When running to ack

[Tilt]

Auto ack presently targets enemy objects automatically and fires at it regardless.

How about if a freindly object is within a certain proximity  (cone of fire)  then the auto ack does not fire? (Simulating a reluctance to shoot down freindlies)

Then

• If you chase an ac into its own AA then AA fire will be reduced depending how close you are
• If a field is capped with freindly then the AA will tend to be reduced
• If you chase an ac toward your AA then AA fire will be reduced depending upon how close you are

[Saxman]

I like it. Force them ack huggers to come out and fight. 

[E25280]

I dislike it. 

Why make it easier for the attackers to get a vulch party going? 

Why make it easier for the attackers to bounce low/slow cons off the runway? 

Why penalize someone who is circling his base trying to gain altitude/speed to make the fight more fair than either of the previous two scenarios?

Don't like "ack-huggers"?  Get away from the base and let them up.

[B4Buster]

I like it because It would stop some ack huggers, but dislike it because It may turn on some vultch lights. Ack hugers will always be apart of this game unfortunately

[Anaxogoras]

I've said it before...

If you don't like AAA, don't attack the enemy over his own airbase.

[Tilt]

Vulchers would still have to survive AA just to get close enough.

Obviously if the cone of "no fire" was ridiculously too big or too small then it would be either silly or no different.

[Lusche]

Auto ack presently targets enemy objects automatically and fires at it regardless.

How about if a freindly object is within a certain proximity  (cone of fire)  then the auto ack does not fire? (Simulating a reluctance to shoot down freindlies)

Especially light ack did often shoot first, then ask questions later. Target identification wasn't always an easy task, closing speeds were high and time to react usually was very short - and when in doubt, ack usually fired. And they rarely refrained from shooting at an enemy because a friendly was chasing him even if they were able to identify them quick enough. Their mission was to stop the enemy attacker at all costs.

Our AH ack is even superior to real world gunners - they never misidentfy a friendly, and never ever aim at him. So you can say it's the reluctance to shoot at friendlies is already modeled (actually "overmodeled")

[Getback]

Wasn't there a huge German mission that had 1/3 of it's force knocked out by it's own ack?

However, I don't like it either. I've seen one la7 pilot kill an entire base ack by himself and then head to town to kill that ack.

[Lye-El]

The high fast guys just hate that they can't come down from 3K with impunity and kill the low, slow guys. They have to take a chance they may not get away scott free.

[VonMessa]

Especially light ack did often shoot first, then ask questions later. Target identification wasn't always an easy task, closing speeds were high and time to react usually was very short - and when in doubt, ack usually fired. And they rarely refrained from shooting at an enemy because a friendly was chasing him even if they were able to identify them quick enough. Their mission was to stop the enemy attacker at all costs.

Our AH ack is even superior to real world gunners - they never misidentfy a friendly, and never ever aim at him. So you can say it's the reluctance to shoot at friendlies is already modeled (actually "overmodeled")

Anyone who questions this, may also inquire of Vilkas.

I'm sure he will be happy to furnish inquiring minds with a first hand account of the SOP for ack gunners.

[BnZs]

Very rarely get killed by ack myself, even while divebombing. Say what you will about my style, I'm a back-shooter alright, but at least I shoot 90% of my ducks on the wing...

I've seen the situation where "ack running" is typical...large horde hanging over a few low-E bandits. Hell, if 5 friendlies are so stupid as to get shot down by the acks a Hurricane is weaving amongst down there,(I've seen it happen) I almost got to cheer for the Hurricane. If you want the base, bomb the crap out of it or de-ack it. If you want a fight, let 'em get a sporting amount of alt and "meet in the middle". If you can't run-down something before it gets in the ack, consider taking a faster plane.

[Rich46yo]

Tilts idea in not really a bad one. Say if your 200 or closer to an enemy then ack cant get you. This wouldn't so much as give an advantage as it would even things out some, but not much.

I dont have a problem with ack huggers. When I'm in a horde over-looking a base, all of us having 4k of Alt on the enemy, I figure it would be pretty dumb of them to come out blindly. Even I will climb in circles while staying in my ack before I venture out. That or I'll spin around the base until Ive built up enough speed to at least have a chance when I come out. But what I dislike are the guys who will fly 2 sectors to avoid a fight and get to their ack. I have more respect for the guys who will turn and try and HO me then I do the ack-runners.

Boy thats sissy fighting. Flying 40 miles to get to ack and then turn and fight.

Tilt's suggestion might reward and encourage aggressiveness, "a good thing" , without changing the games balance to much.

[Fianna]

If the game could somehow distinguish between people who are running away from a fight to hide in ack and people who are upping from a field, then it would be a good idea. I don't know how that would be done, though... if it's even possible.

I (and I would assume most others) don't have a problem with people upping from a field and staying in the ack to build a little bit of E while the field is under attack. What people don't like, and what I think Tilt may want to eliminate with his proposal, is the P51's, LA7's, Doras, etc running away from a fight and to the ack to hide.

[Lye-El]

But what I dislike are the guys who will fly 2 sectors to avoid a fight and get to their ack. I have more respect for the guys who will turn and try and HO me then I do the ack-runners.

Boy thats sissy fighting. Flying 40 miles to get to ack and then turn and fight.

That I hate, but it's not much different from him running until he finds four or five of his countrymen and after they engage then he turns back. By then I'm pissed and just try to kill him before the others kill me.......usually doesn't work out that way. 

[BnZs]

Do not attempt to follow planes attempting to disengage unless you are faster. There is always another bandit. There, problem solved.

If you are having a real problem with planes running away from you, then you are likely flying something that trades speed for maneuverability. If this is your choice, then you have to live it and try to kill faster planes before they can extend beyond guns range, just like the less maneuverable plane has to get his shot in before the other plane TURNS out of the guns envelope.

If being able to follow a P-51 or the like disengaging from your Spit(s) or the like back to their airbase and shoot it low of fuel in the landing pattern is an ideal that appeals to you, then don't ask HTC to change the game or otherwise half-ass around about it. Join one of the squads the specializes in de-acking and vulching and have at it.

If the game could somehow distinguish between people who are running away from a fight to hide in ack and people who are upping from a field, then it would be a good idea. I don't know how that would be done, though... if it's even possible.

I (and I would assume most others) don't have a problem with people upping from a field and staying in the ack to build a little bit of E while the field is under attack. What people don't like, and what I think Tilt may want to eliminate with his proposal, is the P51's, LA7's, Doras, etc running away from a fight and to the ack to hide.