Re: [WW] how do vehicles work?

["nvdoyle" <nvdoyle@home.com>]

'Best' is hard to determine. Was it so good because of design? Or was it
that US pilot training was finally becoming formidable, when Japanese
training was crippled, losing experienced pilots far, far faster than they
could be replaced?
If you're talking about 'kill ratios', no, things like crashes and AAA
losses and training losses don't count. Those aren't air-to-air kills.

As for technical talk, it's pretty inevitable in a game in a technological
era, especially a hardware-heavy one like WW2. But, the end result is
always, 'How is it used in my game?'  As a grognard (and part-time
gearhead), I like seeing the armor values reflect 'real life' pretty
closely. But, the essential factor is, are the relationships correct? Is x
better than y, as it was shown to be? And are both second-rate to z? A lot
of wargames do just that, in a rather abstract manner. The results are
almost always satisfactory.

And if you can do BTech 3025 stats, you can do WW2. ;)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Bennett" <nathaniel_bennett@yahoo.com>
To: <weirdwars@gamerz.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WW] how do vehicles work?


> So according to various sources the F4-U Corsair was
> either the best plane in the war with a kill ratio
> near 14:1, or it was mediocre since the kill ration
> didn't include the thousands of aircraft destroyed by
> anti-aircraft fire, in crash landings, in training,
> and destroyed in ways other than directly being shot
> down by enemy fire.
>
> Which plane will we get in the game, or will the
> translation of real-world equipment (armor thickness,
> air-speed, armament) allow us to determine for
> ourselves if it was a boom or a bust?