Question on the Ratings of the Me109 in DLC'42

[doc99]

Why does the 109-F have a lower air-to-air rating than the 109-E?

[ivanov]

I guess the idea was, that the lower air attack parameter of the "Frederick" version represents it's weaker armament in comparison to the "Emil" variant. I suppose that the higher initiative value was supposed to offset it, but in fact it does not.

This is a theoretical combat result of the Bf-109E against the Soviet I-16:



And here Bf-109F against the same opponent:



As we can see, in the game the version F scores a worst result than it's older predecesor, which is wrong. In fact it was a major improvement, while the E variant wasn't actually much better, than the rugged, Soviet Polikarpov I-16. What is more, the Bf-109F is much more expensive in the game.

Can it be fixed with the next patch?

[doc99]

Interesting--in fact by your analysis,can the values of the two types be exchanged [the 109-F rate as 14 and the 109-E rate as 12 ]and fix the imbalance?

[Longasc]

Kerensky prefers the 109E due to the higher firepower.

But take in mind that the fuel capacity of the E is 41 and that of the F is 53 and the Initiative is 7 vs 11.
I think this represents quite perfectly the differences between the two versions.

The F will always fire first against most opponents, that's not guaranteed for the E.
You can still use it as the Red Army doesn't field an impressive Airforce early on.

Against the Spitfire I with 7 Initiative it is a clear winner, though the balance is here the high Air Defense of the Spitfire compared to the weak Air Attack of the 109.


That's something I really like about Panzer Corps: Air combat takes a little longer. OK, not on the Eastern Front...
But Spitfire vs Me109 is much better balanced than Panzer General's "who shoots first wins..." wiping out 50-70% of the enemy group and almost preventing a counter attack. The air battles were always extreme dice rolls that could go one way or another.
But one could also say it was an exciting feature to show the unpredictability of air combat and I wonder how people who always write "combat result predictor is broken" would like THAT!

Hint: open equipment.pzeqp in the \data subfolder with Excel to take a proper look at unit stats.
Delete the lines between Spitfire and Me109 and other fighters (but don't save!!!) and compare them, makes a lot of sense how they are portrayed balance wise, IMO.

[Kerensky]

From this thread, it seems the majority of our players still prefer the 109F though.

viewtopic.php?t=31618

So while the 109E has better firepower, the 109F is the all around better unit with more fuel capacity, more initiative(hugely important in air combat), and higher defense.

Does the 109F really need to be better? Consider the performance of the 109E (top) and the 109F (bottom) against the LA-5.
The 109E is clearly at a disadvantage on a level field (equal experience and equal strength) while the 109F is predicted to come out even.

[ivanov]

That's interesting. It seems that against more adavanced enemy, the Bf-109F's higher initiative becomes more important that the higher fire power of the Bf-109E.

[Kerensky]

That's interesting. It seems that against more adavanced enemy, the Bf-109F's higher initiative becomes more important that the higher fire power of the Bf-109E.

This is very much the case, and it shows how important initiative is in air battles.

Why else do you think the Bf-110 (F and G models), with its awesome 15 air attack value (Highest in the game until the FW-190 shows up), is actually a very poor dog fighter? It's not baked into the Tactical Bomber class, it's purely the result of the 110 having poor initiative.

It does make the 110 a very good bomber killer, I often use mine to hunt down Pe-2s and Pe-8s. In 1942 and 1943, I send it in after the incredibly rugged IL-2, and it typically achieves much better results than the 109E F or G, all of which have an attack rating of 14 or less.

[ivanov]

That's interesting. It seems that against more adavanced enemy, the Bf-109F's higher initiative becomes more important that the higher fire power of the Bf-109E.

This is very much the case, and it shows how important initiative is in air battles.

Why else do you think the Bf-110 (F and G models), with its awesome 15 air attack value (Highest in the game until the FW-190 shows up), is actually a very poor dog fighter? It's not baked into the Tactical Bomber class, it's purely the result of the 110 having poor initiative.

It does make the 110 a very good bomber killer, I often use mine to hunt down Pe-2s and Pe-8s. In 1942 and 1943, I send it in after the incredibly rugged IL-2, and it typically achieves much better results than the 109E F or G, all of which have an attack rating of 14 or less.

I guess the example of the combat against I-16 was a bit unfortunate - the Soviet fighter has a really poor performance, so the Bf-109E armed with more cannons can do more damage to it, that the lightly armed "F".

For now, we will wait and see as the campaign progresses, what will be the situation when more advanced enemy fighter appear. By the moment however, I'm going to sitck to my cheap and reliable "Emils"

[Kerensky]

In my opinion, that is the best kind of unit balance because it promotes unit diversity. Neither unit is 100% superior to the other, each has its individual strengths and weaknesses. If one is totally superior in every way, why ever use the other? It leads to a loss of diversity, and everyone's CORE just becomes cookie cutter.

For the record, I never use the 109F, I stick to the E and rely on Mass Attack rules to compensate for the weaker initiative.

[impar]

For the record, I never use the 109F, I stick to the E and rely on Mass Attack rules to compensate for the weaker initiative.

And what do you use to compensate for the lower fuel capacity?

[bebro]

My 2 cents: I personally would not base air attack stats exclusively on a plane's armament. You'd have to give the 110s higher stats than a 109E or F then.

I see air attack as a sum of several factors, though that's just me

[ivanov]

My 2 cents: I personally would not base air attack stats exclusively on a plane's armament. You'd have to give the 110s higher stats than a 109E or F then.

I see air attack as a sum of several factors, though that's just me

Of course I was thinking the same and due to that, I was expecting that the "F" variant will score a better result against I-16 than Bf-109E, despite it's weaker armament ( but higher initiative ). My example proved that it was not the case, however Kerensky's one proved that Bf-109F has a better performance against more advanced enemy. I'm thinking here of MIG's 17 and 21 from the Vietnam era. However MIG-21 had obviously better performance, in some cases MIG-17 was better ( for example it's armament was more useful against heavy F-105's ).

[brettz123]

My 2 cents: I personally would not base air attack stats exclusively on a plane's armament. You'd have to give the 110s higher stats than a 109E or F then.

I see air attack as a sum of several factors, though that's just me

I agree with you there.

[deducter]

If you get a +attack hero on a Bf 109 in DLC 39 or DLC 40, convert it to the F in DLC 41. Its performance is amazing.

I have 2 Bf 109Es and 3 Bf 109Fs for my Manstein core in DLC 41. I think the balance is very good. Frankly the Russian air force is not very dangerous, even in DLC 1942 and even if they have 17, 18 strength, given that the player will have 5-6 13-14 strength hero-filled Bf 109s. I am however still testing an equipment table with buffed up Russian fighters.

[hs1611]

For the record, I never use the 109F, I stick to the E and rely on Mass Attack rules to compensate for the weaker initiative.

And what do you use to compensate for the lower fuel capacity?

Airfields