He 111

[chris3]

moin

i dont think its hard to create, the aiming mechanismus could be like the old land mode on the 8" gun on the cruiser.

would be real fun to fly with a few guys to a fire position and lounch a few v1 :-)

cu christian

[gyrene81]

moin

im sure the he111 will be often used in LWA too if we get the he111 V1 rocket lounch platform :-)

cu christian

moin, you're wrong...again.

i'm sure the real information is out there, in german so you can understand it...try looking it up.

[caldera]

Bring on the He-111.  The G4M is lonely.  Add it just to stop the incessant pleas from people that won't ever fly it again after the first week.

[Nathan60]

moin

im sure the he111 will be often used in LWA too if we get the he111 V1 rocket lounch platform :-)

cu christian

Strats  beware!

[chris3]

moin, you're wrong...again.

i'm sure the real information is out there, in german so you can understand it...try looking it up.

do not get it??
what do you mean?

cu christian

[Tank-Ace]

V1 Buzz bombed were only roughly aimed. Overly simplified, they pointed them sorta at the target, set a rough distatance to the target (so the buzz bombs would hit at the right point along their vector of travel), and then lit them off.


So what he means is that a 'land gunner' system would be overly accurate, and unrealistic.

[perdue3]

Bring on the He-111.  The G4M is lonely.  Add it just to stop the incessant pleas from people that won't ever fly it again after the first week.

Youre missing the point pal. I will NEVER fly it in MA, youre right. But I am SO FREAKIN TIRED of havin a Ju 88 substitute for it in events. If you dont fly events, you wont understand.

[Karnak]

Got 39.15 bomber perks on a single G4M1 sortie in the LWA last night.  Got shot down by a P-47 just before I made it home though.  Smoked his engine at least.

[1Nicolas]

He111 is on the short list.

In alphabetic order:

Beaufighter
D4Y
He111
Ki-43
LaGG-3Pe-2WellingtonYak-1

this means BIG NEGATIVE!

[Karnak]

this means BIG NEGATIVE!

Please explain yourself.  Highlighting those does not make any sense.  It is like you randomly highlighted some of what I listed and not others.

Are you familiar with the units you highlighted?

Almost 6,000 Ki-43s.  Not a high performance game breaker at all.

LaGG-3 is a low performance, early war Russian fighter.

Wellington was the most prolific British bomber with 11,000 built, but it was slow, carried only 4,500lbs and defended by .303s.  Tough though.

[Raphael]

Please explain yourself.  Highlighting those does not make any sense.  It is like you randomly highlighted some of what I listed and not others.

Are you familiar with the units you highlighted?

Almost 6,000 Ki-43s.  Not a high performance game breaker at all.

LaGG-3 is a low performance, early war Russian fighter.

Wellington was the most prolific British bomber with 11,000 built, but it was slow, carried only 4,500lbs and defended by .303s.  Tough though.

and the lagg 3 breaks easy, it is beautifull tho and didn't they have a version with big cannons?

[Tank-Ace]

Karnak, it seems you REALLY want stuff whos absense isn't a big issue in scenarios and is infact not even noticed by most, and are just more hanger queens/(30mm) cannon fodder in the MA.

Yeah, I would love to see a 109E-1, a 109F-1, a 109F-3, or scenario-specific GV's like the Panzerjager I, but that doesn't mean they're important, NEEDED, or even widely missed.


At least you actually have planes that can fill in for the one listed with a minimum of compensation or balancing needed, but we're just finally starting to get some EW/MW GV's. What more do you want, egg in your beer?

[Karnak]

Sorry, but you are full of you know what.  While I agree that the Wellington has limited use in scenarios due to being a night bomber after the Battle of France, the LaGG-3 and Ki-43's absence is a big issue.  Far more so that your minor differences Bf109E-7 and crap.

GVs are entirely a non-issue for scenarios, all of them.

The reason I push the Wellington is that it works for earlier settings and I well remember my Bf109E-4 being run down by a Boston Mk III in a Norway setting.  While the Boston couldn't kill me, it did force me to maneuver, thus allowing the slow Hurricane Mk Is to catch up.

[Tank-Ace]

I've been pushing for GV's in scenarios since the first one I've flown. One of the reasons I'm told is that many of the recent events would be difficult to balance with our current GV set.

For example, a North Afrika scenario including GV's would be easier to do now, because we have the Panzer IV F. Give them the Panzer IV, bolstered by a handfull of Tiger's, and give the allies the M4 bolstered with a double handfull of M4(76)'s (to represent 6lber armed british tanks, and Tank Destroyers).


As I've said, before, and is undeniably true, the A6M's can fill in for the Ki-43's with less pronounced differences in combat, than we would have with using LW GV's for EW setups, and trying to balance those out by throwing in OTHER latewar GV's.

Not real familiar with the LaGG, and I'm leery of wikipidea, but isn't its preformance pretty close to the I-16's? If not, then I'll give you that one, for setup-specific vehicles.

[Karnak]

Just because you claim something does not make it true.  The Bf109E-7 is not more different from the Bf109E-4 than the Ki-43-I is from the A6M2, given that the latter two are completely different airframes with completely different flight characteristics.

I doubt GVs will ever be able to be a significant part of a scenario, not matter how complete the lineup is.  They simply operate on too different a timescale compared to airplanes.