Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Schlageter
If you want to 'game the game', go right ahead.  There was no lack of 100 fuel and if the bases requiring 100 fuel didn't have 100 fuel they wouldn't have 87 fuel either.
100 fuel doesn't do anything for the Hurricane and Spitfire over a certain height.
If historical scenarios are required, then the info is of importance. It is not about getting those extra kills.  |
I'm talking about a dynamic campaign with a supply system, where bombing the enemy's resources has a tangible effect in their ability to fight back. How are you going to work with that if the sim can't simulate aircraft flying with low octane fuel?
If we knew what was correct i'd still say include both variants for this reason and also, for battle of France scenarios.
Even so, it's pretty clear there's no consensus on what was historically correct but each "camp" keeps pushing in the hope that their version of events will be chosen and modeled in the sim. Well, this way the only thing that will happen is having half the people overjoyed and half disappointed, instead of a situation where both could be happy with what they have.
If considerations such as these are your definition of gaming the game then be my guest, we'll agree to disagree. I mean, we can't expect the entire sim to play out exactly like the real thing did down to individual engagements, where would the fun be in that? I'd rather we had the tools to create all possible scenarios, so that we can study different aspects of the actual events.
What if the LW didn't have enough E-4s because they had lost too many early on? What if RAf was short on 100 octane fuel? What if LW kept pounding the airfields, after dropping those radar towers? It's like having your own time machine/history lab right on your desktop and gives an even better appreciation of the real events.
The sim can do such things now that we have scripting (there are community members working on dynamic campaigns that feature supply tracking). It's a shame to miss out on all this because of near-sightedness and it's a bit egoistic to try to deprive others of enjoying such features. I mean, it's like i come out and say "hey, i know my CEM well enough, i suggest CEM can't be disabled because it's gaming the game"