award perkies

[Rich46yo]

Isnt it time perks were awarded to gunners on ships, field guns....ect

I like gunning and think that if perk points were awarded fields and CVs would be better protected. Yes you would also have to count deaths as well, and yes this would turn away the score crowd, but most in the game arent that worried about score. Some, like me, arent to worried about perks cause I dont use perked vehicles/planes. But many like to use them and would gun more if they could earn them.

Anyways...my thoughts. Often I go into guns and see other guns not manned.

[waystin2]

Hello Rich,

First let me say that I am an avid user of field & ship guns.  I understand that the current system awards nothing, as there is no risk involved.  I would enjoy seeing a system set up to award something, but in fairness there has to be an attached risk of a recorded death.  My thought is that it will not change, as most would not risk the death, and use of the manned positions would decline as a result. my .02 cents

Way

[Anaxogoras]

Hello Rich,

First let me say that I am an avid user of field & ship guns.  I understand that the current system awards nothing, as there is no risk involved.  I would enjoy seeing a system set up to award something, but in fairness there has to be an attached risk of a recorded death.  My thought is that it will not change, as most would not risk the death, and use of the manned positions would decline as a result. my .02 cents

Way

Current perk system modifies the number of perks you get depending on whether you exited safely, or died, bailed, ditched, etc., so that is a very good point.

[5PointOh]

I see everyones logic, and I have thought of this too.  But what would we use "Gunner perks" for?  Currently AH does not have a perked gun postion. 

[waystin2]

But what would we use "Gunner perks" for?

88's baby!!!!

[Rich46yo]

Gunners perks would/should be awarded as GV perks, I believe.

Tho frankly Im not all that sure it would have much impact. Perked GVs are pretty cheap and most of us have GV perkies in the thousands. Ive collected gobs just shooting in flaks. At the same time it would probably drive away a lot of serious GV'ers, the ones who care about their scores, because the gun positions are relitively unprotected and you dont have much control over them.

But look at it this way. If you shoot an airplane, GV, or PT boat from a gun position you are impacting the amount of perks the enemy is awarded so why shouldnt your own perk award position be any different? Especially when gun positions on so many GVs and planes, "ie: bomber guns...ect", award or limit your perks on what happens to you.

[usvi]

I see everyones logic, and I have thought of this too.  But what would we use "Gunner perks" for?  Currently AH does not have a perked gun postion. 

Laser cannons!

[shiv]

I'm against gunning for and don't think it should be encouraged.  Why gun if there are planes  available?  Bad enough you get shot down by the laser puffy ack, now you'll have every gunner slot filled by guys trying to earn perks.  And most of them will be taking potshots at guys furballing, not planes attacking the CV.

I do understand you need to protect the CV from buffs/jabo, I just hate it when I'm fighting, trying to not get killed by the nme, trying to stay under 3K, trying to keep far enough away from the CV ack, and then just get popped by someone in a 5".    Or if it's a friendly CV and I have a fight going with a con having a gunner get blow him up before I get a chance to kill him.  

To protect CVs I'd advocate increasing CV hardness to double or more where it is now. Make it so taking down a CV would bring about the same level of effort it takes to capture a base.  I admit I haven't thought much about the implications though.

[Rich46yo]

Shiv this is a silly, selfish, unrealistic post that is pretty much summed up by the two usual positions taken by the "fighter crowd'. #1, is the "my way of playing cartoon airplanes is better then yours'. And #2 is "I dont like things that shoot me down and we should get rid of them".

Fact is ground guns/shipboard guns, in the actual war, were extremely lethal against aircraft. By the end of the war large Yank CV groups were protected by huge numbers of radar controlled guns shooting lethal proximity shells. If you dont like it then dont fle near CV groups. Its better then re-writing history for your own purposes.

"Why guns if planes are available"? Because I want to thats why. Because i dont want to become an easy kill stat for a pack of score 'ho vulchers and want to thin them out some.

As I said before most folks dont care about their perks, most of all GV perks. Besides in the war, again, all the gun positions would be manned. So they should be in the game.

don't think it should be encouraged

Precious. Just precious.

I'm against gunning for and don't think it should be encouraged.  Why gun if there are planes  available?  Bad enough you get shot down by the laser puffy ack, now you'll have every gunner slot filled by guys trying to earn perks.  And most of them will be taking potshots at guys furballing, not planes attacking the CV.

I do understand you need to protect the CV from buffs/jabo, I just hate it when I'm fighting, trying to not get killed by the nme, trying to stay under 3K, trying to keep far enough away from the CV ack, and then just get popped by someone in a 5".    Or if it's a friendly CV and I have a fight going with a con having a gunner get blow him up before I get a chance to kill him.  

To protect CVs I'd advocate increasing CV hardness to double or more where it is now. Make it so taking down a CV would bring about the same level of effort it takes to capture a base.  I admit I haven't thought much about the implications though.

[Bronk]

No to gunner perks no risk, no reward.

Bomber gunner to bomber perks.

[lyric1]

As an avid soft gun user I say leave well enough alone with the current system.

[Nemisis]

No to gunner perks no risk, no reward.

Bomber gunner to bomber perks.

+1000 to that. I gun for my friends a lot (they suck at gunning, no offense) and it would be nice to get something for saving them.

[Ack-Ack]

+1000 to that. I gun for my friends a lot (they suck at gunning, no offense) and it would be nice to get something for saving them.

Their thanks and gratitude isn't enough?


ack-ack

[Nemisis]

If they gave more than "that was pretty good, but try to get them all next time" when we're swarmed by dozens, then OK. Till then, we need to award perks.

[shiv]

Shiv this is a silly, selfish, unrealistic post that is pretty much summed up by the two usual positions taken by the "fighter crowd'. #1, is the "my way of playing cartoon airplanes is better then yours'. And #2 is "I dont like things that shoot me down and we should get rid of them".

Fact is ground guns/shipboard guns, in the actual war, were extremely lethal against aircraft. By the end of the war large Yank CV groups were protected by huge numbers of radar controlled guns shooting lethal proximity shells. If you dont like it then dont fle near CV groups. Its better then re-writing history for your own purposes.

"Why guns if planes are available"? Because I want to thats why. Because i dont want to become an easy kill stat for a pack of score 'ho vulchers and want to thin them out some.

As I said before most folks dont care about their perks, most of all GV perks. Besides in the war, again, all the gun positions would be manned. So they should be in the game.  Precious. Just precious.

I gave my reasons why I don't like the idea, no need for personal attacks.  And as for realism I don't think the enhanced realism of having more guys in manned guns will bring anything to the game.  Because that's will happen if there's perks to be had.