Beaufighters are STILL LEVELBOMBERS!!!!

[Reg]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
In regards to editors, they are a relatively new 'invention' for games. The first heavilly editable wargame (to my recollection) was the Wargame Construction Sets (like Age of Rifles). Before this time, editors were made by fans, or were very limited. I remember 8 years ago using PWReports to edit Pacific War, something that makes UV's editor look amazing.

I have just blown the dust off my Jan '86 issue of the RUN 5 magazine published by SSG (who are still around). The third article contains about four pages of seemingly random numbers that will recreate the Relief of Wake Island scenario for their Carriers at War game (for the Apple II or C-64). Further more, the appendix contains data for all the Japanese and Amercian ship classes up to 1942 for use in your own scenarios.

Some games must have been ahead of their time.

Cheers,
Reg.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I have seen the history of this, and it was fairly polite.

However, because it was not implemented, even though they said that they will do something about it, does not deserve an "attack", even after a few patches.

It possibly is very VERY low on priority. There are probably some balance issues involved with the Beaufighter as well. When I made it a Fighter Bomber in PacWar in one of my tests, it became an uber-fighter-killing-machine (along with the Mosquito IV).

So, it could possibly be that this was done for balancing, or, as many people say, an OMEN OF DOOM FOR WITP! I believe that they are not making many major changes to the game because of the true fact that whenever they make a change, it tends to please population X, but piss off population Y. Every time the 'fixed' air-air combat, a group became happy, while another group protested.

Reg:

That still is a farily limited scenario editor. Not only do you have to know how a hexeditor works, but have one. Also, you could only modify scenarios, not individual units and their abilities.

I remember editing for the game Wing Commander I back in the early 90's. It involved a hexeditor, where you can change a few stats on your shields and armour, and your opponents as well.

There were rudamentary editors from the existence of computer games (as they were easier to crack, thereby easier to modify). However, skill was required in order to set up these modifications without error whereas it is commonplace to have editors that a anyone can use their first time out nowadays. This tends to be a good thing, but is not necessarily a requirement for the game to be good.

Given time, I am sure someone will find a way in editing aircraft types on their own.

[Piiska]

More than anything else, wrong classification is just one of those things that annoy the hell out of the people who enjoy to see that details are being thought of. To my belief many historians and realistic war game fans fall into this category and these two types of people seem to be the ones playing UV.

Instead of comparing wrong classification to game mechanics, it should be compared to a news footage portraying F-14 Tomcats taking of a carrier while the reporter tells you that F-16s have been conducting some air missions in the middle of Siberia. To the majority of the people it is completely trivial where the plane takes off and whether the plane in the TV is a Mig 29, a Corsair or the Santa’s sled, but for the people who do know, it undermines the credibility of the reporting.

Personally, I just get very annoyed when SWAT teams use laughable tactics in films, when patients are brought back to life after their cardiograph is drawing a flat line, when a Finnish
RK-62 assault rifle is identified somewhere as Russian AK-47 and when Michael Jackson is trying to claim that he has never had any plastic surgery done on him.

I agree with you Jeremy that a lot of times the tone of writing might seem negative, and unfortunately sometimes it is, but I sincerely believe that 90% of the people who post ‘complaints’ are actually trying to help. Sometimes they articulate themselves well and the game gets improved, sometimes they don’t and we get unnecessary flame wars. Sometimes they truly are selfish bastards who think the life on the planet earth revolves around their silly bellybuttons, but these guys usually have a pirated CD anyway, so F*** them.

Now back to the topic. It would be very nice if the planes would be classified properly as it is my belief that many people here enjoy the realistic atmosphere of UV over the other products that do not pay attention to the details. After all, it is the details that create the atmosphere for a game, and without a good atmosphere even the best game engine is castrated.

[aoffen]

From the patch 2.2 thread :

10) Updated weapons choice, long range capability and artificial intelligence code to reflect change of Beaufighter to fighter-bomber

Yahoooooooo...........

[Drongo]

From a sneak preview of 2.20
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/03/43

Weather: Thunderstorms

Japanese Sweep attack on Dobadura , at 13,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 27

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIC x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 8 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIC x 3 destroyed
Beaufighter VIC x 3 damaged

PO R.Elster of No. 30 Sqn RAAF is credited with kill number 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Sweep attack on Dobadura , at 13,38

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 17

Allied aircraft
Beaufighter VIC x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIC x 1 destroyed
Beaufighter VIC x 1 damaged

LCDR J.Kawasaki of F1/253rd Daitai bails out and is CAPTURED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My, someone's fighters must have got a shock in the first listed battle.
I know the Beaufighters shouldn't be used as CAP but what the hell. Durability of 38 helps.
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!

[tanjman]

Hey Drongo,

Can you tell me (us) what replaces the Mk IX 18in torpedo? I hope its the 8 rocket projectiles. Drool Beaufighters at 100ft against Marus

[Reg]

Originally posted by tanjman
Hey Drongo,

Can you tell me (us) what replaces the Mk IX 18in torpedo? I hope its the 8 rocket projectiles. Drool Beaufighters at 100ft against Marus

Take it easy, rockets weren't introduced for RAAF Beaufighters until 1944. The intention was not to create uber fighter-bombers but to reflect actual usage.

A question to the playtesters. Do you think the assigned characteristics reflect the Beaufighters true abilities?? They should:

a. Be capable of disengaging from fighter interception with minimal casualties on either side whilst on strike missions (they would outrun pursuit unless cornered).

b. They should not be able to scythe large numbers of lightweight fighters from the sky with their massive firepower.

In reality, the zeros would be all over the Beaufighters if they attempted to dog fight and they would have difficulty bringing their guns to bear. I get the impression from reading unit histories, they generally gave pursuing fighters a quick squirt (which was usually enough for a kill) and then got out of there fast if they were smart. A couple of examples where Beaufighters tried to mix it with nimble fighters did not have good outcomes. (I am not trying to imply they were useless aircraft in the air to air role, just not the best dog fighters).

Could this reflected in a low manuverability rating (if one exists) which would make the Beaufighter less attractive for abuse as a super fighter (my greatest fear) but still leave it with a formidable ground attack but an average dogfighting capability (good firepower??). I think the high durability is justified as there are many examples of damaged aircraft limping back to base.

I can quote at least two examples where a Beaufighter squadron destroyed over twenty aircraft in a single mission but that was when the targets were on the ground!!!

The accurate upgrade path will also prevent them from becoming far more numerous than they historically were.

Thankyou Matrix for being so responsive to our requests.

Cheers,
Reg.

[tanjman]

Reg,

You're right about the rockets No problem 4 x 20 mm cannons and 8 x .303 in MGs will still do a number on Marus and ground targets

With the new replacement rate of 6 per month (down from 20) I doubt that any one will get away with using it in a CAP role.

BTW Matrix/2by3: The maximum air group size for No. 30 Sqn RAAF is still 16 I see no problem with this because IIRC RAF and and other Commonwealth fighter squadrons had 16 aircraft, not the 24 that they currently have.

[Drongo]

Posted by Reg

A question to the playtesters. Do you think the assigned characteristics reflect the Beaufighters true abilities?? They should:
a. Be capable of disengaging from fighter interception with minimal casualties on either side whilst on strike missions (they would outrun pursuit unless cornered).
b. They should not be able to scythe large numbers of lightweight fighters from the sky with their massive firepower.

Reg

If you haven't had a chance to check things out yet, then

a) The Beaufighters best historical attribute (high speed at low alt) isn't in the game (AFAIK). The only way (IMO) to fully represent its historical attributes is to cap its operating altitude at something like 10000 ft and then give it a speed of 360+ (so that it if faster than Zeros and Oscars at low alt). It probably should also have its durability dropped under those conditions (to represent the low chance of survival if an engine is knocked out at low alt).

b) In my opinion, they wont be a super-fighter. If the pilot is good and the Beaufighter can line up a shot, it will blow anything out of the air. However, poor manueverability should limit its opportunities vs the Jap fighters.

From the small amount of testing I did,
1) It makes a great interceptor v Jap bombers.
2) Durability gives it high survivability vs Jap fighters.
3) Hard hitting on low level attacks.