Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BnZs on May 28, 2014, 09:58:58 AM
-
It is disadvantageous to fly without wingmen. Historically, it was hardly ever done. But it is (apparently) way too difficult to actually coordinate mutual support with other human players in this game.
The vic was a standard formation at the start of the war, good for concentrating fire on attacking bombers when acting as interceptors. Not so good for dealing with fighters as it turned out, but coading finger-four would be asking a bit much.
Therefore, I request being able to check a box that will give me two artificial wingmen who will follow me welded-wing formation and fire in parallel to me, at least when flying certain dedicated interceptors like the 110, 190 series, 262, etc. Call them "drones" if you will.
I'm pretty sure this can be done. We have the technology.
There should probably be some limit on the maneuvering the interceptor vic can do without loosing the "drones", while allowing for some maneuvering. The current technology for that again seems adequate, as bomber formations *already* dogfight fairly nimbly.
Also, I suggest that external views be allowed for interceptor vics, to simulate the look around capacity the eyes of wingmen would give you.
This is still an imperfect solution, not nearly as good as having human individuals in the other two planes, but a necessary one I think. Otherwise historical coordinated formations of interceptors will almost never be seen in the MA.
As a balance, I suggest that fighter formations only be enabled when flying in a new category which I dub "Interceptor" category, with scoring and perk points all it's own. Only kills of things that can be flown as bomber will count towards score in this category, any incidental kills of fighters will not count, rather like how kills of vehicles don't count when flying fighter.
-
It is disadvantageous to fly without wingmen. Historically, it was hardly ever done. But it is (apparently) way too difficult to actually coordinate mutual support with other human players in this game.
The vic was a standard formation at the start of the war, good for concentrating fire on attacking bombers when acting as interceptors. Not so good for dealing with fighters as it turned out, but coading finger-four would be asking a bit much.
Therefore, I request being able to check a box that will give me two artificial wingmen who will follow me welded-wing formation and fire in parallel to me, at least when flying certain dedicated interceptors like the 110, 190 series, 262, etc. Call them "drones" if you will.
I'm pretty sure this can be done. We have the technology.
There should probably be some limit on the maneuvering the interceptor vic can do without loosing the "drones", while allowing for some maneuvering. The current technology for that again seems adequate, as bomber formations *already* dogfight fairly nimbly.
Also, I suggest that external views be allowed for interceptor vics, to simulate the look around capacity the eyes of wingmen would give you.
This is still an imperfect solution, not nearly as good as having human individuals in the other two planes, but a necessary one I think. Otherwise historical coordinated formations of interceptors will almost never be seen in the MA.
As a balance, I suggest that fighter formations only be enabled when flying in a new category which I dub "Interceptor" category, with scoring and perk points all it's own. Only kills of things that can be flown as bomber will count towards score in this category, any incidental kills of fighters will not count, rather like how kills of vehicles don't count when flying fighter.
This is a perfectly brilliant idea! Not only that, but I believe this would help pilots, and more importantly, squadrons, who don't have a grasp of actual wingman tactics or formation flying become familiarized with the concept. It would also look cool.
You would probably have to make the drones "break away" rather easily when going to hard maneuvering for more than a second or two, as turn fights are relatively historically inaccurate and experienced pilots would avoid them at all costs. Otherwise, you have potential for abuse.
-=S=-
-
I'd give it a -1
The bigger issues is marketing and numbers. AH is not taking this part serious and consequently our numbers are dropping. We need to double the number of sticks in-game, then you can get your wingmen.
Just my two cents.
-
BoneZ, Skyyr... :rofl
For Buff hunting this would rock.
-
BnZ,
Would you accept a compromise? Instead of AI pilots in formation, employ a "new" function of the "Pickup Missions" planner. Setup formations, waypoints, and target objectives (example: AMB {ammo bunker} 0, 1 and 2; Field 86 ).
Your formation (of 3 online pilots in the above example) will take off and fly to the designated field. A score for each pilot will be given (either in perk points, system message or achievement announcement) upon successfully landing of entire formation.
Drones and AI might be a hard sell in the main arena, but your idea does increase incentives for wingman flying, which is also the function of the Mission Planner. This compromise also would hopefully increase the use of the mission planner and on a formation level (anti horde).
-
So you just want to have F3 and drones in a fighter to specifically shoot down bomber formations.
-1
-
Fighters with Drones... :huh
Fighters with Drones... :huh
Get out.
-
Yeah, there's no way this would be abused...
-
Yeah, there's no way this would be abused...
Explain how it would be abused...unless you happen to think an individual player being able to click a box in the hangar for two spare planes is *inherently* abusive in some way :devil
-
Select TU in hangar. Enable formation. Wish granted.
And -1 for this wish. We have enough parasites in fast planes living off other people's work without giving them two more planes to make it even easier to pick. Plus the bomber guys have a tough enough job as it is.
-
Your whining about bombers is getting very, very old, BnZs.
They are pathetically easy to kill.
-
Dear Lil Mak: Explain to me how three planes whose guns fire in non-converging parallel, and who cannot maneuver too much without drone loss would be useful for picking fighter on fighter engagements? Especially as fighter kills wouldn't count towards score for them.
-
Since people often shoot inaccurately it seems likely that increasing the field of fire would be an advantage in Boom and Zoom, or BnZ if you will. ;)
-
Actually Karn it is your arguements that contain progressively less intelligence or substance. Now you are basically down to name calling :)
-
This is one of those wishes in the wishlist forum that the original poster had to know would never be granted, yet he chose to post it anyway. Why do they do it?
-
Actually Karn it is your arguements that contain progressively less intelligence or substance. Now you are basically down to name calling :)
You refuse to recognize reality and want players who put an hour, more or less, into their sortie to have almost no hope of success if they are intercepted by somebody who put fifteen minutes or so into their sortie. You complain that the toughest, best armed bomber commonly seen has essentially a 1 to 1 player death rate (three B-17s for each fighter, but only one player in each case) against fighters and argue ceaselessly for changes to significantly reduce that ratio with no consideration of the effect on the game if your ideas were implemented. Say you get the B-17's K/D ratio cut in half, what does that mean for the other bombers? You really want to push people into just milking town centers in Boston Mk IIIs, G4Ms and Ki-67s so that they can afford Ar234s and Mosquito XVIs in order to have any chance at survival? Does a lot more kamikaze Mustangs appeal so much to you? Does reduced new player retention to the game also seem like a good thing?
You need to re-evaluate your priorities.
-
FLS: The net result of someone attempting to fly an 'Interceptor' formation as a furball picker would be no kills added to their score in this category even if they did shoot a fighter, a reduction in their hit percentage score just as one gets when one shoots buildings in 'fighter' mode, and the probable loss of the two drones during hard maneuvers, further reducing score. They would have every scoring incentive to ONLY engage in the intende mission. Of course, those in fighter mode would have every incentive to engage every vic of 190s or 110s they saw...this begins to sound like a certain theater of WWII when you describe it like that ;)
-
Actually Karn it is your arguements that contain progressively less intelligence or substance. Now you are basically down to name calling :)
(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif)
Per par, for him. I was gonna' do a Carson joke, Karnak style, but Hitech is not in the mood for it so I am refraining.
-
'Do more kamikaze Mustangs appeal to you?' Sounds like a step in the right direction, but we probably need to perk ord. Say about one point per pound.
-
Dear Lil Mak: Explain to me how three planes whose guns fire in non-converging parallel, and who cannot maneuver too much without drone loss would be useful for picking fighter on fighter engagements? Especially as fighter kills wouldn't count towards score for them.
OK. I'll make this as simple as possible for you. I'll give you a 38 special with one bullet. I'll take a 12 gauge shotgun with one load of buckshot. We'll face off at 10 paces and see who lives to tell the tale.
-
I respectfully disagree with this wish and would not like to see it implemented.
:salute
-
nt
-
FLS: The net result of someone attempting to fly an 'Interceptor' formation as a furball picker would be no kills added to their score in this category even if they did shoot a fighter, a reduction in their hit percentage score just as one gets when one shoots buildings in 'fighter' mode, and the probable loss of the two drones during hard maneuvers, further reducing score. They would have every scoring incentive to ONLY engage in the intende mission. Of course, those in fighter mode would have every incentive to engage every vic of 190s or 110s they saw...this begins to sound like a certain theater of WWII when you describe it like that ;)
You asked Lilmak how it would be useful. I answered. :)
I think reasonable debate is a good thing. No idea in the wishlist ever hurt the game. I believe the game is designed to promote teamwork but I see enough difference between fighter drones and bombers to support the current system.
What the devil does this have to do with Aces High?
Buckshot is 3 rounds about .38 caliber. At 10 paces they wouldn't spread enough for a good analogy.
-
Depends on how accurate you are with that shotgun while dying from a single .38 bullet to the vitals. Sounds illegal, risky, and all around not fun, let's shoot beer cans instead. And what has this to do with Aces High?
OK. I'll make this as simple as possible for you. I'll give you a 38 special with one bullet. I'll take a 12 gauge shotgun with one load of buckshot. We'll face off at 10 paces and see who lives to tell the tale.
-
You need two wingmen and F3 view to kill bombers? Chortle.
-
Plus the bomber guys have a tough enough job as it is.
There's about ten billion unfortunate hangars who will tell you that you're wrong on that. Who speaks for the toolsheds if not I? :devil
Slightly tangential, but I have a question...
living off other people's work without giving them two more planes to make it even easier to pick.
Can you help me out with the definition of picking? One gets the impression from the forums that this is the act of shooting a plane already fighting another plane and that this against the rules of the MA. This cannot be the case though, as over my years in the MA I have found that virtually every time I am fighting one red plane and another red plane comes into the vicinity, I will get attacked by that plane as well. Is there somewhere where I can read the official, widely-followed rule code of the MA to avoid future confusion?
-
You need two wingmen and F3 view to kill bombers? Chortle.
Making things up isn't helping. :old:
-
You need two wingmen and F3 view to kill bombers? Chortle.
Actually were this wish instituted I would seldom to never fly under the "Interceptor" category. One of my first sorties back, I upped a C-Hog and hovered over a CV. Got 7 bomber kills, but I got tired of it and landed with fuel and ammo still onboard. Very dull, and I haven't repeated the experiment for all it is good for lots of kills. Buff hunting is dreadfully boring inglorious work even when you do get kills doing it, probably why there are not enough players doing it. I want to harness the score potatos to do the work of keeping the hangars open and CVs floating for me, so I don't have to do it. :devil
-
Making things up isn't helping. :old:
What part am I making up?
This?
Therefore, I request being able to check a box that will give me two artificial wingmen who will follow me welded-wing formation and fire in parallel to me, at least when flying certain dedicated interceptors like the 110, 190 series, 262, etc. Call them "drones" if you will.
Or this?
Also, I suggest that external views be allowed for interceptor vics, to simulate the look around capacity the eyes of wingmen would give you.
Here are a few other things I'm not making up:
Tour 172 K/D -
B-17 - 0.38
P-51 -1.40
-
The F3 bit doesn't have anything to do shooting anything actually. I'm just going with the established game principle that units with multiple sets of eyes available get to use F3 view, for the sake of consistency :devil
-
(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif)
Per par, for him. I was gonna' do a Carson joke, Karnak style, but Hitech is not in the mood for it so I am refraining.
Not my fault you guys can't think beyond what sounds cool and nifty and great to looking at the larger picture.
'Do more kamikaze Mustangs appeal to you?' Sounds like a step in the right direction, but we probably need to perk ord. Say about one point per pound.
I submit this as an example. BnZs just wants furballs and anything that interferes with his furball he wants removed. Now, as it happens, I prefer furballing as well, but I recognize that there needs to be a profitable game for HTC and that just furballing won't do that. BnZs, were he to get what he claims he wants, would push AH towards failure.
-
The ideal set up to kill a buff is to get much higher than them, let them get roughly right underneath you, dive to 450knts+, scream by at some odd angle, get 2 or 3 secs of aim time, 1 good second of trigger time, pull of the target and climb to alt again. Classically referred to as 'boom n zoom.'
If I attack buffs without the necessary alt advantage I take a different approach. I will get as much speed as possible (no where near the BnZ/alt-monkey approach) and instead of dive I make a slashing, latitude pass. I will fly even with them though pass from left to right, or right to left. Not as effective though very deadly. If I do it right I hold down the trigger and rake the buff from wingtip to wingtip. With this method it takes more to make the kill for the simple reason I am not concentrating as much lead into one area, such as a wing, etc. The advantage is most tailgunners are going to struggle to get a bead on me and have a very hard time hitting a fighter that is rapidly passing from one side of the screen to the other.
Now imagine I have three fighters at my command. If I do it right one-pass-gets-me-three....One pass and I get to rake the buffs with the firepower of say P-47s? If I get into a good habit I'm pretty sure I can kill two buffs in one pass almost every time (third buff being lower than the two drones.)
I believe I understand the intent, though I still wouldn't support the idea. I have always liked finding a way of creating incentives for sticks to fly in organized activities. Maybe those that join a mission all receive extra perks when a base is taken, or they all hit some buffs.
-
Depends on how accurate you are with that shotgun while dying from a single .38 bullet to the vitals. Sounds illegal, risky, and all around not fun, let's shoot beer cans instead. And what has this to do with Aces High?
Your wish for a Vic pretty much proves you're a horrible shot. I submit that you'd miss anything vital with that 38 and would be dead before you knew you missed. As matter of fact your above statement reflects the exact reason this is a foolish wish. To me you just need to improve your skills with a 38 (single interceptor) rather than wish for a group of three (shotgun).
-
One of my first sorties back, I upped a C-Hog and hovered over a CV. Got 7 bomber kills, but I got tired of it and landed with fuel and ammo still onboard. Very dull, and I haven't repeated the experiment for all it is good for lots of kills.
You say that shooting down bombers is an easy, boring task, yet you ask for two wingmen to make it easier. Am I getting this right?
If this wish was granted you would stop seeing bombers at all. Why up a bomber formation when a Bf-110 trio can end your long flight in a single pass, or with a barrage of 12 rockets? Why use a bomber to sink that CV or WF that town when a trio of P-51D can do the same?
-
In my younger days I shot a revolver daily. Burned what would now be an economically unfeasible amount of ammo. My favored parameters were hitting coffee-can sized targets as quickly as possible at about 10 yards, rather than bulls-eye work. Although I also learned to reliably hit that same target at about 90 yards. So I found your example rather ironic, that is all. This still doesn't have anything to do with the game, not even the gunnery aspect of it, so your example and assertions make no sense.
Your wish for a Vic pretty much proves you're a horrible shot. I submit that you'd miss anything vital with that 38 and would be dead before you knew you missed. As matter of fact your above statement reflects the exact reason this is a foolish wish. To me you just need to improve your skills with a 38 (single interceptor) rather than wish for a group of three (shotgun).
-
Why use a bomber to sink that CV or WF that town when a trio of P-51D can do the same?
I'm not sure P-51D would fit in the "Interceptor" category and even if they did they would not be allowed to carry ord under that category.
-
You say that shooting down bombers is an easy, boring task, yet you ask for two wingmen to make it easier. Am I getting this right?
It is a relatively simple but complete drudgery task IF you set out to do it in the right plane at the right altitude, with no guarantee that any buffs will actually come in. It isn't rewarding in fun, and it isn't really rewarding even in score a lot of the time. That is why IMO there are not enough people like Lusche doing it. We need more incentives. If you are engaging fighter-on-fighter but have to interrupt that to try and save the fight from some toolshedding griefer in buffs in a timely manner, then you ARE liable to get murdered by the over-modeled flex gun lethality.
-
So yes, you just want to kill bombers more easily.
-
You need two wingmen and F3 view to kill bombers? Chortle.
That's not what he said. Lack of reading comprehension.. ^^^^ *chortle*
-
-1 :confused:
:noid
-
There's about ten billion unfortunate hangars who will tell you that you're wrong on that. Who speaks for the toolsheds if not I? :devil
Slightly tangential, but I have a question...Can you help me out with the definition of picking? One gets the impression from the forums that this is the act of shooting a plane already fighting another plane and that this against the rules of the MA. This cannot be the case though, as over my years in the MA I have found that virtually every time I am fighting one red plane and another red plane comes into the vicinity, I will get attacked by that plane as well. Is there somewhere where I can read the official, widely-followed rule code of the MA to avoid future confusion?
Lmao at the one-man intellectual pwnage show.
(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/lmao.gif)
-
Not my fault you guys can't think beyond what sounds cool and nifty and great to looking at the larger picture.
Ah, but is it your fault you can't think beyond stupid sounding name calling? Hmmmmm....
(As for pushing toward failure as you stated, is AH pushing toward success in your view by ignoring player suggestions? Rhetorical question.)
-
Your wish for a Vic pretty much proves you're a horrible shot. I submit that you'd miss anything vital with that 38 and would be dead before you knew you missed. As matter of fact your above statement reflects the exact reason this is a foolish wish. To me you just need to improve your skills with a 38 (single interceptor) rather than wish for a group of three (shotgun).
Sorry to say but I would drop you with one in the head even with my back turned and the pistol holstered when the whistle sounded.
-
That's not what he said. Lack of reading comprehension.. ^^^^ *chortle*
:) Read the OP again.
Therefore, I request being able to check a box that will give me two artificial wingmen who will follow me welded-wing formation and fire in parallel to me, at least when flying certain dedicated interceptors like the 110, 190 series, 262, etc. Call them "drones" if you will.
Also, I suggest that external views be allowed for interceptor vics, to simulate the look around capacity the eyes of wingmen would give you.
-
In my younger days I shot a revolver daily. Burned what would now be an economically unfeasible amount of ammo. My favored parameters were hitting coffee-can sized targets as quickly as possible at about 10 yards, rather than bulls-eye work. Although I also learned to reliably hit that same target at about 90 yards. So I found your example rather ironic, that is all. This still doesn't have anything to do with the game, not even the gunnery aspect of it, so your example and assertions make no sense.
Most Texans I know can shoot. This ^^^ is no surprise.
-
:) Read the OP again.
I read it correctly the first time. No need for a second pass. He never said he needed wingmen to kill buffs as you falsely asserted. Learn to read.
-
I read it correctly the first time. No need for a second pass. He never said he needed wingmen to kill buffs as you falsely asserted. Learn to read.
Wow. Enjoy your insanity. :aok
-
Ah, but is it your fault you can't think beyond stupid sounding name calling? Hmmmmm....
(As for pushing toward failure as you stated, is AH pushing toward success in your view by ignoring player suggestions? Rhetorical question.)
Player suggestions are not good suggestions just because they come from players. A suggestion needs to be evaluated on its own, the source is irrelevant. Some player suggestions are good, some are bad.
-
1.It is a relatively simple but 2.complete drudgery task IF you set out to do it in the right plane at the right altitude, with no guarantee that any buffs will actually come in. 3.It isn't rewarding in fun, and it isn't really rewarding even in score a lot of the time. That is why IMO there are not enough people like Lusche doing it. 4.We need more incentives. 5.If you are engaging fighter-on-fighter but have to interrupt that to try and save the fight from some toolshedding griefer in buffs in a timely manner, then you ARE liable to get murdered by the over-modeled flex gun lethality.
1.intercepting buffs without being killed before they drop is not relatively simple
2.it is not drugery for me
3.I find it very rewarding and the anticipation of the intercept after I have invested time to be in the right place increases the reward I feel when I am successful.
4.I do not need more incentives and since you do not like or participate very much in intercepting bombers please do not presume to speak for me.
5.You are right, buffs coming in while you are furballing are harder to intercept. That increases my satisfaction when I still intercept the buffs and shoot them down. Thank you, I do not want it easier.
-
Wow. Enjoy your insanity. :aok
Enjoy your INANITY. :aok
-
I hope this wish never comes to fruition.
ack-ack
-
What part am I making up?
The part about "needing" as opposed to wishing for.
-
If the fighter jocks get a vic then we bomber boys should get two combat boxes every time we take off. :huh
-
BnZ,
Would you accept a compromise? Instead of AI pilots in formation, employ a "new" function of the "Pickup Missions" planner. Setup formations, waypoints, and target objectives (example: AMB {ammo bunker} 0, 1 and 2; Field 86 ).
Your formation (of 3 online pilots in the above example) will take off and fly to the designated field. A score for each pilot will be given (either in perk points, system message or achievement announcement) upon successfully landing of entire formation.
Drones and AI might be a hard sell in the main arena, but your idea does increase incentives for wingman flying, which is also the function of the Mission Planner. This compromise also would hopefully increase the use of the mission planner and on a formation level (anti horde).
lol
-
I'd give it a -1
The bigger issues is marketing and numbers. AH is not taking this part serious and consequently our numbers are dropping. We need to double the number of sticks in-game, then you can get your wingmen.
Just my two cents.
I second this AH needs to get there crap together first regarding numbers.
-
I would support this wish with a couple minor changes. First, the three planes form a nice orderly line. Second, killshooter is disabled between that flight.
-
Explain how it would be abused...unless you happen to think an individual player being able to click a box in the hangar for two spare planes is *inherently* abusive in some way :devil
Let's see...
1: Grab a 110G
2: Set Interceptor mission type and tick Formation
3: Grab the big gun package
4: Load up on ordinance
For people who don't give a @#$%& about score, you now have one person with three planes with which to absolutely wreck an airfield or town.
-
For people who don't give a @#$%& about score, you now have one person with three planes with which to absolutely wreck an airfield or town.
Three planes with which to wreck an airfield or town? That concept sounds slightly familiar. Let me think...
So you're saying having three planes with which to wreck up all the inanimate objects might be a bad thing? Sax, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. :devil
-
Part of the original premise of the OP was about overcoming (or compensating for) the difficulty of learning a very complicated set of tactics (fighting pairs). I believe he said 'Welded Wing' which just one technique among many in the element/flight/squadron tool bag.
The wish does not meet this part of the problem statement.
A formation of fighters requires space and individual maneuvering to be effective. This is VERY difficult in Aces High because the education required usually transcends the 'fun-factor' of a game. But we can all quickly point to squadrons that have gotten it done. We can also point out guys that fly the two position (wingman) very well in ad-hoc fights in the arenas.
I'm sure the previous responses here have, in their way, addressed this by probing the poster's motives. I have no comment on that. I will say the OP has a terrific historical grasp of how the ME109 was fought after the 'F' model. This is based on my own observations over the years.
You can't properly fix a problem with an incomplete or flawed problem definition. I can't support an adjustment to the game to solve a problem that is intrinsically found in the pilot.
:salute all here.
-
Actually Ratsy the difficulty I was speaking of was not the difficulty of learning any tactics, but the simple difficulty of FINDING another human player to fly with you. Apparently it is very, very, very difficult, so difficult that bomber pilots can't get any fellow players to fly in formation with them, gun for them, or escort them, so they need drones and all manner of compensation. Very well :devil, going by that logic do fighter not need some drone wingmen of their very own? Do tank drivers not need a couple of drone flaks to protect them from merciless air-to-ground pounding? ;)
Part of the original premise of the OP was about overcoming (or compensating for) the difficulty of learning a very complicated set of tactics (fighting pairs). I believe he said 'Welded Wing' which just one technique among many in the element/flight/squadron tool bag.
The wish does not meet this part of the problem statement.
A formation of fighters requires space and individual maneuvering to be effective. This is VERY difficult in Aces High because the education required usually transcends the 'fun-factor' of a game. But we can all quickly point to squadrons that have gotten it done. We can also point out guys that fly the two position (wingman) very well in ad-hoc fights in the arenas.
I'm sure the previous responses here have, in their way, addressed this by probing the poster's motives. I have no comment on that. I will say the OP has a terrific historical grasp of how the ME109 was fought after the 'F' model. This is based on my own observations over the years.
You can't properly fix a problem with an incomplete or flawed problem definition. I can't support an adjustment to the game to solve a problem that is intrinsically found in the pilot.
:salute all here.
-
Three planes with which to wreck an airfield or town? That concept sounds slightly familiar. Let me think...
So you're saying having three planes with which to wreck up all the inanimate objects might be a bad thing? Sax, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. :devil
Counterpoint: None of the formation bombers have FIXED FORWARD 30MM.
There's a HUGE disparity between what our level bombers can currently do, and what formation JABOs would be ABLE to do.
-
Counterpoint: None of the formation bombers have FIXED FORWARD 30MM.
There's a HUGE disparity between what our level bombers can currently do, and what formation JABOs would be ABLE to do.
I think you missed the bit where I said I wouldn't enable ord for "Interceptor" formations. :D Still 3 110s would perhaps be the ultimate town strafing rig IF one didn't care about score, albeit completely vulnerable to attack themselves, and liable to lose drones if they got too aerobatic with their firing passes. Lacking ord they'd be unable to shut down a base though.
-
Actually Ratsy the difficulty I was speaking of was not the difficulty of learning any tactics, but the simple difficulty of FINDING another human player to fly with you. Apparently it is very, very, very difficult, so difficult that bomber pilots can't get any fellow players to fly in formation with them, gun for them, or escort them, so they need drones and all manner of compensation. Very well :devil, going by that logic do fighter not need some drone wingmen of their very own? Do tank drivers not need a couple of drone flaks to protect them from merciless air-to-ground pounding? ;)
So you're just trolling the wishlist. Good to know.
-
I think you missed the bit where I said I wouldn't enable ord for "Interceptor" formations.
why wouldn't you allow the air to air 21cm rockets on german interceptors?
-
Actually Ratsy the difficulty I was speaking of was not the difficulty of learning any tactics, but the simple difficulty of FINDING another human player to fly with you. Apparently it is very, very, very difficult, so difficult that bomber pilots can't get any fellow players to fly in formation with them, gun for them, or escort them, so they need drones and all manner of compensation. Very well :devil, going by that logic do fighter not need some drone wingmen of their very own? Do tank drivers not need a couple of drone flaks to protect them from merciless air-to-ground pounding? ;)
not trolling but you really think nobody likes you? even I have no trouble finding another player to fight with me.
semp
-
not trolling but you really think nobody likes you? even I have no trouble finding another player to fight with me.
semp
Apparently no one likes bomber pilots, and it would be impossible for them to find anyone to fly in box with them, to gun for them, or to escort them. Hence the modeling to give individual players controls of a flying ack nest carrying tens of thousands of pounds of ordinance so that said individual stands a fair chance.
-
Apparently no one likes bomber pilots, and it would be impossible for them to find anyone to fly in box with them, to gun for them, or to escort them. Hence the modeling to give individual players controls of a flying ack nest carrying tens of thousands of pounds of ordinance so that said individual stands a fair chance.
so nobody likes bomber pilots and you want to make it easier to shoot them down. doesnt sound right.
semp
btw did you know that there are many full time bomber only squadrons in aces high?
-
so nobody likes bomber pilots.
(http://img0.joyreactor.cc/pics/comment/%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81-winamp-%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0-853288.jpeg)
btw did you know that there are many full time bomber only squadrons in aces high?
I'm a little disturbed to know that there are whole squadrons of peeps are willing to pay fifteen bucks a month for a multiplayer combat game and then spend their time entirely smashing virtual inanimate objects.
-
If this thread is all a big baiting/trolling attempt, my only question is why hasn't it been deleted yet. If it's serious, I'll have a good laugh. Can't see what's a joke or not anymore, the meds are kicking in :lol
-
so nobody likes bomber pilots and you want to make it easier to shoot them down. doesnt sound right.
semp
btw did you know that there are many full time bomber only squadrons in aces high?
No there's not.
-
the meds are kicking in :lol
Did you bring enough for everyone?
-
Did you bring enough for everyone?
There's never enough... :cry