Maybe I'm all wrong here, but WB isn't a Flight Sim??? I personally don't need any stuff like, jeeps, V1s, comms. Sometimes they may be fun, sometimes pain in the ass. Do we need them? Really? If we have them, they should be balanced. The flame should be about, should reds have a drone called V1 or a drone by some other name As long as V1 is the only choice, there is no choice. Why don't we flame about some more important issues, like, dive speeds, roll rates, LA5, 30mm dweeb guns and ceilings of certain bombers. LOL I personally feel that REDS have a huge and unfair advantage here. Their icon is RED. Everytime I see a red, I see RED. Blood pressure rises, and that fatally harms my gunnery
just put out this damm V1 red... its a crazy thing see a V1 red, it shaps like a 262. why must it exist in FH? and... i have a dream: fly higher than 100 m with a HE177 carring 2000 kg bombs.
Oh no..... here we go again... someone mentioned the Me262... V1 should be gold only. Allies were too afraid of experiment ( and burn resources ) in stuff that we, 60 years later, could add to the flight sim Reds indeed need something to counter the V1... and they already have.... lots of multiple engine bombers... Me262... gimme a break and put it back were it belongs, in '44 . If you feel like it, add the damn Meteor... ( new meat for the fan eh eh eh )
Exec. no offense but the BM-13, as stated before, was an artillery rocket system, and a very short ranged one at that. It could reach out approximately 6 miles or so and that was it. The V-1 could fly all the way across the channel (maximum range was definitely more than 100 miles). Do you see the difference here.
I just said Niki for the easiness in it... nothing to it, I don't really pay attention to the names Shiden, George, Frank ... and as far as I remember the A version was the navalised version while the J was the one intended for the Army, correct me if I'm wrong greetz, Zembla :frag:
I'm sorry. I'm obviously not worthy. Had you bothered to read the question this "silly post" was answering I'd have understood you remark. I guess I'll have to spell it out for you: To get the answer go read my silly post again. Red Ant - the range is irrelevant to the question put by fuhrer. He was doubting if the damage delivered by a single MLRS, in this case BM13, was comparable to that of V1 rocket. It clearly was not only comprable but if one applies some sense to the matter (I suggest thinking along the lines of amount of damage delivered in a given period of time as well as practicality issues) BM13 is a clearly more "damaging" weapon. And no-one is comparing them directly - they are different class/use weapons systems with V1 having no front line use whatsoever. OK?
ru going to end all your posts with that extremely irritating "superior" "ok"? that's all I'm gonna say about that... as for the warhead of a V-1 rocket, well I think their was variation that, the gross weight of the warhead of a V-1 was higher than the weight of a BM13 warhead I guess, and the size of the storage place for the warhead (inside the V-1) therefore I think if the germans would only take time to develop more devestating warheads (which they possibly did) they would have come up with some quite painful offensive weapons... (cluser ammunition, incendiary ammunition, toxic gasses...) the Germans launched HE V-1's in order to hit enemy structures and disable them, well except for a large boom, some schrapnell flying around and a pretty heavy blast wave there was no damage inflected indeed, it went out of the principle of a direct hit, but the aiming wasn't accurate enough... And even then, I think the BM13 was more of a tactical weapon while the V-1 was a strategical weapon, and I think no tactical weapon can bail for a strategical one, or the other way around... if I offended someone, sorry greetz, Zembla :frag:
Jeez, cut this out, will ya? Jeez... why do you all even try to compare the BM13 with the V1 ? They are so painfully obvious to be completely different classes of weapons that it's almost comical that such a discussion could take place! The BM13 is an artillery system. The V1 is the 1940's equivalent of a cruise missile. You CAN'T tell one to do the job of another. You CAN'T compare them. It'd be much like comparing the AK47 to a hand grenade!! Furthermore, the BM13 cannot be justification for RED V1s. It's silly! Germans also had rocket artillery (Nebelwerfer comes to mind), though it was admittedly nowhere as good. If you want to model BM13s, get tanks on the ground and let them fight it out! If you want to defend the Red's "right" to have V1s, get another argument.
Exec, I don't get why you're so upset about it. We were only pointing out that in our opinion the V-1 was strictly an Axis weapon and that there was no Allied counterparts. Personally I could care less if the Allies have V-1's in the game or not since I hardly view it as a decisive weapon. It's nice to play around with but if you really wanna score results nothing replaces a good old BUFF or some nice dive bombing. My apologies if I came across as trying to make a campaign against an Allied V-1. Kind regards, Markus
ok, if no V-1 for Reds, why don't we go and buy some good old Nukes?? You can keep your shitty V-1's, we'll blow all of Europe to hell with some little beauty Nukes carried by our superior B-17 / 24 or whatever . Btw, this is only a joke, this whole discussion sucks, anyway few ppl uses V-1, they're not as useful as a buff, or a couple of divers, they are really easily killed (on my first ToD i managed to kill 2 of them and I really sucked), they are boring to use.....
just staring as the poll goes. looks like i've mistaken. there's no need in 109t, n1k-a, he-177 really. majority of the folks simply don't need these attempts of balance. ok. tomorrow basing on the results of the poll i'll pass to rgreat a request wether to put n1k-j to carrier or not.
I don't get how you can ask or poll as you prefer, if people think the game is balanced, asking if they think that is completely besides the question: "IS the game balanced" there is no use in involving questions or poll results to come to an answer for this question... I think that one can pretty basically analyse where the game is balanced, i.e. troop transports right now are rather advantageous for the red side, while overall performance of specific planes brings the golds at the advantage, (coz they simply only had 2 plane types in general to perform all the tasks the allies had about 3 times as much planes for), bombers, early war: golds, mid war: tie, late war: reds... I think you can figure out the rest yourself, and for the N1K1: I guess you know how much I'd LOVE to see that plane on CV's... if it would be the plane I've read it is (mb some small modifications in FM, I'll be more than happy to test fly it for you guys) coz I've read ALOT about it, ever since I proposed it to boroda, but I guess I wasn't the only one to propose that plane, the good thing about it is that it can be used on land and at sea, and it should perform good (considering my style of flying) If it only depends on balance: I guess you know that the He-177, 109T, N1K1-A are planes to make the balance rather even again... I just don't see what's the use of the reds trying to block these additions... This wasn't a "scrolling text" as you could call it, but I think I've made my point of view quite clear, maybe I've helped you guys in taking a step back and observe the total of the problem... greetz, Zembla Your friendly neighborhood psychiatrist (without a diploma)
reason why i didnt post here: V1s never had big impact/usage in the game. why me worry? more important is to balace stuff that have true impact on stuff like field capture. troop amount for instance.
how about this, I read about a zero with 3x12mm, 2x20mm, and carried rockets, i dont know the model exact number, but adding 3inch rockets, 3x12mm would be easy to add, plus abit more engine power OR, what about a reward system that works off of HOURS flying, not how good you are, and have prototypes avil for them, Like A7M, la7, and such, would be cool
So, why would it be based on hours flying?? I just don't get the logic in that... well I do... oh well it makes sense yeah, go ahead, have it for hours, I don't care greetz, Zembla Your friendly neighborhood psychiatrist (without a diploma)
And those who are too busy to fly 20 semanal hours but are good enough for surviving the hole ToD with 50 kills should be restricted to regular planes (bigger production). Remember that the well know pilots, with great skill, had preference on the new plane designs.
Zembla, I'd love to see I-16 on the deck. There were realy experiments with Mosca, and the Soviets really had floating airbase Orlitsa, if i'm not mistaken badly. But it's experiments, nothing more. The poll queston is not about the State of the game, but about the Method of development. not reds, Zembla, just me. gold Greif, Trager, Shiden-A are all artifical elements of the game, as well as red V-1. all these are brought to life in the game under the same principle. but now i doubt i understand this principle. i must reconsider it. folks are seekig for the truth, and i must be with them, as a moderator and consultant, i guess. ______________________ Gahis, La-7 is not prototype.