Author Topic: Tell me again why.... (Read 3135 times)

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #30 on:** May 13, 2003, 06:50:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BenDover
Farmboy?

And the name is an old joke, unlike you.

Sorry Bend Over, I was kidding, i thought. Didnt mean to strike
a raw nerve. (hehe, Dont watch deliverence

)

AKWarp, i am just bantering here. Lets just say that I am
amazed that only 1 or 2 of us are opposed to a
WEAKER base defense. Weaker base defenses mean
easier time for the suicide bomber. It is not uncommon for
a single plane to kill the VH and deack a field before anyone
can up to defend. Now what. we take off fighters and get vulched until the attacker dies or flees? Its just getting too
far removed from anything resembling WW2 combat.
Somebody tried to homicide bomber my crippled b17 after
a 45 minute romp thru nme turf. I am mad. Gimme my fricken guns. We eliminated the carbombers, now lets eliminate the
suicide bombers.
If 1 man tries to come into a full up airbase, ack should maul him
9 times out of 10. if the airbase is somewhat damaged, maybe he does somewhat bettter, if the airbase is nearly destroyed
he has a good chacne. etc etc.
My opinion, for what its worth.

BendOver, stop right there. You started it, we are even.

BenDover · « **Reply #31 on:** May 13, 2003, 09:41:43 AM »

Its BEN DOVER!

And I was joking both times. Guess you lack the IQ to detect sarcasm:p

And I still want to know where you got the Farm Boy comment from...

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #32 on:** May 13, 2003, 01:44:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BenDover
Its BEN DOVER!

And I was joking both times. Guess you lack the IQ to detect sarcasm:p

And I still want to know where you got the Farm Boy comment from...

Well, the 'Are you Gay?' question, your callsign Bend Over, and
your obvious worship of male genitals with the

'cheekbones is part of something bigger' autograph you attach to your post, is a bit much for me. I shouldnt have said farmboy in
a derrogative manner, I apologize, but i didnt want to say 'gayboy' for obvious political reasons.

IQ check..Can You detect the sarcasm?

BenDover · « **Reply #33 on:** May 13, 2003, 02:13:45 PM »

Thats not an autograph, thats a quotation. If you notice its has the name of the person who wrote it, and is dated

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2003, 07:23:06 AM »

Ok BenDover.. Sorry.

Can you give me 1 reason why guns are disabled for buffs
until alt>0 that coldnt be fixed by destroying the bomber hangars?

I really am sorry about the verbal jousting, Im really mad at that
190 who tried to maul me, and you stepped into the ring.

SlapShot · « **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2003, 09:45:31 AM »

You have a point, which is undisputable ... destroying all the the bomber hangers will solve the problem, but I think, from previous posts, your question has been answered as to why they have been disabled until liftoff.

The real bottom line here is ... "cause HiTech says so". Unless he answers this question personally (don't hold your breath), then no matter what answer we give you, you will not be satisfied.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #36 on:** May 15, 2003, 08:56:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
your question has been answered as to why they have been disabled until liftoff.

The real bottom line here is ... "cause HiTech says so". Unless he answers this question personally (don't hold your breath), then no matter what answer we give you, you will not be satisfied.

Rgr that slapshot..But you make my point in a small way.
It is not 'guns disabled until liftoff', it is 'guns disabled
until alt>0', which means my guns are disabled when I am landing which is, in my humble, yet correct opinion, a slight
oversight in HiTechs rational for the rule.
I have heard that if buff guns were enabled on the ground
people would land and tear up bases with the buff guns.
I am not gonna waste my timing adrressing this issue, as it
is the dumbest way to try to vulch or destroy a field.
OK, HiTech, how about, 'guns disabled til liftoff, after that
gimme my guns'.

AKWarp · « **Reply #37 on:** May 18, 2003, 11:31:48 PM »

humble, yet correct opinion??? Heh...if only.

No,no,no..."MY" opinion is correct...buffs shouldn't have guns at all......

Landing at a base and shooting it up, or driving around on the ground doing same may sound dumb to you, but it was an extremely effective way to take one down..and to vultch it. So much so, HT had to change it. It's not realism, it's gaming the game. Nothing about that tactic was WII in any way either....

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #38 on:** May 19, 2003, 08:32:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKWarp

Landing at a base and shooting it up, or driving around on the ground doing same may sound dumb to you, but it was an extremely effective way to take one down..and to vultch it. So much so, HT had to change it. It's not realism, it's gaming the game. Nothing about that tactic was WII in any way either....

I agree with you there warp. I believe that people would try to do that, and maybe have some success at it. Trying to be respectful, I ask if you are concerned about the simplicicity in which 1 or 2 or 3 fighters can devestate a fields strats now?
I just watched from a manned ack, 2 f6fs kill vh, deack a field
and proceed to devestate the strats. I could do nothing but
try to hit one with that damm 37mm. If I try to take off, I get kilt immediatley. I had to wait until all thier ammo was spent, I upped a Yak and chased a wounded one down and shot him as he was trying to ditch.
Give it try AKWarp, try to deack a field and land a buff.
If the auto ack dont get you, the fighter will. Things have changed. I think the flashing base has taken care of any low alt buff problem, including the park and vulch.

AKWarp · « **Reply #39 on:** May 23, 2003, 10:32:16 AM »

and I contend your scenario where 2 or 3 fighters, or even 1, can kill vh and deack field is perfectly realistic in as much as realism goes in the game.

The issue has more to do with people WANTING to defend the field than it does any inequality in buff guns or ack accuracy.

Since we don't have players "stationed" at every field in sufficient numbers as would be in real life, we have that flashing base to give us a fair heads up. If that gets ignored, then the field does (and should) suffer the consquences.

As long as a bunch of fighters don't try to up all at once, one plane can effectively, with a little practice, kill vh, deack the field and keep fighters suppressed. Nothing wrong with that at all. Now, if the field guns get manned by a bunch of folks that are decent shots, the story would most likely be different, but as is the usual case, flashing fields get ignored until it is too late.

A lone fighter over an undefended airfield has a tremendous advantage...as it should be.

APDrone · « **Reply #40 on:** May 23, 2003, 04:30:55 PM »

Well, I agree that having a buff land at an enemy airbase/city and shread it with its guns is a little on the extreme side, however, I do believe the bomber should be able to defend itself on takeoff.

I don't see why a compromise can't be reached.

Currently, the logic reads that if you end your flight on a runway or VH ( or very close proximity to VH ) of a FRIENDLY base, you will receive the 'Landed Succesfully' message, thus earning full points accumulated for the mission. I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that there's a funky little subroutine/function that returns a code indicating the type of landing you made. ( captured, successful, bailed..etc )

Let's call this routine when the bomber's guns are triggered. If you get the same return code as 'succesful landing' ( allowing, somehow, to ignore the 'must be stopped to exit flight' check )
then the guns will fire.

In short, allow the bombers' guns to operate while on a friendly runway or parked at a friendly VH.

The bombers' gunners, however, will have to remember that killshooter will still ruin their day if they're firing when somebody spawns at the same spot, or rolls through them on takeoff.

Sorry if this has been proposed before. If so, I missed it and apologize.

<.S>

AKWarp · « **Reply #41 on:** May 24, 2003, 12:47:40 AM »

That's the same problem we are discussing. Allowing buff guns to fire on the ground creates instant AC-17's, etc.

The best strategy is to simply not up buffs on fields where enemy are vultching.

It amazes me still how many people will continue to pad enemy scores by trying to up at vultched fields or camped spawn points...over and over and over...and not just the newbies doing it either.

Ya know, the definition of insanity is to repetitively do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.....

APDrone · « **Reply #42 on:** May 24, 2003, 10:05:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKWarp

The best strategy is to simply not up buffs on fields where enemy are vultching.

LOL.. and with a couple tweaks of the code, this becomes..

The best strategy to survive vulching a field is to not do it if the bomber hangars are up.

But for the grace of God....

Anyway, as far as why people up from vulched fields.. well, you will run out of ammo.. and you will RTB.. and you will do it about 30 seconds before your goon drops troops so one of the vulchees can get an LA-7 or Spit up to kill the troops.

At least that's how it seems from the goon driver's perspective..

The glory of preventing your base from being captured outweighs the drudgery of repetitive trips to the tower from getting vulched. Some folks aren't driven by k/d ratios. They're very loyal to their country and will provide maximum effort to the cause.

And.. another thing.. Oh, wait. . starting to ramble..lol

<.S>

BenDover · « **Reply #43 on:** May 24, 2003, 10:32:27 AM »

Salute to the baby seals...ermm...I mean heros.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #44 on:** May 25, 2003, 09:36:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKWarp

The issue has more to do with people WANTING to defend the field than it does any inequality in buff guns or ack accuracy.

Since we don't have players "stationed" at every field in sufficient numbers as would be in real life, we have that flashing base to give us a fair heads up. If that gets ignored, then the field does (and should) suffer the consquences.

As long as a bunch of fighters don't try to up all at once, one plane can effectively, with a little practice, kill vh, deack the field and keep fighters suppressed. Nothing wrong with that at all. Now, if the field guns get manned by a bunch of folks that are decent shots, the story would most likely be different, but as is the usual case, flashing fields get ignored until it is too late.

A lone fighter over an undefended airfield has a tremendous advantage...as it should be.

I agree wholeheartedly. I just cant follow your reasoning that a fighter or 2 should be able to punish an undefended airbase, but a bomber should be castrated, because not all bases can be expected to be defended? That a vulcher should have free pass to supress any defense with a tremendous advantage, as long as a "special" line in the code keeps those pesky buff guns off thier arse. I guess the whole point is, it is a "special" line in the code that tips the scales, unfairly IMHYCO.
It was useful and necessary at one time, but it is now a loose end.
1. You cannot land a buff form at an nme airbase and rip it to shreads. There are defensive specialists, who watch for flashing bases and take appropriate action. The 37mm makes mincemeat of slow moving straight line buffs. I can easily kill a town in 2 passes with either b17 or lancs if it is undefended, I have no reason to fuss with the airbase.
2. it should not be viewed as ludicrous for an attcking force to destroy the bomber hangars before proceeding to vulch.
3. "Bombers upping a capped airbase deserve to die." Ok,
gimme my guns and let's see who deserves to die. the bomber or the maniac trying to take over an airbase singlhandedly.
Enabling the buff guns at all times would change the game, for the better IMO.