bartbert

LA-5 Real World Data Name: La-5 Manufacturer: Polikarpov Type: Fighter Number of Engines: 1 Horsepower: 1,850 hp Max Weight: 7,198 lbs. Max Speed: 403 mph Number of Guns: 2 Crew: 1 Year Introduced: 1942 The La-5 was a redesigned aircraft from the LaGG-1 by designers Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Goudkov. The LaG-3’s name took into account the removal of one of the members of the design team and finally the La-5 was created almost entirely by Lavochkin alone. The La-5 was a wonderful improvement. Pilots declared it superior to the Yak-7. It had an excellent roll rate, its speeds were comparable with German fighters and it could complete a full circle in less than 19 seconds. On the down side, the plane could only stay in the air for 40 minutes at a time. Also, there was a separate control lever for the throttle, the mixture, propeller pitch, radiator, cowl flaps, and the supercharger gearbox which tended to distract the pilot while he was trying to conduct a battle. In fact, just to create a rapid acceleration involved six different levers. The German aircraft used only one automatic engine control lever to get this same effect.

Does the phrase, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall (out of the sky)", mean anything to you?

Well, the points that get awarded for damaging and/or destroying enemy aircraft IS based on the cumulative XP of the pilot and NOT on his skills. In fact it is essentially the old point system that we used to use for matching up pilots. In other words, we use one point system that is based on skills for matching up pilots, and another point system for awarding XP. Why do we use two different systems? Well, they used to be the same, but the old-timers may recall that there were a lot of mis-matched dogfights when we based everything on how much XP a pilot had. So we changed the measure for how pilots were matched up based on skills. So, why didn't we change the system for awarding points? Because all of the skill costs were based on players gaining XP at a certain rate. And the aircraft unlock values were also tied to XP. You start to get a chain reaction where changing one thing makes you change something else which may cause something else to get out of whack, and so on. We decided to leave the XP award formula alone and just try to get the pilot matchups to work better.

In general, point values used for dogfight matchups are determined by adding the value of the aircraft, plus the value of the skills possessed by the leader plus the value of the skills possessed by the wingman. Note that the value of skills is based on what your pilot actually paid for each skill. Since the cost of most skills increases exponentially after a certain point, the cost of a particular skill is very dependent on how many skills have already been purchased. The cumulative XP possessed by the leader and wingman don't factor into the value for matchups. However, cumulative XP is still used for awarding points at the end of a mission.

No problem. Like I said, there could be a bug in the Scissors logic somewhere, but in this particular case it seemed to be working correctly.

I looked over the file that Sitzkrieg sent recently and in this particular case, the play of Scissors was legal. I thought I'd explain the situation in case others are seeing something similar. The situation was that Sitzkrieg's leader, "Johann" was advantaged on enemy leader "A", but Johann's wingman had already been shot down. This is known as the "Lone Leader" condition. Enemy leader "B" dove down from a higher altitude and targeted "Johann". Note that if Johann's wingman was still around, it would not be possible to target Johann because he was not in a Neutral position. Enemy leader "B" then played a Scissors card, which was legal because Johann was currently in an advantaged position relative to leader "A". Consequently, Johann's position changed from being advantaged on leader "A" to being disadvantaged to leader "B". I'm not saying that this is what happened in other cases in which players have reported the AI playing a Scissors card illegally, but that is what happened in this particular case. In addition, some players may not have been aware of the "Lone Leader" condition, so it was a good opportunity to explain how that works. If others have log files with Scissors problems, send them on and we'll take a look.

Sure, send it and I'll take a look.

It's been so long since I have played the card game that I don't recall whether a gunner could respond to an aircraft that responded to his fire. But I think we do allow that in the computer game.

The default location is "C:\Program Files\Battlefront\Down in Flames\bin\Logs". You may need to use the file explorer to browse to the files.

The default location for the log files is "C:\Program Files\Battlefront\Down in Flames\bin\Logs".

You can get to it from the Leader Board page. Every pilot's name is a hyperlink that takes you to his details page.

We have had several players report problems connecting to the game server, and one common thread seemed to be that they were using McAfee as their firewall product. Yet, we have plenty of players who use McAfee without any problems at all. Recently, a player reported that the problem may be with McAfee Privacy Service. Here's what he said:

If it is actually using a Scissors card to change its position from tailed, it would be a bug. Are you sure its not just using Scissors as a response card to a Tight Turn? That would be legal even when being tailed. If possible, turn on the Action Log and save to file. If you see it happen again, it should show up in the action log and you can send it to difadmin@battlefront.com and we'll take a look.

I reverted things back to the previous version for now. See if it works now.

Another aircraft from the upcoming expansion pack: Real World Data Name: F6F Hellcat Nation: USA Manufacturer: Grumman Type: Fighter Number of Engines: 1 Horsepower: 2000 Weight: Empty-9101 lb Max- 15,487 lb Max Speed: 375 mph Number of Guns: 6 .5 in. Machine guns, with up to 1000 lb of bombs Crew: 1 Year Introduced: 1943 The most successful fighter of the Pacific, it shot down 5156 Japanese planes to a loss of only 270 of its own in air combat. In effect an enlarged F4F, with larger engine and more streamlined, its first prototype was flown in 1942. Entering combat in 1943, it exhibited a great balance of firepower, preformance, great strength, and decent agility. Around 250 were transferred to the UK under lend lease.

Zanadu, you will probably like the expansion pack because most of the aircraft you mentioned will likely be in it.

See the details at Bomber Command 1941

Well, I'll let Dan and Ray digest the information on the I15 versus the I153. Here's the info on the I153: I-153 The I-153 Chaika was a reintroduction of the I-15 with the gulled wing being brought back. It was the fastest of all bi-planes with a top speed of about 280mph. In addition to being fast, its maneuverability was almost unmatched in out turning his opponent. Its first production started in 1938 and 3047 were produced by 1941. It served with the I-15 in Manchuria against the Japanese and their new monoplane fighter, the Ki-27 “Nate”. At first they were severely over matched until the Soviet pilots employed a strategy, which at the beginning was particularly effective. The I-153 approached an enemy with extended undercarriage and at about 250kph. The Japanese were expecting a familiar I-15 and made the usual military preparations. Not until the last minute before combat was engaged, did the Soviet pilots retract the undercarriage, give full throttle and surprise the Japanese with their speed and fire efficiency. Also serving in the Finnish war, the I-153 was used in front line service against the Luftwaffe during Operation Barbarossa in June of 1941.

A little preview: Polikarpov I-15 Originally designed in 1933 by Nikoli Nikolay Polikarpov, the I-15 "Chato" was maybe the best biplane to ever see combat. While the early versions had problems maintaining level flight at high speeds, the I-15 also could make a complete turn in 8 seconds, making it much more agile than any plane in its class. With a gulled upper wing it also had an improved pilots forward field of vision. The trade off was that pilots had a hard time seeing the horizon both during flight and especially during landing. In 1936, Russia sent a squadron to support the Spanish Republic. It was a hit with the pilots because of its ease of take off and landing made it a plane even inexperienced pilots could use. This convinced the Russians to continue with production. In 1938, the new 1-15bis was sent to Manchuria to support the Chinese Nationalists. With improvements to the plane including a conventional wing, a new 750hp engine, a greater fuel capacity, and upgraded from 2 7.62mm forward guns to 4, the I-15bis truly set itself apart from the rest of the pack. The I-15bis was used in Spain, Mongolia, Finland, Russia, and even during the Japanese campaign in 1945. While better fighters were being developed to replace it, the I-15bis still protected the USSR’s borders in a small role until 1941 and served in various roles through the end of the war.

I just wanted to say that I've been enjoying this discussion. Very interesting stuff. Thanks guys.

There were a couple of bugs that had to be fixed after putting out the revised XP distribution change. Sorry.

I'll try to look into it within the next few days. The general explanation is that the number on the web page is based on summing up all the kills from individual missions, while the number on the "Register a new game" window is your running total stored in a separate table. They should be the same, but sometimes they get out of synch.

Dan will be the one to decide what gets adjusted, but you bring up a good point. One thing that makes this game challenging from a design standpoint is the inter-connectedness of many of the game systems. Changing something in area "A" (such as how XP are awarded) affects things in area "B" (purchasing skills). I know to some extent, slowing down the rate at which pilots gain skills was an intended consequence. But the question is, will it slow it down too much? Again, Dan will be the one who ultimately decides what, if anything, gets adjusted, but I'm sure he'll be interested in hearing feedback from you guys. Particularly after you have had a chance to play some under the new system.

Even if your wish list is redundant to things already mentioned, don't hesitate to list them anyway. It helps us prioritize our efforts so that we work on the things that players want most.

We considered giving players control of the bombers during the early development, but it didn't seem worth the effort because there really aren't very many interesting decisions to make. Granted, the current system gives players NO decisions to make, but sometimes not knowing what the bomber has in his hand can add a little tension to the game.