using dot shade to show alt on dar

[Miska]

Using the shade of the red dots on the clipboard map to indicate altitude would add a great deal to the buff and buff hunting games, and for strat in general.  Both ground observers and radar installations reported approximate alt of contacts throughout WWII.  Is there any specific reason that it isn't done in AH?

Vlas

[Lusche]

Using the shade of the red dots on the clipboard map to indicate altitude would add a great deal to the buff and buff hunting games

Actually the effect would be reversed: It would remove a great deal from the buff & buff hunting game.



Snailman,
Buff Hunter

[Miska]

Why do you think so? It would add a condition that was actually present in WWII.  It would encourage buffs to fly together, and consequently, would encourage interceptors to cooperate.  It would encourage decoy flights and fighter sweeps.

[curry1]

Why do you need a fighter sweep if you already know where the cons are and the altitude.  And how exactly is the interceptors knowing the altitude of a bomber going to make bombers work together?

[Miska]

I would say you need a fighter sweep to knock down the interceptors that know the alt of the buffs.  It would encourage bombers to fly together because more interceptors would find them.  Which in turn would encourage interceptors to work together against the gunners.  I think it stands a chance of kicking the buff game into high gear.  I guess it might mean a bit more data traffic.  But if the data question is not a fatal flaw, I think it would be worth at least a trial period.

[gyrene81]

Miska, you need fighter escort to knock down the fighter interceptors trying to kill the bombers...not a fighter sweep.

Though I would agree with a little extra data being available on dar rather than just approximate location...it's not necessary in AH at all. If you want to go buff hunting, grab a plane with cannons and drop tanks then climb as high as you can get and look for them in the vicinity of a battle.

[Miska]

A sweep on the planned bomber route certainly doesn't hurt   And what you describe is what I currently do.

[MadHatter]

It's not going to force bombers to fly together. Alot of us already do that. I generally up with 2 wingmen when we run a sortie. Giving away aprox alt is going to force bombers even higher, or you will see an increase in NOE. Besides, the red dot pops when we enter dar ring right? By that time it's too late, we're already lining up for a drop.

[715]

I agree with the OP that the radar should show approx. altitude as was possible in reality.  The radar range should also be increased substantially, perhaps to realistic values.  As it is now, there is zero point to intercepting medium to high alt bombers, and they get a free ride; by the time they show on radar it is way, way too late to climb and intercept. 

[Lusche]

I agree with the OP that the radar should show approx. altitude as was possible in reality.  The radar range should also be increased substantially, perhaps to realistic values.  As it is now, there is zero point to intercepting medium to high alt bombers, and they get a free ride; by the time they show on radar it is way, way too late to climb and intercept.  

Flying bombers is difficult enough as is. Clever route planning and altitude are about the only true defenses a buff player has.

They do get "only free" ride by those fighter pilots that only care to up if a con actually enters a dar circle. If you read the whole map, you will quote often be able to identify & intercept buffs long before that.

Now if you implement the altitude component, it will be just easier for the fighters, and it will add nothing for the bombers. And no need for the fighter to guess anything, easy to judge from the tower if it's "worth" to up or not. And as already mentioned, giving the fighters a convenient altutude readout will result either the buffs being higher and higher, or NOE.
And this is not limited to buffs at all. The same goes for enemy fighters or jabos.

And for the "realism" thing... almost nothing about radar in the MA is realistic in any way. The radar in AH has a gameplay function. "Realistic" radars would work almost across a small map, giving not only altitudes but also speed and type estimations.

[gyrene81]

I agree with the OP that the radar should show approx. altitude as was possible in reality.  The radar range should also be increased substantially, perhaps to realistic values.  As it is now, there is zero point to intercepting medium to high alt bombers, and they get a free ride; by the time they show on radar it is way, way too late to climb and intercept. 

That is pretty much the way it was during WWII...most radar was short ranged so forward observers or spotters would have to be used...pretty much what the dar bar emulates when an aircraft is outside the active radar ring of a base...not many people could tell the difference between 15,000 and 25,000 feet through 4x binoculars...all they could report is "very high" or "low" and how many were spotted.

[Karnak]

That is pretty much the way it was during WWII...most radar was short ranged so forward observers or spotters would have to be used...pretty much what the dar bar emulates when an aircraft is outside the active radar ring of a base...not many people could tell the difference between 15,000 and 25,000 feet through 4x binoculars...all they could report is "very high" or "low" and how many were spotted.

Funny, it didn't work that way in 1940.  I wonder why radar got worse as the war progressed?

[Tilt]

It would be neat if there was more info available in the tower (altitude coulour) formations (fat dot) etc etc.

We could even dumb down (a little)what we see from the cockpit....

[Miska]

Tower reports would work just as well, maybe even better.  Another option would be to actually have observer stations on the terrain with a theodolite so players can generate the tower reports.  Might generate a whole new player base of intel geeks and staff weenies

As for the accuracy of the ground observer reports, individual observers didn't guestimate alt of contacts. They determined azimuth, elevation, traverse in x seconds, and fed this by phone or radio to a central station.  Three or more ground observer reports of the same contact gave a good fix including coordinates, alt within a few hundred feet, speed, and heading.

I would certainly spend at least part of my time manning such a theodolite station, especially on Titanic Tuesday   It would add a whole new dimension to scenarios and special events.   But short of these more elaborate measures, a simple shading of dar dots would be a good start.

Vlas

[MadHatter]

Tower reports would work just as well, maybe even better.  Another option would be to actually have observer stations on the terrain with a theodolite so players can generate the tower reports.  Might generate a whole new player base of intel geeks and staff weenies

As for the accuracy of the ground observer reports, individual observers didn't guestimate alt of contacts. They determined azimuth, elevation, traverse in x seconds, and fed this by phone or radio to a central station.  Three or more ground observer reports of the same contact gave a good fix including coordinates, alt within a few hundred feet, speed, and heading.

I would certainly spend at least part of my time manning such a theodolite station, especially on Titanic Tuesday   It would add a whole new dimension to scenarios and special events.   But short of these more elaborate measures, a simple shading of dar dots would be a good start.

Vlas

Now that I would say is interesting. Just giving info to interceptors I'm against. But if a player has to work for it, cool. I know some buff drivers who get ticked when they see a con just shadowing us, personally tho, the guy is working for it (yea, I know he's just flying there, but he isn't going for kills or anything. Essentially he's donating time and fuel to relay info) so I'm glad to see something like that. Gives a bit more to the game.