We got ourselfs massacred for 3 months (games) in a row now. We lost 8 planes and only shot a single DH4. I lost all my pilots.

We did get a Pfalz DIII and will get DrI and Albatross DVa now (next game is october 1917) but I am not sure it is enough. I did ordered a Aviatik/Berg DI also, it might help a bit.

How do you guys from the central powers deal with those guys?

Before now we had lost a single month the last 6. Of course were we extremly unlucky with the cards but still... There is no real light in the darkness until we get the Siemens Schuckert DIII (Brilliant plane but with the fatal flaw that the engine started to fail after 20+ hours) in mars 1918, 5 months away...

The Spad XIII is somewhat annoying too but it cant do the insame moves of the Camels and SE5As, we have been able to beat it all the time. Fast isn't enough, but those Camel right turns is another matter.

The central powers are still leading the war but just with 105 points (we have just below 3000 points) and now have those guys 2 aces while we have 0.

I think you're coming to understand part of *why* the Central Powers lost by the time uberweapons like the Fokker D.VII and the Siemens job came along, the CP were too far behind to catch up. (Among other factors.)

Don't worry, tho' you'll get another chance in a couple decades.... >

When I've got Albatros DVas up against Camels, I try to have at least 2 of them go after a single Camel. Less chance he can get out of both planes fire arcs if you space them out and that amount of firepower should at least badly damage him pretty quickly. Use hit and run attacks since you can't out-turn them. Keeping them in pairs also works in defence. If he's going for one of yours, your wingman (I prefer to have them positioned behind and above) should be able to move into firing position (one reason I give each player 2 planes usually). If he goes for the wingman, he dives and the leader pulls up and back. If one's tailing you, power dives are useful for getting out of gun range.

My Triplanes haven't had too many problems dogfighting Camels, main drawback is that they (and the SPAD XIII and Se5a) are able to outrun you if they get into trouble. Not much you can do about that, just have to hope that any shots you do get at them are effective. Unfortunately, in this game your pilots can't specifically target enemy crewmen or engines no matter how good they are.

csadn said:

Well, there was also the fact that the germans were outnumbered by more than 4 to 1the whole war.

If you count who had the best plane at a certain time it goes like this:

Oct15-Jan 16= Germany (the fokker scourge). Feb 1916-July 1916 =allied (DH2 and Nieuport 17). August 1916-April 1917=Germany (albatross time)

May 1917-may 1918=allied (Spad XIII, SE5A, Camels). And after that had the germans the advantage even if a few Snipes showed up in late september.

If you count the number of planes you lost and shot down I wouldn't say that the germans lost the air war (the allied troops shared vicories BTW, if 3 brits shot down a german they eached got a victory while germany only awarded one of the pilots a victory for each shot down plane).

But the true reason the central powers lost had nothing to do with aviation whatsoever, they lost on the ground because they were bleed out. It was however close, the german spring offensive looked really dangerous for a while. It also had a lot to do with morale.

Pour Le Merite said:

Funny you mention this the Allies acquired an intact Eindecker in this time period, and flew it against one of their Morane monoplanes.

Result? The Morane was superior in all aspects. This led to Pointed Questions being asked concerning Allied Flight Training....

csadn said:

Well, there are most likely several other reasons. Like the fact that the Lewis gun had too few shots in it. Tactics is also probably some of the reasons and there is of course the question if the Eindecker was one of the inferior Pfalz Eindeckers or a Fokker.

If you ever played Blue max you know how much bother the limited ammo of a Lewis gun is, Wow is very simplified here but a Lewis gun had 47 rounds. And the precision is greatly increased when the gun is fixed to the body of the plane.

From what I have read the fact is that german pilots where generally more agressive during this time (the Fokker scourge).

But the number of shot down planes tell their own tale, the germans ruled that period.

The reason of the Albatross success is more easy to explain, the allied (particulary the brits) had the stupid idea that one machine gun was enough on a plane for a long time. While some Nieuport 17s had 2 guns it was because the pilots added them themselves. They did try with 7 Sopwith Triplanes but since the flying abilities of it was lower they kapt 1 gun as a standard. And in the early days the used the Lewis gun instead of the Vickers.

Once however the SE5 reached the front in numbers the tide turned. 2 guns and superior agility. And not to mention the SPAD XIII, it was even a match for the Fokker DVII with its speed and ability to dive really steep.

Pour Le Merite said:

'Twas a Fokker.

Pour Le Merite said:

I have played _BM_, and have some notion of the failings of the Lewis gun; but that was the fault of the magazine, and the mount, not the weapon itself.

The aggressiveness youmention was a result of the Allies being convinces that their units were inferior; once that myth was dispelled, the Scourge ended. (At least, until the next generation of acft. appeared.)

Pour Le Merite said:

There's some question as to whether or not adding a gun really impaired the Allied units' flying characteristics all that much. If you read the history of the Hanriot HD.1 (my baby... ), it was believed adding a second gun would kill its performance then someone added one, and discovered its effect was as near nil as makes no odds. Had the Allies gone full-bore on the Hanriot at the time, who knows how much closer the air war might have been.

Mainly, tho', what we're seeing here is the sheer stultifying stupidity of the Allied command which helped make "the war to end all wars" not live up to its billing.

csadn said:

Yes, the problem with the lewis gun was limited ammo. It wasn't originally intended to use on a plane and was a fine gun but it couldnt compete with a Spandau, reloading the lewis was a bother and only a really good pilot could shot down a aircraft with few shots. It was however a good gun at night, that is why the 2F1 camel used it to shoot down bombers.

I think the myth added to the Fokkers scourge but it wasn't the only reason. Once the allied got DH2 and Nieuport 11 they were the superior ones, except in firepower.

2 guns did affect small planes like the Nieuport 17 and 27, the pilots themselves said that (but of course had the Nieuport a rather small engine). But in other cases like the Spad VII I think it was just some stupid idea that firepower wasn't that important and possibly also that they were being cheap. Also the germans believed that firepower was very important and worth some lessened performance.

The Fokker EIV is a good example of that, Boelke and Immelmann used it to a great advantage even though it was overweighted by the guns (most of them had 3 guns, some 2). Many of the Nieuport aces thought that the decrease in perfomance was worth the increase in firepower and I agree.

Once Wow releases more planes from 1916 we will see truly how firepower affects the dogfights. You do have to get the enemy in sight first of course but once you have that the plane with most firepower usually wins.