Author Topic: Why AH sucks (Read 3880 times)

Gadfly · « **Reply #90 on:** January 04, 2001, 06:26:00 PM »

"lizzie. a little more honesty would have helped your cause. You are the one who diverted from the three original, seemingly inocent, points and got to your real agenda. I really don't get your point tho... Are you saying that unless the game is axis vs allied and the fights involve only planes that historically met each other in actuall air to air combat" - Laz

Sorry Laz, re-read the posts. You brought this stuff up, not me, and all I said was that I like it, not that I recommend it for AH(or WB for that matter, you and Westy are grouping me with persons of your choosing, not ones that I would consider congruent).

If you guys want to converse on the topic, I would love to, but if you want to compare games, berate or malign people, then let's just not.

Westy · « **Reply #91 on:** January 04, 2001, 06:35:00 PM »

I look up at the title of your topic, then further down below and I simply group you in with those I think you fit in best with.

-Westy

PakRat · « **Reply #92 on:** January 04, 2001, 06:57:00 PM »

WHY GADFLY SUCKS....

Jeeze - more girly panties-in-a-bunch whining.

Gadfly - great title. Just how much trouble were you trying to stir up with it? Or, more accurately, how much attention were you trying to get for yourself and your ill-considered opinions?

1) Absolutely wrong. There was in-flight radar in WWII. Not anything that looked like the kneeboard map, but there was in-flight radar and there were ground observers and information from ground-based radar such that accurate position (and altitude) information could be relayed to the pilots. We don't get altitude information now.

2) Girly whining. Can't you guys give this some time to mature (or yourselves)?

3) See (2) above.

Damn. Panties in a bunch or wet diapers... Undecided.

------------------
Rape, pillage, then burn...

Torque · « **Reply #93 on:** January 04, 2001, 07:09:00 PM »

NHMadmax · « **Reply #94 on:** January 05, 2001, 01:41:00 AM »

I am with torque

lazs · « **Reply #95 on:** January 05, 2001, 08:45:00 AM »

Ok, sticking with your original points and ignoring your agenda. The in flight radar simulates radar vectoring and does the best it can considering the amount of traffic in the arena... the lack of "radar operaters" and radio info... With the real radar and observation posts you also go altitude to some extent too tho. The in flight radar is a comprimise to make the team effort of war fit with the individual effort of a game. If you doubt this is a good thing then make everyone fly in "squadrons", on led missions, consisting of finger fours or, court martial em.... Then kick en out of the game... see how that goes over. It would be the only way to "simulate" WWII combat to any degree.

The bombers guns... Well... don't really care about bombers anyhow but.. If I do ever feel like shooting up a bomber I feel better knowing that the guy flying it and shooting at me is a human player. Otto in WB was as bad an idea as anyone has ever come up with. AH bombers are bad... They are a comprimise in total as are bombers in any sim so far. My opinion is that bombers can't work in an online sim with the resources available. AH does the best job right now.
lazs

Gadfly · « **Reply #96 on:** January 05, 2001, 05:08:00 PM »

A scratchy, intermittent voice telling you where fighters may be does not equal AWACS radar.

Surprisingly enough, my objection to B29 fire control is it's effectiveness over otto type systems.

Gadfly · « **Reply #97 on:** January 05, 2001, 05:30:00 PM »

Here is a picture of a shipborne radar unit of the era. Mind you, this is a much better unit than was available in the air, or even to most regular radar stations.

Can you look at that display and honestly compare it to the clipboard map? Even with ground stations for reports and a navigator to plot it for you?

"well", you say, "Now you are are spouting Realism!"

And I am, but it is realism of the hardware, kind of like demanding realism of the rear view or the sustained turn rate, NOT how or what you fly.

http://lizking.com/sg1radar.jpg

Pongo · « **Reply #98 on:** January 05, 2001, 11:59:00 PM »

Gadfly
As a guy that listend to the beeping and wirring of a ground servailance doppler radar, let me tell you that a good operator could get lots of information from that readout. Especialy if he had controlers telling him wich ones were enemy. Not to say they had what we have in AH. But that picture wont show you how much strat SA that the operator developed watching that thing for 4 hours.

Gadfly · « **Reply #99 on:** January 06, 2001, 09:02:00 AM »

Pongo-A good operator can pull unbelivable amounts of info from that mess we see. That was not my point though. What they saw is not what we see, is my point, nor was that the equipment mounted in the few aircraft that had any radar.

lazs · « **Reply #100 on:** January 06, 2001, 09:54:00 AM »

this is getting idiotic... We are not radar operators any more than we are fighter pilots. Good radar/radio operators could vector you to a con or group of cons better than the map does (they would give alt.). good armorors would make sure your guns didn't jam and good crew chiefs made sure your plane ran good and even kicked up the boost a taste (simple adjustment) on your manly Pratt...

Let's just say I got lucky and had good people on my side.
lazs

Gadfly · « **Reply #101 on:** January 06, 2001, 11:20:00 AM »

Laz-I defintly buy into the perfect armorers, weather, etc. Our only difference of opinion is what is represented by the clipboard map. Sure a good ground controller under perfect conditions could vector you into an enemy. Could he do it for ALL the enemy at once?

This is why the Clipboard map sucks. It gives every pilot perfect knowledge of what every other pilot is doing. There is no chance of so many aspects of air combat that can not be utilized when all pilots have perfect knowledge.

Maybe a cool idea would be that from the tower you could "lock onto" one target and have HIM in your inflight radar. That would work and be an asset to us all.

Torque · « **Reply #102 on:** January 06, 2001, 12:42:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gadfly:
Laz-I defintly buy into the perfect armorers, weather, etc. Our only difference of opinion is what is represented by the clipboard map. Sure a good ground controller under perfect conditions could vector you into an enemy. Could he do it for ALL the enemy at once?

No he could not but the other 75 guys behind him could.

[This message has been edited by Torque (edited 01-06-2001).]

Gadfly · « **Reply #103 on:** January 06, 2001, 01:21:00 PM »

Let me rephrase it, then Torque. Could YOU maintain in your head where all of the Enema's where?

lazs · « **Reply #104 on:** January 07, 2001, 10:56:00 AM »

lizzie... again, apples and oranges. MA and RL... In a "real" combat the planes would be bunched up in groups and you would get that info or... One or two planes would be trying to sneak in for photos or whatever and you would get that info. In the MA, they are scattered all over a relatively small area and flying in semi lone wolf or Ahistorical manners. Bombers are the worst offenders of "realism" with their lone wolf unescorted suicide runs.

You can't, and shouldn't, "fix" the way people fly in the MA to match real life missions and distances so... The current radar is a pretty good comprimise for what we have.

Look at it this way... If you flew realistically in a large group, you would be spotted by the radar/observation guys and intercepted. Once in the fight, everyone would be on visual with little (no)chance of a lone wolf or 6 hitting the furball from their lone wolf patrol over enemy territory.
lazs

Author Topic: Why AH sucks (Read 3880 times)

PakRat

lazs

lazs

lazs