Precisely so!
1 Like
Didn’t that Yak get added as a premium to the French tree?
1 Like
yes
2 Likes
Wait nvm he was talking about the English one. I’m out of it right now.
1 Like
That was a French Pilot who went to the USSR to continue the fight.
1 Like
I will do the same with most of your reply. Not due to disrespect - but from my pov you used the same arguments as previously - now in an “extended” version.
It simply looks like we have fundamentally different opinions about history and historic relevance. As written earlier: This is nothing personal.
Some exceptions:
The Brits and the Germans were able to fight at night.
Idc what rights you deserve for yourself. It is a free world - do what you want.
Same as above - whatever makes you happy.
I play wt with a joystick exclusively in Air RB - all of my (most) played aircraft have a very stable flight model, cannons, good turn and dive characteristics and an air brake.
Besides that: None of them were shown as a suggestion - so there was no possibility to vote for them.
I could ask the same - but i acknowledged your rather high passion level and skipped this step.
Seriously - we talk about a video game and potential additions (in which the community has zero impact) and your react like i was involved in the JFK assassination.
I take this as a promise…
At this point, beyond repeatedly tripling down on the same argument, this is starting to drift into outright gaslighting and repeated indirect insults — which is certainly an interesting standard of “quality argumentation.”
Before any later additions or clarifications, your original was fundamentally just “no kills = no historical relevance.” That is why you are being memed on by multiple people at once and that is precisely why the F-22 comparison was entirely appropriate and relevant in the first place.
Only afterwards did you begin expanding the argument into “multiple factors matter.” And yes, such an ex post expansion can absolutely change the nature of the argument going forward. But it cannot retroactively invalidate responses made to the original claim before those additions existed.
It is not the responsibility of the reader to invent unspoken parts of your argument for you for argument to make sense. That is solely authors responsibility.
This is even more apparent by the way you responded to Nostalgistic’s extensive post. At this point it is increasingly clear that this is not about constructive discussion for you, but simply about needing to be right.
The irony when you accuse others of lacking “abstract thinking” simply because they considered your original argument silly is something to behold. Disagreeing with a poorly formulated argument is not evidence of intellectual deficiency.
If this is the tone you intend to use going forward, including the constant condescension and passive-aggressive remarks toward other users, then in all honestly, you should reconsider whether you want to engage in discussions at all, if not mods getting outright involved. Ill remind here that YOU are the sole perso against whom action was taken, no one other. YOUR post was against the rules. YOU need to adjust.
4 Likes
@Real_K_Soze
you can just be like me and say that this aircraft isn’t unique enough (just a paint job) and you don’t want to dillute tech trees into each other.
You are making yourself look bad
2 Likes
Yeah, even though I want to see it, I still understand the opinions that they don’t want to, if the reason is copy & paste.
Because “Identity theft is not a joke, Jim.” well, some populations hate it.
But calling USAAF Mossie ‘has no historic relevance’ as a reason because of ‘no air kill’ when it really had a kill, seems quite strange.
Especially when numerous World War 2-early Cold War props have no air kills in World War 2 throughout the tech tree.
If we really need to talk about historic relevance just for ‘air kill’ as his original take meant. (not the reinforced one which patched up like a rag)
American Tech-Tree will be losing P-51H ‘Strongest Mustang’ because it never saw combat.
There are tons of ‘easier’ reasons to disapprove Mossie NF.30(USAAF), I wonder why he misused the word and is trying to defend himself. This discussion feels like ‘Ace Attorney’ already.
3 Likes
I mean look at 90% of Sweden
Historical relevance shouldn’t matter really
Only when first making a sub tree or tech tree so you can add the “top stars” (Benelux missing a lot of dutch aircraft on release for example and still missing some currently)
If anything, it could be an unlockable camo for the TT mosquito night fighter imo.
historical relevance is perfectly fine argument.
just not when its reduced merely to “no kills = no historical relevance”.
1 Like
In what contexts?
Well… it is a double-edged sword.
‘Historical relevance’ itself can be used for such as
“ANZAC need to be a sub-tree of UK or an independent tree because Aussie and New Zealanders have historical ties between themselves, and with the British”
or
“We have three captured Panther tanks, but two have combat records, which one should we prioritise when we cannot have all three of them, and can have only one of three?”
Somewhat kinda of additional multiplier.
Just… not with this case.
No Combat kill =/= No historical relevance.
1 Like