Tell me again why....

[BenDover]

No it wouldn't.

[AKWarp]

> agree wholeheartedly. I just cant follow your reasoning that a >ighter or 2 should be able to punish an undefended airbase, but > bomber should be castrated, because not all bases can be >xpected to be defended?

  My reasoning is that to have the buff guns enabled, while they may provide specifically what you are looking for, invites all manner of absurd side effects that tip the scales back in favor of keeping them turned off on the ground.  As I said twice before, and repeat again, it used to be that way.   The results were absolutely ridiculous...much more so than this supposed unfair advantage that fighters have at undefended air fields.

  Field ack can be manned.  Osti's can be launched.  The unmanned ack are shooting at the fighters.  If there are only 1-2 fighters approaching a field, 2-3 friendlies can certainly put a couple planes in the air IF THEY PAY ATTENTION  and get to a flashing field soon enough, but that's the crux of the whole issue.  People HAVE TO WANT TO DEFEND the field.  If they don't,  the field is gonna get hit...period.

> 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's not a matter of what is or isn't perceived to be fair, it's a matter of making the game playable.   Fighters coming in to a field do not have "free pass" to suppress the field.  They have ack to contend with, possbile ground based air defense (Osti's) and fighters trying to up.  You make it sould like all you have to do is get a fighter to a field and you own it.  It is far from that simple.  A few guys in here can make it look easy because they have a lot of practice at it, but it's certainly no walk in the park.
 
>it was useful and necessary at one time, but it is now a loose >end.

   It is still necessary.

>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.

  I don't understand, if it's so easy, then what are you all about here?

>2. it should not be viewed as ludicrous for an attcking force to >destroy the bomber hangars before proceeding to vulch.

  I never said it was ludicrous to kill bomber hangars, I said it gets extremely ludicrous when you have 10 buff formations with ground guns pop up before any forces arrive at a base to do just that.  Ever been near a base with 5-10 buff formations on the ground or in the area?  Your frame rates will go to single digits, if it doesn't crash the server first.

>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.

  I never said they deserve to die, but common sense tells you that upping buffs at vultched fields is well....not real smart.
 
>Enabling the buff guns at all times would change the game, for >the better IMO.

  And I completely disagree.  We've had buff guns on the ground before.  It was outrageous and ridiculous and a lot of people got really pissed off.

  One thing to keep in mind here.  People constantly search for ways to "game the game".  Anyhting and everything they can do to get an advantage, be it smart or just plain ridiculous.  No reason to give them a way to do that.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by AKWarp
[B  My reasoning is that to have the buff guns enabled, while they may provide specifically what you are looking for, invites all manner of absurd side effects that tip the scales back in favor of keeping them turned off on the ground.  As I said twice before, and repeat again, it used to be that way.   The results were absolutely ridiculous...much more so than this supposed unfair advantage that fighters have at undefended air fields.

  Field ack can be manned.  Osti's can be launched.  The unmanned ack are shooting at the fighters.  If there are only 1-2 fighters approaching a field, 2-3 friendlies can certainly put a couple planes in the air IF THEY PAY ATTENTION  and get to a flashing field soon enough, but that's the crux of the whole issue.  People HAVE TO WANT TO DEFEND the field.  If they don't,  the field is gonna get hit...period.

 [/B]

So it all boils down to 2 points

1.  "Gamers of the Game" would land at nme airbases and   unfairly destroy them or shoot them up.
      My answer> Plug in the word "bomber" for "fighter" in the second quoted paragraph above.

2.  masses of buff forms would litter the runway causing big lags and server crashes and creating a general nuisance of gameplay.
  (I assume its not the fact that they would create an affective base defense).
  -->I cant argue with this, I wasnt here for the guns enabled thing.
  But I will agree, it would be a problem,  I get big frame rate hit just viewing my buff form in flight.
  If this is the reason, what is the maximum number of bomber forms that can launch on a legitamate non-defensive mission?
  When wil the "gamers of the Game" realize they can cause havoc by upping 15 or 20 buff forms from the same base?
  Maybe a good compromise is to have guns enabled at 20mph or greater, or guns enabled after liftoff and until tower.
  But what I would really like to see is a much improved auto base defense.  Many more manned gun positions, that takes more than a fragment from a ricocheted bullet to kill.
  Instead of 10 buff forms on the runway, provide 30 .50cal gun nests.
  Im not an historian, but it would seem that basic airfield defense would be capable of repelling a cupple of fighters (or bombers).
  AW's ack would kill a single plane 9 times of 10 before he got within gun range.  Aw's ack commanded respect and skill to take out.  
  When I am coasting to a stop on the runway and the 190 dora comes plowing in at 500mph, mashing the trigger,  get the auto ack on his butt at 5k out, or give me my guns.

[AKWarp]

>So it all boils down to 2 points

>1. "Gamers of the Game" would land at nme airbases and >unfairly destroy them or shoot them up.
>My answer -  Plug in the word "bomber" for "fighter" in the >second quoted paragraph above.

 Comparing a couple of fighters that took off from a distant base, flew to an undefended field and proceed to take it down to allowing buff guns on the runway is an apples to oranges comparison.  They have nothing in common.

>2. masses of buff forms would litter the runway causing big lags >and server crashes and creating a general nuisance of >gameplay.  (I assume its not the fact that they would create an >affective base defense).

Effective?  Sure, but then again, so would B-29's with nukes....
The point is that effectiveness has to be balanced somehow in this less than perfect 2d world.  This is a game.  Sure, we'd like it to be as realistic as is REASONABLY possible, but if you factor in the limitations of the medium we play on, and the equipment we use to play it with, there is NO WAY HT can make it as real as possible.  The game would simply not work that way.  If he did, it would be so difficult that most of the players on now wouldn't even want to play (or would even be ABLE to play) and the ones that did would be facing a game world so far removed from reality as to be ridiculous.

If nothing else, the biggest factor in this whole thing is that you can die and re-up instantly.  That factor alone places the most limitations on any sort of realistic modelling.
   
>I cant argue with this, I wasnt here for the guns enabled thing.
>But I will agree, it would be a problem, I get big frame rate hit >just viewing my buff form in flight.
>If this is the reason, what is the maximum number of bomber >forms that can launch on a legitamate non-defensive mission?
>When wil the "gamers of the Game" realize they can cause >havoc by upping 15 or 20 buff forms from the same base?

They have...and it's been done already.  Why it's not more prevelent, I can't say.  Maybe the players are more interested in playing than crashing the server?  Or there aren't enough of them willing to do it to have the desired effect?  I don't know.  One thing I will wager on though, if it becomes prevelent to up buff formations en mass, and it causes undo effects on the game/server, HT will certainly implement some sort of change to dissuade it or not allow it at all.
 
>Maybe a good compromise is to have guns enabled at 20mph or >greater, or guns enabled after liftoff and until tower.
>But what I would really like to see is a much improved auto >base defense. Many more manned gun positions, that takes >more than a fragment from a ricocheted bullet to kill.
>Instead of 10 buff forms on the runway, provide 30 .50cal gun >nests.
>Im not an historian, but it would seem that basic airfield >defense would be capable of repelling a cupple of fighters (or >bombers).
>AW's ack would kill a single plane 9 times of 10 before he got >within gun range. Aw's ack commanded respect and skill to take >out.

Have you taken down a field in a fighter by yourself?  Have you tried it in AH?  It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.
In fact, I see more folks complaining about the uber ground ack than those contending it is not accurate enough....

>When I am coasting to a stop on the runway and the 190 dora >comes plowing in at 500mph, mashing the trigger, get the auto >ack on his butt at 5k out, or give me my guns.

Launching and landing buffs when enemy fighters are in the area presents a difficult challenge.  Would enabled guns on the runway make this easier for the buff pilot?  Sure, I am not arguing that at all.  My point was, and still is, the side effects of that would make the rest of the game ridiculous in terms of playability.

[WhiteHawk]

I guess I have to concede this discussion to you.  Since, today, the Rooks were down to 3 bases heavily vulched and deacked,
I upped a b17 form for defensive purposes.  I lost 1 b17 on the ground but managed to get the other 2 up.  I shot my way out of the vulch fest into the clear and climbed up to 10k.  Kilt a cupple of glory seekers, and waited for more to come up and get me.  I felt kind of bad arse when  the spit and the pony broke off thier pursuit of me to go down and wait for a scrap to try to take off so they could get an unchallenged kill or maybe get a chute.  I lost another bomber to an la7, but nailed his butt with my chin guns as he was posing at my 12 clk.  Landed an undamaged b17 with 5 kills and 12 eggs at the VH of a friendly port.  My only chance at a safe landing.
  As far is landing and strafing nme airbases, its just a buff drivers opinion vs a fighters opinion, but I can guarantee I can clobber an airbase from 500ft far better than parked on the runway, assuming it has been deacked first.  
  Tonight I am going to try to deack an airbase with 1 fighter.  I will post my result, and I will film it, althogh I dont know how to post attachemtns, I can email it to you.  In return, you can try to deack and land a buff form at an nme airbase.  I dont think you are overestimating the awsome power of a buff form, I just think that disabling guns for the reason that a buff may land and shoot up an airbase is not an accurate argument.  It does not justify leaving a crippled bomber completely defenseless on the runway.

[AKWarp]

>Tonight I am going to try to deack an airbase with 1 fighter. I >will post my result, and I will film it, althogh I dont know how to >post attachemtns, I can email it to you. In return, you can try to >deack and land a buff form at an nme airbase. I dont think you >are overestimating the awsome power of a buff form, I just >think that disabling guns for the reason that a buff may land >and shoot up an airbase is not an accurate argument. It does >not justify leaving a crippled bomber completely defenseless on >the runway.


It is 100% accurate, because, for the 4th time, it used to be that way and the results were horrid.  I'm not arguing a buff formation's ability to deack a field and land at it...you have not been paying attention to what I said!!

The issue with buff guns and bombs on the ground was the carbombing and instant "field ack" guns that buff formations provided at a field being attacked.

HT has changed bombing so that a bomb must travel 1000 feet before it is armed.  This is in fact close to reality.  Some bombs in WWII had little propellers on the nose that would spin when the bomb was released and thus arm the fuse.  This is an effective, and realistic way, to do away with the car bombers.  

As for the guns, the only thing that could be done was to shut them off when the buffs were on the ground.  Otherwise, many people would up formations of buffs at the end of the runway and just sit there and start gunning.  This is the problem that created so much hoopla when guns used to be armed at all times.  Combine that with the frame rate robbing buff formations and the potential to crash the server and you get the idea.  Imagine an airfield under attack, imagine 10-15 people all upping buff formations to sit at the end of the runway and gun from them.  It's ridiculous.  It was when guns were on all the time, and would still be now.

[xbrit]

LOLOL did I read that right that AW's ack commanded respect ??
You have got to be joking AW's ack was a lot easier to take down than the ack here in AH. I know some people here find ack easy to remove on an AH field  but not me, then again I'm no expert.

[Tilt]

The only fix i can think of is one whereby with wheels down (or on the ground) bombs will not detonate (as we have now) and "fire all gun positions" will not function.........

ie only the gun you are at on the plane you are in will function.  

Then each buff  (or buff formation) has one and one only gun position that functions on the ground .

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by AKWarp
[B


The issue with buff guns and bombs on the ground was the carbombing and instant "field ack" guns that buff formations provided at a field being attacked.

HT has changed bombing so that a bomb must travel 1000 feet before it is armed.  This is in fact close to reality.  Some bombs in WWII had little propellers on the nose that would spin when the bomb was released and thus arm the fuse.  This is an effective, and realistic way, to do away with the car bombers.  

As for the guns, the only thing that could be done was to shut them off when the buffs were on the ground.  Otherwise, many people would up formations of buffs at the end of the runway and just sit there and start gunning.  This is the problem that created so much hoopla when guns used to be armed at all times.  Combine that with the frame rate robbing buff formations and the potential to crash the server and you get the idea.  Imagine an airfield under attack, imagine 10-15 people all upping buff formations to sit at the end of the runway and gun from them.  It's ridiculous.  It was when guns were on all the time, and would still be now. [/B]

Ok.  Then we can start all over again

1.  Disabling buff guns has nuthing to do with carbombing, does it?  I have never advocated enabling bombs at ground level.  This, I guess is necessary so the vulcher doesnt feel cheated when he zooms in for an unchallenged kill, only to be surprised by a big explosion.  
 
2.  The sight of 40 buff forms on the field scares YOU, not me.  I can kill them with a bomb.  If somebody is dumb enuff to try to strafe them, then they deserve to die.  However, I concede to you, the server crashes and the frame rate hit would be a problem with this.  I also refined my suggestion to disabling buff guns until takeoff, and then you have them until tower.
  Now, no more frame rate or server crash problem.
  No more carbombing problem.

I am saying that deacking and strafing an nme airbase with a buff form is possible, and some fool may even think that he is getting away with something by doing it.  But what I said to you was,
IF..IF..IF.. you advocate disabling buff guns on the ground when landing because somebody might deack a field and land the buffs and then strafe the town, I challenge you to try it, aside from the strafing part, since the guns are disabled at landing too.  In fact, if you are able to deack a field with a buff form, just fly above it at 500 feet and let the guns rip, then answer me this...Why would you want to land and strafe, when the 500ft strafe is 100 times more effective?

Q. I should have my guns when I land so I can defend myself from the maniac suicide speed freak vulcher who doesnt want me to land my 4 kills, 3 of which are him.  He know I am defenseless on the ground and may decide to take advantage of that.  Dont tell me I have to fly until he runs out of gas or I need to plan my attack better.  My airplane is crippled and I cant make it any further.   Do you agree or disagree that i should have my guns?

If you disagree, then why?  

xbrit.. Iflew FR in air warrior and if you were trying to deack a base, then yes, it may have been easier, if you were vulching with ack up, you were a dead man after 2 pases.

Tilt, that is a good idea, but i am geting the feeling that 'vulcher protection' is the real order here, since all these supposed impossible situations that would result of 'guns enabled on the ground' can be fixed by killing the bomber hangars in preparation for base capture.

[BenDover]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I also refined my suggestion to disabling buff guns until takeoff, and then you have them until tower.

And whats to stop someone taking off, circling, and then landing and acting as an ack battery?

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by BenDover
And whats to stop someone taking off, circling, and then landing and acting as an ack battery?

Ok BenDover, common sense?

but if that dont work

1.  What stops them now from upping and floating at 200 ft for   base defense?
2.  If you can up a buff form without getting whacked, why not up a fighter?  Or are you currently lobbying HTC to ban all fighters from upping until you are ready for another vulch?
3.  Are you scared of a buff form on the ground?  Dont try to vuclh them!  Oh wait a minute, they are defensless,  go ahead.

  You see, you put up the most rediculous possibilities that have nothing to do with anything.

Whats to stop 20 buff forms from upping all at once and crashing the server?  Whats to stop 300 fighters from upping all at once and causing lag?  Whats to stop 400 vechicles from upping all at once and overloading the net?  

I feel I should have guns to defend myself, you feel that would corrupt the game.  Any arguemnt you can give me can be solved by killing the bomber hangars.  I simply feel that this would be a more realistic and positive solution than the disable guns rule.

Decrease the number of bombers allowed on the runway, enable collisions on the runway, make a large airbase have 3 BH a med 2Bh and a small 1 BH,  there are a number of  solutions but dont strip a pilot of his guns.  

I asked the question before to AKWarp, the only answer he gave was "because HiTech says so"  That tells me that I am right, I am just over ruled by the boss.  Maybe you can answer it Ben
  "why is it impossible or rediculous to consider killing the Bomber hangars prior to the vuclh fest?"

[BenDover]

Rediculous my arse.

I instantly came up with that scenerio, no doubt someone else would come up with that, then word would spread, and massive lameness would ensue.

You then say, "1. What stops them now from upping and floating at 200 ft for base defense?".
1. You don't float, you glide. Shooting from a moving platform is alot different than firing from a stationary one.
2. There's nothing stopping them.
3. You can ignore those bombers.


If you can't up a bomber, up a fighter.
If you can't up a fighter, get a GV.
If you can't get a GV, hop in a ground gun.
If you can't hop in a ground gun, TS, you should have defended the field better, up from another field.
If you have no other fields to up from, TS, you've lost the war.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by BenDover
Rediculous my arse.

I instantly came up with that scenerio, no doubt someone else would come up with that, then word would spread, and massive lameness would ensue.

You then say, "1. What stops them now from upping and floating at 200 ft for base defense?".
1. You don't float, you glide. Shooting from a moving platform is alot different than firing from a stationary one.
2. There's nothing stopping them.
3. You can ignore those bombers.


If you can't up a bomber, up a fighter.
If you can't up a fighter, get a GV.
If you can't get a GV, hop in a ground gun.
If you can't hop in a ground gun, TS, you should have defended the field better, up from another field.
If you have no other fields to up from, TS, you've lost the war.

1.  You havnt answered the question BenDover.  You continue to babble endlessly about what could happen to the skilless vulcher
if there were bullets in the nme's guns.
  Why is it better for the game, to disable a pilots and crews defensive armament,  as opposed to require that the Bomber hangars be taken out in preparation for base capture?

  Frame rate lag, servercrashes?   Other?

[BenDover]

To piss you off, I'm sorry I had to be the one to reveal the secret, but the 'no guns on the ground' was implamented just to piss you off.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by BenDover
To piss you off, I'm sorry I had to be the one to reveal the secret, but the 'no guns on the ground' was implamented just to piss you off.

I am not pissed off
Im not Im not:mad: