I'm surprised the jets are not used more

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by akuma

These jets existed in WW2, so are legit in game.

Can you imagine if our pilots back in the day spat there dummy out and said I'm not playing this game anymore because they are using jets?

This is, as I stated in another thread, a void argument. As you've correctly stated, IL2 is a game, and games need to be balanced in order to be fun to play. If a game is unbalanced, how realistic or historically correct it may be, the fun quickly ends.

[dazz1971]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

This is, as I stated in another thread, a void argument. As you've correctly stated, IL2 is a game, and games need to be balanced in order to be fun to play. If a game is unbalanced, how realistic or historically correct it may be, the fun quickly ends.

yes its a game but its a flight sim and flight sim games are unique in the fact that what relates to flying/combat in real life is equally related to the flight sim world ie: many ppl use real life tatics acrobatics in flights sims etc

i think its a case of some ppl dont know how to combat the jets so just start crying unfair its make the game unbalanced etc

funny thou you dont see many threads crying stop using b17s its unfair they are not balancing the game etc....
yet if you play a game of strike and the other team has b17 its pretty much game over before you start

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by dazz1971

funny thou you dont see many threads crying stop using b17s its unfair they are not balancing the game etc....
yet if you play a game of strike and the other team has b17 its pretty much game over before you start

I think it's a case of some people not knowing how to combat the B17's so just start crying unfair, it makes the game unbalanced, etc.
The main difference between jets and a B17 is that a B17 actually isn't that hard to take down. Especially with a 109 G-6 it's far from impossible. In Strike, it's not just about taking a bomber and flying to the other side, but also making sure the other team doesn't reach your targets. If someone flies a B17 it takes a while before it reaches it's target, enough time to take him down. If someone flies an Arado it's impossible with a piston, and hard even with a jet because of the short time it takes for the Arado to reach the target.

Originally Posted by dazz1971

yes its a game but its a flight sim and flight sim games are unique in the fact that what relates to flying/combat in real life is equally related to the flight sim world ie: many ppl use real life tatics acrobatics in flights sims etc

As soon as there's competitive playing involved, I believe game balance superceeds historical accuracy. I'm not saying flight models should be altered for the sake of balance, but at least keep to planes that can be divided in the same performance category.

Pope's G-comment made me think though, I wonder what's gonna happen with jet pilots when blackouts are re-introduced .

P.S. People, my AC and HAWX references are just an exaggeration to make a point, don't take them too seriously.

[akuma]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

This is, as I stated in another thread, a void argument. As you've correctly stated, IL2 is a game, and games need to be balanced in order to be fun to play. If a game is unbalanced, how realistic or historically correct it may be, the fun quickly ends.

I see what your saying, but to omit the early jets from a WW2 sim would be a huge mistake.

The fact not many people use them (even when I host and use ME163) proves that people have tactics to beat them. I certainly dont think jets unbalance the game though.

[Ancient Seraph]

I think the fact that not a lot of people use jets is because they either realise it's lame, or because they play IL2 to fly the classics.
How would omitting jets be a huge mistake? A bigger mistake then leaving out the Lancaster, or Mosquito? I most certainly don't think so.
I'll explain the problem with jets. For teammates it's troublesome, because most people don't bother trying to keep up with jets (I don't, I know I can't keep up). Because of this, enemies have one 'extra' player (e.g. in 2v2 there would always be 2 enemies hanging around the teammate). So not only is it annoying for the other team, but for your own teammates as well.
For the opposite team, a jet is a random guy that buzzes in every now and then and either hits you twice on an annoying spot without killing you, forcing you to break off of your opponent, or shoots you without you standing a chance (depending on the skill level). The only way to avoid this from happening is to constantly keep an eye on the jet, which is extremely annoying when flying on someone's six.

[Gazz6666]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

How would omitting jets be a huge mistake? A bigger mistake then leaving out the Lancaster, or Mosquito? I most certainly don't think so.

I second this statement!

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by akuma

I see what your saying, but to omit the early jets from a WW2 sim would be a huge mistake.

The fact not many people use them (even when I host and use ME163) proves that people have tactics to beat them. I certainly dont think jets unbalance the game though.

Well I would say the Arado unbalances Strike games and I see plenty of people flying that. The Jet fighters though I have no problem with. Maybe if the online game was not so turn'n'burn orientated, the jet fighters would then become more of a problem. As it is now they are almost on the outside of a battle always trying to get a look in but never quite managing it. I think that is what Gazz means by saying if one person takes a jet, someone on the other side needs to not because theyre unbalanced but becase they are balanced on a different scale that makes them vulnerable only to other jets but more difficult for the jets to kill a prop.

[Gazz6666]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

I think that is what Gazz means by saying if one person takes a jet, someone on the other side needs to not because theyre unbalanced but becase they are balanced on a different scale that makes them vulnerable only to other jets but more difficult for the jets to kill a prop.

Sort of. What I meant is that the mentality of most players (note: most, not all) I play against online goes something like this;

You're in a Team Battle lobby, waiting for the start. A player joins. He immediately selects an Me-262. Chances are, one other player will switch to a jet too, because they feel because there's a jet in the game, they'll need a jet to counter it. And then it's like a dominoe effect, as everyone else goes through the same mentality, untill it's only you flying a prop. It's a case of everyone getting (or trying to get) an edge over their opponents through plane choice, rather than pilot skill.

It's almost the same with strike games. I was playing with my friend earlier, and he was flying the IL-4. As I was working on the 100 109 kills, I was providing cover. Generally two players would join; one in a fighter (normally a Hurricane with rockets or bombs), and someone in a bomber. But the bomber pilot almost immediately switched to a fighter too, obviously looking to score some easy kills, as essentially they thought "ha, two fighters vs one fighter and a bomber - an easy win". Fortunately, these games are much more fun that Jet Vs Jet games, which meant I was either fighting off two fighters in a spiralling dogfight that dropped to less than 50 feet at times, or watching these hapless fighters being owned by the IL-4's rear guns (yes, this was on arcade).

And I have to ask, which one of those sounds better?

Off topic, why the hell has the Spitfire XVI got a cockpit view of it's own when the 109 is much more popular online, and is used in one of the Single Missions?

[Wissam24]

The game needs more Space Shuttles. And X15s. How about an SR-71. Seriously guys. The jets were they, and they had a HUGE impact on the war. To ignore them would be stupid, it would be like ignoring the different marks of Spitfire.

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by Wissam24

The game needs more Space Shuttles. And X15s. How about an SR-71. Seriously guys. The jets were they, and they had a HUGE impact on the war. To ignore them would be stupid, it would be like ignoring the different marks of Spitfire.

Wait.. first you act sarcastic about jets and then you say the should be in there? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Anyways, you claim the jets had a 'HUGE' impact on the war, which is in no way true. They came too late to actually make a difference. I'm sure if they'd been invented one or two years earlier they could've made a huge impact, but since they weren't, they didn't.