What do you like/dislike about missions?

[BnZs]

Yes....I am quite well known for shooting wreckage. In fact, I suspect 98.92 percent of every kill I ever got credit for was shooting wreckage. I've written extensively on proper techniques to employ when shooting wreckage.

And on the subject of service ceiling "love muffinery" why don't you explain service ceiling to us ignorant folk. I wait with bated breath.

*sigh*

It is the altitude at which the airplane can still produce a RoC of 100fpm at Vy and maximum continuous power, as opposed to the absolute ceiling. So what?

Got a problem with the buff modeling? Fine by me, I don't *like* 30K buffs, and the bombing from that alt is way too precise. Buffs, as modeled, are tool-shedding PITAs at any altitude. But they aren't violating any laws of physics or doing something unheard of in WWII.

And yeah, when you take an airplane out of the hangar, it flies like its brand spanking new, so what? You want to introduce random mechanical malfunctions to the game.

[Dawger]

I see you found the proper Wiki page.

Just for your edification, the service ceiling definition used to be 50 fpm in the era of prop driven aircraft. It changed with evolving certification standards designed for jets.

In turbocharged reciprocating engine aircraft the service ceiling is just a number produced in flight testing and never to be used again.

It is not a practical altitude for any purpose. It is very hard on the engines to get there, hard to stay there and overall performance sucks there. Performance peak at a lower altitude. In modern jets that isn't true, higher is better if you are light enough to get there and not decelerate in level flight. But last I checked the B17 wasn't a jet.

I don't wish for random malfunctions but some semblance of operational constraints on engines would be nice, similar to WEP. You can't just drive around full bore on piston engine airplanes at the highest possible altitude and not have them fail. Slinging a jug through the cowling after hammering on the motor for 30 minutes at full power would be a cool visual effect and not that unusual a result for abusing a radial engine.

I've popped cylinders off of Wasp engines by overboosting for as little as 3 minutes.

We already have rather stupid and unrealistic constraints on gear and flaps. It would seem some realistic engine operation limitations would be a welcome addition.

[BnZs]

The average MA sortie is 30 minutes or so. To be implemented in some way that would effect game-play, you would have to show that engine failure likely for a given engine when it is operated for that long at the MIL settings as modeled in AHII.

One good thing AHII does is the automatic WEP limit. Absolutely realistic engine control would actually make it more gamey, since everyone would be able to push their "new" engine to the brink every sortie, and take off with a "new" engine the next, consequence free.

I see you found the proper Wiki page.

Just for your edification, the service ceiling definition used to be 50 fpm in the era of prop driven aircraft. It changed with evolving certification standards designed for jets.

In turbocharged reciprocating engine aircraft the service ceiling is just a number produced in flight testing and never to be used again.

It is not a practical altitude for any purpose. It is very hard on the engines to get there, hard to stay there and overall performance sucks there. Performance peak at a lower altitude. In modern jets that isn't true, higher is better if you are light enough to get there and not decelerate in level flight. But last I checked the B17 wasn't a jet.

I don't wish for random malfunctions but some semblance of operational constraints on engines would be nice, similar to WEP. You can't just drive around full bore on piston engine airplanes at the highest possible altitude and not have them fail. Slinging a jug through the cowling after hammering on the motor for 30 minutes at full power would be a cool visual effect and not that unusual a result for abusing a radial engine.

I've popped cylinders off of Wasp engines by overboosting for as little as 3 minutes.

We already have rather stupid and unrealistic constraints on gear and flaps. It would seem some realistic engine operation limitations would be a welcome addition.

[potsNpans]

Missions like Fugitive mentioned definitely bring out the best in AH2, "Missions, first and most importantly are suppose to be fun.... for everyone, friend and foe alike"... Fugitive. They even get better when run in an AvA arena pitting Axis vs. Allied, like the 4-22-09 Wednesday Night Mission Larry(as if thats his real name ) put together; http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,263056.0.html. Really sharpens the iron in my neophyte opine.

[Slate]

  Missions like other aspects of the game are Best when you overcome an equally opposing force. I love missions flown into a hotbed of enemy activity and when well planned each pilot has a target and resposibility. Fighter cover, Field hanger attack, town attack, and Troop deployment.
  The MOM missions are great with massive forces on both sides so numbers don't matter as long as the opposition is strong.
  Sunday myself and 420dog in two tanks took A-222 with no opposition. No fighters or GV's opposed us as we systematically took down the town and 420dog returned with troops. Not really a planned mission but not real exciting either. 

[Dadsguns]

I dislike it when my screen freezes when we get so many in the air.........   

I like looking at all the perty colors of the various skins............