Author Topic: What we need are some What If planes  (Read 9876 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2009, 01:10:45 PM »
I loved the Ki-83 :)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

There was a jet too ;) And one odd prop plane.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23864
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2009, 01:12:34 PM »
And one odd prop plane.

Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2009, 01:15:08 PM »
I'd include the UK in the "major" category.
Yeah I meant to have them in there.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline frosty

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 129
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2009, 02:28:59 PM »
Yes, minor.  As in anything else than Germany, the USA, Russia, and Japan.  There's only so much room in HTC's schedule and you have to prioritize. That means at least two categories: major and minor.

So, such a developmental plane from one of those 4 would be more appropriate?  According to whom?  Does HTC really have such a major/minor prioritization policy, or are you simply presenting your own wishes as such policy?  Because I for one would love to have more "minor" countries represented, and I'm sure others would as well.  I'm not opposed to more US/Japan/German/Brit stuff either, but I'm certainly no more interested in more of them vs. a so called "minor country's" as just about all the classic "major country" aircraft have been accounted for by now.  I doubt anyone really cares if they add the Spitfire MkCCXVIII at this point.

I don't understand this "they shouldn't add this because I won't fly it" mentality every time someone proposes a plane they DO want.  Why would you actively discourage additions (assuming that uberness/historical inaccuracy were offset by relegation to specific arenas/special events)?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 02:33:24 PM by frosty »

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2009, 02:35:10 PM »
No one thinks that they shouldn't add planes, period; the simple fact of the matter is that HTC is an extremely small company and we don't get new aircraft very often. So when they model a new plane its important that it's one that saw a lot of combat and was historically significant. That's what people argue about, priorities.
Not that it necessarily matters what our arguments are :)

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2009, 03:41:56 PM »
Well, it doesn't have to have seen a lot of combat.  It just has to have been a WWII plane.  AH is a WWII game.  Otherwise you've set a precedent that immediately opens the door for way too many more planes to consider. 
That Australia was a minor actor isn't a snub, and admittedly the Major/Minor thing isn't how it works - it's like I said a quick and dirty way to categorize things.  Australia's no less an authentic piece of the WWII air war than Italy and Finland.  But when you have a plane that never made it to production, never mind put into action within WWII, and that's from a minor actor in the overall perspective of the war, and when on top of that the plane set is pretty lacking (lots of models that saw action from early to late war, many of them with production in the thousands) for two of the major actors in the war, it's just not an attractive choice for addition.  That's just the reality of the situation, given HTC's resources.  It's not about what I would or wouldn't fly. In fact the more planes added that anyone doesn't fly, the more rich the choice in targets to shoot down, the richer the environment to fly in.

And no, such a prototype from the major actors wouldn't be appropriate either, not right now (or ever, depending on who you ask).. Yes, lots of people would like a richer plane set.. No, the classic "major country" aircraft haven't nearly all been accounted for by now; that list of missing models is BIG.. And lots of people do care about one more Spitfire Mk.STXTIR. Lots.
All that aside though, you're right, there's no reason not to have that plane. I'm just telling you why it's going to be a long wait. 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 03:44:05 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2009, 03:44:20 PM »
If any Australian entry would see the chance, it would be the Boomerang.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2009, 05:37:32 PM »
I don't understand this "they shouldn't add this because I won't fly it" mentality every time someone proposes a plane they DO want.  Why would you actively discourage additions (assuming that uberness/historical inaccuracy were offset by relegation to specific arenas/special events)?
I advocate for the addition of many aircraft I wouldn't fly, but they are major combants or interesting WWII aircraft, not post war prototypes.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline BaDkaRmA158Th

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2009, 06:41:57 PM »
More early planes are needed of all types and nations.


1:More early planes give more reason to perk older more ubber birds.
2:With more ubber rides perked, the perk system would have more meaning.
3:More early planes makes other early arenas taste better.
4:Most nations in wwII didnt last past 43, hence no italian,french and other A/C even being represented. -shame-
5:Maps, more maps can be represented in early arenas based on time  40' 43' /location france/italy/africa. -and not just sinario maps-

We simply need more early war A/c to give more MEANING to all the truely late war rides populating AHII.

Most* of our birds are 43-45.


This need to be changed, and quickly.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 06:47:01 PM by BaDkaRmA158Th »
~383Rd RTC/CH BW/AG~
BaDfaRmA

My signature says "Our commitment to diplomacy will never inhibit our willingness to kick a$s."

Offline Caldwell

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2009, 09:30:21 PM »
This "minor" country won the Allies some of their very first victories.  Not bad I'd say.

Offline FTJR

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2009, 09:49:09 PM »
If any Australian entry would see the chance, it would be the Boomerang.


I'd settle for that :)
Bring the Beaufighter to Aces High
Raw Prawns      

B.O.S.S. "Beaufighter Operator Support Services" 
Storms and Aeroplanes dont mix

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2009, 01:02:14 AM »
This "minor" country won the Allies some of their very first victories.  Not bad I'd say.

Does it really even count as a country?  The BRITISH Empire, King, Rule Britannia and whatnot?

 :D :noid :rofl


wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10573
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2009, 09:07:54 AM »
If any Australian entry would see the chance, it would be the Boomerang.

I don't agree I would say it would be the DAP MK-21 Beaufighter first as I would think the Beaufighter will see the light of day sooner or later. Granted it is not a true 100% Australian design but if the English versions are to be added it would only make sense to add the most powerful variant to the stable of Beaufighters.

After that the Boomerang & Wirraway would be the only Australian designs that were used in combat to the best of my Knowledge.

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10573
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2009, 09:10:15 AM »
Does it really even count as a country?  The BRITISH Empire, King, Rule Britannia and whatnot?

 :D :noid :rofl


             wrongway
          ^^^^^^ Add icon here for shooting Wrongway.

Offline Blake7

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: What we need are some What If planes
« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2009, 05:59:40 PM »
i think as some people have already stated the best thing for AHII is the additionn of more Early War Planes.

 i.e LaGG-33  Yak-1/3  I-16  Pe-3 Tu-2 for russian aircraft
     
     Boulton Paul Defiant  Bristol Blenhiem  Vickers Wellington  Handley Page Hampden for the RAF Aircraft and aircraft such as these .

     
Wir sind die schwarzen Husaren der Luft,
Die Stukas, die Stukas, die Stukas!
Immer bereit, wenn der Einsatz uns ruft,
Die Stukas, die Stukas, die Stukas!