The C.205N2 for example is a 4.7 and thus can meet bearcats, late model spitfires and 109s. It’s Armament and speed are fine but it’s climb rate is so horrible it cannot compete and will always be at a major disadvantage, the saving grace for a bad climbing aircraft is turn speed, which it does not have a good turn speed, and thus isn’t deserving of 4.7.
The same situation applies to the C.202EC, except it’s flight performance is akin to a 3.3, not 4.0, which means it also faces bearcats.
The re 2001 series suffers a similar fate but is significantly too slow, under armed and can’t climb to compete with 3.0 and 3.3 aircraft like spitfires and mustangs (uptiers are guaranteed in this game)
There’s many more I could go on about, but these are just a few examples.
2 Likes
I only have the Re 2002 early, but have to agree. It’s got a barbecue engine, mediocre in every aspect (turns OK I guess) and middling armament…
The 2001 should treat you better than the 2002, although expect to fight some more tough opponents, use the air targets belts on the 12.7s (HE) and tracers for the 7.7s
1 Like
The C.202 used to be 2.3, and the C.202EC used to be 3.0 or 3.3 iirc. Both should be 2.7, and 3.3 or 3.7 respectively. The Re.2001 CN is also quite bad for 3.3, and it desperately needs to go don.
2 Likes
Whole heartedly agreed, what about the C.205s?
I’ve only played the serie 1 and serie 3, and I’ve found them to be quite decent. They have a good climbrate, and they fly quite nicely.
I guess the N2 is the outlier because it can’t climb
How about the C.202D? I cant tell the two apart honestly despite using them both but i may literally be blind. Also i dont see people talk about it but i like the 202’s honestly they are fairly solid but going down in BR would be awesome.
I haven’t had issue in G55 sottoserie 0 in air RB, and it has a blatantly worse armament than the C 205N2.
I’ve had no issue with Re 2001 CN outside me forgetting to lower its prop pitch in MEC a couple times killing its engine… user error.
Can’t speak much on 202EC cause I haven’t used it in a while.
They are in fact overtiered pretty badly across the board. You could subtract -0.3 from basically the entire Italian rank 1-4 range and you’d barely have any issues
2 Likes
I’m researching the G.55 and have heard it’s superior to the 205, although it’s speed and climb stats seems low for 4.3, although the card could be wrong who knows
it is, alvis is usually wrong
Spoiler
G55:
205N2:
The slightly smaller wings makes the 205 go slightly faster with a slight decrease to sustained turning.
The vastly superior weapons add a bit of mass that decreases climb rate slightly.
That’s it, the weapons are still superior to the G55’s and despite the slightly added mass, those weapons make it superior in a team environment.
Also @Italy_Suffers and I agree on most things. Not sure why he’s implying that one airframe is objectively superior to the other when it’s more subjective than anything else.
Wait so the G.55 climbs better?
About 1.2ish meters per second to 4000 meters.
About a 13 second difference.
I don’t have a direct comparison among other aircraft that had a weapons increase without an engine performance increase at this time.
A 0.3 difference is perfectly reasonable to me though.
There are likely other examples in the game, I just don’t have them on-hand cause I didn’t anticipate this comparison.
A few ideas in-mind to look into though if you want to know if others are treated equally or differently; I know I do so I’ll look into it either way.
I’ll take anything with a better climb, also typical stat card being full of shit
Stat card stats are set on full fuel + other parameters we personally don’t use as players.
But as I said, you are trading superior weapons for a bit of climb rate. It’s somewhat personal preference, but it’s still an objective reality.
I’m used to leading bredas, 4 bredas and 1 mg151 should suffice for fighters, (I’ve killed mustangs with the 7.7s on D4Ys) and the slightly better handling + slightly lower BR should make it a bit more usable.
1 Like
