Builder chris i am not after you at all.
I just do not want immune to aa guns if anything else happens i will be cool with that but immunity! (not how i take stuff)
I did support my points. I also took a ‘swipe’ ( to use a Gordon Ramsey phrase) but it was really a minor point among a much larger body of supporting points.
OK Builder Chris i think we both know i meant no harm with the sarcasm. Apologies.
Anyways this poll about jet fighters is everywere not 2 spots are sticking out its unexpectedly almost balanced
Though i will say they will never be immune please do not allow it to be immune comone dice roll 6 its immune 1-5 it is not
“6” no why did it go to 6.
Anyways all i will say voting for immunity to aa guns is horrible thing to do
Greetings,
Great thread.
Excellent delivery and point made by Builder_chris on game pc representation.
Loved how you presented it, nice long delivery to labor the point of complexity.
In spite of your last post Chris; you noted a general abstraction of all FTRS, and Jets represent an improvement for the whole class of the unit.
Let me wave my arms at the sky, having spent most of my adult life with jets.
I could argue a strong technical perspective, I will not take you down the edged path of techno merit. I will provide general strokes, I hope stand out;
item:munitions were the determining offensive punch factor, not much change really.
item:Those early jets had a very limited range, as stated previously.
item:The speed factor, gave the fighter certain immunity against interception, fine for offense.
item:If, given strong offensive value, then the abstraction could reflect a more limited range, move of only 2 spaces, thats not going to be popular.
item:In the defensive role-Dogfighting mainly, poor turn radius (more important then dive speed, IMHO, yes its arguable, jets had good climb rate) and no loitering time (also factor for ground support,)
are strong defensive requirements lacking in jets.
These low defensive values for early jets, argue against a strong defensive abstraction on Tech alone.
Item: Air doctrine was poorly concieved on how to deploy the technology and coordinate, again important factors for area defense
( War college would need several thousand sorties to build a model, each war took time to find a techs place for proper deployment( prime EX:korea-jets evolution.)
Item:This game does not model interception, less house rules.
Extra-Maybe thats the point, the tech could add interception to the game, new tech, new game mech-yea facing complexity again(KISS.)
Sum:Jets are simply not a good defense value for this game, take an offensive abstraction, Larry got it right.
In the end, I agree with IL, jets don’t #$%*belong. Were not a factor for WWII.
added note:
I love those old WWII fighters, those pilots and crews had a special moment in time. You can see it in their eyes today, years later.
To those who fell, I salute.
You know, after all this talk I’ve come to the self realization that ultimately I must agree with IL and Bluestroke when both of them say…
IL…In fact Jets don’t need to be in the game
Bluestroke…jets don’t #$%*belong. Were not a factor for WWII.
Because after about my fifth game or so of getting the jet fig development, I don’t develop jets any more. They never proved to make that much of a difference in the game and they never seemed to be worth the IPC and time it took to get the tech.
Oh, and IL…don’t fret over the earlier sarcasm …the Seabees and civ construction workers (and my wife come to think of it) are full of it :-o (sarcasm that is) :lol:. I guess that’s why it’s no big deal to me. It’s all 8-), besides that’s what makes debates fun… “It’s not personal…its buisness”.
IL…In fact Jets don’t need to be in the game
They are not. They are optional rules.
Exactly they are add ons… Like House rules anyways (immunity never aa gunscan kill jets
