Realism&Balance

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Dont forget delete key to empty underwear!

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

The only "realism" we can ever hope for is in the FMs and DMs to some extent.

You can never enforce the realism of say, US pilots being inexperienced and being shot down in droves by the Japanese in the first year or so of the war. Just as you cannot force late war "German" pilots to leave two thirds of their number on a server to stay on the ground to simulate lack of fuel, while the other third gets decimated in the air because they are teenage boys with less than 20 hours stick time in type.

It's like some US fan boys that say that some late war Japanese aircraft are overmodeled and want to restrict/ban that aircraft on a server, when what is overmodeled is the experience of those flying the J2M3, for example.

Re-creating historic outcomes with our little game is simply not possible, no matter how "accurate" the game/sim is.

Well Oleg can

Q: In what ways will the Messerschmitt E-3 outperform the Spitfire?

A: In B&Z tactic and in experience of German pilots in the beginning of Battle.

http://www.simhq.com/_air8/air_265c.html

I hold for him that he thought about AI when he said this.

Seriously, realism should and be onlyaffect the flight-model, damage-model and the gun-model.

One could think about whether one should only allow a certain relation between blue and red pilots depending on year of war, lets say late war years 2/3 red or so. But that might suck game-wise.

[tagTaken2]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

One could think about whether one should only allow a certain relation between blue and red pilots depending on year of war, lets say late war years 2/3 red or so. But that might suck game-wise.

It would be an option, surely, to set skill levels/availability with campaign.

"Historical settings"- something new for everyone to whinge about

[csThor]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

One could think about whether one should only allow a certain relation between blue and red pilots depending on year of war, lets say late war years 2/3 red or so. But that might suck game-wise.

The day a lousy script/server setting decides which side I should fly on is the day this particular server ends on my "can be heartily ignored" list. The only times when I flew red (or allied) online were during mission file and spawn tests. When the sides are uneven I simply stay offline ...

The better (and IMO only) alternative is to make heavy use of AI on DF servers - to populate those aircraft few people fly but which should be really prominent instead of the ever-present fighters: bombers, recon, ground-attack aircraft and transports. In such an environment side balacing is not an issue. Nuff said ...

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Never.

Gonna.

Happen.

Be.

Sure.

I agree with Terry

"Balance" is the antithesis of combat flight simulation. "Balance" is what makes historical accuracy worthless. "Balance" is the thing that ruins tactics. "Balance" has no place as a design philosophy in a simulation

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Former_Older

I agree with Terry

"Balance" is the antithesis of combat flight simulation. "Balance" is what makes historical accuracy worthless. "Balance" is the thing that ruins tactics. "Balance" has no place as a design philosophy in a simulation

Amen brother...amen

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

One could think about whether one should only allow a certain relation between blue and red pilots depending on year of war, lets say late war years 2/3 red or so. But that might suck game-wise.

IMHO you cannot so simply apply the broad picture statistics to the local events going on in our small scale maps. Local air superiority can be achieved almost independently from the overall situation: the bases of war tactics indeed regard how to achieve a local superiority by using in the best way the available resources. In our servers, with some 30 or 40 planes and a couple of airports, forcing a local superiority by default would be both unfair and incorrect.

Imho,
Ins