Jump to content


Possible US Attack Plane Tree


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

Tablecat #21 Posted 04 November 2017 - 11:06 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 444 battles
  • 20
  • [PZMOE] PZMOE
  • Member since:
    02-07-2012
I would definitely play an SBD, my favorite plane of the war. It's all bomb, no guns, so it would need fast reloading bomb. Though they also put rockets on 'em. Some kind of dive bombing gimmick would be cool, like perfect accurate bomb drop if dive angle exceeds 45 degrees.

Zergling #22 Posted 05 November 2017 - 02:36 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 545 battles
  • 53
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjack_wdw, on 04 November 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

Most of those planes (divebomber, torpedobomber) don't meet the firepower requirements for a GA, but some could fit in the MF role (skyhawk, xf8b).

 

Which is why they'd differ from other attackers, by focusing more on bombs and rockets.

 

 

View Postjack_wdw, on 04 November 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

A-4 is impossible as TierX GAA . Are you gonna give 1000+ hp points to the tiny skyhawk in Tier X knowing that it will outmanoeuvre most of the planes at that tier.

 

A-4 probably is too good; even the early variants of the plane were close to the MiG-17 in performance, so to get it into WoWP would require nerfing it well below historical performance... although to be fair, it's not like WoWP is a game aiming for realistic aircraft performance to begin with.

 

Problem is there isn't a lot of alternatives that fit for a replacement for the A-4 at Tier 10.

 

I've come up with these options:

1) Remove A-4, bump the A-1 and A2D up a tier each, put in AM Mauler at Tier 8.

2) Put in some US Navy fighters in as 'fighter/bombers' instead at Tier 9/10, maybe something like the F3D Skyknight and F4D Skyray (conveniently making the line mostly Douglas aircraft).

3) Put in some USAAF/USAF planes in instead, like the XB-43/XA-43 Jetmaster and XB-51/XA-45 at Tier 9/10.

4) As #3, but XB-43/XA-43 Jetmaster as Tier 10.

 

Problem with #1 is that it has a piston engine plane at Tier 9, when everyone else is using jets at that tier. A2D is at least a turboprop.

Problem with #2 is those planes are definitely more suited to multi-role than attackers.

Problem with #3 is it breaks the US Navy rule, and the XB-51/XA-45 is much bigger than previous planes in the line.

Problem with #4 is that it breaks the US Navy rule again, and the XB-43/XA-43 really isn't good enough for Tier 10.

 

 

View PostTablecat, on 04 November 2017 - 11:06 PM, said:

I would definitely play an SBD, my favorite plane of the war. It's all bomb, no guns, so it would need fast reloading bomb. Though they also put rockets on 'em. Some kind of dive bombing gimmick would be cool, like perfect accurate bomb drop if dive angle exceeds 45 degrees.

 

Well, the SBD had twin .50 AN/M2 machineguns forward firing... but that's pretty miserable firepower for Tier 5, especially for an attacker.

There were gunpods that gave it another 4 .50s (2 under each wing), but even that isn't good for an attacker (and it'd sacrifice bombload to fit those).

 

I think giving them fast bomb reload and some sort of dive bombing gimmick like you suggested would be a good idea.

 



vonluckner #23 Posted 05 November 2017 - 04:17 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 398 battles
  • 48
  • [PLSGO] PLSGO
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostZergling, on 05 November 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

 

A-4 probably is too good; even the early variants of the plane were close to the MiG-17 in performance, so to get it into WoWP would require nerfing it well below historical performance... although to be fair, it's not like WoWP is a game aiming for realistic aircraft performance to begin with.

 

Problem is there isn't a lot of alternatives that fit for a replacement for the A-4 at Tier 10.

 

 

I don't think so. The top speed would be quite high for an attacker, but dropping the speed down to 550mph (or approximately the same as the J7W3) would probably be more realistic, if anything, since there's no way if would be approaching max speed while laden with bombs anyways. Neither the climb rate nor gun power is particularly inspiring either, and would be worst at tier with ~410 gun power and historically 140ft/s climb rate (vs. 186ft/s on the Il-40P in-game).

 

Performance of even the A-4F is pretty squarely within the boundaries already set by aircraft in-game. It doesn't push the timeline either. Both the Javelin an Il-40P are technically more modern, the Javelin in-game is a 1956 variant, and the Il-40P first flew in 1955. The A4D-1 first flew in 1954.

 

How about:

 

A4D-1

 

1000hp

 

2x Mk.12 20mm

360dps total @ 2690ft

 

550 mph top speed in level flight

650 mph dive speed

186ft/s climb rate

350mph optimum speed

 

16s 360' turn

80' rate of roll

 

2500ft optimum altitude

 

 

4x 1000lb bombs

7500 dmg, 300ft radius (which would be better than the Il-40P 500kg bombs)

 

or

 

12x 127mm Zuni

1700 dmg, 175ft radius (slightly worse than the rockets on the Il-40P, but higher quantity)

 

Put them on the same ordnance slot as the A-4 only had 5 hardpoints (put a drop tank on the centerline for aesthetics sake).

 

With stats like that you could barely evade HFs, but you'd be much more vulnerable to MRs and LFs which are both faster and more agile. In the balance of GAA, it would put the P.1102B in the middle of the speed-firepower spectrum as a sort of high speed strike aircraft that can shoot down light AI AD but not much else. The speed and bomb capacity would be offset by the inability to deal with armored ground targets with guns.

 

Either way I think it makes sense to add the A-4, but it doesn't really make sense as a multirole since the guns would be pretty damn pitiful. It would end up like a T10 Ki-43 with bombs or something.

 

 



Zergling #24 Posted 05 November 2017 - 07:30 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 545 battles
  • 53
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postvonluckner, on 05 November 2017 - 04:17 AM, said:

 

I don't think so. The top speed would be quite high for an attacker, but dropping the speed down to 550mph (or approximately the same as the J7W3) would probably be more realistic, if anything, since there's no way if would be approaching max speed while laden with bombs anyways. Neither the climb rate nor gun power is particularly inspiring either, and would be worst at tier with ~410 gun power and historically 140ft/s climb rate (vs. 186ft/s on the Il-40P in-game).

 

Performance of even the A-4F is pretty squarely within the boundaries already set by aircraft in-game. It doesn't push the timeline either. Both the Javelin an Il-40P are technically more modern, the Javelin in-game is a 1956 variant, and the Il-40P first flew in 1955. The A4D-1 first flew in 1954.

 

How about:

 

A4D-1

 

1000hp

 

2x Mk.12 20mm

360dps total @ 2690ft

 

550 mph top speed in level flight

650 mph dive speed

186ft/s climb rate

350mph optimum speed

 

16s 360' turn

80' rate of roll

 

2500ft optimum altitude

 

 

4x 1000lb bombs

7500 dmg, 300ft radius (which would be better than the Il-40P 500kg bombs)

 

or

 

12x 127mm Zuni

1700 dmg, 175ft radius (slightly worse than the rockets on the Il-40P, but higher quantity)

 

Put them on the same ordnance slot as the A-4 only had 5 hardpoints (put a drop tank on the centerline for aesthetics sake).

 

With stats like that you could barely evade HFs, but you'd be much more vulnerable to MRs and LFs which are both faster and more agile. In the balance of GAA, it would put the P.1102B in the middle of the speed-firepower spectrum as a sort of high speed strike aircraft that can shoot down light AI AD but not much else. The speed and bomb capacity would be offset by the inability to deal with armored ground targets with guns.

 

Either way I think it makes sense to add the A-4, but it doesn't really make sense as a multirole since the guns would be pretty damn pitiful. It would end up like a T10 Ki-43 with bombs or something.

 

Sounds good, it certainly could work like that in WoWP.

 

...although mentioning the centerline has made me want one with a SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A gunpod that contains a 20mm M61 Vulcan. Hell, the Skyhawk could carry gunpods on the inner wing stores points too, so gimme triple Vulcans!

 


Edited by Zergling, 05 November 2017 - 07:31 AM.


jack_wdw #25 Posted 05 November 2017 - 11:59 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 21 battles
  • 153
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
Sorry guys, i really don't think the A-4 would fit as Tier X GAA.

From tier VI on, all GAA's have a rear gunner.
They need to have some sort of defensive firepower, but yet again not too much. (B-25 has too much defensive firepower in my opinion)
And they all become less manoeuvrable and packed with more or heavier guns for destroying GT's.

Because of this logic, Skyraider and Skyhawk could never fit in that tree. Yes you can nerf them, make them less manoeuvrable, give them a ridiculous amount of HP-points, give them gunpods so their firepower would be in range. But eventually you get an aircraft that will be overnerfed and without defensive gunpower they would become sitting ducks. My best choice is to put them as MF's, even with an optional gunpod.

My US GAA tree would be the following:

Tier I: /
Tier II: Curtiss A-8
Tier III: Curtis  A-12
Tier IV: Curtiss A-18 Shrike II
Tier V: Douglas A-20G havoc
Tier VI: Douglas A-26 Invader
Tier VII: Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly
Tier VIII: Douglas XA-42 (armed with 12x0.50 cal nose +2 wingmounted 0.50cals +2 defensive 0.50 cals  or 1 75MM cannon in nose + 2 wingmounted 0.50 cals + 2defensive 0.50 cals) + bombs&rockets
Tier IX: Douglas XA-43 same armament options as XA-42 + bigger payload
Tier X: Martin XA-45 or the XB-51 (which is actually more or less the american version of the German TierX GAA)

-

Edited by jack_wdw, 05 November 2017 - 01:47 PM.


comtedumas #26 Posted 05 November 2017 - 02:15 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1122 battles
  • 193
  • [NIN-] NIN-
  • Member since:
    04-11-2016

 

 

 

 

Well, the SBD had twin .50 AN/M2 machineguns forward firing... but that's pretty miserable firepower for Tier 5, especially for an attacker.

There were gunpods that gave it another 4 .50s (2 under each wing), but even that isn't good for an attacker (and it'd sacrifice bombload to fit those).

 

I think giving them fast bomb reload and some sort of dive bombing gimmick like you suggested would be a good idea.

 

Torpedoes for the TBF for those AA destroyers guarding some bases would,be limited but cool.  


Heard on the forum.  "1.9 was a hardcore air combat sim.  And it had a lead indicator"  HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zergling #27 Posted 05 November 2017 - 03:17 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 545 battles
  • 53
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjack_wdw, on 05 November 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

Sorry guys, i really don't think the A-4 would fit as Tier X GAA.

From tier VI on, all GAA's have a rear gunner.
They need to have some sort of defensive firepower, but yet again not too much. (B-25 has too much defensive firepower in my opinion)
And they all become less manoeuvrable and packed with more or heavier guns for destroying GT's.

Because of this logic, Skyraider and Skyhawk could never fit in that tree. Yes you can nerf them, make them less manoeuvrable, give them a ridiculous amount of HP-points, give them gunpods so their firepower would be in range. But eventually you get an aircraft that will be overnerfed and without defensive gunpower they would become sitting ducks. My best choice is to put them as MF's, even with an optional gunpod.

My US GAA tree would be the following:

Tier I: /
Tier II: Curtiss A-8
Tier III: Curtis  A-12
Tier IV: Curtiss A-18 Shrike II
Tier V: Douglas A-20G havoc
Tier VI: Douglas A-26 Invader
Tier VII: Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly
Tier VIII: Douglas XA-42 (armed with 12x0.50 cal nose +2 wingmounted 0.50cals +2 defensive 0.50 cals  or 1 75MM cannon in nose + 2 wingmounted 0.50 cals + 2defensive 0.50 cals) + bombs&rockets
Tier IX: Douglas XA-43 same armament options as XA-42 + bigger payload
Tier X: Martin XA-45 or the XB-51 (which is actually more or less the american version of the German TierX GAA)

 

Rear gunners are only a minor deterance; any ground attacker that is operating without teammate protection is going to die easily, rear gunner or not. As such, I don't believe there is a reason to believe Attackers cannot be balanced without them.

 

While the A-4 might work as a multi-role fighter, the A-1 definitely won't; the A-1's IRL performance is around that of a Tier 4 fighter, so there is no way it could be buffed to work as a multi-role fighter at T7 or higher.

 

And the XA-45/XB-51 didn't have a rear gunner.

 



jack_wdw #28 Posted 05 November 2017 - 08:03 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 21 battles
  • 153
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
xa-45 did have a rear gunner, xb-51 not, but let's nerf it with a power controlled turret :)
And i know its only a minor defence, but at least big enough to not simply tail it (or lose some hp-points yourself) in a higher tier class.

And your rightt about the a-1, but the skyshark could fit in as tier VIII MF

Edited by jack_wdw, 05 November 2017 - 08:03 PM.


Zergling #29 Posted 06 November 2017 - 11:33 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 545 battles
  • 53
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjack_wdw, on 05 November 2017 - 08:03 PM, said:

xa-45 did have a rear gunner, xb-51 not, but let's nerf it with a power controlled turret :)

 

Ah fair enough, I wasn't aware of that.

 

I do like your idea though, it works fairly well.

 

Although one problem with it is the A-26; the attack version of that plane was the A-26B with its solid nose with 6 or 8 .50 cal machineguns, while the bomber version was the A-26C with the clear nose (and bombsight)... except WG has made the A-26B a bomber.

IMO, WG should change the bomber A-26 to the C variant, allowing the A-26B to be used as an attacker.

 

I'd also like to see some of the gun options for the A-26B that were tested, such as 37mm and 75mm cannons as described on this page: http://napoleon130.t....com/id488.html

 



jack_wdw #30 Posted 06 November 2017 - 02:13 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 21 battles
  • 153
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View PostZergling, on 06 November 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

Ah fair enough, I wasn't aware of that.

 

I do like your idea though, it works fairly well.

 

Although one problem with it is the A-26; the attack version of that plane was the A-26B with its solid nose with 6 or 8 .50 cal machineguns, while the bomber version was the A-26C with the clear nose (and bombsight)... except WG has made the A-26B a bomber.

IMO, WG should change the bomber A-26 to the C variant, allowing the A-26B to be used as an attacker.

 

I'd also like to see some of the gun options for the A-26B that were tested, such as 37mm and 75mm cannons as described on this page: http://napoleon130.t....com/id488.html

 

 

Indeed if they would create such a tree, they have to change the in-game bombers to A-26C.

Actually i don't get it at all, why they chose the A-26 for the bomber-line at that tier.
The Marauder or Mitchell would have been such a better fit as a bomber.

About the gun options, maybe the 75mm is a tad too heavy for tier VI. (highest caliber cannon in Tier VI is the single 50mm for the junkers 88P.3)
But a dual 37mm would be great, combined with one or two .50 cal MG's. (which would give it more or less the same firepower as the il-2T in that tier.

Einssniper #31 Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:40 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 622 battles
  • 281
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    09-11-2015
F-84 line has been the US attacker

vonluckner #32 Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:25 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 398 battles
  • 48
  • [PLSGO] PLSGO
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjack_wdw, on 06 November 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

 

Indeed if they would create such a tree, they have to change the in-game bombers to A-26C.

Actually i don't get it at all, why they chose the A-26 for the bomber-line at that tier.
The Marauder or Mitchell would have been such a better fit as a bomber.

About the gun options, maybe the 75mm is a tad too heavy for tier VI. (highest caliber cannon in Tier VI is the single 50mm for the junkers 88P.3)
But a dual 37mm would be great, combined with one or two .50 cal MG's. (which would give it more or less the same firepower as the il-2T in that tier.

 

They didn't choose the A-26 for the bomber-line. It's a premium aircraft, meaning that we'll probably get the B-25 or B-26 at T6 in the line.

 

Alternatively they'll be lazy and give the glass-nose A-26C.



DirtySquirrell #33 Posted 08 November 2017 - 09:22 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 1070 battles
  • 3
  • [WARP] WARP
  • Member since:
    09-03-2015
One toilet... Nice. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users