Where is the Spad13?

[=IRFC=Tunes]

23 hours ago, Avimimus said:

isn't the WWI crowd supposed to be a little more chill

 

[ST_Catchov]

On 3/19/2024 at 12:05 PM, Hellbender said:

I'd love to see an N28 actually shed fabric

 

Fabric? Not possible I'm afraid with the metal-skinned wings of WW1 crates ....

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 3/19/2024 at 5:40 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

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.

I’ve given your post some thought over the past few days, because I find it both thoughtful and can’t find anything wrong with it.

 

You’re right to say that the high streak game is a game in the game, much like using two-seaters (with or without human gunners) is “gaming the game”, something which was brought up many times before. So here we really arrive at the point that one can only hate the game, not the player.

 

SPAD abuse, or proper SPAD use, or however you want to call it, sucks for those on the receiving end of it. I should know, I’ve been on both ends of it, and flying the SPAD in a “non-abusive” fashion is detrimental to your vlife.

 

As for parachutes and their apparent uselessness towards achieving mission goals, that is entirely up to the player. Most players on daily servers don’t fly to complete some abstract greater good mission goal to help their faction win the war—they fly for themselves or maybe for their direct teammates they’re on comms with. That is just reality. The parachute is a tool to help them achieve that sense of personal victory, and to claim it is inconsequential is immediately proven wrong the moment you try to shoot someone hanging in their chute. I think I’ve read the actual words “war crimes” posted on this forum. About shooting someone in a video game, mind you.

 

So in conclusion: the game is equally frustrating for all parties at the moment, which depending on your perspective is not a bad thing. Heck, it might be in a better place now than it ever was in RoF, if daily server balance is what you’re after rather than historical asymmetrical accuracy.

 

Well, maybe it sucks a little bit more for those who’d like to fly the N28, even though I’ve always dreaded what a “good” N28 might do the game’s balance.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

6 hours ago, Hellbender said:

I’ve given your post some thought over the past few days, because I find it both thoughtful and can’t find anything wrong with it.

 

You’re right to say that the high streak game is a game in the game, much like using two-seaters (with or without human gunners) is “gaming the game”, something which was brought up many times before. So here we really arrive at the point that one can only hate the game, not the player.

 

SPAD abuse, or proper SPAD use, or however you want to call it, sucks for those on the receiving end of it. I should know, I’ve been on both ends of it, and flying the SPAD in a “non-abusive” fashion is detrimental to your vlife.

 

As for parachutes and their apparent uselessness towards achieving mission goals, that is entirely up to the player. Most players on daily servers don’t fly to complete some abstract greater good mission goal to help their faction win the war—they fly for themselves or maybe for their direct teammates they’re on comms with. That is just reality. The parachute is a tool to help them achieve that sense of personal victory, and to claim it is inconsequential is immediately proven wrong the moment you try to shoot someone hanging in their chute. I think I’ve read the actual words “war crimes” posted on this forum. About shooting someone in a video game, mind you.

 

So in conclusion: the game is equally frustrating for all parties at the moment, which depending on your perspective is not a bad thing. Heck, it might be in a better place now than it ever was in RoF, if daily server balance is what you’re after rather than historical asymmetrical accuracy.

 

Well, maybe it sucks a little bit more for those who’d like to fly the N28, even though I’ve always dreaded what a “good” N28 might do the game’s balance.

It all comes down to how people play the game, there are multiple ways to have fun in FC. The high streak game is just one of them. And I try to create missions where most people can have some fun. There are always some you can not please though that is just the nature of mission design. Flugpark also tries to reward the high streak players and has introduced awards and promotions to cater to their way of playing the game and having fun with it. But you already know that since you helped out with it.

 

I can tell you from my own experience flying on both sides, that central players do fly more often than not to achieve the abstract greater mission goal and they put their abstract personal v-life on the line for it. And from personal experience I can tell you it is fun if you see the map rolled as a consequence of your actions. It is also sometimes even more fun to work along with other pilots in cooperation to achieve an abstract greater mission goal together than to work towards a big abstract personal streak number on your own. And I have seen the same thing on the entente side but to a lesser extend. You can verify this by cecking the Flupark tours on the stats page. Central has more mission wins because they care more. Remember both sides have the same requirements to win a mission.

 

The parachute is not a balance issue in any way, when you look at the mission design. That argument is blown out of poportion by some members here over time, because their side doesn't have them and they feel treated uneven in the game they play within the game they play. You have no advantage besides your own personal abstract death tally not going up that much. It does nothing for your coalition, because the opposition will score a kill on you anyway and there is no death penalty that you can skip with that action. If you are on the offensive as you have to be to win the mission, and you jump over enemy lines your death tally will go up regardless. So the way the mission is designed and the server is ruled, the parachute is not a balance factor. You can not roll a map with having the highest streak or the lowest death or captured tally. The game has no option to react to this at all. It is not like we have pilot lifes tickets we have to drain on both sides to win but we have limited aiframes which you will also lose when you jump your plane with a chute. So there is an incentive to bring your plane back to base which eliminates the impact of the chute even further.

 

There is a way to ignore the mission objectives entirely and still win a mission on Flugpark at the end of it, if you outscore your opponent by a certain degree. But it is sometimes hard to achieve wqith air to air victories only, because the side that does try to go for the mission objectives will get points for the ground targets.

 

I have no problems with the Spad 13 or the S.E.5a I even love the S.E.5a personally. It is a fine machine. Both planes are just put into the places where they belong historicaly from a timeframe and area of operation perspective. Some people don't like that and they have their arguments against it. But technically there is nothing wrong with my desicions from a historical perspective as you have noticed yourself. The Viper engined S.E.5a was only available in early 1918 and the Spad 13 didn't play a major role in the RFC but was used quite ecxessively by the french. I like to have that reflected in my mission design. It also helps to balance the scenarios. It also only affects my missions. Matt has a mission running on Flugpark where you are able to access the S.E.5a in 1917. It is his choice to do so. So there are missions on Flugpark that are set up differently.

 

The problem with historical asymmetrical missions is that you don't have any control over how it is played. Let's say you have a scenario, where the entente side is on the attack and they for that nature need more pilots on their side than the opposition. Sadly most people don't care about that or what the mission description suggests or even read it, they will join their favorite coalition anyways and you will end up with slightly more central players than entente or even sides and the whole scenario balance will be screwed over. People will get frustrated and call each other names. And I as a mission designer have to face the biased arguments, because things aren't equal on both sides and people feel treated uneven again. I like to treat both sides equal and keep things simple. It is not like the Fokker D.VIIF is available in every scenario and the same goes for the S.E.5a and the Spad 13. FC has way more to offer than those 3 planes, so there is this incentive to try out more than one plane and Spad lovers can always fall back to the Spad VII when no Spad 13 is available.

 

About the N28 let's not go into the what ifs the flight models are revamped. It is not the case currently and if that happens my plane sets might get a revamp as well. I really try to make the best out of the things we have available right now and in anticipation of what we are about to get that is annonced yet. My plane sets will evolve as Flying Circus develops and gives as us more planes to play with and chose from.

Edited March 23, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[J2_Trupobaw]

While Spad 13 did not play big role in RFC (No.23 used it for few months before converting to Dolphins), it made up to half of BMA fighter force (two Spad escadrilles, two Camel/Hanriot escadrilles). Belgian Spads can be included everywhere Hanriots are present, in limited numbers. As closeted BMA enthusiast I'd love to see every plane they flied clumped top left corner of the map.

As of balancing numbers, I guess the script that enables / diisables dogfight area could be used to enable more and more Central planes only when Entente pilots are presents. But that skips over the real issue / reality - people wantto fly with their mates.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

7 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

While Spad 13 did not play big role in RFC (No.23 used it for few months before converting to Dolphins), it made up to half of BMA fighter force (two Spad escadrilles, two Camel/Hanriot escadrilles). Belgian Spads can be included everywhere Hanriots are present, in limited numbers. As closeted BMA enthusiast I'd love to see every plane they flied clumped top left corner of the map.

As of balancing numbers, I guess the script that enables / diisables dogfight area could be used to enable more and more Central planes only when Entente pilots are presents. But that skips over the real issue / reality - people wantto fly with their mates.

From what I gathered Belgians No.10 didn't get their Spad XIII before March 1918 when they were reorganized or even later. The Spad VII is available to the BMA on Lens. I don't know if any other belgian squadron got any. And later on the Hanriot was standardized so it played a more important role in the BMA than the Spad XIII. All Spad XIII squadrons according to theaerodrome: https://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/france/spad_xiii.php

My Lens mission which features the Belgian Airforce is 1917 only...

 

Edit: Britain initally ordered 120 Spad XIII but by April 1918 they only had 57 of which 16 were with No.23 Sqn. On the 4th of May No.23 replaced their Spads XIII with Sopwith Dolphins. Thus no British Spad XIII ever met the Fokker D.VII in combat. France also sold a whopping 37 Spad XIII to Belgium in March 1918, but little is known about their use by its 10e Escadrille. 

 

So while further looking into the Spad XIII operational history thanks to the discussion here, I come to the conclousion that I should probably remove it from the late 1918 Bapaume scenario and have more Dolphins there instead. I probably should remove the Spad XIII from the Americans on Verdun in late 1917 as well as they got theirs only in 1918 too. The Hanriot should probably also be removed  from the Lens 1917 scenario with the BMA as they only got it in 1918 as well. 

Edited March 25, 2024 by J99_Sizzlorr

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 3/25/2024 at 5:13 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

From what I gathered Belgians No.10 didn't get their Spad XIII before March 1918 when they were reorganized or even later. The Spad VII is available to the BMA on Lens. I don't know if any other belgian squadron got any. And later on the Hanriot was standardized so it played a more important role in the BMA than the Spad XIII. All Spad XIII squadrons according to theaerodrome: https://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/france/spad_xiii.php

My Lens mission which features the Belgian Airforce is 1917 only...

 

Edit: Britain initally ordered 120 Spad XIII but by April 1918 they only had 57 of which 16 were with No.23 Sqn. On the 4th of May No.23 replaced their Spads XIII with Sopwith Dolphins. Thus no British Spad XIII ever met the Fokker D.VII in combat. France also sold a whopping 37 Spad XIII to Belgium in March 1918, but little is known about their use by its 10e Escadrille. 

 

So while further looking into the Spad XIII operational history thanks to the discussion here, I come to the conclousion that I should probably remove it from the late 1918 Bapaume scenario and have more Dolphins there instead. I probably should remove the Spad XIII from the Americans on Verdun in late 1917 as well as they got theirs only in 1918 too. The Hanriot should probably also be removed  from the Lens 1917 scenario with the BMA as they only got it in 1918 as well. 

Agreed about the BMA not having SPAD XIIIs until well into 1918. If you want to be really technically correct about it, the Hanriot which we have in RoF/FC has a 130hp Le Rhône 9Jby engine, which wouldn’t have been available in 1917. Perhaps not at all to the Belgians, even, their Hanriots officially only operated with the 120hp Le Rhône 9Jb. That said, performance figures do seem to match the 120hp Le Rhône rather than the more exotic 130hp, but that’s an FM issue, not one for a mission builder.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

4 hours ago, Hellbender said:

Agreed about the BMA not having SPAD XIIIs until well into 1918. If you want to be really technically correct about it, the Hanriot which we have in RoF/FC has a 130hp Le Rhône 9Jby engine, which wouldn’t have been available in 1917. Perhaps not at all to the Belgians, even, their Hanriots officially only operated with the 120hp Le Rhône 9Jb. That said, performance figures do seem to match the 120hp Le Rhône rather than the more exotic 130hp, but that’s an FM issue, not one for a mission builder.

I agree, just wanted to show with my post that I have some things to balance scenarios that benefit the entente side which nobody seems to notice...

[US103_Baer]

On 3/18/2024 at 9:33 PM, 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.

I'd agree if we're talking about Spad XIII induced drag being modelled less aggressively than later and recent FMs.  Still ts not some kind of magic fm plane like others we could mention. It doesn't maintain energy very well in hard turns obviously. Good players have just figured out how to minimise drag, fly smart, and use its speed and great power-to-weight to maintain altitude as much as possible. 

 

Spad VIIs DO suffer from bad induced drag. That was apparent from day 1 of their release.  Just look at how we whined about it! But I reckon it's on par with later FMs in that respect. 

 

As previously shown, the current Spad XIII in-game is apprx 10kph too slow. We actually have the 200hp Spad. I doubt it's slow from drag, rather just low power output from the 200hp hisso. 

 

If there is an FM overhaul, I'd expect it to include the Spad XIII induced drag to be brought in-line with the VIIs, but speed increased to historical levels.

I think that would help get us to Anders performance numbers for the type.

[ST_Catchov]

In their responses re FC FM revisions, the devs have made it clear, whilst being polite and respectful publicly, no FM's will be revised.

 

Of course, Catchov is very sad. And so am I. He says to me, in an effort of consolation whilst offering a supporting hand on my shoulder, you cain't always get what you want son. Don't touch me you creep, I says, shrugging him off and looking away. The missus looks sternly at Catchov and says that's not true. She than looked lovingly at me and says, I got you babe, and that's all I've ever wanted. I was touched and sent her back to the kitchen.

 

I know Catchov bangs on about the Se5a FM issues all the time, but it's no use. It's time to move on. Are those cheese toasties ready yet darl I says. Coming up she replies. Let's settle down in front of the telly she says and watch Antiques Roadshow. Yes, I says, I don't mind a bit of Fiona. She laughs reprovingly. Catchov slinks off in a huff, no doubt thinking of some clever riposte. But it is too late. The moment has gone.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Unfortunately,  I believe you are correct that no FM revisions will be coming.    

Wish it were not the case, as what would appear to be some minor changes, would result in dramatic improvements.