Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Preacher on April 30, 2001, 06:24:00 PM
-
Suggestion for next update. It would make things a whole lot more interesting in every way...not to mention realistic...WBIII has this feature to their credit.
-
Before someone else has the chance to reply...
This WOULD have the effect of making "carbombing" mostly unnecessary.
J_A_B
-
NO
-
Hi all,
While I understand the reasons why inoperative guns on the ground for buffs was introduced I now tend to think that they should be re enabled. This was originally brought in before we had bomber hangers etc to destroy and IMO falls into the same catagory as the Ack not being in the rebuild time after a field is captured. (Something else I think which should be changed). If you want to stop people using bombers as GV's destroy the Bomber Hangers.
JMO
TTFN
snafu
-
I would have maybe considered it before they hardened the hangars, but now I say no. Disable bombs on the ground too.
-
Disable bombs and guns on the ground. If you are flying like a bomber, you don't need either when you take-off.
If you are flying like a dweeb, then you need both.
Simple.
-
NO ackstars. Period.
MiG
-
Why in the world would you need buff guns before you even departed your field ? Tell me you're not taking off in bombers from vulched fields .
-
I would support this as long as you could not turn your bomber into a GV. Perhaps if the on ground gunning would only work from a base held by your country. This would prevent people from landing and doing taxi damage at a enemy base, factory, etc.
ATC
(http://www.damned.org/images/ddemo1.gif)
-
No way and please deactivate the B26 forward firing gunpack while on the ground.
And the ability to drop bombs while on the ground too.
------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?
-
agree with sunchaser. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
but its hardly a problem for me.If you allow a b26 to roll and shoot troops youre not capping properly or with enough friends
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Hazed
3./JG2 (http://members.home.net/winyah999/3jg2.htm)
-
want guns in the ground? Take an M16!
-
Cite realism in regards to bombs (not) being able to be dropped from the ground, then gameplay for gunners not being able to fire from the ground?
The consistancy is mind boggling.
AKDejaVu
-
AK, bite me.
First, this is an arena where field capture is based on bringing ten little soldiers into one building; realism has little to do with it.
Second, both positions are consitent from a "pro-realism" perspective anyway.
Here's your "gameplay" perspective:
Bombs should be dropped hot from bombers on the ground because it's a great and fun defense against vulchers.
Guns on the ground should be enabled because it's fun to sit in the planes and shoot stuff down.
The counterargument is pretty strong:
In a game based on flying planes any activity that encourages planes to stay on the ground is counterproductive. Period.
Now for realism:
Yes, you could run the guns on the ground IRL, and there are accounts of people doing it. But most fields had anti-aircraft guns that were a helluva lot cheaper to build and replace, and the overwhelming majority of aircraft kills occured from fixed AA guns, not from Johnny CMH running to a B17 full of fuel and bombs and firing at strafing aircraft.
IRL, when a plane is strafed to the point of destruction, it doesn't come back immediately, fully armed.
enabling guns on the ground allows players to use bombers primarily as ground-based anti-aircraft batteries, something that from a perspective that looks for realism is completely absurd. 10 .50 cal guns cost way less than one b17g.
and IRL, bomber crews did not often blow themselves to hell in the hope that they might catch one or two enemy fighters in the blast. Sorry.
Anything that encourages using bombers as ground-based defense systems is wrong from both a gameplay and a realism point of view. The damn thing has wings, it should have to fly.
-
Dinger,
You are trying to argue for things that make it easier to vulch a base.. pure and simple.
The same concepts that are used to prevent ground vehicles from spawning (that can bomb instantly) can be applied to prevent bombers and fighters from spawning.
Basically, people are arguing that its too difficult to take the hangars down and prevent the spawning... end of story.
Of course, they also gain a great advantage by being able to capture a field with hangars in tact (instant use). So.. you want things made as difficult as possible on the defenders while minimizing the work required to capture a base and maximizing the rewards.
I see.
Once again...
The consistancy is mind boggling.
AKDejaVu
-
AK, Vulching involves planes flying and shooting stuff on the ground. You're suggesting the best solution to vulching is to allow planes on the ground to form first-line air defenses. Were you even around when the buff guns were enabled on the ground? YEeee-haw, that was cool. Tons of B17s parked ont he ground shooting at people. Tons of people diving in to kill b17s. Guess what, it doesn't abate vulching, it only makes it last longer and be even more absurd.
Your argument makes no sense from either a realism or a gameplay point of view. Again, the idiocy is mind-boggling.
-
How many B-17 gunners ran to their B-17's to man their guns when the Japanese Zero's and Val's attacked Pearl Harbour?
Im sure its standard military doctrine to get on your bomber's guns when they on the ground the moment enemy AC attack the field... in the twilight zone.
-
Originally posted by Tac:
How many B-17 gunners ran to their B-17's to man their guns when the Japanese Zero's and Val's attacked Pearl Harbour?
Im sure its standard military doctrine to get on your bomber's guns when they on the ground the moment enemy AC attack the field... in the twilight zone.
The B-17's there were not armed at that time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
It was common practice in England to man the guns when situation called for it...
take for exampe the Roc/Skua dive bomber (or the Defiant turrented fighter) they were considered a better ground based AAA stations
then aircraft (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
DejaVu you dont know what you say, bombs had little wind up propeller fuzes that only armed/exploded the bomb after a certain time dropping from the bomber. They were never set to arm after dropping 5feet. On a point of realism and logic exactly how many bomber crews immedialy wanted to drop their bombload on the ground while they were in the plane? Honestly you must really be trying to be an amazinhunk if you dont see how this is unrealistic? Are you an amazinhunk DejaVu?
-
Grunherz, he's not saying it's unrealistic. He's launching an ad hominem circumstantial attack, suppressing evidence, throwing in the straw man fallacy along with a toejamload of red herrings, that runs like this:
Some people argue against car-bombing, claiming it's unrealistic.
Those people also argue against guns on the ground, claiming it hurts gameplay.
IRL, guns could work on the ground, therefore, it is realistic that guns can work on the ground.
Thus those holding both positions are hypocrites, and the opposites should be conceded.
That is roadkill.
Straw man: those who are in favor of guns off on the ground argue for the position on grounds of gameplay alone, and those against carbombing argue realism.
roadkill.
Strong arguments can be made both from the POV of gameplay, and the POV of realism. And I'm sorry. Sure, bomber guns were manned during some low-level attacks on bases, but when those guys got killed, they didn't magically reappear.
ad hominem: even if the persons holding the argument were hypocrites, it wouldn't matter. What matters is the strength of the argument, dweeb, not the person making it. If that were the case, I'd ignore everything ever said by any assimilationist idiot who put squadron letters at the beginning of his name.
Red herrings: this isn't a discussion about vulching. period.
this isn't about how hard it is to take down a hanger.
Finally, you're begging the question: would allowing these idiotic aberrations reduce vulching?
Hell no! Rather, it'd prolong the festivities! It'd be easier to kill troops, and a vulchcap would be less secure, meaning more kills for everyone, and less air combat.
-
"It was common practice in England to man the guns when situation called for it"
You GOTTA be kidding me.
-
It was common practice in England to man the guns when situation called for it
Bollocks. They would head for the nearest shelter as soon as the air raid siren was sounded.
What use would .303s be compared to the large bore AAA?
-
TAC,
LOL, I agree (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) BTW, bombing/gunning while taxiing is the mother of all BS. Good troll.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 05-03-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Tac:
"It was common practice in England to man the guns when situation called for it"
You GOTTA be kidding me.
No one said anything about no stinking Tigers.
Sorry first thing when a field was under atack pilots and crews did not run to man their bomber guns, they ran for a shelter. Whoever thought this thread up, please read a book on "Holy toejam those are fighters, man the guns IN THE BOMBERS"
------------------
(http://members.home.net/cgoolsby6/sachs1.jpg)
Verkaaft's mei Gwand `I foahr in himmel!
Sell my clothes I am going to Heaven!
[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 05-03-2001).]
-
Dinger,
Its not roadkill. Its not for the sake of gameplay.
The only reason to disable bombs on the ground is to make it easier for someone to drive an M-3 up to the bunker, in plain view, and unload his troops.... PERIOD. To use realism as a defense for making this possible is hypocrytical.
The means to disable guns and bombs at a field are already available (hangars for guns and bunkers for bombs). Anyone arguing for the bomb issue is really only trying to make things easier for themselves. Ammo bunkers don't take squat to down... and they stay down for 30 minutes. The game itself alots for the prevention of either tactics.. its the players that don't seem to understand that.
So, argue for realism when it suits your preferences... or argue for gameplay when it suits your preferences. Just don't forget that you are flip-flopping because it suits your needs.
AKDejaVu
-
Notice the seperation? Good little boys. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
That was a reference to the Skua and Defiant, in context that they were not the norm all throughout England, but with those particular planes that was common place.
Just how many deep pen strafing runs did the LW make on US aerodromes after the BoB? Discounting the rather rare Ju88 low level raids...
silly silly people.
-
Now you're just nugatory, AKD. Your position is already refuted, and you just restate it as if it were a counter argument.
-
Hi Yo Sil-l-l-l-v-v-v-e-e-e-e-r-r-r-r-!
Selective Realism Rides Again!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
"I want 100% TOTAL REALISM!!!!"
("Except of course for this ONE thing!")
("Well, and ONE OTHER thing, too!")
("And we can't forget THIS, either.")
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I dunno guys, if we didn't already have the ability to stop it ourselves by taking down the hangars and the ordinance, I would say you have a point, but.........
Since we do have the ability, even with MG's to take down ammo bunkers, there by rendering bombs inoperable at that field, then I guess we have the tools at hand to stop it ourselves. It seems HT already provided us with the means to stop Car-Bombing. My only question is this.......Why aren't we using those means??
I think Car-Bombing sucks as much as anyone, but we do already possess the capability to stop it ourselves.
Cobra