Author Topic: Radar Realism (Read 1830 times)

hblair · « **Reply #30 on:** July 24, 2001, 12:17:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs1:
it boils down to... there are those who want to find the action and those who want to hide from it. Those who want to fite and those who want kill people who never seen em. Pick your side.
lazs

Almost correct.

If you'd said this, you'd been closer to right:

It all boils down to... there are those who want to find the action, and those who want his 'puter to find the action for his lazy butt. Those who want to furball and those who want the historically correct "bounce" (you know, the way most planes were shot down in real life) to play at least some small part in the equation.

hblair · « **Reply #31 on:** July 24, 2001, 12:26:00 PM »

For the record, I'm a furballer from way back, nothing wrong with that, but finding a fight with no in-plane dar would not require an act of Congress, people do it in WB's all the time, As I said earlier, I know this kind of thinking here makes me some kind of fringe radical, so why not just kill the dar on planes below 500ft?

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #32 on:** July 24, 2001, 12:31:00 PM »

Aren't the WB arenas like half the size?

They were about 1/8th the size when I played it... (3 fields per country or maybe it was 4) Of course the med terrain had a lot more fields, but we still had those in flight arrows to be our guiding light.

Anyways, now that I've got you thrown off on some tangent leading back to the early days...

I'm fine with removing dar on any plane moving below 500ft, only problem is I think this works on vehicles too. Might take some radical changes to the programming to allow only GVs to show up on radar below 500ft.

I've never quite understood why people would ever want to completely remove radar and make the game extremely boring.

"3 hours of boredom and 30 seconds of sheer terror" doesn't float my boat at all.
-SW

Citabria · « **Reply #33 on:** July 24, 2001, 12:37:00 PM »

noooo!

with no darbar on planes below 500 feet how will i find easy to kill raiders on the deck from 25,000 feet?

I'm Skeeeerd!

hblair · « **Reply #34 on:** July 24, 2001, 12:53:00 PM »

I just thought about this again, and I've come to my senses.

Keep bar dar

Keep dot dar

Gimme more DAR!!

I'm skeeerder than citabr, I'm reeeeaaly reeeally SKEEEEEEEEERD!

MiG Eater · « **Reply #35 on:** July 24, 2001, 01:01:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by whels:

no dar below will be feasable when HT
has some way to let u know a base is under attack by GVs, since they would never show
on the dar cause they below 500feet. and ud only know a attack was happening when u lost a base.

An Air Warrior-style system message "Base ## is under attack" could be a solution.

MiG

xHaMmeRx · « **Reply #36 on:** July 24, 2001, 02:07:00 PM »

The problem as I see it is there are no other forces in our virtual world. A ground vehicle couldn't get close to an airfield without first going through the "lines". Planes are not going to fly hundreds of miles behind enemy lines without somebody reporting it. The types of reports that are available from many different sources not modelled in the game have to be available in some form. I personally think the dar bar is a much more accurate representation of what was available to a pilot in WW2 than the in-flight radar on the clipboard. It needs some modification, though.

Bar dar always over friendly territory (the original territory owned by a country at reset) to emulate the loyal population reporting in sightings. A time delay before this information appeared would be appropriate.

Bar dar always over the sectors in a rough line some distance (1 sector?) in front of the line of friendly bases to emulate reports from front line troops.

Bar dar never in "unfriendly" sectors behind the forward line of captured bases (sectors that originally belonged to the "enemy") unless passing within radar range of a base, or within "visual" range of a factory, or city that would be garrisoned...10 miles maybe? Just because you capture a base doesn't mean you captured the hearts and minds of the population!

Bar dar never in the ocean, unless the bogie is within radar range of a fleet or friendly base. Below radar in the ocean wouldn't show up on bar dar unless bogie comes within visual range of fleet or base.

Think about it; a sector is 625 square miles. It is in no way unrealistic to expect that a formation of enemy planes (or even 1 enemy plane) would be reported somewhere in a 625 mile area full of friendly soldiers and civilians.

As for the in-flight clipboard dar...I like the earlier idea of a timed update. Instantaneous information is a bit much. However, the current form could be made available to radar-equipped night fighters as an incentive to fly the big slow birds at night, especially if con range is reduced at night, too.

HaMmeR

lazs1 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 24, 2001, 02:20:00 PM »

Ok... WB style dar would be fine if we had WB style fields... By the time you get to a field in AH it is ded... no action.. what seemed like a good place to go to in the tower is a ghost town when you get there. In WB they are still there when you get there.

No matter how you cut it.... we either need the dar the way it is or make the fields fewer and closer together. either way is fine with me.

And hblair as usuall.... u are mistaken. Most pilots were not killed by being "bounced" in the sense that they couldn't see the guy or that he had spent time sneaking up on him (except in a very few LW romance novels) but... They were killed in a melee where they lost track of all the planes involved or ones that had joined the fite while they were occupied... Very much like what we now have in AH.

If I had the choice between less fields closer together and simply keeping the dar we have I would take the feilds closer and fewer but... I don't want our field setup with even less radar (read chance to find a good fite).
lazs

senna · « **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2001, 07:32:00 PM »

I brought this up a while back. The whole radar bit along with artificial ground ctrl of some sort to make combat more real. The AWACs screen we all have now ruins the whole WWII combat feel I think. Makes it seem more like a rumble each time rather than a mission. Anyway, my two cents... More real is better

-- senna of BKs

Pepe · « **Reply #39 on:** July 25, 2001, 01:53:00 AM »

I would like to add my vote to hblair's and Citabria's.

MORE RADAR TO AH!!! I want to know alt and heading on the dots. I want to get rid of darbar....to have dot radar in the whole AH map. I want radar undestructable. Automatic warning when a con gets closer than 3k. No dumb, random "check 6" calls, but a useful "109/pony/La/etc. approaching fast from your low 4. Suggested break right low". Of course given by system, you can never trust that cr**py countrymen. And, last but not least, I WANT a flashing score counter on my screen. I want to see how much that increases with each and every hit I make on the bugger.

Now AH would be really useful on my training....to pinball playing

Cheers,

Pepe

lazs1 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 25, 2001, 08:33:00 AM »

now your starting to get it pepe... course people would actually have to beat their adversary with such dar so it wouldn't go over too well with the "kill em while they are at the fridge set".
lazs

hblair · « **Reply #41 on:** July 25, 2001, 10:05:00 AM »

Yes lazs, we're in complete ageement with you. We need more radar just so we can find a fight. Perhaps even have signs on 10,000 foot poles everywhere, saying "fight thisaway! -->" or "<-- cons thataway!" Now that would help us find fights even better. Oh man, I'm on a roll!

Just please don't take away my bar dar or my dot dar.

dtango · « **Reply #42 on:** July 25, 2001, 10:49:00 AM »

Hey hblair's idea might let HTC use it as a way of generating revenue from marketing and advertisements! You know "Eat At Joe's --->" etc.

Or even sky banners that you could tow around the sky behind your plane! This might even allow individual players to have companies pay them to tow around ads behind their planes!

What great ideas to subsidize and lower my monthly rates for AH!

lazs1 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 25, 2001, 10:52:00 AM »

hblair.. that would also work. I'll go for that. what would be the result of such changes as yours and pepes? well.... u would still have to win the fite. no amount of dar or signs or anything would incrase your sa in the melee. they would just be sensory overload once the fite started... once the fite started you would still be on your own.

you want acm to determine the outcome or patience to determine it? take your pick. LW and p51 guys get no vote tho.

the fite is the thing... the sooner and easier to find the better. everything else is just kidding yourself.
lazs

Pepe · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2001, 10:59:00 AM »

Lazs, you are so in love with ACM that seem to forget that the first of them all is a proper setting on the initial merge...that is, taking advantage of sun position, using enemy's blind angles, using speed (aka closure rate) instead of alt as a mean of advantage.....

Oh yeah!, How could I forget, these things are irrelevant for radar/icon lovers. These are not real ACM

Cheers,

Pepe