Wrong choice

[HagarTheHorrible]

....and if not the wrong choice then maybe not the correct one.

 

I wonder how well the La-5 sits alongside the Fw190.  Don't get me wrong, apart from the rear view, I love everything about the BoS La-5, I think they've done a fantastic job, in fact it is probably my favourite aircraft, along side the PE-2.  Purely from a thinking out loud perspective though, rather than a moan, I just wonder if it's the right aircraft.  The Fw190 is certainly not a poor man's 109 and several members have pointed out that it really shouldn't be included in a strictly Stalingrad scenario.  The La-5 however seems to fall between two stools, it is better than the LaGG 3 but not in the same class as the Yak 1,  it doesn't add anything positive to the VVS arsenal in a way that the 190 does for the Germans.  The La-5fn might however have been that contender to fly off against the 190, I'm not suggesting it is some incredible wonder weapon but it might have been better placed to compete, along side the Yak, with the Gustav and 190.

 

 

I'm sure the fn will be offered for sale shortly after the initial release so it's not really an issue, but if you are trying to offer balance in plane releases (Yak 1/ Gustav) then I would have thought the La 5fn would have been a better choice to counter the 190 ?

 

In Western parlance I think it's a bit like being offered a Hurricane IIc as an upgrade, post BoB, to combat the 190 and newer 109's rather than a Spitfire Vb ?

 

Anyway, just thinking out loud, nothing more

[FuriousMeow]

It's not about balance, its about the timeframe. La5s existed around the same time as the 190A3, and in the vicinity of the conflict's time frame that is modelled here. La5F, La5FN, not at all.

 

We'll see the I16 before the La5FN.

Edited May 9, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[VikingFjord]

if balance is whats gonna dominate this game then we can just throw all of the concept of simulation and reality aside..and make a war thunder remake..
i am happy with the game as it unfolds

[Bladderburst]

Reds are going to have a hard time overall. Aside from numbers they did not have much going for them in the air. However we'll see how an encircled german army is simulated in this game...

[=38=Tatarenko]

There were La-5's at Stalingrad from Sept 42 so they should be there. There weren't any 190's so the question is whether they should, but they were flying on the Moscow Front so the timeframe is right.

[VikingFjord]

Russian aircraft was not the best there was..and we should not fake it so it seems they where better then what they was
it will demand skilled pilots to master these aircraft to the fullest and i have great respect for those who do
i hope that this game will be true to the  history and that we dont fake it for balance and gaming..becuse word balance dont excist in war

from wikipedia

"Against the Red Air Force German aces were able to shoot down large numbers of aircraft. Erich Rudorffer, a 222 victory ace, and Otto Kittel, a 267 victory ace, and Walter Nowotny, a 258 victory ace were the highest scoring Fw 190 aces in the Luftwaffe. Nowotny claimed most of his successes in the Fw 190.^[28] Rudorffer destroyed 138 aircraft flying the Fw 190; 13 in 17 minutes on 11 October 1943. Rudorffer scored 136 of his 222 victories in the Fw 190, while Kittel scored all but 40 of his kills in the type.^[29] No more than a few hundred Fw 190s were ever in service on the Eastern Front at any one time."

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history#Eastern_Front

[HagarTheHorrible]

Balance was maybe a bad choice of word, however the VVS still has to be competetive and realisticly that means only one choice at the moment.  If you're playing an Offline campaign or want a fully historic online scenerio fine don't include it but if you want competetive on-line battles then the VVS could really do with something to match the German order of battle.  I'm not intending to suggest it's a purely historical notion as has also been discussed about the Fw190 A-3. just logical.  It is probably only a matter of time before the fn version is offered anyway.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Russian aircraft was not the best there was..and we should not fake it so it seems they where better then what they was

it will demand skilled pilots to master these aircraft to the fullest and i have great respect for those who do

i hope that this game will be true to the  history and that we dont fake it for balance and gaming..becuse word balance dont excist in war

from wikipedia

 

"Against the Red Air Force German aces were able to shoot down large numbers of aircraft. Erich Rudorffer, a 222 victory ace, and Otto Kittel, a 267 victory ace, and Walter Nowotny, a 258 victory ace were the highest scoring Fw 190 aces in the Luftwaffe. Nowotny claimed most of his successes in the Fw 190.^[28] Rudorffer destroyed 138 aircraft flying the Fw 190; 13 in 17 minutes on 11 October 1943. Rudorffer scored 136 of his 222 victories in the Fw 190, while Kittel scored all but 40 of his kills in the type.^[29] No more than a few hundred Fw 190s were ever in service on the Eastern Front at any one time."

 

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history#Eastern_Front

 

 

I won't disagree, but that becomes a little frustrating if not eventually downright boring in on-line games.  Sure it's nice to get one over on a superior aircraft but getting whacked time after time by mediocre pilots in better aircraft soon loses it's appeal.  Not to mention that most people will head for the option with the best chance of success rather than challenge.  If you played on-line prior to the arrival of the Yak I think you would struggle to disagree, would you not ?

[FuriousMeow]

You're worried about multiplayer? Don't be. First of all - the 109G2 is running 1.3ATA as is appropriate for the timeframe. Not until later in '43 was it given the okay to run at 1.42 ATA. So there are already complaints about that, but its historical. Throw a La5FN in there, and the 109G2 1.42 ATA will be added as well. What's so great about the 190A3 anyway? It can roll, sure - but its not going to be turn fighting and proper e-state management will still leave the La5 with enough altitude or speed to turn one into the other and trade punches with the 190A3. It is not some special insta-ace plane.

 

In multiplayer, the servers fully restrict who can fly what and how many. Also, a lot of the better planes won't see the light of day in certain MP servers if the team isn't willing to do recon/bombing and cover their recon/bombers, because servers can be set to allow better aircraft only when certain objectives have been met. MP is more than the dogfighting so many complain about.

Edited May 9, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[BraveSirRobin]

MP is probably going to have lots of low level ground attack aircraft that will drag the 109s down low.  Lagg and Yak drivers will have to take advantage of that.

[Matt]

The 190 is faster than the 109 at low altitude and has the better armament and can take a punch. Pretty much what the La-5 is compared to the Yak-1.

 

If you only look at dogfighting, then the Soviet side is at a disadvantage (probably a bit more than it should be, if you think about Yak-1b, 7 and even 9), but if you take ground-support, bombing etc. into consideration (which will hopefully really matter on some servers), the Pe-2 and Il-2 are pretty tough compared to the opposition.

 

I think i'll spend most of my spend on the Soviet side (unless the Germans are outnumbered) and i'm definately looking forward to that.

[sturmkraehe]

Difference in "balancing" between history and multiplayer:

 

HISTORY: German Luftwaffe shot down loads of Soviet planes because the latter lacked (during the early years of the campaign) planes that were up to the Luftwaffe and likely because pilot lacked training and experience. They compensated with NUMBERS. Let's not forget: In the end numbers count. If the opposite side is largely outnumbered their superior planes are futile. This is fairly well represented in MP when VVS manages to create local air superiority.

 

MULTIPLAYER: Axis side still has the superior aircraft (historically correct) but NUMBERS are not historically correct. Usually numbers are pretty even on mp sometimes even with more axis players.

 

I understand that one cannot enforce the correct number ratios between both sides in multiplayer but then again one should restrain to call the situation "historically correct". It is only partially "historically correct". The rest is wrong. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[LukeFF]

....and if not the wrong choice then maybe not the correct one.

 

I wonder how well the La-5 sits alongside the Fw190.  Don't get me wrong, apart from the rear view, I love everything about the BoS La-5, I think they've done a fantastic job, in fact it is probably my favourite aircraft, along side the PE-2.  Purely from a thinking out loud perspective though, rather than a moan, I just wonder if it's the right aircraft.  The Fw190 is certainly not a poor man's 109 and several members have pointed out that it really shouldn't be included in a strictly Stalingrad scenario.  The La-5 however seems to fall between two stools, it is better than the LaGG 3 but not in the same class as the Yak 1,  it doesn't add anything positive to the VVS arsenal in a way that the 190 does for the Germans.  The La-5fn might however have been that contender to fly off against the 190, I'm not suggesting it is some incredible wonder weapon but it might have been better placed to compete, along side the Yak, with the Gustav and 190.

 

 

I'm sure the fn will be offered for sale shortly after the initial release so it's not really an issue, but if you are trying to offer balance in plane releases (Yak 1/ Gustav) then I would have thought the La 5fn would have been a better choice to counter the 190 ?

 

Except that (1) the La-5FN didn't show up until Kursk and (2) there's still the La-5F that shows up before the FN.

[Feathered_IV]

Maybe online servers could just have 190's on both sides with purely red and blue skins. That way everybody would get the highest performing aircraft and the precise balance they need.

[sturmkraehe]

if balance is whats gonna dominate this game then we can just throw all of the concept of simulation and reality aside..and make a war thunder remake..

i am happy with the game as it unfolds

 

I am too a follower of "let's take it as it was". I am not pleading for a better a/c for VVS but - as I mentioned in my earlier post - we need to debate about numbers. What we have right now is a correct plane set with incorrect team balance. Both sides have about similar strength in team members. This is historically not correct. War was not balanced and it was not only imbalanced technology-wise but also number-wise. Axis side usually was outnumbered and by far - on ground and in the air. How are we going to represent that in MP?

Edited May 9, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[FuriousMeow]

We don't need to do anything right now.

 

We need to test the performance and load on MP servers.

 

Nothing that is going on right now is indicative of MP upon release. RoF is clear evidence of the complexity capable by this development team for MP.

[ShamrockOneFive]

From what I gather the La-5 is doing very well at low altitude high speed dashes which given the chaotic nature of WWII air combat and the fact that pilot skill is often a determining factor above the aircraft itself (given that attributes are close enough) suggest to me that even a La5 Series 8 will be a good contender against the FW190. Both will be more into the sweeping passes through combat zones using speed to attack while the Yak-1 will be able to mix it up as the close in knife fighter that it is... and the LaGG-3 has some redeeming attributes of being fairly tough and coming with the 23mm and 37mm cannon options.

 

The FW190 may be restricted from some online matches while the La-5 isn't overwhelming... but given the choices available to the devs I think they made largely the right call. The FW190 was not present at Stalingrad but it was elsewhere on the front (particularly at Vyazma) at this time facing the same opposition. The first production runs of the La-5 were in limited action on the front and Stalingrad was that place. The two are decent counterpoints to each other as well.

 

I can see the devs coming up with future aircraft downloads perhaps as pair releases - like the I-16 and the IAR80/81 or perhaps the P-40 and a MC.202 thematically and historically similar and relevant.

 

I'm glad that history is driving the aircraft choices (even if the FW190 was at another spot on the front) in terms of the months and years involved.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Oh... and I shouldn't forget the the Yak-1B, Yak-7B and Yak-9 were all parts of the Stalingrad battle. The 1B and 9 would both potentially be fairly high performers. So lots of options... it'd be another few months into 1943 before the improved La-5F and La-5FN were introduced but that's more towards the Battle of Kursk and if the devs intend to go there then that would be the obvious time to introduce some of these planes. Only the early series La-5 was at Stalingrad anyways.

[FuriousMeow]

Probably another topic, but I've always wondered the differences between the Yak1, 7 and 9 since they all start development around the same time period. The Yak-9U, in my understanding, was the best peformer of the three varying lines. I see different engines, different fuselage lengths and the 9 series appears to carry the heaviest cannons. And then there's the Yak-3  which was developed in '41 but didn't see service until '44 from what I've read. The whole nomenclature for the Yaks just seems to be "Does it fly? Give it a number and we'll figure it out later."

[LukeFF]

The Yak-9 series was an outgrowth of the Yak-7, which in itself was initially designed as a trainer. These were also considered to be the "heavy" version of the Yaks.

 

The Yak-3, conversely, was a development of the Yak-1, which were both meant to be the "light," more nimble version of the Yak fighters.

 

At least, that's the very brief summary of the Yak fighter development.

[sturmkraehe]

When was the Yak 1b issued to the units fighting over Stalingrad? 

[ShamrockOneFive]

When was the Yak 1b issued to the units fighting over Stalingrad? 

 

Near as I can tell the first pilots to fly them in combat over Stalingrad were Soviet Ace Major Eryomin with a special dedication Yak-1B that he was ordered to pick up. That was with 31 GIAP and the dates I have suggest it was December 1942.

Edited May 10, 2014 by ShamrockOneFive

[ShamrockOneFive]

Probably another topic, but I've always wondered the differences between the Yak1, 7 and 9 since they all start development around the same time period. The Yak-9U, in my understanding, was the best peformer of the three varying lines. I see different engines, different fuselage lengths and the 9 series appears to carry the heaviest cannons. And then there's the Yak-3  which was developed in '41 but didn't see service until '44 from what I've read. The whole nomenclature for the Yaks just seems to be "Does it fly? Give it a number and we'll figure it out later."

 

Kind of a complicated development. The Yak-1 was the first of the series but early on in it's production it was determined that a trainer version would be developed with space for a second pilot and reinforced landing gear and air frame. That was the Yak-7. It ended up being that the Yak-7 had no loss of speed and little loss of handling as a result of the changes so it was pushed into production as a fighter. From there there was significant development of armament, fuel, materials, and weight. So the Yak-7A/B lead way to the Yak-9 and the ultimate performer in the Yak-9U. However, the Yak-1 was also developed and the Yak-1B was a major type basically from the end of 1942 until 1944. The Yak-3 was actually named twice and the second of these versions was developed into the Yak-3 that we know. The Yak-9U picked up a much more powerful VK-107 engine while the Yak-3 lost some more weight, wings were reduced in size, and the VK-105 was developed into the late model VK-105PF2.

 

They were all fairly similar but the Yak-9T and M, for example, had a 37mm hub cannon (and the Yak-9K had a 45mm although this was not popular) and the Yak-9D and Yak-9DD added more fuel tanks and range to the fighter, while the Yak-1 and 3 stayed fairly lightweight. So basically think of the Yak-1/3 as the lighter weight fighters while the Yak-7/9 as a heavier type fighter.

[HagarTheHorrible]

My bad, I think I was thinking about the plain "f" version rather than the "fn", not that it helps

[senseispcc]

From what I did read in the Yakovlev memories and the Normandie Niemen books use the Yak against the FW190 and the La5 against the BF109 this is the winning combination.

 

And most of all try to drag them (the FW190 and the BF109) under the 3000m (9000 feet) and in a dogfight.

 

Do not be impress by the exaggerate results of the not so many German “expertens”, they go all the claims, most of the other go none at all!

 

Also remember that the German flyers did for some,, most of the best, have at the end of the war 8 years of combat and flying so even in the end of 1942 the number of years of combat is still 4 to 2 for the Soviet pilots (I tally the Spanish civil has one year it should be more!).

 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I would say nothing not until the final product is out, there are too many variables missing to be tested yet. So can not say anything sure but guesses. How about endurance of planes aka fuel consumption etc? Acceleration and deceleration, for example, seems to be way off on the planes that we have been testing offline, both German and VVS planes. Testers with that fancy tag, take those historical numbers and check them against the game Should not take you too long to see that a lot is of tweaking is needed.

Edited May 10, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[sturmkraehe]

I wondered too Maybe some good answer to an arbitrary question (not necessarily asked in the thread this answer is given) may earn one this distinction

 

Just to throw in a suggestion linked to the concern of historically correct numbers:

 

If an online war is established and we get AI in MP to work:

 

Why not have both sides equal player numbers but Allied side gets for instance same number of AI fighters with random competence level? I think it will be much more historically correct without Axis side to be outnumbered by human players.

Edited May 10, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[VR-DriftaholiC]

It doesn't matter what aircraft you are flying or how much better your opponents. If you lost a dogfight it's because you as a pilot failed to realize the point in which you lost your initial advantage. If you are attacking planes you don't have an energy advantage or who have to many friendly planes nearby then you are making poor choices and wouldn't fair any better in the superior aircraft. 

Edited May 10, 2014 by driftaholic

[69th_chuter]

Another disadvantage the Russians had was the lousy radios IF they had them.  One of the great things about the western supplied aircraft was the (relatively) crystal clear radios that they ALL came with.