Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Mathman on August 13, 2001, 02:51:00 PM
-
Lately, I have noticed a lot of whining about various planes in AH. I am not refering to any real or percieved inaccuracy of various planes' FM. I am referring to when people whine about there being too many of a certain nation's plane or too little of another's.
What I am referring to is the whining about the numbers of US planes in the game. Now, getting away from any financial reasons (i.e. majority of players of AH are in US, thus better business choice for HTC to use AAF/USN planes) or real world reasons (i.e. much more comprehensive information readily available to HTC on American planes) for the decision, there are other reasons that should make since.
1) How many different airframes were widely used (not refering to variants) by the US? If you go by America's Hundred Thousand, there were 11. Not counting the P-61 (sorry Rip), P-63, or F2A, that leaves 8 planes that were produced in a large quantity and saw widespread use. We have 5 of them, the P-38, P-51, P-47, F6F, and F4U.
The RAF had how many airframes that saw widespread use? 4 single engine planes (Spit, Hurri, Typh, and Temp) plus two twin engine planes (Beaufighter and Mossie). Soon, all 4 single engine planes will be in AH, and hopefully, at least, the Mossie will show its head soon.
Luftwaffe had 2 main single engine airframes (and countless variants of each), 2-3 twin engine fighters (don't know if you really want to include the 210 in that), plus the only jet that saw anything close to widespread use (I think we can all agree that the Meteor did not see close to the same level of use the 262 saw).
USSR had three basic airframes that were modified all over to produce several different versions (the MiG-3, Yak and Lavochkin's in all their many varied splendor), and I don't know how many, if any twin engine fighters they had.
Italy? Now this I am not sure about, so I won't even guess.
Japan had a ton of different fighters they used. They had the Zeke, Jack, Tony, Oscar, Geaorge, Frank, Tojo, Nick, Ki-100 (which I have never found a codename for), not to mention the floatplanes Rufe and Pete (which I think could be kind of cool in AH for a few sorties at least).
What I am getting at here is that US had a larger number of basic airframes than most of the countries, thus the large number of US fighters to choose from. I know this doesn't include all the different variants, but I am referring to basic airframes.
2) Why the large number of planes used by the Americans in WW2? Very simple, unlike the other countries, the US was fighting what boiled down to 2 very different wars, each requiring different types of planes. The ETO required the fighters to have better high alt performance and range (in some cases). The PTO was a carrier and island hopping war that required very different performance attributes. What I am getting at here is that I almost consider the AAF planes in Europe (though they were used in the PTO) to be from a different country than those of the USN.
The RAF fought mainly in Europe against the Luftwaffe, and the planes that the FAA used were often US built/designed carrier planes.
The LW fought a two front war in which the two fronts were very different. Hi-alt fights and intercepts in the west versus the low alt scraps on the east. That being said, on both fronts, the same planes were more or less used (whether it was right or wrong for them to do so, I leave to others to debate).
Italy had one basic front, the Med and Africa.
USSR had a single front (for the most part) and fought the fight they wanted (low alt).
Japan fought a single front war (more or less), but they were forced to build and design other fighter types due to several factors. In addition, as bad as the various forces in the other countries may have had a rivalry, in Japan, it was downright hatred (or so it seems) between the army and navy.
Ok, all that being said, lets compare the numbers of each country's fighters that are in the game now (prior to 1.08), including variants:
US: 5 airframes, 9 total
Brit: 3 airframes, 4 total
LW: 3 airframes (2 if you count the 152 as a 190 basically), 9 total
Italy: 2 total
USSR: more or less 2 airframes, 4 total
Japan: 3 total
Ok, what does this show? Not much :) Seriously, this shows that the numbers are fairly correct based on history of the types used by each country, with the one exception being Japan.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that there is a historic reason for the large number of US planes being modelled. This is in addition to the rational reasons of business decisions and ease of researching a plane's performance.
-math
-
Sigh.... And you call that a rant? You should be ashamed. You probably think AH is "just a game" too. Go sit in the corner with Toad (at least HE knows what a rant is).
Hooligan
-
Can't you come up with some really complicated mathmatical formula mathman?
Or have you switch to teaching english?
There are what 5 109's, 3 190's and a JU88. A Me262 is on the way. Aside from a heavy buff and a Stuka what is missing?
-
Me110, Me410 and a Hs129.
Oh, and a 109E4
Not to forget a Ju188 and a He111H (kewl for scenarios) ;)
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Hooligan... are you talking to me? Are YOU talking to ME?
I prefer to think that I "discuss" rather than rant. :)
(I think Math "discussed" above... he didn't rant. You want "rant", I'd suggest something by... OK, I'm not naming names. Not my style.)
I work very hard not to make "ad hominem" attacks (IE: "Jane you ignorant slut!"). I try very hard not to call people names.
State a hypothesis, supply your supporting facts (documented if possible) come to your conclusion.
No muss, no fuss, no hard feelings ... and no rant. ;)
I think Math made a nice case. Now it can be debated rationally... if one so chooses.
If I have "ranted", I beg forgiveness. Or as we used to do in the service, I'll fall back on the "Rule of Three".
1. Gee, I didn't know that!
2. I REALLY, REALLY am sorry!
3. I promise I'll never do it again!
:)
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Your rant ignores the service dates of the aircraft in AH.
All us fighters are all 1944 fighters with one 1943 fighter.
If what you were saying were true we'd have a wide spectrum of American fighters, but we don't. We simply have a massive number of overlapping American fighters.
Why haven't the Americans gotten the F4F, the P-39 or the P-40? Two of the Spitfires have 1941 performance, the third is 1942. The new RAF fighter is from 1941.
Discounting perks, which I do because I cannot use them often enough for them to mean anything, the fighter fallout looks like this:
The American aircraft are all concentrated in 1944 with a single example from 1943.
The German fighters are spread from 1941 to 1944.
The Russian fighters are spread from 1942 to 1944.
The British fighters are concentrated in 1941 to 1942, with a failed fighter turned ground attack aircraft from 1944 added in.
The 3 Japanese fighters are all from 1944, but the Zero and Ki61-I aren't really competive fighters at that point.
The Italians have one airfram with a 1941 and 1943 version.
I do agree that it is inevitable that there will be more American airframes than anybody else. But whay are all of the current American aircraft from 1944? When so many have been added, why was there no room in there for earlier aircraft? Why is there, in the much smaller RAF and VVS planesets room for early fighters, and in the case of the RAF no room for latter aircraft?
-
do217 much more useful than ju188
id like a dornier do217 for ah
much better than ju88, very nice. imo he177 shouldnt be in the game, very limited use due to technical problems
do217 would be lke b26 but better :)
-
I don't know why we don't have a F4F or P40 (or a Dauntless either) as both have been whin, err, asked for a multitude of times. I would like a Wildcat against some A6M2s (painted all light grey with the nice red suns...)
However, look at what we have for the Americans. P-51, P-47, P-38, F6F, and F4U. These are the "famous" American planes from the war. That's why I would guess all the planes are '44 planes. Dunno real reasons, you'd have to ask HiTech, Pyro, et al.
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
do217 much more useful than ju188
id like a dornier do217 for ah
much better than ju88, very nice. imo he177 shouldnt be in the game, very limited use due to technical problems
do217 would be lke b26 but better :)
yah, Zig, but Do217 is a heavie, and our friend skernsk asked for what was the german planeset lacking apart of a HEAVY bomber and a Stuka.
Ju188 is a medium, in the same league as the B26, Tu2,et al. Is fast, well armed and packs a good bombload :).
Oh, and its beautiful too :)
-
Nifty,
True, but there could have been earlier versions of those. An F6F-3 Hellcat from 1943 instead of an F6F-5 Hellcat from 1944. A P-38H or G form 1943. How about a P-47C, or a P-51A?
-
The question that no one ever seems to answer is "What is more important, gameplay or realism?"
You can argue that stance from an historical viewpoint. From a gameplay standpoint it doesn't work. If you don't have representation from the various countries, those fans from the respective countries will complain.
The one reason I find compelling about whether you do/don't include is the ability of Pyro to get the data. Likely this is far easier on the American side, and that would cause more American planes to get in.
-
G55 missing from the italian plane list.
-
Ram's postyah, Zig, but Do217 is a heavie, and our friend skernsk asked for what was the german planeset lacking apart of a HEAVY bomber and a Stuka.
Thanks for the info. I am not a Luftwaffe expert. In your opinion will the 410 and 110 see any use? Do we need to waste time modelling them?
I think to FINISH (for now)off the Luftwaffe planeset a heavy buff and a stuka are all that is needed. Perhaps a troop carrier with a little different camo scheme than C47 would be nice.
We need more Japanese and British planes. A Mosquito (not perked) should be way out in front of a 110 or a 410. We need a Japanse bomber and a few more fighters.
Not to say we should never model any more German planes. Just round out the other countries first.
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: skernsk ]
-
I agree 100%, Skernsk.
-
Major Airframes Missing from AH as of AH v1.08:
Finland
F2A
Germany
Bf110
Do17
He111
Ju52
Ju87
Italy
S.M.79
Japan
B5N
B6N
D3A
D4Y
G4M
Ki43
Ki44
Ki49
Ki84
Soviet Union
I-16
Il-4
Il-10
LaGG-3
MiG-3
Pe-2
Yak-1
Yak-3
United Kingdom
Beaufighter
Halifax
Mosquito
Swordfish
Wellington
United States
B-24
B-25
B-29
F4F
P-39
P-40
SB2C
SBD
Interesting Airframes Missing from AH as of AH v1.08:
Germany
Do217
Fi156
Fw189
He177
He219
Hs129
Ju188
Ju290
Me163
Me410
Italy
G.55
P.108
Re.2005
Japan
B7A
H8K
J2M
Ki45
Ki46
Ki67
Ki102
P1Y
Soviet Union
Pe-8
Po-2
United Kingdom
Blenheim
Defiant
Fulmar
Gladiator
Hamden
Lysander
Manchester
Meteor
Stirling
Sunderland
Whirlwind
United States
A-20
A-26
AE-1
B-32
C-46
Helicopter (whichever helicopter we put into service during the war)
P-61
PBY
TBD
-
You miss the 109 E.
At least with that, we could do a Battle of Britain....(although the He 111 would make it perfect)
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Major Airframes Missing from AH as of AH v1.08:
Finland
F2A
NEVER HEARD OF THIS ONE.
Germany
Bf110
Do17
He111
Ju52
Ju87
Agreed...but the only one that should be done in the near future would be the BUFF (DO17)and the Stuka(JU87).
Italy
S.M.79
Japan
B5N
B6N
D3A
D4Y
G4M
Ki43
Ki44
Ki49
Ki84
Not a Japanese plane expert, but I'd like a few more to sample.
Soviet Union
I-16
Il-4
Il-10
LaGG-3
MiG-3
Pe-2
Yak-1
Yak-3
Again I'm no expert, but some of these would be cannon fodder...wouln't they?
United Kingdom
Beaufighter
Halifax
Mosquito
Swordfish
Wellington
Did you mean Swordfish?? Isn't that a Biplane?
United States
B-24
B-25
B-29
F4F
P-39
P-40
SB2C
SBD
Yup...ok..but not a prority.
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: skernsk ]
-
Seeker,
I was just mentioning airframes that are missing. We have the Bf109 airframe, just not thw Bf109E-3 version of it.
Notice that none of the aircraft in AH are on my list.
Skernsk,
Those are simply the aircraft that I think had a major, or significant, impact on the war. Many of them would be cannon fodder.
The F2A is the Brewster Buffalo, which was of major importance for Finland, but not anybody else.
Swordfish is indeed a biplane, but it sank more tons of Axis shipping than any other Allied torpedo bomber. Yes, it would be cannon fodder in the MA.
I put that list out just to show what some of the airframes we don't have are. I in no way advocate only adding the ones on the "Major" list before adding any on the "Interesting" list. Its just a partial list of airframes we don't have organized by country and impact on the war.
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
Heh..seeker I was not trying to stir up a hornets nest. I think HO'ing a biplane would be most enjoyable :)
-
When I add to whoeaver's post:
"dont we have enough US stuff already"
I am speaking about all the units land see and air curentaly modled in AH, not just fighter units.I am obviously not a big fan of US equipment,I do howeaver feal fair is fair and their should be an equal representation of aircraft types from all countries that fought in the conflict, every- body should get a Buff, a decent selection of fighters, a decent selection of ground atack platforms, and a decent selection of carier planes(buff,atack,fighter).My primary objection curentaly is seing anything else US modeled before somthing is done to even out the inventorie's for the other countries.
Will sombody use the Me 410(people fly that pos P38 dont they, me included :) )will they fly a Peggy? heck ya, a faster than a B 26 buff with a 20mm Ho 5 in the dorsal turret O ya.I hope Pyro has done his bit for apeasing the US plane fans for a bit(since the decision to do so much US stuff must be because of a preconceved desire on the part of the consumer for that stuff.)
-
Brady- that is the perfect example of gameplay focus- and there isn't a thing wrong with that. I believe 90% of the arguments on this subject revolve around the conflict in the "gameplay" and "historic" viewpoints. One can't just mix-n-match and satisfy everyone.
-
Originally posted by skernsk:
In your opinion will the 410 and 110 see any use?
I think to FINISH (for now)off the Luftwaffe planeset a heavy buff and a stuka are all that is needed. (Agreed. But if you want to add a Mosquito, an Me-410 would also be a plane needed.)
We need more Japanese (Yes.) and British planes (None exept for a jabo and a tank buster.). A Mosquito (not perked) should be way out in front of a 110 or a 410 (Way, way, way in front of a Me-110, but an Me-410 right alongside the Mosquito.). We need a Japanse bomber and a few more fighters (Absolutely.).
Just round out the other countries first (All of them need to be rounded out.).
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: skernsk ]
-
I'd fly 110, and 410, no question about it!!
SKurj
-
Originally posted by skernsk:
Ram's postyah, Zig, but Do217 is a heavie, and our friend skernsk asked for what was the german planeset lacking apart of a HEAVY bomber and a Stuka.
Thanks for the info. I am not a Luftwaffe expert. In your opinion will the 410 and 110 see any use? Do we need to waste time modelling them?
I think to FINISH (for now)off the Luftwaffe planeset a heavy buff and a stuka are all that is needed. Perhaps a troop carrier with a little different camo scheme than C47 would be nice.
We need more Japanese and British planes. A Mosquito (not perked) should be way out in front of a 110 or a 410. We need a Japanse bomber and a few more fighters.
Not to say we should never model any more German planes. Just round out the other countries first.
[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: skernsk ]
lol skernsk come on I was playing a bit with ya :). I agree that there are other planesets wich need new planes way more than the LW set wich is at this point pretty well represented.
I just made a bit of fun with ya :)
And indeed, in the CT I would fly both Me110 and Me410 quite a lot. I can't think of a best german Jabo platform able both to bomb&straffe :)
-
never mind
[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10
-
See Rule #10