Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: alpini13 on July 23, 2011, 01:19:44 PM

Title: please some NEW fighters
Post by: alpini13 on July 23, 2011, 01:19:44 PM
i would like to see more fighters in the game. hitech has made alot of changes in past two years and they are all wonderful, the gv wars have alot to choose from,the new fields and towns are great,some great bombers have been added....but only one fighter has been added ina long time...and that was just a variant of a model already in game (A6M) .  would like to see KI-43,KI-44,KI-100,J2M5,G-50,G55,RE2005,CR-42,MIG 3,YAK-3,Bell P-63 Kingcobra,Dewoitine D.520 ,Fairey Firefly,Gloster Gladiator,Henschel Hs 123, I.A.R. 80/81,Macchi M.C.200 ,Polikarpov I-15,............and an axis transport too please(ju-52 or SM-82)  thank you
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Rich52 on July 23, 2011, 01:24:32 PM
I'd love to see the FireFly. Britain was a huge naval carrier presence in the war yet all we have to show for it is the Seafire. The Yak 3 would be a fine addition too.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Rino on July 23, 2011, 02:18:55 PM
I'd love to see the FireFly. Britain was a huge naval carrier presence in the war yet all we have to show for it is the Seafire. The Yak 3 would be a fine addition too.

     I believe there are skins for Hellcats, Corsairs, Avengers and Wildcat/Martlets for the Fleet air arm.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 23, 2011, 02:19:23 PM
fyi, the Ki-100 is "just a variant" of the Ki-61.  :p

However, you can add Beaufighter, Ki-45 and Me410 to your list.  If you want to include night fighters you can add the P-61, He219 and Ju88G-7 (yes, it is a Ju88, but it is so different from the Ju88A-4 that I'd count it as completely new).

If you want to be silly you can add the Gloster Meteor Mk III.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Beefcake on July 23, 2011, 02:24:42 PM
I'd love to see some more fighters like the A26, Me410, Redone A20 with 4x20mms, etc, etc.  ;) :D
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 23, 2011, 02:25:59 PM
A-26 is not a fighter.  A-20 is not a fighter.  Those are both bombers, so I can see why you would advocate them.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Pigslilspaz on July 23, 2011, 03:50:19 PM
We got a new fighter last update, sure I would want another new one as well, but don't act like we aren't getting any.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 23, 2011, 06:26:51 PM
We got a new fighter last update, sure I would want another new one as well, but don't act like we aren't getting any.
The OP specifically referenced that fighter.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: SIK1 on July 23, 2011, 06:37:51 PM
A-26 is not a fighter.  A-20 is not a fighter.  Those are both bombers, so I can see why you would advocate them.
Nope not bomber. Both are attack aircraft hence the "A" designation. If they were bombers they would have a "B" designation.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 23, 2011, 06:40:48 PM
Nope not bomber. Both are attack aircraft hence the "A" designation. If they were bombers they would have a "B" designation.
:rolleyes:

In AH terms they are bombers. In both terms they are intended to hit things on the ground.  Fighters are intended to hit things in the air, or things in the air and one the ground.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Rich52 on July 23, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
     I believe there are skins for Hellcats, Corsairs, Avengers and Wildcat/Martlets for the Fleet air arm.

True but I meant the Brit airplane industry.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 23, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
While briton was a large carrier power, I don't think she played a large role outside of the Sicily campaign, and Normandy, but I could be wrong. IIRC, it was the US carrier fleet that did the heavy lifting during the war, mostly in the PTO.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 23, 2011, 07:45:16 PM
While briton was a large carrier power, I don't think she played a large role outside of the Sicily campaign, and Normandy, but I could be wrong. IIRC, it was the US carrier fleet that did the heavy lifting during the war, mostly in the PTO.
British carriers were used around the world.  The last dogfight of WWII was Seafire Mk IIIs against A6M5s near Tokyo bay.  Obviously the Royal Navy was tertiary to the US Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy in terms of carriers, but they were significant.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Pigslilspaz on July 23, 2011, 07:51:47 PM
The OP specifically referenced that fighter.

Oops, must have somehow skipped lines while reading.  :o
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 23, 2011, 08:12:52 PM
I can see the firefly, but while she was significant carrier power, I don't think she was a major particpant in most major battles. So the question is, does the historical value out-weigh the fact that the swordfish and Gladiator would probably be the two biggest hanger queens in the game?
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 23, 2011, 08:56:32 PM
My "order of importance" for British aircraft goes something like this:

Historical need:
Beaufighter
Wellington

MA need:
Fairey Firefly
Meteor Mk III

Minor historical need:
Barracuda
Battle
Beaufort
Blenheim
Gladiator
Halifax
Hampden
Skua
Sterling
Swordfish
Whirlwind
Whitworth

Bad idea:
Defiant


When you come right down to it, the Gladiator was not a significant participant in WWII, so I really wouldn't contest it with the Firefly.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: MrMeanie on July 24, 2011, 03:57:16 AM
Pfft you don't need any more planes to bomb are tanks :) :bolt:
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 24, 2011, 01:39:06 PM
wouldn't mind the meteor. Slower speed means the 20mm's could be effective, where the 262's high speed means that you'll likely land a lot of assits if you had 20mm's.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 24, 2011, 02:30:56 PM
I suspect that the Me262 would be far, far more effective with four 20mm cannons than it is with four 30mm cannons due to how hard it is to hit with the MK108 at those speeds.

Also, the Meteor III isn't that much slower, ~50mph.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Rich52 on July 24, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
British carriers were used around the world.  The last dogfight of WWII was Seafire Mk IIIs against A6M5s near Tokyo bay.  Obviously the Royal Navy was tertiary to the US Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy in terms of carriers, but they were significant.

Most of all in the Med, which even today war historians underestimate the importance of. Luckily Hitler was a fool, Mussolinil wasn't any smarter , and short changed the theatre without ever realizing its importance. Thanks to the RN, its CVs and aircraft, Rommel's supply lines were always stressed, Italy's major warships wbasicallycaly expensive scrap "Taranto", and even Vichy France had very little navy to Lend to uncle Adolf. They should be honored with more then one Brit made carrier airplane.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 24, 2011, 05:17:52 PM
I don't know about that. Most fighters can still easily evade the 262, which means it has to rely on stupidity, pilots unaware of its presence, and dumb-luch shots.  The Meteor on the other hand would probably be like a faster Tempest. I have trouble seeing it used in the same fashion as the 262, mostly due to the vastly inferior snapshot capability.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Slash27 on July 24, 2011, 11:25:36 PM
I don't know about that. Most fighters can still easily evade the 262, which means it has to rely on stupidity, pilots unaware of its presence, and dumb-luch shots.  The Meteor on the other hand would probably be like a faster Tempest. I have trouble seeing it used in the same fashion as the 262, mostly due to the vastly inferior snapshot capability.
You might be surprised.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 24, 2011, 11:34:51 PM
I don't know about that. Most fighters can still easily evade the 262, which means it has to rely on stupidity, pilots unaware of its presence, and dumb-luch shots.  The Meteor on the other hand would probably be like a faster Tempest. I have trouble seeing it used in the same fashion as the 262, mostly due to the vastly inferior snapshot capability.
Fly a Mossie VI a bit.  The snapshot is pretty dang lethal to fighters.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 24, 2011, 11:56:17 PM
I consider a snapshot to be when a fighter flys through your line of fire, lasting no longer than 1 second. No doubt you CAN kill with that shot, but 30mm cannons are really gonna reduce the chance anything survives.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 25, 2011, 12:01:50 AM
I consider a snapshot to be when a fighter flys through your line of fire, lasting no longer than 1 second. No doubt you CAN kill with that shot, but 30mm cannons are really gonna reduce the chance anything survives.
1 second is pretty sustained fire.  The Mossie VI will amputate major parts of your airframe if you are in most fighters.  On Friday night I hit a P-38G with about .2 seconds of fire and removed its left wing, for example.

Against bombers, yes, the 30mm will do noticeably better, but against fighters the greater chance to hit with the nose mounted quad Hispanos is much more useful than the slightly higher lethality of hit.

Also keep in mind that the Meteor III would turn much better than the Me262.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 25, 2011, 12:49:15 PM
The damage done by a 30mm is not "slightly" higher. However, I will admit that I've been annoyed many many times as fighters thread the needle between my shells, or when I give the 30mm's just a tad to small of a lead.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 25, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
The damage done by a 30mm is not "slightly" higher. However, I will admit that I've been annoyed many many times as fighters thread the needle between my shells, or when I give the 30mm's just a tad to small of a lead.
In terms of hitting fighters it is "slightly higher" as anything over the damage needed to amputate the part is wasted.  Seriously, fly the Mossie.  You are talking about the quad Hispano as though you need to saddle up on the target and give it a long tracking shot, as though it were a P-51B.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 25, 2011, 05:04:22 PM
I'm aware of its snapshot capabilities, I'm just leery because I've had many aircraft survive a heavy pasting with a typhoon or F4U-1C back when I used to fly them.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Karnak on July 25, 2011, 05:07:37 PM
I'm aware of its snapshot capabilities, I'm just leery because I've had many aircraft survive a heavy pasting with a typhoon or F4U-1C back when I used to fly them.
They aren't nose mounted.  That is why I am specifying the Mossie VI.  The Tiffie in particular spreads its hits out.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 25, 2011, 05:27:03 PM
True, but even at convergence, I've had many a plane slip away. For some odd reason I've been getting a lot of mirical shots with the crap guns lately though. I shot my 7.92s in the 190A5 and took out a 109K4 from D1000 out with a pilot kill.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: des506 on July 25, 2011, 11:21:49 PM
My "order of importance" for British aircraft goes something like this:

Historical need:
Beaufighter
Wellington

MA need:
Fairey Firefly
Meteor Mk III

Minor historical need:
Barracuda
Battle
Beaufort
Blenheim
Gladiator
Halifax
Hampden
Skua
Sterling
Swordfish
Whirlwind
Whitworth

Bad idea:
Defiant


When you come right down to it, the Gladiator was not a significant participant in WWII, so I really wouldn't contest it with the Firefly.

where does the lysander come in all this??
 dun forget it was widely used to transport spies across the channel...  :rofl
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 25, 2011, 11:24:39 PM
It doesn't. A Fi. 156 Storch would better serve us in the game. It would be easier to land in the small meadows to deliver GV supps (mostly due to its huge flaps) if that was one of the things HTC would have them do.
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: Bruv119 on July 25, 2011, 11:27:39 PM
where does the lysander come in all this??
 dun forget it was widely used to transport spies across the channel...  :rofl

how long did it take to cross the channel in one of those?    12 hours? 
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: des506 on July 25, 2011, 11:32:31 PM
how long did it take to cross the channel in one of those?    12 hours? 

come on... the channel isn't that far apart...even sailing from portsmouth to france.. doesn't take 5-8 does it? but i really can't see the lysander being of any use in the game..
Title: Re: please some NEW fighters
Post by: 10thmd on July 26, 2011, 12:15:21 AM
True, but even at convergence, I've had many a plane slip away. For some odd reason I've been getting a lot of mirical shots with the crap guns lately though. I shot my 7.92s in the 190A5 and took out a 109K4 from D1000 out with a pilot kill.


Nose mounted guns hmmmmmmm...... maybe that had something to do with it.