Author Topic: The way we pick aircraft  (Read 796 times)

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2008, 04:18:13 PM »
SPAM!!!





 :noid
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2008, 04:21:07 PM »
I was just trying to explane what I'm trying to say and it seems i am unable to do so.

Offline Shane

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7456
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2008, 04:24:13 PM »
ITS not about rolling plainsets!
im not angry at all guys im just fustrated its about introducing new aircraft to the game, were not taking anything away and were not limiting anything, we are just making an orderly way of developing our next to aircraft to the game. starting with the early war aircraft based on there entry date into the war, and going to the next aircraft after that one is flying in the game along side of our B-17's and La-7s we allready have in the MA.

No, I get it now...

ok, i only addressed the rolling planeset aspect (last 1/2 of your original post).  As for the actual development and additions by HTC of new planes (starting with 1939, etc)  I'm not sure I'd want to wait 20 years til they reach the planes in '44/45 not included already.

It's not a simple matter to just toss in planes by name/year.  Lots of data is needed to support the FM, details, etc. - far be it from me to suggest *how* HTC goes about developing and including new planes.
Surrounded by suck and underwhelmed with mediocrity.
I'm always right, it just takes some poepl longer to come to that realization than others.
I'm not perfect, but I am closer to it than you are.
"...vox populi, vox dei..."  ~Alcuin ca. 798

Offline FYB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1074
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2008, 04:27:49 PM »
I was just trying to explane what I'm trying to say and it seems i am unable to do so.
"explane" ? Ex-Plane? We seem to be having a spelling problem over.

-FYB
Most skill based sport? -
The sport of understanding women.

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2008, 04:34:26 PM »
rgr Shane...  :aok

oh and for the tool asking about my spelling....  :salute  :rolleyes:

Offline FYB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1074
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2008, 04:36:12 PM »
rgr Shane...  :aok

oh and for the tool asking about my spelling....  :salute  :rolleyes:
NP  ;)

-FYB
Most skill based sport? -
The sport of understanding women.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #21 on: December 31, 2008, 06:53:37 PM »
I'm into it, but get for a bunch of late-war-only types to tell you "No."

A rolling plane set is a bad idea, regardless of which era plane you fly.  It was a failure in WB, which is why we don't have it in AH.  If you have any doubt, just ask the creator of both games.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2008, 07:13:40 PM »
reading the origanal post would be great  :aok

Offline Allen Rune

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2008, 09:21:16 PM »
This would be a great idea, but I'll have to agree with Shane..

I'm not sure I'd want to wait 20 years til they reach the planes in '44/45 not included already.

The Screwed One


"And so it begins, may it never end."

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17704
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2008, 09:36:44 PM »
Ack-Ack he was talking about the planes that get added to the game next. Only one time was there a vote for the next plane, and it was the B25. The P39 was a VERY close second, so I think that was the reason we got that one next. As to all other planes and vehicles.... I don't think anyone knows how its decided as to which will be added next. Maybe it has something to do with what ever scenario is coming up, maybe Pyro knocks over a stack of magazines and throws empty beer cans until one stays standing upright on a picture of our next plane.

I don't think they will ever start at an early plane and then just work their way through the inventory from there. I'm sure there are many planes in that list they don't have enough information on to build a credible model. I guess we will just have to do it the old way and wait on pins and needles begging for information out of HTC  :D

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2008, 10:41:36 PM »
There's some definite gaps that are in desperate need of filling. ESPECIALLY the Japanese plane set. I don't envy scenario designers trying to figure out PTO setups. The early naval battles are decently covered with the A6M2, B5N and D3A, however the G4M is a glaring hole and the IJAAF doesn't have an EW fighter at all. The Ki-43 is BADLY needed for late EW and definitely MW, and the Ki-27 and A5M would be quite welcome for variety (Allies have F4F, Spit and Hurri I, P-39D and P-38G for the PTO, Japan has the Zeke) in EW as well. Additionally the A6M3 would be invaluable as an intermediate between the A6M2 and A6M5 (A6M2 isn't appropriate for mid-42 until the end of 43, and the A6M5 is too late). And because I KNOW someone is going to respond with it: the D4Y. The G3M Nell would be an interesting inclusion, especially for an AVG scenario and I think I've seen the Ki-45 requested rather frequently. For that matter, the Japanese don't have ANY fighters that are actually appropriate to an AVG scenario, (Flying Tigers only encountered Ki-27s, A5Ms, and Ki-47s. Any Zeros would have been well after they were absorbed into the USAAF) and only the D3A and B5N would have been encountered.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Bruv119

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15645
      • http://www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2009, 02:06:14 AM »
wow  people see a guy with no avatar/sig and a few posts and target him without reading the OP which was quite easy to understand.

For what it counts Jason the first idea was better IMO going country by country introducing the most produced aircraft that saw squadron service.  The data available for the most produced would be more easily gathered i'm guessing?

The second idea is a very logical one but would be painstakingly slow to get every single aircraft that saw action.   I think Htc should gather a big list of the most suitable additions that are do-able and go from each country to be fair.  Any public vote will end up with US plane bias. The list we voted on what seems along time ago now.  We have the P39/B25  and lets be hoping Htc are now cracking on with the rest of the planes that made the list.

This thread has nothing to do with rolling planesets!   :lol
« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 02:08:04 AM by Bruv119 »
The Few ***
F.P.H

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2009, 09:39:14 AM »
(Flying Tigers only encountered Ki-27s, A5Ms, and Ki-47s. Any Zeros would have been well after they were absorbed into the USAAF)

Sorry, that 47 should be a 43. Darned modify time limit....
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline trigger2

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1342
Re: The way we pick aircraft
« Reply #28 on: January 01, 2009, 08:56:06 PM »
I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean delete the late war planes we already have (that would just be stupid), rather adding earlier planes first from now on.
Furthermore, I'd imagine the lack of players in early war has a lot to due the limited planeset :aok

I can agree with this... Bring on the Fairey Fulmar!! :D
Sometimes, we just need to remember what the rules of life really are: You only
need two tools: WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the
WD-40. If it shouldn't move and does, use the duct tape.
*TAs Aerofighters Inc.*