Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: JRCrow on July 17, 2004, 07:54:23 PM
-
Ok I am going out on a limb here not sure if I am alone or not.
I have scene many times where one side out numbers another and tactically an easy defense is to take out there fuel. In the new AH We can no longer do that. I do not understand why this option was taken out, though perhaps I missed a conversation about it. I know many fuball pilots are saying they hate the fact that the fuel gets taken out because it makes it more difficult to fly. I say hey this game has alot of strategy in it which makes it very enjoyable. Destroying the fuel works both ways too. However now when a side is outnumbered it is basically helpless against the other side relying upon killing barracks which stops the troops from comming but still allows people to vulch a field for extended periods of time.
Ok that was a little long winded and caotic at best. Simply put however can we bring the fuel targets back? Or something that will have a similar effect. I puts a big hole in the trategy of the game.
All
-
In a word... NO! Send a couple of buffs and take out their fighter hangers, ord and barracks.
-
I'm all for porking fuel. But not through simply killing a few easy to kill fuel tanks.
Maybe something like the old system combined with a strat target....
Fuel refinery starts at 100, and field starts at 125. The fuel available corresponds to whichever is higher. So to even be able to pork fuel at all, the strat target must be bombed. IMO AH needs things like this.
Honestly I still like the idea of changing the war from land grabbing to the bombing of large strat targets. Move the power required to win the war to the bombers, with the fighters there to support them and defend from them.
The real air war was built around the bombers. In AH, the bombers are a sideshow, little more than kamikazi CV killers.
I hate when I finish writing a post and end up nowhere near where I began.
-
just kill the fh's, it's almost as easy as killing the fuel was in AH1,ecspcially (lol somethin not right there !) on a small or med field
-
Crow, the Rooks success on NDIsles proves that ultimately the revised strat system is much more helpful to the defense, rather than to the offense. Numbers, hordes, whatever reasons given, were it in AH1 we'd still have been reset long ago, being stuck in the SE "reset corner" of the Isles.
But currently, while MA is using only NDIsles, we've been reset once something like weeks ago, and we've been spawned to this frickin' corner again, and have been holding out ever since. None of the Bish or Knits ever advanced into the main Island more than one base. A11, A12 or A17, P14 occasionally falls, but the enemy advance is absolutely halted from that point.
Accident or intent I do not know, but the new strat system works in a very clever way now. It is still possible for few dedicated people to halt enemy offense(by killing barracks!), but the fight itself is still going on since the fuels are untouched! Furball action galore, but easier to stop enemy advance at the same time.
-
While I agree killing FHs is a viable option is requires heavy ordinance (Bombers) which are nearly impossible to penetrate a numerically superior force and get them to target. The Fhs also respawn fairly rapidly which makes it a temporary effect. Quite often in bombers by the time you make a second run the hangers you hit on the first one are ready to come up.
I do see that the fields have been rearranged and actually make it easier to take out the hangers now. It still limits your trategic options though.
I think fuel should should be a viable target somehow. Right now it is untouchable, thats not right.
-
To Kwessa:
I did not quite follow you on the defense of the NDIsles, I must have missed the battle somehow. I do agree that killing the Barracks stops or delays the enemy from taking a base however it does nothing to hinder there agression. They just keep comming and can easily control a region until the Barracks come back or sustain long enouph for a longer goon flight.
Strat Targets are a fundamental part of warfare. What would it be like if there were no start targets at all. Much like just another video game with perhaps a better engine.
I think that is one of the things that really sets this system apart from the others. Its nearly a full scope battle field.
I am open minded though and would very much like to here you defensive strategy.
By the way, I have read other postings that complain about the Rooks outnuber the Bish or the Bish outnumber the Knights or whatever. I would like to stay off of that path. I am sure everybody is outnumber or on the short end and one point or another. I feel like it sometimes too, but there are also times when the odds are quite even and enjoyable. Ocassionally we have the upper hand too. I just don't wnat this conversation to go down that road, because that is not my intent. Perhaps I started this the worng way. Sorry
-
I did not quite follow you on the defense of the NDIsles, I must have missed the battle somehow. I do agree that killing the Barracks stops or delays the enemy from taking a base however it does nothing to hinder there agression. They just keep comming and can easily control a region until the Barracks come back or sustain long enouph for a longer goon flight.
Crow, aggression without any potency of capture is void and empty. Control of airspace is meaningless when you have nothing to do with what's under control, and barracks respawn in about two hours or so - which is in most cases more than enough for the tide of battle to change.
In those two hours time a good, trained pilot can go pork troops in at least three bases. If there are three~four of these guys in the area, and they can kill all enemy barracks upto 50 miles behind the "front" - forcing them to fly goons from at least 75 miles away. (except... for some reason, stupidity probably, there are surprisingly small number of people who go hit barracks)
Porking fuels may halt the enemy from upping some types of planes, but it works both ways in that the defenses cannot up fighters to sustain sufficient CAPs for extended length of time. During that time the enemy can always up an organized jabo from 2nd line bases behind the frontline, and insert into our vicinity at altitudes which we cannot reach due to lack of fuel.
Barracks are different, in that destruction of barracks does nothing to hinder defensive capability, while it serious deterrs offensive capability. The barracks buildings have now become a strat object more important than anything else.
If we define "defense" as being able to meet force with equal numbers of force to halt advance then we might be able to agree with your reasoning - but if we define defense simply doing anything necessary to stop enemy advance, then the ability to put more planes in the air does not matter anymore.
Strat Targets are a fundamental part of warfare. What would it be like if there were no start targets at all. Much like just another video game with perhaps a better engine.
I think that is one of the things that really sets this system apart from the others. Its nearly a full scope battle field.
There still are strat targets. The importance of those targets, are even higher than fuels were in AH1 - it's just that nobody wants to understand the new dynamics of tactics and strategy in AH2.
The most important target is the barracks. The second is ammo bunkers, and the third and fourth are VH and radar(but these two are of value when your team is on offense). Of the many strat targets which were available in AH1 only the fuels are missing, the rest work in the same manner but different in priority.
I am open minded though and would very much like to here you defensive strategy.
The defensive strategy is simple: up fighters, avoid radar contact, sneak into enemy field and kill barracks. It's the exact same thing(in the way how it's done) as porking fuels in AH1, except it's easier to do and more effective.
Repeat this, so that every enemy barracks within 50 mile range of the frontline is dead. Then you've got two hours to organize defenses and start pushing back the enemy. Unless the defending side is absolutlely overwhelmed in every field, the defenses can form up, and start fighting back.
The enemy may be able to swarm a certain base and control the area, but they are gonna have to fly a goon from 75 miles away.
Up a very fast fighter as goon hunters, occasionally drop a goon or two and basically there's no way for the enemy to utilize their control of airspace into something useful.
The only was to stop goon hunters is to set up screen/CAPs at every altitude at every base a defender might take off from, for an unknown period of time until the field is captured by a goon which takes more than half hours to arrive.. and at the same time keep the target field vulched and covered.
By the time goons fly 75 miles to reach the base the VHs and acks start popping back up. If the defense puts in at least 75% of numbers of the attackers in the sector, then they can be driven back.
Basically killing the barracks is the equivalent to disrupting enemy logistics. The longer they have to fly troops in, the easier to defend.
I define it as aggressive form of defense, pushing past the front line, and hitting important targets behind the line.
Compared to that, the traditional method of 'defense' by upping same or more number of fighters to meet enemies in the sky and duke it out for supremacy, or, do something to immediately reduce enemy numbers put up in the sky, is inefficient, risky. It's a passive way of defense, waiting for the enemy to show a certain level of strength, and then matching it with our own or trying to cut it down to our size.
-
Agree that strats much more important than before, which hasnt been reflected in position of strat targets. While Rooks were defended home island for days, they also found it near impossible to get off the island -- because city and troop training were in enemy territory and stayed pounded down. Thus every barracks killed took hours upon hours to regenerate.
Strat work and captures take more work than before because of larger towns and fuel preservation. I find it very hard to get enough people on the same page, to accomplish anything at all -- which may be why the furballs seem longer too.
We'll see how things go with the bigger map. If more space for bombers to hide in, may be able to have 2-3 people make strategically signififcant impact
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
While I agree killing FHs is a viable option is requires heavy ordinance (Bombers) which are nearly impossible to penetrate a numerically superior force and get them to target. The Fhs also respawn fairly rapidly which makes it a temporary effect. Quite often in bombers by the time you make a second run the hangers you hit on the first one are ready to come up.
I do see that the fields have been rearranged and actually make it easier to take out the hangers now. It still limits your trategic options though.
I think fuel should should be a viable target somehow. Right now it is untouchable, thats not right.
fly higher get a gunner learn how to level bomb and dont come in at 3k try 15k or higher
and leave that lancaster death trap and get a B17 or if your up to it you can do B26
Bombers are more deadly then they have ever been and play a bigger role
a large fighter force should be able to Cap a field in 15 mins that those hangers are down for
-
Ok, can someone tell me why they took away fuel as a strat target, maybe this will help me to understand what is going on. So far no one has told me anything I do not know. Sorry to sound frustraigted, but I am. It just does not make sense.
Thanks alot for the input.....
-
People were getting tired of seeing one~two guys totally annihilate the capability to fly planes and ruing a whole sector of fight.
So, they changed it so one~two guys can stop enemy advance, but still let people have the fights they want.
-
Give me a break! The Rooks ought to get the short end every time with the freakin hordes they put up.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
People were getting tired of seeing one~two guys totally annihilate the capability to fly planes and ruing a whole sector of fight.
So, they changed it so one~two guys can stop enemy advance, but still let people have the fights they want.
A couple of guys could have taken out the barracks in AH 1, that has not changed in AH 2.
Sounds like the Furballers got bent so now they ratified the game and removed a trategic element. All the other Trat elements have remained the same accept for the fuel. With the accpetion of larger cities now. I can see that being an improvement as the old ones were quickly taken down. A bit to easy I think.
I can uderstand that perhaps it was to easy to do so before so why not add a few more fuel cells per airfield to make it a little harder to take it down? What do you think? Bottom line is it should be a viable target, maybe not so easy as before (Like the cities). Maybe haveing to target the main refinery as suggested to drop it to its lowest point. Something!
Nothing should be untouchable.....
-
A couple of guys could have taken out the barracks in AH 1, that has not changed in AH 2.
A bit different.
Fuel bunkers immediately effect the fuel load the moment they get hit. For some planes, being knocked down to even 75% was something of a death blow.
Compared to that, all the barracks were needed to be downed at the field to take effect in AH1 - multiple barracks were distributed around the field, typically three of them in most cases. Taking down the barracks at the base, was a lot harder in AH1.
Sounds like the Furballers got bent so now they ratified the game and removed a trategic element.
Furballers didn't remove anything. HTC saw the problem, heard the complaints, thought it was reasonable, and they made the change.
Gameplay adjustments are not democracy - some things are never changed no matter how many people complain. Being changed, means the developers themselves agreed that there was a problem.
All the other strat elements have remained the same accept for the fuel. With the accpetion of larger cities now. I can see that being an improvement as the old ones were quickly taken down. A bit too easy I think.
And there was a good reason behind the change. I'm not a furballer myself. I'm a strat guy, little general, loud mouth in country, guy who orders things around, etc etc. And I, hated the fuels being porked.
Like said above in other posts, hitting barracks allow people to halt enemy advance, but it won't stop enemy planes from upping. In a gameplay perspective, one~two guys kamikazeing the fuel bunkers to deprive sectorful of people to even fly a plane is neither realistic nor desirable.
Remember that this is a game. Realism counts ofcourse, but only when a certain consensus is reached that the realism adds to gameplay, not deters it. The fuel porking disgusted so many people in so many situations - it's simple as that.
I can uderstand that perhaps it was to easy to do so before so why not add a few more fuel cells per airfield to make it a little harder to take it down? What do you think? Bottom line is it should be a viable target, maybe not so easy as before (Like the cities). Maybe haveing to target the main refinery as suggested to drop it to its lowest point. Something!
Why?
Fuel porking works both ways.
It instantly deprives people of the chance to up planes.
FHs are different in that they require large amount of ordnance to kill, and all of the multiple FHs must be killed to take effect. It takes time and organization, certain amount of skill to execute a planned strike on FHs with limited numbers. (provided the numbers of both sides are equal at a certain front)
The fuel bunkers are very easy to kill, with attritional value so high that a single suicidal plane can instantly damage the enemy ability to use planes. It doesn't take any planning, nor amount of skill to kill an object with 250lbs durability. One Typhoon with rockets armed can kill 2~3 fuel bunkers with rockets, and strafe down another 2~3 before it gets caught up and shot down.
In short, the risk to effect ratio of fuel bunkers are so unbalanced that it disrupts gameplay. Suicidal attacks pay off with incredible dividends.
If there is any other alternative to this, it is to adjust the risk/effect ratio of fuel objects, so that enemy fuel refineries are to be hit, not some flimsy bunker at a field, which would slowly but steadily effects fuel capacity for the course of the one-week term in AH until maps are reset on Fridays.
Anything that can be downed so simply, which instantly deprives people of the opportunity to fly planes, is more or less unacceptable.
-
It's silly that there's no way to injure the fuel, AND it's silly that FH, BH, and VH come back up as quickly as they do.
There should be a way to decrease the fuel at an airfield, maybe letting the fuel drop to 25% was too far, but not being able to drop it at all is also too far. So maybe HT should've made AH2 just a little less similar to AH1, where the first fuel depot killed the drop tanks, then the destruction of just over half of all tanks dropped the fuel to 75%, and ALL fuel destroyed was 50% fuel available.
The only reason why porking fuel and barracks and stuff like that is attractive is that the hangers don't stay down for long enough. If the hangers stayed down for an appropriate amount of time, they'd be the important target that they should be.
The effect of killing the town buildings, the fact that there's so many more buildings in a town, is a WAYY good change. But it exacerbates the town regeneration problem. The problem is that each building has it's own regeneration time. Thus, if a single building gets rebuilt, the troops can't capture. This isn't the problem for real, but the problem is that if you drop a bomb on a spot that a building would be in, that building should be down for even longer, for a period of time that it would've been down as if it was up when the bomb hit.
AH2's strat values could contribute so much more than they do now, with just a little lovin'.
-
Instead of fuel, think ord.
The whole reason fuel was ruled out as a target had as much to do with the new fuel modeling, the 2.0x modifer as it did peoples complaints.
Imagine, your down to 5 or 6 fields, those are being hammered, the only planes you can up that can fly for any length of time on 25% fuel are the Pony, & the Zeke.
Meantime the enemy has whatever plane he wants to fly.
Now take fuel out of the picture.
Your still down to 5 or 6 fields, but YOU CAN defend them now. You have the fuel to sneak away, grab, come back high, and FIGHT!
Where you killed fuel before, kill ord now. It stops major attacks dead in its tracks. No bombers upping from that field, no heavy attack fighters are going to roll without bombs. The field can still DEFEND itself, but it can not ATTACK.
Change happens, get used to it!
-
"but not being able to drop it at all is also too far."
And also completely false.
You can drop it to 75%. This considerably reduces the loiter times of hot-rods like the LA7, and makes droptanks unavailable so you don't have anyone instantly dropping to 25% fuel as soon as they engage.
Fuel porking thus still has an effect (and is worth doing considering the ease of it), but the effect is more subtle instead of the complete crippling of the entire front. The effect matches the risk and difficulty of doing it now.
J_A_B
-
One skilless dweeb being able to effectively shut down a field with one suicide pork n' auger mission was GAY to the extreme whatever the reason or justification. Anything other than allowing that is fabulous-trip-the-light-fantastic imho.
-
Ok Gents yes dropping the fuel to 75% has a minor effect, yes you can destroy Ordinance and Barraks and Hangers, Yes you can. and that is the point...... You can.
Again I agree that It was a bit to easy in AH 1. So I reitterate, why not make it a bit more difficult. Heck in AH 1 the were 6 fuel cells at a large field in 3 pairs of 2, A money with a couple of hand grenades could take it out. So why not make it more difficult to do. Pehaps a 50% cap unless the main supply is leveled with more fuel cells at a field. Perhaps adjusting the hardness ( which I do not believe in but its an option ) something like that.
I'm getting dissy.....:lol
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
One skilless dweeb being able to effectively shut down a field with one suicide pork n' auger mission was GAY to the extreme whatever the reason or justification. Anything other than allowing that is fabulous-trip-the-light-fantastic imho.
LOL, I would prefer to keep this on a level without name calling and accusations, but entertaining none the less. As I have said before, before, before, oops got stuck again..
It was to easy before, but it should still be a viable target, make it a more difficult one so one "Skilless dweeb" can't do it. The same could be said right now about Barracks. With only one at a small field the dweeb does not even need Ord. With two, it can still be taken out in one pass.
fabulous-trip-the-light fantastic Lol Nice
-
A couple of guys could have taken out the barracks in AH 1, that has not changed in AH 2.
Sounds like the Furballers got bent so now they ratified the game and removed a trategic element. All the other Trat elements have remained the same accept for the fuel. With the accpetion of larger cities now. I can see that being an improvement as the old ones were quickly taken down. A bit to easy I think.
I can uderstand that perhaps it was to easy to do so before so why not add a few more fuel cells per airfield to make it a little harder to take it down? What do you think? Bottom line is it should be a viable target, maybe not so easy as before (Like the cities). Maybe haveing to target the main refinery as suggested to drop it to its lowest point. Something!
Nothing should be untouchable.....
Crow you can't be more wrong and although everyone in this thread has basically given you all the reasons why the fuel was changed you still can't see the light.
The bottom line is Fuel Pork stopped people from fighting. When you can't fight this game is over for a lot of people.
All your crying about is the fact that you lost the easy target to screw up everyone’s game.
As was stated by many others in this thread, your expected results from fuel porking can be easily achieved in many other ways, without ruining the game for everyone else.
-
JRCrow you are suppose to kill the fun of other by shooting them down.
Not by targeting inanimate defenceless object.
-
Wow, my rant got glossed over...
Again, the only reason why fuel was such an 'easy' target is because the other 'critical' targets regenerated too soon, or were more properly difficult to destroy.
But now fuel is impossibly impervious, and clearly barracks are now impossibly easy to kill.
As for the skilless comment... If you think sneaking into enemy airspace where you are outnumbered 20 to one, and porking 3 or more diverged strat targets at not one, but 2 or more bases, successfully, is the measure of a "skilless dweeb", then you have not done it yourself.
-
Think I'll just bite my tongue and sit this one out.Buncha folks with the right ideas for and against and the same wrong wrong arguements that we've had over and over and over again.
Thats cool.
Most of ya know my feelings on all of this
If not just look up past threads and make beleive I said them all over again.
My responces to the counter arguments too.
then we can pretend to have had this great big debate all over again with the same results. no winners, no loosers and nobodies mind changed on any of it.
And I will have saved myself a bunch of typing.... for now
:)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Think I'll just bite my tongue and sit this one out.Buncha folks with the right ideas for and against and the same wrong wrong arguements that we've had over and over and over again.
Thats cool.
Most of ya know my feelings on all of this
If not just look up past threads and make beleive I said them all over again.
My responces to the counter arguments too.
then we can pretend to have had this great big debate all over again with the same results. no winners, no loosers and nobodies mind changed on any of it.
And I will have saved myself a bunch of typing.... for now
:)
I must have missed that conversation, I think you are right though
:aok
-
Originally posted by mars01
Crow you can't be more wrong and although everyone in this thread has basically given you all the reasons why the fuel was changed you still can't see the light.
The bottom line is Fuel Pork stopped people from fighting. When you can't fight this game is over for a lot of people.
All your crying about is the fact that you lost the easy target to screw up everyone’s game.
As was stated by many others in this thread, your expected results from fuel porking can be easily achieved in many other ways, without ruining the game for everyone else.
Ah, no sir, Actually you can't be more wrong..
Thanks for the accuasations....
-
Way to point nothing out.
BTW you were the one throwing accusations around.
Sounds like the Furballers got bent so now they ratified the game and removed a trategic element.
Grow a pair stop looking for the easy fuel pork way out, stop trying to ruin the fun for others and just pork barracks or FH. Gets you the same affect, you precious base can't be taken if there are no troops. Nuf said
-
Originally posted by straffo
JRCrow you are suppose to kill the fun of other by shooting them down.
Not by targeting inanimate defenceless object.
Yes , I know I do do shoot plenty down and it is fun. As far as targeting in animate defenseless objects, we still do it.
Bascially what I gather from this is you, or more apropriately players, can not fight with 25% fuel. It is to much of a hinderance and takes all the fun away.
Is this correct?
I think that fact that people make this so damn personal takes the fun out of much of the game too. Nothin we can do about that though. To each there own....
Perhaps some may view this threat in the same manor, which was not the intent. But I shall not be he judge of others. It is not my place.
all
-
Originally posted by mars01
Way to point nothing out.
BTW you were the one throwing accusations around.
Grow a pair stop looking for the easy fuel pork way out, stop trying to ruin the fun for others and just pork barracks or FH. Gets you the same affect, you precious base can't be taken if there are no troops. Nuf said
Oh you must be Mr. Tough man studmufin' Well congradulations your provoking has been victorious. Now why don't you try reading the whole thing instead of picking out fragments. Nuf said not Nuf read..... :p
-
I'm sorry your getting your panties in a bunch.
You make some crap accusation about furballers and then cry when someone calls you on it.
Wipe your tears and move on. Killing fuel was barely a challenge and ruined the game for many. Something you have yet to counter or acknowledge. Instead you start crying how your fragile ego has been hurt. Pleeeeaaaassssee.
Come out from behind you veil Crow, whats you game ID?
-
Whats done is done in AH2. Take it or leave it.
Sending those letters, emails, and nude photos to hitech and HTC won't change anything.
-
My take:
Knocking out fuel in AH1 limited offensive and defensive operations. 1-2 guys could suicide the fuel (didn't take any real skill) and end a fight... whomever got to the fuel first tended to control that area.
In AH2, knocking out the fuel his limited offensive/defensive impact. The barracks (which were available in AH1 also) can be knocked out to limit offensive operations but don't impact defense. Thus, it's more difficult to deal a "death-blow" on any base simply by knocking out fuel. Now you can limit the offensive operations but a base can still defend itself. That way the battle is mostly decided in the air by who can push the other person back to their airfield.
Just my understanding
-
Right on , Soda!
New settings let people play but retain some base attack potential. And, for you guys talking about "realism" -- any WW2 base suppression took days to weeks. Couple guys diving on a base was a recipe for suicide, not for base capture....
-
Originally posted by Soda
My take:
Knocking out fuel in AH1 limited offensive and defensive operations. 1-2 guys could suicide the fuel (didn't take any real skill) and end a fight... whomever got to the fuel first tended to control that area.
In AH2, knocking out the fuel his limited offensive/defensive impact. The barracks (which were available in AH1 also) can be knocked out to limit offensive operations but don't impact defense. Thus, it's more difficult to deal a "death-blow" on any base simply by knocking out fuel. Now you can limit the offensive operations but a base can still defend itself. That way the battle is mostly decided in the air by who can push the other person back to their airfield.
Just my understanding
Well said and very accurate, HTC did the right thing with regards to fuel porkage in Ah2.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Well said and very accurate, HTC did the right thing with regards to fuel porkage in Ah2.
Yes. Let's not go back to the old way. This is probably the best thing about AH2 vs AH1.
-
Originally posted by mars01
I'm sorry your getting your panties in a bunch.
You make some crap accusation about furballers and then cry when someone calls you on it.
Wipe your tears and move on. Killing fuel was barely a challenge and ruined the game for many. Something you have yet to counter or acknowledge. Instead you start crying how your fragile ego has been hurt. Pleeeeaaaassssee.
Come out from behind you veil Crow, whats you game ID?
Mars you are not sorry to get my patties in a bunch that was clearly your intent as you openly and directly insulted me and somehow expected me to just take it. As for making accusations I will risk making the assumption that you consider yourself a furballer so I ask you this. Did it not upset you when the fuel was porked and you could not fly for extended periods of time? DIdn't it just piss you off to the extream case some times? By you statment I would gather yes, and that my friend is getting bent. Just like I got "Bent" when you wrote your response attacking me diretly. Yes I ticked me off, you know that as that was your intent.
I really think you shoud reasses things just a bit. Individual perseption is individual reality.
As for the veil, keep boosting and pushing like it makes a damn bit of differance. What are you going to do challenge me to the nobel duel so you can prove your manhood? The handel is JRCCrow one letter off from what it says, a simple type O. Not hard to figure out.
If you insist to go round and round with this garbage I will do it, however I can promise you one thing it will be a waist of time.
Now since you are getting involved in this can you just answer me one simple question straight up.
To my understanding players in general did not like the hinderance of the 25% fuel and found it difficult to fight thus difficult to enjoy the game, this would be the basic rational for changing it yes?
-
Originally posted by phookat
Yes. Let's not go back to the old way. This is probably the best thing about AH2 vs AH1.
Thanks for the input Phookat
-
Originally posted by Soda
My take:
Knocking out fuel in AH1 limited offensive and defensive operations. 1-2 guys could suicide the fuel (didn't take any real skill) and end a fight... whomever got to the fuel first tended to control that area.
In AH2, knocking out the fuel his limited offensive/defensive impact. The barracks (which were available in AH1 also) can be knocked out to limit offensive operations but don't impact defense. Thus, it's more difficult to deal a "death-blow" on any base simply by knocking out fuel. Now you can limit the offensive operations but a base can still defend itself. That way the battle is mostly decided in the air by who can push the other person back to their airfield.
Just my understanding
Thanks for the great input Soda, I apreciate the level head....
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Right on , Soda!
New settings let people play but retain some base attack potential. And, for you guys talking about "realism" -- any WW2 base suppression took days to weeks. Couple guys diving on a base was a recipe for suicide, not for base capture....
This is very true and no man alone wins a war, Thanks Simaril
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Whats done is done in AH2. Take it or leave it.
Sending those letters, emails, and nude photos to hitech and HTC won't change anything.
:rofl Thin maybe they will send me some? :eek: :rofl
-
God your fragile crow.
Crow you can't be more wrong and although everyone in this thread has basically given you all the reasons why the fuel was changed you still can't see the light.
The bottom line is Fuel Pork stopped people from fighting. When you can't fight this game is over for a lot of people.
All your crying about is the fact that you lost the easy target to screw up everyone’s game.
As was stated by many others in this thread, your expected results from fuel porking can be easily achieved in many other ways, without ruining the game for everyone else.
Where in the above is the horrible insult? Please do tell.
As for: Sounds like the Furballers got bent so now they ratified the game and removed a trategic element.
This is total BS, yeah it was just the people that like to furball that were upset.:rolleyes: Your totaly wrong. Fuel pork was a problem and most people can see that.
What are you going to do challenge me to the nobel duel so you can prove your manhood?
Your the one that keeps bringing this up, perhaps you have something to prove.
To my understanding players in general did not like the hinderance of the 25% fuel and found it difficult to fight thus difficult to enjoy the game, this would be the basic rational for changing it yes?
Not a hinderance, totally stopped people from fighting. Not people didn't enjoy the game People could not fight.
The real reason it changed is because HTC changed the fuel burn model and had to change the fuel pork model because now you can't do anything with 25% fuel. Thus HT moved it to 75%. His reasons why 75% and not 50% are his own. End of Story.
-
Originally posted by mars01
God your fragile crow.
Where in the above is the horrible insult? Please do tell.
As for: This is total BS, yeah it was just the people that like to furball that were upset.:rolleyes: Your totaly wrong. Fuel pork was a problem and most people can see that.
Your the one that keeps bringing this up, perhaps you have something to prove.
Not a hinderance, totally stopped people from fighting. Not people didn't enjoy the game People could not fight.
The real reason it changed is because HTC changed the fuel burn model and had to change the fuel pork model because now you can't do anything with 25% fuel. Thus HT moved it to 75%. His reasons why 75% and not 50% are his own. End of Story.
The only think I keep bringing up is the fact that you cannot carry a conversation without being a salamander. The rest of it is fine, if you can't see that thats your problem.
As far as being fragile, the fact that you pass judgment an a form like this without even knowing someone clearly shows your mentality and ignorance. This was supposed to be a conversation as are most postings. You decided different, if we could settle this on the street I would be happy to oblige. I am supremely confident your tone would be different in person.
-
Pass judgment on who? you?
I disagreed with your statement making it the furballers fault for the fuel and you jumped all over me.
I have nothing against you Crow, (other than you total lack of spelling :D). I disagree with the fuel whine and blaming the Furballers.
You have taken this thing into some personal realm and gotten all bent. If me disagreeing with you makes me a salamander so be it. This is just some silly BB and nothing else. Don't take things so seriously.
You decided different, if we could settle this on the street I would be happy to oblige. I am supremely confident your tone would be different in person.
BTW - My tone would be just the same. I have yet to turn down handing out a good ole prettythang kickin. And you think I'm outa line and you are taking this into a phsyical fight hahahaha. Take your prozak and relax.:D
"I said fuel pork sucks"
"I said it doesn't"
"Let's fight" HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol
-
"Where in the above is the horrible insult? Please do tell."
Oh please, grow a pair of balls man.
"As for: This is total BS, yeah it was just the people that like to furball that were upset.:rolleyes: Your totaly wrong. Fuel pork was a problem and most people can see that.
Your the one that keeps bringing this up, perhaps you have something to prove."
This is a form for conversation, Q&A Thats funny I dont remeber "Calling you out"
Not a hinderance, totally stopped people from fighting. Not people didn't enjoy the game People could not fight.
The real reason it changed is because HTC changed the fuel burn model and had to change the fuel pork model because now you can't do anything with 25% fuel. Thus HT moved it to 75%. His reasons why 75% and not 50% are his own. End of Story. [/B][/QUOTE]
And you could not state any of this before? you had to jump in push your chest out. WTF
People can fight with 25%, People can fight with whatever they have in there hand, People can. Now perhaps it changes odds, makes things more difficult to do so, and not nearly as easy or fun, but bottom line they can. This is however a game, that grows profits from the individuals that play it. People play it because the "enjoy doing so". Now if there was an element that HTC identified has hindering people from that enjoyment I can understand the change. It does not improve the strategic element of the game at all.
If you would like to discuss strategic and tactical matters on an intelligent level I would be more than happy to do so.
What part of the fuel model did they change?
-
Up to this point you make zero sense so I'll let that go.
And you could not state any of this before? you had to jump in push your chest out. WTF
Figured this was common knowledge. Where did I push my chest out. Saying your wrong. So Sorry.
People can fight with 25%, People can fight with whatever they have in there hand, People can. Now perhaps it changes odds, makes things more difficult to do so, and not nearly as easy or fun, but bottom line they can. This is however a game, that grows profits from the individuals that play it. People play it because the "enjoy doing so". Now if there was an element that HTC identified has hindering people from that enjoyment I can understand the change. It does not improve the strategic element of the game at all.
Spin it any way you want. When the fuel was porked across a front, many people would log off. That is no fun.
As for the whole strategery thing, if one side has the numbers they are going to be taking the fields.
What part of the fuel model did they change?
They increased the Fuel burn rate from 1.5 to 2 to try and make people use the new engine management features.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Pass judgment on who? you?
I disagreed with your statement making it the furballers fault for the fuel and you jumped all over me.
I have nothing against you Crow, (other than you total lack of spelling :D). I disagree with the fuel whine and blaming the Furballers.
You have taken this thing into some personal realm and gotten all bent. If me disagreeing with you makes me a salamander so be it. This is just some silly BB and nothing else. Don't take things so seriously.
BTW - My tone would be just the same. I have yet to turn down handing out a good ole prettythang kickin. And you think I'm outa line and you are taking this into a phsyical fight hahahaha. Take your prozak and relax.:D
"I said fuel pork sucks"
"I said it doesn't"
"Let's fight" HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol
While I do agree my spelling sucks, :rofl
You do not thin you made it personal when you told me to grow a pair of balls. C'mon Mars.
Did I say I was going to beat your prettythang? no, I merely stated that in person I am sure you would talk differently. I am sure I walked up to you on the street, jumped into a conversation, and the first words out of my mouth were "Grow a pair of balls" I am sure you would react, as that is total inappropriate, I think you know that. A far cry from "Sounds like furballers got bent". Which is not specifically directed at any one person at all.
The statement "sounds like", though spelling may be off meaning is the same, "Sounds like" is an unknown statement of uncertainty. Perhaps you took it the wrong way. Perhaps the "Fragility" of people in this forum works both ways.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Up to this point you make zero sense so I'll let that go.
Figured this was common knowledge. Where did I push my chest out. Saying your wrong. So Sorry.
That might be beacuse it all got started on the wrong foot,
If you read your begining statements objectively I am sure you will see it.
Originally posted by mars01
Spin it any way you want. When the fuel was porked across a front, many people would log off. That is no fun.[/B]
No fun, that is what I am gathering from this conversation, that is end point and result. Thanks..
Originally posted by mars01
As for the whole strategery thing, if one side has the numbers they are going to be taking the fields.[/B]
Thats a whole nother debate. :D
Originally posted by mars01
They increased the Fuel burn rate from 1.5 to 2 to try and make people use the new engine management features. [/B]
Good info, thanks again...
Mars you came out with some really good info that no one else has yet in this forum, Ironically thats what a I was looking for here, and it helps me to understand some of the changes. Now I can make beeter sense of it. Whish we did not have to go through all that other crap to get here. Maybe next time.
:aok
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
People can fight with 25%,
Wrong ,I can just barely take off when having 6 minutes total flight time.
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
Mars you are not sorry to get my patties in a bunch
There's some sig material for you beet1e! Too funny.. :lol
-
Originally posted by straffo
Wrong ,I can just barely take off when having 6 minutes total flight time.
Sometimes again "Sometimes" that’s all ya need when they are knocking on your front door. 6 minutes of flight is still more than no flight at all. Other times it sucks depending on the aircraft you are using i really sucks. I realize that 25% in AH2 in not what 25% was in AH1. That point was relayed to me which puts the situation in a different light.
Bottom line as stated before is game play. People do not enjoy playing the game with 25%. Thus things changed. That is the way I see it anyway.
I do not wish to get into a silly semantics conversation, but when I say you can fight with 25% I guess I am just being optimistic. If optimism is wrong, then I am guilty. On many occasions we (as a country) have rose to the occasion when a challenged has ben set before us. Though these days we usually have the upper hand, the entire WW2 era is filled with such occasions.
I do not expect them to change the fuel settings from what they are now. This conversation started with me not having all the facts. Now I have a better understanding of what is going on. While I think 50% may be more appropriate then 25% Like Mars said why HTC chose 75% over 50% only HTC know.
-
If you want to taste the effect of the 25% go offline get a Yak9U with 25% shot all the drones and land.
Good luck :)
-
When the fields were porked down to 25%, you might not have gotten to fly the glitzy fighters, but A6M, P47D11, and P51D were perfectly viable aircraft. But the true weapon to turn the tides in those situations was bombers, something that very few furballers grasp as plausible.
It doesn't matter except for this: HTC wanted to make it funner for the furballers, and he changed it. I respect that as a business decision. But the change went too far the other way. Now, when you look up at a base that the enemy has capped, you can count on them NOT running out of fuel.
-
Why would you want the enemy to run out of fuel in a multiplayer game?
The real effect of the AH2 change is that it makes capturing a base more difficult. Isn't that better? More of a challenge, say?
-
Grow a pair stop looking for the easy fuel pork way out, stop trying to ruin the fun for others and just pork barracks or FH. Gets you the same affect, you precious base can't be taken if there are no troops. Nuf said
Ahh you were offended by the Grow a Pair. Then I do apologize, but yes I would have said this in open conversation. I guess a nicer way to have said this would have been "Suck it Up"
My point is this game is about the journey not the end result. It's about the fight not who died and who flew on. It's about making it against hard odds to your target and dropping your ord. It's about fighting for an hour over a base not who finally took it. It's about the entertainment. So if it is more difficult to do things this only heightens the journey.
The fuel situation stopped most of the above from happening. When fuel was porked to 25% across a front the journey was over for many.
By not being able to pork fuel those that just want to fight can and those that want to bomb still can.
I agree it does mean there will be more resistance but isn't this game all about resistance. It forces people to organize rather than two guys in 51s crippling a fields ability to fight.
The current fuel situation gives better balance and creates more fighting. I'm all for that.
-
When the fields were porked down to 25%, you might not have gotten to fly the glitzy fighters, but A6M, P47D11, and P51D were perfectly viable aircraft. But the true weapon to turn the tides in those situations was bombers, something that very few furballers grasp as plausible.
Wrong Wrong Wrong.
If you are defending a base most of the time you are outnumbered by the attacking force. You are not going to defend a base using a P47 or a P51 unless you were able to up 4 mins before they got there and even then your chances are slim and won't be timely. You will have a chance in a Zeke but you aren't catching anything. So as base defense goes, if these are my only three options you can have the base.
If you are telling me I need to up bombers so you don't kill the fuel that is a joke. I'm not here to fly bombers I'm here to fight. Something some folks have a hard time understanding.
It doesn't matter except for this: HTC wanted to make it funner for the furballers, and he changed it. I respect that as a business decision.
So basically you think this is some kind of furball conspiracy. I wish the lobby had that much pull. Making this assumption and stating it like a fact shows true ignorance about this subject.
But the change went too far the other way. Now, when you look up at a base that the enemy has capped, you can count on them NOT running out of fuel.
If you really want to take a base, you either have to cap the field or kill the hangers. Any squad or group that was worth their weight and any good never hit the fuel. Fuel porking is and thank god was for the weak.:D
-
If you are telling me I need to up bombers so you don't kill the fuel that is a joke. I'm not here to fly bombers I'm here to fight. Something some folks have a hard time understanding.
I reiterate:
But the true weapon to turn the tides in those situations was bombers, something that very few furballers grasp as plausible.
So basically you think this is some kind of furball conspiracy.
That's not what I said, I said that HTC made a business decision, based on the fact that a good portion of his customers are "furballers".
If you really want to take a base, you either have to cap the field or kill the hangers. Any squad or group that was worth their weight and any good never hit the fuel. Fuel porking is and thank god was for the weak.
Some of this is accurate. Some reflects shallow thought, but since it is a blanket statement, I'll gloss the deficiencies over because the thrust seems to be that if you intended to capture a base it was foolish to destroy the fuel first, which is true.
...and stating it like a fact shows true ignorance about this subject.
Is this a personal attack, Mars??? Seems you have a history of making personal attacks. ;)
I'm not here to fly bombers I'm here to fight.
This is classic furballer mentality. Not that it's wrong or anything, but just clearly defined furballer mentality. The error in thought is that if you are flying a bomber, you are not "fighting", when in reality the bomber pilots are contributing equally if not more than the fighter pilots are; the difference is even more obvious in AH2 btw.
Any squad or group that was worth their weight and any good never hit the fuel.
Any squad or group that was worth their weight and any good could capture a base without capping it.
-
Originally posted by RDRTrash
I reiterate:
But the true weapon to turn the tides in those situations was bombers, something that very few furballers grasp as plausible.
Can you explain what you mean in the context of the AH strat game? The "situation" I presume refers to having your fuel porked. As a player on the defending team, what are you going to do with a bomber that will "turn the tides"?
-
That's not what I said, I said that HTC made a business decision, based on the fact that a good portion of his customers are "furballers".
Do you have proof to support this as fact, that he made the decision because of the furballers. If so please produce it. Just because we are one of the groups that benefits does not mean we were the impetus for his decision. I think a lot of the community as a whole disliked the imbalance of fuel porking and thats why he went with 75% rather than 50%. But again it is my assumption, not fact.
But the true weapon to turn the tides in those situations was bombers, something that very few furballers grasp as plausible.
What are you saying to combat fuel pork take a bomber and kill the other bases fuel. Don't you see how all you are doing is stopping the fight. That sucks and it's not that I don't grasp it, I'm not going to do it.
Is this a personal attack, Mars??? Seems you have a history of making personal attacks.
My god is everyone so dam sensitive in this thread. On the contrary trash. I am attacking what you wrote. I have alot of respect for the USMC and enjoy flying with and against you guys. So no this is not a personal attack. I didn't say you were ignorant, I said, "To think that HTC changed the fuel situation because of the furballers is ignorant no way around it." I don't have a history of making personal attacks. Some people need everything candy coated, not my style.
From what I could gather, the real reason it changed is because HTC changed the fuel burn model and had to change the fuel pork model because now you can't do anything with 25% fuel. Thus HT moved it to 75%. His reasons why 75% and not 50% are his own.
This is classic furballer mentality. Not that it's wrong or anything, but just clearly defined furballer mentality. The error in thought is that if you are flying a bomber, you are not "fighting", when in reality the bomber pilots are contributing equally if not more than the fighter pilots are; the difference is even more obvious in AH2 btw.
You are saying it is wrong, otherwise there isn't an error in thought. You are correct, there is no error in thought, we just have different goals. I am talking Air Combat and you know that. Flying a bomber is not Air to Air combat. It is Air to Ground and does impact the "War Effort".
And when you are talking about the "War Effort", I couldn't give a crap. I and many others don't care about the reset. Big freaking deal. It has been proven the main deciding factor in winning the war is numbers, plain and simple. The funny thing is that no fuel porking reduces the ability of the country with the numbers to stop the other countries from defending themselves and thus minimizes the impact of numerical superiority and evens things out a bit better.
I am here to get in a fighter and fight other pilots. So when you say "But the true weapon to turn the tides in those situations was bombers". In regards to me you are wrong because my goal is not to "Win the War" it is to get into AtoA fights during the few hours I have to fly. I could care less about turning the tides, I just want to ride the waves :D
When people pork fuel they are stopping the fight. When fuel is porked across your countries whole front then the fighting is over and so is this game. People that want to return to fuel porking want to stop the fight so they can easily take a base or not have to up fighters to defend their own base. In either case they don't want to fight.
Any squad or group that was worth their weight and any good could capture a base without capping it.
Yeah if it's totally undefended. Gee thats fun. Sign me up lol:D . If you have one guy upping you need to have someone capping.
I have nothing against the War guys. That's their thing and thats cool. I even participate once in a blue moon lol. What I have a problem with are the guys that have a problem with people that just want to furball. When people make derogatory statements about furballing ( Air Quake ) or say HTC changed things just for furballers, then that tells me they have a problem with us.
-
Originally posted by straffo
If you want to taste the effect of the 25% go offline get a Yak9U with 25% shot all the drones and land.
Good luck :)
I use to do it alot in AH1, though I am sure it would be a bit worse now.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Can you explain what you mean in the context of the AH strat game? The "situation" I presume refers to having your fuel porked. As a player on the defending team, what are you going to do with a bomber that will "turn the tides"?
Not sure if this is what he is talking about phookat, but in the past (AH1) when fuel was down and numbers not good, I could up a flight of B26s, and usually shoot down 3-5 enemy aircraft. Heck there were ocassions when I actually landed 8 kills. This sets the numbers off, in a given situation. That tactic has been used succesfully a number of times to get pressure off an airfield when the numbers were not in favor. Not allways, but more often then not. When you are heavilty outnumbered you are plain screwed, especially if you can't even get of the ground.
Many times I have used this tactic and actually gotten to the enmey base and scored some hit. A few trips like that, take there fuel out, and it pretty much shuts that front down or they atleast use a diferant base, whcih makes them travel farther, which equates to less pressure.
The 25% also effects bombers too, which I am seeing differances now in as well.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Why would you want the enemy to run out of fuel in a multiplayer game?
The real effect of the AH2 change is that it makes capturing a base more difficult. Isn't that better? More of a challenge, say?
My opinon is that you are not looking on the flip side. WHen defending a base under extream pressure you are not going to fly very far and be engaged. Many times as soon as you get off the ground. Thus fuel is of no measure because in heavy pressure you will be shot down before you run out more often then not. Now if it is only light pressure that is a differant story.
Lets look at this kind of mathmatically (Strategic view)
the enemy has 15 air craft and has to fly 50 miles to get to you.
You have 5 air craft defending. If the 15 enemy aircraft have an hour of fuel each and spend 10 minutes getting there that leaves 15 aircraft Vs. you 5 for 50 minutes. Average it out 5:1 fuel ratio with 15 aircraft end effet is basically 12 of those 15 aircraft over your airfield. Now if they only had 20 minutes of fuel, and spend 10 minutes getting there that leaves 10 min of hange time. half the time they are getting there, and half fighting, end result now you are fighting 7 or 8 aircarft Vs your five.
No it is not and exact science, there are variables, but in full scope that is the effect. It makes the offensive much harder.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Ahh you were offended by the Grow a Pair. Then I do apologize, but yes I would have said this in open conversation. I guess a nicer way to have said this would have been "Suck it Up"
Thanks
Originally posted by mars01
My point is this game is about the journey not the end result. It's about the fight not who died and who flew on. It's about making it against hard odds to your target and dropping your ord. It's about fighting for an hour over a base not who finally took it. It's about the entertainment. So if it is more difficult to do things this only heightens the journey.
[/B]
Interesting points, I sort of view less fuel as making this more difficult, but I guess in a differant way. It certainly hinders the journey. Perhaps it is simply the diferance between a tactical and strategic minded person.
Originally posted by mars01
The fuel situation stopped most of the above from happening. When fuel was porked to 25% across a front the journey was over for many.
[/B]
That is the defensive point :D It shuts down the offensive. No matter what the odds are in most cases.
Originally posted by mars01
By not being able to pork fuel those that just want to fight can and those that want to bomb still can.
I agree it does mean there will be more resistance but isn't this game all about resistance. It forces people to organize rather than two guys in 51s crippling a fields ability to fight.
[/B]
I totaly agree with you there...
Originally posted by mars01
The current fuel situation gives better balance and creates more fighting. I'm all for that.
[/B]
I think it creats more fighting, however I think it makes the ballance worse when the numbers are on one side or the other.
I have seriously tried the tactics metioned above about taking out Barracks. It really does not have the same effect. It can dellay a capture but not stop it. When the pressure is on, it just gives the other side more vulch time until the barracks come back up. Sometimes it is enevitable no matter what. Others, well it use to work :D
Play on :aok
-
Originally posted by mars01
If you really want to take a base, you either have to cap the field or kill the hangers. Any squad or group that was worth their weight and any good never hit the fuel. Fuel porking is and thank god was for the weak.:D [/B]
Crap here we go again :rofl . There are many ways to skin a cat. Yes you can't beat a good cap. and if you are taking a field it is silly to pork the fuel as you want to use it after. I hope you are not saying that any squad that ever hit fuel is not worth there weight and are weak. That is what is deducted from the above statement. Thats just not right.
I think you are just looking at things in differant terms. The differance between grunts and generals. One looks in front, one looks all around. Both are needed and used.
-
Originally posted by RDRTrash
It doesn't matter except for this: HTC wanted to make it funner for the furballers, and he changed it. I respect that as a business decision.
This may or may not be fact but is a rational deduction as making the fuel untouchable only helps the furballers and no one else. The funny part if you think about it is that people just die with more fuel now. X number of people are going to be shot down in a fur ball, really only some will make use of the extra fuel.
and ofcourse engagements will be higher on ocassion.
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
Not sure if this is what he is talking about phookat, but in the past (AH1) when fuel was down and numbers not good, I could up a flight of B26s, and usually shoot down 3-5 enemy aircraft. Heck there were ocassions when I actually landed 8 kills.
I don't think this is what the other poster was talking about. He was talking about something akin to real life, and I think you'll agree that ackstarring is about as far from real life as you can get without involving the Grimm brothers. If ackstarring is the answer to fuel pork, then I say get rid of both by getting rid of the latter.
Originally posted by JRCrow
A few trips like that, take there fuel out, and it pretty much shuts that front down or they atleast use a diferant base, whcih makes them travel farther, which equates to less pressure.
This was my guess too but I wanted to confirm it. This is not realistic either, but whatever. In that case we are "solving" the fuel pork problem by porking fuel over there (which would probably be more successful with a fighter-bomber than a bomber). Which means no planes can up, and suddenly there's nothing for anyone to do.
I still fail to see the point here. This situation seems to me to detract playability for both a2a guys and strat guys. Eliminating fuel pork creates a more fun game for both groups.
I've said this before, but I'll repeat: AH is a flight *sim* but a strat *game*. The physical sim is intended to be as realistic as possible, but the strat is not realistic and cannot be without having a continuous game that lasts 4 years and you can't take breaks for work and meals. And you have to sit for 8 hours on each mission and fight for 5 mins (if you're lucky).
The "strat" in AH is a collection of elements which are semi-related to some real-life counterparts, and assembled together to form a game which provides context for people to team up and fight against each other in a variety of ways and roles. The reason the strat elements are related at all to anything real is because they have to be tailored to the interactions that realistically modeled aircraft/GVs/munitions can have with them. The strat should therefore be judged on how well it accomplishes this goal...not on how realistic it is.
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
It makes the offensive much harder.
Why is that a problem?
-
I hope you are not saying that any squad that ever hit fuel is not worth there weight and are weak. That is what is deducted from the above statement. Thats just not right.
LOL. Not really, but I do think anyone worth thier weight used the fuel as a last resort if at all. I always thought the fuel pork to be an easy way out that's all.
-
Originally posted by mars01
When people pork fuel they are stopping the fight. When fuel is porked across your countries whole front then the fighting is over and so is this game. People that want to return to fuel porking want to stop the fight so they can easily take a base or not have to up fighters to defend their own base. In either case they don't want to fight.
It does not stop the fight, just makes people change tactis and use differant aircraft. When fuel is proked across a whole front, yes it makes things difficult, again tactics have to change. I have fought many times on these fronts. And you can still up aircraft and kill goons at or near your city with 25% fuel. or launch from another field and go goone hunting, low and fast :D
as far as not wanting to fight, that is certainly not the case. Again we think in differant ways. There is a differance between fighting smarter and harder, by your referance you are nearly accusing our entire armed forces of America of not wanting to fight.
I think a happy medium could be meet here. While I think we all agree that 25% is not enouph and fuel was to easy to destroy before, maybe just maybe a happy medium would be 50% and make it more difficult to do. So a monkey with a handgrenade can't take all you fuel out. I think in light of current operations the drop form 75% to 50% should have to be achieved by hiting the main fuel depo seperate from the Field itself. It would kind of make more sense that way to. This however might cause a programing nightmare, who knows. None the less I think a happy medium could be achieved to fit both the "Furballers" :D and the "War types" :D needs.
Enjoy.....
-
Sorry wrong button..
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
That is the defensive point :D It shuts down the offensive. No matter what the odds are in most cases.
I disagree. With no porking, the offense still continues. The only further hindrance is extra humans, and isn't that why you're playing an online game?
With porking, the defense does not continue. It's not that it's more difficult. It's that it doesn't exist. Forget the horde gangbang situation, in that case you are vultched immediately and it doesn't matter how much fuel is there (as you pointed out). In the non-horde case, I take off, wait a few mins for cons to arrive, by the time they do I have to land and no fight.
The reason I don't like this is *not* because it is too easy for the attackers or too hard for the defenders. The reason I don't like this is because *nothing happened*. The reason other strat people don't like this is because nothing happened for them either--there were no cons, so what's the point?
Originally posted by JRCrow
I think it creats more fighting, however I think it makes the ballance worse when the numbers are on one side or the other.
Disagree. In the theoretical zero-game-sum, it makes no difference--you pork theirs and they pork yours, regardless of numbers imbalance; and you're left where you started (except again, there's less of a fight). But practically, the offense is much more likely to take the "initiative" and pork fuel, and when that happens a numbers imbalance is exacerbated.
Originally posted by JRCrow
I have seriously tried the tactics metioned above about taking out Barracks. It really does not have the same effect. It can dellay a capture but not stop it. When the pressure is on, it just gives the other side more vulch time until the barracks come back up. Sometimes it is enevitable no matter what. Others, well it use to work :D
OK, now we're talking about a defensive pork to stem an offensive horde. My response would be, hordes are bad, but don't solve that problem by allowing fuel pork. That's like chopping off your hand to eliminate the pain from a paper cut on your thumb.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I don't think this is what the other poster was talking about. He was talking about something akin to real life, and I think you'll agree that ackstarring is about as far from real life as you can get without involving the Grimm brothers. If ackstarring is the answer to fuel pork, then I say get rid of both by getting rid of the latter.
Dude you lost me :eek:
poster, ackstarring and Grimm brothers.
I am not familiar with these terms, help me out.
-
Originally posted by mars01
LOL. Not really, but I do think anyone worth thier weight used the fuel as a last resort if at all. I always thought the fuel pork to be an easy way out that's all.
Agree on both...
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
as far as not wanting to fight, that is certainly not the case. Again we think in differant ways. There is a differance between fighting smarter and harder, by your referance you are nearly accusing our entire armed forces of America of not wanting to fight.
And that's the difference between this game and reality. We are here to fight, both the a2a crowd and the stratters, while the ideal in reality is no fighting or killing or dying. That's another reason why the strat game in AH cannot and should not be judged on realism. A strat model that encourages smart fighting in the real sense--which means no fighting and take them out while they're on the ground or in the garage--is a bad strat model for the online game Aces High.
-
Originally posted by phookat
I disagree. With no porking, the offense still continues. The only further hindrance is extra humans, and isn't that why you're playing an online game?
With porking, the defense does not continue. It's not that it's more difficult. It's that it doesn't exist. Forget the horde gangbang situation, in that case you are vultched immediately and it doesn't matter how much fuel is there (as you pointed out). In the non-horde case, I take off, wait a few mins for cons to arrive, by the time they do I have to land and no fight.
The reason I don't like this is *not* because it is too easy for the attackers or too hard for the defenders. The reason I don't like this is because *nothing happened*. The reason other strat people don't like this is because nothing happened for them either--there were no cons, so what's the point?
Disagree. In the theoretical zero-game-sum, it makes no difference--you pork theirs and they pork yours, regardless of numbers imbalance; and you're left where you started (except again, there's less of a fight). But practically, the offense is much more likely to take the "initiative" and pork fuel, and when that happens a numbers imbalance is exacerbated.
OK, now we're talking about a defensive pork to stem an offensive horde. My response would be, hordes are bad, but don't solve that problem by allowing fuel pork. That's like chopping off your hand to eliminate the pain from a paper cut on your thumb.
I think we have experianced many differant things on the battle field. I have seen ocassions where both you and my opions have played in.
-
Originally posted by phookat
And that's the difference between this game and reality. We are here to fight, both the a2a crowd and the stratters, while the ideal in reality is no fighting or killing or dying. That's another reason why the strat game in AH cannot and should not be judged on realism. A strat model that encourages smart fighting in the real sense--which means no fighting and take them out while they're on the ground or in the garage--is a bad strat model for the online game Aces High.
Referances were allready made to the fact that this was a game and the changes were probably because of that, and that was accepted. valued points but allready covered...
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
poster, ackstarring and Grimm brothers.
I am not familiar with these terms, help me out.
Poster = RDRtrash, the other poster.
Ackstarring is a reference to the Death Star. Big object that you place in the middle of a big fight, and it automatically kills everything in sight. The use of bombers as you describe is sometimes referred to as ackstarring, since you are relying on robot acks.
The Grimm brothers were the authors (or compilers) of a large number of famous fairy tales. :)
-
Originally posted by phookat
Poster = RDRtrash, the other poster.
Ackstarring is a reference to the Death Star. Big object that you place in the middle of a big fight, and it automatically kills everything in sight. The use of bombers as you describe is sometimes referred to as ackstarring, since you are relying on robot acks.
The Grimm brothers were the authors (or compilers) of a large number of famous fairy tales. :)
Still does not quite make sense, seems almost like a poke, but I will take it as not. why the poster referance? why not just use his name? I hope your not trying to just start smack again.
Ackstarring does not apply to bombers at all, so I am still at a bit of a loss as to what you are trying to convey. Bomber guns are manned and do not automatically kill everything in sight. Now field and city ack is a differant story.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Why is that a problem?
I thought I said hitting the fuel has this effect :confused: ,
Not sure if you are pro or agasint?
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
I thought I said hitting the fuel has this effect :confused: ,
Not sure if you are pro or agasint?
What I mean is, why is it a problem that offensive operations have become more difficult?
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
Ackstarring does not apply to bombers at all, so I am still at a bit of a loss as to what you are trying to convey.
'k, here's what I'm trying to say. The orig poster (rdrtrash) says the way you deal with fuel porking is by using bombers, and that this is realistic. I'm trying to understand what he meant by that.
If he means taking off in a bomber and circling the field taking out all the vultchers, then that is ackstarring if you are using the robot gunners. If you're using a manned gunner, then I guess it isn't exactly ackstarring. In either case, it is completely unrealistic and does not justify the inclusion of fuel porking.
-
What is wrong with all of you people. Every single war ever frought depended on supplies. You capture or destroy the enemies supplies, they are unable to fight. If we find a stockpile of weapons in Iraq, do you think we go and give it back to the 'terrorists' :rolleyes: so they can keep on fighting?
Well that is exactly what they did with the fuel ingame.
-
Originally posted by mjj09
What is wrong with all of you people. Every single war ever frought depended on supplies. You capture or destroy the enemies supplies, they are unable to fight. If we find a stockpile of weapons in Iraq, do you think we go and give it back to the 'terrorists' :rolleyes: so they can keep on fighting?
Well that is exactly what they did with the fuel ingame.
This is not a real war. It will never be a real war. It is a game. Strategic elements therefore have to be handled differently from a real war, otherwise the purpose of the game is defeated.
-
AH is suppose to get it as real as possible. This is suppose to be simulating air combat during WW2. I'm sorry to inform you, but the allies bombed the hell outta German factories and cities which lead to them being defeated (that and they were out numbered and a few other things).
Now since this is a 'game' some things have to be changed. Such as:
1.) Once you die you can 'come back'
2.) Adjustable settings
3.) Smoke...?
4.) Everything destroyed at a base is restored within a few hours instead of a few DAYS, WEEKS, and/or MONTHS
5.) Bases do not have to be supplied with ammo and fuel on a daily basis or in AH's case, every few hours.
6.) Little tiny icons over planes heads to help to ID fiendly and enemy
just to name a few. There are probably a few small other things that have to be changed for the 'game' part of AH, but everything else should remain as real as possible. This is a simulator, not a fantasy game.
-
The bottom line and what phookat has so elagantly pointed out, is that the whole point of this game is to pit one side against the other and let their actions determine the outcome.
I.e. If TOD is going to be cool, there will be an AI that controls the whole arena and that AI creates orders for each country. Probably should only be two countries.
Missions are posted on the msision board, by the AI, for each countries officer pool. (People who rise to the rank of officers = Officer Pool )
An officer selects a mission and selects his squad members. If he can not fill the squad or number of people needed, then replacenments are selected by the AI from the non officers pools.
( Privates etc waiting for orders to report to a squad = Non Officer Pool).
If an officer does not want a private or the private is a trouble maker and doesn't follow the orders (Waypoints, wingman tactics etc), thus affecting the rank of the officer, the officer can ask for another replacement. This will make people follow the orders if they want to fly.
So say the AI cuts orders for a Bomber Mission and an Escort for one country and it cuts orders for a CAP or intercept mission for the other country.
The point here is for the AI to give coordinates and waypoints so that both forces will definately collied and the action that ensues will affect the outcome of the battle, which will affect therank of each person, their score and the overall momentum of the war.
The missions are based on the over all numbers of people in each country and the officers and privates available to run missions. If there are not enough officers, then certain privates who azre doing well are promoted. If they select a decent mission and do well it will help increase their rank and possibly make the promotion permanent. And on and on this can go.
This will allow them to even out the numbers and create streams of nonstop action. The ranking system forces people to follow orders. If you lose your rank of an officer then you go back to the private pool. If you are a private and don't follow the orders then officers wont want to select them and they don't fly.
The long winded point is that unlike real life, as phookat points out, where the action is avaoided unless completely necessary because it has dire consequences, AH should always guarantee that the action will exists and AH should do nothing to stunt or promote scenarios where actions are limited or stop people from being able to fight.
Much like real life, Fuel porking stops the fight, it stops the action and kills the game play. It's affects are counter productive to allowing the actions of the fight to affect the outcome of the war. A base should be taken when two forces fought over it and one succeeded as the victor, not because one side stopped the other side from showing up.
The enemy is stopped by superior action not by taking away one sides ability to rise to action.
AH is suppose to be simulating air combat during WW2. I'm sorry to inform you, but the allies bombed the hell outta German factories and cities which lead to them being defeated
Yeah and you are talking about ending the simulation, and everyone shuts down their computers and goes home. Not the point of the game. Fighting is the point of simulating air combat during WW2. If you pork the fuel the fighting stops and the simulation ends. :aok
Sorry for being so long winded and thanks for following along lolh:D
-
Originally posted by phookat
'k, here's what I'm trying to say. The orig poster (rdrtrash) says the way you deal with fuel porking is by using bombers, and that this is realistic. I'm trying to understand what he meant by that.
If he means taking off in a bomber and circling the field taking out all the vultchers, then that is ackstarring if you are using the robot gunners. If you're using a manned gunner, then I guess it isn't exactly ackstarring. In either case, it is completely unrealistic and does not justify the inclusion of fuel porking.
Ok, I see waht you are saying and yes one has nothing to do with the other. Not sure I have ever seen a bomber used that way. That woudl be pretty wild to see though :D
-
Originally posted by mars01
The bottom line and what phookat has so elagantly pointed out, is that the whole point of this game is to pit one side against the other and let their actions determine the outcome.
I.e. If TOD is going to be cool, there will be an AI that controls the whole arena and that AI creates orders for each country. Probably should only be two countries.
Missions are posted on the msision board, by the AI, for each countries officer pool. (People who rise to the rank of officers = Officer Pool )
An officer selects a mission and selects his squad members. If he can not fill the squad or number of people needed, then replacenments are selected by the AI from the non officers pools.
( Privates etc waiting for orders to report to a squad = Non Officer Pool).
If an officer does not want a private or the private is a trouble maker and doesn't follow the orders (Waypoints, wingman tactics etc), thus affecting the rank of the officer, the officer can ask for another replacement. This will make people follow the orders if they want to fly.
So say the AI cuts orders for a Bomber Mission and an Escort for one country and it cuts orders for a CAP or intercept mission for the other country.
The point here is for the AI to give coordinates and waypoints so that both forces will definately collied and the action that ensues will affect the outcome of the battle, which will affect therank of each person, their score and the overall momentum of the war.
The missions are based on the over all numbers of people in each country and the officers and privates available to run missions. If there are not enough officers, then certain privates who azre doing well are promoted. If they select a decent mission and do well it will help increase their rank and possibly make the promotion permanent. And on and on this can go.
This will allow them to even out the numbers and create streams of nonstop action. The ranking system forces people to follow orders. If you lose your rank of an officer then you go back to the private pool. If you are a private and don't follow the orders then officers wont want to select them and they don't fly.
The long winded point is that unlike real life, as phookat points out, where the action is avaoided unless completely necessary because it has dire consequences, AH should always guarantee that the action will exists and AH should do nothing to stunt or promote scenarios where actions are limited or stop people from being able to fight.
Much like real life, Fuel porking stops the fight, it stops the action and kills the game play. It's affects are counter productive to allowing the actions of the fight to affect the outcome of the war. A base should be taken when two forces fought over it and one succeeded as the victor, not because one side stopped the other side from showing up.
The enemy is stopped by superior action not by taking away one sides ability to rise to action.
Yeah and you are talking about ending the simulation, and everyone shuts down their computers and goes home. Not the point of the game. Fighting is the point of simulating air combat during WW2. If you pork the fuel the fighting stops and the simulation ends. :aok
Sorry for being so long winded and thanks for following along lolh:D
Its that whole TOD Thing you talked about a conseptual idea of yours? where did that all come from?
I disagree with making two parties intersect at a specified point. I do not think that would be fun at all. A predetermined point of battle, Naw. There will be fighting without that, just like there is now. The fun is outsmarting the enemy half of the time. Now some people may not like being outwitted but that is part of life really.
-
Originally posted by mjj09
AH is suppose to get it as real as possible. This is suppose to be simulating air combat during WW2. I'm sorry to inform you, but the allies bombed the hell outta German factories and cities which lead to them being defeated (that and they were out numbered and a few other things).
Now since this is a 'game' some things have to be changed. Such as:
1.) Once you die you can 'come back'
2.) Adjustable settings
3.) Smoke...?
4.) Everything destroyed at a base is restored within a few hours instead of a few DAYS, WEEKS, and/or MONTHS
5.) Bases do not have to be supplied with ammo and fuel on a daily basis or in AH's case, every few hours.
6.) Little tiny icons over planes heads to help to ID fiendly and enemy
just to name a few. There are probably a few small other things that have to be changed for the 'game' part of AH, but everything else should remain as real as possible. This is a simulator, not a fantasy game.
I totaly agree with you, but some people have differant thought process and ideas. Some look at this thing in full scope others look at it like a regular video game. I personally got addicted to this because of the strategic involvement, I am a bit more Military minded than others. It is easy for me to get engrossed in an enviroment that combine tactical and strategic consepts like this. To many systems have one but not the other.
Thanks for the input
-
Just ideas that were kicking around in my head.
The would not be specific points where the intersections would occure, but the orders would be such that the probability of the groups finding each other and action ensuing would be high.
The whole aspect of outsmarting the other guy could take this form. When you rise to a certain rank you can then submit orders to the AI. You become General lets say. Now when you log in the AI gives you a battle plan from high command and asks for your best plan of execution. You submit it and so on and so on.
There are alot of places that this can go and alot of things that can happen. The main idea tho is to make it so the whole point is the fighting. There is an aspect of strategery but that is the result of the fighting. If you are more of a strategy person then you can aspire to the rank of general. This whole model then allows your strategy to be followed and executed rather than what we have now, which is little in the way of decent military organisation and simulation.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Just ideas that were kicking around in my head.
The would not be specific points where the intersections would accure, but the orders would be such that the probability of the groups finding each other would be high.
The whole aspect of outsmarting the other guy could take this form. When you rise to a certain rank you can then submit orders to the AI. You become General lets say. Now when you log in the AI gives you a battle plan from high command and asks for your best plan of execution. You submit it and so on and so on.
There are alot of places that this can go and alot of things that can happen. The main idea tho is to make it so the whole point is the fighting. There is an aspect of strategery but that is the result of the fighting. If you are more of a strategy person then you can aspire to the rank of general. This whole model then allows your strategy to be followed and executed rather than what we have now, which is little in the way of decent military organisation and simulation.
Wow sounds like a whole new system. Would need some radical AI. You don't think the current TOD that we have is good?
I really enjoy it.
-
Originally posted by phookat
What I mean is, why is it a problem that offensive operations have become more difficult?
Still think you missed what I said.
I said porking the fuel makes offensive operations more difficult.
Atleast I think I did, hell the way I type who knows. None the less that is what I meant
In ther words if I take out your fuel, it makes it more difficult for you to agress against me. This can allow me to pick the battle at a place of my choosing, like your front lawn instead of mine. Follow?
-
Are you talking about the Snapshots and such?
I have flown a few of them. The problem is that the action is either all or nothing and doesn't out weigh the time spent flying.
There is no reward for flying like a squadron or even an emphasis on it.
I think there is alot that can be done here, but you have to have it all coordinate to maximize the action. I find that the current TOD duplicates closely what it must have been like in real life. Alot of boring flying around and seldom spirts of hair raising action. The problem is I want the action not the boredom. I'll watch TV for that.
As for the AI, it would take some work, but that would set this game heads and shoulders apart from everything else out there.
-
Originally posted by straffo
If you want to taste the effect of the 25% go offline get a Yak9U with 25% shot all the drones and land.
Good luck :)
I just did this for the heck of it.
I took off using full power. E6B said I had 6 minutes of fuel at that setting.
After using full throttle to climb to 3,000ft (drone alt) I turn and went after the drones.
For the entire time if killed the drones my throttle varried from full to idle. More time on idle than full.
I exploded 12 drones and damaged 1 before running out of ammo. I was aided by the point where some drones spawned. Discounting those semi-freebies would result in 10 exploded and none damaged.
I then landed. When I came to a stop I had 3 fuel remaining. Enough for 5 minutes at idle and a lot less than 1 minute at full power.
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
I use to do it alot in AH1, though I am sure it would be a bit worse now.
your better than I :)
thanks Karnak ,you pointed the weak point of my example.
I thought of killing drone over an enemy field !
Not over the take off field.
-
Originally posted by mars01
When you are talking about the "War Effort", I couldn't give a crap. I and many others don't care about the reset. Big freaking deal. It has been proven the main deciding factor in winning the war is numbers, plain and simple.
This statement has the Furball Underground's "Seal of Approval".
Carry on...
-
Originally posted by mars01
Yeah and you are talking about ending the simulation, and everyone shuts down their computers and goes home. Not the point of the game. Fighting is the point of simulating air combat during WW2. If you pork the fuel the fighting stops and the simulation ends. :aok
Sorry for being so long winded and thanks for following along lolh:D [/B]
It is suppose to be simulating the airwar during WW2, they went after factories and fuel/ammo dumps. The point of simulating air combat is not only fighting but winning the war. That is why they allow you to capture bases. If they wanted it just to be dogfights all the time, the game would be hella lame and people would get bored after a few minutes of playing.
If the other team cannot protect their field, they don't deserve to take off after 2/3s of it is on fire. By the time the fuel is completely down, the field is capped so it is going to be extremely hard to take off from it anyway.
-
Originally posted by mjj09
Now since this is a 'game' some things have to be changed. Such as:
1.) Once you die you can 'come back'
...
4.) Everything destroyed at a base is restored within a few hours instead of a few DAYS, WEEKS, and/or MONTHS
5.) Bases do not have to be supplied with ammo and fuel on a daily basis or in AH's case, every few hours.
Ask yourself why these things have to be changed. Why not make it so you can't come back when you die?
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
In ther words if I take out your fuel, it makes it more difficult for you to agress against me. This can allow me to pick the battle at a place of my choosing, like your front lawn instead of mine. Follow?
We are now talking about a defensive fuel pork. Are we agreed then that offensive fuel porking is not a good thing?
As far as defensive porking...see my response above. Porking is not a good solution to hordes, because it has other bad effects.
-
Originally posted by mjj09
If the other team cannot protect their field, they don't deserve to take off after 2/3s of it is on fire.
Turn it around. The team that cannot take a base in the face of fighter opposition does not deserve the capture.
Originally posted by mjj09
By the time the fuel is completely down, the field is capped so it is going to be extremely hard to take off from it anyway.
So then fuel porking shouldn't matter to you as a stratter, right?
-
Originally posted by straffo
I thought of killing drone over an enemy field !
Not over the take off field.
Well then. I doubt I would get many. It seemed that the Yak-9U had 9 minutes of fuel using max cruise settings after taking off with 25%.
If I found a base that I could fly down from to get to an enemy base, I might get some. There are bases like that on AKDesert, but that is kinda gaming the test. Assuming bases at equal altitude with no mountain in the way and 25 miles between them I think I might get a drone or three, but there is no way I'd make it back. There is also a decent chance that at those power settings I'd be slow enough not to get any.
-
For those of you fixated on the idea that the strat model used to be more realistic, answer this. What part of kamikaze 'Stangs and Tiffes destroying an entire front's fuel was realistic?
Thousands of heavy bombers hitting the real vulnerable points, production and mass storage, had vastly less effect that a few dozen suicide 'Stangs and Tiffies had in AH1.
Have you guys actually ever spent time in AH1 on anti-Diver patrol? I have. It is tedious and if the guy(s) doing it are at all skilled it is almost impossible to stop. Even another P-51D has an extremely difficult time intercepting a Diver. Futher, the resourses dedicated to anti-Diver patrols need to be at a minimum three pilots for ever Kamikaze pilot. One on one it is too easy for the Kamikaze to avoid.
Bluntly, the affect was far, far beyond reasonable for the ammount of effort it took to accomplish.
-
Bluntly, the affect was far, far beyond reasonable for the ammount of effort it took to accomplish.
Yup. 100% agree,
-
Originally posted by mars01
Are you talking about the Snapshots and such?
I have flown a few of them. The problem is that the action is either all or nothing and doesn't out weigh the time spent flying.
There is no reward for flying like a squadron or even an emphasis on it.
I think there is alot that can be done here, but you have to have it all coordinate to maximize the action. I find that the current TOD duplicates closely what it must have been like in real life. Alot of boring flying around and seldom spirts of hair raising action. The problem is I want the action not the boredom. I'll watch TV for that.
As for the AI, it would take some work, but that would set this game heads and shoulders apart from everything else out there.
Don't know about snap shots. What I was refering to is actually called Squd Ops now. I still Call it TOD (Tour of duty) because it use to be called that and I am just use to it. Three frames in succession, with one life and a specific mission. In a way it is simlar to what you described but not quite.
Enjoy
-
Originally posted by DipStick
This statement has the Furball Underground's "Seal of Approval".
Carry on...
:rofl
:rofl ROMLMAO :rofl
:rofl
-
Originally posted by phookat
Ask yourself why these things have to be changed. Why not make it so you can't come back when you die?
Now lets not get extream here, keep an open mind.
-
Originally posted by phookat
We are now talking about a defensive fuel pork. Are we agreed then that offensive fuel porking is not a good thing?
As far as defensive porking...see my response above. Porking is not a good solution to hordes, because it has other bad effects.
Oh yes, we can agree that offensive porking is just plain stupid.
Definately agree withyou there.
I still have to disagree on defesive porking though. It can or did shut down fronts and eliminated alot of agression. Defensively it can be quite effective IMO.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Well then. I doubt I would get many. It seemed that the Yak-9U had 9 minutes of fuel using max cruise settings after taking off with 25%.
If I found a base that I could fly down from to get to an enemy base, I might get some. There are bases like that on AKDesert, but that is kinda gaming the test. Assuming bases at equal altitude with no mountain in the way and 25 miles between them I think I might get a drone or three, but there is no way I'd make it back. There is also a decent chance that at those power settings I'd be slow enough not to get any.
Bear in mind that 25% now is actually 33% less than what it use to be. Try it at 50%, what do you think?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
For those of you fixated on the idea that the strat model used to be more realistic, answer this. What part of kamikaze 'Stangs and Tiffes destroying an entire front's fuel was realistic?
Thousands of heavy bombers hitting the real vulnerable points, production and mass storage, had vastly less effect that a few dozen suicide 'Stangs and Tiffies had in AH1.
Have you guys actually ever spent time in AH1 on anti-Diver patrol? I have. It is tedious and if the guy(s) doing it are at all skilled it is almost impossible to stop. Even another P-51D has an extremely difficult time intercepting a Diver. Futher, the resourses dedicated to anti-Diver patrols need to be at a minimum three pilots for ever Kamikaze pilot. One on one it is too easy for the Kamikaze to avoid.
Bluntly, the affect was far, far beyond reasonable for the ammount of effort it took to accomplish.
The key to anti diver patrol is do not sit over the base you are protecting, you need to intersept them before they get there. A light p51D should be allover a heavy P51D. You can almost never succesfull defend a place from being destroyed by being at thte location of that place. If you intercept them even 10 miles out. even numbers, its either going to be easy pickens or they will have to drop thier load, either way, defense successful.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Yup. 100% agree,
Me too,
No one has commented on change though.
Here is an example, right now you can ake a field down to 75%, and it is still fairly easy. I think maybe adding one or two more fuel cells to an air field to get that effect would be good. Further more, I think if you hit the refinery that supplied the air field it should drop it 25% from whatever it is currently at. That means if you leveled the refinery and hit some 6 - 10 fuel cells (Depending on the size of base) It should drop fuel to 50%. I do agree that 25% with the new model is to low. Make sense?
Any thoughts?
Any one?
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
Oh yes, we can agree that offensive porking is just plain stupid.
Definately agree withyou there.
OK, that's cool.
Originally posted by JRCrow
I still have to disagree on defesive porking though. It can or did shut down fronts and eliminated alot of agression. Defensively it can be quite effective IMO.
Well, see there's the problem. You can't have one without the other. If you have fuel porking, it will be available for both offense and defense (and practically will be used for offense more often). Hence my comment--pork is not a good solution to this problem.
You bring up the point that porking shuts down the front. Once again, I see this as a bad thing from both an a2a and strat point of view. Defensively, isn't it more fun to fight the horde than to have no enemies at all?
I guess what I don't see is where the satisfaction is in porking fuel. From a strategic perspective, porking is not an intellectually demanding task--we're not talking chess here, right? If the fuel is there, pork it...that's about it. And now you don't have to worry about attacks from this sector. OK, fine, but this is really pretty simple as far as strategy goes, and I don't see how you can feel a sense of accomplishment of defeating the enemy with this.
-
Originally posted by phookat
OK, that's cool.
Well, see there's the problem. You can't have one without the other. If you have fuel porking, it will be available for both offense and defense (and practically will be used for offense more often). Hence my comment--pork is not a good solution to this problem.
Unless it is done at multiple air fields in a large area it is ineffective on the attack. WHen a field is under pressure you rarely launch from the field under attack and expect to get to alt. Usually you luanch from a nearby field, get to alt and then go over. If you pork the fuel on an offensive then once you are done you have only screwed yourself because now you do not have the capability to carry on the attack and have stopped yourself.
Originally posted by phookat
You bring up the point that porking shuts down the front. Once again, I see this as a bad thing from both an a2a and strat point of view. Defensively, isn't it more fun to fight the horde than to have no enemies at all?
[/B]
From a strategic point when you are fighting an enemy the far outnumbers you its not a bad thing.
Originally posted by phookat
I guess what I don't see is where the satisfaction is in porking fuel. From a strategic perspective, porking is not an intellectually demanding task--we're not talking chess here, right? If the fuel is there, pork it...that's about it. And now you don't have to worry about attacks from this sector. OK, fine, but this is really pretty simple as far as strategy goes, and I don't see how you can feel a sense of accomplishment of defeating the enemy with this. [/B]
Thats becuase you are probably the furball type of person and you can't see passed getting the mix on with other fighters. On a heavy front it actually takes more effort and planning to navigate past all the enemy aircraft and get to target. "Intellectually speaking" any one can say, there is the bad guy go getem'. Toe to toe combat is not intellectual at all. It took the British a long time to figure that one out. With any battle the end result is to stack the odds in your favor and defeat the enemy on your terms if possible. You could say much worse about the guys that fly over deack and air field and don't even try to capture it. They just hover over it waiting to vulch.
By your general rational why do we have strat targets at all. Might as well be an online Nintendo game with nothing but a2a.
This is the best full view sim around. It is not meant to be simplistic, easy, or have one way to play the game. It is meant to be multiversed and have many ways to combat your enemy, both at tactical and trategic levels. There are many other online games were if all you want to do is mix it up you can. Or simply use that as your role in a joint effort on this game. This game/sim is meant to recreat the challenges of warfare in that time. Much more of battle is fought at a strategic level then tactical. A wise man once said "Fighters win the headlines, but bombers win the war".
End result if you can't beat them head on then you hinder there ability to wage war upon you. Heck we do it all the time.
-
Toe to toe combat is not intellectual at all.
That is where you strategery guys are all wrong. There is a whole lot of intellectual aspects of fighting en-mass and you have to do it a lightning speed.
To be successful in a furball, you have to Calculate and consider many things. These are just a few...
1) You have to think about how you are going to enter it, to maximize your killing ability without sacrificing your survivability.
This means looking at how the furball is moving, looking at where the cherry pickers are and what way they are moving and looking at what your teammates are doing.
2) You have to identify and think about the fast moving targets from the slow targets.
3) You have to identify and weight the planes and how much of a threat they are in the situation you are flying into.
4) You have to think about your egress.
On top of all this you have to make these decisions with split second timing. One wrong decision and you are dead. You have to constantly rethink these things as the furball progresses.
One of the biggest mistakes non furball types make is believing that furballing is a mindless pursuit. It might be for the many people that have very little experience or idea about how to survive and scoring kills in one but for the ones that are successful there is a lot going on.
As for 1 v 1 the factors are different but there is still alot to think about.
Most of this temporal processing takes place so fast that some may think there is nothing going on there, but then I would venture a guess that they are not very good at this game yet and still have a lot to learn about Air Combat.
-
Thats becuase you are probably the furball type of person and you can't see passed getting the mix on with other fighters.
Your making some long sweeping assumptions that show very little thought. It's not that we can't get past the "mix on with other fighters." It that we are past the launch heavy, climb high, hide from other fighters and kill non thinking, non moving, stationary targets.
Sure you may think there is some great strategy going on, but without a country wide organisation the strategy is small and localised and that is why it is the country with the numbers that wins not the brightest strat guys.
On a heavy front it actually takes more effort and planning to navigate past all the enemy aircraft and get to target.
Effort, you mean higher altitude. Planning you mean flying a route that takes you away from the enemy. This isn't rocket science. Also I don't count NOE as planning, it's just a sneak attack, very little planning needed other then route.
As I am sure you disagree, can you please give me one of your best strategic plans as an example of how intellectual this game is for you?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, I am actually interested in what your response will be.
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
The key to anti diver patrol is do not sit over the base you are protecting, you need to intersept them before they get there. A light p51D should be allover a heavy P51D. You can almost never succesfull defend a place from being destroyed by being at thte location of that place. If you intercept them even 10 miles out. even numbers, its either going to be easy pickens or they will have to drop thier load, either way, defense successful.
You say that like it isn't obvious.
The problem, you see, is that you need to position yourself out at the edge of your radar coverage and defend against two-three avenues of approach. A skilled Kamikaze pilot will have his aircraft up to speed before he gets into your radar coverage. Yes, your P-51D is faster, slightly. Once he starts his shallow dive that pretty much goes away and if you're even a little out of position he'll get through.
The best I've ever done was shooting down 10 or so Kamikaze P-51Ds while flying the Yak-9U. Another standout in my mind was the time that four of us managed to get all of one of them. I was in a P-51B that time and got the single kill.
The problem is that if they are not trying low altitude runs (as in the case where I slaughtered them in the Yak-9U) you are pulled out of position and cannot climb back up to intercept the next one if you mess up your first pass. The interceptor's job is much harder as one mistake can mean complete failure whereas the Kamikaze pilot holds the initiative.
Besides, all that skips my main question, which you did not answer, of what part of Kamikaze 'Stangs and Tiffies destroying all the fuel on a whole front was realistic?
Go on, answer it.
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
Unless it is done at multiple air fields in a large area it is ineffective on the attack. WHen a field is under pressure you rarely launch from the field under attack and expect to get to alt. Usually you luanch from a nearby field, get to alt and then go over. If you pork the fuel on an offensive then once you are done you have only screwed yourself because now you do not have the capability to carry on the attack and have stopped yourself.
Yet offensive porking is done anyway, and there's nothing you can do to stop it short of removing it from the game. So, porking is bad for strat as well, for two reasons: the one you point out above, and the other reason that strat guys want to have opposition too.
However you slice this, porking is a large net negative--even from your perspective it seems.
Originally posted by JRCrow
Thats becuase you are probably the furball type of person and you can't see passed getting the mix on with other fighters. On a heavy front it actually takes more effort and planning to navigate past all the enemy aircraft and get to target. "Intellectually speaking" any one can say, there is the bad guy go getem'. Toe to toe combat is not intellectual at all.
Mars brought up a number of great points here, and I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I don't think this is true, at all.
Originally posted by JRCrow
It took the British a long time to figure that one out. With any battle the end result is to stack the odds in your favor and defeat the enemy on your terms if possible.
Once again, you are confusing this game with reality. The *true* game analogue of the RL strategy you mention above is to shut down your computer and not play AH.
BTW, the above statement implies that you think overwhelming hordes are a good thing in AH. Is that correct?
Originally posted by JRCrow
You could say much worse about the guys that fly over deack and air field and don't even try to capture it. They just hover over it waiting to vulch.
This is an issue related to people's behavior only, not game constructs. We are talking about two different types of issues here. Not relevant to this discussion. (and no, I don't vultch ;) )
Originally posted by JRCrow
By your general rational why do we have strat targets at all. Might as well be an online Nintendo game with nothing but a2a.
Incorrect, this is not my view. To quote myself from above, "The "strat" in AH is a collection of elements which are semi-related to some real-life counterparts, and assembled together to form a game which provides context for people to team up and fight against each other in a variety of ways and roles."
Originally posted by JRCrow
This is the best full view sim around. It is not meant to be simplistic, easy, or have one way to play the game.
Neither AH1 nor AH2 are complex from a strategic point of view. How do you come to the conclusion that AH is "meant" to be strategically complex?
As mars asked above, I'd like to know from you what strat complexity you see in AH. To me it seems pretty banal.
-
Originally posted by mars01
That is where you strategery guys are all wrong. There is a whole lot of intellectual aspects of fighting en-mass and you have to do it a lightning speed.
To be successful in a furball, you have to Calculate and consider many things. These are just a few...
1) You have to think about how you are going to enter it, to maximize your killing ability without sacrificing your survivability.
This means looking at how the furball is moving, looking at where the cherry pickers are and what way they are moving and looking at what your teammates are doing.
2) You have to identify and think about the fast moving targets from the slow targets.
3) You have to identify and weight the planes and how much of a threat they are in the situation you are flying into.
4) You have to think about your egress.
On top of all this you have to make these decisions with split second timing. One wrong decision and you are dead. You have to constantly rethink these things as the furball progresses.
One of the biggest mistakes non furball types make is believing that furballing is a mindless pursuit. It might be for the many people that have very little experience or idea about how to survive and scoring kills in one but for the ones that are successful there is a lot going on.
As for 1 v 1 the factors are different but there is still alot to think about.
Most of this temporal processing takes place so fast that some may think there is nothing going on there, but then I would venture a guess that they are not very good at this game yet and still have a lot to learn about Air Combat.
This can all be summed up by situational awareness.
As far as the intellectual part by definition (the short version).
Intellectual - a person who uses the mind creatively
Now we are talking semantics, that is a no win situation.
As far as furballing goes, I have done my share, and I am fair at it, but it is not the only thing I do. The only "Furballers" that agrivate me are the ones that fly over to a base deack it and sit there for hours on end vulching. They never touch the city or anything else they are just looking for the vulch kill to score some points and make there name flash across the screne. Those are the only "Furballers" that agrivate me. Ofcourse mybe that do not rank the title of "Furballer" maybe they are just "Vulchers".
I say again, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
BTW do you think the only thing I do is fly around in bombers and attack craft hitting fuel? NOT
The whole point of the conversation is simply that fact that fuel should not be untouchable. You could make it more difficult, make it more of a strat target like refineries. Whatever, but not untouchable. Once you do you loose that strategic element of war, plan and simple.
As far as furballing be a "Mindless pursuit" I think not. I takes skill to do so. The problem resides when that is the only thing they want to do. Then little is acomplished. The skill can be put to better use rather than going to the same place with the same plane, time after time after time, and shooting people down to no end. Get an objective, work with you team mates and do it. If you do that great hats off, welcome to the rest of the world.
And yes there are some days when you get on line and you don't care about crap and you just want to mix it up. That is your choice. I have had those days myself.
Now where does that all come into play with the conversation at hand. Hell if I know.
This is a full scope warfare game. I ahte to see it erode to just another flight sim by taking out all the strategic values. You can through notions back and forth all day long, I could pick out things that you may or may not do and call them skill less too. For example..
You are in a furball and get into a bad situation, out number low on e. So you leave the battle get your e back up, get some alt and came back in. Oh sounds totaly skilless to me :mad:
No that’s called using your head, accessing the situation and taking appropriate action. If that requires me to fly higher, or a different course to get to my target. Well then. If I can go through the furballs and take some out in the process cool too. Time, resources, numbers, and many more things all play a factor into those decisions. If the situation dictates go low, and pull them down, cool. Whatever. At a "Furball" level your not going to put yourself in the position that sets you up for and easy cherry pick and your not going to get into a turn fight if you are flying a fast plane. Right?
So why the hell would you want to fly a Typhoon wit 2,000 lbs of ordinance through a bunch of enemy fighters that can waist you to no end. B and Z, turn, you name it. That would be pretty stupid in my book.. But some how you would criticize someone who does not. That’s like criticizing someone who does not play into a turn fight when they are flying the faster plane with more e.
Follow?
Both sides of the battle field require skill to get things accomplished. Team work overall is an essential part of that.
This is all good but still has little bearing on the conversation at hand. This could go back and forth forever.
The whole term of "furballer" in itself is almost assigning. Because once you set out to be a "furballer" you segregate yourself from everything else. To me that is just plain silly. I “furball”, I bomb, I goon, drive tanks, man ack, drive PTs etc. I Believe that if you sincerely consider yourself a "furballer" all you have done it limit your options in the game as to what you can do. There are many more options you have at your disposal. Not that furballing is wrong and evil and people that do it Suck, bla bla bla. But it is one element of many in the game. I firmly believe that if this game was only furballing it would not be nearly as successful as it is. It would be just another sim, like all the other sims that are out there to chose from. Granted most of them are not online, with as much detail so on as so forth, but I guarantee you it would not be as successful.
2. intellectual - of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
3. intellectual - appealing to or using the intellect; "satire is an intellectual weapon"; "intellectual workers engaged in creative literary or artistic or scientific labor"; "has tremendous intellectual sympathy for oppressed people"; "coldly intellectual"; "sort of the intellectual type"; "intellectual literature"
4. intellectual - involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"
Take your pick, they all fit in one way or another.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Yet offensive porking is done anyway, and there's nothing you can do to stop it short of removing it from the game. So, porking is bad for strat as well, for two reasons: the one you point out above, and the other reason that strat guys want to have opposition too.
So with that rational barracks get porked allt he time and there is nothing you can do to stop it so lets remove it too.
Originally posted by phookat
However you slice this, porking is a large net negative--even from your perspective it seems.
[/B]
Pros and cons to everthing. To bad you have tunnel vision and can not see what I am trying to say. Perhaps I am not as good of a communicator or something, you certainly take extreams to one side or the other. Nice twist of words by the way. Did you take argumentation in colledge?
Originally posted by phookat
Mars brought up a number of great points here, and I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I don't think this is true, at all.
[/B]
Lost trake of this one so I will skip it
Originally posted by phookat
Once again, you are confusing this game with reality. The *true* game analogue of the RL strategy you mention above is to shut down your computer and not play AH.
[/B]
Where the heck are you getting this from? Shut down the computer and not play, your saying give up when the situation is not to your liking or something like that.
Originally posted by phookat
BTW, the above statement implies that you think overwhelming hordes are a good thing in AH. Is that correct?
[/B]
Way off base again, there is no way I ever implied that hords are a good thing. You must have taken a class, this is exactly the kind of stuff they teach. Twist, confuse, set off base, reinforce.
Originally posted by phookat
This is an issue related to people's behavior only, not game constructs. We are talking about two different types of issues here. Not relevant to this discussion. (and no, I don't vultch ;) )
[/B]
Feel free to expand on this one, it is hard to keep trak of all this stuff. I'd like to hear the geneal philosophy behind it.
Originally posted by phookat
Incorrect, this is not my view. To quote myself from above, "The "strat" in AH is a collection of elements which are semi-related to some real-life counterparts, and assembled together to form a game which provides context for people to team up and fight against each other in a variety of ways and roles."
[/B]
Ok, thats cool, why eleminate the variety?
Originally posted by phookat
Neither AH1 nor AH2 are complex from a strategic point of view. How do you come to the conclusion that AH is "meant" to be strategically complex?
[/B]
Again more twisting. I never said it was meant to be strategic, however that element is in the game, as well as the tactical end of things. Why the heck els would you include Fuel, ordianance, Barracks, Radar, Head quarters, refineries, troop training facilities, Hangers, These are all Strategic in value
Originally posted by phookat
As mars asked above, I'd like to know from you what strat complexity you see in AH. To me it seems pretty banal. [/B]
Seems pretty what? oh you mean obvious and dual. Well the same could be stated towards any number of things in this realm depending on your point of view. Individual perception is truly individual reality. I am sorry you can not open your mind to the possibilities and continue to attack other peoples perceived points of view to no end. No matter what I say the outcome will be twisted to your side. This really is a simple endeavor, and you still have not answered my question from above, I am sure it was not even given a second glance as your mind is truly affixed on one thing.
I do not think you have clearly heard any of what I have said accept what you want to hear. Of course that is merely my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You say that like it isn't obvious.
Besides, all that skips my main question, which you did not answer, of what part of Kamikaze 'Stangs and Tiffies destroying all the fuel on a whole front was realistic?
Go on, answer it.
Thats funny I don't ever recall saying it was realisitc. However it keeps being pointed out to me that this is not real so that should have no effect.
To answer your question though I have already stated several times that it should not be so easy that should be changed. Yet people have simply discounted it and continued down a set path.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You say that like it isn't obvious.
The problem, you see, is that you need to position yourself out at the edge of your radar coverage and defend against two-three avenues of approach. A skilled Kamikaze pilot will have his aircraft up to speed before he gets into your radar coverage. Yes, your P-51D is faster, slightly. Once he starts his shallow dive that pretty much goes away and if you're even a little out of position he'll get through.
The best I've ever done was shooting down 10 or so Kamikaze P-51Ds while flying the Yak-9U. Another standout in my mind was the time that four of us managed to get all of one of them. I was in a P-51B that time and got the single kill.
The problem is that if they are not trying low altitude runs (as in the case where I slaughtered them in the Yak-9U) you are pulled out of position and cannot climb back up to intercept the next one if you mess up your first pass. The interceptor's job is much harder as one mistake can mean complete failure whereas the Kamikaze pilot holds the initiative.
Go on, answer it.
Attackers allways have the initiative, and manuver on the battle field is allways a variable. Nothing is ever perfect no matter what. Eleminating 10 of the in a single flight is quite succesful though. Thats a 1 to 10 ratio in effectiveness. :aok
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
Bear in mind that 25% now is actually 33% less than what it use to be. Try it at 50%, what do you think?
sorry ?
How is it possible , I don't understand :confused:
-
Originally posted by straffo
sorry ?
How is it possible , I don't understand :confused:
I thought you were doing some test flying, I guess not.
-
Originally posted by straffo
sorry ?
How is it possible , I don't understand :confused:
Or do you mean how is it possible that the fuel is less than what it use to be? If that is the question the burn rate for aircraft has changed from 1.5 to 2.0, 33% Faster than what it use to be.
-
Originally posted by JRCrow
Or do you mean how is it possible that the fuel is less than what it use to be? If that is the question the burn rate for aircraft has changed from 1.5 to 2.0, 33% Faster than what it use to be.
Depend how are you testing, in AHI altitude didn't change the consumption only manifold had influence.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Depend how are you testing, in AHI altitude didn't change the consumption only manifold had influence.
Yes mostly manifold pressure and RPMs to a degree, effect Flight time and Range. I use to use them alot. Now settings are given to you. Take alot of the guess work out.
-
So with that rational barracks get porked allt he time and there is nothing you can do to stop it so lets remove it too.
Reread the entire thread again, until you understand. The consequences of barrack busting and fuel busting is very different.
While both end up in an essentially simular final result, the process is entirely different.
You, imply that the differences in the process of one method to the other, should be simply viewed as another variety of attack method - which is untrue.
Simply put, again, until you understand, in a gameplay perspective the fuel object has inherent problems in regards to its high, penalizing attritional value.
Your proposal to increase fuel objects ten-fold is essentially meaningless also.
In order to understand this, you must realize a better solution would be rather to increase fuel bunker durability to 10 fold.
* Having 4 fuel bunkers 10 times as tougher, is better than having 10 more flimsy fuel bunkers
If you understand why this is so(which I don't feel like explaining to you since you are unable to comprehend what we've been saying all along), you'll get the meaning of what Karnak says when he mentions "the effect was far, far beyond reasonable for the ammount of effort it took to accomplish". Or, when I say "the risk to effect ratio is far too unbalanced"
-
Originally posted by mars01
That is where you strategery guys are all wrong. There is a whole lot of intellectual aspects of fighting en-mass and you have to do it a lightning speed.
To be successful in a furball, you have to Calculate and consider many things. These are just a few...
1) You have to think about how you are going to enter it, to maximize your killing ability without sacrificing your survivability.
This means looking at how the furball is moving, looking at where the cherry pickers are and what way they are moving and looking at what your teammates are doing.
2) You have to identify and think about the fast moving targets from the slow targets.
3) You have to identify and weight the planes and how much of a threat they are in the situation you are flying into.
4) You have to think about your egress.
On top of all this you have to make these decisions with split second timing. One wrong decision and you are dead. You have to constantly rethink these things as the furball progresses.
One of the biggest mistakes non furball types make is believing that furballing is a mindless pursuit. It might be for the many people that have very little experience or idea about how to survive and scoring kills in one but for the ones that are successful there is a lot going on.
As for 1 v 1 the factors are different but there is still alot to think about.
Most of this temporal processing takes place so fast that some may think there is nothing going on there, but then I would venture a guess that they are not very good at this game yet and still have a lot to learn about Air Combat.
Nice list, players new to the game need to read this. I would also like to add you must remain flexible at all times. Switching targets is extremely important. Don't get fixated on one target just becuase you got some lead in him. This is especially important if you are in a plane that lacks good sustained turnrate performance.
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Reread the entire thread again, until you understand. The consequences of barrack busting and fuel busting is very different.
While both end up in an essentially simular final result, the process is entirely different.
You, imply that the differences in the process of one method to the other, should be simply viewed as another variety of attack method - which is untrue.
Simply put, again, until you understand, in a gameplay perspective the fuel object has inherent problems in regards to its high, penalizing attritional value.
Your proposal to increase fuel objects ten-fold is essentially meaningless also.
In order to understand this, you must realize a better solution would be rather to increase fuel bunker durability to 10 fold.
* Having 4 fuel bunkers 10 times as tougher, is better than having 10 more flimsy fuel bunkers
If you understand why this is so(which I don't feel like explaining to you since you are unable to comprehend what we've been saying all along), you'll get the meaning of what Karnak says when he mentions "the effect was far, far beyond reasonable for the ammount of effort it took to accomplish". Or, when I say "the risk to effect ratio is far too unbalanced"
Actually I have already agreed that "the effect was far, far beyond reasonable for the amount of effort it took to accomplish" and have stated that several times. If your opinion is to make the fuel targets tougher then that would be good. It makes sense and makes it more difficult. Again I have stated that before, so I can assume that we at least partially agree and understand the situation. I actually think the barracks is to easy at this point. But that is a different conversation.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
Nice list, players new to the game need to read this. I would also like to add you must remain flexible at all times. Switching targets is extremely important. Don't get fixated on one target just becuase you got some lead in him. This is especially important if you are in a plane that lacks good sustained turnrate performance.
Zazen
Again situational awareness, if you are all alone you can finish him off, but in a major engagement getting fixated one person invites you to get roped and stuffed or just plain blindsided.
-
Well I do agree that it was to easy to kill the fuel and that with the new fuel model going down to 25% is to much but I do think it's gone a little to far the other way.
IMO the fuel should have more effect than it dose now and I am not for the diving suicide fighters (thats just stupid) I would say 50% should be the most it could be killled given the fuel model and I'm all for adding more cells around the fields and while were at it make them hardend so the diving figher dweebs cant pick them off so easy. I say let us bomber pilots take care of the fuel. You can usually find me in a bomber and I would welcome the challange of getting my slow moving buff formation behind nme lines to do a little precision bombing of the fuel. :)
Oh and the idea of killin the fighter hangers in stead of the fuel might be an option but they really do pop up way to fast for this to work espeshally at the large fields, I bombed my brains out one night at a large field with 1 buff formatin after another of varying types and as soon as I killed 2 of em in a pass the 3 I killed in the pass befor that poped right back up. And just so no one thinks I was trying to do the one man kills all thing like in AH1 there were at least 5 of my squadies and a good # of my country men trying to kill them too. I think one of em hit it on the head when he said "it was like playing whack a mole" lol. :)
Well anyway this post is getting longer than was origanally intended and I'm not trying to rant so please don't take it as such, just trying to state my opinion
P.S. sorry about my spelling I went to the HT school of spelling. :D
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
Well I do agree that it was to easy to kill the fuel and that with the new fuel model going down to 25% is to much but I do think it's gone a little to far the other way.
IMO the fuel should have more effect than it dose now and I am not for the diving suicide fighters (thats just stupid) I would say 50% should be the most it could be killled given the fuel model and I'm all for adding more cells around the fields and while were at it make them hardend so the diving figher dweebs cant pick them off so easy. I say let us bomber pilots take care of the fuel. You can usually find me in a bomber and I would welcome the challange of getting my slow moving buff formation behind nme lines to do a little precision bombing of the fuel. :)
Oh and the idea of killin the fighter hangers in stead of the fuel might be an option but they really do pop up way to fast for this to work espeshally at the large fields, I bombed my brains out one night at a large field with 1 buff formatin after another of varying types and as soon as I killed 2 of em in a pass the 3 I killed in the pass befor that poped right back up. And just so no one thinks I was trying to do the one man kills all thing like in AH1 there were at least 5 of my squadies and a good # of my country men trying to kill them too. I think one of em hit it on the head when he said "it was like playing whack a mole" lol. :)
Well anyway this post is getting longer than was origanally intended and I'm not trying to rant so please don't take it as such, just trying to state my opinion
P.S. sorry about my spelling I went to the HT school of spelling. :D
"Whack a Mole" :rofl thats a good way of putting it. I think they have adjusted the down times for the hangers I am guessing. I have yet to see a hanger down on my retern trip. The other night two of us hit the FHs at a small field, missed one slightly. We both upped heavy 38s, by the time we got back ( a mear 30-40 mile trip) they were all back up again. Bummer, oh well. Differant plan needed.