Hi All,
I was just reading a thread in the wishlist asking for yet another Spitfire variant and reading the replies got me wondering as to the aim in introducing new planes and vehicles? Is it to keep the majority of players happy, to promote greater realism, or some sort of uneasy mix of the two? Also, how does the upcoming change over to a more missions based game work into all this?
I ask because it seems to me there are some glaring holes in the plane and vehicle set that will make historical mission play more difficult, From a historical point of view - we need more axis bombers, we need an axis transport, we need early war tanks including the Generic Sherman and so on, but what the players seem to want is always more late war fighters and variants, and yet those areas are already well taken care of.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I err on the side of historicism, and would rather see the introduction of planes and vehicles needed to plug historical gaps rather than historically little used late-war uber fighters that everyone wants to fly. Having said that I recognize that the planes and vehicles I want, will in many cases see little use in the late war arena where most players just want the technological edge on other players - hence the hordes of LA7s, Nikkis, Spit 16s, etc.
So how do you balance this? Does HT spend money to introduce historically necessary planes few pilots will fly or do you introduce unnecessary planes that will see a lot of use? And how does the historical mission based issue come into this? If we don't have the "gap" planes we lose historical accuracy in missions (The Battle of Britain without the HE111? War in the Med without a single Italian Buff and none of the fighters they used the most? War in the pacific without the Betty? etc.)
How does one strike a balance here that will work in the future?
- SEAGOON
PS: A moratorium on more US Planes would be a good start.
