Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Mugzeee on January 17, 2011, 10:43:36 PM
-
Been away a long time. Hope all are doing well.
Is the WW1 arena getting much use? Looks like a great idea.
:cheers:
-
Been away a long time. Hope all are doing well.
Is the WW1 arena getting much use? Looks like a great idea.
:cheers:
theres a small group that loves WWI. but you rarely see more than 20 in the place. was fun for a while till u realized that theres four fighters and nothing to kill but fighters
-
BAR is being optimistic with 20. :salute
-
with only four rides to choose from and strictly nothing but close-in cat fighting, the excitement only lasts so long.
On the off chance I get the urge to go in there I usually find two or three people logged on and more often than not they are AFK.
-
WW1 looks to be a resource and server waste of time. I dont think they aquired anymore business or found it improved the Aces High experience!
-
Hey Mugzeee, great to see you again. WW1 can be a lot of fun, when there are people in there. It's pretty much pure dogfighting no base captures. The Dr1 seems to be the plane of choice. And BAR is being very optimistic with 20, usually it's <10.
I'm not flying a whole lot now, and when I do it's usually just scenarios, FSO's, and helping out in the TA.
:salute
-
WW1 looks to be a resource and server waste of time. I dont think they aquired anymore business or found it improved the Aces High experience!
sounds painful. need a hug?
-
With two other good WW1 tittles on the market, I'm not surprised at this result. Not many who love WW1 aviation will make AH their home when the wood and canvas crates will always play second-fiddle to WW2.
That said, there are some things I like about AH's WW1 flight models. For example, the Camel requires left rudder in both left and right turns, which is absent in some other titles. But I find it strange that it is so hard to put AH's WW1 aircraft into a spin, mostly they just mush into this strange leaf-like freefall. With some exceptions, these crates were highly unstable and very pitch sensitive, and they killed many inexperienced pilots during take-off and landing accidents.
I remember the first Dawn of Aces beta, and even that had more to offer than the WW1 arena. There were more aircraft, you could spot for artillery in the two-seaters, and there was a big-ass zeppelin ack-wagon that always generated some frantic fights.
-
I remember visiting the WWI arena in Air Warrior from time to time, and I remember experiencing it the same as our current WWI arena. Whenever I get the random inclination to fly in the arena, I end up facing the guys who fly no where but there, and get my butt handed to me. Now I can handle getting beaten, and I can appreciate someone who knows their plane, but dieing every single time just isn't something I can do for very long. I don't doubt I could learn, but I don't have a desire to spend the time needed to get there. Not complaining, not making any suggestions, just my personal experience.
-
:salute Good to see ya bud :cheers:
Been away a long time. Hope all are doing well.
Is the WW1 arena getting much use? Looks like a great idea.
:cheers:
-
lol.subtact the 0 from the 2. that's how many play the WWI1 arena.it would be OK if say. we had WWI tanks to battle in the trenches.
-
Yeah, but the Central Powers only built a couple dozen tanks, and I don't mean types of tanks; I mean the total number! :lol
-
WW1 looks to be a resource and server waste of time. I dont think they aquired anymore business or found it improved the Aces High experience!
Looking at the facts after the first 3 months and the novelty wore off the kill stats for the WW1 arena seem to be averaging around the 8000 mark.
Last month;
Plane Name Kills Deaths Kill/Death Ratio
D.VII 1932 2099 0.92
Dr.I 4293 3316 1.29
F.1 814 1161 0.70
F.2B 576 1039 0.55
Totals 7615 7615
There is a hardcore group of guys dedicated to flying WW1 only, so yes it has added to the business and enhanced the overall AH experience.
-
Looking at the facts after the first 3 months and the novelty wore off the kill stats for the WW1 arena seem to be averaging around the 8000 mark.
Last month;
Plane Name Kills Deaths Kill/Death Ratio
D.VII 1932 2099 0.92
Dr.I 4293 3316 1.29
F.1 814 1161 0.70
F.2B 576 1039 0.55
Totals 7615 7615
There is a hardcore group of guys dedicated to flying WW1 only, so yes it has added to the business and enhanced the overall AH experience.
:aok but until new stuff is added to it, it has stalled and not many new people will go there over WWII
-
:)
........ need I say?..... ahh well, for the benefit of those who haven't seen my rabid rants on this topic; yes there's a small but very friendly and well mannered group of players in the WW1 arena, and that goes for ALL of the regulars, no exceptions. We get a number of new players pop in to check it out, some will get their butts kicked (especially if they don't chat) but most of the regulars will spare the time to 1v1 'soft' so they get a chance to learn and enjoy it. If they happen in on a 'busy' time they generally enjoy the modest furballs 'hardball' so need no encouragement there.
Rome wasn't built in a day, we have something worthwhile here which hardly impacts on AH resources at all (as far as I understand it) and boxes well above it's weight in terms of enjoyment for the players who live there. For all the funny talk about lawnmower engines and popguns remember that the dynamics of air combat are the same. The main difference in the WW1 arena is you get in closer and manoeuvre somewhat more carefully, but generally just as rapidly if not more so. It is I think how it was intended - a pure dogfighting arena, and at that it excels. Like the WW2 arenas, it represents in virtual space a method of warfare which exacted extreme sacrifice and demanded supreme skill at arms from those involved, so I think we can dispense with the kiddie pool metaphors.
Anyone with reasonable stick time in AH WW2 should be competitive in short time in WW1. With no newfangled leverthingies to worry about (flaps, gear, WEP etc) you can concentrate on the basic aviation of it, keeping the wings on in a diving turn and pulling that Dr1 into your sights. Think windsurfing as opposed to sailing a large yacht. So if you need a short break from the main war, there's a place where you can enjoy good company free of whining and personal attacks, where you can let the inner aviator loose, and nobody cares about your rank or score - just how well you fought that last duel.
As a final note, don't let one experience colour your judgement in there. Imagine how many players would stay in the WW2 arenas under those terms..... give it a few tries at different times of the day, meet some of the guys and let 'em know you're taking a first look. I'm fairly sure you'll get a warm welcome and a good introduction :salute
-
Anyone with reasonable stick time in AH WW2 should be competitive in short time in WW1. With no newfangled leverthingies to worry about (flaps, gear, WEP etc) you can concentrate on the basic aviation of it, keeping the wings on in a diving turn and pulling that Dr1 into your sights. Think windsurfing as opposed to sailing a large yacht. So if you need a short break from the main war, there's a place where you can enjoy good company free of whining and personal attacks, where you can let the inner aviator loose, and nobody cares about your rank or score - just how well you fought that last duel.
As a final note, don't let one experience colour your judgement in there. Imagine how many players would stay in the WW2 arenas under those terms..... give it a few tries at different times of the day, meet some of the guys and let 'em know you're taking a first look. I'm fairly sure you'll get a warm welcome and a good introduction :salute
Agreed completely tusk. Everytime i go there im greeted warmly and i love the guys who fly there. No evil meanies at all in there :lol
...yet :noid H... R..... and V..... from AvA. All i will say... :noid
but honestly, the WWI is a great place to relax for a bit if youre bored from WWII. But without new equipment, WWI has stalled in development in both gameplay and playerbase for now
-
but honestly, the WWI is a great place to relax for a bit if youre bored from WWII. But without new equipment, WWI has stalled in development in both gameplay and playerbase for now
Yep 321BAR that is correct, the development seems to be on pause at the moment. We can only hope that enough players support the arena to convince Head Office that it deserves more work. What form it might take in the future I would hope depends as much on player feedback as Head Office opinion, although player opinion is itself divided as to whether or not the arena should remain as a pure dogfighting venue. Personally at this stage I'd be content to learn that there were plans to add some sort of complexity to the gameplay, either through additional aircraft or :pray the development of a dynamic world war environment as suggested by the success of the WW2 arenas. I think we have demonstrated with our weekly scenarios that having a goal orientated event doesn't detract from the dogfighting, rather it adds purpose to it. I look forward wistfully to the day when we can escort observation aircraft, run balloon busting missions, attack enemy ground assets etc etc, and I firmly believe these pursuits will invigorate the dogfighting and give it meaning, just as it does in the WW2 arenas.
-
Yep 321BAR that is correct, the development seems to be on pause at the moment. We can only hope that enough players support the arena to convince Head Office that it deserves more work. What form it might take in the future I would hope depends as much on player feedback as Head Office opinion, although player opinion is itself divided as to whether or not the arena should remain as a pure dogfighting venue. Personally at this stage I'd be content to learn that there were plans to add some sort of complexity to the gameplay, either through additional aircraft or :pray the development of a dynamic world war environment as suggested by the success of the WW2 arenas. I think we have demonstrated with our weekly scenarios that having a goal orientated event doesn't detract from the dogfighting, rather it adds purpose to it. I look forward wistfully to the day when we can escort observation aircraft, run balloon busting missions, attack enemy ground assets etc etc, and I firmly believe these pursuits will invigorate the dogfighting and give it meaning, just as it does in the WW2 arenas.
i know im all for it :aok hehe 20th Balloon group would actually be real :P (although premature in history)
-
Plane Name Kills Deaths Kill/Death Ratio
D.VII 1932 2099 0.92
Dr.I 4293 3316 1.29
F.1 814 1161 0.70
F.2B 576 1039 0.55
Totals 7615 7615
Thus the problem is identified. There are minor problems with the arena, the massive problem is the fact that it is the Dr1 arena for all intents and purposes. This aircraft is modeled not only as the ultimate turner (which it should be, of course) but also as a bullet-sponge that outdives and out-Gs its Allied fighter competitor, this last bit NOT being in harmony with anything I have read about the respective strengths of the Dr1 and Camel.
I believe it is a vicious cycle where the problematic nature of the arena drives people off and its lack of popularity means little spur to further development...
-
for the WW1 arena to be a viable arena here is the bottom line: It needs a more diverse plane set, more dynamics to game play (ie strat, balloons), and some WW1 tanks (why the hell not and who cares if only a dozen were ever made, the tankers need some love too).
-
Thus the problem is identified. There are minor problems with the arena, the massive problem is the fact that it is the Dr1 arena for all intents and purposes.
That's not the problem. Its only a symptom of the problem.
The real problem is that the WWI arena only offers completely one-dimensional game-play. There is only one mission profile available, and what ever particular plane is best at that narrow offering will obviously dominate all others.
The lack of variety in game-play results in the lack of variety of aircraft used. Planes that might be superior to the DR.I in other roles, are useless. Only the plane that excels at turn-to-the-death furball at 1k alt is viable.
There is nothing else to do, and no reason to do it.
Regards,
Wab
-
Thus the problem is identified. There are minor problems with the arena, the massive problem is the fact that it is the Dr1 arena for all intents and purposes. This aircraft is modeled not only as the ultimate turner (which it should be, of course) but also as a bullet-sponge that outdives and out-Gs its Allied fighter competitor, this last bit NOT being in harmony with anything I have read about the respective strengths of the Dr1 and Camel.
I believe it is a vicious cycle where the problematic nature of the arena drives people off and its lack of popularity means little spur to further development...
my camel has no problem shooting dem gerry's down it's all about making them fight your fight. Just like any other plane matchup. I do agree with the sponge like tendencies of the DR1 though, You have to really saddle them and let it rip. The F1 is very fragile, 1 or 2 pings and your fuel is gone etc.
My post merely highlighted the fact that 8000 kills per tour means that it isn't as dead as people might suspect.
-
The bunny makes sense.
I think also part of the problem is they started at the top. They started with the best planes from the war, there's nothing more to look forward to. Any plane they add that can't compete with the late war monsters (heh) is just going to be a hangar queen. It's like starting a WWII game with the P51-D, Spit XVI, 190D-9 and 109K-4 as the only choosable planes. Anything you add to that is going to be pretty much a 'downgrade'.
Unfortunately, to set it up right would require a pretty massive outlay of development effort. I can't see it being worthwhile. I don't think there are a lot of people who would prefer to fly ragwings in a similar setup to what we have in the WWII main arenas when the WWII arenas are available.
About the only way a large planset would get used would be if they had an EW/MW/LW setup for WWI and strats/balloons/whatever else they could put in. Again, massive outlay of effort that I don't think would see much return.
I think it was a neat little diversion that gives people something to do when they want something completely different, and I feel it was worthwhile and fulfilled its purpose by giving them a testbed for the more detailed DM so they could see how it goes in a full arena a little bit before they implement something similar in the WWII arenas without it having a giant impact on the game if something had gone horribly wrong early on.
Wiley.
-
My post merely highlighted the fact that 8000 kills per tour means that it isn't as dead as people might suspect.
If it were 80 players getting 100 kills I would agree with you.
If its 4 players getting 2000 kills, I would call that a dead arena.
In my definition of MMOG, 4 players average is a failed arena. (Although I'm sure those 4 devotees will chime in on how much they prefer it that way.)
Regards,
Wab
-
(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4938/previewur.jpg)
-
data
That is a tantalizing chart Lusche.
That shows more pilots having gone into the WWI arena than I would have expected. Though “Active” may be a debateable term.
My interpretation of that chart?
That looks like to me that ~450 player at some point in time pop in to the WWI for a spin. However, how often do you see more than 10 players in the arena? It looks to me that WANT to like it, but there is something that is failing to capture and hold their attention consistently enough to show reasonable arena numbers on a given night.
What would really be interesting to know is how those kills distribute across those ~450 players. I would guess that a vast majority are concentrated in a small group of regulars and the rest scattered across a large number of tourists who drop in occasionally.
What’s good about that chart is that if only a quarter of those players giving the arena an occasional could be convinced to become nightly regulars, the WWI arena would be ROCKING!
Unfortunately, I suspect the vast majority of those tourists come in and sigh…same 2 fields, same furball, same DR.Is, same pointless moshpit. They WANT to like it, the arena design just doesn’t excite them enough to come back night after night. IMHO.
[edit: Oh of course that was only for the first 10 week? If so its probably continued to decline. Still it suggests there might suggest there are more tourists wanting to catch the WWI fever than actually would be guessed at based on the nightly numbers. ]
Regards,
Wab
-
That shows more pilots having gone into the WWI arena than I would have expected. Though “Active” may be a debateable term.
Sorry, should have explained: In my charts an "Active Pilot" is every GameID that has at least one kill or one death during a tour. Someone who just peeks into the arena isn't counted.
The average "active player" in WWI currently spends about 3.5 hours per tour in that arena. It has much more activity than the AvA btw.
[edit: Oh of course that was only for the first 10 week? If so its probably continued to decline. . ]
Not weeks, months. We are currently in WW1 tour 11
-
It has much more activity than the AvA btw.
I was in AvA for a good hour next thing i know everybody was gone 2 ppl stayed i leave out of the AvA and the WW1 had 27 ppl in it. I am trying to find out what is so great about the AvA Other than the 262 week i had fun with that one :D
-
it has much more activity than the AvA btw.
indeed!
AvA is a waste of resources, better get rid of it or add lots of new content to get the people flooding in :noid
-
Sorry, should have explained: In my charts an "Active Pilot" is every GameID that has at least one kill or one death during a tour. Someone who just peeks into the arena isn't counted.
Gotcha. Of couse I was also assuming the tourists would at least fly a sortie and maybe score a kill.
The average "active player" in WWI currently spends about 3.5 hours per tour in that arena.
Thats pretty anemic IMHO. Its certainly not lighting people on fire in its current configuration.
Whats the MW arena number?
It has much more activity than the AvA btw.
I'm not sure that a helpful metric. ;)
Not weeks, months. We are currently in WW1 tour 11
Gotcha. So there are ~450 interested players (possibly more not coming in until they hear changes have been made).
If an arena could be configured to interest 1/4 of those into playing nightly, WWI would be a success.
25% conversion is a doable number.
The potential is there. Its a matter of execution.
:salute,
Wab
-
I don't agree that it is a DrI arena. Maybe that is the most popular plane but energy fighting actually works in wwi as well.
-
Thats pretty anemic IMHO. Its certainly not lighting people on fire in its current configuration.
Whats the MW arena number?
I'm still working on the complete arena overview for my AH stats 2010. I hope I can compute the SEA numbers tomorrow, so that I can publish that stuff on Saturday... but no promises.
Until then: Total manhours played by "Active Players" (per definition above) in Dec were ~ 126K LW, ~ 7K MW, ~1300 EW, ~1400 WW1, ~700 AvA.
-
I'm still working on the complete arena overview for my AH stats 2010. I hope I can compute the SEA numbers tomorrow, so that I can publish that stuff on Saturday... but no promises.
Until then: Total manhours played by "Active Players" (per definition above) in Dec were ~ 126K LW, ~ 7K MW, ~1300 EW, ~1400 WW1, ~700 AvA.
Great work. Thanks.
Yeah, if WWI could get its numbers up around MW I would be a happy camper.
As far as AVA......well...
:D,
Wab
-
See rule #4.
-
1) a 2 sided arena.
2) 4 lines of puffy ack across the map 1 in front of each sides bases the other 2 either side of no mans land also across the map.
3) targets at the bases to strafe (dummy planes,vehicles,fuel etc).
4) 1 or 2 auto but manable machine gun posts at bases.
believe it or not I have been thinking of ways to improve the arena for quite a while,without doubt its biggest problem is that at present its fun but pointless so Ive come up with an easy painless fix,the reasons for the above are:
1) 3 sided arena doesnt and wont work.
2) the aim here is to keep the fights as high as possible over the central area giving the outclassed guy the option to dive out of the fight and take a chance on surviving the ack,to be able to fly over the base ack and attack the bases.
3) often I log in only to sit twiddling my thumbs for an hour until someone else joins,it just gives you something to do while you wait.
4) yes tanks,more planes,balloons and stuff would be great but I dont think they are realistic,this just gives those who dont actually fly something to do.
5) would also like to see base radar only for a trial period. :cheers:
aka shotdown.
-
See rule #4
Hey Ranger, I was curious. I thought you had a couple of WWI terrain ready quite a while ago.
I'm no expert, but without strat targets or vehicle spawn points I would assume it would have been fairly wuick terrains to build (relative to an AVA terrain for example).
What has been the hold up? Tech problems on your side or in the approval process? I can't imagine what would have held those up for so long.
Wab
-
I think Tinribs has some good ideas even though he disparages my most excellent balloon idea :rock (and zeppelins, don't forget the zeppelins, they do occur in just about every wwi plane movie and I can't live without having shot down a zeppelin.) I think some experimentation is needed to find something that works. I think the core idea behind most ideas I have seen posted is to get some strat involved. With a two sided arena (A vs A I would think) you need some way to keep score between the sides.
-
I think Tinribs has some good ideas even though he disparages my most excellent balloon idea :rock (and zeppelins, don't forget the zeppelins, they do occur in just about every wwi plane movie and I can't live without having shot down a zeppelin.) I think some experimentation is needed to find something that works. I think the core idea behind most ideas I have seen posted is to get some strat involved. With a two sided arena (A vs A I would think) you need some way to keep score between the sides.
I really don't think a 2 sided war would work in a non-scenario environment. Unless of course all planes are available to both sides. Otherwise, inevitably, one sides planes-set has a slight competitive advantage over the other and that's all it would take to hugely skew play balance.
Imagine right now if you divided it AvA. Do you think you will consistently get even numbers? How many people are going to want to fly F1 and F2b against DR.I and DVII??? Consistently?
Regards,
Wab
-
Hey Ranger, I was curious. I thought you had a couple of WWI terrain ready quite a while ago.
I'm no expert, but without strat targets or vehicle spawn points I would assume it would have been fairly wuick terrains to build (relative to an AVA terrain for example).
What has been the hold up? Tech problems on your side or in the approval process? I can't imagine what would have held those up for so long.
Wab
It's my setup week starting tomorrow, so I've been caught up in that. I have a new AvA terrain that's 99% done. Just gotta finish one last cosmetic feature then it's going to Skuzzy. After that, I'll be making two WW1 terrains. Yes, they should be quick to pump out due to the lack of strat & such. I need to figure out the ideal field spacing so they are not too close or far. That's the only holdup. Once I figure that out, the actual terrains will be done quickly. As always, I never use default textures, so be ready for some new scenery. :)
-
Once I figure that out, the actual terrains will be done quickly. As always, I never use default textures, so be ready for some new scenery. :)
No worries.
I was just curious if it was your side or if HTC was holding it up for some reason.
I think your new terrains will be a big help.
Regards,
Wab
-
I really don't think a 2 sided war would work in a non-scenario environment. Unless of course all planes are available to both sides. Otherwise, inevitably, one sides planes-set has a slight competitive advantage over the other and that's all it would take to hugely skew play balance.
Imagine right now if you divided it AvA. Do you think you will consistently get even numbers? How many people are going to want to fly F1 and F2b against DR.I and DVII??? Consistently?
Regards,
Wab
Totally agree with this Wab which is why I specified a 2 sided arena and not AvA . :aok
-
Totally agree with this Wab which is why I specified a 2 sided arena and not AvA . :aok
Ah, I misunderstood.
Then I'm curious on why you think 2 sides would would better?
With proper field placement it seems to me 3 sided battle would always be more dynamic. A steady-state feedback couldn't set in. Its inherently unstable (which is good in an arena design IMHO ;)).
What is the benefit of a 2-sided arena?
Regards,
Wab
-
Ah, I misunderstood.
Then I'm curious on why you think 2 sides would would better?
With proper field placement it seems to me 3 sided battle would always be more dynamic. A steady-state feedback couldn't set in. Its inherently unstable (which is good in an arena design IMHO ;)).
What is the benefit of a 2-sided arena?
Regards,
Wab
At present the numbers are not high enough to "use" 3 sides,if the main fight is between rooks and knights anyone logging into bishops 90% of the time jumps over but more than that I think it would add a little realism to the arena giving the rather oddly surrounded "no mans land" some focus.It is and will largely remain a dogfighting arena with a very high number of 1v1 fights, in my experience a 3rd side joining in these circumstances is usually unwanted.There are many advantages to the 3-sides but until we can get the numbers up and sustain them its an irrelevance. :cheers:
aka shotdown
-
At present the numbers are not high enough to "use" 3 sides,if the main fight is between rooks and knights anyone logging into bishops 90% of the time jumps over but more than that I think it would add a little realism to the arena giving the rather oddly surrounded "no mans land" some focus.
I think that is a flaw of the current field layout. The fight only ever happens between 2 of the bases and the other team has to fly too far to join the action.
I think one or more 3 field layouts similar to the Furball lake in the DA would be vastly superior. All 3 sides could access the same battle space simultaneously.
If you have 6 players flying, I think you get much more exciting action with 3 teams of 2 rather than 2 teams of 3. IMHO.
It is and will largely remain a dogfighting arena with a very high number of 1v1 fights, in my experience a 3rd side joining in these circumstances is usually unwanted.
Yeah...well. I REALLY am not enthused by any kind rule burdened gentleman's club arena. I really don't feel like milling around with a bunch of guys in powdered whigs and silk stockings waiting for my turn to be allowed to engage (only if I bow and say "Mother may I ?" ). I couldn't give a fig for Marquis of Queensbury.
I wanna clamp my ka-bar between my teeth, pour kerosene over my head, light my hair on fire, dive into a swirling Hell storm at near Mach screaming Ride of the Valkyries while twirling a blood crusted battle axe over my head......nekid.
Maybe that's just me?
;),
Wab
-
Thus the problem is identified. There are minor problems with the arena, the massive problem is the fact that it is the Dr1 arena for all intents and purposes. This aircraft is modeled not only as the ultimate turner (which it should be, of course) but also as a bullet-sponge that outdives and out-Gs its Allied fighter competitor, this last bit NOT being in harmony with anything I have read about the respective strengths of the Dr1 and Camel.
I believe it is a vicious cycle where the problematic nature of the arena drives people off and its lack of popularity means little spur to further development...
The Dr1 should be a bullet sponge. It did not rely on wire bracing for rigidity like the Camel, and its fuselage was constructed from steel. For an aircraft like the Camel, damage to its bracing could cause catastrophic failure... The D.VII should exhibit similar robustness to the Dr1.
Data for WW1 aircraft is notoriously unreliable. I notice that the plane comparison page says that both the Dr1 and Camel do about 115mph at sea level, which is barely slower than the D.VII. But both the Dr1 and Camel were retired or demoted to second string combat by the end of the war for lack of speed, and the only German fighter the Camel could run down was the Dr1. :lol
-
I haven't read this entire thread so I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet or not.
I tried WWI arena and it was pretty amusing but got old for me after a very short while. there just isn't enough (for me) to hold my interest and say "just one more time"
I think people took a look at ROF and said "Wow! I want that". And while I agree substance is more important then fluff. There is definitely something to be said for fluff. Here, there simply isn't enough of it. And game play is too restricted in how much there is to do. Not enough variation
IMO what this arena needs is two fold. Just a tad bit more fluff, And a story line of sorts. It practically screams begging for it. Something along the lines of the scrapped TOD plan HTC was working on would be perfect. Even more so then in any of the WWII arenas. Something more mission oriented. Think "Wings" (an old WWI game by Cinema-ware) Meets FSO.
HTC finds a way to insert that into the WWI arena gameplay. And I think they catch lightning in a bottle.
-
I think people took a look at ROF and said "Wow! I want that". And while I agree substance is more important then fluff. There is definitely something to be said for fluff. Here, there simply isn't enough of it.
In this case, there is not merely a shortage of fluff. :)
-
In this case, there is not merely a shortage of fluff. :)
As noted in the rest of my post
-
Interesting comments and ideas as always. My thoughts on some of the issues raised as follows:
When I log into the WW1 arena I'm hoping for a realistic experience (without the fearful wounds). Take away the realism and you may as well be firing photon torpedos at Ninja Turtles.
To my knowledge in WW1 Camels fought Dr1's not Camels (occassionally, there weren't that many Dr1's and quite a few fell apart) and there were only two sides.
Balancing the sides is not an issue. If there were only two countries there'd be no lack of players switching sides to maintain roughly even numbers as they do already.
I'm fairly sure that moving the game closer to historical accuracy wouldn't damage it.
-
If Aces High introduced arty spotting like they had with the first DoA, then you could have a "realistic" impact on the ground war, introduce some kind of strategy, and so on.
-
When I log into the WW1 arena I'm hoping for a realistic experience (without the fearful wounds). Take away the realism and you may as well be firing photon torpedos at Ninja Turtles.
To my knowledge in WW1 Camels fought Dr1's not Camels (occassionally, there weren't that many Dr1's and quite a few fell apart) and there were only two sides.
I know what you're saying. But then again, you a relatively new to the AH environment. The 3 sided MA has proven very successful over the years. Its a proven design.
Other formats like Warbirds III or AvA have had less success (though possibly from a variety of other reasons).
Balancing the sides is not an issue. If there were only two countries there'd be no lack of players switching sides to maintain roughly even numbers as they do already.
I'm fairly sure that moving the game closer to historical accuracy wouldn't damage it.
People are willing to switch sides now because all planes are available to both sides.
Or more to the point, they can get a DR.I on either team. ;)
Right now, this very second, if HT reconfigured the WWI arena so that one side only had DR.I and DVII and the other only had F1 and F2B do you think things would be balanced? I highly doubt it. The very fact that so many people choose to only fly the DR.I suggests to me that they wouldn't want to be on the team where its not available. However, it would be an interesting test. HT could try that with the current arena for a couple of week without any coding change. Just change the configuration. I suspect, however, the results would be ugly.
In the old days, when you and I were playing FC, they could get away with that because the flight model code for the camel and DR.I were the same. Exactly the same. Same weight, HP, model, everything. No difference whatsoever. That's another approach to play balance but would surely violate your realism criteria.
If you could get it to work, I'd have no problem with it philosophically. However, from a practical standpoint, I think an MA works best with three sides with all available aircraft.
Scenarios and such are where you get your historical fix.
$0.02,
Wab
-
Other formats like Warbirds III or AvA have had less success (though possibly from a variety of other reasons).
That's because the vast majority of people who want axis/allied or Central Powers/Entente combat look for it in other flight sims besides WBIII or AH. AH is the only contemporary multiplayer WW1/2 flight sim I know of where the "select any plane you want" format doesn't mean you're in the kiddie arena.
-
That's because the vast majority of people who want axis/allied or Central Powers/Entente combat look for it in other flight sims besides WBIII or AH. AH is the only contemporary multiplayer WW1/2 flight sim I know of where the "select any plane you want" format doesn't mean you're in the kiddie arena.
Do you think splitting up the current WWI arena int to AvCP would be viable?
Wab
-
What is there to split up? I think everyone agrees that the WW1 arena needs a lot more content in order to be viable.
-
I think everyone agrees that the WW1 arena needs a lot more content in order to be viable.
I agree it needs some more content. "Lots" could be debated.
IMHO, there are other, more fundemental, design problems as well that would need to be addressed as well, or else the new content would only provide a temporary flush of interest.
Regards,
Wab
-
Been chasing WWI sims around for a long time. Have accounts here and there like some of you...
The first thing is novelty of the fms, but that does not last long. The thing that makes a sim sustainable is content, probably don't need a lot to begin the process. Arty, bombs, and something to capture attracts another set of folks. Even when the arena is relatively empty you can find something to do for a few minutes while you wait to see if others will join you. As it is today, if there are only one or two people there or the arena is empty, it is not real exciting.
For instance, as some of you certainly know, the current version of DOA has a lot more context...but it is also empty most nights. The folks who continually complain about resources being spent on wwi sims use these situations to argue wwi sims just don't work. One thing is certain, when the AH folks were developing DOA it was a busy arena for several years and stayed that way for some time after they left. The arena had more context then than it does today. The dangers associated with stagnation are pretty much constant across all business ventures; if you put enegry, thought and resources into the continual evolution of a business/sim that will likely be rewarded. When this is not the case, folks simply drift away over time, disappointed in the sense of promises not kept...potential not realized.
Have crossed paths with an enormous player base still quietly hoping for the same thing. What seems most obvious now, long time looking, is that no one is interested in creating a viable wwi sim or they would have put the resources in it necessary to make it sustainable.
Kinda sad, but flying these old planes is a hoot. So, will stick around here too...and keep looking elsewhere. Maybe somewhere, sometime...No reason not to be optimistic...disregarding history and experience LOL.
One
-
Have crossed paths with an enormous player base still quietly hoping for the same thing. What seems most obvious now, long time looking, is that no one is interested in creating a viable wwi sim or they would have put the resources in it necessary to make it sustainable.
RBII3D sustained a huge following for a decade even after the makers stopped supporting it.
Quite a few people have purchased RoF and its add-on content.
Large fan bases follow all the started but failed to launch WWI arena attempts.
There is a sizable market there to harvest. Sooner or later someone will.
Regards,
Wab
-
I think that is a flaw of the current field layout. The fight only ever happens between 2 of the bases and the other team has to fly too far to join the action.
I think one or more 3 field layouts similar to the Furball lake in the DA would be vastly superior. All 3 sides could access the same battle space simultaneously.
If you have 6 players flying, I think you get much more exciting action with 3 teams of 2 rather than 2 teams of 3. IMHO.
Yeah...well. I REALLY am not enthused by any kind rule burdened gentleman's club arena. I really don't feel like milling around with a bunch of guys in powdered whigs and silk stockings waiting for my turn to be allowed to engage (only if I bow and say "Mother may I ?" ). I couldn't give a fig for Marquis of Queensbury.
I wanna clamp my ka-bar between my teeth, pour kerosene over my head, light my hair on fire, dive into a swirling Hell storm at near Mach screaming Ride of the Valkyries while twirling a blood crusted battle axe over my head......nekid.
Maybe that's just me?
;),
Wab
certainly isnt just you, personally I like to land a couple of kills put my smoking jacket on and get my butler to fetch the port and cigars but I dont have a problem with anyone setting fire to any parts of there anatomy biting grenades in half or spending time on facebook.In fact the more pyromaniacs we have in ww1 the better,yes we are that desperate. :pray
-
Start with adding the SE5a and Albatross....then add some strat, tanks, balloons, bombers....jeeze. I know you dozen guys want your own little private WW1 arena but lets kick it in the nuts here. Get this thing going already.
-
Allot of good reads here. <S>
AH2 has over 100 planes, GV's, and boats. It took them 10 years to reach that
stage of development. If they don't see any potential for more revenue, then
we won't see WWI go any further.
An update now and then would spark new interest. I think a BnZ plane
would help.......ie. Spad XIII or SE5a.
I have flown in allot of online WWI sims over the years and I hope another
good one comes along if this one is not developed. My first online WWI sim
was the original RED BARON on INN. We had to log onto a dial up network,
pay an hourly fee, and only 4 pilots could fly at once for a period of about 10
minutes. The graphics had a whopping 16 colors LOL. I bought my first computer
from Radio Shack and it included a free CD for Red Baron.
I later upgraded to a Pentium. Pentium was the state
of the art in those days. Dial up was good most of the time,
but sometimes, like on a Friday night, you would see planes
warp around as if they had a rubber band attached. Those
were the days LOL
<S>
Mano
-
I know what you're saying. But then again, you a relatively new to the AH environment. The 3 sided MA has proven very successful over the years. Its a proven design.
Well I seem to remember being here at the start Wab, and I've dropped back in a couple of times over the years. Maybe what keeps pushing me away is the 3 country system :D
Right now, this very second, if HT reconfigured the WWI arena so that one side only had DR.I and DVII and the other only had F1 and F2B do you think things would be balanced? I highly doubt it. The very fact that so many people choose to only fly the DR.I suggests to me that they wouldn't want to be on the team where its not available. However, it would be an interesting test. HT could try that with the current arena for a couple of week without any coding change. Just change the configuration. I suspect, however, the results would be ugly.
In the old days, when you and I were playing FC, they could get away with that because the flight model code for the camel and DR.I were the same. Exactly the same. Same weight, HP, model, everything. No difference whatsoever. That's another approach to play balance but would surely violate your realism criteria.
If you could get it to work, I'd have no problem with it philosophically. However, from a practical standpoint, I think an MA works best with three sides with all available aircraft.
Scenarios and such are where you get your historical fix.
$0.02,
Wab
For me personally, I'd be on a lot more and be prosecuting the war with more prejudice if the other side had the (historically accurate) superior aircraft, numbers etc. Although it's worth noting that I currently fly the F.1 often against Dr.1's flown by very capable sticks, so clearly I like a challenge. Maybe others would find the prospect daunting or discouraging, I can't speak for anyone but myself. But as far as I understand it WW1 was a constant to and fro of technical and numerical air superiority.... if you like realism then wouldn't you want to have this aspect built in to the tour? They could set up a fluctuating advantage in the arena very easily I suspect.... and winning or even giving a good account of yourself when the odds are against you provides enormous satisfaction.
At the moment I'm happy to enjoy the arena for what it is, and hopefully in the future someone will crank up the realism - c'mon it's a game nobody gets hurt - and we can experience some of the appalling one-sidedness that was WW1 in the air (as opposed to the appalling and historically inaccurate one-sidedness of the current Dr.1 scourge).
-
At the moment I'm happy to enjoy the arena for what it is, and hopefully in the future someone will crank up the realism - c'mon it's a game nobody gets hurt - and we can experience some of the appalling one-sidedness that was WW1 in the air (as opposed to the appalling and historically inaccurate one-sidedness of the current Dr.1 scourge).
While the Entente enjoyed a large numerical superiority during most periods, their losses were usually equally high in compensation, so I wouldn't call it appallingly one-sided. After all, the Germans mostly stalked their own side of the line and waited for wave up wave of obsolete British two-seaters.
-
After all, the Germans mostly stalked their own side of the line and waited for wave up wave of obsolete British two-seaters.
Some Germans still do this today in the AH mains... :noid
-
Start with adding the SE5a and Albatross....then add some strat, tanks, balloons, bombers....jeeze. I know you dozen guys want your own little private WW1 arena but lets kick it in the nuts here. Get this thing going already.
I think Yeager has the plan here. The one thing I would add to it is graphics improvement. This goes for both the wwi and wwii arenas. There are quite a few other sims out there of all varieties that are pushing the envelope on graphics. Some are very pretty but I would go for realism. I think this would improve the feel of immersion in the game tremendously. One thing I would be curious about is if we could improve the way planes look at distance. I am thinking that maybe clever averaging of the plane pixel/s with the background could give very realistic effects as a plane appeared in the distance and then moved closer, emulating a much higher (read mark 1 eyeball) resolution. If we then could improve the ability to identify planes, perhaps using the same averaging tricks, from silhouette and color, then perhaps arenas without icons would become the most popular choice.
I am downloading the ROF demo right now, and probably will buy it, but I would really like to see HTC dominate in all flight sim genres.
-
I'm hoping it will develop along the lines of DOA, I'd love to have some balloons to shoot down and artillery to spot for.
March will be the first anniversary for the WWI arena, let’s hope HTC has something planned.
-
The Dr1 should be a bullet sponge. It did not rely on wire bracing for rigidity like the Camel, and its fuselage was constructed from steel. For an aircraft like the Camel, damage to its bracing could cause catastrophic failure... The D.VII should exhibit similar robustness to the Dr1.
What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.
Data for WW1 aircraft is notoriously unreliable.
This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?
I tried the WWI arena for the first time in a few months again tonight. Upped the Camel, scored exactly 0 gun kills and a few auger kills. Now I might be a bad pilot and a bad shot, but I don't believe I'm THAT bad. It was the same old frustration...even when you end up in the saddled position on a Dr1, they simply absorb the hits your wandering gunsight puts on them while their buddy pulls up behind you and knocks out your fuel, your pilot, or vital wing parts of your Camel in seconds. The ONLY Camels I saw all night on Knits were being flown by SCTusk and I saw exactly one one on Bish right before I logged. I did see F2Bs being upped by a couple of people though...the fact that a two seat scout is being flown in preference to a dedicated fighter in a dogfight arena should be telling. So I stand by my point that a primary factor holding the WWI arena back is that not only are there only 4 planes in the entire set, but only 2 of them are viable fighters, and they are both Axis.
-
What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.
This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?
I tried the WWI arena for the first time in a few months again tonight. Upped the Camel, scored exactly 0 gun kills and a few auger kills. Now I might be a bad pilot and a bad shot, but I don't believe I'm THAT bad. It was the same old frustration...even when you end up in the saddled position on a Dr1, they simply absorb the hits your wandering gunsight puts on them while their buddy pulls up behind you and knocks out your fuel, your pilot, or vital wing parts of your Camel in seconds. The ONLY Camels I saw all night on Knits were being flown by SCTusk and I saw exactly one one on Bish right before I logged. I did see F2Bs being upped by a couple of people though...the fact that a two seat scout is being flown in preference to a dedicated fighter in a dogfight arena should be telling. So I stand by my point that a primary factor holding the WWI arena back is that not only are there only 4 planes in the entire set, but only 2 of them are viable fighters, and they are both Axis.
I fly the d7 allmost exclusively in game and while I wouldnt disagree with the dr1 superiority I do not agree with the allied planes both being inferior to the d7 in fact I would suggest the opposite is more true.
1) the f2b and f1 will both out turn the d7 easily.
2) the d7 is more fragile in a dive than either of the allied planes.
3) the d7 takes a lot less hits than the f2b and marginally less than the f1
4) the f2b will out climb the d7 and though theres very little in it I think the f1 does as well.
5) the f2b is a lot faster than the d7,theres very little difference between the f1 and d7.
6) the d7 burns fuel a lot faster than either allied plane.
the plus points,
1) the d7 does have a vastly superior role rate to either allied plane.
2) it has slightly better e retention.
3) it carries more ammunition.
4) the allround cockpit visibility is a lot better than the f1 and marginally better than the f2b.
5) the d7 is easier to fly than the other ww1 planes behaving more like the ww2 fighters no engine torque to worry about and less likely to stall.
The last reason above is why many prefer flying the d7 to the allied planes Im sure that its very little to do with the aircafts capabilities. :salute
-
As it stands now Tinribs, I'd say the WWI arena is roughly equivalent to a WWII arena where the Axis powers were equipped with the 109F and the 190A5 and the Allied powers got the B-25H and P-40B. :devil
I think the best quick fix for the WWI arena might be a few new planes, hopefully including some Allied types like the Spad that might redress the balance of power abit.
I fly the d7 allmost exclusively in game and while I wouldnt disagree with the dr1 superiority I do not agree with the allied planes both being inferior to the d7 in fact I would suggest the opposite is more true.
1) the f2b and f1 will both out turn the d7 easily.
2) the d7 is more fragile in a dive than either of the allied planes.
3) the d7 takes a lot less hits than the f2b and marginally less than the f1
4) the f2b will out climb the d7 and though theres very little in it I think the f1 does as well.
5) the f2b is a lot faster than the d7,theres very little difference between the f1 and d7.
6) the d7 burns fuel a lot faster than either allied plane.
the plus points,
1) the d7 does have a vastly superior role rate to either allied plane.
2) it has slightly better e retention.
3) it carries more ammunition.
4) the allround cockpit visibility is a lot better than the f1 and marginally better than the f2b.
5) the d7 is easier to fly than the other ww1 planes behaving more like the ww2 fighters no engine torque to worry about and less likely to stall.
The last reason above is why many prefer flying the d7 to the allied planes Im sure that its very little to do with the aircafts capabilities. :salute
-
What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.
The Camel should be better in this area. One of the weakness of the Dr1 is that its top wing creates more lift than the lower wings, so the faster you go, the greater the difference in lifting force between them all. If you go really fast, then you shouldn't be surprised when the top wing fails. This problem is distinct from the quality-control problems that plagued the Dr1 in the Fall of 1917.
This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?
You could just guess at performance data for WW1 aircraft and have a good chance of being more accurate than the official figures, in some cases. German pilots noticed that the Dr1 was slower than other German fighters when it was introduced; but a good chunk of performance data says otherwise. I find the 115mph at sea level figure to be very dubious. WW1 aviation was a cottage industry where no two aircraft were exactly alike, not in their performance, and not in their handling. Fuel quality varied, engines wore out quickly, and some aircraft were lemons right from the start. One of the most eye-popping tests I ever saw was for the Sopwith Snipe. Its level airspeed at 10k ft was retested after 24 hours of flight time, and it had lost more than 5% of its factory-fresh performance.
So, I agree that a little improvisation wouldn't be unreasonable.
-
As it stands now Tinribs, I'd say the WWI arena is roughly equivalent to a WWII arena where the Axis powers were equipped with the 109F and the 190A5 and the Allied powers got the B-25H and P-40B.
I think the best quick fix for the WWI arena might be a few new planes, hopefully including some Allied types like the Spad that might redress the balance of power abit.
Everyone agrees that a larger plane set would be a huge improvement but that is not an easy or quick fix,the suggestions in this thread are mainly looking at ways of adjusting what we allready have to attract and keep new players in ww1.It is very doubtfull that with the numbers as low as they are hitec is going to pump more time and effort into it as its a stand alone feature with no real bearing on all the other aspects of AH2. :cry
-
Everyone agrees that a larger plane set would be a huge improvement but that is not an easy or quick fix,the suggestions in this thread are mainly looking at ways of adjusting what we allready have to attract and keep new players in ww1.It is very doubtfull that with the numbers as low as they are hitec is going to pump more time and effort into it as its a stand alone feature with no real bearing on all the other aspects of AH2. :cry
Ok, here is the *really* quick fix then: Nerf the Dr1 and Un-nerf the Camel to a certain degree.
Now I WILL be burned at the stake...
-
You could just guess at performance data for WW1 aircraft and have a good chance of being more accurate than the official figures, in some cases. German pilots noticed that the Dr1 was slower than other German fighters when it was introduced; but a good chunk of performance data says otherwise. I find the 115mph at sea level figure to be very dubious.
I have quite a large collection of WWI a/c books; searching through for references to the Dr.1 top speed: roughly half (6) list it as 185 km/h (115 mph) at sea level & the other half (5) list it as 165 km/h (103 mph) sea level.
Which is the correct figure?
I suspect both depending on which fixed pitch prop was fitted at the time.
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/ahdr10001.jpg)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/ahdr10002.jpg)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/ahdr10003.jpg)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/ahdr10004.jpg)
-
I have quite a large collection of WWI a/c books; searching through for references to the Dr.1 top speed: roughly half (6) list it as 185 km/h (115 mph) at sea level & the other half (5) list it as 165 km/h (103 mph) sea level.
Which is the correct figure?
I suspect both depending on which fixed pitch prop was fitted at the time.
Funny, I've always seen that 103mph figure listed as speed at 4000m. Now your document says 99.2mph. Curiouser and curiouser. Nice documents, btw. Which book are they from?
-
Three Wings for the Red Baron: Von Richthofen, Strategy, Tactics, and Airplanes by Leon Bennett (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Wings-Red-Baron-Richthofen/dp/1572492139/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295804622&sr=8-1)
-
Ok, here is the *really* quick fix then: Nerf the Dr1 and Un-nerf the Camel to a certain degree.
Now I WILL be burned at the stake...
:aok
-
I’m all for adding some new planes to the WWI arena. That can never hurt. However, while I think it would create a temporary bump in interest, I don’t think it would solve the fundamental problem. I think the WWI arena needs some strategic game-play more like the WWII MA. If the current WWI Arena is left for furballing and a WWI MA is added, that’s fine with me. However, WWI pilots should have access to some semblance of the depth of game-play that the WWII players have. I think this could be started with a modest amount of effort.
I’d like to see a field layout similar to:
(I suck at drawing. Ideally these should be exactly spaced evenly and the circles should just be touching....)
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/map2.png)
I’d guess fields would be ~12 miles apart.
Fields have light ack. They should be protected with aircraft.
Hangars are destroyable. (Standard rebuild times.)
Each field is associated with a nearby command post (instead of town). With some 17lbs gun emplacements, a light ack, and a tethered observation balloon
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/ballon.png)
that functions as field dar. There is no country dar.
The current plane-set would be allowed to carry 2 x 20lbs bombs. The F2B maybe should carry 4 x 20lbs.
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/bombs.png)
Each country would have access to a single model of tank:
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/tank.png)
and a troop truck:
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/truck.png)
These vehicles spawn from a field vehicle hangar into the no-man’s zone. They will fight their way towards an enemy field. If the defenses are suppressed and the troop truck gets close enough to release its cargo of commando’s, they can capture the command post and the associated airfield changes ownership.
Is this absolutely historically accurate? No. But no less than P-51 vs. P-51 vs. P-51 in a 3-way WWII MA. Scenarios are where historical accuracy can rule. The MA needs fun game-play. What the modest changes would do is give a structure and purpose to the fighting. It would give a framework on which to hang the action. A context. Goal-Oriented-Combat.
With these limited changes I think we could greatly improve the WWI arena experience and give it a depth of game-play that some of those ~450 WWII MA players that occasionally visit the WWI arena might find interesting enough to visit more often. If 1/4 of those decided to come play regularly, a WWI MA would rock.
Regards,
Wab
-
I like the field layout a lot even though I still believe a 2 sided arena would work best, country dar is a nonsense for ww1 the balloon acting as field dar idea is inspired.A very well thought out plan Wab that could easily be introduced in stages if the powers at be wished. :rock
-
Funny, I've always seen that 103mph figure listed as speed at 4000m. Now your document says 99.2mph. Curiouser and curiouser.
The problem is, most of these books just list a speed, not the conditions under which it was measured.
I found another "Fokker V5/Dr.1" ISBN 0-7643-0400-3 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764304003?tag=schildnet0c&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0764304003&creative=373489&camp=211189) which although only 51 pages has some nice technical data.
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/ahdr10005.jpg)
-
The problem is, most of these books just list a speed, not the conditions under which it was measured.
I found another "Fokker V5/Dr.1" ISBN 0-7643-0400-3 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764304003?tag=schildnet0c&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0764304003&creative=373489&camp=211189) which although only 51 pages has some nice technical data.
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/ahdr10005.jpg)
some1 likes the WW1 :rock
-
some1 likes the WW1 :rock
Better question is who doesn't like it? :banana:
-
I like the field layout a lot even though I still believe a 2 sided arena would work best
Well I assume at some point USRanger is going to have us several WWI maps in rotation. If we ever get enough variety in the plane-set to keep it balanced, I don't see why the setups couldn't alternate. One map 3-county, next map AvCP. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The changeup might keep things interesting.
Cheers,
Wab
-
I’m all for adding some new planes to the WWI arena. That can never hurt. However, while I think it would create a temporary bump in interest, I don’t think it would solve the fundamental problem. I think the WWI arena needs some strategic game-play more like the WWII MA. If the current WWI Arena is left for furballing and a WWI MA is added, that’s fine with me. However, WWI pilots should have access to some semblance of the depth of game-play that the WWII players have. I think this could be started with a modest amount of effort.
I’d like to see a field layout similar to:
(I suck at drawing. Ideally these should be exactly spaced evenly and the circles should just be touching....)
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/map2.png)
I’d guess fields would be ~12 miles apart.
Fields have light ack. They should be protected with aircraft.
Hangars are destroyable. (Standard rebuild times.)
Each field is associated with a nearby command post (instead of town). With some 17lbs gun emplacements, a light ack, and a tethered observation balloon
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/ballon.png)
that functions as field dar. There is no country dar.
The current plane-set would be allowed to carry 2 x 20lbs bombs. The F2B maybe should carry 4 x 20lbs.
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/bombs.png)
Each country would have access to a single model of tank:
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/tank.png)
and a troop truck:
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/truck.png)
These vehicles spawn from a field vehicle hangar into the no-man’s zone. They will fight their way towards an enemy field. If the defenses are suppressed and the troop truck gets close enough to release its cargo of commando’s, they can capture the command post and the associated airfield changes ownership.
Is this absolutely historically accurate? No. But no less than P-51 vs. P-51 vs. P-51 in a 3-way WWII MA. Scenarios are where historical accuracy can rule. The MA needs fun game-play. What the modest changes would do is give a structure and purpose to the fighting. It would give a framework on which to hang the action. A context. Goal-Oriented-Combat.
With these limited changes I think we could greatly improve the WWI arena experience and give it a depth of game-play that some of those ~450 WWII MA players that occasionally visit the WWI arena might find interesting enough to visit more often. If 1/4 of those decided to come play regularly, a WWI MA would rock.
Regards,
Wab
Care if I use that field layout for a new WW1 terrain?
-
Care if I use that field layout for a new WW1 terrain?
No problemo.
:airplane:,
Wab
-
Is this absolutely historically accurate? No. But no less than P-51 vs. P-51 vs. P-51 in a 3-way WWII MA. Scenarios are where historical accuracy can rule. The MA needs fun game-play. What the modest changes would do is give a structure and purpose to the fighting. It would give a framework on which to hang the action. A context. Goal-Oriented-Combat.
With these limited changes I think we could greatly improve the WWI arena experience and give it a depth of game-play that some of those ~450 WWII MA players that occasionally visit the WWI arena might find interesting enough to visit more often. If 1/4 of those decided to come play regularly, a WWI MA would rock.
Regards,
Wab
What Wab suggests is not exactly the way I would approach it but I have to give him a :aok because his ideas seem to be a good alternative, disregarding my bias for 2 country play.
As for the old 'Camel vs Dr1' issue I would support some minor detuning of the Dr1. I've learned to live with the F.1 as it is, the physics and math have been done and dusted, fair job, I'm not going to waste more of everyone's time arguing about it. But the Dr1 does dominate the Camel even when it's flown reasonably well and even against the best Camel jockeys. If there's a counter to the Dr1 in the Camel I haven't found it.... no doubt I'll get fried for this but check out my stats before you light the gas (and oh yeah, subtract 14 kills this tour for that little misunderstanding on the island lol) I'm going to back myself here as probably the most experienced Camel jockey, strictly to make the point that if I can't be competitive against the Dr1 in an F.1 who can?
If it's modelled correctly then fair enough, but I can reference quotes from actual Camel pilots who seemed convinced that the Camel was superior in a turnfight to the Dr1. Possibly there is also contrary evidence, but the fact is that the Dr1 in AH has become the ride of choice, and if you fly something else in support of better historical and varying gameplay then you pay the price. If the objection to reducing the effectiveness of the Dr1 is due to the belief in the accuracy of the FM, then reduce it's impact by restricting it's availability (I believe in the WW2 arenas you call that 'perking' it?) as was the case in the real world.
For my part, I try to make a habit of congratulating anyone flying something other than a Dr1. Not that I don't respect the guy that shoots me down in his Dr1, just that I respect the guy that I shoot down in his DVII/Camel/F2b more, for his willingness to rely on his skills rather than the UFO effect. Dr1 drivers will chime in with tales of woe regarding how skilled you have to be to control the little devil, that's not in debate.... I've always said that in the hands of a capable pilot the Dr1 wins hands down. The real issue here is that even very capable pilots of the other types struggle against the Dr1's, if that's ok because of historical accuracy in the FM then it's not ok because of historical accuracy in Dr1 availability (you can't argue one without the other).
-
SCTusk,
If you look at the data that has been posted in this thread, both the Dr1 and Camel are too fast in AH, especially the Dr1.
Camels with British-made Clerget's did not live up to the performance data that we see all over the internet, which was gathered with a French-made Clerget.
And when IdFlieg tested the Dr1, it was slower than the Fokker handbook.
Do we see a pattern developing here? Both sides' aircraft manufacturers made their tests with pumped-up aircraft in order to obtain a contract, and then sold their governments inferior machines.
-
I'd be against artificial "detuning" any aircraft purely for the sake of game play, where we have good historical information for climb rate, top speed, etc, AH should reflect it.
But I agree with BnZs point of view.
What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr.1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.
This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?
"What about robustness in dives or under Gs?"
I think this is one area that really could do with a review in AH. There's no doubt a WWI aircraft should shed a wing if pushed too far, and AH wouldn't be representative of WWI flying if the aircraft didn't, but the point at which this happens is subjective at best.
"under Gs"
Like BnZs, I've also seen nothing to suggest the Camel was any worse than the Dr.1 in this respect, or in fact the D.VII was weaker still than either of them. Yet in AH in a sustained spiral dive the D.VII can only pull until approximately half the screen is blacked out before shedding a wing, the Camel fairs slightly better pulling until just a small circle of day light remains, while the Dr.1 fairs much better pulling all the way to blackout and more.
Without historical data for how much "G" a factory fresh aircraft could pull, (remember we don't model poor quality control construction methods, engines that regularly failed or quickly lost performance after use, airframes that quickly rotted and lost strength in the wet weather of the Somme, only a factory fresh perfect example of the design every sortie) I would like to see the aircraft "evened out".
It probably isn't representative for WWI to be able to pull G with impunity, so say using the Camel as a bench mark, adjust all the aircraft so they can "pull until just a small circle of day light remains" and level the playing field in this respect.
"robustness in dives"
I've read many accounts of both sides recommending a high speed diving attack as the preferred fighting method, yet in AH this seems to be a highly suicidal approach. Whether they were be able to dive to a higher (unloaded) speed before suffering damage or whether the rapidly increasing drag at speed meant they just reached a terminal velocity sooner, I don't know.
Take this example from the notes given to student Camel pilots.
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/Camel1-1.jpg)
1b. goes to great pains to advise the student not to turn right until he know the machine thoroughly
yet
2c. advises to learn to shoot whist diving as steeply as possible
Note: No warring here about the likelihood of the wings coming off.
It's not the advise I would give a student pilot flying the AH Camel!
-
Ok,a big <S> to Wab, SCTusk, USRanger and Sid great stuff from all you fellas truly well thought out ideas on the way that the arena should be heading and balanced unbiased opinion on the current tools at our disposal.The problem now appears to be the distinct lack of reaction from anyone other than Ranger on the AH2 staff.
We need a ww1 forum so that all this doesnt get lost in the mountains of moaning from our ww2 pals. :cheers:
-
Wow Sid, you've made some very astute observations and conclusions there mate :aok
We need a ww1 forum so that all this doesnt get lost in the mountains of moaning from our ww2 pals. :cheers:
Again, :aok
-
I like AKWabbit's idea for the map and changes. However the big reason I don't like WWI is the planes performance. They all seem to fly the same speed to me. The DR-1 is way to fast in AH (102 mph for real) the DR-7 is 15 to 20 mph faster than the DR-1 the Camel at 113 mph it about the same as the DR-7. There are also clime rate and dive speed differences in real life but not in AH. You can't get separation once engaged. Then if you are not flying the DR-1 you get shot down most times.
I learned a long time ago not to confuse HTC with aircraft performance facts and figures. It is there company and it is what it is and there may be a technical reason for it I don't know about. That said I am still amazed at this way cool game. For a guy who grew up in a time that a toy with a battery in it was hi tech this game is great. Where else are you going to fly a ton of war birds anytime you want for $14.95. So I guess if the modeling is off some here and there oh well.
-
I like AKWabbit's idea for the map and changes. However the big reason I don't like WWI is the planes performance. They all seem to fly the same speed to me. The DR-1 is way to fast in AH (102 mph for real)
The airspeed you're referring to was 102.5mph at 13100ft (~4km), and that was with a Swiss-made LeRhone engine. The Oberusal copy was of inferior quality and did not yield the same performance.
The reason why you can't gain separation is because the machine gun dispersion for the WW1 fighters is tighter than any of the aerial tests you can find from WW1. Every WW1 sim I have ever seen suffers from this lack of fidelity to the historical data. I.e. compared to a Vickers mounted on a tripod, aerial tests found the Vickers to be 3% as effective at hitting a target the size of a man. On a calm day, with an expert pilot, only 60-70% of bullets landed in a 100ft^2 box at 2-300 yards.
-
The reason why you can't gain separation is because the machine gun dispersion for the WW1 fighters is tighter than any of the aerial tests you can find from WW1. Every WW1 sim I have ever seen suffers from this lack of fidelity to the historical data. I.e. compared to a Vickers mounted on a tripod, aerial tests found the Vickers to be 3% as effective at hitting a target the size of a man. On a calm day, with an expert pilot, only 60-70% of bullets landed in a 100ft^2 box at 2-300 yards.
I think that's modelled on the F2b rear gun. At least that's the impression I get using it, attacking one from the rear tends to reduce your rtb time.
-
Dispersion patterns for the Lewis gun were different than the Vickers, both when mounted overwing, e.g. the SE5a, and when fired from a flexible mount. In the first case, the dispersion pattern was less than half the size of fuselage mounted Vickers, but when fired from a flexible mount the Lewis' dispersion pattern was comparable to the Vickers.
I have toyed with these machine guns with the .target function offline, and I can tell you confidently that they are much tighter than these historical tests.
-
From Gunning for the Red Baron by Leon Bennett:
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/turbulence.png)
70-80% of the bullets were within the above circles.
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/gunnery.png)
The above aerial test was also with an expert shooter on a calm day. When the author says that the pattern opens up to "Lewis gun size," he is referring to the test from a flexible mount.
It can be inferred that placing the machine gun on the fuselage where it was subject to the full strength of engine vibrations more than doubled the dispersion pattern.
-
The motor used in the DR-1 for the speed of 102mph is the 110hp Oberursel UR.11 rotary engine not a Swiss made power plant and the dive speed was 140+. The UR.11 was the motor in the specs for the DR-1 listed in 1917. The DR-7 had a 160hp Mercedes or the 185hp BMWIII motor at 120 mph with a dive speed of 170mph. The Camel had a 130hp Clerget motor at 113 mph with a dive speed of 150 mph+.
The DR-7s clime rate was much better than ether of the other two aircraft. yet in AH they all are about the same speed. The DR-7 with its superior power speed and clime rate should be able to get a bit of separation. It is too bad WWI did not have better success. I do not see HTC investing any more resources in this arena. Maybe it is because it is just a furball arena with one dominate plane that rules the shy the DR-1 with no real objectives other than furballing.
-
The DR-7 :lol It was called the Fokker D.VII. There's a lot of confusion about its powerplants because the Germans called every Mercedes "160hp," even the ones that produced 180hp. The D.VII used the 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa, the overcompressed D.IIIau, and the superb BMW that could produce up to 232hp at sea level with the altitude throttle opened up. The D.VII in Aces High uses the weakest of these three engines, and only the very first D.VII deliveries retained it.
And as for the Dr.1:
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/Dr1profilepublications.png)
Be careful of the quoted speeds you read for the Camel. As Sid pointed out, the data we see is usually from tests with a French made Clerget, but the British made Clergets that were actually used in production models did not offer as much power. This was only corrected with the Clerget 9bf, and Camel upgrades to this powerplant were completed somewhere around May 1918.
-
You are correct about what you read. I have three books in front of me and I see different specs in all three. One listed the top speed of the DR.1 at just 86mph. I used Jane's fighting aircraft of WWI as it has middle of the road specs listed for each aircraft. It does not say who they got there information from.
The D.VII we have in the game is what I was going for for information. The long and the short of it is our D.VII is an under performer in the game. Games like The Rise of Flight seems to have the modeling a bit closer. While that is just a Micro Soft type game and does not have the on line game play of AH. However Rise Of Flight does have some very good training films posted for WWI air combat tactics.
-
Rise of Flight has the same turd-like D.VII as AH, but it also has the BMW powered variant, which is a great fighter at low altitude, and a stone-cold killer above 6000ft.
The one D.VII I've never seen modeled is the most numerous type, the one powered by the overcompressed Mercedes D.IIIau, which would be something like a middle road between the turd and the BMW powered types.
-
Rise of Flight has the same turd-like D.VII as AH, but it also has the BMW powered variant, which is a great fighter at low altitude, and a stone-cold killer above 6000ft.
The one D.VII I've never seen modeled is the most numerous type, the one powered by the overcompressed Mercedes D.IIIau, which would be something like a middle road between the turd and the BMW powered types.
I can live with no power in the d7 what keeps killing me is the wings making a run for it every time I pull a little "G". :headscratch:
-
Got some better trench textures to use now. The T.E. has a trench object, but I like these better because they are bigger with more variety. The object only comes in one shape. Work has begun. :salute
(http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3145/44585748.jpg) (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/44585748.jpg/)
-
Got some better trench textures to use now. The T.E. has a trench object, but I like these better because they are bigger with more variety. The object only comes in one shape. Work has begun. :salute
(http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3145/44585748.jpg) (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/44585748.jpg/)
Looks great!
:salute,
Wab
-
Nice one USRanger :aok
Any chance of some better tree cover for hiding under when things get rough? I like to land nearby and have a smoke when the furball's going badly, but I keep getting shot at parked out in the open.
-
Rise of Flight has the same turd-like D.VII as AH, but it also has the BMW powered variant, which is a great fighter at low altitude, and a stone-cold killer above 6000ft.
The one D.VII I've never seen modeled is the most numerous type, the one powered by the overcompressed Mercedes D.IIIau, which would be something like a middle road between the turd and the BMW powered types.
The AH D.VII seems to match the performance (speed/climb times) of a captured O.A.W built D.IIIau powered D.VII tested by the French. Mercedes D.IIIa powered D.VIIs were overall very early production rarities when looking at the total production.
One thing that might limit the performance of the AH's D.VII is its weight which correctly matches the captured O.A.W -built machine but it also seems significantly higher than the weights of the D.VII's from other manufacturers/production batches. I don't know what made them heavier nor am I completely certain about the exact weight distribution (ie. where the extra weight comes from/how the weights figures are usually listed). I need to do more research on that.
-
The airspeed you're referring to was 102.5mph at 13100ft (~4km), and that was with a Swiss-made LeRhone engine. The Oberusal copy was of inferior quality and did not yield the same performance.
The reason why you can't gain separation is because the machine gun dispersion for the WW1 fighters is tighter than any of the aerial tests you can find from WW1. Every WW1 sim I have ever seen suffers from this lack of fidelity to the historical data. I.e. compared to a Vickers mounted on a tripod, aerial tests found the Vickers to be 3% as effective at hitting a target the size of a man. On a calm day, with an expert pilot, only 60-70% of bullets landed in a 100ft^2 box at 2-300 yards.
This is very interesting.
I've been wanting to see the dispersion ramped up significantly for the WWI planes but the data on the matter is of course very rare. I tried to do an in game flying test using level autopilot comparing the LMG's of the Bf109G-2 to the D.VII by firing a hundred round burst to a distance of 400 yards. Basically both planes scored a very similar dispersion patterns but the on autopilot the nose of the D.VII drifts to the right so it was hard to do a reliable test. Because of that reason the horisontal spread was larget for the Fokker due to the drifting of the nose but the vertical spread was very similar for both planes. Considering the more modern weapons of the 109G-2 and the more rigid mountings I'd say that there should be a significant difference which wasn't there in the game but I obviously lack conclusive hard data to prove it. I then did a ground tests which then showed very similar dispersion patters for both of these planes.
I've understood that HTC uses different dispersion for weapons depending on where they are mounted. My hypothesis is that they've left the dispersion of these WWI LMGs to similar values as the LMGs of the WWII planes and the same thing seems to apply the mountings even though the mountings of the WWI guns were far less rigid.
Hopefully HTC takes a look into the dispersion of these WWI guns.
-
Nice research guys :aok Keep it up.
-
Nice work WMaker thank you sir. <S>
-
Here is some general weight information on the Fokker D.VII Empty Wt. 1.540 LB. Loaded Wt. 1.875 LB. Speed with the Mercedes 170hp D.III motor is 116mph. I think this is the plane we have in AH or close to it. Even if the top speed of the DR.1 was 102 the D.VII should still be able to dive way and get some separation from the DR.1.
The DR.1 is too fast in AH if the information I see is right. I see speeds for the DR.1 from 86mph to 102 so who knows what information was used to model it. All I know is all these planes seem to fly the same speed in AH WWI arena. Only the maneuverability of the DR.1 makes the difference in the fights. I am sorry the WWI arena didn't have more success because I like WWI air combat. By the way nice work on the maps USRanger.
-
The AH D.VII seems to match the performance (speed/climb times) of a captured O.A.W built D.IIIau powered D.VII tested by the French. Mercedes D.IIIa powered D.VIIs were overall very early production rarities when looking at the total production.
One thing that might limit the performance of the AH's D.VII is its weight which correctly matches the captured O.A.W -built machine but it also seems significantly higher than the weights of the D.VII's from other manufacturers/production batches. I don't know what made them heavier nor am I completely certain about the exact weight distribution (ie. where the extra weight comes from/how the weights figures are usually listed). I need to do more research on that.
That is surprising because I wouldn't expect a D.IIIau powered D.VII's best TAS to be at sea level. On the other hand, it's hard to know how representative a captured aircraft is. Engines wore out quickly, and if the captured machine was in a bad state, then even the higher quality Entente fuel would not give an accurate impression of the aircraft in its factory state.
Here is a thread that has original test data for the D.IIIau.
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/48085-production-numbers-mercedes-diii-series-13.html
-
That is surprising because I wouldn't expect a D.IIIau powered D.VII's best TAS to be at sea level.
I've been wondering the same thing myself but that is what the test showed...it still keeps the speed roughly equal to sea level performance until 1000m is reached. I know the problem with captured aircraft in general, just mentioned the fact that AH's performance seems to agree with that test. The French report on the plane can be found from the Windsock's Fokker D.VII Anthology #2. Here's a thread discussing about the said plane/test: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/44760-fokker-d-vii-no-2009-presumably-tested-allies.html (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/44760-fokker-d-vii-no-2009-presumably-tested-allies.html)
On the other hand, the rpm at all out level in AH shows 1400rpm which would suggest to a D.IIIa. I've understood from the British testing of an D.IIIau that it ran ~1600rpm all out at level.
-
Thanks for sharing that. Following the thread, it seems hardly certain that D.VII had a D.IIIau, and even if it did, there were questions about how the engine was tuned and the fuel that was used. It's a very familiar story for WW1 aircraft data, I'm afraid.
Btw, RoF's D.VII is modeled from data with a regular D.IIIa engine (from the Adlershof trials, iirc), and it is faster at altitude than the one we have here in AH.
-
Got some better trench textures to use now. The T.E. has a trench object, but I like these better because they are bigger with more variety. The object only comes in one shape. Work has begun. :salute
(http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3145/44585748.jpg) (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/44585748.jpg/)
I liked the first trenches but I like these even more. :salute
Nice one USRanger :aok
Any chance of some better tree cover for hiding under when things get rough? I like to land nearby and have a smoke when the furball's going badly, but I keep getting shot at parked out in the open.
Probably not.......the original ww1 arena looked like Sherwood Forest until I crashed into them all. :joystick:
-
Following the thread, it seems hardly certain that D.VII had a D.IIIau, and even if it did, there were questions about how the engine was tuned and the fuel that was used. It's a very familiar story for WW1 aircraft data, I'm afraid.
Rgr, it's a long time since I've read the thread myself. There are some old digitized Flight Journals that have an article on the D.IIIau which was taken from a captured Albatros D.Va where they got only around 160hp out of it using normal settings (ie. not using higher alt throttle at sea level). I do realize with the little reading I've done on the subject that it really needs quite bit of studying to get the big picture here and even then there will be a boat load of unanswered questions. It can be a complex subject.
-
I’m all for adding some new planes to the WWI arena. That can never hurt. However, while I think it would create a temporary bump in interest, I don’t think it would solve the fundamental problem. I think the WWI arena needs some strategic game-play more like the WWII MA. If the current WWI Arena is left for furballing and a WWI MA is added, that’s fine with me. However, WWI pilots should have access to some semblance of the depth of game-play that the WWII players have. I think this could be started with a modest amount of effort.
I’d like to see a field layout similar to:
(I suck at drawing. Ideally these should be exactly spaced evenly and the circles should just be touching....)
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/map2.png)
I’d guess fields would be ~12 miles apart.
Fields have light ack. They should be protected with aircraft.
Hangars are destroyable. (Standard rebuild times.)
Each field is associated with a nearby command post (instead of town). With some 17lbs gun emplacements, a light ack, and a tethered observation balloon
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/ballon.png)
that functions as field dar. There is no country dar.
The current plane-set would be allowed to carry 2 x 20lbs bombs. The F2B maybe should carry 4 x 20lbs.
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/bombs.png)
Each country would have access to a single model of tank:
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/tank.png)
and a troop truck:
(http://jasonirby.net/bitbucket/WWI/MA/truck.png)
These vehicles spawn from a field vehicle hangar into the no-man’s zone. They will fight their way towards an enemy field. If the defenses are suppressed and the troop truck gets close enough to release its cargo of commando’s, they can capture the command post and the associated airfield changes ownership.
Is this absolutely historically accurate? No. But no less than P-51 vs. P-51 vs. P-51 in a 3-way WWII MA. Scenarios are where historical accuracy can rule. The MA needs fun game-play. What the modest changes would do is give a structure and purpose to the fighting. It would give a framework on which to hang the action. A context. Goal-Oriented-Combat.
With these limited changes I think we could greatly improve the WWI arena experience and give it a depth of game-play that some of those ~450 WWII MA players that occasionally visit the WWI arena might find interesting enough to visit more often. If 1/4 of those decided to come play regularly, a WWI MA would rock.
Regards,
Wab
As an addition to Wabs most excellent plan Id like to see a few bases at the edges of the map where players could go for a discrete 1v1 or some flight/squad training. :cheers:
-
As few folks that play in the WWI arena a 1v1 so not a problem at this time. What I would like to see is something that may revive the WWI arena. I don't know what that would be be for sure but a few ideas like the map changes and an objective could help. I don't see HTC spending to many more resources developing more aircraft until we see enough folks to make it worth while.
I would like to see an Albatros D.Va the Spad XIII and the Sopwith Dolphin but I won't until attendance is way up from what it is now. I wish I had a brilliant plan the fix this over night but that ain't the case. Maybe start with the wings on the D.VII and the speed of the DR.1 so it is just not a place to get killed by the DR.1 or a balloon or two to shoot at.
I see guys in there that can fly any of the four planes in the set well. What I am talking about is the guy that just stops in WWI to check it out and gets whacked 4 or 5 times right off the bat by a DR.1 and don't come back again. For the guys like USRanger who are working on things in WWI, thank you and keep up the good work <S>.
-
I would like to see an Albatros D.Va.
Don't bother with that aircraft unless the Camel is slowed down to the "British Camel" figures (similar for the Dr1). Otherwise it's dead meat.
-
I'd like to see the planes we have now "fixed" before introducing any more, but when it comes to new planes; I agree with Anaxogoras regarding the Albatros D.Va.
Any reason we can't have both the British Camel and French Camel? (minimal work to introduce).
But if there are two planes crying out to be added, they are the:
The Spad S.XIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPAD_S.XIII)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/SPADXIII.jpg)
The S.XIII was flown by famous French fighter pilots such as Georges Guynemer and Rene Fonck, and also by Italian ace Francesco Baracca. Aces of the United States Army Air Service who flew the Spad XIII include Eddie Rickenbacker (America's leading ace with 26 confirmed victories) and Frank Luke (18 victories).
The S.E.5a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_SE5)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/SE5a.jpg)
Many of the top Allied aces flew this fighter including Billy Bishop, Andrew Beauchamp-Proctor, Cecil Lewis, Edward Mannock and James McCudden. Legendary British ace Albert Ball was initially disparaging of the S.E.5 but in the end claimed 17 of his 44 victories flying it.
-
Yep I agree fix what we got now both the Camel and the DR.1 are way too fast and the D.VII has a wing problem. Then if we can't get enough things changed to draw a better crowd then we can worry about new planes. I mentioned the Albatros only because it was one of the most produced German planes of the war and I like its looks too. I was surprised not to have seen it or the Spad as one of the first planes in the game.
-
The Albatros D.Va was a fine machine. However, its reputation seems to have been forever tainted by MVR and his complaints when the D.V failed to offer improvement over the D.III. With the 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa engine, the D.Va was a reasonably fast fighter that was easy to fly, and it was retained at the front line when the Dr1 was retired. Its major weakness was the stupid v-strut design that was copied from the Nieuport fighters, and so there was a danger of wing failure if the pilot dived too fast and too steeply. But it was still able to run away and dive away from more maneuverable fighters like the Sopwith Camel. In combat with the D.Va, Camel pilots estimated that turn rates were about equal to the left, but that they could turn 3 circles to the right in the time the D.Va could make 2. On the other hand, the Spad13 and SE5a were both faster, climbed better, and could dive faster; those two fighters have my vote as the finest Entente fighters of WW1.
Anyway, by the time we get to mid-1918, the period represented in Aces High, the D.Va was a second string fighter (even after it was upgraded to the Mercedes D.IIIau). Some units continued to be partially equipped with it all the way to the armistice.
-
The spad VIII would out class any other plane in the game at this time. It had a speed of 134mph. I think in may have been the most produced allied fight of the war I think I read about 8400 were built. All the variants of the Albatros had to put it at the top of German production. I think about 2000 Albatros DIII were made and the Albatros D.Va had about 3000 built. But I ain't hold out a lot of hope of seeing new planes in the WWI arena.
-
Got some better trench textures to use now. The T.E. has a trench object, but I like these better because they are bigger with more variety. The object only comes in one shape. Work has begun. :salute
(http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3145/44585748.jpg) (http://img130.imageshack.us/i/44585748.jpg/)
Any news on your fantastic looking terrain Sir? :salute
-
Very close to finished. Posted a pic in the TE forum last night.
-
Thanks USRanger, looking good. :salute