Maverick your post is flawed from top to bottom.
Your first point tries to make a conclussion based on a flawed logic. You can not conclude that people will not join this sim because they log when
one country loses Radar because of enemy action. These are different facts, and different reasons with no connection in between. Your second point illustrates it very well: It is not a case of advantage or disadvantage of one country, its a matter of settings for all trhee countries.
Your second point has valid points and flawed assumptions, again. AFAIK, this is a combat sim, as you well put. But you fail to define combat right. Combat is not only furball, 1vs1, or whatever. Combat is a whole set of measures, plans, isolated actions, etc. Players that do not care about combat do fly FS, but players that do may find your definition of Combat as too restrictive. This sim is, fortunately, quite a bit more than just air duelling.
The logic under your third point evades me completely. Can't think why no In-Flight radar would negate engagements but lo alt ones. Can't see how you deduct that only upping from a capped field would mean engagement. I've played WB and I can guarantee you that your point is not true or, at least, not connected with the issue of no In-Flight radar. Besides that, the word Interdiction takes a whole new dimension.
Your following point is your choices and opinions, so I won't comment.
Next, your doubt about new players. And you suggest that the setting would be too difficult for newbies to overcome. Flawed. In two senses, first parity does not reside on radar settings. In-Flight radar does not equal anything, actually it is unballancing because negates some evasion chances that could be well used by newbies. Second, learning curve is something that anyone aproacing this sim HAVE TO assume. Challenge and work are intrinsic to this kind of "serious" sims is the challenge. Not the point-click-boom sequence.
Next, options. Using your logic, I could tell you that you have other options as a player (CFS2, AW, Crimson Skies) instead of limiting my option to have a realistic sim, because there is no other like AH around, currently. But I wont. Instead of it, let me point that one thing is loadout, tracers, etc. options, that should be user-configurable as they represent the real options the pilot had to face, and another thing are the playfield options. Trying to put them all toghether is bogus. Besides that, radar does not offend anyone in particular. It rather annoys the majority around here (this BBS). It's not because of the radar itself (if it was the case, then your argument could be right) but because it severely limits (or plainly negates) the chance of some tactics involving brain usage and some of the funniest ways of flying (read NOE), without giving any valuable advantage (read gameplay as fun gameplay). Plus the feature is absolutely sci-fi by WWII standard.
Next point. There actually are some squads that fly that way in here, except, of course the part of stop playing, that I take as a license for dramathisation purposes. AH is a sim and a game, in my book. Do not know in what fields AH is not a sim...wait, yes, among a couple more, the radar issue falls right INTO the game field, and out of the sim field
. Unfortunately, I quite concur with you in your quakelike sentence. The pity is that this might not be "what is all about", in the sense that this minor tuning things could open a bunch of new strategies, new ways in combatting, etc. without hampering very much others' options.
Let me use your penultimate sentence in all its significance. Think about it. Do not limit the options of this sim/game/sim. Modify radar behaviour and open up a new set of options to fight and play with.
Ah! and Pyro, please do not close this thread. I think it's not the most civilised one, but It's not that bad if you take the pain of reading it completely. And has VERY valid points, IMO.
Cheers,
Pepe, who is sorry about this tirade, and hope some of you are as bored in work as I do.
