Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Spikes on March 23, 2019, 07:37:46 PM
-
All,
Below are the scores for this month.
(https://i.imgur.com/hnOmRrK.png)
Plenty of fun fights and quick action, many of the points were decided by planning and execution.
:salute
-
(https://i.imgur.com/LqvR6Vh.png)
Bonus screenshot! Drone and I get a little too close before I ram him and die like a noob. :(
-
Both sides planned and executed.
I really do appreciate the effort that goes into the design of these things. It takes way more work to get it to happen vs just rolling up to play and complain.
Now the critique:
Making one side fly with a full set of inferior planes and then requiring every single type to have minimums is not balance - it's just letting down the player base. The rides caused the squeak meter to register on the Allied side. If you can't find a way to balance a particular frame then don't run it. Find another battle.
Last frame we took off with a -15 number disadvantage and that just isn't the weather voting.
That said, the overall design concept is quite sound.
The lack of balance not so much.
-
Last frame we took off with a -15 number disadvantage and that just isn't the weather voting.
Um, the Allies had a 15 man advantage. Seems they had no problem showing up.
Unless you meant something else.
-
Both sides planned and executed.
I really do appreciate the effort that goes into the design of these things. It takes way more work to get it to happen vs just rolling up to play and complain.
Now the critique:
Making one side fly with a full set of inferior planes and then requiring every single type to have minimums is not balance - it's just letting down the player base. The rides caused the squeak meter to register on the Allied side. If you can't find a way to balance a particular frame then don't run it. Find another battle.
Last frame we took off with a -15 number disadvantage and that just isn't the weather voting.
That said, the overall design concept is quite sound.
The lack of balance not so much.
Appreciate the feedback sir.
This event was interesting in that Frames 1 and 3 effectively would cancel each other out (although it is very difficult to head-to-head balance an IL2 and a Ju 87) while still representing what happened in real life. We tried to make it so given proper time-over-target both planes could do their job. The Ju 87 needing to have some alt to bomb, so making it more easily spotted. The IL2 needing about 1 minute to kill a hangar on it's own (3 passes for a single, but doubled up it could feasibly be done in 1 pass). Unfortunately in events like these it is hard to omit planes like the IL2 and Ju 87 because they were so prevalent, but so inferior due to the nature of the event. I personally think the IL2 has the advantage in this regard since they could go NOE and blend in quite well with the terrain, but in Frame 1 they just got caught out way before reaching target.
We have been trying to cook up some new ideas and sometimes it calls for some experimental stuff to come about (such as the use of the C.205 as a MiG-3 sub). Fortunately these experiments haven't been as bad as the numbers swings over recent months. :)
-
Allies: 70 Axis: 65 Frame 1
Allies: 79 Axis: 69 Frame 2
Allies: 82 Axis: 66 Frame 3
These are the numbers from this month where we sought a 50/50.
Thank you for the feedback Dantoo. We try to get these things as historically accurate and balanced as possible and sometimes we succeed. At other times we do not, and yet sometimes we get close. The only way to improve these designs is to continue to give proper feedback and criticism.
:salute
-
I would recommend the Yak-9T be available in this event next time, limited to the 20mm cannon. It came into service at the end of 42 and is a nice balance to the 109G2.
-
I would recommend the Yak-9T be available in this event next time, limited to the 20mm cannon. It came into service at the end of 42 and is a nice balance to the 109G2.
Yak-9's entered service in October '42 in the Stalingrad area, so it would be a bit early to see them up north at Leningrad in August/September.
However, our 20mm Yak-9T would be very close in performance to a Yak-1B, which did see service during the Sinyavino campaign. So I agree with your overall point. Going forward I think 20mm Yak-9T should sub for Yak-1B's when 109G-2's are available for the Axis.
:cheers:
-
I apologise for getting the number equation wrong way round. Those numbers are even more useful in highlighting the single problem I was trying to comment upon.
When you get a setup that is "apparently" unequal you tend to get one side that whines about being the underdog and the other complains about boredom. You can get away with this if it doesn't happen a lot. Imagine if we did a bunch of 1943-44 Pacific stuff? Followed by this last one. Yikes. The team is clearly aware of that and avoids it. I just wonder if we can avoid these mismatches altogether?
What I want to highlight and reiterate is that the overall approach is excellent. That, no doubt at all. kept this one going.
If we can avoid settings where the tools of trade become deeply one-sided then we are buzzing.
You can alleviate equipment disparity with a numbers trade off, but that only works to a very limited extent. Example this FSO.
Allied Pilots: 70 Kills: 29 Assists: 20 Axis Pilots: 65 Kills: 76 Assists: 43
Pilots: 79 Kills: 40 Assists: 18 Pilots: 69 Kills: 57 Assists: 55
Pilots: 82 Kills: 62 Assists: 78 Pilots: 66 Kills: 55 Assists: 36
What a wonderful set of figures for future planning. They have to be tempered by the tasking, but the middle set should be revealing. Allied have 10 more pilots and achieve 17 less kills.
We have to consider that there are unknown or unexamined factors in play that possibly tilted the balance, but it shows (I hope) that numbers can't satisfactorily haul back a deep mechanical disadvantage. How many A6M-3 does it take to balance an F4U-1?
Lets's look at the 2nd frame. Both sides were tasked to bomb with medium level bombers. Both sides scored close to max bombing points. Aircraft (kill) points differ though. 168 -101 and that with a number advantage of 10 players to the lower side.
Both sides planned and flew equally well in those frames as attested by the bombing scores. The Allied side was greatly outpointed in fighter kills.
Now you have to combine Frames 1 and 3 to compare them due to the tasking. Both sides scored 175 bombing points. Planning and effort was equal.
Aircraft kill points Frame 1 Axis 253 vs Frame 3 Allied 200 (and with a 15 player upside and a total fighter armament). Allied had an advantage in fighters of 82 to 43 in the 3rd frame.
Compare the difference in kill points scored in frame 3 vs frame 1: a delta of 197 points Axis vs 90 Allies. That is a huge disparity and with Allies having a tremendous numbers advantage that still could not turn it around - nor even take take it close.
IF we have to put more than a 10 player (medium squad) advantage to one side to make it work, surely we should be asking whether we should be doing this one at all?
Look I just want to put it up as food for thought for planners. We want these things to be interesting and as historic as we can make them. What we don't want is to be just "re-enactors" where it "happened this way in the war so it has to be done like this".
Yeah it would help if HTC put some more Axis and Soviet types in the game, but til then we are stuck making subs like we had to do here. Can we just consider that aircraft type matters more to the enjoyment and balance of the game and acknowledge that numbers and substitutes are a pita that although we have fall back to, just aren't what we'd like them to be?
-
We discussed it a bit on Discord afterwards, it is tough to analyze due to some of the plans that were used, but some takeaways I had from each frame:
In Frame 1, the IL2s got caught out early on the deck (possibly even over the water?) inbound to their target and were killed much before they arrived. This resulted in all deaths and no hangars. The B-25C's also went in NOE and got to target and dropped everything including the bonus town. However, since they were NOE, they became ducks and were seemingly mopped up. Pretty much the best possible situation for the Axis, the only better thing besides getting to the B-25's before they dropped. Had the IL2s reached target and killed only one hangar, they would have won Frame 1.
In Frame 2, the Ju 88s got in and out early with minimal losses as the attack was stacked with escorts. The defense objective had 1 squad defending it, being KN with 7 people. LCA was supposed to sweep and then fall back to defend with us. The 88s got out and many of the fighters grouped up around the objective in a defensive role. The Allied attack took quite a long time as it was an end-around route, so by the time they made it to target, the Axis had already attacked, got back, rearmed, etc. It also had with it what seemed to be the majority of the fighters as escorts. It was a pretty fun fight over our base, we got onto some of the bombers and the fight got low, then a few minutes later 5 more sets of B-25s came in at altitude and seemed to be relatively unopposed at that point. Again, overall the best case scenario for the Axis. If the Allied attack came early and direct it would've been bad news for us.
In Frame 3, the Ju 87s were able to get much closer to the target before being seen, and were able to get their bombs off and get a few hangars before they got zapped. Escorting them was just KN and Anti Horde, a total of 16 fighters, since most of them . When we ran into the Allies the conga-line of fighters was seemingly endless, we were definitely out-numbered 2 or 3 to 1. Then there were a ton of well-disciplined high P-40s to mop up the Ju 87s. I really don't know how we managed to survive up there, many of our squad died and eventually it was just myself and Perdweeb alive for our squad until a couple Yaks dispatched me to the tower. I don't really think it was all the plane, but I'm not really sure how the attack in the south went, but a decent amount of Ju 88s seem to have died (over 2/3 of them). Had the Ju 87s died prior to dropping, the Allies would have won Frame 3 and the overall score would have been much closer.
Keep in mind I am not pointing out flaws in plans, but just stating how things could've easily gone differently...but that's what makes it fun.
Now onto some changes:
-I really dislike IL2s versus Ju 87s in events because they are extremely different aircraft and hard to balance against each other, but there's no other option for either side as an "attack" aircraft and they were used to heavily by both sides it is tough to dismiss them.
-We thought the use of the C.205 as a MiG-3 sub went fine, it wasn't overpowering but not too underwhelming either. It is the Allies' best performance fighter but lacks the 20mm that the Yak-7b sports. With that said, 2 50's and 2 30's is nothing to laugh at.
-As Devil and Vulcan said, the Yak-9T could be used as a sub and does match well with the 109G2.
-The Town Bonus idea was a late addition, with the close fights we wanted to give the opportunity for some late frame action if the attack pilots wanted something to do, without "requiring" a second sortie per se. We wanted to assign it a point value that would make it worthwhile to attack, but not detrimental to a side if they decided not to go for it, hence not requiring it to be an "after T+60" thing.
IMO the fighter food-chain of this setup is 109G2>Yak-7B>C205>109F>P40E>P40C.
-The 109G2 was clearly the best aircraft in the event, which is why it had a Max on it, possibly too high of a Max, but they were that prevalent in the area.
-I think the Yak-7b is overall the next best fighter, it's nasty when low and slow and packs a punch.
-The C.205 could be better than the Yak, I think it is personal preference. It can hang with the 109G2 better, but the gun pack is a bit less advantageous for snapshots.
-The 109F is very similar to the G2 with the exception of engine power so not much to say there.
-The P-40 is arguably the Allies' best bomber killer with 6 .50s and tons of ammo, and it matches up speed-wise well with the 109F at lower altitudes (12K and below) and dives well, but once slow there isn't much to write home about.
People have been saying they want new or different ideas, rather than the same old same old, so we've been trying to do that. Each event that we have run thus far (that either myself or Perd have admin'd) have been built from the ground up, which safe to say comes with consequences. We are trying new things with objectives, introducing new maps thanks to the Terrain Team, trying new planesets, matchups, and substitutes. But these all come with the stipulation that it just might not work, and if it doesn't work then we must re-evaluate it or not go back to it.
Number balance is something the team has no control over. We have been urging everyone to keep their numbers current as that is one of the main reasons these events stay balanced and fun. Recently we have been putting in the time to track averages (eg. who is on the high or low end of their commitment level), but that doesn't always help.
At what point do we throw away balance for the sake of History? Or History for the sake of balance? Take, for example, early 1944. The P-51 starts to get introduced at squadron strength, but the Axis are still in 190As and early 109Gs until they get their high-altitude fighters in the fall of 1944 (more specifically Oct/Nov/Dec 44). The G-14 can be used as a G-6/AS sub, but even it drops off at 24K, whereas the Allied fighters excel at altitudes higher than this. So there's this large gap in balance from Spring 44 to Fall 44. Usually some corners can be cut and it makes it decent, but doesn't take away from the fact that Axis fighters are simply outclassed for a few months.
It is the same reason we don't do un-escorted B-17s vs. 190s and 410s in 1943 before the Allied escorts could escort that deep into Germany. Historical? Absolutely. Balanced? Absolutely not.
I am, and I'm sure most are, open to ideas to make things better. We do want balance and spend hours mulling (and arguing) over stuff of that nature. Much of the balance can be taken care of with scoring if there are no other options, but that doesn't help an imbalance in the setup itself (eg. we managed to balance a Boston with an SBD and it worked out surprisingly well). With the numbers the way they are, 10 people showing up now is vastly different than 10 people showing up years back. It is much harder to achieve 50/50 splits when a few people swings the balance greatly.
-
Keep working at it... I'd rather have a few horrible frames of FSO if it means trying new things to figure out if it works or not.
Having a chance to write the allied order this past FSO was a real eye opener as too how much effort goes into these things.
I think spikes has a good writeup that makes a lot of sense. I for one would love to see some more unconventional scenarios. We don't always need historical context to drive a scenario, it's just much easier as a framework.
It's too bad we can't have more unique 1-off type situations; attack a road/rail convoy. . . Attack a factory, attack a field with aircraft parked (again these are custom objects built into a terrain?) I dunno.
Even a kamikaze style frame, where "victory" is only determined by a minimum 4 airframes crashing into a boat. (Again these are much more unusual metrics than previously used, but hey, tell me why it won't work.)
My hat goes off to those dedicated community members putting time and effort into making FSO's work. :salute
Keep at it, my co-pilot "Rummy" and I will try to be available! :devil
-
I will add much more to this in the coming days, but I would like to point out one thing. I do not want this to sound condescending or patronizing in any way, so please keep that in mind when you read what follows. Some, not all, of the reason for the lopsided kill numbers is not only because the 109G-2 is strong as is the 109F, but because of who were in them. This is not a pro-Axis dig, so please don't think of it like that. What I mean is, we have guys like KN, JG 11, JG 54, Anti-Horde, and LCA who generally fly Axis and fly a lot of 109's. Meanwhile, the Allied guys do not get a lot of stick time in Yak-7's and especially C.205's. I am not saying that the Axis pilots are better man for man, but the Axis pilots have more experience, in general, in their fighters than the Allies do. This is not necessarily the case in every setup, but in Eastern Front setups, it is. So we have two things working against us, the fighter matchup is in favor of the Axis most of the time and the pilots flying those rides have more experience in them than the Allies do in Soviet rides.
It is a difficult thing for designers and is something that cannot be balanced, but can be considered. The point is, the numbers are not all because of the fighter matchup from a machine standpoint, but also an experience one. The next Eastern Front setup is in June, so these types of conversations are great and will hopefully result in a better balanced setup in June.
-
…. This is not necessarily the case in every setup, but in Eastern Front setups, it is. So we have two things working against us, the fighter matchup is in favor of the Axis most of the time and the pilots flying those rides have more experience in them than the Allies do in Soviet rides.
It is a difficult thing for designers and is something that cannot be balanced, but can be considered. The point is, the numbers are not all because of the fighter matchup from a machine standpoint, but also an experience one. The next Eastern Front setup is in June, so these types of conversations are great and will hopefully result in a better balanced setup in June.
Never thought of that, great point. It's just another sortie for a lot of them axis pilots. Meanwhile a seasoned He111 driver like myself has to step into a P40. :devil
Meh, I still had fun....
-
I will add much more to this in the coming days, but I would like to point out one thing. I do not want this to sound condescending or patronizing in any way, so please keep that in mind when you read what follows. Some, not all, of the reason for the lopsided kill numbers is not only because the 109G-2 is strong as is the 109F, but because of who were in them. This is not a pro-Axis dig, so please don't think of it like that. What I mean is, we have guys like KN, JG 11, JG 54, Anti-Horde, and LCA who generally fly Axis and fly a lot of 109's.
oink
-
And Pigs...
-
And Pigs...
:D
-
Look I just want to put it up as food for thought for planners. We want these things to be interesting and as historic as we can make them. What we don't want is to be just "re-enactors" where it "happened this way in the war so it has to be done like this".
Yeah it would help if HTC put some more Axis and Soviet types in the game, but til then we are stuck making subs like we had to do here. Can we just consider that aircraft type matters more to the enjoyment and balance of the game and acknowledge that numbers and substitutes are a pita that although we have fall back to, just aren't what we'd like them to be?
You know Perd, Spikes, and myself well enough to know that we are not aiming to have re-enactments in our events. If each side does not have a reasonable chance to win, then the event is fundamentally broken.
You may think that this month's FSO was stacked too heavily against the Allies, but as Spikes pointed out, the difference in frames 1 and 2 comes down to planning, execution, and luck. Frame 3 is the outlier to me. I have no idea why there was such a disparity given the manpower advantage held by the Allies in that frame. I especially expected the Allies to score many more kills of Ju 88's since the both the P-40 and Yak7b have more potent gun packs then the 109's with single 20mm cannon.
As for subs, do you really think that having an actual MiG-3 or LaGG-3 would have made a positive difference for the Allies? I do not. The LaGG would be worse than the Yak7 in every way and the MiG would perform very similar to the C.205, but would suffer in climb rate and acceleration.
In this setup the Yak-7 was not a sub for a LaGG as there were 2 regiments with Yak7's and another 2 with Yak1's operating in the Leningrad area during the Sinyavino offensive. Had we decided to use the Yak as a sub, there would barely be room for any other fighters as there were 5 regiments of LaGGs in the same area at the time.
Furthermore, I made two other major considerations with this design to maintain balance at the expense of the "happened this way in the war so it has to be done like this" way of designing events.
First, the 20mm gondolas were disabled on the G-2's. Historically these were available from the moment the G-2's were delivered to units in August 1942.
Second, The Fw 190 made it's Eastern Front debut at this battle on September 10, when I/Jg 51 deployed to the base at Ljuban to counter the offensive. That's 3 full squadrons of 190's to compliment the 12 squadrons in 109G-2's and 3 with 109F's at this battle.
In a more traditionally designed FSO, the number spread may have looked like what we saw in Frame 3, but the Allies would have been fielding Il-2's and B-25's every frame and Axis would have 190's and gondie laden G-2's. Now that would have been insurmountable for the Allies.
-
I will add much more to this in the coming days, but I would like to point out one thing. I do not want this to sound condescending or patronizing in any way, so please keep that in mind when you read what follows. Some, not all, of the reason for the lopsided kill numbers is not only because the 109G-2 is strong as is the 109F, but because of who were in them. This is not a pro-Axis dig, so please don't think of it like that. What I mean is, we have guys like KN, JG 11, JG 54, Anti-Horde, and LCA who generally fly Axis and fly a lot of 109's. Meanwhile, the Allied guys do not get a lot of stick time in Yak-7's and especially C.205's. I am not saying that the Axis pilots are better man for man, but the Axis pilots have more experience, in general, in their fighters than the Allies do. This is not necessarily the case in every setup, but in Eastern Front setups, it is. So we have two things working against us, the fighter matchup is in favor of the Axis most of the time and the pilots flying those rides have more experience in them than the Allies do in Soviet rides.
It is a difficult thing for designers and is something that cannot be balanced, but can be considered. The point is, the numbers are not all because of the fighter matchup from a machine standpoint, but also an experience one. The next Eastern Front setup is in June, so these types of conversations are great and will hopefully result in a better balanced setup in June.
I have to say I think you nailed it Perd. Years ago when there were several hundred plus flying FSO it was not a big deal. However now that we are down to the 150ish per frame flying, the Axis do have an advantage in every setup not involving Jap planes due to the " dedicated Axis only squads" , hence I fear that like it or not you must now take it into account for balancing purposes to some degree.
Squads that like to rotate, or even the " Allied only squads" simply have way more air frames to adjust to on a monthly basis, quite a few probably never fly air frames in the MA that they have to in FSO. Our squad is very partial to Hellcats, we have had what? 2 setups in the last 3 years with hellcats? Some guys like Jugs, some Hogs, some 51's, and then there are the Spit guys.
I recall last year, maybe even 2 years ago where we had like 4 setups in a row with P-40's :( . Kinda sucked! FSO seems stuck in 1942 and 1943. Allied guys are trying I have no doubt, but like it or not. It may be time to admit that the 109 and 190 fly guys do hold some advantage in FSO, problem is..... I fear there is little that can be done to change it. It's to the point for me where I REALLY wanted AXIS this last month, cause I HATE VVS planes, but I knew we had no chance of getting Axis, hence my frame plane selections last month. It's not hard to sit down, and work the numbers, look at the set up, and figure out if we can go with what we really want to do, or just take what I am pretty sure we are gonna get so as to not make it tough on the CM.
:salute
JDOG
G3-MF
-
I especially expected the Allies to score many more kills of Ju 88's since the both the P-40 and Yak7b have more potent gun packs then the 109's with single 20mm cannon.
Ahhh how many cannons do you think a Yak 7b has? The 7b does not pack a punch.
Also the G2 has tremendous horsepower over the 7b, on the deck it's has a 1200fpm climb rate advantage. I fly the yaks a lot in the MA, and the 7b is not noted for acceleration or climb. I would say the C205, P40E, and 109F4 are all better than the 7b.
Maybe you are confusing the 9T with the 7b?
-
Ahhh how many cannons do you think a Yak 7b has? The 7b does not pack a punch.
Also the G2 has tremendous horsepower over the 7b, on the deck it's has a 1200fpm climb rate advantage. I fly the yaks a lot in the MA, and the 7b is not noted for acceleration or climb. I would say the C205, P40E, and 109F4 are all better than the 7b.
Maybe you are confusing the 9T with the 7b?
Maybe you missed the part of the post where I explained that the 109G-2 did not have gondolas. Therefore the 109's and Yak have the same number 20mm cannons - one. Now if you want to make the case for the 109's having more 20mm ammo, then you would be correct. The 109's having 200 rounds vs the 120 in the Yak. But let's look at the secondary machine guns, this is where that "punch" comes in. The 109 has two 7.9mm machine guns with 500 rounds each whereas the yak has two 12.7 Mg's with an unbalanced load of 140 and 250 rounds. Believe it or not, but the larger rounds of the Yak make a big difference in the total lethality of these planes. Also, in case you did not know, the 109F has the same gun pack as the G-2, so in this aspect they are the same.
These graphs are taken from Gonzo's old AH fighter comparison page. http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/ Since the page predated the Yak7, I used the Yak9U as the guns are the same (1 ShVAK 20mm and 2 UBS 12.7mm, although the 12.7 rounds are balanced in the 9U at 170 per gun). So the firing time numbers for the Yak are off for the secondary weapons.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhfYFjKw/109-vs-Yak.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Since the fine print is difficult to read, I'll summerize: the Hammer RtKH graph is based on total rounds needed to kill a hangar with a baseline of one M2 .50 cal = a value of 10, therefore the P-40E = 60. The Hammer Calc graph is the total damage inflicted in one second. Again the baseline is one M2 .50 cal = a value of 10. As you can see, the Yak has a much more potent gun package than the 109, at the cost of duration of fire. The P-40E has the most potent package of all fighters in this setup.
Obviously the G-2 is superior to all the allied planes in speed and climb, even the F-4 is slightly better than the Yak in these regards, but the price paid for these advantages is firepower only greater than the C.205.
Another way of looking at it from the perspective of a Yak7: You are trading speed and climb against the 109's for better handling, turning, and firepower advantages over the 109's.
I hope you can now see that the fighters are more balanced than you thought.
-
Yeah nah, firepower alone does not make the plane better. The 109G2 clearly has the ability to control the fight, as does the F4. Even then you can easily balance your firewpower with firing time. I fly all the yaks (except the -3) in the MA. I'd argue against the better turning and handling you claim in the 7b as well.
I'd also note the secondary guns are harder to use, the ballistics on the 20mm are so bad it means if you want to use the Yak gun package properly you need to learn to shoot them independently, most players don't know how to do this.
-
I never claimed the Yak7 is better, but I do maintain that it is competitive against 109's.
Look at it like a matchup of Spit9's against 190A-5's. The Spit is easily the better fighter as far as speed, climb, and handling goes. The 190 has two advantages, roll rate and (most importantly) firepower. In a many vs. many environment the 190 is a match for the Spits given that they are better able so score knock-out blows against the spits without having to engage in 1v1's - which is where the spits would dominate.
The same reasoning applies to the Yak7's. It will struggle in a 1v1, but can win a many vs. many engagement.
Also, your point about cannon ballistics is true, but also applies to the 109's. The 7.9mm mg's shoot much straighter than the 20mm's. It is very easy to hit with only the 7.9's and inflict little to no damage on an opponent. At least the 12.7's in the Yak have a reasonable level of lethality by themselves.
-
Yeah nah, firepower alone does not make the plane better. The 109G2 clearly has the ability to control the fight, as does the F4. Even then you can easily balance your firewpower with firing time. I fly all the yaks (except the -3) in the MA. I'd argue against the better turning and handling you claim in the 7b as well.
I'd also note the secondary guns are harder to use, the ballistics on the 20mm are so bad it means if you want to use the Yak gun package properly you need to learn to shoot them independently, most players don't know how to do this.
:salute sir but I have to chime in on this one. From the deck to around 10k the yak's and the la's do out turn the G2 and F4. From around 10k to 15k it fairly even. Above 15k the G2 and F4 have the advantage. That being said it really depends on the pilot and his skills on who wins cause while either plane my have a advantage at it's respective altitudes it's not such an advantage that would cause it to be a mute point for the pilot!!!! I hope this helps some. :cheers: :salute
-
I will add much more to this in the coming days, but I would like to point out one thing. I do not want this to sound condescending or patronizing in any way, so please keep that in mind when you read what follows. Some, not all, of the reason for the lopsided kill numbers is not only because the 109G-2 is strong as is the 109F, but because of who were in them. This is not a pro-Axis dig, so please don't think of it like that. What I mean is, we have guys like KN, JG 11, JG 54, Anti-Horde, and LCA who generally fly Axis and fly a lot of 109's. Meanwhile, the Allied guys do not get a lot of stick time in Yak-7's and especially C.205's. I am not saying that the Axis pilots are better man for man, but the Axis pilots have more experience, in general, in their fighters than the Allies do. This is not necessarily the case in every setup, but in Eastern Front setups, it is. So we have two things working against us, the fighter matchup is in favor of the Axis most of the time and the pilots flying those rides have more experience in them than the Allies do in Soviet rides.
I'm officially Triggered!!!
I have to tend to agree with perd, while the allies are a really nice bunch of guys, their lack of "experience" in those types of planes shows. I personally think they had the advantage cause I suck in EVERYTHING I fly, but that's another story.
many of us have our strengths and weaknesses. sometimes its just not your day.
the CM team does a great job trying to keep the playing field level. they cannot count on numbers and experience, and that's just the way it goes. the numbers is our job, not theirs. if you cant get guys to fly because they don't like a particular plane or a particular setup, that doesn't help the frame outcome.
being consistent is the name of the game. my squad has this problem too sometimes, but for all of us life happens. we just do the best we can.
I <S> all who play, all who work hard making it fun and all who not only build and design the setups, but put up with the flack(AAA) when things don't go the way some people like it to go.
Do the best you can with what you have, and no one can ask anymore then that!
My 2 cents.
<S> Jaeger1
CO JG54
AVA Staff Teamlead
-
I'm officially Triggered!!!
I have to tend to agree with perd, while the allies are a really nice bunch of guys, their lack of "experience" in those types of planes shows. I personally think they had the advantage cause I suck in EVERYTHING I fly, but that's another story.
many of us have our strengths and weaknesses. sometimes its just not your day.
the CM team does a great job trying to keep the playing field level. they cannot count on numbers and experience, and that's just the way it goes. the numbers is our job, not theirs. if you cant get guys to fly because they don't like a particular plane or a particular setup, that doesn't help the frame outcome.
being consistent is the name of the game. my squad has this problem too sometimes, but for all of us life happens. we just do the best we can.
I <S> all who play, all who work hard making it fun and all who not only build and design the setups, but put up with the flack(AAA) when things don't go the way some people like it to go.
Do the best you can with what you have, and no one can ask anymore then that!
My 2 cents.
<S> Jaeger1
CO JG54
AVA Staff Teamlead
So so true, people complain no matter what, that's just human nature in this day and age sadly. Now if things would have gone the allies way we would have had hardly any complaints. Again, sd but true. :cheers: :cheers: :salute :salute
-
So so true, people complain no matter what, that's just human nature in this day and age sadly. Now if things would have gone the allies way we would have had hardly any complaints. Again, sd but true. :cheers: :cheers: :salute :salute
tbh it's more you lot complaining about a perceived complaint. Re-read my original post and stop being so precious and defensive ;)
-
tbh it's more you lot complaining about a perceived complaint. Re-read my original post and stop being so precious and defensive ;)
Your first post was fine. It was the second which came off as an nonconstructive complaint given how you opened and closed that post.
That said, I do value the raising of perceived issues with the design. I also feel that they deserved in-depth feedback. All too often, things get brushed aside, outright ignored, or given a false justification by selective screenshots of a chance happenstance while claiming that the result was to be expected.
Criticism, debate, and transparency are good.
-
I wasn't trying to start a war here! I was asking for the planners to review this one, learn something, and apply that lesson going forward. Clearly I have failed. So be it.
Last comments from me:
Comparing the Yak7 to the 109 is interesting but fundamentally pointless in this setup. This FSO cannot be written off as "Allies don't fly Russian planes" because a large portion of the Allies were forced to fly planes that weren't Russian. There were minimums on P40s, C205s and actually for each and every plane type for the Allies in every single frame. Not so for Axis.
If those minimums had not been in place then you could argue the merits of 109 vs yak. There might have been reason to.
The comment that has appeared yet again that the success of Axis was down to planning and execution (and the implications of that statement) is ignorant, insulting and inaccurate. There were squads and individuals (as always) that performed well on both sides. Both sides put in. Possibly there were squads, also on both sides, that didn't read the orders until they showed up on the day (I hope not but I see evidence of such too often).
The consistent difference in results each frame is plainly obvious and the worrying self congratulatory talk demeans all players, no matter which hat their name came out of in the last draw.
Out.