Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: wulfie on March 05, 2001, 04:45:00 AM
-
I think lazs has a point about the ability to *easily* remove a field's ability to roll defending fighters.
It's way too easy to suicide in and keep fighters from rolling at a field. You constantly see the argument that 'realism fanatics' and their ideas would ruin the game for 'action freaks' (2 min. between sorties minimum, cannot take off from the same airfield twice within a 10 min. period, etc.) but doesn't the reverse hold true as well? I mean, how fair is it to allow 1 kamikaze in any aircraft that can carry a bomb to shut down *all* fighter operations at an airfield.
Yes, I know lazs is not a realism fanatic. But the above described 'problem' affects his ability to find action.
The biggest problem is that ground targets are too easy to find, and are too well known.
I don't know what type of frame rate hit it would cause, because I am in no way a programmer/coder, but what if each airfield had 30 AAA positions. Now only 10 of them would be active at a time, but you wouldn't see a gun at the position *until it started firing*. And when a destroyed gun 'respawned' it would respawn at a new and 'hidden' location (i.e. one of the 30 positions, but again no gun would be visible until it started firing).
For some real realism, AAA emplacements shouldn't all have a nice visible emplacement. Some of them should only be spottable by their gun flashes. WW2 aircraft didn't really ever pull off SEAD missions.
I like the same idea for aircraft availability, but use revetments instead of hangars. 12 revetments at a field. 8 are active, 6 being fighter revetments and 2 being bomber revetments (or 4 and 4, etc., etc., etc., whatever). Once all 6 are knocked out, no fighters can roll. Once one of those revetments has respawned (at a new 'hidden' revetment, see above) fighters can again roll.
Basically, make guys really have to 'knock a field out' to 'knock a field out'.
For what it's worth, I had the same experience as eagl. Spent tons of time looking for a fight. 2 or 3 times I told lazs where a big fight was brewing and by the time he'd landed he couldn't roll at any of the 3 fields closest to the action.
A well coordinated FB strike and/or a well coordinated/escorted level bomber strike should kick the toejam out of a field. But 1 B-17 shouldn't be able to shut down the ability of 3 airfields to roll any fighters at all, at least in my opinion.
Mike (wulfie from WB)
-
Ah and 1 more thing...how about AAA *will not fire* when there are friendly aircraft within a certain distance of the AAA position? Or the airfield itself?
One of the dumbest things in WB and AH is the lack of risk someone takes when dragging an enemy into a battery of 10+ AAA guns.
The above 'fix' might be hard to do. How about instead that AAA guns have a slight chance of considering a friendly aircraft to be a hostile one? There are potential problems with takeoffs and landings, but I'll try and think up a fix for those.
Blue on Blue incidents were a hell of alot more common in WW2 than they are today.
Mike (wulfie from WB)
-
duh double post!
[This message has been edited by wulfie (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
It takes more than one bomb to kill a hangar. It takes about 2000 lb for a vehicle hangar and 3000 lb for an aircraft hangar. The rebuilds are very quick.
-
What Funked said + "BANZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAI !" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Originally posted by wulfie:
Ah and 1 more thing...how about AAA *will not fire* when there are friendly aircraft within a certain distance of the AAA position? Or the airfield itself?
One of the dumbest things in WB and AH is the lack of risk someone takes when dragging an enemy into a battery of 10+ AAA guns.
The above 'fix' might be hard to do. How about instead that AAA guns have a slight chance of considering a friendly aircraft to be a hostile one? There are potential problems with takeoffs and landings, but I'll try and think up a fix for those.
Blue on Blue incidents were a hell of alot more common in WW2 than they are today.
Mike (wulfie from WB)
if friendly ack hits yer kite it WILL kill ya. A version or two back there was a bug that would let you basically walk around on A1 immune to the ack, and you would get the kills as the base ack destroyed anyone who tried to spawn and kill you. The bug's been fixed, but the ack is still lethal to the friendlies if it hits'em. But with the laser tracking the risk is greatly reduced.
-
Well.... i am a "realism" fanatic.. I like realist flight models and gunnery. That's usually about as far as it goes.
In this case tho... I can use the gameplay or the "realism" club. How "realistic" is it to kill a building and then say "can't take off here our carport fell down"?? Sheesh... every field layed out the same with the same (cough) "strat" elements??? Why not have a more realistic revetment based fighter availability? Why can't a field be restocked from another field (land there and now they got one plane).
One of the main reasons I don't do strat is simply that it is so lame in the (any) sim. War of the fields? War of the buildings? destroy some buildings and win the game? The biggest "strat" element in the game is to deny the other team a place to take off. And what does this accomplish??? It means that if you are successful.... You don't have anyone to fight! The best laid stategic plans result in clubbing an undefended field to deth or simply..... ENDING ALL THE ACTION THAT IS CLOSE. A whole field is no longer usable becaus a couple of buildings are flattened???? It's lose lose for me.
but wait... It get's better... In order to make such a lousy strat system even work... You have to make the bombers crewed by one or two people so that they can lone suicide buff and then... They have to be able to hit an ack every time with a single bomb from 20-30K.
lazs
-
3000k between two fighter hangers will destroy both. 1 b26 can shut down fighter operations in a hurry.
Drex
-
A alittle history, over the last 1.5 years, HTC has experimented with various re-build times and LBS' of bombs to destroy them...trial and error seems to have worked out the best solution, which is implemented today in the Main arena.
-
rip... using hangers to make fighter available is the problem. Making the harder or softer is not much of a solution. Ther is no visual clue. Up or down. Revetments would make fields all different, interesting and provide for gradual and realistic closure.
lazs
-
Agreed Lazs, I was speaking in terms of what we have today, as the code stands.
-
Originally posted by lazs:
Well.... i am a "realism" fanatic.. I like realist flight models and gunnery. That's usually about as far as it goes.
But you don't like bombs that really blow somethings up? LOL!
Originally posted by lazs:
How "realistic" is it to kill a building and then say "can't take off here our carport fell down"??
You can't park your car in your carport if it's not there, can you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I like the idea of being able to resupply a field but you wouldn't fly a cargo plane anyway, thus you'd be relying on us strat players to fix a base for you so your mindless, directionless, furball could continue. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mox
-
I've never seen the downing of a hangar equate to no fighters in the area. Hot pads have been added to assist in rearm-refuel. Hangar downtimes have been reduced to 15 minutes.
Taking down fighter hangars prevents constant instant respawning. I guess nobody recalls what a problem this was in the past. No matter what direction you look, the game will be played based on its allowances. Right now, a country has a 15 minute reprieve for whatever reasons based on downing a hangar. That seems fair.
The enemy also has several options. They can grab altitude and down the heavy fighters (easy targets), they can grab even more altitude and down the bombers (a little more difficult) or they can just re-arm/re-fuel on the hotpads. They can take more than 15 minutes of fuel up for a sortie.
The main complainer(s) in this debate seem to not want to do any of the above.
I've not seen anyone capture a base because they took a fighter hangar down. I've not seen anyone gain an advantage from taking a fighter hanger down. I have seen a fighter hangar go down as 15 enemy planes roll in and completely suppress the area. In that situation does it matter how hard it is to take down the hangar? Not really.
I also question the use of the phrase "easy to take down a hangar" especially in regards to fighters. I question how often anyone making that statement has attempted it.
So.. before lazs comes in and says I'm not contributing to the discussion, I'll ask this question: "Why are the hangars so 'easy' to take down, and why was that change necessary?"
AKDejaVu
-
<<WW2 aircraft didn't really ever pull off SEAD missions.>>
I don't know what is meant by 'pull off' but WWII aircraft often suppressed ack by strafing. Many of the planes you see with huge batteries of machine guns in their noses were used for such missions (Beaufighters, A-26's, B-25's, etc.). I've also read of accounts of fighter bombers doing the same, looking for signs of light AA and diving down to spray the area.
ra
-
mox... i got nothing against bombs that blow things up... The problem is... The "gunnery" for these bombs needs to be accurate.. The bombs also need some targets. see what I mean?
deja...why don't you just say.... "I like things the way they are and no matter what lazs says I will be against it. I have no ideas of my own but I don't want anything that lazs may think up. In fact i wouldn't know a good idea if it bit me in the ass." You can save everyone a lot of trouble by just printing that as your sig. You have no ideas of your own. You contribute nothing unless you consider saying that "everything is fine", contributing... You continue to tell me and others that we are having an easy time finding a fite.... You have no idea of what what we are finding.
As for simply refueling and rearming when the hangers are down... That does not apply to someone just logging on. All he sees is that some dipshit has bombed nothing but the fighter hangers for any field that is close to the action.
There is nothing "realistic" about what we have now. The strat has nothing to do with realism and is at best gimicky and silly. For a lot of us it has nothing to do with simulating WWII air combat so is a waste of our time. If you wish to participate in it that is fine but it would be nice if everyone had something that they considered fun/worthwhile to do.
lazs
-
For the ultimate in realism, I think that if you die in AH, you should have to wait 17-19 years to fly again. This would raslitically simulate conception, gestation, growth, maturity, basic education, basic training. Then we should be required to spend 6 months in the TA to simulate flight training. FInally, then and only then should we be allowed in MA. By the way, The 17-19 year requirement could be reduced to 13 years if a pilot intends to fly late-war LW like the HE-162.
OK, sarcasm off. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Lazs, I do understand what you are saying, but I think that it is important to be able to close a field quickly. This is necessary due to the sheer size of the maps we play with. If each war were intended to last a long time - i.e., weeks or months - then we could do what you propose. The caveat is that once closed, the base would have to stay closed for a MUCH longer time, hours at a minimum, to make the closure mean anything and have any strategic value.
I also disagree with your comments regarding buff accuracy. I know the LGB's we drop from 25K aren't realistic, but it also isn't realistic to have a single buff overfly a base. To be successful in the market, AH has to be accessible to the individual who doesn't want to fly with a squad or mass formations. Lt Joe Bob needs to be able to do something measurable to impact the flow of a battle to keep interested. So, tradeoffs must be made betwwen gameplay and realism. I don't fault HTC for the deisgn deicsions that they have made- I think they have done a darn good job overall.
Lest this appear to be a total slam on what you have been saying - I do agree with you that there ould be some changes made to acks and/or structures to make the single buff a little less effective. Case in point, large fields - it's really hard to attack and keep them down due to the sheer scope and complexity of the facility. But remember one other thing - in war, cratering the runways is a very common tactic. This alone, in my opiion, should be able to put a field out of action, even if you leave the buildings and acks untouched.
Perhaps what HTC needs to do is institute a "flow control" type logic for damaged fields. If the hangars are down, the number of planes allowed to launch are restricted to a lesser number. Hit the fly button, and you sit in a queue for a couple of minutes until your number comes up.
Just some rambling mid-day thoughts... thanks for listening. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BigBen
-
<double post, deleted!>
[This message has been edited by BigBen (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
deja...why don't you just say.... "I like things the way they are and no matter what lazs says I will be against it. I have no ideas of my own but I don't want anything that lazs may think up. In fact i wouldn't know a good idea if it bit me in the ass.
Just as soon as you say "My name is Lazs and fighter hangars will always be too easy for people to take down... especially if preventing means I have to do something other than what I'm willing to do. I think everything that makes my life easier is a good idea and I don't really give a damn how it affects anyone else."
Your opinion is heavily biased. This thread has not really adressed any real issues.. just offered fixes that weren't really considered fixed when they themselves were fixed in previous versions.
Sorry to be the one to point that out to you lazs.. but then again I don't think you'd notice anyways. It just doesn't fit into your plan.
AKDejaVu
-
ra,
My understanding is that the big batteries of nose mounted MGs were for ground attack missions.
It was very rare for a WW2 aircraft to engage enemy AAA and come out with a 'kill'.
Your comment hit it right on the head - 'spray the area', so you can suppress the gun while your wingmen finish their attack mission and get the hell out of the area.
Most air forces by then end of WW2 realized that ground attacks versus targets located on the actual battlefield were worthwhile *only to prevent ground units from being overrun/wiped out*, but that's a post for another time when I've got the time and energy to quote from a couple hundred pages of post WW2 documents/studies/etc.
The bottom line - it's too easy find and target enemy AAA weapons, which makes them too easy to kill.
I'm not slamming AH at all - some things have to be possible in the name of gameplay (such as a Pz IVH being blown up or destroyed, as opposed to 'mission killed', by 20mm cannon found on any aircraft), but as it stands, largely in part to the skill and experience of the ground attack specialists in AH, it's too easy to take down an airfield (in terms of assets commited to the attack).
Make the AAA hidden until it fires.
Add bomb dispersion due to wind for level bombers.
Would this really be so bad?
Mike (wulfie)
-
Bigben,
A lone B-26 could still contribute and have a sucessful mission.
He'd just have to think in terms of 'I'll pickle my entire bombload on that section of treeline where I saw some AAA gunfire flashes coming from'.
So he does that, and returns to base. Upon landing, he realizes he killed 2 AAA positions with his 8 bomb string.
I think that would be fun. It would have a cool feel. I like to fly B-26s from time to time. I like to land my missions. I come in fast, drop alot of bombs in the area of 2 or 3 targets and run for my life. Plenty of action there for me.
Mike (wulfie)
-
Rip1 (yeah I remember those days), 8)
Don't get me wrong. I am not disappointed in AH at all really. The key thing is the problems appear to get looked at and actually fixed.
I think the immersion would be very cool with the revetments idea. Want to hurt a field bad? Carpet bomb it with 4 or 6 B-17s and their 48-72 500 lb. bombs. That's going to blow stuff up all around the field. Then the FB guys come in. The remaining 30% of the AAA guns open up...the FB guys can come after this number of guns and live to tell about it.
Etc., etc., etc.
Mike (wulfie)
-
ben... u have some valid points. I have no problem with bombers affecting the "war". I think that giving the fields some variety in hardness would help both sides. some airbases in WWII were allmost impossible to close and had to be overrun very late or at the end of the war. Certainly that would work out in the game for everyone. If the furball crowd didn't much care about the war they could stay at the big less vulnerable base and ignore the war while the strat guys went on about what they do. A real life bombing raid would damage some stuff but not shut down operations. As for cratered runways.... Well, most fields didn't really need runways. You could talke off from anywhere.
deja said... "Your opinion is heavily biased. This thread has not really adressed any real issues.. just
offered fixes that weren't really considered fixed when they themselves were fixed in
previous versions." Huh? Ok.. your gonna have to run that one by me again. The only thing i understood was that you think my opinion is biased.... Yours isn't? what a hypocrite. The only difference is that I am looking for a way that let's everyone have fun while you want to force people to play a certain way. You are all about removing choice... I am about adding it. The revetment idea would help some players without hurting anyone.
sorry to be the one to have to tell you but you really have nothing to add.
lazs
-
The real issues:
What needs to be weighed is the ability for aircraft to respawn vs the ability to disable them from a field. Next weigh that against the time the fighters will be disabled and the time required for the fighters to arrive from nearby bases. Next, figure the ammount of resources needed to accomplish the task vs the ammount of resources needed to prevent it.
Right now the argument is that zero people should be required to prevent a single hangar closure by a single pilot. This by a country that has plenty of advanced notice of impending attack.
So, wulfie, your solution seems to revolve around 5-6 bombers being required to remove the ability of fighters to launch. 5-6 people dedicating 1 hour of time to getting over a field just to disable fighter launches for 15 minutes forcing people to fly from the next field that is only 8 minutes away. All this time and effort to coordinate the landing of a cargo airplane that any ONE fighter can destroy with relative consistancy. Do you think this is a reasonable solution? I do not.. not even remotely.
The more complex you make it.. the more it will be gamed. If you keep the objectives simple, you keep the defense simple. Thus you keep it fit for the MA. If you want to prevent someone from bombing hangars, get up there and prevent it. If you don't want to, hope others do. If others don't want to, then sorry for your little chess piece.
What is NOT a consideration in any of this is the argument "I don't like the fighter hangars being down so lets make it more difficult".
AKDejaVu
-
The game as is caters to everyone. Changing it one way or the other cuts out the other person's type of game.
-SW
-
sea... you are correct... to a point but... There has been a change. The map has changed. so... IMO, has the balance. I see adding revetrments (more ground targets) as a good thing for both sides. Far from adding complexity and ability to "game". It would take away the ability to game the game. It would add realism. If several of the fields were near invulnerable and had to be left for the end of the war as "strategy"... What would be wrong with that? The strat guys could be taking out the more vulnerable fields while the furballers could be enjoying the action at the hard fields.
Certainly you would agree that hitting the fighter hangers at several close fields with a lone buff from 20-30K is a pretty lame strat element?
lazs
-
You can't keep defense simple, because right now there is no effective defense.
Take the entire AK squadron. They could not stop 4 guys who don't care if they die from closing the fighter operations at an airfield.
Thog dive in at fighter hangars at high speed. Fire rockets. Fire cannon. Drop bombs last minute.
Eventually, the guys are going to close the fighter capability. 4 guys rolling from a couple of fields time and time again after they get slaughtered by AK CAP.
Add some actual need for target intel and you add the need to have air superiority over the target.
Mike (wulfie)
-
DejaVu,
My idea is that it's stupid to know exactly were all of the enemy's weak spots are all the time, to the extent that even after you download plans of the enemy defenses from the internet the enemy does not change the positioning of their defenses or address any of their weak spots.
It is stupid (in my opinion) for a lone B-17 to be able to shut down fighter operations at several airfields. There are numerous fixes for this problem...
A. Add some wind effects and bomb dispersion.
B. Add some 'fog of war' to the target list. Take the giant white letters saying 'DROP 2 BOMBS THIS STRUCTURE TO DISABLE ENEMY FIGHTER AVAILABILITY' off of the tops of the hangars.
C. Etc.
As long as a lone level bomber can do what is mentioned above, it is not a contest of strategic, operational, or tactical skill. It is whomever has less of a life = wins. Do you really expect guys to climb to 30,000' over and over again and fly BARCAP to try and spot that lone Lancaster?
As long as the targets are always the same and always well known you have 3 sides with a limitless supply of kamikaze ground attack pilots that cannot be stopped by even the most disciplined CAP operation. Historically, it has always been a real squeak to stop people who did not care if they died. It is no differenct in the AH main arena.
I don't think the 'fly seriously' types should have rules made up to favor them. But there should be a balance between the kamikazes and the guys who give a f*ck about landing.
Mike (wulfie)
-
Take the entire AK squadron. They could not stop 4 guys who don't care if they die from closing the fighter operations at an airfield.
Even if we couldn't prevent the hangar from going down.. that's 10 pilots flying over a base. We'd just need to hold it for 15 mins and the hangars would be back up. Who would the hangar being down impact?
My idea is that it's stupid to know exactly were all of the enemy's weak spots are all the time, to the extent that even after you download plans of the enemy defenses from the internet the enemy does not change the positioning of their defenses or address any of their weak spots.
Ahhh.. but what about the variables? You know.. the players? Do you know how an enemy might know where they are at all times?
This argument is no more or less valid than knowing exactly how fast the enemy's plane is, or exactly what kind of armament he has, or exactly what the compression speed is or any of that. These things are constants. The things that aren't are called pilots.
It is stupid (in my opinion) for a lone B-17 to be able to shut down fighter operations at several airfields. There are numerous fixes for this problem...
Not at several, at two. And... it is equally stupid for an entire country to ignore the fact that a b-17 just bombed a hangar and not send anyone up to greet him. That is often the case... stratobuff is simply a term used to make an excuse for the preceding not even being attempted.
A. Add some wind effects and bomb dispersion
Prove this is realistic. Many people with hands-on experience delivering ordinance from aircraft claim it is not. Wind effects on the bomb path are negligeable according to them and their attack trainers.
Add some 'fog of war' to the target list. Take the giant white letters saying 'DROP 2 BOMBS THIS STRUCTURE TO DISABLE ENEMY FIGHTER AVAILABILITY' off of the tops of the hangars.
3 bombs actually.. more than 2k. And.. don't forget.. "Disable for exactly 15 minutes". Its somewhat easy for one plane to do... and the effect is somewhat minimal. We aren't talking about a capture or even hours of downtime.. simply 15 minutes.
Do you really expect guys to climb to 30,000' over and over again and fly BARCAP to try and spot that lone Lancaster?
I've never seen a lancaster up that high. I suppose its possible.. but not likely. Like I said.. "stratobuff" is more of an excuse than anything else. Most buffs are between 22k and 24k. A G-10 could make it there in pretty short time.
I do think that the Norden has too high of magnification. It should not be that easy to resolve targets over 25k.
As long as the targets are always the same and always well known you have 3 sides with a limitless supply of kamikaze ground attack pilots that cannot be stopped by even the most disciplined CAP operation.
As long as the enemy can see you coming from the time your plane elevates above 500 feet. As long as RADAR gives away your exact position 15 miles out. As long as you know exactly what the capabilities of the enemy planes are.
As for stopping the most disciplined CAP opperation.. That's pretty easy. Meet them with equal numbers at equal alt and the guys with bombs are at a distinct disadvantage. They may get a few targets... but they won't get the base.
Oh.. wait.. we weren't talking about defense in this thread... the game has to do all this for us.
Historically, it has always been a real squeak to stop people who did not care if they died. It is no differenct in the AH main arena.
Tell that to the people that constantly respawn just as the C47 is arriving. It works both ways, but this thread only seems to recognize one side of it.
AKDejaVu
-
"Prove this is realistic. Many people with hands-on experience delivering ordinance from aircraft claim it is not. Wind effects on the bomb path are negligeable according to them and their attack trainers."
No. A waste of my time. You show me a single example of a level bomber using 1 or 2 bombs to knock out a specific hangar sized structure when bombing with level bomb sights.
Then, you can show me a specific example in WW2 where a single bomber kept an airfield from deploying aircraft for any period of time at all.
If you remove the pinpoint LGB capabilities of level bombers, I fully agree that the only thing 'fair' to do for the guys who enjoy level bomber missions is to give saturation/carpet/etc. bombing a reason to exist.
Those lone B-17s/Lancs almost always get shot down. Someone eventually climbs up and shoots them up.
Who knows? Maybe when in flight radar is gone medium altitude (and thus less time getting to altitude) level bomber carpet bombing attacks with a moderate escort will be more viable?
My base argument - considering the total number of airfields a side has, it takes too few assets to neutralize an airfield.
Hide the AAA.
Make it so players know what type of target to hit, but not what exact target to hit.
Do you really think this will make fields uncapturable?
Mike (wulfie)
-
Originally posted by ra:
<<WW2 aircraft didn't really ever pull off SEAD missions.>>
I don't know what is meant by 'pull off' but WWII aircraft often suppressed ack by strafing. Many of the planes you see with huge batteries of machine guns in their noses were used for such missions (Beaufighters, A-26's, B-25's, etc.). I've also read of accounts of fighter bombers doing the same, looking for signs of light AA and diving down to spray the area.
ra
Very true. My squadie Sancho has a book that details the experiences of the 9th AF P-47 squads. Their primary mission was jabo. There job was to straff everything of military value they could see on the ground. I cant remember the name of the book..But man it was a good read, hairraising.
(http://home.nc.rr.com/ammo/public.html/unw_sig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
[This message has been edited by -ammo- (edited 03-05-2001).]
-
What is the primary role of a fighter aircraft?
Why were fighters made to climb faster?
Why were fighters made to fly faster?
Why were fighters made to fly farther?
Why were fighters made with bigger guns?
Who is really being unrealistic in regards to bombers aproaching a base?
Were bombers this accurate in WW2?
Would they have been this accurate if they knew there were never going to be fighters in the area?
You want a solution to a single bomber taking out a FH? How about making the bomber loaded with bombs worth so many perk points that a fighter pilot would be stupid not to fly up there to catch it.
How about making a Jabo plane loaded with bombs worth mega perk points too?
There is a solution. Unfortunately for those arguing the point this doesn't really suit your needs. That is because it causes pilots to fly more realistically.. wich really isn't what you wanted at all.
AKDejaVu
-
Where did I ever say I didn't want pilots to fly realistically?
My favorite times in online flight sims have always been realistic/historical events.
My comments about suicide fighter bombers basically show what I think about non realistic flying *and it's ability to impact the 'war' strategically*.
Please take careful note there. I have no problem with 'furball addicts' at all - I have a problem (as far as AH goes that is) with the ability of a 'brave' online kamikaze to close a field's ability to launch defending fighters so easily.
So how do you reach the conclusion that I don't want people to fly realistically?
Is a lone/unescorted B-17 at 30,000' altitude on an attack mission 'realistic' flying? I don't care. B-17s can fly alone all they want. Just make them have real bomb sights.
I'd scold you for putting words in my mouth but with the posts above this one the offense is visible enough to everyone reading the thread...so I don't need to bother.
Tell me why you are against revetments instead of hangars. Tell me why you are against AAA positions that are more difficult to spot and don't always appear in the exact same place. Don't ask me some off topic out of the blue question like 'why were fighters designed to climb faster' and expect a response. 8)
Mike (wulfie)
-
So many good points in some of the above posts I hardly know where to begin (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Lazs spake:
Why can't a field be restocked from another field (land there and now they got one plane).
Couldn't agree more Lazs (bet THAT comes as a surprise). We've got a C47 at the moment which does nothing other than deliver troops. How about the following loadouts?
1. Mobile acks - C47 to carry two .50 cal acks and operators
2. Fuel - for when a field's fuel storage is knocked out
3. Radar parts - for when a field's radar has been destroyed
4. Engineers - repairs to hangers etc
But at least give us a reason to fly the Gooney OTHER than simply to bring drunks.
AkDejavu offered:
Wind effects on the bomb path are negligeable according to them and their attack trainers.
So are you trying to tell me that the US Government spends millions each year developing laser guided/optical guided bombs when they could accomplish the same level of accuracy just by bombing from 30k using a WW2 Norden Bombsight?
And wulfie said:
Hide the AAA
I have to agree with this one too. Last night I took up a solitary B17 loaded with 500lb bombs on a run to an enemy field. I shot down 4 enemy fighters en route (how realistic is THAT?) and then dropped every single ack at the field with one bomb each, followed by the field radar and a fuel tank.
Them big white circles are sure easy to aim at, and HIT!
As I see it, we need to have less of 'one buff closes a field' and more of 'Holy %^$# there's a gaggle of buffs headed this way'.
But I ain't silly enough to get caught in a 'fighter-v-buff' argument (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11
-
So are you trying to tell me that the US Government spends millions each year developing laser guided/optical guided bombs when they could accomplish the same level of accuracy just by bombing from 30k using a WW2 Norden Bombsight?
Research the Norden and find out why it is totally impractical in today's aircraft before making such ignorant statements. What were the requirements for an accurate drop? Why would that make a bomber a total sitting duck with today's anti-aircraft weaponry?
The Norden was accurate. That wasn't what made bombs miss.
AKDejaVu
-
For whatever reason... make the bombing less gimicky. Simple enough deja?
Notice you didn't answer the question about what you have against revetments..
Anyone who knows flight sim history may find it a more than a little odd tho that me and wufie and jekyl are all in agreement (for the most part)on this. Maybe this doesn't make it right but... it does show that people with completly different viewpoints on sims can find some comprimise.
And deja.... I don't care how many stupid perkies you make the bombers worth.... I won't use the ones i got much less worry about getting more of em! I am totally amazed by this group (and that takes a lot since I been around a while).... The cries of "this plane is too good in the arena" have all died away and now everyone wants to fly a plane that is better than everyone elses??? Everyone wants to have an unfair advantage and they won't care when someone in a perk plane clubs them out of the sky???? i't all ok because.... because why? Do we need these few fantasy planes so much that we are willing to skew the arena every single day?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs:
For whatever reason... make the bombing less gimicky. Simple enough deja?
Isn't air starts, undestructable bases, power ups etc "gimicky"?
Lazs why are you so against asking for a Quake arena so you and the few others that want it can go play it the way "you" want instead of asking for the entire sim of AH to be changed for you?
You do know why Quake doesn't have a monthly fee, don't you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mox
-
For whatever reason... make the bombing less gimicky. Simple enough deja?
Very simple. Make bombing less gimicky so fighers can be more gimicky.
I didn't notice you arguing against less gimick when stating you'd rather auger your plane than RTB.
AKDejaVu
-
Is a lone/unescorted B-17 at 30,000' altitude on an attack mission 'realistic' flying? I don't care. B-17s can fly alone all they want. Just make them have real bomb sights.
Ah.. thankyou for finally seeing the light. I don't believe a bomber over 30,000' should be able to resolve the targets the way they are in AH. Now, what does this have to do with this thread?
You are arguing against fixed target location. You aply strato-buffing when it suits the argument.. kamakazi when you want to go in that direction.
Let me ask you this, how effective would bombers have been in Europe if fighters never engaged them? I guarantee airbases would have been closed for a hell of a lot longer than 15 minutes.
Last night, my squad was flying between 24 and 43. One of my squadies enjoys flying the Ju-88 and would take it up and bomb the hell out of 43 ever sortie. He would come in just under 10k. He was only intercepted once in 5 sorties. No strato-buffing. Just flying high enough to stay out of ack.
He'd take out the FH on one sortie... the ack on another... all with relative impunity. Was any of this because the bombers are way too uber in AH? Was any of this because he could bomb from way too high? Nope.. it was because nobody wanted to bother with him. Instead, they'd rather come here and complain that bombers shouldn't be able to do that (not a reference to you wulfie, though a direct reference to people participating in this thread).
BTW, the fighter hangar was down at that base 50% of the time. There was never a lack of enemy fighters in the area.
Sure its easy to take down a hangar, but its just as easy for fighters to find low impact alternatives (hot-pad.. 5 minute flight from nearby base). This thread is dedicated to isolating a specific issue and taking it out of context.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Lots of good ideas here, and some of BS too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Ok, wulfie your handle is "wulfie" no? If so, you've had 1 bomber sortie last TOD, none this one. Although I think you've got some very interesting ideas, don't you think you should have more in-game experience on the subject? But then again, maybe an outsiders view might be beneficial.
Of course, lazs never flies bombers. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I like doing jabo runs myself, my squad typically does at least one jabo mission a night. Usually successful, and lemme tell ya, the ack is plenty deadly. As far as the pesky guys who kill only the fighter hangar()s at a field, if you look around, There's probably a field next door in the process of getting torched by a field capture mission. Killing fighter hangars at surrounding fields is an effective form of keeping your mission flight clear. Wish we could do that more often. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Dejavu said...
Sure its easy to take down a hangar, but its just as easy for fighters to find low impact alternatives (hot-pad.. 5 minute flight from nearby base). This thread is dedicated to isolating a specific issue and taking it out of context.
Gotta agree with dejavu here.
-
Its all a viscious circle, driven by gameplay concessions.
#1.) I think we can all agree that we want to see bombers in the game.
#2.) Bombers are too accurate because if they weren't no one would fly them. They just aren't fun unless they make an impact in the arena, but since they are so accurate they make too much of an impact in the arena.
#3.) Bombers are not commonly intercepted (unless your flying a hispano plane or a heavy cannon bird), because alot of pilots just don't think its worth the risk. Basically due to the strength of the bombers, and they're uber targeting gunners and artifical range increases. But if you weaken buffs, or remove the range advantage, again no one will fly them. See point #1.
Its a damned Catch 22 situation. I hate it too, but I honestly don't think there is a solution.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
verm has stated it very well.
deja thinks that the balance is right and is saying that since he finds the fights right for him then everything must be ok. I would submit that if he say, flew for rooks this tour he would not be quite so happy.
I believe that the bish are very strat centric for this tour at least. They don't care for air to air fighting (comparitively) so much as the "strat" of the game. This is fine but it does seem to unbalance the gameplay. On the one hand they kill HQ for the understrength rooks and then send their bomber crews to simply take out fighter hangers at knight bases. I can see where hitting understrength bases would appeal to some but a lot of guys would rather have large, fairly even numbered fights. It is no fun to be badly outnumbered but it is also no fun IMO, to fight for scraps when you outnumber the enemy badly. 6-10 guys all fighting to kill the one guy stupid enough to go over to a defensles field to defend is not my idea of fighting.
For people who care not about the strat element there is little or no action in such gameplay. an 8-10 min flight to maybe find a fite and maybe not is not appealing no matter how much deja tells us we are wrong and that we are having fun.
If refueling and rearming is is such a great alternative to actually being able to take off then why even bother to kill the fighter hangers or even have em?
what is realistic about hiting undefended airfields? If there is no one at them then they should not exist. There should be no targets at an undefended airbase.
As verm says... most guys have no interest in killing bombers. They are a waste of time to get to and no fun at all when you do. sorta like fighting the alt weenies except that they can't run away as well.
so it boils down to.... why not have revetments? Why not have a realistically tough set of fields (lots of revetments). The strat guys could continue to do whatever it is they think they are doing and the furballers could have their fun untill the strat guys closed all their fields and then concentrated on the remaining "hard fields". Everyone would have MORE choice and if the furballers didn't defend their outer fields they would lose the (chuckle) war.
the strat guys would have their "affect"...the furballers would have their hour or so of fighting.... No one would be sol simply because they were badly outnumbered... Everyone could claim moral superiority and that they and only they knew the true way to play AH.
I sorta believe that some are afraid of a fair fite.
lazs
-
We flew for rooks last tour Lazs.
However, regarding the level bombing issue.. if we are going to take into account wind drift and potential wind gusts as well as creating a "realistic" level bombing sight then that's about 4 months of coding right there.
That, and the fact that you are going to force bombers to fly in packs. No, you don't want to force the fighters to fly in packs to have their fun but you are going to force bombers to fly in packs to have their fun?
The whole point behind "easy mode" bombing that we have in this game is so it doesn't take 10 minutes to perfectly sight the target, calculate wind drift, altitude, speed, and properly locking the target into the bomb sight. This makes it so the guys can keep an eye on their guns if they need to clear themselves while still being able to bomb.
You want to find out what operating the norden really is like, go buy B17 The Mighty Eigth. Not only would you realise how non-practical it would be to include that feature into AH, but you would also see what it takes to actually master aiming it.
-SW
-
sea... i think you will agree that being rook last tour in a different map entirely is quite different than being one of the radarless and fighter hangerless few in this new map. Apples and oranges really. I am not really sure what you mean about the bombers tho. Are you saying that for gameplay lone bombers should be able to affect dozens of players? why shouldn't bombers have to fly in groups? why should a lone bomber be given any more chance to ruin peoples game than a lone fighter? How can fighters affect the bombing war? Most furballers aren't even interested in bombers they aren't much fun to kill even.
No... having some very "hard" fields close together would be a good thing for the game. strat guys would not have to participate in the resulting action until they had finished off all the other fields. action oriented players would not find themselves faced with nothing fun to do.
Bottom line is that the balance has shifted and people are being forced to fly a certain way and that "way" is not much fun for them. By "them" i mean only myself and those dozen or so that I have spoken to.
lazs
-
I sorta believe that some are afraid of a fair fite.
Wow.. I thought this same thing when you ran away screaming like a little girl from a 1:1 in the arena last night lazs. For someone who complains about how long it takes to find a fight, you sure spend alot of time running from them.
AKDejaVu
-
refresh my memory deja.
lazs
-
hblair,
I've had about 3 accounts in AH spanning roughly 1 year. Probably 4 months total playing time.
I just made my 'wulfie' account to come over 'for good' from WB, because AH is better in my opinion.
I have more than 1 bomber sortie recently.
Mike (wulfie)
[This message has been edited by wulfie (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
I just made my 'wulfie' account to come over 'for good' from WB, because AH is better in my opinion.
Fair enough (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs:
sea... i think you will agree that being rook last tour in a different map entirely is quite different than being one of the radarless and fighter hangerless few in this new map. Apples and oranges really.
I guess, but it wasn't the first time we were rooks. We've been rooks, or knights or bishops through thick and thin when it was our time to rotate into that country. Never ran away from a fight. Now when I log in as a bishop, if I see us fighting the rooks I get on the country channel and convice about half of them to move up and fight the knights in the north. Then I proceed to banter the knights on ch1 and convince them to move their fight up north too, thus providing some relief to the rooks. I don't do this out of "good will" for the rooks, I do this because I want to find a fight, and the only large fights I can muster are between knights and bishops.
Originally posted by lazs:
I am not really sure what you mean about the bombers tho. Are you saying that for gameplay lone bombers should be able to affect dozens of players? why shouldn't bombers have to fly in groups? why should a lone bomber be given any more chance to ruin peoples game than a lone fighter? How can fighters affect the bombing war? Most furballers aren't even interested in bombers they aren't much fun to kill even.
No, I'm saying... Go buy that B17 game and you will truly understand what I meant. You have to spend 10 minutes with your face in the norden to get the target lined up and locked and to get the wind drift properly calculated into the bomb sight. The bombers in AH would be completely defenseless during this time, unless they brought along a gunner.
Anyways, everyone knows that a F4U-1C with 2x1Kers can do as much damage to 2 fighter hangars as a level bomber can. It's just a matter of the ack being up or down.
Level bombers rarely impact my game, and if I take off underneath one or am near one I usually climb up to make sure he regrets he came over the target.
-SW
-
Research the Norden and find out why it is totally impractical in today's aircraft before making such ignorant statements. What were the requirements for an accurate drop? Why would that make a bomber a total sitting duck with today's anti-aircraft weaponry?
And your point is?????
Oh you've hurt me to the quick! I profess my ignorance to you Oh DejaVu (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So tell me this. You are in a WW2 B17 at 25000 feet. The wind is calm, the sky is blue and clear.
I'm sitting in my car on the ground far below you. And you are seriously trying to tell me that in real life you could have dropped one bomb from 25k and have it impact neatly in the middle of my car's roof?
Let me ask you this, how effective would bombers have been in Europe if fighters never engaged them? I guarantee airbases would have been closed for a hell of a lot longer than 15 minutes.
Well, I suppose if we had up to 1000 buffs hitting an AH airbase it would not only close; it would probably be blown straight across into one of Nuttz' terrains (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Or are you suggesting that a single WW2 buff hitting an enemy airfield would close it for more than 15 minutes. With the accuracy of WW2 level bombing, there's a fair chance that the occupants of said airbase might never have known they were even under attack!
Apples and oranges Deja.. please don't compare the damage done from 1000 plane raids with the current 'sillyness' of buff accuracy in here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The destruction of fighter hangers simulates destruction of enemy fighters at the airfield, right?
OK, let's look at some history. On 18 August 1940, the Luftwaffe mounted an attack on Kenley aerodrome. 12 Ju88s of II Gruppe were to carry out a precision dive bombing attack on the hangers and airfield installations. Five minutes later, 27 Do17s of I and III Gruppen were to deliver a horizontal bombing attack from 12000 feet and knock out the ground defences. Five minutes later, 9 Do17s of the 9th Staffel were to run in at low altitude and finish off any important buildings that were still standing. Although they inflicted severe damage, the attacks did not put Kenley out of action for long. Within a couple of hours, the airfield had a usable runway and fighter operations resumed. 48 bombers - and the airfield is back in operation within 2 hours.
But here is the important part: The four RAF fighters destroyed on the ground during the attack at Kenley represented a 'rare success' for the German bomber force. During three and a half weeks of concentrated attacks on Fighter Command airfields in the BoB, fewer than 20 Spitfires and Hurricanes were destroyed on the ground at those airfields.
------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 03-07-2001).]
-
Ummmm...let's remember that this issue is about GAMEPLAY, not realism, unless we all want to accept "one life per player". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I think we need to consider the investment a player has in mastering a particular game skill, the time he risks for a particular mission, the reward he gets for completing the mission successfully, and the overall impact he has on gameplay.
For a fighter, the investment is very high, the risk is very low, the reward and impact are low.
For a bomber the investment is moderate, the risk is very high, the reward and impact are high.
For a vehicle driver, the investment is low, the risk is high, the reward is moderate, and the impact is low.
For the gunner, the investment is very low, the risk is very low, the reward is low, and the impact is very low.
For the goon, the investment is moderate, the risk is moderate, the reward is low, and the impact is very high.
What does it all mean? A tough balancing act for HTC. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
sea don't be so defensive... I did not mention you or anyone else so far as being rook goes. I am not rook. I didn't see any of your messages and could have cared less if i did. I also say that rook have enough problems without being outnumbered and radarless. Now, if everyone were as altruistic as you and worried as much about making things fair then... I suppose all would be well. Unfortunately the average player is no where near the saintliness of you or ur squaddies. sooo... we have to deal with reality here.
One reality is that the country with the biggest excess of numbers can and does afford to have bombers to play with. with everything else going on, said bombers have the best chance in the game (compared to low number/base countries) of reaching targets while their fighters are distracting. Another reality is that a whole lot of guys simply don't care about any strat or even have any country loyalty. I have no interest in being rook for instance. They simply want a good fite. The fights cease to be good when one country has no radar or lacks any reasonable place to take off. I'ts not fun for me to have the oppossite situation either. I don't like fighting over scraps and don't care who (cough) "wins the war". I would have not interest in flying for a squad that was "mission" (AH mission) oriented.
Like jekyl I have read a lot of history and this instant base closure really chafes. It is really gimicky. It is one of the reasons I don't do "strat". The "strat" is meaningless and phony. the bombers are meaningless and phony. Maybe it can't be fixed but it certainly can be improved wouldn't you agree?
lazs
[This message has been edited by lazs (edited 03-07-2001).]
-
Some of you are getting off kilter, Modern aircraft, with the exception of an A10, don't carry the same weight of ordnance,nor do they fly as slow, and would you really want to be in the target area of a B17? If you say yes, My mother says you're an idiot,
since unlike you, she has a very good idea of what that means, and since we're on the subject, 3 1,000 lb bombs to knock out a hanger? Guys, quit thinking in modern terms,
These things weren't hardened, Hell, I spent most of my tour in the Army in Germany working out of a WWII German fighter field, That hanger could have been flattened by a near miss from a 500 Lbr, Think open frame construction, not exactly the toughest building around. As for the realism of closing bases, Some of us actually like to win at things, and since the game only allows victory by taking fields, there has to be a method to allow that, since each country comes with a never-ending supply of planes and pilots to man them, guess we need a way to deny them use for a time to allow a capture attempt to take place, You argue that loss of hangers would not really stop operations at a field, true, but then again, there is no such thing as killing all the ack either, In real life planes don't pop up to defend a base against tank attack, by the time enemy armor gets there, all flyable aircraft and base personnel are long gone, The game makes concessions to gameplay, otherwise there is no game, But do not for one moment assume that what you like to do, or what your friends like to do, is all that counts,unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your backers are numerous enough that HTC will not suffer revenue loss by catering to your needs,whilst losing those who do not agree, I don't think things will change that much, some shifts may occur but not in the overall manner you might wish. And in point of fact, if you did get what you want, you may find that it wasn't really what you wanted.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
pz... no real arguement with anything you have said. I also feel that all styles should be accomadated. I have also said many times that i can only speak for myself and the dozen or so others who I have talked to... I can assume that there are a percentage of players out there that feel the same. I also know that there is a percentage that heartily dissagrees with me and that would like a very simple strat plan such as we have but wish that it was more "forced".... that the game forced people to take it seriously.
All I am asking is that there be a haven from the, what I and others consider, gimicky and nonsensical and needlessly restrictive strat. Adding revetments would make some bases realisticaly hard and a fun place to furball from while having no affect on those who prefered to fly differently.
I do feel sorry for the strat guys because they have to force people to fly their way while the fun and action set merely needs a place to hang out and then they get all the recruits they want. furballs attract players. Strat guys get angry when furballers won't play their game. furballers get angry when they are denied the opportunity to play. see the diff?
lazs
-
Lazs, I just want the fields to be moved closer to together. Close enough to force a heavy bomber to have to take off from a rear field rather than what they do right now.
Currently they can take off from a forward field and can climb towards a base right away. I think that's rediculous, bombers always took off far from the action and flew towards their targets at ~22K.
I also don't understand why they allow bombers to take off as field defense.
Oh well....
-SW
-
sea... fields closer together are fine but it doesn't really solve the problem. dedicated field busters (actually fighter hanger busters) can still close the silly fighter hangers at many fields.
I guess if we are stuck with fighter hangers and the simplistic targets at fields along with the bizzare bomber accuracy then....
an interim solution would be closer fields and having fighters available untill the entire field is closed not just a couple of carports like we have now for every field, big or small. I can't believe that anyone can be imersed in this excuse for "strat".
lazs
-
Just move the center island fields closer together. They are "big" fields with enough ack to deter jabos and several fighter hangars, so no lone bomber is going to be able to shut them down, and they aren't "stepping stones" for field captures, so they can be ignored by the strat players.
[This message has been edited by popeye (edited 03-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by popeye (edited 03-07-2001).]
-
I know this is not a realism vs. game thread, but there are a few bits of mis-information floating about.
Facts from the Air Force Museum's website.
By 1944, the Norden allowed the 8th Air Force to deliver 40% of their bombs to within 500yd s of the target. A vast improvement over the accuracy of earlier bombers.
Every modern US aircraft intended for ground attack carries a bigger bombload than the B-17. The 17's normal bombload was 6,000 lbs.
The F-15, for example, carries 15,000 lbs of ordnance.
-
Fact from my sister,(also known as the USAF) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) to her rather extensive knowledge, no air force F15E has ever carried the total ord weight listed in the data, the builder says it can, but no one's tried it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I concede the point that some planes can carry more 1000 lbr's than a 17.
Now, since Lazs did make a relevant point, I can make a very disagreeable suggestion,
Read it all the way through before firing up the flamethrower.
The ACM minded folk, (no use of simple terms, let's call it what it really is)
Live for the pure fight, plane vs plane, pitting skill and HP against like. They suffer from the actions of the Tactical crowd, (It's not Strat, there is no strategic effect in the game as it stands)
Who like to achieve measurable success by concentrated effort (taking fields)
These should go well together, but do not since this isn't a real military, but a collection of enthusiasts with varying interests.
Now that the true, non-prejudiced reasons behind the friction is laid out, let's examine interim solutions.
Buffs enabled only at rear fields, won't work, Why? there are no battlelines, unless the war grinds to halt, those fields will be on the front line sooner or later, plus it gives the side that's winning a point target for bomber suppression.
Move fields closer together, fallacy, the fields are already closer together than the Battle of Britain, moving them even closer gives you a narrow window between opposing antiaircraft fire, And neither side wants that now do they?
Multiple revetments for fighters, This has merit, since in the strictest sense of gameplay, a defended field is a very tough target, but an undefended one can fall to even one lone player, not only unrealistic, but a gameplay killer.
One of my suggestions, Increase the ack at bases, while turning it's accuracy way down
right now the AAA is ahistorical, light in numbers and caliber, while ungodly in it's accuracy, turning down the accuracy, while increasing the numbers, would make AAA hard to remove, yet still useful for defense.
Another unpopular idea, zone fields, Once enemy armor enters the zone, no aircraft may take off only armor may spawn from that base, to balance this, every structure on a base is a VH, to overrun the base you have to down everything.
Chew on it a while, then let's talk some more.
Pyro,Hitech, I'd like to hear your take on this too, even if it's to say we couldn't do it that way.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
<bump> Look at this folks tell me what ya think
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
pz... you have laid it out about as I see it. It seems inescapable to me that, right now, the so called "strat" guys can shut down the acm guys at will in this game. The strat guys don't understand that the acm guys do not admire their skill and teamwork... we do not think that flying an extra sector or two is small price to pay to witness such wonderful teamwork. We simply get pissed and log...So....
No matter what, I can't get around the fact that the acm guys need a place to take off that suits our short attention spans. I can't get around the fact that this entails "hard" fields either revetment (best IMO) or allow fighters to take off untill the fields last gasp a la WB.
lazs
-
Here's another vote for ACM in this flight sim.
I'm becoming almost daily more disenchanted with the prospect of loggin on for an hour, and seeing porked bases.
The practise of porking auxillary bases not directly involved in the attack effort, as Hblair outlines; is even more apalling and frustrating.
Why is it so hard to include a fighter town area in this game? Is it because the buff pilots fear that the fighter jocks will dessert them to fly ACM?
I know I would.
A pox upon strat in an MA envioroment.