Still like the changes?

[pluck]

What I find amusing is that for a long time parts of the community have been noting the effects of the constant noe missions and the horde.  For the same amount of time, the other part of the community has been saying, well, if you don't like, fight it.  Now that we have a more fair opportunity to do that, much of a certain sector of the community is upset because they can't walk over bases as easily, to much of a challenge.  Funny.

I think everyone has their ideas of what should be changed, and why...some good, some bad.  I have no idea why people would see on the front page *combat experience* and believe the sole point of the game is to NOE, horde, and avoid any meaningful combat.  But they do.  I guess to be fair some would argue that shooting planes down with huge number advantages or alt advantages is combat.

I also gather from some replies that the only difference between the DA and the MA is the ability to secretly attack a base with huge numbers, or attack in a manner that provides little to no opportunity for the other "enemy" players to participate in defense. Again no real combat, no real battle, no real challenge, and poor gameplay.

As I said to snailman earlier, I do have some sympathy for the guys who's play style is being affected, though, their activities (at least I don't think) where reasons for the change.

[thndregg]

If anything, the changes have given your group more realisim, which I think you'd applaud.  I'd suggest increasing your escorts

I have no problem with that, but, at what point would that create the above dar horde HiTech also stated he despised?

[pluck]

I have no problem with that, but, at what point would that create the above dar horde HiTech also stated he despised?

well if we can agree that the horde existed before the change, and exists now, one would say at least now the other team has, generally, more warning.  With more warning, the other team might have time to finish up their current sortie, and put up defense.  This in turn, one might argue, would promote combat.

[Lusche]

This in turn, one might argue, would promote combat.

Apart from the demise of the NOE (which is the result of lower dar coverage, not so much larger circles), I don't see any more, respectively "better" combat in the main at all.

Occasionally it's been even worse.

[RTHolmes]

What I find amusing is that for a long time parts of the community have been noting the effects of the constant noe missions and the horde.  For the same amount of time, the other part of the community has been saying, well, if you don't like, fight it.

that part of the community only said that because they wanted to try to justify their lame gameplay. and to pick up the base ack proxies from the defenders that did manage to get up before the base was inevitably taken. it had nothing at all to do with "fighting."

[thndregg]

Yes, I did.

I could ask you the same: Why should he not? (Don't say "it's unrealistic")

In the past, Lusche & I have been there. He has hunted me down a few times while I went deep into enemy turf & beat the crap outta me. His type of patience is very uncommon anymore. I'm disappointed as it seems the player base is turning toward exclusive instant-action.

So, what next? Do we complain the enemy cons are too high? Do we request airspawns so the player base has more "fast food"? Do we request the wind needs to be 200mph at 25K to limit how high we go?

[pluck]

Apart from the demise of the NOE (which is the result of lower dar coverage, not so much larger circles), I don't see any more, respectively "better" combat in the main at all.

Occasionally it's been even worse.

when it is worse, you mean more numbers vs. less defenders?  Do you think people are seeing alot of cons coming in and chicken out? If so, unfortunate.  I think HTC is trying to give the ma the tools to be competitive.  Whether those tools get utilized.......  At least the argument can't be, "we didn't know you were coming"  Instead it will be "we are too scared for our cartoon airplanes"

[Blooz]

So, what next? Do we complain the enemy cons are too high? Do we request airspawns so the player base has more "fast food"? Do we request the wind needs to be 200mph at 25K to limit how high we go?

How about instead of trying to change the game you change your thinking. Accept the changes in the game. Accept the new challenge and plan new tactics to deal with it.

That's what all this is about anyway. Hitech needed to change people's gameplay habits and those that refuse to accept the changes run here and try to promote more changes to the game instead of changing the way they play.

The other thread about the CV's getting in close to the base in an attempt to do a basically slo mo NOE raid is an example of someone that tried to test out a new tactic to see if a smash and grab would work. CV's are too slow and vulnerable for this to work but they are trying to come up with new tactics.

With the new radar changes, I suggest you try the same thing. Experiment away but I think the historical tactics work fine. They didn't hit Dresden with one Lancaster or B17. They hit it with hundreds. Around the clock, escorts and everything. I'm not saying you do exactly that but a couple guys getting together for a bomb sortie with a couple guys flying excort using appropriate planes would easily succeed.

The game has been changed for a reason. Accept the changes and come up with a new way to play. That's what the changes are designed to do anyway.

[HawkerMKII]

Radar coverage (coupled with 65ft dot alt, which makes enemies visible as soon as they lift off the runway) is a  gamebreaker for me

Maybe I have finally to join a squad and go with the horde...

Come on Snailman we'll have ya

[Lusche]

when it is worse, you mean more numbers vs. less defenders?  Do you think people are seeing alot of cons coming in and chicken out? If so, unfortunate.  I think HTC is trying to give the ma the tools to be competitive.  Whether those tools get utilized.......  At least the argument can't be, "we didn't know you were coming"  Instead it will be "we are too scared for our cartoon airplanes"

Well, for anything but NOE'S the "we didn't know they were coming"" didn't really hold true anyways, as darbars are a very good indicator that something bigger is forming up and inbound - Players often just chose to ignore it and complain later (I already aleborated on that topic )

About "worse"... of course it's not all the time, but with dar even covering enemy fields, I have seen a lot of evading by the attackers too, and quite often the all-too-well know "we horde you, you horde them, they horde us" game. That hasn't changed at all, and a horde with friendly dar coverage over the base they are smashing has it now much easier.

In a nutshell: I don't buy it that 20 miles dar make the game and the battles any better, but I do see some options been taken away, particularly for the solo fliers, be it in fighters or in bombers

And lets be realistic: NOE often was a big problem, particularly when any country started to run them for hours. High alt bomber raids were not (highly visible due to darbar, time consuming, rare), and the occasional daring solo buff driver trying to wiggle through some dar gaps surely not at all.

[Lusche]

How about instead of trying to change the game you change your thinking. Accept the changes in the game. Accept the new challenge and plan new tactics to deal with it.

Being part of the horde? 

Just throwing away all aspects that made this game fun for years: The hunt - The guesswork - The thinking part?

I do support reasonable changes, even if they sometimes "hurt" my style of playing. I had much fun against NOE's, but I can accept the reasons why a change was made there.
But If I see things that I do not find very reasonable at all, I do chose to try to point it out, and I do speak out for some corrections.

[RufusLeaking]

The whole idea was to get the LW to come up and fight.  The bombers were bait in the end so the escorts could deal with the German fighters.

Wrong.  As respectfully as is possible, the above is just wrong.  Once the fighters had the range, why take the bombers along?  Why did the RAF go to night raiding?

Strategic bombing of Germany and Japan was to reduce the ability to wage war.  At first, the targets were factories.  In the end, it was direct attacks on population.  All of which was rationalized as breaking the ability to resist.  History records that this was pretty much a failure, but WWII was the first war in which the combatants had the means to test out the Italian guy's (Douhet?) theories.  Fighter escort became necessary because the bombers could not sustain the losses without them.  Jimmy Doolittle (greatest pilot of all time, BTW) let the escorts loose over Germany to shoot up whatever they could.

Your point about bait may be valid in the lead up to D-Day.  That was about local air supremacy over the invasion fleet.

But, no, bombers were not developed as bait for the enemy.

[Blooz]

I do support reasonable changes, even if they sometimes "hurt" my style of playing. I had much fun against NOE's, but I can accept the reasons why a change was made there.
But If I see things that I do not find very reasonable at all, I do chose to try to point it out, and I do speak out for some corrections.

BS. No you don't.

You want changes in the game made to give you back the ability to do those things that Hitech is trying to eliminate.

Raising the radar a bit would give you the ability to slip under (like before). Making the radar rings smaller would give you the ability to sneak around in the enemy backfield (like before).

The changes Hitech made are for a REASON. He didn't like what was going on so he did what he did. It's to get you to change the way YOU play. So instead of trying to undo what Hitech has done why not come up with some new ways of getting the job done? Your energies would be better spent, I think, rather than these dumb threads about how Hitech needs to change things back to the way it was.

[Lusche]

Raising the radar a bit would give you the ability to slip under (like before). Making the radar rings smaller would give you the ability to sneak around in the enemy backfield (like before).

1, I'm not campaigning for raising the dar again.

2. How was that bad? You couldn't really sneak unless NOE, as every con made a darbar. A mission was making a huge darbar. That's no sneaking. And single buffs trying to waggle their way to the starts had NO detriment influence on the game at all. None. Ever.

And when trying to read something in my posts, keep one thign in mind: I was almost always the defender in such cases, the hunter. I am the one that should cry "huzzah" about larger dar.


But I now have reached a point of futility. I know I have made my point clear more than once. There is no reason in continuing this argument anymore. I'm sure Hitech has noticed all my points, and I'm tired of doing the old BBS battle.

Snailman out.

[doc1kelley]

Wrong.  As respectfully as is possible, the above is just wrong.  Once the fighters had the range, why take the bombers along?  Why did the RAF go to night raiding?

Strategic bombing of Germany and Japan was to reduce the ability to wage war.  At first, the targets were factories.  In the end, it was direct attacks on population.  All of which was rationalized as breaking the ability to resist.  History records that this was pretty much a failure, but WWII was the first war in which the combatants had the means to test out the Italian guy's (Douhet?) theories.  Fighter escort became necessary because the bombers could not sustain the losses without them.  Jimmy Doolittle (greatest pilot of all time, BTW) let the escorts loose over Germany to shoot up whatever they could.

Your point about bait may be valid in the lead up to D-Day.  That was about local air supremacy over the invasion fleet.

But, no, bombers were not developed as bait for the enemy.

Actually in the 1st quarter of 1944 to the end of the war, the AAF was tasked with destroying the luftwaffe and the objective was to eliminate it as a cohesive fighting force. 

All the Best...

    Jay