Advanced WWII Arena Idea and Poll

[Beegerite]

I said this in a reply in another thread and decided why not put it to a poll, so here goes.

Wheeew, I'm confused. I think we need a poll  

Question 1 do you agree or disagree
 
Historical Matchups should contain planesets of actual combatants e.g. Battle of Britain should have Stukas, HE111s, early Spits and Hurcs  and whatever else flew which I can't think of now.

Question 2 do you agree or disagree

Let's not waste time trying to create a scenario like BoB until HTC actually develops planes like the Stuka or HE111.  Substitutions take away from the reality factor

Question 3 do you agree or disagree

A scenario like BoB should disable base capture unless a pre-determined level of damage is inflicted upon the British bases by bombers.  This would replicate the type of situation which actually existed.  An invasion (base capture) would only be possible if the LW destroyed the RAF

Question 4 do you agree or disagree

Icons should not be part of an advanced arena.

Question 5 do you agree or disagree

Aircraft in the advanced arena should have an enhanced and more realistic flight model so that they more accurately replicate the real world of the WW2 aviator?  For instance, FW190s should be stall/spin prone, 109s should be tricky to land and take off, older Spits should cough, sputter and shut down in a negative G dive and failure to apply liberal amounts of torque correction to a rolling Corsair should put you in a body bag.  

Please think about these questions and vote your feelings.  

Thanks  
Beeg  

[Beegerite]

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH HHHHH, what happened to the poll feature?

[J_A_B]

1. Agree, whenever possible.

2. Disagree.  You will never have ALL the planes you need.

3. No opinion.

4.  Disagree.  Even at 1600 x 1200 res I cannot tell most planes in AH apart at only 1 mile (1700 yards).  However, the human eye can differenciate these aircraft at ranges of up to 3-4 miles easily. The technology to make NO ICONS truly realistic simply doesn't exist for the home market.

5.  No opinion, because AH either already has these features, or when it gets them they will be in ALL arenas.

J_A_B

[oboe]

1. Agree

2. Mildly Agree - I have hated substitutions since we were forced to use the Me110 as a Ki45 in Warbirds.   But, if its just the lack of an He111, and the Ju88 is available, I can live with that.

3. Agree but it depends on the scenario - some scenarios (Crete?)
might revovle around airfield capture.

4. Disagree - you'd lose too many potential flyers in the arena.  I think no-icon events could be suceesful though.

5. I don't think its possible to have different FMs for planes in different arenas.   I think the FM has to be the same regardless of the arena - this is a technical limitation, (or characteristic).

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Beegerite
Historical Matchups should contain planesets of actual combatants e.g. Battle of Britain should have Stukas, HE111s, early Spits and Hurcs  and whatever else flew which I can't think of now.

I agree.   Was there discussion contra this?

Let's not waste time trying to create a scenario like BoB until HTC actually develops planes like the Stuka or HE111.  Substitutions take away from the reality factor

Who cares?  It's more realistic than no scenario at all.

A scenario like BoB should disable base capture unless a pre-determined level of damage is inflicted upon the British bases by bombers.  This would replicate the type of situation which actually existed.  An invasion (base capture) would only be possible if the LW destroyed the RAF

Disagree.  The suggestion is consistent with history, of course, but you won't have as many participants because all the bomber and goon folks will go somewhere else.

Icons should not be part of an advanced arena.

Disagree.  Graphics are not yet up to what real eyes can detect, particularly re: whether (and how quickly) an object is approaching or receding.

Aircraft in the advanced arena should have an enhanced and more realistic flight model so that they more accurately replicate the real world of the WW2 aviator?  For instance, FW190s should be stall/spin prone, 109s should be tricky to land and take off, older Spits should cough, sputter and shut down in a negative G dive and failure to apply liberal amounts of torque correction to a rolling Corsair should put you in a body bag.

...duh....I thought these things were already accounted for?  If they're not, however, I vote "no."  AH already has a very nice flight model, and I'd hate to see the RR v. FR schism develop here.

- Oldman

[WildBlue]

My only disagreement would be #4 and 5. Icons, while not true to life, are needed. It's the only real way to simulate the recognition that would come from human eyes... maybe go with a shorter icon range? And number 5... in reality, the pilot had sensory inputs that are simply impossible to duplicate here. It would be no good to make the birds that hard to fly without that type of input. Just my simple opinion.

[Nifty]

1. agree.   (tho not all CT frames have to be a specific battle, week or month of the war.  I think at times they can cover a period of several months, allowing a larger planeset for a frame.)

2.  disagree, as this isn't a black and white issue.  Subbing late spits for early spits is a bad idea.  Subbing Sturmoviks for Stukas bad.  However, a Lanc for a B24 or the Ju88 for the Betty are acceptable substitutes, IMO.  Yes it ruins some immersion, but otherwise you're severely limiting what you can accomplish in the CT (and in special events)

3. depends on the setup for the frame.  so agree.

4. disagree.  besides, it's not even possible to force a No Icon setting in the arena tables.

5. strongly disagree.  a) HTC won't compromise the flight model of any plane (intentionally at least) so this isn't even an issue.  b) if they don't model early RAF planes with the neg-G engine flooding, they don't need to model the planes at all.  

We don't need the problems with relaxed vs real mode.  We don't need this to be considered an "advanced" arena.  You're going to put off a lot of players if you do.  Shorter icons isn't harder, it's just different.  Same with no in flight radar.  only thing that's harder is finding a flight without using the text buffer.    Honestly, I get bounced less when in the CT, because I'm actually paying more attention to things (except when I'm yelling on squad channel about something my damn cat just did...)

[Seeker]

1) But of course

2) Hell no! Are yyou some kind of closet MS flight sim freak? It's about the pilots, stupid!

3) Is this a recreation of the condition inherent in the theatre at the time of conflict for us to challenge our minds, skill and hearts in or not? Get out of here, you - you - wanna be thespian you!

4) Yes. In a fixed plane set, Icons are an unnessacery distraction.

5)  now that*s a good idea! seperate the events client base into two mutualy exclusive subsets with totaly different social dynamics! That*s a way for a small dynamic company like htc to streamline it*s admin and future planning; of course the events team will keep up; they have a couple of empty arenas doing nothing!

[Geeesy]

1.) partial agree: As somebody else said some substitute are worth of try them. There were ALOT of different planes during WW2, requesting from HTC to get them in all would cost HTC a serious ressource of work and time, which could be used for example for your mentioned changings in flight modells... Well and if you can use a JU88 for the He111 it's just fine for me, due the JU88 already is kinda crap it's still better than the He111 would be.

2.) Well thats what 1.09 is going for I think. Stukas havent had much effect in the BoB and were held out of action over Brittain by the High Command after a number of serious losses afaik. The JU88 for the He111 is as above said OK.

3.)Well although no party in 1940 had this CV's in the channel I'd suggest to enable field capture only by fleet efforts. Fleets should'nt be able to be captured though. A rebuild time of 2 days like it was in some HA settings at WB would be nice, too.

4.) Disagree... maybe it's possible to enable the range icons at a farer range than the plane type? This would bring in some more realistic as well I think.

5.) Disagree, nothing kills a game more if there are two or more different ways of playing it possible. So if HTC is going for such kind of changings they should be for all or no one. BTW you've visited the about link here? I don't think that the FM isn't bad as it is now after all... HT should have some idea of what it should feel like first hand (well at least in a P51).

WTG for your ideas and keep up coming with those threads, I think such discuussion can be some good found place for ideas to the CM staff.

P.S.: excuse bad grammar and stuff like that... English is a very tricky language to me.

[Eagler]

1. A

2. D

3. D

4. A

5. A

I think we have enough planes and terrains now that the arena can be keep diversified to keep it interesting with the arena options that are now possible. I appreciate the new maps & ideas & everyones efforts/time and look forward to them but any changes, even if it ain't "historically" correct would keep many interested and checking in just to see the latest scenerio and how it plays out.

no icons week/day/night

bombers vs fighters

jap cv vs us cv limitied to us/jap planes Midway kind of

gv war - not one of my fav's but would check it out

spit vs spit or any one plane type vs same type

battleship battles - no planes or gv's

etc, etc .... u get the idea

with this new poll feature (when its setup right ), we could vote on them b4 hand

variety, the spice of life

[Beegerite]

Thanks to all for sharing your opinions including the Mullet that called me stupid without putting a nice smiley on it  I only wish that the damn polling feature hadn't been disabled so we could actually have some numbers.  I'm too confused to figure it out.
Beeg