MWA as bad as any other arena now:(

[moot]

why not accept that things are changing, that some of the old attitude to gameplay from the AW era is going away, and just have fun blasting all the noobs out of the sky

Umm No. Why not accept that things are getting worse? Because we'd rather they be better, or at least stuck on 'good enough'.  A rash of players who offer zero challenge except for the same hording and extreme BNZ day in and day out, that just gets OLD.   Like a gladiator arena that's stood time for a long while hosting various quality fights, but always within a certain range of ok-ness.. Maybe some gladiators sucked, others were excellent, but there was always fighting....  And then for no apparent reason, those man to man or man vs. chariot or man vs. lions fights were replaced with one or a couple of guys vs... swarms of bees.   LOL

It's about that much fun.  Multiplayer games are great because you get to fight something human.. Too many of the players playing like they were buggy AI is no fun.   Then you add how often those new players disregard the historical flavor of the game, the score potatoes etc, and the whole intent of the game, Air Combat, is pretty diluted.. And that makes things get old even faster.

[Masherbrum]

Excellent post Matt.   I almost replied to that one as well. 

[Shuffler]

From http://www.aviationartists.ca/newsletternew.htm

Ask any WW II history buff which aircraft he most closely associates with the Battle of Britain, and the most likely answer will be “Spitfire”. While not incorrect, that answer is not quite on the mark. As will be shown below, it is not without good reason that the RAF’s annual Battle of Britain flypast is led by a Hawker Hurricane.

In 1933, Sydney Camm, Hawker’s chief designer, began de-sign of what he called the Fury monoplane which would be pow-ered by the Rolls-Royce Goshawk, carry four guns, have a closed cockpit and a revolutionary retractable undercarriage. By early 1934, his design had been renamed the ‘Interceptor Monoplane”, would carry eight guns and be Merlin powered, although the Fury lineage is still obvious. In Aug 1934, the Air Ministry wrote specification F36/34 around Camm’s design, and authorized the construction of one prototype, K5083, which had its maiden flight on 06 Nov 1935. In June 1936, it was formally named Hurricane and in Dec 1937, the first production aircraft reached operational service with 111 Squadron.

When Camm undertook his design, he was aware that Super-marine, (working to specification F37/34 which would become the Spitfire), had much more experience with stressed-skin, monocoque monoplanes and would put most of its emphasis on performance. He therefore decided to capitalize on Hawker’s production experience with the Fury and Hart, and design an air-craft that would meet the performance specification, but would be rugged, simple, fast and inexpensive to produce and quick and easy to repair and maintain.

Camm’s decision paid dividends for the RAF. Although the contracts for the two aircraft were awarded only a month apart, the gap slipped to four months between maiden flights, and to six months for entry into squadron service. For the same expendi-ture of resources, Hawker was able to produce five Hurricanes for every three Spitfires. Thus, on 8 Aug 1940, the official onset date for the Battle of Britain, and despite losing nearly 200 Hur-ricanes in the Battle of France, the RAF could muster 32 squa-drons of Hurricanes and only 19 of Spitfires.

The Hurricane, although it was a little slower and could not climb as fast as either the Spitfire or Bf-109, had several unique qualities/advantages over its RAF stablemate:
• As noted above, it was cheaper, easier and faster to build, maintain and repair. Throughout the war, it had the highest serviceability rate of any RAF aircraft de-spite the often appalling operating conditions.
• It had a superior ability to withstand combat damage and still fly, fight and get its pilot home safely.
• Its sloping nose and slightly elevated pilot seating pro-vided superior forward visibility both during taxiing and flight, and in tight turns, the nose did not blank out the target.
• Its rugged, wide-track undercarriage enabled it to oper-ate from rougher fields and to withstand hard landings without collapsing or ground-looping.
• It had superior manoeuvreability to both the Spitfire and Bf-109, easily turning inside them.
• It was also superior to both as a gun platform.

Robert Stanford Tuck, in his biography “Fly for Your Life” by Larry Fisher, stated that he was heartbroken to be transferred from his beloved Spitfire to a Hurricane unit, but went on to say:

“After the Spit, she was like a flying brick....a great lumbering farmyard stallion compared with a gentle thoroughbred....[but]....after that first hop, after I’d got the feel of her, I never noticed this, or any of the other differences any more.”.

Douglas Bader, who also transitioned from Spitfires to Hurri-canes, in his book “Fight for the Sky”, said:

“Like all pilots who flew and fought in the Hurricane, I grew to love it. The Spit was a somewhat better per former, but when it came to actually shooting, the Hurricane had no equals. In a dogfight, the Hurricane was every bit as good as the Spitfire.”.

He and many other pilots believed that the Hurricane’s stabil-ity as a gun platform came from its thick, straight wing and the close clustering of the guns just outside the propellor arc. Where-as the Spitfire jittered when in the target’s slipstream, and the re-coil from its widely spaced guns tended to throw off one’s aim, the Hurricane was as steady as if it was riding on rails.

From the moment the two aircraft were introduced into RAF service, Spitfire pilots tended to look down their noses at those who were ‘unfortunate’ enough to get stuck with Hurricanes. It is interesting to note that even Luftwaffe aircrew suffered from “Spitfire snobbery” They had been led to believe that the Spitfire was much the superior aircraft, and after being shot down and captured, insisted that they could only have been bested by a Spitfire rather than the lowly Hurricane.

A similar snobbery is evident in the apocryphal story of a conversation between Hermann Goring and Adolf Galland. The former, supposedly, asked the latter what he needed to win the Battle of Britain, and the reply was “A wing of Spitfires”. During that Battle, Hurricanes actually accounted for more enemy aircraft than all other air defences combined. Perhaps, if that exchange ever actually took place, Galland should have asked for a wing of Hurricanes.

Although Hurricanes were directed primarily against bomb-ers, while the Spitfires went after the covering fighters, in prac-tice, the situation was much more fluid. When engaged in fighter-vs-fighter combat, the Hurricane had only a marginally lower ‘kill ratio’ than the Spitfire; however, the Hurricane pilot had a better chance of surviving being shot down.
Altogether, some 14,251 Hurricanes were built, including a large number by Canadian Car and Foundry. They served in every theatre in which Commonwealth forces were engaged, including with the RCAF in Canada. Although withdrawn from UK-based Fighter Command units in late 1941, it soldiered on in front-line service in other theatres until the end of the war. It was employed as a fighter, fighter-bomber, tank-destroyer (when fitted with two underwing 40 mm cannon), photo reconnaissance, from aircraft carriers (as the Sea Hurricane) and was even cata-pulted off merchant vessels (CAM ships) for convoy protection against air attack.

While the Spitfire was extensively developed and modified during its service to enhance its performance, the Hurricane was not. Although progressively more powerful versions of the Mer-lin were installed, the airframe remained basically unchanged. There were 12 marks, and several sub-models; however, these largely defined where they were built, armament fit, or which Merlin variant was installed.

Hurricanes were supplied to more than a dozen other coun-tries, including 2952 (although not all arrived due to losses on convoys) to the USSR, and at least 30 Soviet pilots became aces flying this aircraft. The only Victoria Cross won in Fighter Com-mand was by Hurricane pilot J. B. Nicholson on 17 Aug 1940 who, despite being wounded, his aircraft badly damaged and on fire, pressed home his attack on a Bf-110, destroyed it, and parachuted to safety.

Suffice it to say, that without the contribution of this often under-rated aircraft, the Battle of Britain would have been lost and who knows what the world might look like today!

My information is from books I've read. I'd be glad to post some titles when I get home. I notice your quote from an art website.

[Ack-Ack]

However, I have paid my 15$ also for access to chan 200 so if you do fly like that, be prepared to hear something about it. 

my sentiments exactly.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

BS to the NTH degree. When I asked Dan for help with the 38 I was told any time he was on just ask. Wasn't just him either his whole squad.... and a few from the other 38 squads.
Your barking up the wrong tree here bub.

I think PfactorD was speaking about me but he's wrong.  I have always given help to those that have asked, not just in flying the P-38 but in ACM as well.


ack-ack

[B4Buster]

I go to the AvA quite a bit to get away from MA flying style, 90% of pilots in the MA won't HO or pick, and are a pleasure to fight

[TequilaChaser]

I go to the AvA quite a bit to get away from MA flying style, 90% of pilots in the MA won't HO or pick, and are a pleasure to fight

 

[MaSonZ]

think he means if you avoid it...least for the HO. as far as the picking goes, i agree .

[captain1ma]

yo, buster, dont give away our secrets, they'll all start showing up and ruin it!!   

[TequilaChaser]

The information from help and trainers pages could be rolled into a .pdf "flight manual" which could be posted on the downloads page or somewhere that's easily accessible and could be printed out. 

unless something has changed a great bit, Hammer had made  and prob still is in the process of making each and every page or article of the Trainers website very user & printer friendly.

He has been making it to where you can download each page in Word Doc or PDF format and some pages made printer friendly.....


Karaya, for as long as I have been a Trainer, Sir, I can not recall anything like you posted in the below quoted text:

I've gone as far as to literally say "What do I need to do to become a Trainer?"    IDGAF about the "free this, free that."    But I was met with a very stern "Thanks, but no thanks."

I am not saying it did not happen, just that I do not recall it, probably was before I came along in to the training corps......

as for there being enough Training materials, Trainers, etc..to accomodate each and every individual, I am most certian HTC & the AHTC hates to not be able to assist everyone in a timely manner. I do know that all of us ( HTC & the Training Corps ) have worked diligently with some side tracks to bring forth a thorough Training program for everyone to benefit from...... however something of this magnitude takes a bit of time to make sure it is going to be useful and serve the purpose it must! and not be just another off-beat way of offering training to all......

I hope that last paragraph makes some sort of sense......

I know for my own self, I have not been available much to anyone, to help them "ingame" working on any problems they might have. I hope to change that as Winter closes in on us, though.....



Yossarian/MCWATT........ I second m00t's answer to oyur post.......

What would be very beneficial to this whole community ( both ingame players & the AH BBS ) is to make it where a new subscriber to the game has to also sign up for the Aces High Messageboards. Their are an enormous amount of players in game who never come and read these boards or are even know that they exist.

When a new user subscribes to Aces High game, they should be offered a messageboard membership and be directed to the Trainers website and help pages at the same time they are subscribing or opening a new account.... just my opinion anyhows......

[CAP1]

What a joke, when the MWA reaches a point that its tardlets in bunches its time to evaluate where the game is going. My 90 day clock is on, fas as I can see we're reaching the point that its devolved to a total waste of time.

dam snap.......i got kilt by ya once,....then was in on you in ur a20......after that, i tried to call ya on open channel to see if we could go to another base to get a couple fights in.......any chance ur gonna be on tomorrow?

[Impakt]

It seems like I remember AW said who killed who.

Warbirds did that and still does it "Kill of Impakt by Kung Fu in a Yak-3".  THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO HERE. There are endless disputes at Warbirds---when a crotchety "top stick" gets shot down (seemingly by skill or not) there follows the obligatory explanation: "H-O", or "Vulch", or "bounced," "gang banged," "rammed". This quickly descends into a chaos of name calling and duel requests. There is NO incentive to RTB---why not rack up 5 kills and if you get killed --so what everyone sees the 5 to 1 ratio.  I recently (within the last year) came to this game from Warbirds and I found the fact that (1) needed to land to get name in lights, (2) needed 2 kills, (3) only your success is reported not someone else's failure----VERY REFRESHING. Trust me the other way is unpleasant----200 here is tame.

[humble]

dam snap.......i got kilt by ya once,....then was in on you in ur a20......after that, i tried to call ya on open channel to see if we could go to another base to get a couple fights in.......any chance ur gonna be on tomorrow?

would have been happy to, just do a ".f snaphook" to see if i'm up...

[lazydog]

where do i find this information about the 38's? i think AKAK said s.a.a.p had something online

[BnZs]

Thats a fair question and i'll try and give you an answer.

 There are plenty of times that "ganging" is appropriate in the context of the game. Circumstances rarely give you a truly equal fight....IMO if a winging pair initiate winging tactics thats fine. If one engages solo and then the wingie engages later I find that to be unsportsmanlike. I'll give a specific example to illustrate....

I do not understand. It is okay to gang up on a single if you do so right at the start, but unfair if there is a delay before the ganging begins? 

Tactically, it makes some sense for one of the pair to keep his E and serve as lookout, UNLESS the engaged fighter needs a hand.

IOW, if you think all engagements in the MA should be 1v1, say so. Otherwise I don't understand the point of hair-splitting about the particular method by which two players gang a single to death.

If it becomes an actual rule of the MA that we shall engage like the ancient samurai did (each picks out his own opponent and fights to the finish), then sure, I will obey. I know this is not currently a rule, because I get attacked by superior numbers or picked out of an engagement frequently.

We have a place for engaging under equal conditions, with all variables except the pilots evened out. It is called the DA, and is very enjoyable. Presumably the MA is SUPPOSED to be about multi-aircraft engagements under random conditions of advantage/disadvantage. That certainly seems to be the way HTC has designed it.
And IMO, it is also enjoyable.

Another common complaint I do not understand is about the numbers of low ENY aircraft. We let players freely have very good aircraft, then expect that these aircraft will not be more common in the MAs than lesser rides? Doesn't make much sense. Yet most BBS posters also reject any attempt to give a light perk price to any additional aircraft.

However, I agree wholeheartedly, sometimes it DOES seem like you are either in a horde or being horded to death. Although one can usually find an equal sized dar bar in the LW. I have also noticed that one often finds friendlies obligingly clearing one's 12 o'clock. This is very annoying. I'd like to think that it is mostly a lack of communications leading to the intervening friendly not realizing that one has the situation well in hand, and could be rectified with better use of comms. That is probably looking at the problem through rose-colored glasses though.