Matrix Games Forums

That's a bit gamey and not true to RL.
The main problem with the P39 was the lack of a turbosupercharger which limited its performancea bove low altitude. The RAF originally orderd the P400 (which primarliy had the 37mm cannon replaced with a lighter but more reliable 20mm one) but then rejected the batch after field trials proved its complete uselessness above 15k feet (the wanted it as a high level interceptor/dogfighter) in air combat
Agreed that the P39 like the P40 is a good diver, its high wing loading means that it holds energy well and, with speed up and plenty of altitude cna usually dive out of trouble. Except in real life that didn't usually happen, at least with the P39. The pilots were advised to keep to low altitude (and usually got shot up for their pains) although had some success with using the plane as a straffer and fighter-bomber, despite its short range.
When based at PM in '42, the official tactic for deploying the P39 squadrons when a raid was detected was to scramble them off the deck then get them to orbit safely out at sea away from the action, calling them only back in to land once the Japanese strike had left the area. No wonder morale amongst the P39 pilots was rock bottom...

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.
This tactic, if you want to call it that is gamey awell to. i laugh when i see it because everyone wants to be as historical as possible, but theres nothing historical about sending planes in at max altitude.

The only reason people do it is because they think that sending planes in at max alt equals a guaranteed massacre to their enemy. just a cheap trick to try to get high kill ratios and win.. this isnt MW2 kill ratios arent everything. partially why I like playing against the AI. If the AI looses 20 fighters in a day at 10k, the next day its not just going to have all its planes at max altitude like a some players will.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Pink

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.

The real answer to this is a programming change. It should work so that if your strike is flying too high above the enemy, the chances of them failing to intercept at all increase dramatically. Lots of attacks slipped in UNDER the CAP during the war and were gone before it could react.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Mr.Pink

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.

The real answer to this is a programming change. It should work so that if your strike is flying too high above the enemy, the chances of them failing to intercept at all increase dramatically. Lots of attacks slipped in UNDER the CAP during the war and were gone before it could react.

Disagree. The real answer to this is an understanding amongst PBEM partners about how to use aircraft to avoid the 'stratosphere sweep' phenomenon. I have HRs in my PBEMs that I won't fly Oscars or Zeroes above 25,000 feet or Nates above 15,000 feet. In return, my opponent flies his P-39s at 15,000 feet or less.

If you're about 'keepin' it real', you needn't ramrod through your proposed programming change. It can be a matter as simple as a quick discussion / email with your PBEM partners to resolve this issue.

Failing that, I imagine there's always the editor.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Mr.Pink

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.

The real answer to this is a programming change. It should work so that if your strike is flying too high above the enemy, the chances of them failing to intercept at all increase dramatically. Lots of attacks slipped in UNDER the CAP during the war and were gone before it could react.

Disagree. The real answer to this is an understanding amongst PBEM partners about how to use aircraft to avoid the 'stratosphere sweep' phenomenon. I have HRs in my PBEMs that I won't fly Oscars or Zeroes above 25,000 feet or Nates above 15,000 feet. In return, my opponent flies his P-39s at 15,000 feet or less.

If you're about 'keepin' it real', you needn't ramrod through your proposed programming change. It can be a matter as simple as a quick discussion / email with your PBEM partners to resolve this issue.

Failing that, I imagine there's always the editor.

The problem, as admitted to by J Wilkerson, is that regardless of altitude, there appears to be a built in "sweep bonus". That is what needs to be fixed more than anything else.

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1





The real answer to this is a programming change. It should work so that if your strike is flying too high above the enemy, the chances of them failing to intercept at all increase dramatically. Lots of attacks slipped in UNDER the CAP during the war and were gone before it could react.

Disagree. The real answer to this is an understanding amongst PBEM partners about how to use aircraft to avoid the 'stratosphere sweep' phenomenon. I have HRs in my PBEMs that I won't fly Oscars or Zeroes above 25,000 feet or Nates above 15,000 feet. In return, my opponent flies his P-39s at 15,000 feet or less.

If you're about 'keepin' it real', you needn't ramrod through your proposed programming change. It can be a matter as simple as a quick discussion / email with your PBEM partners to resolve this issue.

Failing that, I imagine there's always the editor.

The problem, as admitted to by J Wilkerson, is that regardless of altitude, there appears to be a built in "sweep bonus". That is what needs to be fixed more than anything else.

Yes, that very well may necessitate hard coding. The altitude issue not so much.