Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Boozeman on October 05, 2009, 06:48:46 AM
-
Well, the recent Do-335 wish and the easily predictable responses made me think about if should not be some change to the aircraft addition criteria. While I see what the actual criteria is supposed to do (keep what if fanatsy birds of of AH) I also think it rules out very intersting birds, that would not water down the flavor of AH to an anything goes kind of game...
My suggestion would be to alter the addition criteria to something like this:
- The plane should have existed in more that a handful prototypes somewhere between September 1, 1939 and September 2, 1945. That rules out experimental planes and testbeds.
- There should be enough first hand data on the plane to model it to AH standards.
That should be enough not to open the floodgates for Luft-46 style what-ifs, but still have (in my eyes) perfectly valid WW2 hardware the like:
- Do335
- F7F
- F8F
- DH. 103 (probably)
- P-80
and a couple of others.
However, as a price for their rareness, they should be perked very high, just like the 262. Even if the performance would not justify it (at least for prop birds).
Please note that I'm aware that there are more important planes to be added than these. But I'd be happy if their status would change from "no-go" to "perhaps".
-
LOL
Sorry, but the rule is, must have seen combat on the squadron level. Not prototypes, one off's, or 2 guys going for a joy ride in the latest sweet thing.
.....My suggestion would be to alter the addition criteria to something like this:.....
Why? What do you gain except inclusion of aircraft which will never be included?
If you want to build a flight sim based around 1946 and what if's go ahead, let me know when its
done.
But I'd rather not see the rules changed.
-
LOL
Sorry, but the rule is, must have seen combat on the squadron level. Not prototypes, one off's, or 2 guys going for a joy ride in the latest sweet thing.
.....My suggestion would be to alter the addition criteria to something like this:.....
Why? What do you gain except inclusion of aircraft which will never be included?
If you want to build a flight sim based around 1946 and what if's go ahead, let me know when its
done.
But I'd rather not see the rules changed.
Did you read my post in detail? Obvoiusly not.
- no 46 what ifs
- no prototypes
- no one offs
Just skip the squadron and combat rule, and have some really unique WW2 gear included.
Those planes were so real as it can get - no fantasy stuff at all.
Would the inclusion of any of the planes I mentioned harm AH in any way?
-
Hmm...why we dont even have the ones that made combat in squadrons yet. Perhaps we should hope for those first.
Examples:
P-61a/b
He-111
The Beua
P-51A
A-36
:devilB-29 :devil
-
Hmm...why we dont even have the ones that made combat in squadrons yet. Perhaps we should hope for those first.
Examples:
P-61a/b
He-111
The Beua
P-51A
A-36
:devilB-29 :devil
No doubt about that. I never asked them to be on a priority list, just to add the chance of addition at some point in the future.
-
IL-2 1946......
-
IL-2 1946......
No, thats not what I want - try harder. And why give my money to Oleg if it could go to HTC instead?
-
I have to say that we work towards filling in the inventory with planes and vehicles that do fall within the current guidelines, then worry about adding the others that fall outside the guidelines. Do I think we should rule them out entirely? NO. :aok
-
i still think that we need the Raiden. its a perfectly normal interceptor that saw combat at the squadron level in 1944-45
why wish for something that didnt even fight in WW2?
-
How about HTC adds the planes that are sorely missing before we worry about the rare birds? Like the He-111, G4M, Ki-45, Ki-43, J2M-3, Yak-1 and 1B, LaGG-3, Yak-9D, etc.
-
This comment........ Will never ever, not in this lifetime, go away. :D We'll always be sorely missing something.
How about HTC adds the planes that are sorely missing before we worry about the rare birds?
I'm not really sure HTC is ready for something such as this, or needs to worry about it really. We do need the "normal" stuff we're missing. But I do think in the future evolution of AH, say in AH3 maybe, HTC would be benefited with modifying the addition rule. But that's purely from the business side.
-
This idea isnt that of base,well except changing the rules.
I would like to see AHII to a point where all the countries involved in WW2 had somewhat of a palneset,if not a complete set. Then it would be interesting to see HTC expand offer a new arena,launch AHIII,I'm not sure,but then they could model say a Korean war planset and include some "what if's".
Or my personal favorite,do a WW1 arena,I'm sure if either of these were implemented at the proper time I for 1 would be here for as long as I'm still upright!!!
:salute
-
Almost forgot, FYI:
criteria or criterions = plural
criterion = singular
Carry on. ;)
-
No doubt about that. I never asked them to be on a priority list, just to add the chance of addition at some point in the future.
I'm sure that if HTC decides to change the rules about plane addition at some later point, they're probably empowered to do just that.
In the meantime, Just for arguments' sake, say there are 100 aircraft yet to be added that qualify under the current rules, and, at the current rate of .. what, 4/year .. we're talking about 25 years before we could start to expect to see some post-war uber-rides starting to appear.
I'd be willing to wager some of Filth's body parts that your craving for uber-supremo rides will have waned a bit.
-
While I concur with the sentiment that there are planes missing that meet the current criteria, I also believe that the wish of the OP has merit.
My personal opinion is that several planes that are currently missing should be added before any of the planes in the "gray area" are added. Additionally I feel that any "gray area" planes should go to specifically bolster a particular countries plane set. As an example, there are many Japanese planes that flew in small numbers and were used in combat at the end of the war, but because of the state of manufacturing in Japan at the end of the war were not in squadron strength.
An different example of how the "rules" could be modified is there were some obsolete aircraft at the begging of the war that did not see combat that could be included.
I think it would be great to fly the original Curtiss Helldiver that was in service just off Hawaii in December of 41.
(http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/2c92563635dac534_large)
-
While I concur with the sentiment that there are planes missing that meet the current criteria, I also believe that the wish of the OP has merit.
My personal opinion is that several planes that are currently missing should be added before any of the planes in the "gray area" are added. Additionally I feel that any "gray area" planes should go to specifically bolster a particular countries plane set. As an example, there are many Japanese planes that flew in small numbers and were used in combat at the end of the war, but because of the state of manufacturing in Japan at the end of the war were not in squadron strength.
An different example of how the "rules" could be modified is there were some obsolete aircraft at the begging of the war that did not see combat that could be included.
I think it would be great to fly the original Curtiss Helldiver that was in service just off Hawaii in December of 41.
(http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/2c92563635dac534_large)
Oh be still my heart.. yes, let's talk about the era before the war.
The Helldiver you've mentioned..
I'd put the Grumman F3F on the top of my list.
(http://www.airmageddon.com/images/Pensacola_2004/F3F.jpg)
-
I dont think the Ta-152 ever served in squadron strength so the 'squadron strength' thing is not valid. JG 301 was the only squadron provided with 152s and I believe they never 'really' had squadron numbers flying (152 were facing production difficulties). Even if it had it certainly did not make any historically significant contribution to the war having only shot down seven planes to the loss of four 152s. The total run on these planes was a count of 43 types half of which were destroyed before delivery. So if 'squadron strength' is a rule then the 152 should be removed as there are many more valid aircraft that should take its place.
-
actual criteria
never heard of such a thing other than it saw action.
-
How about HTC adds the planes that are sorely missing before we worry about the rare birds? Like the He-111, G4M, Ki-45, Ki-43, J2M-3, Yak-1 and 1B, LaGG-3, Yak-9D, etc.
yes, these two we really need
-
You contradicted yourself
You said it would allow for prototypes, then you said no prototypes.
-
Well, the recent Do-335 wish and the easily predictable responses made me think about if should not be some change to the aircraft addition criteria. While I see what the actual criteria is supposed to do (keep what if fanatsy birds of of AH) I also think it rules out very intersting birds, that would not water down the flavor of AH to an anything goes kind of game...
My suggestion would be to alter the addition criteria to something like this:
- The plane should have existed in more that a handful prototypes somewhere between September 1, 1939 and September 2, 1945. That rules out experimental planes and testbeds.
- There should be enough first hand data on the plane to model it to AH standards.
That should be enough not to open the floodgates for Luft-46 style what-ifs, but still have (in my eyes) perfectly valid WW2 hardware the like:
- Do335
- F7F
- F8F
- DH. 103 (probably)
- P-80
and a couple of others.
However, as a price for their rareness, they should be perked very high, just like the 262. Even if the performance would not justify it (at least for prop birds).
Please note that I'm aware that there are more important planes to be added than these. But I'd be happy if their status would change from "no-go" to "perhaps".
have at least 500 planes made, saw action with 2 squadrons at least, and saw at least 6 months of combat for A/C
For GV's I say we have it be 200 of them produced, saw action with at least 2 seperate units, and saw at least 6 months of combat....
-
have at least 500 planes made, saw action with 2 squadrons at least, and saw at least 6 months of combat for A/C
For GV's I say we have it be 200 of them produced, saw action with at least 2 seperate units, and saw at least 6 months of combat....
Technically, this is more stringent than what we have now. IE, whirblewinds, TA152(?), etc.
Having Rare or un-combat tested aircraft could be fun but it would always be a "what if" situation as they never saw combat.
It's almost strange that A/C like the F8F and F7F never saw combat, anywhere. Although I do believe the French used the Bearcat in Viet Nam.
wrongway
-
Technically, this is more stringent than what we have now. IE, whirblewinds, TA152(?), etc.
Having Rare or un-combat tested aircraft could be fun but it would always be a "what if" situation as they never saw combat.
It's almost strange that A/C like the F8F and F7F never saw combat, anywhere. Although I do believe the French used the Bearcat in Viet Nam.
wrongway
I know. I said that to contradict his overly relaxed criteria....
-
have at least 500 planes made, saw action with 2 squadrons at least, and saw at least 6 months of combat for A/C
For GV's I say we have it be 200 of them produced, saw action with at least 2 seperate units, and saw at least 6 months of combat....
This would actually get rid of aircraft we currently have in game.
-
look two posts up stoney ^^^^^^^^^.
-
You contradicted yourself
You said it would allow for prototypes, then you said no prototypes.
I think I made it not clear enough or you misunderstood me:
- The plane should have existed in more that a handful prototypes somewhere between September 1, 1939 and September 2, 1945. That rules out experimental planes and testbeds.
and then for varification
- no prototypes
But maybe the "that" instead of "than" made not clear enough. One little word, big difference in meaning.
Sorry for the typo.
So again. No protoypes! Low scale production models? Yes.
-
I know. I said that to contradict his overly relaxed criteria....
I'm curious, in which way are they overly relaxed? If you can give me a example for a plane that could enter AH based on my proposals, but has no place in AH whatsoever, I may alter my proposal to to fix possible loopholes.
-
I dont think the Ta-152 ever served in squadron strength so the 'squadron strength' thing is not valid. JG 301 was the only squadron provided with 152s and I believe they never 'really' had squadron numbers flying (152 were facing production difficulties). Even if it had it certainly did not make any historically significant contribution to the war having only shot down seven planes to the loss of four 152s. The total run on these planes was a count of 43 types half of which were destroyed before delivery. So if 'squadron strength' is a rule then the 152 should be removed as there are many more valid aircraft that should take its place.
Where would you like me to start correcting this post? Every sentence is in error.
-
Propaganda Stampf. If you have contrary information then cite a source.
-
Propaganda Stampf. If you have contrary information then cite a source.
Ignorance is bliss huh. :)
-
Where would you like me to start correcting this post? Every sentence is in error.
No dispute here for Stampf or Chalenge. I would like the facts just for knowledge sake. Your reply is appreciated.
:salute
Way
-
See Rule #4
-
I'd recommend reading 'Focke-Wulf Ta 152 special edition' by Malcolm V. Lowe
A 4+ publication from 2008. ISBN 978-80-86637-07-5
I'd prove your point wrong but Stampf kindof beat me to it. :devil
However the book above clearly state that while there are many eywitness accounts of the Ta152C having entered production as well as eyewitness accounts that it had entered service (from both allied and german personnel), it is a matter of dispute depending on what sources you choose to believe. There is no hard evidence, as no official documents have been found, and the actual aircraft in question all have been destructed. So the official stance by researchers is to rather deem it unlikely that the 152C had entered service, as no hard evidence can be found. The only documents found is of one Ta 152C V8 W.Nr. 110008, coded GW+QA. It was on the strength of the Jagdstaffel Roggentin in February '45. Furthermore the book says that if this particular example (equipped with a EZ42 gyro-stabilized sight) would have entered active service, it would have been with JG11.
"At the end of the war it was suspected that at least one operational Ta 152C had been found by Allied personnel. This was a wrecked example with the W.Nr. 500645, but this Werk Nummer is usually associated with FW 190D-9 production by MMW at Erfurt and it remains a mystery as to the true identity or purpose of this particular aircraft. It is one of the 'grey areas' concerning the Ta 152 series that might be better explained in the future if and when more information comes to light."
And about the 152H, you have got to be kidding. There is plenty of evidence concerning the H model, it is not a matter of debate. I know that at least 32 individuals reached operational combat service, and this particular book present evidence of over 60 produced. So yes, quite a few were destroyed during transport to final assembly because of the overwhelming allied air superiority.
Forgive me but, the propaganda mouth in this case is you sir.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #6
-
Challenge I have one thing to say about your Propaganda comments. Its usually written by the winners not the losers.
-
See Rule #4
:lol :aok
-
Chalenge, where has the number 16 come from as the minimum aircraft for a "squadron"? Is this a number you've been told by someone at HTC or read in a post by them? I suspect that HTC feels pretty confident in whatever sources of information they used to determine "squadron" minimums for the Ta152.
You are the one attempting to make a claim that HTC has improperly included a plane that does not meet their requirements. It would seem to me it should be up to you to provide some proof to support your claim.
BTW "Propaganda Stampf. If you have contrary information then cite a source." seems pretty insulting to me.
-
I dont think the Ta-152 ever served in squadron strength so the 'squadron strength' thing is not valid. JG 301 was the only squadron provided with 152s and I believe they never 'really' had squadron numbers flying (152 were facing production difficulties). Even if it had it certainly did not make any historically significant contribution to the war having only shot down seven planes to the loss of four 152s. The total run on these planes was a count of 43 types half of which were destroyed before delivery. So if 'squadron strength' is a rule then the 152 should be removed as there are many more valid aircraft that should take its place.
My statement was not to imply that the 152 SHOULD be removed from the game but that the idea that 'squadron strength' is a criteria is flawed from the beginning. Where did Hitech say that?
Baumer... exactly how many planes does it take to make up a Luftwaffe squadron?
I enjoy flying the 152. Its can be faster than a Tempest has more fuel and great weapns and tremendous performance at altitude. That said the luftwaffe sycophants around here are pretty lame in their manners and have yet to prove anything.
-
Well according to Dr. Alfred Price in The Luftwaffe Data Book on page 17 he states that the Staffeln was originally established with 9 aircraft. So 3 Staffeln plus 3 aircraft in the Stab (head quaters) would bring a Gruppe to 30 aircraft.
So to answer your question using my source, a Luftwaffe squadron of fighters only needs to have 9 planes.
And the last line of your post shows that they are not the only ones who might have issues with manners.
-
Gentlemen, please...calm down.
There are doubts and debate regarding very well documented aircraft, no wonder doubt arises from less well documented machines, especially German and Russian.
In all my reading, the only thing I noticed was that, as the end of WW2 became closer, the number of variants, prototypes, new models and field adaptations in Luftwaffe aircrafts grew exponentialy to the point of total confusion.
But the question here is the criteria and, to be totally sincere, I do not feel that there is anything wrong with them. What there is to do is close the gaps, the important models that, several years after Aces High launching, still are not here.
Take a rational approach to the issue: why keep insisting in more advanced aircraft when there are so many important models absent?
Time is precious. Don't you agree that it should be put to use in the most profitable way?
Just my opinion.
Cheers,
-
Maybe but I dont think so since the four finger formation was used all the way back to WWI and the Luftwaffe used the famous finger four (two 'Rotte' - 'horde' 'gang' or 'mob' - ha! or 'Schwarm') formations following the Spanish Civil War to great effect. A 'Staffel' the 'Four-Four' formation is a squadron (16 airplanes). Later in the war incomplete units were referred to as 'Staffel' probably to appease Hitler but it was not a full strength squadron. If you want to be technical a Luftwaffe Staffel would not be considered fully supplied unless it had twenty aircraft (fighters) or twenty-four aircraft (bombers). Price obviously got it wrong or you misunderstood when he was talking about bombers where a three ship formation ('Kette') was the standard formation.
Sycophant is defined as providing false testimony without proving anything and obviously you thought that was derogatory?
-
Time is precious. Don't you agree that it should be put to use in the most profitable way?
Agreed, I've aged nearly 10 years waiting on some missing Early War birds. If this goes on much longer I won't be able to see anymore. :D
-
Sparrow you are correct we should be focused on other things.
And this will be my last response in this thread.
Challenge once again you are making statements without providing any background supporting evidence for your position. So you have not refuted my post that a Luftwaffe squadron was initially only 9 planes. I have cited a know work that was published by an author whos written over 40 aviation books with assistance from the USAF historical center. You provided nothing to support your claim.
Also your claim that the term sycophant is not derogatory is a farce. Let's see the common synonyms for sycophant are: arse-kisser, brown noser, suck up, yes man, parasite, flunky, and lackey, I'm glad you find none of those terms offensive or derogatory.
And thank you Sparrow for reminding me what is truly important, and not to get dragged into these kinds of discussions.
-
A Staffel at full strength late-war, 12 aircraft. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the original 9 + 3 officers making up the 3 schwarm leaders. Since combat losses and normal ops attrition take a toll, I think that the Luftwaffe staffeln that actually WERE full strength at any time in 1945 can be counted in single digit numbers. Of course, there are always some people who like to be anal about things. So there must be other german fighters that can be questioned, as there may have been dozens of understrength 109K staffeln fielded, but none at full strength. Then we have the fresh reinforcements coming in, the new guys who temporarily made up for the losses and put the staffeln up to full strength. They lasted maybe a couple missions until they died in that awesome machine they had just learned how to take to the sky in. Come on, really, how far do you want to go? The attrition rates of the Jadgwaffe in 1945 was so insane, one can dispute it's very existence! But of course, you'd rather have no Luftwaffe at all eh?
Remember this... we share the same interest, the love of flight. We come here for that purpose, to relive and dream of a long since over and by most people forgotten conflict. Everyone here in this community is a friend who share the same interest and dreams, do not treat him like he is or was your enemy (yes, the war is over). Leave your ego on the ground, it has no place in the air, and love the thrill of the fight. There is no reason to insult people for reasons not ours to fight.
Hope that makes sense, english is not my first language and it may be so-so compared to what I mean. But I'm really sick and tired of all the oversized egos in this community, and people picking fights on the boards for petty details that basically nobody else would care about.
-
I'm curious, in which way are they overly relaxed? If you can give me a example for a plane that could enter AH based on my proposals, but has no place in AH whatsoever, I may alter my proposal to to fix possible loopholes.
SEPTEMBER 2ND? it would have seen less than a month of combat....... If it showed up in swarms of 10's of thousands then maybe.....
-
"served at a squadron level".... seems to me the terms have been confused!
I dont recall squadron strength being mentioned before this threat,I could be wrong,often I am.
I know HTC is busy but maybe the criteria rules could be officially stated by those who make the decisions.
:salute
-
SEPTEMBER 2ND? it would have seen less than a month of combat....... If it showed up in swarms of 10's of thousands then maybe.....
What are you talking about?! :huh
Anyway, Gentlemen, may I ask you to get back to topic please. While all this stuff about the Ta152 is very intresting, it should be discussed in a separate thread. I think there is little doubt that the Ta152 meets the criterions (?) of combat (it scored kills) and thus must have been in service in an organzied manner (squadrons). The planes I suggested, or Baumer for that matter, met either neither or just one, or it is unclear if they met them.
But shall that be a reason for exclusion, when on the other hand
- there is enough documentation available to model it to meet AH standards, and
- came into existence within the 6 years of WWII in at least a small production run?
-
I think the criteria are fine. there are aircraft which were produced in the 1,000s and which served for practically the entire war that arent in the game yet (you know what im talking about ;)). perhaps when these have been added, as well as less produced models which fulfill the current criteria and flesh out the planesets have all been added (ie. never) it might be worth discussing.
in the meantime im pretty sure you can get a copy of SWATL on ebay :)
-
in the meantime im pretty sure you can get a copy of SWATL on ebay :)
If I remember correctly SWOTL has nothing over AH plane wise except the Go229...and that would be a plane I rather would not like to see in AH, and would also be ruled out per my proposed ruleset. ;)
-
How about HTC adds the planes that are sorely missing before we worry about the rare birds? Like the He-111, G4M, Ki-45, Ki-43, J2M-3, Yak-1 and 1B, LaGG-3, Yak-9D, etc.
Don't forget the Beaufighter, we need that.
-
What are you talking about?! :huh
oh wait, bout a month and a half. For some reason I thought Japan surendered on Sep 15 instead of august. Still not even a month and a half of comat. And really thats not enough time to see all the shortcomings and fix them, so what you would have is (maybe) a plane that is fast, handles great at all speeds, can out turn a Ju87, and is armed with 8 40mm's....and a stall speed of 200 and it bleeds E like a son of a squeak.....
-
oh wait, bout a month and a half. For some reason I thought Japan surendered on Sep 15 instead of august. Still not even a month and a half of comat. And really thats not enough time to see all the shortcomings and fix them, so what you would have is (maybe) a plane that is fast, handles great at all speeds, can out turn a Ju87, and is armed with 8 40mm's....and a stall speed of 200 and it bleeds E like a son of a squeak.....
I ask you again: What sort of relevance has this in order to show my ruleset is too relaxed?
- What combat are you talking about?
- What shortcomings need to be fixed?
- what fast, great handling plane do you mean that does the things you mention?
Please clarify.
-
Well, if it saw not even 2 months of combat, then it can't have seen a lot of use. I don't think we should have rides that came out 6 weeks before the closing. 6 months OK, maybe even 4 months.
I'm talking about combat in the pacific theater. If it doesn't even have one kill to it's name (unless its a transport) then it DIDN'T see enough action IMO.
IDK if there are anyshort comings in some of the super late war birds. For all I know, it may have been the second coming if it had came in earlier in the war. But then again, it may have been a death trap, I just don't know.
I was using that plane as an example. That may be what happens if we get a super late war plane, or one that wasn't produced in quantities above 100. Really, not everything has to have a real life example. We have ammo and fuel gauges on planes that had neither. We have bushes that stop bullets, and invisible sheep that flip 50 ton tanks......
-
Ok, now I see where you are coming from.
And yes, that is the core question regarding my proposal:
Shall combat records be a must for a plane to be added?
If yes, why?
-
Yes, combat records should be a must.
This is a WWII combat Flight Simulator.
This is not secret weapons of the luftwaffe, and its not Chuck Yeager test pilot.
So yes, to remain true to its stated purpose, planes must have seen combat.
Otherwise you could what if in a Bearcat, or a super Corsair. And what would be the point?
HTC's rules have proven the point for the last 9 years, I see no reason to petition them to change them. Other than the fact they exclude planes you want.
If you want those planes in a non combat situation, well thats what FSX is for, no?
-
LOL the only "rule" I have seen is if HTC wants it then it is in and if they don't it's not :D
-
LOL the only "rule" I have seen is if HTC wants it then it is in and if they don't it's not :D
I wish it were that simple. Just look at the replies the recent Do335 thread - every (im)possible candidate is ridiculed based one these "rules" that may not even exist... a reasonable discussion on the pros and cons is, well, impossible. Just a lot of spamming and trolling. I have yet to hear a valid reason why not to add a F8F for example. Did not see combat does not sound very convincing when it was already otw to the battle zone as the war ended. At least it is very different to those that were still on the drawing board at that time.
-
I have yet to hear a valid reason why not to add a F8F for example. Did not see combat does not sound very convincing when it was already otw to the battle zone as the war ended.
"did not see combat" is convincing here because ... it did not see combat. that is your valid reason to exclude it, based on the current criteria.
-
Yes, combat records should be a must.
This is a WWII combat Flight Simulator.
This is not secret weapons of the luftwaffe, and its not Chuck Yeager test pilot.
So yes, to remain true to its stated purpose, planes must have seen combat.
Otherwise you could what if in a Bearcat, or a super Corsair. And what would be the point?
HTC's rules have proven the point for the last 9 years, I see no reason to petition them to change them. Other than the fact they exclude planes you want.
If you want those planes in a non combat situation, well thats what FSX is for, no?
What the point is? How about making AH more diverse and interesting? Do you really think the addition of any of the planes I mentioned, among others, would make AH in any way worse? And the last time I checked, those planes were built for combat and during WW2. I see a perfect fit for a WW2 combat simulator.
-
"did not see combat" is convincing here because ... it did not see combat. that is your valid reason to exclude it, based on the current criteria.
That is why I'm asking to change the current criteria in the first place, and then add the F8F. :aok
-
If you think the planeset is unbalanced now... and add a plane like the F8F, you will get complaints on a new scale. There are at least 100 aircraft that could be added before the F8F. I think a priority should be the early war planes, too much emphasis is put on the late war developments. There are a lot of interesting early and mid-war planes that would be a joy to fly. Try the Fairey Swordfish for example, it served well during the war. Gloster Gladiator, the French D.520, plenty of russian bombers to choose from, the Beaufighter, the He111.
Just pick one... and it'd be a great addition. The F8F is just because you think it'd rule the sky, and yes it might but for what purpose, to improve your personal score? There are dozens of aircraft that would make new scenarios and FSOs possible, the F8F is not one of them.
-
The main diff between the 152 n F8F...... 152 saw combat because the enemy was flying
over their airfields daily, The F8F had to travel 4k miles to the lines. The F8f was a WW2
production AC, in squadron service on patrol in the pacific. It should be in AH eventually, but
later down the road.
-
If they add the F8F I wont need any other fighter. :D
-
The main diff between the 152 n F8F...... 152 saw combat because the enemy was flying
over their airfields daily, The F8F had to travel 4k miles to the lines. The F8f was a WW2
production AC, in squadron service on patrol in the pacific. It should be in AH eventually, but
later down the road.
The only reason that the He162, Ta152C, Ta154, Go229, Do335, and more... didn't see combat enough to meet the criteria set by HTC is because the allies bombed the German industry. I think in the end it evens out the playfield, so to speak. So don't suggest the F8F deserves to be included because the TA152 is.
-
The only reason that the He162, Ta152C, Ta154, Go229, Do335, and more... didn't see combat enough to meet the criteria set by HTC is because the allies bombed the German industry. I think in the end it evens out the playfield, so to speak. So don't suggest the F8F deserves to be included because the TA152 is.
agreed....
-
So don't suggest the F8F deserves to be included because the TA152 is.
I will. I'll agree that there are a multitude of other aircraft that need to be added before the F8F and F7F, but why not add them? They aren't drawing board gadget planes--had the war continued for another 2 months, and/or had they not had to travel half-way around the world to get there, they would have met all criteria. Heck, the F7F was even in Okinawa when the war ended, it just hadn't started operational combat missions yet. The aircraft were certainly peers of the Ta-152, from a design perspective, even if they weren't fielded at the same time.
They are at the very end of my list of "must haves", but they are on the list.
-
I'd argue that the examples I gave were not "drawing board gadgets", and you should know that. I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but what I'm saying is that if you go there and loosen up the 'combat record' criteria it's opening a whole new can of worms that I don't think HTC need or want and frankly, not the community either. Let's deal with the cans of worms we have at hand first, before opening new ones. :)
-
I'd argue that the examples I gave were not "drawing board gadgets", and you should know that.
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to infer that. I was referring to those IL2 1946/SWOTL type aircraft that so many people come in here and request. And, even more specifically, the comparison between the F8F and Ta-152...
-
"the criteria set by HTC"
Folks? The truth is none of us know what the criteria is. This "not seen combat" stuff
is simply a guess that has taken on a life of it's own over the years. Perpetuated only
because it's not been denied nor affirmed. But it is purely a player base guess as to
why some planes may or may not be modeled. I've never seen it stated by any of
them since the open beta ten years ago.
And +1 for what both Boxboy and whels said. Especially whels.
As you were...
oh, Baumer that is one heck of a nice picture you posted on page 1 of the discussion! Thanks.
-
Sorry, it wasn't my intention to infer that. I was referring to those IL2 1946/SWOTL type aircraft that so many people come in here and request. And, even more specifically, the comparison between the F8F and Ta-152...
[EDIT] After some quick Wiki-ing, I'd say the Go229 was probably a drawing board gadget plane. The others were produced beyond prototype stage. The Ta-154 is debatable too merely because they cancelled it, and not because it was a gadget-plane.]
-
The Ta154 was cancelled as the glue factory that was key to building it was bombed out and completely destroyed. I agree the Go229 is a borderline, they were working on a jet powered prototype which was never finished before war's end.
-
Why npt just add them and make an arena in which they're fair game - like a '46 arena? In the MA's you could just perk them silly.
-
interesting to note that these requests which fall outside our present criteria are always for aircraft produced at the end of the war, which are in one way or another uber compared to what we already have. never for limited number aircraft from 1939 for example.
the motivation isnt therefore to add aircraft because they are historically interesting, its purely because people want a bigger stick to wield in the MA. problem is that everyone gets access to these aircraft so any advantage is neutralised. what it does do is widen the gap between the most capable aircraft and the least, resulting in reduced usage of the less capable aircraft. it reduces diversity.
limited numbers/RL service means that these aircraft will never be used for snapshots or scenarios, so my question is: how does introducing these aircraft improve MA gameplay?
-
limited numbers/RL service means that these aircraft will never be used for snapshots or scenarios, so my question is: how does introducing these aircraft improve MA gameplay?
Not necessarily. I can't think of a single aircraft in the planeset that hasn't been used in a special event.
But, to answer your second question, it doesn't. MA gameplay isn't characterized by the addition of a single aircraft, in any arena. The MA simply is what it is. The 163/262 have little impact on the day-to-day gameplay in the MA. Why would any of these aircraft be different?
-
Not necessarily. I can't think of a single aircraft in the planeset that hasn't been used in a special event.
But, to answer your second question, it doesn't. MA gameplay isn't characterized by the addition of a single aircraft, in any arena. The MA simply is what it is. The 163/262 have little impact on the day-to-day gameplay in the MA. Why would any of these aircraft be different?
Exactly. Further, I'll be the first to request such failures as the Faireys Battle and Fulmar. How about a Gloster Gladiator? More = Better - even if it's a plane that was obsolete (I love a challenge). I was recently flying the P40E and adjudged it a big improvement over the B, even though it's still a turd w/r most of the LW stuff.
All these additions really do is increase the permutations and scenarios possible - and that's tres cool.
Could Ack-ack, flying a Vultee Vengeance, take down the ords at a base defended by Fiat G.55s and Do335s?
Could a flight of Vindicators sink that CV lousy with Bearcats?
Okay, some examples stretch credulity but there it is. Personally, I'd like to see the highly self-complimentary Plutonium members of this here BBS attempt such feats in the MA. You could call it Woodshed night in the MAs.
Sadly, we may never see such unlikely acts.
And I just use ack-ack as an example. Substitute the name of any hoary old AH bleeding deacon.
-
Why npt just add them and make an arena in which they're fair game - like a '46 arena? In the MA's you could just perk them silly.
Because there are very limited resources to produce new units for AH and the performance data for most aircraft like the Ta154 or, good god, the Go229 simply doesn't exist.
-
Because there are very limited resources to produce new units for AH and the performance data for most aircraft like the Ta154 or, good god, the Go229 simply doesn't exist.
I see that as an argument -and a valid one - against development of the AH version of the aircraft themselves, not as an argument against the development of an arena for the purpose stated.
Indeed, I have little doubt decent performance data exists for the Do335 (likely, given the state of development) and P-80. Implement versions of these a/c and the arena problem persists. The obvious solution is the one I posited. Your answer seems to be to a different question - a truncated version of the question actually asked.
-
I will. I'll agree that there are a multitude of other aircraft that need to be added before the F8F and F7F, but why not add them? They aren't drawing board gadget planes--had the war continued for another 2 months, and/or had they not had to travel half-way around the world to get there, they would have met all criteria. Heck, the F7F was even in Okinawa when the war ended, it just hadn't started operational combat missions yet. The aircraft were certainly peers of the Ta-152, from a design perspective, even if they weren't fielded at the same time.
They are at the very end of my list of "must haves", but they are on the list.
Stoney,I tend to agree with you here theres many must haves on my list too and the F8,F7 are there,as is the 162,but I'd be just as happy to see all combatants have some representation and the major 1's have a full planeset way before any of the latewar monsters see the light of day.
That said we just got a late war monster in the 47M and you dont hear me complaining!!
:salute
-
I see that as an argument -and a valid one - against development of the AH version of the aircraft themselves, not as an argument against the development of an arena for the purpose stated.
Indeed, I have little doubt decent performance data exists for the Do335 (likely, given the state of development) and P-80. Implement versions of these a/c and the arena problem persists. The obvious solution is the one I posited. Your answer seems to be to a different question - a truncated version of the question actually asked.
Why spend precious developer time on things like those where so many core aircraft that player major roles in the war have yet to be modeled?
-
Why spend precious developer time on things like those where so many core aircraft that player major roles in the war have yet to be modeled?
I think, Karnak, that overall, the idea is that any of these type of aircraft get added after all the regular combatant aircraft of the war are available. I don't think anyone is asking for the F7F development to trump the addition of the Beaufighter, He-111, or G4M, for example. We all want those planes added. Same with GVs--we want to see them all. I believe, but could be wrong, that if HTC could wave a magic wand, they'd add every aircraft they could tomorrow. Obviously, the resources available don't allow that, but the intent is there. And, most folks that come in here with a wish are cognizant of the fact that there will be a priortized list of planes that are finished in order.
That being said, I was excited that the Brewster and I-16 were added, both for the Finns and for the added diversity that we could use on special events. I didn't immediately jump into a Brewster or I-16 to fly them in the MA, because I wasn't so excited to go and wring them out. When I heard that the P-47M had been added, I immediately went and took one up for a sortie to see what it'd do. We have to admit, as a community, that the really high performance aircraft are extremely popular--the most popular in fact. And, without questioning the virtual manhood of those that request them, or suspecting nefarious motivations, understand that they are good for business and good for the game. I'd love to be able to fly an F7F in this game. Not against a Hurri I but against an A-26? Absolutely--it'd be a blast to see that match-up. Its not about padding my score or making the game "easier".
Should HTC have a concrete set of criteria for adding aircraft or GVs to the game? I believe he's created guidelines to steer his staff's decision making and planning going forward. Its not really for us to be making the decisions. Regardless--its Dale's game--he'll add what he wants for why he wants. I personally suspect that accurate modeling data is more important to him as opposed to whether or not the aircraft got a single kill or had more than 6 aircraft in a unit.
In sum, we all want the same things, just not necessarily prioritized the same way. I suppose if we stay around the game long enough, we'll see everything we can imagine added to the game. Now, bring on the Ki-43 and the A-26 [or insert your aircraft here].
-
Well said Stoney.
:salute
-
Well said Stoney.
:salute
Agreed. Thats all I wanted to say anyway. ;)
-
Why spend precious developer time on things like those where so many core aircraft that player major roles in the war have yet to be modeled?
Valid point - especially if it's a zero-sum scenario.
I'm still on more=better and agree that staple aircraft like perhaps the He111, Me410, A-26, G4M, etc, should be added first.