Author Topic: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism  (Read 4832 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« on: October 31, 2020, 02:24:15 PM »
As I approach twenty years in AHIII I've become more appreciative of the balance Dale managed to achieve between realism and practical playability. While I will always consider this game a sim I also concede that this sim is a game. Of course, I'm just stating the obvious. The flight physics have always been phenomenal. The management of the airplane is enough to be engrossing without being overwhelming (the added feature of managing our fuel to add distance/endurance, using trim to our advantage, setting up gun convergence but no need for detailed engine management/babysitting the minutia end of things).

The game part should be just as obvious. The Main Arena consists of three sided play involving capture of bases on a terrain designed to be an even playing field that doesn't resemble any known geographical location on Earth. All aircraft, vehicles and ships made for the game are available to any side. To keep things from devolving into a non-stop everyone in a late war uber plane/jet fest the perk system was developed. To slow down overpopulated sides from rolling the board so fast the ENY system was developed. To prevent players grieving each other by shooting down players on their own side, kill shooter was implemented. There's all types of fun for all types of players from dog fighting to strategic bombing to tank battles to ocean battles to even the logistics of resupply and the necessity of taking troops in for the capture. It's really a good game.

The effort to keep things practically playable is also evident in the design. Carriers need not turn into the wind (wind speed is zero at sea level  - all the way up to 16,000 ft., I believe). The Norden bombsight is simplified and bombs aren't affected by wind. But even with simplifying things to keep from forcing players into spending inordinate amount of time specializing in one thing at the expense of others, there's enough realism to offer a decent amount of immersion.

The community has participants who have become lifelong friends. Some of them may not even play anymore but they return here to visit and reconnect.

I used to participate in the 'wishlist' sub-forum with a plethora of requested realism details for elements of the game that interested me the most. Carrier ops, for instance. From folding wings to canopies that open to spawning involving plane spotting on deck and taking off in order. I knew, even then, that some of what I wished for may not be practical for all and that this game is for the enjoyment of all the players. Some of what I wished for would be considered an impediment to others. And, of course, there's the ever-present 'griefer' as in all competitive combat games so the better wishes kept in mind how a change could be abused as well as used and the chances of such.

All in all, this game/sim has succeeded in all of it's apparent goals (and then some). There no other game online quite like it (similar on the surface, maybe ... but not it's equal).

Just felt like typing this, I guess. *ShruG* (Ain't nothing everyone else here doesn't know.) :D

Offline 1stpar3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3701
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2020, 02:31:53 PM »
 :aok THIS
I couldn't have said/typed it any better! This has proper Sentence and Paragraph structure, even   :rock  Love ya, Brother!~
"Life is short,break the rules,forgive quickly,kiss slowly,love truly,laugh uncontrollably,and never regret anything that made you smile."  “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”- Mark Twain

Offline nooby52

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2020, 04:01:54 PM »
Clearly, this isn't Finals time. Take it easy squaddie.

Flying as "South52" for VF-17 Jolly Rogers
17 Squadron - The Hardest Day Battle of Britain
204 Kokutai - Target Rabaul
610 Squadron -TFT Battle of Britain

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26824
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2020, 04:45:26 PM »
Agreed
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline perdue3

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4662
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2020, 05:33:29 PM »
Clearly, this isn't Finals time. Take it easy squaddie.

Before we get boastful, there were some areas I would address if I were critiquing syntax and grammar. Having said that, a coherent post is welcomed.
C.O. Kommando Nowotny 

FlyKommando.com

 

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2020, 06:03:46 PM »
Before we get boastful, there were some areas I would address if I were critiquing syntax and grammar. Having said that, a coherent post is welcomed.

When you're my professor, feel free.  :D

P.S. This isn't a paper.

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17321
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2020, 06:27:43 PM »
just saying, I'm having more fun now than when we had titanic Tuesday.


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Traveler

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3146
      • 113th Lucky Strikes
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2020, 07:13:15 PM »
WEll said.
Traveler
Executive Officer
113th LUcky Strikes
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/113th_Lucky_Strikes

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2020, 07:20:42 PM »
The new radar introduced some time ago was the big thing that made me unsubscribe.
You will not even enjoy that exact  instant radar on modern fighter since it has no 360 degree radar, without a high altitude AWAC on-top.

You cannot even hide behind a mountain, which in turn will render any high-eny plane pretty much a target since it cannot run or dogfight anything.

The "old" radar was wwII realism at it's core, the new 'AWACS' radar, even though it has short range, is even better than an ASEA radar on modern planes which have only 120 degree FOV and can not see though mountains.
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26824
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2020, 08:59:41 PM »
The new radar introduced some time ago was the big thing that made me unsubscribe.
You will not even enjoy that exact  instant radar on modern fighter since it has no 360 degree radar, without a high altitude AWAC on-top.

You cannot even hide behind a mountain, which in turn will render any high-eny plane pretty much a target since it cannot run or dogfight anything.

The "old" radar was wwII realism at it's core, the new 'AWACS' radar, even though it has short range, is even better than an ASEA radar on modern planes which have only 120 degree FOV and can not see though mountains.

This one helps make fights. With fewer numbers.
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline dieter

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2020, 09:15:03 PM »
Great thread.  I can't agree more.  Hitech achieves a balance that is truly difficult to reach and maintain.  I would only change one thing for sure, and would only debate one other topic.  I would make the arena twelve noon all the time for my older eyes, as the twilight transitions kill me, I can't see people to shoot at them.  The topic I would debate is one that would add depth and character changes to the game, and I'm not sure if it would be better or worse.  And that's Save's topic. 

World War II had long pulses, and lower frequencies.  This results in lower angular and range resolutions.  The operators were what made the systems abilities truly surprising.  That being said, facilitating the realities of the RADAR horizon, shadows, etc., would add some processing and complexities that would be difficult and would confuse many of the players.  I can already hear the endless cheating accusations if I were to use RADAR shadows and horizon to my advantage.  LOL that would be fun for about ten seconds!!!  The whole concept of airborne RADAR in a World War II game is ludicrous anyway, so I won't go there.  But the idea of being able to find someone to fight is really cool.  The compromise offered by the RADAR in this game is valid for game play.  Is it realistic?  Not even close for the modern world.  So, what is the best realism?  I want to be able to find a fight, so I like the non realistic RADAR.  I personally would like it if when I dropped to 100 feet above terrain nobody could see me on any side, and a field didn't flash until the guns engaged me.  Also, I'd feel less like I was being a jerk if I couldn't tell if I was going to find a bomber or a fighter when I saw a generic dot instead of a fighter or bomber.  I also think it would be fun if when planes flew within 50 feet of each other they showed up as a single dot.  But those are those things that are debatable.  I bet there's a bunch of people that have no problem knowing that they're going after a bomber instead of a fighter.....hehehehe....

Anyway, thanks for the hours of fun Hitech, and I'm glad you have thick skin, as this community has a fair amount of less then enlightened people! 

ULDieter

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17321
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2020, 09:18:53 PM »
This one helps make fights. With fewer numbers.

back in the day when Pigs had 20 members on squad night.  we saw 2 dar bars we spread out trying to find them,  we never did, 

now it's so much easier. you can still avoid being tracked if you plan the right approach.

many times I've gotten shot down while being shadowed by a slower plane, on the other hand I've done the same thing.


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Mongoose

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1573
      • Kentwood Station
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2020, 09:26:58 PM »
Well said.   :salute
My Aces High fan site:
www.kentwoodstation.com

Offline DaddyAce

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2020, 09:59:57 PM »
 :aok

Offline Traveler

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3146
      • 113th Lucky Strikes
Re: Realism versus playability, playability versus realism
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2020, 09:26:55 AM »
The radar I believe simulates aircraft being spotted by other aircraft, aircraft watch towers spotters and general populations.   It would be nice if those aircraft watch towers actually existed and could be destroyed with down times of 15 minutes. This might allow more mission planning to include blacking out a route of attack. 
 
Traveler
Executive Officer
113th LUcky Strikes
http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/113th_Lucky_Strikes