Salute to all
Yes, I am one of those 2 week wonders, an ultra Dweeb. My kill ratio is below 1 :2 and I usually get my butt kicked when I go up against any of the decent flyers here. I`m still learning the flight model and although I don`t doubt I`d be pretty good if I spent another month or two here, right now I suck. I have been flying Flight Sims for about 4 years now, and I`m pretty good in some of the ones in the market. (In Red Baron and EAW I am in the Ace category) In any case, dweeb or not, I`m going to give you my critique of ACES HIGH, the Sim and the players.
Good Points :
1) The Server here is great. Compared with other online experiences I have had, this one is very stable and capable of handling 100+ flyers with no serious problems. The only system I have seen (And I haven`t flown Warbirds, so can`t comment on it) which comes close is RED BARON, but it tops out at around 50 flyers per server. Any more than that and disconnects start to become too frequent.
2) The aircraft seem to be modeled generally very accurately as far as their flight parameters are concerned. I have done quite a bit of serious research of WWII aircraft performance, (mostly Western European theater) and the figures here seem to be very close. I like the ability of the sim to model the difference in initial turn rate, high speed turn rate and various speed bleed factors. For example, the P-51D here is the best I`ve seen, accurately portraying the strengths and weaknesses of the real aircraft. There are some possible glitches. The Corsair and N1K2 seem a little too good at retaining energy, but on the other hand, the Corsair did have a innovative spot welded skin which reduced drag and the gull wing made possible a right angle join to the frame, removing the need for the additional wetted area of a wing to frame fairing, and the Violet Lightning was powered by one big bellybutton radial. (By the way, I didn`t fly either when I was online so you can`t accuse me of being a Nik Dweeb or C-Hog Dweeb) However, the Corsair should be a real pain to land on a carrier. Read Eric Brown`s `Wings of the Navy` for a description of how the aircraft flew. (Brown was a British Naval test pilot who flew all the British WWII fighters as well as lend lease aircraft used by the British)
3) The Graphics are very nice. Too bad most of the time you don`t get close enough to see your opponent`s pretty plane before you blow it to hell.
Bad Points :
1) The atmosphere on the server is not encouraging to newer players, or good sportsmanship in general. In the other Sims I fly, saluting your opponent is common, and compliments on the opponent`s flying skills are normal. In RED BARON, everyone uses `S!` or `Salute!` after a kill. In EAW, the usual term is `GG` for `Good going` or `Good Game`. I only rarely read salutes or compliments on the AH server. More often the comments were negative. Taunting, comments of `Dweeb!` etc. are common. If you want to build a community, you need a sense of respect where newcomers can feel at home. Otherwise, you end up driving people away before they can get a feel for the Sim. Maybe the experts don`t want the Sim to become too popular, but without new blood, any Sim will die.
2) Bomber Guns : Perhaps to give the bomber Jocks a better chance, the guns in the Bomber aircraft in the AH are incredibly accurate. This is completely contrary to historical reality. Single unescorted bombers were easy meat for a decently flown fighter. Even in 60 aircraft boxes with all the supporting fire from nearby aircraft, B17`s were knocked out of the sky in large numbers over Europe. The prime lesson of WWII was that unescorted Bombers could not survive against determined Fighter interceptors. This lesson was proven completely in Korea, where escorted B-29s were devastated by attacking Migs. Hitting a incoming fighter was extremely difficult for a bomber gunner. He had to deal with the additional factors that his own firing platform was moving in a separate direction from his own orientation to target. As well, his guns were movable and swivel. This produces additional drift factors as well as those of the target aircraft movement which must be taken into account before the target can be hit. On the other hand, a Fighter aircraft`s guns are moving at exactly the same speed and in the same direction as the aircraft. When flying straight, no calculation for own aircraft movement must be made for a Fighter pilot aiming his guns.
3) Level bombing Accuracy : In AH, the level bombers such as the B17, Lancaster and B-26 are incredibly accurate, able to hit positional AA from 10,000 ft and Carriers at sea from 20,000 ft. This is again runs completely contrary to the historical reality. The US used B17`s in the early stages of the Pacific campaign in level bombing attacks against enemy Shipping and found the results were extremely poor. They gave up on level bombing completely with B17`s, and went to skip bombing with B-26`s and other medium bombers. In Europe, event the fabled Norden Bombsight was not able to provide the same accuracy that its designers had intended. B17 formations normally were not able to hit exactly on target and usually relied on volumn of bombs dropped to accomplish their goals. The Lancaster was even more inaccurate. To see the current situation, where a heavy bomber drones back and forth over a airdrome hitting gunsites and hangers with pinpoint accuracy is patently ridiculous. This is also not a task which heavy bombers were used for in any regular fashion. With the exception of pre-D-Day attacks on German fighter fields by carpet bombing B-17`s and Lancasters, the heavies were not used to attack Airfields. More likely mediums were used, or most often Fighter-bombers.
4) Bomber durability : The heavy bombers, especially the B17 seem too fragile. If you can sneak up on a bomber, and avoid getting annaihalated by the 30mm gatling guns in the turrets, it only takes one good burst to knock a wing off. The wing spars on the B17 were very tough. Unless it was a 30mm shell, the effect historically was not as dramatic as seen in the Sim.
5) Overall Air to Air weapon accuracy : Most pilots in WWII could not hit a target unless they were directly behind it at 300 yrds or less. The bullet dispersion was such that it was generally impossibly to hit a target which was evading in a high `G` maneuver. In AH, the `Spray and Pray` method seems to provide good dividends, with more planes being knocked down this way than historically.
6) Ground Campaign : The way the ground war is modeled is quite simplistic and not even close to being a real representation. Everything is structured around the airfield and airfield capture. I guess this concept was okay when there were no ground units and C-47`s were the only means to take territory, but now it needs an overhaul. There are no front lines and no typical line of battle. Most of the time their are a series of raids conducted on a field by rogue bands of tanks. The defenders normally don`t bother to generate vehicles until the enemy vehicles are within bombardment range of a field.
7) I haven`t had much chance to see how the Naval aspects are working out, but if the posts on the message board are any indication, all kinds of ahistorical situations are occurring. PT Boats were not typical in accompanying a fleet at sea, neither were they generated by a fleet. As mentioned above, there is no way level bombers should be able to hit ships underway. The ships should also be zig zagging rapidly when under attack. In fact a fleet underway would also normally run a more leisurely zig zag course to avoid being too predictable for U-Boats. If you are going to allow for ships to exchange fire, then armour piercing ammunition should be available. And a destroyer escort hit by an 8 inch shell, HE or not, would not be around too long. Neither would a carrier. The small size fleets which are represented in the game would actually be easy meat for any attack by determined dive bombers or torpedo bombers. The British Battleships `Prince of Wales` and `Repulse` were sunk in 20 minutes by less than 50 attacking aircraft. Someone else in another post mentioned the attack on the `Yamato` in its last suicide run at Okinawa. In that case much the same thing happened. The biggest, most heavily armoured and armed battleship in the world, plus 10 supporting ships were sunk in a very short time period with relatively minor losses to the attacking aircraft. Without air cover, Naval vessels were extremely vulnerable. The AAA fire from vessels like the PT boat were extremely inaccurate due to the instability of the vessel and the considerable roll generated by even normal seas. For them to be used as they are now, as deadly accurate picket AAA posts is garbage.
Suggested Changes :
1) Bombers : Reduce Bomber gun effectiveness and Level bombing accuracy, (although perhaps not to the historical levels, to expect a side to generate massive fleets of bombers is not realistic) while at the same time increase their durability. This will force them into the role they historically had, that of attacking strategic targets. At the same time, provide more Strategic targets or make the existing ones more important to the functioning of a side`s forces. If destroying the Oil supply for a side can completely cut off fuel, then we`d see combat similar to that which occurred historically with escorted groups of B17`s at high altitude attacking targets in the rear areas of the enemy, and interceptors going after them. Aircraft such as the 190 A8 would become more important. At the same time, the targets can`t be too easy to take down. They should require multiple raids to eliminate.
2) Air to air accuracy : Reduce air to air acccuracy. This will mean aircraft will get up close and personal, providing much more excitement and interest. You`ll actually see more than a dot when you maneuver and the `photon torpedos` would be less likely to take you down at 1.2 distance.
3) Create a `FRONT LINE` : Generate AI strongpoints which would stand on strategic blocking points between opposing airfields and which would have to be taken down by tanks and aircraft before advances could be made. I would suggest these be emplaced on higher ground, and able to command the surrounding area. I would suggest a combination of AI light weapons similar to the airfield defences, backed up by an emplaced battery of field guns (4 pieces) which would lay down supporting fire and direct fire against tanks or other vehicles. The Battery could also range out to bombard hostile vehicles attempting to bypass the strongpoint. Players could reinforce these strongpoints with player controlled vehicles which could be generated at the strongpoint.
4) Create landing craft : With the current new map, replicating a kind of ` Island War` scenario, you need Landing Craft to transport Tanks etc. to an island to capture it. Otherwise, how else do they get there? Teleportation?
5) Add more land vehicles : There should be Artillery and Anti-tank tank guns capable of being towed and deployed by the M3. Plus it would be nice to see a 76mm Sherman and a German halftrack so historical scenarios could be put together.
So there is my two bits. Hope this provokes some comments and perhaps discussion leading to change. For myself, I won`t be subscribing until some changes have been made.
