Why AH sucks

[Gadfly]

The nods to gameplay that I mention versus the nods to gameplay that I don't, are somewhat optional, or at least optimal for our tech level.

Icons-Tech level, not much can be done here.
 
Laser Norden-I have done the math, and there is no better way to do it at this point.  

GPS map- VFR and DR is not possible with the current tech level.

Engine management-Why simulate the boring, repetitive, and annoying parts of flying, like random mechanical failures and bad weather?
 

[sax]

You da man Gadfly
When you get smart enough to build your own sim,///you know the rest.

[Gadfly]

My daddy always taught me not to critique the job anyone was doing unless I could do it better myself.  If this applies to certain aspects in the implementation of the game, as opposed to the actual coding, well, let's just say that I have no problem with the code as written by HTC, just what the code is designed to deliver.

[Gadfly]

Aw, hell, that last one didn't come out right.

HT and crew, you guys have built a truly astounding game.  The mission editor, ground stuff and Naval units, to say nothing of the PT boat, really raise the bar in online games.

With a few modifications, you can raise the bar in online simulations as well.  That is what I am saying, and it is not meant to be derogatory to HTC or the players.  

And I am not really a dick, but I play one on the internet.

[PapaFox]

Concerning auto gunners-
I agree there's a problem with the gunner situation in bombers, but the majority of AH players would revolt if otto was brought on board everyday bombers. The biggest problem I see is when a bomber is attacked from two different directions. When Hitech gets the time, he should enable multiple gunners in bufs. This would allow a defense against multiple-side attacks on a bomber.

[Yeager]

In-Flight Radar is a strategy concept here in AH.  It can be both on and off.  You simply have a quality deficit problem attibutable to being in old 2.7x Warbirds too long.

The clipboard map is toejamty?...next!

Gunning system sucks?  It does require some skill and strategy to defeat but compared to the otto joke in Warbirds its light years ahead of its time.

Simply put gad, you have been in the dark too long.  The brightness hurts, but if you stick with it you will benifit from the energy it provides you.

Sorry to sound like an bellybutton but you guys in Warbirds are in need of immediate CPR and calling the surgeon names seems a little bit ingracious considering the high improbability that WBs3 will be released in 2001 (it might come out this next year, but Im not holding my breath).

Yeager

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

[Gadfly]

Yo Yeager, I do not deny that it works for gameplay, hell no, it does.  All I am saying is that on the game to simulation scale, it pushes it to the game end of the spectrum.

[Pongo]

The air battle is condensed here to the point where it is hard to concieve of meaningful buffer messages.

It would be a meaningless stream of babble that the host would have to generate for all radar contacts for each person individualy. The absence of altitude and direction information from the radar and the extreme vulnerability of the radar sites and infastructure to destruction are excelent ballances against the availability of the radar clipboard in all planes.

Fighters received information from ground control all the way over the channel.  German controlers where courtmarshelled for stearing their charges into non favorable situations. I dont think you have a firm grasp as to the level of Ground countrol that was available in NW europe in late WW2.
Certainly that level decreased alot in many other parts of the world and in no case could a pilot glance at a read out and see the postions of planes around him and 200 miles away like he can in AH. But where it was in effect it was more useful in some ways then the in flight dar we have in the game.
Baring having people play the game as ground controlers what we have is pretty good.

[SKurj]

I'll bite....  but only on the radar issue..

I think sector markers need to be rethought now with 1.05
Finding a fleet now is easy, see the sector bar increase as planes takeoff, you know what sector the fleet is in, and from there its real easy to find.  (i just learned that u can find any fleet in the maproom...)  I think that sector markers should not be available if outside friendly territory or friendly influenced territory(friendly CV) dots... sure they should be as they are now for gameplay sake.

Remember we are talking the MA now, the DAR becomes a non issue for scenario's.  Perhaps once the player base has grown HTC can try some test arenas with no dar, and the illeet stuff, but I think we would see a small yet dedicated group in the no con environment, yet a big happy whiney furball in the MA..

AKskurj

[Graywolf]

 

Originally posted by PapaFox:
Concerning auto gunners-
I agree there's a problem with the gunner situation in bombers, but the majority of AH players would revolt if otto was brought on board everyday bombers.

That's because they're all fighter weenies   <- NOTE!

Personally I want auto gunners. One, two or even three people trying to crew a whole bomber is just silly, IMO  


I know we're very unlikely to see it here, and as a result we're also unlikely to see regular large scale bomber raid, again IMO  




------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

[Gadfly]

Pongo-there is no way that even exceleent ground control equals dots on the map and sector markers.  I like to think I have an inkling of the methods used, if not the actual procedures, and there is no way that inflight radar approximates the result.

[Jekyll]

 

All I am saying is that on the game to simulation scale, it pushes it to the game end of the spectrum.

Which is exactly where I understand HTC is intending to position Aces High - the game end of the spectrum.

And your problem with that is ........?

[Gadfly]

Good point.  If that is the direction of AH, then that is the end of the discussion, I guess.

[Downtown]

 

Originally posted by Gadfly:
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.

[/b]

I would prefer for this Radar to be less accurate at greater ranges and improve as the targets get closer to the Radars. Say three sectors away from a freindly radar you would get sector counters, within two you would get dot, not necessarily an accurate number or accurate placement on the map.
Within one there would be improved accuracy, probably accurate number and direction, and of course they would be dead accurate in the square that the radar was in.

 

2. toejamty clipboard map.

[/b]

I really don't understand your problem here, and how you could go as far as to say "S#!++'/" but I think it is pretty good.  I know that adding more details to the terrain would cause an FPS issue that HT wants to avoid.  As most everyone knows there are printable maps available for download if you so desire.

I wouldn't mind a heads up type mission clock and compass to try navigating with, although I believe a lot of folks would complain severely if they didn't have access to the current type of map while in flight.  Convince the masses that you have a better method and then suggest your better method to HTC.

 

3. Super bomber fire control system.

[/b]

Otto is too accurate, people can and do miss, Otto is a super robot whose code is at least 60 years advanced over the radar controlled gun that was mounted on the B-29 toward the end of WWII.

In AH the manual controlled aspect guns adds the element of human error, Otto completely dimmisses human error.  Otto is infaliable, human gunners even those capable of slewing multiple weapons on target are far more prefferable to me than infaliable computer programs.

If you suggest an Otto Code with built in failings, then you show us the formula now, and if we ALL agree that we like your otto code, then we can take the issue up with HT.  Until then I will take my gunners human.

It is pretty easy to criticize, and complain.  Great there are features to AH that you are not happy with, can you suggest some alternatives to these features that you dislike?  Better yet, can you suggest alternatives to these features that the vast majority (get that VAST MAJORITY Will like (I.E. More people will get AH Accounts because of the change in features than will quit over the change of features).

It will be an at least tepid day in Hotel Echo Double Toothpicks before you convince me that Otto is superior to Human Gunners.  I think there could be changes to the Clipboard map and radar, but I am only one of many, and my idea is different than what you would suggest.  Until an idea that the majority of people like comes along, I will remain quiet about the gameplay compromises.

------------------
"Looks Mean as Hell! Clare Lee Chenault.
 
When?
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.

[This message has been edited by Downtown (edited 12-30-2000).]

[Fury]

"Sucks" is a pretty substantial word for me.  I personally disagree with some things in AH (hence the phrase IMHO) but I will take a stab at the three you have posted.

1. Inflight radar.
IMHO I don't like inflight radar.  Unfortunately for me, I don't think that this will change anytime soon.  I must say that the time between patch 1 and patch 2, when HTC took down the dot radar (to stop a bug from happening before patch 2 came out) and left only sector bars, was fun.

2. * clipboard map.
I guess I don't know exactly what the grip about it is; do you mean that it is too detailed?  Anyways, just as an FYI, I have glarsmaps printed out and right next to me when flying.  I know the layout of each base, and where I need to drop my bombs.  I guess I don't know what the gripe is, so I can't really reply intelligently.

3. Super bomber fire control system.
I don't like otto.  I didn't like it in WB and I didn;t like it in FA.  I like mannable guns much better; as much human interaction as possible.  It sounds like your beef is with the linked fire, so only one gun shooting will link to any other gun pointing at the enemy.  Since we only have one human gunner on board, I like that, because it simulates multiple players firing on a target.  What I don't like about it is, you can never shoot at more than one enemy at a time.  However, I'd rather have multiple human gunners than have otto.  I don't think we'll be seeing either of those soon.  As far as field ack goes, it is AI because you probably would have a hard time getting players to man acks.  I believe AI ack is an evil we have to live with  -- for now.  HTC has now given us the opportunity to become a "Field Gunner", for now, only on ships, but I will bet that in future releases, this will extend to manning guns on a field.  At that point, we could probably have a discussion about whether AI field guns should remain AI or become all-human.  You'd still have to find the players to man them; I'll bet you could find some soon enough (I'd be willing to do it sometimes; I'm having a blast with the cv guns right now).

Fury