View Full Version : WGS Unofficial aircraft list Version 1.0
Here it is, the first unofficial aircraft list of stats.
There are 3 files: first is an excel file with the stats themselves:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=2136
Second is a word file explaining the various notes for the planes, including the modified maneuver decks, and recommended house rules:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=2137
Third is a word file with the description of the various non-standard gunnery arcs of the planes:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=2138
Due to the great variety of aircraft performances in WW2, a lot of the planes have their maneuver decks modified, and often have other odd rules attached.
Please read through the notes.
Karl
Here are Zoe Brain's slow plane movement system: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?20126-Slow-Aircaft-Rules-(without-special-cards-needed)
Zoe: can we get a link to the current thoughts on radial engines, lack of armor and self-sealing tanks?
Karl
Teaticket
05-31-2015, 15:03
Fantastic. Thanks guys and gal!
Naharaht
05-31-2015, 18:53
Thank you for producing these files, Karl. :thumbsup:
Zoe Brain
05-31-2015, 21:41
NON radial engines - smoke hit does engine hit too (coolant loss)
From http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?16168-Effect-of-armour-and-self-sealing-tanks
Target lacks armour:
Any control hit (rudder jammed) also inflicts a crew hit.
Target lacks self-sealing tanks:
Fire goes out after 12 turns not 6.
Engine hit causes a fire too.
Guntruck
06-01-2015, 00:31
Outstanding work people, thanks to all concerned. Sorry I was as much use as a chocolate teapot this time round.
Blackronin
06-01-2015, 00:49
Amazing work.
My humble thanks to all the committee.
Gotham Resident
06-01-2015, 08:52
Wow, great stuff!
Lots of reading to do. Can't wait!
Very interesting and well put together - many thanks for posting :) :)
gully_raker
06-12-2015, 18:32
:salute::thumbsup::clap::clap::clap: Great work by all involved.
Zoe Brain
06-12-2015, 19:47
Thanks, everyone. Jager in particular put a lot of work into this one.
As with the WGF list, it's a work in progress. Feel free to request stats for any aircraft you have that isn't on the list, to propose corrections etc.
As new aircraft come out, with new manouver decks, some will no doubt change in future. What we have there now is the best we can come up with, given the maneuver decks currently available.
Lt. S.Kafloc
06-15-2015, 15:14
Maneuver deck and hits for the Kawanishi H6k4 Mavis please.
Eris Lobo
08-16-2015, 09:20
This is fantastic, everybody!!! What you gave to the community in this is incredible!!! :D
Got a question, though ... I couldn't find the B-25 rules in the "firing arcs" document. Did I miss something? (I've been known to overlook the obvious at times, y'know ... :) ) I'm particularly interested because I've read the B-25 was used as a low-altitude gunship, bristling with weaponry, during some missions in the Pacific theatre near the end of the war, and I'm wondering how the stats might be set with such in mind.
Thanks!
-- Eris
Eris Lobo
08-16-2015, 09:21
This is fantastic, everybody!!! What you gave to the community in this is incredible!!! :D
Got a question, though ... I couldn't find the B-25 rules in the "firing arcs" document. Did I miss something? (I've been known to overlook the obvious at times, y'know ... :) ) I'm particularly interested because I've read the B-25 was used as a low-altitude gunship, bristling with weaponry, during some missions in the Pacific theatre near the end of the war, and I'm wondering how the stats might be set with such in mind.
Thanks!
-- Eris
Guntruck
08-16-2015, 09:38
Has any thought been given to the He 177, FW Ta 152 or the Me210 by any chance? and what is the latest thinking on jets?
Have you got a stats 'wishlist' somewhere that I have missed?
This is fantastic, everybody!!! What you gave to the community in this is incredible!!! :D
Got a question, though ... I couldn't find the B-25 rules in the "firing arcs" document. Did I miss something? (I've been known to overlook the obvious at times, y'know ... :) ) I'm particularly interested because I've read the B-25 was used as a low-altitude gunship, bristling with weaponry, during some missions in the Pacific theatre near the end of the war, and I'm wondering how the stats might be set with such in mind.
Thanks!
-- Eris
I big reason for the lack of was time, as there were a lot a variants out there, as well as field expedients. Another reason is that a prime source for the firing arcs, the Fighting Wings games, doesn't have the B-25, to my great dismay. Since we had a couple of official B-25s, I thought to get to others later. It is on the list.
Has any thought been given to the He 177, FW Ta 152 or the Me210 by any chance? and what is the latest thinking on jets?
Have you got a stats 'wishlist' somewhere that I have missed?
Sorry about the He.177; it was on the list (got there back when Clipper started making them), but slipped off. Elfshot as it were.
For wishlists, here will do for now, though I can't promise anything on timeliness.
Ta.152 and jets......well I'm planning on doing some thinking about it, but again, time.....
With the speeds being even faster than the fast fighters, my thought is working on homebrewed cards. I rushed a set for the D0.335 for a game CappyTom ran this year:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?21753-Game-Day-at-The-Soldiery
but I want to do some more thinking with this.
If I do come up with cards (making them on CorelDraw), I will post for people to try.
Karl
Lt. S.Kafloc
08-16-2015, 13:56
(Repeated post)
Maneuver deck and hits for the Kawanishi H6k4 Mavis please.
Guntruck
08-17-2015, 04:40
With the speeds being even faster than the fast fighters, my thought is working on homebrewed cards. I rushed a set for the D0.335 for a game CappyTom ran this year:
So presumably you are categorising all flavours of Mosquito as faster than the fast fighters, therefore needing a homebrew set of cards?
Guntruck
08-17-2015, 11:15
If I may be so bold as to kick off a wish list, the following are all, or were, commercially available in 1/200 (and sitting in drawers around my house):
Germany
Fighters
Me210
Ta152
Bombers
Heinkel 177
Dornier 217K
Seaplanes
Dornier 22
Dornier 24
Blohm & Voss BV222
Jets/rockets
Me262
Arado 234
Me163
Bacham Natter!!
Great Britain
Fighters
Typhoon
Tempest
Spitfire XIV
Spitfire XVI
Spitfire 22 (OK that's pushing it)
Lockheed P38 without supercharger (RAF)
Mosquitos
Seaplanes
Westland Walrus
Saro London
Short Sunderland
Supermarine Singapore
Other
Avro Anson
Westland Lysander
USSR
Light Bomber
Yak 4
Seaplanes
Beriev MBR2
Chetverikov ARK-3
And of course, a Mavis for Neil.
No rush for these chaps, end of next week will do :lol:
So presumably you are categorising all flavours of Mosquito as faster than the fast fighters, therefore needing a homebrew set of cards?
I'm not sure, Steve. This was another that slipped through the cracks, as it wasn't on either of Zoe's lists, though Clipper did pour a few ;)
As for speed, unless you look at the late PR model (which still can slip in at 425MPH), the fastest fighter or bomber versions is the B.Mk.XVI at 415MPH, which is within the range of the P or R decks.
The problem might be how maneuverable it is. Plus the various Mks adds up the time ;)
Karl
Has any thought been given to the He 177, FW Ta 152 or the Me210 by any chance? and what is the latest thinking on jets?
Here is the latest thinking on jets Steve ... Inspired by a certain lack of new releases for WGS saga that is in our midst at the moment. So I decided to stop complaining and start thinking - and it has unleashed this!
174369
Trophy Aircraft compatible with WGS!
The full story is available under WW2 / Missions in Circuits and Bumps :)
Guntruck
09-09-2015, 15:00
OK, I might be having a senior moment, but the notes refer to house rule no 3 regarding radial engines. Where would I find this rule?
OK, I might be having a senior moment, but the notes refer to house rule no 3 regarding radial engines. Where would I find this rule?
It's more of what doesn't happen to radials:
from Zoe Brain (post #5)
NON radial engines - smoke hit does engine hit too (coolant loss)
From http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-sealing-tanks
Target lacks armour:
Any control hit (rudder jammed) also inflicts a crew hit.
Target lacks self-sealing tanks:
Fire goes out after 12 turns not 6.
Engine hit causes a fire too.
Lt. S.Kafloc
09-10-2015, 06:53
Jets could take a hint from Star Wars. A game I do not play I hasten to add. Guns handled as normal within arcs. Movement accomplished by different length movement rulers. Missiles and ECCM handled with targeting chit and chaff defence chit to lessen hit %. Something like that anyways.
Jets could take a hint from Star Wars. A game I do not play I hasten to add. Guns handled as normal within arcs. Movement accomplished by different length movement rulers. Missiles and ECCM handled with targeting chit and chaff defence chit to lessen hit %. Something like that anyways.
Not even going to guided missiles ECM/ECCM etc. :eek:
Karl
Guntruck
09-10-2015, 13:28
Not even going to guided missiles ECM/ECCM etc. :eek:
Karl
I was actually thinking about the first generation jets, 262s etc, although thoughts on using Fritz-X would be useful
I was actually thinking about the first generation jets, 262s etc, although thoughts on using Fritz-X would be useful
First Gen jets are certainly doable; just how to do them :hmm:
And Fritz-X :slysmile:
Karl
milcoll73
09-10-2015, 21:36
Jets could take a hint from Star Wars. A game I do not play I hasten to add. Guns handled as normal within arcs. Movement accomplished by different length movement rulers. Missiles and ECCM handled with targeting chit and chaff defence chit to lessen hit %. Something like that anyways.
yeah. i agree that the movement style of xwing and staw would better suit high speed jets.
I've been digging around for formulas, so I can stat up a few bits myself and work on things, but I can't find anything solid on speed to base arrow length.
Can anyone point me in the right direction or explain the equation?
Also how is damage worked out currently?
I've found Jager's thread on altitudes.
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-01-2015, 04:46
Could I put forward the following please:
KI-32 Mary:
Speed 261 MPH: I deck roughly same speed as KI-30
Altitude 29265: 10 higher than the KI-30
Climb Rate 7.6m/s: 4 slower than the KI-30
Damage: 18 (less weight/bulk than KI-30)
Front gun 7.7mm: A/A
Rear gun 7.7mm: A/A
Base: Heavy Fighter (Wing: 49' 2.5", length: 38' 2.5")
Could I put forward the following please:
KI-32 Mary:
Speed 261 MPH: I deck roughly same speed as KI-30
Altitude 29265: 10 higher than the KI-30
Climb Rate 7.6m/s: 4 slower than the KI-30
Damage: 18 (less weight/bulk than KI-30)
Front gun 7.7mm: A/A
Rear gun 7.7mm: A/A
Base: Heavy Fighter (Wing: 49' 2.5", length: 38' 2.5")
Working from the committee notes, gives an initial set of stats at...
The wingspan comes in at just under the unofficial unofficial step up to heavy fighter, which has sort of settled at 50'
There maybe wiggle room though.
I* (deck without steep dive cards) is the closest in speed.
I work the damage out to be 16 (no armour or self sealing fuel tanks)
Unless it does tip in to heavy fighter, then it would be 18.
Ceiling 10
Climb Rate 6
Guns are correct.
The biggest pain with the I deck is the lack of a 30 degree turn (but it has a 45 degree one :confused:)
While the I deck would probably serve, another option would be the L deck minus the 60 degree turns. I propose this due to the 186mph cruising speed.
I would use the fighter base.
Karl
The biggest pain with the I deck is the lack of a 30 degree turn (but it has a 45 degree one :confused:)
While the I deck would probably serve, another option would be the L deck minus the 60 degree turns. I propose this due to the 186mph cruising speed.
I would use the fighter base.
Karl
I was thinking of the J deck as a secondary option, but both of those are a smidge too fast.
But within tolerances. The RoT is +/- 8-12mph.
Karl
But within tolerances. The RoT is +/- 8-12mph.
Karl
In case, I would probably go for J. I can't see a light bomber doing extreme side slips.
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-01-2015, 14:05
Then remove those too and stick with the L?
In case, I would probably go for J. I can't see a light bomber doing extreme side slips.
Then remove those too and stick with the L?
Actually looking at it again, the L deck is closer on the cruise speed. So yes, a L deck with the extreme side slips & 60° turns removed would probably work best.
I succumb to Karl's superior knowledge.... This time ;)
Actually looking at it again, the L deck is closer on the cruise speed. So yes, a L deck with the extreme side slips & 60° turns removed would probably work best.
I succumb to Karl's superior knowledge.... This time ;)
Having another dig on info, and the Ki-32 has a wing loading of 104.1 kg/m², which is less than a Spitfire. Making this plane theoretically more manoeuvrable. Obviously with less power it can't utilise this as well, but it may call for some of those cards to be re-added.
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-01-2015, 14:27
Looking at both decks there seems to be no difference in the length of arrow. The J deck doesn't have the 90 turn (which I take it is the one you want removed not the 60?) it also doesn't have the extreme side slips. So perhaps the J would be better after all?
Neil
Looking at both decks there seems to be no difference in the length of arrow. The J deck doesn't have the 90 turn (which I take it is the one you want removed not the 60?) it also doesn't have the extreme side slips. So perhaps the J would be better after all?
Neil
I don't have an L deck to hand currently, so I'm working from the Excel sheet with all the info. It has no mention of 90° turns, only 60°.
As Karl said, the J deck is a bit too fast on the cruise (slow) speed. Otherwise it is just a case of tweaking with turns and slips it has.
Ok, having a think on it, my thoughts would be that the Ki-32 doesn't have the power in the engine to hold it over it's reduced stall speed making a high degree turn, so the 60° turns should go.
Also it's roll rate isn't high enough for the extreme side slips.
So back to L with those cards removed.
Hopefully Karl will pitch in later with a for/against insight.
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-02-2015, 06:37
So L Deck and remove the following?:
Cards
7-8..... 60 right
9-10... 60 left
11...... 90 right
12...... 90 left
19...... sever side slip right
20...... sever side slip left
So L Deck and remove the following?:
Cards
7-8..... 60 right
9-10... 60 left
11...... 90 right
12...... 90 left
19...... sever side slip right
20...... sever side slip left
Yep, like I say, I don't have a L to hand. I also think this excel spreadsheet of the cards needs updating, it doesn't mention 90° turns.
But then of coarse it's a biplane one, so I should have known that.
Unless anyone comes up with a better way of doing things, that would be the way I would.
OldGuy59
12-05-2015, 07:41
...
Sorry about the He.177; it was on the list (got there back when Clipper started making them), but slipped off. Elfshot as it were.
For wishlists, here will do for now, though I can't promise anything on timeliness.
...
Could one of the experts give this attempt at a card a look?
How to do a Heinkel 177 (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?23727-How-to-do-a-Heinkel-177&p=381166&viewfull=1#post381166)
Thanks in advance.
Could one of the experts give this attempt at a card a look?
How to do a Heinkel 177 (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?23727-How-to-do-a-Heinkel-177&p=381166&viewfull=1#post381166)
Thanks in advance.
From an initial dig, I have the speed of the He.177 at 295mph, which the closest deck on speed is K. So I would go with that with the reversal & side slips removed. I'll have a dig on manouverability/wing loading to see about turns.
Ok, now I have found various articles that put the speed up to 350mph. Cruise speed of 210mph, speed with max load of 270mph. Which makes B or F closest, but with a wing loading of 303.9kg/m² I would be tempted to remove all side slips, the reversal and 45° turns.
Damage Capacity: 37
Climb Rate: 9
Ceiling: 11
Weapons:
x1 7.92mm nose A/A
x1 20mm front ventral C/A
x1/x2 13mm fwd dorsal turret A/A / B/A
x1 13mm rear dorsal turret A/A
x1 20mm tail C/A
x2 7.92mm/x1 13mm rear of gondala A/A
OldGuy59
12-05-2015, 10:53
From an initial dig, I have the speed of the He.177 at 295mph, which the closest deck on speed is K. So I would go with that with the reversal & side slips removed. I'll have a dig on manouverability/wing loading to see about turns.
Ok, now I have found various articles that put the speed up to 350mph. Cruise speed of 210mph, speed with max load of 270mph. Which makes B or F closest, but with a wing loading of 303.9kg/m² I would be tempted to remove all side slips, the reversal and 45° turns.
Damage Capacity: 37
Climb Rate: 9
Ceiling: 11
Weapons:
x1 7.92mm nose A/A
x1 20mm front ventral C/A
x1/x2 13mm fwd dorsal turret A/A / B/A
x1 13mm rear dorsal turret A/A
x1 20mm tail C/A
x2 7.92mm/x1 13mm rear of gondala A/A
I went by the max speed I found, and that is usually wrong for WGS, as I think it works on the optimal combat speed, not max. So, the maneuver deck I picked was a guess.
Damage was using the 12 + Empty Total Weight, but I downgraded that from 49 as I didn't see it being as tough as a B-17. But 37? Isn't that a bit low?
All the A/A positions are pretty solid. However, I just did the Mitsubishi G4M3 Betty. The 20mm Cannons on those arcs I did as C/B. Not the same for this plane? I would think explosive rounds would be as dangerous at long range as they are at short range, if they hit. And two 13mm guns are similar to 2 .50cals, are they not?
Just asking. I'll make changes, if I can get consensus.
I went by the max speed I found, and that is usually wrong for WGS, as I think it works on the optimal combat speed, not max. So, the maneuver deck I picked was a guess.
Damage was using the 12 + Empty Total Weight, but I downgraded that from 49 as I didn't see it being as tough as a B-17. But 37? Isn't that a bit low?
All the A/A positions are pretty solid. However, I just did the Mitsubishi G4M3 Betty. The 20mm Cannons on those arcs I did as C/B. Not the same for this plane? I would think explosive rounds would be as dangerous at long range as they are at short range, if they hit. And two 13mm guns are similar to 2 .50cals, are they not?
Just asking. I'll make changes, if I can get consensus.
No, ask away.
For the weapons I was working from the equations/rules Zoe gave me for the stats committee.
A single 20mm cannon should be C/A. I'll have a look at why the Betty is different.
The damage cap is also worked out from those too. From what I gather, without saying too much I'm not meant to, the weight calc isn't used.
I gave it the max I could, but now I see the numbers for other heavy bombers, maybe our calculations are out for heavies.
That I will bring up with the committee. So stick with your number for the moment.
A single 20mm cannon should be C/A. I'll have a look at why the Betty is different.
Ok, reading through the firing arcs document, there are various single 20mm cannons rated at C/B.
I have brought this up in the committee thread, as it contradicts the way I was told to rate weapons.
I will come back on this once I have an answer.
From an initial dig, I have the speed of the He.177 at 295mph, which the closest deck on speed is K. So I would go with that with the reversal & side slips removed. I'll have a dig on manouverability/wing loading to see about turns.
Ok, now I have found various articles that put the speed up to 350mph. Cruise speed of 210mph, speed with max load of 270mph. Which makes B or F closest, but with a wing loading of 303.9kg/m² I would be tempted to remove all side slips, the reversal and 45° turns.
Damage Capacity: 37
Climb Rate: 9
Ceiling: 11
Weapons:
x1 7.92mm nose A/A
x1 20mm front ventral C/A
x1/x2 13mm fwd dorsal turret A/A / B/A
x1 13mm rear dorsal turret A/A
x1 20mm tail C/A
x2 7.92mm/x1 13mm rear of gondala A/A
Bear in mind that the speeds in that file assume a fighter base, except for the XA and XB decks. Since fighter bases are 6.7cm long, and bomber bases are 8cm long, the K deck is actually about 330mph with a bomber.
The XB is probably closest overall, though a bit slow. The I deck is closest on high speed, but too fast on slow, and doesn't have a 30 degree turn :hmm:
I would stick with a XB deck.
A C damage at short will be a B at long. [correction: a C at short goes to a A at long]
Also, with all the talk above on the J and L decks, neither deck has a 60 degree turn; only the O deck has that. The J deck has 30 and 45 degree turns, as does the L, which also has a single set of 90 degree turns. The excel file needs to be corrected.
Karl'
OldGuy59
12-05-2015, 17:03
Bear in mind that the speeds in that file assume a fighter base, except for the XA and XB decks. Since fighter bases are 6.7cm long, and bomber bases are 8cm long, the K deck is actually about 330mph with a bomber.
The XB is probably closest overall, though a bit slow. The I deck is closest on high speed, but too fast on slow, and doesn't have a 30 degree turn :hmm:
I would stick with a XB deck.
A C damage at short will be a B at long.
Also, with all the talk above on the J and L decks, neither deck has a 60 degree turn; only the O deck has that. The J deck has 30 and 45 degree turns, as does the L, which also has a single set of 90 degree turns. The excel file needs to be corrected.
Karl'
So, what length of arrows are we talking about here? Long and short? In the event that some crazy individual wanted to make up a fast bomber deck?
I'm assuming using the I maneuver deck for the He.177, and a speed of... What? 350 Mph fast speed, or is that too fast for the He.177?
PS: Fast at 3.8cm sound right?
Bear in mind that the speeds in that file assume a fighter base, except for the XA and XB decks. Since fighter bases are 6.7cm long, and bomber bases are 8cm long, the K deck is actually about 330mph with a bomber.
The XB is probably closest overall, though a bit slow. The I deck is closest on high speed, but too fast on slow, and doesn't have a 30 degree turn :hmm:
I would stick with a XB deck.
Allowing for the length of the bomber base (I'm still new to this), maybe the L deck with all side slips, the reversal & >=45° removed, would be a good compromise? It's close to the max speed/combat speed and is closer with the cruise speed.
Also Zoe & I thrashed out the damage capacity (mainly Zoe) at 45.
So, what length of arrows are we talking about here? Long and short? In the event that some crazy individual wanted to make up a fast bomber deck?
I'm assuming using the I maneuver deck for the He.177, and a speed of... What? 350 Mph fast speed, or is that too fast for the He.177?
PS: Fast at 3.8cm sound right?
350mph is too fast for an operational He.177. The best (reliable) figures I'm getting are between 303 and 317mph (the A-5 and the A-1 models) without a full payload. The A-5 is listed at 273mph with a payload (Warplane of the Third Reich). The A-5 model was the most produced, and most reliable, so let's go with that.
303mph/488Kmph has a arrow length (for bombers) of 2.6cm, which is a tad faster than the I deck, rather more for the XB deck, but measurably slower than the J deck.
Max cruise speed of 258mph/415Kmpm has a arrow length (for bombers) of 1.0cm, much slower than the I deck, but almost twice the speed of the XB.
The XB cruise speed comes to 245mph/395Kmph, which is between the listed max cruising speed and most economical speed (210mph, which is slower than a bomber card can move in the game (230mph).
That's why I would use the XB deck for convenience. I'll admit I'm not sure what they exactly mean by cruise speed, if there is such a range (one of the frustrations of using the WoG engine for WW2 planes).
Karl
350mph is too fast for an operational He.177. The best (reliable) figures I'm getting are between 303 and 317mph (the A-5 and the A-1 models) without a full payload. The A-5 is listed at 273mph with a payload (Warplane of the Third Reich). The A-5 model was the most produced, and most reliable, so let's go with that.
303mph/488Kmph has a arrow length (for bombers) of 2.6cm, which is a tad faster than the I deck, rather more for the XB deck, but measurably slower than the J deck.
Max cruise speed of 258mph/415Kmpm has a arrow length (for bombers) of 1.0cm, much slower than the I deck, but almost twice the speed of the XB.
The XB cruise speed comes to 245mph/395Kmph, which is between the listed max cruising speed and most economical speed (210mph, which is slower than a bomber card can move in the game (230mph).
That's why I would use the XB deck for convenience. I'll admit I'm not sure what they exactly mean by cruise speed, if there is such a range (one of the frustrations of using the WoG engine for WW2 planes).
Karl
Cruise speed for most vehicles, planes included is normally rated at the most economical for fuel.
Hence you cruise there, burning the least amount of fuel possible, and maximise your ability to get back.
So if we are dropping the combat speed to the loaded max, which I agree is actually more sensible, XB is the closet of the official decks.
But Zoe's ZL may fit too, with a few turns etc removed. Slightly closer on the combat speed, and slightly slower on the cruise/slow.
I like that thought of the ZL deck; note though, there is a difference in the arrow lengths with the 2 speed files
(WGF_Man_deck_speed_OPQR and DoWManeuverDecks series 1-5 plus Zoe decks). The first gives an arrow length for the XB deck as 2.1cm, and the second as 2.5cm.
Time to get the decks out and measure :hmm:
Karl
I like that thought of the ZL deck; note though, there is a difference in the arrow lengths with the 2 speed files
(WGF_Man_deck_speed_OPQR and DoWManeuverDecks series 1-5 plus Zoe decks). The first gives an arrow length for the XB deck as 2.1cm, and the second as 2.5cm.
Time to get the decks out and measure :hmm:
Karl
Two files? I was working from the WGS Maneuver Decks base speeds of card's arrows.xls which gives ZL as 2.3/0.3cm
Two files? I was working from the WGS Maneuver Decks base speeds of card's arrows.xls which gives ZL as 2.3/0.3cm
The first file is here:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1651
It's from Zoe. the other one, I posted (can't remember who did it):
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1742
Somewhere along the line, Zoe's decks got added. I would trust the file Zoë posted first.
Got to go gaming.
will log in next week.
Karl
Zoe's sheet is somewhat untidy, I may have a bash at making it a tad easier to read.
I was working from the other one. But the both seem to agree on XB 2.1/0.55cm
OldGuy59
12-06-2015, 13:12
Guys,
I'm having an issue with the "full payload" speed assumption. How long should the unloaded speed arrow be, and when the plane flies the slow arrow for the "full payload" speed, how long should that arrow be?
Isn't that what we do for bombers? So, the "cruise speed" should be "303-317 mph", not the "full payload" "270 mph". Otherwise, are you not double penalizing the plane? That would make the plane fly the slow "full payload" speed no matter what, and even slower, in game, when used as a fully loaded bomber.
Not fair. Or is that why the Stuka, using the "I" maneuver deck can't get near the HMS Glorious without the AA taking it out?
I have to go with what Karl says generally, except when I can use logic to prove him wrong. Hence single 20mm cannons should be C/A.
As with all historical reports, there is a level of pinch of salt to be applied. We can't seem to exactly tie down the true maximum speed.
Brochure speeds will always look better than real world performance. We have agreed on loaded speed at approx 270mph, and cruise speed at approx 210mph. I'm not sure what the official rules are about working out speed against loaded or unloaded weight.
I was going to compare all this to the new(ish) heavies, and realised I don't have any info on the XC or XD decks.
So if you or anyone can whip out those and measure them I would be grateful.
OldGuy59
12-06-2015, 14:54
I have to go with what Karl says generally, except when I can use logic to prove him wrong. Hence single 20mm cannons should be C/A.
As with all historical reports, there is a level of pinch of salt to be applied. We can't seem to exactly tie down the true maximum speed.
Brochure speeds will always look better than real world performance. We have agreed on loaded speed at approx 270mph, and cruise speed at approx 210mph. I'm not sure what the official rules are about working out speed against loaded or unloaded weight.
I was going to compare all this to the new(ish) heavies, and realised I don't have any info on the XC or XD decks.
So if you or anyone can whip out those and measure them I would be grateful.
OK with the gun damage. Mitsubishi G4M3 Bettys are an anomaly.
So the cruise speed is slower than loaded? Or did you intend 310mph?
Which, if using a bomber base, means how long an arrow? If I use the XB deck as a template, I figure making the long arrow 2.8cms for the fast speed, and leaving the slow speed arrow alone. Sound good? New XBf deck (f = fast)?
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-06-2015, 16:03
So for the KI-32 I can include cards 7,8,9,10?
OldGuy59
12-06-2015, 22:33
Standard XB Straight card - - - - - Fast XB Straight card:
182972 182973
The Fast blue arrow line is 2.8 cm long, so slightly longer than the standard XB deck. This should be the 310mph speed?
PS: Card on the left was a borrowed scan, the card on the right is my quick graphic copy.
So for the KI-32 I can include cards 7,8,9,10?
Yep, all decks keep stalls, dives & climbs. The reversal is based on the planes power/manuverability.
I'm not 100% sure the Ki-32 could do a reversal, especially loaded, but to err I would take it out currently.
Depends on how it feels to you. Comparably planes with similar bhp can't do them, the TBD Devestator for instance 900bhp vs Ki-32 850bhp.
OK with the gun damage. Mitsubishi G4M3 Bettys are an anomaly.
So the cruise speed is slower than loaded? Or did you intend 310mph?
Which, if using a bomber base, means how long an arrow? If I use the XB deck as a template, I figure making the long arrow 2.8cms for the fast speed, and leaving the slow speed arrow alone. Sound good? New XBf deck (f = fast)?
Nope cruise speed should be lower, it's the most economical speed fuel-wise.
The analogy would be your car, the fastest it can go is 100mph, but you put lots of stuff in it it'll only do 90mph.
The agreed most fuel efficient speed for most cars is 55mph, and that's why cruise control normally defaults to that (in the UK).
The He.177 (like the BV.222 I'm currently trying to stat) is at an awkward point between the low point of the standard type decks and the fastest points of the 'slow decks'. If we currently stick to made sets Zoe's ZM is the closest when taking loaded as the fast speed. The I deck seems about right when the unloaded speed is taken, but the slow speed is too high. Obviously both would need to be looked at for manuverability. i.e. the He.177 couldn't do a dive bomb attack, even though it was in the required specs. They never could make it strong enough.
I have no objection to new decks being created for unofficial planes, I'm working on some myself currently. Like any unofficial house rule, you have to get people to agree to your way of thinking. But then the plane itself is unofficial, and subject to the same thought.
With a bomber base: 310mph = 2.8cm, 270mph = 1.4cm & 210mph is impossible (-0.7cm)
It could be possibly done as a 'slow deck' but it would have to be on a larger than poker sized card.
For your XBf deck I would be tempted to bring the slow arrow back to 0.5cm, pretty much the slowest the card can do. It's then at least the closest it can be to 210mph. Considering in combat you may feather the engines, but possibly not 'cruise' ;)
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-07-2015, 05:13
L Deck
7,8,9,&10 are the left and right turns which aren't, according to Jager, 60 degree turns.
13 is a stall
14 Immelmann
21 & 22 Climb/Dive respectively.
L Deck
7,8,9,&10 are the left and right turns which aren't, according to Jager, 60 degree turns.
13 is a stall
14 Immelmann
21 & 22 Climb/Dive respectively.
I really think the excel sheet I'm working from needs updating.
So I came to L deck with all 60 & 90 degree turns, side slips and reversal removed.
Should leave you with Straights, 33 & 45 degree turns, stalls, climb & dive. 10 cards in total (I think).
I don't have the deck, so I can't quote card numbers.
OldGuy59
12-07-2015, 23:23
The new XBF maneuver deck is in an album here: XBF Deck Album (http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/album.php?albumid=3588)
Blackronin
12-08-2015, 01:43
Thanks for this, Mike.
As usual is a pleasure to see your work.
Blackronin
12-08-2015, 01:47
I need a deck for the CR.32... Just saying... It should be as maneuverable as the L deck, but slower... I really need it for my Spanish Civil War... How can I bribe you, Mike?
Zoe Brain
12-08-2015, 02:39
I need a deck for the CR.32... Just saying... It should be as maneuverable as the L deck, but slower... I really need it for my Spanish Civil War... How can I bribe you, Mike?
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1242
The ZL deck for : Fiat CR.32, I-152, Ki-10. For Biplanes with speeds 355-400 km/h
Uploaded on 03-16-2013
See also :
ZJ deck For P-26, PzL-11, Dewoitine 510 and all monoplanes with speed 355-400 km/h
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1244
ZM Deck For Hs123, I-15, He51, and all biplanes with speed 305-350 km/h
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1243
Zoe Brain
12-08-2015, 02:42
So you should be right as regards SCW fighters. Cr32s, Hs123s, I-15s and I-15bis (I-152)...and the solitary P-26.
Blackronin
12-08-2015, 02:47
Thanks Zoe!
Perfect.
I don't know how I missed these three decks.
Zoe Brain
12-08-2015, 03:43
Thanks Zoe!
Perfect.
I don't know how I missed these three decks.
I can't either. After all they were on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".
Or the equivalent, buried amongst various graphics files and game aids on the third page in the WWII files section. Not exactly obvious....
Blackronin
12-08-2015, 03:56
I can't either. After all they were on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".
Or the equivalent, buried amongst various graphics files and game aids on the third page in the WWII files section. Not exactly obvious....
But my searching skills, Zoe?! My searching skills! I've waste so many character points in the Searching skill!
Teaticket
12-08-2015, 05:02
But my searching skills, Zoe?! My searching skills! I've waste so many character points in the Searching skill!
Hope you make it to the next level then. ;)
Blackronin
12-08-2015, 05:06
Hope you make it to the next level then. ;)
Oh... There are now levels... You have to spread experience... 5th generation RPG's. ;)
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-09-2015, 02:05
Hoping Zoe or someone can point me in the right direction, last query:
US P43A Lancer deck?
Blackronin
12-09-2015, 02:09
Hoping Zoe or someone can point me in the right direction, last query:
US P43A Lancer deck?
You can trust Zoe, Neil!
She'll help you.
And I think she has a couple of P-43's. ;)
Zoe Brain
12-09-2015, 04:59
Republic P-43A-1 Lancer Deck F Arm A-B / A Dam 17 Alt 13 Climb 4 Fighter base No Self Sealing Tanks, No Armour, Radial
When using the official house rules, No SST = fire lasts 12 (double), No Armour = Control hit does crew hit too.
See list at http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=2136
Blackronin
12-09-2015, 05:06
See? ;)
Lt. S.Kafloc
12-09-2015, 06:00
Cheers Zoe. On the ball as usual.
Zoe Brain
12-10-2015, 00:46
(BLUSH) Thank you, Kind Sir.
I should mention that while the spreadsheet is a team effort, I think jager put in as much work on it as the rest of us put together, and to him should go proportionate credit.
Gotham Resident
01-31-2016, 20:51
Question - what is a K+ deck for a helldiver?
Question - what is a K+ deck for a helldiver?
The standard K deck with the dive bombing cards from I.
Gotham Resident
02-01-2016, 06:58
The standard K deck with the dive bombing cards from I. Ah...superb. Thank you.
Ah...superb. Thank you.
One tip though, if you only have Wings of Glory cards is to put something over the letters on the backs. Otherwise your enemy will know you're about to dive.
This topic deserves to be sticky.
Btw, maybe Special Rule No 3 should be edited. It seems to me that Non-radial engines at WW2 era were used less than the radial ones. So, maybe only lack of RE should be the special rule?
Blackronin
02-23-2016, 06:08
This topic deserves to be sticky.
Agreed!
Teaticket
02-23-2016, 07:41
All the work on this is great! One thing that I find confusing is the aircraft notes, house rules part. Great list that are indexed to the plane's list but no explanation on how to implement 1, 2 & 3 to game play. Could the game rule adjustments be included on the 1, 2 & 3 house rules in the list? That will make it a lot easier for those looking to add this to their games. I did find this digging through this thread but I think the info should be with the notes.
Blackronin
02-23-2016, 07:43
And the rules for WW1 also should be sticky-ed.
And the rules for WW1 also should be sticky-ed.
I agree :)
Gotham Resident
03-18-2016, 06:30
All the work on this is great! One thing that I find confusing is the aircraft notes, house rules part. Great list that are indexed to the plane's list but no explanation on how to implement 1, 2 & 3 to game play. Could the game rule adjustments be included on the 1, 2 & 3 house rules in the list? That will make it a lot easier for those looking to add this to their games. I did find this digging through this thread but I think the info should be with the notes. I give this a +1 vote. AND the sticky part.
Gotham Resident
03-23-2016, 06:27
Karl and Zoe, would you pop over this thread for a moment with your wisdom? I didn't want to clutter this thread with my questions.
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?24646-Japanese-Custom-House-Plane-questions-including-Rear-arcs-for-HF-base-planes
Guys/girls,
I don't know am I the only one with this issue, but need some clarification and help with making *, **, (-), (db) etc. tweaked decks for unofficial planes (according to "WGS unofficial aircraft V1.0 NOTES"
So, let's go:
C(-): no fast side slips:
No cards 15,16?
D*: no reversals:
No card 12?
D**: no fast side slips, or reversals:
No card 12, 15, 16?
D(-): no fast side slips
No cards 15, 16?
F(Z)*: no reversals:
No card 12?
H*: no fast side slip
No cards 15, 16?
H**: no 45 degree turns and fast side slip
No cards 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16?
I*: no second dive card or dive bomb cards
No cards 13, 14, 15?
J*: no fast side slip
No cards 15, 16?
J**: no reversals or fast side slip
No card 12, 15, 16?
K(-): no 45 degree turn
No cards 7, 8, 9, 10?
K*: no reversals
No card 12?
K**: no fast SS or 30 degree turn
No cards 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16?
M*: no reversals
No card 12?
O*: no 60 degree turns.
No cards 7, 8, 9, 10? Or no cards 11, 12?
O** no 60 degree turns or extreme side slips.
No cards 7, 8, 9, 10 (and/or 11, 12) + no cards 17, 18?
Q*: no extreme side slips.
No cards 15, 16?
R*: no extreme side slip
No cards 15, 16?
R**: no extreme side slip or reversal.
No cards 12, 15, 16?
ZM(db): Make it look like the I deck; no 30 or 60 degree turns, and remove one set of sideslips.
No cards 15, 16, 17, 18? And/or what other cards?
Add equivalents of 13, 14, 15 from I deck (second dive card and two dive bomb cards)?
Thanks a lot!
Zoe Brain
05-04-2016, 18:02
Karl and Zoe, would you pop over this thread for a moment with your wisdom? I didn't want to clutter this thread with my questions.
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?24646-Japanese-Custom-House-Plane-questions-including-Rear-arcs-for-HF-base-planes
Sorry, seriously busy at the moment, Father in Law in hospital, 50/50 chance.
clipper1801
05-04-2016, 20:21
Stay with him Zoe, you are an angel to him first, we can wait. Blessings!
milcoll73
05-05-2016, 01:09
Sorry, seriously busy at the moment, Father in Law in hospital, 50/50 chance.
please accept my hopes and wishes for the best possible outcome.
Blackronin
05-05-2016, 01:43
You're in my thoughts, Zoe. I hope for the best.
Guntruck
05-05-2016, 02:26
All the best for you and your Father-in-law Zoe
Keep faith! All the best wishes!
Lt. S.Kafloc
05-05-2016, 05:02
Prayers and thoughts are with you both Zoe.
Naharaht
05-05-2016, 08:49
My prayers are with you and your father-in-law, Zoe.
Zoe: Prayers and good hopes for your father-in-Law. :pray:
Heмaњa: I'll have to break open my decks to check your work, but since I'm packing for a week away right now, it will have to wait at least a week, maybe 2.
Karl
Aardvark1430
05-09-2016, 03:14
Best wishes to your dad-in-law Zoe ... be good to him, rest assured we lot here are nowhere as important as he is
cheers,
Guus :salute:
Oh my, I should have read your post in the Officers Club first I'm sorry to say ...
Hi All-
First off, want to say a very big thank you to everyone involved in this effort, it is most appreciated. This spreadsheet is a wonderful example of the fantastic community behind this game, and I am so grateful for your work on this.
As my own WGS collection is now transitioning into Shapeways and AIM miniatures, this resource is getting heavy reference, along with lots of web searches and similar.
I have some feedback, for what it's worth:
- The A6M2 Reisen on line 383 should have a damage value of 16 per the WoW official mini, not 18.
- From all sources I've seen, the I-153 Chaika had a slower top speed than all versions of the I-16, yet has been assigned the faster L maneuver deck as compared to the slower J deck officially released for the I-16. However, because the I-153 fell in between the I-15 and I-16 in speed, it doesn't seem fair to assign it the ZL deck. A conundrum.
- The Russians tested a captured Ki-27 against the I-15, I-153, and I-16 and determined it was a better dogfighter than all of them, yet it has been assigned the same J deck as the I-16. Another conundrum! In fairness, other sources seem to indicate that they held a pretty close parity. So maybe it's a wash.
- The F4U-1 Corsair was evaluated by the US Navy (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf) to be faster and more maneuverable than the P-51B Mustang in all except dive acceleration and dive speed, yet it is assigned the same P deck that the P-51D Mustang uses (which was actually a few mph slower than the -B/C version of the Mustang that the Navy tested). I propose that the assigned P deck be replaced by either the R or S deck, to give the F4U-1 Corsair a small boost in agility while not reducing its top speed. I generally feel the R deck (from the FW-190D) is the more appropriate of the two, as the Corsair was (as I understand) still very much a "boom and zoomer." That would give it the same turn radius as the P deck, but add the extreme sideslips to give it some enhanced maneuverability. This would also prevent flying the six 50 caliber version of the Corsair from feeling "samey" to the P-51D, which it is otherwise a proxy for with the maneuver deck as currently indicated.
Please do not take these comments as criticism, because I do not mean to throw cold water on such a cool effort. I'm hoping just to provide worthwhile feedback and possibly encourage discussion on revisiting a few of these planes and tweaking them slightly to better match their documented performance.
OldGuy59
01-21-2018, 12:13
Hi All-
First off, want to say a very big thank you to everyone involved in this effort, it is most appreciated. This spreadsheet is a wonderful example of the fantastic community behind this game, and I am so grateful for your work on this.
As my own WGS collection is now transitioning into Shapeways and AIM miniatures, this resource is getting heavy reference, along with lots of web searches and similar.
I have some feedback, for what it's worth:
- The A6M2 Reisen on line 383 should have a damage value of 16 per the WoW official mini, not 18.
- From all sources I've seen, the I-153 Chaika had a slower top speed than all versions of the I-16, yet has been assigned the faster L maneuver deck as compared to the slower J deck officially released for the I-16. However, because the I-153 fell in between the I-15 and I-16 in speed, it doesn't seem fair to assign it the ZL deck. A conundrum.
- The Russians tested a captured Ki-27 against the I-15, I-153, and I-16 and determined it was a better dogfighter than all of them, yet it has been assigned the same J deck as the I-16. Another conundrum! In fairness, other sources seem to indicate that they held a pretty close parity. So maybe it's a wash.
- The F4U-1 Corsair was evaluated by the US Navy (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf) to be faster and more maneuverable than the P-51B Mustang in all except dive acceleration and dive speed, yet it is assigned the same P deck that the P-51D Mustang uses (which was actually a few mph slower than the -B/C version of the Mustang that the Navy tested). I propose that the assigned P deck be replaced by either the R or S deck, to give the F4U-1 Corsair a small boost in agility while not reducing its top speed. I generally feel the R deck (from the FW-190D) is the more appropriate of the two, as the Corsair was (as I understand) still very much a "boom and zoomer." That would give it the same turn radius as the P deck, but add the extreme sideslips to give it some enhanced maneuverability. This would also prevent flying the six 50 caliber version of the Corsair from feeling "samey" to the P-51D, which it is otherwise a proxy for with the maneuver deck as currently indicated.
Please do not take these comments as criticism, because I do not mean to throw cold water on such a cool effort. I'm hoping just to provide worthwhile feedback and possibly encourage discussion on revisiting a few of these planes and tweaking them slightly to better match their documented performance.
Thanks, Steve! *Heavy sarcasm intended*
I am not finished my WGS MATES II project, now that someone has advised me that I'm missing some of the latest released planes' decks. I went back the Ares WWII Plane Packs page, and there are, at least, three decks I haven't done. These include the S, T, and V decks.
I can't find anything on their page that flys a "U" deck, BTW. Anyone know what's flying with that deck? Has Ares released a plane with that deck? Any rumors? Did I miss something more than the latest release, and did we all miss something?
Thanks for the comments. For the A6M2 Reisen, I can only plead a few stray gremlins in the worker sprites I had typing for me :smack:
For the Corsair: most of my reading have both the P-51B/C/D and the F4U-1 close on speed and maneuverability. In fact, I recently relooked at it, and
most places I could find have them at pretty much a dead heat in a dogfight. Now, one problem I had with deck assignments was what did the extreme SS represent.
The best guess from the examples was a good/great roll rate, which was why the Fw-190D has it. Now why the Spitfire Mk.IX (O deck) have one isn't clear, as it's roll rate was average.
That said, I can't see giving the Corsair the extreme SS, and the slower slow speed arrow (better maneuverability) than the Mustang.
This was why I was really looking forward to the Series 7 release, for both the Corsair and the Lightning.
Karl
I too am looking forward to the (eventual) PTO release, for the same reasons (P-38, Corsair, etc)
The link I posted (the Navy test of the P-51B vs F4U-1) was admittedly only one document, and possibly biased (i.e. I can't ever imagine the Navy determining that the Air Force had the better plane) but it was an actual head-to-head comparison of the aircraft by qualified test pilots:
"The F4U-1 is everywhere superior in maneuverability and response."
Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
Here's a comparison the US Navy did between the FW-190A4 and the F6F and F4U-1:
"The FW-190 and F4U-1 were found to be about equal in roll."
Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
If there are similar historical records comparing the aircraft head-to-head like that, I'd love to see them!
And, of course, all of that is besides the point of which of the extant WoG maneuver decks is the most appropriate gross approximation of such a nuanced and complex subject as "aircraft performance." But hey!
Thanks again for all the hard work on this, it is very appreciated.
Guys, I'm looking for Zoe's ZJ, ZL etc. decks, but I can't find them at Files section... Where are they actually?
OldGuy59
12-25-2018, 14:14
Guys, I'm looking for Zoe's ZJ, ZL etc. decks, but I can't find them at Files section... Where are they actually?
Can't find them, either. Not in the Files section, that I can see.
Can't find them, either. Not in the Files section, that I can see.
ZL: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1242
ZM: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1243
ZJ: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1244
A tip from experience: if you know the file poster, go to their profile page, and click on the files tab.
Karl
Hey, Karl, thanks a lot :)
I have one more question. According to unofficial stats Nakajima "Kate" uses ZJ deck. This deck seems to be too maneuvreable for torpedo bomber. Does it have some limitations?
I have one more question. According to unofficial stats Nakajima "Kate" uses ZJ deck. This deck seems to be too maneuvreable for torpedo bomber. Does it have some limitations?
Yes, it shouldn't be able to do a reversal. And remove the normal SS, leaving the fast only SS.
Another entry for the V.1 errata.
Karl
And what about 90° turns? Should they remain in deck or not?
(Sorry, I wrote 45, but I ment 90.)
And what about 90° turns? Should they remain in deck or not?
(Sorry, I wrote 45, but I meant 90.)
Dang, I missed those 90 turns (dark cards......yes that's it, not failing eyesight).
No the 90s goes too.
Karl
Thank you!
Is this how deck should look like? Yellow X means the card is out.
259764259765
And would it's name be ZJ(b)?
Looks like I missed the extreme SSs too :hmm. The last 2 cards on the right:
259773
ZJ(B) is a good name for this deck.
Karl
Thanks a lot, Karl! Now we have it :)
OK, in discussing a few plane off-site with a member, it came up about where to put the firing arcs. I'll admit, this completely blew past me in doing this project.
Until a complete review, here's some guidelines:
if the front gun is a flexible mounting, move the base of the arc forward to the nose of the plane, as other bombers have it.
If it is fixed (like the Ju.88C), base the arc in the planes peg.
All planes on heavy fighter bases with flexible rear guns (assuming they are not mounted on the tail; none come to mind right now) use the arc found on the Bf-110 base.
Oh, and ignore what I did for guns on the Ju.88P model. I must have been confusing it with something else.
It was a dedicated AT plane with either 1x75mm, 2x37mm or 1x57mm. Very few built and none really used successfully. Rear gun is standard A/A and the front ones are:
P-1 is a 75mm ground attack only. P-3 is 3 37mm, so D-D/D. P-5 has a single 50mm, D/A.
Karl
Aircraft notes for the WGS unofficial committee plane stats. Version 1.0 :
« Any maneuver deck with the modifier (Z) uses Zoe Brain’s system of moving just the length of the arrow on the card. These are for very slow planes, and may be further modified. »
What does this sentence mean ? :
« moving just the length of the arrow on the card »
Isn’t it the usual way of moving the plane ?
Thank you for your explanation.
the Z modifier indicates that it used Zoe Brain's movement method for very slow planes.
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...-cards-needed)
Basically, you just move the length of the cards arrow, not the arrow and the plane's base, as normal.
Not to be confused with the Z decks Zoe Brain developed for some slower fighters. Those decks start with a Z.
Karl
I am sorry the link is inoperative.
And I don’t understand this sentence « move the length of the cards arrow ».
Is the movement card is placed in front of the base as normal ?
And then ?
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?20126-Slow-Aircaft-Rules-(without-special-cards-needed)
Try this link.
If it doesn't work again, Go to WW2, House rules, page 2, Slow aircraft rules without special cards needed.
Guys, what is exact size of bomber base (B)?
Also, check me if I'm wrong, please:
Fighter base (F) is 67mm x 43mm
Heavy fighter base (HF) is 67mm x 86mm
Balloon base is 195mm x 90mm (19.5 cm x 9cm)
@ Karl
What do you think about editing post #1 and puting base sizes there?
I know the bomber base is 8cm long, but I don't know it's width.
If no one else chimes in, I'll check tomorrow, if I'm not too frozen to go in the basement.
Karl
Teaticket
01-30-2019, 14:19
Bombers are 8cm x 11cm, at least the ones from Keith are.
Thanks!
According to my measuring, original it was 111mm x 80mm (11,1cm x 80cm), but I used just a ruler. So, second oponion would be very welcome :)
Also, I have non of Keith's bomber bases.
Actually, it doesn't make such a difference (1mm is 1/25") but I believe it would be nice to have correct and exact measures.
The base sizes are the same as the WGF ones Nemanya - Andrea has given those for the bigger Giants (ie WGS Bomber Bases) as 8 x 11cm; the next size down for the lesser Giants (ie WGS Heavy Fighter) as 6.8 x 8.8cm - twice as wide as a standard base which is 6.8 x 4.4cm.
Dave, thanks!
I measured three different F bases (Ares), and they definitely were 67 x 43.
Than I measured Caproni's and Me-110's bases (Ares again) and they were 66 x 87 each.
I checked B-17's bomber base and it is 80 x 110 (my last masuring was actually wrong). Staaken's base (Ares), howerer, did show 80.something x 110. But it may be manufacturing flaw.
So, question is: should base dimensions be as Andrea said (as they should be in theory) or as produced?
So, we have (Ares vs. Andrea)
F base 67 x 43 vs 68 x 44
HF base 66 x 87 vs. 68 x 88. (However, theory says that HF should be double F, so maybe even 67 x 86 should be considered?)
B base in practice basically responds to 110 x 80 in both cases.
If someone could measure their bases it would be nice to know.
P.S. During weekend I'll get some measuring tools better than ruler, so I'll repeat measuring, just in case.
I did measure my bases to confirm what Andea said before I posted if that helps Nemanya. I think the sizes stated are what they should be, whether that translates to manufacture or measurement is another matter :cheezy:
Definitely, practice and theory differ...
Here are the dimensions after using calliper for measuring:
F 67 x 43
HF 66 x 87
B 80 x110 (one was 80.5 x 110, but that one probably shold be ignored)
I'm not sure an odd mm here or there matters to the game.
Karl
It basically doesn't, but I was curious :)
Karl,
what would be stats for Aichi E13A "Jake"? Wikipedia gives this:
Crew: 3
Wing area: 36.0 m² (387 ft²)
Powerplant: 1 × Mitsubishi MK8 Kinsei 43 14-cylinder air-cooled twin-row radial engine, 810 kW (1,080 hp)
Maximum speed: 375 km/h (234 mph)
Service ceiling: 8,700 m (28,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 8.2 m/s (1,610 ft/m)
Armament
Guns: 1× flexible, rearward-firing 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 92 machine gun for observer
Some aircraft fitted 2× 20mm Type 99-2 cannons in a downwards firing position in the belly
Bombs: 250 kg (551 lb) of bombs
EDIT
Deck: ZL, but less maneuverable?
Rear Arc: А/А
Climb rate: 6? (8.2 m/s)
HP: 15
Zoe Brain
02-24-2019, 16:32
HP = 10 + (2xEWIT).
Empty weight: 2,642 kg (5,825 lb) so 10 + (5.284). So 15.
Thank you, Zoe!
Is formula same for bigger and smaller planes? Because I guess "Jake" goes on HF base (what was the limit, 35m2)?
And, according to above formula, Mitsubishi A6M should have 13HP: 10 + (2x 1,680 Kg) = 13HP (13.36 precisely). But, depending on a version, they have from 14 to 18 HP. Does (lack of) armour have some part in it?
What are actual tools for calculating all stats (including firepower, maneuver deck, HP, climb rate and ceiling)? If it's not inappropriate to ask.
EDIT
Should it's deck look like (card numbers are put in the same order as they appear in PDF file ZL deck:
Page 1
1,2,3,4
5,6,7,8
9,10,x,x (11,12 are 90 degree turns)
13,14,x,x (13 is stall, 14 is Immelmann, 15 and 16 are steep sideslips)
Page 2
13,14,x,x (Card numbers are repeating, 13 and 14 are fast only sideslips, and 15 and 16 are 2-speed sideslips)
17,18
How this deck should be named?
Sorry Heмaњa; I missed this post of yours.
I'm actually not sure what is proprietary information and what's not. Zoe gave the basic formula for hits. It can be modified a bit based of known factors (like the B-17's robustness).
Guns is pretty much what you see:
A is 1 or 2 7.62mm MGs or 1 12.5mm MG.
B is twice that.
C is 1 15-20ish mm cannon.
D is 37-40mm cannon.
At long range, halve everything, so an A stays an A, a B goes to A, (here's the tricky one) a single C goes to A and a D goes to C.
So a P-51 with 6 50 cal MGs is B-B-B/B-A.
The D-520 with 4 MAC 1934 M39 7.5 mm MGs and a 20 mm HS.404 cannon is C-B/B: the C goes down to an A, and the B goes down to an A, so A+A=B ;)
Ceiling is the ceiling in 10Kms +1.
Climb rate is by a chart, which I'll let Zoe decide if it gets posted; it might actually be in the files.
Maneuver deck......here's the tough one. Obviously, the choice of deck based on top speed. From there, I look at wingloading and P/W ratios. Frankly, it's as much of art as a science (or a guess and by gosh).
For the Aichi E13A, I'm more inclined to give it a ZJ deck, for 2 reasons: first, you don't have to take out the 90 degree turn, which it shouldn't have, and second, though it has a very good wingloading and P/W ratio,
with the floats, I'm guessing the stall speed is higher than a CR.42s. So the slow speed arrow of 1.2cm is better for it than the 0.3cm of the ZL deck.
Climb rate is a 6.
I'm going to guess the downward firing 20mm cannon were for strafing, and in the place of the observer?
Karl
Helpful as always! Thank you!
So, stats should be:
Base: F
Rear Arc: А/А
Climb rate: 6
Ceiling: 10 or 9 (8.7 Km)?
HP: 15
About ZJ Deck (deck also needs name in ZJ family)
Please, see post 117 for reference, but ignore yellow crosses on the pictures :
1,2 (streights) 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (gentle turns), 13,14 (stall, Immelmann), 17,18 (gentle fast-only sideslips), 21,22 (dive and climb) stay in the deck.
11,12 (90 degree turns) discarded.
What about:
15,16 (steep sideslips)
19,20 (gentle two-speeds sideslips)
Discard or not?
About Armament:
(Guns: 1× flexible, rearward-firing 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 92 machine gun for observer
Some aircraft fitted 2× 20mm Type 99-2 cannons in a downwards firing position in the belly)
Did “Jakes” fitted with belly twin guns keep 7.7 MG too? Also, did observer use both of them (probably not at the same time)?
About crew
What were the roles of 3 crew member in the aircraft?
Hmm....my excel file doesn't have the ZJ as having a 90 turn :hmm: (the deck clearly does though; cards 11 and 12)
And I can't fix it in this computer because MS Office if turned off, so read only :hmm::hmm::hmm:
OK; deep breath: Delete cards 11 and 12. And the Immelmann (14).
Ceiling 10
Per the cannon: a quick google search gives a very confusing picture. The basic models had no cannon. Some were fitted in the field, and some in the factory with a flexible 20mm. But nothing about the arc.
It's really only the wiki article (and obvious copies on other sites) that mention 2 fixed guns. In all cases, they were for anti-ship or anti-sub use. So you can decide. The rear gunner would use the cannon (in absence of other info).
They did keep the flexible MG; use the standard rear arc of fire.
Karl
As an old Wings of War player, and Dogfighting enthusiast, I've since found good reason to further flesh out some of the Japanese fighters, and would love some help in this regard.
See, I ran across this anime that's a must see for any fan of Dogfighting, called, "The Magnificent Kotobuki"; if you don't believe that it's a must see, click here (https://www.crunchyroll.com/the-magnificent-kotobuki/episode-1-moonlit-guns-for-hire-782139), and fast-forward to 9:15, for when the planes take off, and the combat starts; then, once all the planes have re-boarded the carrier, go back to 8:09, for the historically accurate flight-check sequence; you'll be glad you did.
Anyway, most of these aircraft aren't represented in WoW/WoG in the specific, historically accurate, models used; I've gone to some effort to work some of that out, and I'd love some feedback on what I've put together, as there are some differences from the existing list, and some potentially worthy inclusions, as well.
Try to make your text editor's window widescreen and/or landscape; tabs may need adjustment; a Word file is also available, in a later post.
263545
Naharaht
02-26-2019, 20:17
The Magnificent Kotobuki is also available on Youtube.com
Thank you very much, Karl!
So,
Aichi E13A "Jake" stats (version without belly twin guns) would be:
Deck: ZJ(-). Take out cards 11,12,14 (90º turns and Immelmann card).
Base: F
Front arc: None
Rear Arc: А/А
Climb rate: 6
Ceiling: 10
HP: 15
Zoe Brain
02-27-2019, 23:17
The Magnificent Kotobuki is also available on Youtube.com
Must...resist..urge..to..repaint...
Zoe Brain, any feedback on the stats I posted?
Zoe Brain
02-28-2019, 04:05
Zoe Brain, any feedback on the stats I posted?
A case of "silence imploes consent". I can't think of how they could be improved, but I'll leave it to Jaeger to give the final seal of approval, as he's the WWII maven.
Just watched episode 1. Urge to play WoG while drinking beer and eating pancakes :)
Zoe Brain, any feedback on the stats I posted?
A case of "silence implies consent". I can't think of how they could be improved, but I'll leave it to Jaeger to give the final seal of approval, as he's the WWII maven.
To be honest, when I open the file I see a lot of words and numbers all over the screen. Can you format it better? Even in a word file, though that's read-only for me would be better.
Karl
Just watched episode 1. Urge to play WoG while drinking beer and eating pancakes :)
That is exactly why I brought up the show. Who wouldn't want to play Wings of War with those planes, after seeing that show?
The plot and characters of the show don't get any less absurd, but the Dogfighting is good through at least Episode 4, which is where most of my intense, "How do I convert these to Wings of War"? focus rested.
To be honest, when I open the file I see a lot of words and numbers all over the screen. Can you format it better? Even in a word file, though that's read-only for me would be better.
Karl
Sorry about that; I forgot that tabs are often inconsistently represented across individual computers. Here's a Word file, instead.
263633
As an old Wings of War player, and Dogfighting enthusiast, I've since found good reason to further flesh out some of the Japanese fighters, and would love some help in this regard.
See, I ran across this anime that's a must see for any fan of Dogfighting, called, "The Magnificent Kotobuki"; if you don't believe that it's a must see, click here (https://www.crunchyroll.com/the-magnificent-kotobuki/episode-1-moonlit-guns-for-hire-782139), and fast-forward to 9:15, for when the planes take off, and the combat starts; then, once all the planes have re-boarded the carrier, go back to 8:09, for the historically accurate flight-check sequence; you'll be glad you did.
Anyway, most of these aircraft aren't represented in WoW/WoG in the specific, historically accurate, models used; I've gone to some effort to work some of that out, and I'd love some feedback on what I've put together, as there are some differences from the existing list, and some potentially worthy inclusions, as well.
Try to make your text editor's window widescreen and/or landscape; tabs may need adjustment; a Word file is also available, in a later post.
263545
Did a quick wiki check; so this is an anime version of Crimson Skies? Could be an interesting game.
Karl
Certainly in that vein, yeah. A squadron of 6 cute girls operate a Squadron of 6 Mark 1a Hayabusas under contract to "Ouni Company" (a shipping and transport Company that occasionally engages in light Mercenary work, as the need and financial incentive arises), which operates a landing deck equipped carrier dirigible called the "Hagoromo". All the aircraft are authentic WWII aircraft, and appear to perform as they would in the real world (they take a very "Girls und Panzer" approach to the combat). Even if you're not into the "cute girls being cute" part of the show, the combat scenes are absolutely worth it.
What I'm really looking for is some constructive criticism of the stats I've worked up, and whether they are in-line with the other WWII historical aircraft. While, in theory, I'd love to do a commercial release of a "Kotobuki" themed game, I can't imagine I'd be able to work the licensing stuff out, so I'm content to work up the stats, and release some entirely unofficial fan scenarios; but I should really get the authentic WWII planes finished first, before I try and put some polish on the rest of the stuff.
Zoe Brain
03-03-2019, 23:29
What I'm really looking for is some constructive criticism of the stats I've worked up, and whether they are in-line with the other WWII historical aircraft.
All of the aircraft, bar one transport, the bomber and the trainer biplanes, have stats for them in the unofficial stats list. This includes the Hayabusas of various marks, which were cards published by Nexus, (and available as AIM models), so official, the Hayate and Ki-64 (official Nexus models), the Ki44 Shoji (coming soon as an official Nexus model, apparently), the Shiden (AIM unofficial), Ki-27(AIM unofficial)
I didn't recognise the bomber, I thought initially it was a Ki48.
All of the aircraft, bar one transport, the bomber and the trainer biplanes, have stats for them in the unofficial stats list. This includes the Hayabusas of various marks, which were cards published by Nexus, (and available as AIM models), so official, the Hayate and Ki-64 (official Nexus models), the Ki44 Shoji (coming soon as an official Nexus model, apparently), the Shiden (AIM unofficial), Ki-27(AIM unofficial)
I didn't recognise the bomber, I thought initially it was a Ki48.
See, that's part of why I'm posting here. The current unofficial stats for the Hayabusa Mark 1a has the same Maneuver Deck as the Mark IIb, in spite of Wikipedia saying that the top speed for the 1a was a good 25 MPH slower. Wouldn't the "K" Maneuver Deck be more appropriate?
I don't see the Kawanishi N1K1-J "Shiden" on the list, which is a pretty important "ally" plane in the series.
I'd like to get at least some feedback as to whether or not the stats I've put together on my own are correct or incorrect, and, if not, why, so I can better construct the additional unrepresented planes..
The Kawanishi N1K1-J George is in the Army planes on the UAC file; my bad.
The K deck would be too slow for the Ki-43-I. The C deck at ~315mph is between the Mk.I speed (309) and the Mk.II speed (329).
As I posted Ryan, the file doesn't come through on my computer. Here's a partial screen shot of what I see:
263769
So if you can put your stat data in a word or doc file, I can look at it.
Karl
Jaeger, it's in Post 152.
I see the N1K2, but not the N1K1-J. Wikipedia mentions that the K2 is a little faster, but it isn't clear by how much.
OK, got it (page shift caught me, sorry).
And yes, I did miss the K2. I have at least one source that would indicate it needs a different deck. Plus I just got the Osprey duel: Hellcat vs. Shiden/Shiden-KAI.
So let me check those for it, and I'll post here.
Probably Wednesday (my day off).
Karl
Are there any official stats for planes using the Type 99-2 Cannon, rather than just the Type 99-1?
The short answer is: Since they are both 20mm cannon, they have the same effect, a C chit at short range, and an A chit at long.
For more on guns, and how multiple ones work, see post 138:
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?22344-WGS-Unofficial-aircraft-list-Version-1-0&p=496750&viewfull=1#post496750
The longer one is that there has been debate in the past about how the guns work in WGS, and how cannon seem to be overpowering, esp the D class (37-50mm).
Many of the larger cannons are lower in MV or or have terrible ballistics, making it much harder to score a hit in fighter vs. fighter combat.
This is less of a problem against big bombers, their usual reason for using such.
The German Mk 108 is a prime example.
It's mostly been decided to leave well enough alone, as trying to fix this would add alot of chrome it a relatively simple and clean game.
Karl
The Type 99-1 was more or less equivalent to the MG FF autocannons in the BF 109s, but the Type 99-2 was a beefier gun, fed with 20x101RB Cartridges instead of the BF 109 equivalent's 20x72RB, improving both Rate of Fire and Muzzle Velocity. After factoring in things like interruption to Rate of Fire, and Muzzle Velocity (and neglecting the explosive rounds, I'm afraid), I estimated that the Type 99-2 Cannons should work out to about a 1.5x multiplier, when they replace it as a Cowling Mounted, Interrupted gun. Is that a mistaken approach, for some reason?
As I said, the game designer didn't account for such differences, and while there has been some discussion on the differences in weapons stats vs. the damage dealt, I can't recall any house rules on the matter.
If you want to propose some house rules for this, go for it. I would, however, be cautious in my approach. Figure what the base line for each damage chit would be, in terms of RoF and kinetic energy delivered (probably using the base MV). I would use the average gun(s), or at least the most common used in the war.
I know both the classic "planes on wheels" game, Mustangs and Messerschmitts, and the Fighting Wings games use this as a means to determine damage. In fact, if I was inclined to look into this, I would just tabulate the gunfire factors for each
aircraft weapon from FW, and use that. Not something I have time for right now, though.
Back to the N1K1/K2: I have to conclude that both models are close enough in speed to use the same deck. The data indicting higher speeds (up to 410mph) came from USAAF tests, and probably had the plane(s) fueled with 100+ octane gas.
The Japanese could supply no greater than 85 octane by this stage of the war, giving the lower performance.
Karl
Ryan; I did a quick look through at the Kotobuki file; I didn't have a lot of time today, as I'm trying to prep for a game Saturday.
A couple things stood out: Like the N1K2, the J2M3 Raiden has the wiki spec of 417mph. If you read the note, that was with 92 octane gas that the US test team used.
With the 85 (or less) octane the Japanese could get, the speeds were much less. So the wiki article really needs to be edited.
So the H deck is most appropriate for historical games. If you want the best that the plane could do, that's a different story.
Same reason I didn't do stats for the Ki-43 Mk.III; only a couple of prototypes were made.
If you'd like input based on this, it will take a bit of time.
Karl
The Ki-43 Mk.III is pretty important; they’re featured in three consecutive episodes, one of which features a truly massive airbattle; the opposing force, numbering at least two full Squadrons, consists entirely of Ki-43 Mk.IIIs, and just a few Suiseis.
The Octane issue is one I hadn’t considered, and you’re right to mention it. While the exact Octane used in the show hasn’t been mentioned, Episode 7 is all about fuel quality, as the company’s favorite fuel supplier gets sabotaged, and... well, things happen. ;) On that basis, it could be reasonable to say they are using better fuel, and therefore, I could just go with the wiki numbers, but I should certainly start from a historically accurate basis.
I appreciate contributions to this; thank you for your patience!
OldGuy59
03-06-2019, 14:52
The Ki-43 Mk.III is pretty important; they’re featured in three consecutive episodes, one of which features a truly massive airbattle; the opposing force, numbering at least two full Squadrons, consists entirely of Ki-43 Mk.IIIs, and just a few Suiseis.
The Octane issue is one I hadn’t considered, and you’re right to mention it. While the exact Octane used in the show hasn’t been mentioned, Episode 7 is all about fuel quality, as the company’s favorite fuel supplier gets sabotaged, and... well, things happen. ;) On that basis, it could be reasonable to say they are using better fuel, and therefore, I could just go with the wiki numbers, but I should certainly start from a historically accurate basis.
I appreciate contributions to this; thank you for your patience!
Ki-43 IIIa
10 prototypes produced (May 1944-Aug 1945)
Never put into production.
Max speed: 576 km/h (358 mph at 21,900ft)
Cruising speed: 442 km/h (275 mph)
Ceiling: 11,400m (37,400ft)
Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1990
ISBN 0-87021-313-X
With 10 prototype planes, not a significant player in the war, IMHO.
PS: For comparison: Ki-43 IIb
2,500+ produced (June 1942-Aug 1945)
Max speed: 530 km/h (329 mph at 13,125ft)
Cruising speed: 440 km/h (273 mph)
Ceiling: 11,200m (36,750ft)
PPS: The publication isn't clear about some of the production numbers.
Nakajima produced 10 Ki-43 IIIa prototypes, but no production aircraft.
Tachikawa built two Ki-43 IIIb prototypes in the spring of 1945, but the write-up describes production of both the IIb and the IIIa at the same factory. Total for the two types at that factory is given as 2,629 from May 1943 to Aug 1945. With the IIIa prototypes listed as produced in May 1944, perhaps up to half of the total Tachikawa production could have been IIIa's.
All the sources I've seen state the Mk.III was a prototype only; 12 made total.
I haven't read why they didn't proceed with it, but by late '44, 358mph wasn't anything to brag about, and better planes were to be had with the scarce resources.
There's an interesting article on the wwII aircraft performance site about tests on planes with 150 grade fuel, which I assume is 150 octane.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
Karl
The setting of “The Magnificent Kotobuki” is clearly not Japan; it’s clearly a parallel world of some kind, as evidenced by the English/Greek mixed lettering on their text, the use of money in the form of Pounds and Cents, and, most glaring of all, the live dodo bird (which, amusingly, is the official Captain of the Hagoromo, as dictated by the whim of the ball-busting female CEO of the Company, who wants to let the official “First Officer” know exactly what she thinks of him, by making him subordinate to the Crew Mascot). While the scenery might indicate Mongolia, I suspect it has more in common with the American Southwest. The fighters themselves are supposedly of “Yufang” origin rather than Japanese, but, assuming the “Parallel World” theories hold up, it was probably some operational codename the Japanese Army/Navy Airforces used while they were stuck there, pumping out planes for a war they might never get back to; Japanese Companies do similar things when they test out the product markets of another country, like “Nissan” did with “Datsun”; and the last thing the Japanese needed was an additional front to the war; so I assume that name was used by the Japanese for strictly plausible deniability purposes. For all intents and purposes, the aircraft are of historically accurate construction, even if their quantities (two full flights of Mark III Hayabusas as part of a Mercenary/Piracy “Company”) and applications (Army Fighters being used on a Dirigible Carrier, of all things, rather than a Navy Fighter) are a bit wonky.
My intent in posting here is to get the “Historically Accurate” part right, and apply the deviations only as appropriate (for instance, Air Pirates are known to re-pack spent cartridges, which would certainly up the malfunction rate of their guns). So the matter of there being so few Hayabusa Mark IIIs in the war is a bit moot for my purposes, even if it means that there isn’t likely to be more than one official Mark III card, for that reason.
Devastator (Wikipedia) has wingspan of exactly 50ft 0in. Is it HF base?
Zoe Brain
03-10-2019, 17:41
Devastator (Wikipedia) has wingspan of exactly 50ft 0in. Is it HF base?
Normal Fighter. It's right on the borderline.
As for the Hayabusa IIIa, use an A deck.
This is based on the logic that a Hayabusa was about as maneuverable as an A6M, and an A6M could turn with a Spitfire V at low speeds. In one test, while the outcome was even, the Spitfire was bent due to over gee.
Point is that Nakajima Kate (50ft 11inch) and basically the same role, goes to HF base. Plus, Devastator's wing area is bigger then Kates. Maybe Devastator should go to the HF, at the end?
I have both the torpedo bombers as HF bases. The tie-breaker was their maneuverability (or lack thereof).
Karl
Thank you!
I have also some doubts with Catalinas. Unofficial stats do not make difference between models, but only between periods - "to mid-1943" and "from mid-1943". I understand that as "all models had the same armament, but in 1943 everything changed and all Catalinas (disregarding model) received new, wider, arcs of fire and even some extra MGs".
Is that simplyfied view true, or is there some difference between models?
Long story short: what would be arcs of fire for PBY 5 and PBY 5A in june 1942 (having in mind both models were produced at the same time)?
OldGuy59
03-11-2019, 23:42
Thank you!
I have also some doubts with Catalinas. Unofficial stats do not make difference between models, but only between periods - "to mid-1943" and "from mid-1943". I understand that as "all models had the same armament, but in 1943 everything changed and all Catalinas (disregarding model) received new, wider, arcs of fire and even some extra MGs".
Is that simplyfied view true, or is there some difference between models?
Long story short: what would be arcs of fire for PBY 5 and PBY 5A in june 1942 (having in mind both models were produced at the same time)?
In a futile effort to find decent reference top-down drawings of PBY-5s, I have found this:
264379
My take on the Catalina, of any variant (I'm NOT a member of the Unofficial Stats Committee):
The above drawing shows three variants of the PBY-5(A), and I can't determine from these how the firing arcs are wider? There could be different firing arcs, and depending on the plane, and the service (RAF, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, USN, etc...) different weapons (single and twin gun mountings), but most would only be 'A' mountings, even with twin .30 cals (.303 Vickers), or single .50 cals. You could, depending on your reference, widen the nose arc?
The image above seems to show a ventral hatch in the tail of all PBY-5(A)s, for a tail gun, but how many were used, and how effectively? In game terms, this would add a ventral firing arc to the tail. Not hard to add, really.
I don't have enough info, nor decent images, to determine why the change was made to the bubble turret on late PBY-5As. The early PBY-5s could have had a low profile flat-top turret, as I have seen some 1939 images with them. This drawing perhaps shows that flat-top turret:
264380
Note: I think the above image actually shows the late model PBY-5A engine nacelles with air scoops, so I have no idea how accurate this.
Pub crawl at the Comox Air Force Museum on Wednesday...
I did found some fire arcs for PBY 5A or 6A, but I'm not sure do they count in 1942...
Thank you!
I have also some doubts with Catalinas. Unofficial stats do not make difference between models, but only between periods - "to mid-1943" and "from mid-1943". I understand that as "all models had the same armament, but in 1943 everything changed and all Catalinas (disregarding model) received new, wider, arcs of fire and even some extra MGs".
Is that simplyfied view true, or is there some difference between models?
Long story short: what would be arcs of fire for PBY 5 and PBY 5A in june 1942 (having in mind both models were produced at the same time)?
The change in firing arcs is due to the installation of the nose turret, which only started with late-model PBY-5s and 5As. (I suspect mostly 5As, but I can't verify). The turret was sometimes retrofitted in the field.
Given that most of the production were 5s and 5As, and this started in 1040, I would say most 'Cats' that saw action would be those. So the firing arcs for June '42 would be the "pre-1943" ones.
The blisters didn't really change the firing arcs of the waist guns; they greatly improved visibility for the search crews.
Karl
If you ever come to Belgrade, I owe you beer. More than one :)
If you ever come to Belgrade, I owe you beer. More than one :)
I would most enjoy that.
OldGuy59
03-13-2019, 17:51
In a futile effort to find decent reference top-down drawings of PBY-5s, I have found this:
264379
My take on the Catalina, of any variant (I'm NOT a member of the Unofficial Stats Committee):
The above drawing shows three variants of the PBY-5(A), and I can't determine from these how the firing arcs are wider? There could be different firing arcs, and depending on the plane, and the service (RAF, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, USN, etc...) different weapons (single and twin gun mountings), but most would only be 'A' mountings, even with twin .30 cals (.303 Vickers), or single .50 cals. You could, depending on your reference, widen the nose arc?
The image above seems to show a ventral hatch in the tail of all PBY-5(A)s, for a tail gun, but how many were used, and how effectively? In game terms, this would add a ventral firing arc to the tail. Not hard to add, really.
I don't have enough info, nor decent images, to determine why the change was made to the bubble turret on late PBY-5As. The early PBY-5s could have had a low profile flat-top turret, as I have seen some 1939 images with them. This drawing perhaps shows that flat-top turret:
264380
Note: I think the above image actually shows the late model PBY-5A engine nacelles with air scoops, so I have no idea how accurate this.
Pub crawl at the Comox Air Force Museum on Wednesday...
Well, the pub crawl was a bust. Two specific books on PBYs didn't have the information, nor top-down drawings of any PBY 5As, let alone drawings of different versions of the 5As. There were two books on US Navy aircraft, they also did not have many drawings, and few three-view types.
So, I have what I have.
OldGuy59
03-13-2019, 23:21
The short answer is: Since they are both 20mm cannon, they have the same effect, a C chit at short range, and an A chit at long.
For more on guns, and how multiple ones work, see post 138:
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?22344-WGS-Unofficial-aircraft-list-Version-1-0&p=496750&viewfull=1#post496750
The longer one is that there has been debate in the past about how the guns work in WGS, and how cannon seem to be overpowering, esp the D class (37-50mm).
Many of the larger cannons are lower in MV or or have terrible ballistics, making it much harder to score a hit in fighter vs. fighter combat.
This is less of a problem against big bombers, their usual reason for using such.
The German Mk 108 is a prime example.
It's mostly been decided to leave well enough alone, as trying to fix this would add alot of chrome it a relatively simple and clean game.
Karl
265132
[Edit: Updated with Damage]
Rabbit 3
03-16-2019, 06:43
Guys, what is exact size of bomber base (B)?
Also, check me if I'm wrong, please:
Fighter base (F) is 67mm x 43mm
Heavy fighter base (HF) is 67mm x 86mm
Balloon base is 195mm x 90mm (19.5 cm x 9cm)
@ Karl
What do you think about editing post #1 and puting base sizes there?
This got me thinking about base sizes since some time ago I bought some supposedly compatable bases from a third party manufacturer (not Keith or LITKO) then discovered something of a size variation between them and standard bases.
Some variation was discovered even between different production runs from the same manufacturer.
OK, Ryan. Sorry to leave you hanging. Life got away from me.
For both the N1K2, the J2M3, if you assume high octane gas, use the R deck on both.
And I agree with Zoe that the Hayabusa IIIa, should use the A deck.
Now I have to wonder what happened to the other Japanese aircraft performances late war, and when they had to go to lower octane fuels. :hmm:
Karl
OldGuy59
03-24-2019, 10:26
264457
OK, Ryan. Sorry to leave you hanging. Life got away from me.
For both the N1K2, the J2M3, if you assume high octane gas, use the R deck on both.
And I agree with Zoe that the Hayabusa IIIa, should use the A deck.
Now I have to wonder what happened to the other Japanese aircraft performances late war, and when they had to go to lower octane fuels. :hmm:
Karl
Karl,
What would you like to see on the above card?
Well, hits is 17. It's a historical card, right? So everything else is fine.
If Ryan wants cards for the Magnificent Kotobuki game, he should contact you.
Unless I missed something, all the planes he listed in the file, other than the N1K2 and J2M3 should use the official or already posted unofficial stats.
I don't have evidence that the stats I found for earlier planes were different than historical, and would be better with high-octane fuel.
My wondering was if they would be worst due to lower octane fuels.
Karl
OldGuy59
03-24-2019, 21:05
Well, hits is 17. It's a historical card, right? So everything else is fine.
If Ryan wants cards for the Magnificent Kotobuki game, he should contact you.
Unless I missed something, all the planes he listed in the file, other than the N1K2 and J2M3 should use the official or already posted unofficial stats.
I don't have evidence that the stats I found for earlier planes were different than historical, and would be better with high-octane fuel.
My wondering was if they would be worst due to lower octane fuels.
Karl
Thanks, Karl. Card updated above.
265136
Thanks for all the feedback, guys; I really appreciate it.
Anyone have anything for the N1K2 and the J2M3? Those are pretty important.
I'd love to have some card art done, particularly of the quality OldGuy59 is demonstrating, but I'll save that imposition for when there are actual stats; I figure I need at least everything required to run a scenario of, "Rahama's Longest Day", which is easily the biggest fight in the series.
Zoe Brain, Jaeger, for the Hayabusa IIIa, why Deck A, and not Deck G, which is more equivalent to Deck C, but faster? Or was Deck C not that great a choice for the Hayabusa to begin with, and it should be using something more like a slower version of Deck A?
Thanks for all the feedback, guys; I really appreciate it.
Anyone have anything for the N1K2 and the J2M3? Those are pretty important.
I'd love to have some card art done, particularly of the quality OldGuy59 is demonstrating, but I'll save that imposition for when there are actual stats; I figure I need at least everything required to run a scenario of, "Rahama's Longest Day", which is easily the biggest fight in the series.
Noted above:
OK, Ryan. Sorry to leave you hanging. Life got away from me.
For both the N1K2, the J2M3, if you assume high octane gas, use the R deck on both.
Karl
Zoe Brain, Jaeger, for the Hayabusa IIIa, why Deck A, and not Deck G, which is more equivalent to Deck C, but faster? Or was Deck C not that great a choice for the Hayabusa to begin with, and it should be using something more like a slower version of Deck A?
Zoe did make her point in post 170, and I usually defer to her opinion.
Now, that said, if you look at the ratio between high and low speeds, which is one measure of maneuverability in the game, the E deck (Yak-1) is probably the closest in the 360mph group.
I would have to look at the P/W ratio and WL to see if that might be better, but I'm inclined to go with the A deck.
Note: We really can't refute the designer's choice of decks, though we can ask questions about his choices. So the Hayabusa is a C deck.
Having looked into the data, I concur with Zoe; the Mk.III, if it had flown, would use the A deck.
Karl
Having looked into the data, I concur with Zoe; the Mk.III, if it had flown, would use the A deck.
Karl
Is that to say, in a hypothetical world where backwards compatibility didn't matter, that the Mark 1s and Mark 2s would use slower versions of Deck A, rather than Deck C, and that the only reason we aren't doing that here is official precedent from the core game?
OldGuy59
03-27-2019, 23:20
Thanks for all the feedback, guys; I really appreciate it.
Anyone have anything for the N1K2 and the J2M3? Those are pretty important.
I'd love to have some card art done, particularly of the quality OldGuy59 is demonstrating, but I'll save that imposition for when there are actual stats; I figure I need at least everything required to run a scenario of, "Rahama's Longest Day", which is easily the biggest fight in the series.
I don't have anything for the N1K2, nor the J2M3.
Hmmm...
There is an Official Painting thread for the N1K2, but no request for a card to me: Official Kawanishi N1K Shiden (George) Painting Thread (https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?17370-Official-Kawanishi-N1K-Shiden-(George)-Painting-Thread&p=261641&viewfull=1#post261641)
And also an Official Painting thread for the J2M3, also no request for a card to me: Official Mitsubishi J2M Raiden Painting Thread (https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?29003-Official-Mitsubishi-J2M-Raiden-Painting-Thread&p=467737&viewfull=1#post467737)
Note: If you'd like cards, top-down images of the paint jobs, as well as the names of units and crew would also be helpful (read 'essential'), not just stats, to create a decent card.
278237
[Edit: Downgraded damage resistance to 15]
Is that to say, in a hypothetical world where backwards compatibility didn't matter, that the Mark 1s and Mark 2s would use slower versions of Deck A, rather than Deck C, and that the only reason we aren't doing that here is official precedent from the core game?
WE don't know all the reasons Andrea made the decks the way he did. The only way that I can pick decks is to match characteristics to existing official planes. An existing deck can be modified by dropping a card or cards deemed too maneuverable for the plane, based on historical record and stats. Except for some discussion, like needing a 60 degree turn for the zero, cards are not added, except for dive bomb cards for non-I deck dive bomb capable planes.
The game designer says the C deck, so that's it. You are, of course, welcome to mod your decks as you like. Your table, your rules.
Karl
OldGuy59
03-28-2019, 17:22
The plane art is not mine, I stole it from a Kotobuki Squadron web site:
278240
[Edit: Downgraded damage resistance to 15, IAW Unofficial Stats Committee Update, November 2019]
OldGuy59, if you're that eager to do such good work, then maybe we should start up a new thread for the card art. XD
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?30998-Wings-of-War-WWII-Conversion-quot-The-Magnificent-Kotobuki-quot-Cards&p=499521#post499521
When looking at the V1.0 list, I don't see any stats for the Ki-43 II. I would guess the self sealing tanks and cockpit armor would slow it down a little but get rid of the easy pilot wounds and increased fire risk. Has anyone determined how to capture all of this?
When looking at the V1.0 list, I don't see any stats for the Ki-43 II. I would guess the self sealing tanks and cockpit armor would slow it down a little but get rid of the easy pilot wounds and increased fire risk. Has anyone determined how to capture all of this?
Bad of me to miss this one:
Deck: C
Hits: 16
Guns: B/A
Ceiling: 12
Climb: 3
On reflection, the KI-43-Is should probably go down to 15 hits.
The self-sealing fuel tanks were described as ineffective against 12.5mm ammo, so you have the choice of using the house rule for non-sealing tanks or not against USA planes.
Karl
Much appreciated.
I’m thinking for my own house rule, I’ll give the self sealing tanks a 1 in 3 chance of working against 50 cal and above.
In all reality, if a US fuel tank took a hit by a 2cm or greater HEI round, it was game over as well.
Another question on the Oscar (and Zero). What are your thoughts on the added maneuver cards for Deck C done by “Banzai Edition “? They seem to make sense to me as without them, Deck C is pretty unremarkable, leaving zeroes and Oscars with few advantages compared to the vulnerabilities. They did fly circles around allied planes early on, and with the vanilla Deck C, that isn’t really possible (at least in my rookie opinion).
Thanks again for your work on this.
Davd
OldGuy59
11-17-2019, 13:15
Bad of me to miss this one:
Deck: C
Hits: 16
Guns: B/A
Ceiling: 12
Climb: 3
On reflection, the KI-43-Is should probably go down to 15 hits.
The self-sealing fuel tanks were described as ineffective against 12.5mm ammo, so you have the choice of using the house rule for non-sealing tanks or not against USA planes.
Karl
So, changes to the above KI-43 card?
Another question on the Oscar (and Zero). What are your thoughts on the added maneuver cards for Deck C done by “Banzai Edition “? They seem to make sense to me as without them, Deck C is pretty unremarkable, leaving zeroes and Oscars with few advantages compared to the vulnerabilities. They did fly circles around allied planes early on, and with the vanilla Deck C, that isn’t really possible (at least in my rookie opinion).
Davd
Would that be the addition of a 90 degree right turn at slow speed that has been houseruled for the early zeros? If so, I agree.
So, changes to the above KI-43 card?
Is that card for a Ki-43-I or Ki-43-II?
Yes, there is a 90 degree turn, and a very wide side-slip.
Thanks,
Dave
OldGuy59
11-17-2019, 20:47
Much appreciated.
I’m thinking for my own house rule, I’ll give the self sealing tanks a 1 in 3 chance of working against 50 cal and above.
In all reality, if a US fuel tank took a hit by a 2cm or greater HEI round, it was game over as well.
Another question on the Oscar (and Zero). What are your thoughts on the added maneuver cards for Deck C done by “Banzai Edition “? They seem to make sense to me as without them, Deck C is pretty unremarkable, leaving zeroes and Oscars with few advantages compared to the vulnerabilities. They did fly circles around allied planes early on, and with the vanilla Deck C, that isn’t really possible (at least in my rookie opinion).
Thanks again for your work on this.
Davd
There were some house-rule maneuver cards added for the A6M 'Zero' for sharper turns and a side-slip (Link: Zero - Post #42 (https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?21292-Zero&p=338019&viewfull=1#post338019)). (Took me too long to find them, sorry)
OldGuy59
11-17-2019, 20:51
Is that card for a Ki-43-I or Ki-43-II?
Should be the Ki-43 Ic from your 'WGS Stats V1.0 2015'.
Should be the Ki-43 Ic from your 'WGS Stats V1.0 2015'.
Then yes, dang, I need to keep notes of my errata.
Karl
OldGuy59
11-18-2019, 22:51
Is that card for a Ki-43-I or Ki-43-II?
Should be the Ki-43 Ic from your 'WGS Stats V1.0 2015'.
Card above (Post #192) corrected to 15 Damage Resistance.
Gotham Resident
11-19-2019, 09:01
I will note my cards for Oscar updates.
Also on the Devestator comment, I think I printed my cards on HF size to make them easier to hit.
There were some house-rule maneuver cards added for the A6M 'Zero' for sharper turns and a side-slip (Link: Zero - Post #42 (https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?21292-Zero&p=338019&viewfull=1#post338019)
@Karl
Are those now unofficial official maneuvers? I love to use them.
@Karl
Are those now unofficial official maneuvers? I love to use them.
Being house rules, you may use them if you wish.
I have not, but then I haven't run a game with Zeros for a while. Hmm....note: will need to decide for Origins.
Karl
Teaticket
06-08-2020, 19:32
@Karl
Are those now unofficial official maneuvers? I love to use them.
Being house rules, you may use them if you wish.
I have not, but then I haven't run a game with Zeros for a while. Hmm....note: will need to decide for Origins.
Karl
I use them for my Zeros and Oscars. (will also for CW-21s) I think they give the Japanese the needed maneuverability they need. Lots of fun when flying them!
When assigning decks, what is considered to define the appropriate slow speed?
I have seen a few references on the forum to 'cruise speed'. However for most of the official aircraft the slow speed reflects neither the best endurance, best range or max weak mix speed. For some aircraft it's pretty close to max sea level speed which seems perhaps a little high but I guess the relative performance bis considered at a given altitude (i.e. the effective ground scale on the cards reduces with height).
I'm trying to puzzle this out for adding aircraft in Tabletop Simulator as I have the luxury of basically inventing new decks as nothing needs printing.
Any insight as to the logic used for the official unofficial list would be greatly appreciated.
When assigning decks, what is considered to define the appropriate slow speed?
I have seen a few references on the forum to 'cruise speed'. However for most of the official aircraft the slow speed reflects neither the best endurance, best range or max weak mix speed. For some aircraft it's pretty close to max sea level speed which seems perhaps a little high but I guess the relative performance bis considered at a given altitude (i.e. the effective ground scale on the cards reduces with height).
I'm trying to puzzle this out for adding aircraft in Tabletop Simulator as I have the luxury of basically inventing new decks as nothing needs printing.
Any insight as to the logic used for the official unofficial list would be greatly appreciated.
Sorry I missed this, Mark.
I know in discussions years ago, Andrea said the slow speed was related to the cruise speed. In my checking for decks, I haven't seen this to be the case.
When I look at a deck to assign, I look at top speed, wingloading and P/W ratios. In my view, the slower the slow speed, the more maneuverable the plane is in combat.
Look at the A deck (Spitfire Mk.II) and the H deck (P-40E). Both have a high speed arrow of 6cm (about 360MPH +/- 13MPH). But the A deck has a slow speed of 2.7cm
while the H deck is 3.8cm. So while they both turn the same at high speed, the A deck will turn inside the H deck at slow speed.
Then you factor in the side slips (which, frankly, I'm still trying to figure out the math for, rather than "it looks good").
The rules of the Committee are that we can remove cards from a deck, but not add any. I personally feel the I deck needs 30 degree turns; it makes no sense without them.
The most I do in bending tis rule is to take a deck, and change the length by a multiplier; this is usually for planes faster than 7.7cm straight.
Very occasionally, there is a plane that falls into a donut hole in the decks. I sometimes recommend this method for it.
Hope this helps; I really can't recommend creating totally new decks.
Karl
Thanks for the insights Karl. So far I have largely stuck to the official ARES or unofficial committee stats with the exception of the Zero which I have given the 60deg and extreme sideslips of the A deck rescaled to the C lengths. I will almost certainly add the 30 turns to the I deck too- it makes no sense not to have them when you need to fine tune your position for bombing!
In terms of totally new decks I will probably only need them if I ever get round to introducing jets.
Mike (OldGuy59) and I have been talking about jet decks using my system.
Karl
OldGuy59
12-12-2020, 17:17
Work in progress, attempting to add in the 30 degree turns for the I maneuver deck. Note that this required the nearly complete renumbering of the existing maneuvers.
The new turns are maneuvers 5 and 6 on this card, with the existing 45 degree turns renumbered to 9 and 10. I hope these are the right length and angle change (based on the fudging I was doing on the Jet maneuver cards).
295317
[Edit: Updated with blue outline on Left Turn white arrow heads.]
All the maneuvers after the turns required renumbering, as can be seen on the straights/sideslips side of this card. If this is approved, I will produce the opposite turns and renumber the climb/dive card.
Length is good, Mike. I can't check the angle, but I think they look OK.
Karl
OldGuy59
12-13-2020, 23:26
Second card with the rest of the maneuvers:
295316
Is version 1.0 found here (https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=2136) the latest version of the file?
It is. However see also planes being added to the 2.0 list:
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?33672-New-planes-for-the-V2-list
and correction to the 1.0 planes:
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?32890-Unofficial-aircraft-corrections-and-additions
Karl
mendieta
02-07-2024, 18:54
Why there is problem opening those aircraft cards?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.