ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Another way to look at this is to compare with a A6M2: maneuverability = 28. No way ANY P-38 should be close to that.
Or with an Oscar: maneuverability = 31. IF we put a P-38 - any P-38 - in that class - we have surely got it wrong - and we will not simulate battles properly. Our game P-38 will do well BECAUSE it has lots of punch, lots of survivability, and that is exactly why it should do so. But it should not do well because it is as maneuverable as planes it clearly was not in the same league of.
The historical tests performed were quoted by someone else, and you read them as well as I did. The P-38F was compared to the P-47C. It was noted that the presence of powered control surfaces in the P-38L gave that model about the same MVR as the P-47C.
The closest P-47 model in the RHS database is the P-47D. The formula rates A6M2 at MVR 28 and the P-47D at 32. Logic constrains you to two possibilities:
1) You refuse to accept the tests done historically,
or
2) The formula is wrong and it should rate the P-47D lower than the A6M2.
As I have already written, I think the historical evidence trumps the formula.
And we are talking past each other. But your heart is in the right place - and so is mine - so I shall drop back ten yards and try this again:
The basic problem is (as often is the case of apparent but not real disagreement) one of linguistics;
Or more specifically, one of mathmetics being expressed linguistically;
Or more specifically, that the model term "maneuverability" is (as Joe posted long ago) a misleading one, and it is also a bit unfortunate, insofar as it combines
a) both horizontal and vertical maneuvering and
b) does so for all altitudes
when, IRL, aircraft have very different horizontal and vertical maneuvering performance, and both of those vary greatly at different altitudes.
To put this another way, you cannot treat the value called "maneuverability" in the game as if it relates to the test being cited directly. Or, more properly, you can do that, but it will be misleading and invalid if you do that. It does not yield a more accurate, more correct air combat model to do it that way for a single plane.
Now the Zero is able to out turn a P-47 - but a P-47 can out dive a Zero - and some models of P-47 can out climb some models of zero - and indeed - some models of P-47 are also faster than some models of zero. Any blanket statement that one is "better" than the other is misleading. Instead, some specific models are better than other specific models in some specific ways. Our game forces us to abstract the air combat process - we cannot know exactly what either pilot is trying to do? But IF one has the possibility of out diving the other- and the other has the possibility of out turning the first one - the scales should properly be very similar - it is a competative fight as it were. Remember - we are not able to actually change the model - or even change how the model uses values. It is a fact of life we have to live with. ALL we can do is get all sorts of maneuvering qualities represented in the "maneuverability" value - it is that or just put in one (apprently the starting one is speed alone - which I regard as unsatisfactory).
Historical evidence can tell us lots of things. But in this case, it cannot tell us how to programe fields in our routine? The best we can do is try combinations and then run it - and see if we get history like outcomes. We seem to be doing that fairly well - better than I would have believed possible just looking at it. We are trying to do better still. That is not "ignoring" history. On the other hand, to distort a systematic way to get data is to make the entire process of defining standards and applying them meaningless. There is no "reform" UNLESS we honor the standards we set. Just grab numbers out of your pants - which JF Dunnigan says is better than any system anyway - if you want that. Whatever "feels good" is what you use. It just isn't my philosophy of doing business.
