Author Topic: Why AH sucks (Read 3915 times)

Gadfly · « **on:** December 29, 2000, 07:08:00 PM »

First let me say that it doesn't HAVE to suck, there are many very good things about it, some of them revolutionary. I also post this not because I do not like AH, but because I DO like it, and want to be able have fun in the skies of HTC. You can argue with the importance of my points, but you can not argue with my logic.

What makes AH suck:

1. Inflight radar.

2. toejamty clipboard map.

3. Super bomber fire control system.

There are other things I do not like, but they are personal preferences, whereas these are things that make this a game, not a simulation.

Here is my argument for the things above:

1. The best rebuttal of this that I have heard is that it simulates the rudimentary radar, sound and observer stations of the period. I say that the perfect transmittal medium of the radio buffer simulates those things; inflight radar has no basis in real life before AWACs took flight.

2. In bombers, there is a person that does exactly what the (WB) F1 maps does. In fighters there are railroads, roads and identifiable features that allow a pilot to, more or less, pinpoint his position. The strip map he carries on his knee bears no resemblance to our clipboard map.

3. The idea is that we SIMULATE WWII air combat. The theory that AH's B-29 fire control simulates this better than a computer controlled otto is simply silly. I know, I know, airborne AI killing you sucks, but, well, how come it is OK for the field acks? Same damn thing, if you ask me, and not on point in either case. We accept many things in the name of immersion and this is one of those things that we simply have to accept: An AI otto simulates discrete gunners better than one guy aiming all of the weapons(at least till we get the B-29).

In closing, please DO consider this a whine, but not a slam. I want to fly in AH, as well as drive the PT boat, but I also demand a little more simulation than it offers right now.

Lizking

funked · « **Reply #1 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:19:00 PM »

I agree 100% with number 1.

#2 is a non-issue for me.

#3 I couldn't disagree more. Otto sucks. Period.

54Ed · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:23:00 PM »

Geez Dude, your title announces that AH sucks, and then this is the best evidence you can come up with?

Gadfly · « **Reply #3 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:24:00 PM »

But why does it suck, Funked? Because it kills you? But one butthead controlling 8-12 guns doesn't? I don't get it, sorry.

As for 2, you are not a bomber at heart, if not by trade is all I can say.

Gadfly · « **Reply #4 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:26:00 PM »

The title is what is known in marketing as a "hook". If I thought AH sucked, would I waste my time posting about it?

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #5 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:33:00 PM »

hmmm... you say it was a hook.. yet you restate it in your first sentance of the post.

Sorry gadfly.. still lame.

Gadfly · « **Reply #6 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:39:00 PM »

Well, Deja, I must have missed your rebuttal. Take it as a given that I am a dick, and refute what I claim.

funked · « **Reply #7 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:41:00 PM »

#1 is a huge issue. SA in AH involves reading the in-flight radar to find local numerical advantages. That's got absolutely nothing to do with WW2 air combat.

Inflight radar should be disabled. The sector bars are quite sufficient to "find the fight".

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-29-2000).]

ra · « **Reply #8 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:49:00 PM »

<<But one butthead controlling 8-12 guns ....>>

The gunner can only hit you with the guns which have you in their field of fire. This system is a compromise between otto firing all the guns and a player firing them. Having multiple gunners on one plane strains the host for very little in return, so you get 1 gunner and he shoots every gun that can train itself on you. Not a bad arrangement.

What's wrong with the map exactly? All necessary info is displayed. If it is too easy for navigation don't use it. You can download paper maps from various websites and navigate with those.

ra

Gadfly · « **Reply #9 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:53:00 PM »

Well, all the guns that MAY fire at you is different from all the guns WILL fire at you. This type of fire control simply does not accuratly simulate a bunch of kids firing guns at you. With otto, you can make it where it simulates this very well.

The map is not detailed enough, nor is it zoomable to any degree of accuracy, nor can you save the zoom; it always goes back to normal clipboard.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #10 on:** December 29, 2000, 07:58:00 PM »

Why didn't I offer a rebutle? Hmmmm...

1. Inflight radar... good point.. just don't try to take realism and apply it to the MA. I wonder what percentage of air battles occurred right over enemy fields in real life.

Argue either way... neither will be realistic.

2. Wow.. hard to argue with "lovely clipboard map". How about "lovely presentation of an arguement".

3. You propose the introduction of auto and want to be taken seriously?

Your oppinions on why AH sucks are simply that. Opinions on things wich have been discussed in depth. Both sides of the argument have been presented many times.

Given that, HTC has decided to leave things the way they are. I guess they don't feel that there is enough "lovely feature" complaints to render the game as one that officially "sucks" enough to have them taken out just yet.

There.. happy now?

And yes, you are a dick.

AKDejaVu

Gadfly · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2000, 08:09:00 PM »

1. Again, we are either simulating WWII air combat or playing a game. I do not argue "realism" in either tactics or numbers, but I do request realism in major aspects of the implementaion. There is simply no basis for having an inflight radar. None.

2. toejamty presentation deserves toejamty comment. Sorry, bud, but if you think that the clipboard map is a simulation of ANY type map available in WWII, both on the ground or in the air, you are just mistaken.

3. Artificial Intelligence, is just that, an attempt to simulate human intelligence. To say that it is out of hand bad when carried on an aircraft, all the while accepting the same thing based on the ground is illogical. To say that a fire control system on planes that did not have them is desirable is to to say that you want IR missile on the Wurger. Where is the logic?

And, yes, I am a dick, so what, it has no impact on my arguments.

Pongo · « **Reply #12 on:** December 29, 2000, 08:21:00 PM »

I dont aggree with any of those.
In WW2 formatations of planes were ground controled to be in position in the sun and above enemy formations. What we have is no where near that good from a stratigic info point of view. From a tacitcal SA point of view it gives considerable advantage to a person that can fight and check it at near same time. With no eyesight advantage to anyone that is not a bad compromise.

The clipboard shows the air battle developing. It could be enhanced to show ground strat targets and topographical features. This is better served by a printed map I think. Complaining about it seems contrary to your first point.

The excellent coordination of the bomber defensive guns is a game play issue. It works real well in the game. I trust Pyro on this one.

The real reason AH sucks is cause it wrecks you for other sims. In particular boxed sims.

popeye · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2000, 08:28:00 PM »

1. Inflight radar is a tough issue. It is certainly a nod to game play over simulation. However, it does serve a purpose by making it easier to find a fight, AND providing a very valuable Strat target. It's amazing how infrequently field ack is destroyed in an attack. I guess I'd rather have the inflight radar than go chasing frieldly dots.

2. Again, I think the "you are here" map is a nod to game play. Would be fun to try flying without the GPSS bit.

3. What we have now makes a buff/fighter 1v1 a reasonable fight. Seems like a pretty good balance, since we're not gonna have 300 buffs up against 50 fighters any time soon.

Gadfly · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2000, 08:31:00 PM »

Now see there? Pongo has come good points and puts them in good form.

Pongo: When the bombers were forming over England they had some help from the ground, but it did not help them much. The LW had excellent ground controllers, but is this not simulated better by the radio buffer? The LW did not LCD panels showing these things, they had a scratchy voice on intermittant radio signal giving them general info.

The airbattle developing was not something the Allies had at the level of aircrew. The Axis did not, I'm sure, discuss the airbattle with pilots; they said. "Bogies near Amiens, all units attack:. This does not translate to a map showing those planes, as well as all others in the ETO.

I agree that the gunnery system is a gameplay issue, I just do not agree that it is the proper one.