Guest Mike Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Been meaning to post this for a while now.....please don't take them tooooo seriously ...just some more stuff possibly to put on that list if you fel like it Why is the Hurricane II rated higher than the Spitfire V?? Sure it's firepower is good, but it still only has moderate horsepower & is better than the Spit 1, but I always ditch it for Spit V's these days. and where's the Spit IX for heaven's sake?? sheesh - the single most talked about version - specifically bought out to combat the Fw-190 and being just 150-ish more hp in a spit V frame? Sure the V has a 350 hp increase over the II, but it was the IX that made the splash! I'm also curious how modable are the models? I really hate the LF clipped wing of the Spit V - a Spitfire should have a beautiful eliptical wing dammit. Can we get a choice of wings please?! And why is the Spit 1 model a Spit V?? There was no cannon in the 1's old boy, and that grey colour scheme is late war too! An "out of ammo" rule might be quite interesting - especially for those people who want that bit of extra nail biting during their game I was also thinking of how the firepower model works, particularly with the Raiden and Hurri II getting 2 bursts head on. IMO this will probably translate badly for some of the later war German fighters that had extremely heavy cannon ( MK108 30mm ) but low rates of fire and ammo loads - eg the various types that had the 30mm cannon with 50-100 shells per gun (eg the 262 IIRC had 50 rounds for 2 of its guns, and 100 for the other 2) These heavy cannon were optimised for attacking bombers, and their low rates of fire were not so flash vs fast moving small fighters (even a thunderbolt is small vs a B-17!) Instead these aircraft also carried smaller number of of lighter guns - typically 2 x 13/15/20mmm - which would be useful vs fighters. So planes with this armament might be better modelled with different firepower values when shooting at fighters viz bombers. I was thinking how this might be done in the DiF system and came up with something fairly simple: aircraft equipped with the MK108 do not count it in their firepower brst value - that is based solely on the other armament they carry - which will normally give tehm a value of 1. They get +1 damage or +1 burst vs bombers. Aircraft equipped solely with the MK108 (eg the 262) get a burst value of 1/4 of the number of such cannon carried rounded down - so the 262 would get 1, the He162 would get 0 - since it is armed with only 2 such cannon. If there was an "out of ammo rule" then the 30mm armament of such aircraft might have a lower limit than the other armament. How about a chronologically progressive aircraft system in parallel to the experience once? Pick a year, and statrt playing with the planes that were available then - moving along the technology tree in time rather than experience. So if you want to start in 1939 with a 109D then you get an E in 1940, an F in 1941, or maybe you get a 190A, 109G's come available in 42, K's in 43, etc. Each sortie might count for a week of elapsed time perhaps, or maybe 1 per 2 days in summer, 4 days in autumn/spring and 9 days in winter, or somethign like that. You might also choose a theatre of operations that would limit your opponents - eg fight in hte Desert or in russia or in the Far east so you only fight against hte enemy a/c that were there during that time frame. anyway - better go earn my salary now.... :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuroi neko Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Lots of questions and affirmations in there About historicity, it is clearly not the main focus of the game. However, having being a passionate IL2 player and done my share of online flying, forum bashing and virtual squadron living, I found this little "simplistic" DiF a truly excellent abstraction of aerial combat. The bases of energy management are surprisingly well implemented by the cards system: you must use your cards wisely, waiting for an opening and trading energy for fire solutions. Spending a turn or two building up your hand simulates pretty well the initial tactical manoeuvering, trying to get into a better position without engaging. Also the need to plan ahead is a pretty good abstraction of the situational awareness, especially for games with 2 elements. You can decide to focus on the plane you're engaged with but you'd better not forget about the other planes around. Generally speaking you need to keep an energy reserve after a gun pass or you'll be a sitting duck, but the global situation may call for exceptions: you may want to down a very good pilot (i.e. with lots of skills) if you get the chance, at the cost of a possible revenge from his less experimented wingman, engage fighters with no real means to harm them just to prevent them from having a go at your bombers, etc. The cards are very well chosen, they manage to capture a stylized representation of the basic options in fighter combat. For instance, the "scissors" are indeed a defensive manoeuver that can allow to regain initiative only if an attacking plane has been willing to sacrifice energy to get on your tail. With enough energy (i.e. a strong remaining defensive hand) the attacker will escape the scissors and continue to dictate his conditions to the defender. Of course the name of the cards are to be also taken as abstractions. For instance "barrel roll" and "vertical roll" are abstractions of horizontal and vertical offensive/defensive manoeuvers. And lastly, the pilots skills are an excellent way to implement the "it's the pilot, not the plane" saying. You can offset planes characteristics by having an ace at the controls, but even an ace will have to sweat for downing a truly superior plane. Here again I find the trade-off between tedious level of detail and playable abstraction very well tought out. A "raw" plane represents what a wet behind the ears pilot can make of it. Adding skills represents what is learned in combat situations. After all it took me dozens of hours of virtual flying to become an average shooter in IL2, and frankly I'm grateful this game offers me a chance to experience what being a marksman fells like just by accumulating enough experience to buy the skill . This game is not IL2, where people argued for months (or even years!) over the undermodeling of the 190A8, the loss of ShVak rate of fire due to improper propeller synchro or the 109G-6 vs LA5-F power curve . True, the choice of planes is rather debatable, as are the color schemes. One could bicker for hours about the 109B and K being painted in African camos, the spit I looking like a spit IX with his pair of strictly a-historical cannons, the zero limited power rating not being enough to simulate his vertical agility, the P40E being over-modelled in comparison of how she fared historically against Japanese planes of the era, and so on. But I think engaging in such debates is missing the point of the game entirely. The strength of the system lies in its simplicity, and even though the graphics could be enhanced toward more realism, the core of the game seems to be a very well proven design and has to remain streamlined to work. Is that game realistic? Not in many small ways, but broadly speaking, yes. But the question I'd rather ask is: is it it fun? I'll let you guess what my answer to that one would be . Concerning the spitfire V / hurricane II comparison, dont forget the wingmen capabilities : 2 and 3 cards but the spit is better on defense while the hurri has an very good attack value for planes of this level. The firepower of the hurri makes it dangerous in a hit & run situation or against bombers, but the poor wingman defense will get him into trouble facing a pair of more nimble and/or powerful planes. About special rules for MK108 (or even MK103!) cannons, the fighter vs bombers system already takes the global offense/defense capability of fighters into account by adding the attack and defense cards of the wingmen. I find it pretty good and sufficient. The only plane with the MK108 is currently the 109K, and it is reflected in the wingman offensive capability. It causes a real disadvantage when attacking bombers without a wingman, which simulates the "mass effect" of fighter vs bomber attacks, yet again in an abstract but pretty consistent way. About campaigns (however ), I completely agree with you. A pilot(s) career simulation could be a lot of fun, although that would have to be a solitaire kind of game, which does not seem to meet the main design choices. [ October 11, 2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: kuroi neko ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Verssen Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 The Hurricane II gains most of its value from its inherent 2 burst rating. Being able to fire 2 bursts from neutral is a big advantage. Future features are planned that will in a simple manner differentiate the characteristics of machineguns vs. cannons vs. very heavy cannons, like the 30mm. The Spitfire IX is on the list of aircraft to be added. I think we even have stats for a couple versions of it. As time goes by we plan on not only adding new aircraft and animations, but also updating the original aircraft models and animations. When you see problems with details like the Spitfire I having cannons depicted in the wings, or a paint job being non-historical, let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuroi neko Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 About purely graphical inaccuracies : Hurricane I - typical early war cammo would be green and brown, with lower surfaces painted half black, half white (was intended for easier identification from the ground(!)) Spitfire I - had 8 7.7mm MGs, no cannons (except the Ib, but only 30 or so were built, and only one squadron was equiped with this variant during BoB). - the typical camo scheme would be green and brown with ligh blue-grey lower surfaces, the green and grey is more suited to 1943 and beyond (perfect for the spit IX ) spitfire XIV - the color scheme is too irregular - both green and brown should be darker 109B - typical cammo would be overall medium grey with Spanish markings (black X-shaped crosses on a white rectangle) - square wingtips - completely different cowling - tail struts 109E the model looks like a 109F to me - wingtips should be square - typical cammo (France and early battle of Britain) is sky blue up to the middle of fuselage and two tones of dark green on the upper fuselage and wings - spinner should be more cone-shaped with a blunt tip - side air intake should be smaller and more square - tail struts still missing Stuka Green should be a bit darker . 109F good model except the wrong spinner shape cammo could be African orange-yellow 109G - missing the supercharger on the cowling - wrong spinner shape 109K - camo should be closer to the one of the 109G, may be light grey and green mottling on the fuselage - wrong cowling, missing superchager and 12.7 mm guns - the usual wrong spinner - most 109Ks had a reshaped canopy with only 3 panels P40E - strange grey cammo, not sure but I think the same pattern in medium green and sandy brown would be more representative. [ October 11, 2005, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: kuroi neko ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I'm not too worried about details - more with "flavour" - my favourite figure-game rules are rather abstracted & I'm used to abstractions and flavour rather than minutae! Dan the 2 bursts of hte Hurricane II is certainly useful, but I'd rather have 1 more horsepower as a general rule. For some good 109 summary info on appearances and lots of photos (not many colour unfortunately) see The 109 Family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Kuroi I just realised - all the 109's use the same model with different colours - there's an opening for your 3D skills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Dan - my problem with hte Hurrican is that it isn't THAT much better than hte Spit V - I've found it pretty much impossible to progress now that all my pilots are at Hurri-II level - the opposition planes do get better, but there's no real step up from the Spit V/Hurri to match them. I might have to go play hte yanks for a while!! So my vote for hte next plane is a worth filler between the Spit V and the Mosquito Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuroi neko Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 I can assure you these are real vacations from the bloody horrible spitfires you'll have to face when flying for the other bad guys My own copyrighted recipe for killing the fat cows : 1) natural pilot + zoom climb + evasive + shake him off for the leader 2) distract wingman + check six + natural pilot + teamwork for the wingie. A sweep tail may help too. Then a spoil aim in case you want to fight other kites than the Japanese top cow. Bash the wingie no matter what and you'll soon litter the ocean floor with tiny bits of Japanese scrap metal. Keep only defensive cards in your leader hand. Dont dream of building a balanced hand, even a fully defensive assortment often melts in one turn under the combined efforts of the bad guys. Dont camp on the leader's six, it is far better to stuff your occasional leader ammo up the bad wingie's nostrils, even if it means letting go of an advantaged or tiling position. If you are disadvantaged, a climb will dry the other leader's hand. Even diving will gain you one card and force him to discard one for a random replacement. That is, provided you bought zoom climb+evasive+shake him off. Additional benefit from the climb is of course to dry the other wingie attacks too. Never use your own wingie against the leader: bathing in an endless stream of hot cards, the fat cow-in-chief will lazily fart in the general direction of your puny attacks. On the contrary, the bad wingie will sustain continuous damage from both your pilots and give way far sooner than the bad leader. Now if you did not pick defensive skills, well... You should have. You really should. [ October 14, 2005, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: kuroi neko ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts