Author Topic: The last vestiges of Bradyness (Read 834 times)

storch · « **on:** May 22, 2004, 08:09:52 AM »

Hey soulyss, Please reduce the ack hardness to standard CT settings. the fleet ack is sufficient hardship as it is. you can't have a decent fight on this map due to all the ack.

CurtissP-6EHawk · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2004, 10:27:30 AM »

Storch, you mean lethality. "Hardness" is what it takes to kill the ack. Lethality is what it takes to kill you!

storch · « **Reply #2 on:** May 22, 2004, 10:41:18 AM »

Actually I mean hardness. I want to kill the barby buggers as well. It takes bombs to kill'm at the current setting. The lethality of the field ack is qiute low as it is now.

eddiek · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2004, 10:48:39 AM »

I'll check, but most if not all setups have ack lethality set to 0.7, which I believe is standard, just like the MA.
I will check the lethality settings and adjust them if they are off.
Just my own opinion alone, and not gonna say the rest of the CT Staff agree with me, but in setups with lots of fleets, like this, I'd rather turn the ack lethality DOWN to about 0.3 or 0.4 to make fights more survivable and reduce the tendency many folks have to run to the ack umbrella at the first sign of an enemy plane.
Of course, if HTC ever tried what I suggested three years ago, it would bring a whole new level of immersion to the game: Make the fleet acks commandable, i.e. the fleet commander would have the ability to turn the acks off, much like Brand W's auto gunner mode where you could set the auto gunners to SAFE and they would not fire. At the same time, the auto acks would not differentiate between friend and foe, and you would be in as much peril as your enemy if you got caught in the ack umbrella.....just like in RL.....how many stories have you read where the Germans threw up a wall of flak over a target city, and the LW pulled off and waited til the bomber boxes were clear of that before attacking again? And I read pilot accounts of where USN pilots were warned to stay away from the carrier as it was under attack and they might be fired on.
Chances of HT and Pyro implementing something like that are probably slim, if not nil, but IMHO it would add to the realism of the game.

Grits · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2004, 11:00:39 AM »

You know eddie, thats a great idea. It never occured to me how "gamey" ack only being able to hit the enemy actually was until you posted this. I recall reading about friendly fire accidents with ack too. Rather silly for anybody, friend or foe, to be flying around in a huge cloud of ack.

storch · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2004, 11:59:38 AM »

U da Man Eddiek

CurtissP-6EHawk · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2004, 12:12:28 PM »

Why is ack lethality the same for CT as MA? There are nore aircraft attacking fields in the MA than CT. NOt asking to up or lower it, just explain the justafication for the same setting as MA.
Also, remember that 1 Ki-67 can sink
a CV with one pass!!!!!!!!!

Slash27 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2004, 12:54:56 PM »

I never understood making the field ack harder to kill and the CV easier to kill when the Allies have to grab some land to get the rest of the plane set. ok Well I do get it, why dont we fix that now?

eddiek · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2004, 05:33:32 PM »

Slash27,

IIRC, the amount of bombs required to sink CV's was reduced in this setup to attempt to make players think twice about parking fleets offshore and plinking away at the nearby enemy base. Not that softening up a base prior to attempting to take it is unhistorical, but........it is frustrating/annoying/gamey to take off and be engaged by auto ack soon as you reach 3K alt and/or have someone get in a 5" gun and hammer away at the spawn points with AA shells, effectively taking the ack umbrella down to ground level.
The hope was that whoever was driving the fleets would realize that they were placing said ships in extreme peril when they came in close and stayed there. How effective it has been is a matter of each person's perspective.

CurtissP-6EHawk · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2004, 06:08:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eddiek
Slash27,

IIRC, the amount of bombs required to sink CV's was reduced in this setup to attempt to make players think twice about parking fleets offshore and plinking away at the nearby enemy base. Not that softening up a base prior to attempting to take it is unhistorical, but........it is frustrating/annoying/gamey to take off and be engaged by auto ack soon as you reach 3K alt and/or have someone get in a 5" gun and hammer away at the spawn points with AA shells, effectively taking the ack umbrella down to ground level.
The hope was that whoever was driving the fleets would realize that they were placing said ships in extreme peril when they came in close and stayed there. How effective it has been is a matter of each person's perspective.

The whole point is to bring in the CVs close enough to begin "softning" the base in order to attack it with PT boats and LVTs. Thats the whole point of this "Theme". Operation Iceberg!
We cant get the fleets in close enough to be able to spawn the water vehicles for an attack without the damn things getting blown up. Look at the historical map:

IN AH the fleets are usually in the indicated black box due to them getting sunk and reset so much. Still as you can see they in an historic distance from the land. As far as beach stuff, go read my other post about the IJ not defending the beaches. So I say again, is this Operation Icebeg or not? Operation Iceberg
We loose our ships before we can even get that close. The CVs dont need to get as close but if its the only fleet there to get water veh then so be it. You CMs are 100% wrong on this one. Thtas my story and I am sticking to it!

Dennis · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2004, 06:19:24 PM »

"The whole point is to bring in the CVs close enough to begin "softning" the base in order to attack it with PT boats and LVTs. Thats the whole point of this "Theme". Operation Iceberg!
We cant get the fleets in close enough to be able to spawn the water vehicles for an attack without the damn things getting blown up."

I'll admit, I haven't checked myself; just asking:
This map provides the allies with no cruiser/destroyer-only fleets -- the ones without flattops?
I was under the impression that the idea is to bring your invasion fleet(s) in for the amphibious landings; the CVs should stand off out of shore battery range and launch air cover. No?

Splash1

Grits · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2004, 06:54:42 PM »

Yes that is correct Splas1, and yes the Allies do have CA fleets, but that is conveniently overlooked by those with an agenda to push. From the weeks setup post:
---------------------------------------------------
Their are two types of Allied CV task forces, one with 4 CV's and one with one CV. The 4 CV groups have two CA in them along with their CV's and the Single CV groupe is just like a MA fleat. Their are also 4 CA TF's like we had on the slot map. For this set up will will be using, 2 single CV group's, one Four CV groupe and one 4 CA groupe. The Japanese will have one Single CA groupe.
----------------------------------------------------
Seems clear enough to me.

storch · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2004, 07:03:43 PM »

I just took off from V15 enroute to A12 approaching 3000 ft I was engageed and knocked out by ack IN THE MIDDLE OF ACKINAWA. Gamey, gamey? where I come from we have another name for stuff like that. The brown water admirals really need to keep the fleets at least 1 sector away. There isn't a lot of fun to this kind of play guys. I hate getting in shore batteries but I guess it became a must. could we have two more CA or BB fleets please?

CurtissP-6EHawk · « **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2004, 09:23:12 PM »

Sure, keep the Flat tops at a distance but still, fleets get sunk quick. You guys are still missing the point.

Remove the theme "Operation Iceberg" and I will shut up!

Now, your field acks are just as bad as the fleet ack. Forget the little island bases, I am talking Okinawa Island ack. 15k boom, engine dead. Besides I have seen numerous Ki-67s flew through fleet ack, drop bombs, sink ship before dieing.

Didnt say I cant get kills...thats not my point!

Dennis · « **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2004, 11:02:03 PM »

If it's just the name you're bent out of shape about, I agree.

Such is the folly of naming weekly scenerios after actual campaigns/battles.

I've said it before. Each week's setup could just as easily highlight a couple or three historic plane matchups on a theater-appropriate map without calling it "Operation Iceberg" or "Guadalcanal 1942" or even "Sicily" or "BoB". Setting a specific place and time to "recreate" just opens the door to the "why isn't this plane here?" whines. I thought we had the SEA and such for that type of battle-specific setup.

Just keep it WWII-related with historic fighter adversaries, and I'm happy. Throw in some appropriate buffs and gvs for that crowd to round it out, and viola!

The problem with the 'hardness' fix on Okinawa boils down to the inherent "gaminess" of this "game." Either the fleets are used principally as refuges for ackrunners, or there's always some tard who gets his jollies playing Kamikaze Admiral. So the staff try to discourage that .. but the cure ends up as bad as the disease.

This map has never been played to its potential. U.S. should be able to take some gv bases then launch an all-out ground assault along the well-designed spawnpoints backed up by close air support. But it won't happen without the kind of controls you get, say, in a special event -- and maybe not even then.

Splash1

Author Topic: The last vestiges of Bradyness (Read 834 times)

storch

storch

storch

storch