The only solution to the puffy ack problem

[Vudak]

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
The whole point is that some guy in a fighter is whining because he flew to close to  carrier and got blown away by a 5" gun.

Lets see, he is close to the carrier, fighting the carriers air defense fighter.  While he has the fighter occupied, his sides bombers have a free or at least easier run at the CV's.

His solution?  Well, he has the RIGHT to fight the planes defending the CV.  But the CV has no right to protect it's fighters with AAA fire if he is fighting them.  Therefore if a AAA should happen not to be right on and hits it's own side fighter, the CV should now be made more defensless by losing it's 5" gunner.  The side with the CV who had spent a long time positioning it's CV should now lose the carrier because "He has a right to dogfight without being shot by the CV."  

We should all change the gameplay because he doesn't like 5" guns.

How arrogant can you get???

What a pathetic whine.  

Bottom line is if I'm 100 off a bad guys 6, and the gunner shoots in between the two of us (hitting neither of us directly), by nature of the explosion and shrapnel I am killed, and he gets to fly away unscathed.

And I'm not talking about directly over the cv...  This has happened to many people from much farther away...  You can reference this by checking the thread on this topic that Urchin started a while back...  That thread got shut down.  I'd really appreciate it if you would keep your comments constructive so that this one isn't as well.

I'm not saying go for Batfink's "only solution".  It obviously isn't the only solution, and as you've pointed out, it isn't a really good one (no offense Batfink).  What I am saying is: the current situation is also not a good solution.

The way I see it, I'd have a "right" to fight planes defending the cv, the planes defending would have a "right" to fight me back, and the cv gunner would have a "right" to shoot at me.  But he should have to shoot at ME.  Not me AND his friend (who ALWAYS, as of now, gets away scot free).

I do NOT believe the cv gunner should be allowed to fire a deadly, high explosive projectile, at a target that is literally 1-200 yards away from his friendly, without EVER inflicting damage on that friendly.

I do NOT believe that disabling him from shooting at two fighters without repercussions, will in ANY way disable him from shooting at the bombers, thus giving them "a free or at least easier run at the CV's."

I really don't see what's so arrogant about this.  I'm not telling anyone they have to play my way, I'm asking that they (guns, gvs, etc.) be forced to fly by the same RULES (killshooter, or something along those lines) that fighters, and bomber gunners, are forced to fly by.

That's not arrogant, that's fair.  Now, could you please propose a counter-argument that would work towards finding some middle ground?

[Redd]

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
The whole point is that some guy in a fighter is whining because he flew to close to  carrier and got blown away by a 5" gun.

Lets see, he is close to the carrier, fighting the carriers air defense fighter/s.  While he has the fighter occupied, his sides bombers have a free or at least easier run at the CV's.

His solution?  Well, he has the RIGHT to fight the planes defending the CV.  He has the right to keep the fighter defense occupied so his bombers can attack the CV. But the CV has no right to protect it's fighters with AAA fire if he is fighting them.  Therefore if a AAA should happen not to be right on and hits it's own side fighter, the CV should now be made more defensless by losing it's fighter and/or the 5" gunner.  The side with the CV who had spent a long time positioning it's CV should now lose the carrier because He has a right to dogfight without being shot by the CV.

We should all change the gameplay because he doesn't like 5" guns.

How arrogant can you get???

What a pathetic whine.  

Well let's talk about what really happens.


1  CV arrives off coast

2  Defenders up

3  Terrific furball ensues

4  Every body is having  fun

5 Some no-talent weenie climbs into 5 incher holds down trigger and shoots into furball

6. Buff ariives , sinks CV   fun over

7  No-talent weenie lands a bunch of kills as ship slowly sinks into the waves


At least make em die ! And yes  Killshooter should apply for them as well.

[me62]

When I am manning the 5" AA gun on the CV or the CA, I have
held my fire if there was a friendly A/C anywhere near the target
A/C.  I also don't open fire at ranges greater than 2.5 K.  And I
don't shoot into the middle of furballs for fear of hitting a friendly.

What I am hearing here is that my caution was unnessary?  My
rounds won't hurt a friendly?  Did not know that, but so what.

I am still going to do as I have been doing.

Mike

[rod367th]

Originally posted by Vudak
Bottom line is if I'm 100 off a bad guys 6, and the gunner shoots in between the two of us (hitting neither of us directly), by nature of the explosion and shrapnel I am killed, and he gets to fly away unscathed.

And I'm not talking about directly over the cv...  This has happened to many people from much farther away...  You can reference this by checking the thread on this topic that Urchin started a while back...  That thread got shut down.  I'd really appreciate it if you would keep your comments constructive so that this one isn't as well.

I'm not saying go for Batfink's "only solution".  It obviously isn't the only solution, and as you've pointed out, it isn't a really good one (no offense Batfink).  What I am saying is: the current situation is also not a good solution.

The way I see it, I'd have a "right" to fight planes defending the cv, the planes defending would have a "right" to fight me back, and the cv gunner would have a "right" to shoot at me.  But he should have to shoot at ME.  Not me AND his friend (who ALWAYS, as of now, gets away scot free).

I do NOT believe the cv gunner should be allowed to fire a deadly, high explosive projectile, at a target that is literally 1-200 yards away from his friendly, without EVER inflicting damage on that friendly.

I do NOT believe that disabling him from shooting at two fighters without repercussions, will in ANY way disable him from shooting at the bombers, thus giving them "a free or at least easier run at the CV's."

I really don't see what's so arrogant about this.  I'm not telling anyone they have to play my way, I'm asking that they (guns, gvs, etc.) be forced to fly by the same RULES (killshooter, or something along those lines) that fighters, and bomber gunners, are forced to fly by.

That's not arrogant, that's fair.  Now, could you please propose a counter-argument that would work towards finding some middle ground?

 You guys are funny, AI Puffy ack kills friend or foe. Only manned guns only kill enemy not friends. And as stated before you would have newbies or some kill guys just to laugh.    Been on guys 6  over my field and over my cv and puffy has killed me. and other guy gets credit. So you question is mute.

[rod367th]

Originally posted by Redd
Well let's talk about what really happens.


1  CV arrives off coast

2  Defenders up

3  Terrific furball ensues

4  Every body is having  fun

5 Some no-talent weenie climbs into 5 incher holds down trigger and shoots into furball

6. Buff ariives , sinks CV   fun over

7  No-talent weenie lands a bunch of kills as ship slowly sinks into the waves







 what he really wants to say is I want to vulch CV planes without the chance of being killed. You can kill all ack and 5 " guns on cv. Of course this is harder but hell mommy i want to have no ack To make it easier to kill slow upping planes lol.......




 


At least make em die ! And yes  Killshooter should apply for them as well.

  lol making them die. who cares gunners can't swim? so from now on chutes for pilots? or Your mad because gunner gets his name in lights lol

[Redd]

Originally posted by rod367th

what he really wants to say is I want to vulch CV planes without the chance of being killed. You can kill all ack and 5 " guns on cv. Of course this is harder but hell mommy i want to have no ack To make it easier to kill slow upping planes lol.......



lol making them die. who cares gunners can't swim? so from now on chutes for pilots? or Your mad because gunner gets his name in lights lol

1.  Nope - I don't vulch , but I do like to furball.

2.  Mad no , landing X kills in a ship gun is embarrassment enuff for them I guess  but if having their name in lights is what encourages them , then yes , they should die  


PS thx for the RAAF skins   - very nice   oops  - that was Kev367th  - thanks Kev  

[DREDIOCK]

The puffy ack is fine. Leave it alone.

When over an enemy base and I see it I admire the view.  As normally it never touches me.
Last time it actually shot me down was about 3 months ago it got me twice in a two day period. Prior to that It hadnt gotten me in 6 months at least.

The only place I find it dangerous is over an Enemy CV. and then only when its manned.

Sooo I stay away from fighting over enemy CV's unless Im Fix'n to make a run on the CV itself.

You guys must be flak magnets

[AKFokerFoder+]

That's not arrogant, that's fair. Now, could you please propose a counter-argument that would work towards finding some middle ground?

Middle ground?  

The CV need to be an effective assault force.  In the present scenarios it is already to soft a target to be a fearsome force.

You want to make it a softer target rather than make it a better team force for base capture.  You think your personal preference for dog fighting should take precidence over team game play.

5" gunners are not dweebs, they are an effective means of protecting the fleet. Crusier gunners are not lamers, they are an important part of taking out fields, shore batteries, etc.  It is a team play aspect that you do not seem to comprehend.

If you don't believe in team play then we will never find middle ground.

Anyways I'm done with this thread, post your reply, I am sure it will be the same old same old, I won't reply, although I probably will have a good chuckle.

[Urchin]

Well, at least the positions are clear..

AkFoder: 42 kills this month, 40 in a manned ack.

108 kills last month, 60 in a manned ack.

Can't imagine why he wouldn't want them changed.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by rod367th
You guys are funny, AI Puffy ack kills friend or foe. Only manned guns only kill enemy not friends. And as stated before you would have newbies or some kill guys just to laugh.    Been on guys 6  over my field and over my cv and puffy has killed me. and other guy gets credit. So you question is mute.

I highly question if this is true.  Are you sure an enemy cv wasn't around?  Anyway, HiTech, if you could please clarify on this one.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
Middle ground?  

The CV need to be an effective assault force.  In the present scenarios it is already to soft a target to be a fearsome force.

You want to make it a softer target rather than make it a better team force for base capture.  You think your personal preference for dog fighting should take precidence over team game play.

5" gunners are not dweebs, they are an effective means of protecting the fleet. Crusier gunners are not lamers, they are an important part of taking out fields, shore batteries, etc.  It is a team play aspect that you do not seem to comprehend.

If you don't believe in team play then we will never find middle ground.

Anyways I'm done with this thread, post your reply, I am sure it will be the same old same old, I won't reply, although I probably will have a good chuckle.

I'm not against team play.  I'm against being in a dogfight and having a manned ack shoot at both me and his friend while only I am hurt.  (if Rod367th is correct and only manned ack only kills one side while AI kills both).

And Rod, coincidentally, if you are correct, that's great that AI ack kills both.  Now we just need to have that apply to manned ack too.

Let me make this clear:  I have no problem with people having fun in manned ack positions and providing cover.  It is, as has been pointed out, an integral part of the team.  However, I DO have a problem, with ack and gv being held to different, easier, yes, easier, standards then fighters are with regards to killshooter.

So, the "middle ground" is:

How can we make it so that gunners have to use the same discretion in aim that escort fighters must, without disabling a fleet's capability of defending itself?

There has to be a solution...  Please either:

A) Help find it
B ) State your opinion nicely (as Drediock did)
C) Go chuckle - Urchin's already got your number.

[AKFokerFoder+]

Well, at least the positions are clear..

Hate to do this, but this is a personal attack

I often travel to rural Alaska, where I have high latency satellite links to the internet.  Like 750 ms pings, I can't fly, but I can man the ships guns or field ack.  In one sortie I had 36 kills

This month, I have only gotten to fly 1 sortie, I have been in the bush almost the entire month.  1 sortie, 2 kills, no deaths.

Did Urchin mention that with the 43 fighter kills I had 1 death by another fighter?  And 1 death by the 190 wing problem that HiTech fixed? Nope just bad mouthed me as ship gunner.

I play what I can, when I can.

Ack needs to be able to defend the ships in this game.  Trust me that hitting your own planes would cause no end of hard feelings, and would greatly effect community in the gameplay.

We need to keep planes at the carrier from being vulched.  The 5" guns work as they are.

If I be a dweeb so be it.  Actually I consider myself to be more of a scumbag  But your mileage may vary.

So hit me with you best shot, rather than attack the problem, which is really wanting game play your way.

[APDrone]

Originally posted by mechanic


i just think its unrealistic to be able to shoot puffy ack at friendlies and only damage the baddies.

Been thinking hard on this one, Batfink.

Yes, it's unrealistic.. but, then, so are many other aspects of this game.

 For instance..  :: putting asbestos suit on ::  when you spawn a bomber, the defensive guns don't work.  Why? This is rhetorical.. I've heard the stories of how B17s would land ouside cities and strafe them down..  Still.. if the plane exists.. the guns should work.

You can spawn an unlimited number of aircraft from any airfield that has a hanger intact.. Materializing from nowhere.

These are game play 'adjustments'.  

Same goes for the ship guns.

I would think with the emphasis the fighter pilots place on ACM and SA, the 'truly enlightened' fighter jocks would simply put the presence of an enemy fleet on their SA checklist and make the conscious decision whether or not to go hunt in the ack fields for their prey.

I mean, some of the posts in this thread make it sound like a fleet sneaks up on the dogfight and the puffy ack suddenly appears and disrupts things.

If the thought of puffy ack being your demise causes you duress, avoid it.. simple enough to understand .. even for a "no-talent weenie" like myself.

I reiterate my first reply.

"Well, then, don't DO that"

[hitech]

AI: Can damage friendlies.

Manned 5"  can not damage friendlis. Was changed that way early on at the request of most of the players.

[Urchin]

AKFoder, it isn't a "personal attack", it is simply putting your words in context.  

As far as the chest-thumping over the "fighter" scores, way to go.  However, I'm pretty sure just about anyone can go 42 and 1 in anything if they take 20-odd minutes to set up each kill.  

People use the 5 inch guns / manned ack because it is simply to hard for them to get kills any other way.  That seems to be a fact.  Now, their rationale behind "it is to hard" may range from latency to just low skill levels, but the fact remains that the reason people use 5 inch / manned ack is that is is simply easier than trying to kill a plane using another plane.