Post by: lazs1 on December 04, 2001, 08:31:00 AM
Since the new map "features" point out every rest stop and Denny's on the map so that the sky accountants can be more efficient..
We need more info from the dar. We need to know if that 'bar' is ground vehicles or if it is AC. This would add a lot to the game and save some long, boring, fruitlesss trips.
lazs
Post by: Kratzer on December 04, 2001, 09:06:00 AM
Post by: K West on December 04, 2001, 09:14:00 AM
-- Westy
(note: I fulfilled the requirement as my posts doesn not disagree. Well, it doesn't agree either)
Post by: Kratzer on December 04, 2001, 09:41:00 AM
Post by: Seeker on December 04, 2001, 10:04:00 AM
Maybe the depot icon on the map could flash a different colour when a train is spawned.
A lot of people were complaining that buffs have no effect, but I see few interdiction missions being flown.
I'd like to see more Tiffs and Jugs clearing the tracks.
Post by: muckmaw on December 04, 2001, 10:10:00 AM
Post by: Mox on December 04, 2001, 10:15:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by O'Westy:
Wow. So the MA can be made even easier!
Maybe we should be able to click on a single dot on the awacs radar and our plane will fly to the dot automaticlly!
Who wants to waste time flying anyway?
:)
Post by: FlyingDuckSittingSwan on December 04, 2001, 10:28:00 AM
Post by: Sabre on December 04, 2001, 10:34:00 AM
I do like the feature mentioned, the "check-6" type highlight that would then transmit a spotting report on GVs, CVs, trains, convoys, and PT boats (subs and barges too, once they're added. The info could stay on the map display for 5-10 minutes, with a button to turn that info on and off on your clipboard. That puts the onous on the players to report stuff, without making it too time intensive (no typing required).
As a matter of fact, I like this idea even for aircraft. Give sector counters and friendly dots automatically on your clipboard while inflight (enemy dots available from the tower), and use the above system for passing exact position reports on enemy aircraft. Then, the only time you get a dot while inflight is when someone bothers to report it via this "check-6" type function. By this I mean a keypress to cycle through enemy a/c in view; when you release the key it send a position report on the highlighted bandit to HQ, which in turn places a dot on everyone's inflight map.
Yes, I like this. Again, it puts the onous on the players. If you see a bandit and want to engage it by yourself, just don't send a report. Run into a whole flock of enemy a/c, and report it so you get some help.
There...was that serious enough?
Post by: Pyemia on December 04, 2001, 10:48:00 AM
![]("http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sjeminez/star.jpg"")
I kinda like dar the way it is now, would prefer gv's were not visible at all to dar until they came within visual range of field thou. I'd be okay with different coloured dar bars thou indicating type of attack - ie gv or aircraft.
My two un-negative cents
:D
Zygote
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Pyemia ]
Post by: Ripsnort on December 04, 2001, 10:50:00 AM
Then, in the CT arena, add the following:
Man, this is a no-brainer.
Set CT up with rotating maps once a month.(Or, auto-change theatres with with "War is over")
ETO, then PTO, pick a map for either.(Channel map once, then Norway, or Philippines, then ??)
Enable field capture.
Limted icons, 3k or less for friendly,none for enemy.
Disable bar dar below 500 feet OR disable dot dar.(Its my opinion that some sort of dar should be avail, so folks CAN find a fight)
Make it 1945, enable all planes for that Theatre, or, make it 1941 first week, 1942 second week, etc.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
Post by: lazs1 on December 04, 2001, 11:07:00 AM
Nope.. lets just have a seperate bar for GV's and AC so that we can tell em apart or, alternately... I wouldn't mind if GV info was simply not given.
lazs
Post by: Ripsnort on December 04, 2001, 11:15:00 AM
Quote
Since the new map "features" point out every rest stop and Denny's on the map so that the sky
accountants can be more efficient..
We need more info from the dar. We need to know if that 'bar' is ground vehicles or if it is AC. This
would add a lot to the game and save some long, boring, fruitlesss trips.
I say give it that, label it RR Main.
Post by: LePaul on December 04, 2001, 11:15:00 AM
<Heavy sarcasm intended>
Post by: Rude on December 04, 2001, 11:19:00 AM
Personally, I would like to see less dependence on dar just to up the ante a bit and place more importance on SA and the decision making process in general.
I'm sure HTC has a direction they have mapped out and are willing to make changes provided it does not affect gameplay.
Perhaps HT or Pyro might offer up some of their thoughts regarding dar and the specific goals they want to meet thru it's use.
By them clueing us in, perhps we could offer suggestions which help them meet their specific gameplay goals.
Just a thought :)
(http://www.13thtas.com/rudesig.jpg)
Post by: lazs1 on December 04, 2001, 11:45:00 AM
lazs
Post by: mrfish on December 04, 2001, 12:29:00 PM
Post by: Citabria on December 04, 2001, 01:59:00 PM
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.
Post by: Ripsnort on December 04, 2001, 02:05:00 PM
See? more fuel for my current campaign to turn the main into "Relaxed Realism" and bring those who like the other type of play over to the CT (See CT BBS for suggestions)
There are days when I like RR (as suggestions by Fester and Laz have brought forth) and days I like historic. Be nice to have the best of both worlds! But not in the same arena obviously.
Post by: lazs1 on December 04, 2001, 02:07:00 PM
lazs
Post by: milnko on December 04, 2001, 02:26:00 PM
I usually remain quiet to your posts because I'm of the mind "to each his own".
It's a game granted, but if we as a whole generally prefer flight model fidelity, why would we expect less from gameplay?
There was a very good episode this month on The History Channel about England's invention and implementation of radar and it's wartime application, it shows how very limited radar info was.
It seems a simple request and fair gameplay balance to have zero radar info below 300 feet. It gives a "surprise" advantage to the low level base attacker, but offsets that by the lack of "energy" altitude provides.
For a man who was so adament about a "realistic" 6 view for the F6F in WBs you've seemed to do a 180 concerning gameplay realism in AH.
Post by: lazs1 on December 04, 2001, 02:41:00 PM
lazs
Post by: Kieran on December 04, 2001, 02:53:00 PM
I wouldn't mind less dar, but anyone acting like the life or death of HTC is hanging on the decision just isn't paying any attention at all.
Post by: aac on December 04, 2001, 03:17:00 PM
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: all american chickenman ]
Post by: Maverick on December 04, 2001, 03:23:00 PM
I do not think that gv's should not give a dar bar for one reason. The ground situation didn't operate in a vacum. An offensive by either side was observable either by air or ground troops. To be able to launchg a surprise attack 100% of the time, ala no dar bar, isn't much of a ballancing factor in game play. Since gv's are already hard to spot without icons over 1.5k away they have some concealment. To make it unable to see any activity in an othwise sector gives them too much of an advantage IMO.
I think the CT should be modified to be similar to the MA in regards to scores. strat, capture etc. and then allow reduced icons / no icons and restrictions in dar. Allowing players to take their scores between arena's is fine too that way they don't lose any points going either way.
Adding more info to the dar would be overkill IMO. If you find the enemy are GV's and you don't like dealing with them then you can ignore them and hunt planes. The reverse is equally true.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
Post by: Voss on December 04, 2001, 03:31:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by mrfish:
is 'sarcastic agreemen't within the posting conditions?
I like the idea that lazs can post and restrict the kind of responses he desires. 'No descenters allowed.'
Fug no, leave it like it is. I don't have a problem figuring out whether cons are GV's, or aircraft. It's actually too easy now.
Sorry you haven't figured it out yet, lazs.
Post by: lazs1 on December 04, 2001, 03:41:00 PM
lazs
Post by: Sabre on December 04, 2001, 03:48:00 PM
This would truly be an interesting experiment, don't you think? I wonder what effect it would have on arena attendance (particular the name changes)?
Post by: Rotorian on December 04, 2001, 05:12:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
That's right... if you disagree then don't post.
lazs
You have got to be freaking kidding, aint ya?
Post by: Sachs on December 04, 2001, 07:02:00 PM
Post by: GRUNHERZ on December 04, 2001, 07:08:00 PM
:)
Post by: Toad on December 04, 2001, 08:14:00 PM
Quote
Rip: Limted icons, 3k or less for friendly,none for enemy
Curious as to how you arrived at the 3k figure and the justification for "none". This emulates what visual capability in real life?
Also, if you're going to push the <ahem> "realism button" wouldn't both friend and foe be the same figure in any event?
Lastly, the CT as envisioned by any of the <ahem> "more realism" proponents, is clearly a reduction in the "play options" available to the player. No matter how you slice it, the current MA would always have more options than a CT-type environment.
One may argue that if just the "right" or "perfect" set of restrictions was put in place in the CT, it would be wildly popular.
However, current usage shows that AH players currently support the "unlimited play option" MA over the "restricted play option" CT environment by an incredibly overwhelming margin. So much so that the CT is basically an unused, wasted arena.
It's highly doubtful, IMO, that ANY set of restrictions would make the CT more popular than the MA.
It's the old "girls just want to have fun" in action. I think HTC has an excellent grasp of this aspect of the community attitude.
Post by: CRASH on December 04, 2001, 08:32:00 PM
CRASH
Post by: Toad on December 04, 2001, 08:51:00 PM
Previous Thread: Tests on Visual Realism (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001585)
"Approximately 1000 feet behind Lead (tailpipes make black "figure 8" and tail numbers are eaily visible but not readable."
The tailpipes were about a 2 -2 1/2 diameter.
The tail numbers were military block and about 10 inches tall and 2 inch wide lettering.
So, when we can see ship numbers like that ...at 333 yards... then we can do away with icons.
Here's a few more for ya.. the letters on a US stop sign are about the same size. See how far away you can read the letters.
The US Interstate highway shields are about the same size and coloration as the British Roundel on the top of a Spit wing. Next time you're out driving, check your odometer when you first see the blue/red shield ahead on a straightaway. Clock the distance till abeam.
Everyday examples that you yourself can check for visual realism.
Of course, you miss the increased visual distance due to the clarity of the air at altitude versus ground level city smog.. but we'll just forget that ADDED range.
Post by: lazs1 on December 05, 2001, 08:36:00 AM
They want to hit blind guys from behind. they are pathetic. They want an arcade.. They want artificailly limited visuals to allow a gamey arcadish type of acm and lopsided rewards for timidity and plane choice. Not traits worth rewarding in my book. Good ways to empty an arena tho.. WWII air combat was pretty boring most of the time... It is even more boring if done virtually. Simple acm was fun in a real plane and take offs landings etc. We don't have that... we need action to make up for it.
lazs
Post by: lazs1 on December 05, 2001, 08:42:00 AM
If we made the "realism" buffs fly missions and only in finger fours... there would be no players.
lazs
Post by: Toad on December 05, 2001, 09:15:00 AM
I think every poster I've seen crying out for "realistic this" or "realistic that" can later be found in some other thread supporting a "gameplay concession" of some type.
Selective "realism" lives. I'd say it's there in everyone of us.
Who indeed would play AH very long if you flew a fighter 3 hours just to get to the combat area? Spent 3 hours just forming up the bomber stream over an ADF beacon before leaving England?
There will ALWAYS be "gameplay concessions". There will NEVER be agreement on what those should be or how many are "too many".
But it keeps the BBS busy, doesn't it?
:)
Post by: texace on December 05, 2001, 10:34:00 AM
I don't care if the MA gets more realism or not, but if anyone removes my reason to have fun, I'll leave. Period. I do like furballing, and do it often, but I also enjoy flying bombers, drving GV's and the like. I don't care if the fighter jocks get what they want, as long as I can keep doing what I do. Yes, I might sound like a boring, "strat potato" and "sky accountant" but that's how I choose to play my game. I like doing hose things. Now, if lazs or another fighter guys said he's pay for me, yeah I'd fly their way, but so far no one has offered. Until then, leave my game alone and enjoy yours. We don't need anymore crutches to baby the fighter guys.
So, if you see a bar and it turns out to be a bunch of GV's, turn around and find another fight. Leave the MA as it is and let people enjoy the damn game..... :mad:
Post by: Apache on December 05, 2001, 10:50:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by texace:
You people do realize that everyone might not enjoy sucha change or changes? People here have fun the way they want to. I'm getting sick of people trying to offer suggestions on how they can make the game better for them, but not for anyone else BUT them. Lazs says he wants to seperate GV's from the dar, so if he sees a really big bar in a sector he doesn't have to take time out to fly there to see exactly what it is. The MA is a place to have fun for everybody. Those who like fighting, which is the majority, shouldn't have far to go to find a fight, yet they want the arean changed to cater only to them. They want more crutches than we already have, because they don't have fun while there's no fighting. They want it changed so they don't have to take-off, just press a button and ZING you're in the fight. They want everyone else to cater to them, just because they are the majority. Why? Why do you insist on changing the game just because you are inconvinienced? There are people here who enjoy flying bombers, or drving GV's, or capturing bases, or just flying around fo the hell of it. Should we push these people out just becasue they don't get a kick out of endless furballs? Let the game progress on its own and just fly it like you want, and stop trying to change the game or whine just because you have to "fly"
I don't care if the MA gets more realism or not, but if anyone removes my reason to have fun, I'll leave. Period. I do like furballing, and do it often, but I also enjoy flying bombers, drving GV's and the like. I don't care if the fighter jocks get what they want, as long as I can keep doing what I do. Yes, I might sound like a boring, "strat potato" and "sky accountant" but that's how I choose to play my game. I like doing hose things. Now, if lazs or another fighter guys said he's pay for me, yeah I'd fly their way, but so far no one has offered. Until then, leave my game alone and enjoy yours. We don't need anymore crutches to baby the fighter guys.
So, if you see a bar and it turns out to be a bunch of GV's, turn around and find another fight. Leave the MA as it is and let people enjoy the damn game..... :mad:
So, are you going to make a like minded post in the threads about deleting in-flight dar as well? I mean, they are wanting to change the game too or does that happen to be something "you" want, which then makes it ok?
Post by: K West on December 05, 2001, 10:51:00 AM
I agree. But discussions on improvement changes, added features or modifications to gameplay don't need to drop to a slanderous and spiteful level. Well until such time someone calls for a relaxed realism arena ;)
"But it keeps the BBS busy, doesn't it?" "
Sure does :D Even more so is that these realism ideas and discussions have helped get us WWII aircombat players/simmers where we are today. Those folks who prefered the status quo, shrugged thier shoulders at advancements, generally hated change and felt "easier" was the road to travel are losing thier beloved flight "game" on Dec 7th. If you stop, sit down in the middle of the road and say there is no need to go any further then don't mind that MACK truck barreling down the road and about to prove Darwins theory with you.
Westy
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]
Post by: AKSWulfe on December 05, 2001, 10:57:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sachs:
And while you are at it please include type of plane, speed, alt of aircraft, and whether the pilot is AFK and sex of known pilot. :rolleyes: Better yet why don' we just ask for the kills instead of having to shoot down opponents just cut through the hard stuff make it much more easier for you.
Actually, those two items I highlighted above were available to ground controllers during WWII.... as well as heading and size of the aircraft (thus, they could figure out fighter or bomber) and how many aircraft are in the formation (a rough number, but a number nonetheless)...
So, while you all are rallying for an anal retentive super duper ace portrayal of YOUR WWII in the combat theater, you might want to check out the above I just mentioned.
The fact that you believe that ground controllers didn't relay information to their pilots completely baffles me. We are simulating WWII, NOT WWI.
Lazs has some good ideas, if you think it was any different in WWII, I beg to differ.
I mean, we could get rid of 6 views completely... but then that only meets the criteria of selective realism- much like how most of you don't want in your hyper-"realistic" combat theater.
Much of what Lazs mentions is much closer to a realistic portrayal of how radar and ground operators work to give their pilot's the information they needed to intercept incomming raids.
No radar a certain distance behind enemy lines, no radar below 300ft, a different indicator for ground vehicles (the fact they show up on dar at all should clue you in that's on the other side of the spectrum from realism) and some of the other stuff he mentions is actually what a combination of ground operators and radar controllers did in WWII...
The fact that no one is employed as either a ground controller or radar operator negates having people relay the information to us and thus we need radar for each of ourselves.
The above things I mentioned combined with dot dar updating once every 10-30 seconds would give you a hyper-realistic representation of the radar operators and ground controllers in WWII.
Argue it anyway you want, all you have to do is watch "Battle Stations" on the History channel or watch that movie "Battle of Britain".. They got vectors, formation size, heading, plane size and altitude.
So, despite what you might think- these ideas actually fit in a "hyper-realistic" arena not in a dumbed down arena.
-SW
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
Post by: dedalu on December 05, 2001, 11:01:00 AM
Post by: lazs1 on December 05, 2001, 11:57:00 AM
No dar under 300 ft and no dar for ground vehicles or a seperate dar to represent "spotters" dot dar for ac to simulate vectoring and... just to show that I can be just as arcadish and unrealistic as the fluffers and sky accountant....
We will live without type and alt info for the radar. It feels gamey but "realism" buffs need these "blinder" concessions it seems.
lazs
Post by: AKSWulfe on December 05, 2001, 12:11:00 PM
I agree though, it seems it's only realism when it works for what you want or for your vision of what you think is realistic.
-SW
Post by: lazs1 on December 05, 2001, 12:48:00 PM
lazs
Post by: AKSWulfe on December 05, 2001, 01:07:00 PM
No way! ;)
-SW
Post by: Sachs on December 07, 2001, 07:01:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
Not onlyu that but... In WWII you were pretty sure where the badguys were and that there would never be a high alt lone wolf hunting all over and anywhere in the area... The planes had 'missions' and were easy to track and you were not likely (read never) to find single and two's of enemy planes behind the lines unless they were shot up or lost and trying desperately just to get home.. If you seen a plane it was pretty sure what he was... friend or foe and... in either case... what he was flying.
If we made the "realism" buffs fly missions and only in finger fours... there would be no players.
lazs
Lazs you have no conecpt of what WW2 was like.
As quoted by you.
In WWII you were pretty sure where the badguys were and that there would never be a high alt lone wolf hunting all over and anywhere in the area...
Explain to me how they had this 6th sense of where planes were? Planes never flew alone or with a wingman? Hmm I can recount multiple stories where a single pilot was dispatched to do away with a radar con that had intervened in the sector. Want the proof? Lazs you have no idea what these pilots faced or did durnig this time. Your little theory of furball island or whatever it is you want. If you don't like this game for the features it has then leave and quit your squeaking. Of all the people on this board you whine and cry the most (I expect your little I am a LW whiner or I fly in a LW squad technique reply now). If you disagree with everything about this game except for the certain furballs then leave and go fly somewhere else. I love this game for very aspect, I might disagree with some of the things they offer, but I feel now they offer an incredible lay out for each style of play from EACH Customer. We all want different things in a game, the ability to compensate for everyone makes you last longer in a competitive market. HT has done that. squeak some more LAZS, you want furballs go offline you can find plenty there.
Post by: Apar on December 08, 2001, 01:30:00 AM
Quote
You have got to be freaking kidding, aint ya?
LOL, no he's not Rotorian
Lasz, I have great fun thinking about you flying long boring missions, ;)
[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Apar ]
Post by: tofri on December 08, 2001, 07:09:00 AM
as long a flattened HQ will be down for at least half an hour.
Even with that fantasy C47 supply we have now.
Post by: lazs1 on December 08, 2001, 09:12:00 AM
lazs
Post by: Sachs on December 08, 2001, 11:59:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
sachs...as usual... you are a moron. You have no idea what WWII aviation was like short of a few "I flew for hitler" romance novels that keep on the nightstand to beat off by.
lazs
That is your come back? Come on now Lazs I was expecting something a little more creative from you. Never read any WW2 romance novels, do you have any to suggest?