Puke--
Why do you want to put words in my mouth, or claim I think things which I don't actually think? Are you looking for an argument which isn't really there? Please respond to what I say, not what you
think I say.
"You want to fly your Mustang at the expense of an F4F-4 or P-40B fan's enjoyment of his favorite but you certainly do not want people free access to the ME262 because it's a jump ahead in technology of your P-51D. "
Why do you invent things which are flat out UNTRUE? Can't you respond to what I actually SAY without making stuff up? WHERE do I say ANYTHING about limiting the fun of the F4F/P-40/109E guys?????
Far from saying that, I said quite clearly that I think those aircraft SHOULD have a place of their own, away from the 1943/44 era of the MA. I WANT you to be able to have your fun. I might say I'm not personally interested in it (just being honest), but NOWHERE do I think that you guys should suffer through the same MA the rest of us do (I have REPEATEDLY stated that I think stuffing everyone into one MA is one of AH's biggest faults).
Why do you ignore what I write and try to twist it into some different meaning?
Aren't you happy enough to support a proposal to have an area for the aircraft you like? Do you feel that's not enough? Do you want to limit what everyone else flies too? Please explain.
Far from me wanting to limit your fun, I am starting to feel as you want to limit mine--what is wrong with having a separate arena/area for early planes? Why does it have to be forced upon EVERYONE (which is exactly what an RPS is)?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Since you seem to have totally missed my point, I'll try to explain it again:
The early-war planes are harder to fly and fight in effectively. I am not talking about an F4F versus LA7. I am talking about 2 early planes fighting each other.
In you're flying say a 109E, you have to take FOREVER to get to combat altitude because of its crappy climbrate (2700 FPM, give or take--which is actually good for an early-war plane). This time is boredom, which is not fun. Making matters worse, your climbrate and acceleration is so crappy that you cannot maintain any E-advantage in combat for long. Compounding that problem is the lack of firepower which means you'll likely either have to saddle up to get a kill or make several passes--extra passes which you can ill-afford since you cannot maintain your E-state for long. Not only that, but gunnery passes are made tougher because the 109E, like most early-war planes, handles like crap at higher speeds. Finally, you're likely to have to RTB after only a few kills because you have a pitiful ammo load.
It does not matter WHAT you fight--the 109E has those problems even if your opponent is in Spit 1's and Hurricanes and other 109E's or F4F's. E-retention, ammo load and weapon effectiveness are unrelated to what your opponent is flying.
Now look at a typical late-war plane, the N1K2. You can reach operational altitude MUCH faster, thanks to its having a 3500 FPM climbrate (over 4000 if you are willling to use a bit of WEP). You have the acceleration, E-retention and climbrate to maintain a reasonable advantage over your target for an extrnded period of time, and the firepower to kill your target in 1 pass. In addition, you have the ammo load to easily get multiple kills on one flight.
To sum it up, the guy in the 109E has to work harder to get the kills he gets because of the problems with his plane's performance, but has to make do with FEWER kills because of lack of ammo load/range. Hence my statement--early-war planes are tougher to fly. I'm surprised you don't agree; it's a pretty clear fact.
Look at it in simple terms--is it harder for the N1K2 pilot to get 6 kills in one flight in the MA, or for a 109E pilot to get 6 kills on one flight in a BoB arena? The answer is so obvious it's not really debatable.
That's why early-war arenas cannot attract the number of players that 1943/44 arenas do (not talking only about AH here, but EVERY flightsim I've played).....in an early-war arena, you have to work harder for less reward. It's just not as much fun for the average player.
OTOH, if you seek a greater challenge, or longer-duration fights, then an early-war arena is the place to go, which IMO is why such arenas tend to attract a greater proportion of "veteran" players who have grown tired of the normal arena. I am ALL FOR having such an arena; the CT tries but IMO it doesn't quite live to up the task.
As for late-war planes and the reduction of parity as you move too far ahead in tech--name every WW2 plane you can think of that has performance parity with the ME-262. Maybe the Meteor....maybe; though by most accounts it's a worse plane. Maybe the P-80, if you're willing to count it as a WW2 plane. The 163 does, but can't count as a "useful" plane owing to its 5-minute flight duration. So what do you have in your hypothetical WW2 jet arena that can actually fight with parity??? Wow, 3 whole planes--not too much fun. Now name all the 1943-1945 planes with roughly equal parity to the P-51D....there's literally dozens. That's simple fact.
Arlo--I am all for the "AH Mission Arena" and even wish you'd get your SCW arena. I wouldn't use it personally, but I still support it. I might like the "classic arena design" better than a "scenario" format, but I am also aware that other players want a different sort of gameplay. I think a game like AW or AH is perfectly capable of supporting different levels of gameplay and there's no reason to stuff everyone into one MA (big weakness of AH). The "re-live past wars" comment was just an innocent jab, hence the smiley
. Kapish?
J_A_B
