Quote:
Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber
Originally Posted by klem
As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.
Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.
As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.
So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.
Well said. +1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buchon
This is not about balance but realism.
If you want talk about balance go to some arcade game where climb with your Corsair like a rocket and shot with his eight cannons or to some Call of Duty or Battlefield forum where you can degree shotguns, MGs and pistols to rush with your Thompson like gun at will.
This is about realism, this is about make the most realist WWII airplane behavior out of real documented data and real pilots to make the most realist Simulator.
Its not the 1940s airplane engineers fault don't make Hollywood planes like.
If a plane have weak points is in the hands of the pilot get over it, in fact every plane have weak points, if your plane is weak at speed you should rely in maneuverability, if your plane is weak at climb you just should stay at low altitude.
This is not about balance but Realism.
This is IL-2 !!
+1
|
+1
Just a few things.
Energy tactics are also dogfighting, and its the best way to keep you safe in a dogfight don´t matter if you fly 109 or spit.
Turn radius doesn´t mean better maneuverable, it just means better turn radius.
When you read of 109 pilot turning inside spit or viceversa, you have to know what speed were they flying, were they turning in the horizontal or vertical plane, at what height, etc. The 109 with the slats deployed with a experienced pilot could probably keep turning at slow speeds when the spit was about to stall and noone wants to fly at stall speeds.
For those talking about replicate batle conditions, in 1946 are great examples. To me the more "as real as it gets" example was the June 1942 SEOW campaign, each squadron had precise objetives each missions. Mission lenght was 3 real hours, and for that you only had 1 plane, 1 life, 1 fuel tank, and 1 munittion round. My squad was flying axis, and the 109 fuel comsuption was a real problem, often we had 2 squads taking turns for CAP missions, were one squad will wait in the ground for 15 - 20 min, and then take off, go to the CAP place and the other squad landed and waited and then switch back, we were flying always at 50% throttle, and even during a dogfight you were trying not to push full throttle. Engagements were very short and as soon one group gained advantage over an enemy group they will run for they flak, the loss of a control cable, or a fuel leak was the end of the mission for you, and there was always a last minute enemy raid. If we get something like that in COD it will be awesome.
When we get the patch you will se me flying the G50
and taking down you spit IIa