The "perfect balance" is in the eye of the beholder, really. There is no such thing. Anything other than the hard stats of the aircraft and gv's are completely arbitrary. I understand the supposed desire to usher players towards combat, but with the radar bars and allied "dots" given it cant really be any more obvious as to where to find a battle. My biggest issue is that HTC has kept the exact same values on some otherwise very arbitrary settings.
There are a lot of small things that HTC could do that would add immersion that would not take away "game play". I'll touch on a few-
Why does it take the same amount of ordnance to destroy a reinforced concrete ammo bunker as compared to plywood built barracks??? Why does a very large bomber hanger take the same amount of ordnance to destroy as the 1/10th the size VH??? Radars mast should almost be immune to AP rounds. Why are there not about 4-5 different hardness setting for town buildings? Having to take 312 lbs of ordnance to destroy each and every town building makes for a lot of questions. The smaller town buildings should be easier to destroy and the larger buildings should be more difficult, logical reasoning yes?
In the case of the icon debate, I think the 6000 yard aircraft icon is fine in terms of friendly/foe, however for the icon to identify exactly what it is being seen is a bit much. Think about it, 6000 yards away and we can tell if it is a Spitfire, TBM, 109, F4U, A6M, or Yak. At 6000 yards away the human eye can barely see the dot let alone any contours or other identifying markings, etc. Granted the communications radio chatter would be alive and that would help identify friend or foe before any markings would be seen, but still. If HTC went to a icon of "1ENG" (for 1 engine), "2ENG", and so forth then we'd still get the friend/for at 6000 yards, but not the total gimme AH currently has. At 2000-3000 yards or so then perhaps switch the icon to the identifier icon.
With regards to the icon ranges for GV's, I'd like to see HTC go to a very generic icon and have the ranges reduced. Even more so than the air to air 6000 yard identifier, the 2000 air to ground icon identifier should be reduced in 2 ways, imo. First, reduce it down to from 2000 yards to 1200-1500 yards. Then, add in a generic identifier for all "tanks" with an absolute identifier of the exact tank model at a range of 400-600 yards. It would be similar to the M3 we currently have, it could be the transport, the TD, or the M16 variant. We only know it is the M16 at a reduced range and that is good (I dont remember the range in which the M16 is separated from the M3). Now do that will all gv's, separate them in to 2 initial categories: tracked or wheeled.
F3 mode should not be applied to a class of aircraft like it currently is to the bombers (anything that can be scored as "bomber" automatically gets F3 ability). That system is no different than saying "all cows have 4 legs", which anyone with any knowledge of wildlife knows that is simply not true. The F3 mode would be far better served if it was applied a set of criteria based on gunner positions, number of engines, or what ever. Someone explain the reasoning behind the Mossi B Mk 16 having F3 view, the Mossi FB Mk 6 not having it, and the Bf110 not having it. The Mossi variants have the exact same visual ability and the 110 has a rear gunner. I applauded very loudly when HTC removed the F3 capability from the IL-2, but with that move it appears that the F3 view is solely tied to the bomber class because of how it was coded and not some criteria. What a shame. I hope this is an issue HTC continues to deal with because rubber stamping is not good.
Another immersion factor that could be added is a tiered ordnance system. Since the 100-250 lb class of bombs are not used at all, or at best very rarely, why not allow those small ordnance to be available all the time? First ord bunker down = no 1000 lb and bigger bombs available (including torps). Second ord bunker = no 500 lb bombs or rockets available. 3rd bunker = no further effect. 4th = no ordnance available. Small fields would always have ordnance, and the large fields would probably have ordnance available always as well because who is going to spend the extra time to remove the 100-250 lb ord ability when they could instead go after another target? For fuel, add another penalty tier, the %75 is hardly an afterthought for players so there is really no benefit in even attacking fuel tanks. Barracks??? The all or none is another area in which HTC could make more dynamic and improve immersion. First, give the C47 the ultimate in troop carrying ability. Give it 16 or more troops (it could actually carry 28). The LVT2 could carry 18 troops, so why not give it 12 in AH? The M3 carried 10 troops in the real deal and also in AH, a good fit. The SdKfz 251 according to 1 source says 10 passenger and another says 12. So 10 is also a good fit. The jeep can carry 3 troops, seems logical. So where is the immersion factor in asking for more troops to be carried??? More MG fire at the map room. If the C47 can drop off 16+ paras, then a simple burst to get 1 para from a defender wont stop the capture. If an LVT can carry 14+ marines, then a simple burst from a defender or the lone fighter racing to the rescue wont save the day. The M3 and 251 wont change and neither will the jeep. Also, if there is a tiered troops delivery system, then there is room to add in a tiered penalty system to destroyed barracks.
... wow... I'll stop there.
