Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: RangerBob on April 14, 2001, 05:14:00 PM
-
While this is certainly an excellent online combat flight sim, I am aware that a number of procedures must be included in any online combat flight sim that, although not 100% realistic, are required for playability. A good example is not requiring all the mixture settings and other tasks required of a real combat pilot in the interest of playability. None of these should have any real effect on the tactics or strategies used in the flight sim.
Both my uncles served as combat pilots in WWII. One flew B17's early in the war until capture as a pilot before fighter escort was really available, and a film has been made of his exploits that was shown on A&E or something. The other flew divebombers off of carriers in the Pacific early in the war through the end of the war. He was the first pilot to be rescued by a helicopter.
I've spoken at length with these living heroes (one just died 2 weeks ago) about tactics and their daily missions. The B17 pilot, Col James Geary, provided the most detailed information of his exploits. I showed him several flight sims. He made it clear that the employment of the level bomber in Aces High was just not realistic.
For instance, all of us are aware that B17's were not used to fly over enemy airfields picking out individual targets one by one, and then turning around to do the same on another pass. That was the job of the Jabo pilot.
As a result I would suggest that the bombing accuracy of the level bomber produce hits that are somewhat random with respect to location of the cross hairs seen at the time of the drop. Knowing that this would produce numerous hits all over a target, such as an airfield, I would also suggest that any hits on the runway produce craters that would affect the landing and takeoff of planes.
In my opinion, and I'm sure I'll hear a number of other opinions, this would cause the level bomber to be used in a more realistic role than that of a surgical target for target attack we now find it being used for. Based on these changes I would expect pilots to toggle a complete bomb load over a target.
Level strategic bombers employed as area bombers. Jabo attacks for those surgical attacks.
Just my suggestion...and yours?
Ranger Bob
[This message has been edited by RangerBob (edited 04-14-2001).]
-
I could agree if jaboing where realistic, but with present ack accuracy and deadliness, its not feasable. Ack must be taken out before jaboing as it is now.
I agree that picking out targets one at the time with one single bomb is not realistic. I belive in real life they always used salvo, or dropped the whole load in one go.
If accuracy in bombing is decreased and salvos made more or less neccessary to hit targets, it would be more realistic. However, blast radius of bombs would have to be increased and ack and structures had to take less to damage. Or else it would be to difficult to disable a field.
Its only occasionally we get waves of bombers organised, which would be neccessary if accuracy is less than now.
-
Absolutely too accurate, though, bombers usually operates in AH alone and sometimes you might see even more in a formation.. though, not many.
In real life they used far more bombers to do this job.
-
ive said it before and ill say it again...i dont mind my bombs being spread,, as long as you give me the opportunity to have 200 other AI bombers with me.....
-
I never seen more than about 8 bombers in the MA flying and attacking the same target. That happens about 0.5% of the time.
The super accuracy has to be there - it's a gameplay concession. Otherwise what would be the point of flying buffs? Salvoing the bombs in one drop for a single bomber would be pointless - you could do more damage in a jabo plane.
If you make the buffs 'realistic', either you make a flight of 'ghost' AI controlled planes to go with your pplayer controlled buff (most people are against this) or you'll never see another bomber in the skies of AH.
-
well the super accuracy "game concession" was enough to make me cancel my account....so i guess the gameplay issue works both ways..some want a simulation, some want a game i guess....
-
While the acks are deadly jaboing can be effective. Our squad, VMF323 headed by Ripsnort, specializes in jabo attacking airfields. If I remember right we can close a field with a handful of squad members in less than 2 minutes and that includes the vehicle hangar, all acks and all hangars.
As for the dispersion of bombs in a level bomber I am also suggesting that the craters on runways from such bombs have an effect on landings and takeoffs if you hit those craters landing or taking off. As a result these heavy bombers would be able to cause damage to a field even without taking out individual acks etc.
I understand all your arguments about "gameplay", I really do, but one has to be careful not to hang his hat on the old "gameplay concession" argument. That was done in the old Airwarrior sim and it became a joke. There were so many gameplay concessions it became a totally unrealistic flight model, and a totally unrealistic toy of a game.
I'm still for fixing the bombing accuracy of the heavy and medium level bombers. They just weren't used to take out individual targets. Don't incorrectly adjust their capabilities for gameplay to overcome some other problem, such as deadly ack, fix the other problem.
Ranger Bob
-
Well the situation in AH calls much more for tactical bombers than strategical. IMO no strategic bombers should ever have been added. This would have eliminated all the whines concerning buff gun and bomb accuracy and the boosted toughness as well as the countless other whines + relevant observations. Too bad that also the bomber part of the community would have been eliminated too so perhaps it was not financially feasible. (Yea, who could imagine a WW2 flight sim with ETO planes and not having The American Buff, B-17 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
------------------
---
SageFIN
"I think IŽll believe in Gosh instead of God. If you donŽt
believe in Gosh too, youŽll be darned to heck."
---
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
well the super accuracy "game concession" was enough to make me cancel my account....so i guess the gameplay issue works both ways..some want a simulation, some want a game i guess....
What about the post in the O'club where you said you cancelled your account because Operation Flashpoint got you?
SOB
-
Originally posted by RangerBob:
I understand all your arguments about "gameplay", I really do, but one has to be careful not to hang his hat on the old "gameplay concession" argument. That was done in the old Airwarrior sim and it became a joke. There were so many gameplay concessions it became a totally unrealistic flight model, and a totally unrealistic toy of a game.
I understand your argument against the precision bombing, but this is a gameplay concession that is already in place, which makes it possible to have a real opinion about it...not just a guess as to how it's going to be.
I enjoy flying bombers, and like the way their bombing accuracy is. That being said, I personally wouldn't be opposed to a required line-up time like I've heard WarBirds has, or even removing the zoom in the bomb site. When I first started flying AH, being the non RTFM type that I am, I had no idea for the first couple of months that you could zoom. That made it really interesting trying to take out targets...even hangars.
SOB
-
What about the post in the O'club where you said you cancelled your account because Operation Flashpoint got you?
it was the straw.
-
cc...so it was just one of the issues that made you feel it was no long worth subscribing to AH.
-
It was really conflicting to me actually..i really enjoy AH but seeing as how I fly bombers 99% of the time coming to grips with what i see as a really annoying and unrealistic thing never being changed because of "gameplay concession" started to erode my interest a bit...then when flashpoint popped up it kind of pushed me the extra inch needed to sway my interest away from AH.
However seeing the new planes and such i doubt abscence from the MA will be long term at all.
I WILL be back...bombs fixed or not...the game is just too damn addictive.
But i still really hate the bomb modeling..no wind drag, no drift/dispersion at all... this game pays such close attention to detail then totally ignores something like that..
"gameplay concession"
well why not giving all the planes 10,000 rounds...
My point is when does it stop being a WW2 sim with A FEW gameplay concessions and starts being a GAME with a few simulation concessions?
as a bomber pilot, to me, that has already happened.
-
I remember Hitech once stated he wanted to create the most realistick WW2 air combat simulator possible. With emphasis on flight modelling. Getting the planes to act as close to the real thing as possible.
I would expect this to go for most of the action in AH. So far there are quite a few things to get a bit closer to reality. The bombing accuracy and lack of taking account for wind-drift etc.
I sure would like all units to act and feel as close to the real thing as possible. And that goes for fighter planes, bombers, vehicles and vessels.
I cant see that the game will be less fun. I would expect it to be even more fun and challenging.
Endless furballs get quickly boring. The fun of using planning, tactics and coordinated operations gets never boring. Thats where I find the best times in the game.
Looking at the development of WW2OL, I think that game will become very tempting to jump to, if AH do not develop some of the same emphasis to the strategic and tactical elements of WW2 warfare.
I have been playing WB for many years. The reason for changing to AH was that it included more units. Ground vehicles and the fleet which you can man and direct. Even thoug flying the fighter plane is what i do most of the time, it is a very nice change to do other activeties now and then.
-
RangrBob - like SOB, I'd like to see the WBs bombsight in AH - i.e. you have to fly level before dropping, in order for the bombsight to aim. I'd also like to see cratered runway having an effect on field operations - although nothing would stop people from using the grass to take-off.
Other than that, there's nothing particularly 'wrong' with the buffs.
Wobble, without 'gameplay concessions', this would be a crap product. You seem to be of the kind who wants everything 'harder' because that somehow makes this a better 'sim'. Fine - no icons; one life per day; one hour turn around for reload at a field. I'm sure that would be a lot of fun, and the MA would be down to perhaps 30 people online at peak time.
Sim or not, this is still a game, and it's a little sad you can't see that.
Moreover, HTC has to appeal to a wide audience, while still having a strong element of realism. I think they have achieved that admirably.
BTW, I don't think many people really care why you left, although they'd have a hard time working it out considering the three different versions you have given.
-
I agree that some gameplay concessions are neccessary, like limitedless lifes as the most typical one.
But even to this gameplay concession it could have been done a twist that gave some realism without taking away the game part.
If you could not take off from same field or spawn from same point when you died, this could introduce some fix to this. You would have to carry out a sortie from another field or spawn point to be able to start from the same spot from where you last died.
That would end that silly part of someone getting killed on the runway over and over again. And the spawn point ambushing where you can sit an get 20 kills and more on more or less the same victims.
-
I have an idea that does not involve changing flight models, damage models or the pinpoint accuracy available in the current bombing system.
Change the way the simulation presents and handles ground targets. Camoflage or hide the assets. Place them randomly around a field. If you were a combat engineer or base commander, would you build an ammo dump in plain sight, above ground in the middle of your airfield? Would you rebuild it in exactly the same place after it was found and destroyed? If an ammo dump gets destroyed, it would ideally be rebuilt in another spot and well hidden. Regarding the hangers (and correlating their existence with the late war German airplane set), a great deal of flying was done from dispersed fields with few ground structures. A large number of airfields in WW2 didn't sport much more than a large grass field being devoid of paved or plowed runways. We have a limited set of airfield layouts that make it easy (too easy I feel) to find/target a truck-sized ground structure long before it comes into view. I find it amazing that we have such perfect intelligence regarding the layout of every base and the exact location of every item on each field. This is one of the few areas of the sim that lacks the dynamic environment that we see throughout the rest of AH.
MiG
-
It would be nice with a greater variety of field and objects. But i think you are adressing something that is very difficult to do.
There is a limit to number of objects that can be used in each teather. In AH i belive it is about 4000. That is why many objects are repeated like fields and field structures.
This is a limitation to present programming/hardware capacities.
-
here is an idea for carpet bombing in AH.
Make the runway the maim target have it broken up in to seperate parts the effect seperate things at the field. Bombers would have to salvo the whole bomb load to take out these areas thus effection the different targets.
{------------runway----------------------}
[-ack-][radar][fuel][ammo][hangers][88mm]
^ ^
\ /
a hit from here would effect ack and radar but knot completely take it out.
RWY
[This message has been edited by Robert (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
Game play concessions must take into account game play "Balance" as well as what the "pilot" gets. The bomber accuracy as it stands "unbalances" game play. I think that the bombers must at least be true to life in some extent, I can find NO reference to a B-17 dropping ONE bomb at a time during WWII unless it was a "hanger" and dumped manually by the crew. I think the bombers should HAVE to drop their "stick" and move on and that "stick" should spread due to drift etc.. it should also have "blast effect" when it hits and do whatever damage that "blast" would incurr. Please all you flamers don't cite me the atomic bomb as you all know we are NOT talking about that.
[This message has been edited by BigJim (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
"I sure would like all units to act and feel as close to the real thing as possible. And that goes for fighter planes, bombers, vehicles and vessels.- Fokker"
OK, then you would support .50 BMG rounds having an "accurate" range of ~2000 yards and an "effective" range of about ~7000 yards, correct?
...and the 20 mm's would have to be adjusted as well, because they travel more than 1.0 too. This is basically true of all the mg's and cannon in the game. The projectiles are artificially terminated in the programming at an unrealistically short range.
So you're for that as well, right Fokker?
Just checking how committed you are to "realism". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
BigJim is basically saying exactly the same thing my uncle, the real WWII B17 pilot, said about Aces High bombers.
Dowding has a point...
RangrBob - like SOB, I'd like to see the WBs bombsight in AH - i.e. you have to fly level before dropping, in order for the bombsight to aim. I'd also like to see cratered runway having an effect on field operations - although nothing would stop people from using the grass to take-off.
....but only a handful of planes could really use the grass for takeoffs and landings and those grass takeoffs were on maintained grass landing strips. The grass around our airfields shouldn't be maintained for takeoffs. It should include ditches, dips, obstacles etc.
Anyway, the bombing system needs a fix if Aces High is to be something more than just a game. Surely the staff can see that. They have fixed other problems so I would expect to see changes with the bombers too. I'm sure they know it doesn't represent anything realistic at this point.
Ranger Bob
-
Toad, you are a very inflamatory person. Shame shame shame on you! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 04-27-2001).]
-
I can find NO reference to a B-17 dropping ONE bomb at a time during WWII [end quote]
lancaster 617 sqdn, "dam busters" , dropped one bomb at a time, (special drum shaped skipping bomb), each plane carried one bomb and they made they made the runs one plane at a time......ok , it's not a B-17 and it's a special mission to blow up dams, just saying
44MAG
-
No, Mav, no flames.
I've just decided all these "'leet bob" realists are RIGHT.
We must DEMAND that HTC make our $1500 2D desktop computers give us all the RL visual, tactile and auditory cues that a $850,000 Spitfire would provide for us... since the ONLY thing that stands between any of us and RL glory as a summertime Spit airshow performer is just a few bucks.
After we get this gun range thing straightened out, I'll take on the "power trim" feature. This has simply got to go, particularly on aircraft that had no in-flight adjustable aileron or rudder trim. As I said, the "power feature" has to go in any event. After all, trim controls are almost always on the same side of the cockpit as the throttle and you have to take your hand off the throttle to crank the trim wheels. Somehow we've got to disable the ability to trim in the game while simultaneously moving the throttle. We've GOT to get to ultimate realism and this is a place to start.
Not to mention the delusion that trim is a primary aircraft flight control. That one is going to take a great deal of educating of the masses. It's pretty clear that most don't understand the difference between a primary and secondary flight control.
That'll have to be after we disable the autopilot in all fighters, of course.
Mav, as you can easily see, it's a tough long road that lies ahead. It won't be for the faint of heart or easily discouraged.
I know I can count on you, as an actual RL (tm) aviator, to help in this vital endeavour!
Thanks for your support!
-
<<<I could agree if jaboing where realistic, but with present ack accuracy and deadliness, its not feasable.>>>
This is very untrue, jabos can and do take out acks every day in AH, probably much easier than in RL. There's no reason for the super-accurrate Norden we have. A bit of random inaccurracy increasing with altitude would add a lot to the sim.
ra
-
OK, then you would support .50 BMG rounds having an "accurate" range of ~2000 yards and an "effective" range of about ~7000 yards, correct?
...and the 20 mm's would have to be adjusted as well, because they travel more than 1.0 too. This is basically true of all the mg's and cannon in the game. The projectiles are artificially terminated in the programming at an unrealistically short range.
So you're for that as well, right Fokker?
Just checking how committed you are to "realism".
Well this is exactly what I want.
With no enemy icons ofcourse. Those neonsigns with exact range make gunnery WAY too easy.
People actually had to shoot from short ranges to hit something. I know this from Warbirds. No icons make gunnery extremely challenging and youll see situations like in RL guncams.
Yes I want combat sim, not some arcade shoot em up which MA is now IMHO.
I'll save my money until that.
-
Ok John thanks for your input I forgot about the "dam busters" so I will concede that "some" bombers did drop just ONE bomb in WWII and if HTC will "model" those and limit those planes to ONE bomb that would be fine (since the one bomb DID consitute its' "stick" of bombs) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by BigJim (edited 04-28-2001).]
-
Don't forget, those Lanc's also dropped from a height of 70 feet if that.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
Illo,
Glad to have you aboard the "Realism Express"!
Glad you agree that all the guns need to shoot much farther, probably twice as far as they do now.
We're going to have to get a much more sophisticated damage map as well.
Imagine this situation:
You're 2.5 (about 1 1/2 miles)away from a Jug pilot who is barreling in on your wingtip with a 90 aspect. He's a good shot, he leads you and snaps off a 2 second burst from 8 .50's. At 80 rounds/sec from each gun, 1280 slugs are headed your way, dispersing of course. Dispersion, as we all know actually increases the probability of a hit. When they get there, each one has about 850 ft/lbs of energy. If just one hits the side of the canopy it will punch right through. If your head is in line with that, the inside of your flying helmet will look like a pot of strawberry jam. Instant pilot kill. We want realism, so no complaints, right? No more bullets disappearing into another astral plane at 1.0! The HTC computer will have to work a little harder, but ...REALISM!
As for Icons, they HAVE to go. Of course, this totally phony compressed field of view has to go as well and at the same time.
As Vermillion pointed out in another thread:
"Actually the "zoom" feature is not an actual zoom, like binoculars or anything. What it does is change your field of vision.
Flight sims like AH, use a 90 degree field of vision (to simulate your normal vision plus peripheral) and squeeze that down to what you see on your monitor.
What this causes is that objects look like they are smaller at a given distance, than they are in real life.
For example if your at 400 yards, it looks like your at a much farther distance because the planeshapes are smaller.
What the "zoom" function does is to change your field of vision down to 45 degrees, which is approximately what your normal non-peripheral vision is.
So you can't see as much of the area, but objects look correct in regards to size at distance. In other words, when you are in "zoom" mode, and at 200 yards, thats how big it would look in real life from that distance."
So the zoom is only giving you what it would really look like thru the gunsight in real life."
So, we have to end this totally unrealistic compressed field of view. It allows you to see far more of a situation in a glance than a realistic pair of eyeballs could. It gives you totally bogus SA abilities.
Once we cut down the FOV to normal, everything will appear much larger, of course. We'll have to have more views and a way to quickly scroll through them too, since with each "view" you'll only cover about 1/2 the sky you are seeing now. Perhaps some sort of trackball to roll the eyes around, possibly slowing as G's build over 4 or so.
We need more detail to. In RL (TM) on an AH clear day you can tell if the gear is up or down on a multi-engine bomber size aircraft at 2 miles, about say, 3.5 or so in AH. Now you can't actually see the gear like the tires and brake lines, but you can easily see a shape change in the silhouette from the clean to dirty configuration.
We need more REALISTIC DETAIL!
Thanks again for joining the Realism Bandwagon!
-
Give me a T
Give me an O
Give me an A
Give me a D
Yea TOAD
Toad Toad he's our man if can't do it no one can Yea TOAD
dejected BigJim walks off having failed AGAIN to make the HTC cheerleading squad.