I'm almost hesitant to say .... no .... no ... I'm not ... so I'll just say it.
First thing's first. Are we, in reality, a camp divided or united in this venture? After all, there are two distinct beliefs in this party. One that believes that the F4U unbalances any setup with the IJ aircraft set as is (even with the N1K2J available without restriction) and one that doesn't believe that the F4U unbalances anything whatsoever in a setup that has all of the IJ aircraft in it(with the possible exception of the F4U-4).
Are we to address this before we get too deeply into this or not? I mean, this is a project that was suggested to get an acceptable enviroment for the F4U to be regularly featured without the restrictions placed on it currently. If the two "sub-groups" within the whole group approach things from distinctly different mindsets, I can't see us avoiding disputes later that would threaten the entire project.
We're talking about trying to create a terrain (or terrains), skins for substituting in order to fill in the IJ aircraft set gaps, etc. But there really is a reasonable limit we need to agree on to help make this idea a practical reality that appeals to all players. Is the LA-7 or Spit IX actually the best choices for subbing the Ki-84 (fast, maneuverable plane - post war testing showed the Ki84 to be faster at 20K than either the P51 or the P47 according to some sources)? Would Allied players be just as put off about facing hordes of "Japanese Lalas and Spitties" as IJ players are apparently put off about facing F4Us? Are we going to simulate the Ki-84 problems with production and maintenance with perkies or other methods? If that's the case, what will we do to "balance" the Allies?
Unfortunately, I still believe that some within this group believe and promote some mistaken ideals and platforms. I'm sure they feel the same about me and my fellow F4U proponents who dispute their claims.
Maybe we can first come up with a reasonable way to put our differing beliefs to the test? A way to convince one group or the other (or even reach some middle ground) that their belief about what is truly balanced and what is not holds merit?
Najdorf and I discussed the other night about running some group-wide tests dealing with speed, acceleration, handling, tactics, etc. with all the various models of Pacific planes that we plan to use (even potential subs). F4U proponents can fly opposition birds, those convinced the F4U unbalances things can fly it. The groups can switch back and forth. And once we've reached what we all comfortably agree is common ground in what is and isn't balanced ... then we can actually design something that we all can support whole-heartedly. Then if players wish to challenge it, we can provide exacting and specific data that applies to these planes WITHIN the AH enviroment.
Just sayin'. I don't want anyone (self included) to invest alot of thier valuable time in a project only to throw up their hands somewhere along the line in frustration and quit.