Quote:
Originally Posted by MACADEMIC
Here's my 2 cents on the recent comments and suggestions.
First, about the wingleader / wingman idea. For me it seems to unnecessarily complicate things, as in a modern 2 aircraft flight section these roles are pretty interchangable ( -> Loose Deuce Tactics). And which ever element of the section is being shot down, it's an equally great loss for the strength of that section.
Next, about the I-16. There is no inherently built in necessity to burn the engine out by overusing WEP. The engine runs just fine if you don't do this and don't negative G it too much. This really adds a dimension most other planes are lacking of, and remember: Birds of Steel will feature some more complex engine management options in the highest levels of the game, so this might also be a good preparation. I can also not agree with the arguement that there may not be enough fighting if we're using this plane. The distances are really not that big, and even with the disengagement rule applied we should see plenty of contact opportunities for two aggressive teams facing off (there will however always be the possiblity that one team prefers defensive tactics and wait for having the upper hand before engaging - this choice remains with each team, no matter what aircraft is used). The I-16 is Russian, has its challenges, and most imortantly, is a unique fun airplane with it's open cockpit and maneuverability. So I'd really not see why it shouldn't be a suitable plane for the tournament. The way I see it, it should be up to the tournament's organizer to decide on the plane/s which he wants to allow. This would really be Edal in this case as I've only given the initial impulse, but all the organizing is being done by Edal this time. So I'm only voicing my opinion here, but Edal, please decide.
|
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACADEMIC
One last question. What do you think of the idea that if one team member is killed it counts as if the whole team was killed, so essentially each kill/death counts double? This way the remaining team member would have the choice of remaining on the battlefield facing a big disadvantage (and the chance of another 2 point loss), or bailing and respawning very closely to his teammate with the chance of regrouping for a fresh encounter. This way we'd most likely keep the concept of 2vs2 intact.
|
So you mean when 1 man gets shot down (2 scored) the 2nd gets to choose a free death (0 scored) or to fight on alone and suffer another 2 scored if shot down? The problem I see in this is that a picture or indeed a writen down score of the result would not show any of these choices made.
My vote would be for keeping it simple, 1 death equalls 1 scored no matter who it is. If a team plays the match as waves of 1 man rather than 2 men working together then they will suffer untill they realise there mistake and learn to work together. I don't think we need an artifical way of doing this. If your wingman is shot down, you are on your own, a smart pilot would retreat back to pick up his respawned wingmate, maybe even trying to lure an enemy plane into a trap. Here the I-16's limited WEP makes some more intersting decisions like do you risk WEP to retreat, or do you risk a slower engine friendly retreat and hope the enemy isn't caning their engine to catch you.