Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: davidpt40 on November 23, 2002, 04:10:17 AM
-
AH is a great sim. Just want to get that out front. But it seems to me that air combat in Aces High places emphasis on qualities that would be nearly worthless in real life. Lets take a look-
1: In Aces High, climb rate is extremely important. Combat takes place so close to your airfield, any aircraft that has less than a 3k initial climb rate is suicide.- In real life, unless scrambling to intercept bombers, planes had a chance to climb to the altitude they wished. In the ETO, high altitude combat was the norm.
2: In AH, range doesn't matter. I doubt many pilots take more than 50% fuel in even the La7 or 109. Theres just no reason to. Fuel=weight. However, long range fighters are what won the air war in World War II (in the ETO/PTO anyways).
3: Top speed on the deck- Extremely important in AH. But does anyone care that the P47 is the fastest piston plane at 35k? Nope, theres just no reason to.
4: Bomb carrying ability of fighters- We are starting to see the P51/P47 used a bit more because bombers are hard to use. By the end of WW2, F4Us-P47s-P51s-P38s-F6Fs and other single engine fighters were doing tactical missions by the thousands. This is probably the most realistic portrayal AH has.
-
Sounds like you are ready to start flying historical events :)
Also Tuesday and Thursday nights (eastern time) in the Combat Theater, we try to run realistic mission profiles. See you there.
-
Couple of observations.
If you don't want to engage at a low/disadvantageous altittude takeoff from a field to the rear. Most pilots don't do this unless they are trying to get the alt advantage and realize that by taking off close to the action you may well end up in the mele at low alt while still climbing. I would say this is close to what some pilot encountered (allied) in Operation Boldenplate-in WWII most pilots took off hundreds of miles from the action and had ample time to climb to alt.
Range is affected in a similar way-most people take off at forward bases so you are correct-range is not that important. Course HT in his infinite wisdom could arrange for planes to only be available at certain bases (say spits and 109s in the rear) forcing those pilots to use fuel management skills, but I think the riot it would cause would be counterproductive.
If you don't want to be on the deck decline the chase. ie leave from the rear bases, climb to alt, maintain you alt and if the enema extend to the deck keep your alt (unless you are searching for fifi!)
Just a few thoughts
LW
-
I thought Operation Bodenplatte was the name of the offensive where U.S. fighters attacked many German airbases. I am probably mistaken (the name is German duh).
So what was the name of that allied operation?
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
I thought Operation Bodenplatte was the name of the offensive where U.S. fighters attacked many German airbases. I am probably mistaken (the name is German duh).
So what was the name of that allied operation?
Bodenplatte was a German operation, that while it achieved surprise, failed miserably.
Allied operations against Luftwaffe airfields began in earnest in March of 1944, when Doolittle released the 8th AF fighters to attack targets of opportunity while returning from escort missions. From that point on, there were no truly safe airfields anywhere in occupied western Europe.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Bodenplate was the German offensive (last one the Luftwaffe could muster) on Jan 1, 1945. Another of Hitlers masterpieces was supposed to be held in conjunction with the Battle of the Bulge operation, but he changed it up. Low level attack by the Germans on allied airbases. Achieved surprise and some success on attacking the fields, but lost many aircraft and pilots-including many in leadership positions.
LW
-
"1: In Aces High, climb rate is extremely important. Combat takes place so close to your airfield, any aircraft that has less than a 3k initial climb rate is suicide.- In real life, unless scrambling to intercept bombers, planes had a chance to climb to the altitude they wished. In the ETO, high altitude combat was the norm.
"
Climb rate was still very important. Many Spit Pilots recount outclimbing FWs to evade them, The climb rate of the Zero vs the early US iron was also often noted. On the eastern front the 109s often had a climb advantage that they could maintain to keep the enemy below them..I think your mistaken in this point. Except for the Long rage US fighters whose enemies had to largley try to ignore them and press on to the bombers...climb rate is a very very important quality in ww2 fighters.
"
2: In AH, range doesn't matter. I doubt many pilots take more than 50% fuel in even the La7 or 109. Theres just no reason to. Fuel=weight. However, long range fighters are what won the air war in World War II (in the ETO/PTO anyways).
"
Doesnt matter is a way harsh statement. If range doents matter why do people get real picky about the planes they fly when fuel is damaged at a field. If your going to fly like a lawn dart dweeb range doensnt matter. What won the war in europ was an over whelming NUMBER of long range fighters defending bombers that had to be intercepted. What established the Germans with an empire spaning most of Europe where short range fighters...and it was short range fighters that stoped them in Britian and consumed them in russia.
"
3: Top speed on the deck- Extremely important in AH. But does anyone care that the P47 is the fastest piston plane at 35k? Nope, theres just no reason to.
"
No one in ww2 cared how fast it was at 35k either. Its dive speed and fire power and even handling and long range and robustness where great attributes in WW2. and in Aces high.
"4: Bomb carrying ability of fighters- We are starting to see the P51/P47 used a bit more because bombers are hard to use. By the end of WW2, F4Us-P47s-P51s-P38s-F6Fs and other single engine fighters were doing tactical missions by the thousands. This is probably the most realistic portrayal AH has."
Jabo in Fighters has always been a big factor in AH. But recent increase in its use has largely been of the suicide plunge type..which was obviosly a tactic in ww2.
Your post seems to be trying to draw attention or rationalize why the P47 and maybe the pony are not world beaters in AH but they where in ww2. In the case of the Pony the plane is a world beater in AH if you just have a little SA. In the case of the jug. Its probably not as effective here as ww2. But if you bring it to the battle with a 4 to 1 numerical supperiority and a very high standard of pilot training and aggression vs thier enemy then it will be just exaclty as effective here. The mid to late war US planes never fought at a numerical disadvantage. If they had some of the qualities that they could get away with in the real war would have been pretty telling. Ponys and jugs trying to take off under a constant vulch is not a pretty sight...I bet they would have fielded AC with a lot higher climb rate if they had faced that. Some of the last US aircraft deployed specifically tried for very fast deck speeds vs kamakazi... The big US planes fit in real well with the war that the US waged on both sides of the world...but they would have been near useless for the war that their enemies were forced to fight or the war that the Soviets fought..they were not interceptors...
-
I'm sensing some hostility here (maybe I am just over-sensitive), so I am going to refute your points Pongo.
Climb rate was still very important. Many Spit Pilots recount outclimbing FWs to evade them, The climb rate of the Zero vs the early US iron was also often noted. On the eastern front the 109s often had a climb advantage that they could maintain to keep the enemy below them..I think your mistaken in this point. Except for the Long rage US fighters whose enemies had to largley try to ignore them and press on to the bombers...climb rate is a very very important quality in ww2 fighters.
F4Fs, P40s, P39s, and early F4Us all had lower climb rates than Japanese warplanes. Yet tactics and top speed allowed the U.S. to prevail. Altitude takes precedents over climb-rate in combat. U.S. planes continued to have lower climb rates than their oposition well beyond World War II also. From the P40e to the F86, even to the F4 Phantom.
Doesnt matter is a way harsh statement. If range doents matter why do people get real picky about the planes they fly when fuel is damaged at a field. If your going to fly like a lawn dart dweeb range doensnt matter. What won the war in europ was an over whelming NUMBER of long range fighters defending bombers that had to be intercepted. What established the Germans with an empire spaning most of Europe where short range fighters...and it was short range fighters that stoped them in Britian and consumed them in russia.
Why is it I see La7s and N1ks scrambling from from airfields with 25% fuel? Spit9s are pretty common plane too. Sometimes I see a few P51s, but not too many. I can't think of a single large air battle over Europe where U.S. escort fighters werent OUTNUMBERED by Luftwaffe fighters. Just because the U.S. had 800 or 900 fighters in England doesn't mean it could launch them for escort missions. Check up on this, you will see that U.S. escort pilots were out-numbered and out-gunned most of the time. This brings me to my next point-
No one in ww2 cared how fast it was at 35k either. Its dive speed and fire power and even handling and long range and robustness where great attributes in WW2. and in Aces high.
This is why early P47 groups climbed to 35k for every single mission to engage the Luftwaffe where the P47 had the biggest advantage. The U.S. Air Force conducted a study on escort fighters and found that a plane was viable for escort duty ONLY if it was faster than the opposition. This is why the P51 and P47 are such great planes. They produced tremendous amounts of horsepower at high altitude while Fw190s and early 109s were wallowing at stall speed.
Your post seems to be trying to draw attention or rationalize why the P47 and maybe the pony are not world beaters in AH but they where in ww2.
I'm not 'trying' to do anything, I am rationalizing and I am drawing attention to why AH is filled with 'minority' aircraft.
he mid to late war US planes never fought at a numerical disadvantage.
I beg to differ. The skies over Europe and the Pacific were mighty big, and I imagine more than a few U.S. pilots ran into big flights of Japanese and German aircraft. Quite a few B29s in mid 45 were lost to Japanese fighters. I don't think the U.S. was able to field larger numbers for every single mission.
-
Is AH a sim????
it seems to be an arcade! Why?
1) gunnery (lasergunnery, no more words....)
2) flight model (e-retention and stability)
3) planeset
Lucchini
-
there's an answer to all of your points there - EVENTS... you just missed out on Midway, but there TOD and there's more big events to come... ;)
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Check up on this, you will see that U.S. escort pilots were out-numbered and out-gunned most of the time.
uh-oh, now you stepped in it!!
:D
-
Realism arenas and mission oriented stuff. Who knows maybe the TOD stuff can fulfill the hopes of some of you. I've never even participated in one of those because Im sort of a random player. Play whenever I have time rather than plan a play time.
Anyways fights at 35k and fiting 500-1000 feet off the deck. Everyone knows that the high alt fights are rare in AH but then AH is a game, no matter how realistic its modeled or its SIM qualities. It ultimately depends on the person or people who play. Myself, Ive stated before that I always take 100% fuel and I fly long sorties, like real missions. The instant action style fiting at low alt doesnt interest me. From high up I usually observe alot of the fights down below. Most of the players like instant action, thats fun for them and the game allows it to be possible. In real life the objectives are different and the objectives of the gamers are also different (to have fun right now). Some like to fly and die every ten minutes. Shrug, I dont ask where my beef or eggs come from, I just eat it.
BTW: For the new flyers. There is a difference in fighting 0-10,000, 10,000-20,000, and then 20,000-30,000. Fighting above 30,000 is very difficult for most aircraft, more like surfing really if you can stay on the board.
Anyways to all players who enjoy the game . Push them for better graphics.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
F4Fs, P40s, P39s, and early F4Us all had lower climb rates than Japanese warplanes. Yet tactics and top speed allowed the U.S. to prevail. Altitude takes precedents over climb-rate in combat. U.S. planes continued to have lower climb rates than their oposition well beyond World War II also.
Why is it I see La7s and N1ks scrambling from from airfields with 25% fuel? Spit9s are pretty common plane too. Sometimes I see a few P51s, but not too many.
The real-world stuff is clipped out, since I never personally flew in ww2.
Climb rate is most definitly important in combat. Climb rate is closely related to accelleration, and a big climb rate advantage makes it easy to maintain an advantage. The top speed of the US fighters was only important because there was a huge gap. For energy fighting, climb rate and accelleration are the most important factors in the plane. (Thrust to weight)
Fly a 109g10 in combat sometime, and you'll understand what a climb rate advantage can do. In a g10, often simply hitting alt-x and turning on wep can work to evade someone chasing you. The 109g10 is the best free energy fighter in the game. In any co-e engagement, it is trivial to gain an altitude advantage on your opponent.
As for fuel, if you take off in an n1k2, spit9, la7, or just about anything with 25 fuel, you're going to last 5-10 minutes. Thats enough fuel if you plan on getting shot down quickly, but isn't enough to land any kills with. As for the p51's, I expect you're sticking the on-the-deck furballs, where you'd have to be an idiot to take a p51. (Though plenty do end up in them)
Take a look at this:
http://www.innomi.com/planes.php?sortby=kill_sort
And tell me how little the p51 is used.
You see spit9s, la7s, and n1k2's used for scrambling from fields, because they were designed as interceptors. It's what they're built for. The p-51 is not an interceptor, it's a long range escort fighter, using it as an interceptor is using it against it's strengths.
I think this is just a case of someone believing that the P-51D was -the- ultimate fighter of ww2 and needs to lay off the history channel.
-
:)
Before judging anything you need to be better informed.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
2: In AH, range doesn't matter. I doubt many pilots take more than 50% fuel in even the La7 or 109. Theres just no reason to. Fuel=weight. However, long range fighters are what won the air war in World War II (in the ETO/PTO anyways).
The 109G10 can run longer on WEP than on 50% fuel...
-
davidpt40. your american bias and lack of understanding of what happend in ww2 and what makes a good fighter is comical.
You state that planes dont have to climb well, your reason..because the good fighter will always start on top..lol sorry but that is just stupid..
You name some US planes that were inferior to enemy planes in climb. But the F86 was in the same lege as its enemies in climb. In fact right while the US was making the pony they were looking at planes with excellent climb characteristics..Wasnt the 38 the best climber in the world when introduced?For the last 30 years the US has had the best climbing AC in the world. Why did they do that?
What won the war in ww2 was not long range fighters...But russian infantry. Period. Lots of other contributers but what beat the germans was the russians. And they had no escort fighters..your view is very very scewed. I would in no way degenerate the increadable beating the USAAF inflicted on the germans. But that is not what won the war. it esteblished air supperiority but it never won the war. If you have to pick one thing that won the war it has to be Russian Infantry. Everything else that faced the Germans was optional.
Long range quality fighters with excellent tactics and excellent pilots took advantage of the bombers drawing out the germans to fight. Using overwhelming numbers and there very high average level of flying ability and excellent aircraft for that type of batlte they basically wiped out the LW in the west.
But that didnt win the war.
I love this one..
"I'm not 'trying' to do anything, I am rationalizing and I am drawing attention to why AH is filled with 'minority' aircraft.
"
minority aircraft like the la7, 109 and spitfire? lol what a joke. take your blinders off bud. Those aircraft where only a minority in the US airforce. The 109 has production numbers greater then the 51 and 47 combined and the spit probably has more then then either of them. Nearly 6000 La7s where built. These minority ac your talking about probably have nearly 70 000 airframes between them.
In reading VIII fighter command at War 'Long Reach' testimony after testimony tells how the US pilots understood they were at a disadvantage in climb and to only engage if you have alt. Yes they used their tactics and numbers and skill to overcome this to a certain extent.
If your point is correct it sure was dumb of the USAAF to ask North American to develop the 51 F, G and H. what where they thinking...
lighter higher power pony types especially to give them better climb and turn. They didnt have to lighten the machine to give them speed
Your original post was silly.
-
what won the air war in World War II
I said air war, not ground war.
minority aircraft like the la7, 109 and spitfire? lol what a joke. take your blinders off bud.
I was referring to the 109K4, N1k2, Typhoon, and a few others.
If your point is correct it sure was dumb of the USAAF to ask North American to develop the 51 F, G and H. what where they thinking...
Well, it kind of was. The U.S. got behind in jet technology and got quite a few bomber crews killed. How well do you think a P51 can intercept and shoot down a Me262 at 30,000 feet? Not very well.
After posting my original post, I was watching the history channel. A P38 ace was being interviewed and he said "We knew not to climb or turn with the Japanese planes. They could out-turn and out-climb us. We would keep our airspeed above 300 and make passes. It frustrated the hell out of them".
In reading VIII fighter command at War 'Long Reach' testimony after testimony tells how the US pilots understood they were at a disadvantage in climb and to only engage if you have alt.
Go read some more books. U.S. pilots (unless escorting) have been engaging only when they have had an advantage since World War I. What happens when neither side has an advantage? Quite a bit of the time the two flights just pass by each other.
Whew, I have a headache. Your spelling and lack of reading comprehension hurts my eyes.
-
Your initial post mentioned" La7 or 109."
But anyway. Sorry but none of the planes you now mention are rare either....except the 109k4 which is rare in AH..(non existant) but was a common late war fighter.Have you played AH?
So you think that since the US airforce doctrine was to attack from above like every other airforce in history..that they didnt need superior climbing planes..your rediculous..
So you think then..that without the efforts to improve the p51s climb and agility..the US would have had an NA jet fighter ready to meet the 262...lol
The US had design and engineering resources to spare to develop any jet fighter they wanted. If it occured to them early enough.. Hell blame the continued developement of the p38 and 39..at least those companies were making jets early enough to have a chance of getting them to war. The NA team didnt even consider it till late 44. Even if they had started in late 43 they wouldnt have gotten it to war.
is there no straw you wont grasp?
And once again..the planes you are indireclty whining about. Are very good planes in AH and very popular. The pony and f6f and the P47 all have great usages in AH.
You are maintaining then the US fighter pilots usually avoided an even state engagment in ww2? Could you provide one quote to back that up. My reading almost univerally has them aggressivly engaging any LW they could...maybe the history channel says different though. Would they let it degenerate into a turning fight..not against zeros...but against 190s...why not.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
After posting my original post, I was watching the history channel. A P38 ace was being interviewed and he said "We knew not to climb or turn with the Japanese planes. They could out-turn and out-climb us. We would keep our airspeed above 300 and make passes. It frustrated the hell out of them".
While this quote is completly true, counting on the history channel for accurate information is a rather bad idea. The history channel seems to have a significant US bias. The P51 for instance, was an excellent fighter, perfectly suited for the escort operations it was designed for. It was NOT a "king of the skies" able to dominate anything it ran into. The P-51 won the air war through numbers. We simply outproduced the germans.
When it comes to getting into a fight, and getting out alive, I'd rather have a 109 than a p51 any day of the week.
-
But anyway. Sorry but none of the planes you now mention are rare either....except the 109k4 which is rare in AH..(non existant) but was a common late war fighter.Have you played AH?
Meant to say 109-G10.
So you think that since the US airforce doctrine was to attack from above like every other airforce in history..that they didnt need superior climbing planes..your rediculous..
Why would the U.S. sacrifice range for better climb rate? Ever heard the old fighter pilot saying "Speed is life"? Climb rate is fine and dandy if your flying a one trick plane, but top speed is better. Let me reiterate why the U.S. had an advantage in the Pacific and in the ETO- SPEED. Even the old F4f wildcat became a contender against the A6M when it used its high speed. I think it was Francis Gabreski (P47 Ace) who talked about using the momentum of the P47 against the Fw190s and not turning with them. Dive-Attack-Repeat.
P47-Designed as a high speed, high altitude, heavy fighter
F4U-Navys first plane to break 400mph in lvl flight
P51- Long range high speed fighter
None of these fighters were designed with an overwhelming climb rate in mind. Maybe in your mind you see World War II as a big race to get to 40,000 feet, and whoever gets there first is the winner.
I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I believe airfoil shape affects climb rate, not soley thrust-to-weight.
You are maintaining then the US fighter pilots usually avoided an even state engagment in ww2? Could you provide one quote to back that up.
I will dig some up. But in fact, the P38 ace I mentioned earlier talked about that very subject. He said that if any pilot in his squadron attacked a Japanese aircraft by himself, he caught hell when he got back to base (if he made it back). One on one 'duels' were a thing of the past. Team-work and having the advantage is what WW2 air combat was about.
is there no straw you wont grasp?
Oh PLEASE- Your the one going off on tangents about Russian infantry.
But think about it, why did the U.S. lag behind GB and Germany in jet technology? The P-59 wasnt even as fast as the P51.
The P-51 won the air war through numbers. We simply outproduced the germans.
Yeah, but the U.S. had to ferry planes thousands of miles to get them to the front line. German factories were at most a few hundred miles from the fighting. Until the end, U.S. escort fighters were consistently being outnumbered in engagements.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Meant to say 109-G10.
Why would the U.S. sacrifice range for better climb rate? Ever heard the old fighter pilot saying "Speed is life"? Climb rate is fine and dandy if your flying a one trick plane, but top speed is better.
...
Yeah, but the U.S. had to ferry planes thousands of miles to get them to the front line. German factories were at most a few hundred miles from the fighting. Until the end, U.S. escort fighters were consistently being outnumbered in engagements.
Yes, I agree on the 109g10 being a rare plane, germany only built thousands of them.
Anyways, You answered your own question. The p51 was built to fly those incredibly long range flights. They had to sacrifice maneuverability and climb rate in order to get the plane to carry enough fuel.
It looks like you're reading into my posts that I'm saying speed isn't important, it is. But given two planes equal in every respect, who has the edge, the one that can climb at 4000fpm, or 2000fpm? Which plane would you rather be flying when attacked from above?
A good climb rate allows one to dominate a fight. It allows one to grab, and to maintain a significant E advantage with more room for error.
-
I really dont see what your babbling about. The US needed long range fighters and made them slick enought that they had high speed as well. But the fundimental thing for escort fighters is to get there...The pony and 47 did that. At the sacrifice of climb. To say that climb doesnt matter is just so assinine that I guess we can stop discussing it.
-
Pongo, davidpt40 has been nothing but polite with you, even in the face of your continued patronization. I think he deserves the same measure of courtesy in return.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
2: In AH, range doesn't matter. I doubt many pilots take more than 50% fuel in even the La7 or 109. Theres just no reason to. Fuel=weight. However, long range fighters are what won the air war in World War II (in the ETO/PTO anyways).
In AH, fuel = alt = speed = life.
Bring (and use) more fuel, and you'll die less.
I wish more bish pilots realized this, it would make for more challenging opponents.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Pongo, davidpt40 has been nothing but polite with you, even in the face of your continued patronization. I think he deserves the same measure of courtesy in return.
Agreed. Did you take an ugly pill, Pongo?
- oldman
-
Originally posted by AtmkRstr
In AH, fuel = alt = speed = life.
Bring (and use) more fuel, and you'll die less.
LOL, yes, if you stay alive longer you use more fuel. Quite obvious. :D
But if you don't stay alive anyway you don't need that fuel either.
-
Wow.....
Well, for me, I always fly an extra base or two at least from the area of conflict, because my plane flies better at high alt, and I like to have options in case the action moves elsewhere.
I'll never up less than 75%, and always at least one external, if I'm going hunting. JABO missions dictate otherwise, but I won't jabo unless it's called for.
I have to agree that altitude is more important than climb rate at some points, but given the fact I choose to take my time to get to alt (and get a drink, nature call on the way) I'm in a far better position to dictate terms, and divert if needed.
Be patient, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Gainsie
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Pongo, davidpt40 has been nothing but polite with you, even in the face of your continued patronization. I think he deserves the same measure of courtesy in return.
I know Im being harsh on the guy Thrawn. But he really is spewing one silly lie after another. The Jug and Pony pilots deserve better then to be justfied with silly lies. If he wants a real discussion about the merits of game play in AH vs the utility of a given AC in WW2. He has to try to establish some ethical statements as to why and how the planes that concern him were effective or ineffective. Just flames till then Im affraid.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Your post seems to be trying to draw attention or rationalize why the P47 and maybe the pony are not world beaters in AH but they where in ww2. In the case of the Pony the plane is a world beater in AH if you just have a little SA. In the case of the jug. Its probably not as effective here as ww2.
Hehe, tell that to Drex, Sancho, Frenchy etc...the jug is just as deadly here in the right hands as it was in WW2. It just doesn't fit the "profile" of AH combat very well. BTW I thing you hit the points right on...nice post.
-
Climb is only good if you need to get up there quick.
In the end, unless you are fighting over your own airspace, climb ain't jack... speed is what matters, and David is correct in saying that.
As a matter of fact, Pongo, American pilots were explicitly told to not go engaging the Germans fighters. It wasn't until LATE '44/'45 that the ban was lifted and American pilots were told to do the opposite- engage the LuftWaffe with extreme prejudice.
But by that point air supremacy had already been established.
But then again, I fail to see the whole premise to the argument.
David says climb isn't as important as top speed. He's correct, unless you are scrambling to intercept inbound targets.
As far as long range fighters, they only helped to cover the bombers which in turn put a hurting on Germany and/or Japan.. depending on the theater. It was a combination of a thousand things that won the war, nothing on it's own won anything except small battles.
-SW
-
Speed vs. climb, long-range vs. short, low-alt vs. high-alt- I think this is all a bit obtuse. The points really deal with differences of gameplay in AH. I don't think anyone would argue that the AH MA as it is currently simulates the ETO or PTO.
The core MA strategy is focused around the capturing of bases, not the long range high altitude bombing of strat targets in order to bring up the opposing air force. Around this everything revolves since it creates a critical mass of players resulting in an eco-system of different breeds and species of pilots with different objectives in mind from your pure furballer to your ultimate strat junky and everything in between. That's the beauty of the AH MA. We have a diversity of flying styles that feed off of each other featuring different strengths and weakenesses of aircraft and tactics depending on the mission profile you choose to fly.
Arguably there are fewer high altitude fights vs. low altitude fights but I believe that fundamentally this is because of the current strat/game model in the MA which produces this affect. I don't think this is bad. There's less incentive for long range high altitude engagements with the current strat model though you can still make it happen. A fun thing to get this type of action is to either do a long range bombing run using a large formation of bombers with escorts or a long range fighter sweep deep into enemy territory. That usually gets people a stirring but it certainly only appeals to a certain crowd since it takes a bit of flight time before point of contact is reached between opposing forces. I think it would be great if more of this was encouraged but think it would be a mistake to do this at the detriment of the pilot styles in the player base.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs