Ok, fighter jocks, why is it "pig pile" on the BUFFs?

[Hooligan]

After all these posts I think I misunderstood.

I believe Le-Car is dyslexic and must have meant:

"Why are buffs in AH such a big pile?"

Could this be it?

Hooligan

[Nifty]

 I hardly respect any of you now.   Except SWulfe, I liked his post, because I would enjoy flying bombers more if those things existed.

Seriously, if you have no intentions of attempting to take a base, leave the fighter hangars alone.  A tactical strike in AH would involve bomber hangars, vehicle hangars, ammo, and barracks.  That removes that base's ability to pork/capture your field.  If it's a mission to take the base, level it.  

Actually, I like Lazs idea.  Fighters should be able to spawn as long as any hangar is available.  To add to it, bombers however, are only spawnable if the large hangars are available.  Next, 3000lbs necessary for small hangars, 4000lbs necessary for large hangars.   Then add in drift and dispersion for bombs (yet add more blast radius).  No flight control at all from a gunner position.  You want to manuever and shoot back, hire a gunner.  

[lazs1]

texace... where Have i made fun of you?   I told you that your sexual preference was none of my business and In fact... I admire you for being so brave about it...  How many marines would do such a thing on a public BB such as this?  As for the being dumb comment.........

 Well... it seemed to me that you were asking me to evaluate your mental powers and I did so in an honest manner based on your post at the time.

Hooli... thank you for helping me understand what le'car meant...
lazs

[texace]

No, no, no. I didn't say that I LIKED the bombers as they were. I would like to see them fixed and changed and what not. What I am arguing against is those people who want them removed because they ruin the fun. I like the bombers, but I want them fixed just like everyone else.

Oh lazs, please, you are digging an even deeper hole, and you have absoulutly no idea what you just said, I can tell. Please, if you want to argue, fine. But if you are going to insult me, do it properly, and don't walk around it.  

I do think the bombers need wind drift and drepression. I do think the bombs be blast radius. I do think the flight models need to be revised. I do NOT think they should be removed. Is my argument clear now?

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: texace ]

[lazs1]

well.... I suppose it is a good tactic to take out fighter hangers and fighter hangers only if you only have so many bombs but..  It would be a good tactic to use radar guided naval shells to level a field from 2 sectors out if that were possible.   It would not be a good thing for gameplay tho IMO and I would probly squeak about the fleets having too much affect on gameplay.  

The naval types would complain that they needed to have fun too and needed some "concessions" otherwise no one would man the fleet.  They need all the guns slaved to one person and the pinpoint accuracy to make up for lack of interest and lack of shell blast... I'm sure they would point out how long it took them to get to within 2 sectors of a field and how us fighter pukes could just take off from another field.

I'm sure the A bomb advocates have their arguement too.

buffing has too much affect on the other elements for how little effort and skill is required.  It needs to be fixed so that they have less affect.
lazs

[AN]

texace:
----------------------------------------
I do think the bombers need wind drift and drepression...
----------------------------------------

I don't know about anyone else, but I always get drepressed when I see a bomber.  <g,d,r>

anRky