Now, c'mon Hard, that just doesn't happen. I've been there when people bash AH, and I've never seen anyone really defend it. As I've said before, the AH players know better than to jump into the other school's playground, pointing fingers and yelling, "Liar!" It would be a useless exercise.
It doesn't really matter to me why you and Fishu care so much about what people think about WWIIOL- but you have to admit, whenever things are pointed out you guys are quick to minimize those faults, or deflect back to AH. AH might be flawed, but as far as I can tell no one is talking about AH, not even in comparison (at least I don't).
Take my last post to you. You asked about serious damage model issues, and I pointed out two. You minimized the first and said the second should be fixed in the next patch. Someone mentioned being shot by a pistol while in a tank, I commented that was a well-known exploit, and Fishu started talking about AH. What is the intended effect of these comments if not to minimze what everyone here is seeing?
I have absolutely no problems *at* *all* with anyone that likes WWIIOL and dislikes AH. Having played 7 months or so of WWIIOL qualifies me (I believe, perhaps erroneously) to an informed opinion. I find some things so disjarring as to yank me out of suspension of disbelief. You don't have to agree these things should or should not have this effect, but they do.