Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

What do you think is better: the Bf 109K or the Fw 190A?

Messerschmitt Bf 109K
2
8%
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A
24
92%
 
Total votes: 26

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:29 pm

Well I finished my AK campaign about a week ago, and I've noticed another interesting option... the Me 163. Only problem is how to upgrade to it? Although it has an awful fuel stat, it would probably be quite good for the defensive scenarios between when it arrives and the Me 262 in GC44.

What do you think?

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by ThvN » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:02 am

I did try the Me163, and I really want to like it, but it is a bit frustrating to use due to the short range and terrible defense. Initially I thought it would make a good 'green' unit because of the combination of high ini/AA to build experience, but it is very fragile. I still buy them sometimes, but on some maps they are very difficult to use...

It would help if it had higher movement, to represent its enormous climb/speed. The Fw 190 D9 is available at the same time (they get introduced within a day of each other), which is also a bit dissappointing; I usually stick with the A model until the Me262 comes around, which is actually suprising good value for money.

captainjack
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by captainjack » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:14 am

What were the combat results like for the 163? Did it ever get shot down?

If not, maybe the 163 should have higher Ini (20+) and a ridiculously high defence (because you can't hit it except by luck) but either 1 or 2 ammo to reflect that it has one chance to attack, and then it's 15 miles away. That way it's very good at hitting bombers but not very often and an aggressive attack on the forward airfields can render it useless.

I agree the 262 is good value - just started using them in 44 West and they are well worth the upgrade - especially the experimental reward from Messina which has a base strength 12 and (with a little help from the 4 range 12.8 AA gun) can take out a tempest without a scratch most days.

If I remember my Chuck Yeager biography he was the only pilot who ever shot a 262 down in flight, and that was while it was landing, although there must have some been damaged from flak and non-critical hits. Probably the more vulnerable Panzer Korps one is better for game balance but still...

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:37 am

captainjack wrote:What were the combat results like for the 163? Did it ever get shot down?

If not, maybe the 163 should have higher Ini (20+) and a ridiculously high defence (because you can't hit it except by luck) but either 1 or 2 ammo to reflect that it has one chance to attack, and then it's 15 miles away. That way it's very good at hitting bombers but not very often and an aggressive attack on the forward airfields can render it useless.

I agree the 262 is good value - just started using them in 44 West and they are well worth the upgrade - especially the experimental reward from Messina which has a base strength 12 and (with a little help from the 4 range 12.8 AA gun) can take out a tempest without a scratch most days.

If I remember my Chuck Yeager biography he was the only pilot who ever shot a 262 down in flight, and that was while it was landing, although there must have some been damaged from flak and non-critical hits. Probably the more vulnerable Panzer Korps one is better for game balance but still...
It had rubbish results due to being green and going against near-3* Meteors, but it has significantly better stats compared to either the 109K or the 190A in most areas (except fuel! - it makes a nice nuisance raider though!)

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by ThvN » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:00 pm

Well, combat kill claims are a big minefield, but there were plenty of Me262 and Me163 shot down. Ar234 as well, and not by Meteors but P-51, Tempests, regular prop fighters. Chuck Yeager probably was one of the first to shoot down a Me262; but certainly not the only one. Dozens were lost in the west, German ace Walter Nowotny was flying a Me262 when he was shot down by P-51s, and the Soviets shot down a few as well.

The problem with the Me262 and even more so for the Me163 was the fact that the Allies had basically achieved air supremacy at that point and even taking off and landing was dangerous; most Me262 would be shot down while trying to land or taking off, and this plane was especially vulnerable because the primitive jet engines accelerated very slowly and had little thrust had low speeds, even when they worked OK.

So getting in the air and accelerating away took too long, and airfields that housed jet fighters had rows of light AAA and even special units of fighters patrolling the area. The Me163 was even worse; it was a glider when returning to base and could not move by itself after landing, it had to be towed away by tractor. All this making them easy targets if any allied fighter pilot was near. Plus of course the 7-8 minutes of fuel endurance... In the end, Me163 losses were higher than its kills, but either stat was only a handful (14 lost and they inflicted 10-16 kills).

I've always liked the plane, it was probably the most advanced of its day, made from cheap materials but still ludicrously overengineered. Potentially extremely dangerous (for both sides, read about the fuels it used, it is a miracle they actually found people willing to go near them), but still a big failure. Oh, and the Japanese were making a copy of it with only the handbook and a few notes, because all the parts that were shipped from Germany ended up on the bottom of the oceans...

Now that I am thinking of it, in the game it actually performs better than in real life... 8)

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:46 am

ThvN wrote:Well, combat kill claims are a big minefield, but there were plenty of Me262 and Me163 shot down. Ar234 as well, and not by Meteors but P-51, Tempests, regular prop fighters. Chuck Yeager probably was one of the first to shoot down a Me262; but certainly not the only one. Dozens were lost in the west, German ace Walter Nowotny was flying a Me262 when he was shot down by P-51s, and the Soviets shot down a few as well.

The problem with the Me262 and even more so for the Me163 was the fact that the Allies had basically achieved air supremacy at that point and even taking off and landing was dangerous; most Me262 would be shot down while trying to land or taking off, and this plane was especially vulnerable because the primitive jet engines accelerated very slowly and had little thrust had low speeds, even when they worked OK.

So getting in the air and accelerating away took too long, and airfields that housed jet fighters had rows of light AAA and even special units of fighters patrolling the area. The Me163 was even worse; it was a glider when returning to base and could not move by itself after landing, it had to be towed away by tractor. All this making them easy targets if any allied fighter pilot was near. Plus of course the 7-8 minutes of fuel endurance... In the end, Me163 losses were higher than its kills, but either stat was only a handful (14 lost and they inflicted 10-16 kills).

I've always liked the plane, it was probably the most advanced of its day, made from cheap materials but still ludicrously overengineered. Potentially extremely dangerous (for both sides, read about the fuels it used, it is a miracle they actually found people willing to go near them), but still a big failure. Oh, and the Japanese were making a copy of it with only the handbook and a few notes, because all the parts that were shipped from Germany ended up on the bottom of the oceans...

Now that I am thinking of it, in the game it actually performs better than in real life... 8)
Well, in the case of the game it is equally likely that the Germans are winning the war (i.e. India/America), so I reckon those stats are representative of when it is in the air.

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by JaM2013 » Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:53 pm

i think it is not possible to comparate these two within the game. In reality, BF10K was high performance plane suitable for combat at 10.000m and higher, while FW109A was more optimized for fight under 10.000. This was also main reason why FW190 was also used as tactical bomber.

It is actually one of things i think Panzer Corps could improve - give clear distinction of plane ceiling, so planes that have lower ceiling could not engage those which fly higher (or at least have initiative penalty when doing so), while those which are optimized for lower ceiling should be a bit more effective at strikes against ground units. Same distinction should be made for bombers as well, so those which can fly high should be not possible to be intercepted by planes that couldn't get that high, while air defense weapons should also be not able to engage those unless they are optimized for it (88/90/76mm anti air guns). I think such changes could make game a bit more interesting, giving player an important layer to his tactics, and also give certain units clear advantages and disadvantages. (low flying planes should have better spotting than high flyers,etc)
Image

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:08 am

JaM2013 wrote:It is actually one of things i think Panzer Corps could improve - give clear distinction of plane ceiling, so planes that have lower ceiling could not engage those which fly higher (or at least have initiative penalty when doing so), while those which are optimized for lower ceiling should be a bit more effective at strikes against ground units. Same distinction should be made for bombers as well, so those which can fly high should be not possible to be intercepted by planes that couldn't get that high, while air defense weapons should also be not able to engage those unless they are optimized for it (88/90/76mm anti air guns). I think such changes could make game a bit more interesting, giving player an important layer to his tactics, and also give certain units clear advantages and disadvantages. (low flying planes should have better spotting than high flyers,etc)
Unfortunately most improvements done to PzC these days are bug fixes and new DLC. The spotting adjustment could work though (less than 10k ft =3, 10-20k ft =2, anything that flies over 20,000 ft =1)

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by JaM2013 » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:56 pm

yeah, i did that already to my eqp file. Plus im tinkering with ground defense for planes, based on ceiling, so bombers that can fly really high are much more resistant to ground fire than low flying ones. (but of course, heavily armored low flying ones still get a bonus for their armor) The only problem is the ADs... small caliber AA guns were effective agaisnt low flying planes but not so much against level bombers, while heavy AA guns would be the opposite... problem is, with current stat system, it is impossible to realistically distinguish between those two..

maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to adjust the initiative and damage for AA guns based on range and effective height, so heavy guns would have low Initiative but high damage, so they will be best to be used against heavy bombers, while small caliber AA would have lower damage and high initiative, so they would be able to protect themselves against tactical bombers.
Image

JimmyC
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:31 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by JimmyC » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:42 am

JaM2013 wrote:yeah, i did that already to my eqp file. Plus im tinkering with ground defense for planes, based on ceiling, so bombers that can fly really high are much more resistant to ground fire than low flying ones. (but of course, heavily armored low flying ones still get a bonus for their armor) The only problem is the ADs... small caliber AA guns were effective agaisnt low flying planes but not so much against level bombers, while heavy AA guns would be the opposite... problem is, with current stat system, it is impossible to realistically distinguish between those two..

maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to adjust the initiative and damage for AA guns based on range and effective height, so heavy guns would have low Initiative but high damage, so they will be best to be used against heavy bombers, while small caliber AA would have lower damage and high initiative, so they would be able to protect themselves against tactical bombers.
The only problem with that is that AA are rarely attacked directly by planes and almost always attack either in their own turn (when initiative isn't used as its treated similarly to artillery) or else in the opponents turn when defending another unit that is being attacked (in which case they always attack first anyway). So i think initiative isn't a very important stat for AA. Maybe its the best you can do within the limitations though...

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:30 pm

Looking on a month or so from when the vote was put up... It seems I lost this debate :cry:

Don't be surprised if you see more Fw190s in future ww2 scenarios that I design however!

As for the ceiling idea, when PzC 2 gets considered and then put in beta (not an official announcement, just speculation!), get in the beta and suggest it! Sometimes I think that many forum members have better ideas than some of the devs! (Put both together and you have a really great game)

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by JaM2013 » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:02 pm

JimmyC wrote:
JaM2013 wrote:yeah, i did that already to my eqp file. Plus im tinkering with ground defense for planes, based on ceiling, so bombers that can fly really high are much more resistant to ground fire than low flying ones. (but of course, heavily armored low flying ones still get a bonus for their armor) The only problem is the ADs... small caliber AA guns were effective agaisnt low flying planes but not so much against level bombers, while heavy AA guns would be the opposite... problem is, with current stat system, it is impossible to realistically distinguish between those two..

maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to adjust the initiative and damage for AA guns based on range and effective height, so heavy guns would have low Initiative but high damage, so they will be best to be used against heavy bombers, while small caliber AA would have lower damage and high initiative, so they would be able to protect themselves against tactical bombers.
The only problem with that is that AA are rarely attacked directly by planes and almost always attack either in their own turn (when initiative isn't used as its treated similarly to artillery) or else in the opponents turn when defending another unit that is being attacked (in which case they always attack first anyway). So i think initiative isn't a very important stat for AA. Maybe its the best you can do within the limitations though...

i think air attack should be not linked only with weapons, but also with plane abilities otherwise it is a bit flawed comparation for certain aircraft - for example BF110 was intended to be a bomber escort, while it had quite strong armament with 2x20mm MGFF and 4xMG17, yet, it was not able even to protect themselves, so they were transferred to ground attack duty or night bomber hunter duty. Yet, if you take stats directly from its technical specification, you end up with quite decent plane, with high attack, relatively good speed (570km/h) which makes it much more useable than it was in reality.
Image

RVallant
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:12 am

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by RVallant » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:20 pm

AA is fantastic to be honest, I've been using the historical core topic to try and use various units. The two I use;

The obvious 8.8 'ack-ack', because it just murders any hard target and decimates air units all the way through. In the grand campaign they're particularly good at air-escort for infantry as the years advance a bit - Moscow and Stalingrad, any city scenario requires that you move so slowly and cautiously that you have plenty of chances to move the AA into position. Oh and they're excellent on the defence;

Infantry, backed with Arty and usually flanked by AT, (if no AT then the 8.8 will switch at will) and the AA defends the arty hexes. Tac bombers don't do much vs infantry, usually anyway, and strat bombers will sometimes think twice; I've had lots of cases of air units zooming in to take out an artillery unit only to basically go 'drat' when they realise what's guarding them.

Mobile AA, I use the basic one (the truck) and one 7/1 (7/2). The 7/1 follows the tanks, tank destroyers and mobile artillery. They're so flexible in terms of positioning and movement that you can usually cover six hexes. They're also 'on point' for the mobile infantry in trucks and whatnot, tanks lead the way, trucks behind, mobile AA in the middle of it, often a painful surprise for the AI. They have superb ammo. The 7/1 is reasonably good enough to hit 3-6 kills all the way through to 1942, I've noticed it is starting to drop slightly now. The other truck AA is obviously a lot weaker, usually does 1-3 damage a shot, but the key with them is they have I think 10 movement to the 7/1's 8? I forget, but they're superb at manoeuvring, which is vital if I have various lines of attacks going on!

As for planes, I restricted myself to 4 fighters. I used BF109's exclusively as they're the only option in the GC for a while. When the FW came along it's kind of a no brainer to upgrade one or two of them because for me the 109's are losing their edge, especially against the LA russian fighter plane. I'll probably keep the mix 50/50, because ground AA reliably covers ground assets, leaving the fighters to escort around the front lines. I only have two Stukas, my other TAC is the ME110 fighter/bomber variant and the rest of the air force is 3 strat planes that are mobile artillery and usually don't need escorting that much. That means I just use the 'weaker' planes to escort and the superior planes to ruin the day of anyone daft enough to attack the Stuka and/or get into ground AA range.

ptje63
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Bf 109K vs Fw 190A

Post by ptje63 » Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:43 am

Definately Fw.190 - longer range/fuel, stronger, too much time to spend with 109's before upgrade. Fw.190 SE won't upgrade to 190D-9 though (?). At Afrika Korps/British India I have one 88gun, five Fw.190D-9's and one Fw.190A.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”