Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: AKP on November 12, 2011, 04:56:55 PM
-
Lately there have been a lot of posts asking for things to make the game "more real". Things like, no icons... killshooter off... friendly collisions on... removal of F3 mode in certain planes... damaged instruments... random system failure... and the list goes on and on.
For those wishing for these things... I can understand your points... and why you are asking. You want a totally immersive experience playing Aces High. You want to really feel like you are flying in real combat.
On the other hand... there are those that ask for things like AI gunners for bombers, F3 for all planes, targeting systems, repair during rearm, and other things to make the game "easier" and more arcade like.
What I think we should all remember is that in all things there needs to be balance. Personally, I think the HTC Staff does a pretty good job of this. They have some customers that are purists and realists. They have some that come from the PS3 and XBOX generations, and they have some that fall in the middle. To take the main arenas too far to one side or the other is risking losing paying customers that dont want to spend their money playing in that extreme environment... no matter which way it goes. And it is the combined income from ALL the paying customers that keeps Aces High going.
To move too far into "realism" will make this a game for only those who want it that way... and make the learning curve even steeper than it is now. This will not only drive away current customers, but prevent new ones from coming in.
To take it too far away from realism, will drive away the "purists"... and those who want as real a WW2 combat experience as they can get. More, and possibly younger players may join... but lets face it... there are already games out there that have these features, and they are better looking in terms of effects and graphics. What sets AH apart... in MY opinion... is it's community, and the dedication of its staff.
Many of these things can be done now with the Custom Arenas. For those that want it... they are perfect places to test your theories, and see if others want to play the game that way too.
So for what my opinion is worth... if it is worth anything... I think we have things pretty darn good. Ultimately HTC is going to decide what is best for their business... but I dont see them ever taking things too far in one direction and risk losing money. Remember... its a game to us... but its their jobs, and how they make their livings.
Should any of us stop wishing for things? No... we should not. Because occasionally... just occasionally, one gets through and gets implemented. And that makes the 174035 Posts and 9688 Topics currently in the wishlist worth reading.
-
Baloon Wars! :banana:
-
You know he's trying to get in good with Santa this year...
-
You know he's trying to get in good with Santa this year...
Damn... I'm busted! :D
-
I've got that covered. While santa is busy modeling my present, I've taken the liberty to send Santa and all his elves a small cargo plane filled with assorted alcahols. Chilled in the fridgid 30,000 ft enviornment on its way to thier toy factory in Texas.
I would recomend the blackberry wine, and some of the local micro-brews as you're starter :D.
-
I've got that covered. While santa is busy modeling my present, I've taken the liberty to send Santa and all his elves a small cargo plane filled with assorted alcahols. Chilled in the fridgid 30,000 ft enviornment on its way to thier toy factory in Texas.
I would recomend the blackberry wine, and some of the local micro-brews as you're starter :D.
I would recommend one of these three things:
1. Never typing again
2. Use a browser with spell check
3. Um uh.. Oops :D
-
:aok Well put AKP!
Especially, the emphasis on balance and providing customers a product they enjoy. For instance, a damage model including instruments, adds immersive fun and realism, but at what cost? HTC, has a good track record by me. :aok I will take the goodies they have in store for us and like a :x child on Christmas eve, am eagerly anticipating what I might find under the AH2 tree.
So dear SAHnta.......
There are milk and cookies on the table. Please check my list and I understand if you were not able to bring them all to me, because you had so many lists to read this year.
ChiLLi :salute
-
With different arenas, you could do both (arcade arena and realism arena). Air Warrior had higher and lower-realism areas for the different types of players. I'm not sure if that would be worth it for Aces High. It might result in one arena that isn't used, or worse yet (from my perspective), we could find that the bulk of the player base likes an arcade-like environment the best, and the realistic arena could wither. Better to have one like we have today that for that to happen, in my opinion.
Another way to do it is to have relaxed realism result in lesser performance (like turning on the stall limiter -- it's easier, but turning it off allows you to push certain edges of the flight envelope more). That only works for some things, though, of course, mainly things that affect how you operate the aircraft (like stall limiter or engine controls). That's a good way to go for such things -- you don't need separate arenas for it.
-
More sheep :old:
-
question to the op, how would adding things that could be damaged affect the balance in any manner? not random failures, just things that could get damaged from gun fire.
-
Howz about a "Higher level Arena" for people who have played a certain amount of time? So when you've got so many kills/etc/hours in flight you are moved to it automatically.
Those who want to move to it early, have to be nominated by atleast 5 people or something.
Oldies are good to keep around, but its healthier for the community if they don't interfere too much with groups of new players (who need to build and assert their own culture/etc).
-
question to the op, how would adding things that could be damaged affect the balance in any manner? not random failures, just things that could get damaged from gun fire.
My personal opinion is that I would like to see more of a "progressive" damage system. As in... a damaged rudder that is less effective but still there, along with the possibility of a rudder that is completely gone. Think of it as each component having a certain number of damage points. Lets say a rudder has 10. The more points of damage it takes, the harder it is to maneuver with... until it takes 10 or more and its gone. Not sure if this is even possible, or feasible in AH. But that is an aspect of realism that I think would enhance the game... not hurt it.
But to answer your question more directly... I was really just using damaged instrumentation as an example. I dont really have an opinion on that. It's just one of the posts that caught my eye that deal with realism. Would it suck to have your gauges shot out? Yes. Would it take away from the enjoyment of the game? Not sure.
-
Howz about a "Higher level Arena" for people who have played a certain amount of time? So when you've got so many kills/etc/hours in flight you are moved to it automatically.
Those who want to move to it early, have to be nominated by atleast 5 people or something.
Oldies are good to keep around, but its healthier for the community if they don't interfere too much with groups of new players (who need to build and assert their own culture/etc).
Not sure about any type of nomination or requirements to play in an arena. That could promote an elitist atmosphere which could divide the community more that it is now. But... a "hardcore" arena... open to any who want to play in it might not be bad. However... you have that option now with the custom arenas. Set up an arena with killshooter off, collisions on, no icons, bases that take more troops to capture, stall limiter off, etc... Then get people to fly in it. If you can fill it with 16 people day in and day out for a month... and have people complaining that its full and they cant get in, or they set up 5 or 6 like that.... it would seem to me you have made a case to HTC that there is a desire for a new main arena to be set up that way.
As for an "arcade" type arena... we kindof already have one with the DA and the ability for all planes to have F3 mode. It has a solid following but doesnt overshadow the mains. There are some that dont use F3 while in it, and there are some that use nothing but F3 while they are in it.
-
My personal opinion is that I would like to see more of a "progressive" damage system. As in... a damaged rudder that is less effective but still there, along with the possibility of a rudder that is completely gone. Think of it as each component having a certain number of damage points. Lets say a rudder has 10. The more points of damage it takes, the harder it is to maneuver with... until it takes 10 or more and its gone. Not sure if this is even possible, or feasible in AH. But that is an aspect of realism that I think would enhance the game... not hurt it.
But to answer your question more directly... I was really just using damaged instrumentation as an example. I dont really have an opinion on that. It's just one of the posts that caught my eye that deal with realism. Would it suck to have your gauges shot out? Yes. Would it take away from the enjoyment of the game? Not sure.
ok, i was just wondering why you mentioned the damaged gauges. i don't personally think it would be any different than the canopy getting splashed with oil every single time the engine gets hit. would be a bit of a challenge trying to rtb with the altimeter or air speed indicator inoperable, but no worse than having a pilot wound.
a progressive damage system would be nice to have depending on how it was implemented. how does htc determine component damage/failure now, is it damage points or something else?
-
Oldies are good to keep around, but its healthier for the community if they don't interfere too much with groups of new players (who need to build and assert their own culture/etc).
:lol
Hmm it sounds as if somebody wants to hold the conch.
(http://www.horrorphile.net/images/lord-of-the-flies-savage-boys1.jpg)
-
ok, i was just wondering why you mentioned the damaged gauges. i don't personally think it would be any different than the canopy getting splashed with oil every single time the engine gets hit. would be a bit of a challenge trying to rtb with the altimeter or air speed indicator inoperable, but no worse than having a pilot wound.
a progressive damage system would be nice to have depending on how it was implemented. how does htc determine component damage/failure now, is it damage points or something else?
Wasn't HTC supposed to be using the WWI damage system as a test bed that would be implemented into WWII? Call me crazy, but it seems to have been pushed to the wayside for the moment. :headscratch:
:lol
Hmm it sounds as if somebody wants to hold the conch.
(http://www.horrorphile.net/images/lord-of-the-flies-savage-boys1.jpg)
That's funny. :lol :aok
-
Yea, cool reference bro. :aok
"That could promote an elitist atmosphere which could divide the community more that it is now"
Atleast that elitist atmosphere wouldn't degrade the newbie community as much as it is now if we had a system like that. Elitist people need to feel like they are special and have stuff set apart for them "only", so it gives the newbies what they want and allows the elitists to enjoy their squalour :lol
-
I'm trying to understand the mindset of some pilots who campaign for realism in flight, gunnery, and damage modeling yet they rarely fly with the same realism they demand from the sim.
-
Most who argue for realism either argue for things that aren't actually realistic (most engine management requests) or are selectively realistic.
-
Hitech told me what to do for more 'realism' once. Strangely I can't get my room that hot or that cold and I'm not going to sit on a 55 gallon can of av gas and light the fuse if I get shot down. :devil
-
Hitech told me what to do for more 'realism' once. Strangely I can't get my room that hot or that cold and I'm not going to sit on a 55 gallon can of av gas and light the fuse if I get shot down. :devil
:rofl :rofl
Yeah, when I bail out the wife makes me stand in the corner for 20 minutes. She also gets quite aggravated when I pee in my flight suit during long hops.
-
Atleast that elitist atmosphere wouldn't degrade the newbie community as much as it is now if we had a system like that. Elitist people need to feel like they are special and have stuff set apart for them "only", so it gives the newbies what they want and allows the elitists to enjoy their squalour :lol
Actually I think the veteran players are quite helpful to new players for the most part. You will always have a certain amount of hazing... just the nature of gaming and sport. Especially when you add a military twist to it.
But yes.. there are some who are just "iceholes". They will always be iceholes, doesnt matter if you are new or not.... because that is just their nature. Squelch is a wonderful tool. :D
-
You can add realism on your own...
Open all of the windows and turn off the heat in winter, or strip naked and turn the A/C down to the coldest temperature with a fan blowing on you. That might give you some idea as to the temperature inside an aircraft at high altitude.
Drink a 2 liter bottle of water before you play, that way you can simulate the need to pee during long missions.
Don't get up from your seat, no matter what.
To simulate g forces, get someone in need of diet to sit on your lap when you maneuver your fighter.
Inasmuch as you really don't experience fear in the game, hire a programmer to write a script that reformats your hard drive in the event of your cartoon death.
You can do all of this and more and HTC can concentrate their resources on adding to the game.
-
I've been around for over 10 years, which would most likely qualify me to the "Higher level arena". The problem is, I still can't fly or fight. And I know there are pilots who do better than I have ever done right from the start. So, instead of getting my moments of success with some new guy, I'd end up being the boring easy kill for the elite. Yippee ki-yay :huh
-
Inasmuch as you really don't experience fear in the game, hire a programmer to write a script that reformats your hard drive in the event of your cartoon death.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I'm against anything that might help split the community any more than it is already. HTC has to walk a very thin line when it comes to this question. On one hand they have to asked themselves "will this idea add anything to the game?", on the other hand they have to ask themselves "how will this effect the community, and with that the subscriptions?"
The gauges idea was mentioned. To me,will it add anything to the game? No. I've played long enough that I can tell with in a few MPH how fast my plane is, alt is only a comparison between you and the "other guy", or the ground. To a new guy, well it may mean alot and take away from the fun NOT knowing those things that are instinctive to a long time player. He's playing at a disadvantage already (skill wise) lets make him blind too :rolleyes: So no I don't think damaged gauges would be worth the time and effort, nor would it really add anything to the game. The only chance it has is if Hiteck thinks it's "cool".
The same goes for a lot of other ideas. Strat is a great game function, but it can't be too debilitating because it take away the "fun" for one team. If you take away the fun from one team those players are either going to switch side (wouldn't it be great if we were ALL on the same team!!! We could roll the map in an hour!!), or they would get fed up and cancel their subscriptions (a big no-no as far as HTC is concerned).
I think the "suggestions" thread is a good idea as it gives people a place to add input, as well as giving HTC a place to get ideas. What may start out as a really stupid suggestion may turn into a good idea once tweaked a whole lot.
-
The "perfect balance" is in the eye of the beholder, really. There is no such thing. Anything other than the hard stats of the aircraft and gv's are completely arbitrary. I understand the supposed desire to usher players towards combat, but with the radar bars and allied "dots" given it cant really be any more obvious as to where to find a battle. My biggest issue is that HTC has kept the exact same values on some otherwise very arbitrary settings.
There are a lot of small things that HTC could do that would add immersion that would not take away "game play". I'll touch on a few-
Why does it take the same amount of ordnance to destroy a reinforced concrete ammo bunker as compared to plywood built barracks??? Why does a very large bomber hanger take the same amount of ordnance to destroy as the 1/10th the size VH??? Radars mast should almost be immune to AP rounds. Why are there not about 4-5 different hardness setting for town buildings? Having to take 312 lbs of ordnance to destroy each and every town building makes for a lot of questions. The smaller town buildings should be easier to destroy and the larger buildings should be more difficult, logical reasoning yes?
In the case of the icon debate, I think the 6000 yard aircraft icon is fine in terms of friendly/foe, however for the icon to identify exactly what it is being seen is a bit much. Think about it, 6000 yards away and we can tell if it is a Spitfire, TBM, 109, F4U, A6M, or Yak. At 6000 yards away the human eye can barely see the dot let alone any contours or other identifying markings, etc. Granted the communications radio chatter would be alive and that would help identify friend or foe before any markings would be seen, but still. If HTC went to a icon of "1ENG" (for 1 engine), "2ENG", and so forth then we'd still get the friend/for at 6000 yards, but not the total gimme AH currently has. At 2000-3000 yards or so then perhaps switch the icon to the identifier icon.
With regards to the icon ranges for GV's, I'd like to see HTC go to a very generic icon and have the ranges reduced. Even more so than the air to air 6000 yard identifier, the 2000 air to ground icon identifier should be reduced in 2 ways, imo. First, reduce it down to from 2000 yards to 1200-1500 yards. Then, add in a generic identifier for all "tanks" with an absolute identifier of the exact tank model at a range of 400-600 yards. It would be similar to the M3 we currently have, it could be the transport, the TD, or the M16 variant. We only know it is the M16 at a reduced range and that is good (I dont remember the range in which the M16 is separated from the M3). Now do that will all gv's, separate them in to 2 initial categories: tracked or wheeled.
F3 mode should not be applied to a class of aircraft like it currently is to the bombers (anything that can be scored as "bomber" automatically gets F3 ability). That system is no different than saying "all cows have 4 legs", which anyone with any knowledge of wildlife knows that is simply not true. The F3 mode would be far better served if it was applied a set of criteria based on gunner positions, number of engines, or what ever. Someone explain the reasoning behind the Mossi B Mk 16 having F3 view, the Mossi FB Mk 6 not having it, and the Bf110 not having it. The Mossi variants have the exact same visual ability and the 110 has a rear gunner. I applauded very loudly when HTC removed the F3 capability from the IL-2, but with that move it appears that the F3 view is solely tied to the bomber class because of how it was coded and not some criteria. What a shame. I hope this is an issue HTC continues to deal with because rubber stamping is not good.
Another immersion factor that could be added is a tiered ordnance system. Since the 100-250 lb class of bombs are not used at all, or at best very rarely, why not allow those small ordnance to be available all the time? First ord bunker down = no 1000 lb and bigger bombs available (including torps). Second ord bunker = no 500 lb bombs or rockets available. 3rd bunker = no further effect. 4th = no ordnance available. Small fields would always have ordnance, and the large fields would probably have ordnance available always as well because who is going to spend the extra time to remove the 100-250 lb ord ability when they could instead go after another target? For fuel, add another penalty tier, the %75 is hardly an afterthought for players so there is really no benefit in even attacking fuel tanks. Barracks??? The all or none is another area in which HTC could make more dynamic and improve immersion. First, give the C47 the ultimate in troop carrying ability. Give it 16 or more troops (it could actually carry 28). The LVT2 could carry 18 troops, so why not give it 12 in AH? The M3 carried 10 troops in the real deal and also in AH, a good fit. The SdKfz 251 according to 1 source says 10 passenger and another says 12. So 10 is also a good fit. The jeep can carry 3 troops, seems logical. So where is the immersion factor in asking for more troops to be carried??? More MG fire at the map room. If the C47 can drop off 16+ paras, then a simple burst to get 1 para from a defender wont stop the capture. If an LVT can carry 14+ marines, then a simple burst from a defender or the lone fighter racing to the rescue wont save the day. The M3 and 251 wont change and neither will the jeep. Also, if there is a tiered troops delivery system, then there is room to add in a tiered penalty system to destroyed barracks.
... wow... I'll stop there. :aok
-
i've been playing this game for three years or so,WHY can't people just like this game as it is,they ask for more realism,getting blood all over my canopy seems pretty real to me as a game--esp the longer you fly the more u pass out..the fuel and oil leak streaming out of the plane seems real esp when you run out fuel or your engine locks up--and if you hit buttons ctrl+d tells you what damage your plane has suffered.instruments--lets see-if u look outside of canopy you can see the ground and guess how high u r.speed--if u r damaged u r not probably going as fast now as u were.and depending on distance u probably won't make it anyway. or a red dot will finish you off.we had tues night titanic for a long time,then all of a sudden people started gripping about it,for one reason or another.it went away.then they tried an off hours arena.the help the european and asia players due to time zone.poof it went away.now we have a 24-7 ma that can hold at least 600 players..htc is making improvements all the time,they r thinking about making improvement's all the time hence{wish wist} i like the game the way it is.as long as we keep playing this game improvements will be made as nessacery.there may come a time when htc will get tired of hearing all the gripes and complaints.close up shop..you know that everyone at htc is smart enough AND has the talent to get any job they want in the computer and electronics world any time they want.if there is a wish to be made--it should be a few new maps added to the rotation.and a arena for just the upper crust super pilots and gv'ers is a very bad idea<---gv'ers because u can't have one without the other--and i would guess it would be a very boring place to be.my thoughts only have a nice day>
-
ahaaaa want a realism problem--just occured to me,yours or his/her's parachutes open eveytime--you can jump out of your plane 100--1000 times--or hech for ever and your parachute will open every single cotten picken time.what r the odds that there where never any parachute failures in WWII allied or axis--and i don't think the japaneese used chutes.i think it would have been very low--but personally go down with my ship 99.99% of the time anyway..i think it would be funny has hel.just because this is a game<---off to the wishlist. :salute
-
and i don't think the japaneese used chutes.i think it would have been very low--off to the wish list. :salute
They were supposed to, but some didn't carry them in order to lighten the aircraft even more. It was against orders when they did that though. Japanese command recognized that retaining some of its trained men was more important than hewing to the most extreme Bushido stuff.
-
With regards to the icon ranges for GV's, I'd like to see HTC go to a very generic icon and have the ranges reduced. Even more so than the air to air 6000 yard identifier, the 2000 air to ground icon identifier should be reduced in 2 ways, imo. First, reduce it down to from 2000 yards to 1200-1500 yards.
it already is 1500 yds for gv's.
and 6000 yds is 3.4 miles.
-
For the repair on refuel part... Yeah, that might work.. But for the realism part the repairs should take about as long as they would in real life.. Or atleast longer time the more badly beat up your ride is, make you really have to want it badly.. Not just a bonus part on refuel..
-
i don't think a gv'er should be able to see the enemy gv's icon,it would take the supprise factor completey out of the game.and turn gv'ing very boring..leave them as they are.that would be like playin a console game and having the cheat code for invincabilty.who wants that.besides you can read who killed you and respawn and go afer him/her.
-
it already is 1500 yds for gv's.
and 6000 yds is 3.4 miles.
Yes, my bad. I didnt proof read before posting (the icon range is always rounded up to the next set value). When the icon says 600 that means the target is between 400 and 600 yards, etc. The air to ground icon range is 1500 yards (1.5k represented). I say to reduce it to 1000 yards and then minimize the info. The 1000 yard "TRK" (for treads), or "WHL" (for wheels) icon for all things gv and then an actual vehicle identifier icon (M4, PNTHR, M3, M8, etc) at a much closer range. Too much is given under the current settings. There is no challenge to figure out where and what the gv's are.
and yes 6000 yards is 3.4 miles, no argument there. Point being?
-
Yes, my bad. I didnt proof read before posting (the icon range is always rounded up to the next set value). When the icon says 600 that means the target is between 400 and 600 yards, etc. The air to ground icon range is 1500 yards (1.5k represented). I say to reduce it to 1000 yards and then minimize the info. The 1000 yard "TRK" (for treads), or "WHL" (for wheels) icon for all things gv and then an actual vehicle identifier icon (M4, PNTHR, M3, M8, etc) at a much closer range. Too much is given under the current settings. There is no challenge to figure out where and what the gv's are.
Only so long as the icons are also reduced to 1000 yards for friendly aircraft as well. Being drug over an AA vehicle you can't see but the guy you are tailing can magically see from 6000 yards away isn't nice.
-
Only so long as the icons are also reduced to 1000 yards for friendly aircraft as well. Being drug over an AA vehicle you can't see but the guy you are tailing can magically see from 6000 yards away isn't nice.
The thing about friendly icons is that they can be represented by radio chatter, that is the only reason I dont really contest the friendly air to ground icon range. For enemy air to ground icons, being able to see a camo'd tank amonst trees, etc, at 1500 yards is a bit much, imo.
-
That's a very convenient double standard that benefits GV play and hurts air play, by the way.
Ground troops radioing in positions, friendly tanks telling air support where AA is located, etc, are just as likely (if not MORE so!) to be communicated via radio.
-
More sheep :old:
More??? How about some... I haven't see any since Steve left the game. Perhaps they were all his....
-
They are now. I think he just stole 'em, though!
-
I really wish they would do a graduated damage model as well. It seems to me it could be done with no more information going up or downstream to the server, just using what is already being passed back and forth in a different way.
Your control surface's effectiveness would be related to what percentage of hitpoints it had left. 10% HP left on your rudder? 10% rudder authority. 60% of your wingroot's HP left? You can only pull 60% of max G-load before the wing rips. Also could only dive up to 60% of failure speed or the wing rips off.
I think that would add a lot to the game, because being shot up some would have more of an impact on your flying. I know for myself, if I'm rtbing because I'm 'soft' but nothing has fallen off yet, and I see someone in need of help low and slow, I have no problems helping, because even though I took several enemy hits, I'm still fully combat effective taking a shot at a guy who is targetlocked on a friendly. Wouldn't it be a big improvement if my right wing had nearly been sawed off, I would have to keep it below 2 Gs and 350mph, or my wing is coming off?
It would add a level of realism to dealing with a slightly shot-up plane that I believe would greatly improve the experience.
I just can't see a reason for arguing against more granularity in the damage model. In my ideal world, they would feed a down-to-the-rivet Solidworks file of each plane into the program, and bullets would deform the metal like it should, and whatever was damaged would affect the flight of the plane. Once we have a couple thousand times the computing power and network bandwidth of today, that might become a reality.
With what we've got now though, I think graduated damage would be viable. Maybe change the damage screen to show 10% increments so you'd have an idea where you're at.
Wiley.
-
I'd like to see the improved damage model (WW1) on all planes as well. However, it was stated (at the last CON i believe) that it is not feasible due to the increase in traffic. I can't find anything in the forums but I'll keep looking.
-
I think if you get killed and could not play anymore we'd have a better turnover rate and new blood in the game.
-
The thing about friendly icons is that they can be represented by radio chatter, that is the only reason I dont really contest the friendly air to ground icon range. For enemy air to ground icons, being able to see a camo'd tank amonst trees, etc, at 1500 yards is a bit much, imo.
I know of no radio communication that could, even today, allow Frank to so precisely locate George's tank from the air, three miles away.
-
BOB: "Frank the tank you are looking for (George) is about five miles away between a red barn and a windmill"
FRANK: "Roger Bob, I'll look for the red barn when I crest the next hill"
BOB: "Roger"
FRANK: "I've crested the hill and see the red barn"
BOB: "Roger, I'll paint the target for you"
FRANK: "Roger target sighted, commencing run"
BOB: "Roger good hunting"
GEORGE: on channel 200 "Flippin Bombt####s ruining a good GV battle"
Photo of Bob
(http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/lldr/assets/lldr.jpg)
So I can see how a radio can be instrumental to precision spotting in the combat field today, maybe not 60 years ago, but certainly today.
-
I know of no radio communication that could, even today, allow Frank to so precisely locate George's tank from the air, three miles away.
You say that as if you think seeing something 3 miles away is difficult. When's the last time you had your vision checked? :D
Hey, Baumer, where do you think they perfected that? Close support in WW2! Some of the F4Us perfected this method and they even put colored fabric on the ground to help the planes ID which was friendly and which was enemy positions, etc. Many jabo aircraft had 2 sets of radios, one for air to air and one for air to ground communication. Many tank commanders had ground to air radios to coordinate multiple pronged attacks. And yes, this was in WW2, not 2011.
It's not so novel as you think. We've certainly refined the practice of it and the efficiency of it, but it's been happening for a long time.
-
That's a very convenient double standard that benefits GV play and hurts air play, by the way.
Ground troops radioing in positions, friendly tanks telling air support where AA is located, etc, are just as likely (if not MORE so!) to be communicated via radio.
But exact location is harder to convey through words. "Oh, hes about 1000yds ahead of me, and slightly to the left" viewed from 4000ft isn't that specific. What you hear next is "oh what the hell man! you said he was 1000yds infront of you, not 1500!" as the pilot viloently tries to dodge 20mm shells.
-
That's a nonsensical comment.
the same could just as easily be said of hitting roadkill while driving down a freeway, or looking over your shoulder while flying a plane.
Again, it's a very convenient double standard that GV proponents love to request or perpetuate. It doesn't help gameplay and only hurts others. Basically it's moving step by step closer to a AH arena where GVs are invisible and invincible but can kill anything in the skies for miles. If they have their way, that is.
-
Auxillary Airfields only visible on your country for emergency landings or to be able to refuel say to 25% to get you home would be nice.
-
Auxillary Airfields only visible on your country for emergency landings or to be able to refuel say to 25% to get you home would be nice.
of course and also have the ability to repair your airplane and replace the wounded pilot :D.
semp
-
I propose we have a totally new damage repair system. Not only would it repair all leaks, damage, oil, and refill all your guns and bombs, but it would tie the bombs/guns/gas loadouts to what's available at the field you're hotpadding (I know this part has been requested a lot!). Once on the hotpad, you would activate this command in 2 parts. The first is .ef, and the second is .fly, both executed through the text command buffer.
I heard rumors that HTC snuck this into the game already... can somebody confirm the next time they need repairs? :noid
-
Oh, and EF = "Extreme Fix" mode. Makes your view jump until you type .fly but you can just pretend you're waiting for the fix before getting back in with the .fly.
-
What, no powerups?? what a gyp :D
-
That's a nonsensical comment.
the same could just as easily be said of hitting roadkill while driving down a freeway, or looking over your shoulder while flying a plane.
Again, it's a very convenient double standard that GV proponents love to request or perpetuate. It doesn't help gameplay and only hurts others. Basically it's moving step by step closer to a AH arena where GVs are invisible and invincible but can kill anything in the skies for miles. If they have their way, that is.
How is that nonsensical? It followed logicly from the quote. Now the "hitting roadkill and looking over your shoulder" part.... now thats nonsensical.
Lol, yeah, no benefit at all to the cover actually becoming cover :rolleyes:. God forbid that I should be invisible from the air when I'm in a stand of trees so thick, I can't even see the sky.
IMO, GV's should have icons visible only to friendlies (clearly possible, since you can only see friendly GV icons when in a GV). If it weren't for the obvious difficulty with identification of friend/foe, I would say no GV icons for aircraft, even friendly.
The ONLY thing thats changed, is that killing GV's from the air actually requires some thought and planning besides "red icon...... *bomb release noises*". If you want to have a modern IFF system.... well then that gives us the perfect reason to add recon planes. If one is in the area, he could serve as an AWACS. Perhaps if he is within 1.5k of a GV, and you're within 2-3k of him, then the icon becomes visible to you.
Double standard my arse.
-
George, Bob and Frank role play.
Right, but I was speaking of George who is in a AA platform talking to Frank who has a Spitfire hot on his bellybutton after lots of maneuvering when George tells Frank, "Drag the Spit over me, I'll get him off you." How is Frank supposed to, in the heat of the moment, know exactly where George is? In AH he does, due to the icon and the GVers want even the short ranged icon that Charlie, the guy in the Spit, gets, but not the long ranged friendly icon Frank gets, so he has no warning at all, just a face full of 20mm while Frank can unerringly lead Charlie over the Wirbelwind.