Author Topic: HTC, does this make sense?  (Read 776 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
HTC, does this make sense?
« on: July 15, 2002, 09:16:48 AM »
Last evening I was flying a fighter sortie, clearing out the fighters/bombers pounding vehicle bases near our HQ. I killed a Hellcat, but noticed that the VH was down and 4 enemy GVs were pressuring one Rook Panzer who was trying to defend. So, I rolled in with my Mustang, strafing the GVs, damaging some Flak Panzers, killing two Panzers and an M3. Finally, one guy gets lucky and hits me with a long-range shot and I am forced to bail.

I expected to take a hit in my K/D, but I didn't expect to get no credit for the 3 GVs. That annoyed me, because the current system does not count ground kills when in fighter mode. I have been told that this is set up this way to prevent padding of scores. "Really", I thought, "that doesn't make any sense." With the current 3 bomber formations, it is real easy to pad one's score by blasting bombers, with minimal risk. However, flying through hordes of GVs and Flak Panzers is anything but minimal risk. If I wanted to pad my score, I'd go cherry picking with a 109G-10. This fighter is virtually untouchable if flown correctly, as my stats will show. Load a drop tank, fly deep into the enemy's rear and bounce anything flying. Easy pickin's.

Gun kills of GVs should count. Moreover, if the system automatically designated any mission where under-wing ord is loaded as an attack sortie, it would prevent the dreaded score padding. Either that, or allow the pilot to switch modes in flight if he no longer has under-wing ordnance.

Why? I easily could have left the lone Rook to fend for himself, thereby protecting my K/D. Instead, I rolled in to help. However, in the future, I will not. It's all risk and zero reward. Especially, when calls for jabos went ignored by all others.

I place great value on surviving a sortie, because it adds a touch of realism to an otherwise unrealistic environment. To die is to fail in my book, regardless of how many enemies you killed.  That is one feature I really like about the TOD events… You die and you're out. Now, we certainly cannot expect that in the MA, but it should not preclude trying to fly like it was the case.

Anyway, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to allow a pilot to re-designate his sortie type in flight (or automatically if he kills a ground target). This will allow for proper credit of kills and losses, and not discourage attacking ground targets during a fighter sortie.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Re: HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2002, 09:19:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing

Why? I easily could have left the lone Rook to fend for himself, thereby protecting my K/D.
Widewing


"Unselfish acts of kindness in war will only get you killed" Patton

Ignore Score--have fun. :)

Offline gofaster

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6622
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2002, 09:47:41 AM »
Actually, by defending the base, you improved your chances of winning the reset and bagging those bonus perk points.

Attacking GVs is one tough business.  I'm impressed that you got as many of them as you did.  I usually get hammered after making the first guns pass.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2002, 10:14:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by gofaster
Actually, by defending the base, you improved your chances of winning the reset and bagging those bonus perk points.

Attacking GVs is one tough business.  I'm impressed that you got as many of them as you did.  I usually get hammered after making the first guns pass.


Thanks, but it's easier than it appears.

There are ways to strafe *some* GVs that minimize risk. Both M3s and Panzers have limits on elevation of their MGs. Panzers also have limited traverse. So, attacking straight down precludes return fire on the run in. Also, if you can determine where the Panzer's main gun is aimed, you can strafe from a direction where the MG cannot traverse. However, my first method is to attack fom the rear, trying to kill its engine, thereby preventing movement. Once the engine is dead, the player will eventually have to ditch, and you will usually get the kill. Ostwinds and M16s are another problem altogether. These must be blind-sided, or you will probably get smacked. I know from my own GV experience that anything flying directly at me is dead once the range drops to 1.2 or less, if I see him coming. My loss yesterday resulted from an Osti doing the pray-n-spray at d3.0. Luck is always a factor too. One final note: Avoid low level strafing runs on any GV. Panzers, 75mm LVTs and M8s can and will kill you with their main guns if you fly a low-level, straight-in run. I've killed several fighters with the Panzer's 75mm under those circumstances. Same goes for shore batteries.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: July 15, 2002, 10:21:21 AM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline gofaster

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6622
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2002, 10:50:56 AM »
Thanks for the tips!  My problem is I go in at a 45 degree angle, which puts me in their prime firing zones.  Anything steeper, and I nose into the ground on top of them.  I'll keep your advice in mind next time I'm in the Main Arena.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2002, 11:10:49 AM »
Incidently, I was watching Widewing, my son was all 3 of those kills...

The first, the Panzer, you took out his turret, in a low level pass that could of easily got you killed had it not been a 6 yr old gunner.

He exited to get an M3 (your awarded kill for the exit)

Then your next two passes again were too low on his M3, you took two passes, hitting him but not killing him, again, that could of easily got you killed had it not been a 6 yr old gunner. Finally your 3rd pass you came in at the recommended 50 deg angle and did it the right way, and killed him.

He then upped another M3, changed his mind, and upped an Osties (giving you your 3rd kill, for his exit)

The Ostie up in front of us after my sons re-up you ended up killing his track but  he killed you. Ya should only attack an Ostie when you have a wingman, so one can draw his fire, while the other attacks...

Just some "constructive" critisizm, I was giving it to my son as well ;)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2002, 11:28:20 AM by Ripsnort »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2002, 12:14:24 PM »
eeeeewww...  I will have to remember this thread next time I try to pump myself all up on the BB.   I shall have to tone down my bragging lest this hapen to me.
lazs

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2002, 12:26:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, I was watching Widewing, my son was all 3 of those kills...

The first, the Panzer, you took out his turret, in a low level pass that could of easily got you killed had it not been a 6 yr old gunner.

He exited to get an M3 (your awarded kill for the exit)

Then your next two passes again were too low on his M3, you took two passes, hitting him but not killing him, again, that could of easily got you killed had it not been a 6 yr old gunner. Finally your 3rd pass you came in at the recommended 50 deg angle and did it the right way, and killed him.

He then upped another M3, changed his mind, and upped an Osties (giving you your 3rd kill, for his exit)

The Ostie up in front of us after my sons re-up you ended up killing his track but  he killed you. Ya should only attack an Ostie when you have a wingman, so one can draw his fire, while the other attacks...

Just some "constructive" critisizm, I was giving it to my son as well ;)


Let me give my perspective of the engagement:

After chasing down and killing a Hellcat about two miles south of V72, I strafed a pair of Ostwinds, working with a Bf 110, who finally killed both (I think Mn7 was the pilot). I came north to see what damage had been done. I spot a Panzer close to the base, with another nearby. For reasons previously described, I elect to attack. I work around to the nearest Panzer's rear and run in to kill the engine. I received no return fire, as the Panzer was firing his main gun while I was coming in. I figured that I had killed the engine because of the smoke, so I turned my attention towards the other Panzer, running in from the rear again. It is extremely unlikely that the 8mm MG can do any serious structural damage to my aircraft. Sure, it could hole the radiator, but all that means is that I land near the VH. So, generally I ignore the 8mm MG. When I made my second run on the second Panzer, I heard the some minor pings on the run out. The run in was along the axis where he can't shoot. I see a kill awarded in the text buffer, and I see an M3 has upped and is running towards the remaining Panzer. I make a run from the rear, but bear off at about 1.2k, just in case he fires in return, but he doesn't (Pulling off at that range means killing it is unlikely in one pass, but it also means that the single .50 cal MG is highly unlikely to get a hit on me either). Again I come from the rear, but this time there IS some return fire, so I pull off and climb for a steep angle attack. That pass finally kills the M3. Meanwhile, the second Panzer was apparently abandoned as I get a kill message for it.

Moments later, a Panzer spawns and heads towards the VH, so I roll in again. Just then, something spawns behind him and I pulled off to have a look at it. After I extend and come back, I see it is an Osti, so I go after the Panzer about 1.5k ahead of it. I attack from side where the 8mm can't traverse. As I begin hitting it, I take a major hit to my right wing (opposite side to the Osti, which is strange, but commonplace in AH)) and have to bail.

I never fired on the Ostwind, never even closed to less than minimum Icon range, for the exact reason you mention. Since your son got the credit for killing my Mustang, he had to have hit me from a distance of at least 2.5k, maybe as far out as 3.0k. He must have been thrilled to nail that pesky Mustang! Tell him that I applaud his shooting!

I don't think I got credit for your son changing vehicles. Also, there was one other mitigating factor. That Rook GV was firing too.

This is rather typical, two different perspectives of the same event usually result in two differing reports. One of us should have been filming, I guess. Then again, what we see on our FE is not always what actually exists. Either way, had it not been for that "hail-Mary" ;) shot that clipped me, I would have avoided any damage, and probably would have gotten that last Panzer too.

Edit: I forgot to detail the encounter with the Ostwinds south of V72.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: July 15, 2002, 12:44:41 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2002, 12:30:52 PM »
No, my son didn't shoot ya down, another Ostie or tank ahead of him did.  Yeah, forgot about that other tank, you disabled his his tracks, good shot! He was able to continue to shell upping GV's however, as he was positioned.

Inlines don't make a good platform for taking hits from GV"s, but hey, like you said, you were in the vicinity ;)

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Re: HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2002, 12:32:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing


I expected to take a hit in my K/D, but I didn't expect to get no credit for the 3 GVs. That annoyed me, because the current system does not count ground kills when in fighter mode


Oh, and I 100% agree with the original intent of this post!!!
(Actually, I'd go as far as saying its  a bug, post it in the Bug forum, maybe it will get its deserved attention)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2002, 12:42:45 PM by Ripsnort »

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2002, 05:09:11 PM »
Yes it makes 100% Since.

A fighters roll is to kill airplanes, not to kill GV's.
 
Killing GV's sounds much more like an attack mission to me.

Offline JoeDirt

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 506
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2002, 05:16:34 PM »
do ya get point shwn ya shoot down them airplanes when yer in attack mhode?

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2002, 07:25:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hitech
Yes it makes 100% Since.

A fighters roll is to kill airplanes, not to kill GV's.
 
Killing GV's sounds much more like an attack mission to me.


I believe you missed the point. What begins as a fighter sortie may change into an attack sortie due to changing circumstances. Likewise, an attack mission can evolve into a fighter mission. Does it not make sense for the pilot to be able to change that designation at least once to suit a changing requirement. I can't tell you how many times I've had missions re-designated during the actual sortie (Naval Air).

Typical situation: A Typhoon attacks enemy ground vehicles. That threat is eliminated. However, a large enemy air attack is detected inbound. Should not that pilot then have an option to re-designate his mission as "fighter" and get scored accordingly? Same argument for fighter sorties that change to attack. If we have scoring, why not make it accurately reflect what is occuring? I believe that the logic is inescapable. I'm not saying that it would be easy to implement (although I see no serious obstacle).

It was common for USAAF/USN/USMC fighters to attack ground targets, then assume a CAP over the target area. Two entirely different mission profiles during a single sortie.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2002, 07:29:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JoeDirt
do ya get point shwn ya shoot down them airplanes when yer in attack mhode?


Joe, you're the first person I've seen who types with a lisp...:D

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
HTC, does this make sense?
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2002, 08:20:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hitech
Yes it makes 100% Since.

A fighters roll is to kill airplanes, not to kill GV's.
 
Killing GV's sounds much more like an attack mission to me.


hitech,
Based on that same logic:

Why do we get credit for killing flying airplanes on "attack" sorties?

Why can a "fighter" be used for both roles?

Should base defense be done in "attack" mode for killing GVs, or should it be flown in "fighter" mode for killing airplanes?

If a "fighter" pilot takes off from a base to defend it against a mixed attack by both enemy aircraft AND ground vehicles, what kind of sortie is that?

A lot of fighter pilots that I have read about and a few that I have talked to, did both fighter AND attack missions.   It was not all that rare for an attack mission to involve air to air combat.

Thanks,

eskimo