Author Topic: Suggestion: Immunity to Panzers! (Read 620 times)

SKurj · « **Reply #15 on:** August 09, 2002, 12:52:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad

That's a 6-8 minute round trip for him.

For the GV's he killed, it's the instant click of a mouse.

Doesn't seem right that GV's can teleport back to the battlescene instantly but that an aircraft has a distinct "cycle time" back to base.

The instant click puts the GV at least 5 minutes away from being in range of the target.

The downed plane takes at least 5 minutes to respawn and grab...

1 v 1 if its anything other than an osty, the plane wins 100% of the time...

You want to defend against several gv's take several planes, problem solved..

SKurj

Toad · « **Reply #16 on:** August 09, 2002, 03:22:29 PM »

So a "spawn point" option for aircraft that would put the aircraft at 10k or more within 5 minutes of several different bases would be OK then?

Because it sure seems to me that GV's from a V base have the ability to get within "5 minutes" of a whole lot bases with a single click. Far more so than aircraft trying to do the same thing.

Sure would speed up the action if aircraft could click and be at a decent altitude within 5 minutes of 3 or 4 different bases....

SKurj · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2002, 06:27:35 PM »

Toad don't climb and your planes are within 5-10 mins of the nearest bases just like GV's

SKurj

SKurj · « **Reply #18 on:** August 09, 2002, 06:32:49 PM »

and while yer at it Toad from now on are you willing to up from your firendly field furthest from the action and then fly for 2 hours and only then can you engage if you see somethin. oops and i forgot, your 'real' CO says no lonewolf missions.

SKurj

Toad · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2002, 07:22:48 PM »

Skurj, my overall impression is that GV's can "get to the action" at a greater number of bases and faster than aircraft can do so on most of the maps.

I'll happily fly over any terrain you like and cover any necessary distance to the fight at the actual aircraft speed if GV's will do the same. Travel over the terrain at actual GV speed.. and not be able to cross rivers if the bridge is out, etc.

How about this. Instead of "spawn points" just make the "spawn points" into actual VH's. Even mini-VH's. Or make the "spawn points" into damagable/destroyable depots. This would eliminate the "transporter room" aspect of GV's, make more targets for capture or destruction and basically "add to the game".

You guys would go for that wouldn't ya? After all, every actual place a plane or ship can originate can be both captured and/or damaged. So why not bring GV's into line with the rest of the game?

SKurj · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2002, 09:31:50 PM »

Toad enemy fighter bases were not this close in reality either...

Planes take longer because they usually get alt.. if they didn't.. they would be able to arrive at the target as fast as gv's

SKurj

Toad · « **Reply #21 on:** August 09, 2002, 09:45:27 PM »

So you don't want to make the GV spawn points into part of the strategy/war goals? I'd think that'd ADD to the GV part of the game.

You're comfortable with the "transporter room" concept? Adds to the immersion or whatever?

Let me ask you this then. Should a Val traverse 25 miles of terrain as fast as a 262? Should a CV traverse a sector of ocean as fast as a 190D9? But GV"S should traverse a sector of the map at the speed of electricity with the click of a mouse? Is that fair?

Wotan · « **Reply #22 on:** August 09, 2002, 11:15:53 PM »

toad areas on the maps are impassable by gvs.

where in the arena are ac unable to fly to.

its not just a factor in getting there "quicker" but getting there at all.

ofcourse gvs wouldnt be used at all if the distances to a fight were any longer.

That might not be a bad thing.

Toad · « **Reply #23 on:** August 10, 2002, 12:02:33 AM »

Sure, aircraft have the capability to overfly just about any where and GV's are often restricted by terrain.

That's one of the reasons why aircraft became such an important combat arm, isn't it?

There ARE inherent differences and advantages/disadvantages to the various types of machine we can operate in the game. Seems to me though that the GV's get more than their share of "special consideration" in the game.

I really would go for making the spawn points into mini-VH's or at least make them vulnerable to attack like a depot or rally point would be. As it is now, the transporter room aspect gives a great advantage to the GV's and a large disadvantage to the attacking aircraft. IMO, of course; just my view of this particular aspect of gameplay.

CptTrips · « **Reply #24 on:** August 10, 2002, 12:12:16 AM »

Quote

So why not bring GV's into line with the rest of the game?

Sorry Toad, but I think you're all wrong on this topic.

Spawn points are an excellent devices to allow the gv's to be reasonably playable. For all the same reasons that the distance between fields is carefully controlled. You're speaking from a viewpoint of a person who almost never uses vehicles (checked your stats). You prolly don't care if gv's are playable. Other people do enjoy them (an ever growing percentage of HTC's customers) and the game should be designed in such a way that they can be enjoyed reasonably by those that do.

No a val can't ground as fast as a 262, but a panzer can't cover ground as fast as a m-3 either. The distance between airfields is controlled such that the "average" transit time for the range of aircraft is reasonable. The spawn ranges should be controlled such that the "average" transit time for gv's can be reasonable.

Its shouldn't take much longer for gv's to get into action than it does buffs and fighters. Maybe it should take less. A fighter or buff can put it on auto climb and go have a beer, watch tv, or make a samich. A gv player has to drive white knuckle every stinkin inch of the way. If he hits a single branch, bush, or pebble, his 10 ton battle tank explodes into tiny bits.

A gv also doesn't have any terrain cover to hide in as in real life. No way to duck into a stand of trees. No way to dig in hull down and lay some cammo netting. No appreciable amount of night time to cover his movements. On most terrains, teh gv's black dot can be seen for MILES even when they are completely stopped (so there couldn't be dust trails).

The remote spawn points are an excellent device to allow gv's to be utilized with a reasonable amount of gameplay. And gameplay and fun are the most important factors to HTC...thank God!

Are you REALLY willing to have to fly P-51's and buffs 5-6 hours (REAL TIME) to target and have 9 hours (REAL TIME) of nighttime for gv's to cover their movements? I highly doubt it. If so, then I'd be willing to accept real gv travel times.

Regards,
Wab

Toad · « **Reply #25 on:** August 10, 2002, 01:05:22 AM »

Why should spawn points have the "immunity necklace"? Why should they be different from the other objects in the game that allow the use of machinery? A spawn point is a VH, nothing more, nothing less.

Should I be able to take off from an auxiliary or dispersal field (they had those and used them you know) that is 25 miles from the "main field" as long as one hangar is up on the main?

GV's already get plenty of "consideration" in the game to make them attractive. There was a reason that armor without air cover liked to move at night. The transporter room greatly reduces the historical exposure.. and risk... of GV's to airpower. With spawn points, the Osti's get within a few miles of an airfield undetected; any such concession for airpower would fill the boards with howls of outrage.

I don't care for GV's; I find them boring. However, I don't care if other folks use them extensively; it's their nickle. I just think the GV's get more gameplay concessions than they need or historically deserve.

Just my opinion. We don't have to agree.

CptTrips · « **Reply #26 on:** August 10, 2002, 02:23:51 AM »

Quote

The transporter room greatly reduces the historical exposure.. and risk... of GV's to airpower.

And lack of terrain cover greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.

And lack of an ability to dig in and camoflage greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.

And lack of 9 hrs of night to cover movement greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.

And lack of any real low visability weather for gv's to move under (like rain, snow, fog sufficient to GROUND aircraft) greatly increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.

The ability to spot a non-moving gv from thousands of feet and miles away increases the exposure .. and risk ... of GV's to airpower.

So, ARE you willing to fly 4 hours real time to the nearest enemy field? Are you willing to allow 9 hours real time of night in the arena so gv's can move under cover of darkness? Are you willing to have various airfields in a map socked in with weather for several days at a time or maybe the entire map rotation?

If not, you're being very selective in you demands for realism.

Regards,
Wab

Kweassa · « **Reply #27 on:** August 10, 2002, 02:28:23 AM »

That "consideration", Senor Toad, is not enough.

GVs are NOT ATTRACTIVE.

Only the OSTWINDS are attractive, and M3s are used out of absolute necessity. Other than those two, other GVs have no purpose at all in AH.

....

This "concession" is not about strengthening the GV effectiveness in totality(which, as you would comment "more than they deserve).

It is about strengthening only ONE GV(Panzer4) against specific THREE gun types(30cal/7.92mm, 50cal/13mm, 20mm) to help it withstand ONE type of attack(strafing).

We won't see more people suddenly hop in GVs if it became true, or somethin'. What we will see is people who use GVs in a regular basis use more Panzers, since their survivability against the most popular type of anti-GV attack - strafing(which, is an ability fighters do not deserve) - would go up 100%.

If another special "consideration" would help one GV be used more, and give it a nice role in current ground battles, would that not be a good thing? Especially if that consideration would revitalize another few planes which does not have any place currently - namely, anti-tank platforms?

Toad · « **Reply #28 on:** August 10, 2002, 09:23:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKWabbit
you're being very selective in you demands for realism.

And the GV "supporters" in this thread are not?

C'mon Wab.. it's all "who's ox is being gored" here. No, I wouldn't fly 9 hours for one engagement. And you wouldn't DRIVE 3 days to get to an airfield attack. So how about we reduce both times by the same factor for gameplay. You know.. treat them both the same.

Bet we don't agree on that one!

Like I said, we don't have to agree. And we don't. I guess I'm a little like Laz and buffs with respect to my views on GV's.

Best part of the Pizza map is the outer GV ring. As far as I'm concerned, we could move ALL VH's to the outer ring. Then the tread guys could have their own sandbox without impact on air operations.

That, IMO, would be a major improvement.

I bet we don't agree on this either?

Toad · « **Reply #29 on:** August 10, 2002, 09:28:24 AM »

The "immunity necklace" idea isn't going to float.

You know HTC isn't going to buy into that concept.... the next thing you know other special interest groups would be crying for immunity necklaces for their particular cause and it would be a mess.

What may happen is that HTC will simply move up the date for a review of GV damage models. They've already said they're going to revist GV's but, of course, they never say when. With enough gnashing of teeth, the subject may get looked at sooner.

But it was a nice try, Don Kweassa.