Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: lazs on March 03, 2001, 09:38:00 AM
-
so seriously... How many of you enjoy it when you are in a huge, fast and furious fight with boo coo planes involved and you manage to ditch your smoking shot up fighter at the (relatively) undamaged field only to be told "you cannot take off from this field" Waaa? Next field over... not a soul there... "you cannot take.." Look at the map.... Maybe one huge red bar somwhere.... a tiny little fight 2 or 3 sectors away... Nothing else happening.
does anyone find that enjoyable much less "realistic"? I mean, a lone buff or suicide jabo hits a building and the fight is over? Fighters can't take off because a building is wrecked? In what war did that ever happen?
Everything I ever read had fighters coming up from fields after months of bombing. certainly never heard of everyone going home after a building was destroyed.
We need to have a better system for fighter availability. Any ideas?
lazs
-
That is simulating that the airplanes are all destroyed at that field. Maybe it is a little easy to do, shut down a field that is.
-
Yes make buffs less accurate above a certain altitide and make their guns less roadkilllike, the way it is now they have no preoblem getting through unescorted provided they get to 15-20k or so. The suicide jabos are more difficult to deal with. Anyway its becoming obvoius that all the small gameplay compromises and innacuracies just lead to imbalances that have to be counteracted by more compromises and adjustements that in turn create others and so on... This is just one example.
-
yes grun... i agree. I believe that suicide jabos would be easy to deal with tho if a much more realistic fighter revetments system were in place. fields could have from 1 to hundreds of revetments and they would all have to be destroyed to make fighters unavailable. You should also be able to "ferry" planes over to fields to "reset" the revetments. I also think that bombers should only be allowed from back fields.
Perhaps when the hanger is down rockets and bombs would not be available at that field?
with revetments you could see and visually judge the damage to the field but if you just hardened the fighter hanger it would be still all or nothing with no way to judge.
lazs
-
I want this feature to exist - having field "close" when last target goes down is just as unrealistic.
Fact is that with all acks up - it's hard for jabo to get in and bomb both hangars.
Buffs - well, toejam... you should be watching for those... otherwise what you're advocating is making buffs useless....
Maybe upping the tonnage on each hangar would help - provided that they would stay down MUCH longer.
If i'm gonna put 10000lb of bombs into the hangar i don't want it coming up in 5 minutes.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Rather than a solution that would create more problems, there is an easier system that can be used:
Get rid of the "destroy 1 hangar to make airfield useless" system, and replace it with "need destruction of airfield"
In other words, use a system like AW uses, where the airfield can be used until about 2/3 of hangars, bunkers, and fuel tanks are destroyed. After that point, the airfield is "destroyed" and stays that way for 30 minutes, until it can be "rebuilt"
Only "destroyed" airfields can be captured, making BUFFS vital to the airfield-capture process.
A lone bomber cannot make an airfield useless to an entire country, and suicide fighter-bombers have virtually no effect. However, the landgrab still runs its course.
Reducing the fields bombers are available at, does nothing but ruin the game for bomber pilots. We tried that in AW, too, and it didn't work out too well.
J_A_B
-
Bah, some people see a buff and say :"heck, I don't want to risk dying engaging ths thing, I have to catch up w/him, then position myself, then do my pass and pray my guning is accurate and not is".
Then the same people complain when they can't use a field 10 min later (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Buff pllanes, and CVs, and ground vehicle is what makes AH different from Janes WW2 types of "sim".
You can line up 100 planes on the side of the runway if you want instead of a hangar (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
what we need is more targets!!!!! More fighter hangars AND reventments. More vehicle hangars too.
udie
-
Dang lazs.. did you have to take a timeout and sit in the maproom for 2 minutes looking for the next furball? That must have been very hard for you.
I'm not a big fan of the strato-buffing going on these days. But I'm less of a fan when it comes to having to deal with someone getting on the BBS and whining every time a hangar is destroyed.
There is more to this game than just furballing. I'm sorry you don't like that, but its true. Furball all you want, nobody was criticizing you for doing it. Just don't get upset at others for doing what they wanted to do.
The furballs are everywhere with this map lazs. EVERYWHERE. No need to get pissy just because you had to look for a new one.
AKDejaVu
-
Oh,.... never mind.
What Deja said...
------------------
Skorpyon
~900th Bloody Jaguars~
"Feel the Sting......"
[This message has been edited by Skorpyon (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
Yikes - another furball vs. "strategy" thread.
I like fd's idea, up them a little more but make them stay down longer.
Of course, that won't stop fields from being closed, it will just prolong the agony of people who hate closed fields.
Fury
-
I get tired of everyone saying how hard it is to shoot a bomber down...
You don't seem to have any problem getting mine.
I guess I need a better mechanic..or gunner
:}
[This message has been edited by sparks2 (edited 03-03-2001).]
[This message has been edited by sparks2 (edited 03-03-2001).]
-
whatever... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Whiner
------------------
-
Umm ,, I'm happy the way things are (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
oh ,, where's ,my new spit14
-
well deja, u say your unhappy with the strato bombing and I would say that more than a lot find the lone suicide bomber less than appealing. I can't believe anyone finds killing a building to stop fighters a realistic game device. But.... you can't see past your nose or your animostity. You offer nothing (as usuall) as a suggestion except... Your "solution" is that I and others are imagining that the fights are degrading and disapearing. You have nothing to offer yet again..
midnight... you fly 51's don't you? I can (everyone can) see where you might like all the real fighters up high, scattered out and attacking buffs. even if it meant having such a strange game device as out field/resources closure.
FD.. gameplay or realism? I don't know.... settle for either but... In this case we could have both. You suggest hardening the hangers for (i assume) gameplay. I suggest revetments would accomplish both at the same time. hardened hangers would still be the "all or nothing" "now you see it now you don't" silliness we have now... ok, better gameplay but.... revetments would allow gradual and VISUAL taking of the fields resources. you would see the battle progress. If you ferried a plane over it would be able to take off again. High alt bombers would have to attack in force and hit many targets.
And bomber guys.... Sorry, no... I don't believe that you should be able to take off from any airfield by yourself and hit undefended fields and close em. i don't think people want to put a fighter cover at 20-30k over every field in the off chance that a lone bomber may come by. but....Make bombing accuracy more realistic and the whole problem may go away.
lazs
-
Lazs,
If you ever want to be taken seriously, you need to start just adressing the issue.
If you don't like the idea of stratobuffs, say so. Don't start out with "WAAAAA! THESE GUYS ARE RUINING FURBALLS!"
Furballing has nothing to do with this. The fact that the planes can get to 34k and be relatively untouchable does. Your whine started with how they were ruining your version of fun. It ended with how someone should prevent these people from ruining your version of fun. With a touch of "anything over 20k isn't fun" thrown in to boot.
You'll get the same response from me every time lazs.
Time to change the tune. 2 months straight of any one song gets very old after a while.
AKDejaVu
-
deja... i don't know if you are a liar or just stupid. The thread is about the unrealist and poor gameplay aspect of "fighter hangers" as strat. Is that simple enough for you????
certainly you have a point about strato buffing and accuracy. I agree and fixing the accuraccy would go a long way toward making the game better but.... THE FACT REMAINS that.... Killing a hanger to stop fighters from coming up a field is a very clumsy and unrealistic device. It is also poor for gameplay.
so.... we can conclude that you and i agree on the buff situation? We can agree that you think that the way that fighters are made unavailable (killing a hanger) is fine with you and/or that you have nothing better to suggest?
You agree tho that it is unrealistic? I don't mind you complaining about my ideas but..... You never have anything to offer other than you don't like me or my ideas. If you think that things are perfect as is then just say so.
lazs
-
It would take alot of work to come up with a realistic solution to killing hangars to prevent take off....I think.
How about cratering the runway? Well, that would work but then you'd have everyone just not use the runway and zip around on the ground in, lets say a 38 or 26 shooting troops up. Not to mention the fact that if HiTech models bomb deflection, you've got problems even hitting the runway. (I'm sure I heard he was)
Revetments for aircraft are a good idea, but still, see above. Maybe your could limit the number and type of aircraft on a field and destroy them on the ground first? May have to have much larger fields!
Killing an entire percentage of the field, say all hangars AND cratering the runway with a certain number of hits would IMHO prolly work best.
I kinda think the current system is the best comprimise considering the limitations. AH has a long way to go...I'm sure we'll see lotsa differen't approaches over time.
Swamp
-
The thread is about the unrealist and poor gameplay aspect of "fighter hangers" as strat. Is that simple enough for you????
No, its not that simple and you know it. This thread is about how you feel you should always be able to replane at a field. You simply decided to apply the realism factor to something you didn't like. Of course, ditching then suddenly replaning is completely realistic. So is being killed then replaning. How about bailing then instantly replaning?
You want to aply "realism" where it suits your needs.
certainly you have a point about strato buffing and accuracyI agree and fixing the accuraccy would go a long way toward making the game better but....
I didn't say anything about accuracy. I don't like bombers being able to get to 34k an out-handle the fighters there. I've yet to see anything that makes this even remotely believable. If they are going to get this high.. there needs to be effects on gunners. How many gunners in an unpreasurized plane could function at that alt and temperature?
Something more like no gunners above X altitude would be a good idea in my opinion. I still believe that if you don't want hangars to be bombed.. climb to alt and kill them.
THE FACT REMAINS that.... Killing a hanger to stop fighters from coming up a field is a very clumsy and unrealistic device. It is also poor for gameplay.
You, once again, aply realism where it suits you. Very little about this game is realistic. The flight model comes close... The gunnery model comes close... the rest is simply a game.
so.... we can conclude that you and i agree on the buff situation?
No.
We can agree that you think that the way that fighters are made unavailable (killing a hanger) is fine with you
Ah.. here it is. Now.. if this is really about accuracy and stratobuffs.. why the hell are fighter hangars your only concern? Easy answer.. because it directy affects the only way you are willing to play this game. It directly affects what you deem to be the only relevant portion of this game. Thus.. the traumatic concern over very little.
and/or that you have nothing better to suggest
I suggest you stop whining every time you can't do what you want to. I suggest you stop insisting that everyone else accomodate you. I suggest that you ditch the broken record routine that has become your trademark.
You agree tho that it is unrealistic?
It is not more or less realistic than virtually every other aspect of the game. It only concerns you because you couldn't instantly up from exactly where you wanted to. That doesn't make it any more or less realistic.. just inconvenient.
Quit trying to hide behind the realism argument. Face it.. all you are concerned with is convenience. If it makes it less convenient for you.. you come here and squeak about it. Its really that simple.
AKDejaVu
-
I see here a lot of comment about realism and gameplay, realism and gameplay, the thing that we're striving for is balance . If we balance things out it won't make everything easy but it will make everything doable, see you might be able to get a kill in a buff but you might be able to kill it also you wouldn't need to ram the thing or grab a turbolaser wagen to destroy the death star ;-p . For bombing you might not need one buff to kill a field but you wouldn't need a whole fleet of them either. We need to lean something towards the realism side and some more of the gameplay don't go overboard on either like we have currently.
I don't have any ideas on how to do this but I think Balance is the Key not realism or fantasy.
Achoo!
------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
-----15 Spanische Staffel----
Tis not important how one goes,but who goes with you.
-
Have eggs actually damage the runways so that fighters can't take off (realistic) for a short period of time. Let the hangars be indestructible +)
a string of 2k eggs should put runway out of action, lets say 15 mins for every egg...
SKurj
-
deja quit being a hypocrite. We all want something out of the game. You included. I want fun and choice for everyone. I want realism for flight models and gunnery. i don't care about the so called strat because it is so lame. It is too lame to participate in.
Perhaps if the strat were more realistic, like revetments, more people would get something out of it. Maybe the strat potatos would have to act a little more "realistically" also.
furher more... You really don't know what I want. from your posts, i doubt that you know what you want... quit trying to interpet what you believe I am saying and just listen to what I say.
Why do you even bother to reply to a thread? I have never seen u offer ANY solution to any problem! You whine about my whining... We both whine. I offer solutions you offer nothing but a whine about a whine. One of us is a hypocrite.
lazs
-
I would suggest that ideas get posted to the newsgroup that is setup for that. Any post of an idea and or whine on this forum is just phreakn noise. I swear I think some of you guys just start threads in here to stir up toejam. Any post of an idea that has the words "strat potato" "lamer" "ostwind studmuffingots" (seen in an other thread) and or any other negitive remark is not constructive and there fore part of the problem. If you want to change the game quit crying about it and start a dialog with HTC.
Yea....yea.....blah...blah I know its a free country and all and you can speak your mind, but with all the negitive smack talk and flames on this forum do you really think that PYRO or HITECH will ever give you a passing thought? More than likely they will just make a mental note as they read these threads and the negitve crap in them that you cant seem to have fun with out making other people feel like toejam. If the game is so bad and you hate it so much don't let the virtual door hit you in the bellybutton on the way out.
Note this vent is not directed to anyone person but more or less at all the players that seem to do nothing more than piss and moan. You'd think you all were a bunch of ole ladies. If this post offends you then you must be feeling guilty.
-
jay... didn't see anything offensive in your post at all. But then... I am a shallow and insensitive person by nature and may have missed it.
lazs
-
If you don't like the hangars being down... defend the freakin field. This doesn't mean hovering in your ack. This means settin up a CAP away from the base to hit bandits before they can get in range to drop. Yes this is hard to do if you are alone and the enemy has many guys.
Here's a concept: HTC arenas are designed for team play. You have to work together to get things done. If you want to ignore the rules and go off freelancing to play aerial grabass, don't expect any sympathy.
Here's another concept: The fields are less than 20 miles apart. That's 4 minutes flying time. If the hangars are down, up from the next field and come kill things.
-
funked... not sure many guys would like to "hover" 20-30k above every field they owned on the off chance that a lone buff with laser guided bombs will come by and simply drop the fighter hangers. You then would also need a lower cap at every field to keep out the suicide jabo guys. I have seen lone jabo guys hitting a field that, save for me, was totally undefended. it certainly was "targeted" by said hearty soul with the intent of having a milk run.
and sure... the bases are a sector away but 4 bombs and you now have 3 sectors to fly to maybe find a fite and maybe not. As for this being a "team" sport.... maybe.. but I never even seen any rules much less anything that said anything about "teamwork" being desirable much less mandatory. It just seems too easy for one guy (not a 'team') to ruin the fun of a dozen guys. Where is the "teamwork" in a lone buff at 25K and why should his wish to "contribute" be more important than the aformentioned dozen guys wishes? How bout a little balance here? If we can add "realism" at the same time.... What's the harm?
lazs
-
I have a foot on both sides of the fence on this issue.
Ah luvs me some furball. OTOH, I will climb and kill any lone (or escorted for that matter) buff that attacks a base I am at- because I don't want the furball to end. I don't mind the sacrifice too much usually, because it allows the buffs and strat people to be included in game play too. If it gets to the point that all the other side seriously wants to do is high-alt buff, I might kill a few, but when my time is over for the night I am not too sorry to be leaving.
So... while I prefer to be furballing, I tolerate the bombers because the game needs to accomodate everyone somehow. Not only that, I feel that anyone who comes in and ruins my fun ought to go home in a bag anyway. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
kieren... I agree that we should accfomadate bombers even tho I have no use for them at all. At best tho... It is too easy for one guy in a bomber to spoil the fun for dozens. How do you do the reverse? I mean, the suicide buffers do not care about dying. Should the buffs only be allowed at "buff fields" that can be taken out by a single fighter?
I think that bombing accuracy should be more realistic. I think that a lone buff should not be able to close a field.
lazs