PDA

View Full Version : A way to evaluate Forgotten battles



zugfuhrer
03-11-2004, 02:46 PM
Does Maddox use any statistics of which planes are most used, which plane is most killed according to flightminutes, who won missions with a typical set of planes etc,
from frequently used servers, like UBI-softs own?
Perhaps by the use of some typical standard missions.

Because I have a feeling from a number of occasions. I have no written statistics and there are a mass of causes to way I am wrong, but its a feeling and all feelings are biased.

Thats why I write this, to see if someone elses biased feeling abut this can come out with something constructive.
My most subjective feeling is based on the following experiences.

I have flown a lot at greatergreen and F16-servers the last fourtnight, between 1800-2400CET, aprox 50 missions and the scenarios are comming agian and again.
Some missions I have flown more than 10 times, some only three times.

I have seen that in the eary war, when Me109f2/f4, not the Brewster encounters I-16, early yaks and laggs, the usual outcome is that Luftwaffe loose(approx 9 out of 10).

If late Me109 and Fw190 meet late yak, lagg, and La there the allied wins 7 out of 10 times.

If the allied flies anglo/american planes 1944/45, usually the axis wins 8 out of 10.

According to history, the russian planes became better and better.
The angloamerican planes are hard to say something about.
They where used when luftwaffe was worn down, and the Mustang showed its value as bomber escorter and those missions are rare. So the Mustang is used at very low altitude and the P47 is no dogfighter.

Are the german planes to good in the later versions?

zugfuhrer
03-11-2004, 02:46 PM
Does Maddox use any statistics of which planes are most used, which plane is most killed according to flightminutes, who won missions with a typical set of planes etc,
from frequently used servers, like UBI-softs own?
Perhaps by the use of some typical standard missions.

Because I have a feeling from a number of occasions. I have no written statistics and there are a mass of causes to way I am wrong, but its a feeling and all feelings are biased.

Thats why I write this, to see if someone elses biased feeling abut this can come out with something constructive.
My most subjective feeling is based on the following experiences.

I have flown a lot at greatergreen and F16-servers the last fourtnight, between 1800-2400CET, aprox 50 missions and the scenarios are comming agian and again.
Some missions I have flown more than 10 times, some only three times.

I have seen that in the eary war, when Me109f2/f4, not the Brewster encounters I-16, early yaks and laggs, the usual outcome is that Luftwaffe loose(approx 9 out of 10).

If late Me109 and Fw190 meet late yak, lagg, and La there the allied wins 7 out of 10 times.

If the allied flies anglo/american planes 1944/45, usually the axis wins 8 out of 10.

According to history, the russian planes became better and better.
The angloamerican planes are hard to say something about.
They where used when luftwaffe was worn down, and the Mustang showed its value as bomber escorter and those missions are rare. So the Mustang is used at very low altitude and the P47 is no dogfighter.

Are the german planes to good in the later versions?

VW-IceFire
03-11-2004, 02:53 PM
The battles online aren't going to properly approximate how things were going for each of the sides because theres a couple of things that are lacking:

1) Numbers of opposing aircraft

2) Quality of the aircraft (not in terms of speed or firepower, just maitence and manufacture)

Both of these are missing to create a more "fair" style of gameplay online. The intention is for fun no doubt...so the axis flying a group of 8 FW190's into a battle with 16 or 20 P-51's is going to come out nasty for the FW190's.

Early war the Germans had the advantage because they had superior numbers or superior manufacturing quality. In general the Russian planes gained by leaps and bounds in all aspects. So the results online are artificial really. Interesting to note but not entirely giving the whole picture.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

zugfuhrer
03-11-2004, 03:08 PM
I say that it is faulty, the allies wins most in the early war which was wrong.
As far as I know the germans where totally outnumbered according to pilots and aircrafts in russian.

The only time they outnumbered the red airforce was when they achieved locally air superiority because that they destroyed more planes than the soviets could replace planes and pilots.
Show me figures and I will be convinced.

zugfuhrer
03-11-2004, 03:09 PM
As I wrot in the initial lines, there are a mass of detailes that must be secured before you can tell anything.

I say that it is faulty, the allies wins most in the early war which was wrong.

As far as I know the germans where totally outnumbered according to pilots and aircrafts in russia.

The only time they outnumbered the red airforce was when they achieved locally air superiority because that they destroyed more planes than the soviets could replace planes and pilots.
Show me figures and I will be convinced.

Is my subjective feeling in line with yours?

faustnik
03-11-2004, 03:17 PM
The answer is: AI and humans like to turn fight. Early war Allied turns better, so they win. No mystery.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

zugfuhrer
03-11-2004, 03:32 PM
I also think that turnfight in russian planes are great fun, but turnfight is not fun in early messerschmidts against IL-16 early yaks and laggs at low altitude if you dont like to get shoot down.
The unexperienced player who flies german planes, turnfights and get shoot down time after time, by nice turnfighters.

Then they prefear russian planes but some like to fly german planes and they try to adapt and use the B&Z-tactic. And then when the ground targets gets shoot up and the ground attack planes get shoot down, you are forced to turnfight go down and turnfight.

And I think that you will draw the same conclusions, if this would happend in life as well as in a game.

faustnik
03-11-2004, 03:54 PM
Zug,

I'm explaining why what you are seeing in the sim is different from RL. In RL, LW pilots used B&Z tacics. Unfortunately, AI and many online pilots do not use proper B&Z tactics. So, you get unrealistic results. It has nothing to do with unrealistic FMs, only unrealistic tactics.

Maybe I don't understand what you are asking about?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 04:18 PM
zug, try one of my COOPs one day. You`ll feel what LW felt at the end of war what VVS felt in the beginning. I`v been staying away from DF server for a while now and not hosting either. COOPs are my world now and i truly enjoy them. DF server is bad way of judging things IMO. It doesn`t represent anything.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

GvSAP_Dart
03-11-2004, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:

I say that it is faulty, the allies wins most in the early war which was wrong.

The only time they outnumbered the red airforce was when they achieved locally air superiority because that they destroyed more planes than the soviets could replace planes and pilots.
Show me figures and I will be convinced.

Is my subjective feeling in line with yours?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Safanov and his group up near Murmansk would disagree with you completely.

They took on the best of the Luftwaffe early on in I-15bis, I-16, Hurricaines, P-40's, and P-39's against 109's and 190's - and consistently won.

It was about training, spirit, and maintenance.

They rejected the three-man wing almost immediately and went to lead/wingman pairs; they picked their fights and were aggressive in them; they stuck to their mission parameters and didn't deviate from them.

Did they "free hunt?" Rarely. Their mission was the protection of IL-2's and ships coming in with lend-lease.

It's the man, not the machine.

Sorry if the Soviets didn't fly straight and level for you online.

____________________________________
http://www.darts-page.com for more foolishness

zugfuhrer
03-12-2004, 02:06 AM
I am sorry if what I write upset some of you. If it is so I dont think you would be in this forum.

I am wring about how to evaluate the game, nothing else.

Yes thoose old anectdotes about the unit so and so, did this and that, are very entertaining, but they dont say anything about general conditions.

About B&Z:
Yes maybe the B&Z is not so effective in the game as it was in reallity. Well in that case, there are two answers, the pilots that flies is not so good, or the environment and circumstances around the situation dont give B&Z the outcome as it would have been in real life.

About coopmissions:
It would be interesting to launch some typical missions spanning 1941 to 1945, and fly the same mission and just change the objectives, red intercept/blue escort to blue intercept/red escort etc, etc and no AI-whatever. Than it would perhaps be a fruitful way to evaluate the game.

If you take a look at VEF and VOW the say something. Its only that the bombers are mostly AI and I think that they fly a little unintelligent according to the game.


Ivan what name do you use when you host coop-missions.

I find very many common similarities in this forum as in sociology, like the question about sex and gender, many say that the biologically determinition dont matter when making a gender, only the social environment around the femal that makes the girl to be what it is.
It is similar to say; its not the aircraft its the pilot that makes the difference.

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Fri March 12 2004 at 01:21 AM.]

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Fri March 12 2004 at 01:37 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 03:33 AM
Zug, I don't think that the sim has the planes in proportionate numbers that there was in the early East Front. The MiGs, Yaks and LaGGs were few compared to the old planes, the biplanes at least in the beginning months. A big part of the battle was the moving of factories and workers, then the delay before new material was able to get up front. there was the problems of manufacture to get worked out that we do not have in these planes. The ones that were not built right so they ran slow or caught fire easily or just fell apart in the air. These problems were solved but in the meantime all contributed to the statistics that put Germany ahead. We do not get any of that. We get different years and depending on who or how the campaign is made the planes may be, well usually they are the better ones for Russia out of historic averages but still well within the bounds of what the better squads could have had or did have. So what you see online or in offline campaigns is not by overall historic averages but rather best versus best, at least players trying to do that. Measuer the game on that basis and how do you feel?


Neal

Fillmore
03-12-2004, 05:08 AM
"I say that it is faulty, the allies wins most in the early war which was wrong."

Yes, for the most part, this is faulty in that it is contrary to history. But the question is why? Many seem quick to think that it has to do with the modelling of the machines, but I think it has everything to do with the pilots who fly online, and hwo they fly compared to how real pilots flew, and the relative experience and training of the real pilots vs the relative training and experience of the online players.

Stats like those from GreaterGreen are good for evaluating planes and plane matchups, but only for the conditions on the server. Although not perfect they are certainly better for that than the statistics that we call history, which are really not generally useful for evaluating planes' performance, as that is actually a fairly insignificant factor (Just compare how the Finnish did with various models, how the Soviets did with P39s vs how the USA did with them, etc. and you should see that the actual flight performance of the planes involved is of little consequence in the myriad of factors that resulted in the statistics of history).

LEXX_Luthor
03-12-2004, 05:14 AM
Zug, early in the WAR the Luftwaffe pilots and combat tactics ("combat what?") were...

"ten times better" ~Oleg

Zug you and nobody else onwhine is statistically 10 times better than "ally" computer dogfighters.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Fillmore
03-12-2004, 05:41 AM
"I have seen that in the eary war, when Me109f2/f4, not the Brewster encounters I-16, early yaks and laggs, the usual outcome is that Luftwaffe loose(approx 9 out of 10).

If late Me109 and Fw190 meet late yak, lagg, and La there the allied wins 7 out of 10 times.

If the allied flies anglo/american planes 1944/45, usually the axis wins 8 out of 10."

One look at GG's stats page should show you how faulty some of your perceptions are.

I-16T24 beats 109F less than 7 of 10. 109F kills Yak1, Mig3 and Yak7B more often than it is killed by them.

Yak3 does well as you perceive, but La7 not as well. LaGG3 doesn't go against late LW planes, but does well against the mid war planes.

The P51 killed 109K4s more often than it was killed by them, so the Axis isn't winning that 8 out of 10 (P47 doesn't count, it isn't a fighter by design of most of the missions it is in, and is about the worst suited plane in the game for low level dogfights anyway).

It is also very much worth noting that the current set of stats on GG is very small, before it was reset I looked at them alot and it was interesting to see how they changed over time. It really takes 1000 total kills between two planes to be statistically meaningful, so far the 109G2 vs La5 matchup is the only one that means alot, and note that although they are show with 3 figures only 2 of them are to be considered significant even with 1000 kills.

One of the biggest factors in these stats is the planes' firpower, which is why I16s, early LaGG, and some others do better than one would expect (as slow as these planes are there is no reason for them to be able to shoot at a 109F, so next time you are shot down by one, ask yourself why you were flying at such a low speed).

Aaron_GT
03-12-2004, 06:41 AM
Another reason why online battles don't
simulate real engagements is that noone
is actually in fear of their life when
online, so people take risks online that
they wouldn't in real life.

zugfuhrer
03-12-2004, 06:56 AM
Thank Fillmore I have looked at greatergreens homepage.
Whery interesting dont attack a IL-2 1942 late with a Me109f2 its more likely that it shoot you down than vice/verca and the Brewster is a real killer.

As I wrote this is a much subjective feeling.I have only participated in one mission with Mustangs/P39 where the allied has won.

My main question was; does Maddox have any use of this great amount of figures to make the game better.

LEXX I cant follow you, explain this;
"Zug you and nobody else onwhine is statistically 10 times better than "ally" computer dogfighters."
My english is not so good.

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Fri March 12 2004 at 06:49 AM.]

clint-ruin
03-12-2004, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Zug, early in the WAR the Luftwaffe pilots and combat tactics _("combat what?")_ were...

_"ten times better"_ ~Oleg

Zug you and nobody else onwhine is statistically 10 times better than "ally" computer dogfighters.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One way I like to try to balance up AI vs AI early war matches is to simulate the early-war soviet doctrines.

Flights should be 1 or 3 planes big,

Splitting up flights among different flight groups/squadrons makes "Help me" commands from AI to AI much less effective, simulating poor radio comms,

Setting soviet flight leaders to "average" and their wingmen to "rookie", while reserving "ace" and "veteran" levels for the LW, is also a good thing to try,

The LW "Ace + aces covering group" tactics can be replicated by setting up one of the "special" Ace planes in FB, then assinging the rest of the group to guard it with 'set' waypoints.

I think that if DGEN/DCG supported doing more things like this, easily, there would be fewer complaints.

If you are seeking to emulate the LWs early war successes then you must set up the same sort of scenarios they found themselves in at the time. Comparing planes to planes with pilots of equal skill and the same tactical doctrines will produce different results - as you would logically expect it to.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
03-12-2004, 07:37 AM
yeah, what clint~ruin said. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

We only sim the Great Aces, and we wear their skins as our own. We are Fakes, and we get Fake historical results.



__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

zugfuhrer
03-12-2004, 07:54 AM
My intention is not to feel like any kind of ace or heroe.
I dont want to reenact? anything so awful as a war.
My interest are of a more technical art.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-12-2004, 09:12 AM
If you go to the greatergreen stat page you can view some of the data you speak of. It has the planes/missions flown and in many cases the results.

This data is only for our server and, as stated earlier, is not an accurate depiction of what really happened. FB does an excellent job of modeling the aircraft, landscape and scenarios of the Eastern front, but the intangible (especially in online play) is the application of tactics.

Pilot skill, aircraft design and tactical advantages definitely lay with the Germans in the early stages of the war. this is not to say there weren't "Aces" flying for the USSR, but collectively their numbers were far less.

The key here was tactics. To compare briefly: In an online scenario it's usually a fight to the death...period. This is manifested in the impatience many pilots display in their actions of pressing home an attack even when the situation dictates otherwise. Why? because you can simply hit refly. In real life, once the tactical advantage was lost/neutralized, the attack was usually broken off.

Most decent online pilots can average 2-3 plane sorties. In real life, pilots would/could fly many missions without a single encounter. Even the true Axis aces had, at times, over 1000 sorties to achieve the 100 kill mark.

The two just cannot be compared. So, to answer your initial query, run FBD and look at the K/D ratios in the game. The onlything this will really give you though is who used the best tactics at that particular time.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

Oleg_Maddox
03-12-2004, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GvSAP_Dart:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:

I say that it is faulty, the allies wins most in the early war which was wrong.

The only time they outnumbered the red airforce was when they achieved locally air superiority because that they destroyed more planes than the soviets could replace planes and pilots.
Show me figures and I will be convinced.

Is my subjective feeling in line with yours?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Safanov and his group up near Murmansk would disagree with you completely.

They took on the best of the Luftwaffe early on in I-15bis, I-16, Hurricaines, P-40's, and P-39's against 109's and 190's - and consistently won.

It was about training, spirit, and maintenance.

They rejected the three-man wing almost immediately and went to lead/wingman pairs; they picked their fights and were aggressive in them; they stuck to their mission parameters and didn't deviate from them.

Did they "free hunt?" Rarely. Their mission was the protection of IL-2's and ships coming in with lend-lease.

It's the man, not the machine.

Sorry if the Soviets didn't fly straight and level for you online.

____________________________________
http://www.darts-page.com for more foolishness<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good post.
I was goint to tell something like this that his statistic is totally wrong.

Gunner_361st
03-12-2004, 09:44 AM
You got that right, Dart. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The will to fight, to analyze your situation and your opponents, to maintain your aircraft and to be well trained for what lies ahead.

Aircraft can be more advanced in design and better than it's competition, but that by no means guarentees victory. Pilots decide the fight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It seems some people tend to pick up on a historical generalization and then take it as God's truth. Well, that is their loss. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-12-2004, 09:53 AM
"The key here was tactics. To compare briefly: In an online scenario it's usually a fight to the death...period. This is manifested in the impatience many pilots display in their actions of pressing home an attack even when the situation dictates otherwise. Why? because you can simply hit refly. In real life, once the tactical advantage was lost/neutralized, the attack was usually broken off." - Thunderbolt56

You are right. That is why I try my best to survive any and all online combat (be it dogfight or cooperative) 95% of the time.

This obviously can only be done by the players themselves, but I like the idea of it and it feels good knowing I survive the vast majority of the online sorties I fly. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Having patience, taking the time to get energy, and breaking the engagement if its not going too well is what I think more people should strive for.

I think it gives you a much deeper sense of realism/excitement in the Forgotten Battles simulation if you pretend that your virtual self really has only one life to live. I suggest more people here give it a try, if they don't already. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

crazyivan1970
03-12-2004, 10:18 AM
"Ivan what name do you use when you host coop-missions."

Look for VFC*HOST around 9:30pm Eastern time tonight. Or VFC*Crazyivan...same thing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

zugfuhrer
03-12-2004, 05:18 PM
Well
Did Safanov meet the FW190? As far as I know 2000 where produced until 1942. Most to the eastern front and the Mediterranean, and a few to France.
Did some of them face the artic summer at may 1942 when Safanov died?
And was the spirit so low on other fighter units?

I am very interested in history so no one would be more pleased than me if someone could give the address to a homepage or a open published scientific work that could verify that Luftwaffe where in superior numbers, totally, at armylevel, during the great patriotic war.

I mean total numerical superiority of the period of 1 month, not that some % of the aircrafts where used for training, where out of order, etc etc. I also emphasizes the period of time, not for shorter periods like; because of the heavy losses during may...

I am most familiar with the history of the groundforces, and am extending my knowledge to include the airforces nowdays.

I dont want to reduce any of the great sacrifices that where maid by the people of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War.

By the way when Oleg has paid this thread some attention.
Do you use the statistics from servers to give some hints about developing the game.

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Fri March 12 2004 at 04:32 PM.]

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Fri March 12 2004 at 04:33 PM.]

Fillmore
03-12-2004, 05:57 PM
"Did Safanov meet the FW190? As far as I know 2000 where produced until 1942. Most to the eastern front and the Mediterranean, and a few to France."

You have that backwards don't you? I think relatively few FWs were used in the east, mostly around Leningrad? First combat of FWs in east was December42 or January43 wasn't it?

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 08:25 PM
The LW did their best work of racking up kills when it was mostly outdated planes they shot down. Lots of those were not even combat planes but they got included in the planes shot down stats.

I-16's were some of the better fighters in the first months. And there were few modern planes mixed in. We don't get a historic mix of types in online wars and you should know that. So why should online averages reflect historic which was different ratios of planes? Oh yes, as an excuse to force either the German planes an advantage or the Russian planes disadvantages. The ends justify the BS.

How long did it take from moving the factories out beyond the reach of German bombers and appreciable numbers of the fighters in the game to come into the VVS units, get the bugs worked out and the pilots trained? That long is not in the game because the planes are available in perfect condition with the year only that the first had been.

You want historic statistics yet when these things or the relative training levels of pilots being not the same online as was real is brought up, you ignore it. Why? It does not fit in. It does not serve the purpose.

if you know that online is different then accept it. It is no disgrace. When my squad flew VVS in the first VEF, I was there as able. We were outnumbered over 2:1 by the rules of the format. We had planes that overheated at over 86% power for much time at all. We still did well. We flew LaGG-3 41's that were as good as the 41 LaGG-3 ever was. We did not fly I-15's as was more the average.

Make your own online war. Make the LW planes more numerous by 2 or 3 to 1 and ALL human piloted. Make the Russians have a mix with very many old biplanes and a few of the sim early war monoplanes with very few human pilots and the AI's all at Rookie level. Then see how the statistics come out. I bet the LW side wins! it would be as historic as you'll get and the results will agree if you set it up right. It won't be a lot of fun after the first couple missions but hey, war was not fun so you get even more real.

Go to it! Come back and post!


Neal

J30Vader
03-12-2004, 10:55 PM
If you want the historical stomping of the VVS in the first week, play War in Russia, a rather detailed game of the Eastern Front. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But really, the players of this game have had more time getting to know the aircraft and learning tactics than the actual Soviet pilots did on June 22nd.

Or, have the old timers fly LW and people who just got the game VVS.

LEXX_Luthor
03-12-2004, 11:28 PM
A I~153 got the first kill of Eastern Front. I think it was Ju~88. Not sure. A Stuka got the first kill of World War 2, against a Polish P11 I think. In both cases, it was NOT supposed to happen like that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

zugfuhrer
03-13-2004, 01:22 PM
But Filmore did he meet any FW190?
The I-16 was a very good concept, perhaps the most modern in the world 1934.

The Me109 meet it in Spain and found it be a most potent opponent.

In 1941 the german fighter pilots found out that it was very fragile. It burst into flames very easy, according to three figter pilot memoars.

Luftwaffe made a decisive blow against Soviet union and destroyed numbers of aircrafts on the ground.
It put the fulcrum to balance over to german favour initially.

But the enormous industrial potential of the Soviet union replaced the losses of aircraft.
I think that the two dictators made many wrong choises.
Today we shall be glad that they are passed to the shadows of history.

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Sat March 13 2004 at 12:31 PM.]