Jaroen

Hmmmm, let me check my sources (Jane's fighting a/c of WW2; Combat Profile: Mustang + www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p38.html and www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51.html). From looking up the figures I believe it's fair to state that the P51D was generally speaking about equal in combat performance to other fighters of it's days. Some characteristics a little worse (basic climb rate) some better (dive, zoom climb). But the figures are quite clear when range is considered. The second fighter in range capabilities was the P38 with about 900 miles which is still considerably less than 1300 miles for the Mustang. Just another 2 cts. Godspeed, Jaroen.

Two points make a big difference indeed and maybe that's what I'm looking for, you're right. But the Me410 actually has a performance of 5 in the game so it's pretty well calculated I think now. I'm convinced and happy with that figure. But it should be compared to the Spitfire V with a performance of 6. Which in turn should be compared with the Randy with a performance of 6. To me the performance rating of the Randy seems a bit high. Don't you agree? Squared off against each other in this game with pilots of equal XP value the Randy flyer is about equal in overall performance which is not quite what I believe to be true. And perhaps the Mosquito is another example of a heavy fighter which just about equals overall dogfight performance with interceptors like the Me109K. That's different from my perception of plane capabilities. Don't you agree that dogfights between those planes in real life, other circumstances being equal, would be in the advantage of the German fighter? Better roll rate, climbing performance, speed advantage, just about anything a fighter pilot might wish for. I know the Me109K has a 1 point performance advantage over the Mosquito VI but overall they come so close. Of course such confrontations hardly ever occured. The Mosquito was mainly used to defend against intruders over the home skies and not many German fighters were flying over England in 1944. It would be nice seeing the FW190D appear. That would probably give the Germans an 8 performance plane too. A strong opponent for the Mosquito VI. Godspeed, Jaroen.

The Mustang saved thousands of lives of bomber crews just by performing it's role as escort fighter. There was no equal to it doing that. In that sense it was a miraculous airplane. It had about the same fighter capabilities as other fighters of those days in combination with an amazing range. There's no other plane even coming close to such performance. It's like any comparable fighter with something extra. Actually quite amazing when you think of it that way. But in a sense of pure air-to-air capabilities it wasn't extraordinary. Very much like Dan stated. But think of it ... flying thousands of miles along with the bombers and still being able to give the German interceptors a good fight. That's something special.

Happy happy happy! I believe the main change is with the matching up against bot pilots. Perhaps the same odds but different planes (higher value) instead of more experienced bot pilots with lots of draw extra cards. Those difficult bot pilots are still in there but less common. For a good challenge I'm selecting escort missions again! Another change is with the card discarding by the bots. Much better now!!! Thanks team!!! Godspeed, Jaroen.

Posted by Dan Verssen: Here is how the Wingman deck was adjusted for how many cards there used to be, and how many there are now... IMS1:1 - 9 -> 7 IMS1:2 - 4 -> 2 IMS2:2 - 6 -> 5 IMS2:3 - 2 -> 1 IMS3:3 - 3 -> 2 IMS2:D - 1 -> 1 OOTS1:2 - 1 -> 1 OOTS2:3 - 1 -> 1 OOTS3:4 - 1 -> 1 Total - 28 -> 21, so a 1/4 reduction So if I'm reading this correctly there are fewer burst cards in a total wingman deck but out of those fewer burst cards the number of OOTS cards stayed the same. That means it results in the chance of drawing a OOTS by a (bot) wingman is increased actually! Fewer cards in the total deck but the same amount of OOTS cards. A bit uneven if you'd ask me. Like Stalin's Organist (do Stalin Organs fly very well???) I think a wingman being in a supporting role shouldn't be very strong with high value burst cards available. So much for my rambling. Godspeed, Jaroen.

Nice to find a reply! In my view a normal fighter type differentiates from a heavy fighter mainly by it's weight! Doh ... But seriously, the weight difference was a result from using the plane in a different role wasn't it? The lighter planes were mainly air superiority fighters or interceptors, fast and quick with high climbing rates, examplified by the Spitfire and Me109 and later on with the FW190 and Jack. All of them are planes in the weight range around 4000 kgs and a powerplant of about 1750 bhp. The heavy fighters are heavy because of their different roles. More sluggish but lots of stamina and lots of armament. Usually they were intended for defensive roles, protecting the home country against intruders. Examples are the Mosquito (actually designed as a light and fast bomber!!!), Me410 and Randy. Mostly planes around 9000 kgs with two engines of about 1500 bhp. In between are the middle heavy fighters which I find hard to designate. Many American fighter planes fall in this category because they were often intended to fly along with the bombers as escort fighters. Rather heavy and many of them were(also) used as fighter-bomber /ground attack aircraft. The typical example is of course the Thunderbolt but the Corsair fits the bill too. Weights around 5500 kgs and engines with about 2000 bhp. I find the Lightning to be part of this class as well although having a weight of about 7000 kgs and power of about 3000 bhp To me the Mustang is an enigma very much like the Zero. Comparing all different fighter designs is difficult but in general the interceptors were fast, quick with very good climb rates and having a good punch but being more fragile. The heavy fighters were slower, sluggish, had average climb rates but were very hard hitting with lots of stamina. In between of those you'll find the abilities of the middle heavy fighters, not especially good at anything but neither bad at anything as well. And the enigma's are a class of their own. Especially the Mustang being an allround good fighter in addition to having a huge range. Translating these different classes into DIF figures is the core of the problem and I find the designers are to applaud for their effort. The descriptions with the plane data is very accurate. A lot of work and more likely than not, with lots of criticism. And with so much good work I only have a small tiny issue with the performance ratings of some heavy fighter planes. I believe the general characteristics of those more sluggish and slower planes should result in lower performance figures. Lower than contemporary multi-role fighters and definately lower than the maneuvrable and quick interceptors of those days. It's not that I find them to hard to beat or something such. If you get to build up a pilot with XP-ranges close to bots flying those heavies it's usually pretty common to beat the bot opponent easily. It's just that I find them to high performing compared to the lighter fighters. Godspeed, Jaroen.

Just played a few games with my still starting Japanese pilots and I experienced a lot of aggressive cards in hands of the bot wingman. Out of all the burst cards drawn half of them were OOTS cards. In addition those bot pilots had higher (even double) the value of my own pilots thus increasing there hands with draw extra cards. It wasn't pretty! It looks like the human wingman do get a more defensive draw but not so for the bots. Something else about OOTS cards. If used against bot bombers it's almost as if every OOTS shot fired is repulsed by that terrible bomber card which is the equivalent of the OOTS (forgot the precise name). You consider yourself lucky but get pounded almost every time. Again ... the wingman with few cards were chanceless. Godspeed, Jaroen.

Back to the first comments by lakespeed I say I heartily agree with his first and later findings. I'm uncertain about play balance. I believe the gunnery changes make for a more realistic experience but I have my doubts about them being enjoyable. Maybe it's overdone a little??? Even the earlier planes were quite capable of shooting each other even with those few guns on deck. This was pretty good balanced with their low burst value and low frame strengths. No change required. Even those little changes with lowering or raising a burst or damage value has a large impact. Perhaps a bit too much??? To me it would be quite allright to have the cannon armed planes fire with 1 extra damage point. After all, there are so many more factors playing an important role in calculating gunnery effectiveness that it would be too detailed to make them work in such a single abstract figure. Or is it just me thinking that way??? Together with the stacking changes which mainly benefits the bots (higher values now!) it's become a very hard game for beginning and intermediate pilots. Only pilots with plenty of skills have a more interesting game since I believe it was to easy for experienced pilots playing against bots. I'm also very uncertain about the change in deck content for leaders and wingman. Like others mentioned before, those OOTS cards almost seem to be common. Especially for lower value pilots and wingman it results in a game where luck plays a very big role. If the opposing bot wingman has an extra card to draw it means a big difference compared with a human wingman and might double it's chances for drawing a damaging or deadly burst card. Only a very lucky human wingman can stand a continuing onslaught by bot wingman drawing an extra card all the time. This is mainly a result I think of playing against higher value bots which are the rule by now instead of being uncommon. After reading through my comments it looks very critical and I don't mean it to be. I do like the game and am really grateful to the designers and their continuing support. Because one really enjoys a game one looks for possible improvement. Godspeed, Jaroen.

Reading about proposed changes and enhancements I would say to be really conservative on putting them in practice. I have some experience with game design myself, boardgames only, and from that little experience I know it's easy to think of possible enrichments but very hard to maintain play balance. Having said that ... , I just love thinking of possible changes and results thereoff. My thoughts about the new gunnery rules are just theoretical since I've note experienced enought different planes to get a feel for it. Anyhow I believe it wise not to change anything radical about the former gunnery rules. It's a very abstract fuigure which is incorporating much more than just the number of machineguns and cannons on a plane. Isn't it also taking into account how much lead is spewed out of all barrels present per second, the specific plane as a gunnery platform (stable or twitchy, slow or quick, easy or hard to aim with, etc.), destructiveness of it's ammunition and more. Yet I do think the change of differentiating between cannons and machineguns into plane setup is a viable one. Now I'm still very curious about the effects on game balance. What's everyone's take on it? I have some more theories about possible enhancements. The main one is about differentiating between heavy fighter planes (mostly multi-engined ones ) and the lighter planes. I believe the existing differences in flight characteristics are represented by figures for performance and horsepower. But somehow I find it odd to find the heavy planes outmaneuvre the lighter ones which are usually much quicker in manipulating it's attitude. For this reason the larger and heavier fighter planes were mainly used in a ground attack role, as a night fighter or for intercepting bombers. Brute power and strength was translated into more armor and heavier equipment (heavy guns / radar / cannons) but at a loss for mobility. I think we all know examples of these. It was much harder for those heavy planes to bring the plane around and get a good aim on those lighter and quicker planes. For that reason the pilots of heavies opted for high altitudes when being in the fighter role. It enabled them pounce on the lower flying planes and get a good getaway with the accumulated energy. For the real agile planes this is already figured in with using the agility ability. But I think it should also play a bigger role with the difference between normal fighter planes and the heavy ones. The right feel is best exemplified by the Me110 I think. Low(er) performance and more power in addition to a strong body and good gunnery. Somehow I miss the same characteristics with other heavy fighters like the P38, Mosquito, Me410 and Randy (Hurricane II?). What do you all think about this issue? Is it valid? Aside from this, is it true that wingman in agile planes don't get to use the same agility bonus as the leaders do? I think it happened to me, and perhaps it occured to me rather late ... ahem ... But if true, is there a specific game design reason for this rule? Wouldn't it be fitting to have those wingman have the same use of agility? Well, so much for theories. Thanks for reading this much. Godspeed to you all, Jaroen.

Hi all, first time posting but I've been playing the game for some time already. Even though it's frustrating sometimes I keep coming back to it everyday. I'd say it has a high addiction rating! These are my musings about experiencing changes with card stacking and changes with bot strengths. Since I've played against bots only and local games mainly this is just about those. Like others I noticed the change with stacking cards. A bit of a nasty surprise I think. It adds to the strength of the bots since they almost always have some extra cards to draw while I'm saving on buying those to build up on the pilot skills. In addition is seems to me that the level of bot opponents has increased. Only rarely I have a match playing a bot opponent of equal rating and never below. The results of both changes, assuming I'm right about the higher bot levels, is playing against bot pilots, with (much)larger hands of cards than before which sometimes looks ridiculous. Is it only me experiencing much tougher bot resistance this way? I like the idea of card stacking as a way to represent energy levels of flying planes but in addition to bot pilots with higher experience levels than your own pilots it gets really hard for beginning and average pilots to find an opportunity to increase experience. Even to survive! For my higher higher level pilots it's just right, more of a challenge than before. Furthermore I think I noticed the bot pilots almost never discard full hands or overstacked hands. This sometimes leads to weird situations where the bot pilot finds itself in a situation where it's current hand of cards leads to nothing but it still doesn't discard. Examples of these are mostly found when bot pilots are in a save position which doesn't require spending cards, altitude differences or attacking bombers, but also doesn't change the situation into a necessary different one. Like finding maneuvre cards to outmaneuvre an opponent when changing altitude, mostly climbing, or finding firing cards when attacking bombers. I've seen more than a few bot pilots on my side when intercepting who just sat there with overstacked hands refusing to discard and being unable to attack the bombers. Has this happened to others as well? It looks to me like a little flaw in card handling by the bots. Well, so much on card stacking. Godspeed to you all. Jaroen.