RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

[Poll]

POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades


I prefer upgradable aircraft with no limitations (ahistorical)
  11% (30)
I prefer upgradable aircraft with the limitations in the first post
  43% (111)
I prefer upgradable aircraft with other limitations (post in thread)
  7% (19)
I don't want any changes to the system unless they are optional!
  22% (58)
I don't want any changes to the system, period, I'm happy as is.
  14% (36)


Total Votes : 254
(last vote on : 7/23/2006 6:35:37 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 1:14:59 AM)

another punt until stickied.



SeaWolF K -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 1:42:41 AM)

I voted against any changes at all for the following. I don't mind if you make the upgrade paths changable with the limits but only if you remove the upgrade restrictions on the allies and let them control production as well. If you are going to let Japan only produce and field her best A/C, you have to let the Allies do the same. Which takes away some of the strategy behind this game, where do you commit your low density/high demand assets?



2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 5:15:29 AM)

punt.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 5:34:52 AM)

The more I think about, the more it doesn't make sense to give either side upgradable aircraft with no limitations. How do you know beforehand which models will work out and which won't? Don't later model design upgrades rely at least partly on the lessons learned from earlier models?

Actually, changing aircraft group classification makes more sense than having the ability to look into the future and see which aircraft fly the best. Want more fighter groups vs. torpedo bomber groups? Fine, go ahead and make that decision. It may or may not work out depending on how the game goes.

However to say the IJA should only build one model of fighter and scrap the rest doesn't work. They have no idea which model will turn out to be the best. Even during the war, there was a lot of FOW which muddied the waters in terms of grading performance. Eventually they could figure out what was working but it took a long time.



2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 5:39:16 AM)

Works the same way as the allied player knows his Essex CV's are way better and not "floating fire bombs" with a fatal flaw.
Or that this radar is better or this DD is even better. Or that the Corsair, Hellcat are not dogs.

We all have hindsight.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 5:47:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Works the same way as the allied player knows his Essex CV's are way better and not "floating fire bombs" with a fatal flaw.
Or that this radar is better or this DD is even better. Or that the Corsair, Hellcat are not dogs.



Then the Allies shouldn't have complete control over production either. It seems if you have this kind of control over what is being produced, you should also have to deal with some of the draw backs. Like not knowning exactly what would work or not work, for example.

Maybe the Hellcat does turn out to be a dog so the Allied player should produce two seperate carrier fighter lines. This does waste some resources but increases the chances of having at least one really good plane. Once both aircrafts fly some, their performances can be judged. Now you increase production of the better plane and lower the amount of the other one at the same time.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 7:24:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

The more I think about, the more it doesn't make sense to give either side upgradable aircraft with no limitations. How do you know beforehand which models will work out and which won't? Don't later model design upgrades rely at least partly on the lessons learned from earlier models?

Actually, changing aircraft group classification makes more sense than having the ability to look into the future and see which aircraft fly the best. Want more fighter groups vs. torpedo bomber groups? Fine, go ahead and make that decision. It may or may not work out depending on how the game goes.

However to say the IJA should only build one model of fighter and scrap the rest doesn't work. They have no idea which model will turn out to be the best. Even during the war, there was a lot of FOW which muddied the waters in terms of grading performance. Eventually they could figure out what was working but it took a long time.


Good point. I like FOW at every level. As an example, I wanted the dev guys to randomise and mask the ratings of leaders in WITP. Only time and combat would reveal if they were any good. As it is now, players all give Spruance or Yamaguchi jobs, but Fletcher and Nagumo stay ashore.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 7:51:11 AM)

I think having upgradeable aircraft without limitations would greatly enhance the longevity of this game as it would allow many of us to investigate many "what-if" situations. Could Japan have won the war? What if Hitler had been more adept at understanding the potential of his Jet aircraft capabilites and not decided to equip the ME-262 as a fighter- bomber during the latter stages of the war? The tools are there as well as the toys...it would be nice to be able to play with them. It certainly would make it much more compelling to play as the Japanese.



SpitfireIX -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 8:35:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Maybe the Hellcat does turn out to be a dog so the Allied player should produce two seperate carrier fighter lines. This does waste some resources but increases the chances of having at least one really good plane. Once both aircrafts fly some, their performances can be judged. Now you increase production of the better plane and lower the amount of the other one at the same time.


It's worth keeping in mind that the Buffalo actually beat the Wildcat in the Navy's carrier-fighter competition before the war, but the Navy decided to buy some F4Fs anyway, "just in case." Imagine the consequences for the Allies if the only carrier fighter available all through 1942 had been the F2A!



2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 10:35:03 AM)

punt.



Nusskuchen -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 11:13:56 AM)

quote:


Good point. I like FOW at every level. As an example, I wanted the dev guys to randomise and mask the ratings of leaders in WITP. Only time and combat would reveal if they were any good. As it is now, players all give Spruance or Yamaguchi jobs, but Fletcher and Nagumo stay ashore.


You have made an important point because the "free a/c upgrades = 20/20 hindsight and is an exploit" thing is true for nearly every other aspect of the game. Since some people are so desperate to keep others from having free upgrades I demand that only historic task forces can be formed with their historic leaders. After all you could exploit the system by assigning a better leader (did the RL superiours have a value of their men?) or a 20/20 hindsight composition of a Carrier TF.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 11:28:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
The more I think about, the more it doesn't make sense to give either side upgradable aircraft with no limitations. How do you know beforehand which models will work out and which won't?
What? Before large scale production begins the aircraft are prototyped and then produced in modest quantities for field testing. Only once field testing is completed is large scale production started.

Are you suggesting that after more than two years of developing a prototype and extensive combat field testing they didn’t know what the aircraft performance was?

Ki- 44

Shortly after Nakajima proceeded with designing the Ki-43, the Army gave them a new specification for a pure interceptor fighter. It was a radical departure from previous Japanese standards, with maneuverability being downplayed and speed and rate of climb being emphasized. The criteria called for a climb to 13,125 ft. in less than 5 minutes, and a speed at that altitude of 373 mph. The interceptor’s armament was to be two 7.7mm and two 12.7mm machine guns.

Prototype

The first prototype, #4401, first flew in August 1940 at Ojima Airfield, Ota. It was quickly followed by two more, #’s 4402 and 4403. Generally, the aircraft displayed satisfactory handling characteristics when airborne, but there were problems. When on the ground, in a three-point attitude, pilot forward vision was restricted by the immense engine, although visibility in the air was deemed excellent. The landing-speed was awfully high by previous Japanese standards, due to the high wing loading. But performance trials were quite disappointing: the aircraft, with a loaded weight of 5,622 lb., had a top speed of only 342 mph-8.3% below the specification-and the climb rate to 16,405 ft. was only 5 minutes 54 seconds. Nakajima was very concerned; here was their interceptor failing to meet the Army’s requirements, and at the same time, the Ki-43 was having problems, too.

Working furiously, Nakajima reduced the new fighter’s parasite drag. The engine mount’s rigidity was increased, the supercharger’s intake shape and frontal area was modified six times, and the cowling flaps were modified, as well. But even after these modifications, speed was only increased to 354 mph, even with removal of the armament. So the firewall was modified to improve the engine cooling, allowing the five cooling vents mounted on both sides of the forward fuselage, behind the cooling gills, to be dispensed with. Finally, sealing these vents seemed to do the trick; the aircraft now exceeded the speed requirement by a comfortable margin, the new speed being 389 mph. It was estimated, based on these results and on weight calculations, that production examples would reach 360 mph. The Japanese Army decided it was satisfied.

Field Testing

Seven pre-production aircraft (#’s 4404 to 4410) were built embodying all the modifications, the last being delivered in September 1941. Additional changes were in the canopy (a two-piece type like that of the Ki-43 being substituted for the three-piece version), the radio antenna (this was moved to a position forward and to starboard of the cockpit), the rudder (which was slightly changed in shape) and the drop-tank fittings (two tanks, of 28.6 gallons capacity, being carried under the wing just behind the landing gear). These pre-production machines were armed like the first prototypes-two 7.7mm machine guns in the forward fuselage, and a single 12.7mm machine gun in each wing. These seven planes, plus the second and third prototypes (which were brought up to the later standards), were sent to China for service testing late in September with an experimental squadron, the Kawasemi Butai. In May of the next year, it was redesignated the 47th Independent Squadron.

Finally, in September 1942, the new fighter was formally accepted by the JAAF, and was named the Army Type 2 Single-seat Fighter Model 1, or Ki-44-I. The formal nickname Shoki was applied at the same time.



Ki-44: Prototype and pre-production aircraft.
Ki-44-Ia: Initial production version.
Ki-44-Ib: As Ia but with revised armaments.
Ki-44-Ic: As Ib but with revised mainwheel fairing.
Ki-44-II: Prototype & pre-production version.
Ki-44-IIa: Initial Ki-44-II production version.
Ki-44-IIb: Major production version.
Ki-44-IIc: Production version.
Ki-44-IIIa: Production version with new powerplant.
Ki-44-IIIb: Final production version.

Production levels:
Ki-44: 10 aircraft
Ki-44-I (a,b&c): 40 aircraft
Ki-44-II: 8 aircraft
Ki-44-II & III (all variants): 1,167



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 11:36:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaWolF K
…If you are going to let Japan only produce and field her best A/C, you have to let the Allies do the same...
So the Americans would be able to choose the mix they want based on the strategic/tactical situation at the time, instead of the mix of P-38s, P-47, and P-51s set historically. I have no problem with that.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 11:48:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaWolF K
…If you are going to let Japan only produce and field her best A/C, you have to let the Allies do the same...
So the Americans would be able to choose the mix they want based on the strategic/tactical situation at the time, instead of the mix of P-38s, P-47, and P-51s set historically. I have no problem with that.
Actually, I do: As I've said any diversion of 'higher spec' aircraft from ETO to PTO should cost Political Points. Unlike the Japanese player, the Allied player has to consider the requirements of other theatres. With that caveat, however, I can't actually see what's wrong with giving the Allied player flexibility.

Steve.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 12:16:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaWolF K
…If you are going to let Japan only produce and field her best A/C, you have to let the Allies do the same...
So the Americans would be able to choose the mix they want based on the strategic/tactical situation at the time, instead of the mix of P-38s, P-47, and P-51s set historically. I have no problem with that.
Actually, I do: As I've said any diversion of 'higher spec' aircraft from ETO to PTO should cost Political Points. Unlike the Japanese player, the Allied player has to consider the requirements of other theatres. With that caveat, however, I can't actually see what's wrong with giving the Allied player flexibility.

Steve.
Aircraft Political Points in my opinion is the best possible solution, but also the most difficult to test/balance.

Upgrades, production changes, production increases and maybe even research all limited by Aircraft PPs. It allows historical flavor to be maintained, while allowing some ability for the player to choose based on the strategic/tactical situation. My dream… and probably 2by3 and Matrix’s nightmare as coding and play balancing could be very time consuming. [;)]



WiTP_Dude -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 12:40:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

Are you suggesting that after more than two years of developing a prototype and extensive combat field testing they didn’t know what the aircraft performance was?


Yes, without a doubt. The testing done doesn't always work out in battle. For example, the earlier comment made above about the Buffalo beating out the F4F in Navy testing. Eventually it is learned which are lemons but it takes time and there is some uncertainty in the process.

quote:

Nusskuchen

You have made an important point because the "free a/c upgrades = 20/20 hindsight and is an exploit" thing is true for nearly every other aspect of the game. Since some people are so desperate to keep others from having free upgrades I demand that only historic task forces can be formed with their historic leaders. After all you could exploit the system by assigning a better leader (did the RL superiours have a value of their men?) or a 20/20 hindsight composition of a Carrier TF.


As it is, the Japanese do have some flexability to bring online the "good" planes earlier than occured historically and push back some of the "bad" planes. They do actually benefit from hindsight already. It is small however, on the same level as not forcing carrier TF to contain certain ships.

Going a step further doesn't make sense if you want to keep a strong historical model of the WiTP. Why not allow each side to build only their best subs and destroyers too? What about tanks and artillery?

Overall, I'd say Grigsby has made some mistakes or oversights in his game but this is not one of them. This is a operational level model of the WiTP. He gives the Japanese player the option to make minor changes to the air and naval OOB to suit their strategy. For example, upgrade your bomber wings a little earlier at the cost of a small delay in fighter development. Basically you can tweak the Japanese war machine but not introduce monumental changes.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 1:04:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

Are you suggesting that after more than two years of developing a prototype and extensive combat field testing they didn’t know what the aircraft performance was?


Yes, without a doubt. The testing done doesn't always work out in battle. For example, the earlier comment made above about the Buffalo beating out the F4F in Navy testing.
There is a great disadvantage to testing done in peace time Vs. war: during wartime you know, during peacetime you speculate.

When you stick an aircraft in combat you know for example that no matter how well in theory it might work… combat is the ultimate test. Thus the Fairey Battle.

Ki-84 Origins

The origins of the type can be found early in 1941, when the Ki-43 Hayabusa first entered combat and turned out to be an excellent air-combat fighter. The Imperial Japanese Army Air Force did not want to rest on these laurels, however, and decided that it must immediately start planning a successor type. Nakajima therefore received orders to start work on a new multi-role fighter characterized by long range, what was by Japanese standards a high level of protection for the pilot and fuel tanks, a fixed forward-firing armament of 2 × 20 mm Ho-5 cannon and 2 × 0.50 inch (12,7 mm) Type 1 (Ho-103) machine guns, a powerplant of 1 × Nakajima Ha-45 (Army Type 4) radial rated at 1,900 hp (1.417 kW), a max level speed of 423 mph (680 km/h) at optimum altitude, and a combat endurance of 1 hour 30 minutes at a radius of 249 miles (400 km) from base.

Ki-84 Prototype

The first prototype, No. 8401, first flew in April 1943 and was joined by a second prototype (#8402) in June. Testing was remarkably rapid and smooth, with few teething troubles, and the two prototypes were handed over to the Japanese Army’s Tachikawa Air Arsenal for further testing, to be followed by the first of 83 aircraft intended for service trials. By this time, JAAF pilots were becoming aware of the value of armor plate and self-sealing fuel tanks, and they were mostly delighted with the Ki-84 despite its speed being a good bit below the requirements. Nevertheless, its top speed of 388 mph, its ability to climb to 16,405 feet in just 6 minutes and 26 seconds, and its service ceiling of 40,680 feet, were the best of any Japanese aircraft, Army or Navy, up to that time. These first 83 aircraft differed from one another in slight details, but soon, a larger vertical tail and rudder was standardized, as the Ki-84 suffered from some propeller-induced torque. They retained the belly tank, but some were fitted with wing racks stressed to accept 551-lb. bombs for the fighter-bomber role, and others received a partially-retractable ski undercarriage for testing in Manchuria’s fierce winters.

Ki-84 Field Testing

The 24th Independent Chutai (squadron) was the first Ki-84-equipped unit, formed solely for intensive service tests in Japan starting in October 1943. By the turn of 1943-44, the Japanese Army was pleased enough to formally accept the new aircraft for service as the Ki-84-Ia, or Type 4 Fighter Model 1a Hayate.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 1:23:39 PM)

So what you are saying is the aircraft production system should be changed so you can design you own planes from the ground up? This might actually make sense. For example, say you feel your current fighters are under armored. Therefore you call for a aircraft with more armor. However you aren't sure if this will slow the aircraft up too much.

Nine months later you learn that the fighter has decent maneuverability after inital test so you call for service trial planes. You put these out in the field a few months later and find they fly well but that the rudder doesn't work correctly. This problem is fixed and a few months later the update test out ok.

Now you start mass producing the plane and introducing it into units. It performs well for awhile in dog fights with enemy fighters. However after three or four months you learn maybe it isn't perfect and that it can be improved. Now you go back to the drawing board and design another improved version. This aircraft then eventually goes out to squadrons but a few months later reports are that the enemy has upgraded their guns and the armor is no longer thick enough.

This is how real aircraft development occured, not by looking at numbers in a database. The database method just allows a player to pick the best aircraft without having to go through the trial and error process.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 2:08:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
So what you are saying is the aircraft production system should be changed so you can design you own planes from the ground up?
[:D]


I would love it, but some how I feel this suggestion is not one 2by3 is going to agree to. [;)]



strawbuk -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/18/2004 2:45:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
The more I think about, the more it doesn't make sense to give either side upgradable aircraft with no limitations. How do you know beforehand which models will work out and which won't?
What? Before large scale production begins the aircraft are prototyped and then produced in modest quantities for field testing. Only once field testing is completed is large scale production started.


Prototype

The first prototype, #4401, first flew in August 1940 at Ojima Airfield, Ota. It was quickly followed by two more, #’s 4402 and 4403. Generally, the aircraft displayed satisfactory handling characteristics when airborne, but there were problems. Working furiously, Nakajima reduced the new fighter’s parasite drag. It was estimated, based on these results and on weight calculations, that production examples would reach 360 mph. The Japanese Army decided it was satisfied.

Field Testing

These seven planes, plus the second and third prototypes (which were brought up to the later standards), were sent to China for service testing late in September with an experimental squadron, the Kawasemi Butai. In May of the next year, it was redesignated the 47th Independent Squadron.



Agree [>:] http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=674571&mpage=22&key=򧿺

But then I'm not a beta or a Super Trooper poster or whatever, just a player....



Hoplosternum -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 12:27:03 AM)

It takes me so long to read all the posts in these upgrade posts that by the time I have decided what to write everyone has gone on to other things or started a new thread on the same subject [;)]

I voted 2.

This is not a game killer for me but I would like some more options on what I put in my squadrons. I accept that many of the criticisms against an open system have a lot of weight. Some people will just produce one army fighter and seek to get the good stuff much earlier than the Japanese did historically.

But part of that is because the rather simplistic production and research model allows it to pay off so well.

I hope some restrictions can be found that enable us to have some flexibility. It was going to be one of the joys of the game. One of the hooks that kept you playing through the game months and game years of shuffling supplies and remembering to give objectives to your LCUs [:D] For both sides. I wanted to reward my squadren of P40s that saved PM with my first batch of Mustangs and those early P39s who braved the odds to get a few hits on the Japanese invaders with the first of my shiny new Thunderbolts. But the game consigns such sentimentality and humanity to the waste bin pretty sharpish.

Much of the worst abuses can be stopped by restricting how early research can get the really good stuff (Franks and Shindens). And by making the first US Corsair mark none CV compatable.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 1:40:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

So what you are saying is the aircraft production system should be changed so you can design you own planes from the ground up? This might actually make sense. For example, say you feel your current fighters are under armored. Therefore you call for a aircraft with more armor. However you aren't sure if this will slow the aircraft up too much.

Nine months later you learn that the fighter has decent maneuverability after inital test so you call for service trial planes. You put these out in the field a few months later and find they fly well but that the rudder doesn't work correctly. This problem is fixed and a few months later the update test out ok.

Now you start mass producing the plane and introducing it into units. It performs well for awhile in dog fights with enemy fighters. However after three or four months you learn maybe it isn't perfect and that it can be improved. Now you go back to the drawing board and design another improved version. This aircraft then eventually goes out to squadrons but a few months later reports are that the enemy has upgraded their guns and the armor is no longer thick enough.

This is how real aircraft development occured, not by looking at numbers in a database. The database method just allows a player to pick the best aircraft without having to go through the trial and error process.


This is a good point. How would one model such a thing in a game, though? How would one work in research failures?

I think the using standard aircraft factories devoted to research is too basic an abstraction. Research and development used a vastly different array of resources than mass production of aircraft did. You have very few resource needs as you're only building a handful of prototypes. Probably one fabrication facility thats puts the prototypes together. Most valuable resource is your design engineers. They can't just come from "manpower" pools. Probably have to model in a nation's education prowess in order to produce "design engineers". If the one prototype crashes it's always a MAJOR setback. If the protype's production facility gets bombed, that's even worse than crashing the protype. Where do your test pilots come from? Probably use only pilots with 80+ esperience for those or else they crash the prototype? And what really determines what can and will be researched? Some sort of dependency on prior model research, availablility of technology (jets no possible to even design without jet engines and those aren't possible without advance titanium alloy technology for rotor blades and advanced fuel technologies....



Buck Beach -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 1:49:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I hope some restrictions can be found that enable us to have some flexibility. It was going to be one of the joys of the game. One of the hooks that kept you playing through the game months and game years of shuffling supplies and remembering to give objectives to your LCUs [:D] For both sides. I wanted to reward my squadren of P40s that saved PM with my first batch of Mustangs and those early P39s who braved the odds to get a few hits on the Japanese invaders with the first of my shiny new Thunderbolts. But the game consigns such sentimentality and humanity to the waste bin pretty sharpish.


After all the arguements for and against, I like this thinking and the way it was put.



2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 1:56:32 AM)

I have let some of the arguments stay here, but lets move them somewhere else.
This is mainly for Mike Wood so that he can more easily decide what is wanted and with what limits people want.

I do not want him to have to wade thru 20+ pages. We have enough threads to take the pros and cons to.

Thanks in advance.



2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 3:38:24 AM)

Another punt.



2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 7:02:05 AM)

What, you guys thought I would let this die and get buried?



Bodhi -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 7:16:56 AM)

Hmmm, 189 votes, let's see.

Either a) WitP sales are very disappointing, or sales are healthy but b) not many buyers frequent here, or c) only 200 or so regard this as important enough a topic to vote. As it's been made clear that bugs have the priority, gameplay/design changes aren't going to show up for a while yet. And even when they do, this is just one area that could be addressed. You could be bumping for no real reason for a long time. [;)]



2ndACR -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 7:18:46 AM)

I agree bugs come first, but I will keep punting for as long as it takes.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades (8/19/2004 7:32:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

Hmmm, 189 votes, let's see.

Either a) WitP sales are very disappointing, or sales are healthy but b) not many buyers frequent here, or c) only 200 or so regard this as important enough a topic to vote. As it's been made clear that bugs have the priority, gameplay/design changes aren't going to show up for a while yet. And even when they do, this is just one area that could be addressed. You could be bumping for no real reason for a long time. [;)]

Most likely. [;)]



Graycompany -> RE: Solution to UPGRADE question. (8/19/2004 8:20:37 AM)

I think you should be able to change it with limitations, I think having some control that you would have had if you were running the show to change some groups as to the style an strategy's that you have choosen to fight ( example, like island hoping) is well within reason, but only having limited control due to other factors, such as political issues, an army, navy, marine demands for certain types of planes would have an effect that should be in the game.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625