Increase cost of 163

[SlapShot]

I remember when bomb craters actually DID something, I miss it

In the 6+ years that I have been playing ... bomb craters have done "nothing", but look like bomb craters.

It's bad enough being in a furball keeping your head on a swivel, then here comes a 163 at 600mph+    Doesn't take a whole lot of skill to scream in at warp speed on someone who is already engaged.   May as well throw in a F-16 Falcon to match.

Screaming in a 600+ mph ... picking a target (other than a bomber) ... maneuvering for the kill ... and then firing those potatoes, on target ... is REAL HARD ... and there are only a handful of people that could actually pull that off.

Over exaggeration never makes a "point" ... it only weakens it.

[SD67]

That's odd.
I remember driving GV's over craters and actually having to drive OVER the rims rather than THROUGH them as we do now

[angelsandair]

Those things are waaaay too cheap.  To the point of ruining gameplay.  It's O.K. when used for it's intended purpose (high alt rapid intercept of bombers).  But it is so abused in the MA.  It's bad enough being in a furball keeping your head on a swivel, then here comes a 163 at 600mph+    Doesn't take a whole lot of skill to scream in at warp speed on someone who is already engaged.   May as well throw in a F-16 Falcon to match.

Tonight, I saw a pile of 163s doing just that.  262s are bad enough, but not that hard to shoot down (or get them to auger or pull their wings off )  But 163s BNZing engaged fighters is just over the line.

I'd like to see them go away but the  would never end.  They were used very little in the war in real life anyway.

At least increase the cost to 500-1000 points so they are harder to get and the abuse should decrease.

Stop crying you baby, bishop HQ was down for almost 2 hours. As soon as it popped, your NOE P-51 missions and buff runs would kill it.

[Roundeye]

  I was porking the other team near their HQ and got shot down by a 163.   

How about educating yourself before attempting a smart-*** post? 

We were defending a base from recapture having a great time.  Things were not going their way in conventional planes so they started coming over in waves of 262s and 163s....picking the furball at low and medium altitude.

Show me just one example of a 163 being used like that in RL.  Just one.

Its gamey.  Just sayin.

PS:  It is NOT hard to swoop in on someone who is already engaged and spray 30mm.  Now if someone was one-on-one with a 163, thats difficult and requires skill. 

[Roundeye]

Stop crying you baby

LOL!  When you start growing facial hair then maybe you can call someone a baby.

[Lusche]

Show me just one example of a 163 being used like that in RL.  Just one.

Its gamey.  Just sayin.

Using formations of Lancs to hunt single Panzers - gamey
Hangars respawning in 15mins - gamey
Bailing over own town to hide in maproom and kill helpless enemy troops - gamey
Destryoing ammo bunkers on enemy fields with a few cannon rounds - gamey
Strafing buildings with machine guns is much more effective than bombing them - gamey





Having to cope with 163's is the price for being successful and having pushed the enemy back to his HQ bases. A rather small one as 163's can't capture bases and have only limited time to cap a base. And compared to everythign else that's "gamey" it's almost negilible.

[Wingnutt]

yea, there are so many things in this game that are utterly unrealistic and gamy.. whats one more.

and for those who werent around..

in the past bombing the runways was an effective tactics (hey just like real life!) if an aircraft drive over a bomb crater with any speed it would damage the landing gear.

that effect was at some point (dont know when) removed..   and replaced with the BS harmless craters we have now.

[ian5440]

yea, there are so many things in this game that are utterly unrealistic and gamy.. whats one more.

and for those who werent around..

in the past bombing the runways was an effective tactics (hey just like real life!) if an aircraft drive over a bomb crater with any speed it would damage the landing gear.

that effect was at some point (dont know when) removed..   and replaced with the BS harmless craters we have now.

you just liked to capet bomb runways and rack up the kills 

ps nutt. i posted all my putr stuff in the forum if u will give it a check

[BnZ]

PS:  It is NOT hard to swoop in on someone who is already engaged and spray 30mm.  Now if someone was one-on-one with a 163, thats difficult and requires skill. 

With a 200-300mph closure rate, it can be hard to hit a B-17 going straight and level.

[Roundeye]

Using formations of Lancs to hunt single Panzers - gamey
Hangars respawning in 15mins - gamey
Bailing over own town to hide in maproom and kill helpless enemy troops - gamey
Destryoing ammo bunkers on enemy fields with a few cannon rounds - gamey
Strafing buildings with machine guns is much more effective than bombing them - gamey





Having to cope with 163's is the price for being successful and having pushed the enemy back to his HQ bases. A rather small one as 163's can't capture bases and have only limited time to cap a base. And compared to everythign else that's "gamey" it's almost negilible.

Those are some great examples.  All I'm asking is if there is a problem identified where someone for whatever reason exploits the game and means are available to fix it, then why not fix it?  It could only lead to a better, more realistic and enjoyable game.

I have watched many good suggestions get shot down.  There are a few here who love to find and exploit flaws in the game....they are the first ones to say deal with it and resist changes.  Making it difficult, costly or impossible to exploit/misuse can only make AH a more realistic experience.  I can't speak for the rest of the players here, but realism is what attracted me to this game in the first place.

Something can be done about Lancstukas, plastic ammo bunkers, stealing kills by shooting falling fuselages and picking furballers with rocket planes .

I've seen alot of exploitation lately, then again it is summer and school is out.  Maybe things will tone down a bit next month .

[Husky01]

And wingnut, do you have any idea what kind of planning, patience, and stick skills are required to work a 163 from a rear base to a forward furball?

Its not easy by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes its possibly gaming the game a bit, but then most of us do that in one way or another.

In order to be able to land, taxi, rearm, and takeoff you have to keep the wheels on. If you exceed 300 mph you'll damage the wheels. In which case you've just wasted your perks for nothing. If someone catch's you landing, or on the runway your toast, burnt toast.

The risks are high, the cost is high, I really don't see or hear of these being abused often enough to justify changing it.

^--What the smart guy said.

[Wingnutt]

for refrence..

tonight at the big furball in blue at A45 that has been going on all day..

I watched a guy up a 163 from 31 by the hq, land it at 33 refuel, take off, land it at 34, refuel, take off, land at 41 refuel..then take it into the furball at 45.

its anything but difficult.

[moot]

That's odd.
I remember driving GV's over craters and actually having to drive OVER the rims rather than THROUGH them as we do now

They did, but they were taken out, and so were damagable runways.. I think one lancaster could destroy the runway objects.  I think the collidable craters were removed because they were too costly in bandwidth.  They'd have had to be tracked by the server for any new player to see if they showed up after the craters were made, etc.

And any more than 200 perks for a 163 is exagerated.  I'd say 100 tops...

[moot]

With a 200-300mph closure rate, it can be hard to hit a B-17 going straight and level.

You mean 600-800 right?

[Delirium]

I watched a guy up a 163 from 31 by the hq, land it at 33 refuel, take off, land it at 34, refuel, take off, land at 41 refuel..then take it into the furball at 45.

What were you doing? Sightseeing for all that time?