You know, you're absolutely right. There are game mechanics, such as icons, that are not "historically accurate". But, the game is designed to acheive fidelity with performance, both in the air and on the ground. The aircraft have their "historically accurate" amounts of horsepower. They roll at real-life rates. They fly at the real-life speeds. GV's roll at real-life speeds.
The only "balancing" mechanism that exists in this game is ENY and the perk system. Game balance is not achieved by nerfing or boosting a particular weapon system below or beyond its performance criteria.
You want to debate the reality of game mechanics, go ahead. That's a different topic.
Didn't know I was debating anything. In my earlier post I was stating an
opinion, and I placed that in
bold so it was clear that it was my
opinion.
As for debating the game mechanics, how can they be historically accurate if there is no weather, specifically wind. Did these planes fly in a vacuum in WWII? I can think of a few more examples, but I think you get the idea. I agree that HTC goes to great lengths to make the mechanics of the game as real as possible, and I for one am great full for that, but there is a line, at times, that needs to be crossed and icons is one of them. I can also think of a few more examples other than icons, but again, I think you get my point.
I understand that they are needed to make the game playable, but they are not historically accurate. So when one argues historically accurate, it still doesn't float. The statement would be more accurate if one said
attempts to achieve historical accuracy.
Let me make myself clear. I don't want to deal with fuel mixtures and such while flying, so in my
opinion I think these modifications are acceptable. What I was attempting to say, and maybe I wasn't clear, don't pull the historical accurate card out to make your argument, when it really doesn't always apply to all aspects of this game.
Fred
