Forum Message
| | Message text HeadMMoid wrote:
I continue to be appalled (and this is not directed just at SteveMartin) at the unwillingness of some players on this site to allow possible improvements in the game, especially when it does not appear that they will be forced to play by the modified rules.
I continue to be amazed by how worked up and bent out of shape you get when players state that in their opinion, your fuel changes are not an improvement to the game. If the equalized fuel games affect the scenario and plane stats, are we not forced to be affected by the change?
Also, there is logic behind the fuel rules as they are - the permanent penalty as you call it. The German designs sacrificed fuel for maneuverability. If the maneuverability of the aircraft isn't to be equalized, why should the fuel? The Germans, historically due to their aircraft design, were more likely to be forced to withdraw due to fuel concerns. Granted, it may not have occurred as frequently as needed for you to feel that the fuel stats are justified, but they were more likely nonetheless. How else should this be reflected in the game? Why shouldn't there be a penalty to the German designs if that is how they were designed in the first place.
Blue Max may be a tactical level game, but the big picture shouldn't just be ignored. The war wasn't conducted on a micro level, so the game takes that into account in a way.
Relax, have fun, and stick to the Allied planes if you really think it is that unfair. I'd bet there would be plenty of takers for you if you flew the Camel in some duels against the overly penalized DVII. |
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
