Once again:
1) A new, modern graphics engine.
Oh, a new graphics engine. Hitech! Get right on that, OK?
I hear you. I don't totally disagree. However, I think the engine is more capable than it looks. A lot of the issue is models not the underlying engine. And the generic component nature of a simplistic rather than trying to model a particular location. The terrain mesh resolution is a little course. It be nice to have adaptive mesh system where certain areas of interest could have high detain and in-between areas with much lower poly count
The real problem is that ideally Hitech wouldn't be in the engine business. He had to create one when he started because there weren't really and available ones then. Game companies now have off the shelf they can leverage built by teams 100 graphic engineers that can afford to concentrate on engine design day and day, year after year exclusively. It is impossible for Hitech to keep up with that rolling his own. It's a massive amount of work and no one can be an expert in everything.
Of course it is easier for a new company starting an new product to do that. Very hard for an existing company with 18 years of legacy code to switch over.
The other problem with a proprietary engine is that is makes it almost impossible to bring in hired-guns temporarily to help with a development push for 6-12 months. You can't just drop in an Unreal or Unity Ninja and get them up to speed quickly on your engine.
That is not a mistake on Hitech's part, just the way things worked out. It is very hard for long existing companies to swap out technologies. Newer companies often have that clean-slate advantage. Kinda like how Germany and Japan had the advantage of starting out with brand new modern factories after WWII while alot of ours were from the turn of the century.
2) Enhance the damage model. Engines that degrade with damage. Pull too many Gs when your spar is full of holes and your ping pops up. Degrading flight and control surfaces. Guns can jam. Put stuff IN the plane like control lines that can be severed. Damage should not be all-or-nothing.
That is more reasonable, but I doubt it is a huge game changer. But it is certain more realistic than an entirely new graphics engine.
3) Double down on the simulator aspects. This is the main thing setting AH's gameplay apart from WT. WT is an arcadey shooter with some simulator elements. Maybe AH shouldn't be a DCS-level study sim, where you have to warm your engine for 10 minutes before takeoff and manually switch on your guns, but there should be more things to manage. Bring on complex engine management (oil, radiator, and cowl flaps, mixture control, prop pitch that actually has to be set for the correct power settings etc.). Model the aircraft's unique systems (IE the 190s and their automatic propeller pitch). Implement a "Newbie Switch" where CEM can be disabled, but at a potential loss of performance.
Sid Meier had a great quote about his design principal to make his sims fun, as opposed to a military or commercial simulator, (paraphrased) "Simulate the fun stuff and throw everything else out."
I don't want to be a flight sim accountant. That is not the "fun stuff" to me. If he wants to put it in for people who get off to that, fine. But it should confer no advantage. Diddle you cowling flaps to your hearts content.
4) Introduce more ordinance options (Tiny Tim rockets have been asked for quite frequently). Introduce more ammunition options than simply averaging your belt, and tie ammunition into the Strat system: Maybe you like to run API-API-API-API-T in your Browning M2. But oops, the ammo bunker at your field was just exploded, so it's all Ball rounds for you.
Meh. I'm not against it, but it probably ranks low on the estimated bang for the buck. (Pardon the Pun).
5) Add more aircraft. I'll give you several easy ones that wouldn't even require much (if anything) in the way of new meshes: FG-1/A/D (denavalized; unavailable from carriers). F4F-3 (a 4-gun F4F is NOT an F4F-4. the -3 was lighter, longer-ranged, and better performing). F6F-3. F2A-3, and B-339 and it's British and Dutch subvariants (The 239 has noticeably different handling from either, though IIRC the Dutch model was close). Here's a big one that WT doesn't (AFAIK) have: Bring on in-craft radar, and introduce proper night fighters. F4U-2 and F6F-5N (an F6F with a pair of 20mms is sure to get love) are two easy ones to add simply by remodeling a wing. The P-61 has been quite frequently asked for, but always shot down on the Wishlist because "We don't have night so why bother with it?). How many people have asked for the P-51A or A-36?
Meh. We have a lot of planes. Most of them are never flown already. Do you really think adding a couple more variants is going to make a material difference at this point?
There's no need to change the core persistent arena-based game play to TOO large of an extent (I do agree with removing the third country, tho).
Ohhhhh, no you didn't!!!!!!! You just stepped on the third rail!
I think 3-side worked great with 300-600 players. I'll leave it at that.
However I'd introduce more ways to manage territory than simply "Flatten town and drop troops." And there's no need to create a "Freeloaders vs. Premiums" caste system. At all.
But you want to create an engine management caste system?
