Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: WW1965 on June 25, 2013, 10:53:25 AM
-
Well, I'm just gonna throw it out there..
Is it Possible, (or even a good idea), to have the DA/AVA/Early-Mid-Late/etc/etc burn rates all match up ??
FSO/KOTH/etc/etc-can set it as needed of course.. but even in the DA, the burn rate is different from the MA's ..
By this I mean, if its deemed by HTC to have a 2.0burn in the MA's, then if the TA's burn is @ 1.0, then there's a difference in the way you're loading the plane in the 2 arenas..
Does this make the learning curve a bit higher??
On a side note..
in the TA, when I'm levelbombing/divebombing/rockets.. there's the LCOS.. its distracting to me & I just hate it.. I do understand why its there, but ...
is there a way to turn it off ?? & if not can there be ??
Wrongway
-
...
Is it Possible, (or even a good idea), to have the DA/AVA/Early-Mid-Late/etc/etc burn rates all match up ??
...
IMHO, the FuelBurnRateMult should be matched to the scale of the map currently in use.
For example: in RL, the straight-line distance from Dusseldorf to Berlin is about 300 statute miles. The "germany" terrain file shows that distance to be about 12 of the usual 25-mile sectors, or 300 miles. So for that map, a setting of 1.0 seems right to me.
-
I think a fuel burn of 1.0 in the TA is a good idea, as it gives you more time in the air for practice and training. Kinda sux to have to land/bail after a short time, then take off and climb again to continue again.
The LCOS in the TA is an arena setting, but I'm pretty sure you can activate it or not from your plane with a keyboard command...I don't remember the keys.
-
Makes no sense that fuel hungry late war monsters can fly forever in the dueling arena on 25% fuel.
Makes no sense that the training arena has half the fuel burn as all but the dueling arena.
Aren't you training so you can fly better in the other arenas.........only to experience a rude awakening in the other arenas when much of what you have "learned" does not apply?
Managing fuel is a huge part of flying in real life and it is effectively removed in the DA and TA.
-
Managing fuel is a huge part of flying in real life and it is effectively removed in the DA and TA.
Not necessarily. In the MAs you use up a lot of your fuel just getting to the fight, because the bases are so far apart. By the time you're in combat you're already down to the fuel load that you fight with in the arenas where the bases are closer together.
Anyone remember why HTC upped the MAs to 2.0 in the first place?
- oldman
-
Anyone remember why HTC upped the MAs to 2.0 in the first place?
- oldman
I'd imagine to further differentiate short ranged interceptors like the Spitfire, Bf109 and La-7 from long legged fighters like the P-51 and A6M. The lower the fuel burn multiplier is the less of an advantage fuel capacity is, even eventually becoming a disadvantage in AH due to base proximity.
-
Anyone remember why HTC upped the MAs to 2.0 in the first place?
Because of the very short combat distances on all maps (not just the small ones). Standard combat distances in the a are for the most part only 1-2 sectors, that's only 25-50 miles. Only very few sorties are being made involving longer transitions to the combat (most notably 'long range' bomber sorties & their escorts).
With FB 1.0, endurance and range limitations would play a much less important role than they did in real life. You could basically take any short distance fighter like the La-7 or Spit 16 and fly everywhere without watching your fuel as much. There would be much less need to take a long range fighter at all.
-
Makes no sense that fuel hungry late war monsters can fly forever in the dueling arena on 25% fuel.
Makes no sense that the training arena has half the fuel burn as all but the dueling arena.
Aren't you training so you can fly better in the other arenas.........only to experience a rude awakening in the other arenas when much of what you have "learned" does not apply?
Managing fuel is a huge part of flying in real life and it is effectively removed in the DA and TA.
While I agree with you in regards to the DA, the TA is totally different,I could very easily change the burn rate in the Ta but why? At 1.0 your plane stays heavier for a longer time,this in itself is a help to new players simply because in the other arenas the weight changes very quickly.
I've seen you say this before about the TA burn rate and couldn't disagree more. I tend to fly with full fuel and even a dt on,ya it gives me over an hour flight time on most planes and I'd only get 30 mins in the mains but it isn't about how long the flight is it's about how the plane flies at a certain weight. If more players practiced with heavier fuel loads they wouldn't need to do thing like fly with a DT and 1/2 fuel.
Of course I suppose you have a different view on this,but to complain about being able to spend more time flying is beyond me.
:salute
-
The dueling arena is for duels. That means the planes loadouts and engagement rules are agreed upon from the start. Unless someone is trying to do an endurance match, fuel does not need to be consumed at all. This makes it easier to maintain constant conditions. Example: if I shoot someone down twice and he rolls again (assuming our rules do not dictate a fresh plane every fight) with a low FBM I still have roughly the same amount of fuel weight. The next engagement will still be in the same conditions. With a high FBM, I will get lighter and lighter in every round.
FBM=1 is fine in the DA. Want me to take 50 or 75 or 100%? just ask me to.
The MA on the other hand is a simulated war. Planes range and endurance play a major role there in a complicated way. The P-51 enjoys great range as one of its critical qualities (as was in RL). The fuel hungry P-47 can achieve great range, but at a great cost in weight. So, if FBM is lowered the jugs you will meat will be significantly lighter than now, but planes with tiny little gas tanks like the La7 and 109s will see a much less difference in weight and will perform exactly the same (but gain range). Since most ranges are short, low FBM benefits the big gas slurpers in performance and the small gas tank planes in range.
HTC did some fiddling with the FBM in the past and decided on the current value. I heartily suggest that players learn what reduced RPM does for their plane. In many cases it adds a VERY long distance and flight time. I find the fuel loadout dilemma and throttle management in the air to be an interesting part of every mission.
-
I'd imagine to further differentiate short ranged interceptors like the Spitfire, Bf109 and La-7 from long legged fighters like the P-51 and A6M. The lower the fuel burn multiplier is the less of an advantage fuel capacity is, even eventually becoming a disadvantage in AH due to base proximity.
I'd say not. Burn multiplier of 1 would be nice. That way I could use the 109 and 190 as an escort, and not have to run 1/4 throttle in a shallow dive on egress, or have to make a sketchy cv landing in a land-based fight.
-
I'd say not. Burn multiplier of 1 would be nice. That way I could use the 109 and 190 as an escort, and not have to run 1/4 throttle in a shallow dive on egress, or have to make a sketchy cv landing in a land-based fight.
What are you escorting in your 109 and 190? 2-hour missions flown by Allied bombers? ;)
-
What are you escorting in your 109 and 190? 2-hour missions flown by Allied bombers? ;)
Nope, Ju-88's usually.
-
Nope, Ju-88's usually.
silly! You need the 110 or the 190G....which we don't have :bhead
-
I would like to see fuel be a factor, not an after thought. Even at 2.0 I think the fuel is not fast enough. I think increasing the burn rate to 2.25 would be worthy of a try. Planes like the La, Spitfires, 109's, 190's, etc, still can easily go a long ways as it is and in many cases (other than the La) players are taking up %50 fuel and a DT.
On that note, I think that a plane should not be able to mount a drop tank unless it is taking %100 fuel. Eliminate one of the more used "game the game" abuses.
-
Fuel burn at 2.0 is just fine, if you want to escort using 109s, use a drop tank - there is plenty of gas to go far as you need too, micromanage the fuel better.
When I am in my prime, I generally can micro that fuel enough that I run out on landing (with enough to get to a rearm pad if i need) - and this is taking a 109 with 75% which is way more then needed for a general fight, 100% if i need to escort.
We dont need planes staying in the air for hours on end, fact is you simply dont have enough ammo to stay up there anyway, just rearm.
-
For the "I only fly Luftwaffe planes" people there is the Ta152H-1. It does fine as an escort fighter.
While I've never encountered one, an RAF only sap would be stuck with the Mosquito Mk VI or just admit that the RAF flew Mustang Mk IIIs and use that. I suppose one could try to baby a Spitfire Mk VIII into being an escort.
The VVS don't even have a domestic bomber to escort...
Certainly the Americans and Japanese are far better set for escort capable fighters.
-
I can fly a spit XIV for much more than an hour at near 400mph and have hunted plenty of me163s over enemy strats in spit VIII.
Of course, I have also flown the TA152 for nearly 3 hours without drop tanks.
-
I can fly a spit XIV for much more than an hour at near 400mph and have hunted plenty of me163s over enemy strats in spit VIII.
Meaningless comments.
-
No it's not......but your answer shows your lack of trying or experience in getting long sorties out of high fuel consumption planes.
-
No it's not......but your answer shows your lack of trying or experience in getting long sorties out of high fuel consumption planes.
No, it is meaningless because it is without context. The game situation varies too much for hunting Me163s with a Spit VIII to mean anything. That could be only a sector from the Spit's originating base.
As to the Mk XIV and more than an hour, sure, but not at 400+mph. You are well known for your exaggerations.
As to relatively long range missions on short ranged aircraft, I have done those. Even to the point where I had to shut one engine off on my Mossie (this was back when the Mossie had twice the fuel consumption rate it should have had, giving it about the same range as a Spit IX) to make it home after a nearly two hour sortie spent mostly on max cruise settings, boost, RPM and altitude. I am the one who proved the Mossie was consuming twice as much fuel as it ought to have been by using cruise settings from the Mossie's pilot's handbook.
-
No it's not......but your answer shows your lack of trying or experience in getting long sorties out of high fuel consumption planes.
Honestly in 10 years, I haven't given a crap about fuel consumptions or long range sorties - fact is I run my fuel until its out or the bullets run dry - in most cases, bullets go before fuel does. People don't need to know the best alt to cruise speed a Spit 14, there are thousands of things to learn and really fuel consumption is the least on the list to learn.
Basic learning such as setting your aircraft to cruise speed via the clipboard is just fine in my book when it comes to fuel consumption, fact is getting 20 extra minutes really only holds water if you are flying scenarios and FSO.
-
WHAT DO WE WANT? FUEL BURN 1X !!!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW !!!
NO 1X, NO PEACE!
FUEL BURN 1X !!!
Ok reasons:
MISSIONS:
*There is enough fuel for planes to FORM UP, we don't have to have 'military discipline' of normal 'missions' so stragglers etc all have time, fuel burn 1x compensates.
*SUPER DUPER SIZE SQUAD MISSIONS WITH ADD-ON SQUADS JOINING. Every squad would have a squad night, and others squads and singles would join in...
*Talking about taking off from 2 or 3 bases back in friendly territory to get to proper alt...
*Summed up: massive armadas of planes, flown by players, at VERY HIGH ALTS, GOING ACROSS THE MAP!!! (SCREW NOE... OPPOSITE OF NOE)
*Enemies fighters would up - a few bases ahead of the armada, hoping to get to a proper intercept altitude, hoping they stay on course! (the armada could turn)!!!
*EVEN THE C47 GOONS would be at max alt... chart says 25k?
*GET SHOT DOWN? that's ok, become a gunner? (too bad game doesn't allow multiple gunners!) sigh!
*Fighters would be 5k(?)feet or more above the bombers, or below? from front? back? or side? for best intercept possibilities. YOU DECIDE!!!
*TEAMWORK, imagine that. With such high numbers, players would have to group up, or die to gang rapes if not 'one pass hall arse.'
*Better quality of fights at this altitude people, totally opposite of players upping and ho'ing from a vulched base. Not so much suicide ho'ing!
*CAPTURE A BASE RIGHT NEXT TO ENEMY HQ !!! <--- achievement for that!! kk what up! And then attack THE HQ from the newly captured base... EPIC NORMAL 'BASE NEXT DOOR' FIGHTS YOU EVER SAW, THE HQ IS AT STAKE!!!
*FUEL BURN 1X WILL MAKE FOR THE MOST EPIC STUFF YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN ANY GAME!!!
*EPIC defined: You will feel like you were in the real deal war deciding stuff, going just by the number of planes involved, let alone who commands it - strategy!
*RANK MISSION LEADERS!
Rogue flights or small groups: 3hour flights!
*You alone, or with some wingys - suppose you are a knight, you can fly to a bish / rook fight. Maybe cherry pick their goons or weaker planes.
*You've all done it, let one enemy wound the other enemy, and then you kill the new one, finish the wounded one...
*Fly far distances into enemy territory at low altitude, under radar, to ideal enemy fields, its about loitering near enemy base at low alt, then going after a squad when they up, kill whats most dangerous to you, then kill the rest.
*same as above but just fly over there and park on the ground near by, sip some wine and have crackers and cheese... when they up, they die!
Same ole same ole 'next door' base fights:
*Even if that LA-7 or other shorter range plane comes over with his full tank thinking he can vulch for hours, he will get pwnt by the guys that up with 25% fuel. No's aye's problema's!
*Players might fly smarter than just ho'ing, you are no longer in a 'rush' race against time vs your fuel soo much.
*You wont have this '15min maximum attention span, much longer soon!
*A draw back: if you take all day to get kills, your points rank will STILL suffer because 'kills per time' will sux. <-- the true difference from the old days. (top pilot not the guy with the most time)
*Players interested in NOT GETTING KILLED ALL SEASON will be able to fly even more defensively. RUN FOR 10 SECTORS <--- might be the kill you remember best if you catch him!
*AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT ABOVE, there will be VERY MANY MORE PLAYERS LOGGED ON, Just like on FSO nights, TELLING YA's, squad nights ever night, go join in!
*About 'late night' - THERE WERE NEVER A LOT OF PLAYERS AT LATE HOURS, the world does sleep, but THESE DAYS IT IS THE WHOLE WORLD BECAUSE BETTER PING TIMES! So maybe many on at night too?
*ITS BETTER THAN FSO, because FSO has stupid 'short range' ICON limiting stuff, great for realism, SUX FOR EPIC!!!
HTC's: I double triple dare you guys, I even OBAMA's DEBT dare you guys, LOL, to make a 'fuel burn 1x' day, and watch as it becomes the most populated day. Then I bet you add even more nights if not all week!
WE DONT NEED ALL THESE SEPARATE ARENAS for FLY IT YOUR WAY, WE JUST NEED FUEL BURN 1X !!! PLEASE! :)
-
WHAT DO WE WANT? FUEL BURN 1X !!!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW !!!
NO 1X, NO PEACE!
FUEL BURN 1X !!!
Ok reasons:
MISSIONS:
*There is enough fuel for planes to FORM UP, we don't have to have 'military discipline' of normal 'missions' so stragglers etc all have time, fuel burn 1x compensates.
*SUPER DUPER SIZE SQUAD MISSIONS WITH ADD-ON SQUADS JOINING. Every squad would have a squad night, and others squads and singles would join in...
*Talking about taking off from 2 or 3 bases back in friendly territory to get to proper alt...
*Summed up: massive armadas of planes, flown by players, at VERY HIGH ALTS, GOING ACROSS THE MAP!!! (SCREW NOE... OPPOSITE OF NOE)
*Enemies fighters would up - a few bases ahead of the armada, hoping to get to a proper intercept altitude, hoping they stay on course! (the armada could turn)!!!
*EVEN THE C47 GOONS would be at max alt... chart says 25k?
*GET SHOT DOWN? that's ok, become a gunner? (too bad game doesn't allow multiple gunners!) sigh!
*Fighters would be 5k(?)feet or more above the bombers, or below? from front? back? or side? for best intercept possibilities. YOU DECIDE!!!
*TEAMWORK, imagine that. With such high numbers, players would have to group up, or die to gang rapes if not 'one pass hall arse.'
*Better quality of fights at this altitude people, totally opposite of players upping and ho'ing from a vulched base. Not so much suicide ho'ing!
*CAPTURE A BASE RIGHT NEXT TO ENEMY HQ !!! <--- achievement for that!! kk what up! And then attack THE HQ from the newly captured base... EPIC NORMAL 'BASE NEXT DOOR' FIGHTS YOU EVER SAW, THE HQ IS AT STAKE!!!
*FUEL BURN 1X WILL MAKE FOR THE MOST EPIC STUFF YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN ANY GAME!!!
*EPIC defined: You will feel like you were in the real deal war deciding stuff, going just by the number of planes involved, let alone who commands it - strategy!
*RANK MISSION LEADERS!
Rogue flights or small groups: 3hour flights!
*You alone, or with some wingys - suppose you are a knight, you can fly to a bish / rook fight. Maybe cherry pick their goons or weaker planes.
*You've all done it, let one enemy wound the other enemy, and then you kill the new one, finish the wounded one...
*Fly far distances into enemy territory at low altitude, under radar, to ideal enemy fields, its about loitering near enemy base at low alt, then going after a squad when they up, kill whats most dangerous to you, then kill the rest.
*same as above but just fly over there and park on the ground near by, sip some wine and have crackers and cheese... when they up, they die!
Same ole same ole 'next door' base fights:
*Even if that LA-7 or other shorter range plane comes over with his full tank thinking he can vulch for hours, he will get pwnt by the guys that up with 25% fuel. No's aye's problema's!
*Players might fly smarter than just ho'ing, you are no longer in a 'rush' race against time vs your fuel soo much.
*You wont have this '15min maximum attention span, much longer soon!
*A draw back: if you take all day to get kills, your points rank will STILL suffer because 'kills per time' will sux. <-- the true difference from the old days. (top pilot not the guy with the most time)
*Players interested in NOT GETTING KILLED ALL SEASON will be able to fly even more defensively. RUN FOR 10 SECTORS <--- might be the kill you remember best if you catch him!
*AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT ABOVE, there will be VERY MANY MORE PLAYERS LOGGED ON, Just like on FSO nights, TELLING YA's, squad nights ever night, go join in!
*About 'late night' - THERE WERE NEVER A LOT OF PLAYERS AT LATE HOURS, the world does sleep, but THESE DAYS IT IS THE WHOLE WORLD BECAUSE BETTER PING TIMES! So maybe many on at night too?
*ITS BETTER THAN FSO, because FSO has stupid 'short range' ICON limiting stuff, great for realism, SUX FOR EPIC!!!
HTC's: I double triple dare you guys, I even OBAMA's DEBT dare you guys, LOL, to make a 'fuel burn 1x' day, and watch as it becomes the most populated day. Then I bet you add even more nights if not all week!
WE DONT NEED ALL THESE SEPARATE ARENAS for FLY IT YOUR WAY, WE JUST NEED FUEL BURN 1X !!! PLEASE! :)
The map scale compared to the real deal is the fish that is on the way to **SLAP** you alongside your head.
With the current burn rate of 2.0, the fuel burn in the main arenas is not a factor in the greater majority of aircraft on most maps. On the larger maps the short legs of the La7 or Boston III's may be a factor, but not hardly enough to keep them out of the fight.
I still say HTC should up the burn rate to 2.25 just to see how, if at all, it affects the MA's. This is one of the completely arbitrary settings that HTC has sat on "just because". That, along with reload rates for tanks, down times for hangers, convoys, hardness settings for OBJ's, etc, etc, are ALL completely arbitrary and how wunnerful it would be for HTC to mix things up a bit and make the FH's more difficult to destroy, barracks paper thin, ammo bunkers tougher than nails, radar towers much harder to hit, add in about 4 different hardness settings for town buildings, etc, etc, etc. ;)
-
I still say HTC should up the burn rate to 2.25 just to see how, if at all, it affects the MA's. This is one of the completely arbitrary settings that HTC has sat on "just because".
That is not correct. HTC tried various FBM values during the transition period from AH1 to AH2. There were long and heated discussions about this in the forums.
-
I still say HTC should up the burn rate to 2.25 just to see how, if at all, it affects the MA's. This is one of the completely arbitrary settings that HTC has sat on "just because". That, along with reload rates for tanks, down times for hangers, convoys, hardness settings for OBJ's, etc, etc, are ALL completely arbitrary and how wunnerful it would be for HTC to mix things up a bit and make the FH's more difficult to destroy, barracks paper thin, ammo bunkers tougher than nails, radar towers much harder to hit, add in about 4 different hardness settings for town buildings, etc, etc, etc. ;)
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol :rofl what a load of b.s.
-
No, it is meaningless because it is without context. The game situation varies too much for hunting Me163s with a Spit VIII to mean anything. That could be only a sector from the Spit's originating base.
As to the Mk XIV and more than an hour, sure, but not at 400+mph. You are well known for your exaggerations.
As to relatively long range missions on short ranged aircraft, I have done those. Even to the point where I had to shut one engine off on my Mossie (this was back when the Mossie had twice the fuel consumption rate it should have had, giving it about the same range as a Spit IX) to make it home after a nearly two hour sortie spent mostly on max cruise settings, boost, RPM and altitude. I am the one who proved the Mossie was consuming twice as much fuel as it ought to have been by using cruise settings from the Mossie's pilot's handbook.
Please tell me of these exaggerations so I can refute you with film.
-
Please tell me of these exaggerations so I can refute you with film.
How easy it is to intercept the perk bombers with Bf110s and Me410s and Yaks at 30,000ft.
I've not had time to test it, but I am quite skeptical of the Mk XIV for more than an hour in the MA at more than 400mph.
-
How easy it is to intercept the perk bombers with Bf110s and Me410s and Yaks at 30,000ft.
I've not had time to test it, but I am quite skeptical of the Mk XIV for more than an hour in the MA at more than 400mph.
Yeah, I call BS on that one too.
-
Funny.....I ran down a few B29s with a 110g at 30,000 feet this weekend.
You could ask the victims about it or the other doubters when I announced I would perform the feat.
If you want to up the stakes to include paying my account for two months, I will be willing to play along and post the film only after you take the bet.
The 262 is considered not to be a good interceptor of super high buffs but I caught more than a few this tour at altitudes as high as 34,000 feet by taking off right under them at the strats and climbing while maintaining vis on thier dot.
Can't do that in a 110 so a 110 intercept takes a lot of diligence to successfully perform the intercept.
As far as the yak, I have intercepted plenty of buffs as high as 35,000 feet and used to routinely fly 1.3 hour mission in them........ask lusche how many times he's shot down the foolish yak that intercepted his b29s or asked for help from a friendly 163 to help him land his milkruns.
Or you could ask wezel about the upping his 163 to clear the 110g from Lusche's B29s six so he could land and ending up losing the dogfight to the 110g.
Just because you lack the patience and/or skill to do something unusual doesn't mean others can't perform the feat.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/killsof.php?playername=icepac&selectTour=LWTour161&pindex=114
-
Funny.....I ran down a few B29s with a 110g at 30,000 feet this weekend.
You could ask the victims about it or the other doubters when I announced I would perform the feat.
That has nothing to do with how easy it is. You persistently pass it off as easy. In our conversation about it you were saying the Mosquito Mk XVI was easy to intercept in things that are bluntly slower than it.
If you want to up the stakes to include paying my account for two months, I will be willing to play along and post the film only after you take the bet.
Why? The film won't show it being easy, just you doing it, which has never been disputed.
As far as the yak, I have intercepted plenty of buffs as high as 35,000 feet and used to routinely fly 1.3 hour mission in them........ask lusche how many times he's shot down the foolish yak that intercepted his b29s or asked for help from a friendly 163 to help him land his milkruns.
Once again, it doesn't say anything about how easy it is.
Just because you lack the patience and/or skill to do something unusual doesn't mean others can't perform the feat.
Personal insults are pointless, particularly when they are wrong. I have used the Mossie VI as an interceptor, I just don't lie about it being so easy that anybody can do it or that it isn't significantly luck based in some cases.
I know it isn't easy to intercept the Mossie XVI because I have flown many Mossie XVI sorties and I know how easy it is for me to avoid most interception attempts. If it is easy for me to avoid them then by definition it is hard for them to intercept me.
-
Unless already at altitude, I think its physically impossible for you to catch a B-29 who is already at altitude and speed. Starting from sea level, you would run out of fuel before you caught up with them. Thus, the 110 is not a good interceptor.
Nor is the 410, for similar reasons. Same with the Mossie.
Now a Yak is a bit better in the actual interception area, but is severely lacking when it comes to actually attacking the bombers. Given that you only have 120 rounds of 20mm ammunition, you will have to have a very high level of accuracy, and attack the most vulnerable parts of the bombers. Even then, you will have to RTB for ammunition after one intercept. Range is also something of an issue.
Thus the yak is not a good interceptor.
-
"The map scale compared to the real deal is the fish that is on the way to **SLAP** you alongside your head."
Smokinloon, confusing words, but I think thats EXACTLY the point. No where on the map would be 'safe.'
Consider Berlin's point of view when p47's and mustangs started showing up with the bombers: excitement!
No more 'boring about it' <--- vulching nearest base is boring!
We don't want to be:
Aces LOW: vulch, ack, ram, and ho! Do or die, aces? NEIN! <-- fuel burn 1x would give more to do than 'vulch' or 'hide in ack' or 'ram' or 'ho.'
We want to be ACES HIGH!!! <-- requires fuelburn 1x!!!I would ask HTC to take out the 'kills per time part of the score calculator because long flights.'
As is:
Fly to next door enemy base, and you can arrive at about 10k with 75% fuel left. Fly to a base one more deep and you barely make it back.
Yeah the drop tank, that thing porks your plane even after its dropped. The mount is still there, and you're at 100% fuel, good luck vs a Brewster!
And for a mission, it's like pulling teeth trying to get a pilot to put a drop tank.
FSO is the single most populated time of the game. Fuel burn 1x makes all day everyday like FSO... without stupid changes to icon stuff,
and without someone saying "Detune 200 please" :rofl
Everyone and Everyone else shows up on FSO nights!
-
Unless already at altitude, I think its physically impossible for you to catch a B-29 who is already at altitude and speed. Starting from sea level, you would run out of fuel before you caught up with them.
You predict the target and take off well ahead of the bomber with the intention of merging positions. The problem with icepak's claims is that in the aircraft he brags about using for it is that there is little or no margin of error to be had in your intercept flight plan or in guessing the target. If you make a mistake you'll never make up for it.
-
"The map scale compared to the real deal is the fish that is on the way to **SLAP** you alongside your head."
Smokinloon, confusing words, but I think thats EXACTLY the point. No where on the map would be 'safe.'
Consider Berlin's point of view when p47's and mustangs started showing up with the bombers: excitement!
No more 'boring about it' <--- vulching nearest base is boring!
We don't want to be:
Aces LOW: vulch, ack, ram, and ho! Do or die, aces? NEIN! <-- fuel burn 1x would give more to do than 'vulch' or 'hide in ack' or 'ram' or 'ho.'
We want to be ACES HIGH!!! <-- requires fuelburn 1x!!!I would ask HTC to take out the 'kills per time part of the score calculator because long flights.'
As is:
Fly to next door enemy base, and you can arrive at about 10k with 75% fuel left. Fly to a base one more deep and you barely make it back.
Yeah the drop tank, that thing porks your plane even after its dropped. The mount is still there, and you're at 100% fuel, good luck vs a Brewster!
And for a mission, it's like pulling teeth trying to get a pilot to put a drop tank.
FSO is the single most populated time of the game. Fuel burn 1x makes all day everyday like FSO... without stupid changes to icon stuff,
and without someone saying "Detune 200 please" :rofl
Everyone and Everyone else shows up on FSO nights!
(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/135/7/c/Daniel__s_Facepalm_by_xAikaNoKurayami.jpg)
-
You predict the target and take off well ahead of the bomber with the intention of merging positions. The problem with icepak's claims is that in the aircraft he brags about using for it is that there is little or no margin of error to be had in your intercept flight plan or in guessing the target. If you make a mistake you'll never make up for it.
Its gonna take something around 30 minutes to reach 30K, and the 110 only has 38 minutes full internal. Strap on DT's, and he's gonna climb even slower, although with an extra 17 minutes of flight time. However, hes going to be slow upon arriving at altitude, and will accelerate like crap. I'd guess around 8-10 minutes before he reaches full speed. And then he has to catch the bombers, leaving only around 5-7 minutes to set up, and shoot down all three bombers, assuming he plotted the course PERFECTLY.
I don't doubt that you can intercept bombers in the 110, just not do so with 30+K bombers more than 1 time out of even 50 attempts.
And it might very will be 100% impossible to intercept them even 5K higher up.
-
Just ask the guys I shot down in the last few days instead of more guessing.
In the 110g, I arrive at 30k with usually between 50 and 59 minutes of fuel remaining.
This is usually with two rockets and I rarely take the extra cannon pod but I will not up with rockets if I intend to run down a B29.
I drain the drop tanks 1 at a time and drop them right away when empty.
In the yak, I usually arrive at 35.5k with around 58 minutes fuel remaining.
In the mossie VI, I arrive at 38k with around 95 minutes of fuel remaining without taking drop tanks.
-
Just ask the guys I shot down in the last few days instead of more guessing.
Again, nobody is claiming you don't do it. You have put a lot of effort into learning to plot those interceptions using less than ideal aircraft for the job.
Your exaggeration isn't in claiming that you do it. You exaggerate how easy it is. The vast majority of players will fail to intercept any perk bomber with a Bf110G-2, Me410 or Yak-9U. You're good at it, kudos, but it isn't easy.
-
I never said it was easy for you or others.....just easy for me.....much like tanking enemy strats or downing enemy hq a few times week regardless of the map or terrain features..........or getting tank on tank kills at our own strats while the rest of my countrymen are simply taking the easy way out and using planes to bomb the enemy GVs.
I enjoy a full and wide ranging experience in aces high and have barely scratched the surface of what the sim offers while some here are limiting thier gaming experience by flying the same mission profiles over and over.
I like the 2.0 fuel burn in the arenas.
-
Just ask the guys I shot down in the last few days instead of more guessing.
I checked your stats, you have 3 kills on B-29's for the month of June, killing 1 of 1Wildcat's and 2 of 0Whiskey's. Notice you failed to shoot down a set of three bombers in both cases.
1Wildcat also killed you in your 110, which would indicate that he was in a set of three, and continued on his merry way after wasting your exaggerating arse.
You killed 2 of 0Whiskey's bombers, but were not killed by 0Whiskey. 0Whiskey only has 2 deaths in a B-29 for the same tour. Therefore, you ran out of fuel while engaging.
Neither of these examples is proving your point.
-
Its gonna take something around 30 minutes to reach 30K, and the 110 only has 38 minutes full internal. Strap on DT's, and he's gonna climb even slower, although with an extra 17 minutes of flight time. However, hes going to be slow upon arriving at altitude, and will accelerate like crap. I'd guess around 8-10 minutes before he reaches full speed. And then he has to catch the bombers, leaving only around 5-7 minutes to set up, and shoot down all three bombers, assuming he plotted the course PERFECTLY.
I don't doubt that you can intercept bombers in the 110, just not do so with 30+K bombers more than 1 time out of even 50 attempts.
And it might very will be 100% impossible to intercept them even 5K higher up.
You seem to forget that the GPH are reduced considerably as you climb,doesnt surprize me though as you haven't had an account for a couple of years,but I digress.
If you have,as you say 38 mins internal,I'll wager that by the time you climb to 30 k you'll have no less than 30mins of flight time when you get to alt,and that's if you use full mil power to climb.
If you carry DT's you'll loose about 200 to 400 fpm in climb,not speed,that if you use auto climp or auto speed as it's called ingame. You will loose about 4 mph after you drop the tanks verses a "clean config" in level flight but if that makes a difference you might consider spending more time practicing.
Of course you'd need to actually play the game to know this.
:salute
-
LOL.....tank ace made no point at all.
I successfully intercepted and shot down B29s at 30,000 feet this tour with a 110.
Are you even flying this sim?
-
You seem to forget that the GPH are reduced considerably as you climb,doesnt surprize me though as you haven't had an account for a couple of years,but I digress.
If you have,as you say 38 mins internal,I'll wager that by the time you climb to 30 k you'll have no less than 30mins of flight time when you get to alt,and that's if you use full mil power to climb.
If you carry DT's you'll loose about 200 to 400 fpm in climb,not speed,that if you use auto climp or auto speed as it's called ingame. You will loose about 4 mph after you drop the tanks verses a "clean config" in level flight but if that makes a difference you might consider spending more time practicing.
Of course you'd need to actually play the game to know this.
:salute
I do play, I have sortie logged this tour.
-
LOL.....tank ace made no point at all.
I successfully intercepted and shot down B29s at 30,000 feet this tour with a 110.
Are you even flying this sim?
Oh, I think my point went to the same place most of the bombers go.... over your head.
You claim its easy to intercept perk bombers, of which the B-29 is the slowest. By the simple fact that you have failed to prevent either set you intercepted from reaching target, and that you have 0 kills of either the Ar 234 or the Mossie XVI, its evident that intercepting these planes is not "easy" in a 110. Either that, or you're just incompetent.
Hell, you would only have one pass at either of the other bombers, since you couldn't fly fast enough to make two.
-
I never said it was easy for you or others.....just easy for me.
More personal insults...
You consistently talk about how easy it is, always portraying it as generically easy, never saying you find it easy. The language you use is intended to be insulting rather than showing you understand that you have learned to do a hard task. Your posts on the subject consistently carry the air of "This is easy and if you can't do it easily then you suck."
I understand the task and how to do it, and, while not nearly as good as you, I can do it with a reasonable expectation of success. I also know how few of us there are who are a threat because I see how many "take off as the Mossie passes overhead and try to climb up and chase it down" intercept attempts there are compared to thought out and planned intercepts.
I have lost three Mosquito Mk XVI's.
The first was to an Me163 after I bombed the strats on a small map in which they were next to the HQ. As we both know the Me163 doesn't require much planning or thought.
The second was amusing as it involved both an unplanned, unskilled attempt by and Me262 and a planned tactic by a Ta152H-1. I was again going for the strats, but it was a large map and I had to fly about 200 miles into enemy territory. The Me262 gradually climbed towards my 28,000ft height with no chance to stop my from hitting my target. I saw the dar bar of the Ta152 well ahead of getting there, but chose to press on regardless. After dropping my 'cookie' I began to climb away from the Me262 and the Ta152, still just a dot a bit above my altitude began to close. I was at about 33,000ft when the Ta152 finally forced me to aggressively maneuver, the Me262 never had a shot on me until after I was engaged with the Ta152. I fought both down to the deck before the Ta152 managed to get me.
The third was yet another strat run, this time about 100 miles into enemy territory. A Bf109K-4 arrived co-alt over the target about the same time I did. After dropping my bomb I made a run for it using shallow dives and WEP to extend my level speed after the shallow dives. He eventually got me when I was about 20 miles out to sea. I chatted with him after because I was curious how close I came to escaping to which he said he ran out of fuel 1 minute after shooting me down. He hadn't been there to intercept me, he'd been there to try to intercept an earlier Lancaster raid that was gone by the time he got there.
So, three losses and only one was to a planned interception and even that didn't stop my bomb from hitting its target. I have seen a great many other interception attempts on me that came nowhere near success.
On topic, can you explain the more than an hour at more than 400mph claim for the Mk XIV?
-
I do play, I have sortie logged this tour.
Ok my mistake! I'll no longer mention where you play or not but I'm still gonna call you on any BS!!
:salute
-
On topic, can you explain the more than an hour at more than 400mph claim for the Mk XIV?
So my claim of "near 400mph" has been twisted by you to be "more than 400"?
Who's exaggerating now?
BTW......I never use WEP during bomber interceptions except when using the mossie VI and the 110g.
It makes a big difference in how long you can fly.........escpecially in the spit XIV.
I'll post the boring film if you want but you will have to agree to pay my way for 2 months once refuted.
Mossie VI can maintain quite a high speed for multiple sectors.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8384/8569760006_4b62be2ba0_b.jpg)
On another note, ME262 is the uber high altitude bomber interceptor.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7398/9188742728_cc14d29735_b.jpg)
-
Ok, granted, you did say near 400mph. My apologies for that.
One of the strengths of the Mossie was high cruise speeds and it does have them in AH as well.
-
On another note, ME262 is the uber high altitude bomber interceptor.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7398/9188742728_cc14d29735_b.jpg)
you have almost 200mph on the 29's and you attack from dead 6?
:D
-
And I flamed all 3 within 3 seconds.
At that altitude, you don't get more than one or two passes and a high closure rate dead six works pretty well as compared to a slashing attack......a turn that saps your precious energy and speed, a 5 minute climb to get above and ahead while trying to gain back speed, and another attack.
It easily adds up to 15 minutes or more and usually gets you killed at that altitude because your closure rate after maneuvers is a lot less which keeps you in the guns of the bomber much longer.
There is also the surprise factor in that a B29 flying over 30k without seeing someone for a long while will get complacent and may not ever man the guns before you destroy all 3 of them.
I stand by my results and place you in the troll bin because it's obvious you spend little time above 30,000 feet in the sim.
-
icepac,
Why do you insist in including an insult in almost every post you make? Insulting everybody else doesn't make your point, a correct one about maneuvers at 30k+, stronger.
-
So you ignore Kvuo's obvious troll post and make me the insulter.
I respond in kind.
Regardless of the tone of my posts, please scroll up and notice my harshness is provoked.
-
troll post. :)
good natured ribbing is now trolling.
You're correct tho, I don't spend much time above 30k, and when I did, it was in b17's, and 262's usually didn't do too well.
-
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol :rofl what a load of b.s.
Um... do you know the meaning of "arbitrary"? The values assigned to any of the OBJ are completely arbitrary and made up by HTC. I'm not sure why that is "BS" to you or anyone. HTC simply designed a scale and based on that scale they assigned "hardness" values. If you dig in to what piece of ordnance does what for damage you might see a correlation. What is not arbitrary is the amount of damage caused to X object by Y ordnance in the real deal. HTC can look up hard data as to how much a .50 cal FMJ can penetrate armor, or how much displacement a 250lb GP bomb can do. Etc, etc. In turn, they have chosen to assign values based on a scale of their choice. However, it is all relative.
Do I need to school you in the "how and why" of AH's ordnance capabilities vs OBJ hardness settings? Nothing BS about it, it is purely how they set it up.
I've always maintained that barracks, ammo bunkers, fuel tanks, radar towers, and town buildings need different hardness settings. Currently, they are exactly the same.
-
hmm..
after thinking about this for a bit & then coming back & reading all posts on this topic.. umm.. all I can ask is WTF does this have to do with the OP.. :confused:
some thoughts I had :
remove maybe 40% of the bases off of all maps increase AAA defenses .. so as to make the bases available that much more 'sacred'..
spread the strats out around all the maps & increase AAA defenses .. so only one can be hit by a single formation, if @ all ..
decrease the range of CV's & put resupply requirements on them .. so they can't tool around forever without refueling @ a friendly port .. this is historically accurate after all ..
increase the rewards for landing a successful buff run while weakening the buffs defensively .. (this is just a thought for the game play) ..
the only things I can't honestly consider are GV's, GV bases, & the B29's..
& I gladly invite discussion on all of these considerations.. but please keep the flames to a minimum ..
again, these are just some thoughts that have been hurting my head... :rolleyes:
<S>
Wrngway
-
hmm..
after thinking about this for a bit & then coming back & reading all posts on this topic.. umm.. all I can ask is WTF does this have to do with the OP.. :confused:
some thoughts I had :
remove maybe 40% of the bases off of all maps increase AAA defenses .. so as to make the bases available that much more 'sacred'..
spread the strats out around all the maps & increase AAA defenses .. so only one can be hit by a single formation, if @ all ..
decrease the range of CV's & put resupply requirements on them .. so they can't tool around forever without refueling @ a friendly port .. this is historically accurate after all ..
increase the rewards for landing a successful buff run while weakening the buffs defensively .. (this is just a thought for the game play) ..
the only things I can't honestly consider are GV's, GV bases, & the B29's..
& I gladly invite discussion on all of these considerations.. but please keep the flames to a minimum ..
again, these are just some thoughts that have been hurting my head... :rolleyes:
<S>
Wrngway
HTC needs to balance game play with realism. I think some of the proposals you've made would lend more towards an environment of cat n mouse and longer flight times for engagements. Just a hunch.