Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: earl1937 on June 06, 2012, 12:31:35 PM
-
I have brought this up before and I think it is a reasonable request of Hi Tech. If a person posts a mission from a CV, once it is submitted, no one should be allowed to take command of the carrier until after the mission has launched. The reason for this is simple: a guy or gal sitting at their "cockpit" station,(desk top computer), and has a laptop next to them, with it tuned to a different country, called a shade account by some, they just wait until the mission spawns out on the carrier deck, take command and turn the CV, then start laughing as the aircraft crash. It has happened to me twice in the last month!! If I post a mission on the clipboard mission board, no one is allowed to take command of my posted mission, so why should someone have the ability to take a carrier away from me, when I have a carrier mission posted? Just saying!
-
Then I can post a CV mission that won't launch for 10 hours and let the CV go about it's merry way. I like it. :noid
-
There are a number of things you could do. You could learn how to take off from a turning carrier. Or you could have someone stay in the tower to watch for a turning cv and have them call out to hold on deck until the cv is strait again. Making things easier isn't going to help teach people how to use the equipment that is available in the game.
-
I have brought this up before and I think it is a reasonable request of Hi Tech. If a person posts a mission from a CV, once it is submitted, no one should be allowed to take command of the carrier until after the mission has launched. The reason for this is simple: a guy or gal sitting at their "cockpit" station,(desk top computer), and has a laptop next to them, with it tuned to a different country, called a shade account by some, they just wait until the mission spawns out on the carrier deck, take command and turn the CV, then start laughing as the aircraft crash. It has happened to me twice in the last month!! If I post a mission on the clipboard mission board, no one is allowed to take command of my posted mission, so why should someone have the ability to take a carrier away from me, when I have a carrier mission posted? Just saying!
Easy to fix: Get your rank below 50 and don't worry about someone taking command of the CV.
Solved.
-
This is what I suggest doing.
Take command of TG before your mission launches. Use F5+F8 views to see the TG from above.
Also have a buddy man the Rear 5" gun to babysit the flight deck.
I know this is wrong but many people on the playground will make a practical joke and turn your boat upon launch if you complain on green text too much about people turning the boat on you.
Finally we must accept that no matter how hard we try, someone may muck up your brilliant plans either intentionally or unintentionally.
-
so why should someone have the ability to take a carrier away from me, when I have a carrier mission posted?
To save it from the incoming bombers about to drop their load while Mr Mission Commander is still too busy with giving out flight plans and orders?
You would be surprised how often I got yelled at for "turning the dam CV" when that turn was the only thing left to save the CV. If I haveto chose between protecting noobs taking off and protecting the CV.... ;)
And other have already pointed out how easy that feature could be abused by a 2-weeker putting up a mission that won't lift anyway.
-
There are a number of things you could do. You could learn how to take off from a turning carrier. Or you could have someone stay in the tower to watch for a turning cv and have them call out to hold on deck until the cv is strait again. Making things easier isn't going to help teach people how to use the equipment that is available in the game.
Yes, because condescension is a requirement for all wishlist posts.
Let's see... "You could learn how to take off from a turning carrier"... you mean the 10+ people on the mission can all learn how to take off from a carrier? Because this is a breeze at full rudder, especially once you've already started rolling... not to mention ords, etc. 0/10 for this asinine "alternative".
Next, have someone WATCH until the carrier is "strait" again. Sheer brilliance. While "making things easier isn't going to help", surely having everyone else put their game on hold until the jerk turning the carrier is done... and then making the wild assumption they won't just do it again once people start taking off is a superb plan. 0/10.
How about YOU learn to either come up a legitimate way to rebut an idea that you personally don't like, or perhaps simply enough self-control to refrain from throwing wet blankets on other players wishes?
Either one would be a great start.
-
And other have already pointed out how easy that feature could be abused by a 2-weeker putting up a mission that won't lift anyway.
Man, if only we could have it to where the "lock" didn't take effect until >X players were in the mission...
Oh wait, maybe that IS a possibility... if we were even remotely interested in actually fixing the problem.
-
Oh wait, maybe that IS a possibility... if we were even remotely interested in actually fixing the problem.
I'd be more interested in fixing problems that are real problems. ;)
The moment I spawn on the deck I check ther wake of the escorting ships, which will easily give away a turn starting or in progress. I just have to wait 20 seconds until the course is straight again.
Most players crash from a turnign CV because they do not pay attention. They simply slam their throttle forward the moment they spawn. When I know I have trouble getting my overweight F4U from a turning CV (as many players do) I simply wait a few seconds.
-
I'd be more interested in fixing problems that are real problems. ;)
"real" problems, in the eyes of a player like yourself, are not necessarily "real" problems in the eyes of not only the majority of the player base, but end up being hurdles/stumbling blocks to the growth of the game and player base as a whole.
Most players are no where near as good as you. There is this firmly entrenched nest of die-hard players that protect these forums and their idea of the game like a rabid honey badger. It's unhealthy, and from a casual players perspective it's a little off-putting.
The moment I spawn on the deck I check ther wake of the escorting ships, which will easily give away a turn starting or in progress. I just have to wait 20 seconds until the course is straight again.
Most players crash from a turnign CV because they do not pay attention. They simply slam their throttle forward the moment they spawn. When I know I have trouble getting my overweight F4U from a turning CV (as many players do) I simply wait a few seconds.
The issue here isn't the superman lone-wolf. We are all well aware that you guys are great. There are videos, screenshots, (now charts :D ) abounding that prove this.
The issue here is that there is a grief-hole open here, and it's obnoxious. Almost as obnoxious as players coming in with oh-so helpful "learn2play!" comments.
The bottom line is this... hi-fi sim, game, whatever you want to call it, user experience is key to development. Perhaps those in charge are more than happy with the number of subscribers currently... perhaps they are also absolutely fine with the inevitable passing/moving on of that base... but I am operating from the assumption that the base product here is just that: a product. In that case, a sound business plan does not cater to the upper 10 percentile proficiency wise.
Not to mention that no one, not even a god amongst peasants like yourself, is consistently taking off in a loaded Corsair if someone slams full rudder after you've already committed to the throttle. Sorry.
I keep trying to find footage of aircraft taking-off and landing from turning carriers.... so far no luck...
-
Most players are no where near as good as you. There is this firmly entrenched nest of die-hard players that protect these forums and their idea of the game like a rabid honey badger. It's unhealthy, and from a casual players perspective it's a little off-putting.
You maybe should rearead my post. I was talking about the whole thing with nothing but the average player in mind. I didn't say "it's easy to takeoff" or somethign like that. I said: "Keep attention and wait". No much experience or skill required for that. ;)
I'm just averse of putting complicated solutions with a lot of potential for abuse into the game for problems that are not really problems. I'd rather see other things 'fixed'.
-
The heart of the problem is that carriers are one of the few areas of the game where the same side's players have a chance to heavily impact one anothers' gameplay.
The frustration stems from both sides having their plans halted by someone else and there's nothing they can do about it. Any idea I've come up with so far to ameliorate it has been easily abusable/counterable.
X number of people required for the mission? Easy enough for some to get X number of people into a mission that never launches.
One thing that crosses my mind, would it perhaps help if over range channel you got a message saying along the lines of, 'CARRIER: Turning hard left!' if a turn was initiated?
Lusche- I agree with your logic, but there is a time span when you're rolling where you're committed to rolling and if you don't notice the turn immediately it can really mess you up, especially heavy. I don't think most would find it difficult to get a light plane up pretty consistently as long as they notice the turn coming.
I personally can't see anything that's any less abusable than the current system that would be effective.
Wiley.
-
You maybe should rearead my post. I was talking about the whole thing with nothing but the average player in mind. I didn't say "it's easy to takeoff" or somethign like that. I said: "Keep attention and wait". No much experience or skill required for that. ;)
Once you've committed, you've committed.
I'm just averse of putting complicated solutions with a lot of potential for abuse into the game for problems that are not really problems. I'd rather see other things 'fixed'.
I agree that no solution should be (or, in my opinion - to qualify as a solution - could be) complicated. Nor do I believe that solving one potential for abuse with another potential for abuse is the answer. But, since there IS the potential for abuse as-is, and there could be any number of uncomplicated and solid solutions for this issue, then I would consider this something that needs 'fixed'.
Where it RANKS on the list is another story altogether.
-
I personally can't see anything that's any less abusable than the current system that would be effective.
Wiley.
Little things, like limiting the severity of a turn based on proximity to enemy forces/land would be a start.
An audible warning to players on the carrier several seconds before it begins a turn would be nice, though I don't know how feasible.
Even just making it a little easier to tell the state of the task force, again we're talking accessibility to the average player here, from the tower - would be nice.
-
Yes, because condescension is a requirement for all wishlist posts.
Let's see... "You could learn how to take off from a turning carrier"... you mean the 10+ people on the mission can all learn how to take off from a carrier? Because this is a breeze at full rudder, especially once you've already started rolling... not to mention ords, etc. 0/10 for this asinine "alternative".
Next, have someone WATCH until the carrier is "strait" again. Sheer brilliance. While "making things easier isn't going to help", surely having everyone else put their game on hold until the jerk turning the carrier is done... and then making the wild assumption they won't just do it again once people start taking off is a superb plan. 0/10.
How about YOU learn to either come up a legitimate way to rebut an idea that you personally don't like, or perhaps simply enough self-control to refrain from throwing wet blankets on other players wishes?
Either one would be a great start.
Let me guess, YOU don't know how to take off from a turning CV either!
I wasn't being condescending, I was pointing out that people have other options that DON'T involve rewrites of the game coad. Taking off from a turning cv isn't easy, but it can be done with some practice. Taking off with a mission on a turning CV again, can be done. If one guy calls out a single player and has him launch he will pull out of the over lapping frame works and be able to see where he's going a use the proper amount of rudder to roll and launch. Each player can roll one at a time like this. As for the guy in the tower. The guy in the tower could.....wait for it..... be one of the players actually joining the mission and so is hanging around any way.
As many in here your first thought is have someone else fix your issues instead of "thinking" them through and coming up with a solution. Heaven forbid that solution requires learning something new, or even practice. Maybe you should take that chip off your shoulder and settle down.
-
Exactly what I'm talking about.
Little things, like limiting the severity of a turn based on proximity to enemy forces/land would be a start.
Which would affect little, because the vast majority of the time people are launching close to the enemy/land. Nothing wrong with the idea, but would the effectiveness be worth it?
An audible warning to players on the carrier several seconds before it begins a turn would be nice, though I don't know how feasible.
Which has the side effect of making the carrier less maneuverable in the event of bomber drop. Whether that's good or bad is debatable.
Even just making it a little easier to tell the state of the task force, again we're talking accessibility to the average player here, from the tower - would be nice.
Again, nothing wrong with the idea, but if it's only available in the tower, how useful is that once you've taken the deck? If I'm griefing the deck, I'm not going to turn until I see them start to move.
There's a great tendency for people in online games to want the powers that be to Do Something About It!(tm) when something inconveniences them. There is rarely any thought put into the side effects or how much good it would actually do, or possible downsides, such as the OP displays.
I'm all for change that actually accomplishes something, I just dislike change for the sake of change.
Wiley.
-
Fugi, I honestly believe you'll accomplish more by pissing into the wind than by talking to tunnel. :aok Just sayin. :D
-
Fugi, I honestly believe you'll accomplish more by pissing into the wind than by talking to tunnel. :aok Just sayin. :D
I know. I'm easily misunderstood, but I'm a nice guy and I'll try to help everyone........... well ok, I'll just leave it like that :devil
-
(deleted)
-
(deleted)
-
I know. I'm easily misunderstood, but I'm a nice guy and I'll try to help everyone........... well ok, I'll just leave it like that :devil
I've got nothing against you, personally... and maybe my frustration was a bit misguided... but I am tired of watching people post legitimate wishes be descended upon by the Vigilante Tech Support squadron.
ET is a damn good guy, and if he is coming here to post an issue he has dealt with it multiple times and it's caused legitimate grief.
I have... an exceptional amount of experience with just about every facet of online gaming, down to layer 1. I have never seen the code for AH, nor do I presume to know ANYTHING about what goes into the development and successful release of a change. What I do know all about is exploits with grief potential, and this is one of them. The answer to griefing is NEVER to throw it back on the one being griefed.
ET represents the voice of the core of the player base... i.e., the silent majority who probably don't even have forum accounts. We are talking, literally, ages 8 to 80. Working class fellas with a 2 to 3 hour window to play, on a good night. These are guys that aren't on enough to have the level of experience or coordination required to successfully navigate the deck of a turning carrier when they have already begun their roll.
Anyway, sorry for getting defensive, but ET's in my sacred hoop.
(http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/Dirty.Steve.jpg)
-
There's a great tendency for people in online games to want the powers that be to Do Something About It!(tm) when something inconveniences them. There is rarely any thought put into the side effects or how much good it would actually do, or possible downsides, such as the OP displays.
I'm all for change that actually accomplishes something, I just dislike change for the sake of change.
Wiley.
I agree wholeheartedly, and this forum exists specifically to allow for this type of discussion... I certainly don't think any of my ideas are slam-dunk fixes, not by any margin... I simply don't know what the solution is. The only thing I know is that the current set-up allows for easy grief potential and pilot training or finding someone with a low enough rank to take it over is not the answer.
We talked to a CM last night about this issue, and he had the idea that perhaps making it to where the carrier can't turn when someone is on the deck...
Playing devil's advocate (as you have done above) I said "But some jerk will just park on the CV deck to prevent it from being turned.." and he said "Yes, but you'll know exactly who it is..."
So, I think there ARE some options here... but whether or not they merit a code change... well, far above my pay grade.
-
These are guys that aren't on enough to have the level of experience or coordination required to successfully navigate the deck of a turning carrier when they have already begun their roll.
seriously? and they aren't interested in learning how either? perhaps they should just limit their flights to/from airbases.
-
seriously? and they aren't interested in learning how either? perhaps they should just limit their flights to/from airbases.
There was a reason that carriers turned into the wind and cruised straight while launching/collecting aircraft during WW2...
But, I completely agree with your point on the one hand... of course, I can't land a Storch on a cruiser like some guys haha...
-
That's funny, maybe instead of taking shots for the good ole' boys BBS club, you could take a look at a map and figure out how to hit a hangar you are assigned. :aok Just sayin. :D
Right, right. Funny thing is, when the DD's assign me a hanger, that is what I'm gonna hit. Unlike some, I actually will CONFIRM my target before we get there (I think I pissed ET off once confirming 2 times :lol). I've learned to confirm targets when flying in rather large scale bomber mission as it prevents screw ups like what happened the other day. Which has me wondering, was there an update to Pand's Maps? :headscratch: Last I recall for a small field (according to the maps I currently have), FH3 was the S hanger, FH1 is the N hanger. Since I was assigned FH1, which was the N hanger on my map, that was what I was hitting, till someone else got it. :bhead I didn't see anything posted on the BBS about him updating the maps and my version is 2.2.
-
:noid :rolleyes:
-
I would like to see launching from the cv disabled while a mission waits for launch.
Just make the limit of the "waiting mission shot clock" to be 10 minutes or less.
It could possibly be gamed to deny takeoffs, though.
-
Right, right. Funny thing is, when the DD's assign me a hanger, that is what I'm gonna hit. Unlike some, I actually will CONFIRM my target before we get there (I think I pissed ET off once confirming 2 times :lol). I've learned to confirm targets when flying in rather large scale bomber mission as it prevents screw ups like what happened the other day. Which has me wondering, was there an update to Pand's Maps? :headscratch: Last I recall for a small field (according to the maps I currently have), FH3 was the S hanger, FH1 is the N hanger. Since I was assigned FH1, which was the N hanger on my map, that was what I was hitting, till someone else got it. :bhead I didn't see anything posted on the BBS about him updating the maps and my version is 2.2.
What I said was jerk-tastic, I apologize. Bad morning, should have stayed off the forums.
-
As far as the dreaded turning CV goes, I suggested a long time ago to simply do what real US carriers did - when flight ops were in progress (i.e. the carrier is sailing straight) you see a green light up on the bridge from your spawn location on the deck. When flight ops had ceased (i.e. the carrier is turning) you see a red light from the same location. It doesn't prevent anyone from taking off during red light-turning CV, but it warns people. Course the response I got was to look at the wake - which I could never see from a hog :D
Regarding the task force - this is a purely hypothetical question:
What if perks were at stake for anyone taking command of the Task Force?
Any commander who lets the task force get sunk loses perks - enough to sting a bit.
On the other hand, a commander gets a small percentage of the perk points from planes, PTs or cruiser shelling that accrue points while in command.
Perhaps a CV mission could lock the CO of an un-commanded Task Force for that mission - though not exceeding, say two hours max. (or some limiting number). Other non-mission players could still launch... or... maybe for a few minutes during mission launch they could be prevented....
Low number guys could still bump any TF CO that does not have a mission in progress.
Just an idea... sink it if you like. :)
-
I agree wholeheartedly, and this forum exists specifically to allow for this type of discussion... I certainly don't think any of my ideas are slam-dunk fixes, not by any margin... I simply don't know what the solution is.
I usually try to keep my criticisms civil, unless the person with the idea is presenting it as though it's a perfect solution, and has the tone of 'God! I just can't believe they haven't implemented this simple fix!' (not saying that's happened here, btw) The OP asked why he shouldn't be able to have control of the CV for his mission, the first response explained why. Tone is irrelevant.
The only thing I know is that the current set-up allows for easy grief potential and pilot training or finding someone with a low enough rank to take it over is not the answer.
The only thing I can see that would take away the grief potential of controllable CVs is to take away the ability to control them. If a player can control it, it can be used to grief, period.
As to 'pilot training', I disagree. It takes pilot training to learn how to take off and land from an airbase, fly the plane, hit what you're aiming at, and land. It takes a little bit more to take off and land from a CV, but it's not onerous. Unless you're in a worst case scenario with bombs, rockets, and full fuel it is not crushingly difficult to take off from a turning CV. Once you've done it a few times, it's just another thing you have to take into account.
Looking at carriers and how they work though, you've got two factors on a seesaw:
1) The ability for people to take off.
2) The ability for the carrier to dodge bombs/shells from artillery.
The game currently favors the ability to dodge. Most CV battles I've seen, if planes on the deck prevented the CV from turning, the battles would last about 1/10th of the time they do.
We talked to a CM last night about this issue, and he had the idea that perhaps making it to where the carrier can't turn when someone is on the deck...
Playing devil's advocate (as you have done above) I said "But some jerk will just park on the CV deck to prevent it from being turned.." and he said "Yes, but you'll know exactly who it is..."
And taken to the next logical step, then what? A nasty thread on the forums? Nasty PMs to the person? Public flogging? HTC playing hall monitor and booting them from the game? How do we distinguish griefer from newb? If people take his head off and it's a newb, that's going to leave a bad taste for sure.
I'd lay money if you could tell HTC what time you were trying to launch from a specific carrier and the person in control turned it, if they were so inclined they could look through a log and see who did it. If they wanted to, they already can know exactly who it is. However, once you put rules in place, you've got to enforce them.
CVs being maliciously turned happens occasionally, but it's not insurmountable for players to overcome it.
So, I think there ARE some options here... but whether or not they merit a code change... well, far above my pay grade.
Yup. IMO it is how it is because of the necessity for CVs to avoid incoming fire. That has to take priority over takeoff smoothness.
Wiley.
-
As far as the dreaded turning CV goes, I suggested a long time ago to simply do what real US carriers did - when flight ops were in progress (i.e. the carrier is sailing straight) you see a green light up on the bridge from your spawn location on the deck. When flight ops had ceased (i.e. the carrier is turning) you see a red light from the same location. It doesn't prevent anyone from taking off during red light-turning CV, but it warns people. Course the response I got was to look at the wake - which I could never see from a hog :D
This is an awesome idea! Historical too!
-
when a CV's going to make a turn within 10s the ship's warning siren should go off.
whooooop! whooooop!
people also need to look at the clipboard more. the number of times I hear someone going ballistic about "someones turning the dam CV!" when the course has be set for the last 40mins is amazing.
-
What I said was jerk-tastic, I apologize. Bad morning, should have stayed off the forums.
No worries. :aok I have those from time to time. :bhead
That being said, I can understand the dweebery that takes place when it comes to cv launched missions. But Lusche was correct in that there ARE bigger issues with the cv's. One of the most notable ones is the ability to sail a cv into land on an edge of some maps (Compello?) and make it indestructible. They will hide the CV way up in the NW area of the map, purposely sail it there into the land at the edge of the map so that it can't be taken out and kept "safe". The only way to "fix" it is if someone on that country side sails it out of there or if someone switches sides to do this. Or if one of the HTC crew pops in to fix it which I have yet to ever see happen.
Old Sport, I do kind of like that idea of the red/green light though I get the feeling that more than a few won't notice it. :)
RT, have the siren go off the moment it starts turning may be more helpful. You really can't put a 10s "pre-warning" when someone turns the cv right away due to bombers/sb/dweebery. But you are right, I laugh every time someone complains that the CV is turning but seem to have forgotten that it's course was laid out who knows how long ago. :lol
As for taking off of a fully turning CV, it's tricky in a F4U and TBM with full fuel and ords. Just about every other plane though, I don't have a problem. It takes a little practice with the 4U's and TBM's, but usually when I spawn on the turning deck I wait for a moment. When the CV starts to straighten out, I'll start to roll...or I tower if I hear bombs. :noid
-
instantly is within 10s ;)
-
One of the most notable ones is the ability to sail a cv into land on an edge of some maps (Compello?) and make it indestructible.
This was fixed long ago.
HiTech
-
This was fixed long ago.
HiTech
(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9275/4876696414d3f62d18be.jpg)
(Seriously though, good to know!!)
-
This was fixed long ago.
HiTech
I don't miss that Bermuda triangle bug.
-
Then I can post a CV mission that won't launch for 10 hours and let the CV go about it's merry way. I like it. :noid
I guess I didn't make myself clear on one point: If I or anyone posts a CV air launch mission, after the mission is submitted and accepted, (usually 10 to 12 minutes), the control of the CV could not be taken by anyone except the person posting the mission. I like to have at least 1 fighter over the carrier prior to mission launches just so we will have sit rep while sitting in the tower waiting for mission to launch! And no, you didn't tick me off asking for verification of assigned target. In that instance, I had someone PMing me, saying we ought to hit another base instead of the one which I had selected as our target. I already had 2 goons, 1 in route, and the other already on the ground in the target base area, plus I was PMed by another squad that they would meet us at such and such location for join ops. The person making 2 or 3 requests to go to a different base, had no knowledge of all the plans which was made by PMs. Understand?
-
Course the response I got was to look at the wake - which I could never see from a hog :D
howbouts just looking at ones compass?
-
This was fixed long ago.
HiTech
Welp, I missed that memo. I usually look through the patch logs, which makes this worse. :o :bhead Ah well, least I know for sure on the issue. :aok
-
Course the response I got was to look at the wake - which I could never see from a hog :D
F3 :aok
-
I guess I didn't make myself clear on one point: If I or anyone posts a CV air launch mission, after the mission is submitted and accepted, (usually 10 to 12 minutes), the control of the CV could not be taken by anyone except the person posting the mission. I like to have at least 1 fighter over the carrier prior to mission launches just so we will have sit rep while sitting in the tower waiting for mission to launch! And no, you didn't tick me off asking for verification of assigned target. In that instance, I had someone PMing me, saying we ought to hit another base instead of the one which I had selected as our target. I already had 2 goons, 1 in route, and the other already on the ground in the target base area, plus I was PMed by another squad that they would meet us at such and such location for join ops. The person making 2 or 3 requests to go to a different base, had no knowledge of all the plans which was made by PMs. Understand?
You have to look at how someone will use the new setting to grief other players. In this case, all someone has to do is set a mission when his buddies buffs are coming in and it couldn't be turned making the CV that much easier to hit.
-
I guess I didn't make myself clear on one point: If I or anyone posts a CV air launch mission, after the mission is submitted and accepted, (usually 10 to 12 minutes), the control of the CV could not be taken by anyone except the person posting the mission. I like to have at least 1 fighter over the carrier prior to mission launches just so we will have sit rep while sitting in the tower waiting for mission to launch! And no, you didn't tick me off asking for verification of assigned target. In that instance, I had someone PMing me, saying we ought to hit another base instead of the one which I had selected as our target. I already had 2 goons, 1 in route, and the other already on the ground in the target base area, plus I was PMed by another squad that they would meet us at such and such location for join ops. The person making 2 or 3 requests to go to a different base, had no knowledge of all the plans which was made by PMs. Understand?
I didn't take offense in any way. :aok I figured it was the chatty-ness going on in vox that may have been gettin to ya. Generally I will PM you about certain things, usually about which runway we'll be spawning out of because I want to use a different skin on the bombers I'll be flying with ya. :) Once in a while, I'll ask which base we are hitting via PM but usually just up with you guys and find out target during flight as per norm. :salute My initial response was to point out how someone could grief others with the wish. I should have worded it better as to not come off as an ass. :o
The idea of "who ever controls a CV should be in it's tower" may work out better, at which point you could sit in the tower in command of the CV to avoid the mission being botched. While you (or whoever decides to take on that task) will lag behind a little from the mission after it ups, it won't be too hard for you/them to catch up. If someone takes control of it, they'll have to be in the tower to do it at which point you may see who it was and call em out on it. :aok
-
I didn't take offense in any way. :aok I figured it was the chatty-ness going on in vox that may have been gettin to ya. Generally I will PM you about certain things, usually about which runway we'll be spawning out of because I want to use a different skin on the bombers I'll be flying with ya. :) Once in a while, I'll ask which base we are hitting via PM but usually just up with you guys and find out target during flight as per norm. :salute My initial response was to point out how someone could grief others with the wish. I should have worded it better as to not come off as an ass. :o
The idea of "who ever controls a CV should be in it's tower" may work out better, at which point you could sit in the tower in command of the CV to avoid the mission being botched. While you (or whoever decides to take on that task) will lag behind a little from the mission after it ups, it won't be too hard for you/them to catch up. If someone takes control of it, they'll have to be in the tower to do it at which point you may see who it was and call em out on it. :aok
That's a great idea....Maybe after all these comments on my orginal post, maybe Hi Tech will consider mine and your suggestion!!! Like flying with you, because I can count on you hitting the target that I give you. Believe me, from someone who runs about 18 to 24 BIG bomber missions a week, I know who I can count on to hit their assigned target.
-
btw did/do USN ships use the whooooop! steam sirens to signal maneuvering? :headscratch:
iirc RN uses 1 blast for turning port, 2 for starboard and 3 for reversing
-
That's a great idea....Maybe after all these comments on my orginal post, maybe Hi Tech will consider mine and your suggestion!!! Like flying with you, because I can count on you hitting the target that I give you. Believe me, from someone who runs about 18 to 24 BIG bomber missions a week, I know who I can count on to hit their assigned target.
Arg! This is why I wish I could get in more flight time. :bhead It's not easy to find bomber missions...
Which has me wondering, ye planning a mission with the 410's? I'm a bit curious to what you might be cooking up with em. :D
That's....a good question RT. I'm curious about that as well. :headscratch: