Author Topic: Acks Are Too Strong (Read 433 times)

Westy · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2000, 07:56:00 AM »

Pyro or HiTech already said, a couple of weeks ago, that the current ACK is only in a place holder setup and that they are redoing over ALL the ack.

-Westy

Vermillion · « **Reply #16 on:** February 04, 2000, 09:06:00 AM »

cc Westy.

However given the fact that the entire game revolves around base capture, completing the ack model should be a VERY high priority.

I am with funked on this one.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

funked · « **Reply #17 on:** February 04, 2000, 10:14:00 PM »

RGR Westy! It's just that I would rather see them working on this hugely important gameplay factor than fine tuning the Spitfire nose art or something.

But I realize they only have so many people to work on this kind of thing.

Westy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 05, 2000, 07:57:00 AM »

Rgr that Verm and funked but from what I remember the ack was no small project. It was going to be multicalibre and the way folks have been asking for the most part.
I'm not trying to answer for HTC in any way but just saying it was a big effort being worked on from what I read.
I think in each patch you see the results of work from several different people/divisions within HTC. Superfly for example is working on art while HiTech codes a segment of the program and Pyro would build or work on a flight model. Some projects will require more time to work on while others come along sooner.
I agree on the ack issue. I just wanted to remind or mention to folks that Pyro had said he was working on that project and it was no small matter.
Of course I really should pipe down and let them post about it to be honest before I make an a&& of myself

-Westy

popeye · « **Reply #19 on:** February 05, 2000, 08:06:00 AM »

As an interim solution, the ack could be made less accurate/potent/hardened...whatever, AND random/multiple spawn points cound be introduced. This would make it easier to kill the acks, but also make it easier to avoid vultchers and get defenders airborn.

popeye

funked · « **Reply #20 on:** February 05, 2000, 11:23:00 AM »

Westy you are right about it being a big project. The WB otto and ack codes has been tinkered with for 4 years+ now, and it still pisses off a lot of people.

But there has got to be an interim solution to the ack problem. The ack hugging and the impossibility of Jabo missions are detriments to the game.

juzz · « **Reply #21 on:** February 05, 2000, 01:19:00 PM »

Quote

Air Combat (at least the real stuff) is about destroying the enemy's ground assets and protecting one's own ground assets.

Again; why does winning rest solely on "capturing" the enemy's airfields?

JimBear · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2000, 10:41:00 AM »

$0.02 I don't have a problem with their strength, but would love to see the accuracy to pinpoint a particular plane lessened. Would make a world of difference to folks diving for the saftey of the AAA if they took the same chance of a Flak burst in the face from Pvt.Otto as the nme following them in.

JimBear

Pongo · « **Reply #23 on:** February 07, 2000, 11:36:00 AM »

Juzz
Because it is easier to develop that way and lets HT focus on the air to air content...
This is just a scenerio generator for air combat.

------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew

Fatty · « **Reply #24 on:** February 07, 2000, 03:30:00 PM »

I don't see a problem at all with present accuracy. IMO ack huggers are the easiest thing to shoot down short of c47s and parked planes.

Fatty

wolf37 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 07, 2000, 05:52:00 PM »

if you want ack accurcy the same as it ws in WWII, then put out as many acks as there would be at a airfield, not two, more like 20 to 30, better bring more then one or two bombers.

wolf37
THUNDERBIRDS

Jekyll · « **Reply #26 on:** February 19, 2000, 07:51:00 AM »

Quote

Don't you guys know, those aren't WWII vintage acks. They are actually a set of phalanx anti-aircraft/missile defense guns pulled off the Nimitz during her retrofit.

If HTC could code the CWIS system to be as accurate as the AH acks then no US naval vessel need ever fear an Exocet missile ever again

Seriously, the current ack is a complete joke. Flying 6,000 feet over an enemy field at 400kts, pulling 3g evasives and the sole remaining ack had no trouble tracking and taking my plane apart piece by piece.

I remember HT once saying in the arena that the acks were strong in order to force people to fly buffs. OK great.... so people fly buffs.

But why the hell create bomb loadouts for the fighters when the chances of getting your ordinance on target is practically zero?

Set a time delay for ack .... 20 seconds after the first enemy aircraft comes into range. And if you're below 500 feet, 20 seconds after you come within say 1000yds of the field. If you're flying with a wingie it gives you the incentive to try a low-level jabo: if you nail the acks, fine, you're rewarded for your organisational skills. If you miss then you're low near an enemy field and likely to be blown from the sky.

But sheesh.... can HTC really try to defend current ack strength? Have they never heard of VF-17's "Statue of Liberty" play?

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

funked · « **Reply #27 on:** February 19, 2000, 08:10:00 AM »

Jekyll - I couldn't agree with you more.

Jekyll · « **Reply #28 on:** February 20, 2000, 06:46:00 AM »

Thanks for the vote of support funked.

Now if only HTC agreed then we'd be able to put some spark back into this sim

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

funked · « **Reply #29 on:** February 20, 2000, 08:46:00 AM »

I think they've indicated they agree, and apparently they are working hard on air-mud issues right now.