F3 view and the il2

[GuyNoir]

Seems like it would've been easier (better) just to disable shooting from F3 mode instead of turning the IL-2 into a fighter... 

[Vinkman]

There are no "others". The Il-2 is now the only attack mode only plane, all others being either fighter/attack or bomber/attack (like D3A, Ju-87 and all similar "light" bombers. And behind the scenes the Il-2 is now treated as fighter/attack, because it's now tied to the FH's and no longer to the BHs. Which doesn't make much sense...

It might make perfect sense. As stated everyone uses the Il-2 as fighter to defend a base after the FH is down. So isn't it being used like a fighter?

[Lusche]

It might make perfect sense. As stated everyone uses the Il-2 as fighter to defend a base after the FH is down. So isn't it being used like a fighter?

Everyone? I have seen a few guys posting they are doing it... but everyone? I for one don't do that. I would rather take the SBD... guess we should ate that as a fighter too? Last night I saw a lot of A20s used for base defense. Probably the next plane that should be re-categorized as a fighter. And yes, Make the lancaster an "attack" plane, because it's also used as such in aces High

Sarcasm aside: The tag a plane has should stem from airframe capability and historical design / usage. And it has mostly been that way in AH. The Il-2 is no fighter, even when being used as such in a pinch.

[Krusty]

How planes historically were used and designated sometimes is at odds with how they work in this game. When such events occur, HTC steps in to adjust something. Be it how players use the device, how the device interacts with other elements of the server, or changing the thing in question, there are some precedents in place.

The F4u1C was not used much. In AH it took over. Solution: perk price.

The v-bases were being precision-pinpoint-bombed with lancaster 4k cookies to shut them down in 1 pass. Solution: Split the hangars up, separate them.

Suicide pork-tards took out troops for entire countries preventing them from regaining lost bases. Solution: More barracks per field, spread out.

Deacking was no threat, a single plane could take out all the ack guns on a field with minimal damage. Solution: Upped the number of guns significantly.


Which leads us to:

Il2s being used with arcade F3 mode as heavily armored fighters for base defense rampantly (wide spread) any time a base is under attack. Solution: classify it as a fighter, remove F3.


It makes perfect sense, and falls in line with HTC making tweaks based on how players USE the item, rather than how it was historically intended. Because, as we know, the 2 are not always connected.

[Vinkman]

How planes historically were used and designated sometimes is at odds with how they work in this game. When such events occur, HTC steps in to adjust something. Be it how players use the device, how the device interacts with other elements of the server, or changing the thing in question, there are some precedents in place.

The F4u1C was not used much. In AH it took over. Solution: perk price.

The v-bases were being precision-pinpoint-bombed with lancaster 4k cookies to shut them down in 1 pass. Solution: Split the hangars up, separate them.

Suicide pork-tards took out troops for entire countries preventing them from regaining lost bases. Solution: More barracks per field, spread out.

Deacking was no threat, a single plane could take out all the ack guns on a field with minimal damage. Solution: Upped the number of guns significantly.


Which leads us to:

Il2s being used with arcade F3 mode as heavily armored fighters for base defense rampantly (wide spread) any time a base is under attack. Solution: classify it as a fighter, remove F3.


It makes perfect sense, and falls in line with HTC making tweaks based on how players USE the item, rather than how it was historically intended. Because, as we know, the 2 are not always connected.

 

[Lusche]

Il2s being used with arcade F3 mode as heavily armored fighters for base defense rampantly (wide spread) any time a base is under attack. Solution: classify it as a fighter, remove F3.

I'd bet the result of the Il-2 now tied to the fighter hangar instead of the BH is an unintended consequence of that easy way of removing F3. After all, it's not even "officially" a fighter, you can't even score as one.

[Krusty]

You can't score a Hurr2D as a bomber, either. Or a P-47N. Or a 110G. These planes spend most of their time in the ground pounding role also. So "officially" doesn't play into it.

[Lusche]

You can't score a Hurr2D as a bomber, either. Or a P-47N. Or a 110G. These planes spend most of their time in the ground pounding role also.

All of those are fighter frames. Which, die to their new/secondary role are classified as "attack planes" too.

We are now just seeing the limitation of the current system that basically knew only fighter or bomber planes, and the F3 mode (and perks!) being tied to this distinction, with the "attack" mode being put on top just for score purposes.

[Seadog36]

cause it has a "fixed forward firing gun"


if it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander   



JUGgler

What about the TBM, SBD, D3A and Ju-87? Nix f3 in all of those forward facing gun a/c too?

[Vinkman]

All of those are fighter frames. Which, die to their new/secondary role are classified as "attack planes" too.

We are now just seeing the limitation of the current system that basically knew only fighter or bomber planes, and the F3 mode (and perks!) being tied to this distinction, with the "attack" mode being put on top just for score purposes.

Lusche I think we're hung up on arbitrary terms like fighter and bomber. Only in AH are such distinctions really relevant, because gameplay wants to be able to limit the role of certain planes by assigning them to certain targetable hangars. arguing the definition of a fighter or bomber in order to get around AH gameplay assignments is kind of missing the point. no?  

[Krusty]

In the war, they didn't consider the IL2 a bomber. It was an attacker (which is a type of fighter). It carried some bombs and rockets, but so did almost all other fighter airframes.

I think it was only classified in AH as a bomber because the potential for town attack. I don't think I ever saw them hitting towns, though. Nor bombing strats.

[Lusche]

In the war, they didn't consider the IL2 a bomber. It was an attacker (which is a type of fighter).  

That's now just your definition.

It carried some bombs and rockets, but so did almost all other fighter airframes.

Fighter planes were made with the intention of engaging other planes as their primary role, attackign ground targets was the secondary consideration. The Il-2 was made to attack groudn targets from the start. If we had a real "attack" classification, it would a pure attacker. Now that we do not have such, making it a "fighter" instead of a "bomber" and putting it into the FH is somewhat absurd, no matter how you try to twist & turn it. It was made only to remove the F3 mode, which ist tied to "bomber" status, and not because "player were using it as a fighter." In this case, the Lancaster should also get "attack" status as well as the Ta 152 H. The hidden "fighter" status is just a crutch to remove F3. Nothing else.

I think it was only classified in AH as a bomber because the potential for town attack. I don't think I ever saw them hitting towns

Cool. That means the 110G should instantly be called a bomber.

[SmokinLoon]

QUESTION FOR HTC!!!!!!

Is the ability of an aircraft to be afforded the F3 capability coded directly into the "bomber" classification???  If yes, does that mean it is an "all or none" coding and that the ability to review the issue on a plane by plane basis is not an option???

Answering the above question will answer a lot of questions.   

[Krusty]

That's now just your definition.

It was more a description than a definition. Say what you will about most planes and the blurred lines, but there was a sharp dichotomy in the war between bombers and fighters. They really stood apart. The IL2 just didn't stand with the other bombers, IMO, with how it was regarded.


P.S. I was trying to say I think ORIGINALLY it only was a bomber in AH because ... etc... That never panned out, so there's not much loss in changing that option.

[68ZooM]

Wasn't the purpose of the IL2 type3 during the war was that of a ground attack plane, from the information Ive read online about the IL2 type3 it's role was that of a attack plane.