Do Away With Jet Aircraft Request

[BulletVI]

Well one way HTC can even up the odds a bit is either :

1 . They increase the perk point's for a 262 and lower perk point's awarded per kill of a piston engine plane.

2 . They can put the Gloster Meteor in the game as with the American Lockheed P-80 shooting star
            which now can be put in the game as i rember i was watching a program on the history of America's jet's and the P-80 was actually deployed
            to Italy on combat trials trying to stop the avro 234's from their aerial re-con missions. This information was just no long ago Declassified.

I believe that if both these jets where added the perk score should be higher than the 262's as these jet's wouldn't have been on the same turning radius as the 262's. ( But they would be fun to try against a 262 we would be the first to ever try it as it never happened in WW2 )

BulletVI

[whiteman]

Well one way HTC can even up the odds a bit is either :

2 . They can put the Gloster Meteor in the game as with the American Lockheed P-80 shooting star which now can be put in the game as i rember i was watching a program on the history of America's jet's and the P-80 was actually deployed to Italy on combat trials trying to stop the avro 234's from their aerial re-con missions. This information was just no long ago Declassified.

P-80 never saw combat and some people say same to a certain degree about the Meteor since it was busy only shooting down V1 Rockets. Key here is brib HT with some fine drink of his liking to introduce V1 and then you will have a use for the Meteor in game. P-80 is SOL.

[Glen69]

  ack-ack please read  Reply #29 on: Yesterday at 12:30:46 AM »

So hopefully now you will not make up assumptions on how i fly.

[Ack-Ack]

Well one way HTC can even up the odds a bit is either :

1 . They increase the perk point's for a 262 and lower perk point's awarded per kill of a piston engine plane.

You will receive less perk points for killing planes in a 262 than you would if you were in a prop plane.  For example, if I was in a La7 and shot down a A6M2, I would get less perk points for that kill than if I was in a A6M2 and shot down a La7. 

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

ack-ack please read  Reply #29 on: Yesterday at 12:30:46 AM »

So hopefully now you will not make up assumptions on how i fly.

Granted I may be getting older and as such a little slow on the uptake but nothing in your posts even remotely explains how the new radar changes prevents you from being able to turn fight on the deck.  It seems now that you're face with the very likely prospect of having to fight while engaging in NOE missions, it churns your stomach.


ack-ack

[Ardy123]

in a one tour framed, i come across a 262 three times.  i will have a greater chance seeing 109f than a 262.

.... and it was Grizz so 262 or regardless, you are probably not gonna win.

[Glen69]

Rule 4 ack ack, i wont be drawn into it 

[Ack-Ack]

Rule 4 ack ack, i wont be drawn into it 

Drawn into what?  All I'm asking you is how the new changes prevents you from being able to turn fight on the deck.  Why not answer the question instead of trying to dodge it?


ack-ack

[2Slow]

I agree that the settings might not be realistic. However, in the MAs, you must make some compromises with realism to make the game balanced. Too many people run NOE to roll bases and avoid combat. As such, with the old radar settings, there was no one promoting combat when running NOE. So HTC made the settings a little less realistic with the hope of increasing combat. That should explain your answer.

Also, the new radar settings does nothing to hinder your turn fighting fun. First off, you arent going to be under 500 feet the whole time youre turn fighting. Your altitude fluctuates by several thousand feet throughout the fight. Second, with the new settings, people will be able to find a fight easier and youll likely have more reds and target opportunities to shoot at.

So to sum it up, the new radar settings:
1. Promote combat
2. Adds additional challenges to NOE runs
3. Makes it easier to find fights
4. Allows more time for defenders to defend a base before a raid hits

So why complain?

"to make the game balanced. "  I could care less about balance.  With the exception being my fuel cell loads.  Warfare simulation, not warfair.

I agree with your 4 points.  The change does do this.  So my 10k air raid will now move to 15 or 20+k altitude.  Not a problem for me.

So why complain?  I complain because I do not like it.

[2Slow]

No, at present flying NOE isn't very difficult at all.  It just takes more concentration than before because you just can't hit the auto pilot like you could previously.


He's upset because with the NOE he can no longer ambush unsuspecting pilots and now faces the very likely prospect of having to fight, that is what he doesn't like, not the fact he can't turn fight. 


ack-ack

Good points.  However, I still do not like the new settings.  Just that simple.  I do not like it.  As one can see from my forum rank, I don't often post here.  So one can measure my level of concern to the point that I am even here.

[2Slow]

In regards to the 262 issue.  They do not bother me in the least.  When I am in a buff I enjoy the challenge of shooting them down.  In a fighter I look for an opportunity to engage with advantage.  Otherwise I try to keep my hat pointed at him and avoid his gaining a gun solution on me.

[Guppy35]

Ground clutter was a major factor in WWII radar.  Thus you see radar towers.  This elevates the transmitter and receiver to a level where ground clutter reflections were minimized and lateral range was increased.  Even with today's radar tech detection below 500 feet is very difficult and not reliable.

So, IMHO, the current setting of 50 feet is not realistic.  I do not like the range of 25 miles, but it was available in WWII with the right terrain conditions.  At sea, on a flat plain, or from a high cliff.  Our bases, located in a valley, adjacent to rolling or mountain terrain would have blind spots at worse or degraded range.

The current settings are not realistic.  They are a "game" thing.  I do not like them.  Nuff said.

I call BS.

I've posted  examples of the 50 foot and below expectations flown by the guys who flew it for real in WW2.

"To avoid detection by German Radar, the planes tried to creep below the effective height of that equipment and this meant getting down to about 50 feet above the sea..."

RAAF Beaufighter pilot Raynor Barber

"We had a very specific way of approaching targets.  We flew at sea-level to keep under radar and out of sight, as surprise was crucial.  It was not advisable to turn around and look back at that stage as the sea would be swirling just behind the wing from the wash from the propellers.  The propellers themselves were less then a foot off the water.  This caused trouble if their was an inexperienced pilot on the mission. One would occasionally panic when he saw how low he was and automatically pull the aircraft up into the air.  If this happened once, the Japanese radar would know we were coming.  If it happened a couple of times they could pinpoint our intended target from our flight path and be ready and waiting.  We lost too many aircraft that way.  We got wiser as we got older and never allowed an inexperienced crew to go out on a job like that.  We would be one aircraft short rather then take an inexperienced pilot."


Seems like both the Japanese and German radar looked low.

[2Slow]

I call BS.

I've posted  examples of the 50 foot and below expectations flown by the guys who flew it for real in WW2.

"To avoid detection by German Radar, the planes tried to creep below the effective height of that equipment and this meant getting down to about 50 feet above the sea..."

RAAF Beaufighter pilot Raynor Barber

"We had a very specific way of approaching targets.  We flew at sea-level to keep under radar and out of sight, as surprise was crucial.  It was not advisable to turn around and look back at that stage as the sea would be swirling just behind the wing from the wash from the propellers.  The propellers themselves were less then a foot off the water.  This caused trouble if their was an inexperienced pilot on the mission. One would occasionally panic when he saw how low he was and automatically pull the aircraft up into the air.  If this happened once, the Japanese radar would know we were coming.  If it happened a couple of times they could pinpoint our intended target from our flight path and be ready and waiting.  We lost too many aircraft that way.  We got wiser as we got older and never allowed an inexperienced crew to go out on a job like that.  We would be one aircraft short rather then take an inexperienced pilot."


Seems like both the Japanese and German radar looked low.

Good find!  Ground clutter would not be an issue over water.  Makes sense.

[Babalonian]

The only thing Grizz can't kill in his 262 is Chuck Norris.  Everyone else, beware.

[olds442]

Thank You Bear76. When you insult me I guess I succeeded in telling the truth about you.Instead of making a reasoned response, you and your ilk need to insult or put people down. Thanks for the reply....

i here a  er