Quoted from another thread, this analyse very well describes problem about fighter statistics.
skarczew wrote:Main problem is that it is hard to show all qualities / roles of fighters in simply stats.
Example:
- some of planes were very good at low altitudes, while other ones were good at high; Tempest, La-7, FW-190A vs Mustang, FW-190D9, Thunderbolt;
- some of the planes were very agile - should the Air Defense be increased? What about planes that were very agile, but not too sturdy (like Japanese Zero)?
What about planes that were generally very durable, but not too agile (Thunderbolt)?
- some of planes weren't the fastest or best armed, but their power was in the phenomenal climbing ability (Me-109 in early part of war, Spit in 44-45) - how to balance them :] ?
I see two approaches which make sense to upgrade a unit.
Either new unit is going to supersede old one either new unit is going to supplement old one.
To supersede unit has to have better performance in crucial areas.
To supplement unit has to have advantage where old one has disadvantage and disadvantage where old one has advantage.
When we speak about fighters they are air killers so at first place air attack and on second place initiative is all important to them. So it is hard supplement scheme is going to work well here.
So to make better upgrade path their crucial statistic needs to reflect supersede scheme.
The other element important to upgrade path is availability date. This is a big problem for late war German fighters because many of them appear simultaneously and for certain Bf109 incarnations because there is no point in their appearance if something better is already available. Availability date should not be looked as month when unit becomes available but at which scenario does it appear.
