Just some theories

[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.

[Guest Mike]

No answers yet?

I think you're right that the 110 fits a bill quite well - I think the 410 does too - I find it relatively easy meat regardless of how good it's pilot its but by heck I want to make sure I've got a mit-full of defensive vcards agaisnt it!!!!!! :eek:

The P38 wasn't really a heavy fighter - it was put up against single engined fighters such as hte Zero, Fw and Me-series, and was comparable with them, so I see no reason to change it.

Randy I haven't seen since the changes so not sure - befoer hand it was a formidable foe for the medium level pilots that used to encounter it because of its firepower - and also because it's wingman had a massive attack value!! that's been toned down so it's a bit more balanced I think.

You are right that wingmen do not get to use agility to perform scissors - I think it's a play balance thing, otherwise it'd be far too easy for the leader to go from dis-advantaged to advantaged - as it is at least he has to use a card up to do it.

[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.

[Guest Mike]

The 2-engined fighters do have a performance penalty already - IIRC the 110 has basic perf of 4, the 410 has 6 - compared to 6 and 8 respectively for so for single engined fighters of the same era.

You'd be surprised how much of a difference 2 points make - I encounter 410's regularly with Spit XIV's now - often I have a Spit V as my 2nd element and it will get shot to bits, but I can kill all 4 410's without any damage to myself - sometimes I'll take a 1:1(+2) hit sinc it doesn't reduce me to smoking and I have some need to retain a defensive card, and sometiems I take hits from theri gunners for teh same reason, but basically I find them good targets

That seems to me to be what you're after - those 2 extra performance points mean the single engined fighters more often than not can counter any move made by the twins, outmanouvre them and/or avoid their fire.

What more are you thinking of?

[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.

[Guest Mike]

No I don't agree that the Randy is a bit high - 'cos like I said I don't know much about it

Why do you think it should be less than the Spitfire V?

I also don't agree about the 109K vs the Mosquito - because I have no data on what you say is different. where do you get your comparative data from?

you are also only looking at 1 factor for all these a/c - IMO you cannot compare a/c in DiF without looking at them overall - the Karls has a turbocharger, for example, which gives it a 1hp advantage at high and very high altitudes - this is quite a major difference that you have ignored.