Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: WldWeasl on March 31, 2011, 12:12:19 PM
-
I'm curious as to the reason for the selection of the aircraft mentioned above. I know that the A6M2 for the Ki-43 makes sense but I'm not sure why we aren't using the Hurricane II's in the scenario instead of the Hurricane I's.
There were in fact Mk II's in theater in 1942, and it seems that the 135 Sqd. did in fact fly IIa's and IIb's during this time.
Can someone explain to me the rationale of upgrading (significantly) the Ki-43 to the A6M2 (and then A6M5) and NOT using the planeset (Mk IIb's) that were ACTUALLY in theater?
I know I'm a noob in the scenario world... but this seems like a fair question..
WldWeasl
-
Alies had Hurr Is. End of discussion. They also had F2A Buffaloes and we are substituting it with the B-239. Same goes for the Ki 43 and Ki 44. Both are being substituted along with the Dinah.
-
Timeframe: January to first week of March.
Hurricanes at Rangoon were Mk IIa for One Seven and IIb for One Three Five Squadrons. However, there is no way in heck I am going to put the IIC we have currently in place for a substitution. Those 4 hispanos would shred the Betties and ruin the event.
A6M5 is substituting for the KI-44, not the KI-43.
And its the "Nick", not the Dinah, the "original" writeup by DoKtOr GoNzO had that wrong and I missed it when I updated the planeset.
-
Alies had Hurr Is. End of discussion. They also had F2A Buffaloes and we are substituting it with the B-239. Same goes for the Ki 43 and Ki 44. Both are being substituted along with the Dinah.
You are starting to speak with such authority. Problem is you are dead wrong. Hurri IIs were the Burma birds.
-
Right,
135 flew Hurricane Mk IIb's. Obviously the major difference was firepower... 12 Browning MG's vs 8 Browning MG's. Regardless of what plane the A6M2 is replacing, it's a significant upgrade. If you're substituting, why wouldn't you at least do planeset to planeset...meaning...Mk I's vs A6M2 for the required frames.. but then Mk II (either C or D) vs A6M5 for later frames?
Or.. skew numbers (1 more Sentai for example)...
Just asking..
-
Hurricanes at Rangoon were Mk IIa for One Seven and IIb for One Three Five Squadrons. However, there is no way in heck I am going to put the IIC we have currently in place for a substitution. Those 4 hispanos would shred the Betties and ruin the event.
-
Much more understandable in red :aok
-
So let me get this straight...it's ok to significantly upgrade the firepower of the Japanese planeset but it's NOT ok to upgrade the allied planeset in order to "protect" the Japanese planeset?
Just trying to figure out the constraints that I will be flying under.
-
So let me get this straight...it's ok to significantly upgrade the firepower of the Japanese planeset but it's NOT ok to upgrade the allied planeset in order to "protect" the Japanese planeset?
Just trying to figure out the constraints that I will be flying under.
There is nothing in the Japanese plane set for this scenario that has anything remotely as deadly as the (4) laser guided Hizookas on the Hurri C
-
I'm sure that there's been some discussion as to "equality" in equipment for the scenario. If it's not logical to include the IIc for lethality reasons, I can buy that.... but is there a way to "tweak" the Mk I to more closely resemble the IIb's that were actually flown? Especially due to the "upgrade" to the "Zero" in this scenario.
Then again, I AM flying the Hurricane along side "The Few"..so I'm sure there are some tricks I'll learn along the way...
Weasl
-
I have read that a number of the IIbs even removed the outboard guns, feelign they weren't worth the weight and loss of roll. Effectively flying as a slightly faster Mk.Ia (the Mk.IIa).
IMO the firepower of 2cs is so much more than 2as or 2bs that you cannot substitute those planes.
I do find subbing in the cannon-wielding zekes for the 13.7mm MG-wielding Kis to be a bit of a stretch, but we don't have much to swap in, do we?
I almost think the C.202 would be a better match, only it's not nearly as manuverable.
I-16 with cannons disabled might be a good sub for early Ki-43s, only the range just won't work in this setup. You'd have to dumb down the fuel burn to 0.2 or less.
Although... the C2 idea is looking somewhat interesting now... Maybe use it as the sub for Ki-44? It's got the speed and similar guns.
-
I'm sure that there's been some discussion as to "equality" in equipment for the scenario. If it's not logical to include the IIc for lethality reasons, I can buy that.... but is there a way to "tweak" the Mk I to more closely resemble the IIb's that were actually flown? Especially due to the "upgrade" to the "Zero" in this scenario.
Then again, I AM flying the Hurricane along side "The Few"..so I'm sure there are some tricks I'll learn along the way...
Weasl
I suppose you weren't around when Schatzi was flying?
Need tips? :devil
http://www.slowcat.de/slowcats1/films/TNFS.wmv (http://www.slowcat.de/slowcats1/films/TNFS.wmv)
-
Let's not forget tropical filters on the hurr2Bs... Didn't they add quite a bit of drag?
End result is the 1a isn't too far off, if that's the case. The only difference being the negative G cutout on the engine.
-
A Hurri IIa is a Hurr I with a more-reliable engine (which doesn't matter in AH terms). A Hurri IIb is a Hurri I with bomb racks (not applicable to this battle, and slightly slower, by the way) and two more 303's (not that big a deal). Thus Hurri IIa and IIb are about the same as a I. A IIc is not at all the same as a I, is a poor fit for what was there, and would be hugely unblancing in this fight.
As a person who signed up for Hurri I's in this event, I'm not that worried about it. 8 303's that spray out a huge cloud of projectiles might be quite excellent weapons against Japanese planes that are the most flammable in the game. Regardless, I want to fly, fight, and win my victories in the more-historical Hurri I! :aok
Now, one could argue that D3A's are a more accurate subsitution than a6m2's -- but we figured no one would sign up to fly d3a's as a fighter substitution, we'd get nothing but grief, and we don't have the luxury of trying registration then changing it if it doesn't work. (Of course, if we had the more-realistic d3a as a main Japanese fighter, we should have a more-realistic ratio, like 5:1 Japanese odds or something, and again very likely get no one signing up.) The registration process and timeline is more like maneuvering a battleship than like maneuvering a PT boat. You can't try it out, stop it if things aren't working, change things around radically, restart it, and have things proceed on plan. You can't slolom around with it. You have to pick a direction and go for it.
For the Japanese plane set, the a6m5 is in there because the Brewster model we have is perhaps better than the Brewster model that was there; and to even things out some the other way, the allies have some P-40E's, which weren't there early on.
The c.202 isn't a good fit for any Japanese plane in this fight. It is enormously faster and handles well at very high speeds, which is radically different than the Japanese plane set. Armament is only one of many dimensions to consider.
Scenarios aim for realism and playability, and those features often pull in opposite directions that require tradeoffs. Not everyone is going to agree with the tradeoffs that are made, no matter what those tradeoffs are. The scenario team picks things based on those goals and its experience in running scenarios. It might not be perfect, but it's our best guess at what best balances realism and playability.
-
So let me get this straight...it's ok to significantly upgrade the firepower of the Japanese planeset but it's NOT ok to upgrade the allied planeset in order to "protect" the Japanese planeset?
Just trying to figure out the constraints that I will be flying under.
We're talking the difference between .303-ball (Hurri IIa and IIb) and 20mm-HEF with an upgraded engine (IIc). That's an extremely wide margin and gap.
-
All fair points of discussion. Like I said, I'm a scenario noob and I'm sure there was discussion about substitutes, I wasn't so much concerned about variants, as I was about making sure (as accurately as possible) that deviations we're similar...(if JAAF had cannons in Rangoon and the AVG et. al. did not, then it should be as close to the same as possible for this scenario)
-
the only solution to this argument is to have an accurate plane set.
until then, scenarios should be designed around available aircraft.
AHII is at it's best when immersion sets in. but scenarios aren't the bread n butter.
so HTC panders to the MA crowd more, because thats what pays the bills.
i haven't even signed up for this event.. :frown: :frown: :uhoh
-
Scenarios are an attempt to give people a taste of the historical fighting as best we can manage, using what is available and making consessions to playability (since, of course, without that, we'd have no players). Thus, no scenario is perfectly realistic. But if you get done with a fight, and think to yourself, "Man! That was like this mission I read about!" -- and if you had fun -- then the scenario is a success.
To skip a scenario because it has plane substitution strikes me as missing the forest for the trees.
Availability of planes is only one item among many such as having GPS in the cockpit, not having to worry about weather or much about visibility compared to real life, not having to worry about death or injury or physical endurance, not having any physical problems at extreme altitudes, never any 6-hour missions, no battles set up for 10:1 odds, planes always being 100% maintained, ammo and fuel always being good, full knowledge of what you are up against and when, and sides being balanced so that each side has its chance to prevail.
Also, AH has an excellent and impressively large list of aircraft, but it can't do every single one that served in WWII. If we were to restrict ourselves only to battles where we needed no plane substitution or deletion at all, we would run no Battle of Britain (lacking the He 111), no Flying Tigers (lacking early-war Japanese stuff), nothing in North Africa (lacking some Italian planes), nothing in the Mediterranian (lacking things like the Beaufighter and some Italian planes), nothing on the Eastern Front (where 80% or more of the European fighting of WWII took place, by the way), no Coral Sea or Midway (lacking the TBD), etc.
As an example, what is the most-realistic scenario? I think it's Coral Sea. Similar number and type of ships as history, same number of pilots on each side as history, as close to weather of those days as can be crafted in the game (moreso than any other scenario), and all the same plane types as history -- except that we use the TBM for the TBD. It's a significant change, yes, but still overall Coral Sea has fewer deviations from history than others.
Of course, I realize that there can be people who like a particular scenario but not another.
Me, though -- I like them *all*! :aok
-
The c.202 isn't a good fit for any Japanese plane in this fight. It is enormously faster and handles well at very high speeds, which is radically different than the Japanese plane set. Armament is only one of many dimensions to consider.
I understand that. But you realize it's almost the same speed and climb and turn rates as the Ki-61, but without the 20mm cannons, right? It's FTH goes up 1000 feet higher and drops off a little less sharply, btu fairly close.
Perhaps it doesn't fit the Ki-43 because of this top speed, but surely it fits the Ki-44 better?
Pulling from Wiki:
"Ki-44 Type I
was powered by a 930 kW (1,250 hp) Nakajima Ha-41 engine, and had a maximum speed of 580 km/h (363 mph). Armament consisted of two 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 89 machine guns and two 12.7 mm (.50 in) Ho-103 machine guns placed in the wing."
Well, you compare the specs with AH:
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=c202&p2=ki61&p3=a6m2&p4=a6m5
You'll see the C202 only does about 375 (12mph faster that Ki-44). The guns are right, just swapped positions, nose for wings. Its range is also actually decent, since unlike the c205 it doesn't guzzle so bad. Fuel multiplier tuned down a little would give it good legs.
Seems like a darned good match. I'm shocked I never looked at it as a substitute sooner!
EDIT: I agree with your comments about plane subs, though. We do what we can with what we have. Sometimes it's great fun. Sometimes it's lacking. It's always a learning experience!
EDIT2: The Ki-44II was 376mph top speed and had 4x 12.7 mm MGs. Also a close fit to C202! Wish I'd learned this ages back!
-
Perhaps it doesn't fit the Ki-43 because of this top speed, but surely it fits the Ki-44 better?
True, speed and armament (at least for one variant of the Ki-44) seem a good match.
-
It never really sat right with me going up against A6M5bs last Rangoon scenario in my P-40B, because while they had speed, they also had quite the punch. The real Japanese forces had to contend with much lighter armaments. 2x17.7mm as the main guns is a far cry from 2x 20mm with 240 rounds of 20mm. Against a P-40 they ran the risk of running out of ammo and having to bug out.
Only down side is the C2 isn't nearly as manuverable, and the Ki44 had butterfly flaps, if I recall. I'd be willing to give it a shot, though!
-
I think that the a6m5 hits weird control issues at a lower speed than the a6m2. (In fact, unless you are quick with trim, it used to be the case that you could find yourself in real trouble due to uncorrectable roll and pitch.) In a P-40, I'd much rather go up against a Zero than a C.202. Zeros handle very poorly at speed -- the C.202 is not only much, much faster overall, but handles well at high speed, which to me is a greater threat.
-
I think that the a6m5 hits weird control issues at a lower speed than the a6m2. (In fact, unless you are quick with trim, it used to be the case that you could find yourself in real trouble due to uncorrectable roll and pitch.) In a P-40, I'd much rather go up against a Zero than a C.202. Zeros handle very poorly at speed -- the C.202 is not only much, much faster overall, but handles well at high speed, which to me is a greater threat.
I agree.
Plus the A6M5 should benefit from being a Japanese aircraft. That and the C.202's high speed handling is why I think the Zeke 5 is a better fit.
-
It's a greater threat until it runs out of ammo or gas.
But, to be fair, the plane it would be substituing for is SUPPOSED to be a threat. That's the role the Ki44 plays. :)
-
A6M3 to be added soon. Perhaps its a better sub than A6M5b?
-
Possibly it might be a better solution than an A6M5..
Two problems however.
Just like terrains we are not going to design around a plane that while "on the way" it is not yet released.
Secondly we have already begun registration and people are signing up for an aircraft already advertised, changing it at this stage would not be something we would consider lightly.
-
Just mentioning it... Carry on. :)
-
Yep, it doesn't work to change a ride someone has already signed up for.
The most to do in that regard is to reduce some of the unregistered spots and add some of another aircraft as a new, separate unit. That also isn't something to do lightly, though.
-
Possibly it might be a better solution than an A6M5..
Two problems however.
Just like terrains we are not going to design around a plane that while "on the way" it is not yet released.
Secondly we have already begun registration and people are signing up for an aircraft already advertised, changing it at this stage would not be something we would consider lightly.
That's a recurring problem. The thing is you never announce them far enough ahead of time to allow and discussion that brings up these types of things.
For example the P-47 overload ammo on the last scenario. Simple enough to disable, right? But the logic is "folks have already started training with that" and so the rules aren't changed the setup remains frozen in time.
Only, we can't discuss it unless we know about it, you see? It's a catch 22. By the next time such a scenario gets dusted off these long-forgotten but valid ideas/discussions are lost in time.
-
Krusty, I will be happy to send you an application for the CM Team.
-
I understand what you're saying. I don't have time to help out in that way. However, as messy as you may fear general forum discussions on upcoming scenarios may be (maybe? I know the forums can break down sometimes), you can always preface in large bold font red blinking face text that the scenario team can take or leave any parts of the discussion they agree fit (or don't) the upcoming scenario and that NO promises have been made.
I'm sure there's some middle ground to discuss these things with non-CM-team members? Even if only tentative discussions. Post the scenario breakdown, discuss, save all the notes, and even if that scenario isn't used that year (or the next) you review the notes and the minutes of the archived/saved discussion whenever it's dusted off.
Surely it can't help to bring out new ideas (i.e. the c2 for ki-44). As an example: I was not happy with the A6M5b as a sub for Ki44 in the last Rangoon. Here we are running it again and the same issue comes up. Too late to change this time around, and I guess I can accept that and move on. Will there be a point where you say "We're thinking of Rangoon again sometime, no promises. Thoughts here, please." ?
(fill in Rangoon with whatever you're considering)
-
Open discussions with everyone involved in the design process does not work. We tried that -- several times. It eventually devloves into a caustic morass of argument.
-
Give them the A6m 3 on the front page :D
-
Another option to use the A6M3 is to have all those registered with A6M5 to vote on substitution with A6M3.
Needs a 100% vote in favour to make the switch.
That being said, I'm not even registered.
-
See the other thread: Why are you putting the A6M3 in for the A6M5b? It's not there to replace the -3... It's there to replace the Ki-44, which we don't have in-game. The A6M3 would be a step down.
-
I don't see where 110c's come into it though? :D
-
I think Fencer has it in there as a Ki-45 Nick (not as a Dinah as currently listed in writeup -- I think that needs to be changed).
A better choice would have been the Me 262, of course, but would he listen to me? No. ;)
-
Let's not forget tropical filters on the hurr2Bs... Didn't they add quite a bit of drag?
End result is the 1a isn't too far off, if that's the case. The only difference being the negative G cutout on the engine.
just a hint krusty if you dont already know... sadly you try to get a good stall going in that... youre dead. honestly i'd love to see the 2A and 2B sometime soon because that carbeaurator's gonna kill the Hurris. one thing i dont like is P40Bs vs A6M5Bs. the A6M5 has a severe advantage over the 40B compared to what it truly fought (KI43s KI44s). I understand you have the 40E in there... just uneasy about it. either way im going to have fun downing Bettys and Zekes :aok
-
Hasn't anyone watched the film of Schatzi's Hurri1 pwnage, yet?
Some lessons to be learned there. You can even see when she is on/off the throttle from the puffs of exhaust :aok
-
Just a reminder that DoK GoNzO designed this one and it has been ran twice before.
The plane set before was even more riddled with substitutions and planes which were not even there.
HQ @ 4 P40E
HQ @ 4 A6M5b
RECON @ 4 Beaufighter (A20G)
L.R. ESCORT @ 4 x Ki-46-III Dinah (Me110C) + 4 x A6M5b
1 RAF Sqdn @ 12 Spit I
2 IJA Bomber Sqdn @ 3 Betty (Ju-88) Formations
1 RAF Sqdn @ 12 Hurri I
3 IJN Fighter Sqdn @ 12 A6M5b
1 AVG Sqdn @ 12 P40B
3 IJA Fighter Sqdn @ 12 A6M2
1 AVG Sqdn @ 12 P40E
1 RAAF Sqdn @ 12 F4F-3 (FM2)
* "Reserve" Sqdn @ 12 Buffalo (SBD)
-
You are starting to speak with such authority. Problem is you are dead wrong. Hurri IIs were the Burma birds.
:aok
-
Just a reminder that DoK GoNzO designed this one and it has been ran twice before.
The plane set before was even more riddled with substitutions and planes which were not even there.
HQ @ 4 P40E
HQ @ 4 A6M5b
RECON @ 4 Beaufighter (A20G)
L.R. ESCORT @ 4 x Ki-46-III Dinah (Me110C) + 4 x A6M5b
1 RAF Sqdn @ 12 Spit I
2 IJA Bomber Sqdn @ 3 Betty (Ju-88) Formations
1 RAF Sqdn @ 12 Hurri I
3 IJN Fighter Sqdn @ 12 A6M5b
1 AVG Sqdn @ 12 P40B
3 IJA Fighter Sqdn @ 12 A6M2
1 AVG Sqdn @ 12 P40E
1 RAAF Sqdn @ 12 F4F-3 (FM2)
* "Reserve" Sqdn @ 12 Buffalo (SBD)
I could live with seeing the Brewster drivers back in their early-era SBDs. :devil
-
I could live with seeing the Brewster drivers back in their early-era SBDs. :devil
Considering the performance LEAP our Brewster has, the fact that many Brewsters had major problems with their wing guns jamming instantly and not firing again, the 2x50cal loadout of the SBD and lesser performance actually do sound (on the surface) a better match.
-
As a result of all this conjecture about the Brewster, I'm going to go out on a limb here (not having looked at it much yet) and say that I bet the Brewster we have and the one that was at Rangoon are fairly similar in performance.
I'm going to look into the performance, do some math, and present my case in the next week, and we'll see what that data says (as opposed to anecdotes and conjecture)! ;)
-
Seeing as no F3A-1s ever saw combat, I'd say they were later models. Most likely B-339Ds or Es or even B-439s... Essentially worse than F2A-3s because of the lesser engines and worse weight
Those export versions were a bane upon all who used them. Brewster was a terrible company.
Basic clip from Wiki:
"The Brewster Model B-339E, as modified and supplied to Great Britain was distinctly inferior in performance to the F2A-2 (Model B-339) from the original order. It had a less powerful (1,000 hp/746 kW) engine compared to the F2A-2's 1,200 hp (895 kW) Cyclone, yet was substantially heavier due to all of the additional modifications (some 900 lb/400 kg). The semi-retractable tail wheel had been exchanged for a larger fixed model, which was also less aerodynamic. Top speed was reduced from 323 mph (520 km/h) to 313 mph (504 km/h) at combat altitudes.
In its original form, the B-339 had a theoretical maximum speed of 323 mph (520 km/h) at a rather unrealistic 21,000 ft (6,400 m), but fuel starvation problems and poor supercharger performance at higher altitudes meant that this figure was never achieved in combat; the B-339E was no different in this regard. Its maneuverability was severely impaired (the aircraft was unable to perform loops), and initial rate of climb was reduced to 2,300 ft/min. The Wright Cyclone 1890-G-105 engine designated for use in the Brewster Mk I was in short supply; many aircraft were fitted with secondhand Wright engines sourced from Douglas DC-3 airliners and rebuilt to G105 or G102A specifications by Wright.[18] In service, some effort was made by at least one Brewster squadron to improve the type's sluggish performance; a few aircraft were lightened by some 1,000 lb (450 kg) by removing armor plate, armored windshields, radios, gun camera, and all other unnecessary equipment, and by replacing all .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns with two .303 in (7.7 mm) cowling guns. The fuselage tanks were filled with a minimum of fuel, and run on high-octane aviation petrol where available. At Alor Star airfield in Malaya, the Japanese captured over 1,000 barrels (160 m3) of high-octane aviation petrol from British forces, which they promptly used in their own fighter aircraft"
Vic Bargh, pilot over Rangoon:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/bargh.htm
(very interesting read, must be diary notes)
Also on another interesting note: Dates and numbers produced:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/prod.htm
My words:
In-game the Brewster is arguably more than a match for the A6M2. While the Zero has a slightly tighter turn radius, the Brew dives infinitely better, retains more E for zooming, can instantly set the zero on fire, and had quad .50s. In real life the Brew was almost toothless and almost defenseless. It wasn't a matter of pilot skill as much as the guns would fire 1 burst, the planes lacked much armor, they couldn't hope to turn against japanese planes and the main way to survive was to dive straight down and run from a fight. They encountered far far more nimble Ki-43s and Nates and other planes that put even a A6M2 to shame in turn radius.
it's a bit like putting a Spit5 in for a spit1, IMO. If we're going that route, so be it. It's already decided. I'm just discussing it on the forums for the sake of it.
-
For the sake of discussion or the need to just let it go :)
It's the only Brewster we have. For immersion sake, it's the way to go. The Allies already are upping Hurri I's that are lesser performers and have less hitting power then their historical counterparts at Rangoon. The Mk IIA and B in particular had a better speed by almost 20mph over the Hurri I. The Hurri IIc actually is slower then the IIA and B and yes that's with the tropical filter. Call it even with the Brewsters. The Japanese are upping birds of higher performance with better hitting power then their historical counter parts. Throw in that 110 and those cannons, and I'd say I'm not too worried about the Japanese suffering from the Allies being coddled by flying two squadrons of Brewsters.
I think as a P40B driver, I ought to be screaming the loudest. Instead I think I'll just fly the thing, enjoy pretending I'm a cartoon Flying Tiger pilot and hope the immersion is what I think it will be. :aok
-
I quite agree with you in the "it balances out" field -- and with the "it's the only BREW we have" comment.
P.S. Those A6M5bs gave us some trouble last time... I was in P-40Bs. You'll love it! I'm trying the other side this time :salute
EDIT: Although.. I just noticed there are FOUR squads of P-40s this time?? We only had 1 squad P-40Bs and 1 P-40Es last time...
color me ???
-
P.S. Those A6M5bs gave us some trouble last time... I was in P-40Bs. You'll love it! I'm trying the other side this time :salute
EDIT: Although.. I just noticed there are FOUR squads of P-40s this time?? We only had 1 squad P-40Bs and 1 P-40Es last time...
you aint lasting 5 minutes krusty :t good luck sir <S> :aok