Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: bangsbox on June 08, 2013, 03:13:16 PM
-
This poor plane has seen 3 different eny's over the years. The question is why and how a plane can go from 32 eny to 25 and now only 20? Being in to 20 category is over rating this bird (not to mention I can get as many perks using it now). She now well out of her league, she's not an uber town killer or fighter. She belongs at 25 again IMO.
-
it is base don usage mostly.
just like f4u1c is perked and f4u1d is not guns make the difference.
190a8 can kill any bomber formation with easy at or below 25k and its 30mm give it 1 shot one kill ability against fighters.
like the hurri2c before it was updated and nerfed to the ground the 190a8's guns make it the radial 190 of choice as shown by the amount its used.
if you think the guns don't matter up a 190a5 it flies better and only has a smaller gun setup.
-
(not to mention I can get as many perks using it now)
This is why you complain.
The Fw190A-8 was being abused as a perk farmer when its ENY was 32 or 25. Its usage was far too high to justify that high of an ENY score. You are focusing much too much on one fighter vs one fighter potential and devaluing or ignoring all of the other things that go into setting an ENY value.
-
190A8 is a superb fighter and a superb bomber killer. You just have to use it right (i.e. not flat turning with spits or climbing straight up with 38s). 20 eny seems fair for it.
-
190A8 is a superb fighter and a superb bomber killer. You just have to use it right (i.e. not flat turning with spits or climbing straight up with 38s). 20 eny seems fair for it.
I use her very well. ;) also I thought performance and effect on game had more to do with eny than usage.
-
I use her very well. ;) also I thought performance and effect on game had more to do with eny than usage.
Usage and effect on the game are strongly tied together.
EDIT:
Can you demonstrate that other ENY 20 fighters have more effect on the game?
Three ENY 20 fighters in Tour 61 LWA:
| Fw190A-8 | Kills: 5559 | Deaths: 4898 |
| Ki-84-Ia | Kills: 4821 | Deaths: 4043 |
| Spitfire Mk IX | Kills: 2987 | Deaths: 2095 |
-
Notes based on Tour 161 (so far)
Since I've understood ENY is primary based on usage, shouldn't the Typhoon would have same ENY as the Mossie then (30) ? ) They both also have 4*Hispanos and good ordnance.
A8 have almost same usage and close to same K/D as the K4, should they not have same ENY ? A8 also have better ordnance which lower (?) ENY further
The Jug-M have better K/D than the A8 but close to same usage, A8 should be closer to ENY 10 ? A8 have better ordnance, ENY 5-7 ?
Spit14 have less K/D than the A8, and little higher usage as the A8, the A8 should be ENY 10 ? A8 have better ordnance , maybe ENY 3-5 ?
I guess I do not get this ... and what hard data ENY is based on except usage.
One on one an A8 will die fast against these planes, but I do not think this will be taken into account for ENY ( or is ENY based on more subjective matters too ?)
-
I guess I do not get this ... and what hard data ENY is based on except usage.
ENY is based on a mix of many factors, and not all are quantifiable in terms of "hard data". It's quite a subjective process. No wonder, as the single ENY factor is used for quite different things, regulating the arena (mostly by ENY limiter) and determine perk gain by combat.
-
ENY is based on a mix of many factors, and not all are quantifiable in terms of "hard data". It's quite a subjective process. No wonder, as the single ENY factor is used for quite different things, regulating the arena (mostly by ENY limiter) and determine perk gain by combat.
Indeed. I always cringe when people make a direct comparison of two very different planes and say "they should be equal ENY". I suggest everyone take each and every bit of hard data available and mix in the data not able to be measured (plane forgiveness, pilot views, dive speed ability, ease of stall recovery, etc), and look at the big picture.
In terms of the Tiff vs Mossi, the Mossi carries more damage in ordnance (2604 lbs) vs the Typhoon's 2000 lbs, and carry more oomph in the guns as well more 20mm ammo (and dont forget the quad .30 cals w/ truck loads of ammo!), AND the Mossi can fly about 4 times further than the Tiff if need be. The Typhoon is more more capable fighter and is faster. I use them both quite a bit. :aok
Ultimately, the only people who can understand the ENY values are those who assign them: HTC. Do not try to decipher how or why HTC does the things they do, you'll drive yourself mad. Just look at Looshey. :D
-
The people I know fly 190A8 usually choose the lighter gun package because with the 30mm you're dead meat with fighters. In MA you don't survive very long in pure buff hunting mode - the 410 is a testament to that.
-
The people I know fly 190A8 usually choose the lighter gun package because with the 30mm you're dead meat with fighters. In MA you don't survive very long in pure buff hunting mode - the 410 is a testament to that.
Not unless you take escort which gives you a better chance, but still no guarantee's.
-
I used to have an oppinion about ENY, but now it does not seem to matter. After the unperking of the spit14 it is clear that we will have fewer and fewer perked rides. What does it matter if I land 2 or 20 perks? I will not be using them anyway.
As long as ENY is high enough to escape the ENY limiter, its exact value makes no difference.
That is unless htc introduces perked loadout options.
-
After the unperking of the spit14 it is clear that we will have fewer and fewer perked rides.
You noticed that at the same some other planes perk price went up, didn't you? :)
-
You noticed that at the same some other planes perk price went up, didn't you? :)
Fewer, not cheaper.
The perk cost of f4uc could be anything and it would still be a super rare event that I fly one. Perk the mossie VI and I would still fly it. Same goes to the 47M that deserves a minimal perk cost - and I would fly it.
-
Fewer, not cheaper.
The perk cost of f4uc could be anything and it would still be a super rare event that I fly one. Perk the mossie VI and I would still fly it. Same goes to the 47M that deserves a minimal perk cost - and I would fly it.
I agree. There are a whole host of planes that I'd use if they did perk them. I'd use the Mossi and Tiffy for porkin' runs even if they did add in small perk cost (the Mossi's 30 ENY is a bit high, but I'm not going to complain ;) ), I use them both a lot.
Also, there are many planes that could certainly use a 1-2 perk cost. Candidates are the P51D, La7, Spit16, P47M, Ta152, 109K-4, 190D-9, Lancaster, B24's, B17's, and maybe a few others. HTC has done a good job with the the gv's, I think they could/should pass along adding a small perk cost to a host of
-
If the P-51D cannot be perked, and I strongly suspect it cannot be for business reasons, then perking things like the P-47M, La-7, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9 and La-7 are nonsensical. Having perked units that never get used because they aren't worth the perk cost (see Mk XIV, Spitfire and Ta152H-1) doesn't make the perk system better, it just means developer resources were wasted on the creation of that unit.
-
I think every plane should have a perk price......every one of them.
then a training arena to earn perks....
using the AI to train....gaining perks to use.....
players that have been here longer or with a higher K/D should be worth more to shoot down.....
unless of course you are surrounded by green and he is alone then he wont be worth much but if he kills you while surrounded by green you will be worth more....
I wish they could implement something like that....points being awarded by the number of friendly and enemy in immediate area and not just plane type.
-
Ink,
I think that would create an arena of runners. You increase the penalty for dying too much and people will avoid fighting when they think they might lose.
-
I think every plane should have a perk price......every one of them.
then a training arena to earn perks....
using the AI to train....gaining perks to use.....
So you want even less player A2A combat than we have today? Why? :headscratch:
-
Each of us has a different reason to want a plane perked. Some want them perked based on performance. I'd like to add a rarity factor. P47M/N were not representative of the thunderbold family. Neither did the ta152 representative of the 190 lineage. 3 gun La7s were not the norm, or F4Uc. All these planes have a place in the game, but I'd rather if the typical historical models are the ones we meet the most. Also, perk cost and earning adds some interest. There is no point in arguing about ENY values when I have nothing to spend them on. Perking the La7/109K/P47M at 1-2 points will not make them disappear. They all have very capable models that are just one small step down the lineage that are currently almost never used. How many La5s and G14s do you see? I want the population ratio of La5/La7, P47Dxx/M and 109G14/K4 reversed.
All the above is just my opinion and you are free to disagree. We do not call the shots anyway, so this argument is just bits and blips in cyberspace.
-
Ink,
I think that would create an arena of runners. You increase the penalty for dying too much and people will avoid fighting when they think they might lose.
So you want even less player A2A combat than we have today? Why? :headscratch:
no obviously I would not want that....no friggin way its hard enough to get some to fight as it is......
that coupled with earning more perks for being out numbered....and less for being in a hoard....you guys dont think that would encourage more to fight?
no matter what I would not want to see less fighting..... :aok
-
that coupled with earning more perks for being out numbered....and less for being in a hoard....you guys dont think that would encourage more to fight?
If all fighters would cost some perks, the need for perks would rise massively.
And getting perks for fighting AI in a 'training arena' would then simply mean that the great majority of players would have to spend a lot of time there to be able to afford flying in the main arena. More players fighting AI = less players fighting each other in the main. It's a simply economic calculation.
Earning more perks for being out numbered would not offset that, as only a small minority of players could benefit from that.
-
If all fighters would cost some perks, the need for perks would rise massively.
And getting perks for fighting AI in a 'training arena' would then simply mean that the great majority of players would have to spend a lot of time there to be able to afford flying in the main arena. More players fighting AI = less players fighting each other in the main. It's a simply economic calculation.
Earning more perks for being out numbered would not offset that, as only a small minority of players could benefit from that.
I see what you are saying :aok
-
I agree. There are a whole host of planes that I'd use if they did perk them. I'd use the Mossi and Tiffy for porkin' runs even if they did add in small perk cost (the Mossi's 30 ENY is a bit high, but I'm not going to complain ;) ), I use them both a lot.
Also, there are many planes that could certainly use a 1-2 perk cost. Candidates are the P51D, La7, Spit16, P47M, Ta152, 109K-4, 190D-9, Lancaster, B24's, B17's, and maybe a few others. HTC has done a good job with the the gv's, I think they could/should pass along adding a small perk cost to a host of
I disagree. Instead of the spit 16 being the crutch ride, it would be the spit 8. Or the P-51B (it flies damn near identical to the D).
And it's primarily the speed and engine power of the K4 that give it even a chance at perk status. If it were perked, just about everything in the same class of performance would warrant perking, since almost all are superior in some other aspects as well. Look at the F4U-1A, and the Ki-84. both have similar strengths in speed or climb, but are far better dogfighters.
The K4 isn't any all that dominant unless flown with a very high degree of skill. And the same applies to the 262. Or any other plane for that matter. I've dominated fights in an F-4, so should we perk it?
You cannot simply use perks to curb dweebishnes. You can't effectively limit tard use of one specific plane without hurting it's usage by players that actually use it to fight. You've got to may incentives for playing in a different way, and make the unwanted method of playing less effective.
-
Its funny watching Bf109K-4 fans talk smack about their own plane in order to draw attention away from it. The F4U-1x is out performed by the Bf109K-4 in most air-to-air attributes, particularly in climb and speed. The Ki-84 is more nimble, but far slower with poorer climb performance and its altitude performance is rotten.
-
How much does altitude performance come into play in the MA's. Really not that much. Not saying that it isn't important, only that it isn't necessarily relevant. And the Ki-84 is right up there with the K4 as one of the best fighters in the game.
As for the - 1, yes it has poorer performance as far as climb and acceleration, but down low, it's pretty fast. It's also more maneuverable, and just a more flexible fighter all around.
IIRC, you've said other non quantifiable factors go into ENY, and I think the same should be true of perk price. Beyond that, are the P-51, K4, Ta 152, Spit 16, B-24, and others truly perk worthy? I don't feel they are, as they have to be flown by an ace, or at high altitude in order for their superiority to become apparent.
But the Tempest? The Ar 234? The B-29? the 4-hog? Those are all visibly and significantly superior unless they are being flown in a way that highlights their weakness to the maximum possible degree.
And one final issue, if we perk all the high altitude interceptors, the newer players are left with planes that are rather mediocre at altitude.
-
Bf109K-4 shouldn't be perked unless a whole raft of other aircraft are perked at the same time.
I just object to the exaggerations of its weaknesses and the minimizing of its strengths. I would much rather encounter an F4U-1x when in the Mossie than the Bf109K-4. I'll admit that Ki-84s are pretty bad too, but at least I can disengage (run) from them if I choose to do so.
As to high altitude performance, how important it is depends on the player and what they want to do. I would love to have the Mosquito Mk 30 for the sole purpose of high altitude bomber interception. I like the Mk VI for its history and looks, but there are times when I really, really want high blown engines on it.
-
As to high altitude performance, how important it is depends on the player and what they want to do. I would love to have the Mosquito Mk 30 for the sole purpose of high altitude bomber interception. I like the Mk VI for its history and looks, but there are times when I really, really want high blown engines on it.
Yeah I would love to see more mossies added, especially the Mk XXX, last I read being 415 mph at at, problem is our mossy barely gets above 24k even then cant chase down bombers.
True its fast, but consider the buffs are flying full speed as well, I had a hell of a time trying to catch up to B24s at 25k, let alone get into any shot other then dead 6.
-
Yeah I would love to see more mossies added, especially the Mk XXX, last I read being 415 mph at at, problem is our mossy barely gets above 24k even then cant chase down bombers.
True its fast, but consider the buffs are flying full speed as well, I had a hell of a time trying to catch up to B24s at 25k, let alone get into any shot other then dead 6.
you mean the speed charts are wrong?
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/1/1b/Mossie6spd.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/9/92/B24jspd.jpg)
-
gyrene81,
Current Mossie chart:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=57&p2=79&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
The one you grabbed was from before its update.
-
Yeah I would love to see more mossies added, especially the Mk XXX, last I read being 415 mph at at, problem is our mossy barely gets above 24k even then cant chase down bombers.
True its fast, but consider the buffs are flying full speed as well, I had a hell of a time trying to catch up to B24s at 25k, let alone get into any shot other then dead 6.
That is a bit of an exaggeration, but it would have been nice to have a mossie fighter that does 400+ mph at 25k instead of 350 mph and dropping fast with every additional feet. The XXX will be faster than our VI starting from 10,000 ft or so, possibly even lower. More cannon rounds too I think, but need to check. The VI will own it on the deck (on WEP only).
And in the context of this thread - give it ENY of 5 and perk the heck out of it and I'd still fly it every chance I get, alternating with the VI model.
-
Yeah I would love to see more mossies added, especially the Mk XXX, last I read being 415 mph at at, problem is our mossy barely gets above 24k even then cant chase down bombers.
True its fast, but consider the buffs are flying full speed as well, I had a hell of a time trying to catch up to B24s at 25k, let alone get into any shot other then dead 6.
Many planes are in the same boat, the A8 get out of breath at 20k
-
gyrene81,
Current Mossie chart:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=57&p2=79&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
The one you grabbed was from before its update.
oh ok, thanks Karnak i must have something bookmarked wrong...mossie is even faster. 50-60mph speed differential is nothing to sneeze at.
-
Many planes are in the same boat, the A8 get out of breath at 20k
yeah, 190s weren't real high altitude the . Although it should be noted that on the Eastern front, the trend of increasing combat altitudes kind of stopped. Most of the Soviet stuff was best below 10K, which reflects Stalin's insistence on a more short range tactical airforce.
-
Many planes are in the same boat, the A8 get out of breath at 20k
Ever look up the best altitude for speed in the 190A-8? or the 190A5? or the 190D-9? At 20,000 ft the 190's do very well. :aok
-
yeah, 190s weren't real high altitude the . Although it should be noted that on the Eastern front, the trend of increasing combat altitudes kind of stopped. Most of the Soviet stuff was best below 10K, which reflects Stalin's insistence on a more short range tactical airforce.
:headscratch: never heard that one before...i thought i'd heard it all, guess it's a matter of what one would call "high altitude". that means sources are wrong...
maximum speeds (not necessarily operational speeds)
yak-3 447mph at 18,000ft
yak-9d 374mph at 10,000ft
yak-9u 434mph at 16,400ft
la5-fn 402mph at 16,000ft
la-7 423mph at 19,000ft
mig-3 398mph at 22,000ft
fw-190a8 405mph at 19.400ft
fw-190d9 426mph at 21,600ft
-
For 1940 purposes I'd say high altitude means above 20,000ft. For 1943 and the rest of WWII I'd raise that to above 25,000ft.
-
No expert but during Battle for Britain: England's radar - so luft probably kept getting jumped so was safest to come in at max.
109's max alt was 2-3k higher than spity? Something like 31k to 29k? I don't remember.
One of the reasons they had so little fuel left by the time the fighting started?
-
Apparently, as related by R. R. S. Tuck, the RAF pilots who went over to the US in 1941 to give tips to USAAF fighter pilots based on actual combat experience alarmed them with talks of fighting at 30,000ft.
-
:headscratch: never heard that one before...i thought i'd heard it all, guess it's a matter of what one would call "high altitude". that means sources are wrong...
maximum speeds (not necessarily operational speeds)
yak-3 447mph at 18,000ft
yak-9d 374mph at 10,000ft
yak-9u 434mph at 16,400ft
la5-fn 402mph at 16,000ft
la-7 423mph at 19,000ft
mig-3 398mph at 22,000ft
fw-190a8 405mph at 19.400ft
fw-190d9 426mph at 21,600ft
Speaking in a relative sense of course. German aircraft tended to perform at very high altitude than the Soviet's stuff did, and so the Soviets didn't frequent where they didn't fight real well. This isn't to say they didn't go up that high, just to say that they stayed lower for the most part. Look at the La-7, its performance advantage is greatest right there on the deck.
Also, look at the evolution of the 109's speed charts. The E4 peaks at around 15k, the F-4 at 19k, the G-2 at about 22k. And from there on, it levels out. The G-6, and K4 both have similar optimal alttudes, while the G-14 is just a bit of an oddball.
Notice the 190's also peak out at around 20K, as do the 110G, and Me 410. The non high-alt spitfires peak at around 20K, along with the Typhoon.
Not entirely sure why, but the trend of increasing optimal altitudes seems to plateau at around 20K, despite being able to tune aircraft for higher altitude, as evidenced by the P-51's, P-47, P-38, Spitfire Mk IX and XIV, Ta-152, and Mig-3 (a high-altitude fighter). If I had to guess, it would probably be the result of increased expense, and lack of return benefit for non-escort fighters (that is to say, combat altitude kind of plateaued as well, save for escorts and interceptors).
And IIRC, the Germans had a directive to avoid combat with Soviet aircraft at low altitude, due to the Soviet fighters being superior lower down.
-
Apparently, as related by R. R. S. Tuck, the RAF pilots who went over to the US in 1941 to give tips to USAAF fighter pilots based on actual combat experience alarmed them with talks of fighting at 30,000ft.
that's kinda funny :rofl
and rather interesting.
-
that's kinda funny :rofl
and rather interesting.
Tuck said that the USAAF pre-war oxygen system was really lousy and consequently not a lot of flights went up above 15,000ft.
-
Hunh. Just learned something nthanks Karnak :aok