Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Halo on April 10, 2003, 09:42:02 PM
-
Combat theater is great, but its realism is severely compromised by planes too early for their time. The worst example is the Ki-67 that keeps popping up in early Pacific scenarios.
The Ki-67 is extreme overkill -- nothing can catch it, and its armament is too strong for early war.
The Ju-88 would be a much fairer approximation of early Japanese bombers.
-
The JU 88 is in NO WAY like any early war Japanese bomber a quick look at preformane bombload defensive guns ect will clearly show that.
The Peggy is more alike the Betty than anything else except in terms of speed and it is a bit more durable.
The Big problem is we dont have a decent early war Allied buff either, the Boston is more uber that than the Peggy is in many way's realy, both are not compleatly approparate but both are equile in enough ways to balance each other out, neither have a signastudmuffinent effect on game play in the CT either. Both are faster than the fighter's that apose them.
-
Originally posted by brady
The Big problem is we don't have a decent early war Allied buff either. The Boston is more uber that than the Peggy is in many ways really. Both are not completely appropriate but both are equal in enough ways to balance each other out ....
Interesting theory. I don't concur but what else is new. ;)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/images/ki67.jpg)
Ki-67[/i][/size]
Country of origin: Japan
Crew: Eight crew
Type: Bomber
Normal loaded weight: 30,347 lbs.
Dimensions:
Wing span 73'10"
Length 61'4"
Height 18'4"
Internal fuel: 1,027 gallons
Armament:
5xHo-103 12.7mm 400 rpg
Nose gunner
Dorsal gunner with twice the gunarc of the A-20 dorsal
Stbd and Port gunners
1xHo-5 20mm 300 rpg
Tail gunner (with good gunarc)
15 50kg bombs
8 100kg bombs
3 250kg bombs
1 500kg bomb
1 800kg Torpedo
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/ki67speed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/ki67climb.gif)
Whoops - let me fix this:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/images/boston3.gif)
Boston III [/i][/size]
Country of origin: Britain
Crew: Three crew
Type: Bomber/Attacker
Normal loaded weight: 20,230 lbs.
Dimensions:
Wing span 61'4"
Length 47'6"
Height 17'7"
Internal fuel: 394 gallons
Armament:
4x303 cal 500 rpg
2x303 cal 1000 rpg
4-250 lb bombs
4-500 lb bombs
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/boston3speed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/boston3climb.gif)
-
Arlo, he wasn't even talking about the A-20G, he was talking about the Boston, which is an earlier, inferior version. He is making the claim that an Allied bomber from 1941 is superior to a late 1944 Japanese bomber that was widely considered the best the Japanese Army had built. Quite funny, actually.
While the early A-20 is certainly difficult for the Japapese fighters to intercept due to its speed, I can't see how it's improper in any but the absolute earliest of Pacific scenarios (such as Burma). While not the most numerous US bomber, it WAS there (unlike the Ki-67 which, as noted above, didn't even exist until almost the end of the war).
If the Ki-67 is too much for the early setups (and I would say it is), restrict the Japanese to the B5N Kate. It carries roughly the same bombload as most of their bombers at the time anyway. For the sake of parity (if not strict realism), the TBM can suffice as an Allied bomber.
Honestly the Ki-49 "Helen" would have been a better choice than the "Peggy"--it had a far earlier service introduction AND slightly larger bombload without the vulnerability of the G4M--but I don't pick which planes HTC adds.
J_A_B
-
I wondered at the inconsistancy between the stats on the game overview page and the actual description on the hanger page in the game. I looked for an older version in the plane and vehicle overview but there wasn't one.
(edit: DoH! Oh .... yeah .... British export!) *smacks forehead* ;) Edited above
I completely agree with your assessment and suggestions. Alas, we have about as much say in what gets used in CT setups as we do what plane gets modeled by HTC. :D
-
Of course there's also:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/images/b26b.gif)
B26-B[/i][/size]
Country of origin: USA
Crew: Five/seven crew
Type: Bomber
Normal loaded weight: 37,000 lbs.
Dimensions:
Wing span 65'
Length 56'
Height 17'10"
Internal fuel: 962 gallons
Armament:
12x50 Cal M2
100 lb bomb
250 lb bomb
500 lb bomb
1000 lb bomb
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/b26bspeed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/b26bclimb.gif)
-
I do think that the Ki.67 is better than the Boston Mk III, but if you think the Boston Mk III is just fine and dandy you're nuts.
The A6M2 can't catch it. Period.
Hell, The Bf109E can't catch it at most of the altitudes.
We need:
B-25C Mitchell (early war US bomber)
G4M2 "Betty" (early war Japanese bomber)
Wellington Mk III (early war British bomber)
Ju188A-2 (mid to late war German bomber)
Cant Z.1007 or S.M.79-II (Italian bomber)
Pe-2 (early war Russian bomber)
Pe-2FT (mid war Russian bomber)
Pe-2B (late war Russian bomber)
(Three Pe-2s to maximize usage of polygon art work. The three are very different)
BTW, Arlo,
Having much time in the Ki.67 I would like to assure you that the tail guns are not 20mm. That is the dorsal gun. The tail guns are 12.7mm.
-
Sounds good but .... I think it's still up against the brick wall of nothing getting modeled until AHII is released, debugged and pays for itself. :(
So I'd say J_A_B's idea, in my opinion, is probably a good one (except I'd keep the SBD and Val as well). Nix all fighters but the F4F and A6M2 (then there'll be no "uber" what-so-ever).Yep, it trims the `42 slot even more but it would make it a better balanced arena. Downsize the fleets - they're a bit too bloated in size. And when they're combined it looks like a D-Day invasion. Keep `em just downsize `em.
There ya go - Slot `42.
Now ... for Slot `43 and Slot `44. ;)
P.S. Kar - Sorry .. right ... it's the dorsal that mounts a single 20mm according to online data about the plane. It still hase more firepower and defensive arcs than the Boston ever dreamed of having. It carries a roughly equal bombload (except it can handle a torp - for what that's worth) and it's flight parameters aren't really inferior, either.
And yes, both bombers may fly with impunity against the "main" fighters of the arena if used correctly (get to alt - get to speed and run right past em). But the Peggy has a trump card the Boston doesn't have if it lets itself get caught.
LOL - also - picture the IJ players using the Peggy as a bomber interceptor (shiver). ;)
Still, I suppose this could be a buff pilot's dream arena.
-
The problem is that the Ki.67 can't intercept the Boston Mk III. It is too slow, look at the speed charts. The Ki.67 does about 285 on the deck, the Boston about 310. At 10,000ft the Ki.67's up to 300, but the Boston's up to 325.
I have had Boston's intercept my Ki.67s. They pull underneath where the Ki.67 is defenseless and blaze away with the upper turret.
'Course, if the Bostons screw up the Ki.67s blow them out of the air.
-
Also keep in mind that the TBM-3 and SBD-5 are 1943 aircraft and the D3A1 is a 1937 aircraft and the B5N2 is a 1938 aircraft that we don't even have its big bomb for.
I think it would have been much better balanced if they'd added the D3A2 from 1942 and the B6N2 from 1943 instead.
Ah well.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I have had Boston's intercept my Ki.67s. They pull underneath where the Ki.67 is defenseless and blaze away with the upper turret.
'Course, if the Bostons screw up the Ki.67s blow them out of the air.
Which should be easy enough since the Boston doesn't have an upper turret, just a dorsal with a much smaller firing arc than most - and a pair of .303s ... and 4 .303s static for the pilot. I think it would be suicide for Bostons to do this. The Peggy, otoh, could still manage to do it.
Even being slower by 25 mph (not much disparity) the Peggy has a better chance of intercepting and killing the Boston than visa versa .... certainly a better chance than the Zeke (unless the zekes have climbed to alt and positioned well - which is easy enough). And with a gunner (or perhaps even without - depending on player skill), the Peggy can fire on the Boston from just about any angle while maneuvering to make sure the CPA is kept as close as possible, taking care not to get directly in front of or ten to twenty degrees high aft - ten to twenty degrees deflection, either side aft. Heck - directly behind a Boston is about the best place to be. So all you have to do is make sure you plot your intercept well - that 25 mph advantage will seem like a lifetime to the Boston pilot/crew ... even with just one 12.7 pinging away.
(At which point Arlo was shot by the Allies for helping the enemy.) ;)
-
I was refering only to the Bomber isue in terms of balance over all, noting that both are faster than the planes they face and that the bomber issue it's self is an area of balance coonsideration. Withen that constraint the Boston is the better tool since not only is it faster than the Zero, it is capable of jaboing and being used offensively whear as the peggy realy is not, so in this since the alies have the advantage, it does not mater that both are not easly caught since they have little impact on game play and allow players to spend some time in a decent bomber platform if they want.
The TBM Kate match is not an equil one since the kate is about as defendiable as a C47 and the TBM is much more capable in a number of way's.
The B26 is totaly inaproparate for this type of set up.
These comaprasions are revelent only to the present set up or Burma.
-
Even taking into account your argument of "superior speed negating the defensive armament of the bomber" (which I don't happen to agree with), how is the B-26 any more inappropriate for the Slot than the Peggy? It's slower than the Peggy, it doesn't climb as well, it's bomb payload isn't any better, it doesn't "JABO", all it has is better defensive guns/arcs ... which you just said, doesn't matter (even though that is the half of the issue mentioned in the first post when dealing with the disparity of the planeset). The B26-B was first introduced in May, 1942 and it was used in the South Pacific.
Adding it would adversly affect the "balance overall" by shifting it in the Allies favor in your opinion?
Sorry, Brady .... that wasn't a very convincing argument.
-
It has twice the bombload, so in this regard it does shift the balance, Firpower is a factor relative to the fighters facing it, Zero's can be killed with the defensive guns on the boston, Wildcats can be killed by the defensive guns on the Ki 67, it is about more than just the bomber vs bomber issue it is about the fighters they face. The Ki 67 is more easly killed by a Wildcat than a Boston is by a Zero, providing of course they are in a position to do so. The B26 B that was in service in the Theater also had a much lighter aramament than the one we have in AH. Trying to knock down a B26 with a A6M2 would be prety much imposable.
In my openion over all the Alies have the advantage in this case already. Since the Boston is more capable in a number of way's than the ki 67 is. it is not ideal but the best we can manage at present.
If memorie serves the 22nd bomb groupe that was in New Gunie had the B26 ( not the A or the B but the B26), not that is totaly revelent to this argument, since all we have is the Curent machine in AH.
-
max bombload for a peggy is 1102lbs x 3 = 3306 1 hanger
the b26 is 8 x 500lbs or 4 x 1000lbs x 3 = 12000lbs thats easily 3 hangers
The bostons carries 4 x 500 x 3 6000 and has 6 303s in the nose that can be used offensively.
The peggy doesnt have the bomb load to have any impact at all and can mostly be ignored.
The b26 is way better defensively armed and has 4 50 cals in the nose that are used offensively and it is very tough. You would end up with guys flying it not as a bomber but as the ultimate vulch plane like they have done in other similiar set ups where it was enabled.
The peggy is not disruptive in anyway. In fact it is rarely used. The Boston isnt disruptive either. The b26 would be.
I had suggested getting rid of the bombers altogether since they are rarely used in the first place. But some folks like to level bomb.
Btw the Bostons best alt is much lower then the peqqy. It reaches top speed at 13k where the peggy hits top speed at 21k.
The peggy would never catch a boston at 13k.
All 3 bombers outperform the ju88 in all but bombload.
The ju88 is slow, has weak defensive guns, is weak over all and has a problem with its fuel burn rate being to high.
Not to mention the type 99 mkIs on the a6m2 are very weak and even if it intercepted a boston or a b26 I doudt he could shoot down more the 1 with his ammo load.
-
Thanks for the chuckle. :D
Originally posted by brady
The Ki 67 is more easly killed by a Wildcat than a Boston is by a Zero. In my opinion, over all, the Allies have the advantage in this case already. Since the Boston is more capable in a number of way's than the ki 67 is. it is not ideal but the best we can manage at present.
-
Originally posted by Batz
The peggy would never catch a boston at 13k.
If it was a co-alt race from point a to point b, I'd probably buy this.
The peggy is not disruptive in anyway. In fact it is rarely used. The Boston isnt disruptive either. The b26 would be.
Any plane can be "disruptive" in the eyes of the beholder. It all boils down to how much influence the "beholder" has on the arena settings and how protective the "beholder" is with one side over the other. How disruptive is having IJ fleets spawn off of Allied bases?
The ju88 is slow, has weak defensive guns, is weak over all and has a problem with its fuel burn rate being to high.
Those "weak" defensive guns can take out a Wildcat in 2-3 squirts. Fuel rate burn? What, does it have to up from the rearmost base and attack the most rearward enemy base as it's only possible mission? And it's about as slow as the B-26 (has a higher top end, actually).
But yeah, the 26 does appear to have a pretty good bombload, after all. Totally impervious the the zeke you say? Mother tested? Kid approved? Maybe so .... but the Boston being able to defend itself from zekes with it's guns? What the heck ... you guys practice staying in it's itty bitty dorsal arc or what? And the 6 .303s (Axis version)/4 .303s (Allied version) being able to wreak havoc on the ground? *chuckle* And the Peggy ain't got guns or arcs and can't shoot down Wildcats? Hehe .... IJ ministry of propoganda?
Sounds more like the B-26 could hurt ya but the Boston can't so take the Boston argument. Whoops .... I'm not the right beholder.
(shakes head) :D
-
I use the ruder and get kills aganst the Zero prety easy with the Boston, in fact I ushaly slow up to suck em in and plug them.
The base spawning thing is a known bug which was to of been fixed priour to the set up, but the wrong map was uploaded some how by HTC.
Were refering to the abality of the Boston to do effective dive and or shallow angle diving atack's somthing the Peggy is tottaly unsuited for. putting Bombs on target not nescessarly strafing.
-
Slow up? And the zeke doesn't swoop to belly stab ya? Tell me about the Boston's terrific gun arcs and guns. ;)
Originally posted by brady
I use the rudder and get kills against the Zero pretty easy with the Boston, in fact I usually slow up to suck em in and plug them.
-
Fuel burn rate is porked so you have to carry more fuel then needed. The ju88 has a decent climb rate if you carry historical loads.
Ju88s rarely flew with max bombload and typically took 2 x 250 and 2 x500. However, taking 75 or 100 gas instead of 25 impacts climb especially above 10k. The ju88 fuel burn issue is that fuel burns at twice the rate it should (like the old mossie bug)
The 50 cals on the f4f can out range the 7.6 of the ju88. The ju88 has blinds spots (even dead 6) where an enemy plane can sit and peck away. If a ju88 kills you you might as well quit 'cause you suck. Any attack from 3 or 9 is deadly to a ju88.
By "disruptive" I mean climbing to 7k heading the nearest enemy af diving to 3 k salving 1 or 2 bombs at a time on hangers, then extending away and then strafing the runway.
The guns of the b26 out range the guns on the a6m2 and as long as the b26 stays fast enough he can easily kill any fighter attacking. Then you have the issue with a6m2s guns and the toughness of the b26. Have you ever tried to kill a b26 in an a6m2?
Doing that above my highest kills in a b26 (with drones) was 17 before I rtb'd. Not in the ct though.
That is "disruptive" because the ct isnt the only game in town. Why would some stay in an arena to get vulched when he can easily go to the main. Things like this drive people away from the ct, not bring more folks in.
Just like taking a plane with a 70 mph speed advantage 3 sectors to club baby seals. Folks log off. The "Combat" theater is not an arena like the main. The whole idea is "combat" between similiar planesets. When the ct first came to AH there was no base capture, no need to vulch, base rape or park cvs. It was about a2a fun. I was always vocal about fleet camping. In my set ups if there was a fleet I would give the fleet Co 5 min to move it away from an enemy field or I would manually move it or sink it.
Parking the CV is a community issue, no one claims to like it but who ever the admiral is he always seems to sail right at an enemy field and park it. On all sides. This in turn usually spawns the suicide cv guys. Except in a set up like this where the fleets are large and the attack planes limited.
A while back the cms took a poll and asked folks what they wanted in the ct. They wanted base capture and all these other things. Since then the CT hasnt grown any. It still pulls about 10% of the main. Some say that going more like the main will bring more folks in. Well that hasnt worked yet.
The CMs can lock out control of the fleets to prevent this but then you would whine about that. Other then thats its an issue with the map maker.
Test the a6m2 vrs the b26 if you doudt the results. You see its not like folks make reasons up not to do stuff. Believe or not the b26 was in a few of these set ups and guess what? It was flown as I described above. Its "disruptive" when it drives folks out of the arena.
No one can catch the boston either but the boston isnt well suited for the attack/vulch roll. You are a n00b to the ct and you seem to think you "know it all" but some us have flown here since the very 1st hour.
The only thing a b26 has over the boston is its vulch capability. The boston simply needs to begin a shallow dive at the site of an a6m2 (high or lo). Then use the rudder from the gun position to fend off the zeke if hes able to close.
I dont know what guns you think the a6m2 has but it has type 99 mkI (basically mgff) it has 60 rnds per (60 round drums). They fire about the same time so you get basically 60 triggger pulls to down a plane. Guess how many sec of continous fire? You just make statement and have no idea really about what goes on.
But like the b26 go test the a6m2 vrs the boston for yourself. The a6m2 aint gonna get you any snapshot kills or "up the belly stabs". Give it a try.
Both the boston and the Ki67 are lo impact planes in the ct. They are there for folks who wanna fly a bomber sortie or 2. Thats all.
You are just trying to find another reason to whine about "how unfair the mean Axis CMs are". I know when I was a ct cm if any plane I added or setting I placed caused folks to log off I changed it in a sec.
I did an "8th airforce" set up using the Big Week map and not a day went by that I didnt change or tweak something to get the desired gameplay.
Some folks whined but over all I got mostly positive feed back.
You seem to think that if you have an issue with something then it ought to get addressed. Well to bad. The ki67 hasnt had any greater impact on the ct then any other plane and the allies are no better or worse for having the boston.
You do know that the sbd5 and tbm3 shouldnt be there either right? The are both later models that carry more ord and have better guns then what should be there. You also know that both the Val and the Kate are '37 models that were obsolete during this same time period, right?
Both sides are missing AC (a6m3 for the axis and the p39/p400 for the allies). Both sides are missing land based bombers (Betty and the B25). Both sides have subs to fill gaps in the gameplay.
The a6m2 F4F match up is a fine one. Thats the focus of this set up.
I dont get what your whining about. Do you even fly bombers?
If it were up to me I would have no multi eng bombers in the set up. But some folks like to fly umm.
I guess you can keep whining but it didnt get you your beloved F4U-1 vrs the a6m2 match up and it wont get you a b26 either.
Al;l that time you wasted whing to Brady could have been spent trying to get Sabre to throw you a bone, now you get another late war Ostfront set up.......I didnt see any F4U on his plane list.
:p
-
I have by no means done a scientific test. Speaking only for the game Aces high, with which history may or may not have parallel, if I see A ki-67 (which is rarely) and a Ju-88 at the same time I will always attack the Ki-67. Mind you, I most often fly planes that have no cannons, but the JU-88 is a lot harder to shoot down than the Ki-67 and the Ju-88 has a lower gun position.
For example, in the last CAP event there were JU-88's vs. P-47 D11's. It was not as easy to bring those JU-88's down as you might think. (I dread Guadalcanal and being tasked with attacking JU-88's with 4 x 50 caliber)
Substitution of aircraft is a real tricky business and should be avoided.
-
Batz is right ONLY if the Boston dives. Otherwise, they offer no danger to the A6M2.
of course, if the Boston just keeps going straight and fast, the A6M2 offers no real danger to the Boston either...
-
Originally posted by Batz
The CMs can lock out control of the fleets to prevent this but then you would whine about that.
Actually, I once inquired about and requested it. But you like filling in gaps with whatever suits yer fancy. ;)
You are a n00b to the ct and you seem to think you "know it all" but some us have flown here since the very 1st hour.
[/b]
And ... as everyone knows ... AH's CT invented the online WWII air sim historic setting arena. ;)
You are just trying to find another reason to whine about "how unfair the mean Axis CMs are". I know when I was a ct cm if any plane I added or setting I placed caused folks to log off I changed it in a sec.[/b]
Well, I'll just hafta take yer word for that. I'm sure it's at least 50% accurate in any case.
You seem to think that if you have an issue with something then it ought to get addressed. Well to(o) bad.
[/b]
Well, yeah. That's how it usually works. And it does get addressed ... usually with all sorts of excuses and reasons to coddle the axis side and pizz on the allied side. If you can't see the pattern, others can. ;)
You do know that the sbd5 and tbm3 shouldnt be there either right? The are both later models that carry more ord and have better guns then what should be there. You also know that both the Val and the Kate are '37 models that were obsolete during this same time period, right? [/b]
You do know there aren't any `37 model USN aircraft in the game for me to request to replace them, right? You do know you're not the only guys in the world capable of coming up with planesets by suitable substitution, right? :D
Both sides are missing AC (a6m3 for the axis and the p39/p400 for the allies). Both sides are missing land based bombers (Betty and the B25). Both sides have subs to fill gaps in the gameplay.
[/b]
Well hot damn. But I tell ya what, I'm not overly eager to add anything at all to the allied planeset but I'd like to see some more IJ selections. You knew that, right? C'mon now. ;)
The a6m2 F4F match up is a fine one. Thats the focus of this set up.
[/b]
Uncontested. Why even bring that up?
I dont get what your whining about. Do you even fly bombers?
[/b]
Sure ... occasionally. But that has little to do with arguing against the "coddle one side and the others can just leave" mentality you've so boldly stated here so far. :p
If it were up to me I would have no multi eng bombers in the set up. But some folks like to fly umm.
[/b]
Well then I guess it's a good thing it's not really up to you after all, then, ain't it? Or ain't it? ;)
I guess you can keep whining but it didnt get you your beloved F4U-1 vrs the a6m2 match up and it wont get you a b26 either.
[/b]
Once again, Woe-tan .... the F4U-A6M2 matchup desire is a product of your delusional prosecutional complex. The B-26 was brought up as an option and fiercely cried about by you. Personally, I just like seeing how far you'll go with excuses.
Al;l that time you wasted whing to Brady could have been spent trying to get Sabre to throw you a bone, now you get another late war Ostfront set up.......I didnt see any F4U on his plane list.
[/b]
Yeah .... I'm sure it woulda shot to the top of the priority list. Bwahahahaha :D
-
The A6M versus Zeke matchup isn't the only viable "Early-war pacific" matchup which is fair. The P-40E versus Ki-61 matchup is also pretty fair. While the A6M--F4F matchup probably gives a slight edge to the Allied side, the Ki--P-40E match probably gives a slight edge to the Japanese side. In both cases, the side with the "worse" plane is still perfectly capable of holding its own. I'll happily fight Ki's with a P-40E--it's a great match.
The D3A Val is definately a POS plane that is basically obsolete and useless. However, perhaps HTC was intelligent to add it rather than its replacement--the D4A Judy (which saw service in limited capacity as early as the Battle of Midway). Since the Judy could do 360 MPH, I must assume that it would never be used because it'd be "too fast".
The G4M would not be a good early-war bomber for the Japanese. It is a vulnerable, poorly-defended piece of crap. The Ki-49 "Helen" would be a far better plane....while it missed the very earliest portion of the conflict, it entered service before the end of 1942 so it still saw action for most the war. For a time it was the Japanese Army's most numerous bomber.
The Ju-88 could be a decent stand-in for the Ki-49, although it carries a greater bombload than the "Helen" did.
As for my recommended B5N versus TBM match....no, I wouldn't consider it totally equal either. However, it is probably MORE equal than what we currently have--both sides would be reduced to having slow, poorly-defended planes as their main bomb-carrier. Remember that the Ki-61 can carry 2 bombs, while the P-40E can only carry 1, so in that fighter match would also help address the disparity in bombing ability.
ANOTHER possible bomber recommendation is to use the A-20G versus the Ki-67. Remember the A-20G cannot use the formation...so you'd have the 4000 lbs of bombs the A-20G carries, versus the 5000 lbs or so that a formation of Ki-67's carries. The A-20 has the advantage of pilot-operated guns, while the Ki-67 has good defenside firepower and speed at altitude (plus a level bombsight).
There are a LOT of options the CT staff could use. Rather than sit around and whine "it can't be done", just DO it. AH isn't GOING to have any new planes added anytime soon, so we're stuck with what we have.
Those matches, while not perfect, would probably provide the closest level of parity possible with the current plane set.
NOTE:
For those of you unfamiliar with the Ki-49 "Helen", it carried a 1000 KG bomb load (compared to the 800 KG carried by the Peggy), had a similar defensive layout as the Ki-67 (a single tailgun instead of a pair is only difference), and it had distinctly better armor protection than other Japanese bombers available at the time. It was not as fast as the Peggy, being about 30 MPH slower at most altitudes (it was still faster than the B-25/B-26 at operational altitude). The Helen first saw use in late 1942 and was widely used by the IJA.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
While the A6M--F4F matchup probably gives a slight edge to the Allied side
J_A_B....I can't believe you said this.
- oldman
-
A6M2 vs F4F4 is a huge advantage to the Japanese side.
A6M2 vs F4U1 is a huge advantage to the Allied side.
Never flown P-40E vs Ki-61, I'd guess the Ki-61 is probably a little better.
By the way, bombers suck.
-
Did you get my E mal Urchin?
-
No way should the ki67 be in any early war scenerio, stop makeing excuse's brady and remove it.
-
The ki61 we have in ah is a 1944 model and its rapid fire lethal cannons would easily give the advantage to the ki61.
The ki 61 f6f can be a very fun matchup.
Frogman this aint a scenario......
The problem adding the a20g is that it wont be flown as a bomber and it has great potential to upset the main balance between the fighters. It can fight decently and the like the other bombers the a6m2 would hard time bringing it down.
If any of you remember the BoB set up where the tbm was enabled for the allies you ended up seeing more of them then either the hurri or spit. It was tougher , better armed with the 50s. So in our bob set up its was 109s vrs tbms. You would get the same thing where the top allied "fighter" would be the a20.
Ground attack, bombing and base capture have always been a side show to a2a combat in the ct. The fact is neither the Boston nor the Ki67 have any real impact on gameplay.