Change the plane addition criterias

[APDrone]

While I concur with the sentiment that there are planes missing that meet the current criteria, I also believe that the wish of the OP has merit.

My personal opinion is that several planes that are currently missing should be added before any of the planes in the "gray area" are added. Additionally I feel that any "gray area" planes should go to specifically bolster a particular countries plane set. As an example, there are many Japanese planes that flew in small numbers and were used in combat at the end of the war, but because of the state of manufacturing in Japan at the end of the war were not in squadron strength.

An different example of how the "rules" could be modified is there were some obsolete aircraft at the begging of the war that did not see combat that could be included.

I think it would be great to fly the original Curtiss Helldiver that was in service just off Hawaii in December of 41.
(Image removed from quote.)

Oh be still my heart.. yes, let's talk about the era before the war. 
The Helldiver you've mentioned..

I'd put the Grumman F3F on the top of my list.

[Chalenge]

I dont think the Ta-152 ever served in squadron strength so the 'squadron strength' thing is not valid. JG 301 was the only squadron provided with 152s and I believe they never 'really' had squadron numbers flying (152 were facing production difficulties). Even if it had it certainly did not make any historically significant contribution to the war having only shot down seven planes to the loss of four 152s. The total run on these planes was a count of 43 types half of which were destroyed before delivery. So if 'squadron strength' is a rule then the 152 should be removed as there are many more valid aircraft that should take its place.

[Hap]

actual criteria
        

never heard of such a thing other than it saw action.

[shifty95]

How about HTC adds the planes that are sorely missing before we worry about the rare birds?  Like the He-111, G4M, Ki-45, Ki-43, J2M-3, Yak-1 and 1B, LaGG-3, Yak-9D, etc.

yes, these two we really need

[Spikes]

You contradicted yourself

You said it would allow for prototypes, then you said no prototypes.

[Nemisis]

Well, the recent Do-335 wish and the easily predictable responses made me think about if should not be some change to the aircraft addition criteria. While I see what the actual criteria is supposed to do (keep what if fanatsy birds of of AH) I also think it rules out very intersting birds, that would not water down the flavor of AH to an anything goes kind of game...

My suggestion would be to alter the addition criteria to something like this:

- The plane should have existed in more that a handful prototypes somewhere between September 1, 1939 and September 2, 1945. That rules out experimental planes and testbeds.

- There should be enough first hand data on the plane to model it to AH standards.

That should be enough not to open the floodgates for Luft-46 style what-ifs, but still have (in my eyes) perfectly valid WW2 hardware the like:

- Do335
- F7F
- F8F
- DH. 103 (probably)
- P-80

and a couple of others.

However, as a price for their rareness, they should be perked very high, just like the 262. Even if the performance would not justify it (at least for prop birds). 

Please note that I'm aware that there are more important planes to be added than these. But I'd be happy if their status would change from  "no-go" to  "perhaps".

       

have at least 500 planes made, saw action with 2 squadrons at least, and saw at least 6 months of combat for A/C

For GV's I say we have it be 200 of them produced, saw action with at least 2 seperate units, and saw at least 6 months of combat....

[AWwrgwy]

have at least 500 planes made, saw action with 2 squadrons at least, and saw at least 6 months of combat for A/C

For GV's I say we have it be 200 of them produced, saw action with at least 2 seperate units, and saw at least 6 months of combat....

Technically, this is more stringent than what we have now.  IE, whirblewinds, TA152(?), etc.

Having Rare or un-combat tested aircraft could be fun but it would always be a "what if" situation as they never saw combat.

It's almost strange that A/C like the F8F and  F7F never saw combat, anywhere.  Although I do believe the French used the Bearcat in Viet Nam.


wrongway

[Nemisis]

Technically, this is more stringent than what we have now.  IE, whirblewinds, TA152(?), etc.

Having Rare or un-combat tested aircraft could be fun but it would always be a "what if" situation as they never saw combat.

It's almost strange that A/C like the F8F and  F7F never saw combat, anywhere.  Although I do believe the French used the Bearcat in Viet Nam.


wrongway

I know. I said that to contradict his overly relaxed criteria....

[Stoney]

have at least 500 planes made, saw action with 2 squadrons at least, and saw at least 6 months of combat for A/C

For GV's I say we have it be 200 of them produced, saw action with at least 2 seperate units, and saw at least 6 months of combat....

This would actually get rid of aircraft we currently have in game.

[Nemisis]

look two posts up stoney ^^^^^^^^^.

[Boozeman]

You contradicted yourself

You said it would allow for prototypes, then you said no prototypes.

I think I made it not clear enough or you misunderstood me:

- The plane should have existed in more that a handful prototypes somewhere between September 1, 1939 and September 2, 1945. That rules out experimental planes and testbeds.

and then for varification

- no prototypes

But maybe the "that" instead of "than" made not clear enough. One little word, big difference in meaning.
Sorry for the typo.

So again. No protoypes! Low scale production models? Yes.

[Boozeman]

I know. I said that to contradict his overly relaxed criteria....

I'm curious, in which way are they overly relaxed? If you can give me a example for a plane that could enter AH based on my proposals, but has no place in AH whatsoever, I may alter my proposal to to fix possible loopholes. 

[Stampf]

I dont think the Ta-152 ever served in squadron strength so the 'squadron strength' thing is not valid. JG 301 was the only squadron provided with 152s and I believe they never 'really' had squadron numbers flying (152 were facing production difficulties). Even if it had it certainly did not make any historically significant contribution to the war having only shot down seven planes to the loss of four 152s. The total run on these planes was a count of 43 types half of which were destroyed before delivery. So if 'squadron strength' is a rule then the 152 should be removed as there are many more valid aircraft that should take its place.

Where would you like me to start correcting this post?  Every sentence is in error.

[Chalenge]

Propaganda Stampf. If you have contrary information then cite a source.

[33Vortex]

Propaganda Stampf. If you have contrary information then cite a source.

Ignorance is bliss huh.