Jump to content


Future Aircraft I would like to see

Tier 10 History Airplane Design

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Mikula #1 Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:20 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 489 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
Hello. I tried to post recently. It was met by people who thought they were master investigators (when they wern't) and negative nancies. I have decided to try approaching my suggestion in a new way. If I can't get people to hold a conversation, then I will say what I want to, and let people figure it out. All are Tier 10 thoughts

US:

F-86 F-2 : Alternative Saber with Cannons

F4D Skyray or F-11 Tiger: Lighter interceptor/heavy fighter. These were the closest to the XF-90's speed I could find from the 50's. Out of the two, the F4D does specifically list itself as an interceptor. It also happens to be smaller. It could be the smallest heavy. Better turn time than the XF-90 is what I was looking for in this

Germany:

CL-13 Canada Air Sabre: This had a higher speed, and thrust than most of the US made Sabre's. It could be the alternative high speed Sabre with a slower turn rate, while giving Germany a machine gun aircraft

Fiat G91: Attack Aircraft with all rockets, and 2, 30mm Cannons

Dornier Alpha Jet: Light Bomber or Attack Aircraft

UK:

Foland Gnat: Higher Altitude fighter alternative. Could be the smallest, and lowest HP fighter. Top speed could be slighter lower to balance it out for having better Altitude than the Swift. I see the Gnat was capable of 1,120 km/h while the Swift was 1148 km/h

Supermarine Scimitar: Light Attack Aircraft

USSR:

Yak-25: I checked and the weight was close to that of the Supermarine Swift. This could be used as a Fighter. In World of Tanks I think it is the 430U? The Medium that wants to be a heavy. I think similar could be applied to the Yak-25. Twin 37mm Cannons would be nasty

Su-7: Alternative to the Yak-25 if it isn't accepted, or re-purposed to a Heavy Fighter. It used twin 30mm Cannons but was heavier than the Yak-25 or Swift

This is the most I have for now. If I think of more I can add it later

Captain_Underpants53 #2 Posted 26 May 2019 - 06:20 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 22461 battles
  • 3,189
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017
I have always wished they would explore the Japanese and British bomber lines.  But wish in one hand...............................:(
MSgt, USAF, (ret)

hoom #3 Posted 26 May 2019 - 07:16 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9272 battles
  • 1,818
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I didn't partake in that thread but people went off on it because you suggested ridiculously out-of-era planes like Panavia Tornado & Crusader.

This list is still mainly too late as well, the latest first flight currently ingame is 1951 but you have a bunch with much later first flights.

 

I don't believe 20mm equipped Sabre is necessary, the top tier 0.50 cals are quite monstrous buzz-saws as is.

Canadair Sabre is probably ok but pretty redundant.

Skyray is cool & I think a possibility but F-11 is too late.

G91 is too late.

Alpha Jet first flight is '70s.

Gnat is too late as is Scimitar.

Yak-25 is probably a bit too late with first flight in '52 but might be candidate for Soviet Heavy.

Su-7 is too late and 1000km/h too fast so definitely no.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Mikula #4 Posted 26 May 2019 - 07:55 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 489 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
I don't know much about British Bombers to compile a list unfortunately

The other issue was they were nitpicking my account. I have played Tier 10 on a friend's account before. It is partly how I am aware of how rediculous things get

I guess to each their own. I think a 20mm equipped Sabre would give the US tree a fighter that can do head ons a litte bit better, and have more range

Canadair Sabre was my thought in giving the Germans a high altitude fighter that is fast. Presently only the USSR and US have a high altitude fighter (bomber height). It would be an alternative playstyle. It could have 600 speed like the other fighters, and a slower turn time than the US based Sabre. Germans do not have a Machine Gun aircraft as well

Ok. I can accept the Yak-25 and Skyray. It would be nice to give the USSR a Heavy, and the US a more agile Heavy. Knowing the Skyray has a chance, that would bring up something I tried in the past. Skyrays and Javelins were equipped with Radar. My thought was that they could have a higher base detection range of enemy Aircraft

As for stats, that is where I am unsure of. I know it would be nice to see at least a 15 second turn time base on the Skyray. That would put it below an Me 262 HG III. Perhaps give it a 650 health pool to balance out the tiny dimensions, and turn time?

Skyrays used Colt Mk12 Cannons. These cannons were different than the M39 cannons used on the XF-88 Voodoo (XF-90's replacement). Using RL as a tool for help in getting ideas.. Lower RPM, but, higher damage on the Mk 12? There is only 4 of them

On the Yak-25, 15-16 turn time, top speed of 650, and higher acceleration than the other Heavy Fighters? (Skyray being next best after this)

Research for these Aircraft.. Skyray could be based off of the Pirate, and F2H. It would give players an alternative path to a Heavy, and still allow the older players the ability to get to it, without completely restarting

Unsure on the Yak-25. My current thought is it should be based on the Mig 9 given the interceptor play styles but, wouldn't that be too much of a change for a player?

Edited by Mikula, 26 May 2019 - 08:30 AM.


sandtiger #5 Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 20330 battles
  • 1,430
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

i would also like to see the other saber  with 20m canons

the could add to the mixed tree they been talking about

come out with



Trophy_Wench #6 Posted 26 May 2019 - 05:53 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1471 battles
  • 120
  • [TWE] TWE
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Ok, so I didn't bother replying to your original thread Mikula since it seemed like you had gotten browbeat by everyone else there but since you want to try this again, I'll happily engage you. By and large, I agree with hoom here in that even though you reined in your frankly silly suggestions from your previous thread, to aircraft that are close-er to what we have now; they're still too advanced. My benchmark for planes that go beyond the established performance timeframe is the MiG-17. Is it equivalent/ superior to the MiG? No bueno. You want a Sabre with cannons? It won't be the 'H' model, it'd be the FJ-2. F-11 Tiger or Gnat F.1? Yeah they're transonic but developed with missiles in mind, so also no bueno.

 

I do notice as well that you seem to take umbrage with the XF-90 in particular and want to find a replacement for it. Well, in all fairness it's replacement is the XF-88 Voodoo, since that was the plane it flew off against for the "penetration fighter" contract. Neither plane got built however, but the XF-88 did live on (sort of) to become the F-101 Voodoo. Also, the Mk.12 was never installed on the XF-90, that's a holdover from the fact that WeeGee mishmashed naval and AF fighters together in the heavy line. The weapon of choice would have been the M24 cannon, though it's possible it could have been slated for the M39 as well but I've never seen specifics on it's armaments from the sources I've read. The thing to keep in mind with this plane is that while it may not seem like a heavy, it does fit the theme based on what the plane was designed to do. Is it the worst HF in the game though? Maybe, maybe not I've never flown it but the important thing is that it is what belongs there.

 


Edited by Trophy_Wench, 26 May 2019 - 05:54 PM.


sandtiger #7 Posted 26 May 2019 - 06:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 20330 battles
  • 1,430
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

Spoiler

 

 



mnbv_fockewulfe #8 Posted 27 May 2019 - 01:03 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 605 battles
  • 3,483
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Just from a quick peruse, a lot of these sound too advanced for the game.

(i.e. F-11 is supersonic, Su-7 had provision for ata missiles.)  

20mm Saber would be cancer. 


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 27 May 2019 - 01:04 AM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


Mikula #9 Posted 27 May 2019 - 10:10 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 489 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011

Trophy: If I was going too far then all people had to was talk to me in a civil manner.. Say something like "I disagree for A and B reason". I would suggest "C and D". They didn't have to go to the extent of being a-holes, or for that matter trying to nitpick my account. You aren't going to find all the information on this account

I was looking at a list of 50's aircraft. I did not think of the FJ-2 Fury. I am ok with that as well. One thing I am unsure of is which model F-86 WoWP is using. I know the FJ-2 is slower than the F-86-F40 model

Problem with the F-101 is that it had no cannons. XF-88 had 6, 20mm cannons (M39). I am not finding the M24 you mention. If you are talking about a Vulcan, only 50's aircraft that had that, was the F-106. That took a 1972 refit though

I do think the XF-90 is one of the worse heavies for a reason. Sure it has range, and high rate of fire to go with that boom and zoom speed but, that turn time is a problem. Yes you should only turn as a last resort for a Heavy though there is times when you have to. With the ME 262 HG III, you can get the turn time down to about 13.5 seconds with low tier Lightweight Wing Frame,  Lightweight Power Unit, and Acrobatics on the Pilot (I think it is). It is the one Mastery that gives bonuses to equipment

What you can do with that low turn time, is you can "duck" under an XF-90 trying to dive on you. You roll the aircraft left or right, and turn to present a smaller target

This presents a problem though. As I have seen with the Mig-15 Bis, you can get that up to 720 speed through Polished Skin, Uprated Engine, Acrobatics, and Engine Guru (low tier equipment). With Lightweight Power Unit, you can keep the Mig to that 10.8 turn time, or close to it. That means if you "duck" from an XF-90 or another Heavy, you open yourself to an attack from the Mig. Mig is the only real threat to a Heavy if at high altitude because the Swift will quickly lose airspeed trying to stay at your altitude

As you can see with this long winded explanation.. Due to the Modification system, Fighters are now quickly becoming the Heavy replacement. There will be fewer and fewer Heavies in a match as time goes on. They won't be gone completely because you still need them to go after Bombers, or Attack Aircraft but.. Fighters are far more versatile

That is partly why I am asking for the Skyray to be a low turn time Aircraft. I am not sure how much I can ask for but, I know Heavies need to have a better turn time because in the future as more aircraft get added, or new features.. They will fall behind

Other responses: Knowing that is a likely outcome, I am asking for more High Altitude Fighters. Starting with the CL-13. If people disagree on the 20mm Saber, or the FJ-2 then fine. Put the CL-13 in there. I already gave good reasons for the CL-13. I can add one more I failed to think of.. The model already exists in the game. It would just need to be modified for the German Tree. If you want to take it a step further, I am noticing a size difference in the CL-13 and F-86

F-86:

Length: 11.4 m
Wingspan: 11.3 m
Height: 4.5 m

CL-13:

Length: 11.43 m
Wingspan: 11.32 m
Height: 4.49 m

You can see it was a little bigger in all 3 of those dimensions. It could be the bigger Sabre. Not as big as an FJ-2 but, it is up there


Edited by Mikula, 27 May 2019 - 10:14 AM.


Trophy_Wench #10 Posted 27 May 2019 - 09:03 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1471 battles
  • 120
  • [TWE] TWE
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMikula, on 27 May 2019 - 10:10 AM, said:

Trophy: If I was going too far then all people had to was talk to me in a civil manner.. Say something like "I disagree for A and B reason". I would suggest "C and D". They didn't have to go to the extent of being a-holes, or for that matter trying to nitpick my account. You aren't going to find all the information on this account

 

Yeah I know, but this is the internet my friend, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy...

 

With that out of the way, look, I know what you're trying to do. I know because I've tried to do the same thing and I've made these kind of suggestion threads across all 3 WG titles. The thing of it is is that when you start going down these rabbit holes of research and then look at what WG has done with regards to content, you begin to realize that some of the decisions they made, while at first glance asinine begin to make sense in the context of what it is they're trying to accomplish in the established rules the devs set for themselves. In the case of Warplanes specifically, the rules (as I'm sure you are aware of this) go like this:

  1. Tiered progression system. All tiers must have and endpoint to the top, though they don't have to start at the bottom.
  2. Aircraft are categorized (shoehorned) into 'roles' designated by WG based on their historical use IRL or intended mission. <--- (that one's important to remember!)
  3. Aircraft within a category will be further split into lines based off their manufacturer whether by new airframe or significant variant of an existing airframe to complete said lines of aircraft. Only when no other aircraft from that manufacturer can be applied for a given tier will an alternative aircraft be found.
  4. Defined roles will define handling and flight characteristics for given aircraft, in order to comply with competitive balancing
  5. Specific aircraft that are allowed as content for this game falls in line with other WG titles, from interwar period to early cold war, but each studio can adjust accordingly to ensure that the focus is placed on the WWII period. In the case of WoWP, this means that the hard stop on content will be 2nd generation jet planes, missile armed aircraft and anything else that may not emphasize gunplay. (Use of atomics I think is a given here too, in case anyone reading was cheeky! You know you're thinking it!)

 

Now, again I know you're not dumb Mikula I know you know all of this. This game is not and never will be a simulator, it won't be Ace Combat, and it sure as hell won't be War Thunder which just wants to be all things to all people. At the end of the day, this game is just another 3rd person loot shooter. And like a loot shooter, that means that the development team is free to just change the mechanisms as they see fit to suit the game they want to create, regardless of how we feel about it. You want to complain that the XF-90 is uncompetitive compared to it's tiers? None of it matters! A year from now, two years from now they may end up being two completely different aircraft, if not in name or shape than certainly in performance! /rant.

 

Ok, phew. Now that we've gone over the ground rules, lets talk about American heavies for a moment shall we? The first thing I'd like to do is draw your attention to one my suggestion threads because a lot of the aircraft you talk about I have brought up as well. In particular my hypothetical tier 11-15 fighter lines, which ended up being a lot harder work than I expected!

Check that one out Here. The thread is not my own though but it's a good read overall.

 

Secondly, the F4D =/= XF-90. I'm sorry there's just no way. Too modern, too fast and only one engine. It has more in common with the F7U and that plane does have 2 engines! You are right however, that some of the light interceptor types have nearly equivalent speed and as much altitude as the heavy fighter, which is why the concept went away in the first place but insofar as WeeGee sees fit to include these types of planes in top tier gameplay, it's going to stay. Is it being powercreeped somewhat? Yeah most likely but I'm sure WeeGee will do what it can to continue to tweak it's performance to keep it relevant rather than replace it outright.

 

Finally, as for your Canadair Sabre: Yeah they can come in just fine- but it'd be the earlier models with the 6x .50's and NOT the cannon. Remember my MiG-17 rule... 

Also, some notes on other things you mentioned: The M24 was an improved M3 that was introduced in the late 40's with an electric feed system to increase reliability. In game terms the M24 would be equivalent in power to the M39 but just slower because it wasn't a revolver cannon. As for the model of F-86 we have in game now, it's based on the 'A' model (not sure which block)

 

 


Edited by Trophy_Wench, 27 May 2019 - 10:52 PM.


Mikula #11 Posted 28 May 2019 - 08:53 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 489 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
Trophy:

Interesting that WG operates like that. Skyray does stick with a defined role.. It is listed as an interceptor

I don't expect the game to be a simulator. What makes WoWP unique is that 3rd person/arcade feel. War Thunder is too realistic and can drive most people insane (especially when you learn about "Pilot Sniping"). I think WoWP can keep that feel even if it goes in to Missile Combat. Here is my idea regarding that.. Put a few more aircraft in to the "gun era" to give more options. Then the "missile era" can be looked in to

When you get to the "missile era" stuff, I am thinking you could seperate the two. Instead of expanding upon the current tech tree to include the new missile aircraft, you could treat it like an expansion. People can choose to play in the "gun era" or "missile era". Example: If I decide to fly in the Me 262 MG III then I would be flying in the "gun era". If I picked something like the F-8 Crusader, then I would be in the "missile era". Pending on my choice, is who I get matched with. Think like World of Warcraft with Classic, and new

Your list is similar to what I have tried in the past I see

Ok the A Model Sabre was faster than the FJ-2 but, not as bad. A model was 679 MPH (not seeing it in KMH), while the FJ-2 was 675. I guess that is as close as it is going to get, and you will just need to stretch things out. Give the FJ-2 a 10.8 Turn Time like the CL-13, and 600 speed. That would make the turn time even with the Mig 15 (the other high altitude fighter)

As far as Tweaks.. I think what would fix the Heavies is not only a Tweak in stats somewhere but, maybe lowering the range of Cannons on Fighters. I can't find any data on the Colt Mk 12 but, I can on the Hispano cannon. Colt Mk12's were suppose to be an advanced version of that. The Hispano Cannon had a total range of 6,500 meters. Knowing the history of the Crusader, they only ever attempted missile strikes at a mile and a quarter. Cannon shots less than that

In short: The FJ-2 could have 700-800 meter range. That would make it less of an "interceptor"

The reason I am not bothered about the Mig 15 or CL-13.. I know the MG range is short. If a Mig misses their 37mm, that is a good portion of their damage gone. Plus the guns like to over heat quick

CL-13's was an aircraft from another country. I don't think it is possible to make a tech tree for that. That is why I am thinking it could be researched in to from the Me 262 HG II. I think you will find more players down that line than the others. This would make it an easy transition for old players

If the Skyray is not added, the FJ-2 could take the position I originally suggested.. Researched from the F6U Pirate

That is the most I can think of ATM
 

Stygian_Alchemist #12 Posted 28 May 2019 - 09:13 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 10783 battles
  • 1,964
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostMikula, on 26 May 2019 - 01:55 AM, said:

Canadair Sabre was my thought in giving the Germans a high altitude fighter that is fast. Presently only the USSR and US have a high altitude fighter (bomber height). It would be an alternative playstyle. It could have 600 speed like the other fighters, and a slower turn time than the US based Sabre. Germans do not have a Machine Gun aircraft as well.

*Snip*

Really? Really?

You might want to play either of the German LFs before you say anything more because you are way off-base.. just as you were with the XF-90 and pretty well everything else so far.



Mikula #13 Posted 28 May 2019 - 11:57 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 489 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
I am not wrong with everything. You just don't get it. Seeing as you wish to press the issue, I went ahead and pulled up my game just to give you the numbers. Going by Optimal and Maximum Altitude

Me P.1101: 2,500 and 4,500

Fw 252: 2,500 and 4,500

Swift: 2,500 and 4,500

Mig 15 bis: 2,800 and 5,000

F-86: 2,800 and 5,000

Me 262 HG III: 2,800 and 4,800

Javelin: 3,000 and 5,000

XF-90: 3,000 and 5,000

The numbers do not lie. The USSR and US have the high altitude fighters.. F-86 and Mig 15 out perform any of the other Fighters in Optimum Altitude by 300 meters. They are the only ones to match the Me 262, and various other high altitude aircraft

Edited by Mikula, 28 May 2019 - 12:03 PM.


Mercsn #14 Posted 28 May 2019 - 03:02 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2601 battles
  • 3,293
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013
STILL waiting for my FW-190 F ground attacker, I mean, c'mon...we got that tier 2 Fiseler bi-plane GA, why not the 190F?!

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Stygian_Alchemist #15 Posted 28 May 2019 - 09:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 10783 battles
  • 1,964
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostMikula, on 28 May 2019 - 05:57 AM, said:

I am not wrong with everything. You just don't get it. Seeing as you wish to press the issue, I went ahead and pulled up my game just to give you the numbers. Going by Optimal and Maximum Altitude

Me P.1101: 2,500 and 4,500

Fw 252: 2,500 and 4,500

Swift: 2,500 and 4,500

Mig 15 bis: 2,800 and 5,000

F-86: 2,800 and 5,000

Me 262 HG III: 2,800 and 4,800

Javelin: 3,000 and 5,000

XF-90: 3,000 and 5,000

The numbers do not lie. The USSR and US have the high altitude fighters.. F-86 and Mig 15 out perform any of the other Fighters in Optimum Altitude by 300 meters. They are the only ones to match the Me 262, and various other high altitude aircraft

 

The numbers do lie... as do people looking at the numbers trying to find wisdom. *laughs*

I'll tell you what, you just gather up all those planes (I have all but two of them) and then we'll go out in the air and you show me exactly how 900 feet of theoretical altitude difference helps you. You won't be able to, because you'll be dead before you get anywhere near that range and I'm quite capable of getting up and killing a bomber in a Yak-30, which is -way- lower altitude capacity than any of the planes you just listed.

The fact is, your ideas are ludicrous and your understanding of the game is completely lacking or are you just here to troll?

Mercsn #16 Posted 28 May 2019 - 09:35 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2601 battles
  • 3,293
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostWhite_Widow18, on 28 May 2019 - 03:21 PM, said:

 

The numbers do lie... as do people looking at the numbers trying to find wisdom. *laughs*

I'll tell you what, you just gather up all those planes (I have all but two of them) and then we'll go out in the air and you show me exactly how 900 feet of theoretical altitude difference helps you. You won't be able to, because you'll be dead before you get anywhere near that range and I'm quite capable of getting up and killing a bomber in a Yak-30, which is -way- lower altitude capacity than any of the planes you just listed.

The fact is, your ideas are ludicrous and your understanding of the game is completely lacking or are you just here to troll?

 

 

It appear Mikula is referring to HUMAN piloted bombers.  In that case, he's correct.  The Yak-30 isn't going to go kill an RB-17. 

 

The problem is that he's not taking game design into account.  Fighters are not supposed to be taking out bombers at high altitude, heavy fighters are.  So, the argument of "need higher altitude for light fighter to attack bomber" doesn't work.

 

Also, we must consider that WG is ok using paper vehicles and lend/lease or produced under license vehicles for a nation, but they don't usually put in versions of enemy vehicles (the captured Spitfire DB605 being a notable example).  There's no way the post WWII allied aircraft would end up as German nation planes unless they were premiums (like the Spit DB605).  With dabbling in post war period we run into the issue of east/west German equipment (and WoT did use the West German tank for the tech tree, iirc). But, since those oddball planes would be premiums anyways, giving the germans a premium Mig would be way simpler while still fitting the argument of "for higher altitude use".

 

Plus, the biggest problem with things like this is that WG isn't interested.  They've got somebody who gets paid to think up the tech trees and that person has no interest in our input...the players who like the US line have been asking for certain planes (that have been modeled in WoWS) for years. 

 

 


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Captain_Underpants53 #17 Posted 28 May 2019 - 10:06 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 22461 battles
  • 3,189
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

View PostMercsn, on 28 May 2019 - 04:35 PM, said:

 

 

It appear Mikula is referring to HUMAN piloted bombers.  In that case, he's correct.  The Yak-30 isn't going to go kill an RB-17. 

 

The problem is that he's not taking game design into account.  Fighters are not supposed to be taking out bombers at high altitude, heavy fighters are.  So, the argument of "need higher altitude for light fighter to attack bomber" doesn't work.

 

Also, we must consider that WG is ok using paper vehicles and lend/lease or produced under license vehicles for a nation, but they don't usually put in versions of enemy vehicles (the captured Spitfire DB605 being a notable example).  There's no way the post WWII allied aircraft would end up as German nation planes unless they were premiums (like the Spit DB605).  With dabbling in post war period we run into the issue of east/west German equipment (and WoT did use the West German tank for the tech tree, iirc). But, since those oddball planes would be premiums anyways, giving the germans a premium Mig would be way simpler while still fitting the argument of "for higher altitude use".

 

Plus, the biggest problem with things like this is that WG isn't interested.  They've got somebody who gets paid to think up the tech trees and that person has no interest in our input...the players who like the US line have been asking for certain planes (that have been modeled in WoWS) for years. 

 

 

 

You are absolutely correct under current match rules.  The Yak-30 will never 'kill an RB-17.'   That's maybe because they are a Tier X and a Tier VIII?  Gratz on your thorough knowledge of the game.

 

:D


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

Stygian_Alchemist #18 Posted 28 May 2019 - 10:24 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 10783 battles
  • 1,964
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 28 May 2019 - 04:06 PM, said:

 

You are absolutely correct under current match rules.  The Yak-30 will never 'kill an RB-17.'   That's maybe because they are a Tier X and a Tier VIII?  Gratz on your thorough knowledge of the game.

 

:D

 

Go figure, they both keep presenting arguments not based in reality. Also, I've killed RB-17 players in my Yak-15, LOL. Neither also seems to understand the concept of game balance or the ludicrosity of every plane being able to get to the same height as the bombers. THey want their greater height, but they don't get that would require upping the altitude limit for bombers, which would leave them in the same position they are now.

The premise is bad, the details are bad, the whole idea is bad. No matter how many times its posted and no matter how many times they try to justify the inanity of it.

Mikula #19 Posted 29 May 2019 - 09:06 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 489 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
Mercsn: You are correct. I am talking about Piloted Bombers. The German Bomber coming soon is XF-90 altitude height. At that point, only the Mig-15, Sabre, or a Heavy will be able to reach it if it is at altitude

Fighters aren't suppose to be going after bombers true but, there are some matches where it is forced. If you are the only plane in that area, you can try to disable it at the very least. That is a tactic I have done before.. I will take out an engine or two to force it to lose altitude then go do other things

All other responses: It isn't wisdom it is numbers. If you think I am wrong even after that, I recommend reading the mechanics on optimum altitude. Based on what I just read, it sounds like the bombers you have gone after, aren't using their full altitude

If I was playing the Mig, Me 262 or one of the others.. I would be sitting at high altitude as much as possible. If I see a Swift or the others trying to come up to me, I would look down and giggle, before going about my business. With the new modification system, and new ideas of builds, it is beyond possible for me to see at that altitude. You would need camoflauge to truly hide from that view range. Not many use camoflauge due to it costing Gold to be permanent

If you know it all.. Then you tell me how you would add the CL-15 Sabre. Go on. Let me see what you say

Mercsn #20 Posted 29 May 2019 - 09:16 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2601 battles
  • 3,293
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 28 May 2019 - 04:06 PM, said:

 

You are absolutely correct under current match rules.  The Yak-30 will never 'kill an RB-17.'   That's maybe because they are a Tier X and a Tier VIII?  Gratz on your thorough knowledge of the game.

 

:D

 

I'm happy to see that you understood the reference I was going for, however.  Genius.  I'm proud of you for figuring that out all by yourself.

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users