Author Topic: Poll - Kill in flight radar dots or not? (Read 1406 times)

Mitsu · « **Reply #45 on:** October 10, 2001, 05:26:00 PM »

5,

but delete radar bar.
Mossie's low-alt HQ raid would be nice.

Mitsu

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Mitsu ]

snafu · « **Reply #46 on:** October 10, 2001, 06:13:00 PM »

SkyViper,
At least I can agree with you on the subject of Radar showing activity on the other side of the map. But I disagree with you on the accuracy of WWII radar. Yes what you say is true if talking about say the BOB theater but radar was suprisingly sophisticated towards the end of the war and AH has it's fair share of late war aircraft. Lets face it most fields did not have there own radar so perhaps we should position someone at the HQ as well as all the fields. then they can spend all their time relaying enemy info to each tower operator who can then in turn forward that info onto any planes in the locality. Pilots did not just jump into a plane and fly off on there own looking for a fight they flew in groups and were vectored to inbound enemy formations. The whole concept of the MA is to give people the possibily to "Jump straight in" and furball if they want to or to take a more strategic approach if flying with a squad etc. The MA doesn't always have 150+ people online, and when the numbers are low if you have to take even more out of the air to guide the lucky few to the fight it's gonna get pretty lonely up there.

I fully agree with the concept of tower only radar in Scenareo's and other organised events but for the MA (And that is what we were originally debating) anything which gives more precise information about the state of play can only be a good thing in my opinion.

TTFN
snafu

dtango · « **Reply #47 on:** October 10, 2001, 06:16:00 PM »

HB- My opinon is that one of the reasons the "herd" is not in the CA but in the MA is because it takes too much time to even find anyone in the CA. I believe part of the reason for that is due to the lack of having a dot dar.

Viper- you might want to check your facts on WW2 radar. http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788

Altitude information was readily available
An effective IFF system existed to distinguish friend and foe
Radar operators could estimate quantity

We are not covering anything new under the sun here. All the points and counterpoints here have been retread over and over again even in the not too distant past.

Since everyone else is dragging out and dusting off their old arguments on all this I guess I will too :).

The idea of trying to argue the removal of the dot dar for the sake of "realism"- that's a totally preposterous idea as enumerated in the link above as well as for a number of other reasons.

As I have stated before, this is not a realism vs gaming issue, this is a gaming vs. gaming issue. And in my opinion the "herd" of AH pilots have voted with their feet.

Tango, Sargeant
-------------------------------------------
http://webpages.charter.net/davidlj/" TARGET=_blank>
412 Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron

Of all the things in the world, ask not that events should happen as you will,
but let your will be that events should happen as they do, and you will have peace.
-------Epictetus, Roman Stoic Philosopher-------

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: dtango ]

pdog_109 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 10, 2001, 06:27:00 PM »

funkedup · « **Reply #49 on:** October 10, 2001, 06:38:00 PM »

Dtango, the low numbers in the CT do not at all prove that a more realistic version of the AH radar would be unsuccessful. Too many other factors at work.

You forget that the radar is completely broken in the CT. No dot dar in flight, malfunctioning bar dar, and no dot dar in the tower.

And the strat is broken/disabled.

And the map is too big.

And there is a different planeset than the MA.

Dtango, your facts about radar were only true in limited areas during limited time periods. And WW2 pilots never had anything like the AWACS vertical situation display we have in AH.

Current AH radar never existed anywhere during WW2.

But having no radar whatsoever was common in many times and places in WW2.

That pretty much settles which one of those two extremes is more realistic.

The only preposterous notion is that the current AH radar adequately simulates that available to any pilot at any time during WWII.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #50 on:** October 10, 2001, 07:58:00 PM »

Yes, but I recall a lot of people saying that no matter what they would be in the combat theater.

Apparently all 0 of them..
-SW

jpeg · « **Reply #51 on:** October 10, 2001, 08:31:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick:
Leave MA alone. Make changes for the "selective realism" crowd in CT.

Mav

I agree fully, leave main arena alone

5 - keep them the way it is

gunhogfw · « **Reply #52 on:** October 10, 2001, 08:38:00 PM »

i vote #5 kepp all dots i would be lost with out them

funkedup · « **Reply #53 on:** October 10, 2001, 08:51:00 PM »

Who were those guys SW? I keep hearing claims like yours, but I don't remember actually seeing those posts.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #54 on:** October 10, 2001, 09:14:00 PM »

You can't be serious Funked.

RAM for starters, work your way down from there.

In fact, there was a whole thread in which several guys stepped forward about flying in the CT even if they were the only ones.

Search for CT, or Combat Theater or whatever the past buzz word was before the arena was created.

It might of mostly been LostWaffles though.
-SW

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #55 on:** October 10, 2001, 09:27:00 PM »

Did some searching. Note: Not all of the people in these threads promoted the arena.

Some even predicted it's demise.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004524 http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004595 http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005036 http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009720

Here's a Poll for who wants an HA: http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009396
-SW

majic · « **Reply #56 on:** October 10, 2001, 10:36:00 PM »

dtango · « **Reply #57 on:** October 10, 2001, 10:38:00 PM »

Funked:

I agree with you about the point on the current numbers in the CA doesn't necessarily prove a more realistic version of AH radar would not be successful.

Firsty however, I do think that it demonstrates a more fundamental issue and that is AH is a game and people come back to it because it is fun. Part of the fun is being able to actually find a fight. Again, in my opinion ONE reason for the low numbers of CT is the difficulty associated with finding a fight.

Secondly, arguing that removing the dot dar and even replacing it with some of the suggestions made thus far in the name of "realism" is ridiculous when the suggestions themselves have little bearing or resemblance to what "really" existed in WW2.

Thirdly, I have to disagree with you regarding your statement that having no radar whatsoever was common place in WW2. History does not support that. For instance- #1 the Japanese were the only major combatants that did not embrace radar early or mid-war- but everyone else did, #2 UK certainly was covered by Radar as early as '39-'40, #3 Fortress Europe was certainly covered by radar in '41 and the system was extremely sophisticated and provided very broad coverage by '43, #4 the rise of the Soviet VVS reached maturity in '43 when they they become proficient in using radar in aircombat management at the battle of Kursk, #5 US carrier air operations was based on having a CIC that directed air battles with the use of radars. Certainly these represent large theaters of operation across the world and doesn't support the case that a lack of radar was the norm.

Fourthly, I certainly don't claim that the MA radar simulates anything accurately. The reason that I believe it is there is to help keep AH fun by allowing folks to find fights much more easily.

I respect you and others who are argue the radar issue on the merit of game play (e.g. more immersion, more SA, etc., etc.), though I do differ in opinion on the consequences of implementing such a system. I just don't believe there is much merit in trying to argue the radar point in the banner of "realism" when a lot of the counter-suggestions are based in as much "realism" as the current MA radar.

But- as you've eloquently stated before - something like "If historians can't agree on history, it's no surprise that 'simmers' can't agree on 'realism' either".

Tango, Sargeant
-------------------------------------------
http://webpages.charter.net/davidlj/" TARGET=_blank>
412 Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron

Of all the things in the world, ask not that events should happen as you will,
but let your will be that events should happen as they do, and you will have peace.
-------Epictetus, Roman Stoic Philosopher-------

hblair · « **Reply #58 on:** October 11, 2001, 12:39:00 AM »

Look guys, don't hand me this "find a fight" bull-oney. If person has trouble finding a fight in the mindanao terrain, he's probably using his mommas credit card to play the game anyway. Did any of you guys have trouble finding a fight the last few days when the bug was keeping enemy dot dar from working ?

I heard not one complaint. Does that or does that not tell ya anything?

Apar1 · « **Reply #59 on:** October 11, 2001, 02:23:00 AM »

Posted by Viper;

Quote

Yes, they did have radios...so do we! USE IT!

So Viper who will do the scouting for enemies in MA, who will sort all incoming enemy reports and relay this info to the sectors, who will organise fighter sweeps, who will man the "HQ" etc etc. Are you going to do that? Or are you just entering the MA and trying to have fun on your own leisure like many others? If you want that kind of realism you need structure and organisation of events during the war.
How often have people complained that they don't want other people to tell them what to do in the MA? E.g. not responding to calls about HQ being attacked or "HELP" A-whatever, it is under attack! Or not joining missions to get the advantage in the war?

Relaying of con info over radio only makes sense if people are willing to do that job, and if people are willing to listen to it and respond to it. In my oppinion that is not the case in the MA. Even if there would be a selective No. of players that would take that responsibility, what if they are not online?

I've played some (and organised some) big historic events in FA2 in the past. I think it only works in events where you have a good organisation of information gathering and distribution and structured and planned events on that information. That not being the case for the MA, I rather stick to the current system (although I think we can do without the con dot info, bar indicators are sufficient to see activity in a sector)