Which altitude list is current?

Printable View

03-21-2023, 18:53
RudeReality

Which altitude list is current?

New player question…as said in the title, which altitude/climb rate list is correct, the one linked from the Ares WOG web page, or as is my assumption, the one from the rules and accessories pack, or is there even another option, some errata buried on a thread here on this forum or elsewhere? Granted, I know it really matters little which specific rules are followed, so long as all players are using the same rules…but I’m a bit of a stickler for accuracy, so…

Thanks in advance for any help or nudges in the proper direction
03-21-2023, 19:15
Teaticket

1 Attachment(s)

Print the page from the ARES web site. Any changes will have been amended there.

If you have planes from another source other than ARES there are stats for them. See the unofficial stats below.

Attachment 324393
03-21-2023, 22:43
Honza

http://www.hoho.cz/app/wog/index.php?sbirka_databaze=1
03-22-2023, 04:39
RudeReality

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honza

http://www.hoho.cz/app/wog/index.php?sbirka_databaze=1

Already have this on both my phone and iPad, great tool! However, it is partly why I asked the question in the first place, as the database and chart from the rules and accessories pack are the same, but the chart from the ARES WOG site are different. Specifically, in my case, the Pfalz D.III- in both the above database and book, the climb rate is 3, max alt is 12, and the IIIa having a max of 13. However, the chart from the ARES WOG page list both models as climb rate 4, max alt 12. This both seems inaccurate, as the IIIa had changes specifically tailored to higher altitudes, and should not behave exactly as the previous model, as well as having the same stats as the Albatross. This is an unjust slight to my poor beloved Pflazy, and gives one little reason to play or own the Pflaz…even WITH the extra stall move with a dive.

So, yes…I have a dog in this race, and would prefer the book and internet database to be the most correct climb/altitude chart
03-22-2023, 05:14
flash

The latest RAP rules were published 2014; the ARES climb rates came out in 2021 so are the latest version/update.
With a climb rate 4, max alt 12, each Pfalz version matches the Albatros D.III for both and the Albatros D.V's for climb rate but not max alt.
If you wanted to tinker with the max alt for a Pfalz D.IIIa in your games I'm sure it would make no never mind to most.
03-22-2023, 05:36
Flying Helmut

That's what I do

Pfalz D.III climb 4 altitude 12
Pfalz D.IIIa climb 3 altitude 13
03-22-2023, 06:44
predhead

There are simply certain aircraft that are not modeled well. The SPAD XIII and the Pfalz D.III/D.IIIa suffer in the game. Aircraft that were superior in the dive do not reflect that within the game parameters. In the game a dive is a dive is a dive. I might suggest, as the Pfalz was a decent dive aircraft that after a dive is played add to the dive distance by adding a stall card length as part of the dive card phase. This idea I am stealing from Check Your 6, in which if a plane dives it has the choice of moving forward an additional hex, reflecting a faster dive than level speed and gaining a bit of extra forward distance.

As for climb rates for the Pfalz, I like Tim's suggestion. The Pfalz D.IIIa suffers enough in the game with that mediocre J deck, having the D.IIIa model climb a tad better is a good reflection of its abilities.
03-22-2023, 07:16
Flying Helmut

Oooh, love your Pfalz XII avatar! :sAprvd:
03-22-2023, 07:52
Flying Helmut

Quote:

Originally Posted by predhead

As for climb rates for the Pfalz, I like Tim's suggestion. The Pfalz D.IIIa suffers enough in the game with that mediocre J deck, having the D.IIIa model climb a tad better is a good reflection of its abilities.

IIRC, the Pfalz D.IIIa is one hex faster than the Pfalz D.III in "Richthofen's War", owing to its more powerful engine.

Also, it is often recorded that the Pfalz D.IIIa was faster than the Sopwith Camel at "combat altitudes", but the simplifications forced on the models by the Game don't allow for different capabilities at different altitudes.
In "Wings", it is significantly slower than the Camel - should be equal, IMO.
03-22-2023, 08:00
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Helmut

That's what I do
Pfalz D.III climb 4 altitude 12
Pfalz D.IIIa climb 3 altitude 13

Well, that's a good compromise between the two published versions.
Perhaps if they ever release the long awaited scenarios book they might clarify stuff like this but I won't hold my breath !
03-22-2023, 10:05
Le Piaf

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by predhead

(...)
This idea I am stealing from Check Your 6, in which if a plane dives it has the choice of moving forward an additional hex, reflecting a faster dive than level speed and gaining a bit of extra forward distance.

Btw any aircraft in WGF flies faster when diving compared to level flight as it actually travels a greater distance in the course of a phase to reach the same 'vertical point' :

Attachment 324412
03-22-2023, 10:25
predhead

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Helmut

IIRC, the Pfalz D.IIIa is one hex faster than the Pfalz D.III in "Richthofen's War", owing to its more powerful engine.

Also, it is often recorded that the Pfalz D.IIIa was faster than the Sopwith Camel at "combat altitudes", but the simplifications forced on the models by the Game don't allow for different capabilities at different altitudes.
In "Wings", it is significantly slower than the Camel - should be equal, IMO.

Hmmm, that is interesting. So, what faster deck would one use? B? The maneuvers are fairly limited in a B Deck.
03-22-2023, 10:27
predhead

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Piaf

Btw any aircraft in WGF flies faster when diving compared to level flight as it actually travels a greater distance in the course of a phase to reach the same 'vertical point' :

Attachment 324412

Yes, in the 3D that would be spot on, but there is also a potential for a significant increase in speed, which could add to the distance moved in the horizontal. I like the Check Your 6 method and might try it for Wings.
03-22-2023, 10:37
Honza

Is there a summary of changes they did in 2021 so i don't have to go through it one by one?
03-22-2023, 10:57
Honza

3 aircraft had the old climb/ceiling in the app. It has been updated.
03-22-2023, 11:13
Le Piaf

Quote:

Originally Posted by predhead

I like the Check Your 6 method and might try it for Wings.

You're right to want to test it :)
03-22-2023, 11:53
RudeReality

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honza

3 aircraft had the old climb/ceiling in the app. It has been updated.

Did I just help change the app with my first post here?! I’ll try to use my new power for good…lol
03-22-2023, 12:39
Honza

Quote:

Originally Posted by RudeReality

Did I just help change the app with my first post here?! I’ll try to use my new power for good…lol

Since i went through all aircraft one by one, which was something i absolutely did not want to do .... do not overuse it.
03-22-2023, 15:58
CrashCraig

Quote:

Originally Posted by RudeReality

Did I just help change the app with my first post here?! I’ll try to use my new power for good…lol

Remember Rudy - "with great power comes great responsibility" :lol:
03-22-2023, 17:23
RudeReality

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honza

Since i went through all aircraft one by one, which was something i absolutely did not want to do .... do not overuse it.

I’d be happy to do that for you next time, Honza…tho I’m not ALWAYS in the mood for such, more often than not I don’t mind doing lame researching/nerdy proofreading things like this. Doubly so since I was the one who pointed the discrepancy out in the first place, lol. Plus if it helps you to keep such a useful tool like the database running…how could I refuse?!
03-23-2023, 04:01
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by predhead

Hmmm, that is interesting. So, what faster deck would one use? B? The maneuvers are fairly limited in a B Deck.

The B deck is the faster version of the J deck, so that would match it with the Albatros D.V/Va. Good looking plane but it wasn't known for being very agile..
03-23-2023, 04:31
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by RudeReality

Did I just help change the app with my first post here?! ..

It's hard to keep tabs on things but I'm surprised this was missed as it was flagged & recorded where needed at the time, though I don't recall when Jan used data from my Updated Tactical Walk Through thread so it may have come after he took that lift for his app..
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...-Table-Updated
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...l=1#post563158

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honza

Is there a summary of changes they did in 2021 so i don't have to go through it one by one?

If only you had waited a while, Jan ! ;)
Pfalz D.III : 3/12 to 4/12
Pfalz D.IIIa : 3/13 to 4/12
RAF SE.5 : -/- to 4/12
RAF SE.5a : 2/14 to 2/12
Rumpler C.IV : 3/14 to 5/11
03-23-2023, 04:58
RudeReality

The maneuver deck for the Pfalz doesn’t seem out of order, IMHO, but the more I think on it, the more the recent(ish) climb rate/altitude change to the Pfalz seems a step back. The old climb rate of 3 and max altitude of 12/13 for D.III/D.IIIa feels more accurate…but I’m just a nugget around here, so…

Aside from that, maybe the handling of planes like the Pfalz, among others with better than normal dive abilities could be more accurately modeled, if I may continue to be so bold? My first thought, though seemingly the least likely, due to needing a new deck or addendum to existing decks, would be the addition of a second dive card. This seems, at least to me, the best way to integrate the extra speed and height loss of a superior diving airframe. My second thought is to change the dive on such planes to non-steep. This would allow additional moves otherwise not available to aircraft without the ability to dive harder, but doesn’t address the extra speed or loss of altitude. Having both changes (the addition of a non-steep dive) would really be a better reflection of the abilities of aircraft like the Pfalz, adding more 3rd dimensional options and giving a REAL reason for picking a Pfalz over an Alby, aside from 2 more points of durability (and the added extra stall after a dive if you have the Voss Pfalz with the addendum change)
03-23-2023, 06:17
predhead

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash

The B deck is the faster version of the J deck, so that would match it with the Albatros D.V/Va. Good looking plane but it wasn't known for being very agile..

As I thought. Thanks for confirming! I was re-reading Herris's book on the Pfalz aircraft last night...he infers that the D.III and D.IIIa were the same speed. He also gives some first person accounts about the performance of the D.III series...not grand. However, I also feel like he is cherry picking source materials a bit.
03-23-2023, 07:11
Honza

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash

If only you had waited a while, Jan ! ;)
Pfalz D.III : 3/12 to 4/12
Pfalz D.IIIa : 3/13 to 4/12
RAF SE.5 : -/- to 4/12
RAF SE.5a : 2/14 to 2/12
Rumpler C.IV : 3/14 to 5/11

Thanks Dave, i overlooked SE5a. Corrected.
03-23-2023, 10:05
flash

Quote:

Originally Posted by predhead

...he infers that the D.III and D.IIIa were the same speed. He also gives some first person accounts about the performance of the D.III series...not grand. However, I also feel like he is cherry picking source materials a bit.

I see that a lot. At worst the Pfalz D.III started with the Merc D.IIIa engine (180hp by British standards) used in and developed for the Albatros D.III, at best it had the same engine as the Albatros D.Va - the Merc D.IIIaü (rated about 200hp by British standards) an improvement achieved by changes to the pistons & carbs that likely gave it better the performance at altitude mentioned.
It may be the Pfalz D.IIIa was fitted with the latter but I wouldn't be overly surprised if they were the same speed if they both started life with the same engine which became the norm for most German fighters at that time.
In game terms the Pfalz just doesn't seem to make the fast speed band, unlike the Alb D.Va which does, so I think it fits well enough, and it fights quite well - just don't try to catch anything !

The late Dan-San Abbott posted this on the other Aerodrome forum

Quote:

1.The data I have on my Pfalz D.III drawings are:
Maximum Airspeed: 170 k/hr.
Empty weight; 687kg. useful load, 235 kg, total weight, 922 kg.
Engine: 170 Ps Mercedes D.IIIa.
Service ceiling; 5500 M.
2. The data on the Pfalz D.IIIa drawing are:
maximum airspeed; 181 k/hr
Empty weight, 695 kg; useful load, 235 kg; total weight, 930 kg.
Engine; 180 Ps Mercedes D.IIIaü.
Service ceiling; 6000 M.
I try to use accurate data on my drawings. Most of the information used comes from the British and French reports on captured aircraft. Mine came from various documents and the Idflieg Baubeschriben reports....
and he subsequently confirmed the speeds taken were at sea level.
03-23-2023, 12:06
predhead

So the D.IIIa was only slightly faster. J just feels....slow. Same gross weight as the Albatros, same/similar engine, sleeker (IMHO) than the Albatros. Heck, even about the same bracing wires. Not Pfair! :D
03-23-2023, 20:19
Teaticket

If the Pfalz D.IIIa had the same engine as the Albatros DVa it makes sense that it flies the dsame J deck as the Albatros D.III. The DVa actual stats have it close but not as fast as an Albatros D.III! So the DVa should also fly the J deck?