Fighter Vs Attack

[EVZ]

I presume this differentiation began in earlier Versions of the Game and I think it's time it ended. Whatever the reason for two seperate catagorys when it was devised, I can't see any use for them in the present or (?) future incarnations of AH ... The Ground / Air statistics can easily be tallied and reported without a seperation of catagorys. Scores would be represented a lot more accurately - if - the pilot wasn't required to THINK ..."Now which one must I choose for this mission" while (repeatedly) rushing to up a heavy P-40 to repel M3s and Troops attacking the town. He (and his team) may do a stupendous job and save the town, but get -0- points unless they REMEMBERED that little box ... It's annoying and doesn't seem to have any realistic basis AFAIK ... (???). It would ? probably ? simplify BOTH programing AND Player Comprehension of scoring and statistics.

[The Fugitive]

or maybe the players could go back to assigning objectives to players in missions. If your designated a "capper/cover fighter" you score it as fighter, if your a dive bomber you go as attack. Of course then you would have to count on those that are your bombers to be able to bomb and the fighter to be able to fight other wise you would need even MORE players in the mission than the horde brings now.

The only reason they are not needed as separate groups now is due to the "roll a base" mentality that most players have these days. Everyone go heavy, everyone wipe out the base and town, every one cap. No one can "specialize" any more because they don't have the skill and count on numbers alone. 

[wil3ur]

I would like to be able to radio back to base and say, "These swine are cowering in their tower...  Switching attack, going after targets of opportunity!"  And then get points for straffing down jeeps in a 262.

[EVZ]

I would like to be able to radio back to base and say, "These swine are cowering in their tower...  Switching attack, going after targets of opportunity!"  And then get points for straffing down jeeps in a 262.

Switching modes like that wouldn't be necessary if there were JUST ONE Fighter catagory that kept track of Ground Kills and Air Kills seperately, just as the attack catagory ALREADY DOES ... Is it REALLY necessary to keep seperate scores when the damage / kill / death statistics are available ?

[waystin2]

I would like to be able to radio back to base and say, "These swine are cowering in their tower...  Switching attack, going after targets of opportunity!"  And then get points for straffing down jeeps in a 262.

The swine never cower in the tower Sir.

[Chilli]

Here is a clue.  Always score as an Attack sortie.  If not, any ground target you hit is not worth as much.  All those ack guns over a month?  Try it....   just saying. 

[JUGgler]

All sorties for any plane other than those in the "bomber category" should "default launch" in "fighter mode" untill you kill a legitimate ground or sea target, then it would automatically switch to "attack mode" and remain such till the sortie ends!


FIXED 



JUGgler

[Shuffler]

Heaven forbid anyone having to think.

Weakest links rejoice!

[Tilt]

Actually I would like them defined further..................

Where there are actually attack perks as well as fighter perks.

Fighter mode
No bombs or rockets

Attack mode
No formations
No F6 bomb aimer view
Short fuses

Bomber mode
Bombs only enabled from F6
Long fuses

[SpencAce]

Actually I would like them defined further..................

Where there are actually attack perks as well as fighter perks.

Fighter mode
No bombs or rockets

Attack mode
No formations
No F6 bomb aimer view
Short fuses

Bomber mode
Bombs only enabled from F6
Long fuses

that is a terrible idea, i am all the way for this idea of getting rid of the categorys, i think they should just combine all of them so that way no matter what u kill, u get points, in fact JUGglers idea is a perfect solution.

[Tilt]

that is a terrible idea,

In your opinion............... 

Mine is that Attack could be used to enhance game play in many ways............... if only it was factored in fully.