UPDATE III

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

UPDATE III

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> UPDATE III

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

UPDATE III - 9/18/2006 2:50:55 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

okay for this shot, it is just to show how the escourt can be set up

which besides the 1000 foot adjustment, there is also a 100 foot one

so you can add or subtrack pretty much anything you want, if you want to go that far into the details

CE (Close Escourt is going to put you I believe about 500 foot above the raid)
HE (High Escourt is going to put you at least 2000 feet above the raid)

(which of course you can change if you wish)

IE, in the Med, since the B-25/B-26/A-20 are not really good at higher alts and most have a Max Alt of around 20000, you can set the bombers to fly at 15000, and then set your escourt fighters to HE, at 4000 ft above the raid, and you will keep them below the alt that will degrade there proformance, while still letting them do there job

Alt for fighters is tricky and is based on the player, what I like, may not be what others like (in fact we used to have a number of debates on what is best and what does not work on the old fourm)

if you put your fighters too high and the GE come in on derect attack, you may miss them, if you put them too low and the GE come in on bounce bomber, or bounce fighter, you gonna get bounced

alot of people don't really like CE, as the idea is they are flying close to the bombers and the fighters attacking will have to fight there way though them, so what happens is the GE bounce and attack the fighters instead of the bombers

which depending on your play style, may be a good thing or a bad thing, I tend to follow the idea of using bombers as bait to draw the LW into the air, so my fighters can shoot them down, others would rather lose 50 fighters instead of losing 50 bombers, just so the target can be hit and knocked out, depends on your play style

Oh, and just let me say again, the way I write, talk, may come across wrong, I tend to write with the so called, imperail "WE" and "I"

so if I say, we decided or I decided or I seen, I mean, Harley, Waynno and I (for the programming, data side) and most of the rest of the Team for the reseach and ideas, I get to do all the writting and all the talking, but there are a lot more in this then just me

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: UPDATE III - 9/18/2006 3:21:58 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

okay something that is a little odd

the Eight AF, in Nov got a order from Ajax, (Ajax was the code name of the upper command of the VIIIth Airforce)that they were to increase there squadron size

so fighters, pretty much went from 16 active to 24, and I think (IIRC) that the bombers went from 8 to 12

which in a FG there are 3 Squadrons, in a BG there are 4, the main idea early in the war was on a raid day, 3 squadrons from each BG would be asked to put up enough planes so that the BG would fly a 18 plane unit

which gave one Squadron, pretty much the day off (unless they needed to put up spares in case of fall outs and what not)

in Nov, once the order came out and enough time past that the planes and men were there, the BGs started to fly A and B groups, as did the FGs, the FGs were set up so they could also fly a C unit

but most of what I can find, most A and B missions were flown at 36 planes, and the C if flown, would be either a 16 or a 24 plane unit

with the game system we have, I have gone with the idea that the VIIIth FGs will have A and B group, but that means they will be a little stronger then they should be, but they will not have the C group, so I see it as if the C group was also flying to make up the extra numbers

the BGs get touchy

in the game we got a 48 plane group, that can fly 32, which is pretty much a A and B group set up, just a little weak, so instead of adding a A and B, I have Left the Groups alone, they will be stronger then they should be early, but pretty close later and for most of the war

which of course, means we got a hassle for the rest of the AF's, I know that the IXth BG's expanded, but can not find anything to say the IXth FGs flew A and B, (the FGs did grow to close the size of the VIIIth, but mainly flew squadron size missions) which it was not really there intention or set up, once they got away from helping out the VIIIth

so, for right now, the IXth is set up with normal size FG/BGs (48 flyable, 72 total fighters, and 32 flyable and 48 total bombers)

the 12th is about the same as the IXth

the 15th is a Major hassle, I know the BGs in the 15th flew A and B groups, but can not find anything on the FGs, plus we do not use FGs in the 15th, we get the squadrons

so for right now, the 15th will fly the basic squadron, until such time as I can prove they also expanded

but in the MED, I do not think that is a major hassle, a A and B set up for the fighters, would for the most part be over kill and are not really needed, other then the fact if they were there, they should be there

not sure if that is going to help or hurt the understanding of the OOB set up

speaking of the 15th
if you played the old game, you may know about the 15th fighter bug, that is smashed, there were 18 FS in the game but when the 15th became active, only 9 I think, went to the 15th, the other 9 disappeared (unless they were flying non US fighters, then they stayed in the 12th)

which, now, all the Squadrons that should get to the 15th, get to the 15th, only hassle, is some of them get there before they really should, some of them squadrons did stay with the 12th and only later joined the 15th

but for game play, and programming reasons, I decided to allow all the squadrons that should go, to go
(ah, this one is on me, it was my call on how to handle it, so right or wrong, I am the blame)

ahhh, now to open a can of worms

the GB or CW Squadrons, right now we get a 27 plane unit, which for the GB/CW means a 24-3 set up, the hassle being, that is a Bomber Command set up, not Fighter Command, which overall, FC squadrons should be more a 12-4/6 set up (but so saying, they were also expanding and had extra planes and pilots, but they still fly the same basic formation as before)

right now, I want to hold off on this issue and save it for a patch, when we got more time to study and work out the details

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 2

RE: UPDATE III - 9/18/2006 3:31:41 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I had made mention of some of the GE planes and how they could be made heavy or light (normal)

here is a shot of the plane data base, showing some of the planes

(I kind of cheated with the 109K-6, it really should be a 109K-4/R, the K-4 didn't change into a K-6, but I didn't want to make the player reseach two planes of the same type, and then build two planes of the same type, and I thought the firepower of the K-6 to be enough of a reason to have it in the game)

but the rest of them are simi right

the 190A-5/R1 is a little shaky, I find reports of it this way and then I find reports of a A-5/U10, which was a test bed to see if it was a good idea, and then on the next model, it became the A-6/R1

so depending on the source, some say yea and other say nay

(I really don't want to say how many books I got that disagree with each other)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 9/18/2006 3:43:26 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 3

RE: UPDATE III - 9/18/2006 3:47:15 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

it is a little HARD to see from the shot, but the A5 has 2 wing mounted 20mm FF MGs, while the A-6 has two wing mounted 151/20 Cannons mounted, they show the same damage, but the Acc is better on the latter

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 4

RE: UPDATE III - 9/18/2006 5:59:39 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Okay let me go over some of the bug list

SAS bug fix

Climb rate bug corrected, planes now climb at there climb rate, before, they could go from 0 to 25000 in one minute

Leader Exe Bug, leaders would show up in the game and most would be 50, corrected (not that some leaders may still show up at 50, but that is what they should be)

High Bombing Bug (was also in BoB, UV and WitP, Gary G was kind enough to expain what he did, so we were able to find and correct it)

Early Game Scoreing now shown Correctly if Minus

Double damage if hitting a Balloon (you flew into a Balloon, you lost two planes)

Intercept bug

Manatory Targetting bug corrected (a big one, a lot of targets were not being tracked in Overlord and Advalnce, so all the damage done, was not showing up, so Matantory was keep on when it should of been turned off)

Freese Ray (already talked about)

Dover/Belfast (already talked about)

199 mission Bug (game would crash when you plotted 199 missions)

Pilot Currupion bug

Flak kills of GE planes were getting listed as Allied planes

some features

New Waypoints

Patrol Mode

Ground kills added to unit page

Ground kills added to pilot page

FB can now sweep and can escourt other FB on sweeps

Pilot and Aircraft losses are now tracked by unit

Axis Production (GB in BoB) now set to data base, instead of Exe

Recon take more then one Snap during mission (believe it is up to 5)

Recon Pilots can now gain exp

a training system has been added to the game, abstract, but it is there

3 new nations added to the data base

new devices

AI Mk. VIII radar
12000 Tallboy

Helgoland Island

Airfields, Oils, Fuel, Cities, AFAC, EFAC

a number of Ports

I show 55 new or changed plane types

and that is from a set of note from 4 months ago :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 5

RE: UPDATE III - 9/18/2006 6:08:19 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Okay, Training

each turn, each basic Nation gets so many pilots, they have a base number, +or- (believe 5)

so, say the US is going to get X number of pilots a day in 1943, so the�numbers would be around 55, +or- based on a die roll, so, again, the�numbers should fall in the 50 to 60 range,�if there is a day, where they do not take all of there pilots (they basicly lose the unused ones, they do not stack) the next day, those pilots not taken, would be given a +1 to there after die roll number, so if you did not use 3 of the�pilots on day 17, on day�18, the first 3 pilots would be given a�+1 to there�Exp Number

if they go a few turns with out any pilots being needed, they it keeps growing (there is a cap set, so you will not get a bunch of 99 Exp pilots)�

which so saying each Nation has different base numbers and numbers that they get, the US is going to get more pilots then the CW, the CW are going to get more pilots then the French or the Poles and or what not

and each also has a different base Exp to begin with

Combat is still going to be your best teacher, but it is something to help along a little if you are not needing to use your pilot replacements everyday

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 9/18/2006 6:19:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 6

RE: UPDATE III - 9/20/2006 3:36:37 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

Any special targets for the Tallboy?

Check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 7

RE: UPDATE III - 9/20/2006 5:09:17 AM

Mannock

Posts: 87
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

So RAF fighter units can now escort US bombers? Because they couldn't in BTR, as far as I can remember. And that was annoying since RAF did help out the US bombers on more than one occasion.

By the way, will the campaigns/scenarios be the same as they were in the original games? Or will you add campaigns/scenarios or modify the existing ones in any way?

_____________________________

Always from below, seldom on the same level and never from above. - Mannock revised.

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 8

RE: UPDATE III - 9/20/2006 1:41:05 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Some questions of the visible aircraft data:
Why do cannon-armed versions of the Bf 109G (with R6 package) and the K-6 get an extra point in durability? I hope it's only for gameplay reasons as in reality they do not much to increase aircraft strength or survivability.
The Bf 109 K-4 is reported to reach 715 km/h and that should be somewhat in the 444 mph range.
The Fw 190 D-9 is reported to reach 438 mph in 5.5 km alt with Sonder-Notleistung using higher octane C3 fuel or 430 mph at 5.4 km with boost-increase kit (1900 PS base engine) and MW-50 injection. Also the climb rats look a little low. Some data
Did you remove the armor-2 types completely or did you just forgot it with Fw 190 A-8/R7 and A-8/R8 Sturmbocks?

Was the drop tank issue resolved with the german planes getting less minutes from a gallon of fuel than the allied ones did get?

(in reply to Mannock)

Post #: 9

RE: UPDATE III - 9/20/2006 2:56:35 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Lets see

Tallboy, pretty much is just going to be a big bomb, but over all (right now) only 617 and later 9 squadrons can carry them (if either squadron changes plane types, they will not get the tallboy back)

with in reason, the Tallboy was pretty much 3 Cookies bolted together and then streamlined

we would need some major recodeing to make targets that would only be effected by them (but sub pens and what not would be the prime targets of choice, and BB's if we could fit them in)

RAF, right now, we have a ADGB HQ that is attached to the VIIIth and one that is attached to the IXth, that have some units that will fly Escourt with the US, other then that, the rest are locked into flying with just there own units

(talk and ideas on trying to let units change command and what not, but again, too much too soon, so don't count on it)

Campaigns

right now, we got a 1940 and 41 Campaign for BoB, each will have the mini Campaigns included
we also have the 43 and 44 Campaign for BTR

those are Data Base controlled, so I can work with them and set them up, the short battles in BTR, need to be HARD coded (like the Jet Campaign in BTR, the unit changes and what not, are in the Code, not in the data)

so... I would look for the 4 main Campaigns and hopefully the training one day battle for sure, and then the rest that were in the game as time allows

to the good, all the info is there already, or will be, it is just getting it set up to use

(I would really like to revamp a what if campaign)

Wow Good eye, I missed that, we had to do a lot of moving of data around to get every thing lined up, I think that is one of the slots that didn't change correctly (build rates and upgrades didn't either)

so yes you are correct, they should have the same numbers as the plain jane models (Dang)

you going to hit me for 3 miles a hour ? :)

naw, I am not using book speeds for some of the later models, I have a number of British test results that I used for them

one thing they found about about the stats on the K, most of them were based on the 4 bladed prop, that it never ended up flying with, and also a lot of the stats the GE stated for there late war models, were all worked out in wind tunnel tests (the airspace over GE land, was not too swift for running basic trails, Kurt Tank got jumped while flying a TA-152, and some other test pilots scored kills during there test flights)

so where I could, I went with the GB test results, the hassle being, that I couldn't use or have there results on every plane, just some

as you know, alot of the numbers for what a lot of the planes could do, they never reached

we dropped the 2 armor, in fact most of what it did, was to tell the plane it was a attack plane and not a fighter, so don't fight, so changing that number to a 1 helps with the FB types

the Fuel system has been totally reworked, twice, so pretty much the ranges and fuel should work the same for both sides, one hassle is, the drop tank may not hold as much fuel as most people would think

(the US 200 Gallon tank, I really chopped that one down, they never flew with it full to start with and it was dropped as soon as they hit the coast, as you couldn't climb over 20 K and have it work)

(which so saying, I am not sure if we got anything that even uses the 200 gallon tank, but it is in there)

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 9/20/2006 3:29:02 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 10

RE: UPDATE III - 9/20/2006 3:25:08 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

oh forgot to mention

climb rates are touchy, most times they tell Max rate or starting rate, not the total rate, so when I could, I tried to work more with the time to Alt rates then max

some planes may have a 4500 a minute climb rate posted, but then state that it took 7 minutes and 23 seconds to reach 20,000 ft

plus a lot of times, the best climbing speed was slow, over all, with in reason, the idea was (depending on plane and type) to pull up nose up and hit around 150 mph

when you see these 4000-5000 rates, they were going full speed and pulled up, they get a great burst of climb, but can not maintain it for long

(LOL, My flight simming beta days, we worked on the 109 K4, we couldn't pull the nose up enough to hit 150 in a climb, talk about a rocket !, but over all, give me a F any day)

okay, how does this look

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 9/20/2006 3:26:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 11

RE: UPDATE III - 9/20/2006 8:49:19 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Lets see

Tallboy, pretty much is just going to be a big bomb, but over all (right now) only 617 and later 9 squadrons can carry them (if either squadron changes plane types, they will not get the tallboy back)

with in reason, the Tallboy was pretty much 3 Cookies bolted together and then streamlined

we would need some major recodeing to make targets that would only be effected by them (but sub pens and what not would be the prime targets of choice, and BB's if we could fit them in)

I don't know whether you have just explained it quickly, but it sounds as if you are mixing up the Tallboy with the 12000lb HC. The 12000HC was indeed effectively 3 4000lb cookies bolted together, and only marginally streamlined, It was first used in 15/16 Sept 1943 against the Dortmund-Ems canal by 617 sqd. Tallboy was a completely separate device, in a forged casing with a bolt on aft section and tail, and was designed as a deep penetration weapon. It was first used in 1944 vs the Saumur railway tunnel, also by 617.
For ref: Tallboy, weight 11,800lb, charge: 5200lb torpex, with a 1" cushioning (sic) layer of TNT in the nose.

(Grand slam was an exact scale of Tallboy to 22000lb)

I haven't got exact stats for the 12000lb HC, but it had a charge ratio of c 70% (i.e. 8400lb) of Minol I believe.

Tallboys need (were used for) specialist targets, 12000lb HC are just a very big bang!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 12

RE: UPDATE III - 9/20/2006 11:07:09 PM

Richrd

Posts: 340
Joined: 6/22/2002
Status: offline

So, you can begin training German pilots but the scenario begins past the point where it can make a difference?

_____________________________

Richrd

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 13

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 12:21:26 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Will there be a scenario for going past hte historical end date of the war so we can have B-29's maybe carrying 2 Grand Slams??!!

(in reply to Richrd)

Post #: 14

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 2:37:38 AM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Just for Info:
The K-4 with 4-bladed D�nnblattpropeller (thin blade prop) reached 728 km/h, the standard K-4 with 3-bladed prop the given 715 km/h.

British war test reports should always taken with a grain of salt, they often used crash-landed and repaired aircraft for their test or used this test data and interpolating it to a newer version (the famous Bf 109 F-2 with dodgy engine interpolated to F-4 with stronger engine (they knew of) and prop with wider blades (they didn't knew of)).

What I don't like with the R6 babies is the very high loss in MVR, probably 1 (maybe two) point too much, but a really low loss of climb rate. AFAIK these two MG 151/20 with installation and ammo weighted about 150 to 200 kg each and this should affect climbrate somewhat higher.
Here's a late-war british test report of a G-6/U2 with R6 package (as noted as two 20 m guns in underwing gondolas, clearly visible in the pics). Especially interesting are the range tables showing the Spits as really short-legged, even with a 90 imp gallon drop tank not reaching the G-6 with 66 imp gallon drop tank

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

< Message edited by Denniss -- 9/21/2006 2:40:14 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 15

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 5:24:39 AM

Mannock

Posts: 87
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

RAF, right now, we have a ADGB HQ that is attached to the VIIIth and one that is attached to the IXth, that have some units that will fly Escourt with the US, other then that, the rest are locked into flying with just there own units

Well, that's better than nothing. I think it will be a nice boost for the escorting of bombers. :)

Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

_____________________________

Always from below, seldom on the same level and never from above. - Mannock revised.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 16

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 11:56:57 AM

George Patton

Posts: 1238
Joined: 7/12/2005
From: Lugano, Switzerland
Status: offline

I know, guys, that you heard this question dozen of times. But we'll have this fabulous game before Christmas?

(in reply to Mannock)

Post #: 17

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 3:09:54 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Lets see

Tallboy, pretty much is just going to be a big bomb, but over all (right now) only 617 and later 9 squadrons can carry them (if either squadron changes plane types, they will not get the tallboy back)

with in reason, the Tallboy was pretty much 3 Cookies bolted together and then streamlined

we would need some major recodeing to make targets that would only be effected by them (but sub pens and what not would be the prime targets of choice, and BB's if we could fit them in)

I don't know whether you have just explained it quickly, but it sounds as if you are mixing up the Tallboy with the 12000lb HC. The 12000HC was indeed effectively 3 4000lb cookies bolted together, and only marginally streamlined, It was first used in 15/16 Sept 1943 against the Dortmund-Ems canal by 617 sqd. Tallboy was a completely separate device, in a forged casing with a bolt on aft section and tail, and was designed as a deep penetration weapon. It was first used in 1944 vs the Saumur railway tunnel, also by 617.
For ref: Tallboy, weight 11,800lb, charge: 5200lb torpex, with a 1" cushioning (sic) layer of TNT in the nose.

(Grand slam was an exact scale of Tallboy to 22000lb)

I haven't got exact stats for the 12000lb HC, but it had a charge ratio of c 70% (i.e. 8400lb) of Minol I believe.

Tallboys need (were used for) specialist targets, 12000lb HC are just a very big bang!

Well, I would have to say, you caught me up in being a designer, and yes you are correct, what I made was based on the 12000 HC, only my thinking was that maybe 1 in 10 may know about the 12000 HC, where most everyone has heard of the Tallboy

and since the game does have have any need for the real Tallboy, I figured I would just use it name instead for the HC

which from now on, it will be named the 12000 HC Bomb

_____________________________

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 18

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 3:14:26 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richrd

So, you can begin training German pilots but the scenario begins past the point where it can make a difference?

if you can get to a state, where you are not needing replacements, then any bonus you gain, will be of help

I will agree, if you base skill is 25, and you get a 27, big deal, but when you do have a chance to get some trained pilots there base is much better

where this may kick in and the Allied player a bite in the boot, is in the Med and the East, they decide that the MED is not importent enough to waste time down there, the Co axis, the Hun, the Romy and the It may end up training some nice pilots, but they will never get enough of them, to make a major difference though

_____________________________

(in reply to Richrd)

Post #: 19

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 3:17:09 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Will there be a scenario for going past hte historical end date of the war so we can have B-29's maybe carrying 2 Grand Slams??!!

hmmm, to be honest, I do not really know what the end date in the normal game is (I never got there) but overall, right now, the end will be the same as the current game

now if and when we get to work on some what if, since we have to mess with the code anyway, it should not be HARD to change some dates around

_____________________________

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 20

RE: UPDATE III - 9/21/2006 3:30:41 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Just for Info:
The K-4 with 4-bladed D�nnblattpropeller (thin blade prop) reached 728 km/h, the standard K-4 with 3-bladed prop the given 715 km/h.

British war test reports should always taken with a grain of salt, they often used crash-landed and repaired aircraft for their test or used this test data and interpolating it to a newer version (the famous Bf 109 F-2 with dodgy engine interpolated to F-4 with stronger engine (they knew of) and prop with wider blades (they didn't knew of)).

What I don't like with the R6 babies is the very high loss in MVR, probably 1 (maybe two) point too much, but a really low loss of climb rate. AFAIK these two MG 151/20 with installation and ammo weighted about 150 to 200 kg each and this should affect climbrate somewhat higher.
Here's a late-war british test report of a G-6/U2 with R6 package (as noted as two 20 m guns in underwing gondolas, clearly visible in the pics). Especially interesting are the range tables showing the Spits as really short-legged, even with a 90 imp gallon drop tank not reaching the G-6 with 66 imp gallon drop tank

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

well, again, since I am not using the so called max climb rate for the clean model, I do not think the dirty model is that much slower in the climb (but to be honest, really good info that you can use on the 109 is HARD to find, 386 MPH for every model is standard)

I disagree with the MRV loss too, but that was Gray G's design (in fact, his drop was 7, I made it 5 and then made it stardard thoughout all models)

hmmm, I think there is something very wrong with that stat sheet, they giving the 109 a 1 hour and 20 minutes extra range with a 66 gallon tank ?

most combat reports from the pilots state the 109 and 190 pretty much had a hour of fuel

I think who ever was writting that report was smoking something before it's time

_____________________________

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 21

RE: UPDATE III - 9/22/2006 3:49:38 AM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

I assume these pilot reports include some 10 or so minutes of combat with increased fuel usage and/or some minutes reserve. Also with drop tank cruise speed was a little slower resulting in a somewhat different endurance (321 mph without and 305 mph with drop tank, miles divided by flight hours).

Another thing looking somewhat strange is the high mvr rating for the G-14. The G-14 was nothing special, basically a late-production G-6 with the wooden tail and MW-50 as standard. It may be a little different if you intended to use the G-14/AS, but then it should be named as such. If the G-5 is intended to use the DB 605AS engine then it should be renamed to G-5/AS (there were several other G-5 with DB 605A engine and GM-1 injection and also recon variants). Also missing is some loss in max alt for the R6 cannon birds, remember the extra weight they carry.

Also the Fw 190A block needs some further digging, the A-8 was known to be heavier and slower than the earlier ones (AFAIK the A-5 was the fastest until the A-9 with the stronger engine came to life in 1944), max alt should also be affected. The A-8 is often reported with ~640 km/h compared to the 660 km/h of the A-5.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 22

RE: UPDATE III - 9/22/2006 11:11:53 AM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

RAF, right now, we have a ADGB HQ that is attached to the VIIIth and one that is attached to the IXth, that have some units that will fly Escourt with the US, other then that, the rest are locked into flying with just there own units

I'd definitely vote for interchangeable escorts for the future, if possible. FC, 2nd TAF and 9th AF fighter units should all be available to escort the 8th AF, maybe va a filter screen which allows selection/deselection of available escort forces. But this sounds like an executable issue to me.

Campaigns

A extra, longer campaign starting from 17th August '42 would be cool in my opinion - starting on the date of the first 8th AF raid. The relevant North African airfields for Operation Torch are all pretty much there - well a starting minimum, at any rate. Just an idea. Or maybe starting from the first 8th raid on Germany in January 1943, but otherwise with the same setup (North Africa, then Sicily, first escorts arriving for the 8th AF). The lack of available LW units should make this more of a diversion/distraction campaign in the ETO, with cunning moves paying off and allowing unescorted forces to go deep into German airspace... if they're lucky....

(I would really like to revamp a what if campaign)

Good idea. Although the Meteor III, Vampire and P-80 all had pretty limited range as escort fighters, and so the LW will benefit proportionately more from the creation of a sandpit to play with the rarer types.

A further mad idea from the old board - how about making Allied production changeable? I 'm not too bothered about this (the political problems behind ending P-39, P-40 and Hurricane II production earlier than 1944, for example, were historically insoluable) - but it is something others have raised before.

alot of the numbers for what a lot of the planes could do, they never reached

Precisely. I agree with your perspective 100% here. Using the Rate of Climb to altitude is also a better idea than using maximum rate of climb at one specific altitude as well.

After this uncharacteristic agreement, normal whingeing will resume shortly.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 23

RE: UPDATE III - 9/22/2006 3:11:13 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

109's

my basic point of view on the late models, is that they should really degrade, instead of improve, (the G10 was better then the G6, but) the G14 was just a model to get all the improves made to the G6 into one and the same model, only that didn't even work, with the G14 being different then each other

a lot of reports I have read on the K4 was it was pretty much a lead slead, it was fast, it could climb and it had powerful guns, and for a hit and run plane it was good, other then that, it was in trouble

but so saying, Gary G's designs, the MRV is not just turn rate

and if I make the G10 have a MRV of 34 and the G14 a 32 and a K4 a 30, who is going to build them, you end up with no game

(one odd fact, the K4 has the best range of any of the 109s, totally different then what the game had before)

info on the true speeds of alot of these planes is shaky to say the least, like the FW, while each model got more guns and more armor, they also got more engine, and a lot of the docs and specs still give each model the same numbers, also, don't forget the A8 was a true fighter, the R7/R8 were the ones with the added armor plating

and over all, none of these numbers are totally set in stone

if I find a better source that I feel I can trust, I will make changes

_____________________________

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 24

RE: UPDATE III - 9/22/2006 3:37:58 PM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fochinell
Campaigns

A extra, longer campaign starting from 17th August '42 would be cool in my opinion - starting on the date of the first 8th AF raid. The relevant North African airfields for Operation Torch are all pretty much there - well a starting minimum, at any rate. Just an idea. Or maybe starting from the first 8th raid on Germany in January 1943, but otherwise with the same setup (North Africa, then Sicily, first escorts arriving for the 8th AF). The lack of available LW units should make this more of a diversion/distraction campaign in the ETO, with cunning moves paying off and allowing unescorted forces to go deep into German airspace... if they're lucky....

Starting the campaign in 1942 sounds really good. Gives the whole campaign a little foreplay to the big things that start in 1943. Would also be a good starting point because the player hasn't that much to do and can get easier into the game.

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 25

RE: UPDATE III - 9/22/2006 10:27:46 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

I too will chime in and say that a 1942 start would be terrific. Although the historical targets where mostly Uboat pens, the player shouldn't forced to follow that path (or maybe one should - but that would require more code work that just changing database stuff).

January 1943 would be okay too as it was the "official" start of the strategic bomber offense. Not sure why GG picked 1 Aug in both USAAF and BTR - it marks what? The Hamburg raids had just ended. Schweinfurt/Regensburg was 2 weeks away. It appears to be arbitrary without an historican basis - at least that I can think of.

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 26

RE: UPDATE III - 9/23/2006 12:37:26 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

BTR starts on the 17th of Aug ?

you may have them mixed up with time

42 ? wow you guys like pain, 2 years before you can do anything ?

now, I think the MED would be more fun and interesting then it is in BTR

but your plane models and choices are going to be pretty bad

and I would hate to see what the AI would try to do as the Allies, it can make some really bonehead moves in late 44, when it got all the power it needs

over all, I am blocked by a number of NDA's from here and other places, so even offering ideas or sujections, could be seen as saying too much (and now, don't read anything into that)

but over all, I would have to say, to have a 42 or a 41 campaign, I think this engine is a bit too long in the tooth, we would need land combat, more detailed and controllable then is in BTR (to try and add it, means a whole lot of recodeing, more like a new game system)(plus in BoB and BTR, everything links to everything else, so I do not think we could just do a subprogram and add it in)

also, in BoB, while the GB do have a Off force, it is nowhere near what the GE has, so you can set them up to be on the defence and let the GE pound away, and pretty much by late 43 you can say the same about the GE, in 41 or 42, you need a duel turn system, you need ships and you need supplies, supply lines, you have both of those you need subs

way too much to abstract, but it could be done

you need a new OOB, which would not be too bad, as you could just delay a lot of BTR that is already there, but major recoding for the HQ's and the later changes

if anything, I really think, this may be a down the road project and a iffy one at that

we got to get this one done first and it has to be liked and played

(I like it, I can't wait to be able to "play" it instead of run tests though it all the time)

don't get me thinking, Harley don't like me when I am thinking

_____________________________

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 27

RE: UPDATE III - 9/25/2006 11:38:12 AM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

42 ? wow you guys like pain, 2 years before you can do anything ?

It is the journey as much as the arrival, Grasshopper.

now, I think the MED would be more fun and interesting then it is in BTR
but your plane models and choices are going to be pretty bad

Keeping German production low by staggering factory arrivals would help. If a '42 replacement program was possible, all you'd have to do would be to produce large numbers of Spit V's, Hurri II's and P-40E's and F's, with a smattering of P-39D's, P-38Fs's and Spit IXC's, while the Axis would be limited by having fewer LW units (to minimise the superiority of the 109G and 190A) and by being forced to use the Italians extensively in North Africa.

The AI will make some crass errors, but it does that in the '43-45 campaign anyway. I take your point about the engine, but I reckon it would still have some mileage to run like BTR is now - Torch could replicate the invasion of Italy (Vichy units disband), and the German side is on the defensive from Alamein through Torch, into Tunisia. The OB would be tedious, but do-able (switching FC and 8th AF units to Torch is the only real biggie I can think of); the big command changes would only really be moving the 9th AF from Africa to the UK in mid-1943, which was an HQ change with no units. Otherwise, you can run things with the 8th AF, 12th AF, FC, 2TAF, 205 Group pretty much as they are, with MAC absorbing RAF Eastern Command (the RAF contribution to Torch).

if anything, I really think, this may be a down the road project and a iffy one at that
we got to get this one done first and it has to be liked and played

Sure. Just bouncing some madness around.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 28

RE: UPDATE III - 9/25/2006 11:40:00 AM

fochinell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11/19/2005
Status: offline

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 29

RE: UPDATE III - 9/25/2006 7:28:21 PM

petgod1

Posts: 21
Joined: 8/11/2006
Status: offline

I would like to see the 2 games combined! But starting with the BoF then you fight the BOB.

In 41 the Allies "lean in to France", Rubharbs and the like, whilst the Axis could continue BOB in 41 depending on results in 40 and other areas. Then you can move into 43 and onwards as per the old BTR.

The Med would initially be fought in Greece and N. Africa, and Malta then move to the battle for Sicily and onward.

With the 39 start and running through to VE day you can fight the entire war with Bomber Command, this would also greatly enhance Bomber Commands contribution to the effort with all the early (39-43) trials and screw ups.

All the bases would change hands in France and N Africa when relevant.

I know this is unlikely but it would be lovely to see! A kind of WITP for the air war in Europe.

(in reply to fochinell)

Post #: 30