Hiding Carriers

[ROC]

This is why good and healthy conversations get shut down.  Once the personal insults and attacks start, you are sure to get this thread closed.

[Ardy123]

Still only insults without a valid point... Did you forget your meds?

all you've rested is you're IQ with the above statement.

vNucks you started with it, I finished it... don't like getting insulted, don't try and insult me. If you keep it up kid, you'll be calling your mommy on the phone crying profusely.

What your failing to grasp is that HiTech himself has said that

2. If a system creates a steam roller, then it will create crappy game play.

which is what you try to do with the game and... he has also said that the goal of the game is to promote combat.

1) Hiding the CV is not "Promoting Combat"
2) Mass hording then running is creating a "steam roller" style of game play.

so yes, you don't get it. Its about the fight, not number of map changes.

[MrMeanie]

There you go thinking again... I wonder why HiTech included "winning the war" as a game objective.  hmmm...

Wining a war and mass hording a base with P51's are way different thing's,I have yet to see a vtard do some short of fight they just NOE horde a bass with P51s and kill all hangers before any one can up.

But back to the point hiding a CV is pretty lame, Why hid it? USE IT. It give's you the chance to retake a port or fail trying.

[vNUCKS]

vNucks you started with it, I finished it... don't like getting insulted, don't try and insult me.

What your failing to grasp is that HiTech himself has said that
which is what you try to do with the game and... he has also said that the goal of the game is to promote combat.

1) Hiding the CV is not "Promoting Combat"
2) Hording is creating a system "steam roller"

so yes, you don't get it. Its about the fight, not number of map changes.

You make a leap that a hoard of attacker's creates a "steam roller", which in my experience typically results in a hoard of defenders, and a whole lot of combat.  In fact it promotes combat.  Furthermore, the "steam roller"  you insist occurs is usually countered by an opposing "steam roller", which often reclaims the bases lost (the current map is a perfect example).  Which if you think about it, is clear evidence that the alleged "steam roller" isn't one.  


Attacking a base for the purpose of capturing it, promotes defending the base to prevent its capture, PROMOTING COMBAT.

Now let's imagine the game where nobody attacks, and in turn nobody defends.  I agree it's about the fight, but what would we be fighting about?

[DMGOD]

How is running mission after mission of noe lancs and shutting down hangers to take a base then not defendingthe base afterwards promoting combat and  furthermore how is hiding a cv promoting combat?

[Assi29]

It's not. It's being a puss.

[Assi29]

Roc is a known Puss.

vtards are an entire squad of puss.

You guys are gonna argue with these people till you turn blue.

They'll defend the lame for eternity.

They'll always be in the crib waiting for the teet.  It's the puss way.

[Tank-Ace]

The problem with a time out would be it would be pretty weird to be using a 'captured' CV for a base take and when the timeout expires it goes poof.

You're expending ordnance and putting wear and tear on parts that you can't supply yourself. To that extent, its no worse than saying that the ownership of a military facility is decided by who controls the nearest town (its quite the opposite infact).

[Ardy123]

Now let's imagine the game where nobody attacks, and in turn nobody defends.  I agree it's about the fight, but what would we be fighting about?

First
Its funny you should say that because for the last couple of nights, Agent and I would start a fight, get a furbal started, only to have some members of your squad show up and egg the other guys fighter hangers. If you were about the fight, you would try and fight your way to the town, not prevent them from fighting you by egging the FH.

Second
Hiding the CV is not fighting, by definition.

Third
If you are about the fight, why do you guys give up and leave when there is resistance? Why not fight till you win?

[Wiley]

You're expending ordnance and putting wear and tear on parts that you can't supply yourself. To that extent, its no worse than saying that the ownership of a military facility is decided by who controls the nearest town (its quite the opposite infact).

Yeah.  I've noticed how quickly people have latched onto that rationale for why the cv should poof.  It is a way of looking at it, but I'm not quite sure I agree with it.

Shore batteries don't expend ammo, as an example.

Wiley.

[Tank-Ace]

No non-spawnable guns do, and its one of the small things that gets under my skin at times. The question is how would you resupply them when they ran out? would the supply be linked to the airfield's supply convoy, or would it get one of its own?


The other thing is that our auto- and manned-guns share several calibers for each country. All it would require is rechambering the guns to accpet your country's ammunition of that specific caliber. No new barrel or anything else needed.

[Ardy123]

No non-spawnable guns do, and its one of the small things that gets under my skin at times. The question is how would you resupply them when they ran out? would the supply be linked to the airfield's supply convoy, or would it get one of its own?


The other thing is that our auto- and manned-guns share several calibers for each country. All it would require is rechambering the guns to accpet your country's ammunition of that specific caliber. No new barrel or anything else needed.

While I do believe that there should be some simple form of association between the CV and the 'production centers', one must be careful to not make it overly complex. AH was never intended to be a war strategy game.

[Tank-Ace]

True, but saying that a carrier group you captured that doesn't share any common parts with your country's ships should be able to opperate away fromt he source of supply for an indefinate duration is taking it WAY too far.

[Wiley]

*shrug*  I don't really have a dog in that hunt, it was just an off the cuff example.

 Not saying it's not a valid point, I'm just saying the CV thing could be viewed as just another ad hoc rationalization.

Wiley.

[vNUCKS]

Wining a war and mass hording a base with P51's are way different thing's,I have yet to see a vtard do some short of fight they just NOE horde a bass with P51s and kill all hangers before any one can up.

But back to the point hiding a CV is pretty lame, Why hid it? USE IT. It give's you the chance to retake a port or fail trying.

hehe, NOE 51's from the vtards, not likely, in fact vtards rarely lead an NOE attack, but we do participate in those on occasion when posted by our countrymen... We typically grab at least 10k alt (it ain't easy to dive bomb from the deck).  Our approach is easily noted by dar bar (and anyone is free to up), and we are typically met with considerable defense, which quite frankly is our preference.  Frankly, the vast majority of those criticizing the vtards here have no clue what they're talking about. 

As for hiding the CV, it's not something I do (I typically only rank in the 200's overall and couldn't if I wanted to) , and frankly it requires the consensus of our higher ranking countrymen.  Please advise the last time a "vtard" was the highest ranking player online in our country.  Please advise the last time another country hid a CV, and the last time some of those who so vehemently object to it here in the forums either participated in hiding it, or failed to use their high rank to prevent it.  I understand why cv's get hidden, by us and from us.  When it happens, if necessary we take the time to find it.  Granted, the search takes us away from other objectives, but so be it as it's part of the game.

What I don't understand is that since EVERY COUNTRY HOARDS, HIDES CV's, ATTACKS WITH NOE MISSIONS etc.etc. etc. that anybody can be so self righteous as to single out any country or any squad for this behavior.

What I do understand is that my enemy is going to use every tactic and asset available to them to:

1.  Shoot me down (Yeah, I hate HOers as much as the next, but admit that if your perky comes at me head-on, GAME ON)

2.  Capture my bases.  (Yeah, hordes are hard to defend against, but it's hardly impossible.  I've stopped many and had many stopped)

3.  Stop me from capturing their bases.

4.  Win the war.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that any objective I want to accomplish during my gameplay is likely to be met with resistance from one of those infernal red guys.  On the other hand, without their resistance, I wouldn't have a reason to play.  So thanks for trying to shoot me down, spoil my attacks, capture my bases and using every means possible to do so.  It makes things fun.

May the best country win, and frankly it isn't always mine.  I've seen us rolled by the Rooks and routed by the Knights, have been frequently frustrated and often awed by their effectiveness, but I've never bothered to belittle them or insult them for how they choose to defeat me. 

Bottom line, every piece of equipment, tactic and strategy is equally available to every player in the game.  Every country undeniably uses every piece of equipment, tactic and strategy that is available to them, but to varying degrees of effectiveness at various times.  Complaining about your opponents use of these is just plain poor sportsmanship. 

After all, they can't do anything I can't do, but if they win they apparently just managed to do it better than me on that occasion.  And If I win, what would I have to complain about.

So, why are they complaining??? hmmm....