Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Zuum on December 09, 2005, 06:03:01 AM
-
Hiyas!
Couple of days ago I flight my first time this month with fighter...I got 3 enemies in air(2xb-17 and a Jug) plus two gvs(2xLVT).
So, I landed with normal system report:" Zuum landed 5 kills in a Bf109 G-14, etc, etc...)
But...a BIG but...
I took a look at statistics. There stand only 3 kills for me as a fighter:eek: :confused: :O
Is it so, that in a fighter mode those GV kills donīt count at all?
-
Jep. No GV kills in a fighter mode. If you want GV kills counted you have to fly in a Attack mode.
-
Ahh...thatīs fair...:rolleyes:
Any explanation or argumentation for that kind of policy?
-
Ask Leviathn how mad he was when he landed 131 kills of GV's in his P-40b!
-
:rofl
:aok
-
Not only do the GV kills not count, you also wrecked your hit % as a fighter.
When you score the flight as a "Fighter" only hits against enemy aircraft count.
-
a fighter is a fighter, for engagemant with enemy aircraft.
an attacker is an attacker. attacking any enemy forces, land sea or air.
a bomber is a bomber. droping bombs on enemy structures.
look at the reality of it. unless it has changed, bombs from a lanc dropped on a GV not only count as misses, but the kill is also not credited in the "stats" for ranking purposes.
what sky said is also true, bullets fired as "fighter" into anything other than another plane count as misses. as far as "ranked" numbers are concerned.
-
OMG:confused:
IRL, fighters have attacked convoys, individual cars and trucks at almost all war theatres. In WWII and later wars.
I think, flying low and taking high risk to be shot by anti-aircraft MGs of those GVs should rather be awarded than punished!:furious
Maybe Iīm a simple guy...but...still I think, that makes no sense at all!
-
You will get perk points for them and any GV kills do show up in your generic kill sheet regardless of the mode you are flying in.
-
Originally posted by Zuum
OMG:confused:
IRL, fighters have attacked convoys, individual cars and trucks at almost all war theatres. In WWII and later wars.
I think, flying low and taking high risk to be shot by anti-aircraft MGs of those GVs should rather be awarded than punished!:furious
Maybe Iīm a simple guy...but...still I think, that makes no sense at all!
I dont care about score or hit % anyways, I just go shoot and kill stuff and dont really care if its in fighter or attack mode. Just a game
-
Just a game. Youīre right!
It is still pretty nice thing to know how many kills you got in a tour...just for fun;)
And thatīs maybe a good argument to arrange another beer-dining with Your squadmates;-)
Some people like it, some not.
:aok
-
Click this link:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/105score/105stats.pl
Then click on "Kill Stats in an expanded format (IE only)"
and it will show you all your kills in a tour. It doesn't pay any attention to Fighter/Attack/Bomber/Vehicle categories.
It works in Opera as well as IE, FYI. I don't know about Firefox.
-
THX for taking care...;-)
That link has been in use since my beginning of AH...(about 3 years)
Last months Iīve been really concerned about some strange things:
-The log doesnīt match(as You see above, I didnīt get kills from GVs)
-The oddities in hitting enemies has been extremely frustrating. Just for example, when I hit a B-24 to the wingtip 3 times with 30mm cannon...no effect at all!
-The oddities with "Patches": Almost all german-manufactured fighters have lost their "balls"...Why did HTC take away the G-10??? G-14 is not the compensation. K-4 either... The flight models of all those german planes have been tuned down>Speed, acceleration, climb etc, etc...
On the other hand, american 50 cals. and light rockets have become lazer-guns.
I never knew before that 2x100lbs rockets can blow up a pnzr...or, that dropping one 1000lbs bomb at a height of 170 ft can kill a Tiger...
I know what Iīm talking. Got a big bunch of films showing strange things happening in AHII. Gonna post them here very soon.
:D
-
Zuum,
HiTech himself said that the flight model of the Bf109K-4 is the exact same flight model as the Bf109G-10 had. There were no changes to the flight models of the Bf109s.
Pyro said that he forgot to impliment the improved Bf109 flaps, so hopefully that will happen in a patch soon.
There is also a good hope that the Bf109G-14 will have it's performance boosted at altitude.
A single rocket will kill the Panzer if it hits it. Why would the 1000lb bomb not kill the Tiger when dropped from 170ft? If the fighter that dropped it is going fast the 1000lber will easily travel through more than 500ft of air and arm itself.
-
OK! Letīs make this clear!
Why doesnīt K-4 have an option for wing cannon gondolas? The change of G-10 to K-4 was a FLOP! K-4 without gondolas is not a substitute for G-10 with gondolas. What the HECK do we do with the same flight model without equivalent guns. Where is the added value?
G-14 was so late model in service that it should not have been created in this arena.
About bombing...so far as I have seen, there is a minimum altitude of effective bombing. And that is way above 170 ft...
And...last but not least, why did HTC pluck the 30mm Rheinmetall out of G-6???
Iīll stand waiting for those days when Hispanos and .50 cals will be put back to real proportion...
:aok
-
Originally posted by Zuum
OK! Letīs make this clear!
Why doesnīt K-4 have an option for wing cannon gondolas? The change of G-10 to K-4 was a FLOP! K-4 without gondolas is not a substitute for G-10 with gondolas.
Most likely because people kept whining for the Bf109K-4 when it was already in the game. It doesn't have the gun pods because the Bf109K-4 never/rarely used them in combat.
G-14 was so late model in service that it should not have been created in this arena.
It is earlier than either the Bf109K-4 or Bf109G-10 so I don't know what you're on about.
And...last but not least, why did HTC pluck the 30mm Rheinmetall out of G-6???[/b]
The Bf109G-6 is now setup like a 1943 Bf109G-6, of which a very, very small number had the 30mm. The Bf109G-14 is the next step up and it is really just a Bf109G-6 with MW50 and all the gun options.
Note that the Spitfire Mk V was also reduced in performance and lost half of it's cannon ammo to turn it into a 1941 Spit Vb.
You misunderstand bombing. It is not altitude dependant. What needs to happen is for the bomb to travel through 500ft of air. It doesn't matter which way it is going while it does that though. If a fighter is flying at 300mph level and drops a bomb at 170ft of altitude the bomb will travel quite long ways through the air. It doesn't fall 170 straight down from the fighter, it arcs from it's starting point as it has 300mph of energy on it.
-
>
Most likely because people kept whining for the Bf109K-4 when it was already in the game. It doesn't have the gun pods because the Bf109K-4 never/rarely used them in combat.
>
Why didnīt HTC just leave the G-10 be there, just as another choice? There are lots of mods with allied fighters(especially P-38). For example, new versions of P-38 or P-47 have not cancelled other versions. They are still there. HTC should have the same policy with all the planes. Itīs not the question of few Mb file transfer or other things...
Keep the balance!
:aok
-
Ok, Karnak and others!
to all of You.
Itīs about the bedtime here...in Finland!
Time is 1 am
Suffering a little flu, drinking schnaps and feeling great!
THX and have great flights!
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Bf109G-6 is now setup like a 1943 Bf109G-6, of which a very, very small number had the 30mm. The Bf109G-14 is the next step up and it is really just a Bf109G-6 with MW50 and all the gun options.
The G14 sure doesn't feel like the old 109G6 to me. I flew the F4 more than the G6, but I was moving to more and more G6 sorties before the last patch.
Now I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but to me the G14 feels sluggish and heavy compared to the old G6.
And as for the K4, all I can say is the G10 seemed a lot more responsive, expecially in acceleration, and it doesn't seem to climb, but that could be the acceleration.
Also, the 109s seem to suffer the effects of compression more quickly than they did.
In short, to me the new 109s are iron pigs.
-
Originally posted by Zuum
For example, new versions of P-38 or P-47 have not cancelled other versions.
You said it yourself. New versions didn't. It's an old version redone to AHII graphics and renamed.
-
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
The G14 sure doesn't feel like the old 109G6 to me. I flew the F4 more than the G6, but I was moving to more and more G6 sorties before the last patch.
Now I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but to me the G14 feels sluggish and heavy compared to the old G6.
And as for the K4, all I can say is the G10 seemed a lot more responsive, expecially in acceleration, and it doesn't seem to climb, but that could be the acceleration.
Also, the 109s seem to suffer the effects of compression more quickly than they did.
In short, to me the new 109s are iron pigs.
All of which, other than the Bf109G-14 which we can't compare anything to, is psychosomatic if what HiTech told us is true.
So, either you are feeling a difference that isn't there or HiTech changed something and doesn't know it. I lean towards the first as when the Fw190s were redone the same claims were made about it and it likewise had not been changed.
The Bf109G-14 feels better then the old Bf109G-6 to me, but I am hardly anything like a Bf109 expert.
-
I flew in another flight Sim called "Flying Circus"
The designers of that game (really fun but very arcadish) made the FM of the Sopwith Camel identical to that of the Fokker Triplane. Yet I could do things in the Camel that I couldn't in the Tripe. There was a couple of subtle moves that would make that Camel dance, yet didn't work in the Tripe.
Now I have no reason the doubt that HT didn't deliberately change the FM. But that doesn't mean the FM didn't change. We have some coding problems with stutters etc, that may well have adversly affected the newer planes FMs especially the 109s. I flew them a lot, and now, well, I have gone back to the 190A8, the Dora, and the Spit16. I even flew the LA7 last night. I just may switch to that monster :)
And the old 190A8 seemed to handle differently than the new one, not as nimble (as if you could use the word nimble for any AH 190) and the Dora changed a lot.
-
I think the M8's armor is much tougher than the Tigers after the last patch, and I think the 262 is slower than a C-47. I feel it so it must be so.
-
OK! Back to business;-)
Karnak, You said:
>All of which, other than the Bf109G-14 which we can't compare anything to, is psychosomatic if what HiTech told us is true.
So, either you are feeling a difference that isn't there or HiTech changed something and doesn't know it. I lean towards the first as when the Fw190s were redone the same claims were made about it and it likewise had not been changed.
The Bf109G-14 feels better then the old Bf109G-6 to me, but I am hardly anything like a Bf109 expert.<
I could say...and not only me but all other finnish squad members, too!
There has happened a BIG weakening with 109s.
Was there a true need for throwing the G-10 away? NO!
G-10 is an excellent high altitude interceptor with good climb rate, speed, good armament and still good capability and fair agility to survive at low altitudes. Other words would say: a real pilotīs plane which demands skill!
Why dont I see any delightful comments about "new" 109s...? Why dont I hear any song of joy for the new G14s or K4s?
WBW
-
Zuum,
The point is that the Bf109K-4 is not new. It is exactly the same as the old Bf109G-10, minus the 20mm options.
Personally I would have liked the to have kept the Bf109G-10 and simply reduced it's performance from Bf109K-4 levels to the proper Bf109G-10 levels, say about 425mph top speed. I can understand why they did not do so however given that both the Bf109G-10 and Bf109K-4 entered service in Oct., 1944.
Why people think the agility of v2.06's Bf109K-4 is different than that of v2.05's Bf109G-10 I can't say, but given there was no flight model change, just the gun change, I would have to guess it is imagined.
-
Karnak,
I really appreciate Your efforts and patience with this discussion! A big Salute to You!
With the new K-4(or...old G-10), the lack of wing gondolas is an essential point. The role of that model is a bit unclear...G-10 was a hi-alt interceptor with a pretty good climb rate and pretty good armament. But, K-4 is suffering the lack of real firepower against hi-alt bombers. 1x30mm only isnīt enough to kill 30k bombers.
So...If You got direct or hidden ways to influence this matter, please do that!:)
WE 109-FANS ARE EAGER!!!:D :D :D
P.S. BTW, my favourite model is still G-2. The most universal climb rate, speed, agility and armament in a same package
-
Originally posted by Zuum
So...If You got direct or hidden ways to influence this matter, please do that!:)
Nope, sorry, don't have any.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind the 20mm gondolas being an option on the Bf109K-4, but I doubt we'll see that happen.
What I am more interested in is seeing the Bf109G-14 get boosted to it's proper performance (about 415mph at 16,400ft compared to the current 397mph at 16,400ft) and all Bf109s getting improved flaps. I am a bit disappointed that v2.06 Patch 2 addressing those two things hasn't been released yet. I would really like to learn to fight in the Bf109G-14, but I am waiting until it is in it's final form.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Why people think the agility of v2.06's Bf109K-4 is different than that of v2.05's Bf109G-10 I can't say, but given there was no flight model change, just the gun change, I would have to guess it is imagined.
Certainly the extra large bars blocking the forward views aren't imagined. A pilot has the ability to move his head slightly to look around the bars quickly. Like you do in an automobile. You do it without even thinking.
Never having been in the cockpit of a109 I can't say for sure they are modeled correctly. But for a flight simulation, there are usually some minor concessions given for the fact that we can't do on a flat screen monitor what we can do in real life. I have been in the cockpit of many airplanes, and none seemed to be as restrictive in the forward view (with the bars) as AH.
But I can make this prophecy:
HT will change the FM and views on the LA7 or perk it.
Why?
Because every time I settle for a ride, HT does something to make that ride hard to get.
I flew the C Hog; Result, FM porked, C Hog perked
I then flew the Pony D; result? ENY restrictions
I then flew the 190A8; result? FM porked, views porked, icons now displayed so they don't know you are a Dora, and fly you down for the gang bang
I then flew the 109F4; result? views porked, gondies taken away, now turns like a G6.
I also liked the G6 and was starting to fly it; result? views porked, 30mm taken away. It seems to be heavy and sluggish even without the gondies.
So now I am going to fly the Spit16 and the LA7.
You watch, HT will pork the views, pork the FM, take the hispanos from the Spit16, the 3 gun option from the LA7, and... and... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
(just kidding guys)
-
Youīre right! Speed means continuous life, especially at high altitudes.
Again, time will take a proxy kill of me...1.22 am here
Bedtime, says my wife;-)
to every participants
Have a good night!
-
Zuum,
honestly, and Karnak knows how much I care .... the 30mm is enuff to down a bomber at 30K ... or 5K. The real fact is that hunting with the 30mm makes all buff hunting different. With the G-10 with pods you could do high speed curving attacks, fire at 350-400yds, climb, reposition and attack again, many times.
With the 30mm you have to fire from 200-250yds, with no or minimum deflection, not at high speeds. Use the same old good tactics and you'll probably warp into the bomber or hit nothing. Use the *new* tactic and pray that the buff pilots is sleeping or buzy.
Eventually you'll learn to work with the 30mm and no pods. The K-4 is superb, as good as the G-10 (IMO) as far as speed, acceleration and climb are concerned. However, your k/d, k/s and hit ratio will be lower. A lot of efforts for less results. Thats what all our squad is getting from the new LW plane set. Why did they pull out the G-10? Theres no good answer. Afaik, a G-10 with the pods was possible, a K-4 with pods probably not.
-
Yeah....Back to the original intent of this post
a fighter is a fighter, for engagemant with enemy aircraft.
So what about 8th Air Force Pony's and Jugs in 1945 that were on escort duty bringing 17's and 24's into the heart of Germany....Sure, they fought "in fighter mode" against the LW, but what happens when they were cleared 2 leave the bombers alone and go on straffing runs against any and everything they could see on the ground? Did they magically switch to attack mode on the dive down? If a pony driver were to straff and destroy a Bf-110 does it not count as a kill because he was in fighter mode? I think we should be able to toggle through different scoring modes in flight
-
Originally posted by Zuum
Ahh...thatïŋ―s fair...:rolleyes:
Any explanation or argumentation for that kind of policy?
Uhhh.... because "fighters" don't shoot at gv's? Attack = gv busting.
-
So your telling me the P-51's over Germany in 45 were in Attack mode as they were escorting buffs and dropped to the deck for straffing?
-
I understand the two points of view being discussed here, but I have a question...
Why scoring modes in the first place? Clearly, the historical record leaves no room for doubt as to the application of 'fighters' in ground attack. Ex...P-47 designed abd built as high-altitude fighter/interceptor, yet had huge success as a ground-attack aircraft.
That said, and please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure the benefit the modes are supposed to bring. The only upside I can think of is keeping dweebish lancastuka pilots from scoring gv kills...but that never stopped 'em anyhow!
Why not ditch modes, and all bullets fired and targets hit count?
Any insight, guys?
-
Originally posted by USHilDvl
Why not ditch modes, and all bullets fired and targets hit count?
Because not partitioning out into various modes leads to rampant stat abuse. We still see some of that now (only scoring as Fighter when the player knows he's going to vulch for example), but can you imagine players showing up with a 98% hit percentage in an La7? What does that tell you? To many, that would appear to be an amazing bit of marksmanship when the player really just strafes hangars all day and night and yet can't hit a thing in the air. The current modes at least let you tease out some of that potentially misleading behavior.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The "Attack" catagory wasn't added until Tour 12. Up until then there were only "Fighter" and "Bomber". I can't even remember how gv's was scored, (if even).
I guess it could be because of something like this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25371&), that it was changed.
Back then it could happen that noone wanted to help bring down buildings at a base because it would hurt their hit%.
Hmm, actually you still see this...
-
A solution I posted on the Wishlist forum is to just SHOW scoring of ground hits in fighter mode. Attack sorties get credits for air kills, and while I haven't flown a bomber sortie, the score sheet at least SHOWS an allowance for air kills. So just SHOW the option for ground hits for fighter sorties. Either that, or don't show air kills under attack and bomber sorties at all.
-
Dead/Todd/Levi,
I kinda thought that might be the basis for it.
Seems like a ridiculous waste of time just to jack up a score (that only a couple hundred people in the whole world could care about!!)...but this isn't news to anyone.
Looks to me like a no-win...use modes to reduce score-whoring, get irrational results (like kills that aren't kills). Eliminate modes and get...score-whoring!
Oh, well...I know this must have been beaten thoroughly to death already, and there doesn't appear to be a better idea.
The morale of the story? Pick mode carefully, I guess.