Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Gadfly on December 29, 2000, 07:08:00 PM
-
First let me say that it doesn't HAVE to suck, there are many very good things about it, some of them revolutionary. I also post this not because I do not like AH, but because I DO like it, and want to be able have fun in the skies of HTC. You can argue with the importance of my points, but you can not argue with my logic.
What makes AH suck:
1. Inflight radar.
2. toejamty clipboard map.
3. Super bomber fire control system.
There are other things I do not like, but they are personal preferences, whereas these are things that make this a game, not a simulation.
Here is my argument for the things above:
1. The best rebuttal of this that I have heard is that it simulates the rudimentary radar, sound and observer stations of the period. I say that the perfect transmittal medium of the radio buffer simulates those things; inflight radar has no basis in real life before AWACs took flight.
2. In bombers, there is a person that does exactly what the (WB) F1 maps does. In fighters there are railroads, roads and identifiable features that allow a pilot to, more or less, pinpoint his position. The strip map he carries on his knee bears no resemblance to our clipboard map.
3. The idea is that we SIMULATE WWII air combat. The theory that AH's B-29 fire control simulates this better than a computer controlled otto is simply silly. I know, I know, airborne AI killing you sucks, but, well, how come it is OK for the field acks? Same damn thing, if you ask me, and not on point in either case. We accept many things in the name of immersion and this is one of those things that we simply have to accept: An AI otto simulates discrete gunners better than one guy aiming all of the weapons(at least till we get the B-29).
In closing, please DO consider this a whine, but not a slam. I want to fly in AH, as well as drive the PT boat, but I also demand a little more simulation than it offers right now.
Lizking
-
I agree 100% with number 1.
#2 is a non-issue for me.
#3 I couldn't disagree more. Otto sucks. Period.
-
Geez Dude, your title announces that AH sucks, and then this is the best evidence you can come up with?
-
But why does it suck, Funked? Because it kills you? But one butthead controlling 8-12 guns doesn't? I don't get it, sorry.
As for 2, you are not a bomber at heart, if not by trade is all I can say.
-
The title is what is known in marketing as a "hook". If I thought AH sucked, would I waste my time posting about it?
-
hmmm... you say it was a hook.. yet you restate it in your first sentance of the post.
Sorry gadfly.. still lame.
-
Well, Deja, I must have missed your rebuttal. Take it as a given that I am a dick, and refute what I claim.
-
#1 is a huge issue. SA in AH involves reading the in-flight radar to find local numerical advantages. That's got absolutely nothing to do with WW2 air combat.
Inflight radar should be disabled. The sector bars are quite sufficient to "find the fight".
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
<<But one butthead controlling 8-12 guns ....>>
The gunner can only hit you with the guns which have you in their field of fire. This system is a compromise between otto firing all the guns and a player firing them. Having multiple gunners on one plane strains the host for very little in return, so you get 1 gunner and he shoots every gun that can train itself on you. Not a bad arrangement.
What's wrong with the map exactly? All necessary info is displayed. If it is too easy for navigation don't use it. You can download paper maps from various websites and navigate with those.
ra
-
Well, all the guns that MAY fire at you is different from all the guns WILL fire at you. This type of fire control simply does not accuratly simulate a bunch of kids firing guns at you. With otto, you can make it where it simulates this very well.
The map is not detailed enough, nor is it zoomable to any degree of accuracy, nor can you save the zoom; it always goes back to normal clipboard.
-
Why didn't I offer a rebutle? Hmmmm...
1. Inflight radar... good point.. just don't try to take realism and apply it to the MA. I wonder what percentage of air battles occurred right over enemy fields in real life.
Argue either way... neither will be realistic.
2. Wow.. hard to argue with "lovely clipboard map". How about "lovely presentation of an arguement".
3. You propose the introduction of auto and want to be taken seriously?
Your oppinions on why AH sucks are simply that. Opinions on things wich have been discussed in depth. Both sides of the argument have been presented many times.
Given that, HTC has decided to leave things the way they are. I guess they don't feel that there is enough "lovely feature" complaints to render the game as one that officially "sucks" enough to have them taken out just yet.
There.. happy now?
And yes, you are a dick.
AKDejaVu
-
1. Again, we are either simulating WWII air combat or playing a game. I do not argue "realism" in either tactics or numbers, but I do request realism in major aspects of the implementaion. There is simply no basis for having an inflight radar. None.
2. toejamty presentation deserves toejamty comment. Sorry, bud, but if you think that the clipboard map is a simulation of ANY type map available in WWII, both on the ground or in the air, you are just mistaken.
3. Artificial Intelligence, is just that, an attempt to simulate human intelligence. To say that it is out of hand bad when carried on an aircraft, all the while accepting the same thing based on the ground is illogical. To say that a fire control system on planes that did not have them is desirable is to to say that you want IR missile on the Wurger. Where is the logic?
And, yes, I am a dick, so what, it has no impact on my arguments.
-
I dont aggree with any of those.
In WW2 formatations of planes were ground controled to be in position in the sun and above enemy formations. What we have is no where near that good from a stratigic info point of view. From a tacitcal SA point of view it gives considerable advantage to a person that can fight and check it at near same time. With no eyesight advantage to anyone that is not a bad compromise.
The clipboard shows the air battle developing. It could be enhanced to show ground strat targets and topographical features. This is better served by a printed map I think. Complaining about it seems contrary to your first point.
The excellent coordination of the bomber defensive guns is a game play issue. It works real well in the game. I trust Pyro on this one.
The real reason AH sucks is cause it wrecks you for other sims. In particular boxed sims.
-
1. Inflight radar is a tough issue. It is certainly a nod to game play over simulation. However, it does serve a purpose by making it easier to find a fight, AND providing a very valuable Strat target. It's amazing how infrequently field ack is destroyed in an attack. I guess I'd rather have the inflight radar than go chasing frieldly dots.
2. Again, I think the "you are here" map is a nod to game play. Would be fun to try flying without the GPSS bit.
3. What we have now makes a buff/fighter 1v1 a reasonable fight. Seems like a pretty good balance, since we're not gonna have 300 buffs up against 50 fighters any time soon.
-
Now see there? Pongo has come good points and puts them in good form.
Pongo: When the bombers were forming over England they had some help from the ground, but it did not help them much. The LW had excellent ground controllers, but is this not simulated better by the radio buffer? The LW did not LCD panels showing these things, they had a scratchy voice on intermittant radio signal giving them general info.
The airbattle developing was not something the Allies had at the level of aircrew. The Axis did not, I'm sure, discuss the airbattle with pilots; they said. "Bogies near Amiens, all units attack:. This does not translate to a map showing those planes, as well as all others in the ETO.
I agree that the gunnery system is a gameplay issue, I just do not agree that it is the proper one.
-
The nods to gameplay that I mention versus the nods to gameplay that I don't, are somewhat optional, or at least optimal for our tech level.
Icons-Tech level, not much can be done here.
Laser Norden-I have done the math, and there is no better way to do it at this point.
GPS map- VFR and DR is not possible with the current tech level.
Engine management-Why simulate the boring, repetitive, and annoying parts of flying, like random mechanical failures and bad weather?
-
You da man Gadfly
When you get smart enough to build your own sim,///you know the rest.
-
My daddy always taught me not to critique the job anyone was doing unless I could do it better myself. If this applies to certain aspects in the implementation of the game, as opposed to the actual coding, well, let's just say that I have no problem with the code as written by HTC, just what the code is designed to deliver.
-
Aw, hell, that last one didn't come out right.
HT and crew, you guys have built a truly astounding game. The mission editor, ground stuff and Naval units, to say nothing of the PT boat, really raise the bar in online games.
With a few modifications, you can raise the bar in online simulations as well. That is what I am saying, and it is not meant to be derogatory to HTC or the players.
And I am not really a dick, but I play one on the internet.
-
Concerning auto gunners-
I agree there's a problem with the gunner situation in bombers, but the majority of AH players would revolt if otto was brought on board everyday bombers. The biggest problem I see is when a bomber is attacked from two different directions. When Hitech gets the time, he should enable multiple gunners in bufs. This would allow a defense against multiple-side attacks on a bomber.
-
In-Flight Radar is a strategy concept here in AH. It can be both on and off. You simply have a quality deficit problem attibutable to being in old 2.7x Warbirds too long.
The clipboard map is toejamty?...next!
Gunning system sucks? It does require some skill and strategy to defeat but compared to the otto joke in Warbirds its light years ahead of its time.
Simply put gad, you have been in the dark too long. The brightness hurts, but if you stick with it you will benifit from the energy it provides you.
Sorry to sound like an bellybutton but you guys in Warbirds are in need of immediate CPR and calling the surgeon names seems a little bit ingracious considering the high improbability that WBs3 will be released in 2001 (it might come out this next year, but Im not holding my breath).
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
Yo Yeager, I do not deny that it works for gameplay, hell no, it does. All I am saying is that on the game to simulation scale, it pushes it to the game end of the spectrum.
-
The air battle is condensed here to the point where it is hard to concieve of meaningful buffer messages.
It would be a meaningless stream of babble that the host would have to generate for all radar contacts for each person individualy. The absence of altitude and direction information from the radar and the extreme vulnerability of the radar sites and infastructure to destruction are excelent ballances against the availability of the radar clipboard in all planes.
Fighters received information from ground control all the way over the channel. German controlers where courtmarshelled for stearing their charges into non favorable situations. I dont think you have a firm grasp as to the level of Ground countrol that was available in NW europe in late WW2.
Certainly that level decreased alot in many other parts of the world and in no case could a pilot glance at a read out and see the postions of planes around him and 200 miles away like he can in AH. But where it was in effect it was more useful in some ways then the in flight dar we have in the game.
Baring having people play the game as ground controlers what we have is pretty good.
-
I'll bite.... but only on the radar issue..
I think sector markers need to be rethought now with 1.05
Finding a fleet now is easy, see the sector bar increase as planes takeoff, you know what sector the fleet is in, and from there its real easy to find. (i just learned that u can find any fleet in the maproom...) I think that sector markers should not be available if outside friendly territory or friendly influenced territory(friendly CV) dots... sure they should be as they are now for gameplay sake.
Remember we are talking the MA now, the DAR becomes a non issue for scenario's. Perhaps once the player base has grown HTC can try some test arenas with no dar, and the illeet stuff, but I think we would see a small yet dedicated group in the no con environment, yet a big happy whiney furball in the MA..
AKskurj
-
Originally posted by PapaFox:
Concerning auto gunners-
I agree there's a problem with the gunner situation in bombers, but the majority of AH players would revolt if otto was brought on board everyday bombers.
That's because they're all fighter weenies (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) <- NOTE!
Personally I want auto gunners. One, two or even three people trying to crew a whole bomber is just silly, IMO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I know we're very unlikely to see it here, and as a result we're also unlikely to see regular large scale bomber raid, again IMO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Pongo-there is no way that even exceleent ground control equals dots on the map and sector markers. I like to think I have an inkling of the methods used, if not the actual procedures, and there is no way that inflight radar approximates the result.
-
All I am saying is that on the game to simulation scale, it pushes it to the game end of the spectrum.
Which is exactly where I understand HTC is intending to position Aces High - the game end of the spectrum.
And your problem with that is ........?
-
Good point. If that is the direction of AH, then that is the end of the discussion, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
First let me say that it doesn't HAVE to suck, there are many very good things about it, some of them revolutionary. I also post this not because I do not like AH, but because I DO like it, and want to be able have fun in the skies of HTC. You can argue with the importance of my points, but you can not argue with my logic.
What makes AH suck:
1. Inflight radar.
[/b]
I would prefer for this Radar to be less accurate at greater ranges and improve as the targets get closer to the Radars. Say three sectors away from a freindly radar you would get sector counters, within two you would get dot, not necessarily an accurate number or accurate placement on the map.
Within one there would be improved accuracy, probably accurate number and direction, and of course they would be dead accurate in the square that the radar was in.
2. toejamty clipboard map.
[/b]
I really don't understand your problem here, and how you could go as far as to say "S#!++'/" but I think it is pretty good. I know that adding more details to the terrain would cause an FPS issue that HT wants to avoid. As most everyone knows there are printable maps available for download if you so desire.
I wouldn't mind a heads up type mission clock and compass to try navigating with, although I believe a lot of folks would complain severely if they didn't have access to the current type of map while in flight. Convince the masses that you have a better method and then suggest your better method to HTC.
3. Super bomber fire control system.
[/b]
Otto is too accurate, people can and do miss, Otto is a super robot whose code is at least 60 years advanced over the radar controlled gun that was mounted on the B-29 toward the end of WWII.
In AH the manual controlled aspect guns adds the element of human error, Otto completely dimmisses human error. Otto is infaliable, human gunners even those capable of slewing multiple weapons on target are far more prefferable to me than infaliable computer programs.
If you suggest an Otto Code with built in failings, then you show us the formula now, and if we ALL agree that we like your otto code, then we can take the issue up with HT. Until then I will take my gunners human.
It is pretty easy to criticize, and complain. Great there are features to AH that you are not happy with, can you suggest some alternatives to these features that you dislike? Better yet, can you suggest alternatives to these features that the vast majority (get that VAST MAJORITY Will like (I.E. More people will get AH Accounts because of the change in features than will quit over the change of features).
It will be an at least tepid day in Hotel Echo Double Toothpicks before you convince me that Otto is superior to Human Gunners. I think there could be changes to the Clipboard map and radar, but I am only one of many, and my idea is different than what you would suggest. Until an idea that the majority of people like comes along, I will remain quiet about the gameplay compromises.
------------------
"Looks Mean as Hell! Clare Lee Chenault.
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/06212.gif)
When?
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
[This message has been edited by Downtown (edited 12-30-2000).]
-
"Sucks" is a pretty substantial word for me. I personally disagree with some things in AH (hence the phrase IMHO) but I will take a stab at the three you have posted.
1. Inflight radar.
IMHO I don't like inflight radar. Unfortunately for me, I don't think that this will change anytime soon. I must say that the time between patch 1 and patch 2, when HTC took down the dot radar (to stop a bug from happening before patch 2 came out) and left only sector bars, was fun.
2. * clipboard map.
I guess I don't know exactly what the grip about it is; do you mean that it is too detailed? Anyways, just as an FYI, I have glarsmaps printed out and right next to me when flying. I know the layout of each base, and where I need to drop my bombs. I guess I don't know what the gripe is, so I can't really reply intelligently.
3. Super bomber fire control system.
I don't like otto. I didn't like it in WB and I didn;t like it in FA. I like mannable guns much better; as much human interaction as possible. It sounds like your beef is with the linked fire, so only one gun shooting will link to any other gun pointing at the enemy. Since we only have one human gunner on board, I like that, because it simulates multiple players firing on a target. What I don't like about it is, you can never shoot at more than one enemy at a time. However, I'd rather have multiple human gunners than have otto. I don't think we'll be seeing either of those soon. As far as field ack goes, it is AI because you probably would have a hard time getting players to man acks. I believe AI ack is an evil we have to live with -- for now. HTC has now given us the opportunity to become a "Field Gunner", for now, only on ships, but I will bet that in future releases, this will extend to manning guns on a field. At that point, we could probably have a discussion about whether AI field guns should remain AI or become all-human. You'd still have to find the players to man them; I'll bet you could find some soon enough (I'd be willing to do it sometimes; I'm having a blast with the cv guns right now).
Fury
-
I forgot to add, about otto: I would much rather empty my own guns on my bomber, than have some otto empty my guns taking crappy shots. I'll take a butthead human over a god-like otto any day -- I can't recall any sim that is happy with the performance of otto gunners.
Fury
-
I think most who replied missed the one big question that comes to mind and that it why the fediddle does anyone care what Lizking aka "Gadly" thinks about AH?
-Westy
-
Ok, here's the real question: What is the MA really set up for? Realism, I think not. The MA is a place to hone your skills in all kinds of AC and have a place where you learn at the expense of realism. It's an interactive arena where all AHers mingle. It's not meant to be anything near "real".
HT,Pyro, what are the goals of the MA? What is your thought processes regarding the MA?
What should AHers be taking away from the MA experience?
I have a feeling that the scenarios are more like real life as all the tweaks can be used to set up an arena in a more realistic fashion.
-
He asks questions, True he does so from a confrontational stance, but We should try to answer the man, you know, resolve the issues.
As for the "beating your hairy chest,who the hell are you to be arguing with us Gawds of simdom" (tm)
Who, exactly, the hell are you?
(go ahead, impress me)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
actually, in flight dot dar doesnt do anything for me, i just use the bar counter
to know where the enemy is. i could care
less about dot dar.
people who thing inflight Dar is bad, need to get a life. more important thing to worry about in the sim then Dar coverage.
whels
Originally posted by funked:
#1 is a huge issue. SA in AH involves reading the in-flight radar to find local numerical advantages. That's got absolutely nothing to do with WW2 air combat.
Inflight radar should be disabled. The sector bars are quite sufficient to "find the fight".
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
and by the way Radar was used by all sides
in WW2, England used it to see incoming raids on england, alt,, direction, and heading was gathered. US had Dar at Pearl Harbor and saw the incoming cons were b17s
from the US mainland. heck there was even chaff to fool radar in WW2.
Whels
Originally posted by Gadfly:
The nods to gameplay that I mention versus the nods to gameplay that I don't, are somewhat optional, or at least optimal for our tech level.
Icons-Tech level, not much can be done here.
Laser Norden-I have done the math, and there is no better way to do it at this point.
GPS map- VFR and DR is not possible with the current tech level.
Engine management-Why simulate the boring, repetitive, and annoying parts of flying, like random mechanical failures and bad weather?
-
my ideas on Dar for arena.
if ur in the tower u get all dar coverage at 1 time in ur land.
in flights u only get dar info from bases close to u IE 2 secotors from current position.
friendly dots n counters everywhere.
enemy counters/dots only within 1 to 2 sectors of a friendly base.
kill main dar, Dar info update SLOW like every 5 mins instead of continuously.
why no dar at all, cause command would still
be getting enemy movement info from ground
watchers but alot slower.
kill a base Dar u create a hole in the defence dar net.
If ur under 200 feet no dot dar,
under 75 feet no dot or counter dar.
just a few ideas
Whels
Originally posted by SKurj:
I'll bite.... but only on the radar issue..
I think sector markers need to be rethought now with 1.05
Finding a fleet now is easy, see the sector bar increase as planes takeoff, you know what sector the fleet is in, and from there its real easy to find. (i just learned that u can find any fleet in the maproom...) I think that sector markers should not be available if outside friendly territory or friendly influenced territory(friendly CV) dots... sure they should be as they are now for gameplay sake.
Remember we are talking the MA now, the DAR becomes a non issue for scenario's. Perhaps once the player base has grown HTC can try some test arenas with no dar, and the illeet stuff, but I think we would see a small yet dedicated group in the no con environment, yet a big happy whiney furball in the MA..
AKskurj
-
Nice "hook" i bit. Valid points all around (more or less) but i think the one thing that is being ignored here is that this is a GAME!!!! sorry but it's true. And this being the case, it was made to make MONEY . I totally agree with less acurate radar, more compass and clock flying etc. BUT...that is only because i, like some others, have being playing for quite some time and could prolly get from field to field on instruments alone.
This is a far cry from my first days playing aces high. I, like every single one of you, had enough time getting off the ground, remembering keystrokes, learning the different views and the list goes on...
I guarantee many of us would not be here if we had to fly around blind with a black and white map taped to our desks and no radar when we first started playing aces high. We would have been so frustrated and disouraged we would have packed her in.
So i think htc may have to sacrifice realism and other issues (such as maps and radar) that so bother us more "veteran" players for ease of gameplay and "what's that????" FUN for all, from first day newbie to beta tour pilots. After all htc needs all the gamers they can get, not just a handful of "aces" who have themselves convinced that they could fly the real thing. (sans radar and "lovely clipboard" of course.)
Otto is dumb, i wouldnt fly buffs if i didnt get to gun my own plane.
Loser
------------------
-
Lizking,
I'm with ya in spirit, but AW, WB, FA and AH all use radar's magic maps in the main arena. That's not your favorite type of arena, ya sound more like a scenario guy. The main is for the masses though, and they don't want to hunt for a fight. If HTC dropped 'dar, the players would get bored and leave in hordes imo.
AH's gunner gameplay is vastly superior to WB's experiment with otto. Buffs and fighters both have a chance to win, it's up to the players and thier aim. If HTC adds multiple buff gunners it will be perfect, and angry otto threads will still be brewing in AGW.
It's all about the gameplay really. Fantasy arenas need to be loose, quick and fun. You and I would enjoy a revolving scenario with no magic map, wind, axis vs allies terrain and equipment. We've got the tools now. I'm sure some CM's are cooking as we speak. Midway Baby! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Cya up...Braz
-
While the MA was down last night, a few of us wandered into the North Africa terrain to fly the time away. We all had the same thought ... "hey, bag the MA, wouldn't it be cool to have carriers and stuff in here!"
I personally think an MA composed of historical theaters, changed on a bi-weekly basis, is an idea whose time has come.
-
westy has a point.. I didn't care what liz thought when I was watching him try to screw up WB's.
lazs
-
How about we discuss the posts and not the posters? I.e. issues instead of personal attacks.
-
Sorry, I couldn't reply all day, I had inventory. That REALLY sucks.
Downtown-Actually, the sector counters are a good idea, but combined with pinpoint radar they remove too many fun aspects from the game.
My problem with the clipboard map is that it is not detailed enough, it can not be zoomed to a usable resolution and it must be re-zoomed every time you close the clipboard.
I use a timer and plotter on paper maps, but I want to be able to query my navigator to find my exact location(ala WB F1 map). This is very important for bombers, but not really for fighters.
Otto can be coded however you want it. It is just as easy to make him miss as it is to make him hit. Note that I don't use otto for protection; it is more of a warning(except when my eye is in the norden, then I want some protection). I man my own guns and I can kill you. That is not the issue.
Fury-why does otto on a plane suck, but not on the ground or a ship? And as stated above, I man my own guns and am good at it. I do not want to lose this option, but I want to be able to concentrate on my primary mission, and let otto warn me.
Westy-I'm still ignoring you.
1776-Honing your skills by using inflight radar is not a good idea. By that same token, the MA should have EZmode flight, etc.
pzvg-I know your question was not directed to me, but I will give you my "creds", if for no other reason than to answer the ignored one:
I have been flying box sims since 1986, and using and programming personal, mini and mainframe computers since 1979. I have only been flying online sims for 2 and a half years, once the cost vs the return met my criteria. Warbirds is my home ground, and I fly with several squadrons, including one that flies only historical missions, usually using paper maps only. I fly almost every SL and every major event, and make as many S3's as my schedule allows. I was invited, and accepted, an offer to join the WB CM staff, which is the single most gratifying experience of my online career. I have designed and run a few small events, that seemed to have be enjoyed by the participants. I have flown AH since day one of the AH beta, just a few sorties per release, and have maintained an account for 6 months of that period, including a current one.
Whels1-Radar was used, but it was not remotely similar to AH radar, nor was it installed in more than a few planes.
Loser111- It is a game, no question, but in that all inclusive genre, there is a small subset called "simulations". Perfect simulation is not possible, or desirable, but that is no excuse for things like inflight radar. There are just as many people, if not more, who will fly without inflight radar as with, I tend to believe.
Brazos- You are right, of course, I hardly fly in the WB MA, BUT AH has this nifty mission planner, see, so I can fly actual, planned missions in the AH MA(if it weren't for the lack of a good map and the impassability of a surprise attack)!
Laz-We disagree on what we want in the game, but I have always respected your opinion, if not your stance. How you view mine is out of my hands.
I would like HTC to clarify the point and direction of this game; it has always been my belief that this company was trying to develop the best, most accurate flight simulation, not a flying game. Again, if that is their intent, I have no issues with that, or anyone that wants that, but I do not.
-
My problem with the clipboard map is that it is not detailed enough, it can not be zoomed to a usable resolution and it must be re-zoomed every time you close the clipboard.
You need to right click on the + and -,it will stay at that zoom until you change it or exit the game.
-
thx for the reply gadfly, but my main point is that not everyone rules as much as you (no offense intended) and needs help,(eg newbies, lots of newbies) otherwise they would lose hope and interest and bugger off, money out of htc's pocket.. and we all know that would only hurt us all.
------------------
-
I thought I had tried that, Jihad. Thanks for the tip, I'll do it from now on.
Loser111, if you mean to say that I rule in the game, you are mistaken. I suck, even though I try hard, but I do pass a good time, and that is why we do it, right?
As for newbies, I think they adapt to whatever the conditions are. It only becomes a problem when you change them. This I why I do not like any assist for newbs in any arena, although they are fine for offline and hth. The simple act of logging into an arena with hundreds of other people should mean something.
Most persons will not be deterred by getting spanked; they will work at it until they can at least live, if not inflict some pain themselves. Some do it from the safety of offline and hth, others suck it up and take their licks in the Big Show.
I guess what I am saying is that the MAIN ARENA should be the premier showcase of the game and the talent, not the bunny slope.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
Take it as a given that I am a dick, and refute what I claim.
OK, Done
Eagler
-
What is the difference between my "opinion" and my "stance" liz? I have no problem with you creating any type of scenario you like. I am sure that there is a large and grateful group out there. Where we but heads (sorry ram) is... When you try to make the MA into the same anal retentive, boring mess that I consider the "historical" or "realistic" scenarios.
There should be a place for fun. A place where people can jump in for an hour or two and just have fun. This place should have the most accurate FM's and gunnery that match other arenas but it should be easy to get into action and the planeset should be balanced, varied and fair. We both want the accurate FM's but we part ways on the balance , varied and action part.
lazs
-
The diffrence, Laz, is that your opinion is worth reading and consideration, even though I do not agree with some of your conclusions.
Why would any of the things above hurt instant action fun flyers? The things above DO limit serious flyers(serious in desire, not ability).
-
The way it would hurt is this. If you get rid of inflight radar on such a large map you reduce the action because ther is no way of knowing where the action IS... conversly, you do not limit or turn the arena into "the bunny slope" by having in flight radar. it is of no use in the actual fight. ACM is not affected. It is simply a tool to get into action.
I believe that most newbies do not want to hunt around for a fight for the few hours that they have on line. I know for a fact that some of the best players in the game log when the action lags. They still kill most everything they see, they just get bored when they don't see anything.
The MA should be the place to hone skill by getting into fights. That same skill will transfer into a radarless "scenario". There is nothing "bunny slope" about it. Patience being highlighted as a skill is "bunny slope" IMO not the other way around.
lazs
-
Laz, I knew you were going to say that, so I went and got the stats from my 2 hours of flying last night. I also got the stats for 3 other guys flying, that were there for about as long or less. To me, this shows what can be done. Here are the conditions:
4-12 persons in the arena, 6-8 mostly. No inflight radar, 30 mile tower radar, and low icons(HA) This was in the New Guinea terrain, and you know how big that sucker is. There was no shortage of killing going on, and my time to target flying bombers was only 15-20 minutes climbing to 15,000+ alt, 10 minutes or less NOE. Here are the stats:
I flew 1 Fighter sortie-had to bail after losing my tail feathers.
8 bomber sorties(7 in the Betty), 1 ata kill, killed twice.
Pilot A, helping me kill fields in a heavy fighter did:
17 sorties for 4 ata kill, dying 8 times in the process.
Pilot B did 15 sorties for 4 ata kills and landed six sorties.
Pilot C flew 12 sorties for 5 kills and was killed 4 times.
I doubt any of those guys would complain about a boring 2 hours.
The radar is there, you have to take 10 seconds to look at it before you launch, and do some GCI work when you die(just to be polite). That is with small numbers. For large numbers you just fly towards the closest enemy base and you have a fight, radar or not.
-
Your argument is fundamentally flawed Gadfly. Sure you didn't use radar to get where you were going. But did the enemy use it to find you to make the game less boring?
I'm willing to bet they did. You see... cons aproaching a base attract attention. The radar showed cons.. people went up to meet them.
Radar made the game fun for you last night.. and you didn't even know why.
AKDejaVu
-
Uh, AKdejavu, I used the radar, just like they did: On the ground, and with their countrymen helping them when they died. I am not against radar, at all, just inflight, pinpoint AWACS radar.
-
Errm.. wait...
were you in the MA when you did this?
If it was in a separate server.. then lets look at what's wrong with the comparison:
1. Everyone agreed to the terms coming in.
2. There were a limited number of people somewhat concentrating the fight.
3. The arena was set up to prove a point.
I have had fun just flying H2H in an FFA arena for hours. doesn't mean I would rather see everyone launch from the same base in the MA and just furball.
Many things that make sense on a smaller (dare I say SCENARIO) scale, won't work well in the MA.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 12-31-2000).]
-
It was in the Historical Arena, nothing special, regular settings, people come and go, newbies and vets alike.
The point was that you can easily find a fight without inflight radar, no matter the numbers flying. I used the Historical Arena to illustrate THAT. The same thing seems to work in the Main Arena, too; there is no inflight in there, with 30-200 flying around.
Actually, my post above means nothing to you, nor was it supposed to. I was talking to Laz, who does understand the conditions of the example.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
By that same token, the MA should have EZmode flight, etc.
For the love of god, I hope no one else seriously believes this.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 12-31-2000).]
-
It gets used ,no doubt about that! Radar in WB's is a team effort, the GCI guides you into visual range for the intercept. Guiding someone to a prefect intercept is pretty sweet. You dont/wont get the full picture as a pilot only the little section your involved with. Fog of War and all that, Ya know (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). We do have inflight arrows to help with 'Pilots intuition' (points to largest concentration of nme. No range info. Doesnt update in realtime, every 5 min?)but sometimes its more frustrating than anything.
BTW: Some people do fly extended patrols in the HA. The hunt is the Icecream, the kill is just the cherry to top it off.
-
Yeah Chisel, but over here the the sector bars make for a much better "arrow" than the F1 arrow.
As for the hunt in the HA, well, every time I launch it is my plan to do my work and land.
LJK Raubvogel, I would not think anyone here took that seriously.
-
I think the + and - change the size of the clipboard. I don't currently have an account so I could be wrong, but I believe Insert and Delete (Home, Page Up, Delete, End and Page Down key area.) will actually zoom the map itself.
------------------
"Looks Mean as Hell! Clare Lee Chenault.
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/06212.gif)
When?
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
[This message has been edited by Downtown (edited 12-31-2000).]
-
liz... apples and oranges. You are talking about an arena that has only two sides and no vehicles. You are talking obvious missions. I have also flown in the MA with funked where there were 30 guys (or more)on and we both seen a total of about 5 guys and got into a total of 2 fights in a couple of hours.
I believe that you have missrepresented everything about the "Hope for Action" arena except.... The fact that even with unlimited free hours.... a couple hundred on line.... you could still not get more than a few diehards to fly in that dog of an arena! Face it.... It only works if diehards make it work and there just aren't many of them.
WB is not AH.... In AH me and squaddies have been bored an logged off after an hour or so even with in flight radar and over 100 on because we could not find a fight that was worth having. I think that the more we encourage "realistic" flying the worse it gets. It's like the old days when they had the porked 1.03 FM and everyone postured and jokeyed for position till they could take a risk free shot because the FM was too limited for evasives. Now, they do it to preserve (or gain) precious "perk points" which will allow them to attack with an unfair advqantage even easier.
It's quite simple really... The more that patience becomes a skill the less a lot of people enjoy the game. there needs to be some place for those who just want to have fun to go.
I don't get it really... It would seem that WB is now everything you could have wanted... "historical" sides with an unbalanced RPS to simulate the "ebb and flow" of war.... Plenty of people on... same ol axis vs allied fights over and over... Why would you even consider AH which is everything that you despised in the old WB? I left WB when it became what you wanted and never looked back.
lazs
-
As usual, you have some good points, and I will agree that we disagree on this one.
I haven't "come" to AH anymore than I have left WB. I play other games too, how shocking!
The WWII arena is not my idea, nor have I ever flown there more than a coulpe of sorties in a TOD. AH has features that could allow my type flying in the main, in ways that WB can not. The mission planner begs for use, yet it a powerful tool in any arena. The items in my original post make MY style of flying useless in the only areana that would count, the AH MA.
Please don't posture my style of flying as "realistic", think of it as goal oriented, planned flight.
-
Very well liz. But "posturing" is much like "stance eh? The inevitable for "goal oriented" is.... What? "Realistic missions". I believe that you want an Allied vs axis planeset. Am I wrong? I believe you want short icons and short radar.
I also believe that there are plenty of people who log on with no other "goal" than to engage in air combat and maybe drop a few bombs. They have neither the time nor the inclination to go on HA or scenario type "missions". The people, even in WB, who like the HA style are few.
I believe that there are scenarios in AH that u could participate in.
lazs
-
You are wrong, Laz. I don't care what the icons are, within reason. I don't care about the strength of the radar, as long as it isn't total and inflight.
I do prefer historical plane matchups, because I think(Hell, I know) that these planes were designed to defeat specific enemy airplanes and perform a discrete suite of mission types.
It seems logical to me that to get the most from the airframe, you should use the plane in the role that it was designed for against it's primary adversary. This does not include tactics; that is what the game is all about.
The thing is, if we make it where I can do my Thang, you can still do yours, but as it is now, I can't.
Note to the innocent bystanders: Please do not take this out of the context of Laz and I having a conversation, and do not apply it to any situations real or imagined.
Lizking
-
Nope... it's an either or thing and you know it.... I left WB when it went allied vs axis. The plane choice, variety of fights, and balance are all removed with the silly axis vs allied thing not to mention.... Animosity runs even higher. Look at WB... What a joke! Lopsided unfun "historical" matchups that become so predictable in such a short time (how many 109/190 fights can anyone stand)that... Even the least imaginative and brain ded become bored.
I read the book... I know how it came out. I don't know how a spit vs Hellcat came out.... I don't know how 2 Spits vs one hellcat and a 109f came out. I don't know how... Well you get the point eh?
lazs
-
Lizking, there are scenarios run on a weekly schedule where icons/radar is reduced, or non-existant. It's here, you're just not seeing it. Main if for fun. Scenarios are for realistic combat.
-
Ah well, I guess I can only fall back on my hook and say that AH sucks.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
Ah well, I guess I can only fall back on my hook and say that AH sucks.
To each his own, there's 200+ online every night in the arena (and growing) that disagree. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
"Ah well, I guess I can only fall back on my hook and say that AH sucks."
Nah. You can always just plain leave and go back to the WB's WWIIA .
-Westy
-
Yep... you can allways go back to WB WWII arena with it's 130 vs 30... or 30 vs 130 but...
Let's just take AH right now.... "Historical"? Ok, in AH, that would make the CV battles Hellcat, Corsair (C&D) plus Spit against.... Zeke. Right Now, Everyone seems to be enjoying the carrier battles. How many would enjoy your "historical" match up? How many are willing to give up variety and fun for the sake of recreating the same ol fight (or no fight at all) over and over? Anyone who thinks it's a good idea should visit the WB (argos) board and read the posts or... just get an account and fly a tour. See how "fun" the lopsided, "ebb and flow" of a historical planeset and RPS is. See how much you enjoy fighting in and against the same planes with the same moves over and over is no matter how "historical".
No liz... You can fly in scenarios and HA's and such but once you destroy the main arena.... it's gone.
The views, FMs and gunnery were all bad news in WB but the idiotic WWII arena was the last straw for me and most of my squaddies.
lazs
-
Poor old liz and 2.76 friends.
Gawd my heart goes out to those guys. WNot long ago WBs was the cream of the cream but time changes everything. Its not fair but oh well....such is life.
Yeager
LMAO hehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
yep yeager, WB is going down the toilet under the gentle ministries of liz and his ilk. No one knows why it isn't fun anymore. They have dropped the price to bargin basement but can't even fix the double ammo load of the 109F.... The views.... Well, LOL! the gunnery is a joke. No one will admit that the WWII arena is booooooring! Now, liz comes over here with suggestions on how to "fix" AH!
The list of things I wanted in WB were.... 100% leathiality (and damage model), realistic view system, fair and balanced planeset without the silly and boring limitations of "axis vs Allied", gun camera film and steerable CV's .. All of these suggestions were considered A, impossible B, undesirable, C, "unrealistic D, not needed.
AH has done em all with a "no sweat" attitude.
Even the most brain ded players in WB are getting bored with the same ol fights that the limitations of axis vs allied causes.... But, being brain ded, They just haven't figured out why yet. They are like commies... They know communism will work they just think no one has done it "right" yet.
No liz, if AH (ma)sucks it is in the areas that it is closest to WB. The farther it get's away from WB and "historical realism" the better it get's.
lazs
-
well I for one do not think AH sucks! the payment plan sucks! IAm just about to dump it based on the price and jump over to warbirds or Air warrior. there not as good but the do have lower price tags.
I think the map sucks and has way to little detail. another problem is the map is Miles and and the speadometer is in MPH everything else in game uses kilometers. there needs to be a simple standered use for measure either english or metric all the way around but not both. personally planes should use kIAS (knots indicated air speed).
I think radar is plus there where radar equipt planes in WWII (night fighters and bombers mostly). The idea for AWACs came from the night fighters (Buch O'Hare died in one of these combat experiments). personally however I think there should be more thought put into Radar, Communications, (Who sees what radar) and thier relationship. Mabey even a seprate radio button to TUNE for radar per base (CH 1 gives you base 1 DAR). It would also give you a new resorce to bomb (comunications and MI with the already implimented Radar). Cutting off an entire contries radar in a single raid is to Air Warriorish and one of the dumber ideas stole from Air warrior.
the bomber situiation is the most realistic solution that can be offered. the idea of an ungunned buff is like a PT boat on land Or a Dogfighting panzer. typically a group of fighters and AAA had to coridinate to take a buff down. the 88s modeled in AH however should be at almost all bases (all air fields, resorce centers and some Vehicle bases). they should be more effective at hitting Buffs (specially lone bombers) and less effective at hitt smaller aircraft. I think bases should be harder to capture and eisier to reinforce. (to capture a base the barrecks should be taken out as well as aaa.) c47 should be able to move troops and supplies to a friendly base to bring AAA back up and speed up repair.
Alot of people want AH to be either Air warrior or Warbirds Ide rather it be it's own game. I want the planes better modeled (f4u is a 400+mph air craft, the N1k2 has more torque and was also a 400+mph air craft)closer to historic truth. I want to feel like I was thier not play a POP game. I think AH is for the hardcore Sim fan not the quake and battlenet dweebs that like arcade action.
------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"
-
Under your terms, Lz, you are right. AH is a silly little game, not a simulation. Warbirds at least carries on the tradition of being the most accurate simulation on the net. I had hopes that HTC would attempt the same, but it appears that they(and the masses) want mindless games instead. No worries on this end, I still have a blast in the HA, SL's and events over in WB, But the potential of AH is being wasted in the pursuit of Dudez. When they gonna activate the powerups?
-
Liz, again, join one of our Check 6, Snap shots, or T.O.D events. Our Main arena is the same as WB's, mindless furballs...OTOH, the events is what makes the sim alot of fun.
-
The 40 minutes I spent in the WW2 arena were essentially the same as the thousand plus hours I spent in WBS MAs. Compared to AH there simply is no comparrison.
The only thing WBs has over AH is being $5 cheaper. WBsIII would obviously challenge this current reality but I am beginning to think that most of those currently in WBs would probably hate WBs3 (or dont have 3D cards LMAO) and stay in the 2.76 arenas anyway so its like why try to reason with these people anyway? They are like an old record on perpeptual skip......
on perpeptual skip......
on perpeptual skip......
on perpeptual skip......
on perpeptual skip......
on perpeptual skip......
LMAO!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
What do you mean not a simulation? FM's, gunnery, views, leathiality, Ac systems are ALL "simulated" ten times better than in WB... The only thing not "simulated" is the dubious feature of Allied vs axis. A feature that is impossible to simulate in a realistic manner and would be a boor if it could be. No.... The planes (and related) are all "simulated" very well right now and getting even better while in WB.... The simulation aspect get's worse when it doesn't simply stay bad while the axis vs allies is such a comprimise that it doesn't even simulate anything about WWII combat anyway... WB has managed to create a lose/lose situation.
But, as rip has said (twice now).... In AH you can have Historical matchups if you like if you simply fly in those arenas.
lazs
-
" When they gonna activate the powerups?"
If they'd only model the WB's 109-F you'd be all set!
Then again, power ups might be more up WB's ally. Just look at the huge honking bullet radiii they get! And HIT bubbles too! That's kind alike AW, no? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://www.eztargets.com/images/hitmap.jpg)
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 01-03-2001).]
-
Gadfly,
I'm not sure I see your problem. Wanna give you idea a try? Request the use of the SEA some Sat afternoon. The CM staff will assist you in setting up what ever map and arena configurations you want. Give it a run and see how many people tune in. If the response is overwhelming HTC might be more willing to consider a permanent arena. Don't whine about it, put your idea to the test.
Regards,
Wab
-
(response in ()
Originally posted by Gadfly:
First let me say that it doesn't HAVE to suck, there are many very good things about it, some of them revolutionary. I also post this not because I do not like AH, but because I DO like it, and want to be able have fun in the skies of HTC. You can argue with the importance of my points, but you can not argue with my logic.
( actuallly I can becuase your logic would require players to either sit and monitor bases callign off boggies to late or require me to have a pentuim XI 9ghz machine with 256gb of mem and a 200mbps and HTC to have a $1,000,000.00 per hour programmer to make it all work, HTC has to keep the game playable for most players and have to keep the game within there own limitations. the only other option is to keep towards the trend of ripping air warrior off and never progressing the genre of mass multiplayer online WWII flight simms. I personally lean towards gameplay with accurate FLight models this keeps me out of CFS2, Air Warrior MV, Warbirds, and fighter ace. IF anything you seem to want AH to become warbirds and to me warbirds sucks in compairison. First game Air warrior witch lead to warbirds wich lead to AH time for Aces high to break new ground and do things right not keep basing the game off of another I know where HiTech and Pyro game from and this game is difrent even it's flight models are better but still need improving. People wll cry about uber planes and bombers and AAA and it's all based on opinion the only solution is spawn all players at 15k in the same plane and that would perty much put us in the same seat as a CFS2 player.)
What makes AH suck:
1. Inflight radar.
(I think it should be more complex see my above post)
2. toejamty clipboard map.
(needs to show more detail mabey even be bigger with a lower scale ratio such as 1 inch grid = 10k rather then 25 miles)
3. Super bomber fire control system.
(1 on 1 bomber vs a fighter a bomber should win and few people like to gun in the game. the option to this is to either have computer controlled guns like warbirds, gunner only like older Air warrior versions or just like AH has it, perosonally I like the AH's take on gunners)
There are other things I do not like, but they are personal preferences, whereas these are things that make this a game, not a simulation.
Here is my argument for the things above:
1. The best rebuttal of this that I have heard is that it simulates the rudimentary radar, sound and observer stations of the period. I say that the perfect transmittal medium of the radio buffer simulates those things; inflight radar has no basis in real life before AWACs took flight.
(I for one do not want to runn around the areana calling off boggies. see my above post. all Radar does is give you position in history you would here the call for Alt location Bearing and Type such as bobmer or fighter or small or large contact type this is way to hard to do in game)
2. In bombers, there is a person that does exactly what the (WB) F1 maps does. In fighters there are railroads, roads and identifiable features that allow a pilot to, more or less, pinpoint his position. The strip map he carries on his knee bears no resemblance to our clipboard map.
(Play Warbirds then I for one don't want Aces high to be warbirds or Air warrior there have been alot of good ideas stolen from air warior and there have been some stupid ideas stolen from air warrior as well I like the knee map I think ti should have more detail and have a position in the buff to show even more detail)
3. The idea is that we SIMULATE WWII air combat. The theory that AH's B-29 fire control simulates this better than a computer controlled otto is simply silly. I know, I know, airborne AI killing you sucks, but, well, how come it is OK for the field acks? Same damn thing, if you ask me, and not on point in either case. We accept many things in the name of immersion and this is one of those things that we simply have to accept: An AI otto simulates discrete gunners better than one guy aiming all of the weapons(at least till we get the B-29).
(again Play Warbirds I hated the warbirds AI and I hated Air warriors gunner only method. realistically a lone fighter doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell against a medium or heavy buff. Bombers rarely took off without a full crew load AH gives you the best of both worlds. the B29 methods has a disadvantage as well namely it waste alot of ammo decreases accuracy for the other gunns and blows ammo in guns that can't possible hit the target not to metion you still have to have good gunnry skills)
In closing, please DO consider this a whine, but not a slam. I want to fly in AH, as well as drive the PT boat, but I also demand a little more simulation than it offers right now.
(I think it does the best job yet and would rather them put the effort into more accurate
plane models. Like put the torque into the n1k2 and the speed into the f4u that they really had. the f4u feels really slow and its acceleration seems to suck at times If anything I want accurately modeled aircraft and thats my opinion. But over all in reality AH has improved and will most likely continue to improve. It may even someday get ridd of the stupid 3 way war from Air warrior. either by going 2 way or 5 way war.)
Lizking
(Mayhem)
------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
Under your terms, Lz, you are right. AH is a silly little game, not a simulation. Warbirds at least carries on the tradition of being the most accurate simulation on the net. I had hopes that HTC would attempt the same, but it appears that they(and the masses) want mindless games instead. No worries on this end, I still have a blast in the HA, SL's and events over in WB, But the potential of AH is being wasted in the pursuit of Dudez. When they gonna activate the powerups?
warbirds sucks dog doo just like Air warrior the game it ripps off!
I started with Air warrior moved to Warbirds for the flight models and eventualy moved to Aces High Ive seen what else is out there and it sucks. people come from warbirds with there stupid elitist attitude. the only thing hard core and elietest about warbirds was it's stupid price. All they did was make the carriers move, couple the controls, and put in a more realistic flight model. the planes still used the same stupid compairisons as Air warrior and hell the even used the same stupid maps as Air warrior did for awhile. Realistically Warbirds was a good game better then Air warrior, in the same light AH is better then warbirds and Air Warrior. If You want Warbirds goto waribirds there cheaper now then Aces High and WBIII looks like It can be the chit!. But please don't try to make AH WBs or AW. Next thing you know you're going to want a relaxed reality areana to!
Mayhem 33rd SG
[This message has been edited by Mayhem (edited 01-03-2001).]
-
Lizking, I'll be glad to render my services for showing you how to defeat a B17 anytime. I rarely get shot down by the so called Super Lazer guns...it is a training issue with you apparently.
The B17 guns have been beaten to death, most who fly and fight them correctly don't post discrepancies about them here, since they've learned how to correctly kill them.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 01-03-2001).]
-
Gentlemen(and Laz)-I did not begin this to argue relative points of various games. I purposely avoided comparisons as long as I could. I wanted to discuss these aspects of Aces High, not debate relative merits.
This has gone beyond discussing the three points I raised, and why they should be implemented. I take full responsability for the degeneration, and end it here, but I will answer the questions raised, to the best of my ability.
Rip-Killing bombers isn't a problem, hell, I only FLY bombers.
Laz-Why is it okay for you to be able to fly all the time, but my "ilk" are forced to fly 1-3 times a week at specific times? 30 seconds more for you equals 4-5 DAYS a week I can't fly.
Westy-You are so wrong in so many ways that I will break my ignoration of you only long enough to say: <S>! For being consistant.
Also, HTC deserves a big salute for creating this great fun thing that is enjoyed by so many.
Me, I'll keep my account here and, well, fly WB SL's, Scenarios and events, with hope eternal.
-
I know where your buttons are Lizk__, er Gadly. that's all I'm interested in pushing when you (or MG or Cabby or Stiglr..) come trolling in my playground with your tripe.
You too, remain consistant. <S> back at ya.
-Westy
-
Never read so much BS in my life. It would take an hour just to respond to it all.
And good old Lazs, I see you haven`t changed a bit.
When will you ever see that what YOU find fun is not fun for everyone?
You make it very clear you like all planes VS all planes ALL the time. I would find that boring.
I like early war, mid war, late war, phased in with "somewhat" historical match ups throughout. You find that boring.
If we all liked the same thing it would be a boring world wouldn`t it?
But who I REALLY feel sorry for is some AH members reading all this BS that don`t have a clue about what the REAL facts are.
BTW, nice picture Westy, to bad you forgot the rest of the thread to go with it that actually HAD some information. Teaching the new guys well I see he he.
Iv`e been waiting a long time for one of those to pop up on this board. Good threads on FM, damage M, and balistics are all too common on AGW, but sadly rare around here.
Enjoy your party.
------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
www.352ndFighterGroup.com (http://www.352ndFighterGroup.com)
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney
-
Otto Gunners in bombers???? Just what we need, a death star arGHH!! The lethality of the gunners in the bombers imho is already way to high.
-
I thought I'd seen everything on these boards, until .....
What do you mean not a simulation? FM's, gunnery, views, leathiality, Ac systems are ALL "simulated" ten times better than in WB...
Hmm.. game-v-simulation yet again.
OK guys, are the 'pilots' simulated? G-tolerances, strength, distance estimation?
I suppose you could say the FM's are simulated, except I think anyone would admit that we can fly the planes in AH in manners impossible for real pilots. The guns are simulated too, even though we can regularly hit with shots that the very best WW2 pilots would have found practically impossible. And please no more hoary old argument that we have more flight time than WW2 pilots. If THAT made any sense, then the 'high-time' Real Life pilots would have scored the most kills.
The lethality is simulated? Do you really think so? No partial damage to aircraft pieces... its either there or its gone entirely. No drag or flight control problems if you have a couple of 20mm hits in the back of your Corsair. No oxygen bottles to blow up, no instruments to damage, no engine controls to run away, no radio failures... hell we can even send radio messages in our CHUTES!!!
How about the views? In AH we can see directly behind us, as though our virtual pilot can do a 'Linda Blair' and swivel his head through 180 degrees. He can even stick his head apparently outside the canopy for certain views.
Guys, its a 'game'. It's a good game, but its still only a game. It is as realistic as WB, or AW, or Fighter Ace, or any of its genre. The planes in AH look somewhat like their real-life counterparts, and that is where the 'simulation' ends.
-
Just call it selective use (or omission) of facts Skybax. I'm quite able to participate in the game you, Lizking and MG have been playing already for quite some time now.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 01-04-2001).]
-
Sky-box,
In all honesty WBs is ok for an old game.
Especially for all those vagrant Mac users and PC folks that never could buy a 3D card.
Dont be so hard on yourself.
====
AcesHigh positively kicks bellybutton on WBs....
When your ready to make the leap to quality, you know where to come (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yeager
-
Originally posted by sky_bax:
You make it very clear you like all planes VS all planes ALL the time. I would find that boring.
Then you very well may like AH, it has Plane vs Plane, vs, Tank, vs PT boats, and visa versa, have you tried it recently, Skybax?
I like early war, mid war, late war, phased in with "somewhat" historical match ups throughout. You find that boring.
[/b]
We're getting there with the A/C, all the cards are in place, this spring you'll see AH getting filled out with more and more A/C.Keep in mind when Warbirds was 1 year and 3 months old, they had about 1/2 the planes we have so far...beginning from beta thru V.95. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But, I don't suppose you were around Warbirds back then....
We have historical match ups, see the "Check Six" events, "Snap Shots" and "Tour of Duty" events run weekly.
But who I REALLY feel sorry for is some AH members reading all this BS that don`t have a clue about what the REAL facts are.
[/b]
Oh, and just what ARE the real facts Skybax? Would you like to log on and tell the consistent 200+ users online every night what the facts are? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Iv`e been waiting a long time for one of those to pop up on this board. Good threads on FM, damage M, and balistics are all too common on AGW, but sadly rare around here.
[/b]
Skybax, wipe your mouth after you spew, you're making yourself look like an idiot, I highly doubt you are one. Do alittle thread research before you spew. There are alot of threads on the above you mentioned, most in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum.
Enjoy your party.
[/b]
We are, and we will!
------------------
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/ripanim.gif)
~Death Rattlers~
Member of 'MAG-33' (Click here) (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/M3.html)
Click here for VMF-323 Death Rattlers info (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/vmf323inquirer.html)
Click here for interviews with other Aces High Squadrons (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/SPOTLIGHT1.html)
If you cannot do something well,
learn to enjoy doing it poorly!
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 01-04-2001).]
-
sky... What are you talkintg about? I don't want "all planes vs all planes all the time" as u say. Read any of my posts. I want balanced plane sets. I love early war and mid war and even on occassion, late war. I have propossed a way to have all of them in the same arena and it does not have early fighting late or mid war planes. Allied vs axis is the thing i find silly and limiting. right now, AH is fine because it is balanced mid war set.
jekyl... I did not say that AH was a great simulation. Read what I said. I said it was ten times better than WB as a simulation. This, in response to lizzies statement that WB was the best SIMULATION.. I think the FM's are ten times better than WB and certainly the views are 10 times better simulated. I can't think of one view that you couldn't get from inside the real plane. None that I can see are from "outside the cockpit".
lizzie. a little more honesty would have helped your cause. You are the one who diverted from the three original, seemingly inocent, points and got to your real agenda. I really don't get your point tho... Are you saying that unless the game is axis vs allied and the fights involve only planes that historically met each other in actuall air to air combat.... The sim is worthless to you? What about finger fours and such? If you don't fly in em then your sortie is worthless no? Why don't you just pick your targets/fights? Why and endless scripted WWII scenario for the rest of us so that you can pretend to be a WWII fighter pilot.
It is a game guys. It is also a simulation of WWII planes. the two are not mutually exclusive.
lazs
-
"lizzie. a little more honesty would have helped your cause. You are the one who diverted from the three original, seemingly inocent, points and got to your real agenda. I really don't get your point tho... Are you saying that unless the game is axis vs allied and the fights involve only planes that historically met each other in actuall air to air combat" - Laz
Sorry Laz, re-read the posts. You brought this stuff up, not me, and all I said was that I like it, not that I recommend it for AH(or WB for that matter, you and Westy are grouping me with persons of your choosing, not ones that I would consider congruent).
If you guys want to converse on the topic, I would love to, but if you want to compare games, berate or malign people, then let's just not.
-
I look up at the title of your topic, then further down below and I simply group you in with those I think you fit in best with.
-Westy
-
WHY GADFLY SUCKS....
Jeeze - more girly panties-in-a-bunch whining.
Gadfly - great title. Just how much trouble were you trying to stir up with it? Or, more accurately, how much attention were you trying to get for yourself and your ill-considered opinions?
1) Absolutely wrong. There was in-flight radar in WWII. Not anything that looked like the kneeboard map, but there was in-flight radar and there were ground observers and information from ground-based radar such that accurate position (and altitude) information could be relayed to the pilots. We don't get altitude information now.
2) Girly whining. Can't you guys give this some time to mature (or yourselves)?
3) See (2) above.
Damn. Panties in a bunch or wet diapers... Undecided.
------------------
Rape, pillage, then burn...
-
(http://members.home.net/torqs/moon.gif)
-
I am with torque
-
Ok, sticking with your original points and ignoring your agenda. The in flight radar simulates radar vectoring and does the best it can considering the amount of traffic in the arena... the lack of "radar operaters" and radio info... With the real radar and observation posts you also go altitude to some extent too tho. The in flight radar is a comprimise to make the team effort of war fit with the individual effort of a game. If you doubt this is a good thing then make everyone fly in "squadrons", on led missions, consisting of finger fours or, court martial em.... Then kick en out of the game... see how that goes over. It would be the only way to "simulate" WWII combat to any degree.
The bombers guns... Well... don't really care about bombers anyhow but.. If I do ever feel like shooting up a bomber I feel better knowing that the guy flying it and shooting at me is a human player. Otto in WB was as bad an idea as anyone has ever come up with. AH bombers are bad... They are a comprimise in total as are bombers in any sim so far. My opinion is that bombers can't work in an online sim with the resources available. AH does the best job right now.
lazs
-
A scratchy, intermittent voice telling you where fighters may be does not equal AWACS radar.
Surprisingly enough, my objection to B29 fire control is it's effectiveness over otto type systems.
-
Here is a picture of a shipborne radar unit of the era. Mind you, this is a much better unit than was available in the air, or even to most regular radar stations.
Can you look at that display and honestly compare it to the clipboard map? Even with ground stations for reports and a navigator to plot it for you?
"well", you say, "Now you are are spouting Realism!"
And I am, but it is realism of the hardware, kind of like demanding realism of the rear view or the sustained turn rate, NOT how or what you fly.
http://lizking.com/sg1radar.jpg (http://lizking.com/sg1radar.jpg)
-
Gadfly
As a guy that listend to the beeping and wirring of a ground servailance doppler radar, let me tell you that a good operator could get lots of information from that readout. Especialy if he had controlers telling him wich ones were enemy. Not to say they had what we have in AH. But that picture wont show you how much strat SA that the operator developed watching that thing for 4 hours.
-
Pongo-A good operator can pull unbelivable amounts of info from that mess we see. That was not my point though. What they saw is not what we see, is my point, nor was that the equipment mounted in the few aircraft that had any radar.
-
this is getting idiotic... We are not radar operators any more than we are fighter pilots. Good radar/radio operators could vector you to a con or group of cons better than the map does (they would give alt.). good armorors would make sure your guns didn't jam and good crew chiefs made sure your plane ran good and even kicked up the boost a taste (simple adjustment) on your manly Pratt...
Let's just say I got lucky and had good people on my side.
lazs
-
Laz-I defintly buy into the perfect armorers, weather, etc. Our only difference of opinion is what is represented by the clipboard map. Sure a good ground controller under perfect conditions could vector you into an enemy. Could he do it for ALL the enemy at once?
This is why the Clipboard map sucks. It gives every pilot perfect knowledge of what every other pilot is doing. There is no chance of so many aspects of air combat that can not be utilized when all pilots have perfect knowledge.
Maybe a cool idea would be that from the tower you could "lock onto" one target and have HIM in your inflight radar. That would work and be an asset to us all.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
Laz-I defintly buy into the perfect armorers, weather, etc. Our only difference of opinion is what is represented by the clipboard map. Sure a good ground controller under perfect conditions could vector you into an enemy. Could he do it for ALL the enemy at once?
No he could not but the other 75 guys behind him could.
[This message has been edited by Torque (edited 01-06-2001).]
-
Let me rephrase it, then Torque. Could YOU maintain in your head where all of the Enema's where?
-
lizzie... again, apples and oranges. MA and RL... In a "real" combat the planes would be bunched up in groups and you would get that info or... One or two planes would be trying to sneak in for photos or whatever and you would get that info. In the MA, they are scattered all over a relatively small area and flying in semi lone wolf or Ahistorical manners. Bombers are the worst offenders of "realism" with their lone wolf unescorted suicide runs.
You can't, and shouldn't, "fix" the way people fly in the MA to match real life missions and distances so... The current radar is a pretty good comprimise for what we have.
Look at it this way... If you flew realistically in a large group, you would be spotted by the radar/observation guys and intercepted. Once in the fight, everyone would be on visual with little (no)chance of a lone wolf or 6 hitting the furball from their lone wolf patrol over enemy territory.
lazs