Shatten

Hey this is gonna be a kinda of vent, but it does have a point. I was wondering if you guys could look into making the computer matching system, like when you choose to make a game a agaisnt the computer in "Single Mission", simply better. I had just gotten to the Buffalo with my new pilots and on the first mission, the computer paired me up with 69 point Emils. I was utterly blow out of the sky. This is not the only instance where I have been paired with a much higher or lower computer enemy. This is very aggravating especially because the new patch makes leveling lower pilots much slower and much more boring. Could you look into upgrading the system in an upcoming patch? Thanx, Shatten

Hey guys, I'm kind of new, only been around for about a week and a half, but I played pretty extensively in that time period before the new patch was released. I wholeheartedly agree with what everyone is saying. I can't vouch for human controlled wingman because i have been playing mostly against the comp in order to level up, but I expect both would have the same drawing probabilities. I have not seen a noticeable change from the 25% reduction in the Wingman Attack Card arsenal. I have played atleast 20 games and the wingman have averaged 2-3 IMS or OOS cards every turn. One game, a Mustang pulled 5/6 Att cards against a bomber and completely wiped it out. The statistics just don't seem to be adding up. I understand that the next patch was supposed to tone down wingmen so they wouldn't leave your leader totally defenseless, but I have seen no change whatsoever and apparently am not the only one. With relatively now difference in Attack cards and upwards of +2 damage on each attack, it allows some planes to be absolutely devasting that no possible drawn could defend against. I hope that you programmers will look into this and maybe think about either toning back the modified damage or further reducing the amount of Attack cards in the wingmen deck. I also like the idea of reinforcing Airframes as possible method of solving this problem. Thanks for the effort. -Shatten