radar shows altitude

[matt72078]

Focus people, this was a conversation about radar not nukes.  Ok, I get it.  Some people want mystery and don't want to know the bad guys altitude.  But I do, so what about a compromise. If they are flying around 20K or something we should get to see them on the radar a little sooner since they are farther above the horizon.  Increased warning = more intercepts, more intercepts means more fighting for bombers and fighters which is what we should all want because if your not here to fight then you should be playing Microsoft flight simulator instead of this game.

[earl1937]

Focus people, this was a conversation about radar not nukes.  Ok, I get it.  Some people want mystery and don't want to know the bad guys altitude.  But I do, so what about a compromise. If they are flying around 20K or something we should get to see them on the radar a little sooner since they are farther above the horizon.  Increased warning = more intercepts, more intercepts means more fighting for bombers and fighters which is what we should all want because if your not here to fight then you should be playing Microsoft flight simulator instead of this game.

Picture this in your mind! Lets have a 3 tiered radar system in the game. Think about a wedding cake, turned upside down over a base. The lowest, would be like it is now, 25 miles, the next layer up would reflect targets which are 35 miles away, the last, or top layer would show targets 45 miles away.
The bottom layer would be from the ground up to 5,000 feet. The next layer would be from 5,000 feet to 6,500 feet and the top layer would be from 6,500 feet to 8,000 feet. The top layer would have a 10,000 feet ceiling and would not show targets above 10,000 feet. What this would do is encourage more air to air combat, as guys would try to come in under the second layer, or below 5,000 feet.
I am sure some of the pilots in this game will recognize this proposal as "terminal radar system", which is in use today by the FAA. Now there dimensions are a little different than what I have listed here, but for game purposes, I think this one would work pretty good. (only problem is, I don't know how AH would blank out targets above 10,000 feet).

[gyrene81]

Now there dimensions are a little different than what I have listed here, but for game purposes, I think this one would work pretty good. (only problem is, I don't know how AH would blank out targets above 10,000 feet).

above 10k would revert to bar dar. not sure if the layers would be a good thing though. increased dot dar detection range has problems. if you look at how the bases are laid out, there isn't 35 or 45 miles between them. there would be a lot more lone pork rangers flying around porking dar.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Ahhh the typical responses to changing the game.  

Why don't you give some examples why it would be bad for the game. As I said the bomb would have to be used on the highlighted base.

It was necessary to use to defeat Japan, so why not be used here, after all it is realism we're after, no?  

Think. If a 29 (most of the time) draws attention like a sore thumb, then what do you expect of a 29 carrying a game-ending device? None less than 15 262s.

[bustr]

Before the radar minimums for red dot dar were changed, large groups of players snuck around the maps below 200ft and attacked fields. The highest most players bothered on average was about 12k otherwise. The NOE hoards were very successful at suddenly overwhelming an isolated field and taking it. But, you were guaranteed fights at reasonable altitudes if you could time being there just right.

During that time a cadre of voices moaned reflexively about how much more realistic MA combat "could" be if we were all flying above 15k like they did in the "real war". And the furball community would respond, "be careful what you ask for, everyone will just hide up there and not fight." 

Maybe get the minimum changed from 65ft back to 200ft so everyone will hide in the bushes again. Over the last decade players have not changed in how they avoid combat. It's always the path of least resistance influenced by the current arena settings. Right now it's above 15k. Back then it was below 200ft.

So we have gone from complaining to HTC that no one wants to fight because they hide in hoards below 200ft avoiding combat. To now, we want HTC to give us red dot altitude indicators so we can make plans for catching them hiding at altitude avoiding combat. The heart of this is "avoiding combat". And then logically,,,,, Me163 everywhere for 30 perks so we can rapidly get to 30k to cut off the new generation of runstangs using the red dot altitude indicator to avoid combat?

So if they want to hide and avoid combat. Isn't it simpler for your time investment that they do it in the bushes and you need only look for flashing bases or the occasional red dot blip as someone drifts above 200ft? At least then you would know where 10-30 of them are, and willing to fight you below 10k. As it is, now altitude indicators are being asked for to counter hiding above 15k. We got to this by the radar red dot minimum reduced lower than our trees. You don't need complexity to fix this.

Low level intruder missions were not the exception to mission types during WW2.

[Zoney]

How about when you put the cursor over the red dot on the radar it shows you an approximate altitude.  Radar was sophisticated enough during the war to tell you what alt they were at, and I would rather not waste my time flying for ten minutes chasing a dot only to find that he is at 25K, and it is going to take another 45 minutes to catch him.  I play this game to fight not chase people.

-1  NO

[Tinkles]

Before the radar minimums for red dot dar were changed, large groups of players snuck around the maps below 200ft and attacked fields. The highest most players bothered on average was about 12k otherwise. The NOE hoards were very successful at suddenly overwhelming an isolated field and taking it. But, you were guaranteed fights at reasonable altitudes if you could time being there just right.

During that time a cadre of voices moaned reflexively about how much more realistic MA combat "could" be if we were all flying above 15k like they did in the "real war". And the furball community would respond, "be careful what you ask for, everyone will just hide up there and not fight."  

Maybe get the minimum changed from 65ft back to 200ft so everyone will hide in the bushes again. Over the last decade players have not changed in how they avoid combat. It's always the path of least resistance influenced by the current arena settings. Right now it's above 15k. Back then it was below 200ft.

So we have gone from complaining to HTC that no one wants to fight because they hide in hoards below 200ft avoiding combat. To now, we want HTC to give us red dot altitude indicators so we can make plans for catching them hiding at altitude avoiding combat. The heart of this is "avoiding combat". And then logically,,,,, Me163 everywhere for 30 perks so we can rapidly get to 30k to cut off the new generation of runstangs using the red dot altitude indicator to avoid combat?

So if they want to hide and avoid combat. Isn't it simpler for your time investment that they do it in the bushes and you need only look for flashing bases or the occasional red dot blip as someone drifts above 200ft? At least then you would know where 10-30 of them are, and willing to fight you below 10k. As it is, now altitude indicators are being asked for to counter hiding above 15k. We got to this by the radar red dot minimum reduced lower than our trees. You don't need complexity to fix this.

Low level intruder missions were not the exception to mission types during WW2.

Yup, the community keeps going around the circle. Over and Over, HTC doesn't win no matter what they do. Bunch of Bi-Pola.... hey.. wait a minute.  

Seriously though, I agree with Bustr. I don't think anything needs to be changed to the radar. It's fine the way it is.   It's a sandbox, use the tools provided and get the job done. Don't need things "dumbed down" or easier to get things done.   While I understand the OP's wish and that his intent is to bring what he thinks would be good for the game. It wouldn't be.

Sometimes things must be experienced before someone learns, however I again, do not support this wish. I have no ill will against the OP, and he has every right to ask this wish as I do to say "no"; but I honestly believe that this wouldn't be good for the game.

Even though I have played for 6 years, there are some who would be better at explaining the bad side of this. But I will name a few.

#1 Bombers would go higher and higher so that enemies would take longer to get to them so the said bombers would have a chance to get to their target (and probably return home). Which doesn't promote combat.

#2 The immersion, even if it was possible "back in the day" to get such accurate readings from radar, it makes it too easy to find out what is going on. There is no "smoke and mirrors" or the "fog of war". So it takes all the investigative properties of a defender out of the equation, and simply gives them the answer.  "Target is large enough to be a heavy bomber, 32,528 ft going 422 mph SW".      Even with our current dot system of putting your cursor on the friendly and finding out who it is, some didn't like it because it was too 'gamey' it took the mystery out of it.

#3 Some if they seen an enemy too high would simply not engage that target. Instead of going out and finding out for themselves what that target is, and potentially starting combat; the combat would die before it even had a chance to start, because it was determined that the target was too high.  

I'm sure there are a quite a few things I missed. Some of the oldie veterans could give a better description than I could. But still, while your intentions are good, I don't think you would see the repercussions of this wish until after the fact, but the damage would already be done by then.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[bustr]

We got what we asked for:

During that time a cadre of voices moaned reflexively about how much more realistic MA combat "could" be if we were all flying above 15k like they did in the "real war". And the furball community would respond, "be careful what you ask for, everyone will just hide up there and not fight." 

I think we fudgulated upon our selves when we ran NOE out of town.

But, then Hitech had a real community problem to solve with 2\3 of the players on any large map were often in the bushes avoiding each other rolling undefended fields. One could argue the present economy is influencing the low numbers, and to a point, except the gamey of us now have an alternative to "not buy a subscription from HTC". The low numbers are acting like a magnifying lens to the intensity of the desire by many to avoid risk and loosing by getting shot down. We don't have the excess numbers to offset the stark reality of risk avoidance in our game at this time.

I would venture that the original game play community problems encountered with large MA populations and the subsequent attempts to control them.  No longer exist because they were population dependent. Three come to mind, the new town and capture requirements, changing the radar minimums, and splitting the LWMA into two arenas. Now that the LWMA has been reduced to a single arena due to population reductions. Setting the radar minimum back to the previous setting before it was changed to influence NOE missions and player conduct, would oxymoronically promote more combat.

This chart below by Lusche, for combat activity over the years, with highlighted points of HTC changes to the game Along with War Thunder starting up. Is a good illustration for how numbers effected a need to artificially encourage community play style and conduct. Along with having an excess of players to offset numbers focusing on one type of game play predominantly. NOE missions. Look at NOE missions as our little slice of War Thunderness  before WT that kept the gamey herd paying HTC for a subscription. And the rest of us in scalps. Every ice skating rink has a minority of hockey and figure skaters who are convinced their rink would be paradise without the nightly hoards of kids and wannabees. And none of them stops to think, how do the lights stay on and ice stays ice?

With the current lack of numbers and predisposition to hide above 15k by many. I think the game would benefit by returning the radar minimums to an earlier time along with subsequently making the capturing of fields easier. A consequence would be concentrating players at lower altitudes making them available to fight with. Just as Dunbar's Number predicts group interaction and how they identify within themselves. This graph, if you have been with the game for a decade or more, reads as a cycle based on population to game play style. We don't have the excess population to support complexity at the moment. The single activity that consistently brought the most players together in the MA was NOE missions. It was always available, simple, easy, and safe in a War Thunder gamey kind of way. Unless the hockey players and figure skaters magically pay the light and ice bill with their skillz and ravishing good looks.   

[donna43]

-1