P-63 KingCobra......again

[Arlo]

There is no French plane set and the D520 will start one... then we can start with the gap filling.

'We' can start gap filling without the Armée de l'Air and still have years of work for
HTC. You claiming your desire is 'business model' driven adds no weight to either
your suggestion nor my opinion of your business sense. Especially since without the
priority placed on a French plane set and filling all it's gaps you are all about 'filling'
late war generic gaps in the MA which isn't needed to keep the MA population content
at all. You wouldn't know how to build support for your cause if Ack-Ack and Sax
slapped you in the face with a pamphlet showing how.  

[Tank-Ace]

 Really? ... when we talk about "gap filler" we are talking about "Gaps" in the current plane sets we have, are we not?

Ar and Sax are right ... There is no French plane set and the D520 will start one... then we can start with the gap filling

Which will be fine by me


From a purely business perspective ....I would already have had the plane available along time ago and a few others.


I guess we will just see how things go....

 

I didn't think it was possible, but we've got a reading of over 7 Krusty's on te BS meter, and a whopping 8.4 on the Contrived Point Scale.

[Arlo]

Yep, the M.S. 406 and D.520 would both be good starts. Toss in the Hawk and between those three and the Hurricane I we already have you've got a fairly solid Allied fighter lineup for BoF. Just need a proper EW Allied bomber (the Wellington already suggested would be great).

Blenheim Mk.IV (80 available/67 in service) and/or the Fairey Battle (180 available/153 in service), more like. I don't see the Wellington in the BOF aircraft order of battle. It typically saw operations against shipping prior to and during the BOF (and was struggling in that role). The Potez 63.11 (perhaps that's the 63 Meg would prefer) was France's tactical bomber available in the largest quantity.



283 available/189 in service.

(Adding these would be interesting, both in the model and the reaction.)

[Karnak]

Fairey Battle.  <shudder>

The B5N2 is a surprisingly good stand in for the Battle.

[Arlo]

Fairey Battle.  <shudder>

The B5N2 is a surprisingly good stand in for the Battle.

Subs are just another word for gap to me. 

There's a reason France fell easily (and it has little to nothing to do with courage). The
BOF would be a scenario where everyone pretty much wants to fly German. Then again,
it seems the big BoB scenario is suffering that this year. You'd think the later model 88,
the new bomber wingman join feature, the 110 experimental contingent and the 109E
might have intimidated players from RAF Hurricanes.  

[Butcher]

Subs are just another word for gap to me. 

There's a reason France fell easily (and it has little to nothing to do with courage). The
BOF would be a scenario where everyone pretty much wants to fly German. Then again,
it seems the big BoB scenario is suffering that this year. You'd think the later model 88,
the new bomber wingman join feature, the 110 experimental contingent and the 109E
might have intimidated players from RAF Hurricanes.  

If we had the Wellington, D.520 and M.S. 406 then we have a nice phony war scenario. Of course the B5n would sub for the Fairey battle. One of the major reasons I am behind Twinboom and the D.520 - not only that, it also served in the ETO for the luftwaffe which makes it one of the few aircrafts
that switched hands during the war.

[Vinkman]

That's not data supporting the addition of the P-63.

The Case for the P-63 was made in previous posts.

That's not really data, at all. That's presumed statistics.

Yes it is. I've read every Lusche thread on posted usage and stats and I'm using numbers from memory. I think they are well within the 300% error band I bounded them with.

So you're attempting to sell me on the premise that the more players willing to sacrifice their MA time to create, support or fly in a scenario increases the value of the MA and reduces the value of scenarios? Either I missed your attempted point, you misstated it or you didn't really have one in the above statement.

You missed the point, you got it exactly backwards I'm afraid.

Presuming the 111 is never used in the MA, even once? I'd like to see the 'data.' What about the 51B vs. the D model? Waste of time and resources? Causing players to quit because the MA got boring what with aircraft in the hangars many won't fly vs plenty in there that they will?

This is not analogous to any point I'm making so I can't vouch for this logic or lack there of.
 

There is no shortage of fun planes to fly in the MA. There is a shortage of planes to accurately fill the slots in scenarios that make them more fun.

There is no shortage of scenarios to plan based on the plane set we already have either. But that's your argument. Mine is Priority, not Whether or Ever. But if that is your requirement, let's make the Russian invasion of Japan the next scenario. Now we'll NEED the P-63 

Let's say you were lucky and were dead on. It still doesn't support you premise. On the very rare occasion I've seen a player go on about a plane release announcement and get bent out of shape about it being a potential MA hangar queen, not only were there other players with a different opinion, the first player was actually flying a plane (perhaps one of many) that kept him quite content. Doubt he quit over the He-111 being added instead of the P-63.

You seem to be trying really hard not to understand my premise Arlo, I know you like to play Devil's advocate for fun, but I never made a point that people were going to quit because the new plane introduced wasn't the one they wanted.

 

[Arlo]

If we had the Wellington, D.520 and M.S. 406 then we have a nice phony war scenario. Of course the B5n would sub for the Fairey battle. One of the major reasons I am behind Twinboom and the D.520 - not only that, it also served in the ETO for the luftwaffe which makes it one of the few aircrafts
that switched hands during the war.

The Syrian campaign and Bulgaria, mainly.

[Arlo]

The Case for the P-63 was made in previous posts.

And isn't being helped by what Meg is posting currently.

Yes it is. I've read every Lusche thread on posted usage and stats and I'm using numbers from memory. I think they are well within the 300% error band I bounded them with.

Whatever 'error band' you claim, you're attempting to mask opinion with 'pseudo-data.'

You missed the point, you got it exactly backwards I'm afraid.

Then the point you attempted was very poorly phrased if you meant to express the opposite.

This is not analogous to any point I'm making so I can't vouch for this logic or lack there of.

 

Of course it is comparable. You're claiming anything modeled for events is antithesis for the MA (as an opinion you attempt to mask as 'data') and, as such, is somehow harmful to the game. You might want to reconsider considering the Yak3 was asked for by event oriented players .... not the average MA player who didn't even see it coming until the first time they were shot down by one.

There is no shortage of scenarios to plan based on the plane set we already have either. But that's your argument. Mine is Priority, not Whether or Ever. But if that is your requirement, let's make the Russian invasion of Japan the next scenario. Now we'll NEED the P-63  

No. That's not just my argument. Do a simple word search ('gap' or 'historical' for instance). The current BoB events are using a later version of the Junkers 88 that has distinct advantages over the earlier version not yet modeled. You really don't get 'historical gap', do you? Besides, modeling the P-63 to shoot Japanese jeeps is about as needed for events as modeling civilians.

You seem to be trying really hard not to understand my premise Arlo, I know you like to play Devil's advocate for fun, but I never made a point that people were going to quit because the new plane introduced wasn't the one they wanted.

Then what is your point, really, what with the MA priority and 10 to 1 ratio thing?  

[Vinkman]

Whatever 'error band' you claim, you're attempting to mask opinion with 'pseudo-data.'

The data was sufficiently accurate as it was presented and used to support the point that the MA gets over 100 times the usage of scenarios. Using adjectives like Pseudo, does not discredit those numbers. If you can discredit them with more accurate numbers, please correct me.  

Then the point you attempted was very poorly phrased if you meant to express the opposite.

It was perfectly clear. Please re-read my post.    

Of course it is comparable. You're claiming anything modeled for events is antithesis for the MA

That's not what I said. Please re-read my post.

Then what is your point, really, what with the MA priority and 10 to 1 ratio thing?  

Please re-read my post. It's really quite clear.  

[Arlo]

The data was sufficiently accurate as it was presented and used to support the point that the MA gets over 100 times the usage than scenarios. using adjectives like Pseudo, does not discredit those numbers. If you can discredit them with more accurate numbers, please correct me. 

You may wanna check with Lusche as to what his data was designed for. The obvious reason the MA gets more 'usage' than scenarios is because scenarios are scheduled events with time-limited frames and are not run daily, on consecutive days or continuously. You ... ummm ... know this, right? Having said that, scenarios still get several hundred participants. Try measuring numbers of players per frame versus number of players per day on the MA and your 'data' may start to reflect that your '10 to 1' ratio/desire for just any ol' hotrod, whether it had historical significance or not, is really just your attempt to shore up your wish for the P-63.

It was perfectly clear. Please re-read my post.   

Why don't you read it again, yourself?

What? You like scenarios much much better than the MA so that should factor into the equation, ok how many days of MA play would you give up to fly in a scenario? Imagine you had to. Would you sit out of the MA for ten days to fly in one scenario? On average, for all the players who sign up for a scenario, what would that number be? Let's assume it's 10 days. That makes the MA 36 times higher priority than scenarios.

Do you not see that factoring in how much effort I and other players are willing to put into a scenario and how much we, as paying customers, spend doing that instead of flying in the MA doesn't increase the value of the MA over events? Can't you see that it actually illustrates the opposite? How in the world did you come up with your post illustrating otherwise?

That's not what I said. Please re-read my post.

As illustrated above, my re-reading your posts does not make them suddenly mean what you hoped they would without the effort put forth by you to be accurate, clear and concise. If you want your meaning known then make sure it is, even if it takes you reviewing it and then clarifying.

Please re-read my post. It's really quite clear. 

Allow me to be redundant - as illustrated above, my re-reading your posts does not make them suddenly mean what you hoped they would without the effort put forth by you to be accurate, clear and concise. If you want your meaning known then make sure it is, even if it takes you reviewing it and then clarifying. 

[Butcher]

Besides, modeling the P-63 to shoot Japanese jeeps is about as needed for events as modeling civilians.

Then what is your point, really, what with the MA priority and 10 to 1 ratio thing?  

The Meteor shares the same situation as the P-63, except the Meteor did ground attacks on Kubelwagons. Still the fact is they both were in combat during World war two.
I agree with both you and Vinky, the P-63 would likely get some serious useage in the Late War arena.

Its been demanded for years to add the He-111, while it makes a wonderful scenario filler, look at how much the Late War Arena uses it, I always said I'd like to see a balance when it comes to adding planes, one scenario driven and one LWA.
The new Jagdpanzers have been a great addition, i've been lobbying them for years now. The fly fanboi community doesn't like ground vehicles, I personally was never a tanker in aces - I came here to fly but I do respect its a large portion of the game and it is in fact quite fun.

Back to the topic, can we not simply agree the LWA is just as important as Scenarios/FSO? Both should get planes to fill and we are all happy

[Arlo]

Back to the topic, can we not simply agree the LWA is just as important as Scenarios/FSO? Both should get planes to fill and we are all happy

Who's saying the MA is less important than events? Which arena is more important than the other is Vink's thing. What's being discussed is what potential models have more historical significance. Granted, that may have less meaning to the average MA player, according to Vink (and I'm not entirely convinced, myself, being one of many MA players that 'sacrifice' our time in the MA to participate in scenarios).

The wishlist sees wishes for planes and vehicles based solely on how they fare against the current late war monsters already in the LWMA quite often by individuals who presume they represent the desire of the majority. There will usually be criteria offered in such wishes that sounds like 'it was headed to a combat zone before the war ended' or 'a squadron of them was formed' or 'I read a report that one of them may have gotten a kill.' May as well say 'I'm asking for a plane that can be at the top of the food chain in the MA because I like it and it would have been hell on wings had it made it into the war soon enough. Besides, I represent the MA population who pays all the bills.'

Meanwhile, those who like the true historical aspect of the planes in AHII (whether in a scenario or in the MA) tend to have a modeling pecking order which usually sounds like 'Ok, lets fill the gaps leading up to your dream-plane first, ok? Nice plane but ... not as important to completing the roster as you're attempting to make it sound.'

That's not hurting the MA one bit. AAMOF, most of the planes added to the MA (even the bruisers) owe their existence to the historical crowd.

[Butcher]

Meanwhile, those who like the true historical aspect of the planes in AHII (whether in a scenario or in the MA) tend to have a modeling pecking order which usually sounds like 'Ok, lets fill the gaps leading up to your dream-plane first, ok? Nice plane but ... not as important to completing the roster as you're attempting to make it sound.'

Problem is HTC is the one who adds the aircrafts, he has no order - at least from what I've seen over the years. There is a small trend, anytime there is a voting it seems the top winners get added in game, other then that - we can cry all we want about what deserves or wants to be added in game - he chooses himself.

[Saxman]

Problem is HTC is the one who adds the aircrafts, he has no order - at least from what I've seen over the years. There is a small trend, anytime there is a voting it seems the top winners get added in game, other then that - we can cry all we want about what deserves or wants to be added in game - he chooses himself.

There also seems to be a recent trend to include one remodeled aircraft series, along with adding a couple extra variants (IE, the recent patch adding the Yak-3 and -7 along with remodeled Yak-9s, adding the A6M3 when the Zeros got remodeled, the 1A when the Corsairs were done).

In which case, whenever HTC remodels the Wildcats I'd REALLY like to see a true F4F-3. It was the representative type for the Marine Corps squadrons (most Wildcats on the Canal were -3s) and the four-gun package on the -4 does NOT make an F4F-3 (which was 1000lbs lighter on the same engine, while still having increased internal fuel).