Soviet fighter planes

[Molve]

The Yak-1 was a modern 1940 design and had room for development, unlike the mature design of the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The Yak-9 brought the VVS to parity with the Luftwaffe, eventually allowing it to gain the upper hand over the Luftwaffe until in 1944, when many Luftwaffe pilots were deliberately avoiding combat with the last and best variant, the out-of-sequence numbered Yak-3.

Two questions:
1) shouldn't Soviet aircraft have very low experience ratings rather than so very inferior equipment statistics? Currently, scenarios give a single XP rating to all units. I propose scenarios are edited to assign even lower experience ratings to Soviet air units (than other allied units in the same scenario), allowing the equipment to be tweaked upwards without changing the kill ratio for Luftwaffe pilots.
In other words: I feel the current dominance by the Luftwaffe to be okay, and I don't want to change this. Only it should be because you keep encountering zero-XP units more than the current fact, that every single one of the Soviet models suck badly.
This would also mean that when you no longer can afford elite replacements, you'll lose air superiority.

2) shouldn't the Yak-3 come after the Yak-9, and have better statistics? Currently I can find no evidence the Yak-3 is "out of sequence". Is the Yak-3 another aircraft?

[impar]

From Fighters of World War II, David Donald.

Yak-1, Spring 1940.
Yak-7, July 41, was based on a simplified Yak-1 made for training and liaison.
Yak-9, mid-1942, long ranged Yak-7, aluminium parts allowed for more fuel.
Yak-3, mid-1944, heavily modified Yak-1M, dogfighter.

From page 119:

The first Yak-3 was sent for NII testing on 3 March 1944 (long after some western accounts claimed the aircraft was in service!) and clearance for production was received in June.

and

... the basic aircraft soon established a tremendous reputation as the best dogfighter on the Eastern Front, on either side. There is a famous Luftwaffe signal telling pilots to "avoid combat with any Yak fighter lacking an oil cooler under the nose" ...

PS:
Oh! A Destroyer!

[Kerensky]

Russian units are under-going extensive rebalancing, but just to share some of the discussion to generate feedback....

Fighters:
Massive overhaul. As we previously noted, the Me109F makes all but 2 Russian aircraft obsolete. Add the player's experience and heroes on top of this, and the 109F can potentially make 100% of the Russian fighters obsolete.
All 1941 and pre 1941 russian fighters do not change (yak 1, lagg3, mig3, i-16) historically, these aircraft were destroyed by the hundreds, if not thousands, so it's perfectly acceptable that they are totally inept.
Starting from 1942, however, Russian fighters will scale directly to match equivalent German aircraft.

LA-5, The Historical fighter that the Russian used to answer the threat of the Fw190, will have stats roughly equal (slightly inferior) to the FW190A
Yak-3 Somewhere between the 109F and 109G in combat performance.
Yak-7 somewhere between the 109G and 109K in combat performance
LA-7 superior to the FW190A
Yak 9D slightly inferior to the LA-7, roughly equal to the FW190A
Yak 9U slightly superior to the LA-7



I think the Yak series is in a straight line because it makes more sense to someone not intimately familiar with Russian WW2 aircraft. Otherwise someone will go 'Why is the Yak 3 better than the Yak 7?' and the only answer is to look up the unit's historical performance.
Personally, Panzer Corps being a somewhat lightweight strategy game, I endorse this decision for the sake of simplicity and logic (higher number = better, which is the case for every other unit in the entire game, if I remember right)

From my Collin's Aircraft of World War 2 book it says....
Yak 1 March 1939
Wood wing steel tube fuselage fighter immediate success lead to Yak 7B, which entered production 1942.
Further refinement lead to the Yak 3 (at first Yak1-M) entering service in 1943.
Yak 7 turned into the Yak 9, which had metal wing spars and become the most numerous of all Yak fighters
Yak 9D was better than the 109G
Yak 9U was better than both 109 and190

[impar]

As we previously noted, the Me109F makes all but 2 Russian aircraft obsolete. Add the player's experience and heroes on top of this, and the 109F can potentially make 100% of the Russian fighters obsolete.
All 1941 and pre 1941 russian fighters do not change (yak 1, lagg3, mig3, i-16) historically, these aircraft were destroyed by the hundreds, if not thousands, so it's perfectly acceptable that they are totally inept.
Starting from 1942, however, Russian fighters will scale directly to match equivalent German aircraft.

Inexperienced fighters (german and soviet) would be roughly equal stat-wise, but the players "old" core fighters would have the advantage of experience and heroes?

I think the Yak series is in a straight line because it makes more sense to someone not intimately familiar with Russian WW2 aircraft. Otherwise someone will go 'Why is the Yak 3 better than the Yak 7?' and the only answer is to look up the unit's historical performance.

Yaks are not in straight line, the last one is the proper Yak-3. There was another Yak-3, a variation of Yak-1, that never really was produced in quantities, the Yak3 designation was then reused for the proper Yak-3.

Personally, Panzer Corps being a somewhat lightweight strategy game, I endorse this decision for the sake of simplicity and logic (higher number = better, which is the case for every other unit in the entire game, if I remember right)

PzC may be lightweight but it doesnt mean it shouldnt portray WWII units correctly.
As for other units in the game, Panther D* comes before Panther A, Ju-87R comes before Ju-87D. Even PzIII comes before PzIV.

From my Collin's Aircraft of World War 2 book it says....
Yak 1 March 1939
Wood wing steel tube fuselage fighter immediate success lead to Yak 7B, which entered production 1942.
Further refinement lead to the Yak 3 (at first Yak1-M) entering service in 1943.

Are those dates initial flight tests or initial production?

*- Should have -1 Soft Attack and\or -1 Close Defense, compared to Panther A, since initially lacked the hull machine gun. Only later "D" units had it, as well as a lot of the "A" improvements.

[Kerensky]

I agree that equal experience contemporary Russian and German fighters should perform on a near equal level, which is not what we currently have but what we do strive to have.

I don't think panzer III and IV is a good comparison as they are different families, and the Stukas are debatable, but that's a fair point on the Panther A and D.

Well personally, all my balance tweaks and ideas are done for game play purposes to make a better playing game. Pin-point historical accuracy takes a back seat to that.

Even we can find a happy medium that satisfies balance and history, great. If not, I promote good game play over accurate history.

So, to get back on topic, if there are suggestions and recommendations for better balancing Soviet aircraft in terms of stats and in game function, I'm all ears. If people just want to discuss history, well we'll do our best to satisfy historical accuracy but my work will always reflect stronger game play first and foremost.

[Horseman]

Well personally, all my balance tweaks and ideas are done for game play purposes to make a better playing game. Pin-point historical accuracy takes a back seat to that.

Even we can find a happy medium that satisfies balance and history, great. If not, I promote good game play over accurate history.

So, to get back on topic, if there are suggestions and recommendations for better balancing Soviet aircraft in terms of stats and in game function, I'm all ears. If people just want to discuss history, well we'll do our best to satisfy historical accuracy but my work will always reflect stronger game play first and foremost.

The way any game should be designed!

I too am all for historical accuracy but never at the expense of game play

EDIT: Armoured train? I want to be a Tank again!

[Molve]

Thank you for an interesting discussion.Just a few points:


Tweak conservatively. Don't overdo the upgrades. Keep the game experience first in mind; historical veracity only second. You don't want to accidentally drop the current difference in "feel" between the east and west fronts... This variation - in how much you need to struggle in the air war - is something I feel is a good thing that Panzer General brought and would be a shame to lose on the way. This is a game where experienced German veterans rule the battlefield; unhistorical but fun. It would not make the game better if this was lost. The idea is to make the late eastern air war a challenge for the German player. Not a push-over like today. But not a suicide (or an enormous prestige drain) either...


If (when) you do upgrade russian fighters, remember to tweak the scenarios too (unless you wish to change the current game experience: namely that the German player finds the eastern front much simpler to maintain air superiority on than in the west.
Namely, consider two things:
1) replacing fighter units for lesser versions. Just because the Soviets have started to manufacture a certain model doesn't mean all fighter squadrons have been issued with it yet.
2) specifically edit Russian fighter units to have little or no experience! Meaning individualized XP and not just going with the general level for the scenario.
The idea is that the units themselves might well have historic stats (and names!). But tweaks to unit stats doesn't mean the overall scenario difficulty needs to change! Any unit change should mean going over the scenarios it's in.


I see no good argument for keeping the current setup of the Yak-3, now that I know the PC way wasn't based on some source Wikipedia had missed. Unless I'm mistaken the current unit isn't then based on anything historical at all... (can't find any Yak fighter "between" 1 and 7...)?

Perhaps the simplest* solution is to switch names between the Yak-7 and the Yak-3? This way the 7 comes before, and with inferior stats, than the 3.

I think the Yak series is in a straight line because it makes more sense to someone not intimately familiar with Russian WW2 aircraft. Otherwise someone will go 'Why is the Yak 3 better than the Yak 7?' and the only answer is to look up the unit's historical performance.

You could also use the name "Yak-1M" if the out-of-order 3 is too confusing, but I do feel your customer base can handle it!

*) that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a "new" Yak-3 that is later and better than the Yak-7...

[impar]

So, to get back on topic, if there are suggestions and recommendations for better balancing Soviet aircraft in terms of stats and in game function, I'm all ears. If people just want to discuss history, well we'll do our best to satisfy historical accuracy but my work will always reflect stronger game play first and foremost.

Both, gameplay and historical accuracy, arent mutually exclusive.

More about the proper Yak-3 here:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avyak1.html#m3

The original Yak-3, which was originally designated "I-30" and offered along with the I-26 as an alternate design, made its first flight on 12 April 1941. This machine generally resembled the I-26, but was of all-metal construction and had a wing with dihedral on the outer panels. Like the early Yak-1, it had a ShVAK 20 millimeter cannon firing through the prop spinner and twin ShKAS 7.62 millimeter machine guns in the nose, but was also fitted with a ShVAK cannon in each wing. It was powered by a Klimov M-105P engine.

The first of two prototypes was fitted with a slatted wing to improve handling and short-field performance. The second prototype had a wooden wing without slats, in order to simplify production. The second prototype crashed during flight tests and was written off. Although there were plans to put the Yak-3 into production, the scarcity of aviation aluminum and the pressure of the Nazi invasion led to abandoning work on the first Yak-3 in the late fall of 1941.
...
There never was an operational Yak-5, but the Yak-3 designation was recycled and applied to a highly successful Yak fighter variant. The second Yak-3 was not really a new aircraft, instead being a continued evolution of the Yak-1. The powerplant was intended to be the new Klimov M-107 engine, providing over 1,120 kW (1,500 HP). However, the M-107 suffered development problems, and the Klimov M-105PF was retained. The most significant changes in the Yak-3 were a shorter wingspan; a new canopy with better all-round visibility; and a modified oil cooler scheme. Early production Yak-3s would have the same single 20 millimeter ShVAK cannon and Berezin 12.7 millimeter machine gun as the Yak-1B, but later production would have an improved ShA-20M 20 millimeter cannon, plus two Berezin 12.7 millimeter guns in the nose.

It reflects what I had posted before.

[Kerensky]

Both, gameplay and historical accuracy, arent mutually exclusive.

Okay so to reiterate: What would be the best way modify these statements, if at all, to reflect strong game play and historical accuracy?

LA-5, The Historical fighter that the Russian used to answer the threat of the Fw190, will have stats roughly equal (slightly inferior) to the FW190A
Yak-3 Somewhere between the 109F and 109G in combat performance.
Yak-7 somewhere between the 109G and 109K in combat performance
LA-7 superior to the FW190A
Yak 9D slightly inferior to the LA-7, roughly equal to the FW190A
Yak 9U slightly superior to the LA-7

Keep in mind that new Russian aircraft assets are mostly likely not available so we do have to work with our existing assets, and that in future scenario design, German aircraft (player core) will typically have higher experience than their more numerous Soviet counterparts.

[Molve]

To clarify, what are you asking, Kerensky? Opinions yes, but what kind? Hard numbers - like "give the LA-5 +4 to air attack and air defense (for 15 and 19 respectively)" to just make up an example on the spot.

From a gamer's POV, I want russian fighters that make me go "aw, sure am I lucky my air units are highly experienced and fully upgraded. If they weren't, those russians would surely have worn them to the bone. Now however, I can still enjoy air supremacy at least in my assigned sectors. Bwahaha!"

Currently, the LA-5 is 11|15. That's not going to scare any Fw 190A, no matter how inexperienced. I'd like important statistics like this to come from testing rather than the theoretical angle. Instead of going "well, the LA-5 features an engine this strong or that many machineguns, so it should probably have an 18 attack rating or whatever" I feel it's better if you do combat tests. If inexperienced Fw-190As get murderized while still allowing three star 190As to cruise the skies that's probably what to aim for.

Personally I feel the best "feel" is had when you respect but not fear your opponent. In other words, if the soviets foolishly attack your aircraft they shouldn't simply be able to kill them, they should need to sacrifice their entire force to do so. While on the other hand, you can't attack them without deliberation and careful reinforcements. Leading to a slightly more drawn out air contest than in the beginning of the game (where the Eastern Front is a turkey shoot).

Since there is no way to tell your units to evade combat, you can only try to position them well, and then hope the AI doesn't decide to throw everything at your air units. This is the decider, not just for air units but for the entire Panzer General/Corps game concept.

If you feel helpless your units are destroyed no matter what you do, then that's People's General all over again. And that isn't what at least I am after. If you get a cherished veteran killed it should always be possible to say "well, I got careless/impatient/sloppy/whatever".

Whether this means a 1 point advantage or a 5 point advantage (in air attack, or defense, or initiative) I can't say

It probably means you should scale back your plans a bit. Better to tweak the numbers and end up with the Luftwaffe still owning the air, than to tweak the numbers and have your players complaining their air units die unless on "life support" (there's a limit to how much elite reinforcements you can afford, after all).


By the way, when you say "no more assets" do you mean "no new little fighter graphics/audio" or "no more models period, even if they share looks and sounds?"

[Kerensky]

Either will suffice at this point in the discussion, but mostly a direction and general outline is most important to have before we break down the numbers.

I would assume there will only be a few, if any, additions to the stock equipment file or new unit models. As it is, I personally believe we have enough Russian aircraft already, we just need to make better use of them. We have to learn to play with the toys we have before we ask for new ones.

[impar]

Okay so to reiterate: What would be the best way modify these statements, if at all, to reflect strong game play and historical accuracy?

LA-5, The Historical fighter that the Russian used to answer the threat of the Fw190, will have stats roughly equal (slightly inferior) to the FW190A
Yak-3 Somewhere between the 109F and 109G in combat performance.
Yak-7 somewhere between the 109G and 109K in combat performance
LA-7 superior to the FW190A
Yak 9D slightly inferior to the LA-7, roughly equal to the FW190A
Yak 9U slightly superior to the LA-7

For historical accuracy, Yak-3 would have to move to mid-1944.
For gameplay, some soviet fighters might need better stats than they would have objectively.

Keep in mind that new Russian aircraft assets are mostly likely not available so we do have to work with our existing assets, ...

Mentioning this because of the small physical size of the Yak-3? The current Yak-9 art (especially around the cockpit-tail) seems closer to Yak-3.

... and that in future scenario design, German aircraft (player core) will typically have higher experience than their more numerous Soviet counterparts.

Well, unit-versus-unit balance should be made on equal terms (same experience), to balance the experience and heroes of the german core more quantity of units in a scenario seems a better approach than super-soviet fighters.

I would assume there will only be a few, if any, additions to the stock equipment file or new unit models.

Ah, some units are still missing...
Germans: Pz35, several PzII, Hs-129, Ar-234, Sturmpanzer 43, Sturmtiger, ...

[Kerensky]

So other than some concerns about the Yak 3, everything else sounds appropriate then, alright.

Mentioning this because of the small physical size of the Yak-3? The current Yak-9 art (especially around the cockpit-tail) seems closer to Yak-3.

This had absolutely no bearing on the comment I made.

Well, unit-versus-unit balance should be made on equal terms (same experience), to balance the experience and heroes of the german core more quantity of units in a scenario seems a better approach than super-soviet fighters.

We're in agreement then.

Ah, some units are still missing...

To plan unit balance around assets that may never be available is a recipe for failure, so we're focusing on making the most of what we do have. I speak only for the game as it exists now, however, whereas I would say it is highly likely that new expansions or releases of that nature will have new units to go along with them.

[Molve]

So other than some concerns about the Yak 3, everything else sounds appropriate then, alright.

It probably means you should scale back your plans a bit. Better to tweak the numbers and end up with the Luftwaffe still owning the air, than to tweak the numbers and have your players complaining their air units die unless on "life support" (there's a limit to how much elite reinforcements you can afford, after all).

By this I mean that while a difference of 9 like today (between La-5 and Fw-190A) is too much, a difference of only 1 (if that is what you mean by "slightly inferior") is probably taking it too far.

We all seem to agree playability needs to take first seat over historical "correctness", and the descriptions you give make me fear that the look and feel of the Eastern and Western fronts will be blurred.

Put simply, I'd take the "historical", vastly improved, numbers and then reduce attack and defense by 2 each, just to be safe. Call it a "representation of inferior aerial formations and tactics" or something...

[impar]

Taking a better look at this. Its frustrating...
Anyway, it seems some soviet fighters performance is under-represented in PzC and can be up-revised without sacrificing historical accuracy (much).
Gameplay should take a front seat over historical accuracy regarding attack stats.

Yak-1
The Yak-1 was better than Bf 109E but inferior to Bf 109F [9] - its main opponent - in rate of climb at all altitudes. And although it could complete a circle at the same speed (20–21 seconds at 1,000 meters [10]) as a Bf 109, its lack of agility made dogfights difficult, demanding high levels of concentration. In comparison, a Bf 109, with its automatic flaps, had a lower stall speed and was more stable in sharp turns and vertical aerobatic figures.[7] A simulated combat between a Yak (with M-105PF engine) and a Bf 109F revealed that the Messerschmitt had only marginally superior manoeuvrability at 1,000 meters (3,300 ft), though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) the capabilities of the two fighters were nearly equal, combat essentially reduced to head-on attacks. At altitudes over 5,000 meters (16,400 ft) the Yak was more manoeuvrable. The engine’s nominal speed at low altitudes was lowered to 2,550 rpm and the superiority of the Bf 109F at these altitudes was reduced.
...
For Soviet pilot Nikolai G. Golodnikov, overall, in its tactical and technical characteristic, the Yak-1B was equal to the Messerschmitt Bf 109G. French Normandie-Niemen squadron selected the primitive model Yak-1M (that had a cut-down fuselage to allow all-round vision) when it was formed, in March 1943.
...

Yak-1
By the time of the German invasion of the USSR on 22 June 1941, almost 400 Yak-1s had been delivered. Despite the deficiencies of the Yak-1, it was still better than the old Polikarpov fighters that equipped most other fighter units, but remained inferior to the German Bf-109F. Red planes were swept out of the sky by the Luftwaffe, with German pilots achieving a kill ratio of at least ten to one. However, few experienced Soviet pilots were lost; the bulk of the aircraft destroyed were obsolete anyway; and although the Soviets took much greater losses than the Germans, the USSR was much more able to replace them over the long run.

Me-109E < Yak-1 < Me-109F < Yak-1B < Me109G

Yak-7
After brief factory trials, the aircraft turned out to be better than the single-seat Yak-1, thanks to the modifications already applied to the UTI as well as revised undercarriage with bigger tyres and wheels, more efficient brakes and revised elevators, among other changes. Yakovlev submitted the Yak-7 to the authorities who approved it immediately. The firing tests at the scientific trials Polygon for aircraft armament (NIPAV) were a success and the armament was found to have no affect on the flight characteristics or the general performances of the new fighter. The aircraft's stability as a firing platform was judged far better than that of the Yak-1, the LaGG-3 and MiG-3.
...
The Yak-7 was introduced into the production line and the first batch of 60 reached operational squadrons by the end of 1941.
...
The Yak-B made 27 tests flights in January and February 1942. The reports noted that while the aircraft "was not inferior to the LaGG-3 and MiG-3 and to foreign fighters in service in the USSR", it was more stable and had better flight characteristics.

Yak-7
By the end of 1941, about 60 Yak-7 fighters had been built and the type had been in combat. Its flight performance was similar to the Yak-1, though it was less maneuverable. Of course, improvements were made to the type, with the fighter given the new designation of "Yak-7A" at the beginning of 1942.
...
Improvements continued, leading to the introduction of the "Yak-7B" in the spring of 1942. The Yak-7B was originally powered by the M-105PA engine and then the M-105PF engine, and also featured more powerful armament, retaining the ShVAK 20 millimeter cannon but switching the two ShKAS 7.62 millimeter machine guns in the cowling for two Berezin 12.7 millimeter machine guns. Given the high rate of fire of these weapons, this gave the Yak-7B good firepower.

Yak-1, LaGG-3, Mig-3 < Yak-7A < Yak-7B
Yak-7 should have better ground attack to reflect the rockets it could carry.

Yak-9
The new Yak-9 variant reached full production in late 1942 and early 1943. By December 1942, early production Yak-9s were in combat, participating in the great winter counteroffensive at Stalingrad.
* The first refinement of the Yak-9 was the "Yak-9T", where "T" stood for "Tyazhelowooruzheny (Heavily Armed)", fitted with an NS-37 37 millimeter cannon firing through the propeller spinner instead of the ShVAK 20 millimeter cannon. The variant went through evaluation in early 1943 and was in field service by the spring of that year. It proved very popular, with 2,748 built.
...
A long-range "Yak-9D" variant was introduced at roughly the same time, and featured four wing tanks, giving the machine a range of 900 kilometers (560 miles). The VVS had acquired a need for a longer-range fighters since the Red Army was now on the advance, and it was not always possible to have forward airfields behind the lines. Over 3,000 Yak-9Ds were built. The additional wing tanks led to a reduction in performance, and so in early 1944 a number of aerodynamic improvements suggested by TsAGI were incorporated into Yak-9D production to compensate.
...
Stalin did not make empty threats, and he rarely made a threat twice. Defects were fixed with a literally round-the-clock effort, and then Yakovlev and production engineers went on to add improvements. The result was the "Yak-9U", where "U" stood for "Uluchshenny / Improved". The Yak-9U was difficult to tell from the Yak-9M from the outside, but it incorporated a wide range of small changes to improve performance and survivability.

Yak-9
The pilots that flew it, regarded its performances at the same level of those of the Messerschmitt Bf 109G and Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-3/A-4.
...
Soviet pilots regarded the Yak-9's performance on the same level of the Bf 109G and Fw 190A-3/A-4.

Me-109G < Yak-9, Yak-9T, Yak-9D < Fw-190A < Yak-9U
Too many versions.

Yak-3
The Yak-1M was ordered into production with minor changes as the Yak-3 in October 1943, with first rollouts in March 1944. The type was being delivered in quantity to VVS frontline units by the summer of 1944. VVS pilots were extremely enthusiastic about the type, since it was a real threat to the Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf FW-190A and Messerschmitt Bf-109G.

Yak-3
The Yakovlev Yak-3 (Russian language: Як-3) was a World War II Soviet fighter aircraft. Robust and easy to maintain, it was much liked by pilots and ground crew alike.[1] It was one of the smallest and lightest major combat fighters fielded by any combatant during the war, and its high power-to-weight ratio gave it excellent performance.[2] It proved a formidable dogfighter. Marcel Albert, the official top-scoring World War II French ace that flew the Yak in USSR with the Normandie-Niémen Group, regarded it a superior aircraft to the P-51D Mustang and to the Supermarine Spitfire.
...
The new fighter, designated the Yak-3 entered service in 1944, later than the Yak-9 in spite of the lower designation number.

Fw190-A < Yak-3 < Fw-190D

LaGG-3
But the improvement was slight and without an alternative powerplant thus, when the LaGG-3 was first committed to combat in July 1941, it was completely outclassed by the Messerschmitt Bf 109.

Lagg-3 < Me-109E

La-5
After flying, the LaG-5 (the change in name reflecting that one of the original LaGG designers was no longer with the programme), Air Force test pilots declared it superior to the Yak-7, and intensive flight tests began in April.
...
In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5 made a forced landing on a German airfield providing the Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche wrote a detailed report of his experience.[1]
...
In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. It possessed a higher roll rate and a smaller turn radius than the Bf 109 and a better climb rate than the Fw 190A-8. The Bf 109 utilizing MW 50 had superior performance at all altitudes, and the Fw 190A-8 had better dive performance.

Me-109G < La-5 < Fw-190A
Yak-7 < La-5

La-7
Its first flight was in early 1944 and it entered service with the Soviet Air Forces later in the year.
...
The La-7 was felt by its pilots to be at least the equal of any German piston-engined fighter and even shot down a Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.
...
One regimental commander, Colonel Ye. Gorbatyuk, a Hero of the Soviet Union, commented: "The La-7 exhibited unquestionable advantages over German aircraft in multiple air combats. In addition to fighter tasks, photo reconnaissance and bombing were undertaken with success. The aircraft surpasses the La-5FN in speed, manoeuverability, and, especially, in the landing characteristics. It requires changes in its armament, and urgent fixing of its engine."[7] The twin ShVAK armament inherited from the La-5 was no longer powerful enough to bring down later, more heavily armored German fighters, especially the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, in a single burst, even when Soviet pilots opened fire at ranges of only 50–100 meters (160–330 ft).

Fw-190A < La-7 < Fw-190D

Mig-3
On 22 June 1941 at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, some 981 were in service with the VVS, the PVO and Naval Aviation. The MiG-3 was difficult to fly in peacetime and much more so in combat. It had been designed for high-altitude combat but combat over the Eastern Front was generally at lower altitudes where it was inferior to the German Messerschmitt Bf 109 as well as most modern Soviet fighters.

Mig-3 < Me-109E

[TempV]

The unjustly inferior Soviet fighters were the issue I much disliked in original Panzer General. When I saw same thing in the PC beta it really discouraged me to buy the game.
I agree with impar's assessment of Soviet and German fighters, Yak-3 for the sake of historical accuracy should be introduced in 1944 and be on par with La-7 regarding the stats.

[Molve]

Just as a reminder, though:

This is a game where you play the German commander.

Destroying loads of enemies are fun. Losing your own forces, not so much.

When it comes to ground combat, you are very much in control of which of your units you are exposing. Not so for air combat.

One reason Panzer General featured the "original" inferior Soviet planes could perhaps be to enhance the difference in look and feel between the western and eastern fronts. In other words, to maximize gameplay and fun.

Just sayin'... I mean no disrespect to the historical facts, but clearly the SSI Panzer General team knew what they were doing!

[impar]

This is a game where you play the German commander.

And when\if we play a soviet campaign?

What I miss from PG, in the air, is the zones of control. I understand why PzC removed them but it allowed to defend vulnerable units.

[El_Condoro]

There is a setting in gamerules.pzdat (AirZOC) that will reinstate ZOC if set to 1 (Default = 0).

[Some1]

This is a game where you play the German commander.

And when\if we play a soviet campaign?
[...].

I fully agree.

PC is neither Fantasy nor Scifi, but a history game (sort of). So axis and allied scenarios/campaigns should really use the same unit statistics in the game. While the statistics of an unit might be rather simplified, a comparison of two different unit should at least show the historically correct differences.
If it becomes necessary to tweak the game to keep it fun playing, this should be done with the scenario editor instead of "falsifying" unit statistics. This is also a realistic approach, as statistics of units used in WW2 are historic, known and fix, while the success of the player influences the war in a (seriously) non historic way, and by this the quality and amount of the units taking part in a scenario.