Please HT

[Lusche]

I see it as giving you warning and time to climb to 20K to intercept BUFFS on the way to pork your field and have a chance of getting to altitude and into position before they drop versus, what seems to have been the norm, chasing empty bombers past the field.


wrongway

But that has never been really an issue like the completely overwhelming horde NOE's, especially as you can spot incoming high raids by darbar. And the majority of buffs does not fly that high.

[AWwrgwy]

But that has never been really an issue like the completely overwhelming horde NOE's, especially as you can spot incoming high raids by darbar. And the majority of buffs does not fly that high.

Not an overwhelming issue but an issue nonetheless.  It is nearly impossible to take off from a base and intercept a single formation of BUFFS before they get over a base with a 12 mile dar circle.

The new dar circle has virtually nothing to do with NOE raids anyway if you can stay under the NEW minimum altitude as the base still doesn't start to flash any earlier than it did before.

As for the "they see me taking off" dar overlap argument, you're trying to sneak up on them or looking for a fight?  I understand the reasoning that you don't want them to know exactly where you are, but it still promotes the fight if you can find each other faster.


wrongway

[Crash Orange]

At the moment I am considering changing some down times of radar factories so radar can be taken out for 2 hours with a little bit of effort.

Why on earth would you want to make bomb-and-bail radar porking more effective? I thought the whole point of the new dar settings was to encourage fighting; this would do exactly the opposite. If anything, radar should be harder to kill and pop back up faster.

(And while you're messing with settings to improve gameplay, the top item on my wishlist, and I know a lot of others feel the same way, would be to prevent CVs from getting within puffy ack range of enemy fields...)

[1Boner]

Why on earth would you want to make bomb-and-bail radar porking more effective? I thought the whole point of the new dar settings was to encourage fighting; this would do exactly the opposite. If anything, radar should be harder to kill and pop back up faster.

(And while you're messing with settings to improve gameplay, the top item on my wishlist, and I know a lot of others feel the same way, would be to prevent CVs from getting within puffy ack range of enemy fields...)

If you don't want the radar to get porked, defend it.

But that would probably get as much response as announcing you've detected an NOE on channel.

Nevermind.

[Zoney]

[quote author=Crash Orange

(And while you're messing with settings to improve gameplay, the top item on my wishlist, and I know a lot of others feel the same way, would be to prevent CVs from getting within puffy ack range of enemy fields...)
[/quote]



No.  But then I'm not "alot of others"

[Lusche]

Not an overwhelming issue but an issue nonetheless.  It is nearly impossible to take off from a base and intercept a single formation of BUFFS before they get over a base with a 12 mile dar circle.

It's still at 20 miles. Bombers cover 20 miles in about 5 minutes. Also it was no more issue that takign down FH's in general, or sinking CV's or suicide porkign ords or any other "issue" like that - totally unlike NOE steamrolling for hours. It's nothing that was getting out of hand, unbalancing or whatever

The new dar circle has virtually nothing to do with NOE raids anyway if you can stay under the NEW minimum altitude as the base still doesn't start to flash any earlier than it did before. exactly.

As for the "they see me taking off" dar overlap argument, you're trying to sneak up on them or looking for a fight?  I understand the reasoning that you don't want them to know exactly where you are, but it still promotes the fight if you can find each other faster.

For me, a MA fight is much more than just 2 or more planes being in a close dogfight. I like the additional layer of guesswork, analysis or what you would like to call it. I dislike "the all on dar, all the time". I do like some uncertainty - "Uppers  at AXXX? Where are they going? Porking my arifield, or moving towards my Vbase". And of course,the same goes the other way: When there's an all red horde covering my base, and I'm desperately trying to get the buffs or the goon ib, it doesn't help the enemy has radar coverage over my base. In that case, it's more likely a single interceptor like me will just let the horde have that base. Whether on offense or defense - I have a feeling it's more likely to create a "safety in numbers" approach

[Ack-Ack]

Why on earth would you want to make bomb-and-bail radar porking more effective? I thought the whole point of the new dar settings was to encourage fighting; this would do exactly the opposite. If anything, radar should be harder to kill and pop back up faster.

This is a case where the response of 'defend it' totally applies.  If you don't want your HQ bombed then defend it, the defending country now has ample time to take off, get to altitude and intercept the bombers.  With the Komet being available at the closest field to the HQ, there really shouldn't be any excuses of "you can't get to altitude fast enough to intercept!".  It does encourage fighting, now there is a significant reason to defend your HQ from attack.

Just like those that used to enjoy flying mass hord NOE missions need to adapt to the new changes, so will those of us that like to dogfight.  We are going to have to switch from a full offensive furballing mentality to one that mixes both offensive and when needed, defensive dogfighting.  Those of us that can adapt will enjoy the increased emphasis on combat, those that can't adapt to the new changes will find greener pastures elsewhere.


ack-ack

[Bronk]

I was very seriously considering it until I though about just changing radar settings first.

At the moment I am considering changing some down times of radar factories so radar can be taken out for 2 hours with a little bit of effort.
And possibly changing range to 18.


HiTech

It frightens me a little that we are almost on the same page.
Question is it possible to to have code written that so that dar pops at diffident alt for when over water or land?

Ohh what's next the forced break up of mega squads?

[Ardy123]

(And while you're messing with settings to improve gameplay, the top item on my wishlist, and I know a lot of others feel the same way, would be to prevent CVs from getting within puffy ack range of enemy fields...)

YES please, there is nothing more annoying than a CV that is half a mile from the coast blanketing the near by airfiled with puffy ack and normal ack, making it next impossible to have any fights with out getting clobbered by ack.

[Agent360]

It occured to me that perhaps the motives behind the radar changes might be:

In ww2 the Allies had better bombers. The goal was to destroy strategic targets. Fighters were there to escort and protect. The Axis goal was to destroy the bombers. The Allies had to stop the Axis fighters before they could destroy the bombers.

"Dog Fights" primarily resulted from this premise....NOT because Allied fighters went out looking for Axis fighters....that did happen but it wasn't something either side wanted to engage in.

Mabey...just mabey....the changes mean that

1. If you up a bomber mission the mission should include enough fighters to cover the bombers.

2. The radar changes mean that the bomber mission can be discovered in time for a defense to take off and intercept.

So this further means that there is more of a POINT TO FURBALLING...I like furballing...but I would like it even better if there was a REASON to get into a furball other than score.

Such as killing the escort, killing the buffs, and stopping a planned attack.

This might lead to organized fighter missions...which are very rare because there is no reason to other than pounce a base and CAP it for score kills.

Am I making any sense here?

[bmwgs]

This is a case where the response of 'defend it' totally applies.  If you don't want your HQ bombed then defend it, the defending country now has ample time to take off, get to altitude and intercept the bombers.  With the Komet being available at the closest field to the HQ, there really shouldn't be any excuses of "you can't get to altitude fast enough to intercept!".  It does encourage fighting, now there is a significant reason to defend your HQ from attack.

Just like those that used to enjoy flying mass hord NOE missions need to adapt to the new changes, so will those of us that like to dogfight.  We are going to have to switch from a full offensive furballing mentality to one that mixes both offensive and when needed, defensive dogfighting.  Those of us that can adapt will enjoy the increased emphasis on combat, those that can't adapt to the new changes will find greener pastures elsewhere.


ack-ack

It would only encourage fighting for a short period of time.  One side takes down radar, other side masses up and takes down their radar, two sides with no radar hit the third sides radar.  Now no one has radar, and that is pretty basically how it was and is now when everyone is porking radar at the bases.

I'm all for change, but I do not see how anything changed.  Radar gets porked and the game continues on.  Same old stuff.  My thoughts would be to put some manned 88s or 5" at the airfields and V bases.  This might make things a bit interesting.

Just my opinion.

Fred

By the way, I don't pretend to have the answers, just wanted to throw a thought into the pan.