Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: LePaul on March 06, 2006, 08:11:09 PM
-
As it is now, the fuel supplies cant be brought down lower than 75%.
Since ordinance can be downed so easily, it seems only fair that a fields fuel assets should be fair game as well. Can't up aircraft with bombs? Fine, lets return the favor and reduce what aircraft they can up with a minimal fuel load.
It certainly wouldnt effect most of the bombers but it would most all the fighters.
-
I'm all for dropping the fuel to 25%, This would make the planes with more range used ALOT more. 25% FUEL no more la's or spit 16's unless they want 8 min flying time. People would have to up p47's, a6m's, ki-84's, and the like.
nick172
-
please
-
This just sounds like a way to stop a fight. I'd say go the other route and make ord. and barracks harder to kill, along with the fuel. Make it so 1 lone tiffy can't strafe everything down. This way you don't punish the people not into the war winning but at the same time makes the war winners have to actually put some effort into taking down troops, fuel, etc.
Remember this is a game where you're suppose to engage against human opponents, not stationary objects. Or at least it use to be :(
-
Just an anti-SpitXVI and La7 whine in shades.
-
Originally posted by monteini
I'm all for dropping the fuel to 25%, This would make the planes with more range used ALOT more. 25% FUEL no more la's or spit 16's unless they want 8 min flying time. People would have to up p47's, a6m's, ki-84's, and the like.
nick172
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
Remember this is a game where you're suppose to engage against human opponents, not stationary objects. Or at least it use to be :(
(here we go again)......HiTech would have made everything indestructible and resources meaningless altogether. But..........he.............d id.........not.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
This just sounds like a way to stop a fight. I'd say go the other route and make ord. and barracks harder to kill, along with the fuel. Make it so 1 lone tiffy can't strafe everything down. This way you don't punish the people not into the war winning but at the same time makes the war winners have to actually put some effort into taking down troops, fuel, etc.
Remember this is a game where you're suppose to engage against human opponents, not stationary objects. Or at least it use to be :(
Agree.
Karaya
-
When gas was porkable, folks would pork it 5 sectors in, preventing an entire team (not just part of a front) from putting up any offense or reliable defense.
Too many tards in this game to allow that. Only takes 1 to sour the game for 500 non-tards.
-
Porkable fuel just lessened the burden for the horde. This isn't a war with 2 sides of equal numbers. This is a virtual war with any 2 sides vs the other at any given point. Allowing any one person to prevent any country from being able to mount a defense = ****ty gameplay.
1 jabo flying around porking ordnance just means you're too busy flying offensive mishuns to worry about defending. Ironically, this is the same rationale you bufftards use when the folks who pay to fight other people complain about you dropping the FH. :huh
-
Originally posted by straffo
For once, I agree with Straffo... maybe he isn't such a bad guy after all!
:)
-
I'm not a bad guy, at least I try not to be a bad guy all time.
There is just some facts I'm very sensible with.
-
yes, let it drop to 25%, but make it MUCH MUCH harder to achieve.
one guy should not be able to do it. make it so 4 or 5 people have to do it. it was a PITA when one ignoramus would go and pork fuel where a massive, fun fight was raging and ruin it for countless people.
-
That sounds like a great idea, make fuel go down to 25% but make it take 4000lbs to take it down, that way taking down fuel does something, but it takes more then one person to do it. And I'm not complaining about la7's or spits, I fly spits some times, I have no problem with them, newbs need something to get them hooked on the game.
nick172
oh ya and back at ya.
-
Those of you who complain about fuel should remember that porking fuel essentially removes about half the planeset from availability.
It particularly removes the truly fun stuff, the early to mid-war aircraft. Their fuel tanks are much smaller in general.
From personal experience I can tell you the FM2 is pretty much useless with 25% fuel and there's lots of aircraft in the same situation.
So be careful what you wish for.... you might get it.
OTOH, HT saw and understood the argument last time and shut down fuel porking. The important thing is that HE understands the situation.
-
I really would like to see fuel limmits back in the game.
Though what Id like to see is that fuel doesnt stay down as long as it does now.
If fuel can be porked down to 25% but only stays down for 30 min the effect of one lone porker is quite small. You will be able to pork fuel at a base that you are attacking but porking the fuel deep inside enemy territory will have a much smaller effect.
Tex
-
Everyone we agrees we need strategic targets but when the motion is put forth, everyone backs away.
The reason seems to artificially prevent anything disrupting the furball.
God forbid we cant take fighter hangars and bombers cant take up ordinance most of the time because some lone porker has porked them all in *straffing* runs.
I just think that the strat in this game is so terribly broken. Fuel tanks were not hardened targets yet can never go below 75%...less we annoy some furballers flights. Ordinance bunkers were, well, *bunkers* yet those can be downed very very easily.
-
Wait, fuel tanks at a field are 'tactical' targets... granted, the lack of Strategic targets that do anything forces them to hit fields instead.
Seriously, I don't see the fun in hitting buildings... when have you see Toolshed (except in jest) or a building give you a in return? People log on to fly with and against living players, which are not available offline like all those buildings are.
Just my opinion, but this is what must be done...
1. Harden all targets at a field.
2. Make stategic hitting of targets soften fields slightly.
3. Get rid of the easy bombing mode we have now.
4. Either disable bomber formations, or enable formations of C47s with more of an affect to resupply a field.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
The reason seems to artificially prevent anything disrupting the furball.
Just remember you'll be seeing late-war planes with bigger fuel tanks almost exclusively if you get your wish.
-
a6m is not late war and dont we already see late war planes most of the time, lol.
Nick172
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just remember you'll be seeing late-war planes with bigger fuel tanks almost exclusively if you get your wish.
Unlike now?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
The reason seems to artificially prevent anything disrupting the furball.
God forbid we cant take fighter hangars and bombers cant take up ordinance most of the time because some lone porker has porked them all in*straffing* runs.
The "furballers" aren't the ones doing the lame feild killing. It's actually the strat/war winner. Allowing fuel down to 25% won't stop the feild killer, he'll just grab a 51 or 47 and continue. The only people this will really punish are the guys who don't care about the war. The guys who want to fight other people in cartoon airplanes.
I don't understand why furballs are such a horrid thing to the building battlers? If nothing else, think of it as your fellow country men bravely tying up the enemy. They can almost be considered heros and should get a medal!
Bottom line LePaul, it sounds like you want this done so everyone has to play the way you like. Is 25% fuel nessicarily a bad idea? No. But I think if you go that route, fuel needs to be hardened a bit. It's already too easy to stop a fight, just kill the FHs with the lazer bomb site. Or as most do, just dive bomb some lancs. You're just wanting to make it easier for an already easy process. Now instead of someone having to take some slower moving bombers and put at least a tiny bit of time/effort into it, you want to move to the tiffy screaming in OTD at 400+ simply strafing the fuel tanks. No thanks.
-
SuperDud, Im not trying to make anyone fly "my" way. The game is advertised and touted as a strategy game (read the docs!). Why things like ordinance can be straffed by a solo cannon bird, yet fuels can not. I'm just asking that the strats be truly available as a target. Why is a HARDENED AMMO BUNKER straffable down to nothing while a fuel tank isnt?
-
Lets make it so hangars go down in one strafing pass too.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Unlike now?
There's some of us still usually fly "early war".
But make the fuel unusable and I'll get back in late war rides like a lot of others.
That's what you want I guess.
-
Paul got a point here, there is no reason to let the strafing of ammo bunker such impact on bomber
-
Yes...make everything harder to kill...but make everything matter! As in what affect it has...and how long its down. Im not talking 10,000 lbs to kill a VH and have it pop up again 10 mins later.
-
I think that's a reasonable compromise.
Yeah, make it so that strat and tac targets are harder to knock out. Fix the gaminess of Buffs (no more EZ mode bombsight and jabboing Lancs, etc) to make it require more patience and skill to use them effectively, but give THEM something back. So maybe it's much harder for them to make an impact, but when they DO, it's at least a telling one.
-
Howabout this kind of proposal:
To drop fuel to 75%, you bomb the field and such. Ok, not too bad. To pork a sector of field bases to 25%, you can have bomb the fuel refineries or dumps. To protect them there will be more puffy ack and smaller-caliber guns for low-flying craft.
You know what that would inspire? DING DING DING bombing runs! At high alt! Because anything lower would be murder against a stronger gun defense, think of it of going against the equivalent of nearly 10 Osti's and 4 M-16s. Then there is the puffy ack.
You want to knock down the fuel capacity? Give it some hard work and you'll be rewarded! It would give a reason for patroling bomber interceptors along paths and routes to those refineries and dumps.
-
Dont forget adding a plane factory while we are at it. Each day a perk plane takes its turn as the factory plane. If the factory is dead, it stays dead for 1 hour, making that plane unavailable.
-
Actually the 109F travels pretty far on a tank of gas. As does the e and the 190 A-5. or at least better then their late war counterparts
I used to be one of those fuel porking dweebs. But typically then as now I primarily attacked those bases the horde was upping from so it only effected that portion.
AS a former fuel porker. I can see and agree with the arguement against bringing it back down to 25% as it was used too often against non hording areas in places where people just wanted to furball.
But on the other hand 75% I think is too high. The proper level at which fuel can be reduced to I think would be bettert all the way around at 50%.
That still allows (with proper fuel management which is available but probably rarely actually used in the game) people that want to up for thew quick fight to do so, yet it also alows for the slowing of the horde since they tend top grab to higher altitudes
Whereas most furballs take place at under 10K
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Howabout this kind of proposal:
To drop fuel to 75%, you bomb the field and such. Ok, not too bad. To pork a sector of field bases to 25%, you can have bomb the fuel refineries or dumps. To protect them there will be more puffy ack and smaller-caliber guns for low-flying craft.
You know what that would inspire? DING DING DING bombing runs! At high alt! Because anything lower would be murder against a stronger gun defense, think of it of going against the equivalent of nearly 10 Osti's and 4 M-16s. Then there is the puffy ack.
You want to knock down the fuel capacity? Give it some hard work and you'll be rewarded! It would give a reason for patroling bomber interceptors along paths and routes to those refineries and dumps.
I can agree with that.
As it is now Strat targets do little to effect the game and most people dont bother bombing them untill they can milkrun em for the quick & easy perk points and easy way to improve rank
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Dont forget adding a plane factory while we are at it. Each day a perk plane takes its turn as the factory plane. If the factory is dead, it stays dead for 1 hour, making that plane unavailable.
Actually I think all perk planes & heavy bombers should have their own factory. Likewise Ammo factories should directly effect the type of ordinance available at the bases within their zones
Another thing that should be added is a more complex engine managment system whereas it wuld be a bad thing to run your engine at full bore 100% throttle for an entire flight.
Gun Jams due to overheating would be a plus also
-
The fuel on a field should be reducible to 25%. That’s the way it was in AH1 and I didn’t see any lack of furball opportunities there. Nor did I see a “lone Tiffy” porking large numbers of fields. I don’t see it now either. If a Tiffy driver porks a field, he’s lucky to get very far at all on just one field before the ack gets him, an upping defender gets him or he just runs out of ammo. Multiple fields fully porked by one Tiffy pilot on one upping? I don’t thinks so. And if he’s doing it on multiple uppings? Well that just means by the time he gets to field three, field one is already popping up. Not much impact there. Just a futile activity he’s got to get bored with very quickly.
Allowing the fuel to be reduced to 25% allowed for an additional tactical/strategic element in the game. It made the game more interesting by giving it another dimension. It didn’t eliminate or punish furballing. What it did do was make it a higher priority to defend your field. It also made you have to defend your field if you couldn’t drive all the way to the other guys field. It placed greater importance on bombers who could up with reduced fuel and still do effective damage.
When I see a P51 successfully taking out ordnance bunkers with its .50 caliber guns, I have to admit the bunkers, fuel and ordnance, should probably be a little harder. Not so much that you had to use 4K of ordnance to get them down, but it seems perfectly reasonable to require some ordnance to be used. Personally I do it by dropping 500 lb. bombs on the things and I think that it is more than reasonable to assume that’s going to do the job.
The .50 caliber gun is a powerful weapon. The 20 mm cannon even more so. However, allowing either of these to take down bunkers seems questionable despite doubting fighter aircraft are really that much of a problem when it comes to porking. I do see fighters porking fields, but they only seem to get the job half done. Time and again I see a field with one of the two barracks down or two of the four ordnance bunkers down. Could it or can it be done? I suppose so, but I don’t see it being done or happening in an effective fashion. I pork with bombers and I do take down entire fields, troops and ordnance though it takes a couple of passes to do it. If I’m not shot down, I pork a number of fields, but that’s in a bomber up high, out of field ack and out of reach of somebody who upped a defending fighter 60 seconds ago. It also took an investment of 20 minutes just to get to altitude and up to airspeed, let alone getting to the first target. Fighters get there much faster.
Finally, this game is about contesting with other humans in a war game. Not just furballing, not just bombers, not just gv’s, but all of them. More than that, it used to be more about strategic maneuvering. It used to be more about the pros and cons of defense and offense and when to use them. It still is. It’s just that making fields have 75% minimum fuel and hardening HQ’s beyond all reason have made it less so
-
Chopsaw, a single aircraft killed fuel down to 25% all the time in AH1, several squads prided themselves on this. It completely killed furballs all the time for a longer period that a whole front between 2 countries was dead, playerwise.
Finally, this game is about contesting with other humans in a war game.
Then why avoid all the humans and go destroy a building?
-
Chopsaw, when did you last fly in the Aces High? I mean we rooks see the solo typhoon act every night and any given front line base.
If you havent seen it, you either arent looking or never use ordinance...thus it wouldnt hinder you.
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Howabout this kind of proposal:
You know what that would inspire? DING DING DING bombing runs! At high alt! Because anything lower would be murder against a stronger gun defense, think of it of going against the equivalent of nearly 10 Osti's and 4 M-16s. Then there is the puffy ack.
Not at all. You'd see more diving lancs. Attacking the CV at low alt is also a sure death, but it does not mater. They will keep diving in until till it is down. As long as the fear of death does not exist, this problem cannot be fixed.
On another note, did I read that ord has been taken out consistantly? :lol :lol :lol And we are supposed to care? :rofl :rofl :rofl Can you say payback? :rofl The people taking down FHs are complaining about ord being down? LMFAO
-
Yea, heaven forbid bombers like, bomb stuff...dude, get a grip
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Yea, heaven forbid fighters like, fight stuff...dude, get a grip
I feel your pain. Follow the bomber pilits recomendation. Up from three fields back.
-
Uh huh, nice quote edit.
And someone claimed *I* was trying to force how I play the game on others? Heh...clearly not
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Chopsaw, a single aircraft killed fuel down to 25% all the time in AH1, several squads prided themselves on this. It completely killed furballs all the time for a longer period that a whole front between 2 countries was dead, playerwise.
If you've got an entire squad doing it, then I can see how an entire front would be crippled for at least one side. But that's an entire squad. They should be able to make an impact. It's not like they could keep it down for very long even with an entire squad working it. That having been said, you'd have to do it to both countries on that front for furballs to be curtailed. That would mean a squad from each side would have to do the same thing at roughly the same time and that just didn't happen. Additionally, when it was reducible to 25% it put pressure on other aspects of the game such as resupplying.
Originally posted by Delirium
Then why avoid all the humans and go destroy a building?
That's my point. Bombing buildings of another country is contesting with the team occupying that country. Further, I don't avoid the fighters. They're welcome to come up and shoot at me anytime they like.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Uh huh, nice quote edit.
And someone claimed *I* was trying to force how I play the game on others? Heh...clearly not
:confused:
lol, not forcing you to do anything. I don't even know what ord looks like. It was just a sudgestion I might have picked up from a bomber pilot.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Chopsaw, when did you last fly in the Aces High? I mean we rooks see the solo typhoon act every night and any given front line base.
If you havent seen it, you either arent looking or never use ordinance...thus it wouldnt hinder you.
:) I fly in AH steadily. Rarely do I miss more than a couple of days in the MA. I didn’t say there weren’t solo acts with the Typhoon. I said they weren’t very effective. To say that a single Typhoon pilot can bring down an entire front is just plain incorrect. It can’t be done.
I always use ordnance. I fly bombers predominantly and you can’t even lift those if there is no ordnance. Game won’t let you.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Uh huh, nice quote edit.
And someone claimed *I* was trying to force how I play the game on others? Heh...clearly not
:confused:
Misquoting is one of dedalos' favorite pastimes. I think he believes it’s clever.:)
-
Actualy after reading all this I got an answer to everybodies wishes.......
Have an arena setting that will allow everything go back to the old timey settings before all the newer settings for one tour every 12-18 months. That way everybody gets back to basics and can understand why some things are the way they are now.
Like I stated earlier I'd like to see fuel dropped to 25% again, but alas like on so many other things nobody can agree or agree to disagree on one thing. Each individuals way is the only way and everybody should play their way.
My perfect AH world:
All structures would have the hardness their structure portrays. Sheet metal doesnt stop much and will wilt under any machine gun fire. Concrete structures will take more than .50 cals to kill and fuel tanks will be constanntly on fire until the sea bees build them underground with access hatches for manual pumps.
All strat can be suppliable from players as well as AI. If folks want their fuel to keep flowing even though the field is fully up and the refinery is down, there will individuals that will find fun in delivering supplies to get it back up to get the fuel to the fields again.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Actualy after reading all this I got an answer to everybodies wishes.......
Have an arena setting that will allow everything go back to the old timey settings before all the newer settings for one tour every 12-18 months. That way everybody gets back to basics and can understand why some things are the way they are now.
Like I stated earlier I'd like to see fuel dropped to 25% again, but alas like on so many other things nobody can agree or agree to disagree on one thing. Each individuals way is the only way and everybody should play their way.
My perfect AH world:
All structures would have the hardness their structure portrays. Sheet metal doesnt stop much and will wilt under any machine gun fire. Concrete structures will take more than .50 cals to kill and fuel tanks will be constanntly on fire until the sea bees build them underground with access hatches for manual pumps.
All strat can be suppliable from players as well as AI. If folks want their fuel to keep flowing even though the field is fully up and the refinery is down, there will individuals that will find fun in delivering supplies to get it back up to get the fuel to the fields again.
I’ll go you one better. Make a separate arena from the current MA. They already have the back up arena in place. In this arena reset the settings to what they were in AH1 as you suggested. Keep the current planes of AH2 of course. See where people go to play. Or how about just keep one arena for one group and another arena for the other.
I sort of thought that the AvA arena was already set up for those that like “a fun fight”, but I really don’t see many people playing there. I guess they don’t want to be restricted to the limited number of aircraft in there. Still, there is seldom an opportunity to capture bases and no end of furball opportunity. In fact the one they’ve going now in there has the rebuild time for all objects set at one minute forty nine seconds. Ack, factories everything pops back up in 1’49”.
Your last paragraph is intriguing. Might be nice, but I doubt the furball crowd will care for it.
Before anyone suggests it, I do not have anything against furballing. I just don’t care to see the game oriented towards that at the expense of other aspects of the game. It’s supposed to be a WWII game. Not just a fighter sim with add ons.
-
I'd like to see the same arena but more of a different thought process.
Furballers from side A want to mix it up with Furballers from side B.
Side A's base has a raid comming in. Raid includes furballers from side B.
Side A launches a deffense.
Side A and Side B's furballers meet somewhere int he middle and mix it up while the strat guys go to try and take the base.
Does it really matter to a furballer on what they kill as long as they get a kill and go on to see their names in lights and slap each other on the back for how uber they are?
A kill is a kill wheather its a bomber or fighter.
So at some point one of the fields will get porked and capped and then captured . WAAA!!!!
One of the most said things anybody has said about busting a cap is to take off and come in from another field. Furballers want an island all to themselves. Fine but in most cases it takes the same amount of time to climb to X amount of feet in any given planes wheather its on furball island or in between bases ABC and XYZ.
After any base is captured the guys who took it are always going to go somewhwere else. The guys whose base is going to be attacked are going to always attempt to up defenders.
The furballers will always have somebody to furball against. The strat guys will always have something meaningfull to attack and the furballers will be there to help in their own way with out being asked.
They all just have to meet in the middle. Everything else works out in the wash.
I will say this though, If the furballers dont like the way things go then they need to go to the DA and mix it up till their hearts content. Thing is though they wont. I think alot, but not all, of those who call themselves furballers are arrogant punks who like to take targets of opputunities and then talk it up of how good they are, how bad you sucked, and then run to HTC when things dont go their way.
To ask a furballer to go to the DA to furball on equal ground with another pilot where they wont get that easy kill they so desperatly want is like asking real Santa Claus to stand still so you can take his picture.
-
Originally posted by Stang
Just an anti-SpitXVI and La7 whine in shades.
And the problem is? :D
-
I like a lot of what you just said, wolf14, but I still would like to see a seperate arena with everything back to the AH1 settings.
I recently upped a Spit 16 at a capped field. There were P38's all over the place, all sorts of different models of them, as well as several other nme aircraft. I upped to get some of the several formations of low altitude Lancs they were creaming us with. I actually drove off one P38, dodged two more and downed one of the Lancs before the trio on my tail finally got me. I think they had fun. Three on one seemed to suit them well.;)
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
If you've got an entire squad doing it, then I can see how an entire front would be crippled for at least one side. But that's an entire squad. They should be able to make an impact.
A squad of 6 guys (and I have a certain squad in mind) would routinely shut down every field's fuel, shutting down game play for 2/3 of the arena.. half couldn't get to the fight, the other half didn't have a fight.
Yea, a whole squad of 6 guys should affect 2/3 of the arena hitting buildings that know really 'mad' acm.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
I will say this though, If the furballers dont like the way things go then they need to go to the DA and mix it up till their hearts content. Thing is though they wont. I think alot, but not all, of those who call themselves furballers are arrogant punks who like to take targets of opputunities and then talk it up of how good they are, how bad you sucked, and then run to HTC when things dont go their way.
Wow, this is telling. Furballers don't play your way, and need to go to a different arena. Never heard that one before. :rolleyes:
-
You know what I wish for? that the constant griping between the furballers and tool sheders about what this game is or isnt or should or should not be like would stop. Aces High is the only game that I have played that this type of bickering has gone on that I have been aware of. Before playing Aces High, I played War Birds and before that Air Warrior. I started playing AW about 4 months before it shut down and left WB , like everyone else, because of the price hike and in both games, I was under the impression that everyone felt that the objective of those games was to reset the opposing side. Now some may not have felt like participating in the land grabbing aspect of the game i.e. bombing or base capturing from time to time, they just wanted to fly fighters but I don't recall them trying to change the game from the original objective set out by the developers. I remember in AW, like fuel, the amount of ammo you could carry would drop in relation to the number of ammo bunkers destroyed. If 50% of the ammo bunkers were knocked out, aircraft from that field could only take 50% of their ammo loadout. It was a PITA but it had some logical reasoning behind it. I guess people just played their game and kept their mouths shut.
You know who I feel sorry for? HT cause he has to deal with this crap. He had the sole resposibility to sort out legitimate critisizisms from the whinny needs of the "Its all about me" crowd. Why don't WE let HT design HIS game the way HE invisions it to be played and if YOU dont like HIS vision than YOU can go find another game to play or design one YOURSELF.
With that being said, Whether any of us like it or not, base grabing and war winning is a fucntion and an overtly obvious objective of this game that HE designed. HE incorperated into HIS game methods, simular that used during WWII, denying the enemy the resorces to fight, that could be used to slow down or even thwart the attack of an opposing force, especially an overwhelming force, you know, the HORDES and thereby gaining control over the situation. HT has tried to balance realism and the needs of his clients and at times has sacrifised realism to meet the wants of one group or another or to choose the wants of one group over another. The fuel porking is such an occurance. The original objective of being able to pork fuel to 25%, along with ammo and troops was to give each team another alternative to stopping an attack and preventing thier base from being captured other than shooting down fighters and bombers. People, who were not interested in the land grabing aspect of the game and thereby did not like to fly for long periods of time before engaging the enemy complained that they had to fly farther. So HT changed it so that you could only pork fuel to 75%. The People who were interested in the land grabing countered by dropping the fighter hangers. Again the furballers complained and at least one individual tried to appease this group by developing at least one map with multiple bases 25 miles or less apart so that base porking became realatively worthless unless a large enough group of people could coordinate well enough to hit multiple bases at the same time. HT has tried in different ways to please both groups. He's tried having different arenas but one group or the other didn't like it because it wasn't popular enough. I think TOD is another attempt to some how successfully seperate the 2 groups. I hope HT doesn't waist alot of time and resources for nothing.
In the mean time I suggest if you want to participate in the land grabbing aspect of the game, then have at it, but don't complain that others do not. Even though I'm a land grabber at heart, there are many times i'm not in the mood. On the same token those who only wish to furball, like the other group, have a ball, but don't complain when they pork your bases and you can't up your favorate plane or you have to to fly 50 miles instead of 25 miles to do battle.
As for my wish for something new, I would like to see Submarines or the B-29.
-
P.S. There were some interesting suggestions that may be worth concidering in an effort to balance the game between the 2 opposing camps but I have a preference for realism. Maybe the strat or tactical aspect of the game needs to be overhauled concidering the increasing polarization of the 2 camps or am I over exaggerating? BTW a big
to HUBS
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
I really love Dedalos and I hope to be like him when I grow up
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
I will say this though, If the furballers dont like the way things go then they need to go to the DA and mix it up till their hearts content. Thing is though they wont. I think alot, but not all, of those who call themselves furballers are arrogant punks who like to take targets of opputunities and then talk it up of how good they are, how bad you sucked, and then run to HTC when things dont go their way.
To ask a furballer to go to the DA to furball on equal ground with another pilot where they wont get that easy kill they so desperatly want is like asking real Santa Claus to stand still so you can take his picture.
Well, most of the times we don't call ourselfs furbalers. The building fighters call us that. I like the oportunity to defend a field. For that, I may need fuel. You g uys obviusly have a problem with that, so your solution is that I need to go to the DA and furball because I interfeer with your building war?
Who is really the arrogant punk here? If you think you are an easy kill, thats your problem. Go in the DA and practice. What you people are really asking for is the ability to batle buildings without those pesky fighters around. So, we call everyone that wants to play the game in a way different than us a 'furbaler' and ask them to go to the DA?
Most people you call furballers, are really not. They just like fighting, buffs, planes, gvs, chutes, what ever. For that, they need fuel and FHs. You are just complaing that you cannot stop them from doing that.
Yep, we are arogant punks alright.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that the war is, ideally, the premise for fighting. Without actual combat between players, there's nothing; the game simply becomes a huge target range. While in real, actual war where the lives of tens of thousands are on the line, denying the enemy the resources he needs to fight is imperative, this same strategy makes for intolerably dull gameplay when carried to MMOG's.
I personally would like to see a robust strat system, with worthwhile targets for bombers, as well as bombers that act more like bombers. What I do not like is people trying to get HTC to set the game up in such a way as to prevent the rest of us from playing, or allowing us only certain aircraft.
This is a situation which only benefits the side with a pronounced numerical advantage, which again, contributes only to a decline in the quality of gameplay for everyone else, which means more unhappy customers, and, eventually, fewer customers.
It's tough to work out a better setup that improves gameplay for everyone, and I personally don't like the idea of going back to setups that were worse than what we have now.
John, got that new PC yet? (lucky bastage, lightning strike=better pc :mad: )
-
:O Oh my got. omething is wrong with Hub. Not only I was able to read his post, but he actually made sence!
-
what ever works for a new computer right? lol
I think it should be ready by the middle of next week. When I went to the computer store on Tuesday, the tech said he would order the parts that morning and the venders should have them shipped out by that afternoon and should have start arriving yesturday. So hopefully they can start assembly tomarrow (friday). They'll spend a day or two testing so since they are closed on Sundays and Mondays, i'm looking at Tuesday or Wednesday before the blessed arrival. In the mean time, i'm not handling AHII withdrawls very well I see Bish and Rooks in my sleep, I think it's sleep, im not sure anymore:noid
-
Originally posted by Delirium
A squad of 6 guys (and I have a certain squad in mind) would routinely shut down every field's fuel, shutting down game play for 2/3 of the arena.. half couldn't get to the fight, the other half didn't have a fight.
Yea, a whole squad of 6 guys should affect 2/3 of the arena hitting buildings that know really 'mad' acm.
Show me the six pilots that could shut down 2/3 of the arena on a map like the Pizza! It cannot be done. The fields pop back up too fast. If you’re talking about small maps, then the six might have a chance and they should. Bombers, gv’s, boats and fighter aircraft are designed into this game. Not just your favorite fighters.
How do you think it works in war? You think they didn't bomb buildings to prevent the enemy from being able to fight? Once again, this game was conceived as a war game. Not just a fighter vs. fighter game.
The one arena that seems to be attempting fighter vs. fighter scenarios is AvA and that has a chronic shortage of pilots. I have to think that there's something more to that chronic shortage than the planes offered for flying.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Wow, this is telling. Furballers don't play your way, and need to go to a different arena. Never heard that one before.
Perhaps they don't need to go to another arena, but they should stop trying to sideline everything in favor of their favorite fighter rides. It's pretty obvious there's something about the MA they enjoy. Otherwise they would go to another arena. AvA or DA are good examples.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Well, most of the times we don't call ourselfs furbalers. The building fighters call us that. I like the oportunity to defend a field. For that, I may need fuel. You g uys obviusly have a problem with that, so your solution is that I need to go to the DA and furball because I interfeer with your building war?
Who is really the arrogant punk here? If you think you are an easy kill, thats your problem. Go in the DA and practice. What you people are really asking for is the ability to batle buildings without those pesky fighters around. So, we call everyone that wants to play the game in a way different than us a 'furbaler' and ask them to go to the DA?
Most people you call furballers, are really not. They just like fighting, buffs, planes, gvs, chutes, what ever. For that, they need fuel and FHs. You are just complaing that you cannot stop them from doing that.
Yep, we are arogant punks alright.
Well I don’t know about all of them being “arrogant punks”, but your postings have always defined you very well.
I doubt very much that any bomber pilot (in your words bufftard and/or toolshedder) wants to bomb buildings without fighter’s attacking us. What we would like is the ability to have an effect on the game when we do drop buildings. I can understand this is an inconvenience to you and if we went back to 25% fuel it would be an even greater one.
I spoke to a furballer who called himself that. He like furballing and wasn’t ashamed to say it. He said 25% fuel was not a problem for him since he liked to defend bases as a rule and he always had plenty of fuel to do that. I have nothing at all against furballers. It’s an important aspect of the game. I do have something against furballers that whine about everything not being their way.
I’d also like my bomber guns de-nerfed. The current nerfing that’s been done to bomber guns isn’t enough, is it? We’re still shooting fighters down. So instead of learning to do it right, you complain to HTC in hopes they’ll nerf bomber guns further.
The way bombs drop has been nerfed from AH1 and that’s still not good enough for you. We’re still dropping buildings and that won’t do, will it? In AH1 a hanger could be dropped by one salvo of 1K bombs from a formation. Now it takes two slavos. But you complain to try and get the bombs nerfed some more because we still take down hangers and that ruins your “fun”. Or you try to get the bomber sight nerfed.
Bottom line? You want the game to be arranged in such a way that you won’t be inconvenienced in any fashion. You want to be able to shoot down bombers without the pesky inconvenience of having them actually hit you when they shoot. You don’t want your hangers, fuel, or ammo load out effected. Just wouldn’t be fair, would it?
I’m sorry. I seem to have lost track. Just who is it, again, that’s trying to have the game all their own way and force everyone else to play it that way?
-
I think you are confused chop. Bombing has been made much easier since AH1. No more wind or calibration. Just hold down the Y button for 3 seconds and you're good. Also, the guns on a buff have always been lazer accurate. Furthermore, you get 3 aircraft all firing as 1. This means at any one time(and I'll be conservative) you can have 12 .50cal MGs shooting at you. Also you get to lose 3 aircraft before you have to return to the tower.
Poor bomber pilots lol.
This has just turned into another furballer vs toolshedder thread. Basically toolshedders will continue to kill FHs for no reason and furballers will continue to whine about it. Does that basically sum it all up?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
One thing to keep in mind is that the war is, ideally, the premise for fighting. Without actual combat between players, there's nothing; the game simply becomes a huge target range. While in real, actual war where the lives of tens of thousands are on the line, denying the enemy the resources he needs to fight is imperative, this same strategy makes for intolerably dull gameplay when carried to MMOG's.
I personally would like to see a robust strat system, with worthwhile targets for bombers, as well as bombers that act more like bombers. What I do not like is people trying to get HTC to set the game up in such a way as to prevent the rest of us from playing, or allowing us only certain aircraft.
This is a situation which only benefits the side with a pronounced numerical advantage, which again, contributes only to a decline in the quality of gameplay for everyone else, which means more unhappy customers, and, eventually, fewer customers.
It's tough to work out a better setup that improves gameplay for everyone, and I personally don't like the idea of going back to setups that were worse than what we have now.
I played AH1 for years with the old settings and I never found it to be intolerably dull nor did I ever see a situation where anyone didn’t have the opportunity to fight. Perhaps he/she was inhibited in their ability to take the fight to the enemy in their preferred aircraft, but that was part of the game.
In AH1 numerical advantages were not as important as they are now. A side with fewer pilots could still pull it out of the hat. Now in AH2, the side with more pilots wins. Every single time.
The old setup provided for more difficult play. It provided for more ways to play and have an effect. You had to think about strategy more. You had to be more concerned about defending your assets. It was more interesting.
The new setup provides for more care free play. It’s easier. You don’t have to worry about your fuel being reduced to 25%. Don’t have to worry so much about protecting the assets of your fields. Don’t have to worry so much about people hitting your HQ, because it takes so much more now to bring it down and it has to come all the way down to achieve even the 5 minutes of inconvenience it takes to re-supply it and bring it back up. This benefits at least two groups of people. The people that like fighter vs. fighter fighting and have little interest in anything else. The second group of people are the prepubescent squeakers. They’re attracted to the instant gratification the game now offers. None of the old frustration with actually having to worry about a field being fit enough to take off from and go where you want. Fields closer, so you don’t have to wait so long to get into the action. Want to shoot bombers down? Simply come up on their six, throttle back to maintain 1.0 distance and start blazing away.
It’s become an easier, simpler, quicker, less interesting game.
-
WAIT A MINUTE!
Is this sgtdueax???
-
Well, great, now we know how everyone feels, no one yet has explained how porking fuel back to 25% improves gameplay, we've already established how it negatively affected the game, and now we're stooping to calling names and telling people they suck.
BTW, Chopsaw, the answer to your question is "you". We'd like the aspect of gameplay in question to pretty much stay the same. You, however, have requested 3 separate changes.
Queue up the "furballers suck" canned replies, this thread has run it's course.
This has got to be a troll. He can't possibly be serious about bombing.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
None of the old frustration with actually having to worry about a field being fit enough to take off from and go where you want. Fields closer, so you don’t have to wait so long to get into the action. Want to shoot bombers down? Simply come up on their six, throttle back to maintain 1.0 distance and start blazing away.
I don't want frustration, I come to this game to get away from that. If you feel the need to be challenged maybe you should take up a hobby.
Oh and if you are the bomber getting killed by the 1K fighter, you need A LOT of practice! Any buffer will tell you a fighter hanging 1K off their 6 is as good as dead.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Wow, this is telling. Furballers don't play your way, and need to go to a different arena. Never heard that one before. :rolleyes:
Sorry Hub things dont always come out right from what I am thinking and to how I type what I am thinking.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that those furballers get so upset that the fun police came in and ruined their glorious furball, have an option to an arena where they can control the variables of their engagements without the fun police comming in and ruining their fun.
Those furballers that do contribute in what ever way they do to an offenensive and deffensive operation do not need to leave and go to another arena.
Like I said furballers are needed, they cant be an island unto themselves though in the main arean as it is structured now.
-
Here's the point you miss Wolf. When the fun police come and destroy a fight furballers either:
A) Go elsewhere and start another 1
B) Log for the night
There is never a time where a light from on high hits them and they think, " OMG! I better help with the war effort!!!"
Hopefully one day all the little generals out there will realize this and leave us be. And as I've said before, just consider us tying up enemy resources by engaging them. Because if we weren't they'd be interferring with the super dooper leet ops mishunz@#$@
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
I think you are confused chop. Bombing has been made much easier since AH1. No more wind or calibration. Just hold down the Y button for 3 seconds and you're good. Also, the guns on a buff have always been lazer accurate. Furthermore, you get 3 aircraft all firing as 1. This means at any one time(and I'll be conservative) you can have 12 .50cal MGs shooting at you. Also you get to lose 3 aircraft before you have to return to the tower.
Poor bomber pilots lol.
This has just turned into another furballer vs toolshedder thread. Basically toolshedders will continue to kill FHs for no reason and furballers will continue to whine about it. Does that basically sum it all up?
Since I fly bombers a lot, almost exclusively, I’m not the least confused on this issue. Since I’m sure you do not fly bombers very often, let me clue you in to a couple of items.
First, the only thing easier in bombing is the bomb sight calibration. What’s more important for the calibration than the actual process of calibration is the incorporation of the E6B computer. We can now compare an actual ground speed with that which is calibrated. That having been said, the easier calibration method has very little impact. I was able to calibrate very well in AH1 without the easier method and without the E6B computer. Six salvos equaled six hangers. Every time. Now with the bomb dispersion set up the way it is you need to drop two salvos. Just for the record, holding that Y button down for a mere 3 seconds doesn’t give a good calibration. You need to hold it down a lot longer.
Second, the wind only effected bombing in AH1 if you went above 15K. I can’t remember the exact altitude but it was around there that it kicked in. Even so, I could calibrate and hit an HQ from 30,000 feet. Every time. No, we don’t have the wind anymore. What we do have are those two cloud layers between 14K and 16K altitude. The higher of the two layers is often so thick you can’t pick out targets. That means we’re flying lower and wouldn’t be effected by the old wind model anyway.
Third, bomber guns; Lasers’? Really? Let me show you what Skuzzy wrote me about that recently. Skuzzy writes: “The whole gun solution for bombers was changed. They sort of auto-converge now, but not focused on one point, so there is more of a dispersal
pattern.” I also told him that it seemed the guns converged at 500 instead of the 600 that seems to be the consensus on the BBS. Skuzzy replied, “Been that way since AHII was released.” In AH1 I could ping a plane at 1.4. Not damage him at that range, but let him know I was there and aware. At distance 1.0 I could make his plane dissolve if he was silly enough to be on my six at co-altitude holding steady. I always had my convergence set at 650. In AH2, I cannot touch an aircraft at 1.4. At 1.0 I can barely touch him and have to use half my ammo to get any effect. At the same time the fighter plane can hit me with cannons and/or machine guns with enough effect to damage my bombers if not take them out. This has led to newbie’s coming up on my six at co-alt with a more than fair chance of hurting me. Slightly more experienced pilot’s are coming up on my six, throttling back to hold the 1.0 distance and dumping all their ammo into my bombers, knowing I won’t be able to do much to them in return and also knowing I’m spending a lot of ammo to do it. Sure doesn’t sound like lasers’ to me. In AH1 I couldn’t and in AH2 I can’t hit a fighter pilot who knows what he’s doing. A fighter pilot that knows how to take down bombers will do it and barely get a scratch. Doesn’t matter if it’s AH1 or AH2.
Fourth, losing a bomber or two before returning to hanger: Even losing one bomber effects my ability to accomplish what I came up there to do. What I spent 20 minutes getting up to altitude and speed to do. Yes, I do get three planes before I have to go back to the tower, but the fighters also get three nice big, slow moving, slow maneuvering , juicy targets to claim kills off of.
Finally; I at least do not kill FH’s for no reason. If I do it, it’s because I have a reason and that reason is never just to spoil someone’s fun. I don’t have time for that and it’s difficult for me to understand anyone that does or how they could avoid becoming bored by doing it.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Well, great, now we know how everyone feels, no one yet has explained how porking fuel back to 25% improves gameplay, we've already established how it negatively affected the game, and now we're stooping to calling names and telling people they suck.
BTW, Chopsaw, the answer to your question is "you". We'd like the aspect of gameplay in question to pretty much stay the same. You, however, have requested 3 separate changes.
Queue up the "furballers suck" canned replies, this thread has run it's course.
This has got to be a troll. He can't possibly be serious about bombing.
You're only partially correct. I'd like to see the changes that have already been made to fit your requests changed back.
-
Oh as to why I want fuel to be able to be dropped back to 25%.......
I want something meaningful to happen. I want the things that get destroyed mean something to me and others and the side I'm attacking. The way some things are now is more along the lines of, Whats the use.
I want the LA-7's to run out of fuel.
I want to see defense flights trying to stop someone as opposed to..."Dont worry about him he'll only knock us down to 75% at most with no drop tanks." If anything have fuel down for 15 minutes. It probably takes that long for the little man to run to the tool shed, grab a manual pump, open a fill hatch to an underground reserve fual tankl, and start manualy hand pumpin that stuff.
I want to see great furballs, but when they are over they go to another section of the map to get it on instead of comming and whining to HT to change something. Just ignore all those strat guys around ya, there will be other fighters around trying to shoot ya.
I want to see the level dive bombing heavies stopped and for somebody to help Fortress learn how to level bomb. Poor guy has to get bored at some point. :)
I want the LTARS to go away and quit crying about being carpet bombed.
:) J/K guys so take some of it for what it is and the rest with a grain of salt.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
I don't want frustration, I come to this game to get away from that. If you feel the need to be challenged maybe you should take up a hobby.
Oh and if you are the bomber getting killed by the 1K fighter, you need A LOT of practice! Any buffer will tell you a fighter hanging 1K off their 6 is as good as dead.
You come to this game to fly fighter aircraft.
Try shooting that guy with buff guns at 1.0 sometime. Is he going to die if he stays there. Probably, but not before a critical amount of the buffs ammo is exhausted. Sure I can chop throttle to get him closer, but that ruins the speed I've calibrated for the bomb drop. It's not unreasonable expect my guns to work as well as the fighter's.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Since I fly bombers a lot, almost exclusively, I’m not the least confused on this issue. Since I’m sure you do not fly bombers very often, let me clue you in to a couple of items.
Wanna bet? I flew bombers exclusively in AH1 for years, and a little in AH2. Before that, I was exclusively bombing in AW and WBs. Like most guys I stuck to bombers b/c I got my butt handed to me in fighters. Finally one day I got tired of it and decided it was time to get better at it. The 1st few months were rough but after that guess what? It was 10X funner flying fighters than bombers. There is absolutley no skill involved in bombing, especially now.
This is what I love about the bomber guys. They assume most fighters have no idea about bombers when in fact most everyone starts in bombers because they are easier.
I didn't read the rest of you dribble b/c I won't agree with it and it's only your veiw. My veiw(also from experience) is AH1 was much tougher.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
You come to this game to fly fighter aircraft.
Try shooting that guy buff guns at 1.0 sometime. Is he going to die if he stays there. Probably, but not before a critical amount of the buffs guns is exhausted. Sure I can chop throttle to get him closer, but that ruins my the speed I've calibrated for the bomb drop. It's not unreasonable expect my guns to work as well as the fighter's.
No I dont just fly fighters, I also fly goons. And if you use up that much ammo you seriously need more practice.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
Wanna bet? I flew bombers exclusively in AH1 for years, and a little in AH2. Before that, I was exclusively bombing in AW and WBs. Like most guys I stuck to bombers b/c I got my butt handed to me in fighters. Finally one day I got tired of it and decided it was time to get better at it. The 1st few months were rough but after that guess what? It was 10X funner flying fighters than bombers. There is absolutley no skill involved in bombing, especially now.
This is what I love about the bomber guys. They assume most fighters have no idea about bombers when in fact most everyone starts in bombers because they are easier.
I didn't read the rest of you dribble b/c I won't agree with it and it's only your veiw. My veiw(also from experience) is AH1 was much tougher.
If you truly did fly bombers that much in AH1 and AH2, your powers of observation are at best flawed. Additionally, even if you did fly bombers at one point, you don’t now. You fly fighters and you fly with guys that like fighters and you don’t really care about anything else save what might interfere with that or inconvenience that.
I do agree that AH1 was tougher, though we may not be talking about the same aspects. It was tougher and it was more interesting because of that.
Dribble? I think the word you might be searching for in your vast frame of reference is “drivel”. I really love a guy like you thinking he has the intelligence to tell a guy like me I write “dribble”. In point of fact, my view is shared by far more than myself. You and your squad mates have opinions that are well known, if not well expressed. “Bombing is for dweebs”. “We’re skilled fighters and only pilots of fighter aircraft have a lick of skill”. “Bombers are too easy.” “Bombers guns are too good.” “Bombers are unrealistically effective in their bombing.” Sorry if I’ve expressed some of your favorite sayings differently than you would. I couldn’t help cleaning up the grammar and syntax. Still, it’s pretty good paraphrasing. Your list of whines had an effect. We see the changes that have been made from AH1 to AH2 and still you lot whine on.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
And if you use up that much ammo you seriously need more practice.
:lol You're stuck in a loop and you still don't know what you're talking about. Moreover, you're determined not to do anything to learn.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
.
Third, bomber guns; Lasers’? Really? Let me show you what Skuzzy wrote me about that recently. Skuzzy writes: “The whole gun solution for bombers was changed. They sort of auto-converge now, but not focused on one point, so there is more of a dispersal
pattern.” I also told him that it seemed the guns converged at 500 instead of the 600 that seems to be the consensus on the BBS. Skuzzy replied, “Been that way since AHII was released.” In AH1 I could ping a plane at 1.4. Not damage him at that range, but let him know I was there and aware. At distance 1.0 I could make his plane dissolve if he was silly enough to be on my six at co-altitude holding steady. I always had my convergence set at 650. In AH2, I cannot touch an aircraft at 1.4. At 1.0 I can barely touch him and have to use half my ammo to get any effect. At the same time the fighter plane can hit me with cannons and/or machine guns with enough effect to damage my bombers if not take them out. This has led to newbie’s coming up on my six at co-alt with a more than fair chance of hurting me. Slightly more experienced pilot’s are coming up on my six, throttling back to hold the 1.0 distance and dumping all their ammo into my bombers, knowing I won’t be able to do much to them in return and also knowing I’m spending a lot of ammo to do it. Sure doesn’t sound like lasers’ to me.
Regardless of what the "slave guns" are doing, you are at least controlling the two machine guns on your sight. The rest scattering about should make a hit more likely.
I also have a hard time believing anyone is doing much to you at 1.0 other than distracting you. . . speaking from humble (and humbled) experience. I don't know how to post links to threads, but there is a thread in the wish list forum titled (oddly enough) Wish List by Boxboy. As of this moment the last post was by Spatula on 3-04-06. I was having a bad day and went on a rant, only to be thouroughly slapped down by the big man HTC himself, on the very subject of the relative effectiveness of buff guns vs the pursuing fighter's guns. "Warning, the thread contains various math results, the reading of which has already caused the cranial implosion of one BBs member."
In case you don't read it (and actually, maybe I don't want you to read it . . . don't know what is more embarrassing, being wrong, or having done all the math to prove it), in a nutshell, at d1.0, the fighter is a seriously fudged monkey in relation to the bomber, assuming both can actually be on target at that range.
Cannons are likely more effective when they hit due to their explosives; although I have to believe any hit at that range with a cannon would be rare.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Regardless of what the "slave guns" are doing, you are at least controlling the two machine guns on your sight. The rest scattering about should make a hit more likely.
I also have a hard time believing anyone is doing much to you at 1.0 other than distracting you. . . speaking from humble (and humbled) experience. I don't know how to post links to threads, but there is a thread in the wish list forum titled (oddly enough) Wish List by Boxboy. As of this moment the last post was by Spatula on 3-04-06. I was having a bad day and went on a rant, only to be thouroughly slapped down by the big man HTC himself, on the very subject of the relative effectiveness of buff guns vs the pursuing fighter's guns. "Warning, the thread contains various math results, the reading of which has already caused the cranial implosion of one BBs member."
In case you don't read it (and actually, maybe I don't want you to read it . . . don't know what is more embarrassing, being wrong, or having done all the math to prove it), in a nutshell, at d1.0, the fighter is a seriously fudged monkey in relation to the bomber, assuming both can actually be on target at that range.
Cannons are likely more effective when they hit due to their explosives; although I have to believe any hit at that range with a cannon would be rare.
My comments weren't based upon math or numbers or settings. They were based upon experience. Cannons are indeed more likely to affect me than .50 cal, but I've had situations recently where the 50's were catching me on fire, hitting my oil lines and of course causing leaks in my fuel tanks. Twenty mm cannon are the ones that seem to hit me most often, but I’ve also had the cannon from a 190 pounding me from that distance and that seems ridiculous.
I’ve also gotten information on the hardness of HQ’s from HT and Skuzzy. HT writes that the HQ simply doubled its toughness over what it had in AH1 and now requires a complete destruction to have any effect to the respective countries radar system. Skuzzy wrote me saying the HQ required 37,500 lbs of ordnance to bring down. I’ve heard other stories of people trying to take down the HQ’s, but didn’t have any personally observed evidence until just the other night. We took 4 formations of B-24’s, each with the 4 x 2,000 lb. bomb load out. Salvos were set to 4 and the delay was .05 (minimum). Three full formations made it to the target and hit. Two full formations were dead on target with the third getting a partial hit. That means well in excess of 48,000 lbs. hit that HQ almost simultaneously. The point I’m making is, something other than numbers is a variable in this situation. I suggest the same is true of the bombers guns.
I’ll try to find your thread. I’d like to read it.
-
Well, this thread went quickly from someone making what he felt was a serious request, to the typical furballer vs toolshedder squabble, to teetering on the edge of a flame war. Incredible. ;)
Where's all our moderates at? The partisanship 'round these parts is worse than Congress.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
canned replies, this thread has run it's course.
I called it first! ;)
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Well, this thread went quickly from someone making what he felt was a serious request, to the typical furballer vs toolshedder squabble, to teetering on the edge of a flame war. Incredible. ;)
Where's all our moderates at? The partisanship 'round these parts is worse than Congress.
Not recently. The house appropriations committee voted 62 to 2 yesterday to kill the UAE deal which would have taken control of six major US ports. Both parties have been very serious about killing the deal. Bush has finally united them. Today the leaders of both the house and senate went to Bush and told him there was no way the deal was going to go through. Congress was going to bust Bush’s veto of any legislation which would prohibit the take over.
………….(sigh) Of course now they’re arguing about which party killed the deal. Both sides want the credit.
-
That still doesn't change my point. Neither the toolshedders or furballers are willing to budge. The middle ground (which is where I place myself. I'm virtually pure fighter with an occaisonal jabbo strike, but I prefer fighting somewhere in defense or to help take a base) is being turned into a smoldering pile of slag.
Although as a point of order; a flaw with the argument that by furballing you're tying up guys that could be defending or attack a base is that probably the majority of the enemy BEING "tied up" are just other hell-with-the-war furballers who would otherwise be in some other out of the way corner of the map
-
Yeah, I was pretty much having fun, had some time to kill before work. It's only a game, nothing to get worked up over. I was enjoying stirring the pot. Just because I don't agree with you chop doesn't mean I'm wrong. I still bomb, not much but enough so that I haven't lost my touch. I still say buffing is too easy, especially for the effect it can have on the game. I also still believe it's easy to kill anything coming from dead 6 at 1K without going bingo ammo. Why is your veiw more right than mine?
Oh and thanks for the spell/grammer check, I forgot I was being grade:aok BTW, I'm not very smart, I'm about the dumbest person you'll meet, my name says it all. But it's been fun, keep up the good work dueax!:noid
-
I would be quite happy to have it attritable to 0%
However the amount of effort that it should take should be very considerable.
Strat Fuel would constantly pour into an air field so to maintain fuel levels at any where near 0 (for any time) would require the strat to be levelled....... and or a sustained high level of attrition.
Fuel should not only be held in large earth bound bunkers requiring serious bombing but dispersed around the field in smaller barrels under camo nets about 30/40 of them that can hardly be seen from the air.
Barrels will quickly burn out when hit..............bunkers will smoke for the usual periods. (to reduce FR hit)
and finally fuel would be dispenced/rationed in gallons or litres and not in %'s of the various capacities.
or at the very least rationed by cruise power range and not % capacity.
gas guzzlers should be penalised by fuel attrion!!!!!
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
The fuel on a field should be reducible to 25%. That’s the way it was in AH1 and I didn’t see any lack of furball opportunities there. Nor did I see a “lone Tiffy” porking large numbers of fields.
You weren't looking very hard then becuase it happened all the damn time, usually 3 bases wide and 3 bases deep, essentially removing fighters from the game on the active portion of the map...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
You weren't looking very hard then becuase it happened all the damn time, usually 3 bases wide and 3 bases deep, essentially removing fighters from the game on the active portion of the map...
Troops and ordnance bunkers still have about the same time of pop up that they did in AH1. Do you see any situation where fields are porked for either of these three wide and three deep? I sure don’t. And if I did, it wouldn’t be from one guy in anything. The very best I can do with my bombers in AH2 is 5 or 6 fields porked for one strat….say troops. And by the time I finish with the last the first and second are popping back up. The situation you describe would take an effort from a group of individuals. There’s no way one guy could do it.
I studied those maps in AH1 a good deal and I never saw the situation you just described. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, I’m sure it did, but it didn’t happen on a regular basis and it certainly wasn’t the work of a single Tiffy pilot. Especially with the way the AH1 maps had the fields spread further apart.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
How do you think it works in war? You think they didn't bomb buildings to prevent the enemy from being able to fight? Once again, this game was conceived as a war game. Not just a fighter vs. fighter game.
Do you think they did not destroy ammo bankers and factories to prevent bombers form bombing them?
You are right. This game is not only about fighters. I would assume it would be ok with you guys to allow fighters to intercept your buffs. Weelllllll, they may need fuel for that.
Lets just stop pretending here. This is not about fighters or furbalers. Its about being able to bomb with 0 resistance. You can do that off line also.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Well I don’t know about all of them being “arrogant punks”, but your postings have always defined you very well.
I doubt very much that any bomber pilot (in your words bufftard and/or toolshedder) wants to bomb buildings without fighter’s attacking us. What we would like is the ability to have an effect on the game when we do drop buildings. I can understand this is an inconvenience to you and if we went back to 25% fuel it would be an even greater one.
I spoke to a furballer who called himself that. He like furballing and wasn’t ashamed to say it. He said 25% fuel was not a problem for him since he liked to defend bases as a rule and he always had plenty of fuel to do that. I have nothing at all against furballers. It’s an important aspect of the game. I do have something against furballers that whine about everything not being their way.
I’d also like my bomber guns de-nerfed. The current nerfing that’s been done to bomber guns isn’t enough, is it? We’re still shooting fighters down. So instead of learning to do it right, you complain to HTC in hopes they’ll nerf bomber guns further.
The way bombs drop has been nerfed from AH1 and that’s still not good enough for you. We’re still dropping buildings and that won’t do, will it? In AH1 a hanger could be dropped by one salvo of 1K bombs from a formation. Now it takes two slavos. But you complain to try and get the bombs nerfed some more because we still take down hangers and that ruins your “fun”. Or you try to get the bomber sight nerfed.
Bottom line? You want the game to be arranged in such a way that you won’t be inconvenienced in any fashion. You want to be able to shoot down bombers without the pesky inconvenience of having them actually hit you when they shoot. You don’t want your hangers, fuel, or ammo load out effected. Just wouldn’t be fair, would it?
I’m sorry. I seem to have lost track. Just who is it, again, that’s trying to have the game all their own way and force everyone else to play it that way?
OK, my bad. I should know better than try to explain how I see things. Lets continue the conversation when you develop the ability to carry one. You do realise that I was not responding to you?
Keep plaing the game the way you like, believe it or not, no one has ever tried to stop you from doing that. but as long as you are trying to stop me from playing the game, I will make sure you have a reall reason to come in here and cry. First 3 shorties every night from now on will be ord porking. I'll see how many others I can get to do it. No whining though, ok? This is a war, and in real life ord was a target. I would expect you to be hitting my fuel, FH hangers, church and virtual home.
One last thing. What chess piece do you fly for? I'd like to start with yours first if that is OK with you.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
Yeah, I was pretty much having fun, had some time to kill before work. It's only a game, nothing to get worked up over. I was enjoying stirring the pot. Just because I don't agree with you chop doesn't mean I'm wrong. I still bomb, not much but enough so that I haven't lost my touch. I still say buffing is too easy, especially for the effect it can have on the game. I also still believe it's easy to kill anything coming from dead 6 at 1K without going bingo ammo. Why is your veiw more right than mine?
Oh and thanks for the spell/grammer check, I forgot I was being grade:aok BTW, I'm not very smart, I'm about the dumbest person you'll meet, my name says it all. But it's been fun, keep up the good work dueax!:noid
I’m well aware you Burger Kingers like to stir things up. You seem to believe I might be getting hot under the collar. Sorry to disillusion you, but I’m laughing my rear off.
You’re right. Just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean you’re wrong. It also doesn’t mean you’re right.
I didn’t say I went bingo on ammo, I said it used more than I care to use. Four hundred to 500 rounds. I’ve got other fighter planes that want me to shoot them, you know. Seems a bit selfish for one guy to hog so much ammo that could be used on his team mates. Currently my best effort has been to shoot down 6 fighters before going bingo on ammo. Of course then I’m cat food for the next fighter that comes up and the best I’ve landed is 5. I will of course take your advice and continue to practice on the d1.0 guys on my six. Who knows? There’s even a chance you might be right on that one issue.
I believe my view “is more right” than yours because my view is an overall view. It is not restricted by a special interest, in your case fighters. I’m not solely into bombers, fighters, or gv’s. I believe they all play and should play an integral role in the game. The thing I liked about AH1 is it forced you to use more than one type of vehicle to achieve victory. You couldn’t rely upon fighters only or bombers only or gv’s only. There were times when you had to use a gv, times when you had to use a fighter and times when a bomber was a really good idea. It’s still that way in AH2, but to a lesser extent. Now things are oriented even more towards fighter aircraft than they were in AH1. It has unbalanced the game toward larger numbers being more important than in AH1. Now, whoever has the most pilots wins every time. Before, tactics and strategies could gain victory from superior numbers.
Why are you calling me “two” in French?
:cool:
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Do you think they did not destroy ammo bankers and factories to prevent bombers form bombing them?
You are right. This game is not only about fighters. I would assume it would be ok with you guys to allow fighters to intercept your buffs. Weelllllll, they may need fuel for that.
Lets just stop pretending here. This is not about fighters or furbalers. Its about being able to bomb with 0 resistance. You can do that off line also.
I don’t know how you’ve done it, but you really have missed the point.:cool:
-
Originally posted by dedalos
OK, my bad. I should know better than try to explain how I see things. Lets continue the conversation when you develop the ability to carry one. You do realise that I was not responding to you?
Keep plaing the game the way you like, believe it or not, no one has ever tried to stop you from doing that. but as long as you are trying to stop me from playing the game, I will make sure you have a reall reason to come in here and cry. First 3 shorties every night from now on will be ord porking. I'll see how many others I can get to do it. No whining though, ok? This is a war, and in real life ord was a target. I would expect you to be hitting my fuel, FH hangers, church and virtual home.
One last thing. What chess piece do you fly for? I'd like to start with yours first if that is OK with you.
Thanks, dedalos, I needed the chuckle.
I’m not trying to stop anyone from playing the game. I’m trying to get back to a more interesting game. A game like AH1 was.
It may interest you to know that ordnance is one of my primary targets. It depends on the current need of my team in an area as to whether I put it on a priority basis or not.
To answer your question, I fly Knights and all I can say is, bring it. :lol Better yet, up a fighter and try to shoot me down. I think you'd be good at it and that might be more fun for you than trying to convince a bunch of your friends to go porking fields with you. In any case, no "shorties" please. The graphic image that brings to mind is more information than I need to know.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
II believe my view “is more right” than yours because my view is an overall view. It is not restricted by a special interest, in your case fighters. I’m not solely into bombers, fighters, or gv’s.
Tour 74. Total hours 20:14:01 Time in fighters 00:00:17
Tour 73. Total hours 81:25:40 Time in fighters 01:01:26
My appologies sir. You are an over all player and your view is more right
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Better yet, up a fighter and try to shoot me down.
Even better, grab a fighter and try to stop me. Oh, wait. You can't. FHs will be down and hopefully fuel will be gone.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Tour 74. Total hours 20:14:01 Time in fighters 00:00:17
Tour 73. Total hours 81:25:40 Time in fighters 01:01:26
My appologies sir. You are an over all player and your view is more right
Let me try to explain this to you. I said that my view was overall, not that I was an overall player. For instance even though I spend most of my time in bombers, you don’t see me asking for ordnance to have a minimum of 75% or advocating the ammo bunkers be made invulnerable. Remember; when a base has no ordnance, no bomber ups from that base until it does. Sort of makes bomber hangers superfluous. Anyway, I think it’s right that a bomber shouldn’t be able to up if there’s no ordnance. I like that. It makes the game more interesting.
By contrast I do not see people such as yourself advocating for anything other than your favorite ride.
I’m an advocate for all forms of play in the game, not just one. For instance, I’d like to see a method developed to make it impossible for heavy bombers to dive bomb. It just doesn’t seem right that they should be able to. Unfortunately HT believes that anything he does in this direction will be worked around those who like to dive bomb with heavy bombers.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Even better, grab a fighter and try to stop me. Oh, wait. You can't. FHs will be down and hopefully fuel will be gone.
:lol Stop you from doing what?
You're seriously telling us that you can't up a fighter because you can't find a field with the hangers up?!:confused:
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
:lol Stop you from doing what?
From taking out ord :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Let me try to explain this to you. I said that my view was overall, not that I was an overall player. For instance even though I spend most of my time in bombers, you don’t see me asking for ordnance to have a minimum of 75% or advocating the ammo bunkers be made invulnerable. Remember; when a base has no ordnance, no bomber ups from that base until it does. Sort of makes bomber hangers superfluous. Anyway, I think it’s right that a bomber shouldn’t be able to up if there’s no ordnance. I like that. It makes the game more interesting.
When have you seen for the last time a field without Ammo ?
I don't remember when I've seen it last.
Plus without bomb you can still defend and even be offensive when without fuel you can't do anything.
I see you registred in december 2005, I guess you're pretty newbie what did happen with the 25% fuel was like the MAD theory
The outcome was either a country with 25% vulched to stone age or a stale front line if the both country had the same 25% fuel available.
May I remember you it's a combat simulator not a point and click game ?
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
What I spent 20 minutes getting up to altitude and speed to do. Yes, I do get three planes before I have to go back to the tower, but the fighters also get three nice big, slow moving, slow maneuvering , juicy targets to claim kills off of.
With frickin' lazer beams in the hulls. And at full military power, they aren't that slow. So I climb for 10 minutes, spend another 10 minutes trying to run them down and then have what? 12 .50 cal Brownings with a crap load of ammo run by one gunner. And How many rounds does it take to down a fighter Vs. a bomber? I've hit the things with 5 rounds of 37 mm and they still fly off.
And your whining? Sheese........
-
Originally posted by dedalos
From taking out ord :rolleyes:
:huh But I thought you realized you had my blessing to take down ordnance. I even told you which country I fly for per your request. You can confirm that by looking at the roster. I don't switch countries.
-
Originally posted by straffo
When have you seen for the last time a field without Ammo ?
I don't remember when I've seen it last.
Plus without bomb you can still defend and even be offensive when without fuel you can't do anything.
I see you registred in december 2005, I guess you're pretty newbie what did happen with the 25% fuel was like the MAD theory
The outcome was either a country with 25% vulched to stone age or a stale front line if the both country had the same 25% fuel available.
May I remember you it's a combat simulator not a point and click game ?
With 25% fuel you can defend, you just can't go out on the offensive if your destination is too distant unless you’re in bombers or a long legged fighter. As I previously stated in this thread, I’ve spoken with a furballer who didn’t mind 25% fuel at all and felt he defended quite well with it.
You can take ordnance down to 0%. You could do it in AH1 too. In AH1 you couldn’t take fuel below 25%. In other words you could ground bombers, but you couldn’t ground fighters.
If you haven’t seen a field without ordnance, all the ammo bunkers down, then you haven’t been looking. They happen all over and I’m one of the guys that takes them down.
Yep, you’re right. I registered in December of 2005. That’s my most recent registration. I played AH1 for three years, took a hiatus and now I’m back. That gives me a fair amount of experience. For the record I upped fighters back then with 25% fuel and did fairly well. My preferred ride at that time was the Yak 9U. Fast and maneuverable. It was a little restrictive, but I accepted the situation as part of the game and a part that made the game more interesting than it is now. It’s called strategy.
There never was a time in AH1 where a country was vulched to the stone age or the stale front line you describe unless they were completely over run and about to lose. That still happens in AH2 today. The game was always in motion and in a constant state of change.
I’m sure you meant to remind me instead of remember me that it’s a combat simulator. May I remind you that it is more than a combat simulator. It is a WWII combat simulator and as such was conceived as a war game, not a flight combat simulator. Ground vehicles, boats and ships, fighter aircraft and bombers all meant to work together in a war simulator, not a flight combat simulator. I’m glad you mentioned point and click because I think the changes to AH2 have leaned the game in that direction. Did you really consider AH1 to be a point and click game?
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
With frickin' lazer beams in the hulls. And at full military power, they aren't that slow. So I climb for 10 minutes, spend another 10 minutes trying to run them down and then have what? 12 .50 cal Brownings with a crap load of ammo run by one gunner. And How many rounds does it take to down a fighter Vs. a bomber? I've hit the things with 5 rounds of 37 mm and they still fly off.
And your whining? Sheese........
The guns on bombers are far from lasers, particularly in AH2. You’ll find elsewhere in this thread a post on that very issue. Gun convergence is now permanently set at 500 for bombers and the gun solution for bombers is completely different in AH2 versus AH1. This comes straight from Skuzzy. The over all effect has been to nerf the bomber guns in AH2. Their fire is now dispersed rather than set to a point as is the case with a fighter.
If you’re taking 20 minutes to catch a bomber formation, you’re taking the wrong plane. Try a faster one. P-38’s are great. Good climb and ample speed to catch the bombers. A Hurricane can do it, but it takes forever to get them to altitude and catch up. I’ve watched them do it and I almost feel bad when they finally get there and I shoot them down. Almost. I’m able to shoot them down despite their four 20mm cannon because they’re newbie’s. Only a newbie would use the Hurricane in that fashion and their attack shows it. You might also try attacking in a different fashion than sitting out on a bombers six pounding away. You’re right in the bombers primary kill zone and you are going to get shot down.
It takes more rounds to down a bomber than it does to down a fighter. However if you have pumped 5 rounds of 37mm into a bomber with no effect, then you are flat out doing it wrong. In short, you’re hitting it in the wrong place or more likely you’re hitting it in a bunch of places that are all wrong. If you hit any of the bombers critical areas with that kind of fire power, the bomber will go down. If you just strafe a bombers fuselage, you’re more than likely going to fail even though there are some critical areas in the fuselage as well.
A fighter has the speed and maneuverability. It can attack and withdraw at its leisure. There isn’t a fighter in the game that can’t take down bombers. Fighters have the capability to take bombers down with barely a scratched. Now doesn’t that make sound like a fair deal that the bombers take more punishment? Don’t believe me? Ask Ack-Ack. He did it all the time with his P38.
And you’re whining?! :huh Sheesh!!!
-
Chopsaw and Dedalos...geez, get a room or some instant messenger going on! LOL
This thread has a few gems of good ideas tho. Clearly strat targets that have meaningful values and hardness is needed. Sorely.
Its not my intention to unbalance anything. I just have an issue with the hardness of fuel being the way it is now, while ordinace can be knocked away very very easily. Those who disagree with that, simply go see for yourself and try it. Any cannon bird can annihilate ordinance in serveral quick swoops.
I havent seen anyone from HTC chime in as to what we can hope to see in the future in regards to this issue.
-
Originally posted by meddog
what ever works for a new computer right? lol
I think it should be ready by the middle of next week. When I went to the computer store on Tuesday, the tech said he would order the parts that morning and the venders should have them shipped out by that afternoon and should have start arriving yesturday. So hopefully they can start assembly tomarrow (friday). They'll spend a day or two testing so since they are closed on Sundays and Mondays, i'm looking at Tuesday or Wednesday before the blessed arrival. In the mean time, i'm not handling AHII withdrawls very well I see Bish and Rooks in my sleep, I think it's sleep, im not sure anymore:noid
Hehe. You still couldn't hit a bull in the arse with a shovel. :D
Karaya
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
I’ve spoken with a furballer who didn’t mind 25% fuel at all and felt he defended quite well with it.
WOW!!! 1 whole furballer!@!@#!@ That's plenty of info to base your assumption on:lol
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
WOW!!! 1 whole furballer!@!@#!@ That's plenty of info to base your assumption on:lol
Now see? This is why I have to explain things carefully to you. I also said I had defended bases myself with 25% fuel in a Yak9U. Amazing, I know. I actually flew a fighter. Today I took out two Rooks with a 110. What the heck is the world coming to?! I would have thought you’d realize I’ve spoken with more than one furballer on this subject and did so back when 25% fuel was in effect. Since you didn’t, let me tell you. I’ve spoken with more than one furballer and did so back when 25% fuel was in effect.
I hope the above makes you feel better and cures your bad case of the giggles. Let us know how it turns out.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Chopsaw and Dedalos...geez, get a room or some instant messenger going on! LOL
This thread has a few gems of good ideas tho. Clearly strat targets that have meaningful values and hardness is needed. Sorely.
Its not my intention to unbalance anything. I just have an issue with the hardness of fuel being the way it is now, while ordinace can be knocked away very very easily. Those who disagree with that, simply go see for yourself and try it. Any cannon bird can annihilate ordinance in serveral quick swoops.
I havent seen anyone from HTC chime in as to what we can hope to see in the future in regards to this issue.
I really don’t want to get a room with him. He’s not my type. I’m into women. I'm assuming he's not a women and that he has never been, but my wife would be ticked in either case. I also don’t want to get into an IM situation with him. Can you imagine how much he’d be messaging me? One shudders to contemplate the horror of it.
I too think this thread has some good ideas in it. Nor do I wish to unbalance things. Rather, I’d like to see them rebalanced. Your points on ordnance and fuel are well taken and I certainly agree with them in principle.
I don’t think the guys at HTC really like to announce their plans in advance. I suspect they get enough “fan mail” as is. Besides, where would the surprise be? Surprise! Your bombers are nerfed. Hurray! ;)
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
The guns on bombers are far from lasers, particularly in AH2. You’ll find elsewhere in this thread a post on that very issue. Gun convergence is now permanently set at 500 for bombers and the gun solution for bombers is completely different in AH2 versus AH1. This comes straight from Skuzzy. The over all effect has been to nerf the bomber guns in AH2. Their fire is now dispersed rather than set to a point as is the case with a fighter.
If you’re taking 20 minutes to catch a bomber formation, you’re taking the wrong plane. Try a faster one. P-38’s are great. Good climb and ample speed to catch the bombers. A Hurricane can do it, but it takes forever to get them to altitude and catch up. I’ve watched them do it and I almost feel bad when they finally get there and I shoot them down. Almost. I’m able to shoot them down despite their four 20mm cannon because they’re newbie’s. Only a newbie would use the Hurricane in that fashion and their attack shows it. You might also try attacking in a different fashion than sitting out on a bombers six pounding away. You’re right in the bombers primary kill zone and you are going to get shot down.
It takes more rounds to down a bomber than it does to down a fighter. However if you have pumped 5 rounds of 37mm into a bomber with no effect, then you are flat out doing it wrong. In short, you’re hitting it in the wrong place or more likely you’re hitting it in a bunch of places that are all wrong. If you hit any of the bombers critical areas with that kind of fire power, the bomber will go down. If you just strafe a bombers fuselage, you’re more than likely going to fail even though there are some critical areas in the fuselage as well.
A fighter has the speed and maneuverability. It can attack and withdraw at its leisure. There isn’t a fighter in the game that can’t take down bombers. Fighters have the capability to take bombers down with barely a scratched. Now doesn’t that make sound like a fair deal that the bombers take more punishment? Don’t believe me? Ask Ack-Ack. He did it all the time with his P38.
And you’re whining?! :huh Sheesh!!!
Sweet, keep considering me a newbie for annihilating buff's in a Hurricane. If you think I'll hit you from the 6, you'll need to take another puff of the crack pipe. Nothing better than someone "assuming one is a newbie". :rofl
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Sweet, keep considering me a newbie for annihilating buff's in a Hurricane. If you think I'll hit you from the 6, you'll need to take another puff of the crack pipe. Nothing better than someone "assuming one is a newbie". :rofl
Karaya
You’re right. I shouldn’t have made that allegation. In my defense I do say their attack shows them to be a newbie. That is the style of their attack rather than the fact they're using the Hurricane. Please know that I have the utmost respect for the Hurricane. Those four cannon scare the bejesus out of me and they seem to be a fairly tough fighter when it comes to taking hits. I always use far more ammo on them than I should because I am in a greater than usual hurry to get them out of my sky.
Still……doesn’t it take you an awfully long time to climb to 14K and catch up to a bomber formation?
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
You’re right. I shouldn’t have made that allegation. In my defense I do say their attack shows them to be a newbie. That is the style of their attack rather than the fact they're using the Hurricane. Please know that I have the utmost respect for the Hurricane. Those four cannon scare the bejesus out of me and they seem to be a fairly tough fighter when it comes to taking hits. I always use far more ammo on them than I should because I am in a greater than usual hurry to get them out of my sky.
Still……doesn’t it take you an awfully long time to climb to 14K and catch up to a bomber formation?
Nope, I'll grab towards the buffs, and about 2k below them I level. get speed, I'll come in at angles, rarely get hit too.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Nope, I'll grab towards the buffs, and about 2k below them I level. get speed, I'll come in at angles, rarely get hit too.
Karaya
:) I'll look forward to it. I shoot guys down all the time when they try that approach. Some are better at it than others though.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
:) I'll look forward to it. I shoot guys down all the time when they try that approach. Some are better at it than others though.
I come in from underneath. GL. Most go down in flames. Buffs weakest point IN HERE is underneath, Belly turret or not.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
The guns on bombers are far from lasers, particularly in AH2.... The over all effect has been to nerf the bomber guns in AH2.
So just what drug are you on? Whatever it is, it sure has made you retarded, lol.
-
Originally posted by Stang
So just what drug are you on? Whatever it is, it sure has made you retarded, lol.
Hell, if Buff guns were anything like in the MA, The Luftwaffe wouldn't have fought any Allied fighters. Bombers would have kilt em all.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hell, if Buff guns were anything like in the MA, The Luftwaffe wouldn't have fought any Allied fighters. Bombers would have kilt em all.
Karaya
Yup.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
A squad of 6 guys (and I have a certain squad in mind) would routinely shut down every field's fuel, shutting down game play for 2/3 of the arena.. half couldn't get to the fight, the other half didn't have a fight.
Yea, a whole squad of 6 guys should affect 2/3 of the arena hitting buildings that know really 'mad' acm.
I was in one such Squad "352 Pale riders" only 6 of us and yes we would take down the fuel over an entire front. Though usually only against one side, either rooks or bish. Usually rooks as those were the days of the huge nightly rook Horde
It got to the point where people were PMing our CO and practically begging him for us to stop porking the fuel.
Somewhere along the line I saw and prefered Troops and ammo as being better primary targets and would myself only tend to prefer to pork fuel where the huge hordes were upping from.
Still my prefrence today. If I see a nice even fight and I feel like baseporking, normally I only pork troops. That actually helps the furballers and it preserves the furball by reducing the threat of a capture.
but typically if Im baseporking I attack where the hordwarriors are comming from. You know, the guys that up 20 people to attack a base being defended by none,1 or 2 people.
But as for porking fuel, I used to be very good at porking all the fuel in a tiffy at any sized base in no more then 2 passes. Rarely was I able to pork more then 1 base by myself in a single flight. For that to happen it had to be either two small bases, or some of the fuel had to have already been hit at one of them.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Show me the six pilots that could shut down 2/3 of the arena on a map like the Pizza! It cannot be done. The fields pop back up too fast. If you’re talking about small maps, then the six might have a chance and they should. Bombers, gv’s, boats and fighter aircraft are designed into this game. Not just your favorite fighters.
.
On Pizza we never managed it. But we did manage it on the other maps. Not 2/3 of the aena but certainly all the front line bases.
I know we did it on the small maps regularly and on that one real pretty map with te palm trees which was a medium sized map as well as that one other big map EVERYONE hated (not pizza)
but we never managed it on Pizza map
-
I liked it when the fuel could go down to 25%. It made it fun to take a 190-D9 and go around porking fuel at random airfields
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hell, if Buff guns were anything like in the MA, The Luftwaffe wouldn't have fought any Allied fighters. Bombers would have kilt em all.
Karaya
And if fighters attacked in WWII in the manner they attack in MA, you'd be correct. But they didn't. They actually did it correctly. Correctly is not sitting on a bombers six and expecting not to get shot.
You stated that it is effective to come from below into the belly guns of a bomber. You say you shoot them down all the time with your Hurricane. Now you complain the bomber guns are too good. Which is it?
For the record, Karaya, your stated method of attack is not the one I refer to as correct. If you were to advocate that tactic to someone who knew what they were doing you'd be laughed at. Please. Be my guest. Tell Ack-Ack that's a good way to attack bombers. He'll get a kick out of it.
Guys like you do it wrong, get shot down and then complain because you get shot down. If you shoot the bomber down, you think you’re the greatest thing since sliced bread. The fault is not with bomber guns. It's with fighter pilots that don't want to do it correctly. Fighter pilots who want their targets easy.
-
Originally posted by Stang
So just what drug are you on? Whatever it is, it sure has made you retarded, lol.
Seriously. Try to come up with something better. This dates you.:cool:
-
DREDIOCK,
Thanks for your input. How long did you find your group of six could maintain the suppression and for how many bases back of the front line? Also, please speculate on how you believe your tactic would work today in AH2 with the closer spacing of the fields.
Finally; why did you do it? To tick people off or did you find it an effective strategy for winning the war or at least contribute to your side winning the war?
-
Look like we didn't play the same game, perhaps it's due to timezone difference I don't know.
-
Chop it was all the win the war...
It is simple Chop, if the fighters in the game affected the gameplay of the buffs half as much as the buffs affect the fighter combat you'd see tremendous complaints, adversity is not something bomber pilots do well with the exception is 999 and tatertot. While I don't agree with their gameplay, they don't always go to 20-25k which is invincibility in the MA (no one is up there and there are not winds to throw the bombs off course).
Bomber pilots don't want a challenge, evidenced by the easy mode bombing, formations, remote operated guns that are slaved to a single gun, targets very easily visualized on the field, and without any wind what-so-ever to affect bombing accuracy.
Bah, why do I bother even trying to argue... you had barely an hour in fighters and almost 101 hours in bombers as Dedalos posted.
-
*Intentional interruption of the ChopSaw vs the World pissing match which is getting very tiring to read through.*
One thing that hasn't been fully answered by anyone here: If the complaints over the EZ-mode effectiveness of bombers were addressed (overly simplified bombsight, lack of wind, unrealistically soft targets, jabboing Lancs, lazer guns, firewalled throttle during bombing runs, etc. etc. ad nauseum) would THAT be satisfactory to allow bombers to have the greater impact (fuel to 25%, etc)?
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
And if fighters attacked in WWII in the manner they attack in MA, you'd be correct. But they didn't. They actually did it correctly. Correctly is not sitting on a bombers six and expecting not to get shot.
You stated that it is effective to come from below into the belly guns of a bomber. You say you shoot them down all the time with your Hurricane. Now you complain the bomber guns are too good. Which is it?
For the record, Karaya, your stated method of attack is not the one I refer to as correct. If you were to advocate that tactic to someone who knew what they were doing you'd be laughed at. Please. Be my guest. Tell Ack-Ack that's a good way to attack bombers. He'll get a kick out of it.
Guys like you do it wrong, get shot down and then complain because you get shot down. If you shoot the bomber down, you think you’re the greatest thing since sliced bread. The fault is not with bomber guns. It's with fighter pilots that don't want to do it correctly. Fighter pilots who want their targets easy.
Again, I play the angles from underneath or HO. AKAK is nada in a buff. My tactics give 999000 and tatertot the fits, these two are THE BEST in the MA, bar NONE, and ask them if you question me. Because you 1.) underestimate my abilites to destroy the piss out of buffs on a regular basis. 2.) underestimate the Hurricane. 3.) fail to realize I rarely attack buffs in a Hurricane, but often in an A-8, Ta-152, or 262. However, if I have the fuel and stumble upon buffs while in a Hurricane, I'll bag 1 or 2 then land.
Now, back to the realism. You are so wrong on many levels. In WWII the waist gunners were useless (according to MANY books I have read, interviews, etc). Survival depended on how tight the "BOX" was. If Bombers were literally not almost hitting wings, etc, they were mincemeat (again, just going on what I have read, heard, seen, etc). If pilots loosened up, they paid the price.
Bombers did shoot down many Fw's, 109's, etc. Fighters attacked at various places. Most often, they attacked from the Buff's 6, WITH GREAT LETHALITY. The JG26 (Abbeville Kids) HO'd bombers and were FEARED like no other squadron in ETO as for as being in a buff was concerned. Also, the sun at angles they would annihilate buffs. And in the MA as in WWII, the Belly of ANY BUFF was the most vulnerable point, though not used enough. Bottom line, a chitload of bombers will shot down by fighters, then buff guns shooting fighters down. It is VERY common knowledge that the "Buff Gunner Claims" were overstated and grossly inaccurate. Not to take away from the utter balls it took to be in one, at any station.
What I find funny is the B-24 had 2 less .50's but is more lethal than the 17. I have yet to understand this fact in the MA. In the MA, every gun that can track your plane, is firing at you. I know dang well how easy it is to rack up buff gunning kills. It is TOO EASY, I'm sorry, but it is.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Chop it was all the win the war...
It is simple Chop, if the fighters in the game affected the gameplay of the buffs half as much as the buffs affect the fighter combat you'd see tremendous complaints, adversity is not something bomber pilots do well with the exception is 999 and tatertot. While I don't agree with their gameplay, they don't always go to 20-25k which is invincibility in the MA (no one is up there and there are not winds to throw the bombs off course).
Bomber pilots don't want a challenge, evidenced by the easy mode bombing, formations, remote operated guns that are slaved to a single gun, targets very easily visualized on the field, and without any wind what-so-ever to affect bombing accuracy.
Bah, why do I bother even trying to argue... you had barely an hour in fighters and almost 101 hours in bombers as Dedalos posted.
I’m not sure what you were trying to say with your first sentence, so I can’t respond to it. Sorry.
I disagree with you on the adversity issue. Bomber pilots love it. At least I do and those bomber pilots I know do. Nothing gets a grin on my face faster than being attacked by a fighter or a pair of fighters that show some promise of knowing what they’re doing. Nothing disappoints us faster than some poor guy crawling up on our six at co-altitude. We take pride in developing tactics and strategy enabling us to deliver presents to our enemy.
To see an example of this, take a look at HQ raids. In AH2 it is nearly impossible to kill an HQ unless its country is literally being over run (i.e. surrounded by enemy airfields and/or vehicle bases). In spite of this you see bomber pilots attempting to kill it. They are well aware that even if they knock it down, it’ll be supplied and back up in as short a period of time as 5 minutes. They are well aware they probably won’t be able to knock it down. They spend 30 minutes and more getting there to try to achieve this. Finally, they are very well aware they will be facing fast, small, agile and heavily armed 163’s when they get there. Why else other than to seek adversity do they do this?
Compare that to the furballer who loves the furball because of the overwhelming number of his team mates which allows him to fly in safety and pick off the out numbered enemy. I’m not suggesting that this is the category you fit into, but I’m sure you’ve seen many fighter pilots who do this.
Wind really wouldn’t be an issue for bombers and it has a tendency to give an advantage to one side or the other. As I have previously stated in this thread I fly at 14K or sometimes 15K in bombers. I do this because there is a cloud layer I often can’t see through at 16K and above. To my mind this is as restrictive as the winds used to be. It has a tendency to keep bombers low. Even if there weren’t the cloud layer, how many pilots have the patience to go to 20-25K just to bomb a field? The sole exception to the cloud layer phenomena is, of course, HQ’s. For some reason the area around HQ’s is kept free of cloud layers and bombers can come in at extreme altitudes and still see the target. Even when I performed one man HQ raids back in AH1, the wind presented me with only a minor challenge and unless I got shot down I was able to deliver the package with a 100% accuracy rate even on something as large as Pizza.
While my time in AH2’s MA has indeed been predominately in bombers, it has not insulated me from the concerns of fighters. In AH1 I flew fighters most of the time and often you could find me defending a field with 25% fuel. In AH2 I fly fighters a lot less than I did. In both cases I have friends and squad mates who fly fighters. I discuss issues with these people and listen to their input. Now in AH2 and before in AH1.
-
Wind most DEFINATELY would be a factor. But in here, it isn't.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Saxman
*Intentional interruption of the ChopSaw vs the World pissing match which is getting very tiring to read through.*
One thing that hasn't been fully answered by anyone here: If the complaints over the EZ-mode effectiveness of bombers were addressed (overly simplified bombsight, lack of wind, unrealistically soft targets, jabboing Lancs, lazer guns, firewalled throttle during bombing runs, etc. etc. ad nauseum) would THAT be satisfactory to allow bombers to have the greater impact (fuel to 25%, etc)?
Sorry you feel it’s me against the world or indeed against anyone. As far as this being a very tiring read for you, I’m not aware of anyone forcing you to do it.
The “over simplified” bomb sight is really not an issue with regards to accuracy. In AH1 I was able to do far greater damage than I am in AH2. I was dead on accurate and my bombs didn’t have the dispersion effect that is current in AH1.
The wind issue I addressed just above. If you want it back I’ve personally no objections. It really won’t affect me or the majority of bombers as long as it’s kept at the old AH1 altitudes. It would, however, give one side or the other an advantage due to head and/or tail winds. Might be fun.
I don’t Jabo my heavy bombers and in fact I’ve been a proponent of coming up with a fix for that problem on other threads. It seems absurd that they should be able to do it.
As far as laser guns, I’ll simply repeat what I said in other postings in this thread. According to what I’ve been told by Skuzzy, the guns are operating more in a shotgun fashion than in a laser fashion. The practical upshot of this is that the bombers guns simply don’t reach out as far as they did with significant damage as they did in AH1. Simply put, they’ve already been nerfed to fighter complaint specifications.
Oddly enough this created an interesting situation. Fighter pilots are approaching bombers differently in AH2 than they did in AH1. After my hiatus from AH, I came back to the new AH2. At first I thought there were an inordinate number of newbie’s who didn’t understand the danger in approaching from a bombers six. Also, I was dismayed to find that my gunnery skills had apparently atrophied during my hiatus. After a couple of weeks I came to understand that my gunnery skills hadn’t atrophied that much and also that the majority of fighter pilots weren’t as afraid of bomber guns as they had been for good reason. I then inquired of HTC and received Skuzzys’ response. The guns were nerfed from what they had been in AH1 and the pilots were using poorer attack vectors. Since this means they still get shot down, they still complain about it.
By “unrealistically soft targets” I assume you mean targets that can be taken down by gun and cannon fire and don’t seem as if they should be. If that is the case, I agree with you as I have in previous postings on this thread. It doesn’t seem realistic to me that a fighter should be able to take ammo bunkers or for that matter fuel bunkers down with its guns. I and others feel it should require ordnance.
I don’t think fire walled throttles is a problem and therefore have no solution. If you took that away from bombers, you’d have to do the same to fighters. Now THAT would raise complaints. We also don’t have issues of fuel mixture for particular altitudes. We have what amount to autopilot in every aircraft in the game. We don’t have to worry about manually trimming our aircraft and most people don’t know how to feather their props. Having to worry about all these minor things would get in the way of the game more than need be the case.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Again, I play the angles from underneath or HO. AKAK is nada in a buff. My tactics give 999000 and tatertot the fits, these two are THE BEST in the MA, bar NONE, and ask them if you question me. Because you 1.) underestimate my abilites to destroy the piss out of buffs on a regular basis. 2.) underestimate the Hurricane. 3.) fail to realize I rarely attack buffs in a Hurricane, but often in an A-8, Ta-152, or 262. However, if I have the fuel and stumble upon buffs while in a Hurricane, I'll bag 1 or 2 then land.
Now, back to the realism. You are so wrong on many levels. In WWII the waist gunners were useless (according to MANY books I have read, interviews, etc). Survival depended on how tight the "BOX" was. If Bombers were literally not almost hitting wings, etc, they were mincemeat (again, just going on what I have read, heard, seen, etc). If pilots loosened up, they paid the price.
Bombers did shoot down many Fw's, 109's, etc. Fighters attacked at various places. Most often, they attacked from the Buff's 6, WITH GREAT LETHALITY. The JG26 (Abbeville Kids) HO'd bombers and were FEARED like no other squadron in ETO as for as being in a buff was concerned. Also, the sun at angles they would annihilate buffs. And in the MA as in WWII, the Belly of ANY BUFF was the most vulnerable point, though not used enough. Bottom line, a chitload of bombers will shot down by fighters, then buff guns shooting fighters down. It is VERY common knowledge that the "Buff Gunner Claims" were overstated and grossly inaccurate. Not to take away from the utter balls it took to be in one, at any station.
What I find funny is the B-24 had 2 less .50's but is more lethal than the 17. I have yet to understand this fact in the MA. In the MA, every gun that can track your plane, is firing at you. I know dang well how easy it is to rack up buff gunning kills. It is TOO EASY, I'm sorry, but it is.
HOing does give me fits. Not enough fighters pursue this tactic and I find I get too little practice defending against it to be good at it. Most fighters who come from below into my belly guns do a poor job of it and go down. I have said that some of them seem to be better at the tactic than others.
I did not say Ack-Ack spent a great deal of time in a buff. His experience in a buff has nothing to do with the situation. What he IS good at is shooting buffs down. He’s very, very good at it and he would view the tactic of coming from below as undesirable against anything other than a Lancaster. To the best of my knowledge he never used that tactic.
1) I do not underestimate your abilities to destroy anything on a regular basis. I don’t know your abilities and it would be foolish to form an opinion based upon zero evidence. I do note, however, your comments on “buff laser guns” and so will speculate that your tactics are leaving something to be desired. A correct attack against a bomber leaves the fighter untouched or barely scratched and the bombers dead. The reason I referred you to Ack-Ack is because the mother shot me down on a regular basis with his P38, usually denying me gun solutions of any kind.
2) I emphatically do not underestimate the Hurricane. Though slow, it turns on a dime and has an enormous amount of fire power. As I wrote in response to you earlier, I use more than the usual amount of ammo to shoot them down because I want them out of my sky as soon as possible. They concern me more than most other planes, but they are slow and it takes them a much longer time to catch up with me than other fighter craft.
3) Perhaps the reason I fail to understand you rarely attack buffs in a Hurricane is because you told me that's what you did.
You're right. HOing is a more successful method of attack than sitting on a bombers six. When you start talking about "from the sun at angles", you're getting closer to what I term a correct attack. I would have to agree with you that the belly of a buff is not as defensible as its six, but I do not agree that it is the most vulnerable area of the buff.
Yes, "a watermelon load of bombers" did get shot down. Perhaps more than buff's shot down fighters. If there were as many fighters attacking bombers in MA as there were in WWII the statistic would be very much the same. Every time I get into a crowd of fighters, say 4 or more, I go down.
If you're interested in realism, how realistic is it for a fighter to sit on my six at d1.0 and pound me with cannon? To me that seems a lot farther than a cannon ought to be able to fire with enough accuracy to do critical damage.
If your allegation is true, it's a puzzler. I wasn't aware that B-24's were more lethal than B-17's. I would guess that it may seem that way because a B-24's are used so much more than the B-17's. The B-24's even have a partially blocked view in the tail gun position. You'd think that would make them less lethal. The two additional guns you mention in the B-17 are located to either side of the nose. They're single guns the same as you find in the waist gunner positions. Most fighters are attacking from the rear and would never face those.
You're right. It is easy to rack up "buff gunning kills". That's not because the buff guns are too good. It's because most fighter pilots are using ridiculous attack vectors. They aren't coming in from high angles nor are they HOing. In AH1 most attacked from high angles often sandwiching buffs between two fighters and only newbie's sat on a buffs six.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
DREDIOCK,
Thanks for your input. How long did you find your group of six could maintain the suppression and for how many bases back of the front line? Also, please speculate on how you believe your tactic would work today in AH2 with the closer spacing of the fields.
Finally; why did you do it? To tick people off or did you find it an effective strategy for winning the war or at least contribute to your side winning the war?
We could maintain it as long as we wanted.
Depthwise usually only front line unless the horde was particularly active is a certain area. then we could go 2-3 bases in. but that was usually the exeption rather then the rule.
Typically it was primarily front line bases. Or those of strategic importance.
Unlike what you see most 1 dimentional squads do And from what I've seen most squads in the game think, and operate1 dimensionally Or I shoulld say whoever plans out their missions does(No offence to anyone intended)
We didnt always all attack the same base at the same time but often would simultaneously attack several bases at the same time or sequentially depending on need or desired effect.
Dispite our small numbers we were very effective at what we did because of the way we went about it.
Our tactics would hold up very well in todays AHII again because of the way we went about it. We were very detail oriented in not only what we attacked but how and where right down to which direction each of us would come in at, what our secondary targets would be should the pimary targets already be destroyed, and where our rallying point would be.
There was much more to it then that and I could probably write a book on a better way to implement strategy & tactics at the squad and joint squad operational level.(inasmuch as I planned many of our operations) But I think You get the point to what I am getting at.
In fact I beleive our tactics woud hold up very well even in todays AH without the fuel being porkable to 25%
Why we did it. Primarily our goal was to slow down and harrass the horde as much as possible. You would rarely find us attacking bases that werent currently launching large numbers of AC. We usually attacked strength.
Or support of strength. As the horde moved. So did we When we did attack less active bases. It was in anticipation of the hordes next move. Thus denying them. For a while that next move.
Occasionally Nads (our then CO) would like to pork fuel just to be a PIA and piss people off (Not something I particularly agreed with as I tend to think more in terms of what will be the most helpful to the Knights. and just running around porking fuel just because. Isnt always the most helpful
Just as porking Hangars isnt always the most helpful
But yea, We sometimes did it just to piss people off.
but again, that intent wasnt the norm.
Typcally when we porked something, there was a specific reason behind it.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
*Intentional interruption of the ChopSaw vs the World pissing match which is getting very tiring to read through.*
One thing that hasn't been fully answered by anyone here: If the complaints over the EZ-mode effectiveness of bombers were addressed (overly simplified bombsight, lack of wind, unrealistically soft targets, jabboing Lancs, lazer guns, firewalled throttle during bombing runs, etc. etc. ad nauseum) would THAT be satisfactory to allow bombers to have the greater impact (fuel to 25%, etc)?
Which targets are unrealistically soft?
Remember this was the 1940's not the 1990s
While we have ammo "bunkers" here most of the time the ammo wasnt kept in a bunker but in a dump where something as small as a well placed handgranade was able to make the whole place go poof.
It undoubtedly took considerably less then a couple thousand pounds of bombs to do devestating damage to a hangar or a barracks or fuel tanks.
If anything I think these targets are harder then their real life counterparts.
And for the games sake they probably should be.
What IS missing though that I'd like to see is secondary explosions when ammo bunkers and fuel tanks are hit. Instead of a simple "BOOM"
I'd like to see multiple explosions "BOOM Bada boom BOOM boom boom" with parts & debris flying high into the air And massive fires at the strat targets complete with the thermal updrafts that would effect the planes overhead
:)
-
This is a war sim. That is why there is strat to begin with. All strat should be able to be taken down. That is part of a war effort. The complaint is when fuel is down, it kills furballing. Why not have an area between the countries where nothing can be taken down, no bases taken. This could be the place the dedicated furballers could go to fight. That would leave the rest of the arena to the game of war! With furball bases and tank town areas, you make it perfect for the people who just want to shoot someone. Don't have these bases count toward the total in a country,so the map can still be won or lost.
Fuel burns! Fuel tanks can be destroyed by MG's, Ammo bunkers are hardened and should take more than MG/cannons to blow them up. If fuel on a base is down, it is resupplied from the refinery, but it the refinery is down, no resupply!
On another note: How can you launch LVT's when the carrier is down?????:rolleyes:
Another option would be to have two main arenas. One for furballers only with no bases to take or strat to kill. The other for a total war effort. This could be the way to stop the fight between the two sides and it would only take server power to do. :aok
-
Originally posted by Gato
On another note: How can you launch LVT's when the carrier is down?????:rolleyes:
:aok
Because as often as not the landing craft would also launch not just from the carriers but also from the support ships
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Because as often as not the landing craft would also launch not just from the carriers but also from the support ships
That is true of today, but not so much in WWII, at least not the ships being used in here. Unless I misunderstand the ships being used. IF that is the case,then I'm sorry for making more of a fool of myself. ;)
-
Originally posted by Gato
This is a war sim. That is why there is strat to begin with. All strat should be able to be taken down. That is part of a war effort. The complaint is when fuel is down, it kills furballing.
:rofl For the 1,000,000,000,000 time, that is not what the complain is about. 25% is plenty for furbaling. When fuel is down to 25% 2 or 3 bases dip, it prevents people from upping fighters, getting some alt and either attack other bases, or deffend. No furbaler ever loads more than 50% fuel.
The problem is that you guys really cant come out and say that you want to be able to bomb or take bases unoposed (unless you go off line), so you start the furbaler crap and come up with the original idea of sending anyone that could potentialy mess with your base capture, to a different arena or place on the map.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
:rofl For the 1,000,000,000,000 time, that is not what the complain is about. 25% is plenty for furbaling. When fuel is down to 25% 2 or 3 bases dip, it prevents people from upping fighters, getting some alt and either attack other bases, or deffend. No furbaler ever loads more than 50% fuel.
The problem is that you guys really cant come out and say that you want to be able to bomb or take bases unoposed (unless you go off line), so you start the furbaler crap and come up with the original idea of sending anyone that could potentialy mess with your base capture, to a different arena or place on the map.
Just like so many, you are taking what is said and turning it around. I didn't say fuel being down to 25% stopped furballing, I said the 'complaint' is that. The reason to be able to take fuel down IS to limit the fighters and range, at least for a short time. There is NO other reason to do it! It is the furballers who keep saying strat is not needed, not the base takers (toolsheders). Sneaking a base is fun, but taking a base is more fun when there is someone defending it. Then it becames more than just a "free for all" and strategy comes into play. With taking fuel down is a duel edged sword for a base. As with ords, FH, BH,VH, or even the town, it would not come back just by taking the base. It would take time and leaves the base open for a recapture.
Now, lets see if someone can misquote this and turn it around!
-
Originally posted by Gato
Just like so many, you are taking what is said and turning it around. I didn't say fuel being down to 25% stopped furballing, I said the 'complaint' is that. The reason to be able to take fuel down IS to limit the fighters and range, at least for a short time. There is NO other reason to do it! It is the furballers who keep saying strat is not needed, not the base takers (toolsheders).
. . .
Now, lets see if someone can misquote this and turn it around!
Ok, help me here. Why would the furbalers complain if it has no effect on them? Do you think they load 100% fuel and drive 4 sectors before they furball? Most furbals develop between a CV and a base under attack so 25% is plenty for deffenting the base and to furball. You are absolutly right about taking a base. What you are forgeting is that there are people and squads, dedicated to porking. They are the toolshed woriers not the guys trying to take a base. You confuse them the same way you confuse people that like fighting, deffending, lone wolfing, etc with furballers. So, the point you are missing is that when you end up with 25% fuel three bases dip, there is no fighting and no deffence. Only one type of play. Bud guys comming in high vulching the low and slow cons till the base is taken or the FHs die.
A true furbaler would never complain about the fuel being at 25%. That is all he needs, he has no hope of RTBing, and it is actually better since that will keep everyone low.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
:rofl For the 1,000,000,000,000 time, that is not what the complain is about. 25% is plenty for furbaling. When fuel is down to 25% 2 or 3 bases dip, it prevents people from upping fighters, getting some alt and either attack other bases, or deffend. No furbaler ever loads more than 50% fuel.
The problem is that you guys really cant come out and say that you want to be able to bomb or take bases unoposed (unless you go off line), so you start the furbaler crap and come up with the original idea of sending anyone that could potentialy mess with your base capture, to a different arena or place on the map.
"Two or 3 bases dip?" Do you mean 2 or 3 bases deep? If so, you have the statements from DREDIOCK above from which to draw. The summary of which is his squad, one of the dedicated ones you speak of, was capable of porking fuel over an entire front on some maps, but only one base deep. Even with the wider spacing in AH1, you could up a fighter from another field to pursue whatever you wanted, defense or offense. Admittedly you might be able to do a three base deep porking in some sections of a map, particularly the AH2 Maps with their closer fields, but not an entire front. Such an action would take a lot of people. Moreover, as Gato states, porking fuel is a double edged blade. What happens after you take a base you just porked? Shoes on the other foot then. I wouldn't be surprised of some of the people begging DREDIOCK's squad to stop porking were from his own country/team.
If, as you say, "25% is plenty for furballing", how is it not enough to defend? I did it all the time in AH1 as did others. You're right about it restricting fighter aircraft from adopting an offensive stance from such a field, especially if you're talking about fields with wider spacing such as in AH1, but that's rather the point. Taking a field down to 25% slowed the advance of an enemy of superior numbers. It did nothing to their ability to defend the field. In addition, if they were organized, they just upped from one field back to pursue offense.
Who would be interested in bombing or taking bases unopposed?! As you say it would as interesting as playing offline. Not very. Bombers enjoy adversity. The tougher it is to get the job done, the more pride we take in doing it. Contrary to what many here have said, there was greater fighter opposition when bombing in AH1 because bombing had greater effect. In other words, protecting fuel assets was important and a lot more fighters came up to stop us. In AH2 many times a fighter will pass bombers right by. Whatever we're bombing doesn't affect him. He's looking for another fighter or a gun less troop C-47.
There tend to be two major groups in the MA. Those who want to pound away at each other without having to worry about resources such as fuel. Not just fighter aircraft, but gv lovers too. The second group are those that enjoy a war simulator complete with strategic targets of importance. Creating two separate arenas, one to cater to each would satisfy both. One that had settings and maps similar to the ones in AH1 and the other with current settings. I can't see how you would oppose such a situation. If you prefer, you can think of it as us being sent to another server rather than you.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Ok, help me here. Why would the furbalers complain if it has no effect on them? Do you think they load 100% fuel and drive 4 sectors before they furball? Most furbals develop between a CV and a base under attack so 25% is plenty for deffenting the base and to furball. You are absolutly right about taking a base. What you are forgeting is that there are people and squads, dedicated to porking. They are the toolshed woriers not the guys trying to take a base. You confuse them the same way you confuse people that like fighting, deffending, lone wolfing, etc with furballers. So, the point you are missing is that when you end up with 25% fuel three bases dip, there is no fighting and no deffence. Only one type of play. Bud guys comming in high vulching the low and slow cons till the base is taken or the FHs die.
A true furbaler would never complain about the fuel being at 25%. That is all he needs, he has no hope of RTBing, and it is actually better since that will keep everyone low.
Whether you understand why they complain or not doesn't change the fact they do. If I were to guess why, I'd have to say they have the impression both sides of a front are taken down to 25% in a situation where fuel porking is possible. That didn't and wouldn't happen, but if it were to happen it would depress the fighting on said front. Not eliminate it. There is also a sub sect of the furballers who don't care for defense furballing. Rather they prefer to engage in offense and like to furball over enemy bases or perhaps away from bases altogether. Over enemy bases they also enjoy the prospect of capping the field and vulching. Reducing fuel to 25% would reduce their capability in engaging in this offense oriented type of furballing. Again, that's the point. Reducing your enemy's ability to launch offensive attacks is what being able to reduce the fuel was all about. It was a mechanism whereby a country/team could offset numerical advantages their enemy might have. Having eliminated that we now see an even greater divergence in numbers than we did in AH1 and now the numbers always win the situation. Skilled pilots only get you so far before you're overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
Porking fuel is a defensive strategy. If a country/team has numerical advantage and they are steam rolling their opposition, they do not have an incentive to pork the fields of the enemy they are attacking. That would be counterproductive for them. They'd have to wait while the field they just took was re-supplied before continuing their forward rampage. This means fuel porking only makes sense as a defensive strategy against superior numbers.
You keep saying 25% fuel is plenty for furballing and at the same time you say it's not enough for defense or fighting. Doesn't make sense. I'm really trying to understand what you're saying.
Furballing, both offensive and defensive is an integral part of the game and no one seeks to eliminate it. Only to redirect where it's occurring depending on your teams strategic needs.
-
25% is too low for the furballers.
Dont forget some of these planes are real gas guzzlers.
50% would be better but really the most effective way to deter the horde/landgrabbers is simply to pork the troops and ord.
Remove ord, or especially troops from the equasion and you will see more often that when faced with the prospect of being unable to do a basecapture without brining in troops from 2 or more bases away that blob of aircraft quickly begins to thin out and only the furballers remain.
If the furball crowd really wants to preserve their prefered style of play, then their first order of buisness should be to remove troops, and preferably ammo also from the equasion on both sides of the fight
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
25% is too low for the furballers.
Dont forget some of these planes are real gas guzzlers.
50% would be better but really the most effective way to deter the horde/landgrabbers is simply to pork the troops and ord.
Remove ord, or especially troops from the equasion and you will see more often that when faced with the prospect of being unable to do a basecapture without brining in troops from 2 or more bases away that blob of aircraft quickly begins to thin out and only the furballers remain.
If the furball crowd really wants to preserve their prefered style of play, then their first order of buisness should be to remove troops, and preferably ammo also from the equasion on both sides of the fight
Removing troops, ordnance and radar are effective measures. However, it depends on the situation as to which is most desirable at any given time. In AH2 when faced with numerical superiority, porking troops is the most desirable. Often the situation also calls for porking ordnance. Sometimes if you have numerical superiority, porking ordnance or troops is not what you want to do, but nailing radars is a help to your country. Being able to pork fuel to 25% would simply put back a missing component to the overall strategy system and make it more flexible. That is, give you another strategic option to pursue to adapt your overall strategy to the situation at hand.
-
Originally posted by monteini
I'm all for dropping the fuel to 25%, This would make the planes with more range used ALOT more. 25% FUEL no more la's or spit 16's unless they want 8 min flying time. People would have to up p47's, a6m's, ki-84's, and the like.
nick172
The Spit 16 & LA7 wine continues......
That sounds like about as much fun as mowing the lawn, or helping clean out sewer manholes ......
The LA7 is screwed as it is under the unrealistic 2X fuel burn rate ... Every other plane has either a hugh drop tank or a socalled slipper tank ....
What the hell makes you think that being "rutt-stuck" (forced into) flying a A6M or early p47 is fun ? ...... You, go to all the time & trouble to fly one of those dumb,early, slow crates over to a field ..... drop down to the fight, and the CAP be waiting with a Spit 8, F5 Hellcats or a Tempest to blow you & your "old crate " all to hell .....
That Idea sucks !!!
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Removing troops, ordnance and radar are effective measures. However, it depends on the situation as to which is most desirable at any given time. In AH2 when faced with numerical superiority, porking troops is the most desirable. Often the situation also calls for porking ordnance. Sometimes if you have numerical superiority, porking ordnance or troops is not what you want to do, but nailing radars is a help to your country. Being able to pork fuel to 25% would simply put back a missing component to the overall strategy system and make it more flexible. That is, give you another strategic option to pursue to adapt your overall strategy to the situation at hand.
LOL For that matter if you have numerical superiority, porking fuel isnt advantageous either for the very same reasons.
As I said. Porking fuel to 25% is too low as there are alot of planes that are gas guzzlers and from a furball perspective would only ruin the game for the furballer crowd. And you cant stay aloft very long even for a decent base defense
75% is too high as it does next to nothing to slow the horde.
Take the P51D for example, and you can climb to 20K,fly to target, attack target and still hang around for a long long time before having to RTB
50% is better because from what I see most furballs take place between 1 and 10K in between two fields and not directly over one or the other. This would allow the furballers to meet at that halfway point and still have enough gas to fight before having to either RTB or get killed.
Yet it would be low enough to lower the loiter time (read Vulch) over an opposing field before having to RTB.
Thus it would have a greater effect on the hordewarriors and a lesser effect on the furball crowd.
Im not adverse to being able to pork fuel to lower then it is now.
But in fairness to everyone 25% is too low, and 75% is too high
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL For that matter if you have numerical superiority, porking fuel isnt advantageous either for the very same reasons.
As I said. Porking fuel to 25% is too low as there are alot of planes that are gas guzzlers and from a furball perspective would only ruin the game for the furballer crowd. And you cant stay aloft very long even for a decent base defense
75% is too high as it does next to nothing to slow the horde.
Take the P51D for example, and you can climb to 20K,fly to target, attack target and still hang around for a long long time before having to RTB
50% is better because from what I see most furballs take place between 1 and 10K in between two fields and not directly over one or the other. This would allow the furballers to meet at that halfway point and still have enough gas to fight before having to either RTB or get killed.
Yet it would be low enough to lower the loiter time (read Vulch) over an opposing field before having to RTB.
Thus it would have a greater effect on the hordewarriors and a lesser effect on the furball crowd.
Im not adverse to being able to pork fuel to lower then it is now.
But in fairness to everyone 25% is too low, and 75% is too high
Of course porking fuel is counter productive if you have superior numbers. I addressed that in my post on this thread of 3/14/2006 10:05 PM PST, second paragraph. Couldn't agree with you more. In fact in AH1 when you had a steam roller going, it was highly frowned upon by your team mates to pork fuel at the fields you were attacking. Some real flame wars on country channel over that one.
In AH1 where you could reduce fields to 25%, I saw plenty of furballing. I myself upped a Yak9U, one of your "gas guzzlers", on occasion to defend such fields. I've also spoken to others who feel the 25% was fine for defending aircraft. In AH1 and AH2 I fly the Mustang as one of my favorite fighter rides and never up with anything greater than 50%, unless I use drop tanks and then never over 50% internal. Anything above 50% internal in the Mustang goes into the auxiliary tank which decreases the performance due to balancing issues. Reducing fuel to 50% would only eliminate drop tanks. Hardly a penalty as it would still allow an offensive posture from such fields. May as well keep it at 75% than switch it to 50%.
The whole point of being able to reduce fuel to 25% was being able to inhibit the offensive capabilities of that field. 75% allows an offense, particularly in AH2 with the closer spacing of fields. 50% would only be a slight restriction on that. 25% would put a serious dent in the offensive capabilities even with the closer spacing of fields found in AH2. Being able to inhibit offensive capabilities of superior numbers is key to defense against them.
50% would be a step in the right direction, but it really needs to be 25% to once again make fuel as viable a target as say troops. Right now, nobody bothers taking out fuel. It's not worth the ordnance. Under current conditions fuel bunkers are just field decoration.
-
25% is fine for defending, as long as you like being low, slow, and being vulched. 25% is not enough to come in from a dif field witch is the recomendation of the toolshed wariers to complains about the FH being down
To sum up this thread. Whaaaaaa furballers :cry
-
Delirium
Why dont you request the banning of bombers all-together and be done with it? You oppose anything that does any damage to your beloved Fighter Hangars.
I havent seen anyone whose all about how YOU want to play in a very long time.
999000 and Tatertot hardly bomb a thing, they go in NOE because they love gunning from the gun stations. I've teased 999000 many times that he'd get a nose bleed if he actually climbed to 1,000 ft :)
Bomber guys didnt ask for the formations or easy bombing...and from what Im seeing, its not always a perfect science based on all the massive craters of misses I see nightly.
But by all means, continue your crusade with "all things bomber are the problem". (Psst, there's a reason the Germans made attacking them such a high priority...maybe you should too?)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Delirium
Bomber guys didnt ask for the formations or easy bombing...
It was the furballers I tells ya, burn them, burn them!!! :furious
-
Originally posted by dedalos
It was the furballers I tells ya, burn them, burn them!!! :furious
Come here you little fuzzball. I've got a nice torch for you. ;)
-
Originally posted by Delirium
A squad of 6 guys (and I have a certain squad in mind) would routinely shut down every field's fuel, shutting down game play for 2/3 of the arena.. half couldn't get to the fight, the other half didn't have a fight.
Yea, a whole squad of 6 guys should affect 2/3 of the arena hitting buildings that know really 'mad' acm.
Yup and 5 guys can resup a field to bring it back it fully, one run each.
Oh forgot, thats always "SOMEONE ELSES JOB".
-
Don't know why you guys continue ... ChopSaw has all the right answers ... regardless of anybody's experiences or longevity in this game.
He should probably request a private meeting with HT and pontificate his vast and superior knowledge of AH gameplay to him.
It shouldn't be too difficult to get HT to change his mind ... afterall ... the mindless furballers were able to easy get him to make all these changes. I am sure that someone of higher intellect like ChopSaw could easily persuade HT.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Don't know why you guys continue ... ChopSaw has all the right answers ... regardless of anybody's experiences or longevity in this game.
He should probably request a private meeting with HT and pontificate his vast and superior knowledge of AH gameplay to him.
It shouldn't be too difficult to get HT to change his mind ... afterall ... the mindless furballers were able to easy get him to make all these changes. I am sure that someone of higher intellect like ChopSaw could easily persuade HT.
:) Ah. Sarcasm. I know it well, having employed it on occasion myself. For some reason particularly with members of the Burger Kings. If you see a person doing something obviously wrong and they say they've been doing it that way for twenty years, what do you assume? That they must be right? Or do you assume they've been doing it wrong for twenty years? It would seem from your postings, and those of your squad in general, you feel anyone with an opinion other than yours is not only wrong, but of obviously inferior stock altogether. I could be wrong. As you've sarcastically pointed out, I may not have "all the right answers" and may not be possessed of "vast and superior knowledge".
Your opinion is that I'm wrong and not as smart as you think I think I am. That doesn't bother me too much. You go on to say I characterize furballers as "the mindless furballers". That I object to. I've never said they're mindless. I've not even said that of you or your squad members nor have I implied it in anything but well deserved returns in banter. What I have said is that I consider them integral to the game and an important aspect of the game. I realize this might be construed as such an understatement as to be sarcastic, but I assure you it is not.
Do you assume that because someone has only 3 or 4 years experience in AH that all his analysis and ideas are incorrect if they contrast with those of a person who's played the game for 5 years?
Right now I fly bombers most of the time. Occasionally I fly fighters and in AH1 I predominately flew fighters, as I may again in AH2. I also man guns on cv's, fields, shore batteries and cruisers as well as drive around in gv's a bit. In short I enjoy all aspects of game play in this WWII simulator. I believe my observations and opinions are the result of a game view, not one select aspect of the game.
My sole interest in returning the fuel vulnerability of fields to 25% is simply to return a balance to the game. To return a strategic target that was an important part of the strategic system. In short, to return strategy to the game. In AH1 it was possible for a country to partially offset a numerical advantage of their opponent by temporarily destroying fuel assets over a selected area. It was even possible for a country with fewer numbers to win a map reset. In AH2 this capability has been eliminated or at best critically crippled. As a result, numbers rule. Whoever has the most pilots wins. Every time. No exception and porking their troops, while somewhat effective at slowing them down, does not slow them down enough. Superior strategy, cooperation and skill should be winning this game. Not whoever has the most guys.
You imply that I don't care what others say or think and that is patently false. I listen and discuss with everyone willing to express support for their position. I advocate certain ideas that others have had such as hardening fuel bunkers as well as ammo bunkers and indeed troops. I believe it should require ordnance to bring down these targets, either rocket, bomb or heavy cannon. It seems a bit light to allow machine guns or even fighter cannon to take them down.
Reducing field fuel supply to 25% won't ruin the game. It will rejuvenate the game play. It will mean players will have to think more about what they're doing and for a good number of us, that will make it more fun. For those that don't care for that sort of game play, the activities they enjoy will not be eliminated, they simply won't be available across the entirety of the map without restriction.
-
What you have failed to realize is that DRED and his boys WERE NOT the only squad (or organized few) that went around dropping fuel to %25 across and into the front.
You are minimizing what really took place towards the end of AH I. I can remember night after night, where no matter where you went ... the fuel was %25 percent (I believe that I was flying Knight primarily then).
Between the over-whelming numbers of Rooks at the time, porking everything in sight, and the infamous Bish Typhoon pork and auger dweebs, there was no fuel to be had. If you flew a Pony ... everything was A-OK, but if you flew early war rides, as Toad pointed out, you were SOL due to the small gas tanks.
Between the every so "hip" (at the time) fuel porking and the introduction of AH II with a 2x fuel burn multiplier, those in power at HTC decided to stop fuel porking. Admittedly, it was done the "easy" and "quick" way, but with the public announcement of "Combat Tour", I think that HT decided he had bigger fish to fry and was content with what was/is in place.
If he were to bring back the ability to bring fuel down to %25, then I would also hope that he would consider upping the hardness of the bunkers and make it so that it would require some serious ordinance and at least 4 cannon birds (110s) using up some serious amount of ammo to bring them down.
I believe that we must be patient and wait until CT is up and running ... alot of the technology that will and has been developed for CT will find its way in the MA ... eventually ... and I believe, inevitably.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
What you have failed to realize is that DRED and his boys WERE NOT the only squad (or organized few) that went around dropping fuel to %25 across and into the front.
You are minimizing what really took place towards the end of AH I. I can remember night after night, where no matter where you went ... the fuel was %25 percent (I believe that I was flying Knight primarily then).
Between the over-whelming numbers of Rooks at the time, porking everything in sight, and the infamous Bish Typhoon pork and auger dweebs, there was no fuel to be had. If you flew a Pony ... everything was A-OK, but if you flew early war rides, as Toad pointed out, you were SOL due to the small gas tanks.
Between the every so "hip" (at the time) fuel porking and the introduction of AH II with a 2x fuel burn multiplier, those in power at HTC decided to stop fuel porking. Admittedly, it was done the "easy" and "quick" way, but with the public announcement of "Combat Tour", I think that HT decided he had bigger fish to fry and was content with what was/is in place.
If he were to bring back the ability to bring fuel down to %25, then I would also hope that he would consider upping the hardness of the bunkers and make it so that it would require some serious ordinance and at least 4 cannon birds (110s) using up some serious amount of ammo to bring them down.
I believe that we must be patient and wait until CT is up and running ... alot of the technology that will and has been developed for CT will find its way in the MA ... eventually ... and I believe, inevitably.
I wasn't around at the end of AH1, so I can't speak to it. DREDIOCK's postings seemed to indicate fuel porking one field deep and only on one front. My own experience before I left indicated the situation wasn't as bad as you describe. If it was worse then that, I can see why you might be upset over the idea or bringing 25% back.
Astonishingly, we agree. The fuel bunkers need to be hardened. I would even go further, as I've stated, and advocate the hardening of ordnance and troops. As long as it's not so hard that a couple of rockets or a 500 lb bomb can't down it, I’m good. Perhaps that would require aircraft guns to count for less against such one of these three types of structure. Again, as I've said before, it seems silly to have troops, ordnance or fuel easily downed by the guns of a single fighter aircraft on a single pass.
I also agree with your thoughts on CT. I doubt anything much is going to happen in MA until that gets done. After that I hope attention will be given to the partially broken strategy system of MA. As a side note I also hope they figure out what's going on with HQ's. I wish they'd either make it possible to bring it down during regular game play or just go ahead and make it completely impervious.
Nice post, SlapShot.
-
My own experience before I left indicated the situation wasn't as bad as you describe.
I understand completely ... since my first days of playing AH ... fuel porking was not an issue ... wholesale porking was also not an issue. Biggest concern, as far as porking, was when trying to capture a base was to try and stop individuals from porking the field so it could be used as a viable launch pad for the next capture.
I can't exactly put my finger on when and what the impetus was to cause the "porking syndrome". Somewhere, somehow, someway, this game turned from meeting conflict head on and whoever was the most skilled in ... flying, planning, execution, and persistance came out the winner.
Now, it's ... let pork the watermelon out of everthing they have so that we can easily saunter in ... with no opposition ... and capture a base. Wow ... how much fun is that ... I would rather stick sharp pencils in my eyes than participate in that gameplay.
It seems that the underlying soul of the MA is ... less confict ... more steamrolling. Lets dumb down as much as we can so that we can capture with ease, and without conflict, and win the W@R !!! ... golly gee ... oh, and I don't want to have anybody get in my way when I try this.
Ergo ... from most ... "don't touch my gas" ... cause without it, I really can't TRY to slow down the steamroller. That is exactly how I feel about it too.
Astonishingly, we agree.
For you maybe ... not me. I came from "strat" and as I have stated in many other posts ... I was MAW ... can't get any better than that (back in the day). I believe that any aspect of this game from dogfighting to capture to bombing, must require above average skills to succeed ... that is why, being able to take out ordinance, troops, and fuel with just guns is silly ... especially in light of all the players that we have now and the amount of planes that generally swoop in on an airfield ... its too easy.
I'm sure you remember, but 200-300 people in the MA was considered HUGE ... now ... it's nothing to see anywhere between 400-600 online. With those kinds of numbers, being able to bring fuel down to %25 (as it stands now) would cause more people to log/quit this game than any other single thing that has ever been introduced and/or changed.
This discussion and others, should take place again ... 6 months after CT goes public.
-
SlapShot,
I agree enough with what you just said that I have no response.
-
I must say, I too left before the very end of AH and the start of AHII. So some of what is said happened, I didn't see. I also believe CT while bring about a lot of changes we need and are looking for in the MA. In fact, I believe the changes will be to the extent we will have AHIII in place.
I also believe the killing of troops and ord is too easy. Fuel should be able to be taken down to 25%, but not easily. Fuel and ord would be in hardened bunkers, other than the ones of the pads. So connon or MG should be able to take them down, but the bunkers should be rocket or bombs.
There are so many aspects to this game and we are not using them because of the limitations in place. If you are a furballer, that is your thing, have fun. But if "winning a war" is what you like to do, then strategy is needed and strat is a large part of it. NOT just the strat on a base, but that of the factories, cities also. It is all part of a very large system. IF fuel is down to 25% on a base, it will come back in time with resupply, both AI and individual. But if the cities and factories are also down, than there is no way to resupply the bases from and that whole sector is in trouble. The duel edged sword cuts in both directions. Stopping a horde advance this way is good, but it also stops the other side. This will really help to equal out the numbers. Chopsaw and I seem to see eye to eye on this one :aok And it really scary that this is also true of Sapshot. :O lol
-
I think fuel tanks should go down to 25% or 50% but only down for 30 mins so a lone porker won't have so much affect. Hardening the ammo bunkers would be good also. If flak was more effective a squad of 6 guys wouldn't make it all the way to the back.
-
Originally posted by Woodard47
I think fuel tanks should go down to 25% or 50% but only down for 30 mins so a lone porker won't have so much affect. Hardening the ammo bunkers would be good also. If flak was more effective a squad of 6 guys wouldn't make it all the way to the back.
:lol I thought this thread had died. We've pretty much agreed to table the discussion until ToD has come out. Input appreciated, though.