Author Topic: Tell me again why.... (Read 3081 times)

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #75 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:03:43 PM »

hehe skurj, these guys come up some some goofy sht, dont they?

Somebody actually gonna try to bounce a buff form over to a town without crashing, or getting creamed:eek:

pahhleeeze

AKWarp · « **Reply #76 on:** July 21, 2003, 11:48:59 PM »

>WOW..35 buffs sitting on the runway, and me overhead with >42000lbs of high explosives.

Wow, and just imagine, the second they die (if you even manage to hit any of them with your bombs) they pop right back up in another buff.

>Question still stands, why is it better for the game to disable >the buff guns on the runway instead of requiring an attacking >force to kill the bomber hangars?

>Thats my question.

And the same one that's been answered over and over, yet you still don't seem to get it, or just can't comprehend what you read.

>Give me a scenario where 35 people would up buffs and sit on >the runway.

Helllooo, McFly........

>hehe skurj, these guys come up some some goofy sht, dont >they?

You're obviously a newbie here. You haven't been around long enough to see or "appreciate" the goofy sh*t that people do in this game.

>Somebody actually gonna try to bounce a buff form over to a >town without crashing, or getting creamed

>pahhleeeze

Absolutely. If we have ack-star buffs, and invisible planes at will (which actually happened in the past when someone figured out how to do it with a linksys router) and all sorts of goofy crap like that, someone will certainly figure out a way to land their ackstar buffs at a town. Hell, I can land a lancaster, undamaged, on a cv. Landing at or near a town ain't too difficult. Of course, you completely ignore the fact one doesn't have to land AT the town to be effective, or that some towns might not be accessible to the buff formations, but many will, etc, et al.

Either way, it's plainly obvious you just want to ignore the facts, buff guns are, and should be, disabled on the ground, so go right ahead and keep on about the buff guns. I'm done with this nonsense. For purposes of the game,

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #77 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:02:00 AM »

You assume that buffs are the pinacle of defensive technology.
Buff guns disabled protects 1 group nowadays, the vulchers.
Thats it.

Last saturday night, 21 b17's and at least 5 escorts upped simultaneaously from an airbase for a HQ raid. Sure, there was a lag, no server crash however.
You are stretching your theory wayyyy far to justify a rule that punishes the honest player.
You dont have to participate in this nonsense, but you still havnt answered the question...

Why is it better for the game to disable buff guns on the ground instead of requiring the attackers to consider killing the BH's before vulching?

If it is unrealistic to consider this kind of base prep, why not just put 1 BH per airbase?

Lets rule out the server crash theory, because thats not the reason HTC disabled the buff guns and thats not the reason they keep them disabled. And it would take a whole bunch of cheaters coordinated to cause this to happen. Im not saying its impossible, I just think if they were here to crash the servers, they would be doing it with multiple goon drops.

BTW, the big b17 raid i spoke of above again gained huge participation from both sides once the alarm was sounded.
Hoards of interceptors, escorts and gunners parked their nikis and spit5's and eagerly participated in a traditional ww2 air combat scenario. If more work were required to disabvle a bases defenses, we would see more of these kinds of missions. The
kill the vh, deack and vulch, would still happen, but iot wouldnt be the 99% of the norm.

straffo · « **Reply #78 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:08:34 AM »

to answer your original question :

Quote

Tell me again why....

A short answer is : because HTC wanted it THIS way.

A longuer answer is : to reduce te amount of whine and forbid carbombing and ackstarring

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #79 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:11:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKWarp
Not true Skurj, launch 10 buff formations and taxi to the town. As long as a field is covered by lots of buff formation ack-stars, enemy fighters will up like crazy as well. It provides a very unrealistic and ridiculous means of covering a base.

Kill the BH's before you vulch

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #80 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:12:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
to answer your original question :

A short answer is : because HTC wanted it THIS way.

A longuer answer is : to reduce te amount of whine and forbid carbombing and ackstarring

Kill the BH's before you vulch

straffo · « **Reply #81 on:** July 22, 2003, 08:20:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Kill the BH's before you vulch

Naaaaaaaaa... I prefer vulching the sorry bomber dweed to oblivion

After all the map room is at the town now not anymore on the field.

Were you in AH when it was the old field layout without town ?

Ecke-109- · « **Reply #82 on:** July 22, 2003, 09:20:47 AM »

Ah is far away from realism.

It can only be topped by divebombing levelbombers, carbombed by ackstarring buffs standing on the runway.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #83 on:** July 22, 2003, 09:54:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Naaaaaaaaa... I prefer vulching the sorry bomber dweed to oblivion

After all the map room is at the town now not anymore on the field.

Were you in AH when it was the old field layout without town ?

Yes..I just started, so i never saw what supposedly wil happen if buff guns are enabled. I too would like to vulch the buffs, but they wont come up, since they have no defensive armamnet on the ground!

straffo · « **Reply #84 on:** July 22, 2003, 09:59:30 AM »

Like Skurj said previously there is IMO no need to keep this limitation but there was a time were it was necessary to keep whine level acceptable

Zanth · « **Reply #85 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:28:23 PM »

A Bomber with guns enabled would be a more powerful GV than a lot of "real" GV's. This also happened in Warbirds. People would land then taxi around a base destroying things with their guns.

Leave the guns off. Like killshooter it is a neccessary small evil to prevent greater evils.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #86 on:** July 22, 2003, 01:04:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zanth
A Bomber with guns enabled would be a more powerful GV than a lot of "real" GV's. This also happened in Warbirds. People would land then taxi around a base destroying things with their guns.

Leave the guns off. Like killshooter it is a neccessary small evil to prevent greater evils.

Ya see, this is what amazes me. One guy argues that if the guns were enabled, people would sit on the runaway and kill attackers causing mass hysteria.
The other guy argues that people would land and shoot up bases because, of course, nobody is going to be sitting on the runway killing attackers.
Enable the guns, disable the bombers where appropriate.

it is a minor defect in the game, but all I ask for is a compromise.
As soon as my wheels hit the ground I am defenseless in a buff,
I wouldnt need any defense if it werent for the few who know damm well that i am defenselss on the ground and 'game the game' by comming in for a kill when i am limping down the runway trying to land safely.
Possible compromise, let me hit the tower button as soon as my guns become disabled.
Make me immune to any further damage as soon as My guns become disabled.
My guns become disabled unrealistically and magically, apparently to prevent all sorts of horrible things from transpiring.
Ok..fair enuff. Make the compromise.

hazed- · « **Reply #87 on:** August 08, 2003, 11:21:55 AM »

1. Bombers in WW2 tried to launch from bases outside the range of enemy fighters. (your la7 wouldnt be able to kill your bomber on landing. if it was more realistic you wouldnt even try to take off or land when enemy planes are there)

2. Bombers didnt just appear at the end of runways with a full crew all happily firing off their guns and launch into an attacking force.

3. if you need your guns on launch YOU are flying unrealistically. Calling for realism here for guns but ignoring the glaring holes in realism we already have is absurd.

4. listen to the many replies from people wh had to fly with it like it was and just accept its very likely you would agree with them. Especially when you consider the diverse types of pilots in here who all agree it was silly as it was.

finally,,,,,,,,If we do go the realism way and add active guns for stationary bombers then for the sake of realism , may i ask for:

adding 'failures' for various bomber features...

Bombs getting hung-up in the bomb racks if a player attempts to drop the bombs whilst pulling excessive G or manouvering wildly.

Bombers to spawn in hangers and have to taxy to position for flight,

Gunners receive injuries to simulate frostbite or oxygen starvation when bombers fly high altitudes (26K +)

Gun Jams for prolonged bursts.

No slaving of all guns to one position but instead calculate each gun as having the average 1% to 10% hit rate they really had in those days, have good and bad skills for each of the ai gunners.

A better system for calculating injuries to crew members with more injuries to ball turrets or waiste/tail gunners, as it is AH rarely loses guns seperately from structural failures like tail loss.

better sun glare so fighters can use it to sneak in without being detected.

Gunners to lose the yards display below 1000 yards.

add extinguishers but also 'in aircraft' fires that players have to fight by pressing a button hehe

there that should put a dampner on the ack-star like guns on take off idea

you know actually , i kinda like the sound of this lol ! ya cant win can ya

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #88 on:** August 08, 2003, 06:03:16 PM »

the question still remains. Why is it better for the game to strip anybody of thier defense for no other reason than to allow vulchers to vulch? Any problem described in this entire longwinded thread can be delt with by the attackers by disabling the bomber hangars before the vulch.
I'll answer the question for you.
HTC has decided that people dont want to be bothered with perpping an airbase for capture, they prolly dont even want to be bothered with capturaing the airbase, they just want an easy kill, or 2, or, 4 or 5, of more than race back to base for the headlines.
HTC has spoken.
I disagree, but am willing to admit, if I were a simple-minded, limited, not really interested in traditional ww2 combat situations,
I wouldnt want my vulch festivals ruined by defensive gun positions either.
You win, let the thread die.
I advoceate a compromise. Disable the bombers where appropriate, reduce the number of hangars on each airfield to 1,
so the f6f can kill the VH kill the BH deack the base and proceed to vuclh.
I just want my guns..., and gard dammit, after a 45 minute fricken mission, giving the simpletons pot shot after potshot at my buff form, killing the same guy 4 or 5 times as he leapforgs from base to base after each death, riding my rudder half the way home,cuz I got 2 engines shot out out, just trying to enjoy the thrill of a traditional ww2 mission,... i deserve them.
Hazed ive heard al of the arguments before, dont say I deserve to die. Give me my guns and lets see who deserves to die. Maybe me, maybe you. Certainly not you as long as you got your guns.
But, its like this, if you cant beat them, join them. And I intend to do just that.

marauder · « **Reply #89 on:** August 27, 2003, 04:53:43 AM »

Oh man, I'm gonna be shot for resurrecting this thread but I just have to say it...
I agree with ya 100% KoolAid ...oops, (damn you "murdr"!) I mean I agree with you "WhiteHawk".

And your idea to have guns enabled at 20mph or greater is a good one!
Why? Because then the only time a bombers guns could be used on the
ground would be during take-off. (Obviously a player could only switch to
their bombers gunner positions in auto-takeoff mode & travelling straight
down a runway).
Nobody would be able to taxi across a field and stop to be an ackstar
because their plane would HAVE to be moving 20mph+ before their guns
were enabled.
Also, nobody would switch to a gunner position while rolling across a field
because their plane would auto-pilot (or should I say auto-taxi?) into a
building,tree, slope etc. while they're firing their guns at incoming planes.

So, only on the obstruction-free airstrip during "auto-takeoff
enabled" take-off could a bombers guns be used to fend off in-
coming nme fighters... A restrictive compromise like that is better than
the way it is now IMO.