Author Topic: Do we need stronger auto ack? (Read 195 times)

WhiteHawk · « **on:** June 20, 2003, 10:14:51 AM »

I ssem to be seeing alot of threads that suggest that we need stronger auto/mannable ack around the airbases. Ipersonnally have felt this for a long time.
A fleet like defense for the airbases and towns. say 1 5" prox gun and 3 20mm's attatched to each hangar. To kill the gun, you must kill the hangars. Same with town auto/mannable ack. In order to bring the guns silent, the town must be at least half destroyed, ( or such).
I am seing way too much 2 spits and p47 holding an entire airbase at bay after the vh and ack is taken out, apparently quite easily. This is just too easy imo, and all it promotes is vulching, which I am all for, but only after a proper amount of bodywork has been delivered to the airbase. Not a 2 min Kill vh and deack base.

WOOD1 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 20, 2003, 01:44:58 PM »

I think ack should be randomly placed on the base, when a base is destroyed and comes back up, the ack should change postion and perhaps even the number of acks could change also. As it is now, everyone knows where it's at from a glance on the base maps or they have it memorized, in real life you had to go down and look for it or get it to shoot at you to find it's position and one didn't know how many acks were in place. Most AA batteries were mobile and were moved to where command thought an attack would be forthcoming. This would make base captures much more challenging and give us some realistic variety.

AKwoody

hazed- · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2003, 07:36:21 PM »

I think the strentgh/power of ack is just right at the moment and aslo the number of ack is right when the numbers of players are a bit lower.

However when we see 500 or more on a map and bases are literally swamped by huge gagles of aircraft the number of acks is lacking badly.

How about we have acks linked to arena numbers? 300 in and they stay like they are now but as it gets to 500 another 4 or 5 are added to each base, 700 + and they are doubled in number.
Perhaps we could even have a second vehicle hanger or other structures added to each base as numbers creep up?

Rutilant · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2003, 07:21:37 AM »

(Thread Hijack, beware)

Dunno about airbases, but VBases need more ack/more VHs/stronger VHs.. Kinda seems wrong for the standalone VBase VH, with it's single auto-ack, to be much weaker than the airfield supported one.

So, it should be a Vehicle Base, rather than an outpost

Oh, and more airbase ack is fine..

Sorry 'bout the thievery WhiteHawk...

rogerdee · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2003, 07:35:07 AM »

well tha ack always kills me with one hit so I don't know!!!!!!!!!

whels · « **Reply #5 on:** June 22, 2003, 10:40:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hazed-
I think the strentgh/power of ack is just right at the moment and aslo the number of ack is right when the numbers of players are a bit lower.

However when we see 500 or more on a map and bases are literally swamped by huge gagles of aircraft the number of acks is lacking badly.

How about we have acks linked to arena numbers? 300 in and they stay like they are now but as it gets to 500 another 4 or 5 are added to each base, 700 + and they are doubled in number.
Perhaps we could even have a second vehicle hanger or other structures added to each base as numbers creep up?

as it is now and has been for a long time, it is too easy
for 1 plane to deack a field. a lone plane should not be able to
deack a field(it should die rather quickly with all ack trained on it).

it should require multiple fighters attacking together to hit acks, or high buffs striking the guns.