TRUE?

[Buckwheat]

 http://members.home.net/mefletcher/acesreview.html

[smitty-MOL]

what you expect from a wbs junky """go look at his home page  it s all about wbs""

[Sunchaser]

Well, I thought he was tough but fair and the review is  about 6 weeks old.

Good thing he missed the ostwind map.

The next version may address some of the problems he brought up.

I really hope AH prospers but I see tough times ahead for early war and the Europeans for awhile.

AH through the next release will be Pacific and there may not be sufficient interest in carrier landings and driving boats to keep massive numbers online.

I would suggest an early war planeset release shortly after the Navy arrives.

The Navy should come with a great new arena map too, perhaps something historic?

I have been messing with "THE OTHER ONLINE SIM" a bit offline (sure wish AH had some offline AI that fought back) and it is not bad.

Graphics not AH standard but that may change soon.

HTC has a tough road ahead for sure but they have the best thing going at the moment.

WWII Online is way off in the future yet and I think, unless they have some secret formula to support huge numbers online, it could be a disaster.

For the next few months HTC is in the drivers seat but price must drop if WBIII is any good.

A few early war planes for the Med or CBI and I am back no matter the cost.

{off to fly P40s, Hurricanes and E4s}




------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?

[iculus]

I have total respect for fletchman, but...

You can't review what you have not been following up on.  The message board and even reading the help documents on this website would key one in on the fact that AH has come leaps and bounds in recent time, and that Fletchman's review is completely out of date (we've had "pyrotechnics" for how long?)  I also feel that it is blatently unprofessional to keep a review like that accessable to the public without mention of what version was reviewed, and when it was reviewed.  Also this review assumes that AH is static, and not in continuous development.

I feel that AH has already "broken the mold", and that it has been for some time.  There is plenty going on in the way of strategy, and there are targets that actually make a difference.  A testament to this is the "ostwind menace".  I think that part of the reason it's such a problem is because it's such a novel concept to so many of us ex-warbirders.  There literally is a web of stategic targets that can slow down the ostwind threat to varying degrees, starting with the vehicle hanger, working its way up to the city.  

What a digression...  

Salute,
IC

[This message has been edited by iculus (edited 11-11-2000).]

[Jekyll]

You know, I just re-read Fletchman's review.

Making allowance for the changes wrought in AH since the review was written, its amazing how many of the glaring faults he identifies are still with us in AH.

Shame really... this could have been one hell of a sim  

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps

[Westy]

 That's an old review that has not really been updated, even though it says at the bottom, "Last updated on..."

 I have respect for Fletchman due to all he has done for scenarios and sepcial events for the communities of old AWDOS and WB's. But he doesn't like the old AW, WB or AH gameplay and it shows.
 I hope that he finds (or builds it himself one of these days) what he's looking for. I think WWII Online might be it, but I have a feeling it won't live up to his expectations for gameplay either.
 But like the old maid he may find that no one ever came along that was ever good enough to get hitched to....

   - Westy

[Dowding]

What's the big deal?

As far as I can see, this is one person's web-page, not some on-line magazine with a large hit-count. It's his personal opinion, and although he's more than welcome to it, we shouldn't embellish it with any more significance than that.

The guy then has the cheek to ask for a 'review subscription' as if he's some hotshot professional journo.? Pretentious or what? If he was a journalist, he would have made it more obvious that his 'review' was out of date and referred to an old version.



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-13-2000).]

[-lynx-]

Blimey... If anyone is stuck in a timewarp it's Fletch himself.

The review in many points is simply inaccurate (read - "untrue"), very biased and negative even when praise is being "distributed".

I'm very surprised by constant referencing to AW which was "overtaken" by WB back in 1995 - remembering "the good old days" when the grass was greener etc?

Tanks are far from being accurate models but 50 cals having

"NE" (No Effect) result" on a tank is borderline - you-have-no-idea-what-you-are-talking-about thing.

Jekyll - can you be a bit more specific on those "many of the glaring faults he identified". He listed a handful of things he didn't like/believed to be "accurate", withought even justifying his opinion - gunnery model is crude... Errr.. Ummmm... Is there a better one? No. What are we talking about then? Tanks toughness - err.. ummm... Just plain incorrect etc.

HTC never gave him a two weeks free account "to review further"? He should have asked JoeMud, not HTC (Image removed from quote.). Plus a 2 weeks trial was still there last time I looked.

I'm very disappointed at the negativity of his review. Maybe he's got issues with the guys at HTC - I don't know - but it surely is no "objective, professional review" of Aces High one would hope to expect from Fletch the guru of WB...

------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF