Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuku on January 09, 2001, 10:14:00 PM
-
As a private pilot, I was on a cross-country over the weekend and realized that the one thing that scares me more than engine failure is *getting lost* (which subsequently leads to fuel exhaustion and THEN engine failure (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
In Aces High, both the radar and navigation are perfect. You know exactly where the enemy is, and exactly where you are, and thus exactly which way to go to intercept. Bombers can make beelines straight for their targets.
People have squeaked before about the perfect radar. Now, what if we removed the perfect navigation? How would you intercept a lone bomber showing up on radar if you were not quite sure of *your* position? After a wild dogfight, how would you know which way to go home? After climbing to 25k for the past 30 minutes, could you be absolutely sure you know which heading to take that would put your right over the enemy HQ?
Radar in WW2 was actually pretty damn accurate (it even gave altitude, which would *really* make people squeak if it were implemented in AH). Navigation was not nearly so good.
Does anyone think things would get more interesting (and challenging) if perfect navigation were removed in lieu of removing the perfect radar? There are definite challenges in navigating in by pilotage in AH's terrain, as it lacks useful things like rivers, roads, railways, cities, and lakes; but maybe it would be an incentive for HiTech to put them in?
-
In answer to your question, no. Leave the fediddleing radar alone. If you don't want it, don't use it.
Second point, tis better to land before you exhaust all fuel in the plane. That way you have some choice as to a go around and to move to a different area.
Mav
-
its a lost cause nuku.
people like you and me find that stuff fascinating cuz we experience it first hand by flying real planes.
the gamers that enjoy such nuances play fs2k and other civilian sims and most of those individuals are real pilots or aspire to be real pilots.
the people that play this game are an odd bunch.
they want realism but they dont care to be bothered by any concern a real ww2 fighter pilot faced other than getting hit by enemy bullets or being outmaneuvered by an enemy airplane and then getting hit by said bullets.
they cringe at the thought of actually having to look at their compass (which confusingly rotates backwards btw).
they demand Global Positioning System moving map directional navigation with TCAS and all the bells and whistles magically apearing on a clipboard.
Search and destroy?
BAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH LMAO!
they want destroy! and destroy now!
not in 5 minutes or 15 minutes!
they want to know the exact position of the bad guys within inches, how many friendly and enemies so they can find a lopsided battle and gangbang enemy planes.
there is no such thing as looking for the enemy. sectors are so small that it is guaranteed you will find an enemy in a sector 100% of the time even if they are out of radar range.
they dont like surprises.
they dont like hunting.
they want blood and they want it instantly.
navigation? smavigation. this is 2001 we have GPS now to hell with navigation they say.
aquisition? crapuisition. I dont wanna look for the bad guys. I want full knowledge of the movements of every enemy player at all times. the fog of war only delays the time between me incinerating dweebs with my f4u1c and taking off.
these people have no patience for even atempting such feats as navigation, hunting and aquiring the enemy or identifying the enemy (hence in flight awacs and icons) and then navigating home. it just does not interest them in the least bar a few fanatics who like you most likely fly for real or have insight into the factors that affected these ww2 pilots.
I hope that will change one day when there is enough players to have a decent recreation of a ww2 theatre but it remains quite doubtful.
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
In answer to your question, no. Leave the fediddleing radar alone. If you don't want it, don't use it.
Mav
I didn't say take out the radar. "lieu" means "instead of". I was curious if anyone felt it would be interesting to leave "the fediddleing radar alone", but take away "the fediddleing airplane icon" that shows you exactly where you are on the map.
Strato-field rapists typically hit autopilot, go watch a half-hour sitcom (or do some laundry), come back, and then navigate perfectly right to the target. I figured *without* the plane icon showing your position accurately, these guys would have a harder time navigating to target (a typical problem for high altitude bombers). They'd have to WORK constantly during that LONG climbout to keep track of position.
As for those who like sneaking about, and want radar downgraded, I disagree, and think that even WW2 era radar WILL see you accurately. With the nav icon gone, however, the *intereceptors* will have a harder time finding the buff for the kill without GCI (Ground Control Intercept).
With the introduction of carriers, I would think imprecise positioning would more accurately portray the half-blind groping done by Japanese and American carrier task forces in the wide open Pacific.
Oooh... that's scary actually: trying to get back to your carrier by dead-reckoning, with nothing but the featureless ocean below.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001006.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001006.html)
this might be a halfway point but again appears to be falling on deaf ears. The worst commentary is none at all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
There is yet another side effect of Perfect Navigation / Perfect Radar: No way a country with 10-15% less numbers can achieve anything against any superior attacker. No surprise, no sneak attacks, no intelligence to counter the use brute force.
Without this (inflight) radar setup, a country with less people, but with a guy in the tower coordinating defense, and vectoring planes, could make the deal in defense task, and even in attack role.
I know the horse is dead, buried and not more than a skeleton right now, but I am all for suppressing inflight last generation avionics. This is not Falcon 4.0. I want reckon, I want spotting, I want navigation, I want land support, I want radar vectoring, I want...
Cheers,
Pepe
-
And, in answer to your questino, yes, Nuku, I think yours is a very good point.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
I think the system is fine. I'm not even sure I like removing the bar when someone is running on the deck. Your right about the radar in WWII. My grandfather was an electrician and installed radar on ships. He (and others) would even be flown out into the pacific in planes with blacked out windows to the location of a damaged ship so they wouldn't know where it was if they were captured. The reason I don't like removing the bar from low flying aircraft is this. Ships radar got very good after 1942. A ship was able to target it's guns on an other ship using only radar. This means that a relatively low target could be spotted with enough accuracy to bombard. That means a ships radar could spot low flying aircraft. I can't say exactly how low but The mast on a BB might stand approximately 100ft off the water. So I would think that at minimum anything flying at 75-100ft could be spotted on radar. Now land targets would be different. Hills and valleys would play a major part in that. Just a thought. I would like to add that I agree with a lot of what Citabria says. Like the commercial says "Instant, total, gratification." I don't think that the game is set up at the moment to handle navigation in that since right now. There just aren't enough land marks I think. LOL I'll just keep editing as I think of stuff. I do think you could navigate as the map stands actually. After thinking about it. I read Greg Bouyintons book. He had some very interesting navigational experiences in his career. Great book, nothing at all like the silly TV show (I loved that show as a kid. Looking at it now and after reading his book it's an "Oh no").
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
Good point nuku.
Not all are as bad as Citabria paints it. However I don't see it changeing any time soon. If for no other reason, how do you explain to someone on his first day in Aces High where he is?
Until we have a much larger customer base & more than one arena populated 24/7 I don't see it happening.
-
Despite Citabria's disparaging characterization of AH players, there are many who would be pleased with more realism and challenge. However, the MA will probably always need "crutches" that make it possible for the new, or casual, player to enjoy the game. Maybe we'll someday see scenarios or separate arenas that require more realistic navigation.
-
50% of the training required in the real life VMF-323 squadron (and all other flight groups of the various branches) was navigation.
However, Popeye hits the head of the nail.
-
And a very small part of RL training for Italian WW2 fighter pilots was on navigation.
I say we leave it as is!
Dinger
4^ Stormo CT
(Actually, I'd love to see the AWACS disabled in flight, and the option of disabling the GPS at least for scenarios. One strong argument against disabling GPS that I've seen is that AH's terrain just doesn't have that many landmarks. Anyway, most AH pilots can't even find their compass)
-
Cause Popeye is wise. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I too would like more realism. Icons, radar and navigation are all on my list. But I am aware that the MA needs to be a middle of the road environment because it is where the new people come in and flex thier muscles. If they can't, they leave before they can learn the ropes. And that doesn't do anyone any good.
Westy
-
Old pilot here Cit.... now I only fly if theres a meal served.... like the idea of losing plane icon.... Once the gear goes up of corse... also collisions once gear goes up....
doc
[This message has been edited by maddog (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
Losing your plane icon at take off is verrrrry interesting idea... if you don't navigate properly... the radar data won't mean anything to you. God forbid... you might actually have to chart a course! Interesting idea... or maybe... you lose plane icon on map outside a certain range from friendly airfields.
I disagree that you can't conduct surprise attacks though.
I kind of like hearing bandit calls. Wouldn't mind no radar in flight... but radar in a certain room where people could relay the bandit calls to air born pilots.
Who knows though... gotta rely on their judgment here and I can't say I'm not OK with the way things are now.
-
Interesting idea, but I don't think there are enough distinguishing landmarks or terrain variations to allow navigation. If there were cities that could be distinguishable, or if the clipboard map was topographic, maybe. but, with the limitations of a computer monitor and the clipboard map, it would probably be a bit much.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
(http://www.luftjagerkorps.com/images/logo.gif)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
Ahem,
I am here to play a game. If I want realism I go to the airport and fly my plane for real. This is a game and the "little nuances" that people clammor for in the quest for "realism" are mostly there. you just have to decide to either use them or not use the "crutch" as Cit calls it.
Make whatever disparaging remarks you want. There is always the option to ignore the clipboard if you do not like radar. Please do not try to decrease the options available for other players who are interested in playing and not "realism in a game".
PS I saw that radar has been modified. A b17 was heading to the HQ and was not on radar once it got past 25k alt. The sector bar was there but the radar even in an airfield sector did not show the buff. Look for more low earth orbit buffs to be in the arena. Not only do they get laser like accuracy on the bombing run, 30mm guns for defense(in the case of US buffs), ability to out turn fighters above 27k but now they have stealth technology.
More power to the buffs.
Mav
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
I am here to play a game. If I want realism I go to the airport and fly my plane for real.
I hear "Crimson Skies" is pretty good as a game with planes in it too.
Many other games are very exciting without perfect nav/radar. Quake, Half-life, and Rogue Spear for example. Quake and Half-life offer neither maps nor positions of people. Rogue Spear has perfect navigation, and partial spotting, but is still a real tense FPS to play. The lack of perfect positional/adversial awareness has had little impact on the popularity and fun of those games.
I don't think I once mentioned the main arena in my posts. There are some seriously handicapped pilots in there: I know for a fact that more than one newbie wasn't even sure which way to pull the stick to climb (I was very surprised: a very large percentage of the general population envision the joystick control as an absolute one. Up (forward) is "go up", and down (back) is "go down"). Really! Grab your non-aviation friend [you have friends, right?] and sit him/her down at your favorite PC-sim and ask them to climb or descend.
I'm fully aware of the past arguments about radar. I just wanted to open a discussion on another facet (navigation), not the main-arena settings, per se.
For historical re-enactments like Guadalcanal or Midway, where both forces were groping in the dark for each other [I'll kindly make sure you aren't ever sent an invitation], navigation becomes a major factor (you could miss the other fleet or not get home; CAP would be less interested in pursuing your poor little TBF 25nm for fear of losing their way back to their carrier).
I just want to shed light on this facet of AH and make folks go ("hmmm...")
-
smell my fart>!@
radar no, radar punt this!!
Leave it alone..it makes sense if you think about it.
LaVa
-
I say take out the GPS locator on aircraft leave only the sector bars .I remember in beta it was nerve racking and it kept me on my toes always maintaining SA scanning for bogeys. As is right now I only need to look at the clipboard see if the con appears in the map as non friendly or in the case of being above enemy territory see if there are friendlies in the clipboard around and engage. The element of surprise is non existent except for instantaneous bomber raids.
Regarding FPS like Rogue Spears it is true you have some surprise when you encounter the enemy not knowing where they are adds excitement to the game and makes them even more enjoyable,this would also make CAPs necessary,for example you may know there's a large enemy force over your country but you do not know their exact target so you set up a CAP over the most valuable assets the country may have , but right now if we see an enemy lonely dot above our territory it is most likely a bomber or a group of them so we know their exact location and can move around the formation until we reach their alt.
Mayhem yes it is absurd bombers outmaneuvering fighters at 27k.
------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
(http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/glasses.htm)
-
Originally posted by LJK Raubvogel:
Interesting idea, but I don't think there are enough distinguishing landmarks or terrain variations to allow navigation. If there were cities that could be distinguishable, or if the clipboard map was topographic, maybe. but, with the limitations of a computer monitor and the clipboard map, it would probably be a bit much.
I've flown bomber sorties in WarBirds using only a paper map. Actually that's not true, with the flight leader using only a paper map would be more true, the rest of us just kept formation and looked out for enemy aircraft. Made things a bit more fun.
It's really quite nice when your home base appears out of the fog exactly where you were expecting it after an hour or more of flying with the target sucessfully leveled =)
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Great idea Nuku.
However, in the Main Arena it is good to leave it as it is currently. But for scenarios, it would be nice to have a host option to disable the GPS. As we know, the radar can already be disabled by the CMs.
Jigster, good stuff in your range finder thread as well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Camo
------------------
Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
www.muodos.fi/LLv34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34)
Brewster into AH!
"The really good pilots use their superior judgement to keep them out of situations
where they might be required to demonstrate their superior skill."
-
A first step?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001020.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001020.html)
-
Man have we all gotten soft. I remember when Aces High was first going beta, when radar came up on the message board most everyone seemed against inflight radar. I flew too much in the warbirds HA to think that the current radar situation is as good as it can get.
...and as far as having to spoon feed the newbies, I remember when I first started playing warbirds in the fall of '98, there were 200+ people in the main arena, (there's no in-flight dar there) everyone seemed ok with it to me.
I'm sorry, but not knowing exactly where the bad guy is is half the fun. Most people who don't agree with that probably...
A. have never done it and are too scared/lazy to try it or..
B. are too skeerd to stand up and speak their mind.
Mav, I thought you were an army guy, are you that soft?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by hblair (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Hblair,
I am an Army guy and a motorcycle police guy, retired in both.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this GAME. As I said before, I am here to play a game. The object of this game is combat, whether it is naval, air 2 air or air to ground. If I want to practice navigation I'll go fly for real or play (shudder) MS flight sim 50000000 or whatever it is up to now.
Another point I made before was that this can be done by any player simply by not bringing out their clipboard. If they want to do without radar, or any navaids then they can do so without changing the game for anyone else.
This game "ain't broke" in these "suggestions for realism" and doesn't need fixing, as these "fixes" won't enhance game play. This has been the point of what I have been trying to say all along.
PS us Army guys start to laugh when we hear about the Air Force "roughing it".
Mav
-
Maverick you dont want realism?
I do want realism.(to a certain extent)
you pay i pay.
now explain to me why you should get what you want over what i want?
If you say you want to just kill stuff why dont you go fly somewhere else? theres loads of online sims for arcade type stuff.I dont mind the radar as it is apart from its perfect right to the ground.I think very low flying aircraft should be able to avoid radar.As to navigating realisticly? mmm not really interested,but if i was shot up and lost my radar/compass/whatever then thats fine by me ill on rare occasions face a new challenge.
From what ive read of your posts tonight(your reply to my post was simply 'yawn') you seem quite arrogant in your views and you dismiss other peoples ideas/suggestions with some venom...strangly enough much like any other pi...i mean policeman ive met.
military policeman? says it all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
hazed 3./JG2
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Hazed,
I guess the appropriate bbs style reply to your post would be bite me.
I wasn't Military Police except for about 8 to 10 months. I was Armor for 23 years.
I was Civilian Police until disabled in the line of duty.
What did you do for your community or country that you feel privileged to denigrate my careers?
What I have been saying all along is leave the game parameters alone. If you don't want dar or a map, don't use it. Just leave it for those who do want it.
Mav
-
Mav ,im sorry to hear you were disabled in the line of duty and im not trying to denigrate your careers(?).I was merely making a joke about military police which you have expertly made look like an attack on a disabled person.<S>
Well I am in a wheelchair myself from a motorcycle accident when i was 18 so please dont use this tactic on me.I have never felt the need to mention this fact about myself and i fail to see the relevance of our physical states (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Lets sheathe our swords and shake eh?
hazed
p.s. I stand by my statement that most(!) police ive met are bastards (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and from what ive heard military are twice as bad ! now that was another joke before it all flies up again!this has got far too serious!
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
The radar in WWII (on non radar equipped planes) was used to vector aircraft into the target. You would obviously show up on the radar but you only had the map in your plane to go by if you even had a map. Taking your dot off the map would simulate that nicely. I do think those very new to the game might get discouraged. I was a fanatic about realism but the edge is wearing down a little. I don't want the computer to spray flaming oil at me any more. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) But I like the idea of playing with adding more reality to the game. I don't want it to get out of the realm of fun though. I think as in AW there could be a "relaxed realism arena" and a "full realism arena." Leave the RR arena basically where it is now. In the FR we could play with adding these ideas. There have been a lot of neat ideas people have come up with that the more hard core would like to try. I can live with patching as we go to get some of these things.
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-15-2001).]