Author Topic: Aircraft inclusion guidelines (Read 855 times)

M.C.202 · « **on:** August 03, 2001, 01:40:00 PM »

A I see it much of the thrashing and foaming at the mouth on what aircraft (and other equipment)should be included falls into what guideline is followed.

I see nine guidelines as the main choices.

1.   Metal was cut, and a prototype was under construction or built.

2.   A prototype flew.

3.   Pre-production run of aircraft.

4.   Series production of aircraft.

5.   Production of more than X number.

6.   Deployment of more than X number

7.   One of the above, and "combat use"

8.   Historic impact to war of use of said aircraft.

9.    It's effect on "game balance".

Any others?

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2001, 05:18:00 PM »

I think that option 4 is the fairest. The perk system, or a rolling planeset, can be used to moderate its effect on the MA.

BTW, I don't #7 needs any qualifier other than "It saw combat"

One other posible definition (Based on the LW fans objection to the Meteor" would be "It saw combat against manned aircraft".

brady · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2001, 06:38:00 PM »

The Meteor did see combat, theirfore should be considered,IMO. How can I ask for the addation of the He 162 and not say that the meteor is entiteled for inclusion

Good list M.C. 202.

Hooligan · « **Reply #3 on:** August 03, 2001, 08:51:00 PM »

HTC likes the idea of adding it.

HTC thinks that it's addition will cause increased customer satisfaction.

HTC does not think that it's addition will cause endless petulant whining.

Hooligan

Staga · « **Reply #4 on:** August 03, 2001, 10:00:00 PM »

I would say No.2 or 3 sounds good.
Think all those fancy Jets like Go-229 and wierd prop-planes like pusher-puller Junkers and Me-264

Can you say SWOTL

Edit:
Whatta heck, If it was in paper lets have it. Always wondered what kind of plane Sänger was to fly

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Staga ]

Tac · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2001, 10:15:00 PM »

yeah, would be nice to allow some fantasy loadouts on planes too. Like, a .303 gatling gun with 5000rnds of ammo on a P-38.. yummm!!!

jihad · « **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2001, 10:30:00 PM »

If it was built 1938-1945 *or* in 46 from parts manufactured in that time frame then I would like to have it. Yak 15 would be cool to have.

Yak 15

The planes were built, who cares if they saw combat?

Staga · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2001, 10:34:00 PM »

btw how about weapons?

X-4 Air to Air missile was in production and was tested in Ju-88, FW-190 A8 and Me-262.

Also "Fritz-X", "Hagelkorn", HS 293 and HS 294 were in use so maybe HTC could model these too?

Yep, Fatman too thought then we need B-29

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Staga ]

Dmitry · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2001, 09:17:00 PM »

Jihad for the same matter lets have La-9, or even La-11

La9 has almost the same time line as Yak-15 :)La-11 i believe a little later