Clarification for what to be added to the game

[Karnak]

Yeah, ADHD tends to do that, always the same ones doing it.

Says the guy who initiated the derail.

 

[Butcher]

A definition of what counts as combat, if combat is a criteria at all, would be nice as well.

Point in case, Meteors dealt with V1s, did some ground attack and, I am told, had a scoreless furball with some Fw190s.

I can see people arguing on both sides of whether or not that is combat.

This has nothing to do with my request for clarification for what criteria HTC has for something to be added in the game, try again.

[Vudu15]

Y'all worry too much, let Hitech do his jib and sit back and enjoy the game. Or engage him directly and ask him what the criteria is for a a/c to be inducted into the game.
This back and forth BS is just that. fly with what you got put what you want (within reason on the wishlist) and continue to have fun.

Here's a banana.......

[AWwrgwy]

i think the defenition of seeing combat means seeing combat against the enemy or in a combat zone, it dosnt have to mean seeing combat against other aircraft to mean seeing combat. the meteor qualifies as seing combat as it was used against the enemy in a combat zone. ground attack or dogfighting or just being in a zone of conflict or combat counts as seeing combat.

an example. my grandfather served in vietnan as a aviation mechanic, he worked on the F4 Phantom, and was never in a firefight against viet-cong or NVA troops, but still was awarded the combat action ribbon. i know its not a good example.

Really bad example.

445 Phantoms were lost. 385 in combat, in Viet Nam, just not your Grandfather's.

Viet Nam.
Arab/Israel.
Iran/Iraq.
Desert Storm.
Iraqi Freedom.


The only thing HTC said they will not add is the nook.



wrongway

[Volron]

(Image removed from quote.)

Space Balls for the win!!!


May as well keep thread off course...

Attacking ground targets would count as combat against the enemy.  I know in a post I made in the Meteor thread, I said something along the lines of "it didn't see air-to-air, so no".  Still want to know what I was smoking when I posted that...   Right now, it's so-so.  If they add the V1, then I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be added as it would have the interception of the V1's AND the ground sorties it flew going for it.  But wouldn't the He-162 have a priority over the Meteor as it has confirmed kills?  Think it has a higher production number than the Ta-152 as well, so ye can't say no due to it's production number?   Either way, I'm not against the Meteor.  And if we get a Korean Era Arena(s), then it will definitely be added.

[RTHolmes]

This has nothing to do with my request for clarification for what criteria HTC has for something to be added in the game, try again.

yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:

served in at least squadron strength
saw combat

so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...

[fullmetalbullet]

yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:

served in at least squadron strength
saw combat

so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...

again what is the defenition of seeing combat. did HTC say it had to see combat against enemy aircraft to be added or just being used against the enemy in combat count. does being in a combat zone count as seeing combat. no one has said Hitech said it had to see combat against other aircraft or in the case of tanks seen combat against other tanks. being used against the enemy is still seeing combat. with that said the M-26 pershing should just barely count for inclusion. the Jagdtiger should also count for inclution aswell.


and to wrongway i didnt mean the phantom never saw combat i meant my grandfather never got into a firefight and engaged the NVA or Viet-cong in combat but yet was awarded the combat action ribbon.

[gyrene81]

and to wrongway i didnt mean the phantom never saw combat i meant my grandfather never got into a firefight and engaged the NVA or Viet-cong in combat but yet was awarded the combat action ribbon.

it could have been a unit award (which is common). that means everyone who served with that unit (including the office pogues) got the award whether they fired a shot or just sat around drinking coffee, even though it was just the pilots who were engaging in actual combat with the enemy.

[lyric1]

yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:

served in at least squadron strength
saw combat

so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...

I can't find the page that the actual information is on any more for inclusion. I seem to recall it said it must have seen service during WWII & at squadron strength.

I don't think it said anything about combat. It tends to be the accepted norm though.

[Butcher]

I can't find the page that the actual information is on any more for inclusion. I seem to recall it said it must have seen service during WWII & at squadron strength.

I don't think it said anything about combat. It tends to be the accepted norm though.

I was hoping someone from HTC would verify this, I know from memory it was "Squadron Strength", however I don't exactly recall the details on "combat" however given the votes I've seen over the years, never once was a questionable aircraft ever posted on it.

[Rino]

Can you please verify this comment with sources, I am interested to know since you are an expert on the Meteor. I'd like to know the names of the pilots who were engaged, and which Luftwaffe units.

Again please clarify this with sources ->

Can you please clarify the sources that the meteor engaged a Luftwaffe aircraft. I show only 4 Meteor Mk III's were sent to Europe and none did anything more then Provoke the Germans to send Me-262's after them and fly CAP over an Airfield - none were allowed anywhere near the combat lines for fear the Germans/Russians would get ahold of the aircraft.

Please don't tell me you read it on wikipedia.

     So apparently according to Butcher, combat only counts if it's against the luftwaffe?  I bet tens of thousands
of ground troops might disagree.  As well as thousands of navy guys killed by shelling or torpedos...duh.

[Karnak]

yeah it does - the widely acknowledged criteria are:

served in at least squadron strength
saw combat

so the definition of saw combat is very relevant ...

This.


As to the other bits, I do recall either Pyro or HiTech state that it had to be in series production, not prototypes or preproduction models.

[Butcher]

    So apparently according to Butcher, combat only counts if it's against the luftwaffe?  I bet tens of thousands
of ground troops might disagree.  As well as thousands of navy guys killed by shelling or torpedos...duh.

Apparently your understanding of basic reading comprehension is elusive, there is a certain "criteria" HTC has allowing vehicles into the game - the definition of combat has always been possibly one of them.

I never stated my definition of combat as being "against the luftwaffe", actually I never stated mine period come to think of it.

Mine is quite simple - If it served in a combat theater - then it was in combat - whether pre-production/post production.

[The Fugitive]

I know exactly what they use to figure out if the plane makes the grade.


It's what ever plane they feel like doing next.   

[Butcher]

I know exactly what they use to figure out if the plane makes the grade.


It's what ever plane they feel like doing next.   

Well that makes sense, I want my Me410/G.55