Matrix Games Forums

What's the deal with Manuever value of Allied ships & planes?
Iowas can turn on a dime, Jugs ans Stangs can outmanuever a Zero etc...
I mean, if that was true in RL, why would allied pilots even bother with energy fighting and run&gun tactics?
Also, Yamato had a very tight turn radius, but still it has one of the lowest Manuever values, with only CVs that are more sluggish...

Had the devs some sort on fetish on Allied manueverability?

What would be ideal Manuever values, considering that from Mid 42 Zero advantage is gone and Allied pilots learned to use their planes' speed to succesfully combat Japs in the air. But how it stands currently, some optimistic Jug pilot could take on a Zero in a tight turn combat and win without much fuss...? (without ever trying to use his superior level speed and dive rate)

With Ships mnvr rating is not just turning ability; it also includes surface area of target. Speed is figured seperately. Watch as a ship gets hit, speed drops and hit probability goes up.

With aircraft have you noticed an acceleration rating or a zoom climb rating or a dive rating or max dive speed?
All of these things are included in the mnvr value of an aircraft plus the bank/turn/slip/skid/roll etc.

It makes for a deceptive mnvr rating.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lord_Calidor

What's the deal with Manuever value of Allied ships & planes?
Iowas can turn on a dime, Jugs ans Stangs can outmanuever a Zero etc...
I mean, if that was true in RL, why would allied pilots even bother with energy fighting and run&gun tactics?
Also, Yamato had a very tight turn radius, but still it has one of the lowest Manuever values, with only CVs that are more sluggish...

Had the devs some sort on fetish on Allied manueverability?

What would be ideal Manuever values, considering that from Mid 42 Zero advantage is gone and Allied pilots learned to use their planes' speed to succesfully combat Japs in the air. But how it stands currently, some optimistic Jug pilot could take on a Zero in a tight turn combat and win without much fuss...? (without ever trying to use his superior level speed and dive rate)

I don't get it either ... seems completely arbitrary and subjective to me. So I think you are correct in your guess about the Allied bias fetish.

You need to look at all of the ratings, not just the turn radius. If we went solely on turn radius to come up with manueverability I-153 would have the best rating in the game.

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

With Ships mnvr rating is not just turning ability; it also includes surface area of target. Speed is figured seperately. Watch as a ship gets hit, speed drops and hit probability goes up.

With aircraft have you noticed an acceleration rating or a zoom climb rating or a dive rating or max dive speed?
All of these things are included in the mnvr value of an aircraft plus the bank/turn/slip/skid/roll etc.

It makes for a deceptive mnvr rating.

Mike

OK, this makes sense. Didn't know that.
I thought it represents turn rate only.

Wish that Editor Manual was more detailed on these things... [8|]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

With Ships mnvr rating is not just turning ability; it also includes surface area of target. Speed is figured seperately. Watch as a ship gets hit, speed drops and hit probability goes up.

With aircraft have you noticed an acceleration rating or a zoom climb rating or a dive rating or max dive speed?
All of these things are included in the mnvr value of an aircraft plus the bank/turn/slip/skid/roll etc.

It makes for a deceptive mnvr rating.

Mike

-But in that case the La-7 with its high speed and acceleration, coupled with a good turn radius should be more maneuverable than the P-47 and I see no reason to have the Ki-84 less maneuverable than the P-47 too.

Take published Russian stats with several grains of salt.

And, the Ki84 is about as maneuverable as a P47... and maybe should be more so.

Mike

-The Ki-84 Ia has maneuver=35 vs 36 for the P-47D and 34 for the P-47C, so you´re right.

-Do you deny the late Soviet fighters had high performances?

In the CHS the Ki84 will probably be a 36 and i might lower the P47D to a 35 as it was not that much better performance wise than the 'C'. Better visibilty.

Yea, I think many Soviet figures from the war are suspect.
The Mig-3 available before the war started supposedly could go 400mph.... If so it was the fastest fighter in the world.

If you look on the WW2 fighter guns website, which is useful for Germany, Japan, USA, Britain etc but you will notice that every Soviet gun has a better performance than a Western counterpart.

This goes against Soviet soldiers loving American 30 and 50 cal MGs during the war, and equipment tested after capture during Korea, Arab Israeli conflicts etc.

Stalin spoke for effect. I have read accounts of Stalin, when asking for aid, saying that Russia could only build a little over 25,000 tanks during the war. Then, when he was demanding concessions and showing how strong he was to intimidate the west he would give tank production figures of 120,000.

It was the same with every category of equipment. What i find interesting is that post war historians have always taken the high end figures as fact. I suspect it was somewhere in between.

Mike

Everyone whines about the P47s manueverbility. THe Jug did not perform well at low altitude. However at 20-30000 ft it could outmanuver most planes. Jap planes just plain sucked above 17000 ft (few exceptions maybe)

Dude,

Great is not how i would describe the P47's maneuverability at any altitude. It had its good points.

I would love for altitude to matter in the game butMatrix did not include that.

That is why i get annoyed at everyone who says "but X plane was great over 20,000ft!!!"

Yea, that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
It is not in the game so why mention it?

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

That is why i get annoyed at everyone who says "but X plane was great over 20,000ft!!!"

Yea, that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
It is not in the game so why mention it?

Mike

I dunno, perhaps because some dogfights did take place at over 20000 feet.

Yea, I think many Soviet figures from the war are suspect.
The Mig-3 available before the war started supposedly could go 400mph.... If so it was the fastest fighter in the world.

-It seems this high speed of the Mig-3 could only be achieved at high altitudes, so it wasn´t exactly useful in the East Front.

Bstarr,
yes but the point is this game does not will not ever factor altitude into combat. So there is absolutely no use for people to constantly bring it up in relation to my aircraft ratings.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Bstarr,
yes but the point is this game does not will not ever factor altitude into combat. So there is absolutely no use for people to constantly bring it up in relation to my aircraft ratings.

Mike

I believe the people who have mentioned high altitude maneuverability are afraid you're only using lower altitude maneuverability in coming up with your statistics. Sure, lower altitude should be more important since more dogfights took place at this level and furballs by their very nature lost altitude as the fight continued. But high altitude performance should be considered when coming up with the overall statistic.

example: if "Generic Fighter A" can outmaneuver "Generic Fighter B" at lower altitude, but A is seriously outmatched above 20000, then the two fighters should probably have equal ratings.

This may be something you're already doing. I'm just explaining why you keep getting these complaints.


Also, keep in mind that the point of having people try out CHM before it's finished is to bring in outside input. That's the idea behind alpha testing. I understand a person who takes pride in their ideas, but it really seems that you take offence everytime someone brings forth an idea that is not a "paste and post" of one of your own. And God forbid someone critisize something you've done. Keep an open mind. These people who are asking questions and suggesting changes are trying to help.
bs

If you only considered low-altitude maneuverability, the P-51A would be about as good as the P-51D.