Forum Message
| City: | Ottawa  | | Personal Data: | Male, born: January 09 1954 | | Membership | 19years 97days ago. | | Last Login | 17years 5days ago. | | Last Move | 17years 125days ago. | SteveMartin is currently  | Send a mail to SteveMartin |
| Message header | Area/Game: | Blue Max | | Topic: | Suggestions, improvement, critics | | Subject: | Re: 30, 40, 50 of fuel | | Posted by: | SteveMartin  - 18years 273days ago. |
|
|
| Message text Sorry to rejoin the thread after an absence of a few days and I can see that a few good points have been made during that time.
With regards to the above statements.
While quite true that it is impossible to know, without testing, that a proposed rule change will actually improve game play or not, it does seem that the majority of players here are not in your camp in this regard. I expect most of the players would rather see some of the existing rules of the game implemented before embarking on what is essentially a redesign of the game.
It is entirely possible that in some cases the German side would have had a fuel advantage and I don't think anyone is disputing that. On the whole however, this was not the case. German pilots had to pay careful attention to their fuel supplies and this influenced their tactics when entering combat.
I don't think that many aircraft fought to the point of running out of fuel and would have attempted to disengage before being reduced to glider status. I look at fuel capacities, not so much as an absolute measure of endurance, but rather the amount of discretionary power or whatever you want to call it at the hands of the individual pilot, in a given combat situation. Allied pilots, with their fuel advantage, could afford to use full power more often than their German counterparts, without fear of running out at the wrong moment.
To bring the point forward, one need only look at the concept of BINGO fuel. A combat aircraft can only go so far and still have a useful time on target. For example, German fighters having only about ten minutes combat time over Britain before having to head home, Allied fighters only being able to go so far when escorting the bombers. The P51 Mustang with its thousand mile plus range came as quite a shock to the Germans, who were used to waiting til the escorting fighters turned around and headed home, before attacking. In the first few missions the P51s performed exactly that maneuver and when the Germans committed themselves, the Mustangs then turned back again to engage a very surprised enemy.
There is no reason that fuel capacities cannot be adjusted for specific scenarios, indeed our own gaming group has done just that. But ir requires also an adjustment in victory conditions to compensate for the challenges in play balance.
I can understand your assertion about the majority being often wrong. God, how many times have I seen a Liberal government elected here. Even so, the majority, right or wrong, does rule.
Our perception, however, of right and wrong, often depends on whether or not they agree with our views.
You have presented arguments to support your views, just as the others have presented arguments to support their views. It seems that neither side has managed to convince the other, but nothing is served by saying that one side is wrong because they just don't get it. You state that your logic and historical points did not convince anyone. At the same time, the logical and historical points that were raised by the other side did not convince you or your camp, obviously for the same reason, specifically because everyone thinks that they are right and the other guy is wrong.
In the end, it is the poor dumb majority that has to sift through the morass of rhetoric and misinformation and try and reach a consensus. |
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
