Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: senna on February 22, 2001, 12:02:00 AM
-
I hope we get a 190 D9 soon.
fuzz...
senna
-
I do too.
On the aircraft & vehicle forum I posted asking if it should be a perk or not, and about 75% thought it should not be a perk. I agree with that myself. It is slightly faster than a P-51, but manuevers worse. It isn't a dominate plane, just a good one.
Of course, this update in 1.06 already has two Focke Wulf varient aircraft. The F8 and the Ta152.
Hans.
-
It won't be. There's no logical reason why it would be considering the fact that the P51 is its equal.
fscott
-
The Dora was used in good numbers towards the end of the war by the LW. Why shouldnt it be represented. There were enough of them.
- senna
-
Senna there were about 700 Dora's that might have saw action in the war.
There were 5,700+ La7's that saw action in the war, and many people want to perk that plane.
Not that I'm saying I disagree with you, just that its possible for it to happen.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
If they don't perk these 425+ mph monsters, what else WILL they perk? I think you should have to pay for anything beyond 1942 or 1943.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-22-2001).]
-
Now Now Funky (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) The La7 was a 410ish aircraft, right at 408 I believe. So that falls way outside your criteria and should obviously not be perked.
Of course we could pick up the history zealots disease and demand anything past Dec. 7, 1941 should be perked. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I'm not so hot in doing a 1945 only arena. I understand the Dora/P47Z28/KI63457 have nothing 100% ubber. But by not perking those planes, we totally put appart people who would enjoy flying earlier versions with some more fun than praying to catch a B&Zmer in a turnfight while avoiding his mega guns.
-
When will there be something that WILL be considered "perky"?
-
La-7 is most definitely a perk. It performs like a Bearcat. If the Bearcat is not perk material, why bother with the perk system?
-
Perk Everything! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You know it will happen eventually anyway, why fight the tide?
-
Funked, I could say the very same thing about the P-51D or the Me109G10.
So your saying its ok to have the most numerous US 1944-45 Fighters, but that we should perk the Soviets most numerous fighters of the same period?
I mean we aren't talking about a "what if" drawing board prototype, only 3 built, or never saw combat situation. This was THE most important Soviet fighter of the period.
Basically your saying its somehow not right for the best unperked fighter to be something other than American or German? Eeee gads, it would be simply unthinkable for a Russian aircraft to be one of the best planes in the sim (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
You know I"m just razzing you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But I think I have some very valid points.
Edit: And before some British fanatic jumps in and tells me that the Spit XIV was the most important British fighter of the period, I would probably say your wrong (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) If I remember correctly there were more Spit IX's built in the same period than there were Spit XIV's.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-22-2001).]
-
It would appear to make sense to attach a point fee to all vehicles. Problem is what happens to the furball dweebs and the vulch victimes that run out their point accounts replaning at a cost greater than the credit they accrue?
Truth is perking is a very dynamic and problematic approach to dweeb control.
Should the D9 be perked? Yup.
(A5s and A8s? Nope
Should the 51D be perked? yup.
(51A? nope)
Should the G10 be perked? yup.
(G2, G6? nope)
We shall see....we shall see.
-
Vermillion scroll up:
I think you should have to pay for anything beyond 1942 or 1943.
You argument about the Spit IX is correct, but the MK. IX we have does not perform as well as the ones built in 1943-45. It's the very earliest spec of Mk. IX.
-
Oh well, guess I'll thrown my hat into the discussion...... sorry to contribute to a hijacked thread.
There appear to be two main streams to the whole "what should/shouldn't be perked" argument:
1) if it entered service later than 19XX, or flys faster than Y mph, or goes higher than Z feet, was a contempory of YY.
2) if it throws off balance in the MA by being there as a result of relative strengths/weaknesses in the MA (as many claim the C-Hog or N1K does)
On the first point, well, I don't believe that it is totally fair in the MA to classify the plane in that method. Since we do have a strategic element to the MA with the ability to capture fields, it isn't all just dog-fighting in the sky. Something like the Lanc, with those 14*1K's could almost be considered unbalancing, but we all know that the Lanc has it's own deficiencies (climb, defense, etc). Would we want the Lanc perked because it can do this, or rather on it's total impact on MA play?
I think perking isn't just a "death nail" for any plane, just because it's perked doesn't mean that it'll be unaccessible to the average flier. I don't find "perk" as a black or white thing, so maybe everyone should look at the fact that we already have perks on one side of the equation, we earn perks based on a perk rating for aircraft.
This whole concept is really going to get interesting when we actually have something to spend perk points on. I know that I've already switched rides to something that had a better perk point earning capability, as it appears a number of others have. How many of you are flying a different ride primarily now as a result of earning perk points? I've seen half the number of C-Hog and N1K in the air, I almost expect F4U's to be D-Hogs now when I encounter them. I've also noticed maybe half the number of "Ban the C-Hog" or "Perk the N1K" threads on the bbs. That's probably a direct result of people flying other airplanes.
Like I said, I don't think perking something is black or white, it's sorta grey and it's something HTC will work on. I don't know that anyone is assuming that it will eliminate some of the powerful rides in the MA, but is sure will help control them.
-Soda
-
Soda-
You forgot the third category of perk,
C) Some people want to perk a/c because they are popular, not because they possess any overwhelming advantages over any other type. This is why I say that eventually everything gets perked.
-
Perks:
A-234
Bf109 G10 (cheap)
F4U-C (cheap)
P-51D (cheap)
LA7 (cheap)
N1k2
TA152 (cheap)
Dora (cheap)
Spitfire 14
Typhoon (cheap)
Leave the rest unperked.
That would work fine for me.
Those I labeled cheap would be perkes but should only take 2 or 3 normal sorties to gather enouh points to buy them.
-
"Aye! But there's the rub!"
What is "normal" for 2 or 3 sorties? I maybe get a point or two for a sortie, no kidding. I guess I could tank up a plane with a huge ammo load and start hauling butt to the training centers, but I really have no interest in doing so.
It does leave me pondering (if uselessly) about the many ways this might happen.
[list=1]
- All rides perked. You will have to have a minimum amount of points awarded for taking off- if not it is conceivable that a person could wind up with 0 points and no possibility of getting them.
- Leave the plan as announced. The problem there is it basically guarantees a large percentage of the user base will never use some of the perk planes in the MA. This can be a good or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
- You could allow automatic regeneration of points over time logged in. This means that, as long as you survive, your points build when you are online. Death incurs a penalty, but you would always have enough points to get into the air with something. This will also give the endless runway spawner something to think about when they fight the good fight. Of course this could very seriously hurt the furball crowd (in which I include myself at the present time) but OTOH it might be structured in a workable way IF points build at the right rate. Most planes would be relatively inexpensive, but the uberplanes would be pretty far out there point-wise and require a drastic hit on points to fly them.[/list=a]
-
Kieren,
What example is there of something popular, not unbalancing, that is overflown and people complain about it? N1K and C-Hog can't be used, since enough people will claim them as unbalancing.
-Soda
-
Think beyond the first step, Soda. What happens next is that there will be perceived another "this is the best plane to survive and kill in" plane. The point is, when you compare there will always be an upper and lower limit. People in an unstructured environment generally grab the upper end when possible, thus your next "uberplanes" would most likely become the P-51 and 109G-10. After that, what next? See what I mean?
The MA is not an environment in which you can force people to voluntarily distribute themselves equally amongst the plane types. There is always going to be a #1 used plane, bet on it.
-
I agree
After the F4U-1C and N1K get perked, some other plane will become the most popular...
My guess is either the P-51, Or the Spit 9. After THOSE are perked? 109G-10, etc etc
The point is....it HAS to stop somewhere, otherwise everything will end up being perked. That is the flaw to basing a perk system solely on popularity.
J_A_B
-
109G10 and P51 doesnt suit everyone though.
People will also split to spitfires and yaks.
109 has low ammo and not easy to fly, p51 is easier to fly, but it isnt too agile either and accerlates slow
many likes to be able to turn as well or just fly easier planes.
Probably tiffie gets more popular as well - next from chog, though, with less ammo.
I wouldnt go speculate for any radical changes yet, I would leave those speculations until tried & proven.
-
So if we perk the Dora, and the argument goes then we should perk the niki, and then the Chog, and the P51-D and then the 109-G10, what's left to fly? Not much really.
I think if we perk the aforementioned planes (and i seriously doubt they ever will be), then we need more earlier was AC, variants etc.
More than happy to have the P51-D perked if we get a correctly modelled Mustang Mk III with the malcom hood. And its still a better AC than a Dora (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Kieren, J_A_B,
Not to disagree but the only perk talk is the C-hog and N1K, and that's not even official. There will always be a popular ride, and that often tends to shift as good pilots make records of kills in them. There are a dozen or more pilots in AH that could rack up 8:1 kill ratios in the C202 using strong ACM.
It's just that, we are already faced with the perk system and it actually has two ways to work on a player to not always fly the most powerful or popular ride. It can penalize you by not earning perk points so you can't fly the real uber-rides, or it can make you pay some hard earned points to mount up that ride. Seems fair to me.
Look at the effect in the MA right now, lots of other planes flying around lately, seeing many 109's (*not G10's), P38's, La5, SpitII, SpitV, D-hogs. I have as many kills of D-Hogs as C-Hogs this tour so far. It's working already.
HTC has two ways to limit plane popularity, a subtle one and a drastic one. The subtle one appears to be working, just give fewer perk points for kills in a really popular ride. It doesn't mean that people won't just freely pick up a C-hog and blast around the sky. It just means that same guy better be getting some good kill numbers in order to also be able to take a Tempest out for a spin from time to time. In the drastic case of something really uber coming along then you actually make it cost points to fly one. That's a more drastic step but would probably be deserving in the case of something that could rule the MA with impunity.
I think that allows someone who wants to fly a preferred ride to continue to do so. It also gives someone who wants to fly something seriously outclassed a reward to throwing caution to the wind to get some hard won kills.
I can't wait till 1.06 comes out and the first person yells "Hey, I have as many kills as <insert player name> player, why can he fly a <insert plane> here and I can't!!!!"
-Soda
-
Won't be me, Soda. My only concern about perking any plane is that it should never be done only because a plane is popular. That is a dead end. Other than that perks be perks be perks, and has little to do with me.
-
I've certainly changed rides lately too, and found it quite a blast to fight in something you know has a weakness. You tend to set up and pick your fights better. I think overall it teachs you to be a better pilot also.
The perk system allows so much flexibilty, part of which is only starting to show. You can affect the usage of a plane in AH now only by adding or subtracting 5 perk point earning values to it. Not cost perk points, I'm talking earning ability perk values. I think it has already had the desired effect. The new planes will probably get treated either cautiously (initially not perked) or agressively (over perked) and then find their respective positions in time.
Having the variety of planes we have already, and knowing that it will only increase, something had to be done to stop the P-51's from slaughtering Brewster Buffalo's all day long(I forgot who wanted the buffalo... geez, now that's a challenge to complete with in the MA I bet. Like bringing a pointed stick to a gun fight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ).
-Soda
-
Originally posted by funked:
La-7 is most definitely a perk. It performs like a Bearcat. If the Bearcat is not perk material, why bother with the perk system?
Ahh, but that was "prototype" data. Going on precedent, the La-7 performance in AH will be based on "production" a/c(like the one with faulty slats) - only 370mph at s/l, and 408mph at 20k. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kieren:
Think beyond the first step, Soda. What happens next is that there will be perceived another "this is the best plane to survive and kill in" plane. The point is, when you compare there will always be an upper and lower limit. People in an unstructured environment generally grab the upper end when possible, thus your next "uberplanes" would most likely become the P-51 and 109G-10. After that, what next? See what I mean?
The MA is not an environment in which you can force people to voluntarily distribute themselves equally amongst the plane types. There is always going to be a #1 used plane, bet on it.
All these "and when they came for my MC202 there was no one to help me" type arguments are rather silly. Look at the masses of planes that right now are > 15 perk and < 30 perk. You know why. Because there is alot less to chose between them. They have different ballencing stengths and weaknesses compared to some of the pricier planes. Your assumptions that all the flyers on ride number one will switch to the next percieved uber ride assumes that there is some other ride so clearly better. Thats either wrong or a huge assumption to bet on for such a strong opinion.
I dont necessarily agree that the Nik and 1C should be perked any more. The perk system has alleiviated(it seems) alot of the problem that was occuring. But if a perk plane is introduced that is not signifigantly better then both, and they are not perked. It will undermine the system. That all remains to be seen with the new planes .
-
Perk Osti's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Pongo-
Either you aren't reading me right or I am not understanding you; my main argument is against the people in favor of perking the F4U-1C and N1K2-J based on the number of kills they acquire in the MA. My belief is that people will simply move on to the next "perceived best" available plane in the set. There doesn't have to be a real performance difference, you see, it only needs to appear to be real (as in the case of the 1C). The effect will be the same; you are going to see one type of plane more than any others for one reason or another. Following the strict "it's too popular so let's perk it" formula then means the plane must be perked.
I may not be able to call it fact, but I can tell you it is the experience I have had in all the flight sims I ever flew in.
-
I have a feeling that this perk thingie will dominate the boards once implemented.
I'm just waitin to see how it works...I enjoy flyin the pony so much that I don't seem to have the interest most of you do in the perked rides.
Gonna be interesting.
Ice
PS...Sorry Senna (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I hope the Dora makes it into the MA soon as well...is my favorite LW plane........................ .....to kill (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Ice (edited 02-23-2001).]
-
The F4U-1C as a cheap perk, say, about 10 points would still get flown a bit.
The N1K2 at that price would practically vanish from the arena. Why? Because it is a death trap. At a top speed of 369, you CAN'T run. Therefore you stand a VERY good chance of kissing those points goodbye.
I know that the F4U people say that the F4U is slow, but I've never outrun one. NEVER. That's in Spits, N1K2s, A6M5s (duh), Yaks, Tiffies and various 109s. the F4U is FAST.
On the subject of the Fw190D-9, I don't think it should be perked, even with Mw50.
Vermillion, Funked, I thought that the La7 was essentially a slightly faster, better armed La5. Am I wrong on this?
If I am correct, then I see no reason that the La7 should be perked.
Perk Fighters, IMHO:
Me262a
P-51H
F4U-4A
Ta152H1
Me163
P-47M (or is it N, I can never remember)
Yak9UT? (don't know my Russian fighters very well)
Yak3? (don't know my Russian fighters very well)
He162a
Tempest MkV
Spitfire MkXIV
Meteor MkIII
P-80A
F7F
F8F
Perk Bombers, IMHO:
Ar234
B-29A
Tu-2 (cheap version of B-29)
Mosquito B.MkIX (cheap version of Ar234)
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I take exception! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
F4U-4 a perk? It's performance would be on par with the Fw 190D-9, and there were just as many in use.
Yak-3 - 412mph at 10k is soooo scary, oooh!
Tu-2 = a cheap B-29 - WTF?!!!
Speed: 340mph at 17,700ft vs 358mph at 25,000ft
Range: 1304 miles vs 3250 miles
Bombload: 6,600lbs vs 20,000lbs
Guns: 3x12.7mm+2x20mm vs 12x.50in+1x20mm
-
juzz,
My source give the Tu-2S a max speed at full load of 342mph and an overload loadout weight of 4000kg (8,818lbs).
The reason that I say it is a cheap B-29 is because it has good speed and a good bombload, as opposed to very good speed and a huge bombload.
I know from experience what a pain it is to climb up to 20,000ft to attack a 280mph B-17 or Lanc, an extra 60mph would make the interceptors job MUCH harder.
That is why I view it as a cheap perk.
BTW, the Yak3 was supposed to me a low level monster, to the point where the Luftwaffe ordered its pilots not to engage it at low altitude. Also keep in mind that many are demanding that the 369mph N1K2 be perked.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Sisu
-Karnak
[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 02-25-2001).]
-
4000kg overload is for a 1946-47 standard Tu-2S. For the wartime model, 340mph is the speed with a 1000kg internal bombload - the extra 2000kg(making max = 3000kg) is carried externally, and would slow the Tu-2S to around 315mph.
I know from experience what a pain it is to climb up to 20,000ft to attack a 280mph B-17 or Lanc, an extra 60mph would make the interceptors job MUCH harder.
So - does that mean that AH shouldn't have any fast bombers at all unperked, unless maybe they have a bombload so low that you are better off taking a JABO? That's not very nice for the bomber pilots. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW: Did you know that the Mosquito B.IX(or the much more common B.XVI) is actually faster when loaded(with a bigger bombload too) than the Ar 234B-2... imagine that - a "wooden wonder" indeed! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
My source give the Tu-2S a max speed at full load of 342mph and an overload loadout weight of 4000kg (8,818lbs).
[/b]
Still, you have to admit that using "Tu-2" and "B-29" in the same sentence is pretty strange.
One was a fast two engine tactical medium bomber. One an enormous strategic bomber.
One can get oneself into a LOT of trouble comparing "absolute-maximum-barely-get-off-the-ground-and-bomb-10-miles-away" bombloads with "realistic fly out 700 miles and bomb somebody in a normal strategic mission" bombloads.
I'm sure the Tu-2 range at overload weight was painfully short.
Sure, you can take off in a TU-2 and bomb the Jerries next door with more weight than you could with a B-29 flying 1,500 miles at 30,000 feet to bomb Japan.
But they're in no way comparable aircraft :-)
Though, actually, AH has this problem to a small degree.
The B-17F and later models had underwing bomb shackles, and you could actually slap 16,000 lbs. on and make it off the ground. However, you couldn't make it far and I'm sure it was rarely done. The AH bombload is a "normal" one. (However, it is true that the myth of the "enormous" B-17 has so pervaded society that people are shocked at how small a realistic B-17 bombload really is).
However, the max Ju-88 load in AH really is a max...I'd be interested to know what the real-life Ju-88 range would be with a full bomb bay and the 4 huge external bombs. I bet it was pretty damn short.
I know from experience what a pain it is to climb up to 20,000ft to attack a 280mph B-17 or Lanc, an extra 60mph would make the interceptors job MUCH harder.
I have the sneaking suspicion that no Tu-2 in WWII with an overload bomb load ever got anywhere NEAR 20,000 feet...and not particularly often with ANY bombload :-)
-
The external bomb racks were removed from the B-17F sometime around the middle of it's production. No "G" models carried them.
No biggie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
190D would be nice, it was my favorite for a long time in WB. Doesn't really need to be perked.
<S>IC