Forum Message
| | Message text RoyBrown wrote:
I agree... "have fun" is important in a game  but historical accuracy in a game it is a forced word... I mean from historical point of view when two planes are fighting each other, it was more possible the worse tryed to escape even if the oil tank was full 
Exactly, that's the point. And with the worse escaping, the better won the battle.
Because kills were fancy, but the real purpose of the whole thing was to have the sky clear of enemies for the 2-seaters to carry on their mission, wich was the real goal of everything. Downing them was a strategic bonus (they wouldn't come back to fight another day), but for that day the point was to get rid of them. In whatever way.
Now, coming back to fuel, nobody engaged in a furball short of fuel. They simply turned back at the first sight of bandits.
Unless when bounced. But who would ever dive to bounce an enemy formation if short of fuel (and not knowing the fuel state of enemy), facing the perspective of finding himself forced to turn his back to them?
But that's exactly what standard BM depicts: a bunch of lucky fools that attacks without enough fuel to stand a chance and finds the enemy with the same problem! 
From a game design POV, fuel was introduced in BM to balance in some way the average superiority of german ACs (and it worked just fine). The same effect could have been obtained, say, by varying the score value of kills (e.g. downing a DVII=30 pts, a SPADVII=20 pts), but things went the other way.
And again the bottom line is: be free to chose your way to have fun.
--- Message edited by gugliandalf |
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
