Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Karnak on December 18, 2011, 05:22:14 PM
-
I would like to see it changed so that only aircraft can get a "You have landed successfully" message from ending a sortie on a runway, GVs doing so would get a "You have ditched" message. GVs, in order to dissuade the practice of using a heavy tank sitting on the v base's concrete and towering out the moment a shell gets close or using an AA vehicle and towering out before the bombs land, should have to drive back into their hangar or to be further than something like 4500 yards from an enemy in order to get a "You have landed successfully" message. Obviously aircraft should not be able to taxi into a VH and land successfully either. The Storch would be the one exception, being able to use either landing spot.
-
Big HELL no. It would only further encourage defenders to up aircraft instead of using the hanger spawn for its intended purpose. If they lose their base, they have to drive upwards of an hour and a half just to land.
-
Big HELL no. It would only further encourage defenders to up aircraft instead of using the hanger spawn for its intended purpose. If they lose their base, they have to drive upwards of an hour and a half just to land.
No, they would simply land in the remains of their hangar.
In case you hadn't noticed, the game is taking some massive tilts towards both the defender and favoring GVs. Some push back is in order and the towering out while on concrete is a prime target.
-
whats so bad about landing on the runway? your still on the base, so it really shouldnt matter.
-1
-
I'm confused, you're not being very clear.
so your requirments for landing would be:
1) GV's must be in the hanger of a friendly field to land
2) no enemies can be within 4500yds to land
3) if your base is captured while defending, you can land in the smoking ruins of the enemy's hanger
:headscratch:
While I agree the defenders need to lose some of the advantage, I don't think we should make them drive longer than some people can be on line just to land.
To improve GV's offensive ability, we NEED (as of the most recent patch):
1) longer ranged AA. If an A/C wants you dead, then you're arse is grass, no ifs ands or buts about it.
2) an effective way for GV's to shut down the hangers without being within both within close proximity to the base and out in the open.
or 3) perk prices balanced to include the threat of air attack
-
.nvm
-
whats so bad about landing on the runway? your still on the base, so it really shouldnt matter.
-1
Because it allows the AA vehicle to sit there and shoot down airplanes and then tower out the moment bombs are heading for it. It also allows very expensive and powerful perk tanks to be used essentially risk free while the attacker has to make due with much less capable cheap or free tanks.
In addition, aircraft have a narrowly defined space on which they can end their sortie successfully, being off in the grass does not work. Ground vehicles are able to be maneuvered with much greater ease and precision, easily enabling them to enter a vehicle hangar, or the remains of a destroyed vehicle hangar, in order to end their sortie successfully.
The primary goal is to stop the safespot campers from having a safespot from which they can actually fight.
1) GV's must be in the hanger of a friendly field to land
They would be able to successfully end their sortie in that location regardless of how close any enemy is.
2) no enemies can be within 4500yds to land
I believe the rule right now is no enemy within 6000 yards.
3) if your base is captured while defending, you can land in the smoking ruins of the enemy's hanger
No, if your vehicle hangar is destroyed you can still use it to land regardless of how close an enemy is. Landing successfully in enemy territory requires you, as now, to have a certain separation from any enemy, I am suggesting lowering it to 4500 yards.
1) longer ranged AA. If an A/C wants you dead, then you're arse is grass, no ifs ands or buts about it.
That is greatly or entirely remedied in the coming patch.
2) an effective way for GV's to shut down the hangers without being within both within close proximity to the base and out in the open.
Denying the defender the ability to fight from a spot on which they can successfully end their sortie would help.
3) perk prices balanced to include the threat of air attack
They already are balanced that way, and the threat of successful air attack is being greatly reduced.
-
OK, I see what you were saying. I though you meant that both of those requirments had to be met (that you both need to be in the hanger AND further than 4500yds from any enemys to land), not one or the other depending on circumstance.
As to the need for longer ranged AA...... we'll see. My bet is that they'll be harder to detect, but that GV's (especially perked GV's, like the Panther and Tiger II) will still be just as vulnerable once they're detected and marked (with the Storch's smoke).
Denying them the concrete camping-ground would help, but only to a limited degree. Panthers are imune to return fire to a large degree, and Tiger II's are completly imune. I am (or was, used to be?) one of the better GV'ers in the game, and I wouldn't be too keen on facing a panther even off the concrete. A Tiger II and I wouldn't even bother trying dislodge, since if hes determined to hold his ground, even a diciplined group would be hard pressed to make him move.
As for the perk price, it doesn't seem to be so. If it were adjusted well, we wouldn't be so afraid to take our Panthers and Tiger II's out of friendly territory.
-
As for the perk price, it doesn't seem to be so. If it were adjusted well, we wouldn't be so afraid to take our Panthers and Tiger II's out of friendly territory.
I disagree. I think that the fact the option to keep them on the concrete is distorting people's expectations. They have K/D ratios similar to the Me262 and Tempest, and both of those get used and lost. The biggest problem that needs a solution is that using them offensively is a do or die proposition as, unlike said Me262 or Tempest, they cannot currently withdraw.
-
+1
This kinda goes along with my thread about the Wirble and the ungodly amounts of fire they can put out nonstop. Im all for preventing that "oh i dont want to die, so i sit on concrete to tower before you can kill me" bs. Fight the good fight!
-
Jager, Karnak isnt asking for GV offensive ability.
Hes asking for ending the cowardice.
Tiger2 sitting on the concrete and towering out when the first panzer4f round hits him shukes.
.
-
I cannot fault the motivation for this.
I think it would be more preferential (not to say easier to implement) to just add a 30 sec delay on the "end flight" command for GV's.
Like wise I would like a 30 sec delay between the taking of vehicle supplies and the implementation of repair.
-
Proximity to a Storch should probably not count for a successful ending of a sortie.
-
The idea bears some mulling over, but my thought is to see what the upcoming update does to what is now primarily defensive GV gameplay. Most GV'ers won't roll off of their own concrete to fight, let alone roll to an enemy field to attack.
-
The idea bears some mulling over, but my thought is to see what the upcoming update does to what is now primarily defensive GV gameplay. Most GV'ers won't roll off of their own concrete to fight, let alone roll to an enemy field to attack.
most friendly gv's I see are off headed to the spawn, to camp.
I am one of the only ones who sits back at the base usually.
-
The idea bears some mulling over, but my thought is to see what the upcoming update does to what is now primarily defensive GV gameplay. Most GV'ers won't roll off of their own concrete to fight, let alone roll to an enemy field to attack.
It's because most people have no clue how to use vehicles, same with aircraft - most fly a P51D or Fw190d9 because they know no better, or have any ACM period, same with upping a king Tiger they feel secure sitting on concrete and not moving, this should be changed. However adding a time limit to landing wouldn't be one of them, what if you are in a rush to land due to unforseen circumstances?
-
most friendly gv's I see are off headed to the spawn, to camp.
I am one of the only ones who sits back at the base usually.
So if you attack an enemy Vbase, you're saying that there are almost never defenders?
-
It's because most people have no clue how to use vehicles, same with aircraft - most fly a P51D or Fw190d9 because they know no better, or have any ACM period, same with upping a king Tiger they feel secure sitting on concrete and not moving, this should be changed. However adding a time limit to landing wouldn't be one of them, what if you are in a rush to land due to unforseen circumstances?
Honestly Butcher you'd surprised at the perk vehicles and planes that I have bailed out of. My philosophy is always if you can't afford to lose the perkies, don't up it. Of course I understand that others do not want to give up those perkies. I am cool with that as each can play the game how they see fit. I said the idea has some merit, but not in it's current form. Needs some tweeks. I am all for anything that pushes folks towards an offensive GV mindset. More fun for everyone I say. :aok
-
most friendly gv's I see are off headed to the spawn, to camp.
I am one of the only ones who sits back at the base usually.
I'm guessing you've never had an air attack then, when 15+ Wirbles sit on the concrete and "land succesfully" when they hear bombs coming their way..... :noid
-
I disagree. I think that the fact the option to keep them on the concrete is distorting people's expectations. They have K/D ratios similar to the Me262 and Tempest, and both of those get used and lost. The biggest problem that needs a solution is that using them offensively is a do or die proposition as, unlike said Me262 or Tempest, they cannot currently withdraw.
They can't 'withdraw' from aircraft either way. At minimum, they'll have a speed deficite of around 90mph, and thats compared to the Storch.
Firefly is killed by aircraft a little under 16% of the time overall
Panther is killed by aircraft a little under 25% of the time overall
Tiger I is killed by aircraft a little under 20% of the time overall
Tiger II is killed by aircraft almost 1/3rd of the time overall
How often do you think people are attacking enemy fields with these vehicles? I would say probably a little under 25% of the time, yet its probably not unreasonable to assume that over 2/3rds of the deaths while attacking a base come from aircraft. We'll have to wait and see how the new view range works, but I would guess it only delays the death of the GV, rather than preventing it.
Beyond that, the Tiger II's relatively high death to aircraft would indicate a lack of a proper counter. We need something like the Nashorn or Jagdpanther to give players a cheap way to kill Tiger II's from reasonable range, so they don't imediatly have to call for air support.
IMO, the idea of a perk tank is that if you're good enough, you won't be killed in the fight except by another perk tank of roughly equal value. The aircraft don't let that happen unless you concrete camp. Stronger AA or it won't change.
-
I'm guessing you've never had an air attack then, when 15+ Wirbles sit on the concrete and "land succesfully" when they hear bombs coming their way..... :noid
i'm one of them... ostwind tho, not wirb.
if people want easy gv kills, they can go kill gv's off the base, not on concrete... if you want the base, put your bombs on the hangars. thats how I see it at least. however, I think most people want easy kills by dropping 1000lb eggs on stationary vehicles. thats when I .ef - no soup for you!
I've also spawned 262's on runways where active vulch was going on, watching the horde of vulchers spin around tripping over their own d**** for the easy kill, then .ef .... the challenge for me was waiting till they were close enough to start firing to make em waste some ammo.
IMO, nobody owes anyone a kill. you might as well force people to spawn at a camped hangar or spawn, or up a plane on a vulched runway. if towering out was no longer available, I wouldn't up. so where does that leave everyone. I refuse to reward what I personally consider lame play.
-
They can't 'withdraw' from aircraft either way. At minimum, they'll have a speed deficite of around 90mph, and thats compared to the Storch.
Firefly is killed by aircraft a little under 16% of the time overall
Panther is killed by aircraft a little under 25% of the time overall
Tiger I is killed by aircraft a little under 20% of the time overall
Tiger II is killed by aircraft almost 1/3rd of the time overall
How often do you think people are attacking enemy fields with these vehicles? I would say probably a little under 25% of the time, yet its probably not unreasonable to assume that over 2/3rds of the deaths while attacking a base come from aircraft. We'll have to wait and see how the new view range works, but I would guess it only delays the death of the GV, rather than preventing it.
Beyond that, the Tiger II's relatively high death to aircraft would indicate a lack of a proper counter. We need something like the Nashorn or Jagdpanther to give players a cheap way to kill Tiger II's from reasonable range, so they don't imediatly have to call for air support.
IMO, the idea of a perk tank is that if you're good enough, you won't be killed in the fight except by another perk tank of roughly equal value. The aircraft don't let that happen unless you concrete camp. Stronger AA or it won't change.
Notice how the harder a tank is to kill by other tanks the higher the percentage of losses it has to aircraft. I don't think your stats are saying what you think they are. I think they are saying some tanks are so hard to kill with other tanks that aircraft make up a larger percentage of their killers. All your conclusions that follow your first misreading of the data are therefor erroneous.
i'm one of them... ostwind tho, not wirb.
if people want easy gv kills, they can go kill gv's off the base, not on concrete... if you want the base, put your bombs on the hangars. thats how I see it at least. however, I think most people want easy kills by dropping 1000lb eggs on stationary vehicles. thats when I .ef - no soup for you!
I've also spawned 262's on runways where active vulch was going on, watching the horde of vulchers spin around tripping over their own d**** for the easy kill, then .ef .... the challenge for me was waiting till they were close enough to start firing to make em waste some ammo.
IMO, nobody owes anyone a kill. you might as well force people to spawn at a camped hangar or spawn, or up a plane on a vulched runway. if towering out was no longer available, I wouldn't up. so where does that leave everyone. I refuse to reward what I personally consider lame play.
You are in error. Using an AA vehicle to kill fighters involved in an air-to-air fight and then .efing the moment you are in danger of actually losing is total cheese and is a pathetic behavior.
-
Not nessicarily. The Firefly isn't really a good indicator since they're both rare and soft. Any GV but the M4(75) can kill it if not easily than at least without undue difficulty. I'm sure if they lived longer, or were more prevelent, we would see increased losses to aircraft. Same with the Tiger I and Panther, that one was a bit supprising to me. Sure the Panther has better armor on the glacis, but it has more weak spots, and can't use angling to increase its armor. Tiger I has a higher potential, but just takes more to squeeze that preformance out IMO.
Of course thats from the perspective of an expierenced tanker.
And bear in mind that these are TOTAL numbers, not just on offensive opperations. For the KT, its probably up closer to 75% of deaths to A/C, Tiger I is probably closer to 60%, panther maybe up near 70%, and the firefly.... well the firefly is probably up around 40-50%.
Without the data for 'tanks killed in enemy territory' we can't even accurately say which tanks are killed by aircraft most often in which circumstances, all we will see is the total numbers, which of course will lead us to a skewed conclusion if we use them.
-
You rather missed my point.
The fact that the Firefly is rare only means the statistics on it have a greater margin of error. If all tanks were equally killable, their death percentages to aircraft would all be close to the same, varying tour to tour. The fact that the comparatively squishy Firefly has such a low comparative loss rate to aircraft means it must be losing more elsewhere, particularly when you factor in that it is easier to kill with aircraft.
The reason the Tigers and Panther, particularly the Tiger II, have such a high death percentage to aircraft is because they have such a low death percentage to tanks. It isn't that aircraft are killing them in droves and driving up the percentage that die to aircraft it is that tanks are failing to kill them in droves and thus by their lack of success, making the deaths to aircraft a comparatively higher percentage of the total deaths for the Tigers and Panther. Your error is to see those percentages and interpret them as an indication that aircraft are killing them in droves.
Tour 142:
Tiger II: Kills: 3411 Deaths: 362 K/D Ratio: 9.40
Panther G: Kills: 18155 Deaths: 3977 K/D Ratio: 4.56
Tiger I: Kills: 3910 Deaths: 1205 K/D Ratio: 3.24
As a comparison, the best aircraft results:
Me262: Kills: 3199 Deaths: 485 K/D Ratio: 6.58
Tempest Mk V: Kills: 1949 Deaths: 329 K/D Ratio: 5.91
Nothing is killing any of those five units in droves, particularly not the Tiger II.
The wildcard here is, of course, the concrete sitting and what effect that has on K/D ratios.
-
Thats sorta my point with the 'lack of offensive action stats' thing. Really, the only way to ensure they aren't camping the spawn or concrete camping is if they're attacking, so we would want to use the 'killed on enemy territory' numbers if such stats were available.
I guarantee you the vast majority of Tiger II's killed by GV's are killed while in a TT fight, or at a busy spawn fight, not while they're being used as anchors for a defense line, or concrete camping, or even when they're attacking. In all those instances, the Tiger II is (or should be) part of a coordinated group that would make flanking it out (the only way to do it) much more difficult.
But regardless, our GV's shouldn't be physicly incapable of making an attack on an enemy base without 6 wirbles for every 1 tank of theirs (even then the wirbs don't even stand a good chance at preventing someone from bombing, let alone forcibly stoping a bomb attack. All they do is stop straffers and make the bombers think twice).
Thats my point with the need for better AA (as of the most recent patch at any rate, we'll still have to see how the new view ranges affect things). For GV's to have potential as offensive weapons without the need for the field to be incapable of even trying to stop them, we need something like a spawnable, player controlled FlaK 36. It wouldn't even be all that unbalancing, since it will (or should) be easily killed by even a D3A, difficult to hit a manuvering target. Also, no proxy shells, you'll have to set the range by hand.
-
I think you are grossly exaggerating the situation. If it were as you say tanks would be killed far more often by aircraft than they are. They are going to be harder to kill in the next version.
Basically, you seem to want GVs to be immune to aircraft while being able to swat them at will.
-
To quote one of my favorite sardonic BBS members, 'I think you are grossly exaggerating the situation'.
Since this is a game, and couldn't be called historicaly accurate by any strech of the imagination, tanks should have a 50/50 chance of making it to the target if theres AA present, even if that wasn't the case in WWII. Whats the point of using a tank if you'll just get bombed after firing off maybe 1/2 a dozen rounds if you're lucky? And the '88 would hardly be as a great broom, sweeping all aircraft from the sky. Even manned 5" (which has proxy fuzes, and over twice the bursting charge of an 88mm round, IIRC) isn't all that effective against targets much above 7k, and I say that from the possition of flying into it.
You seem to have no first hand expierence of how difficult it can be to keep a perk tank alive when attacking an airfield. Infact, its impossible at times. You yourself have absoluetly ZERO controll over whether you live or die when it comes to air attack. None, zero, zip. It all comes down to how good the flackers are, how well the pilot aims his bomb, and if he releases before the wirbs get him.
So explain to my why a 262 should have a better than 50/50 chance of flying to an enemy base that his side is attacking, participate in getting air superiority, and landing unscathed, when a GV of equivilent pricing can't do the same in an equivelent situation. Why should the GV have a tougher time of it? Why should it be HARDER for the GV to be usefull?
-
The problem of using a perk tank offensively basically ensuring its loss is a separate issue, and aircraft are not the cause of that. The cause is the overly difficult conditions needed to "land successfully". An Me262 or Tempest can quickly be back at a friendly base when they decide it is time to leave and save their perks, a Tiger cannot. For the Tiger it is a do or die attack and there needs to be a solution to it, but nothing I can think of seems viable or to actually solve that problem.
Options to assist the issue of using perk tanks offensively that I have thought of:
1) Reduce the 6000 yard range to 4500 or 3000 yards, requiring less separation in order to tower out. Make Fi156s not count at all for the proximity check.
2) Have a location perhaps 1000 yards behind the spawn point that is colored on the map but just looks like terrain on which ground vehicles can "land successfully" regardless of the proximity of an enemy.
3) Have a similar point, but instead have it teleport the tank to the nearest friendly base. (This is gamier than #2 but would prevent people from fighting from the safe spot.)
The problem is that none of those would work as long as the GV hangar is up. You'll never been able to turn a Tiger II around and retreat as long as M18s and T-34/85s are after you. Both can easily kill a Tiger II when shooting it in the ass.
-
From my expierence in game, the aircraft pose the bigger problem for withdrawing. If its just GV's, I'll make a fighting retreat, especially in the Tiger II, where I can reverse from cover to cover with absolute impunity from the front (unless theres another Tiger II out, in which case I'm screwed either way by just being overwhelmed while I'm busy killing it).
But if there are aircraft present, I'm essentially guaranteed a quick trip to the tower. I can't do anything about them, and even the people who can do SOMETHING about them can't even give me a 30% chance of surviving if he's hell-bent on killing me.
So yes, a 'landing pad' back of the spawn would help, the GV's are still restricted by their speed. For their speed to become a non-issue, they need to have a reasonable chance of surviving air attack. Thats the only way we could do it without creating issues elsewhere (e.g. campers being able to tower out at a spawn as soon as they see an aircraft coming).
-
But regardless, our GV's shouldn't be physicly incapable of making an attack on an enemy base without 6 wirbles for every 1 tank of theirs (even then the wirbs don't even stand a good chance at preventing someone from bombing, let alone forcibly stoping a bomb attack. All they do is stop straffers and make the bombers think twice).
Thats my point with the need for better AA (as of the most recent patch at any rate, we'll still have to see how the new view ranges affect things). For GV's to have potential as offensive weapons without the need for the field to be incapable of even trying to stop them, we need something like a spawnable, player controlled FlaK 36. It wouldn't even be all that unbalancing, since it will (or should) be easily killed by even a D3A, difficult to hit a manuvering target. Also, no proxy shells, you'll have to set the range by hand.
This makes me wonder, in all reality during the war, how much mobile AA was usually brought in a typical armored assault. Secondly, the type and efficency of repelling/destroying attacking enemy a/c. It's certainly my understanding that of course many factors play into it such as the capabilities of the AA vs. the capabilities of the attacking A/C, etc etc.
Plus for kicks, throw in a tad of realism, how many battles really had 6 wirbles to one tank? Especially with the highest number of them believed to be built is just over 100. So realistically, you're looking at more smaller-caliber fast firing/ slow-firing larger caliber AA as opposed to the more optimum in both worlds such as the Wirble.
Also exploits a key feature of warfare: Air Superiority. Without control of the skies, the ground battle is going to be severely hampered by the opposition.
So maybe instead of upping that mobile ack and sticking to that armored assault only, make sure you have friendly air support to stop the bomb tards :old:
-
If air superiority (which is what is required) has already been established, then the GV attack is pointless. Jabos would be more effective, since they can plaster the town and base, and then imediatly start achieving air superiority.
If we want to have the game so realisitc that air superiority is required to be succesfull, then we should have to put up with limited numbers of fighters per base as well.
-
If air superiority (which is what is required) has already been established, then the GV attack is pointless. Jabos would be more effective, since they can plaster the town and base, and then imediatly start achieving air superiority.
If we want to have the game so realisitc that air superiority is required to be succesfull, then we should have to put up with limited numbers of fighters per base as well.
This is true.
-
If air superiority (which is what is required) has already been established, then the GV attack is pointless. Jabos would be more effective, since they can plaster the town and base, and then imediatly start achieving air superiority.
If we want to have the game so realisitc that air superiority is required to be succesfull, then we should have to put up with limited numbers of fighters per base as well.
Its sort of paper/stone/scissors except we are missing the scissors content from the game play set up.
To capture we need infantry.
Enemy infantry is suppressed by freindly Armoured superiority.
Enemy Armour is suppressed by freindly Air (attack) superiority.
Enemy Air (attack) is suppressed by freindly Air (fighter) superiority.
But in game play our Armoured Superiority does not have to supress enemy infantry (there is no infantry) it just has to stay superior, kill buildings and release a token commando squad.
Both the latter can be done (in game) by air borne forces.
Indeed in game it is not uncommon to just remove armour by destroying a single object (GV Hanger)
Rather than limit air craft my view would be to promote the anti Infantry role to one that can only be carried out by Armour.
-
Rather than limit air craft my view would be to promote the anti Infantry role to one that can only be carried out by Armour.
:headscratch:
I think you are onto something... :old:
-
:headscratch:
I think you are on something... :old:
corrected...................
-
corrected...................
Thank you :D
-
Rather than limit air craft my view would be to promote the anti Infantry role to one that can only be carried out by Armour.
Holy crap, that actually might work! It actually might.
I mean you're right, the issue could be looked at as a lack of importance for GV's.
Perhaps require multiple sets of troops from C-47's, since (being paratroopers) they wouldn't have much of the heavy equipment that would be carried by a regular infintry platoon. About the most they would be carrying is mortars, which would be of limited use against dug-in troops.
Would take a little bit to find the proper balance, but it could work.
-
Well this has hi jacked the original thread...............
So to repeat the idea of something to remove the safety of instant de spawning Is a +1 in my book.
To up the armour v troop role one approach would be to change the capture model to one where troops have to occupy a set number of town buildings then make it so that only armour can see troop icons.
Releasing troops near a town cause them to occupy town buildings when sufficient town buildings are occupied by enemy troops then the town is ready for capture and subsequent troops run to the map room. One could even do away with the map room model and simply define capture as the point where a certain infantry dominance is achieved in town.
Blowing up a building with a trooper in it kills the trooper. (friendly or enemy)
New troops can still take up positions in destroyed buildings.
Armour can strafe buildings (destroyed or not) with troops in and kill the trooper with or without blowing the building up. Aircraft therefore must concentrate on addressing the balance of armour.
Troops running in range of buildings occupied by enemy troops get killed
What we then see is both side launching troops at a town to occupy buildings with armour best able to decide which side has infantry dominance.
The side that has armour supremacy controls infantry best.
Aircraft are less able to control infantry because they can be killing their own as easily as killing the enemy infantry (the classic WWII dilemma) because they cant see their icons.
minus points are awarded for friendly troop kills.
Non friendly troops only have an hour occupying enemy buildings before they are killed by locals