Update 21 from Luthier

[Old_Canuck]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944/posts

[Dutch]

Thanks OC. :thumbsup:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Notice he mentions a "109K" in this update.

Sorry fellas, as much as I am looking forward to flying this sim, this is wrong.

Totally ahistorical... K4 was absolutely not used in Normandy. Completely wrong to include it.

In fact the 109K4 was a minority of the 109's in operational service at ANY time during the war, even during the Battle of the Bulge period or even during Spring '45. It was only introduced in November of '44.

Operational 109's during Normandy were various G6 types, as well as the G14, which came into large scale service during July.

Not even the G10 was operational during Normandy.

If the K4 is included, then the P-47 should be the 'M' model... for a comparative time-frame aircraft, plus the Spit XIV and Tempest V.

When you add in the fact the 190D9 is included, you have completely wrong matchups. D9 also did not fly over Normandy.

[PFT_Endy]

They stated clearly the plane set is not appropriate for Normandy as they have bigger plans and the Normandy map is just a start. They have planes from 1944 (some flew throughout the whole year, some were introduced in Autumn) and the terrain doesn't have anything to do with them. But these planes also flew against each other at certain times (namely late 1944) so they're not totally "random 1944 planes".

Once again, this is not Normandy June-August 1944 scenario with appropriate planeset but rather a game that will encompass (if successful) a lot of battlefields in Europe in 1944 and the planeset is only the beginning as well. They just felt these planes are most appropriate to start with as they were used through different periods of 1944, some earlier and some later, but all of them pretty iconic for 1944.

I suspect there might be some considerations regarding planeset "balance" here as well as if they gave the Germans only 109G against the current allied planes (especially used in second half of 1944 with 150 Octane fuel and this concerns the Mustang, P47 and Spit) the 109 would be a total pushover in comparison. The K version at least is more or less on par with them (though they claim better documentation was the reason but I doubt the only one). Same for 190D. Nevertheless it's not totally artificial balancing as all the planes in the game flew against each other in late 1944/early 1945 so that's historical, just not appropriate for Normandy, but like it was said, it's not meant to recreate exactly that period.

Anyway, recreating any kind of historical Normandy scenario was never their goal, as it was explained on ED forums and also in another thread on this forum, and they said it pretty clearly so your criticism is totally unfounded in this case. You just need to stop looking at it as any kind of historical Normandy landing or early post-landing scenario.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

They stated clearly the plane set is not appropriate for Normandy as they have bigger plans and the Normandy map is just a start. They have planes from all over 1944 and the terrain doesn't have anything to do with them.

Once again, this is not Normandy June-August 1944 scenario with appropriate planeset but rather a game that will encompass (if successful) a lot of battlefields in Europe in 1944 and the planeset is only the beginning as well, they just felt these planes are most appropriate as they were used through different periods of 1944, some ealier and some later, but all of them iconic for 1944.
I suspect there might be some considerations regarding planeset "balance" here as well as if they gave the Germans only 109G against the current allied planes (especially used in second half of 1944 with 150 Octane fuel an this cocnerns the Mustang, P47 and Spit) the 109 would be a total pushover in comparison. The K at least is more or less on par with them (though they claim better documentation was the reason but I doubt the only one). Same for 190D.

Anyway, recreating any kind of historical Normandy scenario was never their goal, as it was explained also in another thread on this forum, and they said it pretty clearly so your criticism is totally unfounded. Just stop looking at it as any kind of historical Normandy landing or post-landing scenario.

My criticism is not 'unfounded', it is factual, unless you are an 'alternate history' believer, and I was under the impression was that this was a hard core serious 'study' Simulation.

Re. so-called 'imbalance', Spit IX's using +25 boost were not used in Normandy, they did not ship 150 octane fuel to Normandy, they used 100/130 octane and +18 boost because of the limited numbers of undersea pipelines available to deliver fuel to Normandy. Spit +25 boost were used in AIR DEFENSE GREAT BRITAIN Squadrons based in England, which defended against V1's. Spit +25 boost were not used on the continent till December of '44 when British supply ships began to ship over 150 octane through Antwerp. And the 109G14, which was in Normandy, had MW50 injection, used 1.7ata, and was not significantly behind in power to a B4 fueled 109K4. So it would not be uncompetitive to a +18 Spit IX. The G14 was far more common than the K4 during even the Battle of the Bulge. It should have been the choice.

And if its not a 'historical' setup, why include a Normandy map? Why not a Battle of the Bulge map? What's the point of setting the planes on the wrong map when they could just as easily set it in December of '44 in the Ardennes?

Whole thing does not make sense.

I am by the way, not attacking the basic proposition, I am looking forwards to playing the game, but just don't understand the logic of their decisions. I committed money to their kickstarter and have the full aircraft package.

[Chivas]

The initial map choice, with no English airbases is ridicules, and the aircraft choices just as bad, BUT if the sim survives it should eventually have enough maps and period aircraft to build historical missions. That said, hopefully Luthier will start adding the maps need for these late model aircraft, and the aircraft more suitable for the Normandy map sooner than later. I believe they've already talked about an Ardennes map, but I'm not sure what aircraft were available then. Not to mention the map SDK for the community to help build the needed maps.

[PFT_Endy]

The Spit IXs from ADGB squadrons (2 of them switched to 150 Octane to intercept V1s like you said), based in England, did in fact perform missions over the continent. In August, after there was no further need to intercept V1s they were redirected since 10th August to escort duties, sweeps and armed recces. They did fly over the continent but were not based there. December, or rather January 1945, that you're talking about is in regard to 2nd TAF planes, based on the continent, that is true.

Mustangs and P47s belonging to 8th AF also used it since the middle of 1944 so you can have a scenario anywhere between July/August and the rest of the year that you would meet these planes flying on 150 Octane fuel. 109G would stand a worse fighting chance than a 109K - it would not be that close in performance, the Kurfurst is generally much closer to allied planes in this case. Also depends if it's gonna be able to use 1.8 ata or 1.98 ata. But that's a very late thing, way into 1945 for operational use, very late 1944 for testing.
And they also said they had more documentation for 109K so that might be another important reason for it - their main if you believe their words. Of course, we'll get an editor and freedom to use any planes we like in a scenario and you'll probably be given a choice between 100 and 150 Octane fuel or 1.8 or 1.98 ata for 109K as well (I hope).
Anyway, I'm not defending any "balance" in this case, not a fan of it in flight sims. I'm just trying to tell you what they probably thought or what I think they thought :) Hopefully the development will not end here and they'll be making further planes/maps to allow for very accurate/historical scenarios for very specific periods and conditions. I treat the game as a start in the right direction, with accurately simulated planes on DCS level, and I can agree with their broader view they used here. Of course, it it fails miserably none of this will come true but there's hope...

Anyway, I only repeat what Luthier and others said about the game concept. It's NOT a recreation of Normandy landings but a game encompassing whole 1944. Bulge would be much much better for the planeset of course in this case but oh well... As to why they chose Normandy we can only guess. I suspect the concept was different at some point and they wanted Normandy landings/shortly post-landings but then broadened it to whole 1944. Or they had some ready assests from some othe project.

Whatever the case, your choice is to play the game on release or not and simply wait for the community (hopefully using promised SDK) or RRG to make more maps, more appropriate for the planes used. It's not about "alternate history" or whatever, it's just the way it is.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The Spit IXs from ADGB squadrons (2 of them switched to 150 Octane to intercept V1s like you said), based in England, did in fact perform missions over the continent. In August, after there was no further need to intercept V1s they were redirected since 10th August to escort duties, sweeps and armed recces. They did fly over the continent but were not based there.
By August 10th the Luftwaffe fighter forces in France had been decimated, the Falaise pocket was nearly completely formed and the battle was to all intents and purposes over. The ADGB Squadrons were assigned the role of fighter CAP over the beachhead, not to do sweeps inland or over Belgium where the remaining German fighters were. That task was assigned to the Squadrons based in the Beachhead.


Mustangs and P47s belonging to 8th AF also used it since the middle of 1944 so you can have a scenario anywhere between July/August and the rest of the year that you would meet these planes flying on 150 Octane fuel. 109G would stand much worse chance than a 109K - it would not be that close in performance, the Kurfurst is much closer to allied planes in this case. Of course it's still not on par though, unless you consider using 1.98 ata which would place it very close to the Pony. But that's a very late thing, way into 1945 for operational use, very late 1944 for testing.

1.98ata and C3 fuel has only been documented to be used on a test basis by a single staffel of one Geschwader in March of 1945, if a C3 1.98ata K4 is matched against the Allied planes, that is a gross mis-representation.

And to suggest the P-51 is so much better??? I wonder how they will match up when they fly in the game?

A K4 operating on B4 fuel easily outclasses a P-47D-28, the comparable optimum design P-47 is the M, which saw combat over the Ardennes and in Germany. Same with a K4 versus a +18 boost Spit IX, the 109 is easily superior, 50 kmh faster. Comparable Spitfire to the K4 is a Spit XIV at +21 boost. Same with matching up the Typhoon against the K4, the Typhoon is completely outclassed... the correct matchup is the Tempest V at +11 boost.

I don't think the imbalance is on the Allied side.

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

Hmm the K-4 eh?

Well then that's settled...

Hordes of allied airframes litter the floor..

Strange model to include but il take it..

[PFT_Endy]

By August 10th the Luftwaffe fighter forces in France had been decimated, the Falaise pocket was nearly completely formed and the battle was to all intents and purposes over. The ADGB Squadrons were assigned the role of fighter CAP over the beachhead, not to do sweeps inland or over Belgium where the remaining German fighters were. That task was assigned to the Squadrons based in the Beachhead.

I don't know the exact operational history of each Spit squadron and I can only quote what I find in some sources, mainly "The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces." Which I doubt only means patrolling over the beachhead.
Moreover, Mustangs III and Spits XIVs from ADGB seem to have been flying further inland: "316 Squadron flying their Mustangs downed 3 Me 109’s and a Fw 190 five miles N. of Chalom on 14 August. 315 Squadron met with remarkable success on 18 August, claiming 16 Fw 190’s shot down near Beauvais with their boosted Mustang III’s (II./JG 26 recorded 8 killed and 2 wounded). The Spitfire XIV squadrons quickly got into the swing of it with 350 Squadron scoring on 19 August by shooting down a Ju 88 on the outskirts of Brussels."

Anyway, I doubt Spit IX were the exception here and restricted to beachheads only, it seems to make good sense here at least for me, might be proven wrong of course. That's August though and I don't know if they flew missions inland in November for example where they would have a chance to meet a 109K or 190D because they surely would not see them in August over Normandy :)


1.98ata and C3 fuel has only been documented to be used on a test basis by a single staffel of one Geschwader in March of 1945, if a C3 1.98ata K4 is matched against the Allied planes, that is a gross mis-representation.

You can argue with Kurfurst and other 109K fans on ED forum then because I agree with you in this case, that 1.8 is the proper ata to use and not 1.98 :)


And to suggest the P-51 is so much better??? I wonder how they will match up when they fly in the game?

Looking at sheer numbers like speed and climb rate it seems to be. Depends what you think "so much" means. For me a difference of 15-20 mph (comparing P51 on 150 grade fuel with 109 using 1.8 ata - don't want to quote the charts here but I can do it if you wish) and a few hundred feet in climb rate are both quite significant in favour of the Pony. It's not instant victory of course but it is important. But it's a matter of opinion I guess.


A K4 operating on B4 fuel easily outclasses a P-47D-28, the comparable optimum design P-47 is the M, which saw combat over the Ardennes and in Germany.

Are we comparing P47 with 150 Octane fuel or 130? But true, I mostly agree.
And I think it will be D-30 by the way not 28, at least from what I saw in some recent update, might be wrong though.


Same with a K4 versus a +18 boost Spit IX, the 109 is easily superior, 50 kmh faster. Comparable Spitfire to the K4 is a Spit XIV at +21 boost.

Well, I'd love to fly a XIV. But if you compare the K to +25 lbs boost SpitIX, then the Spit is only slightly slower that the 109, SL speed of 358 mph compared to 365 of the 109K (1.8 ata) but the Spit has a much better climb rate and turn rate of course. Something for something else here. The best 109G would have been very slightly slower speed that the Spit but the difference in climb rate would be more significant.


I don't think the imbalance is on the Allied side.

Buzzsaw, it's not MY view that any planeset is imbalanced, whether it's 109G/K or Spit XIX or IX, it's all part of history which was not balanced (not even talking about numbers here heh). I am NOT really defending the design decision by RRG to pit 109K against the allied planes as they come. Basically I agree with you on most accounts, that a 109G should be used, that perhaps Spit XIV should be made instead of IX (I hope they both will at some point by the way). I only said I understand their decision. Sure, we can argue all day which plane is better and why and we can quote charts we both know etc. but what's the point really if we're more or less on the same page? :)

The thing is RRG made a decision to make a certain planeset and I'm merely guessing why they did that, they may have other reasons we don't know. One way or another, it's everyone's decision to pick up the game or not. I see it as an only sim on such level of realism (DCS) and like I said, the game will hopefully be a start for something much bigger, with other plane types and maps, that's why I don't really have a problem with Normandy map and planes not fitting (after all DCS is gonna get Nevada soonish which is not the best scenario for US vs Russia right? :) ). And any "balance" (which I'm not a fan of like I said) will hopefully be left to the mission makers later on.

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

I posted this question in one of the other update threads too. I think the choices are solely based on reference avaliable.
Normandy map they have done for CloD, so they might have the know how to just redo it without having to research too much. Lower risk of getting something wrong I'd say.
K-4 was because they said they had the best references of.
Why the P-47D-30 I would guess it's because of the same reason. They previously intended to make a D-28.

The whole setup does not make any sense. You are flying in Normandy with forward airfields only (no Britain at this point), with a planeset which doesn't even match the terrain or each other.

Nonetheless, I still think it is just the first step. Get these planes done so they have something to show and work on. Then getting the variants worked out shouldn't be that hard. Adding 109G-10 and 14, P-47D-28, M or fuel and power variations of the types, then eventually adding an Ardennes map. If they can get so much done, they could even think about another kick-starter, say, after a successful beta testing, counting solely on good ressonance from beta testing (with community members without an NDA) if they really do a good job. Than they could even get more done for the final release or right after it. That means Britain and Ardennes, for example, as an extension of the map which would generate a large enough customer base to finance it and future expansions.

I for one think this is the low riskish path to get as much done as possible that makes the least necessary sense put together and just have stable grounds to push forward. And they could be counting on the study sim approach and just wanting to model the platforms correctly without taking in consideration that a proper map and combat situations are important. At least not yet.

Edit: and they should really get their marketing going. See how that works. People over at BoS are saying great things about the sim and they only have a runway in a white snowy landscape and a crappy early russian plane to fly in. No guns, no AI, no damage model, nothing. It could very well be just the opposite: "oh crap, why do I only get that and can't fire my guns bla bla bla". Missionaries is the key.

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

The Geography and the time means they can cater for a larger market in the way of plane sets..

I don't think at this stage ad rightly so they are bothered about matchups or historical accuracy. Endy is right in that matchups generally come from the mission makers. The devs are interested in sales and revenue and for that the game has to be attractive to everyone everywhere, which imo is where CoD missed out on massively and looks like to me someone has realized that, hence the Normandy map and the year involved for the first part of this series.

I mean CoD SpitMk1 and E1 isn't exactly a turn on now is it for the Americans and Ruskies which are your biggest players and therefore your biggest buyers for the most part.

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

I mean CoD SpitMk1 and E1 isn't exactly a turn on now is it for the Americans and Ruskies which are your biggest players and therefore your biggest buyers for the most part.

I would have guessed there were more UK players than Americans? Lots of Russians for sure but maybe you are talking about WW2 flight sims in general and not any particular one?

[gavagai]

I think the choices are solely based on reference available.

This.

They want all the aircraft to be of similar quality to the P-51D, which is the most well documented fighter of WW2, according to Yo-yo.

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

This.

They want all the aircraft to be of similar quality to the P-51D, which is the most well documented fighter of WW2, according to Yo-yo.

Possibly but I bet that's not the 'Only' reason they have decided to go for that planeset

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

Sure it's not the only reason in my opinion. What you said is also true, Fritzi. They are making a planeset which caters to the largest amount of players possible in the market, which is the american planes. But deciding between modelling just a "P-47D" or a D-28 or D-30, or just a "Bf-109" or a K-4, G-10 or G-14 is not based on which market they want to cater. Who really knows the differences between these sub-variants anyways, except us hardcore simmers / modellers / history buffs? Most people couldn't really tell the difference between a late G-10 with high tail, high tail wheel and large wheel bulges from a K-4... The visual details are minor. Same with the Thunderbolt for that matter. Or the Spit. How many can actually look at a Spit Mk IX and tell what sub-variant it is? C or E wing, double or single cannon bulges, 4 or 5 wheel spokes, long or short supercharger intake, small bulges on the cowling that tells you from the attachment points what Merlin is inside, suspension torque links etc..

That's why I still think they are choosing the sub-variants mostly based on avaliable reference. Luthier also stated that about the K-4 in one of the updates over at KS.

[1lokos]

And if its not a 'historical' setup, why include a Normandy map? Why not a Battle of the Bulge map? What's the point of setting the planes on the wrong map when they could just as easily set it in December of '44 in the Ardennes?

Yes, and with Bulge map they would not have to deal with complaints about "shades of green". :)

Sokol1

[gavagai]

Also, a P-47M would not carry any ordnance, and a lot of people are looking forward to ground attack with the Jug (though I prefer it as a fighter). The Spitfire IX instead of a XIV is just expediency: the engine model is already there in the P-51D.

I agree it's not an ideal planeset, but it will improve with time. I would have thought more people would be upset by the inclusion of a Me-262 before a 109K.

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

Also, a P-47M would not carry any ordnance, and a lot of people are looking forward to ground attack with the Jug (though I prefer it as a fighter). The Spitfire IX instead of a XIV is just expediency: the engine model is already there in the P-51D.

I agree it's not an ideal planeset, but it will improve with time. I would have thought more people would be upset by the inclusion of a Me-262 before a 109K.

lol agreed..personally I don't see the bit excitement over the 262...Sure be great to have it but couple of flights and back in the box it goes because it wont be included in many servers?

[9./JG52 Jamz Dackel]

I would have guessed there were more UK players than Americans? Lots of Russians for sure but maybe you are talking about WW2 flight sims in general and not any particular one?

I don't know mate but I would of thought more US fliers than UK? anyhow I guess what I'm trying to say is that the American birds are very popular amongst ww2 simmers and therefore bring a lot of revenue :thumbsup:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Salute

I don't have the DCS P-51, I have been too busy with CoD, and am not a fan of flying vs AI or against friendly types. (as mentioned I supported Luthier's project so will get all the aircraft when it comes out)

What is the max boost level in inches of the DCS P-51? If it is running on 150 octane, it should be at least 76 inches. If it is only 67 inches, then it is running on 100/130 fuel.

[1lokos]

and they should really get their marketing going. See how that works. People over at BoS are saying great things about the sim and they only have a runway in a white snowy landscape and a crappy early russian plane to fly in. No guns, no AI, no damage model, nothing. It could very well be just the opposite: "oh crap, why do I only get that and can't fire my guns bla bla bla". Missionaries is the key.

Yes, they (Bo$) have a really good marketing, people there complain a lot "oh crap, why do I only get that and can't fire my guns bla bla bla" and could fly only from Tuesday to Thursday on Alpha.

But since they announced this before, when Alpha start they had forgotten and were happy in just fly the LaGG. :D

Sokol1

[PFT_Endy]

Salute

I don't have the DCS P-51, I have been too busy with CoD, and am not a fan of flying vs AI or against friendly types. (as mentioned I supported Luthier's project so will get all the aircraft when it comes out)

What is the max boost level in inches of the DCS P-51? If it is running on 150 octane, it should be at least 76 inches. If it is only 67 inches, then it is running on 100/130 fuel.

The Mustang is currently running on 130 Octane, 67" boost, but it's a DCS Mustang so all can still change between now and WWII release. Yo-Yo (chief designer) has been discussing +25 lbs boost for the Spitfire and details regarding the engine modification, documents, speculating how it can be done in the mission editor etc. so it means the Spit is most probably gonna use 150 Octane as an option. He also mentioned that since it's the same Merlin engine as the Mustang they might do it for the Pony as well without difficulty. We'll see. If they leave the Mustang as it is, running on 130 Octane and pit it against the 109K and FW190 then there also might be some comments about it from the community which may sway them to work on it. All remains to be seen.

I'd personally wait for the Spit to be released, at least in alpha/beta state and see if it can run on 150 Octane, then ask for the same for the Mustang and P47 since they used the 150 Oct on a much larger scale in 8th Air Force since July 1944. Though it would also be interesting to see if they allow 75" or only 72" as per 8th AF regulations.

[Broodwich]

The Geography and the time means they can cater for a larger market in the way of plane sets..

This. Everyone knows D-Day etc, not so much the later parts of the war and how it progressed. (I bet) Its the same reason they originally went with BoB instead of say, North Africa. They intended to expand there next IIRC but it obviously never happened.

I'm sure they will expand it to more later war maps and what have you