I must be missing something here
(apart from a few million brain cells, darn Bundy rum) Am I correct in assuming there are two inferred types of player, shall we say the first enjoys 'pure' dueling, the second enjoys strategic teamwork? If this first basic premise is invalid then please advise, and ignore what follows:
A 'pure' duel would consist of a 1v1 co-alt no HO shooting no advantage (therefore same a/c?) with the outcome decided by combat flying skills alone.
Strategic teamwork would involve gaining an advantage by concentration of force (superior numbers) and/or employing force multipliers (altitude, superior a/c etc) along with attrition of the enemy's resources, with the outcome decided by strategic ability, teamwork and combat flying skills.
But I think there's a third player type. One who simply enjoys a good fight but doesn't insist on a 'pure' duel. And I can't see what possible objection he would have to an arena full of players, no matter what they were doing.
WW1 saw the rise and subsequent demise of the lone wolf aviator; once all the early solo aces were dead, tactics changed and teamwork ruled. The role of the various aviation corps expanded from simple recon to ground support, strategic bombing, air defence and projection of air superiority. All of these activities involved (at times) aggressive air combat. Just as with WW2, the WW1 theme lends itself to complex and comprehensive replication for the entertainment of gamers. The thing's obviously got potential, seems a shame not to go the distance. And the answer to the 'pure' duelist issue is simple; have a WW1 duelling arena,
and a WW1 MA - something for everyone (we're all friends here, right?)
