Hi Tech Decision on P-63

[Karnak]

I do not think I was attacking Earl.  I like that he is here and appropriate his posting.  I was trying to explain why removing the P-39 didn't make any sense, nothing more.

[Devil 505]

That was a knee jerk comment defending earl from being called an idiot by devil. Earl posts great stuff and is not an idiot.

In general Earl provides good stuff, but his distortion of the facts while pandering to HTC for the P-63, suggestion to remove the P-39, and defense of his suggestion is what I find idiotic.

Yes my post was harsh, and I probably shouldn't have posted it, but I stand by my opinion in this case. If you or anyone else finds that duly idiotic, so be it.

Spoken like a true Mass-hole.

[morfiend]

I do not think I was attacking Earl.  I like that he is here and appropriate his posting.  I was trying to explain why removing the P-39 didn't make any sense, nothing more.

  Karnak,

  I wasn't directing my post at you or anyone else who merely tried to point out that removing an airplane from the game wasn't a good idea,infact I agree with you!

    My post was directed at those who choose to use personal attacks and those who agree with this type of thing.   Earl,I wasn't trying to defend you either,I just think a little respect can go a long way.  That's just how I am.



   

[icepac]

There are no hangar queens in Aces High.

Every plane has a rabid fan who will quit if his mount is removed.

[Oldman731]

There are no hangar queens in Aces High.

Every plane has a rabid fan who will quit if his mount is removed.

Agreed.

- oldman

[Halo46]

  Thanks for the comment, but these guys don't bother me, if I can get them researching and educating themselves, I have met my objective with my posts! 

I'm sorry, your objective was to make people look up information and educate themselves by posting that you wish HTC drops a plane you do not care about for one you do?

Sorry Morf, I call BS. I have nothing against him personally, but his being so selfish in this "wish" and then using fallacious logic and this ^ sanctimonious BS to validate it needs to be addressed, regardless of any other redeeming personal qualities. Alright Morf, said my piece, I am out.

[Vinkman]

There are no hangar queens in Aces High.

Every plane has a rabid fan who will quit if his mount is removed.

Hangar Queen doesn't mean never. It means Almost never. No one is ever going to remove a plane, so no one is ever going to quit under that scenario.

 

[earl1937]

So you agree on his idea to remove the P-39 just because he doesn't fly it and thinks it sucks?

Where do you guys get the idea that I think the current P-39 "sucks"? I never said anything to imply that, all I did was ask Hi-Tech a question. As for my feelings about the P-39, I really don't have any, because I fly it very rarely, but based on the specs between it and the P-63, I think the P-63 would be used more often than the P-39. As I have pointed out before, I don't really care who fly's what or when. I am a bomber pilot because of eyesight and experience and will always be in this game. I fly bombers 95% of the time, so really, If you want to fly a "Spad", a "fork-tailed" devil, or a "gull-winged" whisper of death, go to it.

[Butcher]

Where do you guys get the idea that I think the current P-39 "sucks"? I never said anything to imply that, all I did was ask Hi-Tech a question. As for my feelings about the P-39, I really don't have any, because I fly it very rarely, but based on the specs between it and the P-63, I think the P-63 would be used more often than the P-39. As I have pointed out before, I don't really care who fly's what or when. I am a bomber pilot because of eyesight and experience and will always be in this game. I fly bombers 95% of the time, so really, If you want to fly a "Spad", a "fork-tailed" devil, or a "gull-winged" whisper of death, go to it.

Sorry about that comment I usually tend to remain neutral in threads but I was a little pissy due to this cold I have and took it out on you. The P-39 deserves to be in the game as much as the next aircraft, whether we get the P-63 or not doesn't matter because even if they add the I-153 or Gloster Gladiator both planes have a deserved spot in Aces high, no matter how old or slow the plane is, if it served in WW2 it deserves to be in Aces High.

I am a fan of the P-39 in a sense it was an early war bird that was placed in a very difficult situation and was outclassed on every front it faced. However even I have my limits when it comes to flying higher ENY aircraft - the P-39 is just one I stay away from.

[Tank-Ace]

Earl, the P-63 wouldn't see much usage, since it would be perked. Picture an F4U-4 on a 'roid rage that swaps out a pair of .50's for a 37mm hub cannon, and you have the P-63.


What you're advocating is a perked late-war fighter with slightly better performance than the F4U-4, that shot down 3 planes at most, and shot up trucks for the rest of its career.

[Vinkman]

Earl, the P-63 wouldn't see much usage, since it would be perked. Picture an F4U-4 on a 'roid rage that swaps out a pair of .50's for a 37mm hub cannon, and you have the P-63.


What you're advocating is a perked late-war fighter with slightly better performance than the F4U-4, that shot down 3 planes at most, and shot up trucks for the rest of its career.

We are advocating the later war upgrade of the P-39 that served for 18 months of the war in numbers greater than 2,500 planes. And we are proposing it because it has a different combination of attributes than any other late war fighter. So it's an excellent new plane to try to Master in LWMA.

Where 98% of us spend 98% of our time. 

[Tank-Ace]

As I said, late-war perk fighter, better than the F4U-4. 3 planes and a lot of trucks. Package it up any way you like, but snake oil is still snake oil.


And I think the thing you're missing here is PERK fighter. Perk plane usage almost certainly accounts for less than 10% of total activity in the game. Drop that 98% back down to a 9.8%, and it would be more accurate.

If added, the P-63 WILL be perked, no ifs, ands, or buts. It will also have the misfortune of having an annoying gun package for most of the players in the game. It will also be vulnerable to planes like the K4, La-7, 190D9, etc, making it even less attractive, since most players would be simply writing a check for 25 perks on take-off.


This caters specifically to the P-39 crowd, and nothing more. It doesn't add anything but a 37mm cannon to an F4U-4, and everyone will fight it as such. Actual flight characteristics will certainly be nothing new; fast, climbs good, pretty maneuverable. Attributes shared by the F4U-4, La-7, and the K4 to a lesser degree. There no way to reasonably justify its addition in the near future over so many others that has so much greater impact, and simply did so much more.

[Butcher]

As I said, late-war perk fighter, better than the F4U-4. 3 planes and a lot of trucks. Package it up any way you like, but snake oil is still snake oil.


And I think the thing you're missing here is PERK fighter.

And? I fly the 262 and crash them as I please, I should be allowed a P-63 since it was in the war.

[Arlo]

And? I fly the 262 and crash them as I please, I should be allowed a P-63 since it was in the war.

It's not the only plane left to model. And you should be allowed them all. 

[Tank-Ace]

Nobody's saying it should never be added. We're saying it should be added much later.

And? I fly the 262 and crash them as I please, I should be allowed a P-63 since it was in the war.

You completely miss the point. Hes saying we should add it for the MA because most people fly in the MA. But he just ignores the fact that it will be actually used very little.