Ill answer these for you since your tone seems to infer you cannot......
Are you aware that this is a game and accuracy vs playability is a line that is often way crossed to the playability side? in many cases it is such (leaves that historically accurate argument out the window)
Are you aware how many times a 50 plane horde was sent to an airbase NOE and had all hangers down leaving them with only a handful of WW to defend [both a base and a town]? NEVER (leaves that historically accurate argument out the window)
I put those brackets in the last one for you to clearly see another example.......... where in "historical accuracy" was a town needed to be destoyed and ten troops dropped to capture territory?
so you see this is not ............as HITECH himself has said many times and will gladly say again IM sure........ a reproduction of history....... nor is it intended to be
this is a game that has trademarks of WWII equipment.......... and while I would agree that accuracy is nice in some aspects......... its not the end all way to be
lest we forget this is a game and none of our actions and behaviours in the game historically reflect
I will also in going give you one more for the historically accurate crowd......... next time you die......... logoff and dont come back..... after all you want EVERYTHING historically accurate
I really do not care whether you like my "tone" or not. Evidently you can't answer any of the questions correctly at all, and that is not surprising.
Capture conditions are a simple mechanism which are there to encourage a fight. They are not at all meant to be even remotely historically accurate.
There were plenty of instances where overwhelming air power was sent in order to maximize the chances of a successful operation. In fact, any time it was possible, and overwhelming force was sent to the battle.
Ever heard of a German operation called Bodenplatte? It was just such an operation, intended to destroy the Allied ability to fight in the air. There was most certainly a horde sent with the intention to deny the Allies the use of their air assets. And yes, it compares directly to destroying the hangars in AH. So, you are indeed quite wrong, such operations did indeed occur in real life. In real life, it was a failure. But had things been only slightly different, it could have been a success.
I'll let you in on a little secret. HTC does not significantly alter plane or vehicle performance in the name of game play. Every vehicle, and every airplane, has handicaps, just like they had in real life. You evidently have not read everything HTC or Dale himself has written. The GAME is a GAME, not a simulation of war. However, the tools of war are as close a simulation as is possible. The concessions they make in modeling are driven by the need for the player to be able to operate the tools of war without excess difficulty or the need for serious training. Those concessions are NOT made in order to make certain tools more competitive.
The truth here is that you just want your advantage back because you want a crutch. You already have an exaggerated rate of fire, but you need a faster traverse rate as well? Okay, fine. How about we give the planes an exaggerated rate of fire since they do not have heavy armor. We'll just hang a 20mm Vulcan cannon in the nose of the P-38 since it is such a large somewhat soft target and easily hit from the ground. That should even things up. After all, you need a couple of historically inaccurate crutches, so why not give them to others?
