Oznoyng
Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004 From: Mars Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote:
well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else? Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear. If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it? Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side... Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all. We aren't asking for the ability to swap Nates for Tony's at the game start and you muddy the waters by suggesting things that just are not possible with the game as designed. Take examples that could reasonably occur in game, and base your objections on that. Unless you do, you are giving arguments that are just too silly to give any weight too. Comparing the gist of this discussion to us wanting to research F18's, to turning WitP into an RTS, or wanting to upgrade Nates to Tony's on day 1 are simply getting in the way of getting your point across. If I change your question to "If you had the choice of flipping out your Nate's for Oscar's, Tonies, or Tojo's would you ever choose the Oscar?" might be a reasonable question. And my answer would be "Yes." I would want to continue to build Oscars for a while, actually. I just don't want 34 squadrons of them. The Oscar has one thing going for it, far and above the others - range. I would reserve some number of Oscars for escorting Betty's. Eventually, Oscar's and the escorted Betty's would take too much of a beating and I would convert all Oscar's to something else. In the meantime, Oscar's that I don't intend to use as LBA escorts would give way to fighters with shorter range but superior firepower, armor, durability, and speed. I would accept a certain greater number of losses in my Oscar squadrons for fewer losses in my LBA (up to a point). By the same token, I am not sure I would go all Tojo, or all Tony. I cannot recall very well the stats on those aircraft, but it seems to me I would want to have them both in different situations. I think that proposing a "whole" solution is not something we should have to do. A "whole" solution ultimately is something that gets done when we establish the PBEM we play. If you and I are considering a game, we PM or post back and forth, deciding on rules. The options we are asking for are simply parameters. I could say to you: Frag, I want to play Japan, Scenario 15. 1. Charge PP for upgrades outside of the aircraft's historical upgrade path option on. 2. Increase the "charge" for plant conversions on 3. "Free" plant upgrades off. 4. No research will be conducted by me other than what is done at scenario start. 5. Increase airgroup upgrade delay on 6. Allow "upgrades" to be within aircraft type on 7. Aircraft upgrade cost: high 8. I will change no production of a plant until the aircraft is available and producing. 9. No upgrades outside of service. IJN -> IJN, IJA -> IJA, USN->USN, etc. only. 10. Allied sub doctrine on 11. Japan sub doctrine on 12. Only 1 port attack on turn 1 13. etc. And you would say, "No, I don't option X on, I's skeered of da uba Jap planes. etc." Eventually, we would decide on rules and start. The problem is that the tools (even the editor) are not flexible enough to play some of the games that we want to play.
|