Hey... good conversation going on.
Let's see ....
Kieran said:
We had the Bishops hammering us in the north, the Knights in the south. Turning to face one attack meant neglecting the other. It's what we refer to "being in the bucket".
===========================================
Didn't know it was called in the bucket but a 2 country gang on one is as old as these online flight sims. Been through many of them.
Kieran also said:
Let me tell you what doesn't help during those times; guys going off on country channel telling everyone what a lousy job we are doing, and how much better the other side is. This is why I told you to switch sides if you admired them so much.
============================================
My appreciation of the organization of the raid did not mean I necessarily wished to be on their side. There was some frustration because we had better than 60% of our country resources fighting 40% of the threat and they refused to shift south. It is a fine balance trying to stem a flow, but it generally takes fewer to defend. Of course, that also accepts that the defenders are willing to fly unrealistically and sacrifice themselves for a field in the same manner of the attackers. Something that, frankly, I loathe. I did not mean to offend you with my comments. Apologies.
Additionally:
Rammers high? I guess it depends on your perspective. Sure, you get near the pointy end of the stick you're going to bleed, and there are guys that will go for the HO every time. Still it seems to me that most of my kills are deflections, usually someone crossing my path at a 90 degree angle (which they think is safe), or catching someone scissoring in front of me.
============================================
As Seeker mentioned some of my difficulty is learning to avoid the HO. However in quite a few fights, I'm working a Typhoon, or D9, or Hog against a Spit or a Niki (which can easily outmanuever me) and they will just turn into me and start shooting HO. Avoiding the HO at that point and just leaving the fight is a viable option. I am still trying to learn the planes tho, so often decide to try and push the edge. Very frustrating to work a superior aircraft into the corner and all they do is HO or RAM. (shrug)
Even fought a 38 last night with a Cat.. and bled him E-DRY.. and as I'm bringing guns on he just SAGS back into me as he falls... collision.. I am dead he keeps flying. ( I assume the collision code faults the guy that came in from behind? )
My point on fuel rate.....
If 25% fuel lasted as long as it would/should? and fuel rate is factored in correctly, then would I not climb to altitude in a shorter period of time than currently because I do not have to start with a much higher fuel load to ensure I have enough fuel?
Or put another way.. in real life.. a 109 sortie from the coast of France would not find the 109 locked into combat with a nearly full fuel tank. However we are actually at a higher fuel weight in most cases because we don't have as long a time at our optimal fighting weight... and carry more fuel. Not a big issue just something I had heard in passing about fuel useage and wondered why we had accelerated burn and the reason behind it.
Kieran said:
The only question I do raise about this tactic is what impact does 200 paratroops have on framerate, and what impact does the 32-player limit have on visibility of troops?
============================================
In my case it shattered my frame rate. Didn't even know we had a 32 player limit on visibility.
In respect to any type of raid where people just fling themselves at a target. Understand this is a game, however, most games, pick a sport, there is a cost to just haphazardly wasting a resource. You have bad field position, have to punt, strike out, etc. In this game there is nothing close. Just keep running lemming like in one direction.
AW often had scenarios and failed to model this. If I may....
Battle of Britain scenario. Germans try to get bombers thru to selected targets. Points are awarded each side for kills of NME A/C vs LOSS. Points are awarded for bomb damage for the Germans. What is not modeled, and IMHO is critical is the attrition. What NEARLY broke the Brits was the attrition of pilots. To model this in a scenario it should be something like, you have 100 pilots and 300 available airframes. (numbers are just for example)
40 people actually sign up to fly for one side. They can fly however they like... but if the scenario lasts six frames, and 1/2 of the people get shot down in the first 5 frames, they have no pilots left for the sixth and final frame. If the opposite side is better at conserving a resource while accomplishing mission objectives, suddenly they run amok and win hands down.
I do not know how one would even come close to approaching this in the arena, other than to adjust perk points at a reset. ( I don't even fly perk planes) Let perk points be divided up between the countries based on other factors such as victories vs losses etc and not entirely on bases controlled. Then if a given country "wins" a reset but burned up so many airframes to accomplish it, it would get no perk points only a new map. If the other countrys were more judicious in their resource consumption, they would actually see some points. Again, just a discussion point.
Thanks for the info on the CV. I have had a factory ack shoot me down when I was on the deck, going away, at high speed and extreme range, and had just dropped below field elevation behind a hill. I cannot imagine ack gunners being so proficient that they could lob a shot below their elevation and hit a plane flying down a valley. But it happened. <G>
Finally (if you read this far) I don't want to come off as negative. My observation of the night lighting I believe is just plain dead on, it is wrong. The rest is trying to find the gamesmanship of the program so that I understand what reality is in AH compared to my perception of it in the real world. Once I have the AH reality down I will have fewer questions.
Salute,
[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Jagdflieger ]
