Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: scJazz on January 04, 2004, 12:30:38 PM
-
Ability to lock or control loadouts on aircraft by type.
For instance...
Locking the 110G2 to never being able to fly with ORD
Locking the 110G2 to never being able to fly with 4 20mm and 2 30mm only 2 20mm and 2 30mm gun option.
Locking P51D to never carrying ORD.
ETC, ETC, ETC
This will make the Scenarios and CT setups so much better.
-
How in the world does that make the CT ... or anything else ... better? :lol
-
If you stopped and thought about it for even 1 minute as opposed to spouting your inane insults, sarcastic comments, and drivel even you would be able to think of the reasons.
-
So you don't know, either. Gotcha. :aok :lol
-
Good idea Jazz.
It could be specified in the plane and fields option.
-
If it's limiting porkage that you're shooting for then any object can be made indestructable in settings already - fuel, hangars, etc. :)
(http://invis.free.anonymizer.com/http://www.geocities.com/arlogu3/setting.jpg)
-
I think he means limiting loadout options for scenarios. For example, not allowing a P51 to carry ord for a bomber escort mission.
-
Better yet would be to be able to fine tune what was available. For example 500lbers, but not 1000lbers for the Allied aircraft.
Or the ability to set perk prices for heavier loadouts.
Arlo,
The reason for this is to limit players in scenarios and CT setups from always taking the heaviest loadout, a loadout which was frequently not available in reality. As it stands now the Allies have a huge jabo advantage that was not nearly so pronounced in WWII because the heavy Allied that is always available and used here, was not usually used in WWII.
This is, of course, a request for scenarios and the CT, not to change the MA.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Better yet would be to be able to fine tune what was available. For example 500lbers, but not 1000lbers for the Allied aircraft.
Or the ability to set perk prices for heavier loadouts.
Arlo,
The reason for this is to limit players in scenarios and CT setups from always taking the heaviest loadout, a loadout which was frequently not available in reality. As it stands now the Allies have a huge jabo advantage that was not nearly so pronounced in WWII because the heavy Allied that is always available and used here, was not usually used in WWII.
This is, of course, a request for scenarios and the CT, not to change the MA.
Dont forget about CAP. ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The reason for this is to limit players in scenarios and CT setups from always taking the heaviest loadout, a loadout which was frequently not available in reality. As it stands now the Allies have a huge jabo advantage that was not nearly so pronounced in WWII because the heavy Allied that is always available and used here, was not usually used in WWII.
This is, of course, a request for scenarios and the CT, not to change the MA.
I understand it's a request for historical and semi-historical match-ups. I don't generally discuss MA related issues in the TOD forum.
As far as the Allies having any sort of airfield ordinance logistics problems late in the war (most heavy hauling Allied fighter-bombers are late war planes) is concerned, I'm not aware of this ever having been the case. I could be wrong about an isolated incident or two but I'm sceptical of even that. By 1944 the Allies had a strong logistical system in every theater of combat. So much so that luxuries quite often made it to the front. The Allies were dropping bombs on everything in sight, just about. In the Pacific, squadrons on front-line island strips modified F4U-1s to carry ordinance (it's original configuration didn't have a bomb mount). They received plenty of heavy bombs to experiment with then carry for for ground strikes. And we know production wasn't a problem.
Let's face historical facts here - the Allies did indeed enjoy an advantage in fighter-bomber bomb-loads. That makes a suggestion to allow for such load-outs to be "switched off" by CMs and CT staffers a bad one, in my opinion. It's yet another artificial "balancing" tool that is designed to be used on a specific side that's not really a necessity nor a reflection of reality.
Basically the Axis were on the offensive and the Allies on the defensive during the first half of the war and those roles reversed as the war progressed. If AH players want to change history and "win the war", per say .... they better do it before 1944. After that then I would suggest players who fly Axis adopt a new mindset that involves more "keeping the invaders at bay and making their advances too costly" instead of "let's capture all of England after the D-Day invasion because it's cool, man." After all, the only reason to want to balance the fighter-bomber loadouts on both sides is to give them an equal chance of grabbing territory. How would that accurately portray the events of WWII, even with a degree of alternate reality involved?
That doesn't mean there isn't something that could be tweaked in the strategic resupply system of Aces High. But eliminating options currently available to players that actually reflect the capabilities of their aircraft isn't the answer. I would divert those energies to campaigning for more early war aircraft thereby allowing more early war scenarios where the Axis can win the war before it's too late.
Anyway ....
Here's a possibility for scenarios and events (though not really for the CT): Require actual mission design and assignment. That way players have to carry the ordinance and fuel load in the mission. Any player that flies independently of a mission is ejected.
-
Let's face historical facts here - the Allies did indeed enjoy an advantage in fighter-bomber bomb-loads. That makes a suggestion to allow for such load-outs to be "switched off" by CMs and CT staffers a bad one, in my opinion. It's yet another artificial "balancing" tool that is designed to be used on a specific side that's not really a necessity nor a reflection of reality.
yes...and this feature will allow them to represent that advantage by lowering the capabilities of the german side to better reflect reality...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
yes...and this feature will allow them to represent that advantage by lowering the capabilities of the german side to better reflect reality...
No, this feature would allow CMs and CT staffers to change things that are better left alone. There are plenty of tools already being used too much as is.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Let's face historical facts here - the Allies did indeed enjoy an advantage in fighter-bomber bomb-loads. That makes a suggestion to allow for such load-outs to be "switched off" by CMs and CT staffers a bad one, in my opinion. It's yet another artificial "balancing" tool that is designed to be used on a specific side that's not really a necessity nor a reflection of reality.
Reasons for making suggestion in no particular order.
1) Makes finding plane substitutions much easier! A 110G2 limited to 2 x 20mm and 2 x 30mm with 250kg bombs is a reasonable replacement for the KI-45 for instance. NO it isn't exact! YES there are lots of differences! But it generally has the payload and gun threat of a KI-45. Obviously having the KI-45 would be better.
2) During the War squadrons were tasked to missions with specific planes. An ETO operation around France might have had P51s flying escort for heavy P47s. The advantage to scenario play is obvious.
I forgot to put in my request that, yes, plane loadout should be perkable if this feature were available.
As far as your comments about "balancing"... please... please... please fly as many heavy fighters in the airspace around me as you like. Tell all your Allied friends to do the same. This isn't an insult to you but rather an idea that I've written about many times.
If you don't like what another player is doing grab a fighter and stop them. That is what the guns are for... ya know?
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Reasons for making suggestion in no particular order.
1) Makes finding plane substitutions much easier! A 110G2 limited to 2 x 20mm and 2 x 30mm with 250kg bombs is a reasonable replacement for the KI-45 for instance. NO it isn't exact! YES there are lots of differences! But it generally has the payload and gun threat of a KI-45. Obviously having the KI-45 would be better.
So asking for this feature to be coded is better than asking for the planes that are being subbed?
Originally posted by scJazz
2) During the War squadrons were tasked to missions with specific planes. An ETO operation around France might have had P51s flying escort for heavy P47s. The advantage to scenario play is obvious.
Hence the participation in actual missions which is already modeled in the game.
Originally posted by scJazz
As far as your comments about "balancing"... please... please... please fly as many heavy fighters in the airspace around me as you like. Tell all your Allied friends to do the same. This isn't an insult to you but rather an idea that I've written about many times.
If you don't like what another player is doing grab a fighter and stop them. That is what the guns are for... ya know?
Don't get to thinking it's all that original. If you can understand why I'm challenging this "wonderful new feature" you can understand I'm already there. :D
-
Originally posted by Corsair
I think he means limiting loadout options for scenarios. For example, not allowing a P51 to carry ord for a bomber escort mission.
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
who will carry bombs flying in to deep enemy territory?
only kamikadze or noob
Arlo idea is not bad, stop hijacking pls
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Arlo idea is not bad, stop hijacking pls
Idea sucks.
Your opinion - my opinion. How the hell is this hijacking?!:lol
-
we both know sometimes HTC is too busy ( or like somone call , too lazzy) ;-)
new airplanes, whichone we need "right now" for scenario or event are out of our range.
Noone can force HT to speed up, plugin new aircrafts to game.
When designers of events think about use substitute of aircraft. One of arguments aginst is too big load or too big firepower. So they cannot use this planes as substitutes worry about "wrong use" by players.
If HT can make this settings for every aircraft and every field, we can use same aircraft with diferent guns/bombs configuration for events. In place of one subtype of plane , bang! We have 2 diferent planes or even more.
Look on109's, 190's, 110's and many others
All this imho easier to plug in to the game then build another subtype of plane. Bigger challange for designers and for CO's
ramzey
-
he's challenging it because it gives to much control to the people who are trying to make a scenario work...but unless those people have control over what ordinance is available...the scenario cannot work because people will automaticly take max loadout...and in most cases those people may not want them to be able to as during that period one side or another may not have been able to have access to those material (as arlo himself stated)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
All this imho easier to plug in to the game then build another subtype of plane. Bigger challange for designers and for CO's
ramzey
Well, I have no experience coding or recoding game engines, myself. I have no idea how much harder it would be to add a new plane or vehicle to Aces High than it would be to add another feature that would just as likely be misused as not by CMs and staffers who already have their mind made up about how it would benefit them, personally. I suspect that new plane and/or vehicle additions would come ahead of such a feature in most of the community's opinion of what benefits the game most ... but I could be wrong. :D
-
Originally posted by vorticon
he's challenging it because it gives to much control to the people who are trying to make a scenario work...but unless those people have control over what ordinance is available...the scenario cannot work because people will automaticly take max loadout...and in most cases those people may not want them to be able to as during that period one side or another may not have been able to have access to those material (as arlo himself stated)
That's a pretty stupid assumption considering I've suggested scenario CMs require canned missions that prevent such on penalty of ejection. It already exists in the game. I guess it's just too hard a concept for some. ;)
-
Arlo, you immediately jumped on the "misuse" bandwagon without first thinking of the obvious use. Then again your reaction to just about anything is contrary, sarcastic, and flippant. You obviously think of this behaviour as right... some sort of defense mechanism.
The feature is useful. Only one lone voice is yammering in the night and no one is listening.:o
-
it would be a bit difficult to check what every player is flying with...
this is easier...and makes sure that morons who dont use the thingy that is already in the mission planner dont ruin everyones fun
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Arlo, you immediately jumped on the "misuse" bandwagon without first thinking of the obvious use. Then again your reaction to just about anything is contrary, sarcastic, and flippant. You obviously think of this behaviour as right... some sort of defense mechanism.
The feature is useful. Only one lone voice is yammering in the night and no one is listening.:o
Eh .. you're just being defensive. Shows from your first reaction on. ;)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
it would be a bit difficult to check what every player is flying with...
this is easier...and makes sure that morons who dont use the thingy that is already in the mission planner dont ruin everyones fun
How? Can't a CM check the maproom mission page in both maprooms, do a quick headcount then go to the roster and see if the numbers match? Screenshot and print it out even if he want's to get a name to warn or eject? He could even delegate to mission leaders somewhat.
"People .... get your pilots in missions. If I catch someone flying rogue they're gone."
A feature that highlights the roster names to show who is and who isn't in a mission may be better ... even easier ... to add. :)
-
Eh .. you're just being defensive. Shows from your first reaction on.
that sounds like a mini-d sentence...:p ;)
-
Are you intimate with mini-d sentence structure? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
How? Can't a CM check the maproom mission page in both maprooms, do a quick headcount then go to the roster and see if the numbers match? Screenshot and print it out even if he want's to get a name to warn or eject? He could even delegate to mission leaders somewhat.
"People .... get your pilots in missions. If I catch someone flying rogue they're gone."
A feature that highlights the roster names to show who is and who isn't in a mission may be better ... even easier ... to add. :)
sounds like a viable alternative...but what about in the CT???
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Are you intimate with mini-d sentence structure? :D
your right...putting people on the defensive as fast as possible is more of a lazs thing...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
sounds like a viable alternative...but what about in the CT???
The CT needs some of the tools already being used locked down. :lol
-
Originally posted by vorticon
your right...putting people on the defensive as fast as possible is more of a lazs thing...
Hehe ... you apparently aren't familiar with my past dealings with Lazs. Or are you?;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hehe ... you apparently aren't familiar with my past dealings with Lazs. Or are you?;)
ive had my own dealings with him...the thing is he always uses the same arguments...though ive only gotten past em once
The CT needs some of the tools already being used locked down.
how so???
-
I've seen the "balancing game" there too often. It usually involves all sorts of softening here and hardening there and limiting this and that for all sorts of unusual reasons that involve bias on the "balance master's" part. It really isn't the tool's fault. But it's easier to control the giving of the tool than the fool using it. ;)
IMO
-
But it's easier to control the giving of the tool than the fool using it.
you know that is exactly the entire anti-gun lobbys point....now back on topic
so your worried about misuse of the tool...but in the same way that it can be misused it can be used to make it a bit more realistic...such as early war setup...but planes still carrying bombloads that were NOT available during that time...and it would be THIS tool to be used to "balance" than to make things unrealistictly harder/softer...
-
Never said otherwise. My argument against it has always been that the people using it won't know what they're doing.
The irony of it all is that my online sim roots involve a great deal of player controlled events where all of us wished we had more options to work with. We were a group that worked hard to push the boundries of the game and offer something new. And I still campaign for trying new ideas including skinning/subbing, etc. Yet my experiences in the CT has revealed that some people really have no business tweaking the game either due to incompetence or bias. I certainly don't want them to have even more settings to muck around with when they don't really know what they're doing with the ones they already have access to.
That being the case ... if there's already a way to acheive the goal claimed to be the benefit of coding yet another setting tweak, why not just use that instead? If the argument is players flying bomber escort missions in scenarios with bombs slung, make them join a mission that doesn't offer that option. If they decide to fly rogue in spite of warnings not to, boot to the head.
-
Arlo,
So you're claiming that HTC modeled fake loadouts when they modeled 500lb bombs and 250lb bombs for hard points on US and UK aircraft that can carry heavier bombs?
After all, the Allies just always too the heaviest loadouts we have in AH, at least as you'd have us believe.
Oh, and before you claim they modeled them because they could carry those loadouts, even if they never did, look at the Tempest's loadouts. It could carry rockets, but it never did in WWII so they didn't model it with them.
-
The irony of it all is that my online sim roots involve a great deal of player controlled events where all of us wished we had more options to work with. We were a group that worked hard to push the boundries of the game and offer something new. And I still campaign for trying new ideas including skinning/subbing, etc. Yet my experiences in the CT has revealed that some people really have no business tweaking the game either due to incompetence or bias. I certainly don't want them to have even more settings to muck around with when they don't really know what they're doing with the ones they already have access to.
That being the case ... if there's already a way to acheive the goal claimed to be the benefit of coding yet another setting tweak, why not just use that instead? If the argument is players flying bomber escort missions in scenarios with bombs slung, make them join a mission that doesn't offer that option. If they decide to fly rogue in spite of warnings not to, boot to the head
the thing is there is no way to acheive that goal in the CT currently...and if some people dont know what there doing due to bias or incompetence then they SHOULD NOT be allowed to do the tweaks...if it has to be learned who doesnt know what there doing through experience so be it...but that doesnt mean CT and SEA staffers should be limited in settings because of them...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Arlo,
So you're claiming that HTC modeled fake loadouts when they modeled 500lb bombs and 250lb bombs for hard points on US and UK aircraft that can carry heavier bombs?
After all, the Allies just always too the heaviest loadouts we have in AH, at least as you'd have us believe.
Oh, and before you claim they modeled them because they could carry those loadouts, even if they never did, look at the Tempest's loadouts. It could carry rockets, but it never did in WWII so they didn't model it with them.
Whatever you're smoking ... don't bogart. :D
As far as the main topic is concerned I'm saying the suggestion and promotion of a new arena setting to lockout fighter-bomber load-outs is unnecessary and ridiculous. Reducing options that are part of AH's game design, under the guise of historical accuracy and reducing "gamey" play with side commentary on how unfair an advantage the Allied fighter-bombers enjoy over their Axis counterparts can't help but appear somewhat related to a axis biased agenda. It wouldn't have a "universal" use. The specific example of how it would "benefit" scenarios has been countered with a suggestion that involves features already exisiting in the game ... that ARE universal in nature. Any example of how it would "benefit" the CT are already overshadowed by current incompetency in the use of arena settings already in the game.
And what I'm saying directly about your claim that the Allies suffered logistical problems and couldn't provide whatever loadout needed to accomplish a mission by the time late war fighter-bombers were in wide-spread use is that I find such a claim highly dubious. And your example of how the flexability of ... or even missing ... load-out options in Aces High supports your claim is beyond me. Do you really think the Allies would load nothing but maximum load-outs unless they were hampered by shortages? Do you really think because HTC didn't model rockets for Temps that that supports a setting to lockout what ordinance options they DID model? Please tell me you can rationalize better than that. Better yet, come back with some less than rare or questionable historical references to back up your historical claim. Don't try to prove it by guessing why HT modeled the game the way he did. :lol
I hope that made my position clearer. :aok
-
Originally posted by vorticon
the thing is there is no way to acheive that goal in the CT currently...and if some people dont know what there doing due to bias or incompetence then they SHOULD NOT be allowed to do the tweaks...if it has to be learned who doesnt know what there doing through experience so be it...but that doesnt mean CT and SEA staffers should be limited in settings because of them...
Ahhh .... but it also doesn't mean a setting that really isn't necessary should be added because some players think other players are being gamey for flying with the maximum ordinance their plane is allowed to carry. Maybe if there's a track record of scenarios being ruined by such I could almost understand. But there isn't and even then ... I believe we already have the tools in the game to handle such a problem ... if we'd just use them.
It's a tool with a lop-sided use at best and it isn't really needed.
-
but it also doesn't mean a setting that really isn't necessary should be added because some players think other players are being gamey for flying with the maximum ordinance their plane is allowed to carry. Maybe if there's a track record of scenarios being ruined by such I could almost understand. But there isn't and even then ... I believe we already have the tools in the game to handle such a problem ... if we'd just use them.
ah ha...but we dont have the tools needed to impliment something similar in the CT...wich i have mentioned several times...while there really isnt a NEED for it...it would have its uses in the same way that the kate does...
but the realism argument for such a tool stands like so
some planes used 250lb bombs until later in the war when they started carrying 500lb bombs...to have 500lb bombs in the CT/SEA in a earlier scenario would be unrealistic...
or as stated by yourself
later in the war the axis had poor supply lines and thus were not capable of taking max bomb loads...and to allow such bombloads in a later scenario when they werent available would be unrealistic and therefore weaken gameplay
It's a tool with a lop-sided use at best and it isn't really needed.
lop-sided because it has the ability to be "balancing"...
if you still cant see the uses (and yes there could be problems...but no system is perfect...) i dont think you ever will and continued debate would be a waste...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
ah ha...but we dont have the tools needed to impliment something similar in the CT...wich i have mentioned several times...
I've stated why I don't think it's needed in the CT. :)
Originally posted by vorticon
some planes used 250lb bombs until later in the war when they started carrying 500lb bombs...to have 500lb bombs in the CT/SEA in a earlier scenario would be unrealistic...
Dunno bout the German birds but every Allied plane that's outfitted to carry the 1k bomb carried them from day 1.
Originally posted by vorticon
later in the war the axis had poor supply lines and thus were not capable of taking max bomb loads...and to allow such bombloads in a later scenario when they werent available would be unrealistic and therefore weaken gameplay
Really? Is this a fact? If so .. would it affect all axis planes? Three quarters? Half? How does this tool reflect that? :confused:
Originally posted by vorticon
lop-sided because it has the ability to be "balancing"...
You and I know that "balancing" is more often opinion than fact. ;)
Originally posted by vorticon
if you still cant see the uses (and yes there could be problems...but no system is perfect...) i dont think you ever will and continued debate would be a waste...
You're probably right but it was still fun dis-cussing (hehe - ptp) Maybe there's a different argument that'll convince me in the future. Or if I run across anything that changes my mind, I'll post it.
-
You're probably right but it was still fun dis-cussing (hehe - ptp) Maybe there's a different argument that'll convince me in the future. Or if I run across anything that changes my mind, I'll post it.
agreed
-
How about a hitlist, highlighting the people you want to stalk and kill.
-
Arlo, how about this:
Next CAP frame we run you can CO a side and tell me exactly what missions you want on the list with what loadouts (within the rules that I give you days in advance) then we'll set them up, you can even heard some people to help in setting up the missions. Then you can wait a bit while I count numbers and shout at people until we've got em all in, this may take a while. Then off we go. During the 25 mins we're waiting for spawn window 2 you can tell me about all the missions you want on the board this time.......and set them up. Then the spawn will be delayed for another 10 minutes while I shout at people to get in a mission.......repeat for 4 spawn windows.
Oh and if someone decided at any point to withdraw from a mission after flight was enabled, change their loadout and spawn with the rest......I would have no way to know unless I spend an hour trawling through the logs after the event looking for violators.
:)
Sorry mate but I like this idea and will be pointing Flossy this way since she's the blessed one who gets to speak to God. Er, I mean HiTech.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Arlo,
Have you ever given any consideration to becoming a CM ?
Try it and maybe the experience will benefit you and AH
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Sorry mate but I like this idea and will be pointing Flossy this way since she's the blessed one who gets to speak to God. Er, I mean HiTech.
I see potential for the feature itself to become a problem. It may be simpler to use but it appears no more practical to me than my suggestion appears to you. Besides, players who purposefully break event rules don't seem as common as they may have been in the past. And the occasional transgressor usually makes their presense known after which their presense usually ceases by one method or another.
The example given of a player flying bomber escort with a full load of ordinance is pretty silly. I'd love for the opposing side to try this.
I don't see the justification for it but I see a potential misuse of it. If I felt differently about either of those perceptions then, of course, I'd be on the bandwagon for it too.
Incidently, I did, however, suggest that fleet cover during the P.I. invasion CAP frames load ordinance and dump it ondeck to give greater operational flexability between windows. With participation at it's current levels it's better to have such flexability without forcing the players to be locked into just one role (unless the frame rules prohibit it for some reason).
I suppose it all boils down to what someone* thinks is practical and necessary.
But if you think it's really worth *HT's effort and want to campaign for it, that's your call. I'm just the dev's advocate in this. :)
p.s. I know this feature request is obviously not related to the upcoming TOD but .... we all realize that TOD is going to be pretty much a mission oriented/driven variation of Ace's High, right?
-
Originally posted by Jim
Arlo,
Have you ever given any consideration to becoming a CM ?
Try it and maybe the experience will benefit you and AH
Sure I have. I may even re-apply someday. :D
-
It would sure help me keep the hog dweebs from uber porking everything in site during late war pac events... right Arlo?
:)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
It would sure help me keep the hog dweebs from uber porking everything in site during late war pac events... right Arlo?
:)
-Sik
Hell ... but then what will the hog dweebs have to do?
Ahem!
"Deck crews! Unload ordinance and throw it overboard! Enemy orders!" :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Ahem!
"Deck crews! Unload ordinance and throw it overboard! Enemy orders!" :D
Not the enemy.
God.
-Sik
(Opps, I let the power go to my head again)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Not the enemy.
God.
-Sik
(Opps, I let the power go to my head again)
Well ... when you see the enemy pass on this quote for me:
"If you don't like what another player is doing grab a fighter and stop them. That is what the guns are for... ya know?" :D
-
The CMs have requested that we get tools allowing for loadouts to be "turned off". Im hoping it makes it to AH2.
-
I hope not. There haven't really been enough decent examples of it's necessity to warrant it.
- Good for subbing the 110 (not really much else)
- Keeps bomber escort from loading with max ord (which really isn't wise to begin with)
- Keeps fuel/hangars/troops from getting porked (so does hardening all of them and dropping their regen time)
Besides ....
- TOD will come out with canned missions. And canned missions can be used in events as well.
- Scenarios haven't really had much problem with loadout options being abused.
- In the CT, the first thing Brady will use it for is to lockout Allied FB ord loadouts to all but 250s and below and still bump up the island defenses to double while stationing all the Allies on softened fleets ... to further "balance" his Pacific CT setups.
I'd rather see HT and company model some of the planes we intend to substitute existing models for. Especially Japanese models. That does more to address most of the issues than adding another setting that practices "addition by subtraction."
Ok ... done made my point over and again. *ShruG* ;)
And I still love you guys. Thanks for the beer. :D
-
sales man: "a new super golf club has been developed for the common man...you can buy them for less than 700 dollars"
arlo: "there not needed, dont produce them"
sales man: "why not?"
arlo: "because my 70 year old wooden clubs work fine, the carbon alloy clubs are stonger and have a potential to be used as a bellybutton scratcher, and there havent been any such problems with current clubs"
sales man: " but they add length to your drive, prevent people from misuse in other ways"
arlo: "they still have a potential for misuse. anyway a new version will come out that should do the same thing but with a bit more effort, and anyway there hasnt been any track record of "your" misuse..."
sales man : " the "new way" will only work in 2 places, the place were these clubs are needed cannot use them"
arlo: "but that place where its needed and cannot be used already misuses a current type of club to give him this one wil make him do even more misuse."
sales man: " but if it is used improperly then im sure someone will complain"
etc. etc.
(great...now im doing gold analogys)
-
Try:
"Hey! Lets add a 10 iron between the 9 iron and the pitching wedge!"
"Yeah ... we really need a 10 iron!"
"Why do we need a ten iron?!"
"Because it ain't a nine iron!"
"Or a pitching wedge!"
But, of course ... that's not in keeping with the 14 club rule instituted in 1939.
Maybe a better analogy would be:
"Well, Seumas, we're up to five irons now."
"Ah think we kin do with some moooore."
"A six iron?!"
"Ah was thinkin' more along the lines of a four an' a half, laddie. The jump between irons may need refinin'."
(Fortunately Seumas sobered up and after his hangover decided "progression via regression" wasn't the way to go.)
(http://www.golfeurope.com/almanac/history/his_trium.gif)