Banning Planes

[Pubestien13]

There needs to be a ban on the I-16 and the I-153!!!!!!!!!! They were hardly used in WW2 and have an overwhelmingly unfair advatage in any dogfight regardless of skill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The option to limit what kind of planes are allowed by year is to broad of an option for the host player. It needs to be changed to allow what planes are and aren't allowed.

[Soviet Ace]

Wrong. Both the I-16 and I-153 were both used extensively in WW2. In 1941-Early 1943, the I-16 and I-153 were both used in many GIAP and less rewarded units. (GIAP is a Air Unit who has been awarded Guard Status, which was a huge honor. Your unit was only allowed guard status after doing something heroic or something beyond the call of duty sorta stuff.)

[xX-SiLeNcE-Xx]

=| They're not "too" hard to take out, plus you can outrun them. Every plane has advantages and disadvantages.

[Robotic Pope]

No way. They are fun little planes to fly and if someone tries to fight either of them in a turn, its their own fault they end up dead.

[ontheborderland]

Yeah I came up against one and it got me twice before I changed tactic. Then I got him a good few times. Just switch to a boom 'n' zoom style, even if you're not flying a plane designed to do it (I was in a Spit).

[juz1]

on realistic I've found these planes quite easy to bag...
________
Bmw 003 (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_003)

[Marchochias]

There needs to be a ban on the I-16 and the I-153!!!!!!!!!! They were hardly used in WW2 and have an overwhelmingly unfair advatage in any dogfight regardless of skill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The option to limit what kind of planes are allowed by year is to broad of an option for the host player. It needs to be changed to allow what planes are and aren't allowed.

Clearly you didn't use enough exclamation marks.

The I-16 is easy to shoot down for any more modern aircraft, it's so slow you can go for endless hit and run attacks while it plods along.

[Lexandro]

While the ops post is not exactly very well constructed or written, he does actually make a valid point. What he is essentially asking for is a way to discriminate aircraft in a more robust fashion rather than the simple " up to Year XX" system we currently have. I have a few thoughts on how this might be accomplished in a simple and effective manner.

1.) Allow the starting year to change (eg "YEARS ~1942-1944")
2.) Allow an option for "piston only" which also leads to;
3.) Allow an option for "non-piston only" (eg; jet and rocket powered craft)
4.) Faction specific options (eg; RAF or Luftwaffe)
5.) Type specific matches (eg Boom N zoom only / TnB only games)
6.) Last but not least allow the option of wing type only games (eg Monoplane/Biplane only games)

[VolksJager13]

I was flying the I-153 last night with good results. Sure its maneuverable but its slow, not that well armed and wont take heaps of damage but like all planes its give and take. I fly it and dont expect to win, just enjoy it.

[zg26]

While the ops post is not exactly very well constructed or written, he does actually make a valid point. What he is essentially asking for is a way to discriminate aircraft in a more robust fashion rather than the simple " up to Year XX" system we currently have. I have a few thoughts on how this might be accomplished in a simple and effective manner.

1.) Allow the starting year to change (eg "YEARS ~1942-1944")
2.) Allow an option for "piston only" which also leads to;
3.) Allow an option for "non-piston only" (eg; jet and rocket powered craft)
4.) Faction specific options (eg; RAF or Luftwaffe)
5.) Type specific matches (eg Boom N zoom only / TnB only games)
6.) Last but not least allow the option of wing type only games (eg Monoplane/Biplane only games)

Agree with 1 and 4 but no on the rest. I'd prefer more historical match ups and if that means 262's against Mustangs then so be it.

[HauptmannMolders]

As much as these planes do drive me nuts as well I must confess to being about 25-1 on the I16 in arcade. Its ugly as hell and only works in arcade but man this thing is literally unstappable in that mode. Realistic is a whole different story these two planes are just too slow. Frankly I'd prefer to not play arcade but at points thats all thats happening online :(

[Raw Kryptonite]

I like the idea of adding a starting year, and with factions. Factions would require a split lobby so people would know what faction they were going to fly to select a plane they want though.
A toggle for "props only" would cover the rest IMO.
Those 3 controls would be nice to have.

[akuma]

There needs to be a ban on the I-16 and the I-153!!!!!!!!!! They were hardly used in WW2 and have an overwhelmingly unfair advatage in any dogfight regardless of skill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The option to limit what kind of planes are allowed by year is to broad of an option for the host player. It needs to be changed to allow what planes are and aren't allowed.

These planes are only really any good in arcade mode, where all planes have tank like armour, and with a few small differences all have the same performance.

In Realistic they fall out of the sky if you simply fly too close as they are very flimsy.

I only recall ever seeing someone use it once in realistic and they got desvistated.

[Soulsurfer]

Played a few ranked games last with about 5 people in the room. Some guy called '00Monster00' was flying these planes and destroying people with them. Everyone was trying to turn fight with him so more fool them :P. Too bad this guy is an asshole though, as soon as you get on his six he just dives straight into the ground and crashes. I've seriously never known anyone on this game to deliberatly crash as often as him it's pathetic.

[Zatoichi_Sanjuro]

What game is everyone else playing because the I-153 isn't slow at all. When I'm flying a 109 my speed advantage over the I-153 is miniscule, certainly not enough to give me any advantage in boom and zoom and of course completely useless in a turn war.

[Soviet Ace]

What game is everyone else playing because the I-153 isn't slow at all. When I'm flying a 109 my speed advantage over the I-153 is miniscule, certainly not enough to give me any advantage in boom and zoom and of course completely useless in a turn war.

Exactly. You make quick pass attacks, then race away, and come back for another.

[Pubestien13]

Regardless of their history and any other point made, mine still stands. They made these planes have advantages in every aspect of a fighter accept armament (when compared to that of other planes) in arcade mode. Yes, it's almost futile to get into turning fight, but it takes what seems like an ungodly amount of time to take them out when using hit and run tactics. And in realistic mode im sure they're alot more vulnerable. You can't tell that they're not unfair in arcade mode when they neglegted to transfer real agility attributes from the Spitfire's perfectly (in all modes) when FW 190's and P-51D's can't fly worth anything more than WW1 biplanes. And from personal experiance they aren't very easy to shoot down; they're small and tritchy, therfore making them a hard target. The only WW2 modern planes that have an arguably easy time shooting them down are are those with multiple cannons or multiple heavy cannons (Bf-109's, FW190 D-9, Spitfire's, ect.). I've seen a decent amount of player abuse this plane to what seems like an F-22 vs. anything. To sum it up, they're unfair in arcade, plain and simple. Don't try argueing that they're not.

[Soviet Ace]

Regardless of their history and any other point made, mine still stands. They made these planes have advantages in every aspect of a fighter accept armament (when compared to that of other planes) in arcade mode. Yes, it's almost futile to get into turning fight, but it takes what seems like an ungodly amount of time to take them out when using hit and run tactics. And in realistic mode im sure they're alot more vulnerable. You can't tell that they're not unfair in arcade mode when they neglegted to transfer real agility attributes from the Spitfire's perfectly (in all modes) when FW 190's and P-51D's can't fly worth anything more than WW1 biplanes. And from personal experiance they aren't very easy to shoot down; they're small and tritchy, therfore making them a hard target. The only WW2 modern planes that have an arguably easy time shooting them down are are those with multiple cannons or multiple heavy cannons (Bf-109's, FW190 D-9, Spitfire's, ect.). I've seen a decent amount of player abuse this plane to what seems like an F-22 vs. anything. To sum it up, they're unfair in arcade, plain and simple. Don't try argueing that they're not.

I don't think anyone was/is trying to argue with you. Just trying to help you get them. And in Arcade, it shouldn't be that hard since the whole real flying factor is taken out.

The I-16 and I-153 are both planes that though small, could take a lot of punishment. Just take the Wildcat for example. Small, and yet could take a lot of damage in its own way. And another thing, since they're small, they are a hard target to get, but that's why I fly as them.

So they don't have an unfair advantage, you just have to learn how to take care of them. That's all.

[Pubestien13]

I already know how to take care of them, they're such a pain in the ass that there needs to be options on what planes can and can't be used, like i suggested before.

[JG27CaptStubing]

All a common thread is brought up. Ban certain planes. Generally speaking if they are in the same year and historical learn to deal with them with Tactics.

I16s and I153s are great turners and hit hard. Use tactics to beat them. Boom and Zoom is a common term. Hit them and then run climb back up and rinse and repeat. It takes time to get good at it.

[trk29]

First in order to be able to boom and zoom you have to fly against people that know how to stay in air and not crash. As many hits as it takes some times to bring a aircraft down it may take you a few passes before you shoot them down, granted they don't get shot down by your team mate or crash because they stall.

[Kamak86]

I dont want to piss in anyones wheaties but all the soviet planes are garbage in this game except the LAs.....in my humble opinion of course. :)

[Benrizz]

Played a few ranked games last with about 5 people in the room. Some guy called '00Monster00' was flying these planes and destroying people with them. Everyone was trying to turn fight with him so more fool them :P. Too bad this guy is an asshole though, as soon as you get on his six he just dives straight into the ground and crashes. I've seriously never known anyone on this game to deliberatly crash as often as him it's pathetic.


I met him as well. And that's totally true. Even if you are not on his 6 but going to get on his 6 he is going to bail out.

Just a pathetic gamer

[Soviet Ace]

I dont want to piss in anyones wheaties but all the soviet planes are garbage in this game except the LAs.....in my humble opinion of course. :)

What game are you playing? Because in my copy o BoP, the Soviet Planes: I-16, I-153, Yak-1, Yak-9, and Yak-3 all fly how they should. What do you have the sensitivity at? That might be your problem, because when flying the planes I've mentioned, you need the sensitivity raised at least 3 notches from the very top. It gives you a hell of an advantage, and better controls. Plus, none of those planes are hard to control.

Just some advise. You like what you like :)

[haitch40]

i think this is stupid just use speed btw the i16 is in my opinion 1 of the worst planes ever built (although it looks cute)

[Ancient Seraph]

i think this is stupid just use speed btw the i16 is in my opinion 1 of the worst planes ever built (although it looks cute)
I think it looks ridiculous :P (no offense to any I-16 lovers). It's a lot of fun to fly though. You easily outturn anybody. Until they figure out you're slow it's a joy. In arcade it's just as fast as any other plane though, as far as I know. I can imagine this kind of sucks. Just go one step up to Realistic :D.

[The_Goalie_94]

=| They're not "too" hard to take out, plus you can outrun them. Every plane has advantages and disadvantages.

THats the stupidest, most no-life sig i have ever seen...

[Zatoichi_Sanjuro]

First in order to be able to boom and zoom you have to fly against people that know how to stay in air and not crash. As many hits as it takes some times to bring a aircraft down it may take you a few passes before you shoot them down, granted they don't get shot down by your team mate or crash because they stall.

This, hopefully, will be fixed in the patch.

I think that I have only come up against thess highly maneuverable bi-planes in Realistic with it's absolutely horrible lock-on mechanic which really eliminates a lot of the advantage of boom and zoom.

[Marchochias]

The only aircraft that really annoys me online is the IL-2 and its variants. They're just stupidly tough: the 30mm cannon on the BF 109 G-6 destroys a Stuka in one hit, but literally overheated before it was able to kill an IL-2. I come up on the tail so many times, nailing it 5 times more than is necessary to kill any other plane, and yet it just keeps flying. And if it finally does crash, it doesn't count as your kill. Basically broken online.

And of course the rear gun is stupidly overpowered as always. Ironic that a 30 mm gun that would kill a heavy bomber in 2 hits is useless against a IL-2, yet the tiny 7.62mm machine gun in the back of the IL2 can take down a fighter almost instantly, on realistic and simulator. Ridiculous, and it makes strike and capture the airfield modes pointless to fly anything but an IL2 in.

[Pubestien13]

I find it hilarious how alot of player defend russian aircraft and their abilities, when everyone knows they're hardly worth fighting a war with; accept for the late model ones. Other than that the only reason why russian aircraft, like any other russian item of war, is that they're only good in numbers. And another thing that makes myself laugh, is that how people still claim that "boom and zoom" tactics are good in arcade. They may be perfect for realistic, hense the name "realistic", but they're useless a decent amount of the time unless the other player makes a mistake giving you the advantage.

[Soviet Ace]

I find it hilarious how alot of player defend russian aircraft and their abilities, when everyone knows they're hardly worth fighting a war with; accept for the late model ones. Other than that the only reason why russian aircraft, like any other russian item of war, is that they're only good in numbers. And another thing that makes myself laugh, is that how people still claim that "boom and zoom" tactics are good in arcade. They may be perfect for realistic, hense the name "realistic", but they're useless a decent amount of the time unless the other player makes a mistake giving you the advantage.

I beg to differ. Soviet planes, alone or together. Early or late, did well against German 109s and 190s. They were light, fast, and maneuverable. At the hands of a good pilot, a Yak-1 or even a LaGG-3 was a worth foe. And if your having such a problem with them, why not just play in realistic, rather than Arcade? Then you'll have more of a chance at BnZ. Arcade (no offense to anyone who plays Arcade) but Arcade does not improve your flying skills for BoP. Realistic gives you the chance to start having the advantage of what your plane has, and Simulator. Well that gives you plenty of challenge, especially when looking for little I-16s or I-153.

So unless you know anything about the Soviet planes, then I would retract saying that they are not good unless in numbers. Because that statement if truly false. I'm sorry, but I've studied Soviet planes of all types for many years, and know from reports and books, that early Soviet planes were worth of a being a dangerous foe. It was just how the early Soviet flight training was done, that made the pilots not as skilled as they were in mid-1942 and beyond.

[mattmanB182]

But wait a minute here......Werent most of the top aces BF-109 pilots?


Yea there is a Russian near the top, but most were GERMAN.


Fairly...the best fighter of the war is not even in the game. F4U Corsair.

[RubberBoots]

Yeah, until they patch the scoring, people are going to keep crashing or bailing as soon as they get hit, so boom and zoom is still useless. For the time being, stick to other slow, quick turning fighters.

I disagree with the assessment that the I-16 isn't as good in realistic; it continues to be excellent in the hands of a skilled pilot on realistic because everyone keeps fighting below 500 meters, and just circling around each other--this for the reason I have mentioned: the maneuverable bastards will crash (often on purpose) to get a new plane while you zoom away and turn around.

Once that patch goes live, *I will get you, Dredloc!*

-Philosofrenzy

[Swagger7]

But wait a minute here......Werent most of the top aces BF-109 pilots?


Yea there is a Russian near the top, but most were GERMAN.


Fairly...the best fighter of the war is not even in the game. F4U Corsair.

There are a couple reasons why that was the case:
First of all, numbers. The Germans spent much of the war with something of a numerical disadvantage, which meant that top German pilots always had a surplus of targets. For example, a P-51 pilot could fly several missions without sighting an enemy fighter, but the Bf-109 pilot would see combat just about every time he took off.

Secondly, time in combat was a factor. Most of the Allied nations had limits on the time a pilot flew in combat. After a certain number of combat hours a pilot would be rotated into an instructor billet or a desk job. At least that's how it was in the US & I think Britain. I'm not sure about the Soviets, though. The Germans didn't do that. There were pilots who flew from the invasion of Poland to the war's end. Erich Hartmann (352 kills, top German ace) had 1404 combat missions, while Richard Bong (top US ace, 40 kills) had only 200. So on average, Bong got one kill every 5 missions, and Hartmann got one kill every 3.99 missions. So, there wasn't that much of a difference, other than time spent in combat. Here's the same breakdown for a few other aces: (Sorry about the weird lines, it wouldn't display properly otherwise.)

Ace________________Country_________Kills*____Comba t______Missions/
___________________________________________Mission s______Kill

Günther Rall_________Germany_________275_____621_________2 .26

Adolf Galland________Germany_________104_____705________ _6.78

Ilmari Juutilainen_____Finland___________94______437_____ ___4.65

Saburo Sakai________Japan____________64______200________3 .13

Ivan Kozhedub_______USSR____________62______330________ 5.32

*Source: Wikipedia & various articles. Many of the exact kill counts are disputed, so it's a little open to interpretation. Also, different sides used different standards for counting shared kills, etc, which I didn't take into effect.

Don't take this as me trying to say Ace X is better than Ace Y. There are way too many variables involved for that. It's just meant to show how some aces might have had much higher scores if they'd been able to fly more missions.

Sorry for not including any RAF pilots, but I had a hell of a time trying to find their numbers of combat missions flown. This whole subject was a very interesting thing to look into, so I might have to do some real research on this in the future.......

[mattd27]

I disagree about the Soviet planes. They are not worthless, yes they can be taken down, but my I-153 will take you down if you ever try to out turn it. If you come down on it with a faster plane though, it's easy prey.

Really, it's all a balance, all the planes have their advantages and disadvantages. It's about using those to your advantage.

[xX-SiLeNcE-Xx]

The Soviet planes are like tanks =P I can take multiple shots and still fly close to normally, but the spitfire on the other hand...

[Pubestien13]

I will never understand Soviet Ace's obsession with soviet aircraft. Stop being biest. In the European theater the kill ratios speak for themselves and they favor other planes more than russian. I'm not doubting that russia came up with some good fighters. And nobody can say that any peice of russian war equipment isn't good unless in numbers. I'm sorry but that's what they've done in the past and forever will do, that's just the way they think. Just look at their tanks and sheer amounts of AK's, but thats besides the point.

And I'm sure if there weren't rotation's of U.S. pilots their kill ratio's would be alot higher, but Swagger7 has a point on the target rich environment.

[Soviet Ace]

I will never understand Soviet Ace's obsession with soviet aircraft. Stop being biest. In the European theater the kill ratios speak for themselves and they favor other planes more than russian. I'm not doubting that russia came up with some good fighters. And nobody can say that any peice of russian war equipment isn't good unless in numbers. I'm sorry but that's what they've done in the past and forever will do, that's just the way they think. Just look at their tanks and sheer amounts of AK's, but thats besides the point.

And I'm sure if there weren't rotation's of U.S. pilots their kill ratio's would be alot higher, but Swagger7 has a point on the target rich environment.

Well if you know anything about Soviet Planes. You'll know about a specific dogfight that was HUGE on the Eastern Front in 1944. A small squadron of Yak-3s were doing a small patrol (5 or 6 about) and were bounced by at least 10 or 12 190s. The dogfight gradually erupted into 18 190s against 12 Yak-3s and guess who won? Yak-3s. They lost two fights against the seven 190s they downed.

And the reason I'm interested in Soviet Planes is because to me, the Soviets built some of the best TnB fighters of the War. I'm naturally drawn to low-medium altitude fighters. And the Soviets provide me with that. I also enjoy many Japanese planes as well. Their light armor and fast pace, have always made me enjoy learning about them. So saying I am biased is way off. Enjoying one group of planes over another, is not being biased if you do accept that some planes can out do yours. But compared to German planes, many Soviet planes prevailed in low-medium altitudes better. And you do know that in 1941, when Russia was blitzed, that German planes (Me110s etc.) attacked the air fields first, and destroyed many Soviet planes before they could get off the ground. But by 1942, many Soviet pilot training groups had a complete overhaul, and many Soviet pilots began racking up the kills.

Take Stalingrad for example. Many of the pilots over Stalingrad were guess what? Women! That's right, most Soviet pilots flying over Stalingrad were women. And they racked up enough kills, even over their own loss numbers to have air superiority over the city. Leningrad was a standstill, and mostly because the LaGG and MiG factories were closer to Leningrad than say Stalingrad.

Me being biased, is nothing different than anyone else. Some on here favor the Spitfire (David603), and some enjoy the Hurricane (FOZ). They both always talk about the Spitfire or Hurricane any chance they get. Sorry to drag you both into this, but you understand what I mean.

[FOZ_1983]

i hold my hand up, i do love talking about the hurricane, and also taking the piss out of the ruski planes....but all in good jest.

I know how good the hurri really is and as the war goes one what duties it can do better than the other. I also know how good the ruski crates are, i just like to have some banter with soviet ace about them. Im a huge fan of the hurrie, i will defend it where and when i can. But in a dogfight... 9/10 i will take a spitfire. Because i know as much as i like my hurricane, it just lacks in some areas.

The russian planes are good at what they are meant to do...... be fast and agile, or slow and heavy (Yak/IL2)


on topic...soviet, yes i know exacly what you mean :D

[mattd27]

Take Stalingrad for example. Many of the pilots over Stalingrad were guess what? Women! That's right, most Soviet pilots flying over Stalingrad were women. And they racked up enough kills, even over their own loss numbers to have air superiority over the city.

Yes, I was reading about that. I found it quite funny how it was a huge moral loss for the germans that they were being shot down and killed by woman. :D

[FOZ_1983]

and the F4U corsair being the best fighter of the war?

hmmmmmm debatable!!


how would you class a fighter as the best?

on kills alone?
kill to death ratio?
armament?
speed?
manouvrability?
cost?


in all honesty their is no "best fighter of ww2" because for as long as humans are alive then they will always debate between many different choices.

try a poll just for peace of mind and give the choices as erm..... for example -

spitfire
mustang
109
corsair
zero

just 5 examples their and see what results you would get. I myself would choose the spitfire, but know for a fact many would disagree and then tell me im wrong and why they think "plane of choice" is better.

at the end of the day.... each to their own :D

[Soviet Ace]

i hold my hand up, i do love talking about the hurricane, and also taking the piss out of the ruski planes....but all in good jest.

I know how good the hurri really is and as the war goes one what duties it can do better than the other. I also know how good the ruski crates are, i just like to have some banter with soviet ace about them. Im a huge fan of the hurrie, i will defend it where and when i can. But in a dogfight... 9/10 i will take a spitfire. Because i know as much as i like my hurricane, it just lacks in some areas.

The russian planes are good at what they are meant to do...... be fast and agile, or slow and heavy (Yak/IL2)


on topic...soviet, yes i know exacly what you mean :D

Exactly my point. Enjoying one or several planes of one side does not make you bias. I enjoy Soviet Planes more than British or American planes, but I still enjoy learning and reading about all nations planes. I just prefer the Soviet planes over the others.

Yes, I was reading about that. I found it quite funny how it was a huge moral loss for the germans that they were being shot down and killed by woman. :D

And yes, many of the women became aces within a day! But sadly one of the best women pilots to grace the Easter skies was killed :(

[dazz1971]

i tottaly agree with soviot ace

i think it was amazing that the russians built such good planes i mean at one point in the war the were litarally being exterminated were on the brink of starvation fighting for there very surviaval

if any of you have seen the film enermy at the gate ?? they were so short on guns and ammo the would give one guy a rifle and the other guy a clip of ammo and told him when the first guy is shot u pick up his rifle and cary on fighting !!!! so for them to turn the tide around and push the germans back and then take the fight all the way back to berlin was amazing :cool:

just my 2 cents

[tango2delta]

Yes, I was reading about that. I found it quite funny how it was a huge moral loss for the germans that they were being shot down and killed by woman. :D

Yes the W.A.S.P, Valentina Grizodubova, Lily Litvyak, Marina Raskova all where great pilots. The germans pilots i think called them something else, Anybody Know?

[Pubestien13]

All you're doing is proving me right. You're obsessed with russian planes.

[Soviet Ace]

Yes the W.A.S.P, Valentina Grizodubova, Lily Litvyak, Marina Raskova all where great pilots. The germans pilots i think called them something else, Anybody Know?

I dunno if the German pilots had a nickname for the women, but Lily Litvyak, was called the "White Rose of Stalingrad". I'm not actually sure how that came around, but I think it was because her plane usually had a white rose painted on either the nose cowling, or some where else?

[Soviet Ace]

All you're doing is proving me right. You're obsessed with russian planes.

Your absolutely right. I am obsessed with Russian Planes. But if this was a forum on Pacific planes, then I would totally be talking about A6M2 and M5 Zeros. It's all a matter of preference.

You your self are biased against me for liking Russian planes, so I think it evens out? Don't you?

[FOZ_1983]

check mate. :P

[mattd27]

Yes the W.A.S.P, Valentina Grizodubova, Lily Litvyak, Marina Raskova all where great pilots. The germans pilots i think called them something else, Anybody Know?

They called some of them "Night Witches" I believe? Because they did a lot of bombing raids during the night presumably.

[Soviet Ace]

They called some of them "Night Witches" I believe? Because they did a lot of bombing raids during the night presumably.

Oh he's right. They called the 558th Night Bomber Regiment which would later become known as the 46th Guards Night Bomber Regiment. It was an all women's regiment.

Good going Matt. I even had to look it up in my book on Soviet Aces, just to make sure.

[HauptmannMolders]

All you're doing is proving me right. You're obsessed with russian planes.

And what? We're all obsessed with airplanes for me its German, dude you're arguing with an entire forum of people obsessed with planes!!!! Ease off mate you're coming across like an ass. Go check out the mw2 forum you'll fit right in. People here respect each others opinions... until now. Too bad really.

[Soviet Ace]

And what? We're all obsessed with airplanes for me its German, dude you're arguing with an entire forum of people obsessed with planes!!!! Ease off mate you're coming across like an ass. Go check out the mw2 forum you'll fit right in. People here respect each others opinions... until now. Too bad really.

It's never bad to have a little debate. But I believe it is the more knowledgeable people, that are the ones who accept others opinions. And those willing to learn about the planes, who are fun to talk with. Rather than just past judgement like some people.:rolleyes:

[FOZ_1983]

debate it good, providing you have valid grouds to debate on.

99% of us get on, so im sure nobody will lose any sleep lol. Speaking of sleep......


its bloody late here in uk (3:15am) so im going to call it a night. No doubt i will catch you guys tomorrow.

Soviet....i'll try the yak out tomorrow with sensitivy up a few notches and will then see how i get on. Will report back with my findings lol.

catch you fella's later. :D

[Pubestien13]

You cant be biased if someone's biased. Your originial statements were irrelivent to the original topic. Your lack logic proves my point still. Your answer for everthing is Russia, Russia, Russia. The fact that I acknowledge other planes, including some russian one's, as some of the greatist planes of all time makes me completly not biased. Just accept the fact that you're biased towards russian aircraft and move on. Come up with different material. End.

[mattd27]

I think we have some great discussions and debates here. A lot of people really know what they're talking about here, and it give us who aren't as educated a good chance to learn. I know so much more about WWII aviation now than when I first joined here.

Alright, well I'm off to bed early now, we'll see where this discussion's gotten too in the morning. :)

[Soviet Ace]

You cant be biased if someone's biased. Your originial statements were irrelivent to the original topic. Your lack logic proves my point still. Your answer for everthing is Russia, Russia, Russia. The fact that I acknowledge other planes, including some russian one's, as some of the greatist planes of all time makes me completly not biased. Just accept the fact that you're biased towards russian aircraft and move on. Come up with different material. End.

You can completely be biased against someone who is "biased". But I am not because I acknowledge other planes. When I speak with David, I talk about Spitfires and such. But I know a lot on Soviet Planes, there is nothing wrong with that is there? So I know more on Soviet planes, and enjoy them more. I think you know little of Soviet planes, and don't understand them. There is nothing wrong with me talking about them, if I'm educating people on them? Which I try to do. I don't go around bashing others planes, if I do, it is just for fun and jokes. And they know that.

I think your just an ignorant little boy, and don't understand much of planes? If you want, I could tell you some things. Maybe you've been getting your ass kicked by a Yak or La? Maybe even a I-16 or I-153, and don't know how to fly them. I can help you with this. But I'm not sure I would by the way your acting.

[Soviet Ace]

I just want to add, that not only are you going against me. But those on here, who are also "biased" with other planes. Just accept the fact, that in your eyes I am biased with Soviet planes, but to everyone else (I hope) I educate them and teach them about the Soviet planes.

[xX-SiLeNcE-Xx]

I just want to add, that not only are you going against me. But those on here, who are also "biased" with other planes. Just accept the fact, that in your eyes I am biased with Soviet planes, but to everyone else (I hope) I educate them and teach them about the Soviet planes.

Just gonna post to that. You actually did open my eyes to the Yak 3 (I saw posts about how you love it, balh blah blah) and now it's all I ever used, when I probably wouldn't have touched it before :)

[Pubestien13]

From time spent in the game the La's and Yak's are balanced from my point of veiw. These I-16's and I-153's aren't balanced at all compared to what planes need to be balanced in arcade mode, as stated in my original statements.

And to be honest I'm not that interested in WW2 Russian aircraft accept for the La's. I think some of them are mean bad ass looking aircraft that can get distingwishable kill ratio's. Others look like alot of the other stuff russian's built "like crap", but the russian have never really focused on a peice of weaponries "looks", they want it for the ease of mass production, ease of maitnance, and to fuction to what it was desiegned for. But you know thats a compliment that they would gladly take.

The fact that you so quickly show a creditable peice of historical fact is good for you but is irrelevent to the discussion about arcade mode planes and the balance between them.

[Soviet Ace]

From time spent in the game the La's and Yak's are balanced from my point of veiw. These I-16's and I-153's aren't balanced at all compared to what planes need to be balanced in arcade mode, as stated in my original statements.

And to be honest I'm not that interested in WW2 Russian aircraft accept for the La's. I think some of them are mean bad ass looking aircraft that can get distingwishable kill ratio's. Others look like alot of the other stuff russian's built "like crap", but the russian have never really focused on a peice of weaponries "looks", they want it for the ease of mass production, ease of maitnance, and to fuction to what it was desiegned for. But you know thats a compliment that they would gladly take.

The fact that you so quickly show a creditable peice of historical fact is good for you but is irrelevent to the discussion about arcade mode planes and the balance between them.

All Russian products are mass produced. Just look at the MiG-15 and later Russian jets. They're simple, easy to make, and handle nicely. They just do the opposite of what the US and UK does; which is make complicated and overly complicated machines. Not all are complicated, but many are. Russians just like to keep it simple. :)

[Pubestien13]

I have no quarrel with russian jets, russian jets are to easy to research and find statistics for on the net.

[Soviet Ace]

I have no quarrel with russian jets, russian jets are to easy to research and find statistics for on the net.

So what's your problem with Russian WW2 fighters? The Russians did the same thing they did in WW2, but with their jets.

[Pubestien13]

FYI russia cant afford to make things complicated either. Their export versions of the mig-21, su's have tons way better systems built and the reason why they can't use themeselves is because again, they simply can't afford them themselves.

[Swagger7]

All Russian products are mass produced. Just look at the MiG-15 and later Russian jets. They're simple, easy to make, and handle nicely. They just do the opposite of what the US and UK does; which is make complicated and overly complicated machines. Not all are complicated, but many are. Russians just like to keep it simple. :)

Yeah, the Russians just have a different design philosophy from the West. They're more interested in toughness and reliability than complexity. Sure, the F-15 might have better tech than the MiG-29, but can the F-15 operate from a sod field? Nope!

They've also made some great leaps forward. Look at the AK-47. Sure, it's not the greatest weapon anymore, but few better guns can take the abuse it can. And how many other sixty year-old guns are still in use? Not a whole lot!

[Soviet Ace]

FYI russia cant afford to make things complicated either. Their export versions of the mig-21, su's have tons way better systems built and the reason why they can't use themeselves is because again, they simply can't afford them themselves.

It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of simplicity. Understand, not everything has to be complicated like the US fighters. Take the F-22 Raptor. That is a seriously complicated machine. And take the Su-37, not so complicated.

Take the F4 Phantom as another example, complicated. The MiG-17,19, and 21. Not nearly as complicated. Also having a complicated machine adds weight, and you want your jet or prop plane as fast and maneuverable as you can. You get better performance as well.

[Swagger7]

FYI russia cant afford to make things complicated either. Their export versions of the mig-21, su's have tons way better systems built and the reason why they can't use themeselves is because again, they simply can't afford them themselves.

Yeah, but that's because they still haven't recovered from going bankrupt as the USSR. The fact that they're exporting these planes shows that they are perfectly capably of building them, doesn't it? And I'm pretty sure you meant the MiG-29. They haven't made MiG-21s in a really long time, although they do export advanced avionics packages to the few countries still using MiG-21s.

Edit: And what Soviet Ace said, too!

[Pubestien13]

In real life I have no problem with most WW2 russian aircraft like a said before. It sickens me that planes that are suppused to out monuever other planes can't because somebody forgot to carry the 1 over in the programing. Again realistic is fine. For example I just finnished a realistic match and a player with a spitfire out monuevered my 109 in a turn a few times.

[Pubestien13]

Yes, I did mean the Mig-29 fulcrum. And that was my question when I figured that out Swagger. It makes sense that they can't afford them because of the soviet fall, but they're supposed to be on an ecconomic rise to certain extent and assuming that thats still accurate they should be able to afford them now.

[Pubestien13]

You can't really compare the F-22 to anything because its a new stage in evolution of the fighter. For all the money and complicated systems in the
F22 it pays off. On several ocasion's while testing, the F-22 went up against 5-1, 7-1, 10-1 engagements and has come out on top. So your getting your moneys worth.

[Pubestien13]

And if you want to engage the F-22 on an even plain you'll most likely need an equal capable, expensive, and advanced plane.

[Soviet Ace]

You can't really compare the F-22 to anything because its a new stage in evolution of the fighter. For all the money and complicated systems in the
F22 it pays off. On several ocasion's while testing, the F-22 went up against 5-1, 7-1, 10-1 engagements and has come out on top. So your getting your moneys worth.

And if you want to engage the F-22 on an even plain you'll most likely need an equal capable, expensive, and advanced plane.

To answer both of those, the Su-37 is the Russian answer to the American F-22. So the comparison is reasonable.

[tango2delta]

They called some of them "Night Witches" I believe? Because they did a lot of bombing raids during the night presumably.

Night Witches is correct:)

[FOZ_1983]

In real life I have no problem with most WW2 russian aircraft like a said before. It sickens me that planes that are suppused to out monuever other planes can't because somebody forgot to carry the 1 over in the programing. Again realistic is fine. For example I just finnished a realistic match and a player with a spitfire out monuevered my 109 in a turn a few times.


your playing arcade. Enough said.

Arcade doesnt take all these things into consideration, its the easy dificulty that just lets you all fly around shooting each other. You have openly admitted that on realistic things performed differently, such as your 109 getting out turned etc by a spitfire. If you ant things to be how they should (or as close to) then play realistic and not arcade (or play sim even more hardcore :D )

Its when you go into realistic and you get your ass handed to you by the guy in the other plane that all this knowledge will help you!! next time your enemy takes a spit.... try the yak or the La..... then see him try to out turn you.

[Pubestien13]

hhhhhhhhhh... its getting old doing this circle talk. Realistic mode isn't fun half the time because you have to more worry about not stalling and spinning out of control with no chance of recover. And yes I have adjusted my sesitvity and it does help. I don't see how my knowledge of choosing a plane to use that I know that I have a disavantage with qualifies as getting my "ass handed to me", while trying to get acheive more wins to unlock the Bf-109 G-10.

And I still find it hard to beleive that the Su-37 is on an even plain with the
F-22. So far to my knowledge the only thing they have in common is thrust vectoring technology.

[Pubestien13]

Although it would be a good match.

[Dubbedinenglish]

Although it would be a good match.

Far from it, the 37 would be flying around until a missile impacted it.

The F-22 is stealth, the 37 is not.

[FOZ_1983]

hhhhhhhhhh... its getting old doing this circle talk. Realistic mode isn't fun half the time because you have to more worry about not stalling and spinning out of control with no chance of recover. And yes I have adjusted my sesitvity and it does help. I don't see how my knowledge of choosing a plane to use that I know that I have a disavantage with qualifies as getting my "ass handed to me", while trying to get acheive more wins to unlock the Bf-109 G-10.

And I still find it hard to beleive that the Su-37 is on an even plain with the
F-22. So far to my knowledge the only thing they have in common is thrust vectoring technology.

Ok.....


realistic mode ISNT fun because you spend to much time worrying about trying not to stall etc.....

That IS THE FUN!! i never worry about stalling or spinning and not recovering, i worry about the guy on my 6 who's shooting at me. I know how my plane flies, i know how to deal with it in turns etc so know how not to stall it (unless i purposly want to). Your bashing the game and the planes because people play it the way its meant to be played and not the way you like it!! i strongly suggest you get away from this game and try something else because its clearly not for you.


And to unlock the G10 you dont need wins. Just 100 kills with any of the 109's. Easy to achieve, just takes time and patience.

[Robotic Pope]

Ok.....


realistic mode ISNT fun because you spend to much time worrying about trying not to stall etc.....

That IS THE FUN!! i never worry about stalling or spinning and not recovering, i worry about the guy on my 6 who's shooting at me. I know how my plane flies, i know how to deal with it in turns etc so know how not to stall it (unless i purposly want to). Your bashing the game and the planes because people play it the way its meant to be played and not the way you like it!! i strongly suggest you get away from this game and try something else because its clearly not for you.


And to unlock the G10 you dont need wins. Just 100 kills with any of the 109's. Easy to achieve, just takes time and patience.

I 100% agree.

Oh and its the Me109K that needs 100 kills to unlock. You DO need wins for the G-10. 40 Team/dogfight wins I think.

[FOZ_1983]

Ah yeah your right. My fault.

But why would he want to unlock it? all he plays is arcade and he doesnt care how planes perform etc...... so whats the point? unless its the achievement he's after for unlocking all planes?

Just seems odd.

The G10 is nice to fly btw ;) good luck getting it.

[BadByte]

The F-22 is stealth, the 37 is not.

Meh whats the point?, they're both "last generation" next is unmanned aircraft which are cheaper, lower price, lower maintance. I would like to see either one of them try a 1 on X "how many unmanned one could buy for the price of one (1) f22/su37" and then see who wins.

[Pubestien13]

How is not liking realistic mode bashing the game. It has 3 modes of play therefore you can play the game 3 different way's. I think its amazing how realistic realistic mode is, I just don't have fun playing that mode half the time. When I get board with arcade I'll go play realistic, if there were anybody online half the time. You're bitching at me because I have a good suggestion for the host player of the game and not liking 2 specific aircraft out of the whole entire game. If you play realistic and thats it, why do care if I play arcade. You're bashing me because I want arcade to be better than it already is like I've stated over and over again. If you don't like it well you're just SOL.

[Roboslob]

which are cheaper, lower price,

Redundancy check? Or was that to make the list of advantages of un-manned aircraft longer?

[juz1]

Meh whats the point?, they're both "last generation" next is unmanned aircraft which are cheaper, lower price, lower maintance. I would like to see either one of them try a 1 on X "how many unmanned one could buy for the price of one (1) f22/su37" and then see who wins.

play the devs at this game and you'll see a team of robot flown yf35s shooting lasers and mindcontrolling your team mates planes...



maybe we could all live and let live...arcade has a following, simulator has a following, realistic seems to be where the two camps meet on quieter nights...I've been busy as online recently, but I really appreciate the invites I'm getting...thanks guys:grin:
________
Mazda Mx-5 Specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_MX-5)