Author Topic: WW1 or Vietnam?  (Read 1584 times)

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2009, 03:32:28 AM »
I have no interest in either. Not Vietnam and especially not WW-1. The Sopwith Camel went about 115 mph tops and climbed at a rate of 1,085 fps. It had two 7.7mm MGs. I dont think many are going to jump from a Tempest into a biplane with a lawn mower engine and keep coming back for more. They may say they will now but I doubt very many actually will. There are never any crowds in the EWA now as it is.

A B-24 bomber climbs as well as a Sopwith Camel. And it was one of the better climbers in the war. I just dont see the fun in spending 30 mins just climbing and flying a sector looking for a fight in a fighter.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2009, 04:51:25 AM »
Well Rich the scale needs to be different for WWI combat.

Almost all action was close to where the planes were located. Front tended to be static, and allowed for buildup of guns, airodromes for planes, etc.

Shouldn't ever have to fly more than 5 - 10 miles in a WWI sim, and at 100 mph your looking at no more flight time to find a fight than we have now.

Also WWI saw the last of  Aerial Chivalry, it was more about personal honor and code of conduct than winning at all costs.
This would not be a bad thing to bring back to this community. Also, the balance of who had the advantage shifted several times in the "Great war". So choosing the time, and the planes involved lets you do a better job of balancing gameplay.
Fights are slower, lower, armament is weaker, planes are capable of less. All of which puts more emphasis on pilot skill and situation, and less on plane advantage.  All this is good stuff for those interested.

If your not interested, thats fine, many won't be.

On the other hand. The basic coad for AH will work the same be it WWI or WWII planes which are enabled.
Terrain is terrain, WWI is actually simplier, because you don't have as much stuff to worry about. There are no 20mm guns.
Don't think either side fielded a .50 mg in any numbers. You have artillery with fuzed shells for AA, and planes. Thats pretty much it. Bases can and should be close together, separated by a static no mans land. So in theory, a couple of AH employee's could come in weekends and work on this project and give us another arena, another choice.  Planes compared to AH are dead simple. (and I suspect they already have 2 or 3 of them built)

After all if HT can coad the Rv-8, whats so hard about a Spad or Fokker?

Also I'm giving HT credit, for having done all this once before.
Knowing where the pitfalls lay, and trust that he'll steer us around them.

Instead of 2 separate sims with different software, owned by one company, 1 Front End capable of running either WWI or WWII depending on which arena you join.

Its not DOA, it shouldn't adversely effect AH, so I don't see why not give it a shot.
And if down the road, if they can do the same thing for Korea? (especially if they keep it early in the campaign, no missles)
More variety, something different to do when you burn out on the late war scene, keep it interesting, appeals to a wider audience. Means that life is good for HTC and Aces High and will stay that way.


Offline Plawranc

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2683
      • Youtube Channel
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2009, 05:41:16 AM »
WW1 was whre the dogfight was invented and i miss all the good ww1 sims so Bring on the camels and triplanes cuz i wanna Dogfight with style oh and AvA ww1 arena would be AWESOME
DaPacman - 71 Squadron RAF

"There are only two things that make life worth living. Fornication and Aviation"

Offline nick172

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2009, 10:10:57 AM »
I agree why would they even consider doing a ww1, when the ww2 sim is not compleate. Missing ALOT of planes, graphics need to be updated.....  But yes I would like to have a ww1 flying game to play.

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2009, 10:25:59 AM »


 I just dont see the fun in spending 30 mins just climbing and flying a sector looking for a fight in a fighter.


A specious objection. Common sense tells us that the bases in a WWI arena would be placed closer together than they are in the WWII, in deference to the low speed of the craft.
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline skullman

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2009, 11:31:16 AM »
I would love to see WWI arena opened-great fights over no man land-but I feel korea would satisfy more people-you have plenty of gv action,prop and jet fighters-just overal more things to satisfy eveyone
been there destroyed that

Offline pervert

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2009, 11:05:15 PM »
Love WW1 love red baron 3d! Love the fact that the fights are longer due too the mg armament. Also looks like it would be
purely plane too plane stuff I can't really see any other scope for any other form of combat (maybe pilots with .45s running around no mans land shooting each other  :D) I know from my trawls around the web for RB3D that there was quite a strong and dedicated ww1 community
who even went too the lengths of modifying the likes of RB to update graphics although I think from what I've read there was only so much that could be done with the game and people left.

This could be a huge tard filter  :D

Offline flatiron1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2009, 12:54:21 AM »
huey and cobras

Offline simshell

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 786
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2009, 01:15:46 AM »
there still will be no honor

people will gangbang in camels instead of Spitfires
known as Arctic in the main

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2009, 08:28:24 AM »


"Common sense" would lead one to assume if we have such a problem getting new maps in a game with thousands involved what are the odds of getting them with only a few involved?

Quote
A specious objection. Common sense tells us that the bases in a WWI arena would be placed closer together than they are in the WWII, in deference to the low speed of the craft.

"Common sense" would also dictate that, if the past is any guage of the future, that 9 out of 10 who say they will fly in a WW-l arena actually wont! Doubt me? Then look at EWA participation. Thats also a competative arena with less performing aircraft, no different then a WW-l one would be, and its mostly a ghost town compared to the LWA's.

I dont mean to rain on anyones parade here Ghost I just dont think WW-l would go off that well with the majority of the hoarders in this game. While there are some purists 95% of these guys wouldn't leave their LAs and Spit-16s no-how and no-way. Myself? If I wanted to float along in a WW-l fighter I'd have bought a game for them. My interests lie in the era that saw the ultimate gun fighters and for that same reason I have no interest in launching sidewinders from Jets.

This is just my opinion. I think a WW-l arena would waste resources needed already to upgrade and improve their current sim.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline skullman

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2009, 10:24:41 AM »
would love to see wwI but feel not enough to hold interest-korea offers more variety to offer something for everyone
been there destroyed that

Offline BnZs

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4207
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2009, 10:26:23 AM »

"Common sense" would lead one to assume if we have such a problem getting new maps in a game with thousands involved what are the odds of getting them with only a few involved?


I see plenty of custom made maps for FSO. If they ever add WWI airplanes, at least one custom map will show up rather quickly. If map of the Western Front with bases relatively close together across "No Man's Land" ever gets made, that will be enough. No, the idea that we will be stuck using maps designed for the current MAs is farcical.


"Common sense" would also dictate that, if the past is any guage of the future, that 9 out of 10 who say they will fly in a WW-l arena actually wont! Doubt me? Then look at EWA participation. Thats also a competative arena with less performing aircraft, no different then a WW-l one would be, and its mostly a ghost town compared to the LWA's.

The EWA is not qualitatively different from the LWA, and you can fly EWA successfully in the latter. The problem with the EWA combat is that it is identical to the LWA with less variety. Well, as far as variety goes, EWA mostly HurriIIc on HurrIIc violence.

 Since there is nothing to stop you from flying a Hurri MkI in the LWA, why not do it there? Engaging in SpitV vs. SpitV is not sufficiently different from engaging SpitXVI vs. SpitXVI to be a draw, engaging a Zero with a P-40 is not a different enough proposition from engaging a N1K with a P-51 to make any difference.

WWI air combat, with an ample plane set, each modeled with their quirks, WILL be qualitatively different. As I mentioned in a different post, and what people are failing to understand, is that the slowness of the planes coupled with their relatively miniscule wing-loading and short-range firepower makes the combat closer, more visceral, in that way it has a "faster" feel.



This is just my opinion. I think a WW-l arena would waste resources needed already to upgrade and improve their current sim.

The current sim is far from terminally ill, and if anything, HTC probably has a better chance of attracting new customers by adding WWI combat.
"Crikey, sir. I'm looking forward to today. Up diddly up, down diddly down, whoops, poop, twiddly dee - decent scrap with the fiendish Red Baron - bit of a jolly old crash landing behind enemy lines - capture, torture, escape, and then back home in time for tea and medals."

Offline Unit791

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 315
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2009, 11:06:14 AM »
I vote niether, i think its awesome enough as WW2 aircraft.  And come on, P47 versus MiG-21? Or N1K versus Sopwith Camel?  I really hope it stays WORLD WAR 2 aircraft.
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns, we do not allow our enemies to have guns, why should be allow them to have ideas?"-
Josef Stalin


Mauser

Offline pervert

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2009, 01:34:44 PM »
I dont mean to rain on anyones parade here Ghost I just dont think WW-l would go off that well with the majority of the hoarders in this game. While there are some purists 95% of these guys wouldn't leave their LAs and Spit-16s no-how and no-way.

I agree, but maybe thats the whole point ot it?

"Common sense" would also dictate that, if the past is any guage of the future, that 9 out of 10 who say they will fly in a WW-l arena actually wont! Doubt me? Then look at EWA participation. Thats also a competitive arena with less performing aircraft, no different then a WW-l one would be, and its mostly a ghost town compared to the LWA's.

EWA planeset and WW1 fighters fly completely differently its not even close. I presuming from your post you've never flew a WW1 sim 'or you'd have went out and bought one' so making comparisons of 2 completely different things can only be described as guesswork at very best and guessing is certainly not an example of 'common sense'.
As for devoting resources too the current game what can really be upgraded except graphics? You could put every plane that ever flew in WW2 in the planeset it still wouldn't change the way people play in the MA they are in the majority but the minority pay too play as well and should have the option of a different style of play.
I know this is only your opinion but from what I've read on these boards a lot of people seem too think they will be forced too play WW1????

Also WWI saw the last of  Aerial Chivalry, it was more about personal honor and code of conduct than winning at all costs.
This would not be a bad thing to bring back to this community. Also, the balance of who had the advantage shifted several times in the "Great war". So choosing the time, and the planes involved lets you do a better job of balancing gameplay.
Fights are slower, lower, armament is weaker, planes are capable of less. All of which puts more emphasis on pilot skill and situation, and less on plane advantage.  All this is good stuff for those interested.

 :rock :salute

Offline RipChord929

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1022
Re: WW1 or Vietnam?
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2009, 05:54:36 AM »
WWI sim? Hell yes!!!
It would have some of the most classic matchups in air combat history..
Eindecker vs DH2,
Albatross vs Neuport11,
Camel vs DR1,
FokkerD7 vs SE5a or SPAD13,

It would be a "flyers arena" for sure!!!
Feather touch controls, (Have hiccup on takeoff, you crash and burn)...
No armor, (except for a woven wicker seat)..
1 rifle caliber MG, (2 if you are lucky)..
No throttle, (Mag advance, and ON/OFF only)..
NO PARACHUTES!!!! (they existed, but were considered cowardly)...

Not enough speed to really escape, so when committed to a fight, its win or die!!!

Yep, a FLYERS arena!!!

Jets? Ugh!!!   Missiles? Well, I guess some ppl need em, cuz they just can't shoot, huh :lol!!!

But many of the posters are right, THIS game still needs work.. Another sim would distract...
AH has vastly improved over the years, but it still needs new evolutions and tactical situations..
This game is the best in the biz.. But the same old mission profiles and objectives are gettin pretty stale..
Thats why I don't play as often as I used to..

 :saluteRC

« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 06:19:13 AM by RipChord929 »
"Well Cmdr Eddington, looks like we have ourselves a war..."
"Yeah, a gut bustin, mother lovin, NAVY war!!!"