP DOESN'T work as it ought to... yet somehow, the plane still hits its historical numbers. It was also rhetorical: I didn't ever say the hurri in AH had one or the other type of flaps; I wondered aloud how it was handled.
But, yes, you are right that I don't play the game. Had enough of it when it was new to know it wasn't for me.
It was most likely too demanding and you had to quit, am I correct?
-
Oh dear, Stiglr has found a new board to post on. :x
-
Ripley, more likely he started mouthing off, pissing off all the other players, and couldn't find anyone to fly with. And lets face it, having a buddy to fly with is half the fun.