Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: a4944 on June 26, 2008, 10:26:55 PM
-
I really like the war as a backdrop but not the money thing. The first week was great. The aircraft matchups excellent and fair making for great fights and exciting missions.
This week the fights are much harder to find, air bases with aircraft much farther spread out, and the aircraft not well matched. The time to a fight is very high. Is next week going to be even worse as there will be even less money to spend?
I propose we do away with the multi-week war. We could combine the best of the capture wars with the best of the strategic war. One of the best things about the capture wars was the rolling plane sets and the great and even aircraft match-ups. The best part of this strategic war are the objectives, missions, weather, etc. Lets take the rolling plane set and put it against this strategic backdrop, picking maps appropriate for the plane set.
The commanders could still have money to buy and place aircraft but they will have to pick from the era in the rolling plane set and they will have enough money to populate most if not all fields rather than having the majority of fields empty. This will keep the match-ups balanced and the tactical options high as resources will be avaiable for the commanders. Perhaps only allow at most one fighter type and one bomber type per field which could lead to varied fights in different areas of the maps.
Everything is reset after each round so each commander has the same amount of money for each week keeping it somewhat balanced for all of the players. You could still accumulate results after multiple rounds (such as complete cycle through the rolling plane set) but have each round start equal and with enough money to populate the fields.
I think this change is fairly minor but would make for a better experience for the players. I think most are looking for good fair fights and the current system has the potential to create some balance issues.
Venom
-
yes I kinda like moving thru the stages of the war early, mid, late. One thing I don't like about this setup is the prices. I think the prices should reflect the capability of the planes not how much the cost to produce was. Of course I like allied so that influences my thinking I guess.
-
Little drunk to fully comprehend this but I think I agree. Enjoyed the war on the small AW map, enjoyed last week. Something that is a blend of both sounds good to me. Tonight, although I can't say it is indicative of every night of this setup, was kinda boring to me. The weather, immersing as it is, is a bit much I'm thinking too.
-
yes I kinda like moving thru the stages of the war early, mid, late. One thing I don't like about this setup is the prices. I think the prices should reflect the capability of the planes not how much the cost to produce was. Of course I like allied so that influences my thinking I guess.
Think cost should reflect a rarity factor, not capability.
-
whats a rarity factor Herr Bug
-
Basically the more the plane was produced during the war the cheaper it would be, the rare planes during the war would be very expensive.
-
It seems to me that this arena, when there is a battle scenario running, should be about the war. If pilots want to up for a quick furball, AH2 has numerous areas this can be found in. AvA is not intended for "every" player as far as I can tell, but like minded pilots looking for more immersion. I like to fight as much as any of you, I may not be that good at it, but if I want to just do that, I will go to the appropriate arena. I do not understand the thinking that all arenas in AH2 need to be the same, nor that they should cater to every pilot.
I believe this strat scenario needs some tweaking. There are many issues I didn't care for, mostly the map layout and the many settings issues. The price of the aircraft though should reflect the cost of the aircraft. There is absolutely no reason to use any other criteria than the actual (or as close as possible) price. Increase the amount each spends, OK, maybe, but basing prices on players desire to fly a certain airframe is not what it is about in my opinion. Funny this wasn't so much an issue last week.
I feel the first focus is on improving player conduct. Do we want a scenario that promotes the dump and jump tactics that are so prevalent at present? I am sure both sides are doing it at some level. How do we prevent this and give incentive to return to base and land? I do not promote perks as an incentive, but do not know enough about the scoring dynamics to provide an answer at present. Perhaps someone else does?
It is getting a bit boring in there because many do not care about returning safely to base except those who like this immerstion element. I refuse to bail from a plane just to up on the other side of the map or to return to hit a strat that much sooner, I believe to do otherwise is gamey and lacks sportsmanship. Using an aircraft in a manor it was not employed/designed for in real life bothers me as well. B17s did not fly NOE deep into Germany and bomb a target over and over under 1000 ft. Up a 38 or a 51 if you want to do an NOE raid. Same for any other aircraft that is misused, be it allied or axis.
One reason there are no big furballs is because the allies, for the most part, have stopped escorting buffs and are instead spread out porking. Not implying the axis is not porking as well, I don't watch every player, but when someone ups to counter an interloper, the porker tends to run or jump. Again, just the perspective from my little view of things. So fights are to be found.
I would like to see some answers to address these issues, the major hurdle I see, is that the parties are more interested in getting uber/their favorite rides. We have every other arena to do that in, lets leave our preferences at the door and saddle up what we are given and give each other hell. I will be looking for you on my six. :salute
-
It seems to me that this arena, when there is a battle scenario running, should be about the war. If pilots want to up for a quick furball, AH2 has numerous areas this can be found in. AvA is not intended for "every" player as far as I can tell, but like minded pilots looking for more immersion. I like to fight as much as any of you, I may not be that good at it, but if I want to just do that, I will go to the appropriate arena. I do not understand the thinking that all arenas in AH2 need to be the same, nor that they should cater to every pilot.
The war would still be there. It would be a balanced war. Is it realistic to have two or three airfields populated with aircraft? Is it realistic to have the P51D against the 109F? Where is the immersion in this?
I believe this strat scenario needs some tweaking. There are many issues I didn't care for, mostly the map layout and the many settings issues. The price of the aircraft though should reflect the cost of the aircraft. There is absolutely no reason to use any other criteria than the actual (or as close as possible) price. Increase the amount each spends, OK, maybe, but basing prices on players desire to fly a certain airframe is not what it is about in my opinion. Funny this wasn't so much an issue last week.
I'm open about the pricing as long as it is fair to both sides and develops balanced game play. Last week was fun because it was balanced. There were B17s and the 190s. There were P51Ds and 109K4s. Great and fair match-ups.
I feel the first focus is on improving player conduct. Do we want a scenario that promotes the dump and jump tactics that are so prevalent at present? I am sure both sides are doing it at some level. How do we prevent this and give incentive to return to base and land? I do not promote perks as an incentive, but do not know enough about the scoring dynamics to provide an answer at present. Perhaps someone else does?
Perhaps this is partially caused by the aircraft being in the rear fields and the very long flight times. Having more aircraft at the forward fields should help resolve this issue. I see no value in flying 2 to 3 sectors just to get out of your own territory and before any potential for an encounter with an enemy.
I would like to see some answers to address these issues, the major hurdle I see, is that the parties are more interested in getting uber/their favorite rides. We have every other arena to do that in, lets leave our preferences at the door and saddle up what we are given and give each other hell. I will be looking for you on my six. :salute
The rolling plane set and limited choices to the commanders would account for this. You would have realistic match-ups which whould help with the immersion factor. I want a realistic and fun 109F4 vs Spit matchup, not a 109F4 vs P51D macthup.
The war would not change. Only the availability and aircraft type available would change. The war is a backdrop for the players. This type of setup would not dictate any style of gameplay. You want to hit a strategic target and help the war effort, then organize a raid and do it. You want to intercept, then look for those raids. You want a historical fighter vs fighter matchup then find a fight in the middle.
Perhaps some other incentives could be developed for winning besides bragging rights. Perhaps the winning commander could have more influence in picking the next map and perhaps get a slighty better ride but a historical ride for the rolling planeset time period and one which would not destroy the balance. I believe this was done with the capture war format.
Venom
-
It seems to me that this arena, when there is a battle scenario running, should be about the war. If pilots want to up for a quick furball, AH2 has numerous areas this can be found in. AvA is not intended for "every" player as far as I can tell, but like minded pilots looking for more immersion. I like to fight as much as any of you, I may not be that good at it, but if I want to just do that, I will go to the appropriate arena.
It can also be said that there's a war in every arena, except maybe the DA. There's no reason to limit what the AVA has to offer. This arena can have war, and fights. I don't understand why the two sides to this issue cannot see the two can feed off each other. I don't want to fly in an arena where all people are doing is slink around in the clouds, and porking each others strats. I also don't want to fly in an arena where all people do is up from two nearby bases and furball midway between the two.
I do not understand the thinking that all arenas in AH2 need to be the same, nor that they should cater to every pilot.
That's basically saying the arena should cater to you. One problem the AVA always had was it catered to one mindset. It was perfect for them, but offered very little to anyone else.
This is the only arena where you have two sides Axis vs Allied aircraft 24/7. This arena should cater to all those that want and Axis vs Allied setup, be it furballing, war fighting, whatever.
You start offering only one thing on a daily basis again, you'll have an empty arena again.
-
It seems to me that this arena, when there is a battle scenario running, should be about the war. If pilots want to up for a quick furball, AH2 has numerous areas this can be found in. AvA is not intended for "every" player as far as I can tell, but like minded pilots looking for more immersion. I like to fight as much as any of you, I may not be that good at it, but if I want to just do that, I will go to the appropriate arena. I do not understand the thinking that all arenas in AH2 need to be the same, nor that they should cater to every pilot.
I subscribe every single word; this is the only arena where the player who wants a little immersion in WWII reality can have a little satisfaction. Who needs quick fights has 3 or 4 other options to choose from.
-
Where are people supposed to go who don't have hours to spend flying to find a couple of fights. I primarily fly the AvA for the historical match-ups, everything else is secondary. Of course i can go to different arenas to find quick fights, but not against historical opponents. I fail to understand why some people do not wish this arena to become more accessible. People being able to find fights in a short time peiod does not infringe on the ability of others to perform missions and to participate in the war.
-
People being able to find fights in a short time period does not infringe on the ability of others to perform missions and to participate in the war.
Well said, and vice versa. There's really no reason both ideologies can't survive in this arena, where we do have the only historical plane matchups.
-
Gentlemen, please consider the problems of balancing a 24/7 arena like the AvA.
In the SEA, we balance it by forcing player numbers to a ratio that will work for the planeset and the event. That isn't an option in the AvA, so a way must be found to attract players to the less popular side, whichever that is. IMO, Fork has done a brilliant job finding a method of attracting equal numbers of players to both sides, but if you think you have a better idea that will work, then by all means, suggest it here or start another thread.
If you want a different style of game play, and are suggesting this terrain isn't compatible with what you think the AvA is about, build and submit a terrain more to your liking.
I'm not poking my thumb in anyones eye here but my point is that the AvA is maturing into a different and better environment, and just like SEA events, you may not be interested in participating in each and every setup. That's OK, come and enjoy the ones you like, it's still the best full time arena available.
If you don't have time for anything other than the quick fight, then understandably, you won't like the AvA catering to a 'war' scenario with broad based player support, and I can understand it when a part of the game you love is taken away. Those that agree passionately with your desire for the quick fight, can make the time to organize that type of play in some other arena, if enough want it bad enough. Or use the same kind of creative thinking to request changes to the DA that will meet your particular gameplay, and attract like minded players, HTC has always been interested in increasing their games' appeal.
-
It seems to me that this arena, when there is a battle scenario running, should be about the war. If pilots want to up for a quick furball, AH2 has numerous areas this can be found in. AvA is not intended for "every" player as far as I can tell, but like minded pilots looking for more immersion. I like to fight as much as any of you, I may not be that good at it, but if I want to just do that, I will go to the appropriate arena. I do not understand the thinking that all arenas in AH2 need to be the same, nor that they should cater to every pilot.
Like said furballs can feed off guys incoming to strat targets. The days I want to get into fights i fly near our strats and sure enough AXIS planes will show up.
I believe this strat scenario needs some tweaking. There are many issues I didn't care for, mostly the map layout and the many settings issues. The price of the aircraft though should reflect the cost of the aircraft. There is absolutely no reason to use any other criteria than the actual (or as close as possible) price. Increase the amount each spends, OK, maybe, but basing prices on players desire to fly a certain airframe is not what it is about in my opinion. Funny this wasn't so much an issue last week.
It's the first time this has ran so there of course will need some adjusting. Only thing I'm not sure about is pricing, price difference is pretty large between AXIS and Allied aircraft. Do the budgets set represent the actual budgets during WWII? Should prices be set to even the amount of AC available. The price list i saw before the event surprised me, the 262 is cheaper than the B-24, Lancaster and a couple others. Not sure if it even needs to be fixed, it's the first time and the staff can evaluate things at the end.
I feel the first focus is on improving player conduct. Do we want a scenario that promotes the dump and jump tactics that are so prevalent at present? I am sure both sides are doing it at some level. How do we prevent this and give incentive to return to base and land? I do not promote perks as an incentive, but do not know enough about the scoring dynamics to provide an answer at present. Perhaps someone else does?
I haven't seen any dump and jump from the allies or axis when i have been on, the squads playing in here make an effort to return and even send in more escorts to make sure safe return is possible.
It is getting a bit boring in there because many do not care about returning safely to base except those who like this immerstion element. I refuse to bail from a plane just to up on the other side of the map or to return to hit a strat that much sooner, I believe to do otherwise is gamey and lacks sportsmanship. Using an aircraft in a manor it was not employed/designed for in real life bothers me as well. B17s did not fly NOE deep into Germany and bomb a target over and over under 1000 ft. Up a 38 or a 51 if you want to do an NOE raid. Same for any other aircraft that is misused, be it allied or axis.
weather conditions the last week have made hi level bombing impossible. I agree then just take 51's and 38's but at the same time it's still a game and strategy and doing the unexpected can be fun.
One reason there are no big furballs is because the allies, for the most part, have stopped escorting buffs and are instead spread out porking. Not implying the axis is not porking as well, I don't watch every player, but when someone ups to counter an interloper, the porker tends to run or jump. Again, just the perspective from my little view of things. So fights are to be found.
Basic same response, haven't seen guys bail on me. Have seen them dive to the deck to drop ord on target and only had 1 guy that just flat out tried to run. That was just one guy, I've caught a few low lone axis buffs and the rode it out.
I would like to see some answers to address these issues, the major hurdle I see, is that the parties are more interested in getting uber/their favorite rides. We have every other arena to do that in, lets leave our preferences at the door and saddle up what we are given and give each other hell. I will be looking for you on my six. :salute
-
It must really suck to be an AvA staffer. :huh There has been nothing but improvement from the gaming point of view to the player conduct, in the last couple of months. :salute Yet, we (yes I do it also) find things to be undesireable and lobby for change. :t
Congratulations AvA staff :aok I believe that you have silenced the critics who called this a mini MA. For the last couple of months the arena was even worthy of its past identifier, "Combat Theater"
There are excellent points of view on how the arena could advance, in this post and most others. :aok I believe we are in need of a sticky = AvA Wishlist.
For those who were "there" with me, it was a sometimes bitter experience, :( and voicing our opinions, was a step in the right direction. I think that we can continue to deliver this kind of dialogue, with as good results in a future wishlist format. :cool:
Now, my complaint: You need more staffers! :rofl
-
oh yea more PTO maps and F4U's :D
-
It must really suck to be an AvA staffer. :huh There has been nothing but improvement from the gaming point of view to the player conduct, in the last couple of months. :salute Yet, we (yes I do it also) find things to be undesireable and lobby for change. :t
Congratulations AvA staff :aok I believe that you have silenced the critics who called this a mini MA. For the last couple of months the arena was even worthy of its past identifier, "Combat Theater"
There are excellent points of view on how the arena could advance, in this post and most others. :aok I believe we are in need of a sticky = AvA Wishlist.
For those who were "there" with me, it was a sometimes bitter experience, :( and voicing our opinions, was a step in the right direction. I think that we can continue to deliver this kind of dialogue, with as good results in a future wishlist format. :cool:
Now, my complaint: You need more staffers! :rofl
I'd like to volunteer him ^^^^^
:D
-
It must really suck to be an AvA staffer. :huh There has been nothing but improvement from the gaming point of view to the player conduct, in the last couple of months. :salute Yet, we (yes I do it also) find things to be undesireable and lobby for change. :t
Congratulations AvA staff :aok I believe that you have silenced the critics who called this a mini MA. For the last couple of months the arena was even worthy of its past identifier, "Combat Theater"
There are excellent points of view on how the arena could advance, in this post and most others. :aok I believe we are in need of a sticky = AvA Wishlist.
For those who were "there" with me, it was a sometimes bitter experience, :( and voicing our opinions, was a step in the right direction. I think that we can continue to deliver this kind of dialogue, with as good results in a future wishlist format. :cool:
Now, my complaint: You need more staffers! :rofl
Well said Chilli.
Hats off to Mister Fork and all the Staff and players in the AvA for...endeavoring to persevere. :aok
-
My original post only presents some tweaks to the current system. It's very minor. Lets look at the required changes if the community and staff see some promise.
- Rolling plane set. The prices are already set for all aircraft. I assume this would be minimal work. The commanders would just have to limit their selection to the planeset for the period.
- Different maps. Not required, but I thought the plan was to do this anyway.
- Full money supply at beginning of each round. Again, I don't think anything new would be required. It would use the same system and probably be easier. The first week seemed good as far as populating fields with aircraft. Perhaps always give the commanders that amount at the beginning of each round.
I see a hole in the current system and this is a minor patch. The hole being that if a side starts losing bad they will have pratically no aircraft whereas the other winning side would have many which could lead to some serious balance issues. The mop-up phase of any game is not very much fun.
I am interested in others oprinions and or expansion of these specific tweaks. One of my favorite parts of AvA is that it does evolve based on community input. Community and/or staff can accept or reject these tweaks but I hope people take some time and thought to at least consider them.
Thanks,
Venom
-
I like those ideas Venom. Winner of each week could get extra cash or 1 to 3 free deployments instead of hammering the loser for the week.
-
What Shifty said.
-
The war would still be there. It would be a balanced war. Is it realistic to have two or three airfields populated with aircraft? Is it realistic to have the P51D against the 109F? Where is the immersion in this?
Every AF did not have fighter AC. Most AC were moved behind the frontlines and dispersed. P51D Vs 190F sounds like an advantage to the allies.
I'm open about the pricing as long as it is fair to both sides and develops balanced game play. Last week was fun because it was balanced. There were B17s and the 190s. There were P51Ds and 109K4s. Great and fair match-ups.
It is currently fair to both sides. Last week was very unbalanced. Just because a side wants all late war uber rides does not make it balanced nor fair match ups. F4U? Come on. The Allied CO chose the plane set, address the concern to him/her.
Perhaps this is partially caused by the aircraft being in the rear fields and the very long flight times. Having more aircraft at the forward fields should help resolve this issue. I see no value in flying 2 to 3 sectors just to get out of your own territory and before any potential for an encounter with an enemy.
Long flight times? There is nothing realistic about upping and being in a fight two minutes later. That is why they have arcade games, and the other arenas that type of fight can readily be found. It is my understanding that the purpose in this "Battle" is for a "bit" more realism than the other arenas. I don't want to drive players away, but I do think they should understand and accept that a Battle Scenario will be different and, in my opinion, a little harder, and much different than the MAs. I for one do not come to AvA to fight an MA style game.
The rolling plane set and limited choices to the commanders would account for this. You would have realistic match-ups which whould help with the immersion factor. I want a realistic and fun 109F4 vs Spit matchup, not a 109F4 vs P51D macthup.
Those set ups are to be found between wars, and is just not a mandatory part of this particular scenario. Talk to your CO about plane choices.
The war would not change. Only the availability and aircraft type available would change. The war is a backdrop for the players. This type of setup would not dictate any style of gameplay. You want to hit a strategic target and help the war effort, then organize a raid and do it. You want to intercept, then look for those raids. You want a historical fighter vs fighter matchup then find a fight in the middle.
Historical 1v1 match ups were very scarce after around 1914 or so. It is not realistic. Fighter sweeps? Organize one with the CO and other squads, you are sure to scare up a fight. Loiter over an enemy base and someone will eventually up, the reason they don't right now is because of the reason I stated before.
Perhaps some other incentives could be developed for winning besides bragging rights. Perhaps the winning commander could have more influence in picking the next map and perhaps get a slighty better ride but a historical ride for the rolling planeset time period and one which would not destroy the balance. I believe this was done with the capture war format.
I agree with you here, bud. but do not have an answer. I think the main point is this Battle Scenario was supposed to be different than the others. I get frustrated too after flying around for an hour chasing shadows, but I also feel I am feeling exactly what many pilots who risked their lives felt every time they strapped into an aircraft to go fight the enemy, only to return with a few hours gone and a sore bum. I am not arguing that your points are not valid, I just feel they are not taking into account that this particular scenario is supposed to be different. I just want the dump and jump tactics to stop...my pet peeve though.
I would say that your Commander is 100% responsible for all of these factors. You should talk to him about manning forward bases and choosing certain ac for next frame. There is no valid reason the entire scenario should be changed to the last one. I like diversity, and this adds some. I know some love base captures, some love bombing, and some love furballing, I just don't see a problem participating in something different, where I need to work a little harder, or have to set aside my preference for a couple hours a day, I still have fun despite the type of vehicle I am given or the odds for or against me (Though when they are overwhelming I may say something about it :D). I will be looking for you on my six. :salute
Edit: Let me just add here, that I am enjoying this arena thoroughly, and I enjoy almost every single player in it. I don't espouse my own style of play, as Shifty has absolutely no idea of what I want from this arena, nor preventing players from participating as Mr. Thrila has implied in two posts now, I simply believe fly the scenario by the scenario's rules. I am sure a quick, historical match up can be found in the DA or elsewhere, if you simply ask someone, they will fly whatever ac you want to go against during the scenario. I want this arena to continue to improve, as every other poster does, and most of these changes I feel should be addressed in AARs or to respective COs. Lay out the rules, then fly by them. Other than the SNAFUs, I am having fun. :salute Allied menace.. err I mean foes, and Axis brothers.
-
Every AF did not have fighter AC. Most AC were moved behind the frontlines and dispersed. P51D Vs 190F sounds like an advantage to the allies.
It is currently fair to both sides. Last week was very unbalanced. Just because a side wants all late war uber rides does not make it balanced nor fair match ups. F4U? Come on. The Allied CO chose the plane set, address the concern to him/her.
Long flight times? There is nothing realistic about upping and being in a fight two minutes later. That is why they have arcade games, and the other arenas that type of fight can readily be found. It is my understanding that the purpose in this "Battle" is for a "bit" more realism than the other arenas. I don't want to drive players away, but I do think they should understand and accept that a Battle Scenario will be different and, in my opinion, a little harder, and much different than the MAs. I for one do not come to AvA to fight an MA style game.
Those set ups are to be found between wars, and is just not a mandatory part of this particular scenario. Talk to your CO about plane choices.
Historical 1v1 match ups were very scarce after around 1914 or so. It is not realistic. Fighter sweeps? Organize one with the CO and other squads, you are sure to scare up a fight. Loiter over an enemy base and someone will eventually up, the reason they don't right now is because of the reason I stated before.
I agree with you here, bud. but do not have an answer. I think the main point is this Battle Scenario was supposed to be different than the others. I get frustrated too after flying around for an hour chasing shadows, but I also feel I am feeling exactly what many pilots who risked their lives felt every time they strapped into an aircraft to go fight the enemy, only to return with a few hours gone and a sore bum. I am not arguing that your points are not valid, I just feel they are not taking into account that this particular scenario is supposed to be different. I just want the dump and jump tactics to stop...my pet peeve though.
I would say that your Commander is 100% responsible for all of these factors. You should talk to him about manning forward bases and choosing certain ac for next frame. There is no valid reason the entire scenario should be changed to the last one. I like diversity, and this adds some. I know some love base captures, some love bombing, and some love furballing, I just don't see a problem participating in something different, where I need to work a little harder, or have to set aside my preference for a couple hours a day, I still have fun despite the type of vehicle I am given or the odds for or against me (Though when they are overwhelming I may say something about it :D). I will be looking for you on my six. :salute
I don't have a side this war. I fly for Axis if the numbers are off. I'm not on the private forums. Just an experiment for this war. My suggestion stands from my allied perspective and my axis perspective. :aok
Venom
-
Edit: Let me just add here, that I am enjoying this arena thoroughly, and I enjoy almost every single player in it. I don't espouse my own style of play, as Shifty has absolutely no idea of what I want from this arena, nor preventing players from participating as Mr. Thrila has implied in two posts now, I simply believe fly the scenario by the scenario's rules. I am sure a quick, historical match up can be found in the DA or elsewhere, if you simply ask someone, they will fly whatever ac you want to go against during the scenario. I want this arena to continue to improve, as every other poster does, and most of these changes I feel should be addressed in AARs or to respective COs. Lay out the rules, then fly by them. Other than the SNAFUs, I am having fun. :salute Allied menace.. err I mean foes, and Axis brothers.
Before you get defensive, I'm not saying you personally want the arena to cater to you. I was trying to point out that's what we've had in the past. To do it again for any one group, is to again rob the arena of it's potential. When it's mentioned that a Group X needs to go to another arena to do their thing, that does nothing for this arena. People should be able to get their historical matchup fixes here, period.
As far as flying the scenario by the rules... Who is not doing that?
-
Halo, i hope you can understand why it's not unreasonable for me to think you don't wish people to participate in AvA. On several occasions you've told people to fly elsewhere because they have disliked an aspect of a setup.
Unfortunately a quick, historical match up cannot be found in the DA or other arenas. In addition, i'm unable to mention grievances with my CO because i have no preference for either side, therefore i have no CO. I don't see any harm in debating in a public forum.
-
Halo make a lot of good points in his posts and I am inclined to agree with most of his suggestions. Having said that, let me also say that what we are doing with this arena is constantally evolving and for the most part evolving for the good, none of us are ever going to be completely satisfied with what we have and that is just human nature but I applaud the staff for their tireless efforts and the players for their civil and constructive comments.
Now, if I may, let me offer this comment from a bombers preprespective, for us long flights are the norm, 30 minutes to get to the target are about average, I am the pilot, the bombardier and when necessary the gunner. A good calibration takes nearly a grid to set up. If I have to go the the gunners position I will lose my line and usually my calibration, if I don't go to the gun I am cannon fodder. While I understand the desire to "find a quick fight" your quick fight usually comes at my expense, now don't get me wrong I am not advocating a free ride to the target but for the opposition the be able to located me from the time I up puts us at a distinct disadvantage, now having said this I don't necessarily know what would be an equitable solution but is it possible that the darbar could be modified to pick me up at the time I cross into enemy territory? I am open to suggestions.
Maj OldBull
XO Avengers
-
Halo make a lot of good points in his posts and I am inclined to agree with most of his suggestions. Having said that, let me also say that what we are doing with this arena is constantally evolving and for the most part evolving for the good, none of us are ever going to be completely satisfied with what we have and that is just human nature but I applaud the staff for their tireless efforts and the players for their civil and constructive comments.
Now, if I may, let me offer this comment from a bombers preprespective, for us long flights are the norm, 30 minutes to get to the target are about average, I am the pilot, the bombardier and when necessary the gunner. A good calibration takes nearly a grid to set up. If I have to go the the gunners position I will lose my line and usually my calibration, if I don't go to the gun I am cannon fodder. While I understand the desire to "find a quick fight" your quick fight usually comes at my expense, now don't get me wrong I am not advocating a free ride to the target but for the opposition the be able to located me from the time I up puts us at a distinct disadvantage, now having said this I don't necessarily know what would be an equitable solution but is it possible that the darbar could be modified to pick me up at the time I cross into enemy territory? I am open to suggestions.
Maj OldBull
XO Avengers
A reasonable suggestion. Not having a chance to research it this morning I'm going to WAG this...
I believe in WWII both German, and British radar were able to dectect buildups of large formations while still in their own friendly territory.
The difference in reality and AHII is that the interceptors didn't have the range to cross over and attack the formations while they were forming over their own friendly lines.
Plus in reality every plane lost is lost for good, you don't have planes and pilots that automatucally come back to life so it makes going over and attacking them in their own territory too costly.
I'm making this statement from memory, so I may be off.
I'm not sure if darbar can be deactived to only friendly areas of the map. If it could I would suggest setting to where enemy units could still be detected one sector deep in their own territory.
Good points OB.
-
I agree with the limited dar bar also. It would be nice if it went only to neighboring grids of a field so you could not see deep into enemy territory but you could see into no-mans land.
Venom
-
I believe that you have silenced the critics who called this a mini MA.
mini MA :P
-
Hello all, <S>
I've been thinking for some time in what tweaks could be done to improve even more this format so well devised by AvA Staff. I must say that I firmly believe that this new direction in AvA is the right one and the only that may attract more new players. So, good or bad suggestions they might be, the actual setup works and, if it ain't broken, why change it? Only to make it even better, IMHO. So, I'll just throw a couple of ideas for your analisis.
First, the money management issue...The idea of a starting budget is great but a couple of factors could be brought in to perfect it even further: one, strats and objects should have value, too. That should be considered, for both sides. "Countries" produce money, as long as they have their strats and cities working and in the direct measure of their abilities to function. That should enter the equation too. Also, there could be some reward, financially speaking, for the damage inflicted on the other side strats. Finally, there should be made a balance, for both sides, between number of sorties made - by plane model - and sorties landed. This ratio could then be applyed as a correction factor, rewarding the best management of aircraft and penalizing the side with worse aircraft management, as an asset.
Secondly, the issue of ground war and field capture. There is no war without ground grabbing - I know, there are, just not ww2 - and without ground vehicles...I feel a bit unfair that ground vehicle fans are almost excluded from the current setup. Also, not gaining terrain and push the frontline one side or the other, is a bit weird...Maybe we could have a new approach here: dramatically increase the number of troops needed for capture - to a number between 60 and 100 - of targets, specify different numbers needed for different targets - 60 for a VB, 100 for an airfield, maybe more for a city - and allow the capture of strats and cities, once again, for resource capture purposes.
Thirdly, the assymetric victory conditions and the historical matchups. This could be thought to allow for more historically accurate matchups during the duration of the war, avoiding the appearance of odd-birds in the setups. Also, assymetric victory conditions could lead to different and more historically correct tactics.
Just ideas.
<Salute>
-
Hello all, <S>
I've been thinking for some time in what tweaks could be done to improve even more this format so well devised by AvA Staff. I must say that I firmly believe that this new direction in AvA is the right one and the only that may attract more new players. So, good or bad suggestions they might be, the actual setup works and, if it ain't broken, why change it? Only to make it even better, IMHO. So, I'll just throw a couple of ideas for your analisis.
First, the money management issue...The idea of a starting budget is great but a couple of factors could be brought in to perfect it even further: one, strats and objects should have value, too. That should be considered, for both sides. "Countries" produce money, as long as they have their strats and cities working and in the direct measure of their abilities to function. That should enter the equation too. Also, there could be some reward, financially speaking, for the damage inflicted on the other side strats. Finally, there should be made a balance, for both sides, between number of sorties made - by plane model - and sorties landed. This ratio could then be applyed as a correction factor, rewarding the best management of aircraft and penalizing the side with worse aircraft management, as an asset.
Secondly, the issue of ground war and field capture. There is no war without ground grabbing - I know, there are, just not ww2 - and without ground vehicles...I feel a bit unfair that ground vehicle fans are almost excluded from the current setup. Also, not gaining terrain and push the frontline one side or the other, is a bit weird...Maybe we could have a new approach here: dramatically increase the number of troops needed for capture - to a number between 60 and 100 - of targets, specify different numbers needed for different targets - 60 for a VB, 100 for an airfield, maybe more for a city - and allow the capture of strats and cities, once again, for resource capture purposes.
Thirdly, the assymetric victory conditions and the historical matchups. This could be thought to allow for more historically accurate matchups during the duration of the war, avoiding the appearance of odd-birds in the setups. Also, assymetric victory conditions could lead to different and more historically correct tactics.
Just ideas.
<Salute>
Agreed, there still needs to be some tweaking to find the best formula. The all Strat system seems to have bogged down to something similar to trench warfare. All in all it's been a great idea to try the different systems, to see if a good matchg can be found.
-
Another compromise in system.
The current money based system does have it's features that are good. I don't like that most bases on the map are utterly useless, and the long distances involved does sometimes knock out casual play.
My suggestion is to keep the money system in place, up the total money a bit but make certain planes available at all fields on their perspective sides.
The less effective planes for each side. Like the P40, P39, F4F on the allies side, and maybe the A6m and M202 on the axis. Either for free or, for a different price. For instance. P51's are 50 K. So say the allies spend 40 k to put P40's at 3 bases. Essentially drop the price of the early war or pre war rides down to the bottom. Like 10-20k depending on capability. or even free as I said earlier.
Or something like a separate support budget. Give each side another 100K each round that can only be spent on ground vehicles, support aircraft these older obsolete fighters, and maybe radar. Then fix in the particular aircraft available for purchase with these funds. That 100k is a fixed amount and doesn't change based on the results of the war. so both sides can at the very least be able to resupply and put up a basic fight each round.
These older planes would undoubtedly be placed at forward bases on both sides.
While the current point system can be spent by both sides, on the bigger bombers and the popular LW rides, which are usually placed a little further back in the lines the way they are now.
The reason I like the separate funds for these support type air frames, is because if you just give both sides more cash to work with, they'll simply buy more LW rides. This way yes both sides do get a little more funds to work with on LW rides, about 1 base worth of them. You also create a front line war for the EW rides. The LW fans can still fly their LW choices, just have to travel a little bit farther to do so. While at times like tonight where the allies have knocked out most of the allies usable late war bases, the axis could still up in something. Even if it's just zeroes, and m202's.
-
As for the base capture, yes that needs to come back. Should be able to capture a bases including the aircraft types that base provides. :)
Leave the numbers higher though. I agree with the 60-100 thing. Casual players working late night at off hours shouldn't be able to easily take a base with just 1-4 people.
-
" While at times like tonight where the allies have knocked out most of the axis usable late war bases, the axis could still up in something. Even if it's just zeroes, and m202's."
Totally disagree. You will never get guys to fly extra far, in extra crappy rides...
What were you guys thinking today? The Axis litterally can't even up in there now. I think we need a balance between winning the war and keeping it "playable" guys. :rolleyes:
What would the Allies do if the Axis knocked out their hangers? That's why they haven't. Now the arena will be extra empty untill some hangers come up. Good work. Impressive.
-
" While at times like tonight where the allies have knocked out most of the axis usable late war bases, the axis could still up in something. Even if it's just zeroes, and m202's."
Totally disagree. You will never get guys to fly extra far, in extra crappy rides...
What were you guys thinking today? The Axis litterally can't even up in there now. I think we need a balance between winning the war and keeping it "playable" guys. :rolleyes:
What would the Allies do if the Axis knocked out their hangers? That's why they haven't. Now the arena will be extra empty untill some hangers come up. Good work. Impressive.
I have to agree with this. The arena is as good as dead now.
-
Except that it's not dead yet.
There are even numbers fighting in there as we type. Have been most of the day. The allies didn't finish off A58. Nor whatever base is active in the A4-A22 area. It's just the northern most bases that got knocked out. Axis are still alive in the south, which is where most of their untouched strat targets are. So that's where the Allies are attacking.
Folks are in there right now fighting it out.
It has slowed down though. Since the furballers don't have any place to fight easily and don't want to chase the folks around who are trying to just win the war, there's a lot of grumbling.
That said though I think my compromise above would help with that. Just finding the rightbase to knock out is harder when planes are upping from many different basses. In this last round for instance it took us a while to figure out just where the axis were coming from in the north. We had a good idea about 25 and 28, but spent a lot of time also hitting 70 and some other bases because in the end, we really couldn't tell exactly where you guys were upping from. And that's in the north where it seems in hind sight to fairly obvious.
As long as aircraft able to carry any ord at all can up from a base, that base is a threat. So you have to patrol the sky in that sector and can't ignore it.
With the current set up and the funds available at this stage we're able to just shut a sector down for 12 hours or more. Then pretty much ignore it. Counting on people's short attention spans to be the biggest defense for an area. Then we can concentrate all of our pilots some place else.
-
yes there are 29 pilots 13/16 right now all having a great time I think. so not dead.
-
yes there are 29 pilots 13/16 right now all having a great time I think. so not dead.
My bad the Axis are still able to put aircraft up. :aok
Everytime I've been in today the Axis were down 3to1 or there were Allies and no Axis.
Tonight was pretty even, and worth staying on for.
-
Been off and on through out the day. Seen some good battles and also cut circles in the sky and flew really long distances to get to a fight.
I must saying that eliminating your opponents abilty to fight is the single best way to win. But it has cut into game play.
It strikes me that the CO of a side whose base was compromised would move aircraft. Being that there are a number of bases that are not in use, maybe if the leaders could activate a base from an inactive base in another location after say 2 or 3 bases are destroyed. Or alow fighter aircraft to up from the nearest V base to the one with downed hangers two or three hours later, as the aircraft have been moved by ground?
Just some thoughts.
The Luftwaffe operated from roadways to hide their aircraft.
-
I have also been in and out of the arena all day (Sunday) and at all times there have been good and balanced numbers. The Allies changed their strategy (our previous one has certainly been lacking) and began to target airfields and it has paid off. By pushing back the Axis lines we were able to penetrate the fighter ring and close the % gap somewhat and stay in the war while working within the frame work of the game. I see no reason to call foul here.
Maj OldBull
XO Avengers
-
I have also been in and out of the arena all day (Sunday) and at all times there have been good and balanced numbers. The Allies changed their strategy (our previous one has certainly been lacking) and began to target airfields and it has paid off. By pushing back the Axis lines we were able to penetrate the fighter ring and close the % gap somewhat and stay in the war while working within the frame work of the game. I see no reason to call foul here.
Maj OldBull
XO Avengers
Never saw anything close to balanced until Sunday evening. Came in three times during the day Sunday and three to one odds in favor of the Allies were the best I saw until the evening. I'm not knocking anybody, I'm just saying no opposition just isn't my cup of tea. So I'm not going to jump in and help subdue an enemy who isn't home. I'm glad you guys have finally scratched out a lead.
The title of this thread hits the nail on the head. Somehow combining the two types of wars would be the best bet. IMO. I think and even better idea in the future is find a way to incorporate THE WAR into traditional AVA style setups, like North Africa, Finn/Russ, Okinawa,The Slot, or BOB. If we can get to where we can put playable victory conditions concentrating on historic battles instead of a larger abstract war... That would be very cool. In fact maybe run a war based on the outcome of a predetermined number of weekly battles over different maps and theaters.
Just a thought.
<S>
-
This is a "combat flight simulator". It's not a strategic war game. I don't see how the current setup (placement of aircraft, not strategic war) can attract the number of new players that we would like to see. Call it advertising, but we need a way the new players can get a quick taste of the style of play and the Axis vs Allies matchups. We don't really have enough players to effectively play this type of setup.
Everybody was happy with the first week. Numbers were 50+ and expanding. What's different this last week? The largest difference is the lack of aircraft at forward fields. The allies don't have any, the axis have early war rides. Lets work our way back to the first week which appeared to be fun for all.
This happened in the base capture war also. Everyone was very happy with the beginning where there was good balance. The BoB started out as a blast. Then the startegic war took over and ruined it for the combat flight simulator players and it became a ghost town. Note how the strategic war setups have been getting in the way of good game play rather than supporting it.
As a temporary step, can we give allies a Spit V at a forward field to match up with the 109F? People will still up to intercept big raids but we need something to do when there are no big organized raids.
As a long term, can we support all styles and keep it balanced? I noticed BlueTop does not fly anymore because he liked base capture. Besides the HO shots, he was a fun guy and we lost him.
Goal is to promote multiple styles of gameplay within an Axis vs Allies matchup.
Furballers: Need roughly equivalent fighter aircraft at bases that are close. Easy enough, populate the forward fields.
Base Capture: Make the frontline bases capturable but not the rear bases. Is this possible? It would be kind of fun and it would be limited so one side could not destroy a map by rolling over all of the bases. Keep hanger down times low so that the furballers can maintain close bases.
Strategic: Keep the strategic war objectives that we have today. The war is won through the strategic effort. Base capture can help support that or be a fun diversion.
The focus needs to be on gameplay to grow the community. The above is an attempt to support all styles and to be inclusive. It would also provide good variety.
Venom
-
This is a "combat flight simulator". It's not a strategic war game. I don't see how the current setup (placement of aircraft, not strategic war) can attract the number of new players that we would like to see. Call it advertising, but we need a way the new players can get a quick taste of the style of play and the Axis vs Allies matchups. We don't really have enough players to effectively play this type of setup.
Everybody was happy with the first week. Numbers were 50+ and expanding. What's different this last week? The largest difference is the lack of aircraft at forward fields. The allies don't have any, the axis have early war rides. Lets work our way back to the first week which appeared to be fun for all.
This happened in the base capture war also. Everyone was very happy with the beginning where there was good balance. The BoB started out as a blast. Then the strategic war took over and ruined it for the combat flight simulator players and it became a ghost town. Note how the strategic war setups have been getting in the way of good game play rather than supporting it.
As a temporary step, can we give allies a Spit V at a forward field to match up with the 109F? People will still up to intercept big raids but we need something to do when there are no big organized raids.
As a long term, can we support all styles and keep it balanced? I noticed BlueTop does not fly anymore because he liked base capture. Besides the HO shots, he was a fun guy and we lost him.
Goal is to promote multiple styles of gameplay within an Axis vs Allies match up.
Furballers: Need roughly equivalent fighter aircraft at bases that are close. Easy enough, populate the forward fields.
Base Capture: Make the frontline bases capturable but not the rear bases. Is this possible? It would be kind of fun and it would be limited so one side could not destroy a map by rolling over all of the bases. Keep hanger down times low so that the furballers can maintain close bases.
Strategic: Keep the strategic war objectives that we have today. The war is won through the strategic effort. Base capture can help support that or be a fun diversion.
The focus needs to be on gameplay to grow the community. The above is an attempt to support all styles and to be inclusive. It would also provide good variety.
Venom
Venom,
Very good post, I like your ideas about the AVA growing the community and offering Allied vs Axis matchups that appeal to as many as possible.
I think we should look into these types of ideas aggressively in the AVA. The only place I differ with you is the current war. It's not exactly the way I'd like things to be at the moment, however it's been planned and executed by players on both sides. No telling how many hours Oak, Flat, Luttrel, and Oldbull have put into this. That's just on the Allied side, you start adding in RMRider, JG11 and the 78th on the Axis side there's been so much time and effort put into this we should allow the current war to run it's course as scheduled. Also it's a great tool for learning what's working and what isn't.
I do hope ideas like yours are pursued in the very near future. :)
<S>
-
Also it's a great tool for learning what's working and what isn't.
That's the key, IMO there currently are some basic design issues that are working against adoption of the AvA by a wider audience instead of promoting adoption by a wider audience.
-
Halo make a lot of good points in his posts and I am inclined to agree with most of his suggestions. Having said that, let me also say that what we are doing with this arena is constantally evolving and for the most part evolving for the good, none of us are ever going to be completely satisfied with what we have and that is just human nature but I applaud the staff for their tireless efforts and the players for their civil and constructive comments.
Now, if I may, let me offer this comment from a bombers preprespective, for us long flights are the norm, 30 minutes to get to the target are about average, I am the pilot, the bombardier and when necessary the gunner. A good calibration takes nearly a grid to set up. If I have to go the the gunners position I will lose my line and usually my calibration, if I don't go to the gun I am cannon fodder. While I understand the desire to "find a quick fight" your quick fight usually comes at my expense, now don't get me wrong I am not advocating a free ride to the target but for the opposition the be able to located me from the time I up puts us at a distinct disadvantage, now having said this I don't necessarily know what would be an equitable solution but is it possible that the darbar could be modified to pick me up at the time I cross into enemy territory? I am open to suggestions.
Maj OldBull
XO Avengers
Venom,
Very good post, I like your ideas about the AVA growing the community and offering Allied vs Axis matchups that appeal to as many as possible.
I think we should look into these types of ideas aggressively in the AVA. The only place I differ with you is the current war. It's not exactly the way I'd like things to be at the moment, however it's been planned and executed by players on both sides. No telling how many hours Oak, Flat, Luttrel, and Oldbull have put into this. That's just on the Allied side, you start adding in RMRider, JG11 and the 78th on the Axis side there's been so much time and effort put into this we should allow the current war to run it's course as scheduled. Also it's a great tool for learning what's working and what isn't.
I do hope ideas like yours are pursued in the very near future. :)
<S>
These highlighted statements IMO need to be addressed.
If we are going to have a war based strictly on TARGET hit percentage ratios then there should be a way to adjust DARBAR to allow at least a half way fair run at the target.
There is nothing like flying for 45 min all the way across map territory to get to your target only to have 20 fighters come at you at one time because they have been watching you for those same past 45 min you have been in the air.
Now like OldBull said we are the pilot,gunner,Bomber and navigator. That being understood perhaps there should be more than one person allowed to join a Bomber formation .
Perhaps
1 pilot
Gunner
Bomber .
Also one more thing is BUGS in the B17 .
I will post that ASAP on the bug forum area
Regards
We all have put time into this and feel that it is definitley inproving,However it definitley needs its tweaks
-
There is nothing like flying for 45 min all the way across map territory to get to your target only to have 20 fighters come at you at one time because they have been watching you for those same past 45 min you have been in the air.
Think about how the poor guys that flew the actual Schwienfurt raid felt.
-
There is nothing like flying for 45 min all the way across map territory to get to your target only to have 20 fighters come at you at one time because they have been watching you for those same past 45 min you have been in the air.
You are saying that a bomber should be able to make it all the way to target without interception?? I think what you are discussing is a matter of tactics rather than setup. It is the same problem that was presented during the war. Initially the belief was the bombers could make the runs unescorted, relying on speed and defensive armament. Hence the reason for lack of long range escorts, fighters were to serve just as interceptors. But that was proven to be false and the need for escort became very apparent. So instead of adjusting DAR to allow your bombers through I say coordinate with your fellow team members and have an escort to aid in getting your bombers to target. <S>
-
There is nothing like flying for 45 min all the way across map territory to get to your target only to have 20 fighters come at you at one time because they have been watching you for those same past 45 min you have been in the air.
Think about how the poor guys that flew the actual Schwienfurt raid felt.
Not sure
But they sure weren't singing time is on my side by the rolling stones I bet
But I a more serious note 45 min in today's environment is equiv to 1 day in there time I bet
-
You are saying that a bomber should be able to make it all the way to target without interception?? I think what you are discussing is a matter tactics rather than setup. It is the same problem that was presented during the war. Initially the belief was the bombers could make the runs unescorted, relying on speed and defensive armament. Hence the reason for lack of long range escorts, fighters were to serve just as interceptors. But that was proven to be false and the need for escort became very apparent. So instead of adjusting DAR to allow your bombers through I say coordinate with your fellow team members and have an escort to aid in getting your bombers to target. <S>
But again they didnt find them from a red darbar .
and they def are not sitting down drinking beer debating about when to up and wack them .
They had to work at what was to be accomplished
All I am asking for is for fairness.
Watching DARBARS and upping to attack is far from fair IMO
-
Watching DARBARS and upping to attack is far from fair IMO
Only knowing someone is their once your strat starts flashing is very, very far from realistic. Much farther from realistic than dar bars as a similar system to them existed.
-
Basically yes they did. The Germans had Radar with ranges well over 100 miles. The pilots in the air were coordinated realtime by a ground controller who had access to these radar plots. This was generally how air battles were fought in WWII between major powers. I don't mean this to sound mean, but I really think you should read up a bit more on the subject. I think you are confusing the tactics of WWII with WWI.
-
Only knowing someone is their once your strat starts flashing is very, very far from realistic. Much farther from realistic than dar bars as a similar system to them existed.
Much farther from realistic than dar bars as a similar system to them existed.
Somebody needs to point me to the name of this similar electronic system that existed.
Besides word of mouth I can not seem to find this dar bar type of system THAT EXISTED IN THE 40'S
I am starting to feel like my intelligece is being insulted.
Even after conversing with people on the bases that I frequent nobody can seem to explain to me this dar-bar type of system that existed in those days.
RADAR 100 miles .
In this game you are comparing greater ranges
Ground controllers
Have you ever dialed a SS7 telephone (pulse)
BT time you dialed somebody could be 60 miles away from last position
Why do you people try to compare 1940's technology to todays Systems.
I do read sir about 6 books a day
If you are speaking word of mouth ."they do not compare" sorry
-
Basically yes they did. The Germans had Radar with ranges well over 100 miles. The pilots in the air were coordinated realtime by a ground controller who had access to these radar plots. This was generally how air battles were fought in WWII between major powers. I don't mean this to sound mean, but I really think you should read up a bit more on the subject. I think you are confusing the tactics of WWII with WWI.
Thats right everyplane had nextel
can you here me know ooops thats verizon they have CDSM and ssids that get broadcast from satelites . I hear they where in orbit back then too
-
Oceans11,
Apparently you aren't aware that during WWII aircraft were equipped with a nifty newfangled device called a 'radio' that allowed them to communicate with ground forces and other aircraft.
-
Oceans11,
Apparently you aren't aware that during WWII aircraft were equipped with a nifty newfangled device called a 'radio' that allowed them to communicate with ground forces and other aircraft.
But Motherland
My point is being twisted AGAIN.
Radios only allowed you to convey what one person see's
And Radios while good did not have frequency accuracy as of today.
If you do not see it or intercept you couldnt react
A computerised dar bar everybody see's
Take away DAR BAR and let everybody " use the a nifty newfangled device called a 'radio' that allowed them to communicate
That is what would make it even then.
LET them use the communication of that era ONLY
:salute
-
My point was that ground controllers were able to communicate in real time with aircraft using radios. Thus DarBar.
-
Somebody needs to point me to the name of this similar electronic system that existed.
Search Wikipedia for "Wurzburg" and "Freya" radars. In this case Freya was the 100-mile early warning radar, and Wurzburg the gun-laying device.
Probably the better analogy for our DAR bar, though, was radio intercepts. German radio operators had no difficulty monitoring the huge increase in radio traffic that accompanied a bomber raid, beginning on the ground with the aircraft radio operators testing their sets. And, of course, the bomber formations assembled over England before progressing across either the Channel or the North Sea, a process that took a considerable amount of time. The existence of an incoming raid wasn't much of a surprise. It's destination could be, however. The August 17, 1943 Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission was probably the first major example of an attempt to fool the Germans as to the bombers' route, and the shuttle missions to Russia were probably the most successful implementations of the trick ("Hey, they didn't come back!"). German fighters (like everyone's fighters except the US and Japanese) had relatively short range, so a surprise change in route could eliminate much of the opposition if the German fighter controllers guessed wrong and sent their aircraft the wrong way.
We can actually do the same thing in AH2. Last week I saw an Axis mission that sure fooled me.
- oldman
-
OLDMAN .thanks :salute
I will read up on that technology Wurzburg" and "Freya" radars "
Thank you for the input
But it still required picking up a phone/talkie no?
and it did not have people looking at a PC screen and getting a 6k mile radius down view look right ? like an AEWAC
That is only my point
-
Search Wikipedia for "Wurzburg" and "Freya" radars. In this case Freya was the 100-mile early warning radar, and Wurzburg the gun-laying device.
Probably the better analogy for our DAR bar, though, was radio intercepts. German radio operators had no difficulty monitoring the huge increase in radio traffic that accompanied a bomber raid, beginning on the ground with the aircraft radio operators testing their sets. And, of course, the bomber formations assembled over England before progressing across either the Channel or the North Sea, a process that took a considerable amount of time. The existence of an incoming raid wasn't much of a surprise. It's destination could be, however. The August 17, 1943 Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission was probably the first major example of an attempt to fool the Germans as to the bombers' route, and the shuttle missions to Russia were probably the most successful implementations of the trick ("Hey, they didn't come back!"). German fighters (like everyone's fighters except the US and Japanese) had relatively short range, so a surprise change in route could eliminate much of the opposition if the German fighter controllers guessed wrong and sent their aircraft the wrong way.
We can actually do the same thing in AH2. Last week I saw an Axis mission that sure fooled me.
- oldman
Good post OM, forgot to mention radio intercept. A very important piece of intelligence gathering.
-
Some things have to be simplified... like the simplifications of engine management, bomb sight calibration, and even taking off and trimming your aircraft if you have the automatic features enabled.
The only part the game simplifies in this sense is the part where the ground control crew radios the location to you.
-
Humm...
Maybe there was a way...turn of dot and bar dar as soon as airborne, forcing one element to sit in tower doing interception control with the airborne units...but that could be too much...people would complain even more, fights would be harder to find...maybe not a good idea...
-
The FSO's work like that. ..... Kinda....
And those can be very boring at times. This last one we flew around the long way on the island chain ON PURPOSE just it seems to give them a chance to practice air recon, and vectoring fighters with ground controllers. I remember being told just where the carriers were supposed to be when we took off. I remember asking why the hell we were going all the way around then. I don't remember what the answer was.
anyway, that would definately not work in the 24-7 arena with variable targets. We'd all get very bored very fast. Hell even with the dar the way it is now, one of the biggest complaints amongst the majority of players is that they can't find each other.
-
The FSO guides you into a fight, either attacking or defending. Why not announce a daily mission at a certain time (allies attacking 21 and 24) and leave it a free for all the rest of the time. A lot of people like the FSO missions.