Perk the WiberlWind!!

[SD67]

I think we should start to use more effective mission planning.
IIRC (I haven't looked) the mission planned allows for planes to take off at varying intervals and from different bases. We should start to see an SEAD strike of maybe three planes moving in a few minutes ahead of the rest of the mission to take out the VH and begin deacking before the bulk of the force arrives to vulch and take town down.

[Oleg]

Unperking everything would have the same mass of players that go straight for the path of least resistence now, go for the least difficult planes to fly. 

Like they do now, choosing the least difficult (and most effective too) AA vehicle?

262 is easily avoided and need only few 12mm in cockpit to kill, definitely it must not be perked 

[BnZ]

The way I see it, summarized:

Fighters can't roam about strafing everything on the ground with near-impunity anymore, using the gun instead of the bomb to disable GVs and destroy stuff. Bombers have got to actually get above the treetops to survive, as opposed to the old "lanc stuka" act. Defenders actually stand a chance. Wanna vulch, you at least gotta egg the crap out of the place first. There is an actual defense to use against vulching, rather than giving vulchers alot of kills by just upping like suicidal lemmings until you overwhelm them with sheer numbers.

Dive-bombers still take out hangars and GVs with very little risk from guys in WWs, bombers above 6,000 feet are still practically invulnerable to AA weapons and are able to bomb them into oblivion. Dive-bombers...heavy level bombers...maybe with time there will be actual organized attempts to both intercept and escort them! (A man can dream...) This, IMO, is tending more towards the way the "war" ought to be waged, as opposed to bunches of NOE 110s in quick-grab raids 80% of the time.

Heres the thing: Does the WW change the gameplay some. Yes. But I see most of the  changes the WW brings as positives.

[DaddyAck]

This thread is still going strong? Oh well. 

BTW, Soupcan that is a sweet sweet Macci in your avatar.    I love that plane, and hope one day it will recieve a face lift from the powers that be.

[RoGenT]

I don't think it should be perked for couple of reasons

1. It can be taken out by even the smallest of bombs

2. It has the range of a sword

3. See the first 2 reasons 

[Cajunn]

After reading all the post on this thread I would agree not to perk it...And Like Van said just lower the ENY of the thing. It does make the game a little more challenging and I think that is a good thing.

[Swatch]

Oh come on... you guys don't think that 5 perkies would be worth it?  A good WW can get those back in one sortie.  I may not have many perks myself, but I'm all for a more extensive perk system to avoid hangar queens.  5 perks would discourage abuse of it, and its not like you have to lose those 5 perks during a base defense.  Just park yourself on concrete and when your turret is killed, just .ef

That way, you don't lose your perks, but for those people who don't know how to properly use it, they wouldn't overuse it and they'd be forced to....oh I don't know.... USE AN OSTIE? or even the M-16?  I haven't heard a good reason why NOT to perk it...just people saying one of the following...

1. "Stop whining, learn not to get killed by them"
2. "I don't think its abused"
3. "NO"

The point is not to ruin anyones fun, but instead to avoid rampant numbers.  While I agree that a lower ENY should fix the problem, it likely won't since 90% of the time ENY is zero anyway.  I also agree with the suggestion that the agility of the turret may be overstated in the game, and reducing that would help relieve some of the complaints of how easy it is to use.  I use the WW and even I agree that it is a bit too easy to get kills.

The other thing, which is only slightly related, is the Vulch complaint... I personally don't see why people fuss.  I'm no fighter pilot, and as a result I've rarely been a part of a vulch, but I've been vulched many times and find it just an aspect of war.   How often would planes be destroyed on the ground?  Quite often.  Well, since we can't destroy them before people start to take off, then vulching will just have to do...especially with how easy it is for one fighter or bomber to kill a goon and/or its troops.  When it becomes harder for a single plane to wreck an entire base capture, then I'll be more for steps to eliminate the vulch, but until then, I think the better ack is as good as anything.

Anywho, that's my take on it.  If you're not going to perk it (even small perks, just as a deterrent like the Sherman), then some drastic measures should be made to reduce its ubiquitous use.

[Nisky]

Ummm my fix for the wirbel is i now bomb them from 1.5k as soon as i see icon range its bombs away. Just take 2 mins more to get some alt. 85% percent of people cant hit u from that far and if they do u maybe lose a part or 2 but ive rarely gotten hit using this tactic. If u cant divebomb from that far out go offline and practice on the stationary gv's.I believe humans were blessed with a gift its called adaption use it. Im all for lowering the eny of it tho. Just my $0.2.

[moot]

Like they do now, choosing the least difficult (and most effective too) AA vehicle?

Yeah, a lot like a group of whiners are complaining about one ground vehicle that takes just 1 bomb to kill and 1 burst of guns to disable.

262 is easily avoided and need only few 12mm in cockpit to kill, definitely it must not be perked " "

Where are the turbojets on the WW, that allow it to zoom out of the way of bombs, rockets, and bullets at 100mph more than anything else in the arena?

Oh come on... you guys don't think that 5 perkies would be worth it?  A good WW can get those back in one sortie.

Not with the lower ENY it's guaranteed to get, it won't.

  I may not have many perks myself, but I'm all for a more extensive perk system to avoid hangar queens.  5 perks would discourage abuse of it

What abuse?

I haven't heard a good reason why NOT to perk it...just people saying one of the following...

1. "Stop whining, learn not to get killed by them"
2. "I don't think its abused"
3. "NO"

You're either blind or thick.  Refute those three answers.

The point is not to ruin anyones fun,

How, by requiring players to do something else than suicide into the WW's cone of fire?  Learning ACM?  Tactics?

[BnZ]

I've said why not to perk it repeatedly, because I think the effects it has on gameplay are IMO mostly positive. I realize that is a matter of opinion, but I think its effect on gameplay, not how many Ostis and M-16s are being used, is what the debate revolves around. (WW still can't punch down large airplanes at the range Osti does, and still can't carry troops BTW.)

Lower ENY would certainly keep it from being an easy vehicle to rack up GV perks in, while still allowing its use, so yeah, no problem with that.

The WW is a highly effective AA weapon out to 1.5K. I wouldn't call it "EASY" to rack kills up on, except on planes that are practically strafing you. Still requires the problematical art of deflection shooting on targets moving hundreds of miles per hour. I guess it is a matter of opinion, I don't think the WW is a problem, I think the lack of an AA weapon as effective as the WW was a problem.

"5 perks would discourage abuse of it, and its not like you have to lose those 5 perks during a base defense.  Just park yourself on concrete and when your turret is killed, just .ef"

Don't know how much 5 perks would reduce the use. Possibly quite abit. Keep in mind, the Sherman was perked because it proved a very deadly tank in direct combat with a range of OTHER tanks. I don't think anyone wants the WW perked so people will use the Osti/M-16 more, I think they want it perked because of the effect it has on gamplay. But, taking the % use arguement at face value, that strikes me as rather like perking the P-51D for the sole purpose of making people use the B more, or the C.205 to give the C.202 more play, or the "Big three" buffs to get more Ju-88s in the air.

[Swatch]

Not with the lower ENY it's guaranteed to get, it won't.

If you perk it, then I don't know that the ENY has to be reduced.

As far as "What abuse?", it's the abuse when a VH pops and within 30 seconds, 6+ WW are spreading out onto the field.  (I actually counted 11 pop out in the 30 seconds it took me to line up the VH and drop my bombs during one base capture... I did get 3 kills though which was cool).   That's what I mean by abuse...


And I just don't find a lot of substance in those three answers... they don't provide a good explenation of why the person feels it shouldn't be perked.  And I did look back and find many people say that its range should prevent the perking...and I can agree with that.  That's also a good explenation on why NOT to perk it.  I'm ok with that.

Don't know how much 5 perks would reduce the use. Possibly quite abit. Keep in mind, the Sherman was perked because it proved a very deadly tank in direct combat with a range of OTHER tanks. I don't think anyone wants the WW perked so people will use the Osti/M-16 more, I think they want it perked because of the effect it has on gamplay. But, taking the % use arguement at face value, that strikes me as rather like perking the P-51D for the sole purpose of making people use the B more, or the C.205 to give the C.202 more play, or the "Big three" buffs to get more Ju-88s in the air.

I don't see it as quite the same as flying 51's and 205's.... there are many alternatives to those and many people fly many different airplanes.  I agree the 202 is never used, but that's because it really doesn't have any advantage over the 205... I've seen the 51B flown as effectively as the D though.  But in some ways, this is why I endorse a more extensive Perk system that uses various levels of perkdom.  I'm not talking about spending 40-50 perks per plane, I'm talking about many planes in the 3-10 range.  This would encourage more skill to be built in planes before taking advantage of pure performance.  Small amount of perk requirements may also encourage people to protect their planes a bit more and I certainly think you could see more of the "hangar queens".  I don't mean for it to extensively limit a planes usage, just to provide some accountability with the planes that one flies.

[hubsonfire]

As far as "What abuse?", it's the abuse when a VH pops and within 30 seconds, 6+ WW are spreading out onto the field.  (I actually counted 11 pop out in the 30 seconds it took me to line up the VH and drop my bombs during one base capture... I did get 3 kills though which was cool).   That's what I mean by abuse...

 AA GVs being used in an AA role is abuse? Good luck winning anyone over with that reasoning.

I don't see it as quite the same as flying 51's and 205's.... there are many alternatives to those and many people fly many different airplanes. 

The 51 is the single most prevalent aircraft. Also, perking all the more popular aircraft only limits the newer players who need a crutch, and practically serves them up on a platter to the rest of us. Always a bad idea.

[Swatch]

AA GVs being used in an AA role is abuse? Good luck winning anyone over with that reasoning.


Ahhh... but when did 11 AA GV's pop up out of nowhere from a newly repaired Vehicle factory?    If there were some sort of limiting factor on how often a certain GV could be spawned (which we all know doesn't make sense for Aces High) then it would make more sense.  Trust me, I know how absurd my argument sounds when applied to non-game logic, but that number of GV's pouring out does a lot to break the realism sensation of AcesHigh.  And keep in mind, this realism sensation is one of the most valuable things in any simulation, especially flight simulations.  My objection has nothing to do with what role people are using them in.

...perking all the more popular aircraft only limits the newer players who need a crutch, and practically serves them up on a platter to the rest of us. Always a bad idea.

I can't disagree with that...but I didn't say perk ALL of the popular aircraft, I said a more extensive perk system.   I absolutely agree that there has to be a few good "crutch" planes that are free to use, but that doesn't mean they have to be the best.   For example give them the 51B instead of a 51D.  Performance specs aren't that drastically worse.  So maybe 8 times out of 10 a new player dies in a 51B as opposed to 7 times out of 10 they die in a 51D...it encourages them to become the better pilot and win the dogfight.  We have a large enough selection of planes that a plane set can be made freely available that are competitive and still have better planes available for perk.  We have something like 5+ spits, 47s and 109s, so make some of them perked.  I have faith that HTC could choose how to balance the field.

[LTARGlok]

I think Wirbelwind must be perked for same reasons as Firefly - overuse, and to keep Osti and m16 in service.
But sure, HTC will wait some time before final decision, its too early to say does it really deserve perk cost or not.
Btw, vulching is bad 

What kind of logic is that?   What constitutes "overuse"??

Are you guys trying to say that if something is popular to use, that it then has to be perked??   If so, let's start perking popular planes like the LA-7 and bf110-G2.  Or what about Lancasters?   Aren't they "overused"?

Ground forces are still at huge disadvantage Wirbelwind or no.  The Wirbel, the Osti, and the M16 are all very easy to kill.   It does not take very much firepower to take out the guns on any of them.   I agree with those here who have argued that all folks have to do is learn some better skills and tactics.   And if that happens, then the quality of play in this game will be better.

The Wirbel has brought a little more balance to this game.  Air forces still have a huge advantage, but at least now ground forces have a slightly better chance of defending themselves.

And it has also made the game much more realistic and accurate too.   In the reality of WWII, a lot of JABO planes were lost to ground fire, not other aircraft.  So if you don't like being killed by a Wirbel, then go find a big free-for-all on the map, and join in the dogfight.   And if you want to fly JABO, then learn proper JABO tactics.

But don't complain here about the Wirbel being too popular.   A big part of that is partially because it is a new toy.   The M16 still has twice the speed of a Wirbel, and the Osti still has much better firepower for taking down a greater number of town buildings.   A number of people had also stopped using the Osti, after the view got so badly messed up in the original update.

[E25280]

As far as "What abuse?", it's the abuse when a VH pops and within 30 seconds, 6+ WW are spreading out onto the field.  (I actually counted 11 pop out in the 30 seconds it took me to line up the VH and drop my bombs during one base capture... I did get 3 kills though which was cool).   That's what I mean by abuse...

That is not abuse.  That is a typical LTAR-type defense of a field under vulch.  And, by the way, by typical I mean well before the wirbelwind when you had a choice between an Ostiwind and an M16.  

The only difference is that now people other than LTARs are willing to do it more regularly.  That isn't a bad thing.  It is what AA vehicles were put in the game for.