AAR for HARD_Sarge

[Hard Sarge]

in this case, Wiki may be good, but over all, I don't like to use it, just yestersday, I was shocked to find a whole page by a programmer I have  worked for years with, and been in a number of arugements with him with many others on his data he is using

and I am still not sure about there not being a E7/B, why would there be a F4/B, which also could trade a bomb for a drop tank (all depends on if it is dry point or a wet point for the rack)

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

in this case, Wiki may be good, but over all, I don't like to use it, just yestersday, I was shocked to find a whole page by a programmer I have  worked for years with, and been in a number of arugements with him with many others on his data he is using

and I am still not sure about there not being a E7/B, why would there be a F4/B, which also could trade a bomb for a drop tank (all depends on if it is dry point or a wet point for the rack)

I agree with Sarge on the quality of the data on Wiki. It depends on the author, some info is spot on, some is "unreliable" to put it politely.

As for the E-7/B I can't find any info that this designation existed even though the F-4/B did. However as Harley said previously it is used in the game as a way of differentiating role.

[BigDuke66]

Maybe a slightly different designation would be better, something like E-7 (B).
So you can see that this is a E-7 acting in the game as fighter/bomber and not an E-7/B who didn't exist witht his designation.

A clear distinction between original designations and designations used for a game purpose would be very useful.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Maybe a slightly different designation would be better, something like E-7 (B).
So you can see that this is a E-7 acting in the game as fighter/bomber and not an E-7/B who didn't exist witht his designation.

the hassle is, it does exits, it depends on which books, docs are being looked at, now this does not mean it is right or that, that is wrong, I am getting at least 5 different starting dates for the same plane model, from 5 different books !, from one source, talking about a pure ground attack Gruppen, it says the unit got 109E-7/B, while the other units were getting 109E-7s, overall, I am thinking this is a after the fact correction, once the bomb/tank rack was in normal use, it was no longer needed to say what it was for

and to be honest, I got to say, since the LW used the /B to show a Fighterbomber type plane, I think /B makes more sense then (B)

A clear distinction between original designations and designations used for a game purpose would be very useful.

[Denniss]

Those /B, /N /Rx or /Ux are designations for special or specialized models. Once such an equipment became standard there was no need to still cary this designation.
Examples:
/B: - designation for a Bf 109 able to carry a bomb thus acting as fighter-bomber while standard models were not able to carry a bomb unless modified. Dropped with Bf 109 E-7 as those were all capable of carrying a bomb without further modifications. No Bf 109F (or later models) carried a /B designation as they were all able to carry a bomb. Let me repeat, the /B designated an aircraft modified to carry a bomb, with an E-7 you just replace the drop tank rack with a bomb rack and attach a bomb onto it. E-4 and earlier lacked the ability to mount racks nor did they have the proper equipment/wiring to release a bomb. Modyfied E-1 and E-4 thus became E-1/B and E-4/B but if they were upgraded to E-7 standard they became E-7.

/N - designation for a special variant with a higher alt DB 601N engine. Was used in Bf 109 E-4/N, E-7/N (examples) but dropped with Bf 109 F-1 as this was the standard engine.

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

No Bf 109F (or later models) carried a /B designation as they were all able to carry a bomb.

According to "Messerschmitt Bf 109 F,G & K Series" by Prien & Rodeike the F-4/B designation did exist.

I'm not saying that because it is written in a book it is correct but Jochen Prien is one of the authors I would consider very reliable.

[wernerpruckner]

The Jabo variant of the F-4 was the F-4 B   ( without "/" ) ( ETC 250 )
 
For the G-6  it was /R 1 ( ETC 250 )
For the G-10 it was /R 6 ( ETC for one SC250 or 1x 300 L belly drop tank and 2x SC50 )
For the G-14 it was /R 1 ( ETC 501 )
 
Ther is no real literature for Jabo variants of the Kurfürst (K) - but it was possible that the ground crews fitted some bombs on them.

[Denniss]

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister
According to "Messerschmitt Bf 109 F,G & K Series" by Prien & Rodeike the F-4/B designation did exist.

I'm not saying that because it is written in a book it is correct but Jochen Prien is one of the authors I would consider very reliable.

Nice book but with lots of goods but als several bads:
The non-existing F-2/B and F-4/B designations, the F-3 with MG FF/M cannon (MG 151/15 was planned), The non-existing G-10/AS (DB605As engine in a G-10 airframe would make a G-14/AS), the G-10 myth they were G-6 and G-14 airframes from repair and upgrade the K-4 standard, etc. The book has several images of F-4 fighter bombers in use by several 10.(JaBo) staffeln but in the records they are shown as F-4 or F-4/Z - see http://ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm (10. /JG2, 10./JG26, Jabo/JG53 (was the 10. Staffel), etc)

From the E-7 onwards every Bf 109 was a possible fighter-bomber, just attach a bomb rack and a bomb - voila! And they always used the ETC 500, later maybe the ETC501 (K-series?), bomb rack unless they used the adapter to use four 50 kg bombs.

A G-x/R1 was a long range fighter bomber with a centerline bomb rack and a drop tank under each wing, those aircraft were probably not in widespread usage but long range recon Bf 109 used the same drop tank setup. A G-x with Rüstsatz 1 was the standard fighterbomber setup with bomb rack and 250kg bomb, Rüstsatz 2 was with 4x 50kg bombs.
A G-x/R6 was an all-weather capable fighter with an autopilot and additional navigation/blind flying equipment. A G-x with Rüstsatz 6 was the "gun boat" with a MG 151/20 under each wing.

[Hard Sarge]

David H. May of been right, what he wants/wanted me to do, is change the planes to Me 109s and drop all the sub types

that makes it much easier on me, make up a standard stat set for each plane type and leave it alone, this way, there is only a Ju 88, a Me 109, a Me 110, a Spitfire and a Hurricane

[BigDuke66]

Too late![:D]

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister
According to "Messerschmitt Bf 109 F,G & K Series" by Prien & Rodeike the F-4/B designation did exist.

I'm not saying that because it is written in a book it is correct but Jochen Prien is one of the authors I would consider very reliable.

Nice book but with lots of goods but als several bads:
The non-existing F-2/B and F-4/B designations, the F-3 with MG FF/M cannon (MG 151/15 was planned), The non-existing G-10/AS (DB605As engine in a G-10 airframe would make a G-14/AS), the G-10 myth they were G-6 and G-14 airframes from repair and upgrade the K-4 standard, etc. The book has several images of F-4 fighter bombers in use by several 10.(JaBo) staffeln but in the records they are shown as F-4 or F-4/Z - see http://ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm (10. /JG2, 10./JG26, Jabo/JG53 (was the 10. Staffel), etc)

From the E-7 onwards every Bf 109 was a possible fighter-bomber, just attach a bomb rack and a bomb - voila! And they always used the ETC 500, later maybe the ETC501 (K-series?), bomb rack unless they used the adapter to use four 50 kg bombs.

A G-x/R1 was a long range fighter bomber with a centerline bomb rack and a drop tank under each wing, those aircraft were probably not in widespread usage but long range recon Bf 109 used the same drop tank setup. A G-x with Rüstsatz 1 was the standard fighterbomber setup with bomb rack and 250kg bomb, Rüstsatz 2 was with 4x 50kg bombs.
A G-x/R6 was an all-weather capable fighter with an autopilot and additional navigation/blind flying equipment. A G-x with Rüstsatz 6 was the "gun boat" with a MG 151/20 under each wing.

Hi Denniss,

Thank you for a very thorough answer. What is your source. Have you got Luftwaffe primary documentation showing Bf 109F variants?

If Prien isn't reliable what chance have the rest of us got!

Cheers

von Shagmeister

[seydlitz_slith]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

David H. May of been right, what he wants/wanted me to do, is change the planes to Me 109s and drop all the sub types

that makes it much easier on me, make up a standard stat set for each plane type and leave it alone, this way, there is only a Ju 88, a Me 109, a Me 110, a Spitfire and a Hurricane

I agree with David Heath. That solution works better.

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

David H. May of been right, what he wants/wanted me to do, is change the planes to Me 109s and drop all the sub types

that makes it much easier on me, make up a standard stat set for each plane type and leave it alone, this way, there is only a Ju 88, a Me 109, a Me 110, a Spitfire and a Hurricane

I agree with David Heath. That solution works better.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

David H. May of been right, what he wants/wanted me to do, is change the planes to Me 109s and drop all the sub types

that makes it much easier on me, make up a standard stat set for each plane type and leave it alone, this way, there is only a Ju 88, a Me 109, a Me 110, a Spitfire and a Hurricane

I agree with David Heath. That solution works better.

Maybe we could also drop all of the factory names and just have factory icons saying ALUM site etc. Also we could drop all the pilot names and just have pilot 1, pilot 2 etc. We could make what was a very detailed game really bland, that would really appeal to people.

[BigDuke66]

Lets drop everything and decide the game with a coin toss. [:D]

[Once Joey]

Oops, I...

[Hard Sarge]

Those /B, /N /Rx or /Ux are designations for special or specialized models. Once such an equipment became standard there was no need to still cary this designation.

I think you are answering your own complaint right here

the plane in question is a Special, until it became standard, it is flying with one of the LG units

not so sure the last two are that easy to toss away, those a factory and field PAKs (well turn that around) a plane that is a R6 does not have to stay a R6, it can be changed at the field level, a U4, can be changed, but it was a factory level update/change over


BigDuke
nothing is too late, until it is shipped out the door, and it can still be changed then

also

nothing I add, is made up, if I take the time to add it, I got docs or info on it, now, as is the case in alot of this, the info may not always be totally correct, or changed later on, but I have info saying that II.(Schl)/LG 2 flew the BF 109E-7/B, and I do not believe it was standard yet, as most of the front line fighter Staffels that went into Jabo mode later on, were given BF 109E-4/B, while the rest were flying E-7s and early Fs

[seydlitz_slith]

I believe tht David Heath's suggestion was a valid one. Not to dumb down the game, but rather to get around a limit of the engine. We all know that various sub-types often flew mixed in the units, yet the game engine can not handle more than one aircraft type per unit.  So, you gain detail but lose realism at the same time. In addition, having all of the various subtypes with each their own pool makes it even worse, since you might have units sitting out missions because there is a shortage of the exact subtype listed for the unit when in real life they would receive the other subtype and stay in action.  And of course in BTR there is the additional complication of which factories produce which subtypes.    
 
While I am certainly more conscious of the subtypes issue in BTR, I would think that you could get away with a standard ME109 in the BOB campaigns...one variant for the 1940 campaign, and another for the 1941 campaign. Certainly no more than a couple of main variants.
 
I really do not think that immersion would be lost as the representative type would be the one used. A couple of you guys make it sound as if the game would become a beer & pretzels type of boardgame.  Not the case at all.  Now if you want generic, then Harley  can change all of the target icons to roundels (aka bullseyes) and the planes can be white with black barcoding for unit markings.  That might actually be funny.
 
My point is, sometimes less is more, and given the engine and code, adding the additional subtypes does not equate to added accuracy since you can't fly them in mixed units.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

I believe tht David Heath's suggestion was a valid one. Not to dumb down the game, but rather to get around a limit of the engine. We all know that various sub-types often flew mixed in the units, yet the game engine can not handle more than one aircraft type per unit.  So, you gain detail but lose realism at the same time. In addition, having all of the various subtypes with each their own pool makes it even worse, since you might have units sitting out missions because there is a shortage of the exact subtype listed for the unit when in real life they would receive the other subtype and stay in action.  And of course in BTR there is the additional complication of which factories produce which subtypes.    

While I am certainly more conscious of the subtypes issue in BTR, I would think that you could get away with a standard ME109 in the BOB campaigns...one variant for the 1940 campaign, and another for the 1941 campaign. Certainly no more than a couple of main variants.

I really do not think that immersion would be lost as the representative type would be the one used. A couple of you guys make it sound as if the game would become a beer & pretzels type of boardgame.  Not the case at all.  Now if you want generic, then Harley  can change all of the target icons to roundels (aka bullseyes) and the planes can be white with black barcoding for unit markings.  That might actually be funny.

My point is, sometimes less is more, and given the engine and code, adding the additional subtypes does not equate to added accuracy since you can't fly them in mixed units.

Spot on. There is a degree of unavoidable generalisation in any game.

Alfred

[wernerpruckner]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

I believe tht David Heath's suggestion was a valid one. Not to dumb down the game, but rather to get around a limit of the engine. We all know that various sub-types often flew mixed in the units, yet the game engine can not handle more than one aircraft type per unit.  So, you gain detail but lose realism at the same time. In addition, having all of the various subtypes with each their own pool makes it even worse, since you might have units sitting out missions because there is a shortage of the exact subtype listed for the unit when in real life they would receive the other subtype and stay in action.  And of course in BTR there is the additional complication of which factories produce which subtypes.    

While I am certainly more conscious of the subtypes issue in BTR, I would think that you could get away with a standard ME109 in the BOB campaigns...one variant for the 1940 campaign, and another for the 1941 campaign. Certainly no more than a couple of main variants.

I really do not think that immersion would be lost as the representative type would be the one used. A couple of you guys make it sound as if the game would become a beer & pretzels type of boardgame.  Not the case at all.  Now if you want generic, then Harley  can change all of the target icons to roundels (aka bullseyes) and the planes can be white with black barcoding for unit markings.  That might actually be funny.

My point is, sometimes less is more, and given the engine and code, adding the additional subtypes does not equate to added accuracy since you can't fly them in mixed units.

Spot on. There is a degree of unavoidable generalisation in any game.

Alfred

there is lots of generalisation in the original game - and it will be in the new game.
But for a better "flavour" most of us old hands and long time BoB/BtR gamers want more and different A/C sub types.
It is clear that the engine cannot cope with different A/C in a unit - but we can bring in many different A/C types, of which to choose. Some are better at low altitude, some at high altitude, some have more weapons some are more agile - so you have to make decisions.
Also different A/C in a single unit is not only a Luftwaffe "problem" - just look through the Commonwealth air units around D-Day....

But there will still be lots of generalisation in the game, because there are only few parameter to change for an A/C.
Also lots of changes to an A/C will not be in the game - you cannot really compare an early Bf109G-6 with an autumn 44 modell of a Bf109G-6. But in the game it will be the same.