Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: pd37 on January 17, 2012, 05:29:14 PM
-
Was wondering what the motivation was to change the icon range for aircraft to see ground vehicles?
I will rant only a bit and then let the queston be answered.
The Strats where changed and that affected those of us who enjoyed Dive Bombing. Making it impossible to do any dive bombing other than hangars, targets shifted to GV's. Now, the icon range is being played with, and giving the gv's a more than fair advantage. If it is based on whether or not you can see a tank from 4500 feet, I can assure you it is not hard to do.
So What gives?
a bomb**** wants to know, lol
-
:x :x :x HiTech says ...no more bomb****s! :x Im Naked :O :x
-
In the Beta arena, I observed it at 600yds above ground level, which makes wirblwinds a terror now because if you are 800 feet up you can't see the icon.
I was messing around and sat a wirbl, which doesn't loose its icon range for planes.
-
Was wondering what the motivation was to change the icon range for aircraft to see ground vehicles?
I will rant only a bit and then let the queston be answered.
The Strats where changed and that affected those of us who enjoyed Dive Bombing. Making it impossible to do any dive bombing other than hangars, targets shifted to GV's. Now, the icon range is being played with, and giving the gv's a more than fair advantage. If it is based on whether or not you can see a tank from 4500 feet, I can assure you it is not hard to do.
So What gives?
a bomb**** wants to know, lol
I call BS there. If anything it will be somewhat fair now. The planes have had the upper hand for as long as I've been playing and I think it's great that HTC if finally doing something to address the issue, since tank bombing has gotten so out of control.
-
You can still see tanks/AA tracers, so it's not as "game-breaking" as you think it might be.
-
since tank bombing has gotten so out of control.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH
-
good change :aok
-
You can still see tanks/AA tracers, so it's not as "game-breaking" as you think it might be.
What he said.
Also, the range change is from 1500 to 1250 AND the Storch will have a gv icon visibility range of 3k so it may actually be worse for ground pounders.
On the plus side, if you're not moving or under cover there is no icon (I think).
wrongway
-
HTC doesn't give you anything to bomb...... So that means that its the GV'ers JOB to be targets for you? Sorry but your logic is off.
1) if you've ever played a tank, you know that when aircraft are present, they're the A number 1 threat to you. If you're in a high-perk tank, they're damn near the ONLY threat to you.
2) Icons are about as unrealistic as you can get. Yes, a group of moving GV's kicking up dust wouldn't hard to spot from the air, even when doing 350. But a single GV sitting still back in a stand of trees would never be spotted by a low alt fighter-bomber.
3) go bomb a base or a CV. Its what I use MY Ju-87 for.
-
If a rook is looking at a bish tank through a set of trees does the bish tank see the same trees when he is looking back at the rook tank? If not than trying to hide and fight in gv's is pretty moot anyway. If you are in the air just fly higher until you know you have a target. :airplane:
-
well I for one enjoy the close air support for friendly gv's that includes bombing tanks and the like who play(IMHO) dirty pool by spawn camping. Tank Ace, youare correct, I switched to gv's because I can fly to them from a near by base bomb and return. I could do that with the strats but htat changed and so did I. I concede your point in reference to a stationary vehicle. However, I also know that A LOT of tanks were busted by aircraft, and the ratio of aircraft downed by tracked AA is minute in comparison..
It has the apperance that HTC has played to the hand of complaints from GV'ers and weighed it heavier in their favor. As if a Tiger taking a 1000lbs to bust wasnt enough to help aut the perk users now they are going to make it impossible to see them.. like anything else, I will have to adapt.. Was just wondering what the motivation was..
<S> Fellas
-
Bombing a GV should have some risk...it appears that now there will be some.
-
I've been waiting for this "Rant" to be.
Everyone screams make it Real.....more realism! It's amazing how many stories I've read about WWII pilots AND their "Icons"! The ability to identify their targets because the targets were "Icon'ed". I also read how many pilots became so pssted because Command decided to reduce the Icon range (yes I'm being quite sarcastic!).
You want to play a game, then may I suggest "Go Buy One" and break out your Play Station. You want to play something a little more realistic, Welcome to HTC! NOW, you have to depend on ground control to take it to the bad guys on the ground..........JUST as it was in the day. They spot it, advise it, then YOU MUST spot it....and hope the hell you're not dropping on friendlies.........just as it was back then.
Your whine lacks.....both in taste, and in reality.
<S>
Rokit
-
I've been waiting for this "Rant" to be.
Everyone screams make it Real.....more realism! It's amazing how many stories I've read about WWII pilots AND their "Icons"! The ability to identify their targets because the targets were "Icon'ed". I also read how many pilots became so pssted because Command decided to reduce the Icon range (yes I'm being quite sarcastic!).
You want to play a game, then may I suggest "Go Buy One" and break out your Play Station. You want to play something a little more realistic, Welcome to HTC! NOW, you have to depend on ground control to take it to the bad guys on the ground..........JUST as it was in the day. They spot it, advise it, then YOU MUST spot it....and hope the hell you're not dropping on friendlies.........just as it was back then.
Your whine lacks.....both in taste, and in reality.
<S>
Rokit
You left out Blue on Blue incidents.
Anyway....
When I can tell a Rook T-34/85 from a Bish T34/85 and my depth perception suddenly begins to work on my monitor you can do away with icons.
Otherwise, I have no problems with the upcoming changes whatsoever.
wrongway
-
and my depth perception suddenly begins to work on my monitor you can do away with icons.
wrongway
Humans only have depth perception out to, IIRC, about 50ft. Beyond that our eyes are too close together to do much for us so we rely on other cues to gauge range.
That said, I see a lot better in reality than I do on my monitor.
-
Humans only have depth perception out to, IIRC, about 50ft. Beyond that our eyes are too close together to do much for us so we rely on other cues to gauge range.
That said, I see a lot better in reality than I do on my monitor.
OK.
I'm clueless. :joystick:
:aok
wrongway
-
I've been waiting for this "Rant" to be.
Reading the OP.. Looks a bit more like a simple and respectful question really. But hey, It's your 15 bucks <S> Tar
-
HTC doesn't give you anything to bomb...... So that means that its the GV'ers JOB to be targets for you? Sorry but your logic is off.
LOL. This is the stupidest repeat whine this game keeps coming out with. If you don't want to be bombed don't play a game with lots of planes with bombs on them. Simple really, every time someone whines like this it just gets worse because your tears feed the bomb****s.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Phatzo, you misunderstand. He's saying "no fair, GV's are there just to be bombed, since they took the strats away". I'm saying they're not, which is 100% correct.
And as to its being 'stupid', I just have to say that you bomb twits have it easy, and I mean REAL easy, compared to real life in WWII. If you get icons, the ability to use bombers out of their intended role, multiple bombers to control so you can screw up twice and still keep flying, no restrictions on what you do, then quit whining about the icon range being slightly reduced (and it is SLIGHTLY reduced).
But I do agree with AWwrgwy, that we shouldn't remove icons COMPLETLY since we can't see nearly as well in the game as we can in real life. But I still think that the ~1200yds is still pretty generous, I would say 1000yds is a good balance.
pd37, your bombs are more effective when they miss than they were in real life. HTC seems (based on in-game observations) to have given the bombs a set damage value, that decreases as the blast expands outward, untill it disipates to zero. Bombs either do damage to all targets (again, this is based off in-game observations) regardless of if they're armored or not, or penetrate any thickness of armor. They also seem to have given GV's a set damage threshold, which, upon being reached, kills them.
This means that a miss can still kill a tank because it happened to be within the radius of the blast where the damage done by the bomb is equal to or greater than the tank's damage threshold, even if a miss at that range in reall life wouldn't have destroyed a tank.
-
I want MOAR realism!
We must have the unreliable rushed into service Tiger's that at kursk that overheated and set themselves aflame!
Also I want the Panzers from Stalingrad that had no fuel, these will suit the camper as they spawn to a stand still.
/sarcasm
-
I think the range change is good. GV's can now hide. Personally, I don't think enemy GV's even need to show an icon.
We also have the Storch to help with spotting which will be interesting I think.
wtg HTC
-
I will throw some more wood on this fire. I think kill shooter should be on if a friendly drops on a friendly tank. I would rather have it where the friendly would kill the friendly if they accurately drop on them, but we all know how that would be abused.
The example of this is when an enemy and friendly tank are on different sides of a berm or building. This would require the friendly bomber to be a bit more careful in their drop. It would also keep the heavy bombers from carpet bombing a base when both enemy and friendly tanks are fighting on the field.
:bolt:
Fred
-
I see dots moving on the ground now in AH without Icons. The new range still won't protect you from the IL2 Dweebs.
I look forward to less GV whine and more bomb**** whine. :rock
I feel a GV party coming on. :banana:
(http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc249/swanseababy/24371_10150097223860207_565150206_1.jpg)
-
Everyone who disagrees with it should ban together and do nothing but bomb GVs for a whole month.
-
LOL. This is the stupidest repeat whine this game keeps coming out with. If you don't want to be bombed don't play a game with lots of planes with bombs on them. Simple really.
:aok
-
I'll still be doing this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLwpfAcNfjs
-
Well gv's are there to be bombed and straffed and rocketed. But for me the change is welcome. It was/is far too easy to spot gv's under cover IMO.
GV Icons were/are over informative IMO.
I like the idea of icon range being linked to gv movement.
I welcome the Storch. I am not sure about the icon range being linked to plane type. For me it would be better linked to plane speed. Such that any ac able to float around at less than 100 for more than a few seconds gets a better range whilst below that speed. If icon range could be truely inversely proportional to ac speed then all the better ........ It would still favour the Storch IMO.
OH YEA and get rid of chute icons totally please..........
-
The new aircraft to gv icon ranges are WONDERFUL!!! It tips the hat towards realism and away from the arcade gamey feel. :aok
BTW, the new gv icon ranges for regular aircraft are 650-ish (600+) for stopped gv's, 1250-ish (1.0k+) for moving gv's. While in a Storch, the ranges are 1750-ish (1.5k+) for a stopped gv and 2750-ish (2.5k+) for a moving gv.
A few notes for future Storch pilots: it is really easy to get a PW, so keep your distance from the pintle guns. Also, your speed is something that really needs to be watched for 2 reasons: if you have the engine governor off (off = slightly more normal speed) you will blow your engine quite easily. Also, the wings and rudder are easily ripped off at excessive speeds (120+ mph), and tight maneuvers are tough on it at higher speeds too. Keep it less than 100 mph and you can do almost anything.
Also.. I understand about the aircraft speed = icon range argument, but my counter to that is role and optics. The Storch's role was to find and mark the enemy for the attacking forces. Also, spotter aircraft had binocs to use, and fighter pilots did not.
-
Waits for the "This is Aces high" comment...
I haven't downloaded the beta, but agree that GV'ing needed some help.
-
My only concern with it is that the guy I am fighting will be able to see his friendly Wirbelwind 6000 yards away and lead me to it as a way to shake me from his tail when I can only see the Wirbelwind 600 yards away, well within its envelope.
My request would be to reduce the icon range on friendly GVs to the same as the new shorter ranges on hostile GVs.
-
My only concern with it is that the guy I am fighting will be able to see his friendly Wirbelwind 6000 yards away and lead me to it as a way to shake me from his tail when I can only see the Wirbelwind 600 yards away, well within its envelope.
My request would be to reduce the icon range on friendly GVs to the same as the new shorter ranges on hostile GVs.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :O :O Lmao its kinda nice to see some pilot whines now.
-
I don't get why the pilots whine all that much either. If someone is running and seems hell-bent on dragging you in a certian direction..... you can bet theres probably a wirb waiting. Not hard.
If you can't see the GV icons without entering wirb range..... ask friendly tanks to mark with smoke. Again, not hard.
But what I like best is that it requires the ord-carriers to rely on someone else (even if just a bit) for a change. Bombers were always saying "well bring air cover, bring flackers". Now we can say "well bring a storch, bring fighters to protect the storch".
-
good points made for sure. I would only add the "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" shorten the range in which the GV's get a green or red Icon for incoming aircraft. It was just as hard to ident Aircraft at 300knts as it was for aircraft to ident gv's. just throwing it out there.
I just plan on bombing everything... I like the co-ordinated fun between Aircraft and gv's. I hope someone likes to fly the storch to mark targets. I probably won't.
As for Bomb damage, well the tank may have been intact but the crew was mush after a 100lbs landed close.. Just sayin
<S> and happy huntin' guys(and gals)
-
But what I like best is that it requires the ord-carriers to rely on someone else (even if just a bit) for a change. Bombers were always saying "well bring air cover, bring flackers". Now we can say "well bring a storch, bring fighters to protect the storch".
So you're telling the aircraft guys to work togeather, just like the aircraft guys have been telling the GVers to do for years. :rofl Problem is, most aircraft guys work well togeather anyway. Most of us don't need an Icon to see GVs, they stand out like a sore thumb on the terain. I dont bomb GV's unless they are in or approaching a friendly base, no biggie for me, just don't think that this change is going to stop you getting bombed. Every time HTC does something to appease the GV crowd, it just brings out the bomb****s in force. Best to stay quiet and drive your little tank.
(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/261/c/1/my_little_tank_by_gorgonbreath-d2yyy0i.jpg)
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :O :O Lmao its kinda nice to see some pilot whines now.
I don't get why the pilots whine all that much either. If someone is running and seems hell-bent on dragging you in a certian direction..... you can bet theres probably a wirb waiting. Not hard.
If you can't see the GV icons without entering wirb range..... ask friendly tanks to mark with smoke. Again, not hard.
But what I like best is that it requires the ord-carriers to rely on someone else (even if just a bit) for a change. Bombers were always saying "well bring air cover, bring flackers". Now we can say "well bring a storch, bring fighters to protect the storch".
It is attitudes like yours that make me want to go on a GV bombing spree. I don't mess with tanks, I have even flown top cover for them, but they insist that it is perfectly fine for them to ruin an air-to-air fight by either shooting me down when I am not engaging them or by providing a safe haven for my opponent.
What is wrong with the idea that Hans would not be able to see a friendly Wirbelwind 6000 yards away any easier than Thomas could see the hostile Wirbelwind 6000 yards away?
You wanted aircraft out of the GV game? You got it. Now don't be hypocrites and support helping keep GVs out of the aircraft game.
-
It is attitudes like yours that make me want to go on a GV bombing spree. I don't mess with tanks, I have even flown top cover for them, but they insist that it is perfectly fine for them to ruin an air-to-air fight by either shooting me down when I am not engaging them or by providing a safe haven for my opponent.
What is wrong with the idea that Hans would not be able to see a friendly Wirbelwind 6000 yards away any easier than Thomas could see the hostile Wirbelwind 6000 yards away?
You wanted aircraft out of the GV game? You got it. Now don't be hypocrites and support helping keep GVs out of the aircraft game.
I dont know if they did or not, but an aircraft in the air and on the same side as his gv counterpart, may have had radio contact as a possibility. BTW my post was not directed at you personally, it was just there. To my knowledge we have not met in the game anywhere. <S> and no hard feelings on my part at all.
-
I agree about the friendly icon thing Karnak, at least that it should be reduced even if not as much as enemy icons.
I was just observing that all the bomb-twits are constantly saying we need to work together, when they could do things autonomously. Now the shoe is simply being measured for the other foot, its not even being put on yet, and whines are starting to come out. I just think its funny.
-
Great change indeed :aok
what could make it even cooler was to add kill shot for bombs :rofl
-
The new range still won't protect you from the IL2 Dweebs.
:devil
-
Best to stay quiet and drive your little tank.
(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/261/c/1/my_little_tank_by_gorgonbreath-d2yyy0i.jpg)
:aok :rofl :lol :aok :rofl
The little tankers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOOFB1j9Zfw
Funny as hell when Bertorelli meets Gruber :D "I er.. I heard about yoo from the General"
-
but an aircraft in the air and on the same side as his gv counterpart, may have had radio contact as a possibility.
Almost certainly not in WWII. Some US FACs toward the end, but (so far as I can tell) never anything like what people are suggesting here.
- oldman
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CZlW0pJTFY&feature=channel_video_title :P
-
What is wrong with the idea that Hans would not be able to see a friendly Wirbelwind 6000 yards away any easier than Thomas could see the hostile Wirbelwind 6000 yards away?
You wanted aircraft out of the GV game? You got it. Now don't be hypocrites and support helping keep GVs out of the aircraft game.
Because icons help make up for some of the missing realism that cant really be modeled. If you're flying over an area of operations for whatever reason (air cover, escort, direct ground support, etc), you are going to know where your friendlies before you see them simply because of radio communications. The ground forces are going to be marking their positions, etc, or the aircraft pilot is going to know close to where the units are before ever being able to see them.
Chalk it up to one of those things that are outside the realm if game play that really cant be dealt with.
Also, the "aircraft out of the ground game" is hardly going to be the result. It is going to be more difficult to spot them, sure. You'll just have to scan the ground with your own eyes and spot the gv before the icon, AND you will have to use markers on the ground for reference points for once you extend out, turn, and head back in for the dive. It isnt the end of the world. Dropping ordnance on gv's has always been far too easy simply because it was far too easy to spot them. Also, I understand the concern about wirbles and ostys having a slightly more advantage now, but in the big picture the success rates are not going to change much.
-
Smoking, why not model the position knolegde on friendly air/ground via player interaction? what about having one section of the clipboard where you have a more specific sectorial map? where your friendlies can mark their ground positions and you know via comunication and interaction. also make a local text instead of just the text for same base, makr it range so people with no microfone can interact aswell. I would like to see that, a more dynamic gameplay with full interaction as a model for information exchange.
-
I've always wanted the gv's to be hard to see when stopped and engine off. However, make gv's easy to see when moving. This would simulate the gv crew's ability to throw on some camouflage. I would recommend camouflage mode be either automatic with a > (greater than) 30 second time for it to camouflage itself after stopping. Or make the gv camouflage option manual (not my 1st choice).
I oppose making dive bombing too difficult, those are only onesies and twosies for most planes. I can make out cars looking out a plane at 30,000 ft. I don't believe drab green gv's would be that hard to spot under 5000ft, especially if moving.
I think a lot of gv'rs are bombed by bomber formations flying 200 feet off the ground. I don't know how the low bombers accomplish this feat, but it is a very effect method.
-
Look at the new view range options, in the arena settings and you can see how much flexibility the new system has. I'm sure that HTC will be watching game play and adjust the settings to ensure a good balance in the MA. Plus this new flexibility could be put to very good use in special events, so I think it will be an excellent addition to the game.
-
Waits for the "This is Aces high" comment...
I haven't downloaded the beta, but agree that GV'ing needed some help.
I wonder if it will help our patrols when the 80th does a ground tour in our 38s.
-
HTC doesn't give you anything to bomb...... So that means that its the GV'ers JOB to be targets for you? Sorry but your logic is off.
1) if you've ever played a tank, you know that when aircraft are present, they're the A number 1 threat to you. If you're in a high-perk tank, they're damn near the ONLY threat to you.
2) Icons are about as unrealistic as you can get. Yes, a group of moving GV's kicking up dust wouldn't hard to spot from the air, even when doing 350. But a single GV sitting still back in a stand of trees would never be spotted by a low alt fighter-bomber.
3) go bomb a base or a CV. Its what I use MY Ju-87 for.
It's because aircraft are more effective against vehicles than vehicles are against aircraft. During the war there were a lot more tanks than planes, in Aces high it is the opposite. Just look up how lop sided the outcomes have been in favor of the A-10 and AH-64 vs all the tanks and other gvs they've killed.
I'm still confident that with the rule change that I'll be bombing a lot of tanks and wirbs. So bring it on, I don't mind it if HTC decides to make it an actual challenge.
-
Rondar and Smokingloon,
That kind of communication did not exist, and largely does not exist now. Marking their positions? Do that and the enemy can spot you too. Wirbelwinds and the like were not there to support their airforce, they are there for the protection of the army. Even if they, which they did not, had radio contact, what are they going to say? "Bf109, drag that Spitfire over here!" "Ah, Wirbelwind, where is "over here" exactly?" "Over by the big copse of trees, by the hill with the large oak." "Um, right."
Tank-Ace,
I am not one of the people who would go bomb GV fights unless they are being used to take an airfield. If I flew to a fight between GV fields it was to provide top cover for our tankers, killing the A-20s and Il-2s that were after them. The shoe is not on the other foot here, it is on a completely unrelated foot that previously had no part in the discussion.
-
For years I have listen to all the dedicated fly guys tell the GVers to quit whining. Without any changes even having taken effect, the fly guys whines are classic. :rofl
I just can wait for the change to happen, I will be entertained on the BBS for months. :devil
Fred
-
For years I have listen to all the dedicated fly guys tell the GVers to quit whining. Without any changes even having taken effect, the fly guys whines are classic. :rofl
I just can wait for the change to happen, I will be entertained on the BBS for months. :devil
Fred
How are you going to feel when the bombings either don't stop, or increase in frequency?
Wiley.
-
How are you going to feel when the bombings either don't stop, or increase in frequency?
Wiley.
HeHe, they don't stop now, and can't see how they can be more frequent. When GVing, I would guess at least 7 out of 10 of my GV sorties I am dealing with bombers. I bet I wouldn't notice the change if it was 10 out of 10. What I do, is when I get tired of getting egged, I just up a fighter and go kill them. That is when the whines really start.
Things have been getting a bit boring lately, these changes should liven it up a bit. :D
Fred
-
For years I have listen to all the dedicated fly guys tell the GVers to quit whining. Without any changes even having taken effect, the fly guys whines are classic. :rofl
I just can wait for the change to happen, I will be entertained on the BBS for months. :devil
Fred
If the new version comes out with the 600yd range limit on ground vehicles, you can bet a few flying on the deck are going to meet a wirblwind and whine like no tomarrow.
-
Karnak, it did exist. Many planes had 2 radios, one tuned to aircraft channels, one for ground channels. Many tanks (often group commanders or whatever you want to call them) had multiple radios as well to coordinate with foot soldiers as well as air support.
They did not operate in a vacuum. Further, in the real war you knew where the enemy was. If the Soviet tanks were driving East you knew they were retreating. If they were driving West you knew they were advancing. YOu didn't always need a radio, since with basic situational briefings that said "we have friendly tank units here, here, and here, and the enemy are here" you could easily piece together what you saw.
In this random haphazard melee of a game we are not recreating any of that and yet still need such situational understanding.
Any argument saying tanks should have reduced (or no) icon is simply a GV whiner who wants to operate in a vacuum. He doesn't want his spawn camp broken.
-
I wonder if it will help our patrols when the 80th does a ground tour in our 38s.
I thought every sortie that the 80th flies ended in a tour of the ground? :D
-
Karnak, it did exist. Many planes had 2 radios, one tuned to aircraft channels, one for ground channels. Many tanks (often group commanders or whatever you want to call them) had multiple radios as well to coordinate with foot soldiers as well as air support.
They did not operate in a vacuum. Further, in the real war you knew where the enemy was. If the Soviet tanks were driving East you knew they were retreating. If they were driving West you knew they were advancing. YOu didn't always need a radio, since with basic situational briefings that said "we have friendly tank units here, here, and here, and the enemy are here" you could easily piece together what you saw.
In this random haphazard melee of a game we are not recreating any of that and yet still need such situational understanding.
Any argument saying tanks should have reduced (or no) icon is simply a GV whiner who wants to operate in a vacuum. He doesn't want his spawn camp broken.
Find me one example of an AA vehicle participating, on the request of, one of the aircraft in the fight. Just one. Giving cowards another tool to use will not be good for the game.
-
Find me one example of an AA vehicle participating, on the request of, one of the aircraft in the fight. Just one.
I would like to see this, too.
- oldman
-
I thought every sortie that the 80th flies ended in a tour of the ground? :D
Darn near............... :bhead
-
Find me one example of an AA vehicle participating, on the request of, one of the aircraft in the fight. Just one. Giving cowards another tool to use will not be good for the game.
I can give sevaral..one indeed over Yugoslavia in an encounter between Yak3's and P38's (that had in error bombed a Russian column) some thing like 6 Yak 3's launched to attack what they thought were 15 P38's (tuned out to be 45 of them in three separate groups at tiered altiudes). Point being that much of the ensuing fight was conducted within range of Russian medium calibre AA (M1939) which claimed a 38 and damaged another as well as one of the Yaks.
Many Ost front air battles from The Crucible, thru Kursk to Bagration were conducted over and in semi mobile medium calibre AA. (none of them with Wirble winds which never left Germany for the whole of WWII AFAIK)
Having said all that I would agree that GV icons should also be reduced for freindlies (although this will not stop folk running to them), I would even go so far to suggest that land based gun fire be as lethal against freindlies as it is against enemy, that the Mobelwagon and the Sdkfz 251/17 and or a towed 37mm flak (M1939?) be introduced and Wirbles and Ostwinds be perked.
-
I would like to see this, too.
- oldman
Probably about the same chance of finding a story of a Lancaster dive bombing. And I mean actual nose down dive bombing. :D
Fred
-
Find me one example of an AA vehicle participating, on the request of, one of the aircraft in the fight. Just one. Giving cowards another tool to use will not be good for the game.
I can give sevaral..one indeed over Yugoslavia in an encounter between Yak3's and P38's (that had in error bombed a Russian column) some thing like 6 Yak 3's launched to attack what they thought were 15 P38's (tuned out to be 45 of them in three separate groups at tiered altiudes). Point being that much of the ensuing fight was conducted within range of Russian medium calibre AA (M1939) which claimed a 38 and damaged another as well as one of the Yaks.
Many Ost front air battles from The Crucible, thru Kursk to Bagration were conducted over and in semi mobile medium calibre AA. (none of them with Wirble winds which never left Germany for the whole of WWII AFAIK)
Having said all that I would agree that GV icons should also be reduced for freindlies (although this will not stop folk running to them), I would even go so far to suggest that land based gun fire be as lethal against freindlies as it is against enemy, that the Mobelwagon and the Sdkfz 251/17 and or a towed 37mm flak (M1939?) be introduced and Wirbles and Ostwinds be perked.
-
I can give sevaral..one indeed over Yugoslavia in an encounter between Yak3's and P38's (that had in error bombed a Russian column) some thing like 6 Yak 3's launched to attack what they thought were 15 P38's (tuned out to be 45 of them in three separate groups at tiered altiudes). Point being that much of the ensuing fight was conducted within range of Russian medium calibre AA (M1939) which claimed a 38 and damaged another as well as one of the Yaks.
Many Ost front air battles from The Crucible, thru Kursk to Bagration were conducted over and in semi mobile medium calibre AA. (none of them with Wirble winds which never left Germany for the whole of WWII AFAIK)
Having said all that I would agree that GV icons should also be reduced for freindlies (although this will not stop folk running to them), I would even go so far to suggest that land based gun fire be as lethal against freindlies as it is against enemy, that the Mobelwagon and the Sdkfz 251/17 and or a towed 37mm flak (M1939?) be introduced and Wirbles and Ostwinds be perked.
well with the addition of 88's now for AT/Puffy ack, and Air to Surface Icon Range reduced to 600 feet, this poses a great risk to pilots under 2k unless there is a storch around, which means ground battles will be left alone, and bases will be much much easier to defend.
I do believe we need more AAA vehicles, one which was a single barrel 20mm, the single 37mm (both were on a sdkfz halftrack) (where wirb and osti is perked), perhaps a russian AAA vehicle in addition to the M-16, it gives an all round "complete" AAA setting.
-
I can give sevaral..one indeed over Yugoslavia in an encounter between Yak3's and P38's (that had in error bombed a Russian column) some thing like 6 Yak 3's launched to attack what they thought were 15 P38's (tuned out to be 45 of them in three separate groups at tiered altiudes). Point being that much of the ensuing fight was conducted within range of Russian medium calibre AA (M1939) which claimed a 38 and damaged another as well as one of the Yaks.
Many Ost front air battles from The Crucible, thru Kursk to Bagration were conducted over and in semi mobile medium calibre AA. (none of them with Wirble winds which never left Germany for the whole of WWII AFAIK)
Having said all that I would agree that GV icons should also be reduced for freindlies (although this will not stop folk running to them), I would even go so far to suggest that land based gun fire be as lethal against freindlies as it is against enemy, that the Mobelwagon and the Sdkfz 251/17 and or a towed 37mm flak (M1939?) be introduced and Wirbles and Ostwinds be perked.
None of those are examples of what I requested. They are examples of AA vehicles/positions inviting themselves to the fight, something which was often tragic for their own sides. I want to see an account of an fighter using an AA position to try to down his opponent, asking the AA vehicle to engage.
-
I call BS there. If anything it will be somewhat fair now. The planes have had the upper hand for as long as I've been playing and I think it's great that HTC if finally doing something to address the issue, since tank bombing has gotten so out of control.
Who cares about fair? Are we playing school yard marbles?
If you were commanding a Panther in January of 1945, and while crossing an open field spotted enemy Jabos circling, how does that differ from what we see in Aces High? Panzer Divisions couldn't move by day.. It's historic, it's how is was. Now, largely due to whiners, you're getting a break (or so you think). Won't make a rats backside of difference because we'll just treat every tank like a Wirble. Wirbles were always my preferred target anyway. I've already practiced this by turning off enemy icons.
-
Rondar and Smokingloon,
That kind of communication did not exist, and largely does not exist now. Marking their positions? Do that and the enemy can spot you too. Wirbelwinds and the like were not there to support their airforce, they are there for the protection of the army. Even if they, which they did not, had radio contact, what are they going to say? "Bf109, drag that Spitfire over here!" "Ah, Wirbelwind, where is "over here" exactly?" "Over by the big copse of trees, by the hill with the large oak." "Um, right."
I'm speaking of air to ground communications, not the role of the AA to allied aircraft. Low flying aircraft is going to have communications with allied ground forces, be it direct or be it indirect via localized field HQ's.
I think you've already said it is over for air to ground operations before the fat lady has sung. Try it out, you might be pleasantly surprised. Instead of seeing their icon at 1500 yards, you're seeing their tracers which are actually easier to see. ;)
-
I'm speaking of air to ground communications, not the role of the AA to allied aircraft. Low flying aircraft is going to have communications with allied ground forces, be it direct or be it indirect via localized field HQ's.
I think you've already said it is over for air to ground operations before the fat lady has sung. Try it out, you might be pleasantly surprised. Instead of seeing their icon at 1500 yards, you're seeing their tracers which are actually easier to see. ;)
I don't have a problem with the reduction in icon range. I have a problem with the fact that the friendlies are not going to have an icon range reduction. Already players use friendly Wirbelwinds as mobile safe spots to cower. They should not be able to pin point where a friendly Wirbelwind is any better than I can pin point where an enemy Wirbelwind is. As to the radio communications, well, guess what, those are provided in AH and if the Wirbelwind wants to ask the Spitfire to drag the guy behind him over he can do so, and then have fun saying where to drag it.
-
Who cares about fair? Are we playing school yard marbles?
If you were commanding a Panther in January of 1945, and while crossing an open field spotted enemy Jabos circling, how does that differ from what we see in Aces High? Panzer Divisions couldn't move by day.. It's historic, it's how is was. Now, largely due to whiners, you're getting a break (or so you think). Won't make a rats backside of difference because we'll just treat every tank like a Wirble. Wirbles were always my preferred target anyway. I've already practiced this by turning off enemy icons.
Allied air supremacy being what it was in january 1945, I dare say any panther commander worth his salt would have thought long and hard before crossing a big open field and we can be certain that said panther commander would not have to worry about a big bright red icon giving his position away to the p 47 circling overhead. To your credit you have chosen to adapt, improvise and overcome this change, unlike many others who are horrified by the prospect of actually having to put forth a little effort to earn their kills..... for a change.
~S~ Nishizwa
-
As I posted in another thread:
The thing is GV battles draw bombt*>ds like sh*t draws flies. And why? Easy kills and your name in lights. There's nothing easier in the game than dropping a bomb on a tank that can't defend itself from it. Yet those that do are awarded the same perks, points and accolades as someone who dukes it out in a one on many fighter fight taking multiple scalps. I have to ask who's more skilled or deserves the higher reward?
So here's the idea part. Reduce the kills awarded for bombing tanks. Count each as 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 a kill with comensurate points and perks. The guys who are there to legitimately break a spawn camp or fly air support for their GV's will still be there but I bet there won't be nearly as many of them. It will take more than a couple of bombs to land two kills/sortie. The GVers will have more fun and the bomblets will be rewarded comensurate with their skill level.
I dislike flying and fighting against actual airborn opponenets who can fight back to earn my kills while others go the easy route with the same final results and without opposition. I used to bomb GV's so I know. I did it all for score and K/D.
Now I take only a few per camp. There's just no challenge in it and it griefs the fun for the GVers. So you attack bomber guys go thump your chests about your awsome skill levels. Your stats tell the story of your true timidity and lack of skill if anyone really cares to look.
-
I don't have a problem with the reduction in icon range. I have a problem with the fact that the friendlies are not going to have an icon range reduction. Already players use friendly Wirbelwinds as mobile safe spots to cower. They should not be able to pin point where a friendly Wirbelwind is any better than I can pin point where an enemy Wirbelwind is. As to the radio communications, well, guess what, those are provided in AH and if the Wirbelwind wants to ask the Spitfire to drag the guy behind him over he can do so, and then have fun saying where to drag it.
That is my point in particular: allied aircraft and gv's are going to know where each other are at due to radio commutations or mission briefings before mission launch.
-
Posted by Accident..... Can't figure out how to delete it..... :bhead
Fred
-
As I posted in another thread:
I dislike flying and fighting against actual airborn opponenets who can fight back to earn my kills while others go the easy route with the same final results and without opposition. I used to bomb GV's so I know. I did it all for score and K/D.
Now I take only a few per camp. There's just no challenge in it and it griefs the fun for the GVers. So you attack bomber guys go thump your chests about your awsome skill levels. Your stats tell the story of your true timidity and lack of skill if anyone really cares to look.
Wait a second, what about us (few) dedicated tank busters? we have to deal going all the way with a slow IL-2 or weak Hurri D or any dedicated attack plane (think stuke as example). we have to deal with airborne interceptors and also if you up one single flakk it will make hell for us to get those tanks and give proper support. so in this case tankers have no reason to complain, all they have to do is have ONE flakker with the group. as I don't have anything to complain aswell since all I have to do is bring fighter cover (and thrust me is not easy to find people who want to protect IL-2s from fighters).
I never do it to grief people, I like tank busting and I will not lie, is nice to see the name in lights after flying 2 sectors in the IL-2 and working carefully breaking an entire GV formation. Some people get mad, of course it happens, everyone gets mad in this game once in a while. some even reupped on a plane to make sure I wouldn't land my kills :D no biggie.
-
That is my point in particular: allied aircraft and gv's are going to know where each other are at due to radio commutations or mission briefings before mission launch.
Bullhocky.
There is no way in hell that a mission briefing in WWII would have accurately informed a pilot of the exact locations of his tanks and AA vehicles. Nor would the use of radio, which as I noted we don't have to simulate with longer ranged icons because we have the radio communications in game.
-
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6037/6235168782_60ebf95725.jpg)
-
Nothing wrong with bombing, rocketing and straffing Gv's IMO.......all part of the game.
There is no such thing as only GV on GV action unless its hidden away in some in accessable area of the map.
I am not a fan of the use of low level formations for the purpose and support stuff like forced F6 use for level bombers/formations.
The subject re interaction of air combat and ground AA is boiling down to details and away from the generality. However the habit of air craft to run and hide in its own AA was common. Infact many a FW189 or 190F8 ran for its AA as did many an IL2. Radio communication or no, they had been briefed as to where their front lines were and their best egress routes.
-
Nothing wrong with bombing, rocketing and straffing Gv's IMO.......all part of the game.
There is no such thing as only GV on GV action unless its hidden away in some in accessable area of the map.
I am not a fan of the use of low level formations for the purpose and support stuff like forced F6 use for level bombers/formations.
The subject re interaction of air combat and ground AA is boiling down to details and away from the generality. However the habit of air craft to run and hide in its own AA was common. Infact many a FW189 or 190F8 ran for its AA as did many an IL2. Radio communication or no, they had been briefed as to where their front lines were and their best egress routes.
+1
I would also add there is nothing wrong with a GV shooting down a low flying plane either.
Fred
-
Bullhocky.
There is no way in hell that a mission briefing in WWII would have accurately informed a pilot of the exact locations of his tanks and AA vehicles. Nor would the use of radio, which as I noted we don't have to simulate with longer ranged icons because we have the radio communications in game.
False argument. And quite biased.
We don't have to radio in to the tower, use specific codes, check codes, call signs, tune to specific frequencies, and THEN have them explain to us exactly what the radar picture looks like.
That's what the clipboard is for. You're getting into minutae. They DID have radios, and we ARE playing a game where folks do not cooperate. The end result is the situational awareness was there, it was possible in reality, but now it is gone from the game.
You cannot support short icons by using any kind of comparison to reality or actual WW2 capabilities, because it is a step backwards from both.
-
The end result is the situational awareness was there, it was possible in reality, but now it is gone from the game.
Can't buy that yet, Krusty. Air-to-ground communication in WWII just wasn't good enough to mimic what people are talking about here, which, as I understand it, is that a friendly pilot should know within a few hundred yards where his side's ground vehicles are located. The St. Lo breakout problems, for example, show that the communication just wasn't there even when it was planned out long in advance. Certainly there was nothing like a Wirblewind talking to an airborne friend and telling him to lure the enemy in closer.
- oldman
-
Bullhocky.
There is no way in hell that a mission briefing in WWII would have accurately informed a pilot of the exact locations of his tanks and AA vehicles. Nor would the use of radio, which as I noted we don't have to simulate with longer ranged icons because we have the radio communications in game.
You don't think that Typhoon pilots that were sent up with ordnance knew ahead of time where allied forces were at? Not at all? Not in relation to a specific town? Not "elements of allied ABC unit have made it to the edge of town X, find enemy targets within town X and assist". I'd be willing to bet that jabo pilots knew where allied force were at, at least in the vicinity. Maybe not as specific as a modern day GPS would allow, but they'd know an approximate area.
As I've said before, your concern is valid. You don't want to get raped by an enemy FLAK, and I dont either. I think your argument for having a reduced allied gv icon is valid. What exactly would you suggest it to be? Exactly the same as enemy gv's and forget %100 the merits of the arguments other have suggested (radio communications, mission briefings, etc)???
-
You don't think that Typhoon pilots that were sent up with ordnance knew ahead of time where allied forces were at? Not at all? Not in relation to a specific town? Not "elements of allied ABC unit have made it to the edge of town X, find enemy targets within town X and assist". I'd be willing to bet that jabo pilots knew where allied force were at, at least in the vicinity. Maybe not as specific as a modern day GPS would allow, but they'd know an approximate area.
As I've said before, your concern is valid. You don't want to get raped by an enemy FLAK, and I dont either. I think your argument for having a reduced allied gv icon is valid. What exactly would you suggest it to be? Exactly the same as enemy gv's and forget %100 the merits of the arguments other have suggested (radio communications, mission briefings, etc)???
They flew in what were called cab ranks, and were essentially on call for ground attack. The practice was to have a pilot on the ground on the pointy end of the tank column to call in air support when it was found. They didn't go up knowing exactly where the friendlies were. That was why marking targets, putting out orange friendly ID panels etc was a big part of the game. As GV action tended to be fluid, friendly fire was always a big threat as well.
I have in the back of the 428th FS history, the reports on all their missions. They were a 9th AF ground attack 38 bunch in the ETO. They flew what are referred to as 'armed recce', meaning they searched for ground targets. There is not a single reference to going to a specific point to hit armor. If they found it, they attacked. They were also under ground control who could send them to an area where the forward air controller could call them in on specific targets. The targets they went to specifically were bridges, marshaling yards etc.
-
As it is now I can start slapping an aircraft with a wirble at 1.5k out. Being fair to the flyboys I would like to see a small perk to the wirble when this change happens. I also like the idea of camo for tanks that are stationary from aircraft anyways.
-
Being fair?
No one has ever been fair when they repeatedly dropped eggs on me. Now all of a sudden a change is going to be made, so now we have to be fair about it.
So many say that they can see GV's from such a distance, so what is the worry? I believe the worry is it won't be so easy just to flop in and drop an egg on a GV. They are actually going to have to work for it. My, my, isn't that unfair, they might just have to work for it.
The change has not even happened and people are whining like a bunch of first graders. No one know how this is going to effect game play, but it sure has them worried.
My Opinion.
Now back to my Popcorn.
Fred
-
Being fair?
No one has ever been fair when they repeatedly dropped eggs on me. Now all of a sudden a change is going to be made, so now we have to be fair about it.
In case it escaped your notice, the people saying that hidden death bubbles that enemy aircraft can see and cower in aren't a good thing also are not the people who bombed you. We're also not saying the icons should be restored. We're saying that friendlies should have the same icon limitation. If anything that would make you less likely to be bombed as the aircraft couldn't even tell if you were a friendly or hostile until 600 yards if you aren't moving. They will need to do a scouting pass before they can bomb you.
-
Sorry, haven't been able help defend the GV'ers rights for a bit, we had a nasty storm in Washington State, got about 3ft of snow, freezing rain for about 6 hrs, more snow, and then more freezing rain. Power is just now starting to be restored approximately 32hrs after going out (poor sob's at the PUD are working round the clock too :salute)
Anyway, first off, its a game. You get an infinite ammount of ords, fighters, bombers, and fuel. You can fight P-51's and La-7's in your spitfires. Fires don't rage through the inside of the carrier and disable takeoffs when a bomb strikes the carrier above where the fuel is stored. You have an instintaneous IFF system out to 6k that can not only give tell you if the aircraft is friendly, but its range, and aircraft model. You guys bomb more tiger II's than were ever produced.
Point is suck it up and quit crying if you have to exert a little effort to stop a GV attack. Its both A) more realistic and B) for the sake of the game as a whole (even if you refuse to see that it is). If flakers get more kills than they did in real life..... well you've killed more Tiger II's than were ever produced, don't get your collective panties in a bunch about it.
If you still feel the need to complain, do nothing but GV for two weeks and then come back and tell us that everything is fine and that the icon range changes give the GV's an unfair advantage.
Krusty, if something doesn't benefit the aircraft, that doesn't mean the people asking for it are selfish and only trying to game the game with it (infact, often the opposite).
-
Tank-Ace,
How about you address the actual discussion instead of posting more unrelated crap? The issue here has nothing to do with anti-GV, unless you feel that limiting the ability to be a hidden bubble of death is an anti-GV thing.
I am sick of flyers hugging friendly Wirbelwinds. The icon range change is going to make that tactic even more effective.
-
No tank in the history of the world ever shot down a plane in the air. One of my MOS's from the Army was 19D20 and we were cross trained in all positions in the M60s and M48A5 tanks. If you ever looked through the sight of the main gun you would understand why you can't shoot planes down. I do like the GV icon change good job HTC.
-
Being fair?
No one has ever been fair when they repeatedly dropped eggs on me. Now all of a sudden a change is going to be made, so now we have to be fair about it.
So many say that they can see GV's from such a distance, so what is the worry? I believe the worry is it won't be so easy just to flop in and drop an egg on a GV. They are actually going to have to work for it. My, my, isn't that unfair, they might just have to work for it.
The change has not even happened and people are whining like a bunch of first graders. No one know how this is going to effect game play, but it sure has them worried.
My Opinion.
Now back to my Popcorn.
Fred
Be careful Fred, that almost sounds like your wanting people to play the game YOUR way! :devil
-
Tank-Ace,
How about you address the actual discussion instead of posting more unrelated crap? The issue here has nothing to do with anti-GV, unless you feel that limiting the ability to be a hidden bubble of death is an anti-GV thing.
I am sick of flyers hugging friendly Wirbelwinds. The icon range change is going to make that tactic even more effective.
That and Wirbles camping runways will be more prevalent. Is the icon range the same from the tower as from the air?
Just a hypothetical but: a stationary WW camping 800 yards from the runway could not be seen from the tower. The base is flashing and two enemy cons are over the town. You start rolling down the runway and get shredded by the WW. Kind of like the devil you know (51s hovering over the field) is better than the devil you don't. Kind of impractical to spawn a storch before every sortie to see if it's safe to take off.
I don't care if tanks have no icons at all. Flaks should have their icons increased, if anything. That would be no less realistic than the Storch having double the icon range of other aircraft.
-
Be careful Fred, that almost sounds like your wanting people to play the game YOUR way! :devil
Naw, I put my normal disclaimer at the end "My Opinion". :D
:salute
Fred
-
That and Wirbles camping runways will be more prevalent. Is the icon range the same from the tower as from the air?
Just a hypothetical but: a stationary WW camping 800 yards from the runway could not be seen from the tower. The base is flashing and two enemy cons are over the town. You start rolling down the runway and get shredded by the WW. Kind of like the devil you know (51s hovering over the field) is better than the devil you don't. Kind of impractical to spawn a storch before every sortie to see if it's safe to take off.
I don't care if tanks have no icons at all. Flaks should have their icons increased, if anything. That would be no less realistic than the Storch having double the icon range of other aircraft.
While your scenario sucks, I don't think the icon ranges should be extended and am perfectly willing to see how the new system plays out, except for the fact that friendlies have a magical ten times icon range on their death bubble generators.
-
The icon range change is only half the "solution".
Expect F3 to also disappear in heavy buffs............which would be cool.
-
Expect F3 to also disappear in heavy buffs............which would be cool.
I doubt that.
You might see a change to bombs only being dropped from F6 though. The fact is that heavy bombers kill a small fraction of GVs. The whines about "Lancstukas" are massively disproportionate to their frequency and effect.
-
I doubt that.
You might see a change to bombs only being dropped from F6 though. The fact is that heavy bombers kill a small fraction of GVs. The whines about "Lancstukas" are massively disproportionate to their frequency and effect.
LW tour 144....8020 total kills by heavys ( B-24, B-17, Lancaster, and B-29) 1610 of these were gv's (all types)
20% of the heavy's kills. Of the Lancaster's 2661 total kills, 1094 were gv's.
Last time I went through the stats ( :salute to Snailman for all the work he puts in on the stats :rock), I got bombed about 25% of the time I upped a gv. Best I remember, it usualy runs somewhere between 20% and 25% for all types gv losses to all type aircraft.
-
LW tour 144....8020 total kills by heavys ( B-24, B-17, Lancaster, and B-29) 1610 of these were gv's (all types)
20% of the heavy's kills. Of the Lancaster's 2661 total kills, 1094 were gv's.
You're going about it backwards. What percentage of kills GVs made up for the Lancaster doesn't matter. What matters is the percentage of vehicle deaths by the Lancaster, and other heavies if you like.
For example, using the last completed tour, 143, in Late War GVs suffered 193648 deaths, of which a whopping 2016 were to Lancasters, or 1.041% of vehicle kills. Further, of those 2016 vehicle kills 826 were Wirbelwinds, a fully legitimate target in my opinion, with the second most common being the Panzer IV H distantly at 298 kills.
-
Personally, I rarely GV... And I rarely bomb GVs...
That said, I think that this is probably a move in the right direction. When this change goes live, I am sure HTC will be watching it closely, and making adjustments as they deem them to be needed.
If it ends up that the GV guys start to have more fun, and the airplanes start flying a little higher to avoid GVs, I think more fun can be found by all!
I'm perfectly prepared to reserve judgement until the change has been live long enough for both the GV'ers and the Flyboys to adjust to the new system. I suggest that everyone should adopt this policy. When the system goes live, adapt as best you can before bringing on the whine threads...
-
The new aircraft to gv icon ranges are WONDERFUL!!! It tips the hat towards realism and away from the arcade gamey feel. :aok
My only issue is you have a few people that can't hit an aircraft with a GV flack & yet can pop an aircraft with the main gun of their tank at quite long distances. Will that part of the realism arcade gamey feel be addressed?
-
My only issue is you have a few people that can't hit an aircraft with a GV flack & yet can pop an aircraft with the main gun of their tank at quite long distances. Will that part of the realism arcade gamey feel be addressed?
make the tank shells do no damage to airborne planes :noid
-
make the tank shells do no damage to airborne planes :noid
No.
Have the tanks have the same alteration in terms of range visibility & or fix the fact that a tank turret can track & shoot down aircraft that are moving at over 100MPH.
-
You're going about it backwards. What percentage of kills GVs made up for the Lancaster doesn't matter. What matters is the percentage of vehicle deaths by the Lancaster, and other heavies if you like.
For example, using the last completed tour, 143, in Late War GVs suffered 193648 deaths, of which a whopping 2016 were to Lancasters, or 1.041% of vehicle kills. Further, of those 2016 vehicle kills 826 were Wirbelwinds, a fully legitimate target in my opinion, with the second most common being the Panzer IV H distantly at 298 kills.
In Tour 143, 42% of the Lancaster's kills were GVs. It is simple, there is no way any heavy bomber should have 42% of it kills being armor. Everyone always tries to compare this game to WWII, and I am no WWII historian, but I am willing to bet there were no heavy bombers in WWII that even came close to 40 plus percentage of their kills being armor.
In college I had to take a statistics course, not by choice, and the only thing I remember from that class was what the Professor told us on the first day. It has been over thirty years ago but I'm pretty sure I still remember his words. He said "using statistics, I can prove anything, just tell me which side you want to prevail". When I read your response above, those words instantly came to mind.
Fred
-
One of the travesties in AH is the ability for Lancasters to up at a field and dive bomb gv's, however shallow that dive bomb may be. None of the heavy bombers in AH, save for the Ju88, were designed for pinpoint precision in a dive bomb. There is a reason the Ju88's have dive brakes.
zippo was spot on, and I believe karnak has it backwards: The fact that Lancs have over %40 of their kills be gv's is not at all in line with what they did in the real deal. It is a blatant abuse of a game piece, and it is a travesty. If the heavy bombers are at 10,000 ft and they carpet bomb an entire area around the tip of the arrow (spawn point) in multiple passes and they get a few gv's, then fine. THAT is how they killed gv's in WWII. They did it completely and totally indirect, they dropped their ordnance for "area effect" on an enemy strong point.
bmwgs said it perfectly: anyone can take any stat and bend it to their need and you've done exactly that, karnak.
-
Don't allow level Buffs to arm bombs below say, 8 or 10 k.. problem solved? The ability for level buffs to "Dive bomb" is silly.. :rock
-
bmwgs said it perfectly: anyone can take any stat and bend it to their need and you've done exactly that, karnak.
How is what Karnak did any different than what bmwgs did? They both used statistics to prove their points. One point is not more valid than the other, simply because you agree with it.
-
How is what Karnak did any different than what bmwgs did? They both used statistics to prove their points. One point is not more valid than the other, simply because you agree with it.
Actually, my point was far more valid. Lancasters suck at killing airplanes, so even if it didn't have the heaviest bombload of a free bomber it would still have a disproportionate percentage of its kills as GVs.
However, the primary point is that Lancasters have a very small impact on the GVers. For all their whining about the things, only slightly more than 1% of all GV deaths in the last full tour were to Lancasters. 98.969% of GV deaths were to something other than a Lancaster. The "Lancstuka" is largely a figment of people's imaginations.
From a impact on the game standpoint zippo and bmwgs have it absolutely backwards. They are looking at it as an "Impact on the Lancaster" statistic.
-
Actually, my point was far more valid. Lancasters suck at killing airplanes, so even if it didn't have the heaviest bombload of a free bomber it would still have a disproportionate percentage of its kills as GVs.
However, the primary point is that Lancasters have a very small impact on the GVers. For all their whining about the things, only slightly more than 1% of all GV deaths in the last full tour were to Lancasters. 98.969% of GV deaths were to something other than a Lancaster. The "Lancstuka" is largely a figment of people's imaginations.
From a impact on the game standpoint zippo and bmwgs have it absolutely backwards. They are looking at it as an "Impact on the Lancaster" statistic.
I usually do not look up someones statistics, but that one sentence compelled me to go take a look at your scores. Since you do not have any GV sorties in the last two tours (Late War), I am assuming you don't GV much, if at all. That one sentence you typed shows this.
I do both, I fly and I GV, so I can see each sides perspective. Before you start taking about impact, you need to wear the shoes for a while. When you base your opinion on something you have never or rarely done, your opinion has little or no merit.
That one sentence show how little you know about GVing.
But you are entitled to your opinion.
:salute
Fred
-
Far simpler to remove F3 view from heavy buffs.
-
bmwgs,
Ok then, how is 1.041% of GV kills a heavy impact? Face it, people whine about things and the whines take on a life of their own. Everybody just knows that the Spitfire Mk XVI dominates the game and is the most common aircraft. Everybody just knows that Lancstuka's are slaughtering tanks. No need to look at the actual data, its just common knowledge. It is, however, wrong. P-51Ds get twice as many kills per tour as the Spitfire Mk XVI and hardly any tanks die to Lancasters. By a huge margin the Lancaster's most common GV kill is a Wirbelwind, not the vastly most killed GV the Panzer IV H. I'd guess, but do not know, that this is due to Lancasters bombing VHs on both air fields and vehicle fields in an attempt at a capture.
Basically, remove the Wirbelwind's deaths from both totals and the Lancaster is down to something like 0.6% of GV kills.
-
You're going about it backwards. What percentage of kills GVs made up for the Lancaster doesn't matter. What matters is the percentage of vehicle deaths by the Lancaster, and other heavies if you like.
For example, using the last completed tour, 143, in Late War GVs suffered 193648 deaths, of which a whopping 2016 were to Lancasters, or 1.041% of vehicle kills. Further, of those 2016 vehicle kills 826 were Wirbelwinds, a fully legitimate target in my opinion, with the second most common being the Panzer IV H distantly at 298 kills.
True, if you look at TOTAL gv deaths, it doesn't look like much. If you take the time to go through the stats and just look at gv deaths to aircraft by type, it becomes more significant. Most of the guys who gv a lot just want to play tanks (they don't up wirbles to hunt tanks), and if they get killed by another gv, at least they had a chance to shoot back.
It doesn't take as much skill to get your name in lights by bombing gv's as it does to get those kills air to air. Yeah, if they are attacking a base, they should be fair game and expect to see the ground attack planes coming after them. I don't understand why some people seem to spend a lot of their time hauling bombs around griefing the gv'ers who are just trying to have a tank fite. Maybe it IS just because it's easier to get kills that way.
Anyway, I think that the icon range reduction is a good change. Make 'em work a little harder for those tank kills. I know it says Aces High, but they have a good tank game going on here.
I do think the icon range should be the same for friendlies and enemy though. Possibly a generic icon(no friend or foe indication) for gv's and turn on killshooter for the bombs (is it already on?) Let the aircraft figure out what it is and if it's friendly. Drop at your own risk.
After seeing RTHolmes' post, I see a big flaw in the generic icon thing...all sides use the same equipment....nevermind. DOOOH!
-
that might be fair only if wirbs/ostis/m16s only see a generic icon too and have to IFF it themselves. oh and turn killshooter on for flaks vs aircraft ...
-
When were the icons changed ? I see them just fine. I see black dot in the distance and I fly right towards it. There is always going to be one way to skin a cat. :devil
-
True, if you look at TOTAL gv deaths, it doesn't look like much. If you take the time to go through the stats and just look at gv deaths to aircraft by type, it becomes more significant. Most of the guys who gv a lot just want to play tanks (they don't up wirbles to hunt tanks), and if they get killed by another gv, at least they had a chance to shoot back.
It doesn't take as much skill to get your name in lights by bombing gv's as it does to get those kills air to air. Yeah, if they are attacking a base, they should be fair game and expect to see the ground attack planes coming after them. I don't understand why some people seem to spend a lot of their time hauling bombs around griefing the gv'ers who are just trying to have a tank fite. Maybe it IS just because it's easier to get kills that way.
Anyway, I think that the icon range reduction is a good change. Make 'em work a little harder for those tank kills. I know it says Aces High, but they have a good tank game going on here.
I do think the icon range should be the same for friendlies and enemy though. Possibly a generic icon(no friend or foe indication) for gv's and turn on killshooter for the bombs (is it already on?) Let the aircraft figure out what it is and if it's friendly. Drop at your own risk.
After seeing RTHolmes' post, I see a big flaw in the generic icon thing...all sides use the same equipment....nevermind. DOOOH!
By far the most commonly killed GV is a Panzer IV, yet the Lancaster has almost three times as many kills of Wirbelwinds as it does of Panzer IV Hs. That is too much of a difference to be a statistical blip and has to have a cause, likely due to how both the Lancaster is used and how the Wirbelwind is used.
As to GVers just wanting to be able to have a fight without being messed with by aircraft, that goes both ways and in both cases the answer is pretty much "Suck it up, this is a combined arms game."
When were the icons changed ? I see them just fine. I see black dot in the distance and I fly right towards it. There is always going to be one way to skin a cat. :devil
Next version.
-
When were the icons changed ? I see them just fine. I see black dot in the distance and I fly right towards it. There is always going to be one way to skin a cat. :devil
That you see a big black dot in the distance is perhaps the issue here. GVers claim that you don't need icons - well if everyone could see them as you do Tomcat, then it would make sense. Years ago, I had a low end computer and GVs did indeed appear as black dots in the distance. Right now my current system runs hi res textures and detail sliders maxed. GVs just blend into the terrain - even at very close range. Unless it is on a beach with no other terrain clutter, a stationary GV is very difficult to spot without an icon.
-
ar, a stationary GV is very difficult to spot without an icon.
as it should be imo
-
as it should be imo
Agreed. My only contention is that it should be so for friendlies too.
I am sorta baffled at the GVers opposition to my proposal as it would make them even less likely to be messed with by aircraft.
-
stop calling them GV'ers............... :lol
-
stop calling them GV'ers............... :lol
Bomb Magnet's is a better name for it, at least until the next version - where I can't wait to see the first thread about someone being shot down by a
wirbel because the icon range was reduced.
-
bmwgs,
Ok then, how is 1.041% of GV kills a heavy impact? Face it, people whine about things and the whines take on a life of their own. Everybody just knows that the Spitfire Mk XVI dominates the game and is the most common aircraft. Everybody just knows that Lancstuka's are slaughtering tanks. No need to look at the actual data, its just common knowledge. It is, however, wrong. P-51Ds get twice as many kills per tour as the Spitfire Mk XVI and hardly any tanks die to Lancasters. By a huge margin the Lancaster's most common GV kill is a Wirbelwind, not the vastly most killed GV the Panzer IV H. I'd guess, but do not know, that this is due to Lancasters bombing VHs on both air fields and vehicle fields in an attempt at a capture.
Basically, remove the Wirbelwind's deaths from both totals and the Lancaster is down to something like 0.6% of GV kills.
I will stand by what I stated earlier. Your argument has no merit when your preaching about something you do not do. Sort of like people complaining about his game on this forum, yet they don't have an account, or have not played in years.
Go do a few hundred GV sorties, and then I will discuss with you what impact GVs have on this game or what impact planes have on GVs. Until then, in my opinion, you are basically blowing smoke.
Hope your not saying I am whining, I could care less about the changes, I will adapt as I always do. The only whining I see, is the ones that fear a change that has not even happened.
Fred
-
bmwgs,
You don't have to spend time in something to be able to understand numbers. There are aircraft which have much more significant impact on the GV game, such as the Il-2, A-20G and probably the B-25H, but the whines about the Lancaster are tremendously overstated.
-
bmwgs,
You don't have to spend time in something to be able to understand numbers. There are aircraft which have much more significant impact on the GV game, such as the Il-2, A-20G and probably the B-25H, but the whines about the Lancaster are tremendously overstated.
Last tour GVs were 82% of the IL-2's kills compared to 42% of the Lancaster. The IL-2, from my understanding, main purpose was ground attack, mainly armor. The Lancaster was a high altitude heavy bombers, but still racks of 42% of it kills being GVs.
Like I said, you want to know the true effects, go GV a few hundred sorties and then come back a talk to me.
Might want to take a look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/worldsciencefestival/2010/08/85_of_statistics_are_false_or.php (http://scienceblogs.com/worldsciencefestival/2010/08/85_of_statistics_are_false_or.php)
Fred
-
I like the icon changes for the enemy tanks but dropping it down to minimal levels for flaks is a bad idea imho.
As Widewing said, it will literally increase the amount of egging I do to tanks, since I won't be able to tell what I'm dropping my egg on until I already let the bomb go.
Enjoy! :aok
-
No tank in the history of the world ever shot down a plane in the air. One of my MOS's from the Army was 19D20 and we were cross trained in all positions in the M60s and M48A5 tanks. If you ever looked through the sight of the main gun you would understand why you can't shoot planes down. I do like the GV icon change good job HTC.
Conversely, military aircraft have been shot down by a single rifle bullet fired by an infantry man.
LW tour 144....8020 total kills by heavys ( B-24, B-17, Lancaster, and B-29) 1610 of these were gv's (all types)
20% of the heavy's kills. Of the Lancaster's 2661 total kills, 1094 were gv's.
Last time I went through the stats ( :salute to Snailman for all the work he puts in on the stats :rock), I got bombed about 25% of the time I upped a gv. Best I remember, it usualy runs somewhere between 20% and 25% for all types gv losses to all type aircraft.
Now ask yourself where are the gv's that the Lancs are bombing?
For the most part, within 3 miles of the base the bombers took off from. The same can be said for any bombing of gv's. Why single out the heavies? Because it's easier to hit with them?
My only issue is you have a few people that can't hit an aircraft with a GV flack & yet can pop an aircraft with the main gun of their tank at quite long distances. Will that part of the realism arcade gamey feel be addressed?
Define "quite a long distance".
As with a whirble, I can only hit what is flying low and directly at me, usually well within 1000 yards.
I don't think I ever up a gv expecting to land unless I never move from the concrete of the V-base, and even then....
Between getting bombed, getting shot by another gv, and driving to where it is safe to land it is an iffy proposition at best.
Looking at my stats, I really don't die from aircraft proportionally any more than I do from any other single tank, counting overall deaths to aircraft as one type, a Panther as another type, a T-34/85 another, etc.
If you don't want to "die", don't leave the hanger.
wrongway
-
been killed in my IL-2 11 times (out of my 42 total deaths so far) by GV's, only 3 of those were AA, rest are tanks :bolt: but considering I'm just getting the hang of the plane by now I think this won't be a problem anymore, getting shot down by main gun guys is not a big problem, just adapt your flight style.
as for the planes getting shot by "single rifle shots" ... well let's model infantry then! :D can't wait :P I'll actually be able to hit something with the bombs
-
I can't wait until the icon range changes! Less competition for bomb**** kills :devil
:bolt:
-
Last tour GVs were 82% of the IL-2's kills compared to 42% of the Lancaster. The IL-2, from my understanding, main purpose was ground attack, mainly armor. The Lancaster was a high altitude heavy bombers, but still racks of 42% of it kills being GVs.
Like I said, you want to know the true effects, go GV a few hundred sorties and then come back a talk to me.
Might want to take a look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/worldsciencefestival/2010/08/85_of_statistics_are_false_or.php (http://scienceblogs.com/worldsciencefestival/2010/08/85_of_statistics_are_false_or.php)
Fred
Who cares? The Lancaster hardly killed any tanks. You are whining about a complete non-existent problem. The only reason GVs made up 42% of the Lancaster's kills is because it is a free kill to any fighter and is hardly able to down other aircraft.
Would you whine about a plane that had 100% of its kills as GVs, but only killed 221 GVs in a tour? That is what your focus on the Lancaster's kill percentages are. You are strictly looking at how the Lancaster gets affected, not how the GVs get affected.
-
Tank-Ace,
How about you address the actual discussion instead of posting more unrelated crap? The issue here has nothing to do with anti-GV, unless you feel that limiting the ability to be a hidden bubble of death is an anti-GV thing.
I am sick of flyers hugging friendly Wirbelwinds. The icon range change is going to make that tactic even more effective.
Find a solution to that problem that doesn't leave GV's overly vulnerable to aircraft and you'll be one up on everyone. Till then....... Well till then, saying that wirbs will be overly effective is just whining.
Increase icon range for wirbs? Fine, when they're out in the open or just stopped. But if they're under cover, no. For one, if they're under cover, not getting shot is a matter of avoiding flying right at their narrow fields of fire, and for two, wirbs will be less effective than they are now because they'll be bombed even more heavily than they are now.
-
Tank-Ace,
How about you address the actual discussion instead of posting more unrelated crap? The issue here has nothing to do with anti-GV, unless you feel that limiting the ability to be a hidden bubble of death is an anti-GV thing.
I am sick of flyers hugging friendly Wirbelwinds. The icon range change is going to make that tactic even more effective.
-
...that doesn't leave GV's overly vulnerable to aircraft...
Of all the ignorant things to claim....
I'm speechless!
Hey, HTC, my plane is overly vulnerable to enemy 20mm rounds! And 50cal rounds! Can you make me invisible to enemy planes so I can go around without them seeing me? What if i complain SUPER loud for about a year? How about 5 years? Will I get it then? Because that's what the established precedent now is. Whine and get "power ups"...
-
See Rule #4
-
Who cares? The Lancaster hardly killed any tanks. You are whining about a complete non-existent problem. The only reason GVs made up 42% of the Lancaster's kills is because it is a free kill to any fighter and is hardly able to down other aircraft.
Would you whine about a plane that had 100% of its kills as GVs, but only killed 221 GVs in a tour? That is what your focus on the Lancaster's kill percentages are. You are strictly looking at how the Lancaster gets affected, not how the GVs get affected.
Awwwww, the old "Who Cares". Coming from someone who doesn't have any idea what GVing is about.
You argument has no merit when you haven't done it. You know, I can get books that can tell me how to fly a plane. I can read and study those books for years and eventually know every nut and bolt that is in that plane. I can also get books about how to fly planes and study them until I know everything in those book. I can talk to real life pilots and have them instruct me on what it is like to fly a plane. I will be the most knowledgeable person in the world about flying planes, because I have read the books and talked to people who have flown then. Would you be the passenger in the plane on my first real life flight? I think not.... Up a GV, heck you might like it, it brings a whole new perspective to the game.
As for the whine, I have not whined about anything. I even said I could care less about the changes. So don't accuse me of something I am not doing. The only thing I remember suggesting is having Kill Shooter on for the bombers when dropping eggs. I know that won't happen because it will get abused. You are the one that is so concerned that you might get waxed when chasing a low flying plane. My suggestion is don't fly low!..
Fred
-
not really liking the new distance "to see the icon" of a GV. You assume it's in the general area but don't see the icon until you are crashing into the trees close by.
We should put the distance required b4 seeing the icon to a vote for distance. If we are the support (our 15 bucks) we should have a voice to at least say "wait a minute! let's put it to a vote for a REASONABLE visible icon distance reached by GV and a/c drivers.
-
The Idea I believe is:
Make it harder for aircraft with questionably accurate and loadouts to easily destroy a GV.
create a purpose for spotting GV' and thus directing the ords laden aircraft. (hmm the storch)
Seperate the GV fight from the air fight. How often does everyone complain about "bomb****s?" While this will be diminished, it will still exist as a threat, but we will no longer have to deal with the :ahandplayer upping a P47 just to kill the GV'er that repeatedly killed his tank, so that he can brag on 200 ;)
The GV's themselves in beta are just as visible as they are now, but only with reduced icon ranges. I identify many of my targets before icon range (particularly if they are moving) Shorter distances would require that I CONFIRM what my target is (like not a wirbl) and then make sure I do not lose visual while I set up an attack run. That sounds fun to me!
IMHO The GV'ers can GV better, and the anti-tank guys have a real challenge, in a fun way.
The downside would be a wirbl opening up on an aircraft far before it can be spotted, which isnt bad except i can see this exploited, particurally in purpose of "vulching an airfield" Then again after this happens once, it gave it's position away
Then again, with a storch's better viewing distance, this would make that pilots transmissions all that more valuable.
-
The downside would be a wirbl opening up on an aircraft far before it can be spotted, which isnt bad except i can see this exploited, particurally in purpose of "vulching an airfield" Then again after this happens once, it gave it's position away
I'm going to take off with eggs every flight, I guarantee I will quadruple my GV kills as soon as the patch is released.
-
Tank-Ace,
In what way does my suggestion make GVs more vulnerable? I'd think that it would make GVs even safer from aircraft.
bmwgs,
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
The Idea I believe is:
Make it harder for aircraft with questionably accurate and loadouts to easily destroy a GV.
create a purpose for spotting GV' and thus directing the ords laden aircraft. (hmm the storch)
Seperate the GV fight from the air fight. How often does everyone complain about "bomb****s?" While this will be diminished, it will still exist as a threat, but we will no longer have to deal with the :ahandplayer upping a P47 just to kill the GV'er that repeatedly killed his tank, so that he can brag on 200 ;)
The GV's themselves in beta are just as visible as they are now, but only with reduced icon ranges. I identify many of my targets before icon range (particularly if they are moving) Shorter distances would require that I CONFIRM what my target is (like not a wirbl) and then make sure I do not lose visual while I set up an attack run. That sounds fun to me!
IMHO The GV'ers can GV better, and the anti-tank guys have a real challenge, in a fun way.
The downside would be a wirbl opening up on an aircraft far before it can be spotted, which isnt bad except i can see this exploited, particurally in purpose of "vulching an airfield" Then again after this happens once, it gave it's position away
Then again, with a storch's better viewing distance, this would make that pilots transmissions all that more valuable.
+1 in overall it is a gameplay change decision (not realistic worried but gameplay/community worried) and it will make the game funner.
hopefully for people woçç be interested in counter tank flight dedication instead of upping a figther dropping a bomb to increase kill count(not really worried about support) and then go to dogfights to land with tons of kills. :D
-
I want to voice my dislike/complaint but I really have nothing of relevance to add to this discussion.
I play this game, as the name "Aces High" implies in aircraft, any aircraft. I don't want to play in GV's. I don't want to interact with GV's and I don't want them to interact with me. If I'm in a fight in the near future on the deck over an enemy base, now I get to get shot down by a guy who isn't in a plane and is going be very difficult to see.
I never fly to an enemy base to vulch, but I do chase the runners back to them from time to time.
I really don't like GV's and don't understand why GV'ers are really needed and find it incredible that some GV'ers do virtually nothing but GV. Seriously, did yall look up Aces High and think, "Cool, I can drive a tank in an aircraft game" ?
I understand that HTC gets some income from these players, thats cool give them their own arena then, but I'm betting it will just be empty. If you're GV'n and havin a fine old battle with other GV's thats great, but when you start shooting at aircraft, I think your just a griefer, kinda like how you GV'ers feel about guys that bomb you from aircraft when your in a GV fight.
-
I've been waiting for this "Rant" to be.
Everyone screams make it Real.....more realism! It's amazing how many stories I've read about WWII pilots AND their "Icons"! The ability to identify their targets because the targets were "Icon'ed". I also read how many pilots became so pssted because Command decided to reduce the Icon range (yes I'm being quite sarcastic!).
You want to play a game, then may I suggest "Go Buy One" and break out your Play Station. You want to play something a little more realistic, Welcome to HTC! NOW, you have to depend on ground control to take it to the bad guys on the ground..........JUST as it was in the day. They spot it, advise it, then YOU MUST spot it....and hope the hell you're not dropping on friendlies.........just as it was back then.
Your whine lacks.....both in taste, and in reality.
<S>
Rokit
You are wrong on ground control. My Dad flew P47’s and later P51’s out of England. He was credited with two 410’s and as he put it, about 1000 trains. According to him, the mission briefing consisted of latest intel on flak , Barrage Balloons, enemy fighter cover and possible troop locations, theirs and ours and latest weather. Once they left the bombers on their sweep back to home plate, the were free to attack any target they could find. The easy things to spot were trains, Armor Vehicles , Trucks, horse drawn wagons and lastly troops, in that order. They didn’t have local air controllers directing them onto targets. He said they would reduce throttle , drop down to 4K and have a look see.
-
I want to voice my dislike/complaint but I really have nothing of relevance to add to this discussion.
I play this game, as the name "Aces High" implies in aircraft, any aircraft. I don't want to play in GV's. I don't want to interact with GV's and I don't want them to interact with me. If I'm in a fight in the near future on the deck over an enemy base, now I get to get shot down by a guy who isn't in a plane and is going be very difficult to see.
I never fly to an enemy base to vulch, but I do chase the runners back to them from time to time.
I really don't like GV's and don't understand why GV'ers are really needed and find it incredible that some GV'ers do virtually nothing but GV. Seriously, did yall look up Aces High and think, "Cool, I can drive a tank in an aircraft game" ?
I understand that HTC gets some income from these players, thats cool give them their own arena then, but I'm betting it will just be empty. If you're GV'n and havin a fine old battle with other GV's thats great, but when you start shooting at aircraft, I think your just a griefer, kinda like how you GV'ers feel about guys that bomb you from aircraft when your in a GV fight.
What I believe the takeaway from this change will be is, avoid the spawn point. I've noticed the tendency in low alt furballs the last little while for people to set up a zone of Wirble doom at the spawn. They get bombed, they respawn, they shoot down whatever aircraft go by them ad nauseum. Apparently this is fun(?) but relatively simple to avoid.
As an aside, what're you doing on the deck anyways? ;)
Wiley.
-
I want to voice my dislike/complaint but I really have nothing of relevance to add to this discussion.
I play this game, as the name "Aces High" implies in aircraft, any aircraft. I don't want to play in GV's. I don't want to interact with GV's and I don't want them to interact with me. If I'm in a fight in the near future on the deck over an enemy base, now I get to get shot down by a guy who isn't in a plane and is going be very difficult to see.
I never fly to an enemy base to vulch, but I do chase the runners back to them from time to time.
I really don't like GV's and don't understand why GV'ers are really needed and find it incredible that some GV'ers do virtually nothing but GV. Seriously, did yall look up Aces High and think, "Cool, I can drive a tank in an aircraft game" ?
I understand that HTC gets some income from these players, thats cool give them their own arena then, but I'm betting it will just be empty. If you're GV'n and havin a fine old battle with other GV's thats great, but when you start shooting at aircraft, I think your just a griefer, kinda like how you GV'ers feel about guys that bomb you from aircraft when your in a GV fight.
the prize for the most selfish post ever made?
if you don't want to interact with gv's you want a flight simulation game and not a combat simulation MMO. there are tons of those games out there. Aces high offers a big and wide open platfrom that will give players the ability to make the game what they want the game to be, you make your own game in here. but as an MMO you WILL interact with other players, if you want them all to be on planes then go play a flight simulation game. here you will interact with several people that play their game their way in the smae platform. so the least you can do is respect that some people don't play like you.
-
Seems more like the tankers don't want interaction with airplanes while they steamroll over cartoon buildings in the town and camp runways.
-
....................
-
the prize for the most selfish post ever made?
if you don't want to interact with gv's you want a flight simulation game and not a combat simulation MMO. there are tons of those games out there. Aces high offers a big and wide open platfrom that will give players the ability to make the game what they want the game to be, you make your own game in here. but as an MMO you WILL interact with other players, if you want them all to be on planes then go play a flight simulation game. here you will interact with several people that play their game their way in the smae platform. so the least you can do is respect that some people don't play like you.
anyone else see the irony in this post. :bhead
-
anyone else see the irony in this post. :bhead
I deleted my response :) after reading it again.
-
Zoney,
I respect your “don’t want GVs” point of view, but I don’t think you really have much to fear from GVs interfering in your air game, because:
1) They can’t shoot at you unless you are on the deck.
2) Most won’t shoot at you (they dislike you as much as you dislike them), and those that will are typically be found at spawn points and towns. The latter two are easy to avoid. I actually find that puffy ack (from towns and CVs) is much more disruptive of my air game than GVs, by an order of magnitude.
BTW, I GV more than I fly these days because my PC is 10 years old, and has an AGP graphics connector, meaning than updating the video card is not practical. I still do fly sometimes, though, and am basically a flight sim person, from back in the Amiga / Air Warrior days. Anyway, once I get re-employed, I plan to buy or build a new PC, and will be more competitive with the faster frame rates associated with non-GV play.
MH
-
Shorter icons mean you have to get closer to drop your bombs..... less misses. :D
-
Shorter icons mean you have to get closer to drop your bombs..... less misses. :D
:aok
-
TDeacon, sir, thank you for your response. I know I came across too harsh, I meant no disrespect, I was really talking about my inability to understand.
I now understand why you have been a GV'r lately because of your explanation.
I also like everyone who plays here no matter what you do. I may not like playing against GV'ers, but I certainly would not hold it against anyone who did find their fun there.
:salute you sir
:salute all players
-
Tank-Ace,
In what way does my suggestion make GVs more vulnerable? I'd think that it would make GVs even safer from aircraft.
What suggestion? Unless I missed a post of yours, all you've done is raise concerns about wirbles being overly effective.
-
Zoney, if you don't like playing against GV's, then don't play against them. Baring one in a trillion, lucky as hell, sorta-half-aimed from 5k out shots, GV's aren't able to reach up and swat at you unless you're dumb enough to come within 1.5k of them (and thats about max effective range. Odds of a hit on a manuvering target at that range is near zero) in something that is threatening (we usually ignore things like A6M's, 109's, and usually-light fighters).
If you don't actively seek them out, you won't deal with them except when in a combined assult on an airfield and through sheer random chance.
-
TDeacon, sir, thank you for your response. I know I came across too harsh, I meant no disrespect, I was really talking about my inability to understand.
I now understand why you have been a GV'r lately because of your explanation.
I also like everyone who plays here no matter what you do. I may not like playing against GV'ers, but I certainly would not hold it against anyone who did find their fun there.
:salute you sir
:salute all players
well I'm sorry about my post then. I guess I missunderstood your previous post.
-
well I'm sorry about my post then. I guess I missunderstood your previous post.
We're good sir <S>.
-
Well I don't see also a problem with the enemy going to the flakker friend because in concept it looks quite right (I'm not saying the pilot asked one flakker to save him in RL).
Look at it this way: if you fly over enemy territory, you take the risk of getting shot by enemy flakk, it IS less safe to fly over enemy territory, specially low.
You know you are safer in the friendly territory
So players will need to work on discipline not to follow up the runners to deep into their territory. and THEN fight on 200 calling all the names that come up to your head :P
-
Well I don't see also a problem with the enemy going to the flakker friend because in concept it looks quite right (I'm not saying the pilot asked one flakker to save him in RL).
Look at it this way: if you fly over enemy territory, you take the risk of getting shot by enemy flakk, it IS less safe to fly over enemy territory, specially low.
You know you are safer in the friendly territory
So players will need to work on discipline not to follow up the runners to deep into their territory. and THEN fight on 200 calling all the names that come up to your head :P
Good way of looking at it Raphael. Basicly boils down to "if you do something stupid, you face the consequences".
-
What suggestion? Unless I missed a post of yours, all you've done is raise concerns about wirbles being overly effective.
To reduce the icon range that friendly aircraft see GVs at to the same as the range that hostile aircraft see them at. This would be entirely transparent to GVers other than making it harder for fighters to be drug to a Wirbelwind's death bubble.
I think this would help GVs be bombed less as well because it would be a bit riskier for the aircraft due to kill shooter.
I don't think that Bob should be able to see a GV highlighted by an icon at 6000 yards when Frank can only see that at 600 yards. I don't believe that WWII era technology provided that kind of accuracy in battlefield cooperation. Both should be 600 yards.
-
I'd be fine with that. That wouldn't nessiarily make GV's more vulnerable, but it would make coordination much more difficult. I would also like to see killshooter turned on for ordnance eventually, so that would also prove problematic.
-
yes! +1 to friendly icon reduced + killshot for bombs
-
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg[/img]](http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg) (http://[IMG)
Wonder what that guy is holding up to his eyes?
Fred
-
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg[/img]](http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg) (http://[IMG)
Wonder what that guy is holding up to his eyes?
Fred
Looks like a device to give better depth perception. Human eyes are only far enough apart to give depth perception out to about 50ft or so, that looks like it has a lens on each end with a separation of four or so feet.
-
I'm going to take off with eggs every flight, I guarantee I will quadruple my GV kills as soon as the patch is released.
I'll take that bet. What is the wager? I've noted your stats as of the last week of Jan 2012 and will note them again March 1st of 2012. :D
It is going to be more difficult to bamb gv's, it isnt going to be as easy to spot them. For some of us, it will not make much of a difference since we are able to pick out the wee black dot of a gv before the current icon range and we will still be able to do the same once the new patch arrives. But for many, it is going to force the anti-gv jabos to slow down, make another pass (or 3), and drop off target becuase the icon crutch will not be there.
-
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg[/img]](http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg) (http://[IMG)
Wonder what that guy is holding up to his eyes?
Fred
Range Finder
(http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/german-artillery-fire-control-equipment.html)
(http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/88mm/108-range-finder-34-with-harness.jpg)
(http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/88mm/109-range-finder-34-german-88mm.jpg)
wrongway
-
http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg[/img]](http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww100/bmwgs_ah/Aces%20High/PZKpfw.jpg) (http://[IMG)
Fred
Yeah bring on the mobil flak which could not fire on the move (+delay between motion and gun able to fire) and perk the wirble wind and ost wind!
-
To reduce the icon range that friendly aircraft see GVs at to the same as the range that hostile aircraft see them at. This would be entirely transparent to GVers other than making it harder for fighters to be drug to a Wirbelwind's death bubble.
I think this would help GVs be bombed less as well because it would be a bit riskier for the aircraft due to kill shooter.
I don't think that Bob should be able to see a GV highlighted by an icon at 6000 yards when Frank can only see that at 600 yards. I don't believe that WWII era technology provided that kind of accuracy in battlefield cooperation. Both should be 600 yards.
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me.
MH
-
Quite so... The only folks against it are the GV folks who want ever "power up" made available to them and only them. They make up reasons to justify this then insult anybody with a differing opinion (no matter how right it may be).
It's nothing other than the whiners taking over.
-
Quite so... The only folks against it are the GV folks who want ever "power up" made available to them and only them. They make up reasons to justify this then insult anybody with a differing opinion (no matter how right it may be).
It's nothing other than the whiners taking over.
In case you missed it, Krusty, right now I *am* one of the "GV folks", and approve of the reduced GV sighting ranges. Yet, like many similar players, I am still able to see both sides of the issue. Don't overreact here.
MH
-
In case you missed it, Krusty, right now I *am* one of the "GV folks", and approve of the reduced GV sighting ranges. Yet, like many similar players, I am still able to see both sides of the issue. Don't overreact here.
MH
A whole bunch of "GVers" have been railing at me since I posted it, saying I am just whining about the shoe being on the other foot and such. Krusty's point is generally accurate, though obviously individuals will have individual opinions.
-
Quite so... The only folks against it are the GV folks who want ever "power up" made available to them and only them. They make up reasons to justify this then insult anybody with a differing opinion (no matter how right it may be).
It's nothing other than the whiners taking over.
OK, am I a "us" or a "them" since I GV and fly? You make it sound like players either fly or GV, when in actually many do both.
Fred
-
Yes, many do both. Those that do both aren't the ones whining about the complete and total inability of GVs to hide in plain sight and be invulnerable to all air interference... It's the select minority of whiners that have brought this about, not you.
-
Yes, many do both. Those that do both aren't the ones whining about the complete and total inability of GVs to hide in plain sight and be invulnerable to all air interference... It's the select minority of whiners that have brought this about, not you.
It's not going to make any difference except for hiding in barns.
wrongway
-
Yes, many do both. Those that do both aren't the ones whining about the complete and total inability of GVs to hide in plain sight and be invulnerable to all air interference... It's the select minority of whiners that have brought this about, not you.
How do you make the leap that anyone who endorses this change expects or desires invulnerability from air attacks? Is it conceivable to you that gv'ers may just want just a Tad more realism than the current, bright red drop-bomb-here-for-easy-kills icon presents?? I do both as well, I am in favor of this change and think its funny how carelessly the "whiner" label is attached to anyone who passionately disagree's with others equally passionate opinions.
~S~ Nishizwa
-
That's just how Krusty is... He doesn't like shades of gray.
MH
-
Not reading this whole thread to see if its been said, but coming from someone who does Bombing, GVing and fighters all evenly in this game... unless you do all three types of game play evenly, your opinion is useless because you will always be biased to whatever you do.
With that being said, being bombed in a tank is part of the game, GVers need to stop complaining about it. If you are worried that much about the bombs, then here is a thought for you... get a friendly air cap going... its a win-win situation. The fighters get to attack easy bombers and the gvers stay bomber free. Instead, most gvers just go and get bombs themselves and make the bombing issue even worse. two wrongs don't make a right. If you don't want to be bombed, then you or your friends cant be bombing either.
Now for the icon range itself. My biggest issue is that with this change you are making the game even gamier. It doesn't matter if I'm in a Storch or an A20, i can only see so far in both planes. Artificially giving the Storch a longer visual range while reducing all other aircraft's does not solve anything. It just makes it even more gamey and LESS realistic.
In world war two, when troops on both sides heard the faint noise of an L-bird or storch (whatever)coming , they didn't fire their anti-aircraft guns at it, they did just the opposite. They stayed silent and didn't move. The L-birds were the most feared a/c in WWII (that being quoted by multiple Germans and Japanese soldiers) because if they were spotted by the L-birds, they new ordnance of some sort was soon to come.
I think a good way to solve this issue fairly is to keep the icons the same as they are now. However, if GVs are stopped and under cover, their icon should only flash once for maybe a second when they fire. This gives them the realistic cover they would have had in RW, but gives the overhead attack aircraft the ability to get a general idea of where they are without them having the ability to exactly pinpoint them. If the GVs are moving or in the open, they should be able to be seen as normal at all times. However, when i say cover, it needs to be something thick. Parking under a single tree that is otherwise in the open, should not give the benefits of being in a patch of trees. If a line of site can be made of more than 1/2 the tank, then the above air cons should be able to see the icon as if it were in the open/moving. However, if the a/c passes over and the line of site of 1/2 the tank is broken, then the aircraft should only get to see it is if it fires. Or something along those specific lines.
-
flight, the relation of addition of the storch plus the icon reduce to other aircraft is a gameplay decision and not realism related. we know in real life you can see at further then that.
it's an MMO which implies players must coop to create the game experience
-there currently is no dynamic in the air/ground relation, its pretty static because:
-there are more planes then gv's in the game which leads to the common scenario:
-player ups a fighter holding an egg in a solo flight to go to the nearest gv fight drop the bomb to increse kill count and then move to the dogfigths to have name in lights
-there isn't incentive on planning air support dedicated sorties (since anyone can just see a gv and do the above sceene)
So the addition can fix both by giving the storch that advantage and the icon reduced in other aircraft will result in behavior/gameplay change to make it more like the real deal afterall. jabos heading to a planned target or in need of the info before acting.
it's another place to explore in gameplay, we already have bombers and figthers. think at it as a new feature that only aces high 2 has.
-
How do you make the leap that anyone who endorses this change expects or desires invulnerability from air attacks? Is it conceivable to you that gv'ers may just want just a Tad more realism than the current, bright red drop-bomb-here-for-easy-kills icon presents?? I do both as well, I am in favor of this change and think its funny how carelessly the "whiner" label is attached to anyone who passionately disagree's with others equally passionate opinions.
~S~ Nishizwa
That's just how Krusty is... He doesn't like shades of gray.
MH
No need to sugar coat it Deacon.. He's explained his position already. He's using a false argument to defend getting an "isolation bubble" around himself when in a tank.
Nishi:
It is not realistic in the slightest. Not according to physics, optics, not according to WW2 accounts, not according to P-47 pilots roaming the country side easily spotting targets and attacking them. Not according to Typhoon pilots rocketing tanks.
Not one bit of this is more realistic. It is a step towards the arcade.
The one part I don't have a beef with is making the icon disappear when under cover or near a building. Essentially it was supposed to do that anyways, and from certain angles the icon may have shown through in slivers of red. Though please NOTE there are hundreds of times a GV whiner has cried "THE ICON DID ME IN!!!" when the person that killed them said "Nope, couldn't see the icon, knew you were there and killed you"... So this was as much a crutch as any other part of this new "feature" set. Though IMO it's logical to code in.
So, yes, by your own descriptions and word choice you have shown how biased you are on the matter. The whiners are the vocal minority that cry and shout and try to change the game so they never have to interact with airplanes, ever. Your "BOMB HERE!" icon comment is so misguided and inaccurate you must be one of them, no?
I think your comments simply reinforce mine.
-
No need to sugar coat it Deacon.. He's explained his position already. He's using a false argument to defend getting an "isolation bubble" around himself when in a tank.
Nishi:
It is not realistic in the slightest. Not according to physics, optics, not according to WW2 accounts, not according to P-47 pilots roaming the country side easily spotting targets and attacking them. Not according to Typhoon pilots rocketing tanks.
Not one bit of this is more realistic. It is a step towards the arcade.
The one part I don't have a beef with is making the icon disappear when under cover or near a building. Essentially it was supposed to do that anyways, and from certain angles the icon may have shown through in slivers of red. Though please NOTE there are hundreds of times a GV whiner has cried "THE ICON DID ME IN!!!" when the person that killed them said "Nope, couldn't see the icon, knew you were there and killed you"... So this was as much a crutch as any other part of this new "feature" set. Though IMO it's logical to code in.
So, yes, by your own descriptions and word choice you have shown how biased you are on the matter. The whiners are the vocal minority that cry and shout and try to change the game so they never have to interact with airplanes, ever. Your "BOMB HERE!" icon comment is so misguided and inaccurate you must be one of them, no?
I think your comments simply reinforce mine.
Interacting? More like 'you sit still, don't shoot at me, while I drop this bomb on you. Then I'll go get more bombs and be back later to do it again.' Some of these people spend a lot of time as mudmovers. Some mostly gv, and that's what they pay to do. Why should they pay to be a bombing target? Yeah, campers and gv's heading toward a base should expect to see the attack planes coming. But some gv fights are just that... people trying to have a tank fight. They aren't trying to take a base or anything else that would interferre with the air game. Seems that they are target rich environments for some of the players looking for easy kills.
I think pd37 in the original post said that there were not many worthwhile targets for attack planes to go after.
That being the case, there doesn't seem to be a way to fix it as the game is currently set up. Maybe the icon reduction will help, I don't know. Might be a bit*h hunting troop carriers, though.
-
moin
i like the new icon idea, because it was to easys to bomb gvs and alot of nice tank fights were killed by Tank killers. changing the icon wil not force sombody to do not dropp bomb on tanks but the hitting the target will be not so easy anymore, so more tanks are able to survive and maybe we will get a balance between Tank hunters and people be in a tank fight.
With the old sistem the tanks were mostly not able to rech thair target un bombed, maybe now.
I like the Storch idea, i think my sqoud will often use this new tool, one is searching and the other will bomb. I think a tool like this you will not find often in the game world. wtg HTC.
have a nice day
christian
-
Now for the icon range itself. My biggest issue is that with this change you are making the game even gamier. It doesn't matter if I'm in a Storch or an A20, i can only see so far in both planes. Artificially giving the Storch a longer visual range while reducing all other aircraft's does not solve anything. It just makes it even more gamey and LESS realistic.
Not so. I'm willing to bet that A20 pilots didnt carry binocs while searching out enemy tanks to bomb. Also, the A20's knew to where within a few hundreds yards where they were going to bomb, their targets were mostly preset before launch.
The spotter aircraft went up *looking* for the enemy. They were flying slow enough to look, look again, and triple look, and then some, with binocs, all in the same pass.
If anything, HTC should make the icon ranges relative to the speed of the aircraft, but then again which aircraft can fly 100mph well enough, have the same visibility, and was designed to do what the Storch did? But more so, that is probably a major coding issue.
This is adding another dimension to AH. Perhaps people should try it out first before performing their best imitation of Chicken Little. :aok
-
This is adding another dimension to AH. Perhaps people should try it out first before performing their best imitation of Chicken Little. :aok
Sorry, but I am not asking for the icon ranges to be extended or even kept where they are. I just want the friendly icons to match the hostile icons as WWII battlefield cooperation wasn't nearly as precise as the icons make it.
-
See Rule #4
-
No need to sugar coat it Deacon.. He's explained his position already. He's using a false argument to defend getting an "isolation bubble" around himself when in a tank.
False argument as determined by who? Simply because the radioactive poster himself deemed it false? I have a different OPINION than you, I'm not however, deeming your OPINION a false argument simply because I disagree with you. I would appreciate being shown the same courtesy. How do you equate advocating a shortened icon range with being desirous of an "isolation bubble"?
Nishi:
It is not realistic in the slightest. Not according to physics, optics, not according to WW2 accounts, not according to P-47 pilots roaming the country side easily spotting targets and attacking them. Not according to Typhoon pilots rocketing tanks.
Not one bit of this is more realistic. It is a step towards the arcade.
Funny how in all the actual ww2 guncam footage Ive seen, I never once saw a bright red icon... at 600 ft OR 1500 ft. Is it actually your position that a bright red icon pointing out an enemy's position is MORE realistic? Seriously?
The one part I don't have a beef with is making the icon disappear when under cover or near a building. Essentially it was supposed to do that anyways, and from certain angles the icon may have shown through in slivers of red. Though please NOTE there are hundreds of times a GV whiner has cried "THE ICON DID ME IN!!!" when the person that killed them said "Nope, couldn't see the icon, knew you were there and killed you"... So this was as much a crutch as any other part of this new "feature" set. Though IMO it's logical to code in.
So, yes, by your own descriptions and word choice you have shown how biased you are on the matter. The whiners are the vocal minority that cry and shout and try to change the game so they never have to interact with airplanes, ever. Your "BOMB HERE!" icon comment is so misguided and inaccurate you must be one of them, no?
I think your comments simply reinforce mine.
I too, like for things to be black and white. With that said, I'm no clearer on your position AFTER reading those 2 paragraphs than I was BEFORE reading them, matter of fact I'm perplexed and astounded by the doublespeak. You can't have it both ways Krusty. Are you seriously, with a straight face attempting to argue on one hand that the icons aren't used to target enemies and on the other hand complaining that their range being shortened gives GV's some sort of isolation bubble?? Whew!! :headscratch: Seems your comments reinforce my position.... If the bomb****'s don't need an icon to successfully target GV's, then why complain that shortening their icon range's gives them an "isolation bubble"??
For the record, I make no bones about the fact that I enjoy GVing almost as much as I enjoy flying. I also don't mask my contempt for those who would (in an aerial combat game) choose to follow the EASIEST,SAFEST path to getting their name up in lights landing kills by dropping bombs on defenseless tanks who are just trying to have their own battle. As I and others have stated before, tanks rushing an airfield or town, or spawn camping for that matter.... are, and should be fair game. Those who don't challenge themselves any more than that, are the ones who put themselves in the bomb**** category as far as I'm concerned. And they seem to be the ones complaining the loudest about the upcoming change. I have no sympathy for their plight, because they have had it too easy for too long. Are you one of "them"?
:salute Nishizwa
-
Realism .....
.
Being an intimate recipient of friendly fire from the air, this stuff happens, and happens often.
Real life use of spotters (air & ground), ground forces marking enemy position with colored smoke and
radio vectoring of air inventory is more realistic. No kill shooter for friendly kills, maybe a msg that pilot X just killed friendly
with no perk points awarded or deducted.
Eliminating GV icons for both sides would actually lend to realism.
The fact that you can use the same tank on both sides of a battle lends itself to mistakes. Shouldn't be hard to
use a marker panel when spawning a gv to indicate what side it is on. You know kinda like the town flags do now ?
In Normandy tanks had air recognition panels visible on the top of the tank to minimize friendly fire. I am sure
the recognition of the panels from a pilots view depended on the acft. speed, eyesight of the pilot and
cockpit visibility factors.
I communicated with friends of the pilot that mistakenly hit our positions with rocket fire, and their description
as to the effect it had on that pilots life after the event was chilling.
-
By far the most commonly killed GV is a Panzer IV, yet the Lancaster has almost three times as many kills of Wirbelwinds as it does of Panzer IV Hs. That is too much of a difference to be a statistical blip and has to have a cause, likely due to how both the Lancaster is used and how the Wirbelwind is used.
You're probably right as to how they are being misused....LW143 Lancasters killed 826 Wirbelwinds while Wirblewinds killed 1283 Lancasters. In what senario should an AA weapon with a wirble's range get a shot at a strategic bomber? Maybe LancStuka mode?
-
Krusty, just shut your trap man. Your constant accusations of whining and selfish posting gets annoying. And I mean REAL annoying when its comming from someone that hasn't made more than a couple GV sorties per tour in more than two years.
1) you haven't had ANY recent expierence in GV's, you're not qualified to talk about their vulnerabilities.
2) you seem to mostly play perk-free vehiles, which means you have NO expierence with how heavily they're targeted.
3) you probably got those few kills you have defending. GV's don't have a problem defending, its when they try to attack that the issues come up.
C'mon Tankace, you don't play at ALL anymore. Are you really calling out another player who "doesn't play enough" ?
-
You're probably right as to how they are being misused....LW143 Lancasters killed 826 Wirbelwinds while Wirblewinds killed 1283 Lancasters. In what senario should an AA weapon with a wirble's range get a shot at a strategic bomber? Maybe LancStuka mode?
They are being used as desperation weapons to defend airfields from attacks by GVs. That is obvious. It should also be obvious that the effect on GVs is slight to put it mildly.
-
Krusty, just shut your trap man. Your constant accusations of whining and selfish posting gets annoying. And I mean REAL annoying when its comming from someone that hasn't made more than a couple GV sorties per tour in more than two years.
1) you haven't had ANY recent expierence in GV's, you're not qualified to talk about their vulnerabilities.
You suck in airplanes and don't play anymore but yet you keep on posting about their vulnerabilities. Krusty has all the right to post about GVs as you do about airplanes and his being a paid subscriber makes him qualified to post in any thread he wishes, just like it does with you.
ack-ack
-
They are being used as desperation weapons to defend airfields from attacks by GVs. That is obvious. It should also be obvious that the effect on GVs is slight to put it mildly.
By far the most commonly killed GV is a Panzer IV, yet the Lancaster has almost three times as many kills of Wirbelwinds as it does of Panzer IV Hs. That is too much of a difference to be a statistical blip and has to have a cause, likely due to how both the Lancaster is used and how the Wirbelwind is used.
These two statement really shows how you can take a statistic and come up with a completely wrong interpretation. Everyone that spends any time in a GV knows why the Lancasters have a larger percentage kills of Wirbles over Panzers, and it has nothing to do with Lancasters defending a base. Like I said in an earlier post, spend some time in a GV and you will know to.
Fred
[/quote]
-
These two statement really shows how you can take a statistic and come up with a completely wrong interpretation. Everyone that spends any time in a GV knows why the Lancasters have a larger percentage kills of Wirbles over Panzers, and it has nothing to do with Lancasters defending a base. Like I said in an earlier post, spend some time in a GV and you will know to.
Fred
The only time Lancasters should be in range of Wirbelwinds to be killed by them, which was zippo's driving point in his post, is when they are being used defensively from a base that is too close for them to climb above the Wirbelwind's effective range. There are plenty of people lacking the skill needed to bomb from even 5,000ft AGL so I wouldn't be shocked if Lancasters attack from low altitude when they don't have to as well. In addition Lancasters are likely the be used as desperation weapons by players who cannot crack the Wirbelwind's defenses with A-20s, Il-2s or the like, which would make the Wirbelwinds the focus of the Lancaster's efforts. The Lancaster, as demonstrated by the statistics, is a very inefficient killer of GVs. GV players whine endlessly about "Lancstukas" as though they kill droves of GVs each tour with hyperbole such as "If the Lancaster was as good at killing GVs as it is in AH the Air Force should replace its A-10s with Lancasters." As has been proven, the Lancaster in AH sucks at killing GVs. Zippo even noting that the Lancaster's most common GV kill scored half again as many kills on the Lancasters than the Lancasters did on it.
Above even that is the fact that any fighter as top cover renders the Lancaster helpless to have any effect at all. But instead of using the tools readily and effectively available in the game, GVers come onto the board and whine, whine, whine about something that has almost no effect on them, demanding technical changes to make them safer.
-
Seems I have missed an interesting thread during my absence, with many points already covered.
So just a few personal thoughts fro me:
- Much is still speculation. We can't tell for sure how it all will play out, but fortunately we will know very soon ;)
- The importance of icons seems to be overrated by some, or the ability of players to adapt and over come may be underestimated. A change of tactics will be necessary, but I may remind older players about the impact the introduction of the Wirbelwind had. Sometimes you would think the sky was falling ("perk the WW!"), and it was predicted vulching would be a thing of the past. And indeed, in the first few weeks planes fell from the skies in droves... until players had learned not to fly that close to enemy Flakpanzers any more as they had done before when there was just the Ostwind.
And despite the new icon ranges, tanks can still be seen, particularly when moving. I may add that in my last regular bomber sortie I had deliberately and successfully bombed an enemy tank from 15k - no, he wasn't just in my sights by accident, I spotted him on the airfield, turned around, reacquired my target and send him back to tower. Not a single incident either, I have quite a number of GV kills in the B5N by level bombing them from 10K+
In one of the posts I someone trying to support his point of view regarding Lancs vs GV by stating 42% of the Lancaster's kills are GV. But that is more a result of the Lancasters weak defensive armament... after all, the GV kill quota of the B5N is in 90% range. That still doesn't mean the B5N has any big impact on the tank game at all. ;)
In the end, the tank killing Lancaster is one of the most exaggerated things in AH: In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.
-
The only time Lancasters should be in range of Wirbelwinds to be killed by them, which was zippo's driving point in his post, is when they are being used defensively from a base that is too close for them to climb above the Wirbelwind's effective range.
You are so wrong. Will all due respect, your recent statements show that do not have a clue as to how they are being used.
Fred
-
In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.
the lord of thruth has spoken, numbers don't lie :old:
-
Seems I have missed an interesting thread during my absence, with many points already covered.
So just a few personal thoughts fro me:
- Much is still speculation. We can't tell for sure how it all will play out, but fortunately we will know very soon ;)
- The importance of icons seems to be overrated by some, or the ability of players to adapt and over come may be underestimated. A change of tactics will be necessary, but I may remind older players about the impact the introduction of the Wirbelwind had. Sometimes you would think the sky was falling ("perk the WW!"), and it was predicted vulching would be a thing of the past. And indeed, in the first few weeks planes fell from the skies in droves... until players had learned not to fly that close to enemy Flakpanzers any more as they had done before when there was just the Ostwind.
And despite the new icon ranges, tanks can still be seen, particularly when moving. I may add that in my last regular bomber sortie I had deliberately and successfully bombed an enemy tank from 15k - no, he wasn't just in my sights by accident, I spotted him on the airfield, turned around, reacquired my target and send him back to tower. Not a single incident either, I have quite a number of GV kills in the B5N by level bombing them from 10K+
In one of the posts I someone trying to support his point of view regarding Lancs vs GV by stating 42% of the Lancaster's kills are GV. But that is more a result of the Lancasters weak defensive armament... after all, the GV kill quota of the B5N is in 90% range. That still doesn't mean the B5N has any big impact on the tank game at all. ;)
In the end, the tank killing Lancaster is one of the most exaggerated things in AH: In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.
Your misinterpreting why I posted the percentage. I used it to show how a heavy bomber, that should not be any where near the ground, except for landings and takeoffs, has 42% of it's kills being GV's. Doesn't that seem strange? Just looking at the numbers does not always show the true impact on something.
:salute
Fred
-
Your misinterpreting why I posted the percentage. I used it to show how a heavy bomber, that should not be any where near the ground, except for landings and takeoffs, has 42% of it's kills being GV's. Doesn't that seem strange? Just looking at the numbers does not always show the true impact on something.
:salute
Fred
A huge part of it is just because it sucks at shooting down planes. Yes, just looking at the numbers doesn't show the true impact - if you chose the wrong numbers to look at in the first place. That's what I was trying to point out by the B5N example. If the Lancaster was unarmed, the percentage would be way over 90%.
If you want to evaluate the tactical impact of the Lancaster on the battlefield, you have to look at the corresponding numbers - How many tanks are they actually killing, and how much is that in comparison to other planes? And then you will see that only a very small minority of tanks being killed by planes had suffered their fate by the hands of a Lancaster pilot.
Someone reading only this forum (and Ch 200) would probably think it's 90%, not 4% as it actually is.
-
A huge part of it is just because it sucks at shooting down planes. Yes, just looking at the numbers doesn't show the true impact - if you chose the wrong numbers to look at in the first place. That's what I was trying to point out by the B5N example. If the Lancaster was unarmed, the percentage would be way over 90%.
If you want to evaluate the tactical impact of the Lancaster on the battlefield, you have to look at the corresponding numbers - How many tanks are they actually killing, and how much is that in comparison to other planes? And then you will see that only a very small minority of tanks being killed by planes had suffered their fate by the hands of a Lancaster pilot.
Someone reading only this forum (and Ch 200) would probably think it's 90%, not 4% as it actually is.
I am not disagreeing with the numbers, I guess I need to put it a different way.
Looking at numbers alone does not necessarily show how something can impact game play. Lancasters were used as an example. A B5N can not roll in on a decent tank battle and totally disrupt it by dropping 42 bombs. If I remember correctly the B5N carries three bombs, so it would take at least 13 planes and pilots to create the same impact as one pilot with one set of Lancasters.
The whole point of this is about game play. It is not that one should have a greater advantage than another, but one should not have a complete and over whelming advantage over other.
I stated earlier, I could care less about the icon change, and I do have my opinions as to what I think would make it better, but I see no point in getting worked worked up about a change that has not even occurred, and no one know what impact it may or may not have.
Fred
-
In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.
What's the lancaster GV kill percentage as compared to the rest of the bombers?
Just curious.
-
Looking at numbers alone does not necessarily show how something can impact game play. Lancasters were used as an example. A B5N can not roll in on a decent tank battle and totally disrupt it by dropping 42 bombs. If I remember correctly the B5N carries three bombs, so it would take at least 13 planes and pilots to create the same impact as one pilot with one set of Lancasters.
The B5n was just an example. I wasn't actually comparing the B5N's impact to the Lancasters.
And in actual gameplay, Lancasters do very rarely "totally disrupt" tank battles by bombing tanks. They do disrupt them... by bombing the VH's. That is their true main impact on gameplay. As a tank buster on the actual battlefield, they are rare and overall quite ineffective. Only few pilots use Lancs regularly to hunt GVs, and on average they don't get that many kills as one could expect when looking at the (theoretically) impressive number of 42 bombs. The A-20 is much more impressive, both in overall GV kills as well as the number of kills being landed per sortie.
The actual tactical impact of the Lancaster on the battlefield is quite small.
-
What's the lancaster GV kill percentage as compared to the rest of the bombers?
Just curious.
I guess by "bombers" you are specifically referring to 'traditional' level/heavy bombers?
Lancaster 4%, B-17 & B-24 and B-26 1%.
A-20 has 17%, Il-2 11%, P-51 7%, F6F 6%
All percentages are "of tank kills by planes", which amount to 13% of all tank kills in AH.
-
the lord of thruth has spoken, numbers don't lie :old:
tsk tsk tsk
Anyone can take any set of stats of make them say anything they want those stats to say. :aok
-
Realism .....
.
Being an intimate recipient of friendly fire from the air, this stuff happens, and happens often.
Real life use of spotters (air & ground), ground forces marking enemy position with colored smoke and
radio vectoring of air inventory is more realistic. No kill shooter for friendly kills, maybe a msg that pilot X just killed friendly
with no perk points awarded or deducted.
Eliminating GV icons for both sides would actually lend to realism.
The fact that you can use the same tank on both sides of a battle lends itself to mistakes. Shouldn't be hard to
use a marker panel when spawning a gv to indicate what side it is on. You know kinda like the town flags do now ?
In Normandy tanks had air recognition panels visible on the top of the tank to minimize friendly fire. I am sure
the recognition of the panels from a pilots view depended on the acft. speed, eyesight of the pilot and
cockpit visibility factors.
I communicated with friends of the pilot that mistakenly hit our positions with rocket fire, and their description
as to the effect it had on that pilots life after the event was chilling.
killshooter is ON for a reason. ;)
As I've said in previous threads: think of it this way- the friendly icons are making up for communications that were existent in WWII, but no so much so in AH.
-
GET READY TO RUMBLE!
-
The B5n was just an example. I wasn't actually comparing the B5N's impact to the Lancasters.
And in actual gameplay, Lancasters do very rarely "totally disrupt" tank battles by bombing tanks. They do disrupt them... by bombing the VH's. That is their true main impact on gameplay. As a tank buster on the actual battlefield, they are rare and overall quite ineffective. Only few pilots use Lancs regularly to hunt GVs, and on average they don't get that many kills as one could expect when looking at the (theoretically) impressive number of 42 bombs. The A-20 is much more impressive, both in overall GV kills as well as the number of kills being landed per sortie.
The actual tactical impact of the Lancaster on the battlefield is quite small.
I've been trying to tell him that, but he keeps insisting I don't know what I am talking about and that Lancasters have a major impact on GV fights. He insists that the stats are wrong and Lancasters are wreaking wholesale slaughter on GVs and stopping their fights by killing them.
tsk tsk tsk
Anyone can take any set of stats of make them say anything they want those stats to say. :aok
No, that is a pat saying but completely false. The stats don't lie. Lancasters are only responsible for a tiny fraction of GV kills, the majority of their attacks doing nothing but blowing holes in the dirt.
-
now you can try out the new icon system it is in the new update
have fun
dhawk
-
I've been trying to tell him that, but he keeps insisting I don't know what I am talking about and that Lancasters have a major impact on GV fights. He insists that the stats are wrong and Lancasters are wreaking wholesale slaughter on GVs and stopping their fights by killing them.
Are you referring to me?
Fred
-
Not so. I'm willing to bet that A20 pilots didnt carry binocs while searching out enemy tanks to bomb. Also, the A20's knew to where within a few hundreds yards where they were going to bomb, their targets were mostly preset before launch.
The spotter aircraft went up *looking* for the enemy. They were flying slow enough to look, look again, and triple look, and then some, with binocs, all in the same pass.
If anything, HTC should make the icon ranges relative to the speed of the aircraft, but then again which aircraft can fly 100mph well enough, have the same visibility, and was designed to do what the Storch did? But more so, that is probably a major coding issue.
This is adding another dimension to AH. Perhaps people should try it out first before performing their best imitation of Chicken Little. :aok
your right, they might not have, but you don't know that. However, that's besides the point. neither did the Storch or L-Bird pilots... there is a second seat in the planes for a reason... for the observer that was on every flight. Only he would have the binocs.
Now, if there was a binocular mode for the storch, then by all means, i would support that. If bombers are vulnerable while in the bombsite, the same should be for storches while spotting.
Speed has nothing to do with how far you can see and that would be even gamier. I can see the same distance if I'm traveling 100mph or 200mph, the only difference is how long i have to react or identify something. I can still see it though.
This is random, but why did we even get the storch? Every request i ever saw for a liaison aircraft was for L-Birds.
-
You suck in airplanes and don't play anymore but yet you keep on posting about their vulnerabilities. Krusty has all the right to post about GVs as you do about airplanes and his being a paid subscriber makes him qualified to post in any thread he wishes, just like it does with you.
ack-ack
1) I don't suck in aircraft. I wasn't great, but I was decent.
2) I actually flew aircraft more than a couple of times per tour, unlike Krusty and GV's
3) he pretty much hasn't done any serious GV'ing in at least two years. Probably a fair bit more, but I got bored and gave up.
Sorry, but hes not speaking from a position of expierience, and hes being rather obnoxious about what he thinks he knows. Even if he is qualified (I'll admit you're right on that account), his oppinion is less valuable than that of EVERYONE who has done a fair bit of both GV'ing an flying aircraft.
-
Lanc's have rarely been an issue in Ground battles, I rarely ever see them anywhere near a tank fight unless its tank town.
A20s, P51s and P47s are the biggest buggers, although its generally just some crappy tanker who got killed and wants revenge, that or the typical who takes up a non-perk tank and gets killed by a perk tank because he's to scared to up a perk tank.
Out of 100 Deaths in a tour I may get killed 15-25 times by bombs, and at the end of the tour (which most know I only driver a Panther mostly) I usually come out a few hundred perks ahead, so bombs or not I don't really care.
The whiners are the ones who apparently care, not sure why - perk tank or not if you can't gain perks then you might want to start back at square 1 the training arena.
-
GVers, you can put away your Geiger counters. Henceforth, let the record show that the radioactive one has ceded the battlefield.... at least on this subject. :aok
-
No.
Have the tanks have the same alteration in terms of range visibility & or fix the fact that a tank turret can track & shoot down aircraft that are moving at over 100MPH.
I don't think actual B-25 pilots used their birds to take on main battle tanks while flying 20' off the ground.
-
C'mon Tankace, you don't play at ALL anymore. Are you really calling out another player who "doesn't play enough" ?
I find your statement ironic on two levels. First, why you would even desire to comment on a thread entitled "Why the Icon Range Change for GV's?" since you clearly have no desire to be in or near one nor can even operate one (from what I understand). You then have bust on tankace for commenting on something he has no knowledge of. Pot meet kettle....
No offense, it's just ironic....
As a player who participates in all facets of the game, I still support the icon change.
-
I find your statement ironic on two levels. First, why you would even desire to comment on a thread entitled "Why the Icon Range Change for GV's?" since you clearly have no desire to be in or near one nor can even operate one (from what I understand). You then have bust on tankace for commenting on something he has no knowledge of. Pot meet kettle....
No offense, it's just ironic....
As a player who participates in all facets of the game, I still support the icon change.
Sir, simply because I am wearied by TankAce's posts. BTW you are quite correct I have absolutely no idea how to GV, but you are incorrect that this change does not affect me. I was flying near a base last night and half the enemies were in GV's of various types shooting UP. Had squaddies taken out by 88's left and right too. Them thing have got some range.
Also, I read most threads to learn a bit more about this great game.
<S> Meat, no offense taken sir.
-
Sir, simply because I am wearied by TankAce's posts.
I get that
BTW you are quite correct I have absolutely no idea how to GV, but you are incorrect that this change does not affect me. I was flying near a base last night and half the enemies were in GV's of various types shooting UP. Had squaddies taken out by 88's left and right too. Them thing have got some range.
You, low over a base???? :O :D
Also, I read most threads to learn a bit more about this great game.
<S> Meat, no offense taken sir.
Fair enough and :salute back.... bygones
-
GVers, you can put away your Geiger counters. Henceforth, let the record show that the radioactive one has ceded the battlefield.... at least on this subject. :aok
Say what? No, I was simply ignoring the insulting fool who had no valid point on the topic at hand and does nothing but throw out false arguments and lies. So I reported his posts for breaking not only the rules of this forum but of common decensy as well.
I hope he gets a time out, personally. He GREATLY needs one.
-
oh snap!
-
You then have bust on tankace for commenting on something he has no knowledge of. Pot meet kettle....
I'm probably one of the more expierienced GV'ers on the BBS dude. 6 years of AH, 3 or 4 of them in tanks.
-
I'm probably one of the more expierienced GV'ers on the BBS dude. 6 years of AH, 3 or 4 of them in tanks.
Oh, sorry. But you are mearly a BBS queen now.... <S> anyway.
-
Say what? No, I was simply ignoring the insulting fool who had no valid point on the topic at hand and does nothing but throw out false arguments and lies. So I reported his posts for breaking not only the rules of this forum but of common decensy as well.
I hope he gets a time out, personally. He GREATLY needs one.
Seems to me my only transgression was having the unmitigated gall to question and disagree with Krusty. The way I see it, the only ones who would've taken what i said as insulting are those with a level of arrogance that renders them incapable of perceiving the air of condescension that they themselves put off.
I suppose I should return the favor and report you for stooping to the level of name-calling, but I'll not do that because I'm neither that thin skinned nor am I a fool. Notice how rather than furthering the discussion you chose to disparage, berate and belittle. Sad. If Skuzzy determines that crossed the line then I'll take my medicine like a big boy but I feel I only gave what I got.
:salute Nishizwa