While the goal of the CT should be to offer a more historical arena than the MA, it seems nobody can agree on what "more historical" means and in the mean time the majority are happier flying in the MA rather than the CT.
In terms of getting people to show up and play, I have to agree with others that a few key changes to the MA will greatly improve "realism" while remaining gamey enough to draw crowds: 2-sided Axis-vs-Allies, a variety of historical matchups rotated frequently to avoid lingering on boring combinations or mismatches too long (perhaps using the complete set and perk system of the MA except that allied players can only choose allied equipment and axis players can only choose axis equipment), and of course some kind of reduced if not entirely disabled icon system.
I was in the CT a couple of nights in a row last weekend with numbers peaking at 10 to 20. It was fun and I prefer it to the MA any day. It is interesting to note that despite the planeset change, terrain change, and addition of the strat elements, the results were the same as the earlier CT when significant numbers were still playing. Principally both sides were furballing down low halfway between the two closest bases (A41 and A42 I think). Perhaps if more people realize how fun a "historical" arena can be compared to the MA, enough will show up to permit fully developed missions and strat. When 40 or more people were still showing up in the original CT, I enjoyed the full scale missions that were flown: bombers, jabo, escorts, fighter sweeps, and recon. Now that we have terrain (historical or not) that supports full strat, maybe the CT will sustain the 40+ numbers by making it equally challenging and interesting even for those who could care less about furballing at low altitudes with historical matchups.
I have never flown over Europe, North Africa, or the South Pacific (much less during WWII) and am not really bothered by having a fictional map on my clipboard as long as the terrain has the appropriate scenery elements for the area and time frame being represented. Would an accurate 1:1 map really improve the immersion factor when looking outside the cockpit other than for people who flew over those same locations during WWII? Will 1:1 maps be playable in terms of strat function? On the otherhand, given a good 1:1 terrain exists with all the strat elements, is it any less fun to use than a fictional terrain? Why use fictional terrains at all if equally functional and fun to play historical terrains can be developed? I consider scaled down historical maps to be fictional for obvious reasons.
Whether a small 1:1 historical map, a scaled down historical map, or a fictional map is used, the fuel burn rate becomes a problem. The key design parameter for many aircraft was range. Speed and/or maneuverability were often sacrificed to maximize range. These aircraft are at a serious disadvantage if flown in environments where their long range advantage cannot be appreciated. At the same time, maps with realistic scaling which result in long flights between fights will bore the majority. If burn rates are increased for smaller maps to make longer ranged aircraft more valuable, aircraft with shorter ranges are cheated out of realistic combat endurance. Given its success, I think the MA fuel rate and mapsize are necessary compromises between realism and gameplay.
For the record I would prefer 1:1 historical maps if they work well enough to maintain useful numbers in the CT, but I am willing to accept fictional maps if that is what it takes to keep a good Axis-vs-Allies arena well populated.
