Change the plane addition criterias

[PJ_Godzilla]

Not necessarily.  I can't think of a single aircraft in the planeset that hasn't been used in a special event.

But, to answer your second question, it doesn't.  MA gameplay isn't characterized by the addition of a single aircraft, in any arena.  The MA simply is what it is.  The 163/262 have little impact on the day-to-day gameplay in the MA.  Why would any of these aircraft be different?

Exactly. Further, I'll be the first to request such failures as the Faireys Battle and Fulmar. How about a Gloster Gladiator? More = Better - even if it's a plane that was obsolete (I love a challenge). I was recently flying the P40E and adjudged it a big improvement over the B, even though it's still a turd w/r most of the LW stuff. 

All these additions really do is increase the permutations and scenarios possible - and that's tres cool.

Could Ack-ack, flying a Vultee Vengeance, take down the ords at a base defended by Fiat G.55s and Do335s?
Could a flight of Vindicators sink that CV lousy with Bearcats?

Okay, some examples stretch credulity but there it is. Personally, I'd like to see the highly self-complimentary Plutonium members of this here BBS attempt such feats in the MA. You could call it Woodshed night in the MAs.

Sadly, we may never see such unlikely acts.

And I just use ack-ack as an example. Substitute the name of any hoary old AH bleeding deacon.

[Karnak]

Why npt just add them and make an arena in which they're fair game - like a '46 arena? In the MA's you could just perk them silly.

Because there are very limited resources to produce new units for AH and the performance data for most aircraft like the Ta154 or, good god, the Go229 simply doesn't exist.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Because there are very limited resources to produce new units for AH and the performance data for most aircraft like the Ta154 or, good god, the Go229 simply doesn't exist.

I see that as an argument  -and a valid one - against development of the AH version of the aircraft themselves, not as an argument against the development of an arena for the purpose stated.

Indeed, I have little doubt decent performance data exists for the Do335 (likely, given the state of development) and P-80. Implement versions of these a/c and the arena problem persists. The obvious solution is the one I posited. Your answer seems to be to a different question - a truncated version of the question actually asked.

[morfiend]

I will.  I'll agree that there are a multitude of other aircraft that need to be added before the F8F and F7F, but why not add them?  They aren't drawing board gadget planes--had the war continued for another 2 months, and/or had they not had to travel half-way around the world to get there, they would have met all criteria.  Heck, the F7F was even in Okinawa when the war ended, it just hadn't started operational combat missions yet.  The aircraft were certainly peers of the Ta-152, from a design perspective, even if they weren't fielded at the same time.

They are at the very end of my list of "must haves", but they are on the list.

 Stoney,I tend to agree with you here theres many must haves on my list too and the F8,F7 are there,as is the 162,but I'd be just as happy to see all combatants have some representation and the major 1's have a full planeset way before any of the latewar monsters see the light of day.

That said we just got a late war monster in the 47M and you dont hear me complaining!!

   

[Karnak]

I see that as an argument  -and a valid one - against development of the AH version of the aircraft themselves, not as an argument against the development of an arena for the purpose stated.

Indeed, I have little doubt decent performance data exists for the Do335 (likely, given the state of development) and P-80. Implement versions of these a/c and the arena problem persists. The obvious solution is the one I posited. Your answer seems to be to a different question - a truncated version of the question actually asked.

Why spend precious developer time on things like those where so many core aircraft that player major roles in the war have yet to be modeled?

[Stoney]

Why spend precious developer time on things like those where so many core aircraft that player major roles in the war have yet to be modeled?

I think, Karnak, that overall, the idea is that any of these type of aircraft get added after all the regular combatant aircraft of the war are available.  I don't think anyone is asking for the F7F development to trump the addition of the Beaufighter, He-111, or G4M, for example.  We all want those planes added.  Same with GVs--we want to see them all.  I believe, but could be wrong, that if HTC could wave a magic wand, they'd add every aircraft they could tomorrow.  Obviously, the resources available don't allow that, but the intent is there.  And, most folks that come in here with a wish are cognizant of the fact that there will be a priortized list of planes that are finished in order.

That being said, I was excited that the Brewster and I-16 were added, both for the Finns and for the added diversity that we could use on special events.  I didn't immediately jump into a Brewster or I-16 to fly them in the MA, because I wasn't so excited to go and wring them out.  When I heard that the P-47M had been added, I immediately went and took one up for a sortie to see what it'd do.  We have to admit, as a community, that the really high performance aircraft are extremely popular--the most popular in fact.  And, without questioning the virtual manhood of those that request them, or suspecting nefarious motivations, understand that they are good for business and good for the game.  I'd love to be able to fly an F7F in this game.  Not against a Hurri I but against an A-26?  Absolutely--it'd be a blast to see that match-up.  Its not about padding my score or making the game "easier". 

Should HTC have a concrete set of criteria for adding aircraft or GVs to the game?  I believe he's created guidelines to steer his staff's decision making and planning going forward.  Its not really for us to be making the decisions.  Regardless--its Dale's game--he'll add what he wants for why he wants.  I personally suspect that accurate modeling data is more important to him as opposed to whether or not the aircraft got a single kill or had more than 6 aircraft in a unit.

In sum, we all want the same things, just not necessarily prioritized the same way.  I suppose if we stay around the game long enough, we'll see everything we can imagine added to the game.  Now, bring on the Ki-43 and the A-26 [or insert your aircraft here].

[morfiend]

 Well said Stoney.

   

[Boozeman]

Well said Stoney.

   

Agreed. Thats all I wanted to say anyway. 

[PJ_Godzilla]

Why spend precious developer time on things like those where so many core aircraft that player major roles in the war have yet to be modeled?

Valid point - especially if it's a zero-sum scenario.

I'm still on more=better and agree that staple aircraft like perhaps the He111, Me410, A-26, G4M, etc, should be added first.