yeah I know, we also had the stalingrad one before it
Which means it is outdated.
Event can come back, just because gaijin’s ability to predict player behaviour or even just try to cover up the obvious tears in new modes doesn’t mean they should stop existing.
Don’t flatten up the entire game because both directors AND players refuse to put effort in to try to develop game sense or strategies.
But we are off-topic.
Except gaijin’s lazyness is still relevant, the fact they don’t even try to simply add a filter to remove stadistics of bad players and entirely rely on an obvious flawed system which just pleases the inexperienced air players, not only them of course, plenty of tanks players just see air battles as a chore and simply try to maximize RP per minute for that sweet CAS abuse.
Neither they try to fix the tutorials or add extra info on them like basic strategy like “energy is your speed+altitude” or “hit and run tactics” which would eventually connect to “boom and zoom”.
Im honestly pretty sure those 2 rank II premium japanese props on the american tree have been specifically tailored so new players that don’t know such info buy them.
The aircraft would not be balanced though; it is impossible for the most part.
For example in a USA vs Japan 1943 style event you would not be able to use any of the Hellcats, P-47s, or P-51s that we have in the game. Depending on the cutoff date you might get the F4U-1A and P-38G at best.
Arguably these planes would have to contend with most of the Ki-43, Ki-61, and A6M variants we have in the game. Also if we go by initial combat deployed then the J2M2 might also be part of this equation. Guess what team is going to win in the vast majority of cases?
There is good reason that one of the longest running threads in the past was basically calls to nerf axis fighters and whether or not there was any point to play anything but Axis.
So it’s balanced then? The P-38G and the Corsair will run rings around the Japanese aircraft as long as they stay fast/boom and zoom whereas the Japanese will punish those that decide to turn fight. The J2M2 could be a problem but as you’ve said yourself it’s not 100% that it’d even be eligible.
There’s lots of different factors in this, it’s not because historically Axis aircraft were superior because we know that isn’t the case.
The main issues arise from the MG-151 being a fridge launcher and the Japanese aircraft having arcade flight models… we also can’t ignore the other issue which was players turn-fighting the Japanese and whingeing because they get shot down every time in their P-51.
At the same time there were dozens of threads (some which are still present on this new forum!) about Spitfires being OP, Yaks being OP etc etc and this was well before the Shvaks became wickedly overpowered.
what?!
a zero wouldnt face a 109?!
crazy dude
like i dont rlly get the point here
in axis V allies both sides have turn and energy fighters at every br so no counters would get lost
(+ if you rlly wanna see how bad the mm is rn try one match us + ger v everyone else
that is a bad matchup)
Unless your team of USA planes is actually in a voice channel and communicating then you basically have no chance. This is especially true in Air RB where the initial climb rate advantage sets the pace for the rest of the match.
The J2M2 would be just as eligible as the Corsair considering it was used in limited numbers starting in late 1942. The F4U-1A that we have in the game has water-injection which didn’t reach combat units until very late 1943 or early 1944.
The majority of F4U-1s were produced without water-injection. This is the variant that would be representative of what was available in most of 1943. So who wants to play F4U-1 but now it doesn’t have WEP?
How do we know that this wasn’t the case? Especially in the Pacific?
The narrative of superior US boom and zoom aircraft cutting down swaths of Japanese aircraft in the Pacific in vastly lopsided ratios is largely a myth that is blow largely out of proportion.
There were hardly any threads about the Yak-3 until the guns were allowed to actually do damage.
There were threads about the Spitfires because it was one of the exceedingly few allied planes that could match climb performance with the Axis teams.
This just sounds like you just saying it’s all due to USA played skill issues. Even if we assume that true…why would anyone want to play the game on the team that is guaranteed to lose the majority of the time? Do you think making USA players / newbs just lose for a year on end is going to somehow condition them to learn to play? Surely they will do as well as you surely routinely do in Air RB with your 10+ years of experience?
Oh wait that’s right…you never actually played it.
In the early days it was the case especially when Japanese aircraft were fighting pilots that didn’t know how to exploit the Zero’s weaknesses. Not to mention the fact that the Buffalo’s and Wildcats were in general inferior. That said when the Hellcats started getting involved the Japanese went on a well documented downward spiral. Just take a look at the pilot losses between the US and the Japanese navy and it’s not even all that close.
I don’t know I think events like the Marianas turkey shoot shows that the Japanese certainly got obliterated at some points. I don’t call the loss of around 480 Japanese aircraft compared to 130 for the US to be a great day for Japan.
Not true at all. Even in the SB section back in the day people were complaining about the Yak-3, La-7 and the Yak-1b.
To this day even with the flight model update (that no other aircraft has had to such an extreme extent) you’ll still find threads complaining about them.
For years now players being stuck in turn fight mode have been blamed for keeping Japanese BR’s high.
Because the American team wasn’t guaranteed to lose the majority of the time?
Practice makes perfect. Were you a natural ace as soon as you flew the Ki-84 or did it take time to learn it? There are some exceptional American pilots out there that no doubt learned to adapt to their aircraft.
In fact we’ve already seen packed games with one side more powerful than the other when we had the P-51 vs Me262 bomber escort event. The games were always full.
I played RB briefly to see if the fiance wanted to try it. If you check my profile you’ll probably see about 3 games… I think I was flying the Sakeen off memory.
You do realise that Sim had historical battles as well don’t you? Why don’t you tell the boys and girls how many Sim battles I have under my belt.
little fun fact from me rq
a lot of allied plane can actually climb with the 109s of the axis at their br (at sea lvl)
e.g. (ignoring spits obv)
p51c
yak3
yak3u/vk
most p38s
yak1
la5fn
f4u4
f8f1
p51h
(this list goes on and on btw)
(+ good climb is actually the main selling point of the 109s)
While I normally agree with you and think you are very level headed. Here you are appearing to excuse gaijin’s BR balance system knowing full well that the planes aren’t even a tiny bit close in performance, and in fact could be 2.0 or 3.0 apart in a real BR system with real actual performance metrics, and smashing them together because bad players exist and exaggerate the performance of the zeros.
I mean, I know full well you would complain about playing this sort of plane in your videos. You would. So why do you not want it fixed
The majority of the pivotal Naval battles were fought with Wildcats. The Hellcat that we have in game is a 1944 aircraft and sits at BR where it fights 1942 aircraft; and only the 3.7BR version is considered halfway decent.
So you’re just repeating USN kill claims at face value? USN claims could be reduced by a factor of around 2 if we are being conservative.
US AAC in New Guinea over-claimed by a factor of 6! The Medal Of Honor Neal Kearby story that resulted in 9 total kill claims being credited somehow only resulted in the loss of 2 Japanese aircraft. The P-47s record in New Guinea against the Oscar is a 2:1 rate which is far more conservative than what most people believe.
This is a plane by the way that we like to characterize as flimsy and useless trash that was shot down in droves by superior allied types.
The SB section was the same set of people complaining about open canopy. I never saw any threads about Yak-3 or La-7 when the guns were abysmal garbage.
Ironic this thread was started as exactly that though: Air simmer got blown up in head-on in his P-47 and decided that guns were doing too much damage.
There are far more complaints in the Sim community about the Ki-84 while the LF IX is basically better in every way except top speed at certain altitudes. It’s also one of the most popular planes for try-hards to play because it’s incredibly good for the battle rating.
Putting Japan on the US side did not change this trend though. The average player will attempt to turn fight a Japanese plane or isn’t constantly making sure to never go below 450kph.
Yes. I was good immediately in the Ki-84… especially in a mode like sim. Playing it at 4.0-5.0 against P-51D-5s and similarly mediocre planes is the shortest possible learning curve in Sim.
Even in RB I was immediately good with it but that is more due to level of experience by the time I decided to grind the Japanese tree.
Recent experience has shown that is not the case. There are plenty of battle ratings in sim that are dead because of how imbalanced they are. (I am looking at Ariete at 9.0 BR being the same as a Sabre.)
Sim battles are fundamentally different than RB since people can respawn, read the lobby screen before joining, and cherry pick planes to only play downtier days. This is something that pretty much every experienced does to one degree or another.
Nobody plays F4F into Ki-61 spam because one plane is fundamentally worse than the other. Nobody plays P-51D-5 into Ki-84 spam for basically the same reasons.
P-51C is December 1943 aircraft.
P-38J and later December 1943 as well.
Yak-3 also 1944.
F4U-4 is 1944 or approximately 1950 depending on version. Regardless a very end of the war plane.
P-51H is 1945.
F8F-1 is also 1945.
Also the only one of these planes that out climbs a Bf.109 is the P-51H or the Yak-3 (basically even with 109F4 under 3km and then falls behind.)
So historical matchmaking for earlier in the war would exclude most of those planes. Even relatively bad planes like the Razorback P-47s would be excluded because they don’t have the old style dogshit toothpick prop and don’t lack water injection.
Just because there are problems with the BR system doesn’t mean that a system based on service date would work any better.
It would be a lot worse and just create negative feedback loop of US teams getting decimated and experienced players wouldn’t even touch them because you can’t carry bad teams when your aircraft is also abysmal.
There is a reason even good USA prop sim players like IdahoBookworm end up playing US Ki-61B far more than they play period correct aircraft like the F4F Wildcat.
I don’t want service date but I see no reason for the A6Ms to be high only due to player inability to learn. They need to mix performance with player stats 50/50 to get better BRs
Some people on the ww2aircraft dot net forum have made some interesting analysis of the actual loss rates on both sides on a per engagement basis. The Ki-43 was holding its own surprisingly well even as Spitfire Mk8s showed up, which at least on paper would be a completely one-sided matchup.