Author Topic: want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?  (Read 1811 times)

Offline soda72

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5201
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2004, 05:28:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grits
I'm not going to say who shot me down (twice) by friendly fire because he wasnt doing it on purpose, I just happened to be going after the same guy he was shooting at and got in the crossfire, its not his fault killshooter was off. In reality that is what would happen, Allied proximity shells didnt know friend from foe afterall.


twice,  are u sure he wasn't aiming at u?  usually after once they are more careful about it... lol..

but in any case i like the way it is just hope people don't abuse it...

storch

  • Guest
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2004, 06:28:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grits
I'm not going to say who shot me down (twice) by friendly fire because he wasnt doing it on purpose, I just happened to be going after the same guy he was shooting at and got in the crossfire, its not his fault killshooter was off. In reality that is what would happen, Allied proximity shells didnt know friend from foe afterall.


Give yourself the Alex Vraciu award for follwing the enemy into your own ack.

Offline CurtissP-6EHawk

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1452
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2004, 06:41:57 PM »
sorry I missed it sounded like fun killing furballers :rolleyes:

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2004, 07:10:27 PM »
I was on last night and got very, very irritated at the ack hugging Allieds.  They wouldn't even come out of their fleet ack after our FHs were down and we were upping D3A1s to use as fighters.

I was being loud and obnoxious on the open channel because I wanted a fight and I couldn't get one.  Finally, after saying I wasn't going to, I switched to the Allied side because the were *****ing about how the F4F couldn't handle the A6M2.  I got one flight in before the arena reset and easily killed two A6M2s witha four gun F4F-4.  The firepower on the F4F-4 seems about 10 times as much as the firepower on the A6M2.

Anybody who thinks the A6M2 has the advantage in this setup is loony.  The F4F is a VASTLY better fighter than the A6M2.

The Boston is simple stupidity.  But Allied whines are louder, so goodbye Ki-67 and keep the impossible to deal with Boston Mk III.

Oh well, more of the same BS.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2004, 07:33:14 PM »
I have to agree with you there Karnak, both types can certainly hold their own if they fly them right. The F4F is certainly capable.

Its really too bad that the gameplay goes south when the #s get low. On a night where we get some decent #s up, you can find a good variety of combat. Like I say, try Thursday.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Redd

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2004, 07:38:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grits
I'm not going to say who shot me down (twice) by friendly fire because he wasnt doing it on purpose, I just happened to be going after the same guy he was shooting at and got in the crossfire, its not his fault killshooter was off. In reality that is what would happen, Allied proximity shells didnt know friend from foe afterall.



Anyone with half a brain would have stopped afetr seeing it happen the first time, not wait until they'd killed 5 friendlies


have a funny killshooter story tho from the other night

Unnamed pilot decide to shoot unnamed squadmate because he'd run out of gas and was'nt going to make it home  - he figured he'd suicide by killshooter - turned into a homicide not a suicide.:)
« Last Edit: October 10, 2004, 07:41:07 PM by Redd »
I come from a land downunder

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2004, 07:51:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
Give yourself the Alex Vraciu award for follwing the enemy into your own ack.


The furball was between the CV and the IJN base, the Zekes were well outside the otto-ack. I did not chase the enema into my ack, I got shot outside my otto-ack range both times.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2004, 09:55:47 PM »
Yea, like I said.. the guy was just firing at random into a fairly even fight.  At least assuming it was the same fight I was talking about.  Once it was over, the fighting was pretty much over. didn't see more than 3 guys in the air in the whole arena after that.

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12795
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2004, 12:07:04 AM »
Well the killshooter experiment is over for me. It will be back on in the morning when I get off shift.

 Im all for disabling the manned fleet guns for better gameplay so Ill do that as well.

 I have no idea why the Tiger would be in there, I didnt add it and it wasnt enabled last week so I dont know. Ill take care of it.


As far as the Boston is concerned, due to its weak gun package I really didnt figure it to be that much of a threat. The Ki 67 is not the answer so Ill remove the Boston.( i doubt I would there the same complaint about the Ju88s in a BoB set but oh well)


As far as me being "simple and stupid" Karnak, you can get bent. There were no "Allied whines" to influence my set up. If you have a suggestion Im all ears, Ive had enough bs.





Unnamed pilot decide to shoot unnamed squadmate because he'd run out of gas and was'nt going to make it home - he figured he'd suicide by killshooter - turned into a homicide not a suicide.

gk Constel, erg didnt need to land those 4 kills:D
« Last Edit: October 11, 2004, 12:26:50 AM by Slash27 »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2004, 01:20:28 AM »
Hmmm.  I worded that poorly. My appologies.

What I meant is that having the Boston Mk III in AH as an early war Allied bomber isn't the best thing.  It can't be handled by any of the early war Axis fighters, German or Japanese.  Chasing formations of Boston IIIs last night was not amusing.

I actually think the Ki-67 is much less of a problem for this setup as the P-40E can catch it and has more than enough firepower to shred it.  Bomber guns are nigh useless in AH2, so I don't think the guns on the Ki-67 are that much of an issue.

Prefferably we'd have a B-25D and a G4M2 so that bombers weren't overwhelmingly fast.  But we don't, so it is probably best to just leave out twin engined bombers from early war setups.


I do, however, think that the Allied whines about the Ki-67 were heard loud and clear and the few of us who were pointing out that the Boston Mk III is really no different were ignored.  I have long maintained that and have never seen anybody who wasn't an Axis flier acknowledge that the Boston was unmanagable or a problem in any way.  You didn't include the Ki-67 because you said it is inappropriate which is something the Allied fliers long maintained, but the Axis noting that the Boston was inappropriate did not keep it out.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2004, 03:52:06 AM »
Well, the perceived 'problem' runs deeper than any one of us may think.

 In the very first days of the CT there were some problems concerning what the CT actually is. Come to think of it this problem was never resolved at all.
 
 The obvious keyword of the CT is 'history', but people had different ideas on just how much 'history' and how. The only cosensus reached was that plane sets were historic.

 However, while some players wanted the CT to become thoroughly historic as in 'historically organized', other players liked the 'historic planesets' part but hated the basic mission/military structure ideas.

 Many setups were tried out, some with less dar, short icons, and others tried to even things up by implementing an 'historical objective' to the CT - but none of this worked well. Since there was no structural implementation in the game itself, everything had to be voluntarily organized by the gamers themselves. And like everyone knows, this can be very hard when there are many independant fliers out there.

 ........

 One of the most common complaints are with the PAC setups. In most cases Axis vs Allied featuring LW/RAF/USAAF/VVS setups were more or less self balanced in that the LW planes always matched the Allied planes pretty well to an extent. But even so, people like myself have suggested to create much less diversified arena in the fact that the LW has limited plane types, and having to fight the ahistoric conditions of loosely mixed USAAF/RAF planes in the same skies were frighteningly difficult for the LW pilots. What's a Fw190A-5 supposed to do in skies mixed with Spit9s and P-47s at all altitudes? :)

 The disparity in performance is even greater in PAC setups, and only in the very early stages of war does the IJN/IJAAF fighters have any kind of clear chance in really 'fighting' the enemy on equal terms. When the era evolves past 1942, it becomes desparately hard for an Axis pilot.

 The problem is, since there is no clear objective. nor any attritional limitations in plane numbers, people have no choice but to independantly go there ways and follow their instincts best fit for survival. As a result the F4Us and F6Fs naturally have no choice but to "joust", and the A6M5s and Ki-61s have no choice but to fly "altmonkey" way and fight only when they can gang up on some plane. Nobody wants to become a fodder.

 Now, in real life, pilots and aircraft are organized, deployed in limited numbers with a specific objective. They also acted as a team. Deserting your own guy and leaving him to die, while you merrily watch the scene 5k above him, or just giving up the mission and running back to the base/fleet acks whenever you see somebody behind you was simply unacceptable.

 As for the USN, no fleet would just send up fighters for nothing. It would have a specific objective, for instance, up a formation of Avengers or Dauntlesses to strike a certain target and damage it severely. Fighters would escort the mission. The objective for the bombers is to kill the target, and the fighters is to protect the bombers. In these conditions an F4U or F6F pilot would rarely have the leisure to do indiviudal BnZs. Sometimes they need to boldly enter a turn contest, trust the other guys, and force the Japanese to stay away from the bombers.

 As much, under these conditions, the IJN pilots would have to do whatever they can to hunt down enemy bombers. They don't have the time to become the single lonley altmonkey, or just turnfight everytime, or gang up on just one guy.

 The lack of some specific historic conditions, while maintaining a historic plane set, is the main problem in the CT. Another problem is some people like the CT as a miniature MA just with historic planes, while others want more than that.
 
 Unless there's a significant systematic implementations to draw the lines of compromise somewhere, it will always have problems in whatever setups.

 Sometimes, I think that the future-coming ToD mode is what the CT should have been. Maybe when ToD is to be released, there should be some of its traits implemented in normal gameplay as arena conditions, so the CT remains a loosely organized 'practice arena' for those who want the ToD, but some amount of structure is maintianed.

storch

  • Guest
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2004, 05:23:57 AM »
Very well written Kweassa

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2004, 05:26:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
What I meant is that having the Boston Mk III in AH as an early war Allied bomber isn't the best thing.  It can't be handled by any of the early war Axis fighters, German or Japanese.  Chasing formations of Boston IIIs last night was not amusing.


Boston may be fast, but it absolutely defendless. No chance to hit somebody in your 6 through HUGE blindside. Guns just dont fire :rolleyes:
Speed advantage is only chance to survive for Boston, if it havnt that it is flying grave.
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline memnon

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 175
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2004, 09:31:35 AM »
I second that Kweassa.

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
want to know whats wrong with this weeks setup?
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2004, 09:38:16 AM »
I think the Ki-67 and Boston III should be in the CT with formations disabled when they are in earlier 1942 PTO setups. Once fighters are in that are faster and better armed, say A6M5/Ki-61 and F6F/F4U, then have formations back on. Not a perfect solution but it does make it a bit more manageable. Either that or don't have them in at all.

I also agree that Boston III is too fast for the A6M2. In ETO setups the 109E and 110C-4 can catch them in a dive, so thats a grey area...after all the Hurricane I has a hard time with the Ju88 for the same reason, and the Ju88 is much better armed.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2004, 09:45:11 AM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24