Ok that's a matter of opinion. Given the wing loading of a bomber a bomber shouldn't be able to turn or zoom like it does in the game. Particularly with the additional weight of bombs.
What do you mean by this? Most bombers have lower wingloading, bombs included, than most fighters. Just because the bomber might be turning a smaller circle than the fighter doesn't mean the fighter doesn't have more than enough tools to kill it.
While the bomber dispersion may be tighter the idea that you can shoot accurately at 1000yards plus is ridicules. While a few sharpshooters have fired single shots with mounted 50 cal's, expecting a flow of bullets tumbling through the air to hit anything accurately is not even realistic. And even if you accept your theory of tighter dispersion it does nothing to explain fighters shooting at 1000 yards and getting hits. I have shot down a fighter with a P51 at 800 yards and I am not even good at this game!
There are a lot of factors not modeled in AH, some that cannot be modeled because it is a game without our lives actually on the line. Given that the ballistics are accurately modeled, and they are, what would you do differently?
Flight wise. AH has the best flight model of any "current" MMO. It could be a lot better. Many of the planes are what I call over modeled, but my biggest gripe is the bias towards certain planes. Particularly the Russian planes. This is a whole 10 page argument in itself. Let me just succinctly say that there needs to be a better balance.
Again, you're suggesting stuff just be made up so that it "feels" right and saying the Russian tests are false, but presenting no evidence of that other than the persistent Western Allies bias that has long permeated the WWII hobbies in the US and UK. Actual supporting documentation for your claims are needed.
Yes that is one shot from thousands that he shot. (and an eyeball estimate at that)Let alone the billions of shots that were fired. 800 yards shots are common in this game. The same with the Ho shot. It happened. But not near as common as in this game. If you've ever fired a real 50 cal you'd know that bullet drop occurs shortly after the bullet leaves the barrel. I have fired 50 cal's from a moving aircraft a stationary target and it isn't as easy as this game makes it out to be.
Games are always easier than reality in such things. Again, the ballistics are accurately modeled, what do you suggest be changed?
Historically the Russians have been less than honest on their performance data. The amount of damage, climb rate on a Yak, zoom of the LA7, the speed decay of a FW in a turn. There are plenty of threads here that argue this same point about the Russian aircraft. Most agree with me on it.
You sure about that? Have you polled the game? Or are you just relying on a reinforcing feedback loop of the people who actually respond to those complaints. Again, primary source documentation is needed, else it is just BSing.
Huh? Yah, the collision model isn't the best. It is arbitrary in it execution. Again plenty of threads arguing this point. Most agree with my point.
Again you fall back on this made up "most". In my experience the only people who don't like the collision model are the people who don't understand it and don't understand the consequences of the alternatives. Look, it is simple. You have these choices? Both collide if any collision is detected, both collide only if both FEs detect a collision, neither collide, person on who's FE collision happens collides and person on who's FE the collision did not happen collides. Both collide results in ramming be an actively useful tactic, and one that is very hard to avoid. Defenders gain a lot as a defender may have only taken off 1 minute prior whereas the attacker won't be back for 10 minutes, it results in you died to a collision with a plane that passed 100 yards away from yours. Both colliding only if both FEs detect a collision makes collisions rare and unpredictable, it also makes attacking bombers easier as 99% of the time you can get away with flying right through the bomber, guns blazing as it is hard to miss from 0 yards. No collisions just takes that 99% and makes it 100%, and in all situations, a huge distortion of tactics. Collisions happening to who's FE detects a collision is what we have. Collisions being applied to the guy who's FE did not detect the collision is silly and shan't be discussed.
Yah if it was that easy I would do it. It's not. And there are some winter maps, just not 3 country maps.
It is a matter of resources.
Two weeks. Probably won't have clouds. Probably same old maps just updated. Rumors I hear are favorable on the graphics though!
I recall HiTech saying something about new clouds. Not sure though, but I thought he did.
