Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on August 11, 2001, 02:39:00 PM

Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Kweassa on August 11, 2001, 02:39:00 PM
..

 Ok, personally, I'm never fond of jet planes. I dunno why, maybe it's just one of those fetishes with prop-planes, anyhow, I wasn't that thrilled to hear the Me-262 Schwalbe is introduced next ver.

 Hurricane MKII, im my personal opinion, was a right step - filling out the "missing links" of early war craft.. but I shudder at the fact that it's an MKII with Hispanos.. I kinda hoped it'd be maybe Spit MKI, or Hurricane MKI.. introduced with it's countrpart Bf-109E-7(or maybe E-4)... but stil, I like it.

 The problem is, though I rarely fly RAF planes, the RAF still don't have a sufficient late war fighter, and I think no other group of people gave waited so long and hard to finally get a late war plane of their own  :D - except maybe the exception of JP pilots wating for Ki-84 ..

 I think, in our current state, the two planes we desperately need to stabilize the country balance is the Spitfire MkXIV.. and the Ki-84.

 So.. I wonder if its possible the Spit 14's included in the 1.08?  :) maybe a last minute surprise?
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: funkedup on August 11, 2001, 02:42:00 PM
Axis need a heavy bomber.   :)

Seriously, Spit 14 and Ki-84 would be great fighters to add.  I don't understand the Me 262 addition but it's not my company is it.   :)
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: wells on August 11, 2001, 03:00:00 PM
yeah, a Tempest isn't good enough!  :rolleyes:
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: GRUNHERZ on August 11, 2001, 03:03:00 PM
Niki is late-war fighter.

Ki84 = perk

Spit XIV = perk

Basically all post summer 1942 spits are simply such magnificently designed and crafted warplanes that they simply defy all others in all performance areas and simply must be perked.   :)
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: juzz on August 11, 2001, 03:18:00 PM
An unperked Ki-84 would at reduce the N1K2-J numbers as some would trade the ammo load and turnrate of the Navy fighter for the better performance of the Army Ki-84.

Spitfire LF.IX(or the "best" Merlin Spitfire, the VIII) would cut down on N1K2-J numbers too, since it is better in almost all categories except for ammo load, durability and maybe dive acceleration.

Bring on the Spitfire LF.VIII(RAAF) and Ki-84-Ib(4x20mm)!  :D
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Staga on August 11, 2001, 03:20:00 PM
Hehe Funked   :D
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: GRUNHERZ on August 11, 2001, 03:21:00 PM
Yep the LFVIII/IX and Ki84 would then get perked.

If HTC does a Ki84 they really should do the 2x12.7mm and 2x20mm version, it would help cut down on the dweebiness.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Zigrat on August 11, 2001, 04:34:00 PM
i gotta disagree grunherz there is no reason to perk a lf.ix

it came out in 1943. no 1943 plane is so good as to be perked. and if it is, kudos to the designers for making such a kick bellybutton airplane.

xiv=perk lf.ix not perk
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Karnak on August 11, 2001, 04:35:00 PM
I was thinking about WWII British fighters that might not be a perk, and it occurs to me that the Meteor MkI shouldn't be a perk.  At 410mph maximum it isn't that fast and doesn't manuver particularly well.

It would also give people a non-perk jet to tool around in if that is their thing.

Zigrat,

The problem with the Spitfire LF.MkIX isn't that it was a super plane in the real world, but that the Spitfire is a near perfect fit to the type of combat seen in AH and WB MA arenas.  Because of that it might very well have to be perked.

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Nashwan on August 11, 2001, 05:11:00 PM
I honestly don't believe the Spit LF IX would be a perk. It's faster at some alts than the F IX, but not by a huge amount.
If it was introduced along with the Spit XIV, some Spit fans would certainly fly something else to build up their perk points faster.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: GRUNHERZ on August 12, 2001, 02:52:00 AM
Zig the problem would be overuse.

The current Spit IX, is the the second or even first most used plane in AH.

Add 20mph to it at AH alts, add some 1000fpm or more climb to it at AH alts, add better acceleration to it at AH alts, add much better roll rate to it at low to medium "dogfight speeds", and only somewhat degraded turning if at all and you would have a plane approaching old chog use in the MA. Why wouldnt all the easy kill gang switch over to it?

I honestly dont know what plane the RAF fans can get that wont be in perk trouble if the performance figures po0sted of these LF Spits and other planes are put into the AH MA environment.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Karnak on August 12, 2001, 03:50:00 AM
Nashwan,

The problem is that there aren't very many Spit fans. I believe that there are many more fans of the Bf109 and Fw190 than of the Spitfire.  Spitfires have a bad name in these games.

There are however a lot of people who simply fly the most effective thing to mix it up in. Those are the people who drove the F4U-1C to the top and who currently drive the N1K2-J to the top with the Spitfire F.MkIX close behind it in 2nd place.  They are the reason that a Spitfire LF.MkIX would probably end up being perked. They are also the reason that Spitfires have a bad name in these games.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Toad on August 12, 2001, 09:46:00 AM
Perk anything that rises to the top of the kills per tour list? Is that the plan?
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Urchin on August 12, 2001, 10:37:00 AM
I don't think that "Perk everything that rises to the top of the kill list" is a criteria here.  What IS an issue is how often you see the plane, because I get tired of seeing the same plane over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, ad nauseum.  Case in point, the C-Hog.  Before it was perked, everyone flew the thing.  It was perked because it had 20% of the kills in the MA BY ITSELF.  The N1K2 will get there eventually, and then it will be time to perk it as well, at least if that was the reason HTC perked the C-Hog.  If a new spit is introduced that climbs at 6k FPM, does 360 or so on the deck, rolls like a 190, and STILL out turns every plane in the arena except the Zero, I WONDER WHERE ALL THE N1K2 PILOTS ARE GOING TO GO?  I bet they are going to start flying the new spit.  WHERE MIGHT ALL THE SPIT IX and SPIT V PILOTS GO?  Prolly over to the new spit, you might see about 1k kills per tour with the old version, like you do with the 109s.  I got news for you pal, the N1K2 isn't the most popular plane in the game because of it's tremendous impact on WW2.  It is the most popular plane in the game because it is easy to fly and it is easy to get kills in.  Put any plane in that is easier to get kills in than the N1K2 is, and people will stop flying it.  If you introduce a "better" spit, the population of the most popular plane and the 2nd most popular plane will combine.  The new Spit would have probably 30% of the kills in the MA by itself, no problem.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Nashwan on August 12, 2001, 10:38:00 AM
I don't think just Spit fans would want to save up perk points for the Spit XIV. Those same people who fly the Spit IX now would want to fly a Spit XIV, wether they were particular fans of the Spit or not. They may also want to fly the P51H or Me262, or any of the other perk planes that will probably be introduced soon (Bearcat, F7F, Do335, Gloster Gladiator etc)

I honestly can't see how a Spit LF IX could be perked. A mid 43 plane, produced and used in huge numbers, perking it would prove the absurdity of the perk system.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Nashwan on August 12, 2001, 10:48:00 AM
Quote
The N1K2 will get there eventually, and then it will be time to perk it as well, at least if that was the reason HTC perked the C-Hog.
The majority of the N1k2 pilots will then switch to the Spit IX, which will have to be perked (perking a 1942 fighter???). After the Spit IX, they will switch somewhere esle, which will have to be perked. You will end up with the least popular plane as the only non perk.

 
Quote
If a new spit is introduced that climbs at 6k FPM, does 360 or so on the deck, rolls like a 190, and STILL out turns every plane in the arena except the Zero, I WONDER WHERE ALL THE N1K2 PILOTS ARE GOING TO GO?
I don't think anyone is seriously calling for an unperked Spit XIV, and even then you've added 1000ft/min to the climb rate, and overestimated the turning abilities.
The Spit LF IX will do around 338 on the deck, same speed as the current IX at 15k, slower above 25k. It will turn and roll the same, climb at around 4,700 ft/min. If it has clipped wings, it will roll faster, fly a bit faster, turn worse.
It would also be the most produced single variant of the Spitfire, rather than the model we have now, which was one of the first, and worst, 300 or so Spit IXs produced. The current model isn't balanced and isn't historicaly representitive.

PS The current Spit IX has approx 8% of all kills this tour. An LF isn't going to raise it that much, nowhere near the levels the CHog once enjoyed.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Hristo on August 12, 2001, 11:26:00 AM
262 is the answer  ;)
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Urchin on August 12, 2001, 12:24:00 PM
Quote
The majority of the N1k2 pilots will then switch to the Spit IX, which will have to be perked (perking a 1942 fighter???). After the Spit IX, they will switch somewhere esle, which will have to be perked. You will end up with the least popular plane as the only non perk.  

Actually, I think you are wrong here.  If the N1K2 ever gets perked (which I honestly do not think will happen, but devoutly wish for) the N1K2 crowd will split.  The part of the crowd that enjoys "furballing" will go over to the Spit, which isnt half as formidable as the N1K2, again, in my opinion.  The rest of the crowd, the ones that want to fly the "best" plane, will go over to the La7.  It is sort of hard to tell how the demographics will break down, because it is hard to say how many people fly the N1K2 because it turns pretty well, and how many fly it because it does everything pretty well.  Anyway, this is just mindless babble.  I say take the latest Spit, the 1945 version, and put it in the game as a nonperked fighter.  Then we can put in the P51 Z or whatever the fastest possible propellor plane that was concieved in the war was, and make that unperked.  Then HTC can remove every other plane from the game and just have a whole lot of different paintjobs for those two planes.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Karnak on August 12, 2001, 12:39:00 PM
Urchin,

No need to get snippy.  Nobody is asking for an unperked Spitfire MkXIV, let alone an unperked Spitfire F.21.

I happen to agree with you on the likely outcome of adding the Spitfire LF.MkIX, depending on what happens to the N1K2-J.  

Should the N1K2-J be perked, the Spit LF.IX would probably follow quickly.
Should the N1K2-J's FM revision make it suck (I don't think this is going to happen) then the Spit LF.IX would probably replace it at the top.
If the N1K2-J remains where it is, by not being perked and only receiving a minor FM adjustment, then I don't see the Spitfire LF.MkIX significantly changing the balance of power in AH. I think too many of those who flew the F4U-1C and now fly the N1K2-J rely on their huge ammo loads, and that is something that no Spitfire, not even the Spitfire F.21, can satisfy.

Quite frankly I think that HTC is more likely to introduce a 1945 Spitfire LF.MkXVI with a Merlin 266 engine and a bubble canopy as the highend non-perk Spitfire.  I think Pongo is right on that one, but I don't agree with it.

[ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Toad on August 12, 2001, 12:41:00 PM
Two points:

1. Every time a plane gets near the top of the kill list, there is talk about perking it. This is easily confirmed by doing a little BBS history review.

Take the F4U-1C as the example. It got lots of the kills, got perked. A few months go by and now there's talk about perking the "new" big killer. Obviously, it IS an issue.

Many predicted that a "perk the ______, it kills too much" movement would just move on to the next big killer after the _________ was perked. I'd say there's been ample evidence on the BBS to support that hypothesis. Feel free to disagree.

2. The "seeing the same plane over and over and over" argument:

That one was real big around the time of the "perk the F4U-1C" threads. Many of those who made and are making that argument are often found in the Combat Theater and some play it exclusively.

In fact, one or more of those who voiced this impression have returned to AH just to play in the CT.

No knock on the CT, but with the limited planeset and the clear preference for just a few of the aircraft in the CT planeset on both sides... why aren't we hearing that argument from the CT people who made it before during the "perk the F4U-1C" campaign?

Play the CT. Tell me how many different aircraft you engage, no matter which side you play.

Fact is fact; there is far less "type" variety in the CT but those who perceive a lack of variety in the MA don't complain about it in the CT. Go figure.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Karnak on August 12, 2001, 12:46:00 PM
Toad,

I wanted the F4U-1C to be perked, I still don't see any need to perk the N1K2-J.  But it seems that I may not be representative in this.

Your 2nd points makes sense to me.  For what its worth, I find the CT boring.  Its a 20 minute flight for the Brits if they want a post 1941 fighter and a much shorter flight for the Germans.
Title: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Zigrat on August 12, 2001, 02:00:00 PM
combat theatre as it is now isnt that great

but the TOD on the otehr hand!!!

 :) :)
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Gowan on March 06, 2008, 12:29:14 PM
i soooo had to bring up an old thread.... and its fun to look into the games past


Niki is late-war fighter.

Ki84 = perk

Spit XIV = perk

Basically all post summer 1942 spits are simply such magnificently designed and crafted warplanes that they simply defy all others in all performance areas and simply must be perked.   :)
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Saxman on March 06, 2008, 12:32:28 PM
Someone call an exorcist! The dead are rising!  :eek:
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Puck on March 06, 2008, 12:34:19 PM
PERK THE EXCORCIST!!!

 :noid
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: sunfan1121 on March 06, 2008, 12:35:57 PM
wow thats a weird thread to read if u dont look at the date 
:noid
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: The Fugitive on March 06, 2008, 12:41:04 PM
Yup, just what we need, a seven year old thread bumped to the top of the boards.  :rolleyes:


Lock it up Skuzzy !!! :aok
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Puck on March 06, 2008, 12:43:12 PM
Think of it as a test.  It should take about six words to figure out this is a blast from the past, otherwise you aren't paying attention.
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Captain Virgil Hilts on March 06, 2008, 01:03:42 PM
Great. We have another necromancer. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Gowan on March 06, 2008, 08:53:47 PM
Yup, just what we need, a seven year old thread bumped to the top of the boards.  :rolleyes:


Lock it up Skuzzy !!! :aok


im not SEVEN!

go a bit lower  :noid
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: C(Sea)Bass on March 06, 2008, 08:58:51 PM
go a bit lower  :noid

thats what she said
 :D
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: MjTalon on March 06, 2008, 09:14:47 PM
you DO realize this thread is 7 years OLD  :huh :huh?
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Masherbrum on March 06, 2008, 09:19:05 PM
you DO realize this thread is 7 years OLD  :huh :huh?
(http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/ohmann.gif)
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: AAolds on March 07, 2008, 09:47:25 AM
Someone was diggin a long time to find this post...... :lol
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Carwash on March 07, 2008, 10:30:14 AM
Exactly why was this thread resurrected?
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Rollins on March 07, 2008, 12:48:25 PM
Consider who did it and that will answer your question.  :aok
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: 5PointOh on March 07, 2008, 01:35:18 PM
 :noidINteresting Reading
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: NCLawman on March 07, 2008, 01:43:26 PM
Nice Punt Gowan..  that one was good for at least 55 yards, with no return
 :eek:
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: Karnak on March 07, 2008, 01:49:26 PM
Some of us have been here too long I think.
Title: Re: We Really need Spit XIV, No kiddin'
Post by: kilz on March 07, 2008, 01:56:54 PM

im not SEVEN!

go a bit lower  :noid


how retarded was this. bringing back a 7 year old post WOW your INcredibly COOL