Puffy ack

[Scca]

Could someone advise me, is there player controlled puffy ack? I thought we just had the usual explode on contact shells for manned ack?

Can someone tell me how to use a puffy ack gun?

In all of the 5" ship guns, both the singles and the doubles, you can select between AA and HE (explode on contact).  Depending on what you are attempting to destroy, you can toggle back and forth to select them.

Check out this link to see how to operate them Ship & Shore Guns

[moot]

That article makes you use the cursor... You don't have to. You can just move the head position around (pageup/dwn and left/right arrows) to slide the crosshair around, and keep the cursor free for map clicking, etc. 

[BnZs]

nevermind

[ODBAL]

In my opinion the biggest problem with the puffy ack is that it only targets enemy planes.  I hate it when a carrier pulls up next a base and you are getting puffy acked while taking off and vulched, or guys jump in the 5" guns and just start pouring rounds into a furball.  They should damage all aircraft in the area of which they explode.  You should get killshot like you do in a plane, or even damage your own ally.  Make the use of them more specific to enemy planes and not just arbitrary dots on the horizon.

[Dantoo]

IOW let the demographics drift lead the way... No thanks.

I keep reading that and keep reading what I wrote and I have no clue how to interpret your thought.

[moot]

Ack gunning is no fun.  Auto defense does the job that no one wants to do. Remove it and you'd not only have to interrupt the point of the game (land to man the guns instead of air combat) thanks the majority of players oblivious to strat/tactical sense, but also have gameplay suffer because of it.
There's more agressive play to be found in targets defended than not. Agressive play is favored with available firepower.. remove the autos and you've reduced said firepower.

[Dantoo]

I think we're expressing the same thoughts with the general thrust, perhaps not the specifics.  We are on the same side though.  Let me elucidate:

Right now if a fight breaks out near a cv it quickly drops back to a fight between 5 inch gunners and attack planes.  There is about 14 5 inch guns on a fleet and they are near impossible to knock out with cannon fire.  Despite ack gunning being "no fun" they fill up pretty quickly at the first show of resistance.  There is no imperative  for the defenders to get up and fight.  It's far more effective for them to sit and blaze away.  Any land based plane that strays above 3k is bracketed by accurate puffy ack.  Why up a fighter hoping for a fight?  Once it's clear that the cv planes can't get a vulch going, it's retreat to the ack, grab a 5 inch and blaze away. Once it's clear that the cv crowd are all in the 5 inch why stay and fly? 

Where is the positive incentive to get up and fight for either side?  It's merciful when the buffs come over and sink the cv.  There is never a high cap up there preventing that anymore.  It's just yells of "turn the cv" and boom down it goes, followed by abusive recriminations against "somebody" and "nobody" on range.

The puffy ack doesn't prevent the cv being sunk.  It doesn't even discourage me (nor will it) from flying over and putting the cv down.  I do know that there will be no fighter force up there defending now, unlike in the past when you needed an escort to even get near.  By making the cv tougher, bristle with 5 inch and increasing the hit rate of puffy ack, there is in the mind of players, far less reason to defend it in the air. 

An extension of this thinking has pervaded the defence of land bases.  The base does such a good job of defending itself these days that there is quite a bit less encouragement for those who have a notion to attack.  There have been an increasing number of calls in this "wishlist" to drive even further down that path.  Clearly there are people that never wish to get off the ground in the MA game. Fine.  This may be ok but there is a thread here where a guy is expressing that he doesn't even wish to drive a gv!  He just wants to bounce about in manned guns and he wants them more powerful, more accurate and more of them.

I am putting the view that mollycoddling and upping the hurt rate of AI and static defences has decreased the incentive for both attack and defence.  These things always seem a great idea at the time....
I remember the short run failed attempt to make people fight down narrow pathways on maps.  It actually removed options to generate fights. One of the best ways to liven up a map is to sneak around and grab a field far in the rear.  Pretty much always leads to a wild fight.

What is wrong with somebody taking a base?  If their aggression is rewarded they just might keep doing it.  If the other guy doesn't like it, he might go try and get it back.  Good lord.  A fight might even break out that can be enjoyed by stratters and furballers.

rgds

[BnZs]

.  .....Any land based plane that strays above 3k is bracketed by accurate puffy ack.....

....The puffy ack doesn't prevent the cv being sunk.  It doesn't even discourage me (nor will it) from flying over and putting the cv down..... 

That is why I said the AI should target enemy planes based on ord load, course, and distance. The B-24s coming directly towards the CV at 8K and 2 miles out should be targeted, not an enemy fighter having a dogfight with another fighter at 10K five miles away. I'd like it if the auto puffy simply didn't target non-ords carrying planes, ever.

[Dantoo]

In other words you want AI to do your work for you.  This is what I am totally against.  If you want it killed, get a suitable suit of armour and have at it.

[moot]

Sorry, busy with other stuff and didn't get around to reply yet.

[Dantoo]

No prob take it out of here if you like - we have begun to hijack this rather badly.

[BnZs]

In other words you want AI to do your work for you.  This is what I am totally against.  If you want it killed, get a suitable suit of armour and have at it.

Dantoo: Fact: we HAVE AI puffy ack. I want it to act like it has some damned sense. I want it to shoot at the B-24s that are on a bombing run for the carrier, NOT some fighter higher and farther away. This will benefit the side that has the carrier because the asset will actually be defended, AND it will benefit the other side's fighters in the furball, since they won't be targeted by the stinking auto-puffy. Better for everybody. What is so hard to understand about that?

You want to solve the problem by getting rid of AI puffy? Fine, I don't entirely agree, but I think it would be better than what we have now.

I do think the other posters are right about AI flak to defend CVs from bombers though. Frankly, I wish there was AI flak of the type I propose around ALL airbases, to be somewhat of a check on the buffs that are a disproportionately dominant force in moving the map right now.

Your idea of people putting a high-CAP on the CV is not practical for the MA and I'll tell you why. First, let us start with the fact that there is only one carrier plane really suitable for taking on the American heavy buffs, the C-Hog, which is perked. Not only is it perked, but in all terms other than firepower it is a poor choice for the job, because it climbs slowly, has little time on station, and it's glass R-2800 goes out at least as easy as any other plane's engine. Then you've got to look at the dynamics. Flying high-cap means that you take the time to get to high altitude before the buffs get there (if indeed you can) and possibly spend a good deal of your time lingering there, bored. If the buff shows up, you get to engage a "deathstar" that can shoot every gun in the formation at you, and, the usual best outcome, get 3 kills and have to land with a smoking engine. As long as the buff formations remain death-stars flying incredibly fast above normal AHII combat alts, any half-way decent fighter pilot in the MA can have more fun and get at least as many kills in fighter-on-fighter combat, so that is what they will do.