Author Topic: HiTech,Pyro, still considering no "Bar Dar" under 500 feet? (Read 1539 times)

Ripsnort · « **on:** November 05, 2001, 12:35:00 PM »

?

The idea was no dar bar under 500 feet, except when within a certain distance of enemy field.

Reschke · « **Reply #1 on:** November 05, 2001, 03:37:00 PM »

Sounds good to me Rip. Of course I think we should only have input if you have a "visual" sighting of the enemy at all but that is just me I guess.

By "visual" I mean when you get within a certain range and if you choose not to engage but rather edge around them you risk loosing the contact. But I like it when it is hard for the enemy to find me and vice versa.

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** November 05, 2001, 04:43:00 PM »

Quote

Of course I think we should only have input if you have a "visual" sighting of the enemy at all but that is just me I guess.

Then go fly a WWI sim. Don't try to turn WWII into WWI with WWII aircraft.

I'd like to try the no "Bar Dar" under 500 feet before making up my mind. It might prove to be too powerful. P-47s, P-38s, F4U-1s and Mossies can make an awful big mess while never getting 500 feet above ground level.

Reschke · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2001, 05:21:00 PM »

Why do you take things out of context Karnak? If you are going to quote someone don't be like the media and qoute partially.

At least quote the whole short post and show that it is MY PREFERENCE and I do not attempt to push anything on anyone. As well as expressing my OPINION like others here do all the time.

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** November 05, 2001, 07:05:00 PM »

Reschke,

I probably misunderstood you then, because nothing you posted after the sentence I copied changed anything in the sentence.

You were simply saying that you prefered that there be no radar. That is a WWI environment. The only able reason for stating your preference is to get your desires out in the hope that they will be implimented somewhere, at least that's the only reason I can come up with.

Sorry if I offended, but I have no desire to play with WWII aircraft in a WWI environment and will make statements pointing out how silly that desire is whenever somebody expresses it.

Reschke · « **Reply #5 on:** November 05, 2001, 08:52:00 PM »

I don't think I made myself clear to some people there.

What I meant by my statement was you (anyone flying) should only get radar vector information if someone has/had visual sighting on the enemy in the area. Or if they are in the air very close to a base that your country controls. Then and only then you should be receiving radar information on the exact position of enemy forces instead of an estimated position.

But that is only my opinion and I would rather have nothing since that is how 80%+ (again my guess without actually looking up the info) of all air battles were fought in WW2. At least until the later stages of WW2.

Seeker · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2001, 09:14:00 PM »

"I would rather have nothing since that is how 80%+ (again my guess without actually looking up the info) of all air battles were fought in WW2. At least until the later stages of WW2."

All well and good (I agree with your historical assesment), but that's why it's only suitable for the CT or a scenario, not the MA, which has to cater for air quakers, furballers and guys with a quick half hour to kill.

These people need to find a fight quick; the MA dar does require inauthentic tactics; but then so does escorting Lancs with 109's.

GunnerCAF · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2001, 10:31:00 PM »

Quote

...but that's why it's only suitable for the CT or a scenario, not the MA ...

I will second that.

Gunner <CAF>

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2001, 10:59:00 PM »

I'm still 100% behind the idea of no bar-dar below 500 feet for everything except GVs. It was one aspect of the CA that was awesome (well.. if it woulda worked right).

AKDejaVu

popeye · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2001, 08:25:00 AM »

Bar-dar above 500 feet, or within visual range of any friendly base, city, factory, etc. Ideally, "visual range" would vary with altitude, 3 miles for aircraft, and 1/2 mile for GVs. This would give defenders about 30 seconds to scramble.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2001, 08:57:00 AM »

I assume no developer reply means "no, not considering it".

AcId · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2001, 09:15:00 AM »

I wouldnt say that rip. I've seen a few things since I've been here that we're brought up by the community where there was no comment by HTC staff about it but was tried or implemented. Or at least not spoken about until it was researched to be viable or not <-- only my opinion on that one.

hblair · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2001, 09:33:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
I assume no developer reply means "no, not considering it".

Therein lies the mystery.

I've been beating my head against the wall with this. I've asked when they're online, never got any real answers from anybody. Finally about 6 months ago HT said something like they "needed some way to warn people".

I respect his views obviously (if it weren't for HT we wouldn't have warbirds or Aces High) Hard to bicker with him if you know what I mean.

But I really hope he will consider removing the bar radar below 500 ft. in the main arena.

The fights would spread out.

Look at the mindanao map.
The way it is now, the country on the to the west can only be attacked in a 50 mile wide area.

Why ?
Because no matter how low you go, you're going to be all over radar. Plan screwed from the time you hit the runway.

With below 500ft coverage removed the southern country could actually hit the western country effectively. The defenders could have an advantage because the attackers are below 500ft. With this, you'd prolly need some type of text warning message in the radio bar. (I'm not a programme so I don't know whats involved there)

BTW, when 1.08 first came out and there was NO enemy radar for a few days, the arena didn't go nuts, I saw no wild missions all the way across the map, so you might remove the below 500ft radar with out a warning system.

Give it some thought HT. Tell us monkeys what you're thinking. Throw us this small 'nana.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #13 on:** November 06, 2001, 10:33:00 AM »

It would be interesting to hear HT’s thoughts on this. I think it would add a great deal to the game by removing the dar below 500 feet. I can understand that there may be a challenge of trying to notify the country that a particular base is under attack when GV’s are introduced into the equation.

I do not believe there is any reason to add additional alerts for aircraft at that altitude due to the fact most, or even all, of the attacking aircraft will have to gain a bit of altitude before dropping ordinance. It may be possible that the roadblock for this is the question of how to deal with attacking vehicles.

Zippatuh

Ripsnort · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2001, 10:55:00 AM »

Exactly Hblair, right now, they are focused on small areas of the map..we need to expand horizons! Not only does this give the agressor the element of surprise, but the Defender also has fair enough warning once the cons get within certain distance of their fields, then, the defender KNOWS they are all low, so its a field day for both!

Seems like HT,Pyro only answer the new guys anymore, since they are prospective customers, and we're , well, addicted!