Plane Replacement? (Full Version)

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



Message

ool -> Plane Replacement? (8/8/2010 1:08:15 PM)

Some Luftwaffe groups have Bf109G'2s. When I select change plane type I see only a limited selection of alternate plane types. Why doesn't the list allow all available planes in use by the Axis? If not at the beginning of the 8/43 campaign do all the other plane types in use become available on the replacement list at a later time?

Also I've read in some of these threads that FW109/5 should be immediately replaced with FW190/6. I know that in the original BTR the dramatic drop in performance above 20K wasn't built into the game. Looking at the weapons database I see the listed performance differences but can anyone tell me the improvements if any in regards to altitude limitations between the different FW=190 versions?

Thanks in advance for any replies.



Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/8/2010 5:04:38 PM)

I thought only the 190D was good at high altitude(of the 190 family bar the TA152), the rest are best used vs the bombers while any 109's try and distract the escorts imo.

If you change the G2's to a real german type ie the 190/6 then you can change again to all the good planes. IIRC the G2 is in use by the axis minors when the game starts, you will be able to change them to other types when your pools are big enough.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/8/2010 6:11:17 PM)

by our terms, the G-2 is a Trainer, LW units that use it, are School units, so they don't get the best of planes to use

later once certain levels are reached (believe date, or large number in stock, thought it was 500) then they can move up to standard fighters (and once they reach standard, then they can make any normal change)

the 190 A-5 is still the pure fighter, it is good as a fighter, the A-6 and beyound, were starting to be set up for anti bomber work, so while better vs a bomber, they are starting to get too heavy for good fighter vs fighter work (other then with the good pilots)



ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/8/2010 9:06:35 PM)

So the D-520 is a trainer as well? It has a exceedingly short list of plane types to select from. Is it a case where morale and experience ot a certain date the list will expand for these squadrons?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/8/2010 9:35:14 PM)

yes, the D-520 is a trainer also, not every plane of this type is really a trainer type, but is how it is set up

date, or numbers in the stock pile, if you are not having to use a lot of replacements, you get a chance to pull from them, part of the idea is to keep the front line units in supply, it can be very easy to run out of front line aircraft





Nikademus -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/9/2010 6:08:41 PM)

D-520's did a great job training your boys how to shoot straight. [:'(]



ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/11/2010 4:25:02 PM)

Would rather they trained on 109's. I can't see the purpose of wasting factories on a D520, IAR etc. Too many models taking too many variant parts, engines etc. Russian model in WW2 may be crude but it was effective. Pick a model that works and crank it out in the thousand. Of course the fact that Stalin decided that the Soviet Union must have 100,000 pilots prior to WW2 was a major factor in the endless supply of pilots for all those thousands of aircraft they cranked out.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 2:55:39 PM)

you are kidding right ?

have you even looked at what the Russians made during the war ? not to count what they flew that the US and England sent to them

also kind of odd, while the 520 was a trainer to the Germans, it was a front line model to others, the It's thought it was a pretty good plane, and the IAR 80/81 were very good planes, much better then most western people give it credit for (most losses to it, when they happened, were claimed to be 190s, when there were no 190s in the area)

the main reason for having factories making these planes, is kind of simple, there were making them, the Germans didn't have the luck, to be able to just shut them all down and change over to something better, like the player can





Dobey455 -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 3:28:15 PM)

Also, bear in mind that historically the German designs were very advanced and required skilled technicians and modern factory equipment to produce.
Of all the German allies I believe only the Hungarians were able to produce 109's on there own production lines.
The other countries (ie Romania, Finland etc) either required finished planes shipped to them or, at best, could assemble the parts and airframes after they rolled off German production lines.



ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 4:24:27 PM)

No I'm not. If you had ever heard the German survivors of the Eastern front you would of learned that the Russians built excellent fighters from 43 on. Yak's were considered to be as good as the German fighters. Simple fact is after the initial slaughter of the Russian air force they did produce excellent fighters and pilots. P39's, P400's were good to expand the Russian air force faster. Simple fact though is they did produce quality contrary to western opinions. Just as any Luftwaffe pilot who flew against them.




ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 5:52:54 PM)

I agree with you to a point. Reprehensible and disgusting as it was the Germans were able to build V2 rockets using slave labour. So I think they would have a core of technicians train what they needed from there for the simpler tasks. Disgusting but if you can build V-2's that way I don't think 109's would be that much of a stretch.



Nicholas Bell -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 6:53:20 PM)

Well the beauty of the game is you can either play historically or experiment with "what if".  I agree that focusing on producing the fewest number of types is the best way to maximize production and reduce the ability of bombing to totally shut down production of a type.  The downside of this is that the models you really want to build are not available until later, and you have to balance current needs against future plans.  And there is something to be said for having a mix of aircraft with different strengths.  Add the fact that some of those factories (especially those critical engine factories) are huge and take months to convert.  Can you afford to have a plant not producing anything for 70 or 80 days?  One has to love this game for all the intricate choices one has to make.  Just too bad it takes so long to play out and see the results of those decisions.

(a useful "strategy" is to convert those large factories right after they have been bombed since they are going to be down anyway)



ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 7:26:43 PM)

I agree with you whole heartedly on that point. Thats why I leave the larger factories alone and convert the ones that are 1 or 2, rarely 3 in size. Its a quick conversion and the allied bombing goes for the bigger factories first owing to the cost benefit analysis especially in the first two weeks. I find that by building as many 190G's and Fw 190's as possible early you can have a signifigant surplus. This surplus then allows you to start systematically converting those factories to the newer types you want a couple of months in advance. I don't know if this version has the same chance for newer model advancement as the original BTR. Overall lets face it playing the German is a truly underdog role, which I relish. The overwhelming industrial and manpower might of the Allies will eventually crush you no matter what you do. So take a chance early, streamline, get a large surplus of certain planes. This will lessen the negative effects you referred to when the large 6, 7 size factories eventually get plugged.



Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 8:02:22 PM)

Yes you can research in adavnce quite easily.

the formula is something like this:- 100 planes produced before its entry date will recuce that date by 1 month per month thats left untill production. ok thats not very well explained. heres a better example.

Plane type 6 months ahead needs 600 planes to reduce by 1 month, while a plane type 3 months ahead will need 300. As time goes on the costs reduce but trying to get a late 45 plane in 43 is imo impossible. Its best to go for 44 era planes 1st then if/when you get the chance try and go for later ones in 44.

There is a download in the war room for dates available (its in need of a couple of corrections) have a look in there.

and above all have fun.



ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/12/2010 8:11:13 PM)

Thanks for your explanation. I usually have two maybe three factories ahead of time ready to produce what I want when the available date comes up. As the date approaches I start to retool all the smaller size one and two factories to the newer type. That leaves the larger ones producing the current types. If they get nailed the large surplus I get built up sees me through the conversion time to full production.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/13/2010 1:13:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ool

No I'm not. If you had ever heard the German survivors of the Eastern front you would of learned that the Russians built excellent fighters from 43 on. Yak's were considered to be as good as the German fighters. Simple fact is after the initial slaughter of the Russian air force they did produce excellent fighters and pilots. P39's, P400's were good to expand the Russian air force faster. Simple fact though is they did produce quality contrary to western opinions. Just as any Luftwaffe pilot who flew against them.




well, it seems like you know a little about Russian Aircraft, then you should understand my answer, the Russians didn't just build one or two planes and make many of them

your statement about the Yak is right, but, which model ? how many models and types did they make ? (have you ever seen how many yak 9 model/types there were ?)

but, back to the LW

it just wasn't that easy, the 109 was suppost to be phased out, the 190 was a great plane, but..., it's engine was no good above 20,000 feet, all of the work on the 190 C wasn't looking like it was going to be useful (in the end, it was, but not in the form it was intended)

so the 109 ended up needing to stay in production, while work on other models and types were made, trying to find a replacement for both, but, both needed to stay in production too

(remember, odd part about the Spitfire, as great as it was, the English were always trying to replace it, but the replacements were never as good, so it just keep on fighting)

by 43, the 109 was getting long in the tooth and should of been replaced, but they didn't have anything that was better, so it just kept getting longer and longer

at least the LW figured out (too late) that they needed to cut down on most of the worthless models being worked on (the 219 was aways being cut, then added, then cut again)

I tried to have Harley worked out a system for the AI to follow suit and drop the heavy production of the twins, once 44 rolls around, but it wasn't doable (so far at least)

Jabo's, you are going to have a lot of units coming in later in the war, that need these, you need to either have a large stockpile, or you need to keep them in production, or you will have a lot of empty units sitting around




ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/13/2010 2:22:43 PM)

Yak models 1,7,9. Of the Yak 9 over 16K were built. The Mig 3 was the first Soviet fighter to fight on a equal footing with the 109F and G models.

I never said the 109 was out of my planning. It will be there till the bitter end. Other models simply don't cut it and are a waste of time and resources amid the myriad of parts, engines and models. Rough guess I narrowed the production to roughly a dozen models and convert as needed when newer improved variants come along. It sure leads to a host of surplus planes so when the factories get flattened the impact is minimized owing to the large surplus waiting to fill the void. It beats running out of planes. Something I never had happen in the old version of BTR. Doubt I will run out in this version either. Thats a big plus knowing that. Fuel is another matter![X(]



Hard Sarge -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/13/2010 5:16:37 PM)

hmmm, and you leave out the best of the Yaks, the Yak 3 ?

there were 20 different models of the Yak 9

I would disagree with the Mig statement, the 109 E was as good or better, but it was the only SU plane of it's time that could fly and fight at high alt (it was a pure boom and zoom type plane, at a time, when everybody wanted to turn and burn, so never really got to use what it was good at)

as a player, you got a better chance of keeping your planes in stock, the AI will get burned out quick, most of what was done, was to try to keep the AI from over extending itself, the player will figured out how to work around it

plus to be honest, the "poor" plane production is there, so the player can make changes to what they want to build (I could of locked those types into production and taken the factories away)





Nikademus -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/13/2010 6:13:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ool

Yak models 1,7,9. Of the Yak 9 over 16K were built. The Mig 3 was the first Soviet fighter to fight on a equal footing with the 109F and G models.


MiG-3 was designed as a high altitude interceptor but ended up fighting much lower where it was not a good match for the Bf-109. Neither was the LaGG-3 which had poor maneuverability and acceleration. Early on, only the Yak-1 was considered to be a full match for the Bf-109F.



wernerpruckner -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/13/2010 7:41:38 PM)

Ool,

look for the Black Cross, Red Star books!
you may get a good overview about the Soviet and German air actions on the Eastern Front with them.



Erkki -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/13/2010 8:46:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: ool

Yak models 1,7,9. Of the Yak 9 over 16K were built. The Mig 3 was the first Soviet fighter to fight on a equal footing with the 109F and G models.


MiG-3 was designed as a high altitude interceptor but ended up fighting much lower where it was not a good match for the Bf-109. Neither was the LaGG-3 which had poor maneuverability and acceleration. Early on, only the Yak-1 was considered to be a full match for the Bf-109F.



MiG-3 could sometimes disengage a 109, but in a dogfight, it was not a match. At higher altitude it was faster, but suffered from horrible compressibility problems.

Jak-1 was no match to 109F either. Below 4000m-ish it could somehow fight back(better than LaGG-3), but above that, it was hopeless. VK102PF2 engined, bubble-canopy Jak-1BPF of early 43 was a match to 109G at some areas(and in roll, superior), but like others it was crap at higher altitudes.

However, the Soviets had no real need for a high altitude fighter. Later Jaks and Las did their job there, too, apparently well enough those times it was required - one must remember than the Germans' main target, Il-2s and bombers, usually flew NOE or max 4000m.

EDIT: forgot to mention that in 41, I think only half of the 109s at the Ostfront were 109Fs(mostly F4s and F4/Bs I think). The rest were Emils, though this time, all with propeller pitch automatics.



Nikademus -> RE: Plane Replacement? (8/13/2010 9:57:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki
Jak-1 was no match to 109F either. Below 4000m-ish it could somehow fight back(better than LaGG-3), but above that, it was hopeless.



The before-mentioned Black Cross/Red Star series placed the Yak-1 on roughly equal footing with the BF-109E and F. Pilot accounts seem to reflect a similar POV. The bulk of combat on the Eastern Front tended to occur below 4000meters anyway. The 109G gave a boost in the dept of speed and acceleration over the intial Yak varients but could be overcome if the VVS pilot reacted quickly enough.



Rainerle -> RE: Plane Replacement? (9/13/2010 3:29:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

by our terms, the G-2 is a Trainer, LW units that use it, are School units, so they don't get the best of planes to use

later once certain levels are reached (believe date, or large number in stock, thought it was 500) then they can move up to standard fighters (and once they reach standard, then they can make any normal change)

the 190 A-5 is still the pure fighter, it is good as a fighter, the A-6 and beyound, were starting to be set up for anti bomber work, so while better vs a bomber, they are starting to get too heavy for good fighter vs fighter work (other then with the good pilots)



Hi Hard Sarge,

will the Co-axis (hungarian, croatian, rumanian, bulgarian) change to 'normal' fighter usage as well? They are stuck with the same mix as the Trainigsgruppen.
Respectfully
Rainer



ool -> RE: Plane Replacement? (9/13/2010 3:48:53 PM)

Once you hit 500 ME-109G's in the pool the SW will automatically start replacing the older models for the 109G. At least thats the way it happened to me. Instead of waiting I went around and changed all of my allies planes en masse in one fell swoop of swap outs. It makes defending Ploesti a lot easier with better planes. Also once you have them into 109's you can change to other types if you wish.



Rainerle -> RE: Plane Replacement? (9/27/2010 8:00:56 AM)

Yep, I did so (increasing the pool of G-6 above 500) then either manual or automatic swapping is possible. However you have to be careful as you cannot swap back. Which means that those units which can use all types can no longer use the poorer types (i.e. Ljastuvka, MS406, IAR, D-520, G-50, the Ga types).
I can see, that there is function for the AI to not run out of front line aircraft but how about eleminating this feature for player controlled axis?



Turner -> RE: Plane Replacement? (9/27/2010 6:25:36 PM)

Kurt Tank had for some time wanted access to the DB engine production to use in his 190 design. RLM had denied his requests time and again but later on agreed to give him the Junkers Jumo 213A production, a smaller engine of 35 liters instead of the DB 45 liters. This resulted in the 190D-9 which was intended as a stop-gap solution until the 152 production started. The pilots who were initially introduced to the D model were sceptical at best, as the Junkers engine was designed as a bomber engine it wasn't popular among fighter pilots. However they soon learned that the Dora accelerated faster and achieved higher speeds than the Anton.
The Ta152A and B versions were fully developed and on RLM's table in late '43 only to be given thumbs down. They were intended as zerstörers, replacing the aging fleet of Bf110s. Armed with up to 9 cannons (engine, cowling, wing roots, outboard and underwing mounts) of 20-30 mm caliber they would indeed have lived up to the name zerstörer. The 152A/B could have been produced in numbers by early '44 at the latest, had the RLM made the decision. This seems to be a widely unknown fact. It would be interesting if the player was given these options in the game.

The most serious issues with the 109 was imo its inability to cope with combat damage and compression at high speeds. The 190 was more robust, better armed and was a pure high speed fighter. It's a world of difference to enter compression at 550 mph instead of 450, and the buildup of stick force was not as brutal in the 190 as in the 109.

What I wanted to conclude is that had the RLM approved Tank's idea of a DB powered 190 earlier and recognized its superior performance over the 109, the air war over Europe would have looked very different. Corruption was widespread in Germany at the time, I don't think I have to say, but Messerschmitt also enjoyed political connections which he used to gain the upper hand on the competition, mainly Kurt Tank. So to the point that RLM turned down the ready-to-produce Ta152A/B types in favor of the Me209 which was in a prototype stage at the time and later cancelled because of development difficulties. Then by mid '44 the RLM was in panic and approved the stop-gap solution that the D-9 offered until the 152 could be produced in numbers.

The 262 project was delayed by the master chief himself, you all probably know that story too well. It wasn't a very good high altitude fighter anyway. I'd argue that the Ta152H would have been more effective high-altitude fighter than the 262, not that the Ta152H ever got the chance to prove it.

/end rant [;)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7192383