Author Topic: nightmare for a rook... (Read 6732 times)

beet1e · « **Reply #150 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:05:31 PM »

Mars01,

I've read all your posts, and that is not MY BS in pink. Those are Wolfgang's remarks. The fact that you called it my BS tells me you didn't even bother to read it. Talk about biased.

Wolfgang set it up, and those were his observations, not mine. But those observations concur with my own entirely.

The reasons I gave for not wanting the bases too close together are perfectly valid. Your rebuttal comes in the form of "I can't see why the fields should not be closer together so that I can find my furballs more quickly and easily. The only people who don't want the fields to be closer are the strat players. I don't think much of them and I'm not interested in their style of play, so any reason they come up with doesn't count". I find your attitude to be akin to that of Marie Antoinette - "Let them eat cake", she said in response to the plight of starving French peasants in the 18th century.

lazs2 · « **Reply #151 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:11:46 PM »

beetlle.. I think he means that since you quoted it you must think it is correct ... since it is BS, or, more accurately, applies to nothing more than some head to head stuff... it is fair to say "your BS in pink"

by quoteing it yu are owning it.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #152 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:19:44 PM »

How can an observation be BS?

mars01 · « **Reply #153 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:28:51 PM »

Quote

I've read all your posts, and that is not MY BS in pink. Those are Wolfgang's remarks.

I am not going to search through all the old threads just to prove you wrong. It was stated in another thread on this topic that the comment from wolfgang which is your BS in pink was based on HtoH or something whatever and Festers map has proved that it is BS.

We have been through this time and time again. Furballs are few and far between because of the proximity of the bases.

Quote

I can't see why the fields should not be closer together so that I can find my furballs more quickly and easily. The only people who don't want the fields to be closer are the strat players. ".

Now I know your desperat since you are saying things that I said which I have not. It's not about finding furballs, they dont exist on maps like pizzacrap and others where the fields are poorly spaced.

Quote

I don't think much of them and I'm not interested in their style of play, so any reason they come up with doesn't count

More beetle BS, I do care that everyone gets to play their own way. It has been proven and stated with fester map that the bases closer together does not take away from any style of game play, but does allow furballs and early war planes to exist. And the only problem you have with it is it is harder to do some unskilled, undefended vbase captures.

It is you that has said in past post that you dont care about furballers and wether or not they exist.

mars01 · « **Reply #154 on:** January 27, 2004, 05:30:44 PM »

exactly laz

Shane · « **Reply #155 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:25:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
How can an observation be BS?

ob·ser·va·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bzr-vshn)
n.

1a. The act or faculty of observing.
1b. The fact of being observed.

2a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
2b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.

3. A comment or remark. See Synonyms at comment.

4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.

easily if one uses definition #3 or 4, which is what your usage indicates. what it suggests is that your interpretation and commentary upon what you've observed is faulty.

beet1e · « **Reply #156 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:36:31 PM »

It's getting late and I'm too tired to argue with you, Mars. I quoted an actual scenario that happened on the pizza map last week. That would have been most unlikely on Fester's old map because an LA7 would be only 2 minutes away.

Sure, you can physically carry bombs and capture fields when the fields are closely spaced, but changes in real estate ownership will only result from use of the steamroller. And that's no fun at all. Hell, when you're jaboing at one field, you're going to show up on the radar at the next field, so killing the radar at the field to be captured might not help.

The reason I "like" the pizza map is because stealth missions become a possibility, and are more difficult for the rapid response units to ruin. Seems like the reason you don't like it is because you get your jollies out of being a member of one such rapid response unit, and on pizza you can't do it. That, plus your ride of choice is wheezing at 15K.

beet1e · « **Reply #157 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:39:02 PM »

shane!

Quote

what it suggests is that your interpretation and commentary upon what you've observed is faulty.

It wasn't my observation. That came later on FesterMA. A conveyor belt of goons trying to get to the town, and a conveyor belt of LA7s trying to stop them.

Maybe you think wolfgang is a liar?

Shane · « **Reply #158 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:41:34 PM »

wlfgang's observation is faulty.

there's plenty of variety on festerma. he was just too lazy too look for it. much like you insist there *are* furballs on pizzugh and that lazs, et al are too lazy to find them.

Reaper5 · « **Reply #159 on:** January 27, 2004, 08:40:12 PM »

...cake?

mars01 · « **Reply #160 on:** January 27, 2004, 09:32:22 PM »

Quote

The reason I "like" the pizza map is because stealth missions become a possibility, and are more difficult for the rapid response units to ruin. Seems like the reason you don't like it is because you get your jollies out of being a member of one such rapid response unit, and on pizza you can't do it. That, plus your ride of choice is wheezing at 15K.

Well Beet and thats where the maps should be worked. Much like Fester did. The first version of his map had all the fields closely packed and it was awsome.

The second version of Fester he left the center of the map closely packed and spread the fields out from there. Thus he created a map where you would get you lollys and I would get mine. See on maps like pizza all the fields are spaced far apart. You get all your jollies and I wait for Festers map. Why can't some of the fields be moved closer, while other are not. Then once again I can get my jollies on pizza map as well and we would never have threads like this again.

And if you really cared and noticed things, you would have noticed my new favorite ride:p

And if the dam fields were closer I could fly other things.

beet1e · « **Reply #161 on:** January 28, 2004, 03:41:00 AM »

Mars, I see that cordiality is returning!

A few months ago, when the current vogue tactic of fuel porkage began to get out of hand, some people called for bombs to be perked, and some called for various targets to be hardened. And I became very indignant about these proposals. I have had to defend HQ at times, and I've also had to resupply it. I have no problem with unperked bombs and the fact that my fighter hangars were once destroyed by an organised wave of 110s. They deserved the results they procured, so to them. What I was against was said changes being made for no other reason than to accommodate the players who couldn't be arsed to defend those strat objects.

But then Toad and others observed that whereas it took only one unskilled lemming to pork the fuel to 25% (in two or three passes) it required seven man-sorties to resupply it to 125%. At the height of the debacle, I tried a fuel pork run myself. And it was ridiculously easy, and survivable if the acks were down. And it became clear that with so many tardz who fly a porkage run with no intention of surviving that we had a dilemma. Someone with no skill could ruin the fight. I myself enjoy capture missions, but also the air to air combat which arises from those attempts - and I don't mean vulching. Removing the enemy's option to fight back seemed like the act of a cad.

In the case of fuel porking, the effect that one tard could have in ruining the situation for everyone trying to defend that base and the ease with which it could be done was out of all proportion to the enemy's ability to defend it.

And that's pretty much how I feel about rapid response LA7 goon-kill patrols upping from a neighbouring field to intercept a goon. Planning a field capture without using the steamroller method, ie doing it the way the MAW or AKs would do it requires planning, coordination and timing. The town has to be taken down all at once, or else bits of it will be rebuilding as the troops come in. Now I would have no problem if an LA7 ups at the base being attacked. We can plan for that. But when there are several bases from which that LA7 can spawn, each of which is only a couple of minutes away, there's nothing we can do about it except cover the goon as best we can, which is going to give away its position.

Thus you can see that ONE unskilled LA7 goon hunting tard can ruin an operation which most likely involved five or more players. And THAT is why I don't like the fields too close together. Sure, up another goon - it won't be a long flight on a map like Fester's, but that scenario quickly develops into conveyor belt/steamroller.

The same problem exists for buff squads since the introduction of the Me163. It takes a buff squadron a long time to climb to 25K and make the long flight to enemy HQ. And it takes only one person to ruin it, with minimal effort.

Urchin · « **Reply #162 on:** January 28, 2004, 06:32:54 AM »

From my point of view Beetle, the "closer fields" allow people to STOP the steamroller, or at least fight back. What I see, personally, is that on ALL maps now the only way the "front" moves is when one side applies overwhelming numbers. On most of our maps that works great (actually, it works great on all of our maps). What typically happens is that you'll see 40 or 50 planes attacking an undefended base, while penny-packets of 3 or 4 move on to the next 2-3 bases to pork the fuel to keep a fight from developing.

If the bases were closer together (say 12 miles instead of the typical 25 to 50 miles), the defenders would have more options as far as defending the fields go. The attackers would have to pork the fuel at say 6 bases instead of 2 to ensure that nobody would be willing to fight back at their original "target". Would this lead to more "la7 conveyor belts"? Of course. But that isn't a function of the fields being closer together, it is a function of what planes people are willing to fly. It doesn't matter how close the fields are, you are never going to see a conveyor belt of Spit 1's or c202's.

lazs2 · « **Reply #163 on:** January 28, 2004, 08:00:30 AM »

yep.. it really is that simple urchin.

beelte... you really must try one tour in early/slow planes to see what is going on. try spit 5 hurri or Fm2 P40 zeke for instance for a tour.. try to get in some prime time playing.

lazs

SlapShot · « **Reply #164 on:** January 28, 2004, 09:58:31 AM »

Beet ... If I read you right ... the bottom line of your post is that closer fields makes it MUCH harder to actually capture fields without some real organization involved.

Isn't that the way it REALLY should be. Capturing fields/towns should require a concerted effort.

When I flew with the MAW, we could take (NOE) at the minimum - 1 goon, 2 110s, 1 Spit/F6f and capture a field before anyone could get wheels up and if they did, the Spit/F6F would fly intercept between the field and the town. The real trick was to have the goon leave way ahead of the pack and then circle just outside of the radar circle. Once the pack got icon range on the goon, everybody headed to target (WEP on). As the last building was being destroyed ... the goon was dropping troops.

This is/was an organized attack but still WAY too easy if you think about it ... field capture it should be harder regardless of field proximity or whatever.