Author Topic: I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg  (Read 1400 times)

Offline GreenCloud

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1365
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« on: August 16, 2004, 01:40:21 AM »
ok..140 ppl on last night..i cnat defend HQ  in me163 ...sukssssssazzz....


one of my favorite attk vehicles


maybe turn the "balancer"  off when under 200-150 ppl??

Offline Stone

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2004, 02:03:33 AM »
The 163 is special, it should allways be available IMO.

If a country has numbers, they are most welcome to up 50 163, fly 3 sectors to the outnumbered country and crash without fuel in the ground :rofl

It is only a HQ defender ! Put ENY to high and remove the perks.

And while your at it, remove the HQ killing, cos I hate flying blind  :rofl

Offline JB35

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 548
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2004, 02:37:26 AM »
seems like Rook HQ for the most part of this evening was dead and we couldnt defend it due to the ENY value being restricted at that time .

 Get rid of HQ all together and make it to where the enemy has to kill Dar at certain fields to advance undetected.

We did that in SEA BoB and was very successful in our attacks on the RAF.

 or Make the Radar factories on each area a strategic target for a certain zone , that radar factory goes down then you have no dar for that area.

 Or make the ME163 available , as it is now with the ME163 landing that puppy without breaking off your rudder is nearly impossible not to mention that once down on the RR it will not taxi

These are just suggestions , if it happens it happen , if not then we will all have to live with it .


<>

Offline Cooley

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2004, 03:18:30 AM »
^ Good Ideas
Cooleyof 367th

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2004, 03:49:05 AM »
Or just remove the 163 from any restrictions.

We had numerous raids to our HQ Sunday, 1 got through, rest intercepted by 109G10's.
Hint hint.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2004, 03:53:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
We had numerous raids to our HQ Sunday, 1 got through, rest intercepted by 109G10's. Hint hint.
But oh! That would not be EASY enough! ;)

Offline flyingaround

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2004, 04:06:25 AM »
I agree that the 163 should not be disabled to to #'s.  It is a unique plane, that is only used for HQ raids.
WMLute

III/JG26 9th ST WidowMakers

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2004, 04:08:59 AM »
This has nothing to do with the Side-balancer mechanism. The real problem is the bugged situation concerning the HQ, and the lame-prettythang deck-bombing.

 More people means more pilots that can pull away from the frontlines and devote themselves to resupply flights, or devote themselves into defensive interception. If the pilots don't care enough to do what is really needed, then the blame is on themselves and none else.

However, the reason why this "illusion" concerning HQ raids is created, is because the inherent bugs in the system fool the people into believing that the 163 is needed, and its limitation will deprive the people the ability to defend the HQ - which, is simply untrue, or at least only partially true.

 ...

 What really needs to be fixed is the bug.

 A fully destroyed HQ, is what should be very hard to resupply. Maybe people can cut down the downtime to half with resupplying, but it still should stay down.

 A half destroyed/partially damaged HQ should be much easier to resupply and fully recover, in a short period time.

 If this bug is fixed,  being unavailable to use the 163 doesn't mean anything, as the HQ, if it is damaged, can be resupplied quickly.

 However, while killing an HQ completely is not an easy task - in effectivity, partially killing the HQ is in fact much more preferred.

 A lone bomber formation running on deck into deep penetration can hurt the dar and inflict far longer lasting damage to the defense, than a properly planned large-scale HQ raid.

 This leads to a strange irony that people actually wish that the enemy completely knocks out the HQ, rather than just damage it.

 So what happens is, with this bug in place, a few people can penetrate defenses and damage the HQ, making it impossible for the defense to repair it for hours. A large-scale raid to the HQ, or a properly planned high-alt approach, which can kill it completely, is usually detected early in its phases and can be intercepted by the defenses organizing proper interception.

In short, the 163 is not the only option. However, the only reason it seems like it because it is the only plane that is fast enough to intercept a stealthy, small-scale enemy HQ run, which is very hard to detect,  that usually only damages the HQ lightly, which despite that fact hurts the defending country even more than the HQ being completely destroyed.

 
 Therefore, in this new regime of side-balancing mechanism in place, we should not ask the 163 to be exempt from the rule, but we should rather ask that:


1) the HQ resupply system works properly and logically

* which, a damaged HQ can be fully repaired in a short time

* and a fully destroyed HQ, is what should be unrepairable for some length of time

2) the HQ be equipped with a long-range radar system that has further detection range than normal field-object radar.

* the radar has a detection radius of approximately 8~9 miles, a diameter of 16~17 miles. If an enemy buff approaches at 20k+ altitude it takes about 6~7 minutes for average late war machines to reach the bare minimum in optimum interception altitudes - which, makes it far too late for fighters to intercept it  when they see a dot that is clearly heading to the HQ.

3) deck-running, suicidal, ordnance spraying buffs are brought to a halt, according to the terms and conditions suggested in this thread.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2004, 04:17:39 AM by Kweassa »

Offline Overlag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2004, 07:36:32 AM »
up a 109g10 ffs :rolleyes:
Adam Webb - 71st (Eagle) Squadron RAF Wing B
This post has a Krusty rating of 37

Offline Hyrax81st

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2004, 08:45:10 AM »
The 163 is preferred because it gets to alt faster, and it gets in and out on an attack faster.

It already has a limited ammo load, limited range and costs 40-50 perks for the privilege of crashing one. Does it really need to be even more unavailable ?

Offline Mugzeee

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1650
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2004, 09:44:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
This has nothing to do with the Side-balancer mechanism. The real problem is the bugged situation concerning the HQ, and the lame-prettythang deck-bombing.

 More people means more pilots that can pull away from the frontlines and devote themselves to resupply flights, or devote themselves into defensive interception. If the pilots don't care enough to do what is really needed, then the blame is on themselves and none else.

However, the reason why this "illusion" concerning HQ raids is created, is because the inherent bugs in the system fool the people into believing that the 163 is needed, and its limitation will deprive the people the ability to defend the HQ - which, is simply untrue, or at least only partially true.

 ...

 What really needs to be fixed is the bug.

 A fully destroyed HQ, is what should be very hard to resupply. Maybe people can cut down the downtime to half with resupplying, but it still should stay down.

 A half destroyed/partially damaged HQ should be much easier to resupply and fully recover, in a short period time.

 If this bug is fixed,  being unavailable to use the 163 doesn't mean anything, as the HQ, if it is damaged, can be resupplied quickly.

 However, while killing an HQ completely is not an easy task - in effectivity, partially killing the HQ is in fact much more preferred.

 A lone bomber formation running on deck into deep penetration can hurt the dar and inflict far longer lasting damage to the defense, than a properly planned large-scale HQ raid.

 This leads to a strange irony that people actually wish that the enemy completely knocks out the HQ, rather than just damage it.

 So what happens is, with this bug in place, a few people can penetrate defenses and damage the HQ, making it impossible for the defense to repair it for hours. A large-scale raid to the HQ, or a properly planned high-alt approach, which can kill it completely, is usually detected early in its phases and can be intercepted by the defenses organizing proper interception.

In short, the 163 is not the only option. However, the only reason it seems like it because it is the only plane that is fast enough to intercept a stealthy, small-scale enemy HQ run, which is very hard to detect,  that usually only damages the HQ lightly, which despite that fact hurts the defending country even more than the HQ being completely destroyed.

 
 Therefore, in this new regime of side-balancing mechanism in place, we should not ask the 163 to be exempt from the rule, but we should rather ask that:


1) the HQ resupply system works properly and logically

* which, a damaged HQ can be fully repaired in a short time

* and a fully destroyed HQ, is what should be unrepairable for some length of time

2) the HQ be equipped with a long-range radar system that has further detection range than normal field-object radar.

* the radar has a detection radius of approximately 8~9 miles, a diameter of 16~17 miles. If an enemy buff approaches at 20k+ altitude it takes about 6~7 minutes for average late war machines to reach the bare minimum in optimum interception altitudes - which, makes it far too late for fighters to intercept it  when they see a dot that is clearly heading to the HQ.

3) deck-running, suicidal, ordnance spraying buffs are brought to a halt, according to the terms and conditions suggested in this thread.


I agree totally with the HQ re-supply Bug needing fixed. I was once told that HT said it wasn’t a bug.
Fix this Bug or setting and the HQ gripes from both sides will virtually come to a screeching halt. Notice i said nearly? :P
Someone will always gripe. But this has been a looong over due issue and it really should be player rebuild able no matter what extent the damage is.
Again...such a setting would go a very long ways to end the HQ discussions.

Quote
Originally posted by Hyrax81st
The 163 is preferred because it gets to alt faster, and it gets in and out on an attack faster.

It already has a limited ammo load, limited range and costs 40-50 perks for the privilege of crashing one. Does it really need to be even more unavailable ?


The 163 is preferable because we are too lazy to pay attention to the radar and make logical conclusions as to what the info we are seeing is telling us. Really...i am guilty as charged too. Waiting till the last minute is why we need the 163. Not because it is the only or even the best HQ defender. We have something available to us that wasnt available to WWll pilots in flight for the most part. RADAR MAP.
And for this reason i see no merit to change the Availability of the 163. We must pay more attention and act sooner.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2004, 09:48:56 AM by Mugzeee »

Offline eh

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 314
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2004, 09:55:52 AM »
Quote
The real problem is the bugged situation concerning the HQ, and the lame-prettythang deck-bombing.


I agree totally with Kweassa. If we are to have the HQ at all then the danged bug which is REALLY old has to be fixed, pronto.

Otherwise, all sides should have dar, or no one should have dar.

Offline Overlag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2004, 10:10:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mugzeee


The 163 is preferable because we are too lazy to pay attention to the radar and make logical conclusions as to what the info we are seeing is telling us. Really...i am guilty as charged too. Waiting till the last minute is why we need the 163. Not because it is the only or even the best HQ defender. We have something available to us that wasnt available to WWll pilots in flight for the most part. RADAR MAP.
And for this reason i see no merit to change the Availability of the 163. We must pay more attention and act sooner.


yup, infact if you up when the bombers are still far out, you can get up just as high, and a 109g10, or 190a8 (wouldnt go too high in this) has more fire power than a 163.....hell even a 110 might be a good idea...hmmmm cannons

HO them and you get away from them quickly. Thats another problem with everyone here, they come dead6 on bomber groups then whine bombers are too hard to kill and they (the fighter) are to easy to be killed, HO into the pilot = dead, almost every time. Yes, the planes are strong, but the weak link is the pilot.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2004, 10:18:02 AM by Overlag »
Adam Webb - 71st (Eagle) Squadron RAF Wing B
This post has a Krusty rating of 37

Offline B17Skull12

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2004, 12:14:11 PM »
163 kiks asss!
II/JG3 DGS II

Offline roofer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
I cnat defend HQ with 163s..becuase too many peopl?arg
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2004, 12:45:06 PM »
i spent a whole evening flying the 163 defending the hq. burned up over 500 points till i got the hang of it

awesome plane!