Author Topic: CT little different than MA now (Read 522 times)

Samm · « **on:** March 02, 2002, 02:03:09 AM »

News of the CT is what brought me back to AH, but as is now the only difference between the MA and CT is the perk point values . I thought the idea of the CT was to be a historical axis vs allies arena. I thought the driving force behind the creation of the CT was historical match ups, not the perk point economy .

The PAC rotation you guys did was a blast, japanese planes vs USN planes with N1k2 and chog costing perk points . That is what I thought the CT was supposed to be about . I appreciate the efforts of the CT commitee and I understand that you guys are experimenting with different setups to try and draw more players there . I myself just hope that full planesets aren't the future of the CT .

edit.
I just read that the full planeset CT is going away for a couple of weeks today, hurray for me

10Bears · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2002, 02:36:53 AM »

-edit-

Kronos · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2002, 02:58:55 AM »

Samm try and be a little patient. What works for you may not work for everyone, but the CT staff is trying to please everybody, not just you. so one week there is a full axis v allied planeset, so what? The others are still limited with historical value. Fly those u like, go to the MA during the ones u dont.

hazed- · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2002, 12:01:36 PM »

Ive got to say i agree a bit here with samm but I agree with what Kronos says too.
What I was hoping for from CT was a more realistic 'type' of play:
1:1 fuel burn, Longer down time for bombed objects etc, but unfortunately, with all these milkrunners around and the fairly low numbers The downtime thing is probably unworkable.The fuel burn is also really not going to ruin the fun.Im prepared to wait and see, so far the CT team have managed to attract 3 times the number we used to get so how can we complain?
The one thing Im really not too keen on is having IJN/LW/USAAF/RAF etc all mixed in. I think if we have PAC maps theres no need to have this many mixed together on one map.
Heres what I would love to see:

Russian MAP(any period): LW vs VVS/some Allied lend lease stuff (but b26's are a mistake IMO, no one uses iL2s when b26s are there)
Mediteranean Map(1942-43): LW/Italian vs RAF/USAAF
Euro map(any period or rolling set): LW/Italian vs RAF/ USAAF
Manchuria(sp? august 1945) map(NUTTZ's perdonia could be used for this?): VVS/some lend lease vs IJN (needs more planes in set but a great opertunity here later)
PAC map(43-45): USAAF/some RAF vs IJN(again we need more IJN stuff)

what do you think?

~~CT staff btw~~

hblair · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2002, 01:33:18 PM »

Tours change weekly Samm. This week is a Sicily setup. It is not open planeset like the one I just ran.

Wotan · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2002, 03:47:16 PM »

Manchuria would kick arse alot of folks dont realize the scale of the air war or ground war there.

I had talked to brady about this before. However I agree the ct has become more "main" then I would have like.

I really dont think every set up needs an f6f

but its still far better then the main these days.