Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: wedge1000 on November 14, 1999, 11:30:00 PM

Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: wedge1000 on November 14, 1999, 11:30:00 PM
In reference to the new planes being added to AH, like the F7F Tigercat.

I for one would really like to see some planes we haven't seen before. It's nice to be able to fly the classics, 109, 190, Spit, 51, 47, etc but I for one really like flying planes I'm not familiar with and learning how to use them.

I'm curious what other people think. I'd like to see some of lesser known planes added just so it doesn't feel just like WB.
Instead of making the B-25, how about the B-24? I'm not trying to keep it balanced, just throw in a little variety.

I'm curious what everyone else thinks?

Would you rather have the same planes as before or would you rather have different planes?

--Cptn--
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: -lynx- on November 15, 1999, 12:42:00 AM
Hey - we already have a B24... Err.. B17  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)

How about A20 Boston as a medium bomber instead of B25? It served on all fronts throughout the war  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Windle on November 15, 1999, 01:11:00 AM
Or at least different variants of the more popular planes.  Maybe a Spit VIII and XVI, the F4U-1A, An odd P-38 model, an odd P-47 model, etc.

 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/gifs/new/kep.gif)

------------------
~Lt. Jg. Windle~

VF-17 (http://chani.arrakis-ttm.com/warbirds/jollyroger/) The Jolly Rogers 8X
      Skychrgr@aol.com
   

Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: weazel on November 15, 1999, 01:50:00 AM
How about the 109F-7,or the Ki-61,or the ultimate in TnB fun <drum roll> the A6M3 Zero. I love taking the rice kite into battle against a couple of Spitfires. Of course you can almost guarantee at least one(if not both) of them will go into the silly patented "Spit flat turn" and will shortly after be ashes floating serenely to the ground.DTAS!

------------------
}]
JG-2 "Richthofen"
 http://www.rapfire.net/~weazel/ (http://www.rapfire.net/~weazel/)


Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: juzz on November 15, 1999, 05:26:00 AM
You want TnB - BIPLANE FIGHTERS!!

Fiat C.R.42 Falco
Gloster Gladiator
etc...
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: -kier- on November 15, 1999, 07:22:00 AM
I think the only way to include such planes (those that never flew in the conflict) would be to have a 1946 arena. Then you could have your Shinden, F8F, F7F, Tempest, etc.
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: JoeMud on November 15, 1999, 10:25:00 AM
Ho-229
He-162
B-29
Me-262
He-111
Ju-87D/G
V-1/maned V1 for the japs
V-2

And some realistic Germany and England maps.

You guys can think of some more allied planes.



------------------
Gijoey,Joetwo,JoeMud=me
 DHBG!!
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Pyro on November 15, 1999, 11:11:00 AM
Seems to me like that's what we're doing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: -kier- on November 15, 1999, 11:23:00 AM
Yes, Pyro, and thank you for including some fresh types... I may not like all of them in the end, but I do like the choice!
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Sundog on November 17, 1999, 09:43:00 PM
How about a Mossie FB Mk. VI? Or a Ki-44, MiG-3, Tu-2...maybe even a couple french fighters (Dewontoine, Bloch?). A Tempest or Typhoon would be nice as well.

I must say though, I am juts happy to see you guys putting the Mc. 205 Veltro in here!

I know, how about an Me-163! An anti-base cap plane! ;-)

Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Sundog on November 17, 1999, 09:44:00 PM
juts?...sheesh.
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: leonid on November 18, 1999, 08:15:00 AM
Planes we haven't seen before?  Hmm, let me think ... mmmwwell, I think one set of planes come to mind.  The Soviet air force of WWII! You know, those guys that held back the Germans from the other end for, like, 4 years.  Uhuh, yep, that's it.  

Oh jeez, now yer rootin' tootin'.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA


Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: -kier- on November 18, 1999, 08:25:00 AM
Leonid-

The only way we would have people fly many of the Soviet planes would be to model the later war stuff... you aren't going to find too many people who want to take the early Soviet stuff up. Remember, even the Brewster Buffalo was used effectively against the Soviets early in the war!
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Mr.ED on November 18, 1999, 08:49:00 AM
While everyone's adding thier want list how about a P-51K, So the Pony is on an equal footing with the 190/KI/La-la.

Oh yeah the "K" upgrade was removing 2 MA-duces & replacing them with 20 mike-mikes!

Mr.ED
Pony Driver
Kight
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: juzz on November 18, 1999, 09:20:00 AM
Gee, and here I was thinking it was a Dallas made D with a different prop.
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: leonid on November 18, 1999, 09:42:00 AM
kier,
Remember pilot quality had a lot to do with the overall poor performance of the VVS in the early years.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA


Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: -kier- on November 18, 1999, 10:56:00 AM
I know, but the equipment was lacking qualitatively as well. The early LaGG and MiG fighters were relatively fast, but were otherwise handily outperformed by contemporary Luftwaffe hardware (109 E's, F's, and G's, and FW190 A's?). The weight of their engines also kept them very undergunned. No doubt about it, you would have to have hair on your chest (and other places) to be able to fly early VVS aircraft in our MA. Now if you talked Scenario, that would be another story... to a point.  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Rojo on November 18, 1999, 12:48:00 PM
For what it's worth, I would like to stick with aircraft that made a reasonable impact to the course of the war, just as AH is doing now. My main reason for this is Scenarios.  It's my favorite part of WWII on-line flight sims.  Even when it's just my Squadron running a Squad-nite mission, we try to recreate historical missions.

I like the way AH is building the current plane set up. A core set of classics with a sprinkling of less-well known (and simulated) but still historically significant types like the Macchi and George.

I for one am looking forward to some early war stuff, but it may make more sense to start with the current set of late-war craft and work sequentially backwards in time.

------------------
Rojo (S-2, The Buccaneers)
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Jochen on November 19, 1999, 05:49:00 AM
 
Quote
Remember, even the Brewster Buffalo was used effectively against the Soviets early in the war!

and

 
Quote
Remember pilot quality had a lot to do with the overall poor performance of the VVS in the early years.

Yep, Brewsters were used in US Marine Corps during Midway where they suffered heavy losses against Japanese planes and they were quickly moved to training purposes.

Finns, on the other hand, were scoring pretty impressive kills with Brewster against VVS while VVS had better planes for sure for most of the time.

Why the difference in performance? Pilot quality. Japanese pilots were good and USMC pilots decent too. VVS pilots were not (any?) good and Finns were pretty damn good. To be truthfull, VVS had also some bad tactical ideas and some of its equipment was poor quality, some planes didn't even have gunsights other than cross painted on the windscreen  (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)

------------------
jochen
Geschwaderkommodore
Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jan.nousiainen/JG2) (Warbirds)

If you ever get across the sea to England,
Then maybe at the closing of the day
The bars will all be serving German lager
Which means we won the war - hip hip hooray!

Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Karnak on December 04, 1999, 01:05:00 AM
How about the Lancaster, Wellington or Blenheim.  RAF Bomber Command never gets the credit it is due.  I think that the Lanc would be a good addition, its different than the B-17, it carries more bombs but compensates by having weaker defensive armament.  Like the B-17 it had a reputation for being durable.
On tge other side how about an Emily for the Japanese and a He-177 Grief for the Germans, or the He-277.
Lets have each nationality get a Heavy Bomber.

Sisu
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: Hollywood on December 04, 1999, 03:28:00 PM
I second the idea of a 1946 planeset esp. with the German superweapons, Natter anyone?
When HTC runs out of things to do they could take the jets right up to the Korean conflict.  Early jet guns only fights are lots of fun.

------------------
It's a good day for flying!

    General Chuck Yeager
Title: New Planes Vs Same Old Planes
Post by: LLv34_Snefens on December 04, 1999, 09:02:00 PM
Yes, scenarios is what I am looking for too. I loose the feel for the "real" thing when I shoot/get shot down by George's and Fw190 in my 109.

But remember this is a BETA!

Wait with the fantasy wishing and let enough "standard" planes get to make the scenario-worlds games possibly before starting to talk about uber-super-experimtental planes. I would like to try them too, but under controlled circumstances.

Flame me what you want now ;-)

------------------
LLv34 Snefens
RO, Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)


[This message has been edited by LLv34_Snefens (edited 12-04-1999).]