AD&D1 is like a B-17

[Nifft]

Edition Wars

Last year's edition wars were like milk trucks, abandoned in the snow:

... but this year's edition war is clearly brighter, more colorful, and has more participation:

Cheers, -- N

 

[BroccoliRage]

Thanks for articulating that, Niksosandros. But I will tell you, the weaknesses in modern airplanes are really very interesting, particularly when it comes to vibrations. Most chassis and cabin screws on the new Joint Strike Fighter need to be checked after every flight, something older planes don't really need.

Yeah, the planes and D&D analogy doesn't hold much water.

 

[shurai]

Almost Accurate

I'd say the only real problem with this analogy is that it mistakenly places 3.5 Ed at the cutting edge, where the F-22 seems to be.

This is provably not correct. D&D 3.5 contains no new innovations, special "higher technology", or drastic innovation compared with 3rd Ed; it's basically the same game. That means it's probably like the difference between the F-18s produced in the 1970s or 80s, and the F-18s they're producing today.

Given that this place is mostly d20/D&D-oriented, I'm likely to offend with the following, so I'd like to apologize in advance. I wouldn't be about to say it if I didn't think it was useful to the discussion.

The real truth, to me, is that D&D isn't very "advanced" as roleplaying systems go, so no version of D&D is really analogous to the F-22 or even, I'd say, the "teen series" fighters of the post-Vietnam era. Moreover, D&D has lagged behind other systems for quite some time, and continues to do so, especially as far as innovation is concerned. For instance, D&D adopted skill-based mechanics and a quasi-unified dice-rolling mechanic at least a decade after the first of such systems were conceived.

I'd suggest revising the progression somewhat, perhaps placing 3.5 somewhere in the transition period from propeller aircraft to jets. I'm not very expert on the history of this sort of thing, but maybe 3rd Edition is more like the F-86 Sabre, for instance. This isn't a slight against D&D; the Sabre is a highly-respected aircraft, and D&D is a highly-respected game, or it ought to be. I just wouldn't say it's particularly cutting-edge from a technical point of view.

 

[The Shaman]

"...'I don't like this' does NOT equal 'this is primitive/incomplete/badly designed'." - Old Geezer, from RPG.net

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

Probably going to add fuel to the fire but the Vietnam era planes were inferior WRT dogfighting like the F-4 Phantom - no guns, only missiles. Not that winning dogfights without guns was impossible but Snoopy probably had a better chance at shooting down the Red Baron.

Just curious but where would variants stand like d20 Modern or the SRD?

 

[Nikosandros]

Snoopy probably had a better chance at shooting down the Red Baron.

Snoopy?? Snoopy is just Charlie Brown's dog. It the WWI Flying Ace you must be thinking of...

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Well, let me sum it up:
Old editions = obsolote, outdated trash
New editions = shiny awesome!!!

:\

Way to go, Ace...

Oh puhlease. Try flipping the analogy!

Oldest editions, something a user who is but a bicycle mechanic could get into the air.
Newest editions, something only allowed off the ground after $100,000's of training and simulations expended.

 

[Quasqueton]

If we assume that higher tech planes are better, I'd agree. But I'm not so sure they're better all the time.

Higher tech planes definitely are not better. Once they started putting so much computer tech in the planes, they became nothing more than flying video games. The guy sitting in the cockpit no longer actually flies a plane -- the computer does all the work. Adding all the tech to the planes took the skill out of air combat. They've been computered up so much that now a 12-year-old used to playing on his XBox can run a mission.

-- Warbirdman

 

[Quasqueton]

Just as a lot of those old planes are still a lot of fun, and a totally different experiece than the newer ones.

With the Camel, you could actually feel the experience of flying -- seat of the pants, crosswinds against the yoke, chill air, and all. With the open cockpit, you felt like you were Superman up there, not just a passenger on a train. As soon as they enclosed the cockpit, they killed the real joy of flying.

-- Camel's Hump

 

[Quasqueton]

It's rather hard to dismiss the technical flaws of the Spitfire and Hurricane when you realise that those planes were good enough to win the Battle of Britain

The fact that they won the BoB should be obvious proof that the Spitfire and Hurricane did not have significant technical flaws. Sure, you guys today must have the jet engines with vectored thrust to turn around, but the Spitfire is still the master of maneuver. Only the Fokker Dr.I from the previous era turned better than the Spitfire. And maneuverability is what wins and won air combat.

Likewise, hurling insults at the Gulf War planes is disrespectful when you think that a lot of good men trusted their lives to the quality of the planes under their control.

Few lives were ever really in jeopardy during the Gulf conflict. Between the AWACs, cruise missiles, radar jammers, and stealth bombers, the enemy forces couldn't put up anything to threaten the F14s, and F15s. With the full theater package put out before the fighters even took off their runways, they didn't need particularly good planes.

-- PhantomFollower