Page 2 of 4

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:42 am
by The Dude
(a game I have just seen, in Oct of 44, the AI has 1479 128mm in stock, but all the others are under 100, most 20 or under)

is this my game?[:D]

in my expierience the AI places its AA on the tgts recced on the last turnand most effectively i might add

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:00 am
by wodin
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

in BoB, I would like to see the GE be able to use Staffel size units for the fighters

in BTR, I think we may of been stuck also with the slot issue and base size

but I beleive we already got that undercontrol now, so...

one hassle though is getting all the pilots from the FG's broken down and into the right squadrons :)

even worse if and when the B Groups get readded, then we be looking at 6 squadrons per FG (then again, the A/B wouldn't be seen in the game as the same unit, so still)

but the pilots should be in the right place

one thing we got to watch though, while most here, enjoy the game to start with and will see either of these as a improvement to the game, others who are new to it, may be totally overwelmed with all the Fighters in the VIIIth/IXth/12th broken down into squadrons

but again, maybe something for another post to debate about ?


Ive only quickly looked over the games and to be hinest the more detail the better. Break it down to squadrons:)

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:19 pm
by Hard Sarge
the Dude
yes, that info was from your game

I normally hit and hurt the AI's AA making factories, so I did not want to use any of my games as info on how the AI does this or that

not sure if the AI places AA based on recon flights, what you may be seeing, is poor info being given back by your recon flights

you may be being told there are 30 guns here, when in fact there are 120, so when you plot a raid, thinking it is lightly defended and it is not, it looks like the AI jacked up the numbers in a very short time

at times, Recon can be a double edged sword, it gives you info, but it may not be giveing you all the info, or the wrong info, so your plans can get screwed by following what you are seeing

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:59 pm
by HMSWarspite
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

the last few posts are interesting

but basicly, because one of the bugs we turned in to be looked at is the game (IIRC) starts to count over agian once the AA reaches 256, so 250 counts as 250, 260 counts as 4

Does that mean 255 guns is 255 times 1 gun, (i.e. each fires at full effect), but 260 is literally 4? I haven't been using enough flak to see this obviously!

If it is so, the linear effect up to 256 needs fixing! I think that sort of number firing over a target is on average one gun every 100m throughout a 800m radius circle centred on the target! Or 1 gun every 500m for a 4km radius circle! These are serious flak nests, and I think that more than 100 light flak getting a full strength shot at a fighter bomber is pushing it a little!


RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:44 pm
by The Dude
3 thing i would like to see...

1) Perhaps a small amount of fuel at all german bases around 10-25. This would help with rebasing. In my expierince once you start moving GE units around allies always manage to strafe their new fields unerringly. The ability to counteract this even with a few a/c could make a big differnce.

2) I dont know if its becasue it the 2TAF or becsue it has Mosquitos for bombers (in my game at least) but i find that 2 bomber group flies in streams rather than a formation. During daylight even with escorts this is suicide. It needs to fly in formation like US bombers do.

3)After DDay Bomber command started lying a large number of daylight missions. Could this be reflected in the game?

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:47 pm
by Hard Sarge
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

the last few posts are interesting

but basicly, because one of the bugs we turned in to be looked at is the game (IIRC) starts to count over agian once the AA reaches 256, so 250 counts as 250, 260 counts as 4

Does that mean 255 guns is 255 times 1 gun, (i.e. each fires at full effect), but 260 is literally 4? I haven't been using enough flak to see this obviously!

If it is so, the linear effect up to 256 needs fixing! I think that sort of number firing over a target is on average one gun every 100m throughout a 800m radius circle centred on the target! Or 1 gun every 500m for a 4km radius circle! These are serious flak nests, and I think that more than 100 light flak getting a full strength shot at a fighter bomber is pushing it a little!


there is, was a bug with the flak and numbers, I am not sure how it really works, but do know that samll numbers of flak are very dangerous, where they shouldn't be

there been numbers of debates in the past on AA, I don't like the way the game uses slant range, you go to someplace like Lipzig, and every site there, got a chance to fire at you when you are over target

Flak was dangerous in real life, some targets were death traps, if you flew right into them, some people want Flak improved, some people want Flak weakened, JC used to like the idea of hidden flak belts

so were is the meeting point, some place to make everyone happy ?, don't know or think we can really get to one

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:07 pm
by HMSWarspite
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

there is, was a bug with the flak and numbers, I am not sure how it really works, but do know that samll numbers of flak are very dangerous, where they shouldn't be

there been numbers of debates in the past on AA, I don't like the way the game uses slant range, you go to someplace like Lipzig, and every site there, got a chance to fire at you when you are over target

Flak was dangerous in real life, some targets were death traps, if you flew right into them, some people want Flak improved, some people want Flak weakened, JC used to like the idea of hidden flak belts

so were is the meeting point, some place to make everyone happy ?, don't know or think we can really get to one

Only way to answer this one is to get some RL data about some missions, and try and repeat them, tuning as we go (tricky). More easy to do, but longer, is to just hope all the variables wash out, and fly (say) BC missions as flown for a month (in RL) and track the stats of flak losses (or total losses, to allow for damaged a/c crashing at base).

I have BC War Diaries. Anyone got the BC losses books? (There are about 5 of them, covering the whole war).

Then we have to wirry about light flak! (Which I think is really odd - I don't strafe becasue the flak is too dangerous)

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:09 am
by Hard Sarge
easier said then done

JC has said in the past, that he thinks the number of crashes is to small, all the data I find, does not support that

so how do we try and work out how Flak should work, I mean the biggest hassle is the player would have to follow the same pattern of flight that the Real Life units did

you fly a mission at 19,800 and the real raid went in at 19,200, your results are now wrong, plus in real life, you could still plot around the known flak traps, in the game, unless we can fix or change it, we get stuck flying into the middle of the Traps

plus depending on how someone plays, the results are going to be different, so player A is going to say, the Flak is too weak, but he avoids all Heavy Flak areas, while Player B is going to say, Flak is too strong, but he flies into the middle of every Flak area he can find


RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:23 pm
by The Dude
Another thing that would make it easier would be to designate the form up field. Now that i am playing in Late 44 all my strikes want to form up at Eindhoven which makes it difficult for BC to tgt Northern Germany properly.

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:30 pm
by HMSWarspite
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

easier said then done

JC has said in the past, that he thinks the number of crashes is to small, all the data I find, does not support that

so how do we try and work out how Flak should work, I mean the biggest hassle is the player would have to follow the same pattern of flight that the Real Life units did

you fly a mission at 19,800 and the real raid went in at 19,200, your results are now wrong, plus in real life, you could still plot around the known flak traps, in the game, unless we can fix or change it, we get stuck flying into the middle of the Traps

plus depending on how someone plays, the results are going to be different, so player A is going to say, the Flak is too weak, but he avoids all Heavy Flak areas, while Player B is going to say, Flak is too strong, but he flies into the middle of every Flak area he can find


Agreed it isn't easy - but the discussion on play style is why I think real data is the only way. To altitude problem is a real one (as is things like cloud, formation etc). The crashes, exact routes etc, would lead me to say you would just have to use over target results if you did it on exact missions. If you just use averages, you would have to plot maximum avoidance of flak, and hope it all averages out. Unless someone has some very good stats on RL, this is all academic!

I think air to air (especially NF vs NJG) needs looking at, FB, fighter vulnerabilty on the way home, the 30000 bombing bug, Dover bug etc all need looking at before flak - so maybe this is academic anyway![;)]

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:38 am
by Hard Sarge
Dude
you can change the form up AF
once raid is set, right click on the waypoint aquare, and move it

in my AAR, all the raids that the VIIIth take off on are from England

one hassle is you can kind of lose the use of one waypoint at times

also, if you have a emtpy AF you think would be a good form up point, as long as there is a unit based there, it can also be used (NF or Recon is good)


RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:43 pm
by The Dude
Dude
you can change the form up AF
once raid is set, right click on the waypoint aquare, and move it

in my AAR, all the raids that the VIIIth take off on are from England

one hassle is you can kind of lose the use of one waypoint at times

also, if you have a emtpy AF you think would be a good form up point, as long as there is a unit based there, it can also be used (NF or Recon is good)

This is exactly what i do. This problem come to the fore when using BC. My big thing is to use BC at low level and fly over Denmark to hit tgts in NE Germany and in Poland. ( some may say its gamey but I figure its just 617 on a bigger scale) I need both WPs in order to curcuit around Flak sites. And flying over the North Sea increase the time my raids are undetected.

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:19 pm
by fochinell
You've all heard all this before, from others (and yourselves...), but that's no reason for me to stop myself sounding off:

1. Fix the Belfast fighter-sweep bug (sorry, had to be said yet again)

2. Fix the bingo fuel bug (escorts leaving bombers and bombers going directly home - another statement of the obvious).

3. Fix the waypoint bug, where bombers leaving target miss exit point and fly direct to outbound waypoint.

4. Permit more waypoints.

5. Allow player to disable or enable auto-upgrade.

6. Allow intruders to convert Serrate/AI contacts into interceptions more often.

7. Stop fighters stafing railyards and other flak traps; only strafe AF's, and only if "strafe" enabled.

8. Make fighter-bombers fighters; allow them to fight back if attacked.

9. Allow fighters on bombing missions to be more accurate.

10. Allow the player to select "bombs" or "drop tanks" for fighter escort units.

11. Make fighters of both sides keep a fuel reserve of 5 minutes combat flying to allow blue Luftwaffe and red Allied fighter units to fight back when attacked or risk attacking on their way home.

12. When more pilots than serviceable aircraft are available, make the least fatigued fly.

13. Reduce the tyranny of mandatory targetting a little.

14. Allow a customisable filter for reports, excluding and including a range of messages.

15. Output filtered game messages to a text file.

16. Enable simplified graphics (boxes) in replay mode.

17. Automatically abort a raid plotted with fighter escorts when escorts are grounded by weather.

18. Allow BC to attack in daylight if desired.

19. Allow Meteor III into the game in 1945.

20. Change allied replacements something like as follows -
a) 2 Typhoons per day in '43, 3 in '44. 3 Hurricane IIC's per day in '43 and 1 in '44.
b) Add Spitfire VIII at 2 per day in '44, 1 in '44.
c) Reduce Spitfire XIV to 2 per day from July in '44, add Spit F.21 at 1 per day from February '45.
d) Add Spitfire IXE at 3 per day from July '44.
e) Add non-producing Spit XII's and VB's.
f) Set upgrade path according to Harley's Spitfire Upgrade Plan Mk II; VB - IXC - IXE -XIV and XII - XIV - F.21.

21. If pilot/plane slots are still a problem, reduce British single-engined fighter squadrons to a 12/6 format with 18 pilots, leaving bombers at 24/3.

22. OB stuff:
a) Have 33, 74, 80, 126, 127 and 274 sqns all turn up as pre-D-Day reinforcements to 2nd TAF.
b) Have 41 and 91 sqns equipped with non-producing Spit XII's, with some stock.

23. Allow fighter escorts to be chosen from different commands; e.g. FC or 2nd TAF escorting 8th AF and 9th AF bombing missions.

24. Make raid plotting and interception more fragmentary and confused for the Axis.

25. Add P-47D-20 to '44 replacements and P-47M to '45.

26. What the hell; have a 1945 Allied aircraft replacement shedule.

That's all fer noo! Good luck! [&o]

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:07 pm
by Hard Sarge
ORIGINAL: fochinell

HI BUD, BEEN A WHILE

You've all heard all this before, from others (and yourselves...), but that's no reason for me to stop myself sounding off:

1. Fix the Belfast fighter-sweep bug (sorry, had to be said yet again)

ON THE BUGLIST

2. Fix the bingo fuel bug (escorts leaving bombers and bombers going directly home - another statement of the obvious).

ON THE BUGLIST

3. Fix the waypoint bug, where bombers leaving target miss exit point and fly direct to outbound waypoint.

ON THE BUGLIST

4. Permit more waypoints.

ON THE LIST OF THINGS WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD

5. Allow player to disable or enable auto-upgrade.

HMMM, SHOULD BE DOABLE

6. Allow intruders to convert Serrate/AI contacts into interceptions more often.

PART OF NIGHTCOMBAT, WORKING ON IT

7. Stop fighters stafing railyards and other flak traps; only strafe AF's, and only if "strafe" enabled.

ON THE BUG LIST, WOULD BE A INTERESTING ADD ON, TO BE HONEST, MAY BE A GREAT IDEA, WOULD ALLOW RETURNING FIGHTERS TO BE ORDERED TO ATTACK ON THE WAY HOME, OR NOT

8. Make fighter-bombers fighters; allow them to fight back if attacked.

ON THE BUGLIST, WE DID A LOT OF WORK ON THAT BEFORE, AND SOMETHING WAS SCREWING WITH IT, GET THE FB's TO FIGHT AND THE MED BOMBERS COULDN'T HIT THE SIDE OF A BARN, WE FIND OUT WHY, WE WILL FIX IT :)

9. Allow fighters on bombing missions to be more accurate.

???????? DO NOT FOLLOW

10. Allow the player to select "bombs" or "drop tanks" for fighter escort units.

WE WORKED ON PART OF THIS BEFORE, SOME REASON THE GAME KEPT ADDING BOMBS TO THE PLANES EVEN WHEN TOLD THERE WERE NO BOMBS, JC AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WANT TO ADD SOMETHING LIKE THIS

11. Make fighters of both sides keep a fuel reserve of 5 minutes combat flying to allow blue Luftwaffe and red Allied fighter units to fight back when attacked or risk attacking on their way home.

ON THE LIST, BUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT OVER ALL SAME IDEA

12. When more pilots than serviceable aircraft are available, make the least fatigued fly.

AS OF NOW, I THINK THE GAME GOES FOR EXP OVER HOW TIRED YOU ARE, ONE REASON A WORN OUT GRUPPEN IS MORE DANGEROUS THEN A FRESH HEALTHY ONE, WE CAN LOOK AND SEE

13. Reduce the tyranny of mandatory targetting a little.

ON THE BUGLIST, LOOKS LIKE HARLEY FOUND OUT WHAT THE TROUBLE WITH PART OF IT IS, SHOULD BE A SIMPLE CODE CHANGE

14. Allow a customisable filter for reports, excluding and including a range of messages.

ON THE LIST OF ADD ON's

15. Output filtered game messages to a text file.

HARLEY'S EDITOR CAN, NOT SURE IF IT WILL MAKE IT INTO THE GAME OR IF WE WILL NEED THE EDITOR TO DO SO

16. Enable simplified graphics (boxes) in replay mode.

DON"T KNOW WHAT IS PLANNED ON REPLAY, BUT OVER ALL, REPLAY NEEDS A LOT OF WORK

17. Automatically abort a raid plotted with fighter escorts when escorts are grounded by weather.

NOT SURE IF I AGREE, A LOT OF TIMES, THE FIGHTERS ARE JUST DELAYED, IT HAS IT'S PROS AND CONS

18. Allow BC to attack in daylight if desired.

LOOKING TO SEE IF WE CAN ADD THAT, LIKE IN UV, WitP

19. Allow Meteor III into the game in 1945.

DOABLE

20. Change allied replacements something like as follows -
a) 2 Typhoons per day in '43, 3 in '44. 3 Hurricane IIC's per day in '43 and 1 in '44.
b) Add Spitfire VIII at 2 per day in '44, 1 in '44.
c) Reduce Spitfire XIV to 2 per day from July in '44, add Spit F.21 at 1 per day from February '45.
d) Add Spitfire IXE at 3 per day from July '44.
e) Add non-producing Spit XII's and VB's.
f) Set upgrade path according to Harley's Spitfire Upgrade Plan Mk II; VB - IXC - IXE -XIV and XII - XIV - F.21.

MAYBE DOABLE, DON'T WANT TO SAY WHAT JC WOULD THINK OR DO OR IS PLANNING ON THIS

21. If pilot/plane slots are still a problem, reduce British single-engined fighter squadrons to a 12/6 format with 18 pilots, leaving bombers at 24/3.

SHOULD NOT BE A HASSLE ANY MORE, WE GOT PLANE SLOTS AND WE GOT PILOT SLOTS, HEHEHEHE DO WE GOT PLANE SLOTS AND PILOTS SLOTS

22. OB stuff:
a) Have 33, 74, 80, 126, 127 and 274 sqns all turn up as pre-D-Day reinforcements to 2nd TAF.
b) Have 41 and 91 sqns equipped with non-producing Spit XII's, with some stock.

UP TO JC ON THE WHO WHEN AND WHERE, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE MORE FLEXABLITY NOW


23. Allow fighter escorts to be chosen from different commands; e.g. FC or 2nd TAF escorting 8th AF and 9th AF bombing missions.

NOT SURE IF WE CAN DO

24. Make raid plotting and interception more fragmentary and confused for the Axis.

INTERESTING, JC IS HOPEING FOR A MUCH IMPROVED RADAR SET UP IN THIS VERSION, SO MAYBE THAT COULD TIE IN WITH WHAT YOU ARE ASKING

25. Add P-47D-20 to '44 replacements and P-47M to '45.

THE D-20, IS THE PATTLEBLADE AND UNIVISAL WING, PLANNED ON, THE D-25 IS THE BUBBLETOP, PLANNED ON
THE P-47 M IS ADDED (IF FOR NOBODY ELSE BUT ME)

26. What the hell; have a 1945 Allied aircraft replacement shedule.

WHAT HELL, MAYBE GET A 46 ONE ALSO :)

That's all fer noo! Good luck! [&o]

OF COURSE, NOTHING IS WRITTEN IN STONE, AND SOME/MOST OF WHAT I AM SAYING IS BASED ON WHAT JC AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND WOULD LIKE TO DO OR ADD, IF WE CAN, GREAT, IF WE CAN'T, WE TRIED


RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:39 pm
by Rainerle
HI,
just two suggestions:

1st: Break down intel on enemy AF into which type of aircraft. For example: 23xMe-109, 43xMe-110 etc. The specific type (i.e. Me109-G10 etc.) should not be given.

2nd: Maybe knowledge about which factory produces what kind of airframe depending on the successfull number of recon flights


RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:01 pm
by The Dude
1st: Break down intel on enemy AF into which type of aircraft. For example: 23xMe-109, 43xMe-110 etc. The specific type (i.e. Me109-G10 etc.) should not be given.

2nd: Maybe knowledge about which factory produces what kind of airframe depending on the successfull number of recon flights

perhaps not so specifically. Have it say something like aprrox 20 twin eng and 15 single eng planes on AF.

And as far as what factory is producing what, that can't really be done. ALthough perhaps, similar to Witps sigint, have Ultra decrypts availabe to tell the same thing. So far as i know, Ultra was not used in this method.

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:37 pm
by Capt. Harlock
When the Allies finally found out the scale of the Holocaust, there was a major debate over whether lives could be saved by bombing the death camps. The plan was vetoed, since it was believed that the camps had to be overrun to truly put them out of business. But the controversy continues to this day. Could there be a mini-campaign against the death camps to simulate how many lives could have been saved (or lost to collateral casualties)?

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:19 pm
by Adnan Meshuggi
ORIGINAL: The Dude
1st: Break down intel on enemy AF into which type of aircraft. For example: 23xMe-109, 43xMe-110 etc. The specific type (i.e. Me109-G10 etc.) should not be given.

2nd: Maybe knowledge about which factory produces what kind of airframe depending on the successfull number of recon flights

perhaps not so specifically. Have it say something like aprrox 20 twin eng and 15 single eng planes on AF.

And as far as what factory is producing what, that can't really be done. ALthough perhaps, similar to Witps sigint, have Ultra decrypts availabe to tell the same thing. So far as i know, Ultra was not used in this method.

Great idea...

maybe if the recon flight is very low or great pictures, they could make it better... like
Level 1: (they hit the base, but bad weather, damaged camera, etc..:)
some comments like: some planes/flak activity...
Level 2: (Here we have high alt/average weather
counted 20 single engine planes, 10 two-engines... around 20 flak guns
Level 3: (low level and or perfect shot)
counted 14 Me109, 12 FW190, 6 Longnose (FW190D), 2 strange planes (Me262 - as long as they are not known), 6 two-engines..., around 20 20mm Vierlinge and 12 heavier ones, est. 88mm

Same for Industry... also, very great (if possible) a legend of recon inputs... click on the target and get
"21.01.44 : reported 20 fighters, light flak"
"22.01.44 : results checked. Bad weather no pictures"
"23.01.44 : bombed with 14 Typhoons... reported 12 hits, 6 planes damaged.

That would be really cool if you get a legend for your targets. Could this be done ?

So you see the hot spots... and you can trust your results or not. also make morning/evening reports... say you recon 3 times a day... you got ONE report but if you see different things you get the differences between morning and the other two reports. Also get the exp. of the pilot who made the report. I love such things.

Please [:)]

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:06 am
by fochinell
HS,

>9. Allow fighters on bombing missions to be more accurate.

>???????? DO NOT FOLLOW

I think JC (or you, come to think of it) had pointed out before that making the FB's fighters buggered up their bombing accuracy,
preventing them hitting RADAR sites effectively and suchlike. I thought the two points (FB's to behave and be usable like fighters) and better pure-fighter bombing accuracy went hand-in-hand as a consquence.

>12. When more pilots than serviceable aircraft are available, make the least fatigued fly.

>AS OF NOW, I THINK THE GAME GOES FOR EXP OVER HOW TIRED YOU ARE, ONE REASON A WORN OUT GRUPPEN IS MORE DANGEROUS THEN A FRESH HEALTHY ONE, WE CAN LOOK AND SEE

I think you're right; but it does accelerate attrition of the experienced pilots as well. I say let the new guys suffer...

>17. Automatically abort a raid plotted with fighter escorts when escorts are grounded by weather.

>NOT SURE IF I AGREE, A LOT OF TIMES, THE FIGHTERS ARE JUST DELAYED, IT HAS IT'S PROS AND CONS

Delaying escorts is cool (good "friction of war" factor), but totally unescorted missions are uncool.

>25. Add P-47D-20 to '44 replacements and P-47M to '45.

>THE D-20, IS THE PATTLEBLADE AND UNIVISAL WING, PLANNED ON, THE D-25 IS THE BUBBLETOP, PLANNED ON
>THE P-47 M IS ADDED (IF FOR NOBODY ELSE BUT ME)

I too am a closet Jug fan, and an improved '44 variant (bubble canopy, water injection and paddleblade prop) is badly needed.

>26. What the hell; have a 1945 Allied aircraft replacement shedule.

>WHAT HELL, MAYBE GET A 46 ONE ALSO :)

Well, if we have a '45 replacement schedule, we can get the P-47M *and* the P-47N legitimately involved.

And if you can extend the game to '46, why not start it earlier in '43? [Just messing with your head there]

>OF COURSE, NOTHING IS WRITTEN IN STONE, AND SOME/MOST OF WHAT I AM SAYING IS BASED ON WHAT JC AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND WOULD LIKE TO DO OR ADD, IF WE CAN, GREAT, IF WE CAN'T, WE TRIED

Sure, I'm just sounding off, but I've got to say I'm encouraged. Keep at it, dude!

RE: Yet Another Wish List

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:29 pm
by Hard Sarge
Howdy
okay follow on the fighters now, was confused as there been a lot of complaints that Fighters were too good when used as bombers

some of this is wierd, we got the 109 G2, G6, G10, G14 and so on, but we got the 190 A

which in the long run, the 190 A, is the A4, the A5, and so on and some units will have better models and early models will change (how much of it really works I am not sure)

same with the P-47, we get the P-47 C and the P-47 D (which a lot of people think if the plane has a bubbletop it is a D and if it is a Razorback it is a B or a C, it could also be a D)

but JC has plans for the 47 to Grow, where the stats for the RE 20 will be much better then the early D model, and then other improvements will also show up, now if we will have different stats showing for each model or not, I am not sure

the 47 M should make it into the game, there are plans for the N also, but not sure if it will be a "the war lasts longer" or a opp campaign deal

Rain
we looking at different ideas for recon, lots of complaints about it as it is now, not sure if abstract would be right, or unseen recon or what and how we going to do it, but we are looking into it

Adnan
that should great, but not sure if it is something we could put into a old engine to start with, that may be something that a new engine could handle (if it was designed from the start to do it)
we can look, but not sure if we can do it

Capt H

interesting, but it is a touchy area, alot of stuff about the SS or Camps are not allowed to be mentioned in "games"

even if we could, I am not sure how we could do it, or when it should be done and what effect it should have if it is done or what it should do if it is not