Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Morpheus on September 28, 2004, 02:06:19 PM
-
...when a single 110G2 can come in otd and straffe down a Cruiser in a single pass along with its rockets...
Its even more astounding when that 110 proceeds to fly right on through the CV ack with zero damage.
Thats realism for ya.
WTG guys. :aok
-
I did it earlier , ord was dead so I upped 110 with the big gun package , came in low shot till i died , reupped another 110 , came in low again and put her on the bottom .
:aok
-
You don't want it to happen you should sit in a gun position and shoot him down.
IRL they didn't have a computer firing the guns for you...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't want it to happen you should sit in a gun position and shoot him down.
IRL they didn't have a computer firing the guns for you...
IRL they had a 24-hour crew.
IRL there is no way a single 110 is gonna sink a CV ... period.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
IRL there is no way a single 110 is gonna sink a CV ... period.
Not so. Heavy cruiser's weren't that tough and a couple of very well placed 500kg bombs could sink one. It wouldn't be very likely, but it is well within the possible outcomes.
Now with guns, you're absolutely right.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't want it to happen you should sit in a gun position and shoot him down.
IRL they didn't have a computer firing the guns for you...
Here's a little bit of "IRL" for you.
IRL there is absolutly no way a 110 is going to sink a Cruiser using only Rockets and Guns in a single pass.
-
I thought the rockets on the 110 where air to air. In any case, I was after a spit once that took cover in the CV ack. Like the dumy that I am, I followed. I missed, hit the CV, Cv sank. I was in a Yak9U. Two hits and it went down. It had to be soft but common now. And yes, I lived with a couple of pings from the ack but no damage.
Speaking of real life, have you seen any films of real life ack comming of a boat? I don't think a fly could get through it, not a 110. In AH I am more afraid of PTs than a CV group. Unless I am 20 miles away in a fighter at 15K and the pufy ack comes after me.
And NO, I am not going to man a gun on a CV waiting for some fool to strafe it with a fighter. If you are so good, fly the 110 against GVs or airplanes.
-
I don't think it should be possible to sink a capital ship with just guns and rockets. It most likely wasn't possible IRL either. The 110 has 20mm and 30mm guns, it should take much larger rounds than that to even do appreciable damage to a capital ship.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
IRL they had a 24-hour crew.
IRL there is no way a single 110 is gonna sink a CV ... period.
sorry your wrong slap shot a single a6m sunk lite us carrier. plus many more ships sunk to kamakazee's
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I thought the rockets on the 110 where air to air. In any case, I was after a spit once that took cover in the CV ack. Like the dumy that I am, I followed. I missed, hit the CV, Cv sank. I was in a Yak9U. Two hits and it went down. It had to be soft but common now. And yes, I lived with a couple of pings from the ack but no damage.
Speaking of real life, have you seen any films of real life ack comming of a boat? I don't think a fly could get through it, not a 110. In AH I am more afraid of PTs than a CV group. Unless I am 20 miles away in a fighter at 15K and the pufy ack comes after me.
And NO, I am not going to man a gun on a CV waiting for some fool to strafe it with a fighter. If you are so good, fly the 110 against GVs or airplanes.
lol bismark would argue with you. since it was dead in water thx to low slow biplane attack. they fired every aa round they had barely hit 1 swordfish lol
-
Originally posted by rod367th
sorry your wrong slap shot a single a6m sunk lite us carrier. plus many more ships sunk to kamakazee's
That A6M, like othe kamikaze planes most likely had maximum fuel load and ordinance aboard so it would do as much damage as possible. Also, Kamikaze planes didnt sink ships by firing their guns, they sank them by ramming the ships.
-
Originally posted by rod367th
lol bismark would argue with you. since it was dead in water thx to low slow biplane attack. they fired every aa round they had barely hit 1 swordfish lol
That *low, slow biplane attack* was a torpedo attack on the Bismarck, not a guns and rockets attack, which is what this thread is about :)
-
Originally posted by rod367th
lol bismark would argue with you. since it was dead in water thx to low slow biplane attack. they fired every aa round they had barely hit 1 swordfish lol
I could be wrong but I think it took hundrets of planes and a few days to get Bismark and all the damage it finaly took was to its steering system from a bomb or torp. It did not sink because they strafed it down with mgs. Not to mention that when initially attacked it was parked and not moving. They still could not hit it though.
Also, kamakazee's would hit the boat with a plane full of explosives. Again, no mg involved. And not many made it through the ack.
I dont have a problem losing a CV. But losing it to MG fire is kind of, what can I say, strange?? Hit it with a bomb at list.
In the case of my Yak taking it down, I have put more rounds in LANCs and they just flew away. But the CV went down. If you don;t see anything wrong with that there is no point to continue this dicusion.
-
wrong this is whine on game play . stop whinning just play game every thing in this game has happen in real life one time or another. Were ships destroyed by gun fire yes some were. Did suicide work yes it did. did bombers fly low yes they did sometimes. Did guys run from fights. Yes they did. Did guys HO in real life yes they did.Did fast planes run from slow planes Yes they did. Did bombers straffe fields as ack stars are called YES they did. Did takes spawn camp in a awat they did. Did guys wear tutus like shane real life I'm sure someone did. Did they all complain on how other guy fought NO WAY .
-
Originally posted by rod367th
wrong this is whine on game play . stop whinning just play game every thing in this game has happen in real life one time or another. Were ships destroyed by gun fire yes some were. Did suicide work yes it did. did bombers fly low yes they did sometimes. Did guys run from fights. Yes they did. Did guys HO in real life yes they did.Did fast planes run from slow planes Yes they did. Did bombers straffe fields as ack stars are called YES they did. Did tanks spawn camp in a away they did. Did guys wear tutus like shane real life I'm sure someone did. Did they all complain on how other guy fought NO WAY .
-
Were ships destroyed by gun fire yes some were.
Show us ONE instance where a CAPITAL ship, ie Carrier, Battleship, Heavy Cruiser was detroyed by a SINGLE aircraft firing ONLY machine guns and/or cannons. Sure you can probably destroy some of the smaller gun emplacements on a Capital ship with just aircraft guns, but you arent even gonna put a dent in the armor plating those ships had with aircraft guns.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I could be wrong but I think it took hundrets of planes and a few days to get Bismark and all the damage it finaly took was to its steering system from a bomb or torp. It did not sink because they strafed it down with mgs. Not to mention that when initially attacked it was parked and not moving. They still could not hit it though.
Also, kamakazee's would hit the boat with a plane full of explosives. Again, no mg involved. And not many made it through the ack.
I dont have a problem losing a CV. But losing it to MG fire is kind of, what can I say, strange?? Hit it with a bomb at list.
In the case of my Yak taking it down, I have put more rounds in LANCs and they just flew away. But the CV went down. If you don;t see anything wrong with that there is no point to continue this dicusion.
You arent wrong, your memory serves you correctly :)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't want it to happen you should sit in a gun position and shoot him down.
I did exactly that a few days ago. The MAWs were trying to sink our CV with Bf 110s, and I killed about a dozen of them before they finally understood that I wasn't going to let them strafe down the carrier.
So, they resorted to actual bombers and Jabos and came in a swarm instead of twos and threes. I got another 7 or so before they finally whittled down the CV. I have to give them credit, they certainly were determined. Dead, but determined. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Great points. Only they have nothing to do with this thread.
This is about MG fire taking down a CV. If you think that has happened in real life then I understand. Bringing all that other stuff in here shows that you ran out of valid arguments - if you even had any - and you are trying to make this thread something that it is not.
Good think the Japs did not know they could do that or we would have lost that war. It would taken about 400 planes making a one pass at a US boat and strafe it down with their guns and then RTB and celbrate their victory. I am surprized we still speak English in this country.
-
Originally posted by rod367th
Were ships destroyed by gun fire yes some were.
Which ones? Cap ships, I mean.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
You arent wrong, your memory serves you correctly :)
lol, thank you. Those things could survive 120mm hits and we are to believe that some went down to a few 20mm. At best they would scratch the paint.
-
Did suicide work yes it did.
That's still subject to debate over 60 years after the Kamikaze attacks.
Did Kamikaze attacks sink ships? Of course they did, but how many Kamikaze pilots never even made it to their target? Very few made it through fight cover and anti-aircraft fire. Off the top of my head I dont recall a single large carrier being sunk, smaller ships were sunk but even the USS Franklin survived a direct Kamikaze hit. The Franklin was put out of action for the rest of the war, but it SURVIVED.
Kamikaze attacks had no effect on the eventual outcome of the war. The Japanese wasted literally hundreds of pilots and aircraft on a tactic that had very marginal success.
You gave one example of a A6M taking out a light carrier, also known as an Escort Carrier. Those ships (iirc) were merchant ship hulls converted to Carrier duty. Much smaller than a Capital ship.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Which ones? Cap ships, I mean.
Not sure, but I think it was one of these:
http://www.knology.net/~ortak/wood_projects/ship1.jpg
-
It's a game... for gamers. Get over it.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Not sure, but I think it was one of these:
http://www.knology.net/~ortak/wood_projects/ship1.jpg
In order to sink that ship dont they have to kill that UBER glass bottle first??? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Tumor
It's a game... for gamers. Get over it.
Tumor
I think most of us want realistic flight models and realistic damage models. After that, how you play the game is up to you imo. This thread is about aircraft guns ability to kill capital ships which would fall into the *realistic damage model* category :)
-
"You gave one example of a A6M taking out a light carrier, also known as an Escort Carrier."
Actually his example sounds like USS Princeton at Leyte. It was a converted cruiser hull; smaller than a fleet carrier but decidedly larger and faster than a jeep carrier. Light carriers like the Pinceton operated with the normal CV task force, unlike the CVE's.
A point worth making is that it was FAR easier to disable a CV than to actually sink it without using topedoes. I can't think of any US carriers lost during the war that didn't suffer torpedo damage (Princeton was actually scuttled by the USN).
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"You gave one example of a A6M taking out a light carrier, also known as an Escort Carrier."
Actually his example sounds like USS Princeton at Leyte. It was a converted cruiser hull; smaller than a fleet carrier but decidedly larger and faster than a jeep carrier. Light carriers like the Pinceton operated with the normal CV task force, unlike the CVE's.
A point worth making is that it was FAR easier to disable a CV than to actually sink it without using topedoes. I can't think of any US carriers lost during the war that didn't suffer torpedo damage (Princeton was actually scuttled by the USN).
J_A_B
Battles at Coral Sea and Midway? All American carriers lost in those battles had torpedo damage? Just asking because I never even thought to look that up.
Also, if the Princeton is the carrier that Rod367th is talking about, then a single A6M did NOT sink it since it was eventually scuttled. Although I admit, the reason for it being scuttled was damage caused by an A6M ;)
-
"Battles at Coral Sea and Midway? All American carriers lost in those battles had torpedo damage? Just asking because I never even thought to look that up."
USS Langley (February '42,technically not a carrier at this point, and certainly not big as it was about the size of a CVE) was disabled by bomb damage. Its escorting destroyers scuttled it with torpedoes.
USS Lexington (Coral Sea) was damaged by the Japanese, then fires raged out of control because of gas fumes. USN topedoed it to get rid of it so that the fires wouldn't act as a beacon for the Japanese. It probably could have been saved.
USS Yorktown (Midway) was bombed and torpedoed and abandoned pematurely; it stayed adrift for several days until a Japanese submarine put a few more torps into it (it also sank a destroyer which was close by). Yorktown definately could have been saved had salavage operations been more than half-baked.
USS Hornet (Santa Cruz) almost defies the imagination. First, it took about 6 bomb hits, 2 topedoes, and a suicide plane hit from the Japanese. USN decided to scuttle it; destroyers shot 5 more torpedoes into it. It wouldn't sink. Destroyers closed to point-blank range and fired away with their 5-inch guns until they ran out of ammo (400-500 rounds); Honet still wouldn't sink. USN just left it adrift in the middle of the ocean. The Japanese found it and tried to tow it but Hornet refused to move so they fired another 4 torpedoes into it--Hornet finally went down. It probably could have been saved.
USS Wasp (Guadalcanal) was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine and sank (quite quickly I might add). This is the only big US CV that the Japanese sank without USN help.
USS Princeton (Leyte) was hit by a Kamikaze and ended up blazing stem to stern--but still on an even keel. USN torpedoed it to so the fires wouldn't provide the Japanese with a beacon. This one wouldn't have been worth saving but probably could have been.
That's all the big CV's the US lost duing WW2. A few smaller ships, like CVE Gambier Bay (Leyte), were lost due to other factors like naval gunfire.
J_A_B
-
AH ships model damage very very simplisticly or a 110 (or likely anything else) would not sink a ship with guns. AH just seems to count X ammount of damage anywhere - whether it is below the water line or not. Very little of the significant damage a 110's guns will be doing will or would be to the hull, certainly not below the waterline.
If they modelled hull thickness and position of damage in relation to waterline, things would be different. I imagine that is really hard to do or hitech would have done it already. Until then, this is likely just the way it has to be.
-
Imagine all the time and effort that was wasted building ships large enough to carry 16" guns when all we needed were row boats armed with 20mm canons to sink capitol ships.
-
On the other side of this coin would be cool to see a cv able to show a big ol' bomb cratter in the flight deck. ONe bomb cancel flight ops for a bit in that event.
-
when i first heard about this i was thinking its just a bug no one is going to use it
but now im starting to see BF110s uping from nearby bases to strafe the ships:rolleyes:
now when i see a BF110 nearing the CV my eyes light up with fire as i go to destroy such dweebs
gush i bet if HTC did not fix the TBM these DOLTs would be using them to bomb the HQ
-
first of all i said ships...........you guys are asking way to much. You want real life action in a game. IF this is what guys like elfie and others want. Then lets go all the way. You die you out untill new TOD but you pay entire month. oh wait we don't want that real just what we the minority think is good enough............
HTC would have to rewrite code so ammo and bombs count dif. Something being destroyed is base on total hits guns and bombs right now. Would have to recode so you could still kill buildings with guns but not ships.
-
The thread is about CAPITAL ships dying to aircraft guns, not ships in general. CAPITAL ships should NOT die to aircraft guns. Most of us want a realistic flight model and a realistic damage model. I stated this in another thread you started.
-
HTC would have to rewrite code so ammo and bombs count dif. Something being destroyed is base on total hits guns and bombs right now. Would have to recode so you could still kill buildings with guns but not ships.
New code could make it so the penetration factor on aircraft cannons is different for ships. (to take into account the heavy armor on the ships)
-
No to the last 5 or so.
All he'd have to do is make the Ships harder.
-
Originally posted by rod367th
You want real life action in a game. IF this is what guys like elfie and others want. Then lets go all the way. You die you out untill new TOD but you pay entire month. oh wait we don't want that real just what we the minority think is good enough............
All we are asking for is for the physics to be as close to real as possible. That is the primary goal of a flight simulator. If the physics models aren't realistic, then why call something a "cruiser" or a "Bf110". Despite what you and others are saying, there is a clear line between the physics sim and the war game. It is not arbitrary. Being physically realistic does not imply that we have to include death and pain and other parts or war to be consistent.
So if it is possible to model the physics more realistically, then it should be done. This is not a matter of forcing people to play a certain way. It is not even a matter of game balance.
-
Our cruiser is a wimp, sinks super easy. There were 14 Baltimore class ships commissioned, making them the largest class of heavy cruisers in history. None of them were sunk in action.
If I found good data for the Baltimore class,
9 8"/55 guns (3 positions x3 guns each.).
12 5"/38 DP guns (6 positions 2 guns each, one forward, one aft, two on each side ).
48 40mm AA guns (12 positions x4 guns each).
24 20mm AA guns.
4 aircraft, 2 catapults.
Max speed 33 knots
This sure ain't the AH boat
Armor:
Belt 6in-4in, armor deck 2.5in, barbettes 6.3in, turrets 8in face,
3in roof, 3.75in-2in sides, 1.5in rear, CT 6in with 3in roof,
side over magazines (underwater) 3in with 2.5in deck
A 110 would be a joke against this?
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
No to the last 5 or so.
All he'd have to do is make the Ships harder.
That would work too, maybe the ships are to soft now?
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Our cruiser is a wimp, sinks super easy. There were 14 Baltimore class ships commissioned, making them the largest class of heavy cruisers in history. None of them were sunk in action.
If I found good data for the Baltimore class,
9 8"/55 guns (3 positions x3 guns each.).
12 5"/38 DP guns (6 positions 2 guns each, one forward, one aft, two on each side ).
48 40mm AA guns (12 positions x4 guns each).
24 20mm AA guns.
4 aircraft, 2 catapults.
Max speed 33 knots
This sure ain't the AH boat
Armor:
Belt 6in-4in, armor deck 2.5in, barbettes 6.3in, turrets 8in face,
3in roof, 3.75in-2in sides, 1.5in rear, CT 6in with 3in roof,
side over magazines (underwater) 3in with 2.5in deck
A 110 would be a joke against this?
A 110's guns wouldnt even come close to penetrating that armor.
-
Originally posted by phookat
All we are asking for is for the physics to be as close to real as possible. That is the primary goal of a flight simulator. If the physics models aren't realistic, then why call something a "cruiser" or a "Bf110". Despite what you and others are saying, there is a clear line between the physics sim and the war game. It is not arbitrary. Being physically realistic does not imply that we have to include death and pain and other parts or war to be consistent.
So if it is possible to model the physics more realistically, then it should be done. This is not a matter of forcing people to play a certain way. It is not even a matter of game balance.
/cheer Phookat
-
Fine. You want 24/7 coverage. Your whole squad is now going to sit in a single CV. Maybe everyonce in a while you can trade off with another squad.
-
One more thing I find interesting with the 110 and is the fact that you can straffe a tiger with sustained fire on pin point locations such as the tracks or its turret and nothing.
Point it at a Cruiser or CV, hit auto lvl and in one single pass one is gone and the next, the CV, is gone with only a second or third pass.
And if I am correct, the 110's 20mm and 30mm are HE rounds now AP. Meaning they shouldnt do squat againt the armor of a fleet ship.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Fine. You want 24/7 coverage. Your whole squad is now going to sit in a single CV. Maybe everyonce in a while you can trade off with another squad.
Does anyone guard a base 24/7 ??? NO, not most of the time. But what happens when the base starts flashing? People/squads show up to defend or meet the aggressors. It would work the same way for CV's, if enemy is spotted then the alarm sounds, JUST AS IT DID BACK THEN IRL. The 5" guns open up first, then the 40mm's, then finally the 20mm guns. That's the way it was. Unfortunately AH ships are modeled after a toy boat in a game catatlog. As stated earlier in the post there was a ton more guns to defend oneself against enemy/Kamikazi A/C
12 5"/38 DP guns (6 positions 2 guns each, one forward, one aft, two on each side ).
48 40mm AA guns (12 positions x4 guns each).
24 20mm AA guns
This should all be in place and all mannable
-
Originally posted by rod367th
lol bismark would argue with you. since it was dead in water thx to low slow biplane attack. they fired every aa round they had barely hit 1 swordfish lol
The Bismark was not dead in the water, it was turning in a
wide circle due to the golden BB hit on a rudder. Admittedly
the AAA crews did not perform in a stellar fashion, but the
RN got very lucky.
-
Morph, the ships weren't damaged beforehand? You haven't mentionned it.
-
....came in low shot till i died , reupped another 110 ...
That is where is the big reality mistification, you up you surely die you reup in 5 seconds, you die and again and again.......so a single person can simulate a bunch of kamikaze in a short time.
When you die you have to reup from another field for the next ten minutes could be a solution??
-
You know I find it pretty remarkable that people do compare this game with RL... IT IS A GAME!!!
I mean virtually EVERYTHING can be classified with the "it wasnt this way in RL"... because its a game.
Lets look at the game...
Pilot A launches just like any other pilot WIHTOUT A MISSION...
We are all hijackin planes for joy riding... this didnt happen in RL...
Pilot A gets shot down and launches again in less then 30 sec... this didnt happen in RL...
Pilot A lands and gets his plane refueled in 30 sec.. this didnt happen in RL...
Pilot A flies a Yak and his wingman pilot B flies a 190... this dint happen in RL...
Pilot A engages and shoots down a Yak... this didnt happen in RL..
Pilot B gets help from Pilot C in a P51 to take out 3 Lancaster Bombers... this didnt happen in RL...
There is so much in this game that didnt happen in RL. You know why? BECAUSE ITS A GAME!!!
Realism is all nice BUT game play is more important then realism. There will always be unrealisitc events in even the most realistic games. Simply because it is a game and in games realism always has to be ballanced with the fun factor.
I dont mind discussions if a 110 should have the ability to take out a ship. BUT I do mind when references are made to RL because AH2 not a recreation of RL. AH is a great flight simulator game.
Tex
-
J_A_B do you habe a list like that for the Japanese carriers as well?
-
Originally posted by moot
Morph, the ships weren't damaged beforehand? You haven't mentionned it.
Moot thats a good question and I appoligize for not already answering it.
The Cruiser I was at yesterday was not dammaged. I was the only one on the there until I brought it to the Nights attention that it was ready to strike the base. I had been shelling the base for 10 minutes or so before that. Then upped in a heavy F6 and went in to take out ord. Alot of good that did because 5 minutes later a 110 slipped through and straffed the Cruiser down easier than if it were feild ack.
Im not "angry" because our cruiser was lost. Rather I am addressing an issue with the CV groups that has bothered me from the start of AH2. They are just too soft. SURE, maybe 30mm is a big gun, but there is no HE 30mm in the world that is tough enough to penetrate a ships hull and sink it within one pass. Thats not its job, and it wasnt designed to penetrate heavy armor.
Yet, you can around a Tiger tank and straffe it until the cows come home and nothing happens.
Give the same 110 several repeated passes on the CV and its gone just as easy.
-
BUT I do mind when references are made to RL because AH2 not a recreation of RL. AH is a great flight simulator game.
You must have missed the thread where Urchin made point after point of the 30mm and 20mm of the luftweenie planes being able to penetrate armor when they should not.
I'm sorry that you MIND reading this. But then again, this is alot like TV, you can always change the channel.
This is not about RL and what happend when "this plane hit this CV back in 1943...."
I broke my cardinal rule and used the word realism. I should not have.
The whole point(s), is one which I think you may be over looking.
Which is..
The luftweeenie 30mm/20mm do not have the capability of penetrating a ships hull and sinking it in several passes let alone a single pass.
-They are HE rounds which penetrate thin material, and explode from within.
-
Strange then, never heard of it happening before.
-
MoRphEuS
Ive got nothing against discussions that are "This weapon penetrates armour but it shouldnt/didnt". That is good and sound.
Though arguments like.... "IRL there is no way a single 110 is gonna sink a CV ... period. " are just totally out of place. (Im not saying you said this).
But this thread has gone from arguing weapons implementation to comparing IRL with in game.
The reason why this is wrong is because IF weapons are implemented as they should be (imho historicaly correct) and the players find different useage for them then they where intended for in RL then its fine.
Simply because we are not simulating WW2 or reliving it. We are defining air combat and air combat tactics based on the world we play in, AH2 the game.
So if we see 110s attacking and sinking CVs I have nothing against it at all. As long as the weapons and flight characteristics of the 110s are right ofcourse.
Tex.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
No to the last 5 or so.
All he'd have to do is make the Ships harder.
Just making the ships harder is not going to solve anything. The cumulative damage still makes it possible for aircraft guns to make the kill shot.
If a single bf110 can do it now, then 2 would be able to do it if the damage to kill number was increased. What we need is for the armor plating to not take damage from aircraft guns at all, or very limited damage.
All this talk about realistic damage models is great, but HTC isn't going to implement it due to the whining factors that it will create. Give the US M2 .50 API rounds that actually burn and the cries will go on forever.
-
As long as the weapons and flight characteristics of the 110s are right ofcourse.
Simply because we are not simulating WW2 or reliving it. We are defining air combat and air combat tactics based on the world we play in, AH2 the game.
So what are you going to go with?
Midnight, you cant sit there and tell me that a 30mm round from a 110 should have or ever did have the capability of fully penetrating a Cruisers armor more so, to sink a cruiser with a single pass.
And cumulative damage is fine. But... That being said, there is no way a 110 should be able to do enough cumulative damage to sink a cruiser in a single pass.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
...when a single 110G2 can come in otd and straffe down a Cruiser in a single pass along with its rockets...
Its even more astounding when that 110 proceeds to fly right on through the CV ack with zero damage.
Thats realism for ya.
WTG guys. :aok
Nearly as remarkable as being out in no man`s land headed for a base and that magical, mystical puffy ack consumes your plane when you go to auto pilot to reach for a smoke. No ping, no hits, no degree in damage, just BOOM, you and your plane are just gone.
-
Elfie.
Please define "Capital Ship"?
HTC recognizes the CV as the "Primary" Ship. And ALL others as "Other Ships."
HTC doesnt see the Cruiser as your "Capital" or "Primary" ship.(http://home.earthlink.net/~mugz/images/CVs.JPG)
AH2 IS an "Arcade" Game. Although most wont or dont admit it.
Untill it becomes a 100% RL SIM...it will remain an arcade game.
And that is of course is when I would be checking out. Many of us mouth that we want a RL sim...but it is simply un-true.
The threads have proven that out time and again.
What we want is what we want. The problem is....that in and of its self is an ever changing desire for nearly every one of us.
I for one am Sick of hearing the "IRL" comment. Becuase of the "Fact" yes i am saying "Fact" That its very likely that not a single one of AH players actually want a "100% RL simulation" 100% of the time.
So in closing......What a waste of time. :lol
-
Alright MugZ, so when can I have my Tiffy's 20mm's be loaded with Uranium depleted rounds?
Yeah, no kidding bro. The game isnt based on RL situations or doesnt come close to "simulating" RL. But...
The game is derived from real life objects, mechanisms, and machines.
When one of those is wrong they should fix it.
If you think its a waste of time fine. They stay out of things and let others argue their points.
I'm not here to discuss the matter of how others including me use their time on the BB. Im here, now, to say that something is wrong here and it should be fixed. Nothing more nothing less.
Again, if you dont like what your reading and think its a waste of time, why waste your own time in responding?
-
"Alright MugZ, so when can I have my Tiffy's 20mm's be loaded with Uranium depleted rounds?"
Yes. :D
"Yeah, no kidding bro. The game isnt based on RL situations or doesnt come close to "simulating" RL. But...
Fact. :D
"The game is derived from real life objects, mechanisms, and machines.
True :D
"When one of those is wrong they should fix it.
Its your opinion that there is a problem. no?
"If you think its a waste of time fine. They stay out of things and let others argue their points.
The Game is the waste of time i refere too :D Cant be denied.
The time spent playing a PC game is a waste of time. Even if we so choose to enjoy that waste. :)
"I'm not here to discuss the matter of how others including me use their time on the BB. Im here, now, to say that something is wrong here and it should be fixed. Nothing more nothing less.
Less is more. ;)
"Again, if you dont like what your reading and think its a waste of time, why waste your own time in responding?
Because im not about to let you waste more time in a day than i can. Im just competitive that way :rofl
-
Because im not about to let you waste more time in a day than i can. Im just competitive that way
Yeah but I'm getting paid for my time wasted here. ;)
-
Good posts from TexM and MugZee. :aok:aok
On the gaming/simming scale, I lean towards simming, but without wanting 8 hour sorties, mixture controls etc. But I do like to see planes flown according to accounts I have read from real WW2 pilots.
But there are those people who are dismissive of my approach (and they know who they are ;)) and who, for example, would pooh-pooh the idea of flying a JUG at 20K where it excelled. No, the only thing that matters to some of these guys is "mixing it up in the weeds" - turnfights in P47s at the deck, and having airfields so close together that they're practically overlapping. For me, it's hard to imagine anything further from realism than that. But I get told "AH isn't WW2/a recreation of WW2/a WW2 sim* (delete as applicable, according to the heat of the debate)...
... so it always cracks me up that when a gamer sees something he does not like, the first thing he does is to draw parallels with WW2, and begin a debate about what would or would not have happened in WW2. Selective Realism™ strikes again!!
Mugz is right - what a waste of time! :D
Thanks for the laugh though! :lol
-
lol look at Beetle calling the kettle... Never mind its too easy with you Beetle.
I find it overwhelingly ironic that many of the ones saying I'm wrong here are also the ones who whine about incorrect flight mods in A/C and are also the ones who whine about how MA of AH is nothing more than... Well, a furballers arena.
In the end it doesnt matter what you think is a waste of time brit. Your past dozen posts have been nothing but a flaim fest cluster F...
-
Morph,
I never whined about FM in AH2. But plenty did. I might well have whined about FM in AH1 because in some respects they were wrong. That's why they were changed for AH2, and why so many gamey whiners (or is it whiney gamers? - lol) quit on Day1 - their lame game no longer worked.
I'm flattered that you're still reading my posts, assuming your last remark was true. :cool:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... so it always cracks me up that when a gamer sees something he does not like, the first thing he does is to draw parallels with WW2, and begin a debate about what would or would not have happened in WW2. Selective Realism™ strikes again!!
Do you understand the difference between a flight sim and a wargame?
Originally posted by beet1e
Mugz is right
Do you prefer having 110's shooting down CV's, then?
-
Phookat - if AH was merely a flight sim, there wouldn't be GVs, PTs, CVs, FGs...
According to the website banner, it's a WW2 combat experience.
So, with that in mind, perhaps you can tell ME the difference. :D:cool:
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
The reason why this is wrong is because IF weapons are implemented as they should be (imho historicaly correct) and the players find different useage for them then they where intended for in RL then its fine.
But "player usage" is not the topic here, nor is it the goal to modify that usage. The purpose of the RL facts is to prove (or suggest) the incorrectness of the physics, not to force player behavior. So your righteous wrath is aimed in the wrong direction.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Phookat - if AH was merely a flight sim, there wouldn't be GVs, PTs, CVs, FGs...
According to the website banner, it's a WW2 combat experience.
So, with that in mind, perhaps you can tell ME the difference. :D:cool:
Let me rephrase that. Do you understand the difference between a physics simulation and a wargame?
-
Game, sim, arcade, what ever it is. All a 110 could do is scrach the paint of a capital ship and it would not even be able to complet a single pass before getting shot by all these guns.
If it means new code needs to be writen then fine. HT is writing code every day. Whats the big deal. He will get to it when ever he gets to it. Our point is simply that this is wrong.
Morp, u r right. Stupidity should be painfull.
As far as deffending and caping the CV, I did that the other day. Dweeb takes of in a 38 to bomb the CV. He is flying at 2K through the ack. I manage to put a few rounds into him but he continued on. He hits the CV then finally the ack gets him. Now I am waiting for him by the field as he takes of. He thinks nothing of it. Takes of gets shoot down, takes off gets shot down, takes off gets shot down. Three times and he did not even try to evade once. Finally, he takes of in a LA7 to get rid of me. He gets shot down even faster so he takes up a 38 again. Well, I am out of ammo. I bet you he made as many trips as he needed to sink that CV. I can post the film if you want to see how stupid the whole thing is.
The point is, people will be people. They will have fun the way they like. If he wants to die 10 times in a row in order to kill the CV let him. However, if the ack on the CV was anything close to real life - and before you complain about real life remember that your plane does have the guns it would have in real life - a sigle 38 at 2K would not even dream of getting close to the CV group. A single 110 would be sreaded by the ack before it even fired a single shot and if it did, it would just leave a mark on the paint. I am not asking for people to change. Just fix the game.
-
Well said TEX! I've always thought that it felt a little strange to be shooting down (or being shot down by) B-17's while in a P-51. But then I just tell myself what TEX has repeated - it's a GAME, dummy! Just play the GAME and have fun!!!!
-
Originally posted by debuman
But then I just tell myself what TEX has repeated - it's a GAME, dummy! Just play the GAME and have fun!!!!
Sure, it's all fun. But here's a question for ya. Suppose all the planes were modeled to have a top speed of 200 MPH, and not be able to fire their guns while airborne. Would that be OK too? That's probably more physically realisitic than cruisers strafed down and sunk.
Point is, the physics (as opposed to the wargame) should aim to be as real as possible. This post covers one area in need of improvement.
I'm not sure I understand why so many folks are reluctant to acknowledge this or support a change for the better.
-
They'd rather be a bunch of smart tulips Phookat.
-
... so it always cracks me up that when a gamer sees something he does not like, the first thing he does is to draw parallels with WW2, and begin a debate about what would or would not have happened in WW2. Selective Realism™ strikes again!!
Yep, its tough to say I was wrong in my last post.
IMHO brit, you are all gamers, yes, I am included in all.
There isnt a single person that logs into AH that isnt.
Oh and by the way, that puts you in there with the gamers too Beetle. Altho I havent seen you on in ages.
I furball, I E fight, I play with bombers from time to time, both at high alt and low lvl. I vulch, I HO, I ram, I cherry pick... The list can go on and on and On. Oh yeah forgot to mention the GV thang.
I'll bet my bottom dollar that 90% or more of the players in AH play just as I do.
Lately all I've had time for is a few flights and then I'll log off. I've had the pleasure within the past few days of being able to spend a little more time in AH than I recently have.
Since I've had the pleasure of being able to do a few more things in the past few days then I have had time for, I've seen some things that are just not right. The topic of this thread being one of them.
Being a "gamer" has nothing to do with anything here Beetle. Like I said, every single person who logs into AH is a gamer. They are playing a game. A game that is based on REAL LIFE machines, planes and objects. HTC has done every thing in his power to get the FM's of each A/C as comparable as posible. Yet people over look other important things like the ammo they carry and how it is modled.
If you look back through the updated Pyro already made a fix on the german 30mm and I beleive 20mm. It is still wrong. Regardless of it being right or wrong now, they beleive there is a need to have it as close to real life as they can. If they didnt they wouldnt have writen a fix for it several months ago.
Fix or no fix, it still needs more fixing. I dont understand how or why that is so difficult for you to understand.
Then again, you also want to see what others desktops look like.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Our cruiser is a wimp, sinks super easy. There were 14 Baltimore class ships commissioned, making them the largest class of heavy cruisers in history. None of them were sunk in action.
If I found good data for the Baltimore class,
9 8"/55 guns (3 positions x3 guns each.).
12 5"/38 DP guns (6 positions 2 guns each, one forward, one aft, two on each side ).
48 40mm AA guns (12 positions x4 guns each).
24 20mm AA guns.
4 aircraft, 2 catapults.
Max speed 33 knots
This sure ain't the AH boat
Armor:
Belt 6in-4in, armor deck 2.5in, barbettes 6.3in, turrets 8in face,
3in roof, 3.75in-2in sides, 1.5in rear, CT 6in with 3in roof,
side over magazines (underwater) 3in with 2.5in deck
A 110 would be a joke against this?
Essex Class
Armament:
12 - 5"/38cal (4ea x 2 mounts, 4ea x 1 mounts)
32 - 40mm (8ea x 4 mounts) AA
46 - 20mm AA 40mm and 20mm AA varied from ship-to-ship with up to 72 - 40mm (18ea x 4 mounts) and
60 - 20mm in later ships.
http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm for complete specs.
A few guns eh?
Protection:
Flight Deck - None
Gallery Deck - None
Hanger Deck - 2.5" STS Armor
Protective Deck(s) - 1.5" STS Armor
Armor Belt - 4" tapered to 2.5" (508' x 10')
Bulkheads - 4"
Conning Tower 1.5" STS top 1" side of Pilot House
Steering Gear - 2.5" Deck
-
Realism is all nice BUT game play is more important then realism. There will always be unrealisitc events in even the most realistic games. Simply because it is a game and in games realism always has to be ballanced with the fun factor.
I think it has already been stated that the realism most of us want is in flight models and damage models, we want those to be as accurate as possible.
I do agree with you that this is a GAME and as such some things will never be realistic.
I think HTC is concerned about realism to at least some extent as well. This is evidenced by a minor change they made to the angle of a planes landing gear when extended. Iirc Widewing brought this to HTC's attention and they agreed with the change and promptly fixed it.
-
"Similar infor on CV (if i remember class of cv is lexington) "
The CV in AH is Essex class
J_A_B
-
Mugzee, a Capital ship is a large ship such as a Carrier, Battleship, Heavy/Light Cruiser.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
So what are you going to go with?
Midnight, you cant sit there and tell me that a 30mm round from a 110 should have or ever did have the capability of fully penetrating a Cruisers armor more so, to sink a cruiser with a single pass.
And cumulative damage is fine. But... That being said, there is no way a 110 should be able to do enough cumulative damage to sink a cruiser in a single pass.
Morph, I'm agreeing with you on assesment. What I am saying is that making things 'harder' in AH just means that the damage to kill number is increased.
If a change is to be made, then I agree that the 30mm HE round needs to be made ineffective on ship armor, no matter how many are fired at it.
-
Morph/Phookat
I'm not saying it's right for a 110 to be able to destroy a CV. The point of my original post in this thread was to observe a certain double standard, viz. some folks like to play this *game* in the gamiest of ways (fields close together, P47 turnfights on the deck) ie. aerial quake, in which the only similarity to WW2 is the fact that the vehicles in use have WW2 names. And yet - when they see something they think is wrong, they draw on RL WW2 parallels to justify an alteration to the game! :lol
But hey, let's leave that aside for a moment. Morpheus, I saw the thread in which you described that racy car you are building - I am impressed! Where do you get your money?! :eek: I loved the engine picture. :cool: I didn't post, because I know little about hotrodding.
dedalos- Takes of gets shoot down, takes off gets shot down, takes off gets shot down. Three times and he did not even try to evade once. Finally, he takes of in a LA7 to get rid of me. He gets shot down even faster so he takes up a 38 again. Well, I am out of ammo. I bet you he made as many trips as he needed to sink that CV.
- sounds like Lazs trying to win an argument! :lol:lol Awwww, I shouldn't say that. It's his birthday today. :)
-
I'm not saying it's right for a 110 to be able to destroy a CV. The point of my original post in this thread was to observe a certain double standard, viz. some folks like to play this *game* in the gamiest of ways (fields close together, P47 turnfights on the deck) ie. aerial quake, in which the only similarity to WW2 is the fact that the vehicles in use have WW2 names. And yet - when they see something they think is wrong, they draw on RL WW2 parallels to justify an alteration to the game!
The distinction is in the modeling, I think almost everyone can agree that they want the modeling correct. How people play the game is another subject matter.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The point of my original post in this thread was to observe a certain double standard, viz. some folks like to play this *game* in the gamiest of ways (fields close together, P47 turnfights on the deck) ie. aerial quake, in which the only similarity to WW2 is the fact that the vehicles in use have WW2 names.
This is where you are incorrect. The real similarity to WW2 is that the planes fly and damage like their real life counterparts. That is why this is not a double standard.
The gamey things you mention are all parts of the wargame, which necessarily has to be unrealistic. For example, having bases close or far has nothing to do with realism either way--it is purely a gameplay issue.
-
Originally posted by phookat
This is where you are incorrect. The real similarity to WW2 is that the planes fly and damage like their real life counterparts. That is why this is not a double standard.
The gamey things you mention are all parts of the wargame, which necessarily has to be unrealistic. For example, having bases close or far has nothing to do with realism either way--it is purely a gameplay issue.
Like I said - Selective Realism.
Toodle-Pip
Beet.
-
How is flying a p47 on the deck being gamey? Doing that you might as well be the fattest kid on the dodgeball court w/ a bunch of studs hurling 90mph melons at ya. Sheesh.
-
In the simulation genre, the gameplay and the realism is like two sides of a coin. They may often contradict each other, but in essence they are inseparable.
Aces High need not necessarily have to be this way. It could have always been something like Crimson Skies. Much more flashy, fast-paced, and acrade-fun - it could have used all sorts of alternative techniques of the latest fad and be based on space age - except, Aces High won't be this successful if it had been any of those.
Simulation is a recreation of reality.
Aircombat simulations in particular, gets it very existence from the fact that we crave a chance to experience something close to a real life conflict which most of us have never had the chance, and probably will never have a chance, to experience. It's the thrills, hardships, and bravery of the World War 2 pilots which inspires us, and thanks to computer technology all the grief and tragedy, deaths are left out of that equation.
Gameply aspects may defy, warp, or misrepresent reality in some cases, but its ultimate purpose is to strengthen realism.
Since there's no way to exactly replicate all of reality on our desktop computers, gameplay issues creates work-arounds and short cuts to let us experience realism more easily.
Thus, gameplay that contradicts, and ultimately harms the reality in essence, kills the game. In the long run it does more harm than it does good - that's why simulation games constantly strive to better its basic system so it could better represent reality.
When AH was small, none of the 'problems' surfaced in the manner as it does nowadays. HTC isn't God - they can't foresee all the results. Over time the basic system becomes outdated, flawed, and dysfunctional, because not all the inherent problems could be seen during the time of its implementation.
Things have changed now. Some people wouldn't give shi* on what happens to the game as long as they have somebody to shoot down, but a lot of others are feeling discontent in the fact that some of the basic systems are exploited or ill-used. There are things happening around that which in real life, would have almost never happened, and at a frequency that is alarming. The "gameyness" of dive bombing buffs or planes strafing ships dead is becoming the norm.
At this point, it becomes clear that more modificiations to the system are required to restore the tendency of air combat within acceptable levels of realism. Right now, the abnormalcy is off the charts.
-
Nice write Kw
-
Midnight is right.
Just strengthening the CVs is the easy way out. It's a temporary solution at best, and if people find out one or two planes can't go strafe a Capital ship dead, they'll simply use five or six.
If this tendency goes on, the point where people wil stop will be when the capital ships reach a status of practical invulnerability.
Like described in above post, most certainly HTC did not foresee that AH would grow up to be such a large-scale game representing almost all major aspects of WW2 combat. Simple damage models were good enough then. However, it is outdated now, and showing signs of ill adaptation to the reailty.
The only real solution is by bringing different types of ammunition and ordnance doing different types of damage, instead of the "cumulative(as Midnight describes it)" way, where all ammunition/ordnance has a certain set level of base damage number that applies to all objects equally.
If this is introduced, many of the gameyness in the game can be easily solved:
* ammunition for guns mounted on planes doing almost no damage to hard or armoured targets such as concrete bunkers, town buildings, factory buildings and etc.
* General Purpose ordnance doing average/medium damage on most targets, available for almost all planes.
* Specialized ordnance for anti-shipping purposes doing maximum damage to ships, but limited upto only certain levels(ie. 500lbs) on most planes.. and only some plane carrying that type of ordnance have higher power(such as, only Naval planes or Ju87s or etc.. having anti-shipping bombs that go over 1000lbs)
* AP bombs specialized for killing GVs, which is limited only to a certain level(ie. 500lbs) for most planes, with the exception of few specialized planes carrying higher payload of the same type.
This would stop the "110s strafing a capital ship dead in one pass" problem, not to mention differentiate the role between a fighter configuration and a real jabo configuration. Also, by limiting the highest payload of certain ordnace types to only certain planes, this could bring back the jabo role to the esteemed jabo planes - instead of the "one US fighter does it all" multipurposeness which renders most real jabo planes obsolete in the MA.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Like I said - Selective Realism.
Yes. But not a double standard.
Actually, Kweassa, the fundamental structure of the main arena indicates that the AH MA is not a war simulation. It is a war game.
OTOH, the fundamental structure of the physics model indicates that the goal is a physics simulation, not a "physics game" (whatever that might mean).
-
Kw:
"* Specialized ordnance for anti-shipping purposes doing maximum damage to ships, but limited upto only certain levels(ie. 500lbs) on most planes.. and only some plane carrying that type of ordnance have higher power(such as, only Naval planes or Ju87s or etc.. having anti-shipping bombs that go over 1000lbs)
* AP bombs specialized for killing GVs, which is limited only to a certain level(ie. 500lbs) for most planes, with the exception of few specialized planes carrying higher payload of the same type.
This would stop the "110s strafing a capital ship dead in one pass" problem, not to mention differentiate the role between a fighter configuration and a real jabo configuration. Also, by limiting the highest payload of certain ordnace types to only certain planes, this could bring back the jabo role to the esteemed jabo planes - instead of the "one US fighter does it all" multipurposeness which renders most real jabo planes obsolete in the MA"
These are great ideas and suggestions? But just as the correct "loadout" for armorment on these planes would be, it will also be necessary to address the issue's of armorment for ships and GV's. I would think
-
Stang - P47s on the deck? Well, I've read Gabreski's autobiography, and most of the time he was at five figure alts. However, he was known to vulch! He told us this in his address at the 2000 WB con in NC. A little titter went round the auditorium when he told us how he would shoot a guy before he got his wheels up. I was half expecting some gamey wise arse to stand up and accuse him of gaming the war! He paid a price though, and one of his vulch attempts resulted in a prop strike, and he had to ditch and was captured 5 days later. But he never ever flew into unknown territory at deck level, "looking for fights". That would have been, and still is, stupid. I don't care if wise arses can make it work in AH, with their elite gaming skills, and specialised and finely tuned sticks and view settings.
Excellent posts, Kweassa. You summed up my feelings in these passages.Originally posted by Kweassa
Thus, gameplay that contradicts, and ultimately harms the reality in essence, kills the game. In the long run it does more harm than it does good - that's why simulation games constantly strive to better its basic system so it could better represent reality.
.
.
.
Things have changed now. Some people wouldn't give shi* on what happens to the game as long as they have somebody to shoot down, but a lot of others are feeling discontent in the fact that some of the basic systems are exploited or ill-used. There are things happening around that which in real life, would have almost never happened, and at a frequency that is alarming. The "gameyness" of dive bombing buffs or planes strafing ships dead is becoming the norm.
At this point, it becomes clear that more modificiations to the system are required to restore the tendency of air combat within acceptable levels of realism. Right now, the abnormalcy is off the charts.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
They'd rather be a bunch of smart tulips Phookat.
Id prefere to be called an intelligent butt hole. ty
-
Actually, Kweassa, the fundamental structure of the main arena indicates that the AH MA is not a war simulation. It is a war game.
That's rubbish phookat. It's a discrimination started by some people that try to divide "simulation" from the "game".
One group of people seeking less burden from realism sought to justify their own claims by saying, "this a game, not a simulation". Other group of people seeking fanatic levels of realism to the levels of tediousness also comment, "this should be a simulation, not a game".
The two opposing parties suddenly had a common interest and decided to rip away the "simulation" part from the "game" part.
Pure rubbish - Aces High is a game. It's genre is 'simulation'. This is a simulation game. It's a balance of simulated reality within manageable levels of gameplay.
In other words, it's a "war simulation game". It's a "game" that tries to "simulate the historic war".
Would this be so fun for us if it Aces High was "Dragon's High", based on some obscure fantasy land with dragons as our steeds?
It might be fun for younger people, but at least for me, it holds none of the attractions and inspirations of a game based on World War II.
Facts: Aces High, War Birds, Air Warrior, even Fighter Ace <- these are "simulation games".
-
Correct again, Kweassa. And at 50 cents a day, AH has indeed been opened up to much younger players.
Would this be so fun for us if it Aces High was "Dragon's High", based on some obscure fantasy land with dragons as our steeds? It might be fun for younger people, but at least for me, it holds none of the attractions and inspirations of a game based on World War II.
I can't help thinking that a lot of those youngsters might well be more content playing your hypothetical game, "Dragons High". Someone in their teens now might be several generations away from any family member who participated in WW2. For me, it was my parents' generation who came through it, which is why for us baby boomers, WW2 holds historical interest, and for modern day teens probably holds none. So why do they come to AH? Probably because the software is well authored, the connections are great, and the customer support is there. All they want is aerial quake, and that's what they can have - as long as they don't mind their vehicles having WW2 names.
-
Gameplay seems to be a degenerative thing. The reason for it is LACK of realism structure or game rules.
What I mean is that when Ships were first introduced, very few if any players tried to shoot them with guns/cannons to sink them. It was cool to try and use torpedos or shore guns or level bombing or actual dive bombing planes.
HTC changed level bomber aiming system (bombsight calibration) which has virtually eliminated the chances of a high altitude level bomber hitting a CV. Why? Because if the boat turns just once, the bomber has to calibrate all over again. ... Bring in low level LANCs to make the kill instead.
Now HTC has changed the boats so that individual guns can be destroyed. That change has encouraged players to start strafing ships with guns/cannons. This has lead to players finding out that the ship itself can be damaged with those same guns/cannons. That has encouraged some of the anti-shipping tactics seen now.
Gameplay changes have been historically bad for game play and HTC doesn't seem to do anything to make things better (better is a perspective view)
---------
No one bothers attacking truck convoys anymore. Why? Well, MGs have virtually no effect on trucks. It takes almost 250 rounds of .50 to kill a single truck at point blank range (Tested several times in M16 on the roadside). If you're a plane with just 1 bomb, you are better off just bombing the town where the targets are stationary and chances off killing multiple buildings are higher. It's also easier to kill a town building than a truck, so why bother chasing them?
---------
We used to have fuel burn of 1.5, so everyone flew at 100% most of the time. HTC made engine and prop settings do more now, but people kept flying at 100% all the time. To force people to use the engine/prop features, fuel burn was increased to 2.0. Because of that, fuel porkage became an import way to cripple the enemy. Now, to prevent the whining, HTC has changed things so fuel can no longer be porked to less than 75%.... More gameplay degeneration.
Unfortunately, I think that AH gameplay isn't going to get better. Sure we'll get new planes, but what will that change?
We're getting a B24 soon... So? It's new, but that doesn't mean they will be used any differently than the B17s and Lancs now. Low level death drops on targets.
We're getting KI84 soon... So? It's new, but how will that change what the current air combat situation is?
What's the new Tank? Does it matter? will it change how the GV war is fought? I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
That's rubbish phookat. It's a discrimination started by some people that try to divide "simulation" from the "game".
No, actually, it's not. There are two aspects to this game which are treated completely differently by the creators of the game. I am speaking now of "how it is", not "how it should be". The fact of the matter is that the situation and objectives of the wargame part of this game (i.e. the AH MA) are deliberately unrealistic. While all the physics are deliberately made as realistic as possible (at least the attempt is made). So there is a difference, and there always has been.
The wargame aspect is treated differently in scenarios and maybe ToD.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
All they want is aerial quake, and that's what they can have - as long as they don't mind their vehicles having WW2 names.
There's more to it than that. I think I might have mentioned it. ;)
In any case, without real military structure, you are not going to get people behaving exactly how you want (i.e. everyone flying at 30K alt, if that is what you want).
-
Originally posted by Midnight
We're getting a B24 soon... So? It's new, but that doesn't mean they will be used any differently than the B17s and Lancs now. Low level death drops on targets.
We're getting KI84 soon... So? It's new, but how will that change what the current air combat situation is?
What's the new Tank? Does it matter? will it change how the GV war is fought? I doubt it.
What you seem to be asking for cannot be done in an arena-type environment. What you want is scenarios, or ToD.
-
Beet, I still fail to see how fighting a jug low on the deck is "gamey" Gamey I think by definition would be to take advantage of a situation by exploiting an inherent flaw in the game (spawn camping). But flying a jug otd? LOL doing that is just gonna get you killed so fast it's rediculous. Heck you can dive from 10k in a jug to the deck then try to run away but w/in a few minutes an la7 that was slow when you started your dive will catch up to you. I'd think you'd love to see a low jug because it would be an easy kill for you. Then again you gotta come down to get it :D
-
Midnight said "We're getting KI84 soon... So? It's new, but how will that change what the current air combat situation is? " B-b-but aren't you forgetting something? That ki84 will have a polished aluminium belly which is going to transform gameplay! Muhahaha :lol just kidding
An excellent post, sir. I once remarked upon all the hype that surrounded the launch of the P40, and said it would make little impact on the game. Sure enough, in the time since its introduction, it has killed me only 3 times.
You're right, and all these various new planes, new graphics and new paintjobs will make not one iota of difference to gameplay, and it's the gameplay that's causing people to quit or cut back their time.
Phookat - how old are you, if you don't mind my asking? Originally posted by Stang
I still fail to see
Nothing more to be said. ;)
-
LOL Beet, why don't you read the whole post before you go resort to your usual high minded blindness. I guess gamey to you means simply taking a plane out of its historical role. Fine, but that isn't gamey, gamey is using something out of its role or what it could actually DO and using it get an ADVANTAGE over other gamers. How in the heck does flying a Jug on the deck give you an advantage? Try answering the question this time please.
I once remarked upon all the hype that surrounded the launch of the P40, and said it would make little impact on the game. Sure enough, in the time since its introduction, it has killed me only 3 times.
Come find my p40 sometime Beet, I'll change that stat :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Phookat - how old are you, if you don't mind my asking?
The older side of completely indeterminate.
-
Originally posted by Stang
LOL Beet, why don't you read the whole post before you go resort to your usual high minded blindness. I guess gamey to you means simply taking a plane out of its historical role. Fine, but that isn't gamey, gamey is using something out of its role or what it could actually DO and using it get an ADVANTAGE over other gamers. How in the heck does flying a Jug on the deck give you an advantage? Try answering the question this time please.
High minded blindness? You're the one who said you couldn't see. :lol;)
What you have described is your interpretation of gamey. You say that taking a plane out of its historical role isn't gamey, eg. P47 turn fight on the deck. I disagree. That sure is gamey, in the sense that such an engagement would never have been entered into in RL. Only in a game, where the greatest thing at stake be a virtual life plus a bit of ego, would you see that. Hence, it is gamey.
As for your P40 prowess (http://www.innomi.com/ahkillstats/careerstats.php?player=stang), you are 1.85/1 in the P40B, and 2.57/1 in the P40E. Am I supposed to be impressed? I'm mediocre and have no skill, but I have k/d better than 2.57 in twelve other fighters which do not form part of the Big-5.
Phookat - something to hide? :aok
-
Neg. Recognize the quote? 29, btw. Yourself?
-
stats aren't useful without context. AH stats don't come with a context.
You could fly death-machine sorties for an hour without taking 1 bullet for 50 kills and then take it easy defending a swarmed and vulched base consequently reversing something like k/d ratio.
-
"That sure is gamey, in the sense that such an engagement would never have been entered into in RL. "
So you think P-47's were never flown at low altitude.
"Never" is a pretty cut-and-dry word Beet, and you made a point of stressing it--which means you actually think that's the case. Obviously it's untrue yet you present it as fact. You claim to want "WW2 realism", yet from your posts I get a strong impression that you only think about one small facet of the air war when you mention WW2.
Apparently you forgot that P-47's were widely used as fighter-bombers, a job which often involved getting into fights with enemy fighters at low altitude (not to mention the flak). Sure that didn't get the glory that the guys escoting the bombers got, but it still had to be done.
Or, look up the battle on 1 Jan 1945 specifically at the Y-29 airfield if you want to see just one example of Mustangs and Jugs mixing it up on the deck in a massive dogfight (since one example is all it takes to destroy your use of "never"). Most accounts focus on the Mustangs, but there were P-47s present as well.
But more to the point:
Beet, your idea of WW2 is the one that seems pretty "selective". All of WW2 wasn't fought at 400 MPH at 35K. And...the guys who got shot down weren't flying straight and level. 75% of the guys who got shot down didn't see what hit them until it was too late....for the most part because they were in a crazy dogfight and their attention was focused in front of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the carrier issue--I don't think a global increase in tuffness is the answer. Then you'd end up with stupidity like carriers absorbing 5 or 6 1000lb bomb hits and steaming along like nothing happened. No, the simplest solution is to simply make ships (not gun positions, just the ship itself) completely immune to small weapons.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
And...the guys who got shot down weren't flying straight and level. 75% of the guys who got shot down didn't see what hit them until it was too late....for the most part because they were in a crazy dogfight and their attention was focused in front of them.
Heh. I have gotten really tired of seeing that stat (usually quoted as 90%, I don't know which is correct) used to try to make it look like the guy who got shot down had no idea there was an enemy around and was just flying along nice an level on cruise.
All the stat says is that the guys didn't see who shot him down. It gives absolutely no context as to what he was doing at the time.
-
Originally posted by moot
stats aren't useful without context. AH stats don't come with a context.
You could fly death-machine sorties for an hour without taking 1 bullet for 50 kills and then take it easy defending a swarmed and vulched base consequently reversing something like k/d ratio.
Indeed, indeed. That's why, in the past, I have posted films - to add context. But *they* don't like that either!! What can you do?!
JAB said "So you think P-47's were never flown at low altitude." Sure they were - immediately after take off, and immediately before landing. :p
No, I never said anything about 35K and 400mph. And I even mentioned Gabreski's prop strike. Clearly that did not occur at 10K. :rolleyes:
But were P47s ever used in the Pacific, on the deck, for duelling with zekes? Erm... probably not. ;) Also, I had not forgotten that the P47 was used as a fighter bomber. I've even used it that way myself in AH.
-
"But were P47s ever used in the Pacific, on the deck, for duelling with zekes? Erm... probably not."
It certainly happened from time to time. Likewise with P-38's, P-51's, P-40's, etc etc. It happened much more if you count factors like how in some areas, such as New Guinea, the deck was at 10K or more due to mountains. In the same vein, P-40's fought at 30K occasionally although they certainly weren't well-suited to the role.
The only thing I don't know about is the dive-bombing 4-engine bombers; and that behavior in the MA is a direct result of the stupid bombsight calibration system that was added to force bombers down from their 30K perch and the reliance of using bombs instead of torpedoes to sink shipping.
I strongly suspect you'll like TOD if it sees the light of day; scripted missions of specific historical nature seem to be your sort of thing. Ironically enough, the MA doesn't really appeal to me OR you at this point; "lowest common deominator" seems to have turned into "make everyone a little unhappy". I maintain that lumping everyone into a single viable arena is AH's single greatest failing.
J_A_B
-
Beetle go jack someone elses Golly-gee thread.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
...when a single 110G2 can come in otd and straffe down a Cruiser in a single pass along with its rockets...
Its even more astounding when that 110 proceeds to fly right on through the CV ack with zero damage.
Thats realism for ya.
WTG guys. :aok
yep preety remarkable
sometimes im left preety dumbfounded when i see things like this.
kinda like the whole rubber tree's issue
-
No, the simplest solution is to simply make ships (not gun positions, just the ship itself) completely immune to small weapons.
Some of the gun postions would have to be immune to aircraft guns as well, particularly the 8 inch gun turrets on the cruisers and the 5 inch gun turrets on all the ships. Basically any armored gun postition should be immune to aircraft guns.
-
Geez Beet, you crack me up man. You must live by stats more than anyone else in this game. Yes, my p40 stats suck... but that's sweet my k/d is over 1. Ask Morph how I fly it, I use it more upping from fields that are being vulched to stop them than I do any other way. So hey, a k/d over 1 is great in that regard! Woot!
Hmm, despite dying a ton in hogs using them to kill osties and such other stupid stuff, it's funny that a guy who flies as "smart" as you still can't beat my k/d in them... what gives? :eek:
-
What gives is he's ancient and not very good. He does seem to be a decent sort of guy though, when he isn't trying hard to be the worlds oldest ultra melon.
-
I think this is easily broken down into what was possible in real life, versus what was not possible in real life.
As far as I know, no capital ship was ever sunk by strafing in WW2. As far as I know... it has never happened in the history of modern warfare. So ANY plane strafing down a heavy cruiser is "gamey" or "broken" .. take your pick.
A counter example, something that I don't have a problem with but many people seem to, is Lancasters flying 15 feet AGL to bomb stuff. No, it did not happen very often in real life. But it was actually possible.
One thing that really used to irritate me was that planes could casually strafe Panzer IV's and disable turrets/engines/kill them outright in one pass. I *****ed and *****ed and *****ed and .. well, you get the point. I *****ed because it simply should not have been possible. At the angles/ranges these planes were hitting Panzer IVs from, there was simply no way they would have hurt the tank. But it happened in AH. It could NOT have happened in real life. So I complained about it. Eventually, HTC gathered up their data and made some changes. I'm pretty satisfied with the results, I haven't gotten any kind of supremely outrageous kills on Panzers by strafing them with Hispanos/.50, or any other kind of gun.
But I (personally), only have a problem with stuff that literally could NOT have ever happened the way it happens in Aces High. That is the only part of the "simulation" that I feel needs to be completely accurate. In my opinion, Aces High is a GAME.. Beetles "aerial quake" if you would.. using WW2 equipment that is MODELLED as accurately as possible with regard to real life performance.
-
Yeah, just because a WWII plane had horrid torque and every recorded WWII pilot of this plane made left hand turns only, doesn't mean the AH pileit is GHEY/GAMEY/etc for using right-turns...
More debatable are things like having freedom to see straight 6oc from the very last inch of the upper, rear and right end of the canopy, and the next fraction of a second from the same place on the other side of the canopy, all the while alternating multiple opposite G maneuvers..
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
I strongly suspect you'll like TOD if it sees the light of day; scripted missions of specific historical nature seem to be your sort of thing. Ironically enough, the MA doesn't really appeal to me OR you at this point; "lowest common deominator" seems to have turned into "make everyone a little unhappy". I maintain that lumping everyone into a single viable arena is AH's single greatest failing.
I agree, the scripted missions might be needed to hold my interest. I looked forward to it in Dec.2002 with 1.11, but it was decided that AH2 would come first. For a while, I thought that TOD would be part of that, but no. Onto the third waiting stage...
About the bombers: WB had various B25 variants - C,H,J. The H version did not have a norden gunsight, but it had awesome guns. Would this mean it was more a dive or low level bomber/strafer? I don't know if you ever flew WB, but it did not have scripted missions. Didn't seem to need them. Everyone seemed to accept that the coordinated missions were where it was at. There was none of this "it's MY $14.95" (or it's MY $2/hour) crap. The closest thing to scripted missions in AH is the Missun Editor. I quickly realised that the missuns were no more than organised gangbangs.
Stang said "Hmm, despite dying a ton in hogs using them to kill osties and such other stupid stuff, it's funny that a guy who flies as "smart" as you still can't beat my k/d in them... what gives?" Well, what kind of answer would you like - facts or makebelieve? You seem to take offence at facts, ie stats, and would be amongst those to take offence at a film. The problem for you (and others) is that you wear a virtual blindfold. You have adopted a vision of me being a 30K alt monkey/cherrypicker, and the reason you can't reconcile this with the facts is because the truth is rather different. But if it suits your mood, please do persist with your fantasy. Or, if you prefer the truth, read on.
To answer your question I use the Hogs, especially the CHog, for CV defence. You see whereas some folks simply WHINE about the CV being attacked/sunk (or about HQ being duffed etc.), some of us choose to do something about it, other than whining on the BBS. (Note how this thread started - LOL) I've played only a few hours in AH2, so my stats are largely derived from AH1. And in AH1, the buffs (especially B17) had guns which were far more lethal than in AH2 - probably way over modelled. If you choose to view my film (and I'm not forcing you to) you will see that most of my deaths (about three out of four shown) result from buffs firing at me. In the first death, I was pinged at 1100 yards (LOL!) and took major damage at 1000 yards. But hey, got to engage those buffs, else byebye CV. And then it would be time to post a Morph-style whine post. :lol
Hehe, I think I shot 999000 19 times that evening, but he was gracious about it - real nice guy and friend of tatertot. 999000 got me plenty of times too. :eek::):cool:
So no, I "can't" match your F4U stats flying these types of duties, just as you "can't" match my P47D25 k/d flying it the way you do. I think I did OK in the hogs. It was the usual AH type of session - everyone working as individuals with bugger all teamwork. If I'd had just one or two working with me, it would have been much better. I've edited voice out of the film - heck I was the only one saying anything LOL.
Film (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/film299_999000.zip) - (25 mins total, 3.04MB .ZIP) I've just realised why these are unpopular, and it's not the download time LOL - they burst the alt monkey myth - LOL - never went much above 5K in 25 mins. Typical session for me, I have films of dozens more. :D
Urchin! Not very good, but I am a lot better for your tutelage! I kept your list of 109G10 versus other plane for the longest time beside my PC. You and Grunherz were a big help. Ecke too. worlds oldest ultra melon
:lol
Moot - salut - tout va bien? Yes, the view system in these games is gamed like nothing on earth. In one film I saw a guy flicking his hatswitch around as if he had a double jointed thumb. LOL. But the gamiest in flight trick I ever knew was the guys who would turn down the sound volume for their own engine, and "listen out" for planes creeping up behind them. If flying a 109G with spud cannon, it was really annoying because of having to get to 150 yards. Total BS of course, and COULD NOT have been done in WW2, but look how the game-the-gamers reacted to my assertion of that fact: Remember this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82891) thread? It sure drew a line between the gamers and the simmers. :lol
-
Planes in AH will never be used the same way as they where used in WW2.... No plane, period.
Why?
Asume, I know this aint true but it can be, that each plane has identical performance as it had in WW2.
Even if this was the case no plane will ever be used the same way as it was back then.
First reason to this is the game setting with rooks/bish/knight.
We have a settting that pairs planes that where never ever paired in WW2. The discussion really ends here, but lets go on some more.
Maps. We have maps that arnt the same as the "maps" WW2 was fought in. The fact that we dont have the same terrain results in us not using planes the same way. Weather and clouds arnt in the game as it was in WW2, hence we dont use the planes the same way as they did back then.
Further we dont use the same mission structure as they did back in the WW2. This means that we dont fly the same way as they did.
Most importantly though. Our lifes arnt at stake. When we "die" we launch again in a few sec.
So we cant replay WW2 because we dont have all the attributes that defined aircombat and aircombat tactics in WW2.
All we can do is define aircombat in the setting provided to us, define aircombat in AH2.
The day we get ToD we will have to redifine aircombat once again. But not even then will we be replaying WW2 because the attributes that define the aircombat and aircombat tactics of ToD will still be very differnet from these that defined WW2, even though it will be closer then AH2 is atm.
Tex
-
I know that HTC could put alot more realism into the game but why not? Either they simply won't, or they aren't capable to put very complex situations into the game. Right now the whole damage model is based on "hits" Whatever lands on a target increased the targets vulnerability to the next "hit". The bullets are simulated the same as bombs. If you put 2000lbs of cannon rounds into a destroyer, would it sink it in real life? No. Why? Its obvious that the cannons would never do any real damage to the ship, only penetrate the surface. Now with bombs, should you be able to sink a ship if you place a bomb in the correct place right? Yes, but HTC doesn't have the game this complex.... Either they can't code it, or they just don't want to. I agree with the people that think this is BS. It should depend on the kind of ord you put on the target, not how much.
On many of the fighter hanger missions Im in or run, it's rewarding to take down the FH's, yet disappointing when I am able to strafe it down with a few MG rounds if I miss. On the otherhand it is just a simulation that can not be modelled the same as real life.
-
Mak333
Im in no means disagreeing with you but there is a 3rd alternative to the cant or dont want to option.
They dont estimate it a investment worth it.
Everything takes time to code. Everything you code thakes time away from something else. IF they feel that there are other things with higher priority that will make the game better and make the game more profitable then expanding the damage model then its their call.
This is different from dont want to because dont want to can come from either ignorance or the simple fact that they dont want the game to be that realistic. So it is different.
The thing is with any game, not talkin AH in general, there are 100s of things that can be improved and/or tweaked. But they arnt done. Simply because the same people who cry for the tweaks also cry for new content and/or new game play options.
In the case of AH new planes and ToD.
Its a very fine line for a dev company to dance on, improvement to existing game play vs addition of new game play. If you ignore either of the two your game will die. Only if you can dance that line will you be able to run a game successfully over a long period of time.
I wount put any judgement to the decissions made by HTC because Ive not been around long enough to have enough knowladge about them. But all I know is they like everyone else are dancing on this line.
Tex
-
Beet, I think I've seen you in the MA only once so I really have no idea how you fly. The point I was making on how I fly is that sometimes I sacrifice a lot of deaths trying to stop the hordes, like upping a field repeatedly to stop some 25 plane bish raid into a field that was undefended, and that kinda stuff is hell on stats. And how did I take offense to "stats?" You know, the funny thing is we probably agree on more things about this game than we would disagree on. The quake mode the MA is in right now sucks, but at least in that regard people are fighting. The biggest problem is the people who choose to mass horde bases that have no one defending them. For some reason the bish seem to do this more than anyone else. The knights are always game for a good fight, and that is great for MA gameplay. But these rediculous 25plane+ missions the bish throw at us repeatedly in peak USA MA times that only pop up on radar at the last minute before they hit is absolutely dumb. I spent the entire week when Trinity was up chasing these hordes around, trying to get to where they were going ahead of them. It was almost impossible. When we would beat back one of their raids, it was like they would all auger in and then immediately up another field far away and try the same thing at a different field that had no one around it. I think you'd have to agree that is just suckiness at its worst. No fun, lame, they still could barely take a field, and they just about all died every time. The bish really need to have some of their veteran pilots get ahold of that crap and teach them how to fight instead of just running around mass milking bases. It's one thing to do this occassionally or when your counrty is in a hole and you need to capture some fields, but with the bish you can almost set a clock to when they start this stuff every evening around 9:00 est. That is why I think the small maps are better because it actually forces them to fight somewhat and gives them less room to do this kinda dweeby stuff. Yes, it's their $15, but comeon, this is a combat sim. Last night the bish were getting hit hard by the knights, who made it to the bish homeland, and some bish got on ch200 and said, I sh*t you not, "All you knits at 12 (a base on the bish homeland) you better come to 18 (a nit base to the SW) if you want any kills." This is so typical. The bish are getting beat back so bad, and what do they do? They don't try to stop the knights, they just take the path of least resistance and try to horde a field 30 miles away when their homeland is going to waste under a swarm of knights. That is just idiotic, but that is the norm for the bish. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Any time the bish ever commit to a fight I am totally shocked. Anyway...
Urchin, great post. You hit the nail on the head.
-
Stang,
I felt much better after reading your post, thanks. Yes I do think we'd agree more than disagree on AH related topics. Did you actually download and view that film? It was nonstop action... no wait, it couldn't have been - the pizza map was up! :D;)
I was going to send you a private email to disclose some other stuff, and avoid hijacking Morph's thread any further, but you're not accepting mails through your BBS profile.
-
In browsing the original discussion, I wanted to point out a couple things. Ships are considered as objects. Objects in ah take a set amount of ordinance weight to destroy. Hits from projectiles translate to ordinance weight. IE. 1-.50 M2 AC round=1.17lbs of ordinance. If 100% of a Bf110G2's rockets and cannons hit a target it could inflict 8628lbs of damage. Last I knew MA settings for CV were 12000lbs.
There are no armor penetration consideration for objects. The object is hit, it does (x)lbs of damage. You are asking for a completely new damage code to be written just for ships. Not stating that its either good or bad to request, just that what you want is not a simple adjustment.
Also, as some real accounts that have been pointed out in this thread, many ships while not sunk by bombs/rockets/suicide they were rendered unusable, mostly by resulting fires. Just because in the game a ship sinks when you believe realisticly it should not, does not mean that the ship would have realisticly still been combat ready. Considering the fast pace of the arena, I dont see a marked difference between sinking it immedately, or having it sit dead in the water.
Lastly, while not a capitol ship, 2 P38s sunk a jap freighter with just guns. (well ok, they did put their drop tanks on it, then started a fire by lighting them up). That night the freighter blew up and sunk. Again, in an enviroment where a flight last rarely more than an hour, what difference does it make if the ship sinks immediately, or has no combat effectiveness for 5 hours then sinks.
-
CVz and Cruisers were armored, except the decks on CVz which weren't armored (except British CVs which were steel armored). The armor on these ships was designed to withstand large caliber hits. So, to strafe any capital warship and sink it was highly improbable. This, like several other aspects of AH2 is off the mark; it wasn't a problem in AH1 but, is now a problem in AH2.
-
Yep...
it wasn't a problem in AH1 but, is now a problem in AH2.
Which spawns yet another problem due to the simple fact that many think its not a problem. And that is a problem.
-
Again. What is being argued is the realistic effect of a piece of ammunition on a ship. My question is what about the realistic effect of a piece of ammunition on a ships combat readyness. Realisticly a ship did not have to be sunk to be removed from battle.
Take out the rudder, ignite the magazine, cause a fire that cant be controled, damage the flight deck. All of those scenerios and more could remove a ship from combat without sinking it.
With battles taking place at many times the speed they would in real life, what is the difference if it is removed by sinking it, or rendering it useless on the battlefield?
The difference as it seems to me that you want ships to be practically indestructable. You want them to only be sunk under strict conditions, and not account for conditions that would make them unusable short of sinking.
If that is not the case it sounds like you want a heck of alot of modeling just to provide a visual cue, that has the same effect on the battle. If a visual cue is what you want, why not just have the ships modeled to float around consumed by flames, and completely unusable if the strict conditions of sinking it are not met, but the damage requirements were. It would be a simpler condition to model, but again its the same thing you have except it looks different.
My point is, that although the cause/effect of specific ordinance aginst a ship may not be exactly correct, on the whole the effect on the battle is plausible. The latter point, should be considered when looking at the former.