Originally posted by RvrndMax
I know a lot of bomber folk who think nothing of spending several hours flying cross map to get somewhere .. only to be met by 163's . I dont see Them whining that they are being 'Shafted' because they had to take the time to get alt and be open to attack from the second they left the base.
Of course, this ignores the people who happily flip their autopilot on in their Lancaster formation at 2,000' H-over-G and stay there so they can carpet-bomb an enemy base without bothering to get out of ack range, because getting killed over their target only matters if they die before getting all their bombs out.
When I take up a bomber formation, I rarely go in at under 15,000', but in the last two months, I can count the number of bomber flights I've seen
over 5,000' on the fingers of one hand. But, then, I don't hang around the HQ, hoping for someone to run a mass bomber raid so I can up in a bright, shiny 163.
Maybe discussing this on a theoretical level is too hard without audio-visual aids . i've already mention the case where NME GV's can get to a defending town faster than Base GV's can get to the town its sposed to defend . I guess that doesnt bother anyone .
This is a design problem with the terrain, not with GVs themselves. If you hate it so much, why haven't
you created a terrain without this problem and submitted it to HT? Or are you happier whining about the problem than working to fix it?
Shiva .... nice hijack attempt . If you wanna discuss Realism and Supply .. start your own thread or add to the many others already in progress. I made a suggestion concerning GV remote spawns , was curious about support for such an idea ... and got , well ... you . And from what i can decipher ... is that you feel : GV'rs are gonna get Shafted because they are being asked to actually drive , in real time , the vehicle they selected ... just like the rest of us .
Because your 'fix' addresses a
single aspect of the lack of realism in the game -- a problem which, from your description, is an issue with the person who
created the terrain, not the game itself -- and changes it in a manner that
completely removes ground vehicles as an offensive tool.
Think about it -- Look at the problem people have getting people to join missions, and then tell me who in their right mind is going to up in a GV and drive to the
adjacent field, an hour's drive away, either alone or in company, when losing the M3s in the group mean that the whole drive is pointless, or when not only their launch and target fields, but the fields three sectors in any direction as well, can have changed hands two or three times while they're trying to get to that
one adjacent field? You talk about bomber pilots willing to take off and spend an hour or more climbing to altitude and crossing the map -- but how much risk are they taking that the radar factory or HQ is going to change hands before they get there, making their whole flight pointless?
If there's no point to spending an hour or more driving when all that gets you is to the next field over, then we don't need tanks -- those are only useful for taking down buildings or enemy GVs, and since no one is going to bother to drive that far, shooting up your own field is pointless. We don't need M3s, except possibly for running supplies, since you can always get a goon to a field in half or less the time it takes to drive there. We don't need M8s, since there's no offensive purpose for them, you can do recon more effectively in a fighter, and they're useless for air defense. That leaves the Ostwind and M16 for mobile field defense. Whee.
My response was to point out that if you're want to make a change that's going to unilaterally screw over ground vehicles, you're going to have to expect it to come with a change that's going to similarly screw aircraft over equally unilaterally. But, as you've explained above, your problem isn't with the way the
game works, but with the way the
terrain was created -- but you can't see that the answer is to fix the terrain; all you can come up with is to totally hose ground vehicles so you don't have to be threatened by them popping up unannounced and shoot your bellybutton out of the sky.
With your proposal, if you see a GV on your field, and you kill it, you know that unless they had friends already there, you don't have to worry about another GV threatening you for an hour or more -- they have to drive all the way over from the next field. Once those few nasty sand fleas are gone, you can ignore them; they'll likely not be back -- they won't want to waste the time getting there twice. So now you can take off, safe in the knowledge that one kill gives you an hour of safe takeoffs. You don't want a fix to the problem -- all you want is for HT to change the game so the ground vehicles can't interfere with the way
you want to play.
