After 1943, yes...before that...the Brits did their best and lost a lot of aircraft...and before 1941 the U.S. refused to do anything more than send "tanks, bullets and airplanes", much of which was outdated surplus.
Because you would whine horribly when you found out that you needed to buy an expensive new computer capable of handling all of the extra junk...when the average price of a bleeding edge gaming system is less than $1200 and everyone has gigabit fiber connections to their homes for $30/month...then working stiffs like us might be able to afford a computer capable of handling the amount of graphics needed to grant your wishes.
WWII Online is somewhere out there, but the airplanes suck ==>>
First, I'm not a whiner by nature in general, and not a whiny customer in particular, since I'm quite familiar with tradeoff. Understand that I've been working in Engineering or Product Development Management for about 23 years now - and all in large, well-known companies. I'm not tooting here, just telling you, I know my way around the gives and gets of product offerings. You have to pay to play - and we make let the customer know it in no uncertain terms (go to a dealership and look at the Moroney stickers if you don't believe me). Don't assume I'm one of the mewling leftists or youthful twinkie-eating gamegeeks that a guy with a handle like "gyrene" probably despises. You'll have to label me with some other category of things you despise.
Two, I doubt the Mac I play on would have a problem with such a game - because I doubt the incremental local processing requirements are that much more demanding. Even if it did, I think I'd sort of (I'd take one for the team) welcome the excuse to get a bigger/better Mac - I add nodes to my home LAN every so often as it is (and have a pile of obsolescent junk to verify that). But I don't think the point holds water since the functionality is all stuff we already have - just on a bigger map and with wider hangar selections. For example, how much more processing is required if player A chooses to man a Pak75mm or a PT boat? It's still one player using one weapon. OTOH, such a game might be a MUCH BIGGER draw. But, I think this is likely more relevant to Pt. 3. I may not understand the local processing required here - please elaborate if you know of a reason why the local processing needs would expand dramatically.
Third, where I think you might have a valid point is in the connection speed. Given that things occasionally get a bit funny in the interchange of info b/w a/c, I can only assume the incremental throughput would potentially be problematic for those of us on cable - especially whne you throw a large number of incremental players and weapons types into the game.
