October 23, 2002, 19:07
|
#1
|
Warlord
Local Time: 04:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Posts: 192
|
It's a bird! It's a plane!
It's... 4 planes!
Here's the problem: I have to give stats to the F-15, F-16, Su-27, and MiG-29 for my new scenario. Right now, the stats are in the neighbourhood of 15 attack, 8 defense (not x2 vs. air) and 16 movement. Can you suggest stats for each of these fighters or, failing that, tell me which should be better?
__________________
I refute it thus!
"Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"
|
|
|
|
October 23, 2002, 20:58
|
#2
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,057
|
When is the scenario set? - all those aircraft have evolved considerably since they were first introduced in the later 70s/early 80s
Personally, I think that the Su-27 should have the same attack and slightly higher defence values then the F-15, and that the MiG-29 and F-16 should have the same stats.
__________________
'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
|
|
|
|
October 23, 2002, 21:14
|
#3
|
Deity
Local Time: 06:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mola mazo!
Posts: 13,118
|
It's BICYCLE REPAIRMAN!
|
|
|
|
October 23, 2002, 21:35
|
#4
|
Warlord
Local Time: 04:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Posts: 192
|
The scenario's roughly 1984.
But what about the F-15 in relation to the F-16, and SU-27 in relation to the MiG-29?
__________________
I refute it thus!
"Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"
|
|
|
|
October 23, 2002, 21:54
|
#5
|
Local Time: 05:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In search of pants
Posts: 5,085
|
Lawrence, could you explain your post?
|
|
|
|
October 23, 2002, 22:06
|
#6
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Goingonit
The scenario's roughly 1984.
|
OK. In that case the F-16 should primarily be a ground attack plane, and the Soviets shouldn't have many MiG-29s (you may want to check when the MiG-29 and Su-27 was introduced - for some reason I'm thinking that they weren't common until 1987+  )
Quote:
|
But what about the F-15 in relation to the F-16, and SU-27 in relation to the MiG-29?
|
The F-15 and Su-27 were almost exclusively used as air superiority fighters, and lacked the avionics and hard points needed to serve as bombers. The F-16 was primarily a light attack fighter, and had only a secondary air to air capability thanks to its Sidewinder missiles and crappy radar. The MiG-29 was an all purpose fighter, and was great in the air to air or air to ground roles.
To convert this into civ stats, how about the following? (note: I'm using huge numbers to make comparisons easy  )
F-15: A: 50 D: 50, HP: 5 FP: 5 air to air flag on
Su-27: A: 45 D: 55, HP: 4 FP: 5 air to air flag on
F-16: A: ? [this depends on how tough your ground units are], D: 50, HP: 4, FP: 3?
MiG 29: A: 40, D: 45, HP: 3 FP 3? air to air flag on
The lower hitpoints for Soviets is meant to reflect their lousy maitance facilities and the generally inferior structual quality of their aifcraft.
__________________
'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
|
|
|
|
October 23, 2002, 22:08
|
#7
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,057
|
BTW, check out: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/index.html for information on these planes
__________________
'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
|
|
|
|
October 23, 2002, 22:34
|
#8
|
Warlord
Local Time: 04:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Posts: 192
|
I'm already using the FAS site as my main source of military info. Thanks, though.
I'll implement your ideas. Now, how about 2 more planes:
Mirage III in comparison, and F-4 Phantom II?
Thanks everyone for your help!
__________________
I refute it thus!
"Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"
|
|
|
|
October 24, 2002, 01:12
|
#9
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Goingonit
Now, how about 2 more planes:
Mirage III in comparison, and F-4 Phantom II?
|
Well, the Mirage III was obselete by 1984, so it's stats should be quite low
How about : A: 25, D:15 [the Mirage was a lousy dogfighter], HP 2 FP 2
The Phantom was old, but remained an extreamly capable aircraft.
How about : A: 35 D:30 HP: 3 [or 4?], FP: 4
__________________
'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
|
|
|
|
October 24, 2002, 04:46
|
#10
|
King
Local Time: 10:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dilbert
Posts: 1,839
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by St Leo
Lawrence, could you explain your post?
|
It's an old Monty Python sketch. "Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's bicycle repairman!"
|
|
|
|
October 24, 2002, 20:55
|
#11
|
Warlord
Local Time: 04:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Posts: 192
|
I looked at various things (such as the OOB) and decided to replace the SU-27 with the SU-25 Frogfoot (lovely name!) to act as a Russian fighter/bomber.
Here are the SU-25 and Mirage III.
__________________
I refute it thus!
"Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"
|
|
|
|
October 24, 2002, 22:22
|
#12
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
|
SU-25 Frogfoot (lovely name!)
|
The Russians didn't choose it  Frogfoot was the name that NATO assigned to the aircraft.
It certainly beats the Su-17(?) Faggot
__________________
'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
|
|
|
|
October 24, 2002, 22:34
|
#13
|
Warlord
Local Time: 04:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Posts: 192
|
Where did NATO get the names? Fencer? Frogfoot? Fulcrum? Fishbed? Fishpot?
And it's the MiG-15 Fagot.
__________________
I refute it thus!
"Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"
|
|
|
|
October 25, 2002, 01:23
|
#14
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Goingonit
Where did NATO get the names? Fencer? Frogfoot? Fulcrum? Fishbed? Fishpot?
|
From what I understand, they wanted easy to pronounce names that were unlikely to be normally usedby pilots. Soviet fighter names started with F, bombers with B, cargo/special purpose planes with M, heliopters with H and so on.
The modern, commercial savvy Russian aircraft manufacturers now name their own planes
__________________
'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'
- Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
|
|
|
|
October 25, 2002, 11:30
|
#15
|
King
Local Time: 10:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: of Old Europe - "In America we don't trust"
Posts: 2,470
|
Su-25... Russian gruntos nicknamed it "Schiacciapatate" *in afghan conflict. More akind then several NATO nicknames for western planes...
( "Potato-masher" *)
|
|
|
|
November 1, 2002, 19:56
|
#16
|
King
Local Time: 09:46
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Scenario League
Posts: 1,350
|
To review the differences between the planes, i'd highly suggest reading up on their abilities at FAS.
http://www.fas.org/man/index.html
Check out ROW Military Aircraft.
That should give you the stats and the history of all those planes. Additionally, it will tell you their drawbacks and advantages, allowing you to interpret them into a Civ strategy. It also has a lot of photos if you're an accuracy freak.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46.
|
|