What are we going

[CAP1]

Imagine if our ack was like this, the whines would be heard around the world.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)
Those little white puffs are AAA bursts.


ack-ack

 ya know? not to side track the thread....but i will anyway.....

 can you even imagine having to sit in those aluminum cigar tubes, knowing that those 88mm's are going off all around ya, and there's no possibility of defending yourself against it?

 that said, those are great pics.

[titanic3]

Parking a CV right on the shore line has nothing to do with the lethality or other complaints about the puffy AAA, apples and oranges actually.

Sure it does, as mentioned before, you can't get above 3K without risk of being insta killed by some random AI.

[CAP1]

What you guys want is to make it easier to attack and get close to the CV for whatever reasons without fear of any risk for doing so.  Be thankful our puffy AAA isn't as lethal as it was in real life.

(Image removed from quote.)

ack-ack

 'cause they wanna capture em and hide em.

 just the other night, i flew mw for the first time online in months.......started off on knights, and sure enough, there was a cv being taken all the way to the south west corner of the map, to hide it.

[grizz441]

Parking a CV right on the shore line has nothing to do with the lethality or other complaints about the puffy AAA, apples and oranges actually.



Not saying it's your aim but the majority that want to dumb down the puffy acks want to do so to make it easier for them to attack or approach CVs or strat targets.

ack-ack

My major complaint is the simplicity of model, 3k being this magical altitude that if below it does not fire and above it does fire with no transition in between.

[Ack-Ack]

Sure it does, as mentioned before, you can't get above 3K without risk of being insta killed by some random AI.

It doesn't, but you try and use it to help shore up your argument about the lethality of the puffy acks because so far all the other arguments have failed.

My major complaint is the simplicity of model, 3k being this magical altitude that if below it does not fire and above it does fire with no transition in between.

Personally, puffy acks should fire at all altitudes it was capable of.  The 5" guns that are modeled in game were capable of firing AA rounds at planes below 200ft.  My only issue with the puffy AA is how it is able to track and fire with large obstacles (mountains) between you and puffy AAA. 

ack-ack

[uptown]

Personally, puffy acks should fire at all altitudes it was capable of.  The 5" guns that are modeled in game were capable of firing AA rounds at planes below 200ft.  My only issue with the puffy AA is how it is able to track and fire with large obstacles (mountains) between you and puffy AAA.  

ack-ack

Taking control of the puffy ack away from AI would fix that I would think. So how does one go about that without making a unmanned boat a easy target? Increase dar ring and have the system put out a country wide alert in the buffer when it's crossed. This would allow enough time for defenders to man their ack guns. And hopfully discourge late night strat milking without atleast someone else knowing about it.
Now as far as the ack over bases. You'd still have it but with the added risk that the gunners could also hit their own guys in the process. I believe this would cut down on that and direct it to where it should be......medium and high alt jabos and bombers. I would guess that this would make the puffy ack even more lethal as it'd be more concentrated at incoming targets and less so in the middle of a furball and over bases.
I don't know if this idea would work or not. What are your thoughts?

[titanic3]

It doesn't, but you try and use it to help shore up your argument about the lethality of the puffy acks because so far all the other arguments have failed.

Failed how?

Getting killed by random computer generator is fun to you? 
This is a game, people look to have fun, not a sim where everything is as realistic as possible.

If the defenders had any intentions of keeping the CV, they would jump in the manned 5" guns, which is probably even more deadly than the AI guns right now. But the fact that I'm being killed by a person and not some random computer makes it "fun" for the shooter, and for the guy trying to kill the CV.

Parking the CV off shore limits the defender's ability to defend. Again, You can't go above 3K without risking getting blown up instantly.

[Ack-Ack]

Failed how?

By repeatedly using an argument that really has nothing to do with puffy ack lethality.

Getting killed by random computer generator is fun to you? 
This is a game, people look to have fun, not a sim where everything is as realistic as possible.

Getting shot down by acks is a risk I take for getting close to a CV, field or strat target.  It sucks when I get shot down but it's the risk I take.  I'm also willing to venture that if it was just purely manned acks that you'd find another reason to nerf acks because you don't like it when acks shoot you down.  Endless cycle.

If the defenders had any intentions of keeping the CV, they would jump in the manned 5" guns, which is probably even more deadly than the AI guns right now. But the fact that I'm being killed by a person and not some random computer makes it "fun" for the shooter, and for the guy trying to kill the CV.

The AI is a game play concession because you will not have a CV that is 100% manned in order to defend itself if there wasn't an AI to help with the defense. 

Parking the CV off shore limits the defender's ability to defend. Again, You can't go above 3K without risking getting blown up instantly.

Again, apples and oranges as parking a CV off shore has nothing to do with the lethality of the acks.  If you were to park the CV 4 sectors off shore, the lethality of the acks would still be the same.  That is why your argument has failed repeatedly.

The simple fact is, the wish to nerf puffy acks has nothing to do with anything else other than making it easier for people to attack the CV without very little risk to themselves. 

ack-ack

[FLS]

I understand the "box" gets larger with G-load and speed but I was wondering if plane size also dictates box size?

If the fighter starts out with a smaller box, that would explain why a fighter twisting and turning at 400mph at 37,000 feet stands little chance of surviving puffy ack.

Hitech would have to give the definitive answer but I would guess the same box is centered on the CG of the player aircraft regardless of a/c size or whether it's a single bomber or a bomber  formation. 

I don't trust the anecdotal assertions of ack always killing so and so and haven't seen any data to support those claims. My own experience is that I usually survive puffy ack.

[uptown]

ya know? not to side track the thread....but i will anyway.....

 can you even imagine having to sit in those aluminum cigar tubes, knowing that those 88mm's are going off all around ya, and there's no possibility of defending yourself against it?

 that said, those are great pics.

I'd be terrified. Those young men displayed bravery on a scale I can't even begin to fathom.

[CAP1]

I'd be terrified. Those young men displayed bravery on a scale I can't even begin to fathom.

 my thoughts exactly. i don't think i can ever begin to imagine what it felt like.

[TheDudeDVant]

What you guys want is to make it easier to attack and get close to the CV for whatever reasons without fear of any risk for doing so.  Be thankful our puffy AAA isn't as lethal as it was in real life.

(Image removed from quote.)

ack-ack

no akak, you're wrong. again akak it just flys right over your head.. come on down off that advocate horse and listen to the idea.. a little change now and then is ok akak.. sometimes it even improves things..

I would be just fine if our ack in game was just like your pictures.. Just as long as all that ack is fired by players and not AI... Surround the CV with player manned ack positions.. if they want to keep it, they will protect it... right?

[TheDudeDVant]

Taking control of the puffy ack away from AI would fix that I would think. So how does one go about that without making a unmanned boat a easy target?

the boats still have ack.. puffy ack is little deterrent from bombers bombing the unmanned boats... nothing will change imo..  

edit.. hell, it'd prolly make them harder to find.. as it is now, you don't have to look.. just fly around till puffy starts firing and you know you're within about 18miles then.. hehe

[TheDudeDVant]

It doesn't, but you try and use it to help shore up your argument about the lethality of the puffy acks because so far all the other arguments have failed.
ack-ack

he is not arguing the lethality at all.. calm down ack-ack..  he is simply stating how the cv puffy ack can be used offensively instead of defensively by parking the boat 4 miles from a enemy base..

now akak, do you believe this to be the intended function of the 'AI puffy ack'? for an offensive function?

[RTHolmes]

Imagine if our ack was like this, the whines would be heard around the world.

not if it was modelled correctly. personally I'd like to see 10x the amount of ack, but modelled realistically.


ideally it needs remodelling from scratch, but a cheap jury rig would be to introduce a ?5s delay in the tracking, then interpolate the planes position in 5s time. that way buffs and incoming jabos would be tracked quite accurately and maneuvering fighters would not.


edit: btw our 40mms are severely nerfed, these should be the real killers ...