With all the perk planes comming...

[J_A_B]

Here's a recommendation.   Any perk plane should always have a unique identifier.   If we get a perked Spitfire, it shouldn't be a Spit, it should be a SP14 or SP21 or something.  A P-51H shouldn't be a P-51, it should be P51H.  A Yak-3 (if perked) shouldn't be a YAK, but a YAK3.

IF perk rides are by nature so "unbalancing" as to require being perked, then they shouldn't have the advantage of making the enemy wonder if they're a perk or not.  ALL perk planes should always have a big sign on them saying "I'm a perk plane; come kill me!" (In other words, they should have a unique tag.)

And yes, if they perk the F4U-1C, change the designation to F4UC.

This isn't really an issue yet, as all current perk planes DO have a unique identifier.  I hope that doesn't change.

J_A_B

[Fishu]

Can I ask why do you want them to be identified in way of knowing what to kill over others?
If it would be up to me, I would remove all those plane identification tags or give those for short range only.

If someone flies a perk plane, he has deserved the flight in it, without being in most wanted.
that goes for this comment saying: "I'm a perk plane; come kill me!"

Though.. even without perks, I agree that there should be identifiers for these.
theres tens of spit, 109 and 190 models... try there to figure out is it '39 emil or K4 from '45

he he, I liked to draw others in the turn fight with my 109F4 when they thought it to be more likely G10, which they would turn easily.

[J_A_B]

I agree with you that every plane should have a unique ID. Computer monitors simply aren't as good as eyes.

However, HTC clearly does NOT have that philosophy, and they aren't likely to change.  Therefore, I only suggest unique ID's for the perk rides.

Why?

Because HTC themselves say these planes are unbalancing.  If they have a unique ID, then the guy in a perk KNOWS the enemy will be aware of what he's flying--and people in a normal plane won't be able to masquerade as a perk.  It adds some balance to the system.  Plus, I don't feel it would harm it in any way--the Tempests and 152's don't have any trouble doing their job.

J_A_B

[Seeker]

I'm not so sure they should be uniquely identified, for two reasons:

Firstly, if your picking your engagements/targets on plane type, you're probably using the wrong criteria. It's a factor, but a minor one. Position/E state is more important.

Secondly, that very confusion over the exact model type is historicaly correct. The very fact that it's so hard to visually spot the difference between the Spit V and Spit IX gave the V an extended "surviveability" as the LW began to give all Spits more room after the introduction of the IX; and I'm sure the same was true of other planes too.

We already have have far more information regarding our opponants than real life already, coupled with the fact we know all about every new plane as soon as it's introduced. I wonder how many times pilots went into an engagement thinking "ah! a Spit!" or "Ah, a 109" and thinking they knew exactly how to manage it only to get a rude shock once they found the Spit was a Spit XIV or the 109 a 109 K. It's a hard factor to include in these games, but one that hopefully ever increasing graphic performance will help. As it is the various sub types have differeng paint schemes, isn't that enough? Could you really visualy indentify which radial engined Fw you''re facing at over a mile?