Author Topic: Friday Octrober 17th: The Soccer War... (Read 2293 times)

Reschke · « **Reply #30 on:** October 16, 2003, 11:31:35 AM »

Thanks for the comments both positive and negative in this thread. For the future I am planning on building a map and skins that are representative of both countries when the Terrain Editor for AH2 gets released. I brought this one up to the PACDEVGRU (Pacific Development Group -Combat Theater) strictly for some change and because the aircraft we have available fit it nicely for both sides. It was discussed and all thought it would at the least be a very interesting side bar to normal WW2 based setups. Especially since it is the last known combat between WW2 aircraft.

As for the aircraft represented on both sides. The biggest difference I noticed was one country flew the P-51D as their main aircraft while the other flew the F4U-4 as their main aircraft. Yes there were cannon armed aircraft on both sides but they were not a large portion of either countries air power from what I could gather in my searching.

Neither side had a large airforce and for that reason alone with the smaller numbers in the CT it should be a realtively easy setup.

Again thanks for the comments both positive and negative.

Oldman731 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 16, 2003, 11:43:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
good idea !! no spittards.

Right! I'm ready for any setup that lacks post-1940 spits. I'll even fly a corsairpig if necessary. Bring them on!

- oldman

Skyfoxx · « **Reply #32 on:** October 16, 2003, 01:20:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sure all of your setup ideas make this one pale in comparison but I've managed to miss them. What new setups have you researched and suggested?

Researched? Plenty but that's besides the point. What's wrong with the numerous 1939-1945 setups we have.
Nobody is forcing you to agree with me anyway. Just my opinion, that it's a lame setup especially considering AH is marketed as a WWII sim. You are entitled to your opinion.
Hey how about Vietnam next?

Arlo · « **Reply #33 on:** October 16, 2003, 02:06:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skyfoxx
Researched? Plenty but that's besides the point. What's wrong with the numerous 1939-1945 setups we have.
Nobody is forcing you to agree with me anyway. Just my opinion, that it's a lame setup especially considering AH is marketed as a WWII sim. You are entitled to your opinion.
Hey how about Vietnam next?

1: The "All the setups we have now are fine so why develop others?" stance. Surely you jest. There will be others researched and developed. You claim to be researching yourself. Why?

2: The "Nobody's forcing you to agree." stance. Well, derrrrrrr. And I don't. Commenting on how this untried setup "is the most ridiculous setup ever" simply because it doesn't appeal to you and you sure as hell won't try it ..... nor, apparently, offer something else different, in lieu, pretty much invites a smackdown.

3: The "Aces High is a WWII sim so anyone developing a setup that doesn't fall within 1939-1945 is pushing something that won't appeal to the majority of the customer base" stance. Gee .... the CT not appealing to the majority of the customer base. What's new? And now this won't appeal to you, either. You're just gonna take your ball and play somewhere else. Well hell ... sure you have the right to do that. And making a pissy comment over your shoulder is your right, too I guess. And responding in kind is my right too, I guess. Or maybe it's a combination punch.

4: The "How about Vietnam next?" stance. How about the Spanish Civil War? I'd love to see that. But, alas ... the planeset won't allow for it. But look! Wow! Who knew that WWII planes were still dogfighting in South America .... during the Vietnam era?! Hey, wouldya look at that! We got most of the planes modeled already! Go figure. Heh ... kudos to Reschke for researching and pitching this one.

I'm looking forward to you doing the same with your research that's unneccesary since we already have more than enough WWII setups in CT to satisfy all tastes and to offer something unique and refreshing on a regular basis. And when it isn't brought to the attention of the CT staff and it isn't posted here and it isn't flown ... I'll still be here to give it an actual try before I bother pissing or moaning about it. Unless I'm on vacation .... then I'm sure other's will gladly give it a shot. Of course ... I'm sure there'll be a few that'll complain about it out of hand that won't fly in it ... but hey ... we both know what their opinion's worth, don't we?

Reschke · « **Reply #34 on:** October 16, 2003, 02:27:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skyfoxx
Researched? Plenty but that's besides the point. What's wrong with the numerous 1939-1945 setups we have.
Nobody is forcing you to agree with me anyway. Just my opinion, that it's a lame setup especially considering AH is marketed as a WWII sim. You are entitled to your opinion.
Hey how about Vietnam next?

There wasn't anything wrong with the "numerous 1939-1945 setups" other than we don't have a completely fleshed out aircraft list to handle them all without making substitutions that everyone will fuss about. That is why this setup was brought to the front in my mind. It was limited historically in scope and length as well as types of aircraft but we have each aircraft involved modeled here. The Mosquito wasn't a part of the actual war (to my knowledge from researching the Soccer War) but Brady and I thought it would be nice to have a different twin engine in the mix.

I spent a good deal of time over the last few weeks not flying so I could come up with a couple of different setup ideas. Then I pitched it out to a group that Sakai and I started putting together a few weeks ago called the Pacific Development Group - Combat Theater (PACDEVGRU for short). I spoke one on one with a few other AH players to see what their interest might be in something that wasn't a 1939-1945 setup and it was a fairly well received idea considering we don't have a terrain or set of skins.

The idea for this one was one of 2-3 that I sent out for comment on by the PACDEVGRU (that includes some CT staffers). Again the comments were received from several people and most of the guys thought it would be a interesting diversion. Then Brady took the idea for the setup with my input to the CT staff and it was launched from there.

One of my favorite time frames in the war has always been the time from early 1940 - late 1941 but it just wasn't really doable with the current aircraft set. So that brought the idea off the table for me.

As for a Viet Nam setup...well I checked that out as well and there just wasn't enough of the planeset in it to get it ready in time. Maybe when we have a some single engine jet aircraft I will be able to whip up a terrain and skin set to make it happen. I mean they did fly the P-51 once in the theater on photo reconnaisance I believe as well as post WW2 A-1 SkyRaiders. Those were prop planes as well so we might be able to skin the 190A-8 to make it work.

As for now I am just helping when I can on a project called Target: Hanoi using the Targetware engine. Maybe we will have a skin set finished soon so we can join in the open beta time.

At any rate thanks for your comments Skyfoxx. I appreciate them and will enjoy flying something different in the CT for now.

Shane · « **Reply #35 on:** October 16, 2003, 02:45:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skyfoxx
Hey how about Vietnam next?

yah!!

the pd7d30 can represent the a1-h skyraider, the niki can represent numerous helicopters. osti's can be sams. 190g10's or me163's can be mig's, the c-hog can be the f4's, mossie can be a6 intruders. me262 can be the f16's or whatever.

lvt's as m13's (??) the zippos.

put back the cluttersheep as water buffalos.

it'd doable!!

Tuck · « **Reply #36 on:** October 16, 2003, 03:52:30 PM »

i didn't bother to read all of the replies to the original post because i scrolled down several and didn't see any "hooked" type replies...which makes me ask (regarding the original post) YOU'VE GOT TO BE squealing JOKING?! RIGHT?!

if this is the kinda stuff the ct is going to resort to, why not have a squealing hatfield vs. mccoy setup as suggested a few months ago when this whole "let's try something different" crap happened last time.

i don't fly the ma. i strictly fly the ct. it's a wwII sim. if i wanted something different, i'd go somewhere else....if this is real, and this kinda crap keeps happening, i'll take my 15 beans a month elsewhere.

Skyfoxx · « **Reply #37 on:** October 16, 2003, 04:12:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
1: The "All the setups we have now are fine so why develop others?" stance. Surely you jest. There will be others researched and developed. You claim to be researching yourself. Why?

Where did I say this?

Of course more setups are better, where we disagree at is the era. As far as the research goes Arlo, yes I do research for snapshots and for my own satisfaction. I hope that is ok with you.

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
2: The "Nobody's forcing you to agree." stance. Well, derrrrrrr. And I don't. Commenting on how this untried setup "is the most ridiculous setup ever" simply because it doesn't appeal to you and you sure as hell won't try it ..... nor, apparently, offer something else different, in lieu, pretty much invites a smackdown.

Again, where did I say I wouldn't try it?

But you are I probably right, so what, it won't be the first time.
And don't go getting all high and mighty. You've done your share of complaining here,(much of it warranted I might add), so don't think you have the market cornered.

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
3: The "Aces High is a WWII sim so anyone developing a setup that doesn't fall within 1939-1945 is pushing something that won't appeal to the majority of the customer base" stance.

Yes I'm sure that you are right, I guess that's why it's taking so long to get the roster filled for the current post ww2 scenario thats about to start.

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
You're just gonna take your ball and play somewhere else. Well hell ... sure you have the right to do that. And making a pissy comment over your shoulder is your right, too I guess. And responding in kind is my right too, I guess. Or maybe it's a combination punch.

Uh gee, I didn't realize I was taking my ball home.

Ok, relax big boy, put your spurs away, I'm not gonna get in a p*ssing contest with you over it.

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
4: The "How about Vietnam next?" stance. How about the Spanish Civil War? I'd love to see that. But, alas ... the planeset won't allow for it.

What, you mean the lack of a KI84 is holding that up to?

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
I'm looking forward to you doing the same with your research that's unneccesary since we already have more than enough WWII setups in CT

Once again, where did I say this?

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo And when it isn't brought to the attention of the CT staff and it isn't posted here and it isn't flown ... I'll still be here to give it an actual try before I bother pissing or moaning about it.

Arlo I have no doubt that you will be here humping someone's leg over something.

While I usually agree with most of what you say on the boards Arlo, we simply disagree on this point. No biggie, and I know you want to fly your Hog, so have fun with it next week. Let's simply agree to disagree and move on.

And to Reschke, no dis-respect intended, didn't mean to slam your efforts, I just simply disagree is all.
And please see to it that Arlo get's his meds, he seems to be wound a little tighter than normal. I fear he has been hanging with the wrong crowd again.

Arlo · « **Reply #38 on:** October 16, 2003, 04:23:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tuck
i didn't bother to read all of the replies to the original post because i scrolled down several and didn't see any "hooked" type replies...which makes me ask (regarding the original post) YOU'VE GOT TO BE squealing JOKING?! RIGHT?!

if this is the kinda stuff the ct is going to resort to, why not have a squealing hatfield vs. mccoy setup as suggested a few months ago when this whole "let's try something different" crap happened last time.

i don't fly the ma. i strictly fly the ct. it's a wwII sim. if i wanted something different, i'd go somewhere else....if this is real, and this kinda crap keeps happening, i'll take my 15 beans a month elsewhere.

I give it a 4

Arlo · « **Reply #39 on:** October 16, 2003, 04:24:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skyfoxx
Where did I say this?

Again, where did I say I wouldn't try it? :

Uh gee, I didn't realize I was taking my ball home.

What, you mean the lack of a KI84 is holding that up to?

Once again, where did I say this?

Let's simply agree to disagree and move on.

And to Reschke, no dis-respect intended (easily most ridiculous), didn't mean to slam your efforts (easily most ridiculous), I just simply disagree is all.

And please see to it that Arlo get's his meds, he seems to be wound a little tighter than normal. I fear he has been hanging with the wrong crowd again. (Easily most ridiculous)

~~5 or so~~

Slash27 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 16, 2003, 04:40:22 PM »

Add the C-Hog

Reschke · « **Reply #41 on:** October 16, 2003, 04:47:23 PM »

Arlo is supposed to be in the brig drying out. I guess someone gave the bum access to the computer while he was going through the DT's or something.

As for the setup its as I stated above. I offered this suggestion up to a group of people that is representative of nearly every type of taste that flies in the CT. There were objections but not one person thought it wouldn't be an interesting setup that would take us out of the substitution phase that I have seen the CT fall into recently. I admit there is one substitution but its only there for gameplay and thats the Mossie.

Thanks again for your comments and most of all if you don't have the willingness to fly this setup then don't. Although I hope some of you actually do try to fly it. The critics are what make us improve on the setups and since this is my first one I would appreciate constructive criticism but if you can't be constructive then so be it.

Skyfoxx · « **Reply #42 on:** October 16, 2003, 04:47:32 PM »

Admit it Arlo. You have been assimilated by brady, haven't you?

Before you get all pissy, that was only a joke.

TheBug · « **Reply #43 on:** October 16, 2003, 06:07:46 PM »

Although I respect the efforts to find a new and exciting setup. I just wanted to add that my opinion is I very much prefer the quasi-historical WWII setups.(I say quasi only to acknowledge the planeset limitations) I only speak that opinion to provide feedback to the CT staffers, not to trash their ideas. I may fly a few times this week, I may not. The set-up won't keep me out of the CT but it surely will not draw me in.

Just picked up Forgotten Battle though, so I have a diversion for a week:)

Speaking of setup ideas, have you every tried going the other way and having less planes instead of trying to fit in more planes? Have set-ups that highlight the action between two reknown air units for example. The 56th FG versus JG26 for a rough example, allow only the fighter planes of each unit with maybe a couple support planes as background(for escort missions etc..), turn off base capture and then at the end of the week post an AAR on how each side faired??

Just an idea so that wingnut Arlo doesn't spill his fruit loops.

Jester · « **Reply #44 on:** October 16, 2003, 06:42:02 PM »

Bad news guys, Major Soto's Hogg #609 that he got his 3 kills in is just as Blue as the Navy & Marine versions we fly in here.

Only difference is the blue/white/blue wing and tail stripes. This should be an easy one to skin. But some of the Salvadorian Hoggs were in camo schemes.

There are some killer camo schemes for the P-51's with snake and GV type patterns of greens and browns over grey. Many of the P-51's were Private Cavalier Mustangs that had been rebuilt for civilian use that were taken over by the military, armed and had national markings hastily applied and that is how they flew into combat - still in their civilian colors.