Time To Do Away With AWACS Datalink?

[Tac]

CT does not thrive because there is no field capture. Put that in, i'll LIVE there.

[pbirmingham]

Originally posted by hblair:


Wrong.
Noone is forced to sit in the tower. It is a voluntarily thing.

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]

I read the link, and all I can really see is that you've asked what radar is like in Warbirds, and whether you can find a fight or not without in-flight radar.

I don't dispute that.  Of course you can find a fight -- just launch at or near the nearest friendly base that's getting clobbered.  You'll get fights-a-plenty!

What I also saw was that WB has in-flight radar within 5 miles.  What do you say to that?

I agree that nobody is forced to sit in the tower.  Nobody is forced to man the guns on a buff, but the pilot gets to hop around manning the guns anyway.  I imagine this is because bombers usually had their defensive armament manned, and it's actually *less* realistic to force the bombers to fly defenseless just because they can't convince people to man the guns.  Likewise, our current in-flight radar is not realistic, but flying completely blind was not the way it was done, either.  Flights were often in contact with ground controllers who kept them abreast of developments.

The story you told of the Dickweeds getting their mission shredded -- that story actually happened, hundreds and hundreds of times, over Germany in the real war.  Bomber streams got picked up on radar and attacked by waiting interceptors.  To totally do away with in-flight radar would give rise to a degree and frequency of total surprise that was somewhat rare in the war.  Dontcha want realism?

My objection to many of the notions to make radar more "realistic" is that I think they base their objections on falsely pessimistic assumptions about the scarcity and effectiveness of radar, and overly-optimistic notions of the willingness of individual players to sit in the tower and watch radar.

Ideas about making radar a little less effective, or accurate, are a different matter, but turning it off completely is no more realistic than what we have now.

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a sort of "contact list" that gave locations of targets, with speeds (GC folks can do the math,) approximate numbers, and altitudes (this information was available sometimes) where appropriate.  You'd select a target, and ground control would give you a vector.  You'd get vectors whenever you hit the "gimme a vector" key.  This would be cool.

What I really *don't* want to see is complete blindness, which is what some people are advocating.  I also am not keen on the notion floated of having no bar-dar below 500 feet.  From what we've seen in this thread, the horizon is not as close as some would have you believe, especially with a modest elevation of the antenna.

[Gadfly]

I don't care how good, what side, plane or radar set they used, there was NO AWACs pinpoint radar like that which exists in AH(and WBIII), period.  And to say that pinpoint inflight radar simulates ground control is silly.  They didn't know where THEY were within a mile or so most of the time, much less every other plane in theatre.

[hblair]

Originally posted by Runny:

What I also saw was that WB has in-flight radar within 5 miles.  What do you say to that?

I say that that was WBIII they were talking about, a more or less beta version of the new WB's. I also have to say that WB2.7XX does not have in-flight radar. Hasn't for at least 5 years.

 

Originally posted by Runny:

The story you told of the Dickweeds getting their mission shredded -- that story actually happened, hundreds and hundreds of times, over Germany in the real war.  Bomber streams got picked up on radar and attacked by waiting interceptors.

You're telling me that entire bomber missions, along with their escorts were all completely shot out of the sky before they even made landfall on the European continent? Doubtful. Mauled? yes. Completely obliterated before they even made landfall? Bull. You say it happened hundreds of times? Negatory.

 

Originally posted by Runny:

To totally do away with in-flight radar would give rise to a degree and frequency of total surprise that was somewhat rare in the war.  Dontcha want realism?

Please respect me enough to bother to KNOW my position on something before you debate me. Read above. Before you came to this game, (last tour) we went for almost a week without any enemy radar (due to a bug). None of the scarey stuff you mentioned happened. Will there be surprise attacks? sure. Will your country be completely overun by hordes in 1 hour? Well, it didn't happen during the time of the radar bug.

As far as realism, read above. NO! this is not an arguement about realism, Its about GAMEPLAY fer cryin out loud.

 

Originally posted by Runny:

My objection to many of the notions to make radar more "realistic" is that I think they base their objections on falsely pessimistic assumptions about the scarcity and effectiveness of radar, and overly-optimistic notions of the willingness of individual players to sit in the tower and watch radar.

The whole war wasn't fought in the ETO, and yeah, it was primitive most other places.

As far as the willingnessof people to sit in the tower and vector, you don't sit there, you look at the dar between flights, at least thats what everybody else did in WB's when I played it.

 

Originally posted by Runny:

I also am not keen on the notion floated of having no bar-dar below 500 feet.

When you've been here a while (been here what a month now??) you will see the need for this from a GAMEPLAY standpoint, isn't the MA about gameplay?

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]

[Fatty]

My heart flutters at the sight of the intrepid Zigrat, setting us all of us children in our proper place.


HB I have been here over a month and I don't see the need for it, other than someone is angry their 350 foot sneakattack didn't work.

[Kieran]

I like 350 foot sneak-attacks...  

[pbirmingham]

Please respect me enough to bother to KNOW my position on something before you debate me.

Fair enough.  Would it be churlish of me to draw attention to the fact that you've shown a similar unfamiliarity with my own position?  I'm less worried about finding a furball, than I am about finding an intact base, a fact that I believe will show throughout my posting record, yet you ignore that.  When I bring up "realism," it's usually to kick the props out from others' arguments, not to postulate my own.

You should be aware, though, that I'm not just debating *you,* as I'm sure you're not just debating me.

 

You're telling me that entire bomber missions, along with their escorts were all completely shot out of the sky before they even made landfall on the European continent? Doubtful. Mauled? yes. Completely obliterated before they even made landfall? Bull. You say it happened hundreds of times? Negatory.

Completely destroyed before landfall, no (though I'd be interested in hearing how badly incoming LW raids fared during the BoB.) Intercepted more than an hour from their target, certainly, and often.  Badly mangled as a result, yes.

If the LW and 8th AF had had the sort of parity of strength and proximity that we see here, boy howdy, it would have been nasty.

 

The whole war wasn't fought in the ETO, and yeah, it was primitive most other places.

Not as primitive as you might think.  Even in hellholes like Guadalcanal, there was decent radar coverage.  I've been reading _Fire in the Sky_, and on page 504 is an account of an engagement by Marion Carl.  Radar picked up the bogies at 147 miles from Henderson, 12K altitude, and detected the bombers turning back at 100 miles while the Zekes proceeded.  According to another section, Henderson Field had radar before it had aircraft.  Transportable sets could be carried by a gooney, and installed for 150-mile coverage.

But as you say, this isn't about realism, rather gameplay.

 

When you've been here a while (been here what a month now??) you will see the need for this from a GAMEPLAY standpoint, isn't the MA about gameplay?

More like three, though I've only been flying heavily for a month, yeah.

That said, I've seen the effect of AW's equivalent of bar dar, which is close enough to the AH bar dar that I can confidently state that it's unlikely I will see any such need.

I am, however, beginning to realize that it would cut both ways.  Attackers would also be unable to tell which targets were heavily defended, and which ones were not.  So, yeah, it wouldn't be the disaster I feared at first.  I still do not think it necessary for gameplay, nor am I particularly anxious to see it go.

And, if I had Furball Island to flee to, I wouldn't care *what* y'all did with the 'dar.

[hblair]

Originally posted by Fatty:
HB I have been here over a month and I don't see the need for it, other than someone is angry their 350 foot sneakattack didn't work.

I'll help you see my point. During prime time(evenings US) for a week, use the mission planner and your squadron or other countrymen or whatever (10-15 pilots), and attempt 2-3 base captures per night. Do not fly NOE, Do not use heavy fighters on all of them, employ heavy bombers. Do like we do sometimes, and roll from different fields (to keep the dar bar small). When you're done with your week, look at the # of success per attempts. You might get an idea what I'm talking about.

[Fatty]

It sounds like you have a problem with the newer strategy setup then, unless you're just looking to take over undefended bases.

[hblair]

What's the new strat got to do with knocking down a field, capping it, then getting a goon in there? You up fer what I'm taking about or not?

My point (again) is the main arena, now more than ever is populated to the point that it's tough to get a goon into a field, whether it's capped or not, especially with the mission planner.

HT mentioned something several months ago that I thought would be cool -only having friendly radar in-flight (what we had during the "bug"). Something along those lines might be what we need.

Runny, either way you slice it, you keep bringing history while I'm talking about gameplay. I directed my reply to you because you quoted me in your reply, making me think you were talking to me.

No hard feelings towards anyone here. This is just something that I'm sure needs to be reformed. Not trying to step on any toes. We all agree about this now?  

[Fatty]

The newer strat being that there is a lot more to knock down to take a base.

Your main complaint still sounds like the fact there are defenders there, HB.  Challenge or not I'm not going to see defenders as a problem, they are why I'm in MA.

[hblair]

Originally posted by Fatty:
Your main complaint still sounds like the fact there are defenders there, HB.  Challenge or not I'm not going to see defenders as a problem, they are why I'm in MA.

Somethings been a problem, FDB's only captured 5 fields this TOD with the C47. That's way below what you usually do. Why is that?

[Fatty]

But then my playtime is well over 5 times below normal.  So you could say we're ahead of pace captures/time.

If we should be upset by any reduction in field captures, sorry man, can't say so.

If you want my opinion why they are harder (I will agree they are harder), it may just have something to do with killing the equivalent of about 3 airfields, in addition to the extra hangars which were thrown in a few months back.  Not radar.

But you're right, they probably would be easier if nobody could see.  I still want radar.

[Citabria]

Aces high is a game

I dont want to be bothered with real life work type stuff when flying in a game. and looking out the virtual windows is a lot of f#@%ing work. maneuvering to check blind spots, flying with a wingman to aid in checking eachothers 6, and chance encounters with the enemy all sounds like total Bulls@!#

external views should be enabled along with more radar for all enemy dots in all sectors along with each dot having altitude speed and bearing information.

the whole idea of realism isnt real important in a game and since this is a game and not a flight simulator  it makes perfect sense that there should be nothing surprising in aces high. after all games arent about surprises or strategy, games are about shooting guns and killing stuff, as much stuff as you can as quickly as possible.

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Citabria ]

[hblair]

Killing airfields is easy. Its killing the airfield while cons come diving in from surrounding sectors because they see the one you are in lit up. Sorry, but it makes organized capture impossible. It's ok if you want radar, I don't care!   But I guarantee you would do no better than 25% fields captured using the proposal above. Field capture and organized bombing are severly weakened now. Believe it.
---------------------------------------
BTW, where's gordo been? haven't seen him in forever.