I'd buy your response, on all of those points, except for the fact I disagree with it.
First of all, there seems to be neither rhyme nor reason in the way the perk values are assigned. Case in point, the F4U-1c and the Ta-152. Both were late-war (summer of 1945 for the -1c if I'm not mistaken, and December of 1944 for the 152), small production runs (200 for the -1c, and something similar for the 152), that had absolutely no impact on the war whatsoever. You can disagree with me here, but in my opinion if niether plane had been introduced, the outcome would have been the same for all parties involved. In my opinion, the -1c is FAR superior to the 152 given the typical MA circumstances (low altitude, multiple plane engagements). Furthermore, the -1c enjoys a 2,000 pound bomb payload, and rockets. All this in addition to 4 of the best cannons in the game (again, my opinion) with 900 odd rounds.
The Ta-152 is a superior aircraft above 30,000 feet, below that it is a marginal aircraft at best. Yet, one is perked into nonexistance, and the other is perked (extraordinarily cheaply) only AFTER usage reached mind-boggling levels. Even with the 8 point cost, the F4U-1c is still in the top 10 for usage.
Another fine example is the F4U-4. The plane makes 380 mph on the deck, is armed with 6 .50 caliber machineguns... and costs 60 points to fly. Thanks.. I'll fly an La-7 instead. It makes 385 mph on the deck, is armed with 3 20mm cannons, and is absolutely free. Or.. maybe I'll fly the F4U-1c instead.. it carries the same payload, plus it has roughly 5 times the hitting power with its 4 20mm Hispanos. The F4U-4 is NOT an overwhelming dominant aircraft, I believe every time I've seen one I've shot it down (I could be wrong here, but I know I killed 2 in the same sortie in a 190A8.. which is hardly a well performing aircraft). So please, you tell me, since HTC can't be bothered. What is the rationale behind assigning perk values to planes?
On the second point, I'm not sure I understand exactly HOW we are supposed to "prove something is wrong, or we are just whining". Exactly HOW was I supposed to show that in real life a 190A did NOT actually lose the engine if it took 1 hit anywhere on the aircraft? As far as I know, there aren't any 190s flying these days, and I highly doubt that if there were the owner would let me take potshots at it from different angles, just to see what would happen.
Even the long-raging, dead horse beating argument over buff guns can't be resolved. Why? Because HTC won't give us the tools to do it ourselves. I really thought I had a good tool in the .target function, until I realized that it stayed in the same position relative to the aircraft, making it impossible to isolate a pair of guns to the extent necescary to test them. Who is to say that buff guns do or do not hit harder than normal fighter guns? Nobody. Nobody can "prove" what they say, whether they do or do not believe that buff guns hit harder. All that can be done is that people that think something is wrong keep speaking up, and people that believe there isn't a problem keep telling them to make their own game, or stop whining, etc. etc. etc.
On the last point (or first point), of COURSE the 109G10 in the game is "functionally equivalent" to the 109K4. Everybody says it is, so that must be true, right? And before you ask, no I haven't done any scientific studies comparing the Aces High 109 with the 109K4 that I actually own and fly in real life (I wish... but I guess that would be the only way to PROOVE my case). I've only got what other people say to go on, namely that the K-4 climbed at 5200 FPM (which our G10 doesn't), and was equipped with tabs on the ailerons to assist in rolling the plane at high speeds. Hell, I'd want a K-4 just for that reason alone. I realize that adding a "new and improved" 109 to the game is probably very low on most peoples "wish-lists", but it'd be nice to have, in my opinion.
I don't doubt that perhaps you have had excellent communication with HTC regarding your concerns and the manner that they would be addressed in, but I haven't had that. So you'll have to pardon my opinion, I suppose. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
