Speed vs. climb, long-range vs. short, low-alt vs. high-alt- I think this is all a bit obtuse. The points really deal with differences of gameplay in AH. I don't think anyone would argue that the AH MA as it is currently simulates the ETO or PTO.
The core MA strategy is focused around the capturing of bases, not the long range high altitude bombing of strat targets in order to bring up the opposing air force. Around this everything revolves since it creates a critical mass of players resulting in an eco-system of different breeds and species of pilots with different objectives in mind from your pure furballer to your ultimate strat junky and everything in between. That's the beauty of the AH MA. We have a diversity of flying styles that feed off of each other featuring different strengths and weakenesses of aircraft and tactics depending on the mission profile you choose to fly.
Arguably there are fewer high altitude fights vs. low altitude fights but I believe that fundamentally this is because of the current strat/game model in the MA which produces this affect. I don't think this is bad. There's less incentive for long range high altitude engagements with the current strat model though you can still make it happen. A fun thing to get this type of action is to either do a long range bombing run using a large formation of bombers with escorts or a long range fighter sweep deep into enemy territory. That usually gets people a stirring but it certainly only appeals to a certain crowd since it takes a bit of flight time before point of contact is reached between opposing forces. I think it would be great if more of this was encouraged but think it would be a mistake to do this at the detriment of the pilot styles in the player base.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
