Why the high mountains on Trinity are a good thing

[TDeacon]

It just occurred to me that the high mountains on Trinity serve an additional useful purpose (besides protecting certain GV bases that is). 

Consider that typically AH air combat tends to favor low altitude aircraft, like the La-7.  That’s because on most maps, you can always dive to the deck.  However, over the Trinity mountains, you can’t do this; either you hit a mountain, or you dive into relatively narrow valley and are trapped.  So, the net effect is that a portion of the Trinity map forces you to stay high, and allows those aircraft which work better at high altitudes to use at least some of their capability.  Perhaps this terrain pattern should therefore be extended into other maps. 

Comments?

MH

[caldera]

The problem is their location at the initial front line.  Forcing everyone to either spend more time climbing or pile on at the only nearby base without 20k mountains.  Most people would rather get in the fight quicker.  Trinity is a drag until one side gets steamrolled a bit (sad but true), opening up a large front with more options.

[Chalenge]

It doesnt really matter and the mountains should be limited to 5k either way. Most people at high altitude will only make one pass and either run or dive to the deck. There are a few bomber guys that fly high but then they want to be a gunship and if you show them that you are going to end their fun then they bail. Its pretty funny when you make one good pass on B29s and shoot them all one time and kill one in the pass only to see the guy bail because he doesnt really know what he is doing and his normal routine is to bail but he forgot he was in a B29. Oops.

Plenty of times I have run into players that have a superior airplane and more altitude but they dont know what they are doing so they make one pass and run. Hillarious.

[W7LPNRICK]

It doesnt really matter and the mountains should be limited to 5k either way. Most people at high altitude will only make one pass and either run or dive to the deck. There are a few bomber guys that fly high but then they want to be a gunship and if you show them that you are going to end their fun then they bail. Its pretty funny when you make one good pass on B29s and shoot them all one time and kill one in the pass only to see the guy bail because he doesnt really know what he is doing and his normal routine is to bail but he forgot he was in a B29. Oops.

Plenty of times I have run into players that have a superior airplane and more altitude but they dont know what they are doing so they make one pass and run. Hillarious.

Serves 'em right...I hate that crapola...weenie boys bailing.

[guncrasher]

It just occurred to me that the high mountains on Trinity serve an additional useful purpose (besides protecting certain GV bases that is).  

Consider that typically AH air combat tends to favor low altitude aircraft, like the La-7.  That’s because on most maps, you can always dive to the deck.  However, over the Trinity mountains, you can’t do this; either you hit a mountain, or you dive into relatively narrow valley and are trapped.  So, the net effect is that a portion of the Trinity map forces you to stay high, and allows those aircraft which work better at high altitudes to use at least some of their capability.  Perhaps this terrain pattern should therefore be extended into other maps.  

Comments?

MH

you ever notice how many big battles actually happen over the mountains?  besides 135, basically none.  most players including me dont like to spend 15 or 20 minutes to climb to 25k for basically a furball since if you actually make it to the other side and try to bomb a base then basically the defensive cons have the upper hands as they can up more planes that you can replace.  the only time I have seen players take a base over those mountains is when the vtards bring 20 to 30 and kill the hangars but if their goon dies, they basically all they do is fly around and look at each other since a goon will take a good 30 minutes to get there.  more than enough time to go to the liquor store buy beer and a burger, come back home go to the bathroom up from a nearby base and defend.  i actually have done this while another country is attacking, came back in time to kill the back up goons just going over the mountain.

semp

[icepac]

Most of my kills on the trinity map are above those mountains.

Also....when I have to go AFK, the mountains make for a good place to land a yak9 and wait for attackers but it's really hard to land without pinging your prop at that altitude.

[TDeacon]

you ever notice how many big battles actually happen over the mountains?  besides 135, basically none.  most players including me dont like to spend 15 or 20 minutes to climb to 25k for basically a furball <snip>
semp

Good implied point, in that the high alt fights would probably only appeal to players who like one-on-one fights, who are apparently in the minority.  However it is an important minority from my perspective since it includes me.  MH

[Lusche]

True that the high alt fights would probably only appeal to "furballers", who are apparently in the minority.  However it is an important minority from my perspective since it includes me.  MH

I wonder how the definition of "furballer" has changed these days.  

A genuine furballer is one of the last people interested in high alt fights, as he finds the thought of spending time to climb to 15, 20 k before getting into combat to be very unappealing

That being said, the only way produce real high altitude fights without one of the combatant diving to the deck at first sing of trouble is a purpose: Attacking or defending a formation of bombers, which in turn must have a reason to strike deep into the enemy territory alt high altitude.

[TDeacon]

I wonder how the definition of "furballer" has changed these days.  

A genuine furballer is one of the last people interested in high alt fights, as he finds the thought of spending time to climb to 15, 20 k before getting into combat to be very unappealing

Give me a break; I reworded this immediatly after reading it, and the modified version was up within 2 minutes of the original post; you are pretty quick on the trigger with your responses...  

That being said, the only way produce real high altitude fights without one of the combatant diving to the deck at first sing of trouble is a purpose: Attacking or defending a formation of bombers, which in turn must have a reason to strike deep into the enemy territory alt high altitude.

Or high mountains such as those in Trinity...  I doubt the strat solution you imply will produce much high-altitude fighter-versus-fighter combat (which is what I was referring to in the OP).  For one thing, few people seem to be willing to fly CAP, and also the overall level of pre-planning necessary to generate the type of 1944-over-Europe scenario you seem to be referring to, is unlikely to appeal to most players.  


MH

[Lusche]

Or high mountains such as those in Trinity...

But it doesn't really work. Almost all initial action is going around the mountains (from coast to coast), particularly for the W/N and W/S country borders, or through the A1 canyon (S/N country border), where most of the action is still on the deck. The airspace over the mountains itself is hardly a battle place, and even less once a country has gotten a foothold in enemy territory.

I am an alt monkey,, if there were a lot of targets over the mountains I would be there

I doubt the strat solution you imply will produce much high-altitude fighter-versus-fighter combat (which is what I was referring to in the OP).  For one thing, few people seem to be willing to fly CAP, and also the overall level of pre-planning necessary to generate the type of 1944-over-Europe scenario you seem to be referring to, is unlikely to appeal to most players.  

OF course it will never appeal to 'most players', and it's not what I'm hoping for

[The Fugitive]

Give me a break; I reworded this immediatly after reading it, and the modified version was up within 2 minutes of the original post; you are pretty quick on the trigger with your responses...  

Or high mountains such as those in Trinity...  I doubt the strat solution you imply will produce much high-altitude fighter-versus-fighter combat (which is what I was referring to in the OP).  For one thing, few people seem to be willing to fly CAP, and also the overall level of pre-planning necessary to generate the type of 1944-over-Europe scenario you seem to be referring to, is unlikely to appeal to most players.  


MH

It's my guess that your spending too much time camping 135 to notice where the fights happen on that map.

The Mountains are the worst thing for fights. It channels players to obvious places and so takes away ALL chance at any kind of tactical or surprise attack. The fight happen in the same places over and over again and only change when one country starts to over run another.
 

[TDeacon]

It's my guess that your spending too much time camping 135 to notice where the fights happen on that map.

The Mountains are the worst thing for fights. It channels players to obvious places and so takes away ALL chance at any kind of tactical or surprise attack. The fight happen in the same places over and over again and only change when one country starts to over run another.
 

(Sigh…)  I don't spawn camp much in GVs, and even then usually not unless the odds are fairly even, in which case the camp gets broken as the campers are killed off one by one.  I prefer GV fights which involve some tactics or "hide-and-seek".  

(An editorial comment on spawn camping is that it isn’t the spawn camping per se which is bad, but instead it is an imbalance in numbers at the spawn; i.e. hordes.  Only in the latter case does one side have little or no chance).  

I used to fly a lot over the mountains looking for high-alt single opponents, before my PC became outdated and I got attracted to GVs.  Although the majority are “channeled” (due to the dynamics of the horde I think) not all are.  There are certain situations where you can predict when someone is coming over by a specific route.  One of these situations is when 1 or 2 guys are bombing an isolated field in fighters.  Frequently, they will re-up and come again.  The route is usually from the nearest enemy base on the other side of the mountains.  Thus, anticipating this, you can climb to alt, and wait for them over the mountains along the anticipated line of advance.  

MH

[The Fugitive]

In the old days when we ran missions for the sake of the mission and NOT base counts....those those were always fun to rack up as well, we ran a number of missions around and through those mountains. Getting a goon through some of the "channels" is a trip all by it's self. The idea of our missions back then was to either out smart the other team, or out fight the other team.

Today's players haven't a clue as to what a mission is, or could be. All they know is to have as many players with them so that they don't have to come back again. A horde of skilless players isn't going to make it over those mountains with even half of their number that they started out with. So instead you see NOE after NOE raid across the "seas" until they get a foot hold. Once they have that they then go back to the tried and true horde-roll-a-base-mode and grab bases as fast as they have enough people.

The one thing that would make that map a lot more fun is to rotate the starting position for the countries 60 degrees. This would make the mountains be the center line of each country instead of the border of each country. The borders would have 10-20 base available for an attack along each front. Add a base of two to the mountains so that if a country gets pushed back to its mountain range it has the high ground to attack from to aid it in winning their land back. 

[guncrasher]

now that's a great idea fugitive.  have countries on both sides of the mounts.  bet the map wont last 7 days everytime it comes up on the rotation.

semp

[TDeacon]

But it doesn't really work. Almost all initial action is going around the mountains (from coast to coast), particularly for the W/N and W/S country borders, or through the A1 canyon (S/N country border), where most of the action is still on the deck. The airspace over the mountains itself is hardly a battle place, and even less once a country has gotten a foothold in enemy territory.

I am an alt monkey,, if there were a lot of targets over the mountains I would be there

OF course it will never appeal to 'most players', and it's not what I'm hoping for

It works in that it induces a small number of players to fly high over the mountains, thus increasing the chances of encounters with these players, if one knows what to look for.  If there were no high mountains, there would be fewer high players, in my estimation and experience.  Note that your alternative strat solution, by your own admission, would also only cause a small number of players to go high.  

MH