Planes that I hope to fly someday in FH...

We're looking for planes to fly, but

 

We dont have scenarios , we have only TODS.
Just like we dont have 4 colors, we have only 2.
Communication here is the most important, there is no point in debating about planes like we did, if colors will be separated.
On the other hand, most of players that left, did that because they wanted more serious approach to game, than it is now.
They simply didnt want so easy settings.
Strategic players want harder game for fighters.
Buff pilots too.
Good fighter pilots want harder game for fighters as well.
Spit does too many things too good. Just like ki84 does.
In spits, with these fuel settings, with this damage model, many players can kill buffs, can hunt cons, can vulch , can deffend.
With spit like this, ww2 wouldnt need P-51 at all.
If we talk about historic role of these planes, i agree with Zembla.
Also, not only spit or zeke should be limited, typhoon should be removed by those standards.
What i dont like here is, we tend to get every new fh version with more possibilities for dweebs than for serious players.
We just add more and more "experimental planes" that can do everything.
We just add bigger and bigger caliber guns, instead of just putting 7mm to all planes. That would be something.
Very wrong here is the fact that we have rules with 1000 produced planes, and we dont follow own rules. For some planes , 80 models is enough.
Then we tend to use history facts and balance when we want to .
Next very bad thing is that we produce 5 models of planes that actually need 1 style of flying.
So, who knows how to fly yak-1 , he can fly all yaks, he can fly all spits, all hurris.
We dont separate planes by distinctive characteristics, we tend to make same planes with different names.
We tend to make all japanese planes able to fight yak-3, so there is big question why we at all model new planes.
It is big work for programmers, just so we could see different colors on fuselage.
My idea is to make game harder, to separate BNZ from TNB planes, to teach ppl different styles of flying, to remove wonders like PE-8, HE-177, to add He-111...

Some planes in 1.67 are modelled very nice, like J2M, hurri 12x7mm, yak-7, etc. They are not the best , but they have some difference comparing them to other models.
I will never be able to support spit over hurri, just like cant support G10 over K-4, or for that matter over g14.
It is big question where are we going, shall we have serious game, or quake.
For quake , one can always go to test arena, but for serious game, we soon wont have players at all...

 

Well... again this is a wish list of planes thread or at least it started that way....


"Serious game play" no that is rather subjective, or at least that can mean many different things to many different players.

Now dem, you said :
"We tend to make all japanese planes able to fight yak-3.."

How can that be serious? Yaks fighting Jap planes???

'snoopy plane fighting zekes with F4u in England' ????

Although I do not like it either; all those different versions of the same plane, there is some reality there.
Just a few little features I remember reading about:

some Bf109s: Allied pilots had to take close look at what version 109 they were facing as the ones with gun pods out on the wings could not turn as well as the clean wing versions.

The Jap pilots were surprised when they encountered the first F6F and confused them with the F4Fs. (the ones that lived I guess told the others).

Same thing about the P-39 and then the P-63:
big difference.

So maybe two more colors would help improve the game?

I really do not see how spit and 109 from CV makes for a "good game" historical or otherwise.

Just like I think Aces High is fun but too strange when I see Mustang against Mustang or Spit against Hurricane. or yak against La7....

 

In reality I bet most 109s or (190s for that matter) equipped with the gunpods wouldn't be much inclined to enter into a fight. They were bomber hunters, and most of them knew their bomber hunter was modified enough not to be able to turn with most fighter planes.

Seafire was a good fighter AFAIK. It was in fact used, unlike the 109T. So these two cannot be compared. The role of British carriers etc is a lot less clear because they didn't have their Midway. But they were there though, and they did use Seafires too. So, unlike the 109T, IMO the Seafire is not a plane to go.

-Z

 

Well, just started as wishlist and now I see that went to another way...

Now the thread is worthful, many options and game changes.
About Ki-48, IMO it should be placed over Ki-27 or Ki-43 or P-39D-2-BE.
IF the 3D model arrives...
Like golds could have 'gold' Pe-8: The Piaggio P.108B-2.

@looseleaf
In Tabahost we have that options. When you cap a field, if the hangars aren't destroyed, the planes there can be used by the capper. Too strange on fight that I had with my 262 beating another 262

 

Yes, if this what we have now is just transition period from 2 colors to 4,
then mb this situation is ok.But from 2 color position, its not.
When i think about 4 colors on the map, that sounds tempting, but still, we need to hear more details about that idea.
The only problem we could encounter is as always, roster.
It is hard to imagine what will happen to mb 2-3 jap players,
if their fields get closed. They lose all their fields, then they would be forced i guess to change side and fly for germans or something?!
See, it is possiblity for losing freedom again.
The other idea exec had, was to separate 3 tods, western, eastern, and pacific tod. That sounded good as well, but then again we would encounter situation where mb someone wouldnt like to fly specific planes at specific time.
The more i think the more i like Rudeboy's idea about having 2 launchers , 1 for early war and 1 for late

I dont see how CVs at all improve our game
Just becomes more stupid and faster. ( what many ppl wants to avoid)

Just few words about this.
Perfect example for what is wrong in the game.
You have basic 109 and r6 models with gunpods.
Being hvier and all, r6 models need more experience and patience.
Now, we come to 2 extremes.
G14R4 with 3x30mk 108 guns(?!?!) plus new model, G10 (k4 with 20mm).
IMHO, basic models were just enough, for what cause we have 3x30mm plane? For some kind of twisted fun?
G10, like there was not enough to fly k4 , now we have that lighter variant, i would rather compare it with ki84 than with any 109.
That is what im talking about. Instead of cutting f4u4, we get plane that can fight it. Then mb we get ki-100, then what will be next? Game gets easier and easier.
As for that famous F6F, that plane is totally forgotten here. IT has no similarities with f4f, nor with P-47. And we have 2 versions of it.
And even if it was correctly modelled, that plane as historic fighter, really has no his purpose here. With so many big gunned ,super fast ,super turning planes.That is direction of this game if we think about removing planes such as P-38 and not about removing one of so many spit variants, just because its better than hurri.

 

Plane adjustment is a lot like doing concert sound.

If you leave it all up to the musicians, they will all end up turning up volume on thier instruments.

I think spit is fine since it is damn slow but haven't flown XIV in a long time...it should be a lot faster but not turn nearly as good as earlier models much like 109k4 should not turn near as good as a G6 but be decidedly faster.

KI44 should keep insane climb rate but lose a little top end speed at low altitude and it seems it's 4x12.7 are almost as powerful as the 6x50 of a mustang.

Beaufighter acceleration is insane (at least the guy I ran into) as I dove on one at near 400mph in a zero as he lifted off runway and he pulled away quickly the second I leveled out behind him and my speed slowly bled.....don't really know the plane well, though.

I really like the mc205 the way it is since it seems pretty historically accurate though some italian historians rate it higher in turning that it should be.

Here the mc205 has weaker firepower than I would think, though.

I haven't flown the 190 more than 4 times in last 8 years as well as P47, F4U, mustang, and Me109 so I know nothing about thier performance.

I found the ki84 way too good at turning and high altitude airspeed too high but low altitude airspeed seems a little too low.

The Ki61 should fly much like a F6F in turning near like an spit VB and similar speed but F6F should have slightly less climb than spitfire VB while ki61 should have slightly better climb than spit VB.

I might be way off, though since I flew WB3 for a long time but it seems nobody flies high enough here to take advantage of where certain planes have advantage over others since everybody seems way too involved in capture the flag and thinking about the next plane they will be taking after they close a field rather than taking care of the plane they have in the air already.

 

IMO Ki-44 is ok here. More B&Z than T&B.
And IMO the 4x12.7mm is more-effective-more-powerful than the Breda 12.7mm, even being the japanese weapons weaker than italians. Mb even better than .50

IMO there's nothing wrong on Beau. It was a really great airplane, and IMO was more agile and more nimble than it is here on FH. The contra rotative engines and the great torque gave to that bird the instability needed to agile the plane. Top final speed is relatively slow here, but acceleration is good otherwise. I personally don't see it often on arena, it's a plane that requires some hability. I remember sometime a fight that I had on arena, my 110 against a Beaufighter.... Great challenge, the Beau pilot was somewhat good on that plane...

So the C.202 too.
The C.202 and C.205 had great climbing habilities, below 4,000ft they could outclimb every plane it encountered. The C.205 especifically was more B&Z than T&B, but above 3,000ft and at high speeds/very low speeds it could outturn the most allied planes.
The C.202 was more T&B, but it looses E fast, a mix of vertical and horizontal manouvres could take you home.
But I do agree that both are VERY outpowered, with a clearly difference between the 20mm MG151 of 109/190 and the 20mm MG151 of C.205.
Just not to mention the "paperthrower machinegun" Breda 12.7mm of C.202.

<S>!

 

I'm actually glad to see the beaufighter as it is now since it used to be a brick.

Maybe my lag issues caused the beaufighter to look like it rocketed away from runway.

That would make sense.

After flying the KI44 a lot today, I agree it is fine after having a few known faster planes pull away in a long chase.

 

I guess now I know why the game went to hell. Exactly this way. Lots of IMO's, speculations and opinions how everything should be and what's right. No clear line, lots of trials and errors, and "realism"/"historical correctness"
At the same time playability is lost (no more quickies into the arena), learning curve has grown from moderate to really steep because of the stalls f.e. (new players vanish fast to more prettier games).

"Realism"? What the hell is that in a game that's has been around for 15 years or so? In a game that was originally made "un-realistic". Realism is a nuke for reds, engines that don't work well, ottos that can't hit, AAA that is not murder, jeeps that don't take million hits IF you don't hit both parts, hell, even the moral of the field personnel should be considered (AA gunner will hide if you carpet bomb the field). Most of the bombs dropped in WW2 didn't hit 200m radius of the target. Yet in WB it's possible to close field in one or two bomb runs and the carpet bombing, the most usual way in ww2, is futile.
(oki, I checked, once some guys actually closed a town by CB) http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showpost.php?p=87919&postcount=1
but mostly it's http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showpost.php?p=363606&postcount=1

Gameplay and balance. Those you need if you want new guys to try the thing out. If you want more players in the arena. If you want more to kill. If you want them to stop by occasionally. Or even to stay.

If you don't, go ahead, make the thing even harder, and enjoy the battles in the MA, all three of you. (x-plane is already invented....)



@demi: before you get all worked up, check the earlier posts. I was right, right? That means that I actually can be right at least once in a decade.
And pls, try to remember, that I've been here from 2K. Here, never tried Ien, don't like Taba (ping), don't like Il2's. I started my playing with 36K modem, updated it 56K (once my phone bill was 209€'s from 2 months), have still the latest launchers, and have had the game in puter for little short of a decade.
Hell, I even took part in the "server helping", gave money that only time they asked for it, when they needed it.

So don't be surprised when I think of you as a newbie. You can't know if I play. I wouldn't tell you if I'm in the arena. You're not the only multinick here.
And I've outlasted some three or four guys like you in the forum. I guess I'm part of the furniture soon...

But I still think you're a shithead.

(wow, my longest posts ever)

 

So you are saying is that you have substantially less experience with the sim in question than many here?

If you never played it at IEN or IMOL, then you are missing a very important frame of reference concerning flight models and balance.

Some here started back in 1995 when the version number was 0.81.

I got hooked when a friend dragged me to the air warrior con in washington DC 1994 and we spent tons of long distance bills hitting bulletin boards for details by the guys who would eventually make the sim that became warbirds.

Then we played "confirmed kill".....for free...........for a while before the free ride ended.

 

Well as a matter of fact, Yes. this is a talk about planes we would like to fly and now some planes we would like to not fly and all kinds of ideas and proposals.

You do make a very good point.

If the game is not intuitive enough and "easy" enough no one will play it any more.

If it's not fun, if it's too much like work... it gets less and less attention.

A definite consideration is that the game should retain enough balance of realism and ease of play that someone can get online and start playing- start enjoying "the game"; be it a fur ball or a closing cap mission to winning the "war".

The question is can this be accomplished with a certain level of historical accuracy.

 

Funny how you comment on the subject that isn't pointed to you. So you're saying that you'd know better how the planes should handle, because you've played other games? Ien's version wasn't realistic, it was balanced, they said that themselves.

I've played "apache" back in late 80's, am I an expert of helicopters now?
How long should I play WB FH version to be able to comment it? 7-9 years isn't enough?

 

If I could still give reputation, I would give reputation to Airfax's post.

Not the demian part, but it's a pretty good assesment of where FH is going wrong, and where I feel it could be improved upon.

BTW, Cabron, you can have played the game since the big bang first introduced our galaxy to the heavier elements, nobody will care. You're a recent addition to FH. There have been many that came from iEN, none had the attitude that that made them better or actually meant that much.

-Z

 

I said he is missing a vital part of the equation if he never flew the FMs of any of the IEN or IMOL iterations of the sim.

Before you chide me for mentioning how long I have been around the sim, please remember that airfax was the first person in this thread to beat his chest saying he's been here since 2000.

You want to browbeat me for doing the exact same thing for which you are prepared to give him reputation?

That is the definition of a double standard.

I only reminded him that plenty of people have been around the FM's and DM's of this sim for as long or longer.

I'm cool with the planes as long as they don't start "bleeding together" which is what has happened more than a few times since warbirds came to being.

Once they stop being distinctly different from each other, people start only flying the marginally better performer and none of the others.

 

I think in principle, CVs are awesome but the way they are represented in Warbirds, they're not so much fun. My main gripe about them is that they always spawn in the same, well-known locations (even in HOSTILE waters) and then merrily cruise down the most brain-dead routes, blissfully ignorant about the dangerous world around them. Ideally, CVs would spawn at unknown (i.e. varying) locations in FRIENDLY waters and then follow random routes so that you'd actually really have to search for them. Imagine human-controlled carrier task forces, with some kind of red / gold air boss deciding WHERE the CV goes at which SPEED, maybe even in which formation. You could even have people control individual vessels, sort of like it was a jeep. Maybe that would make dive-bombing / level-bombing ships more of a challenge.


I know, never gonna happen but a guy can dream.

 

Reread the part of my post that said I wanted to give him reputation for his assessment of where the game is failing.

Also, note the part where I said "Not the demian part".



-Z

 

if it could be verbalised clearly...

i don't play because of DM and distorted arena rules.

i still hope the game could have it restored.

the way i see it:
1)fas said that flight performance coefficients were filled somehow wrong by previous developers. he state that filling flightmath with historic values could produce adequate airplanes, so he now does it with lavochkins and beaufighter.
if he is right, we could get rid of strange spins, still having authentic performance.
finally, fas got a methodics for returning ubers (and unters) to historical performance, rather than artificial "cutting wings" (or pumping jetpower).

2)scorepages. bimbom and uncles started a work and first results must be uploaded to server by me. day or two.

3)damage model. i'm sure tabahost DM is the best thing we can do with WB structure.

4)ground environment is totally abstract, so we cannot do pretty much anything. bombs are abstract, fields are abstract, bomb-raids are abstract.
and gameplay related to ground environment would be abstract.

however, dogfight server is the not that thing most players want. the principal backbone of the game is buffs.

we must build a proper food chain:
buffs eat territory of fighters habitation, interceptors eat buffs, escort eats interceptors, barrage eats escort.
buffs eat industry, fighters nutrition.
dogfighters try to bite all listed, hunters eat dogfighters and other hunters.
strafers eat territory of fighter habitation, scramblers eat strafers.

i.e. i'm sure that we must form an attractive game conditions of buffs. they will raise the entire chain.

5)vista. myg made the patch. i must upload it to server. day or two also.

6)robowingmen for bombers.


p.s.for some whiners: i updated my signature.

 

official double standard here are:
1)balance strafing and bombing abilities by raising golds and lowering reds.
2)air2air must be technically authentic, air2ground would be abstract.

if you mean anything other, lets discuss it.

 

interesting.
imho should be in the list of todo after principal flaws are fixed.