Erkki
Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
Erkki
(tech isn't really the place for these kinds of talks, it hurts Harley trying to figure out what is going, issues and what not)
but so saying
not to be rude, but where are you getting your history info from ?
the 47 had one of the best roll rates of any plane made during the war, and at med to high alt, it was more then a match for either the 109 or the 190, it could easily out turn the 190, and was as good as the 109 in a turn, plus with it's better roll rate, besides, the fact that the Yanks, liked to skid there planes in a fight, which the LW trained there pilots not to do, also gives them a big edge
the biggest issue the 47 had, was at low alt, it was a poor climber, until the pattle blade came out, then it was dangerous at all alts
the B-17 could fly high (the 29 could fly even higher, a lot of late war work was done by the LW, to find something that could counter the 29 if it showed up)
the 110 could not, it didn't have the power, alt for the bombers is based on what the plane could do, the same with the fighters, I have many stats on the 110 that say it should only go to 26,000, some say up to 32,000, I went with the higher alt
I don't think you are thinking what happens at high alt, the bomber takes a lot of non combat damage if it flies high, and (other then for you)they have trouble hitting the target at high alt (luck or numbers, may give you a better chance)
Bombers take non-combat damage? I did not know that. Its not in the manual, and the game doesnt give the player any hint about it. Do other planes too?
About the other things... Your own sources? Now I dont mean to sound rude, the way the game is is not yours or harleys fault, but, apparently, you have the authority to change the game, at least to some extend.
For the second time you didnt answer my question, should or shouldnt bomb and fuel load affect service ceiling, if yes, should there be %-difference between fighters, Zerstörers, mediums and 4Es? And what do you mean with "skidding"? If you want to bleed all your energy in a skidding turn, go ahead, one of the quickest ways to get yourself killed in a dogfight.
If you re-read my post, I never said the P47 was a bad plane. But really, honestly, do you think that P47s, outnumbered 2:1 or 3:1, at altitude disadvantage, against equal pilots in equal or better planes, should be able to down 10-15 of the attackers and not sustain a single casualty? the P47s in this game have victory ratio of 10-15:1, against anything I can trow them with, and most of that 1 being landing kaputts and due to flak. If I could I would order my pilots to one-way kamikaze flights carrying SC500 bombs to known P47 bases. It is THAT assymmetric.
Typical combat with P47s. B17s at 17kft, P47s above them at 20kft, estimated 40-50 of them. I have two full Gruppen of Bf-109Gs and a single one of FW-190A5s, plus a staffel size unit of Bf-109G5s. A Gruppe of FW-190F8s is approaching further with D.520s. The fighters are scrambled when the bombers are less than 50 miles away, and they are going to meet above the bomber's target at 28kft. Bombers bomb, and fighters fight. After 5-10min half of my fighters have turned home due to lack of fuel(!), neither side has sustained casualties. Typically around this, the P47s start bouncing. 10-15 bounces on intact planes end in at least 8-12 kills. My reinforcements might be able to bounce a 47 or two, but this is useless, because 50% of time they only get damaged and fly home happy, or, the other 50%, they kill the bouncing plane(s). Today I managed to kill a single P47 in Italy after sacrificing all 4 planes of a schwarm sized unit, and attacking the max 10 P47s that were now in the deck by more than 40(!) fighters. My fighters in more than 90% of cases simply damage them.
Does anyone here think these results sound realistic to any degree? I hope my PBEM opponents can verify these results.
My own testing, using nothing but escorts(no sweeps) ended in 300 planes being shot by P47s, P38s and P51s. Two P47s were lost, one to flak, other in a landing kaputt(damaged by a 109), two P51Bs(one to a 109, another to flak) and 0 P38s. 5 bombers were lost to interceptors that got through, but B17s' gunners got 4 themselves. The amount of escort fighters and interceptors were, at least roughly, equal.
Please, if I have no idea about how the game works, please tell me and Rusty then? What kind of role do accuracy, penetration and range play? How significant is this in determining who hits whom and how badly? 4 MG151/20 cannons and 2 machine guns are more than twice as powerful as 8, let alone 6, heavy machine guns, but this game disagrees with me.
I wish I wouldnt have to say this, but anyone that has played WW2 flight sims to any degree knows the P47 is not a dogfighter, and the tactics it can use are limited to attacking once and running away at all but the very highest altitudes, and against all planes but the FW190 Antons. This even goes to the extremely biased games such as WarBirds and Aces High 2. Can anyone say that he feels very confident in a P47 vs. any FW190 or 109 in a dogfight? Because thats what the fight will be(or, optionally, P47s can run for it) if I pack 200 of my fighters above the P47s!
The planes in BTR get negative and positive bonuses at different altitudes. They affect the MVR rating. At what altitude is the shown MVR rating, or is it an average? What are these for different planes? I'm not the first to ask these, so, why should the players not about these, and how they work? Goes to pretty much everything in the game.
******************
I know very well that this is not your fault, HS and Harley. But I want my money back. I wasted 50€, you know what that is in USD, to take part in a free betatest of a game that no one is interested in developing further. Why to even have the forums and ask for feedback if everything is all right, if the game is already perfect, if on changes are going to be made anyways?
By the way, heres some fancy rate-of-turn data, P47D10 vs. FW190A5ata1.42(later series, mid 43 onwards). Bf109 turns better. I hope it is needless to mention that FW190 has superior acceleration and rate of roll, better cockpit visibility, is more heavily armed, is smaller, equally armored, has higher ROC at low and med alts and is faster below 22,000ft. I dont say this is 100% correct, but it is close.
EDIT, notice I did this after joliverlay's post.
Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
 Attachment (1)
< Message edited by Erkki -- 4/28/2010 11:50:38 AM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: High-Altitude bombing way too effective - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread