Quote:
Originally Posted by PE_Tihi
Balancing like this, IceFire:
To even out the chances on the east front in the early war period, with the +50% bonus it has been given I16 climbs better than 109F4 up to 2000m.
This may not be readily known- I16 is seldom flown, being touchy to fly- but the 109F can hope for the draw at best in such a duel- if very consquently E-flown, or if it runs away.
109E is completely outclassed by the little Ishak, which climbs much faster.
Seen in the light of what really happened, this is simply....laughable  ))))
Most people here seem to be aware of these things- but IceFire, you seem to be very unaware of the grotesqueness of some of the plane performances in game |
See but thats not really balancing...balancing implies intent but thats jumping to conclusions.
If what you say is true then its one of several things I can think of off the top of my head:
1) Error in modeling
2) Error in data
3) Data used is correct but for a later model of aircraft than the one/year represented (could be better engine tuning, fuel availability, etc.)
4) Was balanced for some strange reason
To assume balancing implies intent which has not been established. Anyone who is suggesting it is impressing their ideas on the situation.
Furthermore my "grotesque" lack of seeing this has somehow managed to survive years of flying this planeset. As far as I'm concerned I'm always going to outclimb a I-16 Type 24 in a Bf109F-2 in an actual fight.
To be honest I grow frustrated with all of the people who feel their "side" has been wronged (I'm not saying this about you PE_Tihi) and advance only the one cause. There are still problems with every plane on all sides...there were many more problems which have been fixed and nobody cares about the ones that were fixed and fixed well.