...comparing it to gunnery in a game where gunnery is in fact nerfed and nuetered are straight out of mandoland
Incidentally, just which comparative game are we talking about?
...
Suave, m8,
every game is arbitrary in its own way. Whatever factors technology allows us to throw in, it is always 'only a game', a simulated event of the real thing.
'Laws of physics' and what they suggest, is a way to regulate a partial portion of the whole arbitrary situation for the attempt to make it at least coincide with some part of 'reality' as we know.
In short, 'physics' don't make anything real or trustworthy. If the people who have gripes about gunnery only 'feel' that it is wrong, much the same, the people who advocate current gunnery only 'feel' nothing's wrong with it!
Simulation, literally, is something recreated to make people 'feel' a certain machine/event/history(etc etc..) at second-hand
That 'feel' is a powerful thing.
Thus the problem always inevidently comes to which 'feel' 'feels more right', and thus 'evidence' is drawn up to discuss.
Physics alone will not explain history(or, 'anecdotal evidence' if you will...
). It would certainly represent a certain factor that contributed to the history, yes, but the "AH uses correct physics as known, therefore, it is correct, and doesn't need to be fixed" argument just won't cut it.
Therefore, some deveopers would choose to put in artificial regulators which would force the game to give it a feel they think it is right - 'neutering', such as making bullets disappear over 500meters and etc etc.
Others, would choose to put in more factors previously unnoticed, ignored or deemed unnecessary, and see if the factors can interact better along with the 'physics' part, to recreate something that 'feels' even better. And in my opinion, they succeeded in doing that with IL-2 and Forgotten Battles.
....
Take out the ammo counters, change the hit sprites realistically, change the DM into something more subtle etc etc.. - as you mentioned, these are not itself gunnery, true. But each of those factors affect it in its own way.
Let's just pretend AH has gone through all those changes - hey, that's just the very chance to prove the "we're better shots than real pilots" theory, no?
Since the 'physics' will remain unchanged, "no ammo counters" and "different hit sprites according to shell type/hit distances" won't stop the 'experienced' from still taking long range shots, right? The physics would suggest the possibility is always there, even if other factors would act to lower the probability - if AH gamers are that skilled, those puny changes won't effect the player's terrific marksmanship!
....
Or.. maybe not?
...
Nobody's asking the bullets disappear over 500yards or something. I'm asking other factors be introduced in conjuction with the physics we already have. Turbulence is hard to model? Fine. Forget turbulence. But taking out ammo counters or changing hit sprites is feasible, is it not?
THAT, would be 'improvement'.
If those changes still don't bother 500 meter shots(as suggested by your faith in physics), then I humbly rest my case.
ps) while your exempt for the 'mandoland', which derives from nasty attitudes and rude remarks of people arguing what they want, is quite understandable... not all of the people who are not satisfied with what AH currently is, come from that territory.
