Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Brooke on May 08, 2016, 03:00:56 AM
-
The June Scenario "Battle of the Dnieper" has Bf 109G-6's and FW 190A-5's vs. a mix of La-5's, Yak-9T's (not Yak-9U's, which are much faster), Yak-7b's, and P-39Q's.
Which set do you think is superior?
-
The June Scenario "Battle of the Dnieper" has Bf 109G-6's and FW 190A-5's vs. a mix of La-5's, Yak-9T's (not Yak-9U's, which are much faster), Yak-7b's, and P-39Q's.
Which set do you think is superior?
The La5 gives the Bolsheviks the edge.
- oldman
-
The La5 gives the Bolsheviks the edge.
- oldman
I fly the 190a5 and la5 in the MA. I get more kills in the A5 and survive just as much or more than when I fly the la5. In a general open virtual combat environment the A5 seems to work better "for me anyway". I think its because of the A5s better instantaneous turn rate and better high speed handling. It also has more ammo. In a straight up dueling situation I would think the LA5 would have the edge.
If I was a 109g6 pilot in that scenario I would feel fairly comfortable.
-
LA-5 is superior to all others in this setup - gun package is it's worst feature. The A-5 is a distant second, but has an excellent gun package.
I see a toss-up for third between the G-6 and Yak-9U. Their performance numbers are incredibly similar. give the G-6 the edge for the gun package but the Yak handles a little better and has great visibility.
The Yak7 and P-39 are both generally weaker than their German opponents, but they can be very effective. The Yak-7 compares favorably with the 109F, and if flown like one can be very dangerous. The P-39 can pull a tight turn but loses a ton of E doing do. The 37mm cannon and superb diving capabilities are the best features of the P-39.
-
1st of all also La-5FN is superior to 109G6 and 190A5, the rest of the planes are inferio:r Yak-9T and Yak-7b are very similar in performance and inferior to 109G and 190A5 and P-39Q is only marginally better than Yak-9T on high altitude having major advantage of better range over Yaks (so it also was used as bomber escort and high-med alt CAP)
So in general it really depends on who you met in battle - so soviets have somewhat inferior plane set overall. BUT the difference isn't that large so still and tactics would play much more significant role.
In my case I'll take La-5FN or even Yak-9T at any given point because of central mounted weapons, great cockpit visibility.
-
The La5 is the best plane for defense. The 190A5 is the best plane for bomber intercepting. The 109G6 is better for fighter intercepting. The yaks and La5 are clearly better for short distance defense and lower alt fighting. The 109G6 out turns both the yaks and P39 and turns almost exactly the same as the La5. The La5 is a bit easier to fly than the G6. Overall, I think it's a fair fight all around. Now if the Russians are attacking and not defending, the 109s and 190s will have a much better advantage. The small gun loadouts are detrimental when having to fly far distances. You get there, make 3 or 4 passes, and if you don't watch out, you will run outa ammo and have to fly all the way back home. It's not very much fun, also, they have a lot less gas than the German planes. I prolly wouldn't fly a Yak7 if my life depended on it. The yak-9u is decent. The la5 will be the most successful plane on the Russian side. The P39 is going to be very hard to be successful in, probably the hardest plane to fly of the set. The 109G6s and 190a5s will fair fine. I think the La5 is the most versatile of all the planes and will be the most deadly in the right hands.
Pipz, the reason is that, the La5 is a defense plane with quick capabilities. The 190A5 is a BnZ plane best used for attacking lower cons. You prolly die more in the La5 because you are lower, more aggressive, and this creates opportunities to get picked easier.
-
You are all thinking in one versus one tactics. Group tactics are what wins scenarios.
-
Note 9U that is 1944 model with VK 107 is very different from 9T with M 105PF engine
Don't mistake this 9T is actually much closer to 7b than to 9U
The scenario had 9T model
-
You are all thinking in one versus one tactics. Group tactics are what wins scenarios.
You assumed to much there.
In a general open virtual combat environment the A5 seems to work better
Think scenario not dueling.
In a straight up dueling situation I would think the LA5 would have the edge.
Think dueling.
Violator mentioned ammunition loads and range. Scenario.
-
You are all thinking in one versus one tactics. Group tactics are what wins scenarios.
That's true to an extent Chalenge, but a group of P39 is not going to fair the same vs a group of 109G6s, with pilots of equal skills. Also, a pack of La5s would destroy a pack of P39s with equal skill levels of tactics. It's going to take a LOT more skills to be successful in Yak 9Ts with a group because of how hard it is to aim, vs say, 190A5s or 109Gs. The skills to fly the Yak9T successfully and get kills need to be much more advanced than a pack of La5s. The La5s are simply much more versatile, have better views, better guns for quicker kills, and much better capabilities.
No one ever factors in how long it takes you to bring down a plane when you are on their 6 shooting. It's one of the most important factors in furballing. If you waste 25 30-40mm cannons, while chasing your target around and around. You've given up your position, most of your ammo, and it generally gets you picked 98% of the time. If you cannot killem on the first or second pass, you've taken too much time. This puts the Yaks at a major disadvantage. The 109G6 with gondies can turn inside the yaks. The yaks are quicker, but their lack of solid ammo really make it tough.
-
Note 9U that is 1944 model with VK 107 is very different from 9T with M 105PF engine
Don't mistake this 9T is actually much closer to 7b than to 9U
The scenario had 9T model
Yes. I goofed on my post. Nice catch.
-
A5 is actually quite a good turner, especially with a light gun package and the AFT fuel drained. With both aircraft in the hands of good pilots the A5 is better than the La5. With both aircraft in the hands on average pilots the La5 is probably better.
-
A5 is actually quite a good turner, especially with a light gun package and the AFT fuel drained. With both aircraft in the hands of good pilots the A5 is better than the La5. With both aircraft in the hands on average pilots the La5 is probably better.
The A5 would not out turn any plane in the set. It may out turn a bad Yak 9t pilot or P39 pilot. Those planes are incredibly nose heavy and embalanaced and take more skills than the other planes to be successful in. The only way the 190A5 has an advantage over the La5 is if it starts 5k above it. The La5 beats it in every other important aspect besides diving.
-
The only way the 190A5 has an advantage over the La5 is if it starts 5k above it.
And that is where you will find the 109s and 190s (and where you found them historically on the Eastern Front). The LW should always have the altitude advantage unless caught off guard. If the LW commanders in the scenario have any sense at all the VVS won't find any 109 or 190 below 12K, and hopefully (since I'll be flying LW) the LW will roam a lot higher than that. Only diving down to B&Z the VVS and always maintaining the perch above the fight. The 109 is also a better climber at any alt above 5K so it can maintain the perch more easily than the 190, but still it should not be much of a problem. If the LW flies right and use proper tactics the VVS will suffer "historical losses". If flown like MA furballers the VVS will win the day.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=23&p2=5&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=15&p2=5&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Good luck Yak7 pilots.
-
Range will hopefully not be as much of a problem for both sides as in the MA if the fuel burn is set to 1, and we'll be fighting in Russia, not the Pacific.
-
When you say La-5, you are referring to the La-5FN, But there was a La-5 proper, and a La-5F too, besides the La-5FN. La-5F should be a relatively low effort addition, and would improve scenario possibilities. This scenario, for example. Wouldn't it?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/La5web.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/La5Fweb.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/La5Fnweb.jpg)
-
And that is where you will find the 109s and 190s (and where you found them historically on the Eastern Front). The LW should always have the altitude advantage unless caught off guard. If the LW commanders in the scenario have any sense at all the VVS won't find any 109 or 190 below 12K, and hopefully (since I'll be flying LW) the LW will roam a lot higher than that. Only diving down to B&Z the VVS and always maintaining the perch above the fight. The 109 is also a better climber at any alt above 5K so it can maintain the perch more easily than the 190, but still it should not be much of a problem. If the LW flies right and use proper tactics the VVS will suffer "historical losses". If flown like MA furballers the VVS will win the day.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=23&p2=5&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=15&p2=5&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
You also have to consider that the pilots had much better squad training in real life than in H2H. I think the fights played out a little more slowely in real life. The Germans should be higher than the Russians. However, I doubt very much that once the fight goes on, the 109s or 190s will stay high. I personally think in AH, the La5s are going to beat the 109s, but that actually will depend on the pilots. The 190s are fine until they lose the alt cap. If the La5 gains the 190A5s 6 or the 109s 6, it's over. They have to keep the alt cap in order to win. In groups, 109s and 190s will have a hard time winning against the Russian planes if they end up lower.
-
Not ending up lower is the key to LW success on the Eastern Front. Just like it is key for the Allies in the west...
-
The A5 would not out turn any plane in the set. It may out turn a bad Yak 9t pilot or P39 pilot. Those planes are incredibly nose heavy and embalanaced and take more skills than the other planes to be successful in. The only way the 190A5 has an advantage over the La5 is if it starts 5k above it. The La5 beats it in every other important aspect besides diving.
Not true. A 190A5 you can use the rollrate change direction very very quickly such that executing a decent scissors will put you behind the la5 very very quickly or at least cause him to break off. And depending on the loadout the A5 can turn quite quickly. A 50% gas load in the 190A5 probably gives it about the same legs as 100% in the la5fn - and A5 sticks will usually take the light gun package and drain aft first. It makes a huge difference as it is a small aircraft.
-
I love FW 190A-5's in scenarios.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/005-blastSpit9-Image-0006.jpg)
I love La-5's in scenarios.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/010-hit190-Image-0018.jpg)
I love 109G's in scenarios.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/025-blast47-Image-0042.jpg)
I haven't flown a Yak or P-39 in Scenarios, but I bet that I would like them just fine.
I even liked flying Bf 110's in scenarios involving late-war US stuff. I expected the 110 to be totally hopeless in that environment, and it wasn't, which surprised the heck out of me.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201602_SouthernConquest/pics/frame4-05-killp51-SNAG-0018.jpg)
The scenario environment can still surprise me even after 23 years of flying in scenarios.
-
Real men fly the one-ten!
-
Real men fly the one-ten!
You know, it was really quite surprisingly fun. I honestly thought it would be completely useless cannon fodder against US planes. I was completely wrong. Its firepower is so amazing against bombers, and because it can get up to pretty high speeds in a dive, and because it is a pretty good turner, it isn't horrible in a many-on-many fight.
-
You can get by with a block plane and a long jack plane but the best plane set should have a spoke shave in it.
-
Standard.
-
Not true. A 190A5 you can use the rollrate change direction very very quickly such that executing a decent scissors will put you behind the la5 very very quickly or at least cause him to break off. And depending on the loadout the A5 can turn quite quickly. A 50% gas load in the 190A5 probably gives it about the same legs as 100% in the la5fn - and A5 sticks will usually take the light gun package and drain aft first. It makes a huge difference as it is a small aircraft.
Completely disagree.
The roll rate of the 190 can help the plane change direction more quickly, but the plane cannot create a steeper lift vector as quickly. The La5 is much more versatile in combat. I'm willing to bet the LA5 excelerates quicker. Which is very important in furballing. If the LA5 gains the 190A5s 6, the fight is over. It's not so much the other way around. The La5 can pull tighter maneuvers with a counterpunch defense maneuver and roll inside the 190 all day. The 190 has to stick to BnZ tactics. If it gets equal E and a La5 pulls a reversal, the 190 will not be able to turn with it or use the vert as well in the barrel rolls.
The only way a 190 wins with equal pilots is with BnZ only tactics. You cannot use any other style against the La5 in the A5. It simply will not work, it will be death to the whole squad if you get COE with a buncha quick La5s.
It's simply the planes physics. The 190A5 is no where close to as versatile as a LA5 in a furball. That's just the bottom line.
-
You have to think, the 109G6 is almost similar in turning/ rolling capabilities as the La5. I think even the La5 would be able to get inside the G6. This will come down to pilot experience mostly in scenarios. If that is the case. The A5 doesn't come close to either as far as turning and reversals are concerned in close combat.
-
Scenario fighting is significantly different than 1:1 Main Arena fights. Scenario fights are typically many-on-many, start at much higher altitudes, involve only historical matchups of planes (not whole plane set), and do not have the benefit of knowing the exact environment you are going into (thanks to no or much-less radar information and less certainty on what the situation is). This gives significant changes to fights.
One example is how good 190's are in scenarios as a result not of great turn rate but good speed, sturdiness, very crisp and precise roll and pitch response at speed, ability quickly to go from one shot, to re-targeting, to another shot, with lots of lethal ammo. Before flying them in scenarios, I thought they'd get dominated by Spitfires. They don't.
One plane that, to me, suffers a lot in high-alt scenarios is my beloved P-38. It's low compressibility limit and severity of compressibility effect make it very challenging to fly in scenarios, although if you can handle that, it can still be a decent plane in that setting because of its various other traits.
I remember watching some ultimate fighting back when it was a new thing. One of the fighters (Tank Abbot) was talking about fighting styles and disparaging the guys who get into grappling. He said something to the effect of, "Yeah, you can use that in these one-on-one cage fights, but if you try that in a real bar fight, while you are rolling around on the ground, some other guy is going to come up and smash a bottle over your head." That's how it is for scenarios.
-
When I attack bombers in a 190a5 I may cringe a bit but I know I will probably come through with the maybe some engine damage.
When I attack bombers in a LA5 I write my virtual will, cringe and close my eyes! :D La5 seems to get a lot of pilot wounds when I fly them anyway.
-
As Brooke said, scenario battles are more a test of SA than ACM. The real successful ones that in addition to SA have great aim.
-
You know, it was really quite surprisingly fun. I honestly thought it would be completely useless cannon fodder against US planes. I was completely wrong. Its firepower is so amazing against bombers, and because it can get up to pretty high speeds in a dive, and because it is a pretty good turner, it isn't horrible in a many-on-many fight.
You know, I started flying the 110 as a fighter in the MA back in 2003, just as a challenge. Soon found out what a great ride it can be if flown to its strengths. Also read up on the real thing and found out that its bad reputation is mostly undeserved. Early in the war the 110 was a match for any fighter, except the Spitfire and 109. Those two were in a league of their own back then. In the Med and North Africa the 110 performed well against a force of mostly Hurricanes and P-40s.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/GSdefender%2301_800x600.jpg)
-
Btw. Brooke, do you know what fuel burn setting will be used in the Dnieper campaign?
-
Btw. Brooke, do you know what fuel burn setting will be used in the Dnieper campaign?
It is 2.0, but everything is close together:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201606_BattleOfTheDnieper/map.jpg)
In addition, the rules require bombers and attack aircraft to do three attacks per frame, and there is an alt cap of 20k.
The rules are meant to provide the more tactical-style fighting on the Eastern Front, where alts were not that high and many groups were based close to front lines, flying several missions per day.
-
For anyone interested in more details, full rules writeup is here:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201606_BattleOfTheDnieper/rules.htm
"It's 1943, and one of the largest battles of WWII is underway. The Germans and the Soviets are slugging it out on a continent-wide front along the Dnieper River.
Gone are the Wehrmacht's quick early gains on the Eastern Front. The Red Army has grown gigantic and is taking back vast regions of land. Now, it is the Germans' turn for desperation. They are back across the Dnieper river but making the Soviets pay dearly for every crossing. In September, '43, men, tanks, and aircraft fight over the mud and in the skies.
In the air, it is the Bf 109's, FW 190's, and Ju 88's of the mighty Luftwaffe vs. the La-5's, Yak-9's, Yak-7's, P-39's, Il-2's, and Tu-2's of the surging VVS -- in air-to-air combat, bombing, ground attack, escort, and intercept. On the ground, Panzer IV H's slug it out with T-34/76's.
Please join us for this monumental battle between the Germans and the Soviets."
-
Tell me... Is the altitude performance range also scaled down? Obviously not. This is what I hate about the fuel burn multiplier. It penalizes high alt performance fighters because we need to expend twice the amount of fuel just to get to altitude. This forces the fight down low. OK, the MA is gamey in nature, I get that, but for a supposed historical scenario this is a major let down.
-
@Brooke
The problem with 2.0 is that it cripples Russian planes significantly. Most of the fuel would be wasted on climbout and considering the LW counterparts have significantly better range it would hurt Russian planes significantly. Because the change in loiter time isn't proportional to 2.0.
For example if a plane spends 12minl for climb and the rest for loiter and have 45 min total flight time i.e. 12 min climb and 33 min loiter on FBR=1 than if you increase FBR to 2.0 than you still have 12 min climb but only 22.5 min of total time so you left with only 10.5 min of loiter. Now if you take a plane that have 1.5 hours total flight time and 12min climb than by increasing FBR to 2.0 you reduce total flight time to 45min and loiter time to 33m instead of 78 min - i.e. for a plane with 1.5 total flight time you reduced loiter time to ~42% while for a plane with 45min flight time you reduced the loiter time to ~32% of original.
And for a mission loiter time is much more important than climb time. So I think that high FBR always hurts plane with short flight time much more. It is especially significant on Eastern front. For example I-16 is totally crippled at MA by high fuel burn rate because if its low flight time.
-
No need to be let down.
German fighters get to 20k in about 6 minutes for the 109G-6 and 8 minutes in the 190A-5. That's not much subtraction of time aloft. Also, if you want more time aloft, both of them can take drop tanks. Burn of 2.0 wasn't even a problem in Southern Conquest, where flight routes were much longer than they are likely to be in this one.
However, thanks to you bringing it up, it does trigger my thought that many Soviet fighters do not have drop tanks available, and for them it is thus much more an issue, and I need to think about that.
-
@Brooke
The problem with 2.0 is that it cripples Russian planes significantly.
[etc.]
I agree. It's an issue I think that I need to adjust, not because of German planes (which are fine) but because of Soviet ones.
Many thanks, guys, for bringing this up.
-
The Yaks actually have better endurance than the G6. Drop tanks were rarely used on the Eastern Front. There is a reason why most Soviet fighters didn't even have the option. German DT's also degrade performance even after they're dropped due to the rack. Climbing alone to 20K on WEP may take about 6 minutes, but you'll spend longer if you're trying to stay in a group. When you get to 20K you will have spent nearly half your fuel in the G6. That may be fine in the MA, but in a scenario not so much...
Why would anyone impose such a gamey and arbitrary restriction on a historical scenario? What is the purpose?
-
22 mins in the La, it will have an effective combat radius of about one sector in the scenario.
-
24 minutes for the 109, and 29 minutes for both Yaks.
-
30 minutes on the 109.
-
30 minutes on the 109.
Not at max power, which is what you'll use for climb and combat.
"Downwind will be enabled at 20k ft."
I'm out. Might as well just fly in the MA. It's less gamey and arbitrarily limited. This is a fantasy scenario, not historical. LW fighters did not fly at low altitude in the East (or anywhere) it is a myth.
"Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough maneuvering. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough maneuver which succeeds."
— Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, aka Karaya One, the World's leading ace, with 352 victories in WWII Jagdgeschwader 52.
-
Not at max power, which is what you'll use for climb and combat.
"Downwind will be enabled at 20k ft."
I'm out. Might as well just fly in the MA. It's less gamy and arbitrarily limited. This is a fantasy scenario, not historical. LW fighters did not fly at low altitude in the East (or anywhere) it is a myth.
"Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough maneuvering. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough maneuver which succeeds."
— Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, aka Karaya One, the World's leading ace, with 352 victories in WWII Jagdgeschwader 52.
For comparison i just use the numbers presented in the Hangar. How much you use WEP is up to you. (and its often offset by the fact that you dont use 100% throttle all the time.
-
how about not climbing to the 20k alt cap, going to about 6k, flying to target, hitting it, then fighting your way out. You won't waste 6 minutes of fuel then.
I was under the impression the eastern front was down and dirty. :D
-
It was, but down and dirty was still 10-20k.
-
I find it funny that the magical "ceiling" is set at exactly the same altitude as the full pressure height of the Lavochkin. And of course cutting the 109 off from its historical altitude advantage.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=15&p2=5&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
With regard to the question of which plane set is best I'm going to have to change my answer. Clearly, and by apparent design, the VVS plane set is going to be the best in this scenario. In blatant disregard of history.
-
20K seems like a good ceiling, for the sake of fun. Its also about having the sides resonable even.
And if you are worried about the LA then compare it with the 190:
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=5&p2=23&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
How does it make it more fun?
-
Not having one side with a significant advantage usually makes it more fun, and people would no sign up for the side that is clearly inferior.
9 out of 30 VVS fighters are La:s, the rest have a significant disadvantage against the 109 and 190. Above 20k it would be even worse.
(http://hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=15&p2=132&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
GSholz, no need to get huffy.
With regard to fuel burn, you and Artik brought it up. I agree -- you guys are right. I will be editing the rules writeup to have fuel burn of 1.0. So, that one is solved. Thanks for bringing it up, but there is no need to continue harping on it.
With regard to "Why would anyone do X." In Scenarios, my goal is: maximum realism given a need also for playability. In other words, I want to maximize two things that often pull in opposite directions: realism and playability. Also, there is no mathematical formula that I can solve to get the provable optimum -- I have to use my judgement, which is definitely not perfect. Sometimes I will make the best choice. Sometimes, I won't -- but it is not due to lack of trying, lack of desire, or bad motivations. Also, because such things are subject to judgement, people can have different opinions on what is best to do.
Fuel burn is modified in scenarios to account for the fact that our maps are much smaller than real life. For example, in Battle of Britain, if we don't adjust fuel burn higher, we have 109's with much greater than historical loiter time over England or much longer range into England than historical. So, for increased realism, we increase the burn rate. Some scenarios are like that. This one, as you correctly pointed out, is a different matter and should have burn rate back to 1.0 because there are different dynamics than just map size for Eastern Front.
As for alt cap, that is based also on a desire for realism. I want the style of fighting to be like what I've read about in books about Eastern Front air combat. It is not realistic for Eastern Front fights to commonly be at 38k (which is what would be going on with no alt cap -- for example in Malta scenarios where we don't have alt caps, fights have gone up to almost 40k). There are lots of reasons Eastern Front fights were typically not that high, and some of those reasons, I can't replicate in the arena, so I have to pick some other way to give the same effect. I can't just throw in thick clouds above a certain altitude because all planes in AH have in-cockpit GPS, and so they can use clouds in ways that are highly unrealistic. (One intriguing way that will bear future experimentation is just how visibility works in AH3, where unlike in AH2 you can have real problems seeing aircraft against the ground when you are up too high -- maybe it means we won't need alt caps anymore.)
So, knowing this, what did I do? I bought five Kindle books on Eastern European aerial combat that I could search electronically, with first-hand accounts from Eastern Front pilots both German and Soviet, and spent the time to search all of them for every reference to altitude of bombing and fighter combat. What I found was a very large number of references to low-altitude action. For specific numbers, I found the vast majority of references to combats from the deck on up to about 15k or so. I saw only one reference to a fight above 20k (Guther Rall flying at 19,000 ft, spotting a Russian recon plane at 26,000 ft, and climbing up to shoot it).
Wanting to make the fighting happen at realistic alts, past scenarios have shown one way that works well as judged by the player base -- alt cap. (By the way, in some scenarios, we have no alt caps because either the planes involved can't get up to unrealistic alts or the realistic alts are very high, so no need. Malta is an in-between case. I don't have a lot of references to what typical alts were, so I haven't tended to put an alt cap in that one. As a result, some folks fly at approaching 40k, which has resulted in complaints to me about the unrealistic nature of that. No matter what I choose as a Scenario CM, I get crabbed at by someone, which sucks.)
At any rate, that is the answer to why. It is not to make things gamey or to force it to be like the MA but in fact the exact opposite motivation. It is to make the action more like what we read about in accounts by the real pilots, so that when a player flies in a scenario, the action he experiences is like what he reads about in 1st-hand accounts of typical action in that battle or region. But I have to do it in AH in situations where we can't put in all real-life constraints that caused real pilots to fly at those typical alts.
As to whether this one aspect -- a 20k alt cap -- is the difference between you flying in the event and having fun or deciding not to participate, that is up to you, of course. My long discussion here is not primarily designed to convince you to play (which is your own choice) but, because you brought in a public forum insinuations that my goals are the opposite of what they are in reality, I wanted to be thorough in saying that I completely disagree and why.
-
I would never presume to tell you what to do. This is your gig. I will however voice my displeasure and disappointment... Which I now have done. Good night.
-
By the way, while I consider alt caps a thing that adds realism, not detracts from it, there are changes in the design away from realism for playability's sake: even numbers between LW and VVS (as one side significantly outnumbering the other in AH is very hard to balance and usually results in the undermanned side getting creamed and being disgruntled), no Stukas (as I doubted that I could get players willing to register for them), no I-16 (for similar reason to Stuka, although in hindsight, I probably could have gotten some folks in them, so I will keep that in mind for next time).
By the way, GSholz, 20k wasn't picked to disadvantage the LW. It was picked as a round number below which most fights on the Eastern Front took place. It could have been 18k or 22k or whatever. I fly LW more than any other side in scenarios (109's in BoB 2004, Ju 88's in Operation Husky, 109 in DGS frame 2, 109's in BoB 2008, Ju 88's in Tunisia, 109's in Final Battle, 109's in Battle Over Germany, 190A-5's in Enemy Coast Ahead, 190's in Winter Sky, 190's in DGS II, Ju 88's in Mediterranean Maelstrom, He 111's in BoB 2013). I don't have a grudge against LW planes. Likewise, having flown them, I don't feel disadvantaged flying them against anyone in any scenario.
There are some ahistorical advantages to the Luftwaffe in this one. The Luftwaffe has a big advantage in FW 190F-8's instead of Stukas. Also, 190F-8's are substantially better fighters once their bombs are gone compared to Il-2's. The 190A-5 and 109G-6 are *plenty* competitive vs. the overall VVS plane set, including La-5's, yet only some of the VVS set is La-5's. The rest are P-39's, Yak-7b's, and Yak-9T's.
All of this factors into ideas of balance. I think the sides are relatively well balanced, or I would have picked one I thought was better balanced.
I thought that the hardest group in the whole scenario to fill would be the Il-2's -- that's why I registered for those and recruited to fill them. Otherwise, I would have flown something else.
-
I would say that it is a good setup and I dont see the need for higher alt cap, LW can still enjoy a rather significant advantage between 15-20k since only the 9 La:s will have the performance to match the LW-fighters.
-
I would never presume to tell you what to do. This is your gig. I will however voice my displeasure and disappointment... Which I now have done. Good night.
Well, since fuel burn is now 1.0 and reading my explanation of why alt caps are 20k (which includes lots of reasons, including results of electronic searches of alts in 5 books on Eastern Front fighting), are you still full of displeasure and disappointment?
-
Most fights in the east may have been below 20k, but the LW always started from a position as high as they practically could. There are many ways to balance a fight and personally I think any gamey restriction like your alt cap ruins the one single thing scenarios do better than arenas: Immersion. You have all these various tools at your disposal including number of lives, plane set mix, scoring, mission objectives and many more. You could reduce dot range so planes flying at silly alts can't see below 15k where the bombers and attack planes are. You could give the Reds more Lavochkins and more lives, and adjust scoring accordingly so the LW would have to work harder for less score (which would be historically correct btw.) There are so many other and better ways to balance a fight that a *magical wind* should be last on the list. Just my honest opinion mind you. Like I said, this is your gig.
-
Most fights in the east may have been below 20k, but the LW always started from a position as high as they practically could.
Absolutely. But, from my searching in those books, the highest they could do that was typically below 20k. Above that, they wouldn't see the Il-2's down in the dirt or the fighters escorting them. Even in relatively clear air, unlike in AH2, it's hard to see them down there if you are at 30k. They often didn't fly in gaggles of 50 planes, but not infrequently 4-8 Il-2's and a few fighters down low, so you can't look down from 30k and spot that easily. The other is that there were often too many clouds, and they had to be below them to see. I can't put in layers of clouds in AH or people will use them to have invisible planes as they fly to target with GPS.
There are many ways to balance a fight and personally I think any gamey restriction like your alt cap ruins the one single thing scenarios do better than arenas: Immersion.
Having the alt cap is specifically to enhance immersion. Without it, we will have battles starting at 38k, just like in Malta. We will have people flying patrols at 30k or 35k, spotting a handful of planes flying along at 1k alt. I know this because that is how it has gone in many other scenarios that don't have alt caps. For them, it's OK, as that is the realistic action. Here, it isn't. If folks are doing that, they are not getting realistic immersion -- it is gamey and false flying patrols at 35k in this one.
You have all these various tools at your disposal including number of lives, plane set mix, scoring, mission objectives and many more. You could reduce dot range so planes flying at silly alts can't see below 15k where the bombers and attack planes are.
Many settings -- like that one -- are sort of flaky and unreliable and don't work the way you think. Under certain conditions that aren't uncommon, you can easily see bombers from large distances. This maybe completely different in AH3, which might obviate worry over alts.
You could give the Reds more Lavochkins and more lives, and adjust scoring accordingly so the LW would have to work harder for less score (which would be historically correct btw.) There are so many other and better ways to balance a fight that a *magical wind* should be last on the list. Just my honest opinion mind you. Like I said, this is your gig.
VVS didn't have all La-5's. I already gave them more La-5's than they had as a historical mix. Realism and immersion are reduced when you have an Eastern Front battle fighting all La-5's when there were Yaks and P-39's around. Also, once you start making the setup asymmetric in lives, number of people, etc., you run enormous risks of balance. I have been playing in and designing scenarios since 1993 -- I have seen a very large number of designs and tests of concepts, and I know a lot of things that seem great but don't work in practice or have unacceptable risks with regard to playability.
Why don't you at least give it a try and see what it's like? Even if you try it and don't like it and then quit, the time you spent flying in it contributes to the enjoyment of others.
-
This is your gig and I will defer to your expertise in this matter. Still don't like magic though.
-
Why don't you at least give it a try and see what it's like? Even if you try it and don't like it and then quit, the time you spent flying in it contributes to the enjoyment of others.
Good point.
- oldman
-
Still don't like magic though.
I'm with you on that. I have thought about several other ways to accomplish it, and if I thought there was a better way to get historical immersion in terms of historically correct alts (instead of everyone flying around at 35k when historical is more like 16k), I would do it.
AH3 might provide the answer to that in the way visibility works -- I am hopeful.
-
maximum realism given a need also for playability. In other words, I want to maximize two things that often pull in opposite directions: realism and playability.
Having the alt cap is specifically to enhance immersion. Without it, we will have battles starting at 38k
Agreed 110%!
(wish you guys backed me up when I asked that question of the 49th squadron for their MA mission. It is obvious we think a like.)
-
It is a shame the yaks only carry 120 rounds because being swamped by vast numbers of 109s and 190s how are we meant to bring them all down?
I agree with gscholz there should have been more la5s ( failing that some lend lease spitfires) just to give the vvs a fighting chance. I just hope the luftwaffe can bring their A game and make it exciting.
-
You will still not be allowed to fly anything but a Storch.
-
To be honest, I really like this planeset it is most historically accurate one for a long time in AH events at eastern front
Usually lots of P40 and hurricanes that shade the Russian models
Yaks are very nice planes to fly. Mostly they are much easier to master than tricky 109s or 190s :
Center line weapons, great all around visibility, good maneuverability, reasonable performance and very forgiving airframe.
To be honest in scenarios it may be much more important than top speed or climb ratio
One thing you should remember for the eastern front, it was very different from what happened at west
There were no high altitude strategic bombing, all operations were tactical,
For example major yaks role was to escort il2s - very different from the escort of b17 or ju88
Interestingly one of the best early war planes was mig-1/3, over 15-20k it outperformed every German plane of that period but its production was cancelled because it wasn't needed
PVO units (air defense command) was receiving the least needed models because major war operations were tactical
-
You will still not be allowed to fly anything but a Storch.
While this is true, Bruv is still predicted to get 7-12 kills per frame in it.
-
I'm with Artik on this one. I'm very much looking forward to some scrappy, down-low, Eastern Front action.
I'm even an Il-2 pilot in this one, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is on this aspect. :aok
Even have been reading "Over Fields of Fire: Flying the Sturmovik in action on the Eastern Front 1942-1945," by Il-2 pilot Anna Timofeeva-Egorova (41 combat missions in the Il-2). It is a great book.
It was a hard choice of what to fly. I've flown 109's, 190's, Ju 88's, and La-5's in past scenarios, but this is the first scenario to have Yak-9T's, Yak-7b's, or Tu-2's -- so those were appealing. I have since reading "Attack of the Airacobras," by Losa, wanted to fly a P-39 in an Eastern Front scenario. I've flown a lot of the Yak-7b in the MA quite a bit and like it just fine. In the end, I thought Il-2's would be hardest to fill and so decided to pitch in there.
-
It's really all about your flying style.
Like to stay high, BnZ and kill bombers- 190A5 all day.
Like to defend on the deck, pull shiesty defense moves, and come out of no where - La5
Like to play mid alt with offense and defense 109G6 and Yak.
The iL-s can take a beating, get them to overshoot and pop them with your wicked ammo.
My plane of choice would be the La-5. I don't know if I'll be able to make it, but I'll grab an La-5 if I can. It's a dirty bird.
The 109G6 is my second Favorite. Great ride too, but the La5 in AH is better for quick kills. The LA5 just feels so much quicker and lighter than a 109. I'll have to fight 1v1 soon in a 109 v me la5 and really see the difference.
I HATE flying in Yaks, so that's out of the question.
The 190a5 is great. That's going to pull some nice ropes on all of the Russian planes. I'd fly that. Would love to kill some bombers. Although, I really like to get down and crafty so staying high and fast worrying about outrunning yaks would bore me.
-
"Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough maneuvering. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough maneuver which succeeds."
— Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, aka Karaya One, the World's leading ace, with 352 victories in WWII Jagdgeschwader 52.
GScholz, I hope that you are up there at 20k in your personal Bf 109G-6 ("Karaya G") as part of JG 52. If so, you'll be up there with some good pilots -- Dolby, MIZZOU, zimme83, Zacherof, 1Tundra1, SubwayCH, BangsBox, Sloehand, BFOOT1, Sukov -- ready to take the fight to Ivan.
-
I probably will be. :)
-
I probably will be. :)
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! :aok
"Karaya G" it is! :airplane:
-
The F8 should be faster than the A5 on the deck flying clean.
-
It is.
-
Best plane to use on IL2s . good armour and nice guns
-
So far in the battle, the kills are fairly even, 193 VVS vs. 179 LW.