Remove Manned guns from fields

[DmonSlyr]

and leave the base undefended-but then you say up a plane and defend, unnhuh so u can vulch. if you don't want to get shot down by auto or manned ack don't fly into the ranges, you say it was 88MM that got you, well kill 88
-1

No, it didn't get me, that's not why I made the post. The point is that it is stupid and ruins the fun for the real flyers and real participants in the area. Im sure after getting sniped out of the sky 5 or 6 times, players just leave. It takes too long for all that work to insta die by a point and shoot option.

So basically don't play the game... that's what you are telling me.

"just go home if you don't want to fight a puff of smoke"

What ever happened to rolling and taking a risk and trying to shoot down the plane close to the field? If it comes down to getting to vulched, again, its you and your own teams fault for not defending. Why should the attackers be punished for lousy game play. Attackers spent the time and energy to get there. Defenders spend less time and energy because they dont need to fly as far. Therefore, it should be more suitable for the attacker than for the defender. If you take away the point of attacking, what is the point of the game?

[Arlo]

I've been meaning to hone my manned ack skills. 

[Zimme83]

Man guns on airfields is only an issue if you planning to vulch the runway, a which point few people will up a plane anyway. the 37 mm is effective up to maximum 1.5k against a fighter, beyond that its just lucky shots. 88 is also a non issue, just maneuver a bit and u are safe. If you have some good gunners you can stop the vulchers and allow for friendlies to take off in planes and defend the town.

[Ramesis]

Please tell me how a manned ack is a player style? It doesn't have a score, you can't actually die, and it takes 0 risk. A manned ack is not a "player style".  It doesn't solve the problem  of vulching or it would have stopped people from vulching already. I proved that in the last post. rolling in vehicles is actually much more beneficial. The bot AAA already protects people from landing and taking off. If it's down, well, gee golly, don't you think it's poor defense on your part? The only thing it would "force" players do it is actually compete in the game... Wow, what a novel idea. Who wants to fight against a puff of smoke that doesn't even give you a kill? Why should they get all the benefit with 0 risk?  The Puff ack can kill you  from 6-10K away. You don't even have  to be near the base. It can snipe you  out of the sky in a 1v1 fight near the base.. What fun is that?  to spend 10 minutes to fight a puff of smoke and die instantly? I honestly don't get what at all is rational or how it benefits the game play more so than make it stale.

1) Some don't care about his/her score
2) Some enjoy the satisfaction of defending a base
3) For some risk is no big deal because of 1 and 2 above
4) For those that have AAA skills, it can be quite satisfing to kill the vultures

 

[asterix]

No, it didn't get me, that's not why I made the post. The point is that it is stupid and ruins the fun for the real flyers and real participants in the area. Im sure after getting sniped out of the sky 5 or 6 times, players just leave. It takes too long for all that work to insta die by a point and shoot option.

I love different aspects of this game and manned guns are my guilty pleasure (quad 40 is my favourite because of sound and visuals). So I guess I am a virtual flyer, not real. If someone shot me down several times in a row with the 88 I would salute the person. Speaking of real I am pretty sure a WW2 pilot would not get much credit or markings for strafing some gun position but an AA gunner would probably get credit for shooting down an aircraft. Some of the attackers in game come in at high speed, shoot the dar or ammo in a single pass and egress fast. Not much time to defend in an aircraft, especially in a slower one.

I also like to watch 88mm recordings etc because You can`t see much when shooting the gun. But enemy bomber external view sometimes reveals some very close calls (aka funny moments for me). I remember getting some kicks out of bomber flights in AH2 where I would fly over every enemy base on my way to a start target so I could see 88mm shells coming in while in external view. Tried it in AH3 a few times and nobody fired any shells but got attacked by some fighters instead.

Don`t fly in a predictable path would be my advice.

[lunatic1]

Man guns on airfields is only an issue if you planning to vulch the runway, a which point few people will up a plane anyway. the 37 mm is effective up to maximum 1.5k against a fighter, beyond that its just lucky shots. 88 is also a non issue, just maneuver a bit and u are safe. If you have some good gunners you can stop the vulchers and allow for friendlies to take off in planes and defend the town.

wirble is 1.5k  ostwind 37mm 4.5k manned 37mm 4.5k M-16 1k

[Zimme83]

wirble is 1.5k  ostwind 37mm 4.5k manned 37mm 4.5k M-16 1k

Im talking about at what range it is realistic to score a hit, unless fighters are flying straight and level hardly anyone will score a hit beyond 1.5k.

[Zener]

If it's down, well, gee golly, don't you think it's poor defense on your part?

No, I for one, don't.

People can't be everywhere on a map and the simple fact of life is that most attacking hordes don't head into a solid darbar... they go hit a field where they'll be coming in at alt with bombs to do some damage and cap the field.  What you seem to want is an automatic cap that can't be defended against AT ALL based on your attacking group's "wisdom" to choose that base.

The manned guns are there for a reason.  As was suggested earlier, if they pose a problem to you, the onus is on you to take them out of action, not on a defender's to ignore a means to fight back just because it takes some of your advantage away.  Personally, if there's 3 ponies and a gaggle of 190s orbiting my base, I'm not upping there to pad your score.  Now you want uppers, don't vulch people taking off.  You do, you get manned guns.  Don't complain about the consequences you help create, otherwise the same can be said about you that you are saying about defenders.  If manned guns are taking you out, musta been pretty poor offense. 

[lunatic1]

I don't know about more lethal they are pretty lethal when they hit you, I would vote for more ACK accuracy.
the other day I chased a 190A8 thru my med size air field he made 5 passes thru the ack taking out the ords and never received any noticeable  damage.
a medium airfield has 12 auto guns and not one got him.

[DmonSlyr]

You are all missing the point. It does NOT prevent vulching anymore than the bot AAA already does.

No, I for one, don't.

People can't be everywhere on a map and the simple fact of life is that most attacking hordes don't head into a solid darbar... they go hit a field where they'll be coming in at alt with bombs to do some damage and cap the field.  What you seem to want is an automatic cap that can't be defended against AT ALL based on your attacking group's "wisdom" to choose that base.

The manned guns are there for a reason.  As was suggested earlier, if they pose a problem to you, the onus is on you to take them out of action, not on a defender's to ignore a means to fight back just because it takes some of your advantage away.  Personally, if there's 3 ponies and a gaggle of 190s orbiting my base, I'm not upping there to pad your score.  Now you want uppers, don't vulch people taking off.  You do, you get manned guns.  Don't complain about the consequences you help create, otherwise the same can be said about you that you are saying about defenders.  If manned guns are taking you out, musta been pretty poor offense. 

So you think rolling from a capped base is smart either? You think you should have the chance to roll while the other team is trying to take the base? What if the VH is down, FH is down, BH, and all guns are down. What are you going to do? Your little manned ack obviously didn't do anything. I had someone yesterday come within 10 feet of me from 6K away from the base, shot after shot. Could have easily ruined my sortie, and been a big waste of time.  I've had ack insta tower me at 15K going down over 400  mph with 6 kills.  Am I suppose to enjoy that? Why is it that you guys cannot perceive time value in this game?

1) Some don't care about his/her score
2) Some enjoy the satisfaction of defending a base
3) For some risk is no big deal because of 1 and 2 above
4) For those that have AAA skills, it can be quite satisfing to kill the vultures

 

1-2, defending their base by sitting in a manned gun does less to defend and more to help your team get vulched eventually. It decreases playability in the game, it encourages lazy game play. It encourages people to stop playing.

3. So you are saying that a person who does play for score should be okay with a situation that takes absolutely nothing for them to fail? How is that balancing game play?

4-5. So If you spend 10-15 minutes to fly to a base and get popped out of the sky instantly by a manned gun that you cannot even defend against, are you going to spend another 15 minutes doing the same thing? How many more times will it take for you to get tired?

6. It doesn't prevent vulching. That's the biggest fallacy out of the lot of ya. Lets say you shoot all the vulchers down, and now they don't come back, is that a win for game  play? You are able to roll, but who are you  going to fight now? Why should a game mode that only implies point and shoot have such a big impact players hard earned sortie and time? It is not right. It's just another way to decrease the overall action of the game, and we don't need that right now.

This isn't real life. In real life yeah, you want to take them all down at all cost.

This is a game that needs action to stay alive. Dodging point and shoot sniper puffs are a lot like watching grass grow.

[Zener]

So you think rolling from a capped base is smart either?

No, I don't roll from there if the base is capped.  Usually, if my goal is to defend that base, I up somewhere else if it's possible.  I will up if there are planes over town or if there is a threat of imminent capture.

I'm merely saying that manned guns are on the field for a purpose and it seems the people who are upset that an available asset is being used make no sense.  What exactly ARE you posing defenders should do, just hand over the field?  Would any of them NOT up a tank if a bunch of tank rolled their base?  How would they feel about an opinion that upping a vehicle is nonsense and they should have defended the base "better?"

You use what's available.  That's why it's there.

As for the rest, I've had many situations where I was one-shot blasted out of the sky by guns I didn't think should be that kind of accurate.  It happens.  I usually do go back, only this time I'm a lot more careful to fly in ways that make tracking me more difficult.

I'm not proposing sitting in manned guns all night.  What I'm saying is IF people are trying to up, they're getting vulched, I see no problem with trying to use a manned gun to make it a bit harder on the vulchers.  If you have 6 vulches under your belt at the time, I have no way to know that and wouldn't care.  I'd be happy you didn't get a seventh pelt for the wall.     The same has happened to me when I'm trying to cap a base.  I don't worry about it; if I get shot down, I can re-up.  If it's score I'm worried about - and I don't - I wouldn't be flying low over a base with manned OR auto guns in the first place.

There was a time when fighter sweep missions used to be quite common.  I don't think I've seen one in the last couple months.  Nearly every pickup mission I've seen has to do with taking a base or bombing something.  With lower numbers, it's hard to find enough people to get a mission like that rolling, so most fights are going to be way out of balance.  Not all, just most.  In times past, when a group came in to cap a base, it wasn't long until a group upped from a nearby field to come try and clear up the skies.  But numbers no longer support that when you consider a side must also contend with incoming GVs and bombers plus hunt for M3s and maybe even bring an M3 for resupp.  It's just too much to do spread over a thinned population to have 6 or 10 guys with nothing to do but up and fly a sector to defend.

Maybe if our numbers go back up that will return to being feasible but right now I don't think it is and that's why we don't see much of it.

[JimmyD3]

uhhh Violator, no one agrees with you. Just let it drop.

[DmonSlyr]

No, I don't roll from there if the base is capped.  Usually, if my goal is to defend that base, I up somewhere else if it's possible.  I will up if there are planes over town or if there is a threat of imminent capture.

I'm merely saying that manned guns are on the field for a purpose and it seems the people who are upset that an available asset is being used make no sense.  What exactly ARE you posing defenders should do, just hand over the field?  Would any of them NOT up a tank if a bunch of tank rolled their base?  How would they feel about an opinion that upping a vehicle is nonsense and they should have defended the base "better?"

You use what's available.  That's why it's there.

As for the rest, I've had many situations where I was one-shot blasted out of the sky by guns I didn't think should be that kind of accurate.  It happens.  I usually do go back, only this time I'm a lot more careful to fly in ways that make tracking me more difficult.

I'm not proposing sitting in manned guns all night.  What I'm saying is IF people are trying to up, they're getting vulched, I see no problem with trying to use a manned gun to make it a bit harder on the vulchers.  If you have 6 vulches under your belt at the time, I have no way to know that and wouldn't care.  I'd be happy you didn't get a seventh pelt for the wall.     The same has happened to me when I'm trying to cap a base.  I don't worry about it; if I get shot down, I can re-up.  If it's score I'm worried about - and I don't - I wouldn't be flying low over a base with manned OR auto guns in the first place.

There was a time when fighter sweep missions used to be quite common.  I don't think I've seen one in the last couple months.  Nearly every pickup mission I've seen has to do with taking a base or bombing something.  With lower numbers, it's hard to find enough people to get a mission like that rolling, so most fights are going to be way out of balance.  Not all, just most.  In times past, when a group came in to cap a base, it wasn't long until a group upped from a nearby field to come try and clear up the skies.  But numbers no longer support that when you consider a side must also contend with incoming GVs and bombers plus hunt for M3s and maybe even bring an M3 for resupp.  It's just too much to do spread over a thinned population to have 6 or 10 guys with nothing to do but up and fly a sector to defend.

Maybe if our numbers go back up that will return to being feasible but right now I don't think it is and that's why we don't see much of it.

Zener, you bring up a lot of points that I have talked about in the past in terms why players do what they do. Your quote" you use what is available, that's why it's there". My arguement is that it should not be there at all. People benefit the game more by having to use vehicles or planes. The manned gun has no benefit. Shooting down 1 AHole doesn't stop the vulch. He spent 15 minutes to come vulch. Why should a person be able to log into the game, hop in a field Ack, and ruin his sortie with 0 risk? I don't understand how that logic is beneficial to the game. Who feels the most grief, the guy getting vulched over and over again, where he knows he will get vulched, (most of the time all the guns are down anyway), or the guy who spends 10 minutes flying to a base to jabo or bomb or fly near it, only to get 1 shot towered with no chance to defend. The guy who blows up from the ack will more than likely have a bad taste than the guy who dies in his manned gun.

"It's just too much to do spread over a thinned population to have 6 or 10 guys with nothing to do but up and fly a sector to defend."

 That is a big reason, and half the reason why I press so hard to make the fields a tad bit closer.


"Maybe if our numbers go back up that will return to being feasible but right now I don't think it is and that's why we don't see much of it."

That's the whole point of my posts. The #s have dropped because of stale game play like 88inchers on fields that promote 0 fights. That's just one reason. We need to stop saying, "if the #s would just come back" for what? There have been little attempts to make the game play more actionable. I am happy they are shorting the base distance a tad. We need to start figuring out how to bring back #s by making the fights more fun to be apart of.

uhhh Violator, no one agrees with you. Just let it drop.

Id like to see more opinions. And a new arguement besides it "protects from vulching" when it clearly does not.

It griefs the attacker far more than the defender and that is why it should just be left to the bots.

[Vinkman]

More people in Planes and Tanks, less people in Point and Shoot, yawn play, ruining hard earned sorties from 8K away. It does nothing for the game. Regular bot manned acks do more than a great job.

I will say that they should be kept for the CV and ship fleets just for the sake of the CV weakness. 

 Please consider

Vio

-1

when the hangars are porked, I still have something to do. 

[ImADot]

I like jumping in a gun and trying to shoot down a-holes who are trying to vulch. When they go boom, I smile because I know I pissed them off.