Forum Message
| City: | Houston, TX  | | Personal Data: | Male, born: October 27 1970 | | Membership | 21years 55days ago. | | Last Login | 15years 236days ago. | | Last Move | 17years 294days ago. | castiglione is currently  | |
| | Message text Blue Max is a good game. It has some quirks and not everyone is going to agree with the maneuver schedules but I think they're a good compromise between "reality" and what "works" in a game.
The Camel can basically out-turn anything that's silly enough to get into a slow right-turning dogfight against it but it's slow. This seems to agree with what we know about the plane.
We also know that there wasn't much of a difference between the Alb. D. III and the D. V - but in the game, they are very different. Why? Probably for game-play/game-balance reasons.
Why weren't other planes included? Probably because, due to the "granularity" of the game scale, a lot of planes would have ended up with the same characteristics. A Hanriot, for example, would probably have the same maneuver schedule as the N. 17 but be tougher. At that point, who's going to fly the N. 17?
And again, why no bombers? Because the game was designed to be a dogfighting game. So, no rules for bombers, bombing, strafing, balloons, Archie, etc.
Enjoy the game for what it is. It's a very simple, elegant design and _I _like how it works. You maneuver for position but the more you maneuver, the more fuel you burn (which can leave you defenseless if you're not careful). It feels right, in terms of game-play.
Adding more stuff (like the altitude rules, etc.) just tends to gum up the works. It's like trying to tart up the wholesome, pretty girl next door. |
|
|
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
