Should Fighter Planes have a LOS (Line of Sight) of 3 or 4?

[Robotron]

Let's hear your opinions about how much line of sight fighter planes should have.

[jkehoe]

just voted for LOS3 . in the early months of the war aerial reconnaissance was an inexact science and in fact some generals refused to believe the photographic evidence:) after 1915 it became much better and the germans and russians but especially the italians became very good at single pilot fixed camera photography(at longer and longer ranges) although the british and french did manage to catch them up finally.
for the game it is better imho to contain the range until summer 1915 and even then to LOS3 (before 1915 i would even suggest 2!!) see below for a website with some itersting points on aerial matters

http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/observation.htm

[nehi]

just voted for LOS3 . in the early months of the war aerial reconnaissance was an inexact science and in fact some generals refused to believe the photographic evidence:) after 1915 it became much better and the germans and russians but especially the italians became very good at single pilot fixed camera photography(at longer and longer ranges) although the british and french did manage to catch them up finally.
for the game it is better imho to contain the range until summer 1915 and even then to LOS3 (before 1915 i would even suggest 2!!) see below for a website with some itersting points on aerial matters

http://www.firstworldwar.com/airwar/observation.htm

but im not some general, im general from the future

im curious, what would do, los 2 combined with range 4?

[Robotron]

for the game it is better imho to contain the range until summer 1915 (...)

While this would have been the best approach to the problem, changing the LOS value is not possible anymore once a match has started, since the LOS value is not part of the tech upgrade routine but is hard set during game initialization.
That's the reason why I started the poll.

[nehi]

While this would have been the best approach to the problem, changing the LOS value is not possible anymore once a match has started, since the LOS value is not part of the tech upgrade routine but is hard set during game initialization.
That's the reason why I started the poll.

what would do, los 2 combined with range 4? or its not even possible?

[Robotron]

what would do, los 2 combined with range 4? or its not even possible?

In my opinion a fighter with LOS 2 would be just about useless without zeppelin support.

IF it were possible to modify LOS from within a running game I WOULD remove all fighters from the starting setup.
Players would then be able to build fighters on their own once LOS and other stats got raised by tech research.

Sadly the LOS value is "read only".

[nehi]

what would do, los 2 combined with range 4? or its not even possible?

In my opinion a fighter with LOS 2 would be just about useless without zeppelin support.

IF it were possible to modify LOS from within a running game I WOULD remove all fighters from the starting setup.
Players would then be able to build fighters on their own once LOS and other stats got raised by tech research.

Sadly the LOS value is "read only".

2 or 3, it doesnt matter

useless both

[Zombo]

useless both

(or maybe you mean less super-useful than you want it to be?)

The point of defining a recon range for planes is not maximizing its usefulness, it's establishing something that makes sense within the context of a WW1 simulation. If usefulness is what drives you, you should plead for an infinite range

In addition, I even disagree with your "useless" perspective, because while reducing the range makes your planes less useful, in makes enemy planes less useful to the enemy, therefore it is useful in better concealing your deployment. So, in relative terms, no loss of usefulness there.

In the end, if you find it useless, then don't use it

I will gladly do, I find being able to see the enemy's second line very valuable

[nehi]

(or maybe you mean less super-useful than you want it to be?)

The point of defining a recon range for planes is not maximizing its usefulness, it's establishing something that makes sense within the context of a WW1 simulation. If usefulness is what drives you, you should plead for an infinite range

In addition, I even disagree with your "useless" perspective, because while reducing the range makes your planes less useful, in makes enemy planes less useful to the enemy, therefore it is useful in better concealing your deployment. So, in relative terms, no loss of usefulness there.

In the end, if you find it useless, then don't use it

I will gladly do, I find being able to see the enemy's second line very valuable

sad story

[Robotron]

sad story

You know what's really sad? Such snotty comments which don't add anything productive to the discussion.

[nehi]

You know what's really sad? Such snotty comments which don't add anything productive to the discussion.

as zombos comment, i totally agree

dont use useless things, ingenious thought