Fighter's Glee

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by SuperDud
I think all fighters should be removed from the game. Also we should add the B29.

While I can't agree with the elimination of fighters, I can agree with adding the B-29.

[SlapShot]

Let's take just one example from your "bs/urban myth" list. Minimum fuel at a field. Used to be 25%, now is 75%. Why? Well it sure wasn't gv's, boats or bombers that found it distressing to have 25%. Who do you suppose that leaves? The change was made to 75%. Why, if not because of the complaints?
It was a common complaint by furballers/fighters…or whatever you would like to call them.

I told you why the change was made and again posted it in this thread. It was a combination of "pork 'n auger" dweebs rendering the MA useless for most along with the new 2X fuel burn multiplier that caused HT to make the change. It was the "fighter" crowd that was complaining, but not all who fly fighters are "furballers" .... so ... the urban myth that it was the "furballers" that caused the change is just that ... MYTH.

On another thread you, yourself, indicated it was a legitimate complaint. From your description of the last days of AH1, I agreed. I believe the solution we both found acceptable was to harden the bunkers to the point that they couldn't be taken down without difficulty by some guy in a Typhoon and to return the 25% fuel minimum under that condition.

Yup ... that is what we agreeded on ... now you can wish in one hand and crap in the other ... and I can tell you which one will come true first.

The designation/definition/description I came up with for Furballer was for the sake of convenience in discussion. Of course I broadened my definition to suit the discussion. I stated I was doing it before I did. It was only for the discussion regarding having two separate MA's and I wasn't trying to pull anything. If you read what I've written without thinking I've got it in for you and your squad, you might develop insight into what I'm saying instead of taking snatches of it to flame about. However, for your sake and those like you I'll use something like "group one" next time.

I don't think that you have it in for me and our squad ... what I care about is that people get the truth and not the fluff for the sake of convenience. People will read the fluff and believe it to be true ... when I see it, I speak up against it. Nothing more.

As far as furballers not complaining about bombers? Come on. Even in this thread you've got a guy complaining about buffs ruining fun at Fighter Town. Sure seemed like he's a furballer to me.

And rightfully so. There is nothing more that I hate than a GRIEFER.

Fighter Towns were designed just for that ... so that people who want to just "fight" can do so and not be in the way of what anyone else cares to do in the game.

But, some bomber griefers can't help themselves. The feel the need to go and pee in the fighter pool ... and for what reason(s) ... none, except for the fact that it will destroy the fun of those who want to use the area for what it was designed for.

Anyone that bombs fighter hangers at Fighter Town are the biggest stunninghunkS in all of AH.

Personally, I don't use "furballers" as a whipping post. I note the changes that are made to the game, the complaints that are made and who makes them and who the changes make happy. The furballers, strat guys, bombers, gver's, etc., all have points of view and desires.

Well ... when noting the changes ... who makes the complaints ... and what changes make who happy ... try to be less myopic.

I'm not sure about your familiarity with HT's personality. I'm sure you believe you're correct. However, again, I note the complaints made, who makes them and the changes that occur. Please don't tell me fuballers aren't whiners. We've both seen otherwise.

Well ... I have spent some time with him (and Pyro) at the last 2 cons and I can tell you that HT is not easily persuaded and neither is Pyro. HT is the type of guy that will get turned off so fast at meaningless high pitched whines, and how the whine is delivered, is crucial ... even if the idea/whine has merit, if your deliverly is wrong ... he will ingnore the idea/whine "just because".

HT is not some geeky coader that folds under pressure ... if that were true, he would have been out of business long ago. So the urban myth ... those who whine the loudest ... get results ... "busted" ... it will usually get you the opposite reaction from what I have seen.

[Boxboy]

Originally posted by ChopSaw
Fighters don't notice gun shake because they're rarely zoomed all the way in and when they are they aren't tracking while firing.  It's easy to accommodate something barely noticeable.  Bombers notice it because we are zoomed all the way in.  It's the only way we can hit the guy on our six who's throttled back at d1.0.  The guy who has guns that are better focused than ours and therefore more effective at that distance.  Immersion or not, the shaking reduces the effectiveness of bomber guns a little bit more.  We're estimating it reduces our effective range another 200 and that's saying nothing of what it does to tracking.

Bomber guns aside, your response still doesn't address the issue of the Ostwind.  Immersion?  Many of them have to stop before they upchuck.  I guess that really does get them into what they're doing, but it has little to do with WWII simulation immersion.  The difficulty in tracking targets, caused by the shaking, has severely decreased their accuracy and all that any non-gver's offer is derisive laughter and gloating.  And what the heck is going on with the coaxial guns on the tanks?

Shaking may not have been added to make gunning more difficult, but that's what it has done.  Even if bombers accommodate it, it's going to hurt our accuracy and make tracking more difficult than it already was.  There's no way the Ostwind drivers can accommodate it unless they stay out of zoom and that is going to hit their accuracy.

Shaking guns aside, when you look back over all the changes made from AH1 to now, immersion does not seem to be the single driving force.  Hardening of HQ's?  Minimum field fuel set to 75% changed from 25%?  Spacing fields closer together?  Changing the way the bombs drop to effectively decrease their ability?  These changes indicate a trend and that trend does not have immersion as its sole goal.

What would be the problem with having an arena WWF's could better enjoy in addition to the current one?

In many respects a nice update.  I especially like the addition of the Jeep.  The shaking?  Not so much.

You seem to playing a different game than I am?? I find zero problem with head shake in ANY of the vehicles fully zoomed in.  I also find that bomber guns are MUCH more accurate at distance than fighters (not a whine just a fact).  I find that getting the angles on a bomber almost impossible for more than one pass due to their HIGH speed and ability to kick just alittle rudder to spoil the pass.  Does this mean I cannot kill bombers, no it doesn't but then again I am not whinning about it either.

It has already been covered in this thread about abuses of the bombers to which I note you have made NO comment, I would love to see the screams if HT addresses some these abuses.

[toon]

i like it when rose petals are sprinkled on my bed the morning after a thunderstorm.the air is crisp and sweet.my dog is lying in the dying cockroach position jerking and making small peeps,surely dreaming about the squirrel that was a little too fast and had climbing capabilities.not fair he peeps,not fair.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by ChopSaw
Morpheus,

 







 

The only blinders I see are the ones you attempt to pull over peoples eyes to try to get them to step in what you fondly think of as reasoning.  Derisive comments, dismissive remarks, out and out lies, erroneous characterizations and a pathetic attempt to bait people will not work and (bends down, speaking slowly and gently as to a child with a  learning disability) those things are not reasoning and they are not substitutes for truth or facts.  Bring something new to your act.  The old one is failing.

Lies? Really now? Care to point out where I was lying? I know for a fact that you can't. But I dare you to try.

My suggestion to readers of these threads is to reach your own conclusions, come up with your own ideas and discuss them on these forums without being overly concerned by individuals with a special interest agenda trying to shout you down or intimidate you with name calling tactics.

Is this not what I did? My conclusion is that you are full of it. And only care to "improve" the game in ways that suit your adgenda. One that doesnt include the "whole picture" ie the entire player base. What's good for you may not be good for someone else. So you want to split the MA up. You still haven't brought up something that hasn't been said in the past, that is possitive in regards to splitting the MA up. Like I said, already, this has been talked about and whined about by a few players like you for years now. And its helarious how it just doesnt sink in.

If you don't care for what I write I have another suggestion for you.  Don’t read it.  I'm sure that's simple enough for you.  Far easier than whining about what others write.  Far easier than telling them to "can it".

Guess what ace? This is a public board. And this is just as much my game as it is yours. If I see someone attempting to selfishly taylor things he does not like to suit his needs then you can bet your bellybutton I will say something. If you dont like that, then start your own board, and whine about it there. That way you can keep those who disagree with your crap, out.

What I find amusing is your attempt to bury a discussion by saying it's been talked about before and denigrating those that wish to discuss it.

Im glad its amusing to you. LOL really I do. Denigrating? I am helping you son. Dont waste your time on this topic. Because, like I said, its already been talked about. Its a closed case. How do I know this? HT has said it dozens of times in the past. That's how.

 

Posing as the old hand who knows all to satisfy your ego and silence those whose ideas you disagree with is pretty old stuff.  Nobody knows like you do the things you know and you know it all?  Please.  My suggestion to you is to find a new tactic.  One that works.

Is that how it all came off to you? That's unfortunate. I deffinatly do know that I could teach you a thing or two about this game. Lesson 1, never give a rats bellybutton about what other people say to you. Time to stop hanging on the words of others and use your own head. I know its difficult, but if you try you might be able to handle it.

 

This is your idea of bringing something new to the table?  If it is, I have to say I've seen it before.  So has everyone else.  Didn't work then, won't work now and will never work.  

Funny, I didnt know I was saposed to bring something new to the table here. This was your "big idea". The same "Big Idea" that was brought dozens of times over the past several yeras.

Love Morph

[Gato]

Originally posted by Boxboy

It has already been covered in this thread about abuses of the bombers to which I note you have made NO comment, I would love to see the screams if HT addresses some these abuses. [/B]

That are many more abuses of bombers NOT memtioned in this tread which also should be looked at.  Things like dive bombing lanc, just to name one.  But that is not what this tread was to be about.  

BTW, anyone who uses a plane in a manner which the plane should not be used for is an stunninghunk in my book too.  I don't care what plane it is!  IF someone is going around to spoil the fun of other players, that is also wrong !  When I'm in a bombers, I work toward taking down the opposing teams ablity to wage war there and take the base.  Or to stop/ slow down the advance and save bases for my country.  I never pork to just pork.  But I know there are some who do and that is sad indeed.

I didn't start this tread for personal attacks or even to label players.  It seems when we label a player as one thing or another, someone else sees it different.  So it is a waste of time and effort.

My goal for this tread was for real ideas on how to make the game play better for everyone.  Why must everything be a combat?  Why can't we cooperate?  We have over 70 different planes/vehicles in the game (accorting the the TV ad), a game system to use them all.  But, the role for bombers in it is now so limited they have only few targets to hit.  When they are down, the fighters complain.  Not all fighter players are furballers, but it was easier (and wrong I guess) to lump them all together for the sake of difference in battle tactics in the game.  A fighter can find a fight anywhere, but the bombers ARE NOT fighters and have very limited targets.

So, for this tread, I had and have a personal agenda!  At least I'm open about it.  The agenda:  To find and discuss ways to make the game better for ALL, not just fighters, bombers or GVs.

So, one more time, I ask you.  Please can we get on with it?

[Boxboy]

Well for my money the bomber in this game has several use's such as land grab.  They neutralize a base so it can be taken.  They kill strat targets to help take bases.  They kill CV's to prevent base capture.  They kill V bases to prevent ground attack.  All of these are non-grief use's.

They can also be used in a grief roll to kill Fighter town, dog fite, dive bomb, kill fiter hangers with no base taking planned etc.

so all in all the bombers have MUCH more they can do than do fighters.

[ChopSaw]

[Quoate]Originally posted by SlapShotI told you why the change was made and again posted it in this thread. It was a combination of "pork 'n auger" dweebs rendering the MA useless for most along with the new 2X fuel burn multiplier that caused HT to make the change. It was the "fighter" crowd that was complaining, but not all who fly fighters are "furballers" .... so ... the urban myth that it was the "furballers" that caused the change is just that ... MYTH.[/quote]

Yes you did tell me why the change was made to increase the minimum fuel at fields to 75%.  You saw me acknowledge that and say that I agreed with it.  So what's the problem?  We even agreed upon the solution.  Increase the hardness of the bunkers or in some other way change them so that a single pass with fighter cannon couldn't take them down.  I even specified they shouldn't be able to be taken down with anything less than ordnance or heavy cannon (bombs, rockets or ground based cannon by which I meant tanks, LVT4's or ships).  Under those hardened conditions you agreed the field fuel could/should be returned to 25% to revitalize the strat system.  Again this was something we both agreed upon.  We also agreed in that thread that we should wait until ToD/CT was out (you wanted to wait until 6 months after it had been out) before requesting the change back to 25% fuel.  The reason given for this was HTC has enough to do getting that out and doesn't have time for changes to the MA.  With the recent update we can see that isn't the case.  In this thread I didn't even suggest the current MA be changed to 25%.  I suggested an entirely new and additional arena which would have settings more to the liking of strat people, more in line with AH1.  I suggested this because there seems to be resistance to these types of settings within the group of people that includes furballers.  Not composed entirely of, but included in.

A copy of what I posted to this thread on 3/2406 7:28 AM:
"- Furballers = guys who fly in fighters. They primarily enjoy shooting at other fighters, but also like to occasionally shoot at bombers, gv's and boats. They don't really care too much about taking bases though many of them feel that's okay. They don't like getting shot down. Either by gv's or bombers. They seem to feel the only one that should have a good chance of shooting them down is another fighter. They don't like being inconvenienced by things like having their fuel reduced to 25%, the maps fields separated a decent distance, their HQ taken down (even partially) by a single bomber or even 4 formations of bombers, their fighter hangers taken down, their furball busted up by bombers operating as "flying flack platforms", heavy bombers which "fly too high and too fast" (their complaint, believe me), new bombers introduced (such as the B-29), etc, etc. As a result they advocate (otherwise defined as a whine) and applaud changes to gv's and bombers which reduce the effectiveness of same. Changes such as the remodeling of bomber gun convergence from AH1 to AH2, the remodeling of the way bombs drop from AH1 to AH2 and of course there's the way Ostwind and Bomber guns shake now."

I thought I was very clear in pinpointing the origin of complaints against 25%.  I took pains to indicate the complaints came from a group of people that include but are not entirely composed of pure furballers.  I used the term furballers, being very clear to indicate what that term included, for the purpose of the current discussion, a group of people whose interests were not exclusively those of a pure furballer.  Those who see themselves as furballers seem to cling to a more narrowly defined image despite my efforts.  In the future I'll use other terminology.  Terminology that doesn't elicit such a knee jerk reaction.

I do not perpetrate urban myths or any other form of untruth.

[Quoate]Originally posted by SlapShotYup ... that is what we agreeded on ... now you can wish in one hand and crap in the other ... and I can tell you which one will come true first.

Ummm…….I'm not really sure what you're saying here.  In light of that I believe I'll refrain from response.

[Quoate]Originally posted by SlapShotI don't think that you have it in for me and our squad ... what I care about is that people get the truth and not the fluff for the sake of convenience. People will read the fluff and believe it to be true ... when I see it, I speak up against it. Nothing more.

I don't deal in fluff nor do I have a good reaction to those that do.  I deal in truth.

[Quoate]Originally posted by SlapShotAnd rightfully so. There is nothing more that I hate than a GRIEFER.

Fighter Towns were designed just for that ... so that people who want to just "fight" can do so and not be in the way of what anyone else cares to do in the game.

But, some bomber griefers can't help themselves. The feel the need to go and pee in the fighter pool ... and for what reason(s) ... none, except for the fact that it will destroy the fun of those who want to use the area for what it was designed for.

Anyone that bombs fighter hangers at Fighter Town are the biggest stunninghunkS in all of AH.

Obviously I agree with your sentiment.  You can see that in my response to the Fighter Town post.  I advised griefing the griefer.  I was asked if I'd have a problem with ordnance being taken down to inhibit the griefer and responded that I would have no problem with it at all.  I still think it would be more fun to let the griefing bomber spend a ton of time getting into position and then shooting him before he can do anything, but everyone has their preferences.

What I was trying to show, and thought was obvious, was that furballers do complain about bombers.  Not just in Fighter Town.  They also complain about the same situation outside of Fighter Town.  However, outside of Fighter Town their complaint may be against somebody who isn't intent upon ruining their fun.  In those situations the bomber may be intent upon assisting what he sees as an attempt to take a field.

[Quoate]Originally posted by SlapShotWell ... when noting the changes ... who makes the complaints ... and what changes make who happy ... try to be less myopic.

I've written elsewhere in this thread what I believe to be the source of the complaints which cause changes.  I had hoped it would be obvious to everyone that they are exactly the same source as you list.  It is not pure furballers as they see themselves narrowly defined.  It's apparent it was a mistake to use the term given the over reaction and misinterpretation that's been focused on it.  Again, despite my attempt to indicate that it was not pure furballers that I was indicating.  There was nothing myopic about my expanded definition.  It included all the people you, yourself, told me of.
[Quoate]Originally posted by SlapShotWell ... I have spent some time with him (and Pyro) at the last 2 cons and I can tell you that HT is not easily persuaded and neither is Pyro. HT is the type of guy that will get turned off so fast at meaningless high pitched whines, and how the whine is delivered, is crucial ... even if the idea/whine has merit, if your deliverly is wrong ... he will ingnore the idea/whine "just because".

HT is not some geeky coader that folds under pressure ... if that were true, he would have been out of business long ago. So the urban myth ... those who whine the loudest ... get results ... "busted" ... it will usually get you the opposite reaction from what I have seen.

So you spent some time with him (HT) and Pyro at two conferences.  I'm not sure that gives you enormous incite into what makes them or any of the rest of HTC tick.  On the other hand I'm not prepared to say you don't know what you're talking about.  Perhaps it would be best to say you've had opportunity to meet them and understand them that exceeds my own.

At no time did I imply the whines of ……fighter guys?.....were meaningless, high pitched, loud, improperly delivered or merit less.  I also did not imply HT or anyone else at HTC was a "geeky coder who folds under pressure".  I specifically stated he is a businessman.  His business is AH.  He listens to his customers and attempts to satisfy them.  "Fighter guys" (a term which include those who call themselves furballers) compose the majority his customers.  It is natural for HTC to see the input from that majority and attempt to satisfy them.  It is the number of people issuing input, not the loudness of it, that persuades HTC.  Hopefully HTC also looks at reasoned arguments for changes which may not reflect the wishes of the majority, but nevertheless attempt to improve the game.  This maintains and increases the diversity and interest of the game, thereby increasing it's marketability an increases subscribers.  I believe ToD/CT is evidence of this.

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Boxboy
You seem to playing a different game than I am?? I find zero problem with head shake in ANY of the vehicles fully zoomed in.  I also find that bomber guns are MUCH more accurate at distance than fighters (not a whine just a fact).  I find that getting the angles on a bomber almost impossible for more than one pass due to their HIGH speed and ability to kick just alittle rudder to spoil the pass.  Does this mean I cannot kill bombers, no it doesn't but then again I am not whinning about it either.

It has already been covered in this thread about abuses of the bombers to which I note you have made NO comment, I would love to see the screams if HT addresses some these abuses.

We do indeed seem to be playing a different game.  Zoom a tanks main gun in fully, fire the coaxial machine gun and witness head shake.  That's on a multi ton vehicle.  A post on Headshake (url shown below) from a guy who's fired a real coaxial gun on the Bradley indicates there should be no shake.  Zoom in with the Ostwinds 37 mm main gun, fire the gun and witness head shake like nobodies business.  Now try to track a plane while firing at it with the Ostwind while zoomed.  Read the posts on the thread in General Discussion titled Headshake (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1990871#post1990871).  Pay particular attention to who is making those posts and how it's actually making them nauseous.  If these don't apply to the game you're playing, then you're playing another game.

Stating bomber guns are more accurate at distance than fighters is just not true.  In point of fact, it is the opposite.  You'd have to specify the technique you used to come to that determination for me to comment further.  I and others used the .target command while flying fighters and bombers.  In addition I've contacted Skuzzy at HTC asking for details.  His reply indicated the bomber guns fired in a more dispersed fashion.  Like a shot gun pattern, if you will.  Test results from the .target command tests show the results of this dispersal in bomber guns and a lack of it in fighter guns.

You'll have to be specific when you say, "abuses of bombers", in order for me to comment on the ones you have in mind.  I will, however, respond to one which I guess you might have in mind.  The use of heavy bombers as dive bombers?  I happen to be an advocate for the elimination of this.  I've proposed, on another thread, that F6 be the only position from which bombs may be dropped.  Additionally, I've proposed an inclinometer lock out be used as well.  Between the two I'd hoped dive bombing would be made impossible or just not feasible.  HT posted and stated that players would simply find a way to dive bomb even with these changes.  A way around.  If you've an idea that would limit it and not penalize level bombers, I'd like to hear it.

[Morpheus]

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Fairy tails twisted to your agenda and deluded "facts".

You attempt to pass this off as truth.  That's what people call lying.

Originally posted by Morpheus
Is this not what I did? My conclusion is that you are full of it. And only care to "improve" the game in ways that suit your adgenda. One that doesnt include the "whole picture" ie the entire player base. What's good for you may not be good for someone else. So you want to split the MA up. You still haven't brought up something that hasn't been said in the past, that is possitive in regards to splitting the MA up. Like I said, already, this has been talked about and whined about by a few players like you for years now. And its helarious how it just doesnt sink in.

See?  This is exactly what I was explaining to you.  Erroneous characterization, lies, dismissive remarks, derisive remarks, and a pathetic attempt to bait someone all bundled up in what you fondly think of as reasoning.  The goal of intimidation and shouting your opponent down with abuse is easily seen as well.

My proposal attempts to improve the game for the two main categories of people in the game.  Strategy minded folk and non-strategy minded folk.  That includes the whole picture.  It is not an attempt to "improve the game in ways that suit my own agenda".  The allegation that it is, is erroneous characterization, pathetic baiting, lying and an attempt to twist the facts to suit yourself.  That last is also called lying.

The topic may have been raised before and it will probably be raised again.  Hey, you know what?  There are new people everyday to the game.  There are also people that have played the game that are new to the forums.  Not everyone has the "superior experience" that you do.  This may be a new idea for them.  There are also people who would like to re-examine a topic from time to time or people who think developing situations warrant a re-examination.  Not all are as intolerant as you.

Originally posted by Morpheus
Guess what ace? This is a public board. And this is just as much my game as it is yours. If I see someone attempting to selfishly taylor things he does not like to suit his needs then you can bet your bellybutton I will say something. If you dont like that, then start your own board, and whine about it there. That way you can keep those who disagree with your crap, out.

Oh, gosh. (blushes)  I'm not an "ace".  I'm nowhere near that good.  Not like you.  Hmmm…..busy little guy, aren't you.  So many allegations.  Lets see…..I believe this game is more mine than it is yours, I'm a selfish tailor of things to suit my own needs, I object to you  stating your opinion, I'm a whiner, I want to keep those who disagree with me off the boards and apparently I should be placing wagers on my ass.  Have I got all that right?  See?  Once again I direct you to derisive comments, dismissive remarks, lies, erroneous characterizations, and a pathetic attempt to bait people  I've indicated this is a public board and people should be free to post on it without being concerned about people like you trying to shut them up when you disagree with them.  I think you should post ideas rather than abuse, but what can be done about it?  Nothing.  It's a public forum and that means we're going to run into people like you.  People who want to shut up people with ideas they don't care for.

You suggested I not write because you didn't like it.  I suggested it might be better for you to not read it if you didn't like it.  Nothing more.  I did not suggest that it isn't a public forum.  You did.  I advised people to reach their own conclusions and post without fear of being treated badly by people like you.  You suggested I not write because you didn't like it.  Expressly, you told me to "can it".  That suggests you believe this to be your own private forum or you believe yourself to be a moderator of the forums.  Perhaps your suggestion to create a new forum is best self applied.

Originally posted by Morpheus
Im glad its amusing to you. LOL really I do. Denigrating? I am helping you son. Dont waste your time on this topic. Because, like I said, its already been talked about. Its a closed case. How do I know this? HT has said it dozens of times in the past. That's how.

Yes.  Denigrating.  To criticize in a derogatory manner, to speak damagingly of….. to denigrate.  If you're attempting to aid me in a fatherly fashion, it's a very peculiar one.  I can't tell you how revolting, on so many levels, I find that image.  I doubt you're old enough for me to be your son.  My real father is well into his 90's.

My time is my own to spend as I see fit.  That seems obvious, but your comments seem to indicate you have a somewhat different view.  This topic may be a closed case or it may not.  I'd have to take your word for that.  I believe we've covered why that might not be my inclination.  Even if it is a "closed case", closed cases have a way of opening sometimes.  Time, and of course HTC, will tell.

Originally posted by Morpheus
Is that how it all came off to you? That's unfortunate. I deffinatly do know that I could teach you a thing or two about this game. Lesson 1, never give a rats bellybutton about what other people say to you. Time to stop hanging on the words of others and use your own head. I know its difficult, but if you try you might be able to handle it.

I'm sure you could teach me some tricks of the game.  However, I believe I've amply illustrated my knowledge of what you describe as "Lesson 1".  I've been applying to you.

Originally posted by Morpheus
Funny, I didnt know I was saposed to bring something new to the table here. This was your "big idea".  The same "Big Idea" that was brought dozens of times over the past several yeras.

Love Morph

Well first you say I shouldn't post unless I bring something new to the table, then you bring your old tactics to the table.  So I commented on what I saw as a hypocrisy.  Uh….what's a yaras?

As far as your "love" goes…….I'm suspicious of your motives.  I'm not making an accusation here, but just let me be clear.  I'm straight.  No offense intended if you're not, I'm just saying.

Finally in response to your insinuation a couple of posts ago that I have no life.  I do have a life.  I've got a cat and everything.

[Morpheus]

Well first you say I shouldn't post unless I bring something new to the table, then you bring your old tactics to the table. So I commented on what I saw as a hypocrisy. Uh….what's a yaras?

It's not my job here to bring anything new to the table. What my job is, is to let you know that your "new Idea" is really only some old whine thats been chewed up and spit out dozens of times.

As far as your "love" goes…….I'm suspicious of your motives. I'm not making an accusation here, but just let me be clear. I'm straight. No offense intended if you're not, I'm just saying.

Darn, and here I thought.... with you making the connection between you and I, and that we look at the "war" and what it is about, in the same way... I thought you were maybe trying to come closer to me and into my life. Oh well.

My proposal attempts to improve the game for the two main categories of people in the game.

LOL you just dont get it do you thick head?

Improve the game for who? You? Maybe. Me? No.

See the point I'm trying to get across to you big guy? Do you see why HT laughs at this "big idea" of yours? LOL wow, some of you newbs really are thick skull'd.

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Boxboy
Well for my money the bomber in this game has several use's such as land grab. They neutralize a base so it can be taken. They kill strat targets to help take bases. They kill CV's to prevent base capture. They kill V bases to prevent ground attack. All of these are non-grief use's.

They can also be used in a grief roll to kill Fighter town, dog fite, dive bomb, kill fiter hangers with no base taking planned etc.

so all in all the bombers have MUCH more they can do than do fighters.

Killing strat targets (troops, ammo bunkers, formerly fuel bunkers) isn't so much a tactic which assists taking bases as it is a tactic to inhibit an enemy from taking bases.

I've already responded to griefing as pertains to Fighter Town, FH hangers and using heavy bombers for dive bombing.  Uh…using them to dog fight?  I assume you mean the use of them as "flack platforms" to bust through a furball.  I've heard that it's possible and that it goes on.  I tried to bust a vulch cap once and it worked with minor success, but only because the fighters cooperated.  I couldn't really chase them down.  They had to come to me and try to shoot me down before I could get guns on them.  For my money a bomber is a fairly easy target for fighters, particularly when there are about half a dozen of them.  I've heard 999000 and Tatertot use the tactic to good advantage.  Since I've never seen them do it I can't comment on the practice.  Even so it sounds like a legitimate grief you have and I'd like to hear any ideas you might have to remedy the problem.

[Morpheus]

Im sorry, didn't you say you had a life?

[ChopSaw]

Originally posted by Morpheus   
It's not my job here to bring anything new to the table. What my job is, is to let you know that your "new Idea" is really only some old whine thats been chewed up and spit out dozens of times.

Your job here?  I didn't know you had a job here.  Typifying your input as a job seems to support the idea that you believe these to be your forums and/or see yourself as a moderator.  Until I hear differently, I'll assume that's presumptuous of you.

Originally posted by Morpheus
See the point I'm trying to get across to you big guy? Do you see why HT laughs at this "big idea" of yours? LOL wow, some of you newbs really are thick skull'd.

Big guy?  Geez, you just won't stop with the sexual innuendo.  I'm not aware that HT is laughing at my idea.  I can understand you not liking what I write, but what makes you think, aside from that, I'm a newb?