What is the Deal with all this US stuff?

[Karnak]

Hmmm, lets look at it this way, how many airframes/hulls do we have as of 1.08?

USA

Single Engined: 5
Vehicle: 4
Twin Engined: 3
Three or more Engines: 1

Germany

Single Engined: 2
Vehicle: 1
Twin Engined: 3
Three or more Engines: 0

UK

Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 0
Three or more Engines: 1

USSR

Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 1
Three or more Engines: 0

Japan

Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 0
Three or more Engines: 0

Italy

Single Engined: 1
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 0
Three or more Engines: 0

I agree that the C-47 is better than the Ju52, I said as much to Staga and another guy when they were saying no one would use the unarmed C-47 if the Ju52 were added.

When AH launched it needed a basic set of useable bombers, a heavy and a medium. The only bombers that fit that bill are either American, have been added by 1.08 or were not major players in WWII.

There is a large fan base for the P-38. Witness the frequent calls to fix the P-38. It makes sense to spend the resources on an intersting aircraft with such a base.

It would seem that I agree with the inclusion of all of the US multi engined aircraft.

The P-51 is a classic and no WWII air combat sim can do without it (unless set in a specific place or time where it wouldn't exist). The P-51 is an absolute must.

The P-47 seems to have a very, very vocal group of supporters and is another WWII classic. However, I think that a Ki84 Hayate or J2M3 Raiden would have been better choice.

The F4U is, once again, a classic.  The only difference I would have done is to have added an F4U-1 or F4U-1A varient instead of the F4U-1C varient.

The F6F, another classic. Distinctly different performance from the F4U, but its armament and ordinance make it fill the same role. I would have added the B6N2 or B7A2 in its place.

There isn't a lot of choice when looking for a carrier bomber with a bombsight.  I agree that the TBM-3 fills that role well and would have added it as well.

I have no problem with any of the vehicles added so far. I would like to see a T-34 and a Sherman though.

For the Germans, there is little I would have done differently.  I'm not overly fond of perks or late war, so I would have added the Me410A-1 instead of the Me262 and a Do217 instead of the Ar234, but the Perk system is a business decision that has not fully come into its own yet.

Given the amount of work required and the amount of work done so far, I have no issues with the rest of the planeset.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

[AKDejaVu]

LOL KARNAK!

Next time, seperate fighter frames from ground/sea vehicles.  Of course, the numbers won't look nearly as impressive... but maybe that was the point?

AKDejaVu

[flakbait]

Just a minor point Karnak. The Me-262 is a rather simple model, while the Me-410 would be a rather big project. Same for the Do-217. Both get rather complex in places since they're larger aircraft, bomb bays, and gunner positions. So you'd literally have to trade two new fighter slots to get the 410 or 217 thrown in based on man-hours put into each aircraft.


Pyro, I've got a few minor gripes about the current choices. Like others, I think that aircraft from later years should be put in to compete with the US 1944 stuff. Speed is increasing in the arena with each new addition. Now the 262 is a real kick in the pants to fly, but it's useless as a fighter due to the lack of maneuvering ability. A possible alternative for it? The Ta-152C3. Sure it would be perked, but so is the 262, and it can actually fight at speeds below 400mph. If the P-51H rumors are true, I would've done a P-40B or an N model instead of it. The 51H is a "what if?" aircraft really, and time could've been spent on something a bit more worthwhile.

As for future additions? I'd start slowing the arena speeds down some as well as throw in a few better aircraft. Fixing the current Spitfire Mk IX and adding a better Spit Mk IX are two things I'd do. A P-40 of some model isn't a bad idea either. A Ki-84, Ki-103, and A6M3 would all be fun to drive around along with the Me-410.

Troop transports are kind of a blank area to draw from. The US has the C-47, Germany has the Ju-52, Russia and Japan had their own too. But it doesn't give you many choices, or a large variety, so the C-47 was a good choice in my book.

US vehicles are a minor thing to me as eventually we'll see more of them from other places. Still, I think the Ostwind frackas would have been avoided if a Wirblewind was thrown in instead. Half-tracks abound in both US and German service, so variations of either work. And there were a load of variations.

To continue this "seat-swap" a tad further, in 1.09 I'd do the following. Forgive me if any of this is already in 1.08...

Fix the P-38, including:
Damage model problem with a glass tail

Fix single engine operation in multi-engine aircraft. Torque is FAR too high for single-engine taxiing in both the B-26 and P-38.

Fix trim bugs as B-17 and Lanc trim indicators work backwards.

Fix B-26 trim problem. Loaded takeoff with flaps causes a marked raising of the right wing.

Fix Ta-152H speed problem. It's currently 15-25mph too slow at altitude with WEP running.

Add:
P-40B and N
Me-410
Ki-103
Time permitting...
M26 Pershing
Panther
Manable anti-tank guns at field approaches


That's my take on things. If there's anything you agree or disagree with, please tell me what and why. If anything we'll know more about inclusion choices and such.


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
 

[Karnak]

AKDejaVu,

Done.

My intention was to break it down by a rough guesstament of the effort needed to produce a new airframe/hull.  I think that the single engined aircraft and vehicles are about the same on effort required.

I wasn't trying to make a statement about who has what. You'll note that I had very few differences in my list from what HTC actually did, and I specifically singled out vehicles as something that I had no problems with.

[brady]

ra, LISTEN VERY CLOSLY, I never said every county should have an equal plane set in terms of numbers( at least not right away), I do howeaver think it is time to somthing for Japan and Italy, at least one apeace,at the very least one for Italy.

 Pyro, with all do respect for you and the work you do, I ask simply that you consider other countries units for addation as apposed to US units to fill Nitches in the planeset(vehical set). Not permanatly not in exclushion of other US units just in part.

  Once again I point to the add on rate for Japan and Italy, I have been playing for over a year almost contuniously, and only one plane has been added for those 2 countries.

[BenDover]

Originally posted by Karnak:
USSR

Single Engined: 3
Vehicle: 0
Twin Engined: 1
Three or more Engines: 0

----------THIS IS NOT A NIT PICK -----------

you missed a single engined,ussr has 4 S E planes,yak-u,yak-t,la5,la7

[Karnak]

BenDover,

I wasn't counting aircraft, I was counting airframes.

Russian Airframes as of 1.08:

La (La-5FN, La-7)
Yak (Yak-9U, Yak-9T)
Il-2 (Il-2M)
Tu-2 (Tu-2S)

Total:

Single Engined: 3
Twin Engined: 1

There are multiple variants of two of the airframes, the La and the Yak. The reason I was making this distiction is because we are discussing which aircraft we think should have been added, which means different airframes and those take far more work than making a variant of an existing airframe.

[ra]

Karnak,

Not to nitpick but the Ta-152 should count as a separate 'airframe'.  

But I don't understand what the relevance of 'airframe' types is.  The US and USSR produced a lot of different aircraft designs in large numbers, Germany and Japan concentrated their resources by making modifications to relatively few existing designs.  Comparing 2 or 3 German single engine fighter airframes in AH to 5 US single engine fighter airframes is misleading.  

Brady,

Ok, you want aircraft from certain countries moved to the front of the list ahead of much more historically significant or useful aircraft from other countries.  That way the hangars will be filled with unused planes with interesting insignia.

ra

[flakbait]

Ra the deal with airframes is this. Each aircraft in AH is based off a single parent aircraft. Say you've got 6 models of Spitfire in here, as an example. Those 6 models are really just one model, that's been altered 6 different times to create 6 similar aircraft. What is faster: Making each aircraft model from scratch or modifying an existing one? Sure we may have 4 models of Bf-109, but those 4 models are actually one airframe Superfly and Nate modified or took parts from. Remember the speed which the Hurricane IID was shown? How about the fun shock when they stuck the P-47D25 in during a patch? That's because they took one airframe, or base model, and changed it enough to make another variant of that aircraft type.


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think my maker wants to hear from me right now. I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
 

[AKSWulfe]

So would this be a bad time to ask for one of these:
   ???????
-SW

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]

[Fester']

bf110!!!!!
oh please oh please!

[streakeagle]

Let me offer a picture of why there are so many US aircraft in this game, aside from the fact that a lot of us fliers are brainwashed Americans who demand nothing less:
 http://homestead.juno.com/streakeagle/files/WWIIAircraftProduction.jpg

Note that in order to show the other countries production with reasonable detail, ours went way off the chart.

This also helps me stand by my statements regarding the off-topic "who really won the war". Reread my post, I may make some of the standard American egotistical remarks, but quite clearly I said:
1) No single country won it, nor could have won it against the combined might of Germany and Japan.
2) It would not would have been won without US production capability.

The British did not fly American planes or give us bases because they wanted to, the future of their country and the world depended on it.

Airpower has never won a war to this very day (even counting Desert Storm), but ask the Germans and Japanese about what it does to your chances of victory on the ground or sea when you had air superiority and then lost it. Many argure that the US/British bombing effort had little or no impact on the outcome of the war, that only the frontline fighting by the Russians had any real effect. Look at the German production numbers... only 2nd to the US. Imagine how many more planes and tanks they would have cranked out if their production had not been interrupted on a daily basis by heavy bomber raids. Also, while the peak production occurred late in the war, towards the end, they were so short of fuel and oil that operating all this equipment was becoming impossible. Score a late victory for the bombing effort! The Russians proved that fighting it out on the ground is way faster, but at the cost of more casualties than those of all other countries involved. While I respect all of those who fought and died in defense of their homes and their freedom, I don't think their sacrifice should belittle the American efforts which were at least an equal contribution and in my opinion an absolute necessity for the defeat of the Axis.

As long as I keep ranting and raving, might as well respond to one more criticism of the US: Pearl Harbor.

I may be laughed at or in the minority for believing this, but there are entire books devoted to the fact that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, but used it as a tool to motivate the American public. There must be some reason why Halsey was out with the Enterprise looking for a Japanese carrier fleet near Hawaii that no one knew was coming instead of being parked there to be bombed as originally scheduled (I am not sure, but I think one of his search planes may have come within 200 miles of the Japanese fleet). Funny how old men living in luxury get to make the decisions about who lives and who dies for the sake of political correctness. Though I believe he was right: Americans let the whole world collapse as long as they are not dying and the money keeps flowing, but let one foreign bullet hit one American and we bomb the crap out of you. Or if you really piss us off, we invent the nastiest weapon ever built and try it out on a couple of your cities.

Ugh... I need to stop rambling. Pyro slap me silly for joining the hijackers! But hey, it's still a free internet right? Besides, I am quite sure if I am badly in the wrong I will be banned like all the other abusive types on these bulletin boards.

[rickod]

Hmmm well saying we cant add that because we have no hard data is horse hockey if ya ask me ,

since the brains of the outfit was there during the inception of wb he should have some of this info already,


if not oh well it can be fund with a few clicks of a mouse .
 

[jr]

HTC must be doing a good job if "Too Many US Planes vs others" is a big deal! Keep it up HTC! More planes Russian, German, Jap, US, Iranian "flying carpets", whatever!

[AKSWulfe]

Does this mean you all are strongly opposed to a F4F-3 Wildcat?
-SW