PDA

View Full Version : What will happen with the 109ers in BOBSOW if



HayateAce
02-26-2008, 10:02 AM
it doesn't turn as well as the Spitfire? If I understand correctly, these early Mk Spits had a margin of better sustained turn rate.

I suppose there's always the Split-S to get away from the Spitfire gang!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS: I wonder to what degree Oleg will make the fuel choke out under negative G? I think it's a bit overdone in the current I~16.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 10:04 AM
Why would anyone Split-S when flying an Emil against a Spit I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 10:06 AM
A 109 pilot couldn't care less about turning.

He can both outclimb and outfall the Spit.

John_Wayne_
02-26-2008, 10:20 AM
Trouble was in sustaining the dive. Bader tells us all about that. How the Spit and Hurri jocks would just wait for the Emil pilot to start worrying about his wings and pull up.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 10:22 AM
Galland tells us about outturning the Spitfire if so desired. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

John_Wayne_
02-26-2008, 10:23 AM
Galland tells us about wanting Spifires from his boss, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bewolf
02-26-2008, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Trouble was in sustaining the dive. Bader tells us all about that. How the Spit and Hurri jocks would just wait for the Emil pilot to start worrying about his wings and pull up.

The Spit had too go inverted first before following, thanks to it's carburator. That means the 109 usually got enough seperation to pull away.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Galland tells us about wanting Spifires from his boss, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gallands tells us about the 109 beeing the superior offensive weapons aswell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
( Wich does not surprise seeing that turnrate faded more and more as the dominant quality of a fighter ).

John_Wayne_
02-26-2008, 10:37 AM
But he still asked Goring for Spits...amazing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Beowulf, the Spit jocks had no need to follow an Emil in a dive, just to watch out for it to pull up. I'll admit many things are easier said than done in a combat situation and that the RAFs major problem was in finding trained aircrew, but the fact remains a veteran Il-2 Spit jock will have no problems beating an Emil <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> provided that Oleg models the airplanes correctly.</span>

C'mon guys - Hayate's thrown us a great bone here. Let's get it to page 2 at least. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SlickStick
02-26-2008, 10:39 AM
All your BoB Emils are belong to us!

SweetMonkeyLuv
02-26-2008, 10:51 AM
The general consensus of the historical accounts and technical analysis I've read/heard is that the BoB era spits and 109s were very evenly matched opponents, each with their own "bag of tricks". The pilots and the circumstances of engagement were the real difference makers in each encounter, not the planes involved. I'm hoping and expecting that we'll get a sim that reflects that.

As for "what will happen if", well, its always the same. People will do what they do. 109 fans will fly the 109, regardless, as will Spit & Hurri fans fly spits and hurris. They'll learn the quirks and tricks of their rides, and adjust tactics accordingly. Those with no particular allegiance to either will likely fly both, or settle on the one that most closely matches their combat tactic preferences (attack vs defend, better guns vs better turns, etc).

And above all else, the whiners will whine, regardless of which side they play on.

Tater-SW-
02-26-2008, 10:56 AM
The biggest question will be how many minutes the 109s will be able to fly before they must RTB.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
But he still asked Goring for Spits...amazing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Beowulf, the Spit jocks had no need to follow an Emil in a dive, just to watch out for it to pull up. I'll admit many things are easier said than done in a combat situation and that the RAFs major problem was in finding trained aircrew, but the fact remains a veteran Il-2 Spit jock will have no problems beating an Emil <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> provided that Oleg models the airplanes correctly.</span>

C'mon guys - Hayate's thrown us a great bone here. Let's get it to page 2 at least. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You may want to look at the context in wich he made the statement.
Nothing to do with aircraft capability in the first place, rather with making the most drastic point achiveable as a reaction to the insane changes in doctrine that were asked of the fighter pilots during escort.

As for Hayate, I wonder wether he realizes that with every inch he belittles the 109 he raises the given capabilities of its pilots and / or belittles the ability of those who fought them.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
02-26-2008, 11:08 AM
Spitfire, Schmitfire, Messerschmit. Hurricanes for me!

M_Gunz
02-26-2008, 11:12 AM
IRL the most depended on the pilot and much of tactics depended on altitude and speed.
It's going to be noisy here when those who expect always and everywhere the same tricks to work.

leitmotiv
02-26-2008, 11:15 AM
It is a cherished illusion of toyland that slight performance variables in state-of-the-art fighters will be decisive. Hooey. British ace Johnnie Johnson, who harbored a fear and loathing for the Fw 190A when he was ensconced in the 1942 Spit V, was out-turned in his Spit V by a 190A jockey over Dieppe in Aug 1942 during the big air battle over the raid site (all admitted by him in his autobiography WING LEADER). He narrowly escaped by breaking out of his turn and heading right at a British warship. In real life and in toyland what matters will always be the person holding the stick.

Tater-SW-
02-26-2008, 11:18 AM
Actually, the knowledge of players vs RL pilots will always be a problem. Allied pilots know how NOT to fight Zeros, for example. This means that planes that might have been evenly matched in RL, as less so in the game.

Brain32
02-26-2008, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
it doesn't turn as well as the Spitfire? If I understand correctly, these early Mk Spits had a margin of better sustained turn rate.

Well after the horror 109 in il2 which barely manouvers with P47, if a 109 in SoW will turn worse than a Spit! only by a margin, then I'm highly concerned for Spitfire pilots. I guess v1.01 emergency patch will have to solve that, porking 109's turn time for atleast 3-4 seconds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Irish_Rogues
02-26-2008, 11:31 AM
Wow, a preemptive porking thread. The game isn't even close to being finished and some are already worried? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

HayateAce
02-26-2008, 11:39 AM
Nobody is worried from reading these posts, well, except for Brainer, who is in a constant state of panic.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am looking forward to the series, because just like my prior-IL2 knowledge of the Eastern front was admittedly lacking, Battle of Britain aerial combat literature is pretty thin on my shelves.

Any suggested reading from you bookworms?

leitmotiv
02-26-2008, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
Wow, a preemptive porking thread. The game isn't even close to being finished and some are already worried? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

"preemptive porking thread"---there is one for the OED! Genius!

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-26-2008, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
Wow, a preemptive porking thread. The game isn't even close to being finished and some are already worried? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LOL...yeah.

I'd say not to worry too much with what Bader and/or Galland said and simply use the test data.

leitmotiv
02-26-2008, 11:44 AM
As long as mass whines trump test data, there will always be oddities in flight sim games.

HayateAce
02-26-2008, 11:49 AM
The average blue hasn't fought at altitudes over 3000m since the 109/190 turn times were finally tweaked enough to easily win over all US planes. That's why servers like War Clouds were so popular for so long. Only a spit could throw a kink in it, at which point they would just level off and easily out run the spit. And this is why the 25lb Spitfire was banned.

Now for the future. Fighting at 3000m and below doesn't leave much room for any kind of escape dive. Those of us in Spits who are smarty-pants will anticipate the split S and will already be initiating the roll to give chase.

Hurry and bring us SowBob, Oleg!

It's a horrible title for a game.

SowBob?
BOBSOW?
BobsOw
SOWBob?
BOB:SOW?

Pirschjaeger
02-26-2008, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
It is a cherished illusion of toyland that slight performance variables in state-of-the-art fighters will be decisive. Hooey. ....... In real life and in toyland what matters will always be the person holding the stick.

Couldn't agree more. If you want real satisfaction, shoot down superior machines.

When I fly it's pilot vs pilot.

Schwarz.13
02-26-2008, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I am looking forward to the series, because just like my prior-IL2 knowledge of the Eastern front was admittedly lacking, Battle of Britain aerial combat literature is pretty thin on my shelves.

Any suggested reading from you bookworms?

http://i.f.alexander.users.btopenworld.com/reviews/bungay.jpg

The only book you'll need to read on the subject (so far) IMO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
02-26-2008, 12:05 PM
Danke Schwarz, checking into that one.

Mr_Zooly
02-26-2008, 12:23 PM
recently read that book, some of the content might surprise some readers (it did surprise me in places), but i cannot recommend it high enough. I especially like the part at the end referring to the Spit as a 'tart'.
also the Hurricane could outturn the 109 and the pilots knew it and respected it (someone else has my book at the moment) but i recall something about 3.5 turns and the Hurricane gained the advantage in a turn fight.

thefruitbat
02-26-2008, 12:36 PM
pilot not the plane, anyone???

If people think that they will be invincable flying either the 109 or the spit, they might want to google casulties for both sides, apparantley people died in both planes, due to enemy planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Mr_Zooly
02-26-2008, 12:51 PM
not sure that saying 'its the pilot not the plane' really adds anything to the topic fruitbat, maybe in the game that view may hold some gravitas but not irl.

thefruitbat
02-26-2008, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
not sure that saying 'its the pilot not the plane' really adds anything to the topic fruitbat, maybe in the game that view may hold some gravitas but not irl.

rubbish, irl its even more important.

thats why they tried to train pilots, rather than just sending them up, knowing the plane was better therefore they would be alright.

You could bounce a 1945 hotrod in a 1940 plane, if the pilot didnt see you coming, WWII is filled with stories of airforces at various times fighting succsesfully in worse planes.

It is in the game enviroment, where there is no consequence of pushing the planes past the envelope that pure performance advantages come more in to play.

Mr_Zooly
02-26-2008, 01:05 PM
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, i really dont see the point of continuing with this arguement/discussion as i have enough enemies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif .
~S~

sgt.dumpster
02-26-2008, 01:06 PM
I agree with Fruit Bat and Bromspeller
(Homer Simpson as well)-astrogoth

JG53Frankyboy
02-26-2008, 01:13 PM
it will depend on Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

wich source he will use for speed , in "datas" sometime the Spit spometimes the 109 is faster...........

if the 109 will get manual propeller only - i guess that will be not easy to handle behind a PC screen.........

will the 109 get MG-FF/M (110s also ?!?!)

will the Merlin III will get the 100octan fuel to mantain 12lb/sq.in. boost - so espacially below 10.000ft it will be no good idea to fly with any axis plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


anyway, Hurricane, Bf110 and Ju88 are the planes im looking for in SoW:BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - and perhaps sometimes a ride in a FIAT ('für Italiener ausreichende Technik' or 'fehlerhaft in allen Teilen' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mr_Zooly
02-26-2008, 01:17 PM
also will the early cannon firing spits be in? i'm not sure that reliability can be modelled and if it can, would YOU fly an aircraft with temperamental guns that can fail at any time?

thefruitbat
02-26-2008, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, i really dont see the point of continuing with this arguement/discussion as i have enough enemies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif .
~S~

I'm not your enemy, i don't really know where your coming from there.

Look put simply there are many factors that affect real life that don't affect people sat at there computer screens, which are defined purely by the individual in question irl, from g tolerance, fear, battle weariness, also lack of battle experience, pysical strengh, the quality of the training they were given, and there personal abilites to know how far they could push the plane, just to name a few.

All pilots just aren't equal.

I don't understand at all, how you think that pilot skill is more relevant in the game than real life, but am happy to hear your explantion.

fruitbat

JG53Frankyboy
02-26-2008, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Zooly:
also will the early cannon firing spits be in? i'm not sure that reliability can be modelled and if it can, would YOU fly an aircraft with temperamental guns that can fail at any time?

i belive, and realy hope (!) , the idea behind the SoW planesets will be : the most important/common ones of the specific scenario, and not the patchwork set like in the actual IL2 series..............

sure, actually, already the italian planes dont realy fit in this "idea"

Mr_Zooly
02-26-2008, 01:48 PM
I really hope you are right about the limited planeset (as in the actual battle) but i really dont see it happening. the only other thing i really hope for is that Oleg and crew dont give in to the whine brigade as they did with Il2.

roybaty
02-26-2008, 02:33 PM
Negative G's baby http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I also want a Defiant to shoot at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Irish_Rogues
02-26-2008, 02:49 PM
but the fact remains a veteran Il-2 Spit jock will have no problems beating an Emil <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">provided that Oleg models the airplanes correctly</span>.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

What happens if he models the planes accurately instead?

stalkervision
02-26-2008, 02:51 PM
I predict that either the 109 or the spit will be overmodeled which will cause the sky to fall here on the forums.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Jaws2002
02-26-2008, 03:18 PM
I don't know about you, but I know i'll bag my first Spit flying a Bf-110 and my first Bf-109 flying the Hurricane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Billy_BigBoy
02-26-2008, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
pilot not the plane, anyone???


I couldn't agree more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And for as far Tater-SW- said:

The biggest question will be how many minutes the 109s will be able to fly before they must RTB.
I don't think this is going to be acurate "modeled". The main cause of the fuel problem was the forming of formations before the Messerschmitts headed for Britain.
On a normal dogfightmap people take off and head directly to the frey.

JG53Frankyboy
02-26-2008, 03:39 PM
and i doubt that the most "dogfightservers" will build thie missions that the 109s will have to fly till London till they will met the enemy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

from Wissant to Hawkinge its only ~43km ...........

Mr_Zooly
02-26-2008, 04:07 PM
OK pilot not plane, so where do tactics come in to play?
most of the 'experten' were greedy self publishists and were score *****s only interested in medals at the expense of their wingmen.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:14 PM
Bollocks.
The Luftwaffes doctrin was the most advanced and effective of the day.
The term wingman (as in Wingman to a leader in a pair of two ) is a WW2 Luftwaffe invention to beginn with.

VW-IceFire
02-26-2008, 04:28 PM
If you read most of the first hand accounts the 109E seems to do a bit of an oval turn pulling tighter in the corners to get a shot off while the Spitfire I has a more circular turn where they can sustain about the same rate but no more. Pilot will, as usual, likely be the significant deciding factor between these two evenly matched rivals.

No matter what happens, however, people will be up in arms within a day of getting the game because someone shot them down. Count on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:36 PM
I'm actualy looking forward to it, believe it or not.
Everythings better then the nitpicking over the ever same topics we've seen over the last months.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:38 PM
I'm looking forward to the new discussions arising...

- "P-51 won teh war!!112"
- "Wrong forum, tard!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Pirschjaeger
02-26-2008, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'm looking forward to the new discussions arising...

- "P-51 won teh war!!112"
- "Wrong forum, tard!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

leitmotiv
02-26-2008, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I'm actualy looking forward to it, believe it or not.
Everythings better then the nitpicking over the ever same topics we've seen over the last months.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Definitely. Schoolyard catfights over "favorite 'planes" are mindslayingly dull.

ElAurens
02-26-2008, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Actually, the knowledge of players vs RL pilots will always be a problem. Allied pilots know how NOT to fight Zeros, for example. This means that planes that might have been evenly matched in RL, as less so in the game.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winnah!!!!!!

Everyone, offline or on, will fly their 1940 aircraft with 1945 tactics.

The Luftwaffles will never dream of mixing it up like they did in real life, just BnZ from orbit, and the smart Britwhiners will do the same.

Both sides will totally abandon the bombers, either in escort or attack, and concentrate on killing the fighters to prove their virtual manhood.

There will be nothing historic about SOW:BoB except the planesets.

Be sure.

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:57 PM
+1

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 05:05 PM
+2

joeap
02-26-2008, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Actually, the knowledge of players vs RL pilots will always be a problem. Allied pilots know how NOT to fight Zeros, for example. This means that planes that might have been evenly matched in RL, as less so in the game.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winnah!!!!!!

Everyone, offline or on, will fly their 1940 aircraft with 1945 tactics.

The Luftwaffles will never dream of mixing it up like they did in real life, just BnZ from orbit, and the smart Britwhiners will do the same.

Both sides will totally abandon the bombers, either in escort or attack, and concentrate on killing the fighters to prove their virtual manhood.

There will be nothing historic about SOW:BoB except the planesets.

Be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would that be a fault of the game or just one of the inherent problems with historically based wargames (computer or otherwise)??

DuxCorvan
02-26-2008, 05:51 PM
The problem is your life/others' lives/your country are not at stake, and everybody does give a d*mn and just tries to show off skills or have fun. Life conserving tactics and duty accomplishment are only for immersion buffs like me, but others do bore.

That's why I don't play online. AI, on the other side, is programmed to be as trigger happy/suicide as human players -not pilots- and act equally irresponsibly. Bah!

ElAurens
02-26-2008, 05:53 PM
Not the game's fault at all.

Mostly the silly points system that all computer "games" are stuck with, and the fact that once the genie (modern tactics in this case) is out of the bottle, you cannot put him back.

roybaty
02-26-2008, 05:56 PM
I got back from my time trip and the 109 is porked in BOBSOW! Verdamnt, Verdamnt, Verdamnt! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WTE_Ibis
02-26-2008, 07:56 PM
You made it back from London???
What was it like? are the Spits any good?
Sorry but I'm next to go over, just a little nervous about my first op.
Ibis.

.

WN_Barbarossa
02-26-2008, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
Wow, a preemptive porking thread. The game isn't even close to being finished and some are already worried? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

"preemptive porking thread"---there is one for the OED! Genius! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
"Weapons of Mass Porking"
"Doctrine of Mutually Assured Porking"

BoBSoW (threads) will be nice.

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-27-2008, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
...Any suggested reading from you bookworms?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/DuelofEagles.jpg

Manu-6S
02-27-2008, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
That's why I don't play online. AI, on the other side, is programmed to be as trigger happy/suicide as human players -not pilots- and act equally irresponsibly. Bah!

This is because I'd like to have for BoB a lobby system as the America's Army's one.

Semi-closed servers, limited by the "career points" of the online pilot:

- Kill = get 100p
- Bomb = get 300p (or more points than a airkill)
- Kia = lose all the sortie's points and one of your total lifes (starting with 3?)

- Reach 5000p = get a new life
- No more lifes = career deletion from the official servers.

- Mission accomplished = get points * multipler (blue/red number)

No more dogfight missions of 2 hours but shorter coop missions with inflight planes (Emil with few fuel and in altitude yet...)

Result:
Pilot who wants to simulate will tend to fly with real strategies (service ceiling?) and bombers will not start alone but in formation with escorts.

Happy trigger pilots and noob will be not allowed in these Server 'cause their career points.

M_Gunz
02-27-2008, 08:18 AM
Nice basis for online war rules Manu!

Bewolf
02-27-2008, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
That's why I don't play online. AI, on the other side, is programmed to be as trigger happy/suicide as human players -not pilots- and act equally irresponsibly. Bah!

This is because I'd like to have for BoB a lobby system as the America's Army's one.

Semi-closed servers, limited by the "career points" of the online pilot:

- Kill = get 100p
- Bomb = get 300p (or more points than a airkill)
- Kia = lose all the sortie's points and one of your total lifes (starting with 3?)

- Reach 5000p = get a new life
- No more lifes = career deletion from the official servers.

- Mission accomplished = get points * multipler (blue/red number)

No more dogfight missions of 2 hours but shorter coop missions with inflight planes (Emil with few fuel and in altitude yet...)

Result:
Pilot who wants to simulate will tend to fly with real strategies (service ceiling?) and bombers will not start alone but in formation with escorts.

Happy trigger pilots and noob will be not allowed in these Server 'cause their career points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ground targets and kills need a higher priority then air kills, undoubtly. This war was about bombers and targets. Fighter were just thrown in to participate in this game. Way too few ppl value bombers propperly. It was them winning the war in the air, not fighters.

csThor
02-27-2008, 08:45 AM
What SoW online needs is a dedicated server that allows for moving/flying AI so that it can generate accurate bomber raids flown by AI unless picked by human players so that the fighters on both sides actually have to deal with the bombers accurately. Right now any aircraft other than fighters are far too few and far in between and get killed way too easily between the myriads of fighters buzzing around.

SlickStick
02-27-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v687/Thunderbolt56/DuelofEagles.jpg

I'm about 1/2 way through that book and it is good reading. It tends to jump around a bit, but so far I've enjoyed reading about Bader and Townsend's 1st kill. The secret assembling of the LW and some of the German personalities involved is enlightening.

My only detraction, and admittedly it is minor, the aftermarket sleeve that they put on the book depicts a much later-war Spitfire than was used in the BoB. Looks to be a Mk. IX with 4-bladed prop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mbfRoy
02-28-2008, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I predict that either the 109 or the spit will be overmodeled which will cause the sky to fall here on the forums.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
I agree liek 1000%

Feathered_IV
02-28-2008, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
That's why I don't play online. AI, on the other side, is programmed to be as trigger happy/suicide as human players -not pilots- and act equally irresponsibly. Bah!

This is because I'd like to have for BoB a lobby system as the America's Army's one.

Semi-closed servers, limited by the "career points" of the online pilot:

- Kill = get 100p
- Bomb = get 300p (or more points than a airkill)
- Kia = lose all the sortie's points and one of your total lifes (starting with 3?)

- Reach 5000p = get a new life
- No more lifes = career deletion from the official servers.

- Mission accomplished = get points * multipler (blue/red number)

No more dogfight missions of 2 hours but shorter coop missions with inflight planes (Emil with few fuel and in altitude yet...)

Result:
Pilot who wants to simulate will tend to fly with real strategies (service ceiling?) and bombers will not start alone but in formation with escorts.

Happy trigger pilots and noob will be not allowed in these Server 'cause their career points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent. And my humble suggestion:

Every time a friendly bomber goes down due to enemy fighters - ALL friendly fighters loose some career points as a consequence. That way fighters will actually protect their charges and not bugger off at every opportunity. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

M_Gunz
02-28-2008, 02:26 AM
Points x bomber losses / bomber total x mission success factor?

Of course the bomber guys had better do their jobs.........

Manu-6S
02-28-2008, 02:56 AM
I wouldn't remove points to fighter in case of bomber losses: it's not fighter's fault if the stuka is downed by the flak.

But Feathered_IV's idea about losses due to fighter is interesting.

I think the mission bonus should be more important: imagine the reaction of fighter pilot with 3 kills in the sortie gaining less point then a enemy pilot with one kill.. only because the mission failed.

Ruy Horta
02-29-2008, 08:57 AM
First the initial game should come out with an extensive choice of sub-types. In the early part of the war small changes were constantly being made, all impacting (combat) performance in one way or another. Prop types, fuel types, armore elements, weapon's upgrades and changes etc etc etc.

An E-1 from November 1939 isn't the same as an E-1 in August 1940 and not the same as an E-1 in November 1940. Same can be written for Spifires, Hurricanes and other BoB types that we can expect.

Secondly, one factor that is rarely included in the early war turning debate is the Messerschmitt's superior pilot position, who's declined seating enables him to withstand higher G loads.

Thirdly, Messerschmitt pilots could in combat turns and clims make use of their flaps, the control wheel giving them very accurate control.

OTOH, the control stick on the Messerschmitt was relatively short, which added to strength needed to keep control at higher speeds.

In certain conditions the possible assymetrical deployment of the wing slats could spoil a Messerschmitt pilot's aim.

OTOH again reliability of the .303 in combat (certainly the early part) sometimes meant that RAF pilots were fighting / firing with only a couple of guns and sometimes even as few as one out of eight.

The interesting part of it all is speculating about what Maddox will bring into air combat sim / game land. Will he bring more of the sae or be bold and introduce new elements that for some will proof frustrating (that's what difficulty settings are for) and for others a rewarding challenge that brings them closer to understanding WW2 history.

My real fear (well not really since it will at worst mean that I have lost a few EUROS) is that SOW will bring too little of these elements and will end up being little more than FB on (graphical) steroids.

HayateAce
02-29-2008, 09:20 AM
How abount an anti-negative approach? When player 1 (in a fighter) shoots down an enemy fighter within a certain circumference of say, player 2 (in a bomber), player one gets 2 or 3x the points as normal.

In the old Call of Duty online, you could score rank for assisting the flag carrier, etc.

Ruy Horta
03-02-2008, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
My only detraction, and admittedly it is minor, the aftermarket sleeve that they put on the book depicts a much later-war Spitfire than was used in the BoB. Looks to be a Mk. IX with 4-bladed prop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ah, for those people there is always the choice of another edition! My copy was published by Presidio Press in 1991 and features a painting by Robert Taylor. And since the original book was published in 1970 there have probably been quite a number of different dustjacket designs!

Skoshi Tiger
03-02-2008, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
, one factor that is rarely included in the early war turning debate is the Messerschmitt's superior pilot position, who's declined seating enables him to withstand higher G loads.


By the Battle of Britain the Spitfire Mk1 were fitted with the two step rudder pedals. In combat the pilot would shift his feet to the top step giving him a similar reclined posture, that enabled them to withstand an extra G or so with out blacking out.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
OTOH again reliability of the .303 in combat (certainly the early part) sometimes meant that RAF pilots were fighting / firing with only a couple of guns and sometimes even as few as one out of eight.


Where did you read about the Colt-Browings being unreliable? They were basically the same as the US M1919 but chambered for .303 instead of 30-06.

When the RAF were doing the operational trials for the Hispano Cannon the Sqn Leader Pinkham (19 Sqn RAF doing the trials) asked for the .303 armmed Spitfires (and got them) because they were more reliable!

Machine guns will have stopages, miss-feeds, ice up and what have you, that goes for guns on both sides. I've never heard that the Browning were unreliable.

RegRag1977
03-02-2008, 09:50 AM
This is how the 109 pilots will look in BOBSOW:

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/RegRag1977/2147264652_b0f4f36258_o.jpg

And you know what, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif the spitfire pilots will look, well,the same in other uniforms. Losers and whiners are the vast, though loud, minority.

Another way to give more realism is to add fatigue and not to record stats IMHO.

Ruy Horta
03-02-2008, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:

Where did you read about the Colt-Browings being unreliable? They were basically the same as the US M1919 but chambered for .303 instead of 30-06.

When the RAF were doing the operational trials for the Hispano Cannon the Sqn Leader Pinkham (19 Sqn RAF doing the trials) asked for the .303 armmed Spitfires (and got them) because they were more reliable!

Machine guns will have stopages, miss-feeds, ice up and what have you, that goes for guns on both sides. I've never heard that the Browning were unreliable.

Multitude of sources. I think we're having a semantics issue or at best me choosing the wrong english word.

I said reliability - as in not being able to rely on all 8 guns functioning in combat conditions. The reasons were numerous and AFAIK generally that well known to the point that I am not encouraged to quote or give sources.

I conceed that I instead of reliable I could have written "suffered many stopages".

The RAF wasn't alone. A lot had to be (re)learned.

By the time the early cannon setup was tested operationally, many of these lessons had been learned and "reliability" of the .303 in combat had improved.

As for the British gun being the same as the original US design, again from what I've read in British sources they tend to disagree.

Not my speciality, so I'll leave it at that.

Kurfurst__
03-02-2008, 11:06 AM
IIRC there were heating issues with the wing guns in RAF fighters before the war, which effectively prevented them being used at altitude; these were fixed AFAIK before the war.

Viper2005_
03-02-2008, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
How abount an anti-negative approach? When player 1 (in a fighter) shoots down an enemy fighter within a certain circumference of say, player 2 (in a bomber), player one gets 2 or 3x the points as normal.

In the old Call of Duty online, you could score rank for assisting the flag carrier, etc.

The purpose of escort fighters is to keep enemy interceptors clear of the bombers. This system would favour them waiting until the interceptors got close before trying to kill them in order to pick up a bonus, which is in direct conflict with their job.

The purpose of military forces is to prevent wars by deterrence. Should this fail, their purpose is to win wars as quickly as possible with the minimum of drama and heroics so that the maximum number of survivors can get on with their lives with the minimum of delay.

In other words, the purpose of military forces is to provide the movie industry with the minimum of material, and IMO this should be represented in the scoring system.

Bomber pilots much prefer seeing no enemy fighters at all to seeing enemy fighters being shot down just before they reach firing range...

fordfan25
03-02-2008, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
it doesn't turn as well as the Spitfire? If I understand correctly, these early Mk Spits had a margin of better sustained turn rate.

Well after the horror 109 in il2 which barely manouvers with P47, if a 109 in SoW will turn worse than a Spit! only by a margin, then I'm highly concerned for Spitfire pilots. I guess v1.01 emergency patch will have to solve that, porking 109's turn time for atleast 3-4 seconds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>if u have any trouble at all out turning p47s in a 109 in game you need to learn to fly the 109. maby check to see if your stick aint bent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

RegRag1977
03-02-2008, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:

In other words, the purpose of military forces is to provide the movie industry with the minimum of material, and IMO this should be represented in the scoring system.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Manu-6S
03-02-2008, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Well after the horror 109 in il2 which barely manouvers with P47, if a 109 in SoW will turn worse than a Spit! only by a margin, then I'm highly concerned for Spitfire pilots. I guess v1.01 emergency patch will have to solve that, porking 109's turn time for atleast 3-4 seconds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif if u have any trouble at all out turning p47s in a 109 in game you need to learn to fly the 109. maby check to see if your stick aint bent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably he's referring to medium-high speed turns where late 109s are useless (if not used in an ambush). I tend to fully agree.

kid_SA
03-02-2008, 02:29 PM
I don't think it's a good idea to enforce such a scoring system, except perhaps as a small (small) incentive. Pilots should WANT to protect the bombers, to win the war. The online-war mechanics should reflect that. If we are simply making the point-*****s do their point-whoring to mimic teamwork, we will always be disappointed. It's not possible to force someone onto TS or to force someone not to use the loopholes of the scoring system. And there will be loopholes.

Rather, encourage a team environment. ADW does a decent-ish job. There are plenty of bombers around, 95% the time (though still too few). Perhaps their job should be easier, and the rewards should be more direct (instead of a 1-0 battle won/battle lost without any grey area) and make it impossible to win a map simply by killing enough enemy planes. Killing enough planes/pilots should cause problems for the enemy, but that's where the spice comes in. Same with destroyed fuel, ammo, tanks, etc. It should all matter in small ways, and the administration should encourage teamwork as best it can. I don't think it would be that hard.

MB_Avro_UK
03-02-2008, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
, one factor that is rarely included in the early war turning debate is the Messerschmitt's superior pilot position, who's declined seating enables him to withstand higher G loads.


By the Battle of Britain the Spitfire Mk1 were fitted with the two step rudder pedals. In combat the pilot would shift his feet to the top step giving him a similar reclined posture, that enabled them to withstand an extra G or so with out blacking out.


Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
OTOH again reliability of the .303 in combat (certainly the early part) sometimes meant that RAF pilots were fighting / firing with only a couple of guns and sometimes even as few as one out of eight.


Where did you read about the Colt-Browings being unreliable? They were basically the same as the US M1919 but chambered for .303 instead of 30-06.

When the RAF were doing the operational trials for the Hispano Cannon the Sqn Leader Pinkham (19 Sqn RAF doing the trials) asked for the .303 armmed Spitfires (and got them) because they were more reliable!

Machine guns will have stopages, miss-feeds, ice up and what have you, that goes for guns on both sides. I've never heard that the Browning were unreliable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spits and Hurricanes were fitted with red coloured canvas patches over the gun ports to reduce the risk of freezing at high altitude.

Did the P-51 have the same type of gun port patches?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

M_Gunz
03-02-2008, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Well after the horror 109 in il2 which barely manouvers with P47, if a 109 in SoW will turn worse than a Spit! only by a margin, then I'm highly concerned for Spitfire pilots. I guess v1.01 emergency patch will have to solve that, porking 109's turn time for atleast 3-4 seconds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif if u have any trouble at all out turning p47s in a 109 in game you need to learn to fly the 109. maby check to see if your stick aint bent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably he's referring to medium-high speed turns where late 109s are useless (if not used in an ambush). I tend to fully agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you tell him of the wonders of maneuver through roll and the vertical?
Especially with late 109's, built for different tactics.
Use the (trim-) force Luke! That is both arms pulling and you still can throttle.

Or would you wish to fly a P-51 'pivot' where the less pull breaks the wings at high speed
and only fix is to lose low speed elevator authority in not the best low speed turning plane?

109 can have the high speed turn with trim as fix but P-51 sensitivity-fixed still cannot
turn as well at less than high speed. Really BOTH SIDES should settle and learn to use and
like what they got, lose the "should-bes". It's not like it's going to change.

Whirlin_merlin
03-02-2008, 04:04 PM
During the BOB my Grandad was a rigger on hurricanes but later he was an armourer on spits.
If I recall corectly he said stoppages were an issue althrough the war he said even at the end the hispano took real care to load well. However I got the impression that he thought it obvious that guns sometimes jammed under these conditions and I expect all airforces had such problems.

M_Gunz
03-02-2008, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The Spits and Hurricanes were fitted with red coloured canvas patches over the gun ports to reduce the risk of freezing at high altitude.

Did the P-51 have the same type of gun port patches?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Spitfires apparently had hot air ducted to the guns - pg 185. (http://books.google.com/books?id=EsrlFR6wxRsC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=spitfire+gun+heater&source=web&ots=vQV3n0G0EE&sig=wX-DTWvYf5nkXcXbb1wyMiuju94&hl=en)

From glimpses, P-51 used electric gun heaters or at least had gun heater switches.
I've also seen a B-17 waist gun heater for sale, it's electric.

They used Hurricanes and Spitfires in RUSSIA, did those need to be adapted to really cold?
That's where you want to check gun, cockpit, any other heaters! Did they need special kits
for winterizing LW planes in East Front?

M_Gunz
03-02-2008, 05:09 PM
What was a bigger cause of jams? Heavy trigger finger or other reasons?

M_Gunz
03-02-2008, 05:25 PM
If online war had more points winnable through shared mission-oriented 'team points' then you
could be sure of better games. Even on DF (as was with RB3D team melee) people will team up
when there's enough points to make it the better option. Team points, squad points, whatever.
So every target bombed has points for the bomber that did it and more for the team it is on.
Every plane shot down gets individual and team points; points per engine, gun and bomb carried.
Every target not bombed/destroyed is points for the defenders.

You will get mission-oriented players that way!

mortoma
03-02-2008, 07:59 PM
I don't think it will matter what will happen to "109ers" as you put it. What will happen for sure, is people will have a heckuva a lot of fun when we get that sim. If we indeed ever do get that sim. If it's ever released it will be just a game so treat it as such. And have a blast playing it.

Viper2005_
03-02-2008, 08:09 PM
I think that anybody who flies only one aeroplane in SOW/BOB will be missing out on most of the game.

Skoshi Tiger
03-02-2008, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
The Spits and Hurricanes were fitted with red coloured canvas patches over the gun ports to reduce the risk of freezing at high altitude.

Did the P-51 have the same type of gun port patches?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

I wonder if the little bits of flapping canvas will be moddeled in SOW? (Like in the B/W war movies) It would be cool!

M_Gunz
03-02-2008, 11:06 PM
If you can have moving grass then why not flapping canvas?
That sounds like a good WWI comabt flight sim title though; Flapping Canvas: Pucker Factor Over the Front!

Skoshi Tiger
03-02-2008, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What was a bigger cause of jams? Heavy trigger finger or other reasons?

I probably would have been put up on numerous charges for abusing my guns!

I don't think sim pilots really understand how much respect they deserve. And think how many "Oleg my gun are porked!" threads would be around it we had realistic stopages! "All I did was hold the trigger down for twelve seconds!"

M_Gunz
03-03-2008, 12:46 AM
I've seen how few seconds of fire per minute time allowed for M2 posted here.
It's not a whole lot.
Ammo is supposed to last and at 10-20 rounds every second even 400 shots goes quickly enough.

Try flying early war Russian campaign! You will learn to conserve ammo!

It's maybe the best introduction to the series there is, you are in a hard situation with not
the best planes. You have to conserve and build energy better to have a chance when those
109F's show up. Maybe start with Yaks though instead of I-16, Yaks have less ammo and guns
but better speed and easier to fly, well behaved unlike the faster MiG and better P/W than
the early LaGGs which also don't support teaching ammo conservation and need to aim so well.