Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant
What's wrong with that? IL2 is a great "sandbox sim" which you can enjoy in many different ways.
Given the popularity of arcade games like World of Planes, there's certainly a fan base for dogfights.
And, even if you're a hard core rivet-counting historical campaigner, there are still times when you want to fly the best plane in the sky.
But, like you said, being able to simulate any sort of historical mission allows us to appreciate the difficulties and heroism of combat pilots who flew the less glamorous missions.
Personally, I'd love to see a flyable Ju-52, Fw-189, or Fi-156, and would happily fly campaigns based around those planes. In some cases, the ability to deliver supplies or paratroopers, or to bring back information, was as important as delivering bombs and just as harrowing.
|
The wrong thing, is favoring one type of plane against others, those ones that are not first class fighters.
The better approach would be to fulfill the principal aircraft available on a scenery. Not just the fighters in it.
People say, the battle of France lasted only four weeks, but the battle of Kursk, employed more tanks and aircraft, and lasted only 10 days. I really don't like that kind of biased argument. The battle of France is one of the best scenerys to be played, and the only fighter missing is the D520, that was actually rare to be seen. But the french got no bombers, and no recon to employ in the game. The british are also in the same situation.
People complain about missing planes to fully fill the pacific scenery, and I must agree. There are no torpedo lunchers on the american side, and few late war japanese bombers. Trying to win a campaign from the japanese side is very difficult. Bombs are less powerfull, and torpedo launchers are really sitting ducks.