Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Shuckins on January 18, 2003, 10:12:02 AM
-
Why is there no "Oscar" or "Claude" in AH? This seems to be a glaring deficiency in the early war plane set.
Shuckins
-
The OSCAR was a major player in the Pacific war all the way through and should be added to the plane set.
The CLAUDE on the other hand only saw major action in China very early in the war. By the time the US got into the war the CLAUDE was mainly used for reserve squadrons and training.
IMO we need other Japanese a/c in the plane-set worse than these. We really need FRANK,TOJO, JUDY & GRACE
-
Shuckins,
Why only ask for junk Japanese aircraft? The Japanese are already loaded with junk aircraft when compared to the US.
Why not demand crap US aircraft?
-
Oscar is not a crap plane, just under gunned. if pilot is a good shot, i'd bet Ki-43 could kick ass...it might have been the most manuverable monoplane fighter of WWII
-
Originally posted by whgates3
Oscar is not a crap plane, just under gunned. if pilot is a good shot, i'd bet Ki-43 could kick ass...it might have been the most manuverable monoplane fighter of WWII
Claude was remarkably more maneuverable than Oscar :)
But of the modern designs, Ki-43, my Hayabusa, yes it was uniquely maneuverable. Extremerely. Especially in turning ability with the help of the butterfly combat flaps. Nothing could follow the Hayabusa in turn.
And that's why I loved my Hayabusa in WarBirds ;-) It was always a pleasure to fight in, even though getting kills with the 2x12.7s took a lot of patience. Good thing that most Spitifre pilots always trust that they can out turn anything else in the skies. WRRRROOOONG! ;-)
The later cannon equipped version of Ki-43 could be quite fantastic rides, too.
-
There were such outstanding mid to late war Japanese A/C I just can't see why people are so crazy about birds they will never fly in the MA as anything more than a novelty.
The Grace is an outstanding torpedo bomber
The Ki-44 Tojo is a lighter gunned NIK2 and had a thousand times greater impact than the George.
The Gekko was an incredible beautiful bomber killer with great performance. And we don't have any japanese twin fighters. So this bird could fill two rolls.
Take a look at the kill stats for the Kate and Grace. Does anyone fly them? Who would fly the Oscar and Claude?? Would you?
Grace
Gekko
Ki-44
Me-410
Later version Ju-88
TU-2
T-34
M-4 or M-18
-
We need an early US P39/P400 and a Finnish Buffalo. A mid production Ki43 also be great for really the whole war, as it sucks just enought to not be owerpowing early on and they did serve for the entire war.
-
Many of the LW Japanese fighters weren't built in nearly the same numbers as the Oscar or the Claude. I suspect the early war planes of all nations would be a whale of a lot more fun to fly in a dogfight than the higher powered, and much heavier, late-war fighters.
Shuckins
-
The A5M Claude was not a factor in WW2. It is commonly confused with the Ki-27 "Nate", which did see some use early in WW2, mostly as the AVG "Flying Tigers" main opponent.
The "Nate" would be a worthless piece of trash in AH--armed only with 2 light machine guns and not able to reach 300 MPH in level flight at any altitude (it's about as fast as the Ju-88). The Ki-43 Oscar could fill in for the Nate in any scenario since they flew in the same areas at the same time, and is a better plane (good enough that it's not totally worthless in an early-war matchup).
If you want maneuverability, you want the Soviet I-16....more maneuverable than the Oscar and better armed, too.
Still, the later Ki-84 is a vastly more important addition than any of those :)
J_A_B
-
Shuckins,
The Ki.43 Hayabusa "Oscar" was the second most produced Japanese fighter. You are correct about that. 5,919 Ki.43s were built.
However, the late war Ki.84 was the third most produced Japanese fighter and had the highest one year production total of any Japanese aircraft ever. 3,514 Ki.84s were built.
The Ki.27 "Nate" was produced in large numbers (unlike the Navy eqivilent A5M "Claude"), but like the A5M the Ki.27 played no real role in WWII. This is especially true as only the P-40B is available as a historical opponent in AH. 3,399 Ki.27s were built.
So, as you can see, you're blanket statement about late war Japanese fighters is not true.
I do think that a Ki.43-II is a required aircraft for AH as some point, but as the Japanese have been getting the turkeys for awhile I think the Ki.84 would be a better addition at this time.
-
Hey GRENDEL, do you remember the guy from WARBIRDS that used to set up the massive OSCAR raids? What was his name? He was really hot on the OSCAR and used to fly it all the time - VERY WELL I might add.
The OSCAR would carry 2x500 kg bombs and there would be like 20+ planes on a raid. Was a heck of a sight! Went on several.
-
Ki-43 AND Ki-84 are both sorely needed. I for one loved flying the Oscar in WB. It would fill a valuable role in scenarios and the CT, as would the Ki-84. I'd be hard pressed to decide which is more important to me personally. I hardly ever fly in the MA, so I'd probably say the Oscar should come first.
Sabre
CT Staff
-
Why only ask for junk Japanese aircraft? The Japanese are already loaded with junk aircraft when compared to the US.
That's why they should add the p36 and brewster buffalo to.
Together with the early p40b it would be nice.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why not demand crap US aircraft?
Because there is no such thing. ;)
-
Originally posted by Andijg
Hey GRENDEL, do you remember the guy from WARBIRDS that used to set up the massive OSCAR raids? What was his name? He was really hot on the OSCAR and used to fly it all the time - VERY WELL I might add.
The OSCAR would carry 2x500 kg bombs and there would be like 20+ planes on a raid. Was a heck of a sight! Went on several.
Uh oh, don't remember...
Icebreakers did same at times. And quite efficiently :) It was a capable jabo with the bombload and the double MGs could shatter AA as well. Vulchi... ahem SUPPRESSING enemy air tryign to take off was harder though :)
Wonderful, very enjoyable plane to fly. I wish the AH folks would get some day the pleasure of trying it. And the stupid Spit driver who'd try to turn with it ;-)
-
bring the Helldiver!
-
why bring in more early war junk planes when we could have nice shiney new late warbirds...:D
-
Because of their excessive weight, LW fighters are limited to b n z type tactics against the early war fighters. A Spit XIV weighs nearly five TONS, compared to a Spit II, which weighed a little better than three tons, loaded.
Which do you think would be the most fun to fly and the easiest to handle?
Regards, Shuckins
-
If you're refering to the Main Arena, early war planes are all outclassed in that arena by the introduction of so many late war planes.
The main arena in AH is pretty much of a late war era with late war planes dominating. This doesn't mean that some pilots won't use and excel at early war planes, but for the most part late war planes will dominate.
One of the ongoing arguments for the main arena has always been the unrealistic meeting of both early and late war planes, and the meeting of similar planes in combat (example- Spit verus Spit)
For this reason spending time to introduce another early war plane often results in its general lack of use.
Ranger Bob
-
More MA-survivable planes please: Japanese, Russian, Chinese, Mongolian who cares but I'd personally like something new to toy with that you wont just take up once on the first day of release.
-
How about a separate arena for early war planes?
Shuckins
-
How about a rolling plane set, changing each week, beginning again on the first of the month?
-
"How about a rolling plane set, changing each week, beginning again on the first of the month?"
No. Good way to kill AH.
There's a REASON why you have to force the majority of players into the early rides. There is a REASON why early-war arenas cannot attract players when a late-war setup is available. There is a REASON why WB's lacks players compared to AH.
The early planes just aren't as popular. They're harder to fly, harder to fight in, and less rewarding. They have their place, but shouldn't be forced upon the majority of players to suit the minority. The CT in AH generally has early to mid-war setups available so check it out if that's the sort of gameplay you seek.
J_A_B
-
190A-1 or 190A-3.
-
Fokker D-XXI, or the Douglas D-8A-3, or the T-V bomber
-
Fokker D-XXI, or the Douglas D-8A-3, or the T-V bomber
How about this fokker.
-
But the other is cool to.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
...Still, the later Ki-84 is a vastly more important addition than any of those :)
J_A_B
Amen, add either the Ki-84 or the Dewoitine D.520 (Great Frech fighter in early war)
-
There are many gaps to fill, and the most effective solution for HTC is to start with main arena survivable planes. This will change with AH II entering.
There are not many early war planes left that would survive well in the MA. Hmm. Beaufighter, D520, P36, Oscar, Rata, P39 and that's about what I can remember.
There are a couple of late war monsters left....Notably Frank, then P63, A26, P61, etc...
Eventually, HTC will run out of planes...;)
-
Beaufighter Mk21
Tronsky
-
Westland Whirlwind, entered service June 1940.
-
One of the most produced planes of WWII is missing from the early war planeset, the P-39. 9,546 of them were made.
We should have the P-39 Aircobra in U.S. colors, and the P-63 Kingcobra in Soviet Air Force colors.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
...We should have the P-39 Aircobra in U.S. colors, and the P-63 Kingcobra in Soviet Air Force colors.
But were the P-39 and 63 really that good? Why add airplanes that no one will fly because they're not that good? We could use a Ki-84 (and the Italian G.55 or R.2005) that people would actually fly.
-
There's a REASON why you have to force the majority of players into the early rides. There is a REASON why early-war arenas cannot attract players when a late-war setup is available. There is a REASON why WB's lacks players compared to AH.
The early planes just aren't as popular. They're harder to fly, harder to fight in, and less rewarding. They have their place, but shouldn't be forced upon the majority of players to suit the minority. The CT in AH generally has early to mid-war setups available so check it out if that's the sort of gameplay you seek. -JAB
Oh man, so wrong you are. The reason why the early-war aircraft are not utilized more is because people want to win in the MA and that means people will be flying the later war rides. A P-40B and F4F-4 does not match well at all with LA7s, Spit9s and P-51s. You cannot make this a popularity contest and how can you say the early war aircraft are more difficult to fly? Why do you think the ME262 is perked? Because it is more popular than every other ride, or because people would use it in overwhelming numbers because it will give them an advantage to win? I guarantee you, introduce an F-15, F-16 and FA-18 into this game and you'd rarely see a WW2 aircraft flying around. So, would this then mean WW2 aircraft are unpopular? Nooo, it's just about winning. And do not compare the CT to the MA because there are other factors at work here... but the Special Events with early war aircraft do similarly with Special Events utilizing later war aircraft. The CT often times runs late-war setups and they do no better than their early war setups in general, so there are other things going on.
Because you all fly your Spits, N1ks, Mustangs, Typhoons and LA7s, I cannot fly my P-40B and F4F-4, nor can others.
-
Originally posted by Puke
Oh man, so wrong you are. The reason why the early-war aircraft are not utilized more is because people want to win in the MA and that means people will be flying the later war rides. A P-40B and F4F-4 does not match well at all with LA7s, Spit9s and P-51s. You cannot make this a popularity contest and how can you say the early war aircraft are more difficult to fly? Why do you think the ME262 is perked? Because it is more popular than every other ride, or because people would use it in overwhelming numbers because it will give them an advantage to win? I guarantee you, introduce an F-15, F-16 and FA-18 into this game and you'd rarely see a WW2 aircraft flying around. So, would this then mean WW2 aircraft are unpopular? Nooo, it's just about winning. And do not compare the CT to the MA because there are other factors at work here... but the Special Events with early war aircraft do similarly with Special Events utilizing later war aircraft. The CT often times runs late-war setups and they do no better than their early war setups in general, so there are other things going on.
Because you all fly your Spits, N1ks, Mustangs, Typhoons and LA7s, I cannot fly my P-40B and F4F-4, nor can others.
Very good! I commend your words along with the way you said them
-
"how can you say the early war aircraft are more difficult to fly? "
That's easy to answer.
Early planes have less power, which translates to less acceleration and less climbrate. This makes E-loss in combat greater, which limits options. The poor climbrate of a typical early-war plane also makes takeoff and climbout more time-consuming (and in a game time consuming = not fun).
In addition, early planes tend to have worse maneuverability at high speeds, further limiting their usefulness. Not only that, but early planes frequently have less firepower and ammo load--less firepower means you're more likely to have to "saddle up" to get kills (further increasing the importance of turning ability), and having a smaller ammo load means you're not able to get as many kills before having to head home--this means you have to spend even MORE time on "non combat" flying.
Because of the various problems, BnZ and E-fighting tactics are generally harder to accomplish in an early-war plane, which is why fights between the early planes more often become contests of turning ability. So to sum it up, flying an early plane usually means you have to take longer to get to operational altitude, then it's harder to pull off the sorts of maneuvers you're used to doing, for less reward because you have to RTB sooner.
That is why an early-war arena never draws as many players as arenas full of late-war planes do. In the early arenas, you have to work harder for less reward which is against what most people want out of a game. Believe me if you want, but my belief is supported by the fact that never in the history of online flightsims has an early-war arena been able to succeed long-term when placed beside a freely available late-war arena.
Likewise, move too far "ahead" in technology and the reverse starts to happen; planes become "too good" and lose their parity, which reduces variety and makes the game less fun (nobody wants to fly in an arena full of 262's). Balance, capability, and variety are the key factors, and for that the 1943/1944 era has the most choices available.
Still, I have absolutely nothing against those who LIKE the early airplanes. Some players like the added challenge, or like some particular model of airplane, which is FINE. I just don't agree with those proposals which attempt to force it upon those of us who don't like it. Propose inclusive ideas, like a separate place strictly for early-war planes (like the CT), or support Lazs "early war area within the MA" suggestion. It's far better to try to make everyone happy rather than cater to only a few.
J_A_B
-
MA? More MA? Geez ... if all there was ....was MA ... then what's the need for any more planes at all? (shakes head - chuckles).
I see HT talkin' `bout a whole new version of AH that will offer a whole new type of immersion. An AH where it's not just "jump in-rocket up and bling bling bling - I win!"
And when rounding out the planeset to accomodate a greater degree of flexibility for portraying specific planesets to match the settings of scenario events we can't yet experience without substitutions, the battlecry "MA!" is once again echoing off the walls. :D :rolleyes:
-
"Mission Arena" is fine and all--choices are good--but not all of us want to re-live the past :)
I'm all for more choices; I've always felt that lumping everyone into "one MA, all the time"is one of AH's major weaknesses.
J_A_B
-
"Fly" and "fight" are two different words. The early-war aircraft in Aces High are no more difficult to fly than the late-war aircraft. Yes, I will grant you, that when you compare an early-war aircraft fighting against a late-war aircraft that it will have a tough time of it.
In the early arenas, you have to work harder for less reward which is against what most people want out of a game.
That makes absolutely no sense because everything is relative. Your original statement was about the popularity of a time-frame being measured in the MA which is completely flawed reasoning and I hope I pointed that out. I also disagree strongly with your statement that an early-war aircraft fighting an early-war aircraft is more difficult than a late-war aircraft fighting a late-war aircraft. Now we do both agree (it sounds like) that an early-war aircraft fighting a late-war aircraft does make things difficult for the early-war fan because of the disparity in performance. Yes, this is obvious to all and why some call for some system to make the early-war aircraft more viable but you tried to turn it around to show why early-war aircraft are not as popular...basically, I can't follow your reasoning on that. And now you imagine that early-war fights are more complex, more difficult and less rewarding than late-war fights to support your position and I strongly disagree.
Likewise, move too far "ahead" in technology and the reverse starts to happen; planes become "too good" and lose their parity, which reduces variety and makes the game less fun (nobody wants to fly in an arena full of 262's).
Again, you are speaking in relative terms. "Too far ahead" and "too good" and "loss of parity." But I can see you fly the P-51D exclusively and now I can see where you are coming from. You want to fly your Mustang at the expense of an F4F-4 or P-40B fan's enjoyment of his favorite but you certainly do not want people free access to the ME262 because it's a jump ahead in technology of your P-51D.
I'm actually looking forward to Aces High II and it's time-frame specific TOD arena. This means parity. I do hope to see some early-war Pacific as well as [edit in "the"] late-war Europe that I'm certain will be the majority.
-
I can't "re-live" the past. That one or my own. But there seems to be more and more who appreciate the idea of scenarios (thank cawd!). And not the same one over and over and over and over ....(I think you get my drift).
Why does the MA need more planes? It ain't like every side doesn't have it's choice of 109,190,stang, spit,corsair ... or the perkie 262 ... or for buffs, 17s, lancs, etc. And who needs more than a Tiger tank when every side has em?
But if you wanna start some serious scenario stuff then you need a more rounded out early bird set. And then, of course, the 24/7 TOD .... Axis vs Allies with something for everyone ..... even could use some things. How bout a Shermie? And fer cryin' out loud .... give my Japanese opponents in the Pac theater something to be excited about! ;)
-
Which is one of the points I've tried to get across about the Spanish Civil War. (EG) Uber-bipes would rock! ;)
Originally posted by Puke
... everything is relative. "Too far ahead" and "too good" and "loss of parity."
-
how bout Shermies with formation option like the buffs? :)
-
Puke--
Why do you want to put words in my mouth, or claim I think things which I don't actually think? Are you looking for an argument which isn't really there? Please respond to what I say, not what you think I say.
"You want to fly your Mustang at the expense of an F4F-4 or P-40B fan's enjoyment of his favorite but you certainly do not want people free access to the ME262 because it's a jump ahead in technology of your P-51D. "
Why do you invent things which are flat out UNTRUE? Can't you respond to what I actually SAY without making stuff up? WHERE do I say ANYTHING about limiting the fun of the F4F/P-40/109E guys?????
Far from saying that, I said quite clearly that I think those aircraft SHOULD have a place of their own, away from the 1943/44 era of the MA. I WANT you to be able to have your fun. I might say I'm not personally interested in it (just being honest), but NOWHERE do I think that you guys should suffer through the same MA the rest of us do (I have REPEATEDLY stated that I think stuffing everyone into one MA is one of AH's biggest faults).
Why do you ignore what I write and try to twist it into some different meaning?
Aren't you happy enough to support a proposal to have an area for the aircraft you like? Do you feel that's not enough? Do you want to limit what everyone else flies too? Please explain.
Far from me wanting to limit your fun, I am starting to feel as you want to limit mine--what is wrong with having a separate arena/area for early planes? Why does it have to be forced upon EVERYONE (which is exactly what an RPS is)?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Since you seem to have totally missed my point, I'll try to explain it again:
The early-war planes are harder to fly and fight in effectively. I am not talking about an F4F versus LA7. I am talking about 2 early planes fighting each other.
In you're flying say a 109E, you have to take FOREVER to get to combat altitude because of its crappy climbrate (2700 FPM, give or take--which is actually good for an early-war plane). This time is boredom, which is not fun. Making matters worse, your climbrate and acceleration is so crappy that you cannot maintain any E-advantage in combat for long. Compounding that problem is the lack of firepower which means you'll likely either have to saddle up to get a kill or make several passes--extra passes which you can ill-afford since you cannot maintain your E-state for long. Not only that, but gunnery passes are made tougher because the 109E, like most early-war planes, handles like crap at higher speeds. Finally, you're likely to have to RTB after only a few kills because you have a pitiful ammo load.
It does not matter WHAT you fight--the 109E has those problems even if your opponent is in Spit 1's and Hurricanes and other 109E's or F4F's. E-retention, ammo load and weapon effectiveness are unrelated to what your opponent is flying.
Now look at a typical late-war plane, the N1K2. You can reach operational altitude MUCH faster, thanks to its having a 3500 FPM climbrate (over 4000 if you are willling to use a bit of WEP). You have the acceleration, E-retention and climbrate to maintain a reasonable advantage over your target for an extrnded period of time, and the firepower to kill your target in 1 pass. In addition, you have the ammo load to easily get multiple kills on one flight.
To sum it up, the guy in the 109E has to work harder to get the kills he gets because of the problems with his plane's performance, but has to make do with FEWER kills because of lack of ammo load/range. Hence my statement--early-war planes are tougher to fly. I'm surprised you don't agree; it's a pretty clear fact.
Look at it in simple terms--is it harder for the N1K2 pilot to get 6 kills in one flight in the MA, or for a 109E pilot to get 6 kills on one flight in a BoB arena? The answer is so obvious it's not really debatable.
That's why early-war arenas cannot attract the number of players that 1943/44 arenas do (not talking only about AH here, but EVERY flightsim I've played).....in an early-war arena, you have to work harder for less reward. It's just not as much fun for the average player.
OTOH, if you seek a greater challenge, or longer-duration fights, then an early-war arena is the place to go, which IMO is why such arenas tend to attract a greater proportion of "veteran" players who have grown tired of the normal arena. I am ALL FOR having such an arena; the CT tries but IMO it doesn't quite live to up the task.
As for late-war planes and the reduction of parity as you move too far ahead in tech--name every WW2 plane you can think of that has performance parity with the ME-262. Maybe the Meteor....maybe; though by most accounts it's a worse plane. Maybe the P-80, if you're willing to count it as a WW2 plane. The 163 does, but can't count as a "useful" plane owing to its 5-minute flight duration. So what do you have in your hypothetical WW2 jet arena that can actually fight with parity??? Wow, 3 whole planes--not too much fun. Now name all the 1943-1945 planes with roughly equal parity to the P-51D....there's literally dozens. That's simple fact.
Arlo--I am all for the "AH Mission Arena" and even wish you'd get your SCW arena. I wouldn't use it personally, but I still support it. I might like the "classic arena design" better than a "scenario" format, but I am also aware that other players want a different sort of gameplay. I think a game like AW or AH is perfectly capable of supporting different levels of gameplay and there's no reason to stuff everyone into one MA (big weakness of AH). The "re-live past wars" comment was just an innocent jab, hence the smiley :) . Kapish?
J_A_B
-
JAB, you started out saying early-war planes are less popular. Untrue. Now you say they are harder to fight with and that's why they are unpopular. Untrue. Now you say they create loads of extra time to get to altitude and that creates boredom and why they are unpopular. Untrue. I mean, c'mon...the difference in time is minimal. (If that were the case, no one would fly a bomber.) I haven't twisted a single thing you've said. I don't really care what you generally think about an RPS, but this all started because I disagreed with your opinion that the MA is a barometer of people's time-period preference. People will always select that which they can survive best in. And then you changed your song and it went on from there.
In you're flying say a 109E, you have to take FOREVER to get to combat altitude because of its crappy climbrate...
Most furballs occur on the deck. Most people rarely climb above 10K' to get to a fight. Being a pony pilot, I can see where you are coming from.
Look at it in simple terms--is it harder for the N1K2 pilot to get 6 kills in one flight in the MA, or for a 109E pilot to get 6 kills on one flight in a BoB arena? The answer is so obvious it's not really debatable.
You can't use this argument unless the N1K2 is only fighting its own kind, and I'd guess that'd be other late-war stuff like P-38s, P-51s, LA7s and the like. Then no, it's no easier for the N1K2 to kill like-planes than it is for an F4F-4 to kill like-planes. Heck, I had some very good runs in the Wildcat in the CT a while back. But there weren't any LA7s and Spits around to interfere. I remember doing very well at times in the BoB CT setup as well.
I've never really stated my opinion here as to an RPS and that's really not what I'm arguing about. On the one hand I like the idea...following the war in a linear motion where a player can have some parity for a short time, but I do recognize the limitations placed on those whose favorite aircraft is something from very late in the war. I see the splitting of arenas as an option too, but partitioning this game would have negative affects as well. I had a few months in Air Warrior and why I left that place for here was because I thought it ridiculous head-ons weren't enabled and basically for the better eye-candy over here. I've never played Warbirds but I will say that I know many, many people who flew over there and the majority have not stated to me that their reason for leaving was for the rolling plane set. Yes, a few have stated that to me, but it seems a small percentage to me. I think pricing killed that place and the graphics and other novel implementations. But now that I've seen some screenshots and a movie of Warbirds III, I'm very curious to check it out.
I think we'll just agree to disagree on a few things and move on. Cheers and one domestic beer is on me if we ever meet. lol
-
"JAB, you started out saying early-war planes are less popular. Untrue. "
Ok, prove it. I come from years of experience in various flightsims--in EVERY case I EVER saw, when an early-arena is placed to a late-war arena, the early-war arena draws far fewer players. This is the DEFINITION of unpopular. Prove me wrong--it's easy to say it but come on, back it up!
"Now you say they are harder to fight with and that's why they are unpopular. Untrue. "
Far from being a different line of thought, my first comment is a statement--the fact that they are unpopular. The second statement is WHY I think they're unpopular.
"Untrue. Now you say they create loads of extra time to get to altitude and that creates boredom and why they are unpopular. "
Once again, this is a statement which suggests WHY I think the early planes are less popular. An LA7 gets to combat altitude a lot faster than a P-40B does--this is true regardless of what your opponents are.
"(If that were the case, no one would fly a bomber.) "
Exactly how many bombers do you see for every fighter in AH or WB or AW or whatever? Not very many.
Two other points--
How many 6-8 kills flights do you have in a 109E or Spit 1? When I've flown them in AH at various times, I find it difficult to get more than 2-3 due to ammo restrictions. In an N1K2 or P-51 or whatever I find it easy to get 6-8 kills. Yes you can be "successful" in a Spit 1 or 109E in a BoB fight, but "success" will mean 2-4 kills instead of 7-8, and you'll have to work harder for those (fewer) kills.
"Being a pony pilot, I can see where you are coming from. "
Bah, you're insinuating something that is flat out untrue. I hate climbing to more than 8-10K and DESPISE going over 15; yes there are some morons who are known for flying P-51's around at 25-30K but it ain't me :) Don't generalize.
Good discussion :)
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Kevin14
But were the P-39 and 63 really that good? Why add airplanes that no one will fly because they're not that good? We could use a Ki-84 (and the Italian G.55 or R.2005) that people would actually fly.
The P-39 was not a very good plane for the U.S. It was outturned in the Pacific by the zero, and NACA's decision to leave off the supercharger meant it was lousy at high altitude performance in the european bomber escort or interceptor role.
But the Soviet Union liked it because it was a great tactical ground attack fighter with it's 37mm canon. They also did very well with it in low alt dogfights. For an interesting discussion of the P-39 from the SAF point of view, read
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm
Here's a quote:
"A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?
N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.
I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter.
A. S. This is strange. In the words of one American pilot, the Cobra was an airplane “suitable for large, low, and slow circles”. To go further, if we judge by references, then the maximum speed of the Cobra fell below that of the Bf-109F, not to mention the later German fighters. The Allies removed it from their inventories because it could not fight with the “Messer” and the “Fokker”. Neither the British nor the Americans kept it as a fighter airplane.
N. G. Well, I don’t know. It certainly did well for us. Pokryshkin fought in it; doesn’t that say something? [Aleksandr Pokryshkin was the number 2 Soviet ace at the end of the war and flew a P-39 from late 1942 to the war’s end – J.G.]
It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life."
There are other highly respected pilots who have said the P-39 was an excellent fighter, such as Chuck Yeager. And he is one who definately has strong opinions about planes.
The P-63 Kingcobra was an excellent performer. It had 1800 HP, laminar flow wings, and was considered to be on par with the P-51.
Astronaut Frank Borman owns one. Do you think he'd buy a poor performer? See hyperlink below
Now to your question about why add planes that no one would fly.
1) The P-39 is an absolute must have for the historical scenarios. It and the P-40 carried the flag for the USAAF for the first two years of the war.
If AHII has a time cycle to it, so that the war progresses over a time period, the P-39 will again be a must have for 1941 - 42.
In the MA it will be as much of a hanger queen as the P-40 is, but it will surely get flown. It may possibly find a niche in the MA as a low altitude ground attack fighter.
2) The P-63 will be able to fly and fight with any of the late war planes. It would help fill the lack of Soviet Air force planeset.
Frank Borman's P-63 Kingcobra (http://www.af.mil/news/Aug1998/n19980819_981241.html)
[Aleksandr Pokryshkin was the number 2 Soviet ace at the end of the war and flew a P-39 from late 1942 to the war’s end – J.G.]
-
Kapish? KAPISH?! What's with all the "Soprano lingo" stuff from everyone lately? I heard a hillbilly use "kuh-peeeesh" the other day. M-A! KAPISH! POP-EWE-LARRY-TEE!
Hehe .... miss that old Korean arena in AW. Never was as popular as the other arenas. Especially when it went full realism and the RR whiners cried about the blackouts. ;)
I know J_A_B .... thanks for your support in spite of your preference. I hope HT gives you your "banned because of bad taste" undescores back.
I never use em, myself but ....
Originally posted by J_A_B
Kapish?
J_A_B
-
JAB, I'm glad you are enjoying the discussion. :D Okay, I give you that I do not have your experience in the online world. I have barely any time in Air Warrior and when I was there, all I remember was a Korean War arena which wasn't utilized but I don't remember a late-war arena in competition with an early-war arena...I just remember a Main Arena which rotated Europe to Pacific and back again including the aircraft from all time-frames for that theater. As far as counting the Korean War arena, that shouldn't fall as proof because Air Warrior was marketed as a WW2 flight simulation and thus that is what your player base will prefer. If you create a Korean War online simulation and then add a WW2-aircraft arena to it, I bet it won't do as well. The same thing with Aces High really, most people here are WW2 fans and could care less about modern jets. I saw this very well when on the last convention's field trip to some airbase when the museum director stopped at the F-4 Phantom. Now, I am a jet fanatic, especially Vietnam, and I would've loved talking the guy's ear off but I could hear all the moans in the background and everyone wanted to get to that Messerschmit (sp?) in the background. Had I gone with a Falcon 4 group, they would've been moaning had I wanted to chat a long time about a Wildcat or something. So comparing arenas beyond the WW2 time-frame is out in my opinion. As to the difference between 1941/41 and 1944/45, I have not seen (personally, have not seen with my own eyes) a preference either way. The point I tried to make is that you cannot use the MA as a barometer of preference because people there will be selecting that aircrat that gives them the best hope of success. I know most people did not grow up wishing they had a game centered on the LA-7 or N1K2, but they are very highly used in the MA which is indicative of this. Now what I did use as an indicator to compare early-war vs late-war are the Special Events and the CT here at Aces High. And based on my unscientific opinion (I have no hard numbers), the participation doesn't seem to be affected by the actual time-frame. In fact, the Battle Of Midway 4-frame event did VERY well though did slack off after the USA won in frame-2. So that's basically it in a nutshell. But now I have learned you have much experience in this area with many flight simulations and I guess I will have to yield to your experience that the typical WW2 fan who flies online prefers late-war aircraft because they get more kills in them per time vs the early-war aircraft. Aces High started out as a late-war arena and that will always be its core and defining property. So if people do not like that later aircraft, can I have my F8U Crusader to fly around in the MA with? Please??
;)
-
"can I have my F8U Crusader to fly around in the MA with? Please?? "
Before Kesmai got absorbed into EA (and its subsequent demise), they were working on a "AirWarrior: VietNam" game.....I think it would have been a blast :)
J_A_B
-
I used to play Dawn of Ace's WWI planes. talk about slow and slow climbing. I had a great time flying and dogfighting in those WWI planes. When you have same era plane set against same era plane set it all relative. They all are slow climbers and and slow planes but what fun it can be. It's only when you got disparity in the plane set then the early warbirds become less fun. Nobody like to die that much. I used Dawn of Ace's as an example of a slow plane set.
Great fun, still fly it offline when I get bored of 1945 in MA AH.
HMMM just realized I'm a Senior Member :D
-
Nice pics BUG_EAF322, that upper one is a Fokker T-V bomber and the lower is the Fokker D-XXI I tought
have you got on of the 8A3-N to?