Where is the Spad13?

[Rattlesnake]

I have noticed its conspicuous absence from all multiplayer servers I've looked at, even while other "late war" planes are present.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

It's too uber

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2024 by J5_Klugermann

[Rattlesnake]

 Obviously you jest, what's the real reason? Some kind of bug in multiplayer?

[PaulTheSalty]

Lol, no. It's dependent on mission designer.

 

On Flugpark you'll see it on Verdun Sector Missions, if the date is late enough.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

6 hours ago, PaulTheSalty said:

Lol, no. It's dependent on mission designer.

 

On Flugpark you'll see it on Verdun Sector Missions, if the date is late enough.

The Spad 13 is featured in the Verdun mission at every date currently because that is the french sector, on Bapaume which is the british sector, you will only see it at the late 1918 scenario. It is not featured on Lens which currently reflects belgian and british part of the frontline in 1917. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

On *that* server if you kill the owner in certain planes one two many times he gets upset and removes them from the rotation

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

On 3/13/2024 at 1:25 AM, No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork said:

On *that* server if you kill the owner in certain planes one two many times he gets upset and removes them from the rotation

Hes not the owner, he's the primary mission builder.  "That server" is technically community run and supported.  Technical difference perhaps; not speaking to your assertion that the mission builder changed the plane set after he was alleged by you to be killed by a certain plane. 

 

However, since you bring it up,  "that" server and the mission builder generally runs missions created with planesets wherever possible based on historical planes for that map sector in the mission as well as balance to enhance playability and enjoyment and sportsmanship challenge.

 

Its an unfortunate part of history that throughout the war technical air superioirity swung back and forth from the Fokker Scourge, to the late war.  For better or worse the  FC sim suffers from this as it makes it difficult to have a really balanced planeset for both sides at the same time when following strict historical pipelines.  The only practical way requires setting a plane out here and there (also having to take into consideration certain unhistorical FMs that vary plane by plane) depending on the time period and historical map sector.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

15 hours ago, JGr2/J5_Baeumer said:

as well as balance

The balance, delicate matter. I would give as much d7s as anyone would like. We are to small to do a balance IMHO.

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 3/14/2024 at 3:52 PM, JGr2/J5_Baeumer said:

Hes not the owner, he's the primary mission builder.  "That server" is technically community run and supported.  Technical difference perhaps; not speaking to your assertion that the mission builder changed the plane set after he was alleged by you to be killed by a certain plane. 

 

However, since you bring it up,  "that" server and the mission builder generally runs missions created with planesets wherever possible based on historical planes for that map sector in the mission as well as balance to enhance playability and enjoyment and sportsmanship challenge.

 

Its an unfortunate part of history that throughout the war technical air superioirity swung back and forth from the Fokker Scourge, to the late war.  For better or worse the  FC sim suffers from this as it makes it difficult to have a really balanced planeset for both sides at the same time when following strict historical pipelines.  The only practical way requires setting a plane out here and there (also having to take into consideration certain unhistorical FMs that vary plane by plane) depending on the time period and historical map sector.

Allegedly huh?

I find hilarious you mention historical authenticity as part of your argument when you have 'early' 1918 missions with limitless D.7Fs vs SPAD 7s with not a thirteen in sight

A 1917 SPAD 13 at that.
Your argument? British sector when No.23 Squadron from Dec 1917 was flying SPAD 13s
Meanwhile the D7F wasnt around until June or July of 1918...

And this is just one of your one sided 'balance' decisions... ignoring the abundance of Dr1s on 1917 maps where theres not a single 13 or SE5 around
 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 hour ago, No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Allegedly huh?

I find hilarious you mention historical authenticity as part of your argument when you have 'early' 1918 missions with limitless D.7Fs vs SPAD 7s with not a thirteen in sight

A 1917 SPAD 13 at that.
Your argument? British sector when No.23 Squadron from Dec 1917 was flying SPAD 13s
Meanwhile the D7F wasnt around until June or July of 1918...

And this is just one of your one sided 'balance' decisions... ignoring the abundance of Dr1s on 1917 maps where theres not a single 13 or SE5 around
 

So you stabbed me in the back once in a Spad 13 on Verdun while I was duelling an actual good pilot, then come to the conclousion I removed the Spad 13 on an entirely different sector in early 1918 because of that? Lol I am sorry but you are suffering from MC-syndrom. If you don't like it on the server why do you constantly fly there? Just go somewhere else you have the choice now and stop behaving like an angry child and grow up.

Edited March 15, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[Rattlesnake]

On 3/14/2024 at 2:52 PM, JGr2/J5_Baeumer said:

Hes not the owner, he's the primary mission builder.  "That server" is technically community run and supported.  Technical difference perhaps; not speaking to your assertion that the mission builder changed the plane set after he was alleged by you to be killed by a certain plane. 

 

However, since you bring it up,  "that" server and the mission builder generally runs missions created with planesets wherever possible based on historical planes for that map sector in the mission as well as balance to enhance playability and enjoyment and sportsmanship challenge.

 

Its an unfortunate part of history that throughout the war technical air superioirity swung back and forth from the Fokker Scourge, to the late war.  For better or worse the  FC sim suffers from this as it makes it difficult to have a really balanced planeset for both sides at the same time when following strict historical pipelines.  The only practical way requires setting a plane out here and there (also having to take into consideration certain unhistorical FMs that vary plane by plane) depending on the time period and historical map sector.

Balance is important in games. IMO plane choice has far more effect in our WWI meta than it does in WWII meta and therefore balance is more of an issue. In any WWII meta if your Spit16 makes one minor mistake and gets in front of my Fw-190 A8 nose it's all over, splash Spitfire. This "puncher's chance" makes such a fight NOT an exercise in frustration. In contrast, giving up a small shot opportunity like this in our WWI meta will rarely change anything about the fight in say, a Camel versus a Pfalz. Being able to rate around and sit on tail and hose someone down for five minutes really does rule, and the only saving grace for the heavier kite is a lot more engine. So in FC multiplayers we should maybe not be shy of putting in a plane a month early or holding back one a month. It was the nature of that war that almost anything could have run into almost anything at some point anyhow.

 Modeling decisions also go into it. The RoF Camel was clearly a worn-out Camel two weeks from retirement, and in this Camel jockey's opinion that was good for gameplay, and was even semi-fair against the somewhat absurd tank that was RoF's Dr1. The fact that the FC Dr1 climbs somewhat worse than the FC Camel despite the former having a climb prop that limited it in dive somewhat is odd. But I digress...

5 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

So you stabbed me in the back once in a Spad 13 on Verdun while I was duelling an actual good pilot, then come to the conclousion I removed the Spad 13 on an entirely different sector in early 1918 because of that? Lol I am sorry but you are suffering from MC-syndrom. If you don't like it on the server why do you constantly fly there? Just go somewhere else you have the choice now and stop behaving like an angry child and grow up.

Haha, literally no one ever has been frustrated by fighting the Spud, especially in FC's "you gotta hit the pilot" meta. But you might make sure it's included wherever it belongs, just to shut him up.

Edited March 16, 2024 by Rattlesnake

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I am not frustrated fighting the Spad. I am frustrated with people that can't even utter their feedback in a polite and respectful way and then expect me to listen to them.

Edited March 16, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[J99_Sizzlorr]

The Spad is where it belongs. Besides the 20 pre production Spads 13 the Aviation Militaire ordered an initial batch of 250 Spad 13, but by December 1917 only 131 had reached the frontline. Most of them went to french squadrons, of course. The Spad XIII was also grounded 2 out of 3 days because of issues with the Hispano-Suiza 8B engines reduction gear. 

 

I agree that balance is important and that modelling decisions play a role in plane set choice, that is why for example on Verdun Americans get their Spad XIII in late 1917 already instead of summer 1918 so they don't have to rely on the very questionable N28.

Edited March 16, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[Rattlesnake]

54 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I am not frustrated fighting the Spad. I am frustrated with people that can't even utter their feedback in a polite and respectful way and then expect me to listen to them.

I was poking fun at the guy who said that's why it wasn't there friend. As a plane whose performance is only overwhelming when pointed straight at the earth with the throttle wide open no one fears it.?

[J99_Sizzlorr]

33 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

As a plane whose performance is only overwhelming when pointed straight at the earth with the throttle wide open no one fears it.?

It really depends on who is flying it.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Plane balans is when Camel meet Dr.1 , unfortunately FC Dr.1 < ROF Dr.1 . Player balance is random since its a personal skill and can't be forced even. Since that two rarely meet there is no total balance in general. Knowing that you must adjust constantly and fly to your , group and plane strength to win a fight against any plane. You can't just deny better planes in one realm in favor of others. Historical availability in missions is fine. But argument that balance is important because one plane can stay in your six for 5 minutes or  always dive run or can out climb or hang high is bad argument. More a skill issue, because good players can  do  streaks in any plane if they play wisely even if they choose to fly a plane which is easy to fly and good in all but not great in one thing. 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

21 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Plane balans is when Camel meet Dr.1 , unfortunately FC Dr.1 < ROF Dr.1 . Player balance is random since its a personal skill and can't be forced even. Since that two rarely meet there is no total balance in general. Knowing that you must adjust constantly and fly to your , group and plane strength to win a fight against any plane. You can't just deny better planes in one realm in favor of others. Historical availability in missions is fine. But argument that balance is important because one plane can stay in your six for 5 minutes or  always dive run or can out climb or hang high is bad argument. More a skill issue, because good players can  do  streaks in any plane if they play wisely even if they choose to fly a plane which is easy to fly and good in all but not great in one thing. 

No better planes are denied in favor of others, as I described earlier with the Americans at Verdun scenario, better planes are available earlier than the historical availability because the N28 performs so poorly. The absence of the Spad 13 in early 1918 scenarios in the british sector has to do with how significant that type was represented there. Other planes like the S.E.5a, the Camel, the Dolphin and even the Spad VII were way more common sight. The absence of the S.E.5a in 1917 scenarios has to do with the Viper engine, which the plane has equipped in FC. This engine only got to the frontline in 1918.

 

I agree that there is no total balance, because of the factors that can not be influenced by the mission designer or server operators, like how many people fly overall, for each coalition, the distribution of pilot skills amongst the coalition, how long are people flying the missions for, what types of planes are been flown and so on. But you can certainly set the framework with the given planeset so that both sides have something to enjoy and have a mission outcome that is not forseeable, if the other factors are balanced out evenly as well.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

27 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

No better planes are denied in favor of others, as I described earlier with the Americans at Verdun scenario, better planes are available earlier than the historical availability because the N28 performs so poorly. The absence of the Spad 13 in early 1918 scenarios in the british sector has to do with how significant that type was represented there. Other planes like the S.E.5a, the Camel, the Dolphin and even the Spad VII were way more common sight. The absence of the S.E.5a in 1917 scenarios has to do with the Viper engine, which the plane has equipped in FC. This engine only got to the frontline in 1918.

 

I agree that there is no total balance, because of the factors that can not be influenced by the mission designer or server operators, like how many people fly overall, for each coalition, the distribution of pilot skills amongst the coalition, how long are people flying the missions for, what types of planes are been flown and so on. But you can certainly set the framework with the given planeset so that both sides have something to enjoy and have a mission outcome that is not forseeable, if the other factors are balanced out evenly as well.

I know Sizzlor you are going good job. You don't have to say that I trust you in mission design and plane choose.

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 3/15/2024 at 5:57 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

So you stabbed me in the back once in a Spad 13 on Verdun while I was duelling an actual good pilot, then come to the conclousion I removed the Spad 13 on an entirely different sector in early 1918 because of that? Lol I am sorry but you are suffering from MC-syndrom. If you don't like it on the server why do you constantly fly there? Just go somewhere else you have the choice now and stop behaving like an angry child and grow up.

Yeah the whole art of air combat is getting on the other guys six.
I can do this on any server too btw

Not sure why you prophang up at people, stall out and then cry post when the same guy you hung drills you from behind

But since Im a kind person I will give you some advice with my one year of flying circus experience
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-109A.pdf
This FAA link has lots of useful information on avoiding stalls and spins! You might learn something

[J99_Sizzlorr]

Oh I learned a lot about your character today and I extended my ignore list ? 

 

Edit: I couldn't even remember flying a Pfalz on KotS, turns out it wasn't me flying. But thanks for your advice I will make sure to pass that link along to the pilot. But I am afraid with his 6 years of age he is not able to read nor to read in english ?

 

I also seem to miss the point of your posts. If it is not about the Spad 13 and just about the fact how you shot me down once while I was duelling somebody else, then this is not so special. If everyone that shot me down is going to post his records here, than this is going to be a very long thread ?

But hey whatever floats your boat.

Edited March 17, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Starling]

On 3/16/2024 at 11:32 AM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

No better planes are denied in favor of others, as I described earlier with the Americans at Verdun scenario, better planes are available earlier than the historical availability because the N28 performs so poorly. The absence of the Spad 13 in early 1918 scenarios in the british sector has to do with how significant that type was represented there. Other planes like the S.E.5a, the Camel, the Dolphin and even the Spad VII were way more common sight. The absence of the S.E.5a in 1917 scenarios has to do with the Viper engine, which the plane has equipped in FC. This engine only got to the frontline in 1918.

 

I agree that there is no total balance, because of the factors that can not be influenced by the mission designer or server operators, like how many people fly overall, for each coalition, the distribution of pilot skills amongst the coalition, how long are people flying the missions for, what types of planes are been flown and so on. But you can certainly set the framework with the given planeset so that both sides have something to enjoy and have a mission outcome that is not forseeable, if the other factors are balanced out evenly as well.

Still not convinced by the Viper argument - less HP than the higher compression geared version used until summer 1918. The only technical benefit the Viper offered over the HS8B was reliability (and producible in Britain). All the performance and technical data is shared on another thread for reference.

 

The early Dr1s we see in the server for some 1917 maps had a variety of issues such as wing reliability costing the life of at least one German ace; our Dr1 is a tank.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

16 hours ago, No.23_Starling said:

Still not convinced by the Viper argument - less HP than the higher compression geared version used until summer 1918. The only technical benefit the Viper offered over the HS8B was reliability (and producible in Britain). All the performance and technical data is shared on another thread for reference.

 

The early Dr1s we see in the server for some 1917 maps had a variety of issues such as wing reliability costing the life of at least one German ace; our Dr1 is a tank.

You are on my ignore list as well, because you behave the same as the Wasted Tax Dollar dude. 

But if you want to hear my argument again, here it comes for the last time. Viper S.E.5a: Plane is limited to the airframe. Hisso S.E.5a: Plane is engine limited. It has nothing to do with the performance of either engine but with the direct drive of the Viper, which the Hisso didn't have. The direct drive does allow the Viper S.E.5a to dive without the fear of overreving the engine. The Hisso could not be flown like that without breaking the engine.

Talk to the devs and make them bring back the glass engine S.E.5a from early RoF days, then I will gladly add it to 1917 scenarios. Until then it stays as it is right now... You don't want me to add Fokker D7f earlier than they were historically available. It was a big deal for you. But with the S.E.5a you want five to be straight... Let's talk about being biased.?

Edited March 18, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

17 hours ago, No.23_Starling said:

 

The early Dr1s we see in the server for some 1917 maps had a variety of issues such as wing reliability costing the life of at least one German ace; our Dr1 is a tank.

 

So are Camel. Bristol and Breguet for that matter.  Why even worry about it when entente planes are 40kph faster and Spad has no drag factor in FM.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I think that if the engine variant do not exist in the game we should not remove that other engine type from the scenarios where that type were not available yet.

It's a game with lots of holes and full of  inconsistencies and trying to fixing that instead of devs is not good for the community because we can easily fall into rabbit whole .

[J99_Sizzlorr]

42 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I think that if the engine variant do not exist in the game we should not remove that other engine type from the scenarios where that type were not available yet.

It's a game with lots of holes and full of  inconsistencies and trying to fixing that instead of devs is not good for the community because we can easily fall into rabbit whole .

Fokker D7F comes to mind...

1 hour ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

So are Camel. Bristol and Breguet for that matter.  Why even worry about it when entente planes are 40kph faster and Spad has no drag factor in FM.

The N28 also doesn't shed it's fabric...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

23 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Fokker D7F comes to mind...

I don't mind having these, despite there are two variants of D7s unlike others unfortunately.

Edited March 18, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[LukeFF]

Guys, let's please watch the tone and stay away from personal attacks. Debate the stats and the planes, not the person. ?

[Avimimus]

Decorum and politeness guys... Do check rule 7 in the forum rules.

 

Also, at least if you are going to insult someone - do it like a gentleman. ? P.S. I know the fast jet people get like this, and some of the WWII people - but isn't the WWI crowd supposed to be a little more chill (open cockpits and all?)

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Decorum and politeness guys... Do check rule 7 in the forum rules.

 

Also, at least if you are going to insult someone - do it like a gentleman. ? P.S. I know the fast jet people get like this, and some of the WWII people - but isn't the WWI crowd supposed to be a little more chill (open cockpits and all?)

I don't think so, they see enemy face when they pull the trigger ?

[No.23_Starling]

8 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

You are on my ignore list as well, because you behave the same as the Wasted Tax Dollar dude. 

But if you want to hear my argument again, here it comes for the last time. Viper S.E.5a: Plane is limited to the airframe. Hisso S.E.5a: Plane is engine limited. It has nothing to do with the performance of either engine but with the direct drive of the Viper, which the Hisso didn't have. The direct drive does allow the Viper S.E.5a to dive without the fear of overreving the engine. The Hisso could not be flown like that without breaking the engine.

Talk to the devs and make them bring back the glass engine S.E.5a from early RoF days, then I will gladly add it to 1917 scenarios. Until then it stays as it is right now... You don't want me to add Fokker D7f earlier than they were historically available. It was a big deal for you. But with the S.E.5a you want five to be straight... Let's talk about being biased.?

The Viper is a Hispano Suiza engine; it’s a modified version of the 8A as fitted to the SPAD VII but with a couple of modifications allowing for all 200hp to be available and transferred to the prop, including counterweights on the crankshaft (see photo and the weird blocks). I’ve not read any sources suggesting that the 8A engine could be overreved unlike the geared 8B used in the SE5a 1917 and SPAD XIII. Can you cite sources on revs and the reduction gears used? Other than the reliability, not having the more powerful and high compression 220hp 8B-powered SE5a is better for balancing anyway.

 

I’ve yet to see conclusive evidence of DVIIFs appearing in the numbers we see in your early 1918 maps; even by Nov 1918 the BMW version was in the minority yet it’s the main opponent for Entente players and has been since RoF days for reasons of balancing. 1-2 on that part of the front at that time? Sure why not. Every opponent you see as an Entente player in May? Maybe not.
 

I agree with all the points you and Klug have made about inconsistent DMs and planes being too slow or having the wrong engines (all the high/overcompressed variants are missing from both plane sets), however the logic falls over by excluding the SE5a when all the other wonky imperfections are included. If it’s for balancing then that’s fine, but it’s a small community and people will want to fly the planes they have paid for.

 

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, let's please watch the tone and stay away from personal attacks. Debate the stats and the planes, not the person. ?

It’s ok, I’m on the ignore list (apparently??!)

Edited March 18, 2024 by No.23_Starling

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I don't think so, they see enemy face when they pull the trigger ?

 

Cold bloooded.

 

Seriously though, I've been struck over the years by the more relaxed attitude of WWI simmers (perhaps because there is so much time between sims - only a certain type stay OR perhaps it has to do with personalities and what type of people are attracted by what eras idk).

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, No.23_Starling said:

but it’s a small community.. 

 

I think this is why there needs to be an element of realism in expectations. 

Any developer will balance how much and often they're prepared to keep updating things, relative to the size of its customer base. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

9 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Fokker D7F comes to mind...

The N28 also doesn't shed it's fabric...

 

No, and the E.V/D.VIII doesn't shed its big ole wing, and the Pfalz D.XII is really a Pfalz D.XIIf, and the Pfalz D.IIIa can handle a 10-11g pull-out, and the Albatros D.Va's lower wing doesn't resonate and shed in a dive, and the Fokker D.VII doesn't have its main production engine meaning we're forced the fly the frankly awful vanilla D.VII or the late war F. The list goes on.

 

(I'd love to see an N28 actually shed fabric and its cowling catch fire, for the record, so long as it also has its correct rate of turn)

 

 

To be fair you will never have "balance". You may get something closer to historical accuracy if the devs implement the full list of FM reviews proposed by @Holtzauge and as documented by @No.23_Starling -- as long as you consider every plane to be flying in perfect prototype condition. But even with slightly faster, better climbing Albs and a faster Dr.I you won't beat the SPAD at its own game. Not the SPAD VII (180hp) and certainly not the XIII. That's why the French bet everything on this engine and airframe.

 

What you can do is step away from the concept of symmetrical maps where both sides need to go bomb factories (or camps or whatever) on the other side, and accept that for the most part Central air power was on the defensive or in an artillery/infantry support role from late 1917 onwards. The Halberstadt CL.II should play a central (no pun intended) role "bombing" trenches in large numbers. I realise how hard this is to do, since we don't have much infantry and it's not probably worth any points to bomb anything other than artillery, vehicules and buildings. Then we should have a high altitude photographic recon, and the DFW does fall incredibly short in that role in 1918. Finally almost everyone on Central not in a CL.II ought to be in an Albatros. A plane no one in his right mind wanted to fly. Although in sufficiently large numbers, say 2:1 or even 3:1, the Albatros D.Va (with a sprinkle of Pfalz and Dr.I) is still a potent enough threat to Camels, SPAD VIIs, the odd Bristol F.II and the odd SPAD XIII thrown in (see I didn't forget what this topic is about). All of these flew in late 1917 / early 1918.

 

But that's the issue, really. Many people will want to fly an "elite" plane such as the Fokker Dr.I if they're flying Central, and in doing so constantly repeat its limited operational period, when it was availably in any number. Else they will feel the planeset isn't balanced. But that's it: it just wasn't. The Camel, while you may very well claim that it beats the Fokker Dr.I in every respect in FC, was a mass produced affair which also made mass victims amongst its novice pilots. The Dr.I was not (not counting structural failures).

 

Then the final nail in the coffin when it comes to a supposedly "balanced" planeset, is what happens when you press CTRL + E. And sure, nobody flies with the intent to bail out, but whatever unhistorical speed advantage a SPAD has now over, say, an Albatros, Central has this easily covered with a quasi-WWII style parachute. A map toggle for this is really overdue, especially with FC4 on the horizon.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

8 hours ago, Hellbender said:

What you can do is step away from the concept of symmetrical maps where both sides need to go bomb factories (or camps or whatever) on the other side, and accept that for the most part Central air power was on the defensive or in an artillery/infantry support role from late 1917 onwards. The Halberstadt CL.II should play a central (no pun intended) role "bombing" trenches in large numbers. I realise how hard this is to do, since we don't have much infantry and it's not probably worth any points to bomb anything other than artillery, vehicules and buildings. Then we should have a high altitude photographic recon, and the DFW does fall incredibly short in that role in 1918. Finally almost everyone on Central not in a CL.II ought to be in an Albatros. A plane no one in his right mind wanted to fly. Although in sufficiently large numbers, say 2:1 or even 3:1, the Albatros D.Va (with a sprinkle of Pfalz and Dr.I) is still a potent enough threat to Camels, SPAD VIIs, the odd Bristol F.II and the odd SPAD XIII thrown in (see I didn't forget what this topic is about). All of these flew in late 1917 / early 1918.

 

But that's the issue, really. Many people will want to fly an "elite" plane such as the Fokker Dr.I if they're flying Central, and in doing so constantly repeat its limited operational period, when it was availably in any number. Else they will feel the planeset isn't balanced. But that's it: it just wasn't. The Camel, while you may very well claim that it beats the Fokker Dr.I in every respect in FC, was a mass produced affair which also made mass victims amongst its novice pilots. The Dr.I was not (not counting structural failures).

 

Then the final nail in the coffin when it comes to a supposedly "balanced" planeset, is what happens when you press CTRL + E. And sure, nobody flies with the intent to bail out, but whatever unhistorical speed advantage a SPAD has now over, say, an Albatros, Central has this easily covered with a quasi-WWII style parachute. A map toggle for this is really overdue, especially with FC4 on the horizon.

Bender, I know balance is impossible to achieve, but as I stated earlier, I wanted to create scenarios that produce outcomes that are unforseen. If you browse through the different tours on Flugpark stats you can see that we come pretty close to balanced. I don't think it will be exciting to have scenarios that always favour the side that won the war. About asymetrical missions, I have done those as well for events like Operation Michael and Black September where only one side is on the offensive. I don't think those missions are suitable for the daily server buisness, because you don't know how the sides are balanced with player numbers. With an event you can predict that way better, because you know how many players are flying for each side.

About the Albatros DV.a yes it was the workhorse of the german Luftstreitkräfte and was produced en mass for the Amerika Programm but what you seem to forget is that after April 1918 both Albatros Werke only ever build Fokker D.VII in license. So while the Albatros stock was declining the Fokker production ramped up. By August 1918 only some 300 Albatros D.Va were in service compared to some 800 Fokker D.VII. So I don't agree on germans only had Albatros D.Va's sprinkled with some Pfalz and Dr.I for 1918 scenarios. The other thing with german squadrons is they went up and down the lines and were thrown in where ever they were needed, while the entente squadrons were more static and travelled less around the frontline. This explains the Dr.I always being near the action... The parachute argument is just lazy. It doesn't win you any missions if you have a parachute. It also only adds to the imbalance if you are playing the high streak game, that for some reason seems to be more important to some people than winning the mission for your coalition, which Flugpark is all about.

Edited March 19, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Starling]

5 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Bender, I know balance is impossible to achieve, but as I stated earlier, I wanted to create scenarios that produce outcomes that are unforseen. If you browse through the different tours on Flugpark stats you can see that we come pretty close to balanced. I don't think it will be exciting to have scenarios that always favour the side that won the war. About asymetrical missions, I have done those as well for events like Operation Michael and Black September where only one side is on the offensive. I don't think those missions are suitable for the daily server buisness, because you don't know how the sides are balanced with player numbers. With an event you can predict that way better, because you know how many players are flying for each side.

About the Albatros DV.a yes it was the workhorse of the german Luftstreitkräfte and was produced en mass for the Amerika Programm but what you seem to forget is that after April 1918 both Albatros Werke only ever build Fokker D.VII in license. So while the Albatros stock was declining the Fokker production ramped up. By August 1918 only some 300 Albatros D.Va were in service compared to some 800 Fokker D.VII. So I don't agree on germans only had Albatros D.Va's sprinkled with some Pfalz and Dr.I for 1918 scenarios. The other thing with german squadrons is they went up and down the lines and were thrown in where ever they were needed, while the entente squadrons were more static and travelled less around the frontline. This explains the Dr.I always being near the action... The parachute argument is just lazy. It doesn't win you any missions if you have a parachute. It also only adds to the imbalance if you are playing the high streak game, that for some reason seems to be more important to some people than winning the mission for your coalition, which Flugpark is all about.

 

@Hellbender is correct that even at the end of June the majority of types in inventory were Dvas and Diiias, with around 900 vs 400 DVIIs. By the end of August (data is dated 31st) the ratio is about 400 to 800 DVIIs, of which the majority were Merc AU powered. This means that for more than half the year (6 months vs 5 and a bit to the armistice) the DVII was in the minority, more so the BMW version.

 

You guys are doing a good job of balancing where you can, and taking out the SE5a in late 1917 is fair on that basis.

Edited March 19, 2024 by No.23_Starling

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Great discussion here.  I see many valid arguments on both sides tbh.  I don't envy Sizz with the job of trying to make it interesting,  fun, challenging and fair given the plane choices available,  unpredictable player numbers, and a host of other considerations.   All in all, I think he has done a admirable job with the missions.   To be sure, I have my favorites, and one I don't like as much, but in the end, no matter what he does, someone will be unhappy.   But,  this is an interesting conversation,  and I've learned some things about the air war, the shifting tides,  and the short durations of advantages.   It seems an impossible assignment to produce a mission that incompasses everything,  and makes everyone happy at the same time.   Hopefully,  if FC4 is ever released,  that might help provide new opportunities for enjoyment for everyone.   Ideally,  the devs would incorporate the fm revisions identified numerous times by those above,  but it appears they have no interest or intention of changing at this point. That is very unfortunate for us.

Edited March 19, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[BMA_Hellbender]

9 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Bender, I know balance is impossible to achieve, but as I stated earlier, I wanted to create scenarios that produce outcomes that are unforseen. If you browse through the different tours on Flugpark stats you can see that we come pretty close to balanced. I don't think it will be exciting to have scenarios that always favour the side that won the war. About asymetrical missions, I have done those as well for events like Operation Michael and Black September where only one side is on the offensive. I don't think those missions are suitable for the daily server buisness, because you don't know how the sides are balanced with player numbers. With an event you can predict that way better, because you know how many players are flying for each side.

 

It's a fair point, though I don't agree that Central was losing the air war in late 1917 up to mid 1918. They simply didn't have a fighter that could stand up to the Camel, SPADs, Breguet and up and coming Bristol and S.E.5a incursions (the Hisso S.E.5a wasn't all that). What Central did manage was to shift the focus of the air war to

 

• the trenches with the Halberstadt CL.II (and other ground attackers)
   
• extremely high altitude with the Rumpler C.VII (which we are catastrophically missing from the roster)
   

Both these machines were very successful for their time, to the point that Camels were being "converted" to the ground attack role for lack of a better alternative, and the Sopwith Dolphin was the only British scout to climb high enough to hunt the Rumpler C.VII at altitudes the Hisso S.E.5a could not reach.

 

So if we then discount the Rumpler (and the Dolphin since it lacks its historical prey), we still have the wildly successful Halberstadt CL.II, which especially since the DM update and the recent AI gunner update is a force to be reckoned with. No Becker 20mm cannon needed, even. Online I've encountered them sporadically at best, one at a time. They put up a fight even in that configuration, but I'm honestly surprised people don't fly them in formations of 5+ and, well, dominate everything at low altitude. Maybe the available numbers are lacking? I strongly suspect a mindset issue, because a lot of skill is not needed to fly that plane. I speak from experience.

 

Even so, if most people prefer to fly scouts on Central and you bunch 10+ Albies together, with again the odd Dr.I and Pfalz in the mix, there's very little which a locally outnumbered Entente side can do, even if they have the odd SPAD at their disposal that can take a high speed pass and dive away. I mean, the Camel is good, but it's slow as all hell to get away from someone who is parked on your dead six. Sure you can always turn and fight, until you're outnumbered 3:1 and it doesn't matter anymore. Bring them down to the deck and they're Halberstadt gunner PK fodder.

 

Is all of this fun and balanced?

 

I don't know and that's not for me to judge. But if all we consider to be fun and balanced is Camel vs. Dr.I until the end of time, then why even bother with anything beyond FC1? This push now to revert the Dr.I's FM to that of pre-1.034 is one that comes from a good sentiment, but it's not going to address the slow Albatros (especially if it ends up being slower than the Dr.I), nor the parachutes.

 

 

Quote

About the Albatros DV.a yes it was the workhorse of the german Luftstreitkräfte and was produced en mass for the Amerika Programm but what you seem to forget is that after April 1918 both Albatros Werke only ever build Fokker D.VII in license. So while the Albatros stock was declining the Fokker production ramped up. By August 1918 only some 300 Albatros D.Va were in service compared to some 800 Fokker D.VII. So I don't agree on germans only had Albatros D.Va's sprinkled with some Pfalz and Dr.I for 1918 scenarios. The other thing with german squadrons is they went up and down the lines and were thrown in where ever they were needed, while the entente squadrons were more static and travelled less around the frontline. This explains the Dr.I always being near the action...

 

I couldn't agree more but we don't have the main production Fokker D.VII. We have the one that saw service briefly in April before the overcompression upgrades happened or were being done straight from the factory -- when MvR was still alive and he himself complained that the engine wasn't ready yet.

 

Look at where the 180hp D.VII falls in the FM benchmarking, it's almost dead last at everything:

 

 

It's already bad as it is and it should be even worse.

 

However, with the 200hp D.IIIaü it would eat Camels for breakfast at altitude, and fall just short of the D.VIIF. But no, not as good as a D.VIIF.

 

I know that you're trying to make do with what we have, but two wrongs don't make a right and, in my humble opinion, is not something we should settle for.

 

 

Quote

The parachute argument is just lazy. It doesn't win you any missions if you have a parachute. It also only adds to the imbalance if you are playing the high streak game, that for some reason seems to be more important to some people than winning the mission for your coalition, which Flugpark is all about.

 

The parachute argument is about as lazy as the SPAD argument, and I suggest they both hit the gym together and starting lifting.

 

In my opinion the biggest advantage the SPAD offers is survivability. If you stop thinking in speed for even a moment, you're dead meat. I am the living (well, dead) proof of that, and I mostly find it a boring plane to fly. But that's just me, and me having fun doesn't dictate the historical context. If you care about your vlife, a parachute and the ability to fight mostly over your own lines is about as big an advantage you can get. Second to that is speed.

 

If you don't care at all about your vlife, can we even begin to speak of historical accuracy? Staying alive would have been pretty high on everyone's list of priorities back then. Not to the point that you're too anxious to fight, but at least that you're somewhat confident you will survive this particular mission. Something that couldn't always be said about the "20-minuters" in their Camels. It's a plane I would absolutely dread to fly and fight with in real life.

 

 

As for which coalition wins, that depends entirely if people are fighting to their coaltion's strengths.

 

Yes, the SPAD and Camel are very aggressive machines that can dictate the fight, and flown to their absolute limits are near-unstoppable in a late 1917 / early 1918 1v1, but they come with a high price in case of any miscalculation, and they should be at least locally outnumbered. That's for a mission designer to worry about.

 

Edited March 19, 2024 by Hellbender

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

So if you fly Central you should expect expect to perform like this guy ( Frank Williams...professional jobber) unless its a late 1918 map.

 

It's an issue the community cannot fully fix by itself (especially the parachutes) unless you're willing to

 

• accept asymmetrical sides and reflect that in the mission design
• fly way more Halberstadt CL.II on Central

 

If you don't care at all about historical accuracy and just want a fun balanced dogfight map, can I recommend removing everything except Sopwith Dolphin vs. Fokker D.VIII?

 

It's about as perfect a match-up as it gets. Both turn the same, the Dolphin is faster but is a huge target and quite fragile, whereas the D.VIII climbs slightly better, is very small and tough as nails.

 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

On 3/19/2024 at 3:27 PM, Hellbender said:

 

It's a fair point, though I don't agree that Central was losing the air war in late 1917 up to mid 1918. They simply didn't have a fighter that could stand up to the Camel, SPADs, Breguet and up and coming Bristol and S.E.5a incursions (the Hisso S.E.5a wasn't all that). What Central did manage was to shift the focus of the air war to

 

• the trenches with the Halberstadt CL.II (and other ground attackers)
   
• extremely high altitude with the Rumpler C.VII (which we are catastrophically missing from the roster)
   

Both these machines were very successful for their time, to the point that Camels were being "converted" to the ground attack role for lack of a better alternative, and the Sopwith Dolphin was the only British scout to climb high enough to hunt the Rumpler C.VII at altitudes the Hisso S.E.5a could not reach.

 

So if we then discount the Rumpler (and the Dolphin since it lacks its historical prey), we still have the wildly successful Halberstadt CL.II, which especially since the DM update and the recent AI gunner update is a force to be reckoned with. No Becker 20mm cannon needed, even. Online I've encountered them sporadically at best, one at a time. They put up a fight even in that configuration, but I'm honestly surprised people don't fly them in formations of 5+ and, well, dominate everything at low altitude. Maybe the available numbers are lacking? I strongly suspect a mindset issue, because a lot of skill is not needed to fly that plane. I speak from experience.

 

Even so, if most people prefer to fly scouts on Central and you bunch 10+ Albies together, with again the odd Dr.I and Pfalz in the mix, there's very little which a locally outnumbered Entente side can do, even if they have the odd SPAD at their disposal that can take a high speed pass and dive away. I mean, the Camel is good, but it's slow as all hell to get away from someone who is parked on your dead six. Sure you can always turn and fight, until you're outnumbered 3:1 and it doesn't matter anymore. Bring them down to the deck and they're Halberstadt gunner PK fodder.

 

Is all of this fun and balanced?

 

I don't know and that's not for me to judge. But if all we consider to be fun and balanced is Camel vs. Dr.I until the end of time, then why even bother with anything beyond FC1? This push now to revert the Dr.I's FM to that of pre-1.034 is one that comes from a good sentiment, but it's not going to address the slow Albatros (especially if it ends up being slower than the Dr.I), nor the parachutes.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more but we don't have the main production Fokker D.VII. We have the one that saw service briefly in April before the overcompression upgrades happened or were being done straight from the factory -- when MvR was still alive and he himself complained that the engine wasn't ready yet.

 

Look at where the 180hp D.VII falls in the FM benchmarking, it's almost dead last at everything:

 

 

It's already bad as it is and it should be even worse.

 

However, with the 200hp D.IIIaü it would eat Camels for breakfast at altitude, and fall just short of the D.VIIF. But no, not as good as a D.VIIF.

 

I know that you're trying to make do with what we have, but two wrongs don't make a right and, in my humble opinion, is not something we should settle for.

 

 

 

The parachute argument is about as lazy as the SPAD argument, and I suggest they both hit the gym together and starting lifting.

 

In my opinion the biggest advantage the SPAD offers is survivability. If you stop thinking in speed for even a moment, you're dead meat. I am the living (well, dead) proof of that, and I mostly find it a boring plane to fly. But that's just me, and me having fun doesn't dictate the historical context. If you care about your vlife, a parachute and the ability to fight mostly over your own lines is about as big an advantage you can get. Second to that is speed.

 

If you don't care at all about your vlife, can we even begin to speak of historical accuracy? Staying alive would have been pretty high on everyone's list of priorities back then. Not to the point that you're too anxious to fight, but at least that you're somewhat confident you will survive this particular mission. Something that couldn't always be said about the "20-minuters" in their Camels. It's a plane I would absolutely dread to fly and fight with in real life.

 

 

As for which coalition wins, that depends entirely if people are fighting to their coaltion's strengths.

 

Yes, the SPAD and Camel are very aggressive machines that can dictate the fight, and flown to their absolute limits are near-unstoppable in a late 1917 / early 1918 1v1, but they come with a high price in case of any miscalculation, and they should be at least locally outnumbered. That's for a mission designer to worry about.

 

I am not saying Central was losing the air war I was just referring to the fact that Germany lost the war in the end. If you survive or not has no influence on if your coalition wins the mission by completing the objectives. We are playing a game here and dying is part of that game, because thank god you can fly again the next sortie. Jump the plane with a parachute also does not get you any advantage. The high streak game is more a game in the game that is played but some. If we all would play that than I could erase all ground targets, becaue no one would fly the bombers. It is nothing I had in mind when creating the missions.

 

What do you mean by that lazy Spad argument? I am not leaving the Spad out of the british sector in early 1918 because of balance only. The plane didn't play a role with the RFC. Infact it really never played a big role in the RFC because later in the war it got replaced with the Dolphin. How many Spad 13 did the RFC have in spring of 1918? The french had trouble getting it produced in numbers at the end of 1917. They needed it for themselves first. And that is where it is on Flugpark. Verdun 1917/ Verdun 1918 / Bapaume late 1918. 

 

I am still for symetrical mission design. It is way easier to get something that is fun for both sides, because you can chose if you want to attack or defend and don't get that dictated by the mission design. Freedom of choice is the main drive here. Nothing is more boring, than circleing an objective for 4 hours to defend it. 

As a mission designer you have zero influence on which side is outnumbered at any point in a mission. You don't even have an influence on how many people are flying for each coalition. Your suggestions are fine but not for an uncontrolled and unrestricted daily server buisness. It is something that is more for a historical event, which is more restricted and uneven teams can be assured.

Edited March 20, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Starling]

@Hellbender just to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), the 220hp SE5a with high compression pistons could reach the Rumplers. James McCudden fitted them himself for that exact purpose.

 

The reason he was largely alone in hunting them was doctrine. He communicated to HQ suggesting hunting Rumplers using the upgrade, but command responded that it was unsporting and (I think) concerns over reprisal hunting of their recon planes (which they did anyway!). 
 

See below from Christopher Cole on McCudden’s modified Se5 and his rejected idea for a special high altitude interception unit:

 

 

Christopher Cole notes that shortly after this upgrade, McCudden got up above 21k feet and stalked a Rumpler which was totally unaware of him, likely not expecting to see a scout up that high. It dived in front of him but he suffered a double jam and had to turn away.

Edited March 20, 2024 by No.23_Starling
Rubbish spelling