Author Topic: AWACS Intercept (Read 5212 times)

J_A_B · « **Reply #60 on:** December 05, 2001, 01:11:00 AM »

"And when I played AW (97-99) there were allways 100+ players in the AvA arena in the evenings . "

I don't know what game you were playing but it sure wasn't AW!

AW FR AvA had similar attendance as AH's CT--namely, it was empty except for the occasional swuadnight.

RR AvA usually had around 10-15 people in, maybe peaking at 25 or so on the weekends. The ONLY times AvA ever had more people is the first couple months when it was new, until the novelty wore off and the old RR ETO map was restored.

Just clearing up some incorrect information that's not related to AH

Now back to your regularly scheduled flamefest

J_A_B

K West · « **Reply #61 on:** December 05, 2001, 09:21:00 AM »

"you view inflight dot dar as such a massive problem, unless you like to hide from people. "

It's real easy. Stop looking for the hidden agenda. I hate the AH AWACS radar as I did the AW AWACS radar. All tor the same reason I wouldn't want a WWI combat sim that claims to use WWI era "science and art" to feature high frequency radio communications technology from decades later instead of carrier pigeons and human runners

Westy

Seeker · « **Reply #62 on:** December 05, 2001, 09:57:00 AM »

One question for the "pro-realism" crowd:

Should radar, or it's replacement (an adaptation of the current system, a text/wav file replacement, what ever) allocated in an historical manner?

That's to say Allied radar dominance in the early war, mid war parity (with difference in technique), late war allied dominance again?

Should Russian and Japaneese planes have any radio coms in flight?

How real is real?

K West · « **Reply #63 on:** December 05, 2001, 10:27:00 AM »

IMO *many* real feature of WWII era equipment and thier operation are achievable and usable. And without the need for a pilots license or flight school too!! I think trim should be modelled in those aircraft that had inflight trim. (Since AH seems to have to have trim anyway). Radios too although most folks will use RW. Metric, ordinance etc etc. I think AH should have manualk fuel selection on thos planes that did not have auto. And as for what model of radar? Pick an inservice WWII design. Not an experimental or a one off set. After all we don't have an rrs (rolling radar set) in AH and one is as good an approximation as another. As long as it faithfully represents WWII era radar.

And I'll also add that FWIW I'd much rather persue realisms and hopefuly experience some advances in thier implementation than tossing hands in the air saying, "Dash it all to hell. If it can't be it all realistic then none of it should be." After all. How easy is easy? And just think! It takes no effort on anyones part, be it the player or the developer, to persue easy fatures or easy gameplay. That's rock bottom. Easy is a lack of features. Not surprising it takes even less to maintain that level of play at all. Otherwise we'd all be satisfied playing AW for MAC/Amiga's ala 1990.

Evolution exists in MMPOG too. Anything else is complacency and the syndrome is sometimes called "maintenance mode." Of which HTC has shown no signs of for two plus years and I doubt very much it will happen with them.

Westy

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

dtango · « **Reply #64 on:** December 05, 2001, 11:43:00 AM »

For those who've heard this point in the past, please forgive me. I feel the need to make it again.

I have to point out the fallacies I've seen on trying to debate the removal or change of AH radar on the basis of "realism". Most of the arguments I've heard ignore the fact of WW2 reality.

#1 Air battle management using radar was a foundational aspect of WW2 air combat across all theaters including the most primitive in the South Pacific (actually very surprising to me- did you know that radar was operating on Henderson Field before the planes were on Guadalcanal?). If you want realism then you can't just ignore this fundamental aspect of WW2 air combat. If the argument for removing or modifying the current MA radar implementation is based on "realism" then a realistic implementation of the entire command and control system must be implemented.

#2 If you're advocating modifications to AH radar / command & control for realism then here are some of the characteristics of WW2 radar that you can't avoid:
* Altitude information on radar contacts
* Range of a min of 150 miles to a max of 300 miles
* Ground based radar accuracy to about 1-3 miles
* IFF system that allows identification of friend or foe
* Effects of terrain such as mountains etc.
* Ability to jam using chaff (known as "window" at the time)

I haven't even addressed the complex command and control structure in place to coordinate. Just my .02 on the matter.

Tango, 1st Lt.
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #65 on:** December 05, 2001, 12:03:00 PM »

Quote

And I'll also add that FWIW I'd much rather persue realisms and hopefuly experience some advances in thier implementation than tossing hands in the air saying, "Dash it all to hell. If it can't be it all realistic then none of it should be."

That is so much of a misconception it is pathetic westy.

When we get in an environment where vagueness is countered with increased patrols, where borders are guarded, where commanders coordinate attacks and defenses... then maybe you can start going for realistic features in regards to radar and such.

Right now, HTC has to create an environment where there is no command structure. An environment where an individual player can enter the game and get some kind of clue as to what is happening in an instant. An environment where players on-line can try to figure out what is incoming on their own because there is nobody that will reliably provide them with that data. That's what is needed in the MA.

The MA cannot be realistic. Nobody would play it. Given that, there needs to be an entirely unrealistic environment provided for people to have fun in. This environment enables them to hop from base to base instantly, to fly regardless of wether or day/night conditions, to have some kind of idea where everyone is. THAT IS NECESSARY!

Explain how your changes to radar will affect gameplay, because that is all that matters. Realism is completely irrelivant. The only thing realistic should be the FM and gunnery... the rest is simply a game.

Will removing dot dar over bases enhance gameplay? I don't see how it would. It does not give an alt reading making it virtually useless to do anything other than pinpoint in an x,y coordinate and only within range of a friendly base. The idea of not knowing what direction an attack is coming from is even more silly than the dot dar implimentation.

AKDejaVu

hblair · « **Reply #66 on:** December 05, 2001, 12:19:00 PM »

Wanna talk historical fact?

Doolittle bombs Tokyo, not some obscure edge of theatre target, we're talking TOKYO, Japan. Broad daylight raid, 2pm in the afternoon. Didn't lose a single bomber over Japan. The Japanese had no idea what was coming. So much for the all-powerful radar you guys are talking about, huh?

Quote

A little after 2:00 PM - noon in Tokyo - the announcer's studied English diction suddenly gave way to frantic Japanese, and then dead air. As air raid sirens in Tokyo screamed, Ambassador Grew placed a losing bet with his lunch guest, the Swiss ambassador, wagering the sirens and gunfire were all just a false alarm.

Racing in at just 2000 feet, the first B-25s over Tokyo emptied their bomb bays, and Ambassador Grew's wallet. Doolittle's and twelve other bombers sought out and bombed military and industrial targets throughout Tokyo: an oil tank farm, a steel mill, and several power plants. To the south, other bombers struck targets in Yokohama and Yokosuka, including the new light carrier Ryuho, the damage delaying its launching until November. Perhaps inevitably, some civilian buildings were hit as well: six schools and an army hospital.

Aided by low altitude, camouflage, and extra speed gained from leaving their loads of bombs behind, the bombers were able to evade the enemy fighters patrolling overhead, and anti-aircraft fire from the cities below. But they were far short of the fuel needed to reach the airfield at Chuchow. One plane turned north, and surprised Russian soldiers by landing near Vladivostok. The remaining fifteen planes crashed or were ditched over China. Remarkably, most of the 80 pilots and crewmen survived the mission. Of eight airmen who were captured, three were executed by the Japanese, and another died in captivity. Four others were killed during the mission.

For every *fact* you guys post, I can post another real fact that blows yours out of the water. Both can't be right can they?

K West · « **Reply #67 on:** December 05, 2001, 12:53:00 PM »

Japanese were able to do photo recon of Northern Australia in 1843 and only once did the Allies radar detect the slimmest of signals.

dtango 100% replication of WWII command and controls are not needed implement a realistic approximation of WWII radar. ot in anyway shape or form. Although I imagine HTC could easily convert the current AH inflight AWACS radar screen info into control center text messages rather easily. And one benefit is that would cut down on the data bandwidth from host to every logged on client as radar info would not be perpetually sent out to every player online all the time.

AKDejavu the negative impact to gameplay is next to nill but the boon is major. As it is now NO WWII airwar tactics or strategy, except dogfight, is allowed in the game. No NOE raids. No Pearl Harbors. No bounces on enemy aircraft (unless they're afk) No evading an fighter sweep to do an end around and hit thier bombers. You name it and it literally cannot be done as it was in WWII. However if there was dot radar in towers for friendly territory only, none in flight and there was still colored bars, as a concession to gameplay to indicate enemy presence, then we would have somehting that simulates WWII era technolcogy than what we have now. This is what we have now:

And it should not be in a sim saying that it uses with WWII art and science. It would be something I'd expect to see in that is meant to be a "game" like FA and AW which use that.

Westy

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

Toad · « **Reply #68 on:** December 05, 2001, 01:21:00 PM »

Quote

Westy: ...than tossing hands in the air saying, "Dash it all to hell. If it can't be it all realistic then none of it should be."

"All or none really" isn't my point, although that's the way the road leads IMO.

My point is that each poster is "selective" and selects "realism" features according to their own personal bias.

There's no "double standard" because there's no "standard" at all. Unfortunately, whatever particular "realism" appeals to one seems certain to be anathema to some other player. You can see it in any "realism" thread.

Therefore, once you begin to make exceptions to "realism", each individual player sees that exceptions are allowed. Then the "realism" catfight begins. We all know that you can get a "realism" argument going over just about any aspect of any flight sim.

In short, each player wants the "realism" aspects he considers important, while asking for "gameplay concessions" in areas he considers relatively unimportant.

Getting 2000+ subscribers to agree seems like an impossible task to me. That's whey I said the road seems to lead to "all or none".

Fortunately, we have a steady hand on the stick and the game continues to progress despite the BBS squabbling over details.

Just my .02.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #69 on:** December 05, 2001, 01:35:00 PM »

Quote

AKDejavu the negative impact to gameplay is next to nill but the boon is major. As it is now NO WWII airwar tactics or strategy, except dogfight, is allowed in the game.

Ummmm.. roadkill. Are you saying that every bombing sortie was a suprise attack? Nobody ever knew what was coming in at them? Tactics are tactics... inevitably there will be more similarities than differences.

Quote

No NOE raids.

And dot dar affects this how? It does not.

Quote

No Pearl Harbors.

They are called scenarios. Besides, I've seen too many 30+ aircraft raids hit a relatively undefended base to believe this is impossible in the MA. Hell.. several squads do this every time they log in.

Quote

No bounces on enemy aircraft (unless they're afk)

You mean unless they are slacking on their SA. That's pretty realistic as it is. Or, do you think that German fighters patrolled the skies over England waiting for an unexpecting victim to launch so they could suprise them? What you want is less realistic. Remember... dot dar only works over friendly territory.

Quote

No evading an fighter sweep to do an end around and hit thier bombers.

What MA do you play in? This sounds really cool... but when does this happen? And, if it did happen, dot dar would make it easier to do if it were in your terriroty. It would also make it harder for the enemy fighters to detect. In truth, this example is wrong on virtually every aspect.

Quote

However if there was dot radar in towers for friendly territory only,

And someone dedicated to vectoring each and every pilot into contacts as they patrol the skies waiting for orders?

Quote

none in flight and there was still colored bars, as a concession to gameplay to indicate enemy presence,

Um... enemy presence was known over friendly territory. Dot dar simply acts as a guidance system with the exception of no alt information being provided. Any pilot uses it to get to a target then relies on the old peepers to do the rest. The only time it can actually be used in the manner described in the initial post is in heavy clouds or at night... both conditions that would have resulted in an aborted mission or no flights at all.

Quote

then we would have somehting that simulates WWII era technolcogy than what we have now.

No, we would not have anything that simulates WWII era technology. What we have now doesn't, what you propose doesn't. Its that simple. What we do have is a means for people to find fights and attempt to defend fields. As far as defending fields goes... its still not much help. Anyone coming in at over 15k can overfly a previously undefended enemy field without having to worry about anyone climbing to catch them. 3-6 minutes warning is all that is given by the dot dar.

We don't have any kind of command and control system, and I seriously doubt that one is really wanted by a large majority of the players. As a result, we need the same tools that would be available to them... in flight or in the tower.

AKDejaVu

K West · « **Reply #70 on:** December 05, 2001, 01:37:00 PM »

I understand and agree with what you're saying Toad.

Still. I think the radar system we have now could stand to be looked at and alternatives, preferably an accurate fascimile, could be developed and implemented.

If not I'll simply always wish otherwise but it won't be a game quitting issue for me.

Westy

p.s. AKDejavu you constantly have to use twist issues with word such as "every" and "dedicated." I find it imopssible to discuss or even arugue any point with anyone who sees only in black and white extremes. It's been that way with you no matter the subject whether it is radar or previously something like the profanity filter.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #71 on:** December 05, 2001, 01:54:00 PM »

Way to go westy.. might as well make it personal.

How about this, it is impossible to discuss this with someone that fails to realize that if you make dar only available in the tower, then A PERSON WILL HAVE TO BE IN THE TOWER TO TELL OTHERS WHERE THE ENEMY IS COMING FROM! Saying anyone CAN do it is the same as saying nobody HAS to do it.

Jeez dude.. its that fricking simple. If nobody wants to do that, then what? The military had "DEDICATED" personel to handle that. We do not.

Frick.. quit being so obtuse.

As for the language filter... I'll discuss that with you anytime too. Especially in regards to those that were cricizing the use of foul language.

Idiot 1: diddly you
Idiot 2: Don't cuss, my child might see it
Idiot 1: diddly
Idiot 2: stop it
Idiot 1: diddly!
Idiot 2: You're ruining the MA!
Idiot 1: diddly diddly diddly
Idiot 2: If you don't stop, I'll send a pic to HTC!
Idiot 1: diddly diddly diddly diddly diddly
Idiot 2: I'm not going to warn you again
<Same thing repeated by both for 30 more minutes>

Amazing how many people think there is only one idiot in that equation. You ever wonder why all obvious troll threads instantly go over 100 posts? Hmmmm....

AKDejaVu

lazs1 · « **Reply #72 on:** December 05, 2001, 01:57:00 PM »

comon westy... I know your brighter than this.. I give you one month to come to your senses.

hblair? well hblair is a bamma man but worse... he has been LW for quite a while... flying LW is the flight sim equivelent of eating lead paint. Recovery is possoble but..
lazs

dtango · « **Reply #73 on:** December 05, 2001, 02:02:00 PM »

Toad, AKDJ- great posts.

HB - you have a good example. The *fact* of the matter is that this was the exception vs. the rule however.

In the particular case of the Japanese, it's well documented that the Japanese were the last of the major combatants in WW2 that realized the importance of effective command and control plus the crucial use of radar. For that matter the Japanese didn't even have radio in the majority of their aircraft, and often times removed the radios they might of had to decrease weight. (I think Seeker's questions were meant to illustrate historical accuracy along these lines.)

My point is that trying to argue the radar issue on "realism" as AKDJ has pointed out is a slippery slope at best and irrelevant at worst.

Westy- along these lines Toad's post is spot on around some of the problems with arguing "realism". As you stated, we can try to approximate WW2 radar in AH. And that is exactly the problem with the realism argument. So what level of approximation is considered "realistic" vs. what isn't "realistic"? As Seeker asks "How real is real?"

I can understand arguing changing radar to change the gameplay though I'm in a particular camp there as well.

HB- On that vein, I understand why you would want to change the radar from a gameplay perspective. I don't totally agree with you but I can agree with the logic you have used in other posts. I'm even agreeable to some of the changes suggested (delayed dot dar updates etc.). If it even helps, I would love to provide and help organize escorts etc. for you guys when I'm on with your strat attacks to have more success in these attacks.

Tango, 1st Lt.
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

Rotorian · « **Reply #74 on:** December 05, 2001, 02:20:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by O'Westy:
<snipped buncha stuff that should be in scenarios and not a hamsterwheel arena.>

Anyways, is this a WWII sim or an aircombat simulation?