Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BaldEagl on August 08, 2013, 12:16:43 AM
-
That's how much I've paid on average over the past six months to play AH. Back when it was $0.50/day it seemed like a good deal. Now not so much.
I admit I don't have as much time to play as I used to but now even when I do I don't. Revisions to the game over the past several years have led to less things to do to within the game and despite the additions of new planes and vehicles it doesn't make up for the lack of gameplay options.
I fear my time is nearing the end although I'll likely stick around to play in BoB, the one event I've always wanted to play in but was never able.
I'm really torn over this. I really never thought this day would come after 17 years in these games. Anyway it's not here quite yet. I hope to see you all for one last hurrah at BoB and who knows, I might still change my mind but the thoughts of leaving are becoming ever more frequent.
I don't expect anyone to beg me to stay, to say take a break or see you in two weeks. I'm really just thinking out loud and I do want HT to know that decisions over the past several years are driving long time die hards like me from the game. At the same time I suspect they really don't need my $14.95/mo. and could care less.
I hope I stay but at this point I'm not so sure that will happen. Lots to think about between now and the end of September.
-
But Air Warrior was $6/hour in 1990 dollars ($10.38/hour in 2012 dollars), so it's still a bargain! ;)
I don't expect anyone to beg me to stay
I beg you to stay! (Truly.) I'm glad you'll get to fly in the Battle of Britain scenario -- maybe that will refresh a little.
Also, there are "This Day in WWII" events that are like little "scenario-light" events. Have you given many of those a try? The list of them is:
January 25, 1945: Battle of the Bulge
February 2, 1943: Battle of Stalingrad
March 7, 1942: Siege of Malta
April 18, 1942: Doolittle Raid
May 8, 1942: Battle of the Coral Sea
June 6, 1944: D-Day
July 9, 1943: Operation Husky
August 13, 1940: Battle of Britain (Adlertag)
September 6, 1942: Battle of Milne Bay
October 14, 1943: Black Thursday
November 8, 1942: Operation Torch
December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor
-
I m a little confused on the math there. How did you come up with the 1.08? Is that your ISP cost?
-
The price is the same regardless of how much you use it. Price per hour played isn't important, because the relaxation/enjoyment/escape of the time you DO use is well worth it, assuming you can pay the subscription cost.
It's really not about price per how much you play, but whether you still like the game WHEN you play.
Same goes for any subscription game.
-
AH hasn't changed you have. every time one of these posts come up lamenting this or that about the game I am reminded of the fact that almost all players even most of the long time ones burnout on a predictable cycle when they grow tired of a certain activity such as the game.
I view online air combat games as a form of chess and fundamentally this aspect of any game of this nature is unchanging.
you start your plane up takeoff climb find the enemy planes shoot at them and shoot them down or they shoot you down then you either quickly are back on the runway taking off to do it again if you lost the fight or you are rtb to land if you won.
this is an unchanging cycle of all air combat. it will not be changing any time soon in thise genre of entertainment. nuances and gimics will come and go but this is the bread and butter of where the variations of this cycle form the fundamental basis of what makes it so fun and entertaining.
-
That's how much I've paid on average over the past six months to play AH. Back when it was $0.50/day it seemed like a good deal. Now not so much.
I admit I don't have as much time to play as I used to but now even when I do I don't. Revisions to the game over the past several years have led to less things to do to within the game and despite the additions of new planes and vehicles it doesn't make up for the lack of gameplay options.
I fear my time is nearing the end although I'll likely stick around to play in BoB, the one event I've always wanted to play in but was never able.
I'm really torn over this. I really never thought this day would come after 17 years in these games. Anyway it's not here quite yet. I hope to see you all for one last hurrah at BoB and who knows, I might still change my mind but the thoughts of leaving are becoming ever more frequent.
I don't expect anyone to beg me to stay, to say take a break or see you in two weeks. I'm really just thinking out loud and I do want HT to know that decisions over the past several years are driving long time die hards like me from the game. At the same time I suspect they really don't need my $14.95/mo. and could care less.
I hope I stay but at this point I'm not so sure that will happen. Lots to think about between now and the end of September.
Well I for one would hate to lose you.
:salute
-
I m a little confused on the math there. How did you come up with the 1.08? Is that your ISP cost?
He's applying his actual time spent playing to the monthly fee. So if he played one hour this tour AH is costing $14.95 a hour to play.
I think that's what he meant. I'm more gooder at grammar than math really.
BE, take good long break. I pretty much took over a year off aside from DGS II and came back last month. I'm really enjoying the game again.
-
I have no life... This is pretty much the only reason I have internet...
-
Gamestorm.com was 14.95/month and could play other games too. Like 'Legends of Kesmai' and 'Magestorm.'
These days I'm not in game as much anymore either. I like FSO but rarely available at those times and I don't like the altered icon ranges in FSO by the way too.
I wish the MA had fuel-burn was 1x, with Icons left as normal in MA, then, in my opinion, the game would be BETTER than FSO, every day at all times, except late night when there has never been many players on. I just get tired of flying to the nearest field and wind up either flying through base ack, or running into my own.
Mein Gott, make fuel burn 1x!!! PLEASE! Aces Low! :/
Frustrated with what I call 'bugs' not getting fixed.
*410 always nosing down (till low fuel).
*410 breaking parts if do anything, at 22,000 lbs, I believ it would be stronger than most wind. So can't turn, can't speed away even if have E, and can't shoot back, Can't aim its cannons, especially the long range one, nosing down. Just get hunted down easy by even lower E targets.
JUST TAKE THE 410 out of the game.
*410 having GOOFY INTERFACE for back seat... game needs to be able to scoot head and aim anywhere the range goes from ONE station. To be able to turn head to all views from the center one, including looking down into the cockpit and seeing the gun-sight even though its pointed down, scoot head to left to see. Retarded when fast action enemy plane behind us. As is, we can't look down from center, can't look up from sides... why are the views interfering with the controls?
*410 as consistent with other planes of the type, should be able to scoot head way up to see over nose, CAN'T, wth!
*190s roll seems exaggerated, its weight too considering the stall characteristics. While its speed and turn are exaggeratedly cut to nothing. Climb exaggeratedly cut to nothing also. Thanks for the uber ROLL.
*190s always nosing up - major issues aiming. (regardless of fuel).
*190a8 not getting lightened - it wasn't that much of a tub - if pull back at all it stalls and falls left, at slow to mid speed.
*190a8 breaking wings if pull back high speed, even at high weight which was in structural strength, and being known for built strong. In here its dammed at any speed.
So pulling back in an a8 either causes it to roll left, or break wings... great.
*ta152 possibly being the only plane in game that gets in death fall from 20k with next to no chance of coming out of it.
*ta152 being most fragile plane in game I think, and were sposed to go to 30k to fight a b29 with it?
*he111 GOOFY INTERFACE that can't get a gun pointed to a decent arch. WTH, pilot was right there to help turn.
*he111 Has sad face pilots? How insulting, plane did well enough in other fronts, no bomber survives enemy fighters.
*Stuka, before upgrade, was also extremely insulting, but it go fixed some, still it has those 7.9mm guns at front.
*109 taters such issues that can't hit easy shots, sometimes rare make a tuff shot. Screw taters unless have 'aim bot.'
*109 no g10 - fastest one with 20mm's that can hit stuff.
*109 gets 150x20mm round option, anyone use this? WE ALL PUT 200x rounds. We get the 'less option.'
*109 g6, the slower turnier one that might actually do better with taters... gets no tater option. We don't get 'more option.'
*109 seems to have all the lower engine packages. No top 109 models like g10, and lower performance engines on all.
*109 all, specially the k4, seems like TUBS, do they also have the 190a8 FATSO syndrome?
*109e seems like its speed and roll were taken away and given extra turny powerz.
We all know the spit is sposed to be turnier, but I never heard faster. And 109e roll rate sux worst in game.
*Ju88 has pingy amo ONLY. I think its amo did better than it does or they would have switched it out. Again wonderful choice for which model to put in game.
*262 can't see forward-up view (even with pilots head having full freedom movement)... WTH, throw the plane away.
Just take the 262 out of the game. I don't fly it, tons of fighter perks, if I do its just to go ho something.
*177 doesn't exist in here so no large luft bomber. Only allied easy targets instead.
*110 never mind this thing. I don't see why the pilot can't see backwards at all, can't scoot, all the metal in the way. It had better view than an F6F or a F4U, telling you what! This is like the old stuka, BLINDED BACKWARD VIEW. Pilots head was way below the headrest pad.
Summary, Luft planes IN HERE are disgusting, only one I can stand to fly is the g6.
190's are chased by every noob's first choice of what to attack, known 'easy targets.'
410's are chased even before 190s.
109s are known to be 'less than' any other fighter plane in game in all respects', unless taters using auto-fire aimbot.
Only case of 'better' is the extra tubby K4 being able to outrun a spit16.
109s and 190s were out-numbered, not out-classed.
18% of America is German-Americans, largest ethinic group in whole country.
On behalf of all of them I say, booo! :frown:
Fix all this and even I might be inviting some of them to come play. I know bunches of them.
Franz Von Werra, a guy with extra faith and extra patience.
I still pay my stuff too, and I might have less hours than BaldEagl.
Also, I mostly ran out of Luftwaffe fighter plane historic achievements, sigh.
I agree with what Fester says, but I have zero morale due to 'bugs' and 'biases' that I don't even care to try at all. Just go turn burn ho and log.
-
Summary, Luft planes IN HERE are disgusting, only one I can stand to fly is the g6.
190's are chased by every noob's first choice of what to attack, known 'easy targets.'
410's are chased even before 190s.
109s are known to be 'less than' any other fighter plane in game in all respects', unless taters using auto-fire aimbot.
Only case of 'better' is the extra tubby K4 being able to outrun a spit16.
109s and 190s were out-numbered, not out-classed.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/topkd156162_zps8bd59227.jpg)
-
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/topkd156162_zps8bd59227.jpg)
statistics don't lie.
And btw fraz, how far away are you using the tater to shoot at?
I'm not the best tater shooter but I know if I get In close around 200 hards it really hard to not miss.
190A5 can turn, maybe not like a zeke bit it can turn
and I've never noticed the nose up on the 190.
Never had an issue with snapping wings off A8 at high speeds.
A5 yes but the g-forces involved were extreme. How hard you pulling that stick at high speeds?
-
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault.
It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault.
It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.JUST TAKE THE 410 out of the game.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.*410 as consistent with other planes of the type, should be able to scoot head way up to see I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault. I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
Franz Von Werra, a guy with extra faith and extra patience.
I agree with what Fester says, I am bad at air combat and it's not my fault it's the planes fault. It's your fault. It's the games fault.
having a bit of fun at your expense here franz :)
-
That's how much I've paid on average over the past six months to play AH. Back when it was $0.50/day it seemed like a good deal. Now not so much.
I admit I don't have as much time to play as I used to but now even when I do I don't. Revisions to the game over the past several years have led to less things to do to within the game and despite the additions of new planes and vehicles it doesn't make up for the lack of gameplay options.
I fear my time is nearing the end although I'll likely stick around to play in BoB, the one event I've always wanted to play in but was never able.
I'm really torn over this. I really never thought this day would come after 17 years in these games. Anyway it's not here quite yet. I hope to see you all for one last hurrah at BoB and who knows, I might still change my mind but the thoughts of leaving are becoming ever more frequent.
I don't expect anyone to beg me to stay, to say take a break or see you in two weeks. I'm really just thinking out loud and I do want HT to know that decisions over the past several years are driving long time die hards like me from the game. At the same time I suspect they really don't need my $14.95/mo. and could care less.
I hope I stay but at this point I'm not so sure that will happen. Lots to think about between now and the end of September.
I hear ya, havent played a second for months, yet pay the sub. IF one day I'd like to log in...
-
<snip>
You sound like a skipping record Schlowy.
ack-ack
-
You sound like a skipping record Schlowy.
ack-ack
I love this guy...
-
statistics don't lie.
Ever heard the saying lie->mother of all lies->statistic?
-
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/topkd156162_zps8bd59227.jpg)
Haha, D25 is doing better than the K4 :)
Perk!
-
statistics don't lie.
tsk tsk tsk.... silly goof, be very careful with that statement. Most of us know that people can make any set of statistics say anything they want. :aok
-
tsk tsk tsk.... silly goof, be very careful with that statement. Most of us know that people can make any set of statistics say anything they want. :aok
Statistics don't lie. The term statistic implies the math and measurement target have been properly vetted prior to the numerical variables being totaled.
You are confusing "the numbers don't lie" with statistics don't lie.
I have sales reps that say the same thing when they have poor months..."I had a better month than my stats say"....no you didn't. You had exactly the month that your stats say.
-
That's how much I've paid on average over the past six months to play AH. Back when it was $0.50/day it seemed like a good deal. Now not so much.
I admit I don't have as much time to play as I used to but now even when I do I don't. Revisions to the game over the past several years have led to less things to do to within the game and despite the additions of new planes and vehicles it doesn't make up for the lack of gameplay options.
I fear my time is nearing the end although I'll likely stick around to play in BoB, the one event I've always wanted to play in but was never able.
I'm really torn over this. I really never thought this day would come after 17 years in these games. Anyway it's not here quite yet. I hope to see you all for one last hurrah at BoB and who knows, I might still change my mind but the thoughts of leaving are becoming ever more frequent.
I don't expect anyone to beg me to stay, to say take a break or see you in two weeks. I'm really just thinking out loud and I do want HT to know that decisions over the past several years are driving long time die hards like me from the game. At the same time I suspect they really don't need my $14.95/mo. and could care less.
I hope I stay but at this point I'm not so sure that will happen. Lots to think about between now and the end of September.
$15.00/month cost. playing time = 40 hours/month =$15.00/40 hours = 32.75 cents/hour.
Fun factor scale from 1to10
Flying a real P-51 = 10
Riding the 'Top Thrill Dragster' at Cedar point amusement park = 7
Playing a round of golf = 5
Cutting my grass = -2
Shoveling 2 feet of snow off my 150 ft driveway = -4
Playing Aces high = 6
Flying real P-51 = $2000/hour @ fun factor of 10 = $200/fun point
Top Thrill Dragster $54.00/day @ 5 rides/day @ 17 sec/ride = $317.00/hour @ 7 fun factor = $9.00/fun point
Aces High 32 cents/6 fun factor = 5.3 cents/fun point.
Aces high wins. :D
-
Statistics don't lie. The term statistic implies the math and measurement target have been properly vetted prior to the numerical variables being totaled.
You are confusing "the numbers don't lie" with statistics don't lie.
I have sales reps that say the same thing when they have poor months..."I had a better month than my stats say"....no you didn't. You had exactly the month that your stats say.
:aok egggg...zakly!
-
$15.00/month cost. playing time = 40 hours/month =$15.00/40 hours = 32.75 cents/hour.
Fun factor scale from 1to10
Flying a real P-51 = 10
Riding the 'Top Thrill Dragster' at Cedar point amusement park = 7
Playing a round of golf = 5
Cutting my grass = -2
Shoveling 2 feet of snow off my 150 ft driveway = -4
Playing Aces high = 6
Flying real P-51 = $2000/hour @ fun factor of 10 = $200/fun point
Top Thrill Dragster $54.00/day @ 5 rides/day @ 17 sec/ride = $317.00/hour @ 7 fun factor = $9.00/fun point
Aces High 32 cents/6 fun factor = 5.3 cents/fun point.
Aces high wins. :D
:lol Vink you must have a lot of time on your hands. but those are cool analogies, I like 'em.
-
It beats the $300-$350 per month that some of us addicts forked over when we started playing it on AOL. :lol
-
Haha, D25 is doing better than the K4 :)
Perk!
The 56th FG is the reason for that :cool:
Anyway, about the revisions in the game over the past couple of years. I like the changes for the most part, except I think HTC shot themselves in the foot when they did away with the old strat system, supply trains, and GV spawns to the various factories. Why is HTC so dead set on not bringing these things back?
Lets face it, most everyone wants a respectable score or rank. The old system allowed for a player to fly or drive to a site and blow it up for points with a minimum amount of risk. The rewards were worth the effort. Now a player spends 10 or 15 minutes to GV to a town just to have lazer ack take their turret out as soon as they get there. Why even bother right?
The last time I tried to milk a factory I spend an hour flying to the site just to have a 163 shoot me down just as the factory was in sight. Why bother?
I say HTC should bring back the old strat system if for no other reason then see if this is why the player base is dwindling.
Another problem I see are these huge maps. Big maps do nothing but overwhelm the players wondering where the fight is. Three bases for every player logged on to too much. it's like you can't find the forest for the trees at times. During peak hours when the max amount of players is on it's not so bad. But the off hours have become boring beyond belief. There's no way to take a base by yourself anymore and sometimes it's impossible to get enough players together to do anything. And if you're new to the game forget about it. No one is going to do what you want anyway.
-
statistics don't lie.
no but they can be miss leading and miss interpreted
-
:lol Vink you must have a lot of time on your hands. but those are cool analogies, I like 'em.
:lol :salute
-
Another problem I see are these huge maps. Big maps do nothing but overwhelm the players wondering where the fight is. Three bases for every player logged on to too much. it's like you can't find the forest for the trees at times. During peak hours when the max amount of players is on it's not so bad. But the off hours have become boring beyond belief. There's no way to take a base by yourself anymore and sometimes it's impossible to get enough players together to do anything. And if you're new to the game forget about it. No one is going to do what you want anyway.
But I *like* large maps, so YMMV, right? BTW, to find fights, just fly to the dar bars, or spawn near a base and make it blink. But you know this already, right?
MH
-
But I *like* large maps, so YMMV, right? BTW, to find fights, just fly to the dar bars, go spawn near a base and make it blink. But you know this already, right?
Sounds like an advice from a prime time player ;)
-
But I *like* large maps, so YMMV, right? BTW, to find fights, just fly to the dar bars, or spawn near a base and make it blink. But you know this already, right?
MH
My experience doing what you suggest during off peak hours is as follows: the con will fly around in the base ack waiting for a proxie. And besides, vulching and picking isn't that rewarding after a while anyway.
If I GV to the base the enemy simply drops a bomb on me. Both examples just seems like a waste of time and effort for nothing. Also, I'm not saying that the large maps are solely responsible for the player decline we're seeing, but I think it certainly contributes to the problem....especially during off peak hours.
I can load up on ord and jabo things all night long but I'm not really accomplishing anything. And that's where the boredom comes in.
-
no but they can be miss leading and miss interpreted
Only when someone is ignorant about the use of statistics or how they are interpreted.
-
I really really like Vinkman's post, although that scale kind of falls apart at the upper end. I'd consider flying a real mustang a LOT more fun than 2 rounds of golf, but that's just me. ;)
I think Fester's about right. This type of game has a shelf life for nearly every person, and every person is different. Some people get bored with it in days or weeks, others after many years. I have found my attitudes shifting over the last year or so, finding myself getting bored sometimes if I run into too many one pass and run people in an evening. As long as I get enough different situations when I up though, I usually have a good time.
To me, it's definitely worth the $15 a month though. Some months I play less than others, but even if I just did FSO it would be worth it to me.
Also,
Sounds like an advice from a prime time player ;)
That's one disturbing trend I've noticed of late. During prime time, I have plenty of fun. Around midnight Eastern, red bardars suddenly drop to onesy-twosies everywhere, and few of them at that. This generally causes me to log. I can only imagine it gets worse as the night goes on.
This pretty much sums up my experience at that point as well:
My experience doing what you suggest during off peak hours is as follows: the con will fly around in the base ack waiting for a proxie. And besides, vulching and picking isn't that rewarding after a while anyway.
Wiley.
-
To the op,
Exactly same type things were said during the time I spent with FA. It was always the games fault.
Well to very small extent, it is the games fault. It is what it was meant to be a combat flight mmo. As such it has its limitations and attractions, will not state them, they are obvious.
Lets face it, flying is, at its heart, boring. In real life air war, it would have been weeks of boring, followed by seconds of abject fear. Different when your life is really on the line. In game I have died a 1000 deaths.
GV's, who cares, I fly airplanes, its why I play in AH.
I too feel bored. But its because I hit a plateau with my abilities. I do the same dumb things and die, HO'ers sux, the AI never misses. These things have always been there, I've come to know them. Familiarity breeds contempt.
The game only provides us with a set of tools, paint brushes and canvas if you will, the picture you paint is on you.
Also there are a very limited number of peeps, world wide, who care about such gameplay, WW2 aircraft.
They are already here, for the most part. Take all the peeps that played FA, add them here, take all the WarBirds players, add them here. Get MS Flight Combat sim players, add them here. AH gameplay will still be the same and total numbers still would not be much larger.
You yourself will have to make the reasons to continue with AH or drift away.
S :joystick:
-
My experience doing what you suggest during off peak hours is as follows: the con will fly around in the base ack waiting for a proxie. And besides, vulching and picking isn't that rewarding after a while anyway.
If I GV to the base the enemy simply drops a bomb on me. Both examples just seems like a waste of time and effort for nothing. Also, I'm not saying that the large maps are solely responsible for the player decline we're seeing, but I think it certainly contributes to the problem....especially during off peak hours.
I can load up on ord and jabo things all night long but I'm not really accomplishing anything. And that's where the boredom comes in.
Valid complaints, but as you say these issues are independent of map size.
In the first case, you need to make sure you give them the impression that they will have a chance at an even fight. So come in at 2K, and keep your distance until they up. Also, bring a less capable fighter. Alternatively, if you hang around the air base town at low altitude (as if you were taking down town buildings), you should often attract a capable low altitude defender.
In the second GV case, I meant you GV to a GV base; GVing to an air base by yourself is usually suicide. Take out the radar with HE; then start in on the 88s and 17pdrs. Now in some contexts eventually some moron will up a jabo and fly to the GV base, but maybe not, and in any case until then you should be able to hold your own against defending GVs and have fun. BTW this second approach is what I usually take, and it works for me. It doesn't require any more than a couple of opposing players, either.
MH
-
Statistics don't lie. The term statistic implies the math and measurement target have been properly vetted prior to the numerical variables being totaled.
You are confusing "the numbers don't lie" with statistics don't lie.
I have sales reps that say the same thing when they have poor months..."I had a better month than my stats say"....no you didn't. You had exactly the month that your stats say.
You're wrong. Statistics lie because they only show statistics, not the reasons behind them.
If you read statistics you can see that every person who ever drank water in their lives, ended up dead sooner or later. Just having something in the stats doesn't mean the reasons behind it are obvious.
The 190 k/d rates may have been elevated because they saw mostly action in the hands of a few elite players for example where more 'common' planes get slaughtered in the hands of noobs and result in abysmal k/d rate.
-
You're wrong. Statistics lie because they only show statistics, not the reasons behind them.
If you read statistics you can see that every person who ever drank water in their lives, ended up dead sooner or later. Just having something in the stats doesn't mean the reasons behind it are obvious.
The 190 k/d rates may have been elevated because they saw mostly action in the hands of a few elite players for example where more 'common' planes get slaughtered in the hands of noobs and result in abysmal k/d rate.
Not to mention that 98% of criminals ate bread the day they committed a crime. Ban bread now!!!!
On the 190, if I had to bet a dollar I would bet that it was not elite pilots but elite vulchers lol. Whats an elite 190 pilot? The guy that dives the fastest or the one performing the dolphin maneuver flawlessly? :rofl
-
The 190 k/d rates may have been elevated because they saw mostly action in the hands of a few elite players for example where more 'common' planes get slaughtered in the hands of noobs and result in abysmal k/d rate.
Even if so (and actually it ain't to a big extent as in really low usage planes, the 109K is a relatively high usage one), it should not be possible according to the description of Franzl/Schlowy. He describes those German planes like they were even more crappy versions of the P-40C, being 'superior' planes real life being unfairly modeled by HTC in AH.
Such a plane would never as much consistent success on a large scale as it does in AH.
And that's my whole point. :)
-
I hardly play anymore. I still have my subscription because I like to occasionally play, and mainly, I want to put my money where my mouth is and support this hobby and HTC.
As for Franz, try some other airplanes. You seem stuck on German stuff and it seems you really have no idea how the other aircraft are modeled. Should a P-51D fan whine that the Bf109K-4 out flies his P-51D it almost all aspects? Did you know the Bf109K-4 out flies the P-51D, the "American plane that won the war in the air" from many casually (mis)informed Americans? How about the tub of a P-47 which is meat on the table for any Bf109G or later? There isn't a Bf109G-10, so? Why should there be? Many versions of many aircraft are missing. Why should the Bf109G-10 get special mention? You seem particularly antagonistic about British aircraft, Spitfires in particular. How are you surprised that it is an easy and effective fighter? It was, and remains, famous for being such.
The German planes do not seem to be singled out in any way and are certainly not second rate to any nation's aircraft in AH.
-
Lots to think about between now and the end of September.
Hang in there BE, we'd miss you :) BOB will get your juices flowing again :airplane:
-
You sound like a skipping record Schlowy.
ack-ack
Sounds more like Storch
-
Riding the 'Top Thrill Dragster' at Cedar point amusement park = 7
Heh! I've ridden that. My wife is a rollercoaster enthusiast and wanted to go to the park that has the largest number of top-rated rollercoasters in the world (Cedar Point).
Aces high wins. :D
Yes! :aok
-
I thought i was paying £14 a month until Bruv pointed out it was dollars, so i was paying £9 a month :old:
Fester is right then again he is not :old:
-
Sounds more like Storch
The Luftwhiner rant gives Schlowy away. Storch wasn't a Luftwhiner, just a whiner.
ack-ack
-
I've thought of leaving several times. The first thing that kept me here was when we got the ability to upload our own terrains to use in customs and in AvA. The second thing is the staged mission system that every patch contains a few more more fixes for.
No way am I going to miss the chance to run awesome staged missions on our awesome custom terrains.
I ain't going nowhere.
-
Take a month or two off, it'll do ya good. :) Longest I played continually for was maybe 3 months. About to end my sub after this month.
-
AH hasn't changed you have. every time one of these posts come up lamenting this or that about the game I am reminded of the fact that almost all players even most of the long time ones burnout on a predictable cycle when they grow tired of a certain activity such as the game.
I view online air combat games as a form of chess and fundamentally this aspect of any game of this nature is unchanging.
you start your plane up takeoff climb find the enemy planes shoot at them and shoot them down or they shoot you down then you either quickly are back on the runway taking off to do it again if you lost the fight or you are rtb to land if you won.
this is an unchanging cycle of all air combat. it will not be changing any time soon in thise genre of entertainment. nuances and gimics will come and go but this is the bread and butter of where the variations of this cycle form the fundamental basis of what makes it so fun and entertaining.
True, but dweebery and tarding is more common. Not new, just more common than it used to be.
Anyway, I hope you eventually decide to stay, Eagle. Don't fly with you regularly, but you almost always give me a good fight.
-
:huh :huh :huh :huh Ever notice that after eating some Snail pie, you always feel stupid and the proof is right in front of you! :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Ever heard the saying lie->mother of all lies->statistic?
nope
You sound like a skipping record Schlowy.
ack-ack
That's schlowy? :banana: :x
he's awesome!!!!
-
The Luftwhiner rant gives Schlowy away. Storch wasn't a Luftwhiner, just a whiner.
ack-ack
He was both, depending on his evolutional/regressive devolutional status. He went through a 'Oh how unfair things are stacked against Luftwaffe plane set fans!' phase more than once.
-
LW planes are quite good. I've flown them a lot for scenarios, and they definitely can hold their own or more than hold their own matched up against their historical competition. For example, in a scenario setting, I think that the FW 190A-5 is better than the Spit V. FW 190D-9's and Bf 109K-4's are excellent, with their toughest scenario competition (in my opinion) being Spit 14's and Tempests. Bf 109F's and G's are quite good. Bf 109E's are much less capable, but the competition is the Spit I and Hurri I, against which they are decent.
-
That's how much I've paid on average over the past six months to play AH. Back when it was $0.50/day it seemed like a good deal. Now not so much.
Seems like a lot of fun to be had for a $1 ... :D
-
Over the last 6 months my Aces High has cost me $90/hr since I haven't played at all.
-
The Luftwhiner rant gives Schlowy away. Storch wasn't a Luftwhiner, just a whiner.
ack-ack
Actually he was, I had the misfortune of being his CO and had to listen to the Hitech bias theory night after night. :uhoh
-
Over the last 6 months my Aces High has cost me $90/hr since I haven't played at all.
well, using that calculation HT should hand me the keys. I paid for at list 6 months without playing a minute. So (6 * 15) / 0 = ?
-
well, using that calculation HT should hand me the keys. I paid for at list 6 months without playing a minute. So (6 * 15) / 0 = ?
0
:neener:
:salute
-
I have no life... This is pretty much the only reason I have internet...
Same.
-
0
:neener:
:salute
oh man you are so wrong :rofl. there's no solution you cannot divide by zero. oh crap this is probably why we're having so many problems logging in.
semp
-
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/topkd156162_zps8bd59227.jpg)
*lights a cigar* :devil :banana:
"Excellent..."
Not to mention that 98% of criminals ate bread the day they committed a crime. Ban bread now!!!!
On the 190, if I had to bet a dollar I would bet that it was not elite pilots but elite vulchers lol. Whats an elite 190 pilot? The guy that dives the fastest or the one performing the dolphin maneuver flawlessly? :rofl
Well if it's namecalling you want, you guys aren't too shaby at that beached-Shamoo maneuver most of the time I'm screaming down your 6's in a Dora.
-
I have no life... This is pretty much the only reason I have internet...
I thought the internet replaced having a life?
-
You're wrong. Statistics lie because they only show statistics, not the reasons behind them.
If you read statistics you can see that every person who ever drank water in their lives, ended up dead sooner or later. Just having something in the stats doesn't mean the reasons behind it are obvious.
The 190 k/d rates may have been elevated because they saw mostly action in the hands of a few elite players for example where more 'common' planes get slaughtered in the hands of noobs and result in abysmal k/d rate.
You are correct. Statistically you will die if you drink water....and if you breath oxygen. Those are statistics and they are not incorrect. However, when they are studied, which is the second basis of statistics, they would be found to not be causal to death.
The 190 stats are correct. Why are they correct? Just because we know why they are correct doesn't make the output incorrect. It makes it less important.
-
You are correct. Statistically you will die if you drink water....and if you breath oxygen. Those are statistics and they are not incorrect. However, when they are studied, which is the second basis of statistics, they would be found to not be causal to death.
The 190 stats are correct. Why are they correct? Just because we know why they are correct doesn't make the output incorrect. It makes it less important.
wrong you can die from drinking water. just plain old water. and not just by drowning :). and you can also die and people have died from breathing oxygen. just plain old oxygen only.
semp
-
oh man you are so wrong :rofl. there's no solution you cannot divide by zero. oh crap this is probably why we're having so many problems logging in.
semp
well, I think I logged for one billionth of second, so.......
-
*lights a cigar* :devil :banana:
"Excellent..."
Well if it's namecalling you want, you guys aren't too shaby at that beached-Shamoo maneuver most of the time I'm screaming down your 6's in a Dora.
name calling? What, did you eat bread today?
-
Statistics are useless without context. Statistics do not lie per say, but some of the people who present the numbers lie about their margin of error and the context surrounding the numbers. Numbers have no hidden agenda, it's the people who misuse (or have really poor data set to extrapolate numbers. Garbage in = garbage out) these numbers who do all the lying. :devil
-
You are correct. Statistically you will die if you drink water....and if you breath oxygen. Those are statistics and they are not incorrect. However, when they are studied, which is the second basis of statistics, they would be found to not be causal to death.
The 190 stats are correct. Why are they correct? Just because we know why they are correct doesn't make the output incorrect. It makes it less important.
The 190 stats are correct, no doubt about it. But the high k/d ratio does not necessarily have anything to do with the true performance of the bird. My squadmate Save regularly lands 6 kill sorties in the lead-sled A8 which most people regard as a total dog on MA. It's about the pilot, not the plane.
If a squad of veterans chooses to fly only a rarely used plane for a long period, let's say C202 - it will jilt the statistics of that plane quickly because the players can land kills in it and noobs won't fly it.
-
The 190 stats are correct, no doubt about it. But the high k/d ratio does not necessarily have anything to do with the true performance of the bird. My squadmate Save regularly lands 6 kill sorties in the lead-sled A8 which most people regard as a total dog on MA. It's about the pilot, not the plane.
If a squad of veterans chooses to fly only a rarely used plane for a long period, let's say C202 - it will jilt the statistics of that plane quickly because the players can land kills in it and noobs won't fly it.
Nobody has claimed the K/D is a exact representation of the plane's performance. I thought I made the point of that chart pretty much clear by putting it into context with the quote in that post, and even explained it in a later one. But some still seem to have missed it's humorous aspect entirely.
If a squad of veterans chooses to fly only a rarely used plane for a long period, let's say C202 - it will jilt the statistics of that plane quickly because the players can land kills in it and noobs won't fly it.
Theoretically yes.
Practically the C202 is such a low performer in context of MA that exactly this will not happen. The K/D of some plane is boosted by some group of vets flying it as a main ride, but even that has a limit. Particularly over course of 6 full tours. It's very difficult for a very 'bad' plane to aquire the necessary thousands of kills for few deaths.
Which, again, is my point if you are putting it into the context of Franzl's quote...
-
I hear ya, havent played a second for months, yet pay the sub. IF one day I'd like to log in...
I've payed for the past two years but probably only logged in hardly a handful of times.
After reading the OP, I think it might be time for me to give in and cancel my subscription as well.
-
Do you guys who haven't played much recently try special events?
-
Special events are always fun, even with low numbers. With high numbers, they're better than the best times in the MA.
-
With high numbers, they're better than the best times in the MA.
You forgot to insert "to me" ... ;)
-
Do you guys who haven't played much recently try special events?
I tried two scenarios but couldn't make more than a couple frames each. They were still a lot of fun!
I used to try the other scenarios, but there were very few people as I recall. As it is now, I'd be on far too late/early to make any events.
-
Some nights I furball...if that doesn't look probable based upon what's going on...I might do jabo stuff....if I don't feel like doing that, there's bombers.....and there's ALways gv's, which is getting to be my favorite thing, esp in midwar (I'm only home on weekends anyhow, so if I do 25 hours in a month, I'm doing good)
-
I've been playing for 10 years now and I've not yet found any game online, or activity (especially Trap Shooting) offline, that has entertained me for a mere $0.50 per day!
Folks, that's a simple pair of US quarter dollars in coin, per day, for the entertainment received from this game. If you aren't receiving the entertainment from this game on a daily or monthly basis, simply take your two quarters elsewhere and go buy a beer, or two, on a monthly or daily basis (that is, of course, if you can find a fifty cent beer anywhere in the US today). I'm quite certain that many of us adults excrete that fifty cents from our bodies on a daily basis, be it alcohol, or sugar, or caffeine.
Think about it.
-
My pee has at least 50 cents per day of vitamins in it. ;)
Patches, are you the one who lives somewhere near Bothell, WA? If so, we still need to arrange a day so that I can take you out for lunch and a beer!
-
My pee has at least 50 cents per day of vitamins in it. ;)
Patches, are you the one who lives somewhere near Bothell, WA? If so, we still need to arrange a day so that I can take you out for lunch and a beer!
patches dont listen to him. there's only one reason why he takes vitamins :).
semp
-
patches dont listen to him. there's only one reason why he takes vitamins Smiley.
No worries, guncrasher! I take vitamins, too! ;-)
And, yes, Brooke, we do need to get together. ;-)
-
Now I remember why I flushed our 110, waaay back when first got in AH... the rear guns.
The 110s (and 210, 410) were supposed to fill two roles - long range bomber escort and/or long range bomber hunter.
We have a tubby fatso overweight ground attack 110g, and undermodeled amo 110c.
Info:
Lancaster guns seem able to point down further than they should - they fire straight down!
Seems, it gets extra firing arch than it had - unlike our 111, with actual or less than actual arch. Due to our interface, seems 111 is unable defend itself from enemy fighters. Blah blah, no bomber survives enemy fighters, especcially if the opponent fighters are being guided by ground or air radar.
a 110 tactic:
Our 110's rear guns don't point up enough to shoot down a bomber, especially a lanc, from under a lanc.
I noticed this the first time I flew the 110 in ah2, "biased!"
Some 110s, and or night-fighter 110s, had a specific method to go under lancs to do this 'from under' attack.
Since our 110's rear gun can't shoot up (not even close), and under-modeled amo is why I reject it.
So at best, we have the 'ground attack' version in a mostly AIR battles game.
I don't do ground attack, so keep our 110 in the hangar, I don't fly it, check.
More about our 410, it supposively the dialed in 110, new and improved, finally remodeled 110 without the problems of the 210. So, 'long range escort fighter' for friendly bombers, and 'long range interceptor' for enemy bombers, with the bonus of being over FRIENDLY TERRITORY, with FRIENDLY RADAR ON ITS SIDE.
By the time it came out though, sky was filled with hordes of p51s.
Again, luft was outnumbered, not out engineered, not out classed.
But in here the 410 has too many 'quirks' to even leave of the hangar.
SEEMS WE GOT A 210, NOT A 410!!!
******************
***before the 410 was added to the game, these 'allied' forums were all worried about "it might be 'too fast" - I guess we got a slow one that breaks apart if it even gets near fast., and noses down, with goofy gun views - view position restricts gun movement, and did it really do tail under back flips when it pulls 3g's?.***
***Imagine properly modelled 177's being escorted by properly modelled 410s doing HQ runs. (with fuel burn 1x)***
*******************
-
huh?
-
Now I remember why I flushed our 110, waaay back when first got in AH... the rear guns.
The 110s (and 210, 410) were supposed to fill two roles - long range bomber escort and/or long range bomber hunter.
We have a tubby fatso overweight ground attack 110g, and undermodeled amo 110c.
Info:
Lancaster guns seem able to point down further than they should - they fire straight down!
Seems, it gets extra firing arch than it had - unlike our 111, with actual or less than actual arch. Due to our interface, seems 111 is unable defend itself from enemy fighters. Blah blah, no bomber survives enemy fighters, especcially if the opponent fighters are being guided by ground or air radar.
a 110 tactic:
Our 110's rear guns don't point up enough to shoot down a bomber, especially a lanc, from under a lanc.
I noticed this the first time I flew the 110 in ah2, "biased!"
Some 110s, and or night-fighter 110s, had a specific method to go under lancs to do this 'from under' attack.
Since our 110's rear gun can't shoot up (not even close), and under-modeled amo is why I reject it.
So at best, we have the 'ground attack' version in a mostly AIR battles game.
I don't do ground attack, so keep our 110 in the hangar, I don't fly it, check.
More about our 410, it supposively the dialed in 110, new and improved, finally remodeled 110 without the problems of the 210. So, 'long range escort fighter' for friendly bombers, and 'long range interceptor' for enemy bombers, with the bonus of being over FRIENDLY TERRITORY, with FRIENDLY RADAR ON ITS SIDE.
By the time it came out though, sky was filled with hordes of p51s.
Again, luft was outnumbered, not out engineered, not out classed.
But in here the 410 has too many 'quirks' to even leave of the hangar.
SEEMS WE GOT A 210, NOT A 410!!!
******************
***before the 410 was added to the game, these forums were all worried about because "it might be 'too fast" - I guess we got a slow one that breaks apart if it even gets near fast., and noses down, with goofy gun views - view position restricts gun movement, and did it really do tail under back flips when it pulls 3g's?.***
***Imagine properly modelled 177's being escorted by properly modelled 410s doing HQ runs. (with fuel burn 1x)***
*******************
K, I'll bite. What's wrong with you?
-
Wrong, its not what's wrong with me...
its about where the game is, and where it isn't.
we have a screwed 210, not a 410.
we have a screwed 111, not a 177.
-
Wrong, its not what's wrong with me...
its about where the game is, and where it isn't.
I would love to see your first hand documentation on the 'matters' you brought up.
In another thread of course, you are entirely irrelevant in this one.
-
Wrong, its not what's wrong with me...
its about where the game is, and where it isn't.
we have a screwed 110, not a 410.
we have a screwed 111, not a 177.
Fixed
And btw 110 is not as bad as you think.
-
K, I'll bite. What's wrong with you?
He's infamous! Even made it into a cartoon :noid
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,337065.0.html
-
Schlowy puzzles me. I don't know if he's an expert on German WW2 aircraft or a complete lunatic. :headscratch:
-
Schlowy puzzles me. I don't know if he's an expert on German WW2 aircraft or a complete lunatic. :headscratch:
Well, guess it's possible to be both.
-
Schlowy puzzles me. I don't know if he's an expert on German WW2 aircraft or a complete lunatic. :headscratch:
Absolutely not an expert for sure. Neither on the RL planes nor on the ones in game.
-
Now I remember why I flushed our 110, waaay back when first got in AH... the rear guns.
The 110s (and 210, 410) were supposed to fill two roles - long range bomber escort and/or long range bomber hunter.
We have a tubby fatso overweight ground attack 110g, and undermodeled amo 110c.
Info:
Lancaster guns seem able to point down further than they should - they fire straight down!
They do not fire straight down, but they do depress quite a lot, as they should based on the actual Lancaster.
Seems, it gets extra firing arch than it had - unlike our 111, with actual or less than actual arch. Due to our interface, seems 111 is unable defend itself from enemy fighters. Blah blah, no bomber survives enemy fighters, especcially if the opponent fighters are being guided by ground or air radar.
Do you have something that says the fields of fire for the He111 are incorrect?
a 110 tactic:
Our 110's rear guns don't point up enough to shoot down a bomber, especially a lanc, from under a lanc.
I noticed this the first time I flew the 110 in ah2, "biased!"
Some 110s, and or night-fighter 110s, had a specific method to go under lancs to do this 'from under' attack.
You need to do more research. The tail guns are not the guns you are thinking of. The guns you are thinking of, "schrage muzik", were fixed and mounted pointing up and forward at, IIRC, a 45 degree angle and were cannons. They were not found on Bf110G-2s, but rather on Bf110G-4s. Some Japanese planes also mounted such installations. The Bf110G-4 would also have the draggy radar aerials on the nose which would reduce its performance. HTC added the daylight Bf110G-2 because AH is a daylight game.
Since our 110's rear gun can't shoot up (not even close), and under-modeled amo is why I reject it.
Which makes you look stupid and biased because you don't even know what you are talking about.
So at best, we have the 'ground attack' version in a mostly AIR battles game.
Nope, just the daylight version.
I don't do ground attack, so keep our 110 in the hangar, I don't fly it, check.
There is no super fighter version that you seem to think there is.
More about our 410, it supposively the dialed in 110, new and improved, finally remodeled 110 without the problems of the 210. So, 'long range escort fighter' for friendly bombers, and 'long range interceptor' for enemy bombers, with the bonus of being over FRIENDLY TERRITORY, with FRIENDLY RADAR ON ITS SIDE.
By the time it came out though, sky was filled with hordes of p51s.
Again, luft was outnumbered, not out engineered, not out classed.
But in here the 410 has too many 'quirks' to even leave of the hangar.
SEEMS WE GOT A 210, NOT A 410!!!
******************
***before the 410 was added to the game, these 'allied' forums were all worried about "it might be 'too fast" - I guess we got a slow one that breaks apart if it even gets near fast., and noses down, with goofy gun views - view position restricts gun movement, and did it really do tail under back flips when it pulls 3g's?.***
***Imagine properly modelled 177's being escorted by properly modelled 410s doing HQ runs. (with fuel burn 1x)***
*******************
The Me410 was a high wing loading attempt at a multi-role aircraft. I don't know of any instance in which it was used as an escort, or even that it was ever intended as an escort. It was a destroyer, and it worked well as one as long as enemy fighters were not present. It did not do well when confronted by P-47s, P-51s or Spitfires.
-
I finally figured out how to post a picture! :P
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Avro_Lancaster_VR-A_tail_turret_2.jpg/800px-Avro_Lancaster_VR-A_tail_turret_2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Avro_Lancaster_VR-A_front_turret.jpg/800px-Avro_Lancaster_VR-A_front_turret.jpg)
evidencios! :rofl
Unfortunately, the confidence of bomber crews that they could spot enemy fighters at night proved to be vastly over-inflated. British night-fighter crews operating as intruders with the bomber stream found that they could approach bombers almost with impunity, and fly alongside or beneath them at very close range without being detected. They reported this to their superiors, but it was decided not to inform bomber crews of the facts for fear that it might damage their morale. Air gunners who did not detect an approaching fighter often paid with their lives, as their turrets were often the first targets for the enemy. This picture of a Stirling rear turret grimly illustrates the point.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/SIPyIBtjRrI/AAAAAAAAA6Q/xCBJZYKVv1Y/s400/Stirling+rear+turret+after+fighter+attack.jpg)
Has anyone ever killed a lancasters tailgunner? :/
Pretty good site:
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2008/07/weekend-wings-25-air-gunners.html
-
Your source is a blog? And one from a guy called "bayou renaissance man'?
God, you're dumb.
-
Never mind the picture's SOURCE, it is the PICTURE itself that counts.
Google.com, click images, ooohh kaaay?
I DONT THINK THEY POINT DOWN AS FAR AS THEY DO IN GAME!
you the dumb dumb poopyhead! :rofl
Thx to the person out there where I got 'dumb dumb poopyhead' expression from! hehe
-
Schlowy, bro you need diagrams showing arcs of fire :old:
Btw your awesome :banana:
-
How far down do you think they depress? You earlier said straight down, which they clearly do not.
Now, graphically the inner .303 barrel clips about 2/3rds of the width of the barrel into the shell chutes, but I am not sure if that if because it depresses further than it should or if it is just a graphical inaccuracy. It looks like the tail gun depresses by about 60 degrees in AH. The Lanc's nose guns do not depress into any of the aircraft's graphics in AH.
As to the other stuff you posted, your point is? AH is in the daylight where Lanc tail gunners can see fine. The light armament on Lancasters lead them to have very poor survivability in AH. Anybody who flies bombers much will tell you they lose tail gunners.
-
I know that the first ping kills my stuka gunner every time, 110 gunner too!
I SHOOT at BOMBERS all the time, from in a fighter, and I TELL YOU that LANCS REAR GUNNER fires back at me without END.
Even after I flash the sheet out of the rear turret - oooh kaay? :headscratch:
Let me explain it in English...
CHING CHANG!
ok? got it? kewl! :rofl
-
I know that the first ping kills my stuka gunner every time, 110 gunner too!
I SHOOT at BOMBERS all the time, from in a fighter, and I TELL YOU that LANCS REAR GUNNER fires back at me without END.
Even after I flash the sheet out of the rear turret - oooh kaay? :headscratch:
Let me explain it in English...
CHING CHANG!
ok? got it? kewl! :rofl
Which guns show as firing on your FE don't reflect the guns the other player is actually firing. On your FE it looks like all guns are firing at you, even those that can't bear. Only on the shooters FE does it graphically show which guns are and are not firing. The dead guns can't hurt you.
If you want to test it I am willing to up Lancasters and do controlled testing.
-
Has anyone ever killed a lancasters tailgunner?
Yes! I did that once, flying a 202. Wish I could remember the Lanc pilot's name, we had a great time, me following him and pumping BBs into his plane. I think he augured just short of his field because he ran out of fuel. He told me I'd killed his top turret gunner and his tail gunner. Hey, it was a 202.
That was way back in AH1, though, I expect many things about the flight model and gunnery and so on have changed quite a bit.
- oldman
-
The downward angle at which the Lancs tail guns in this game can fire do seem a bit extreme to me. But it is what it is and I'm no expert.
-
Unfortunately the only aircraft I have arcs of fire info for is not currently modeled in AH, the H8K2 'Emily':
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/h8k_defensivegun-3.jpg)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/122028497/h8k_defensivegun-4.jpg)
-
uhh, that's the wrong plane, some 'expert' you are! :ahand
Honestly though, I was in a 3set of 111's today, an La-7 came up from dead 6, I fired, all amo from top and bottom guns and the La-7 died, and even though he pinged me a few times, I think no damage received to my 111's!
Sooo, yeah, maybe I do like the 111 now! :cool:
-
Over the last 6 months my Aces High has cost me $90/hr since I haven't played at all.
Same here . Kind of lame to pay 15 a month just to keep your name .
-
I believe the depression for the FN20 tail turret was 45 degrees.
-
"I don't think." Sums up schlowy's posts pretty well. So much conjecture reaped from such little investment in facts.
-
*he111 Has sad face pilots? How insulting, plane did well enough in other fronts, no bomber survives enemy fighters.
Do I even need to add any comment to this?
-
I'm still trying to grasp how the 110 tail guns were gonna kill ANYthing (AND, they were a miserable failure as an escort)
-
I'm still trying to grasp how the 110 tail guns were gonna kill ANYthing (AND, they were a miserable failure as an escort)
He seemed to be confusing them with the 'schage musik' installation of fixed cannons firing at about a 45 degree angle forward.
-
Karnak:
Still haven't found gun arch diagrams for the Lancaster?
bj229r
England's Radar and 50 miles of water and fighting over friendly territory advantage.
How did England's 'Defiant' interceptor work out?
Guns: 4 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in hydraulically-powered dorsal turret (600 rpg)
No forward firing guns. <---- 110 way better
So lanc's had no escorts because... spits were very short ranged. Too bad England didn't have 110's!
-
Karnak:
Still haven't found gun arch diagrams for the Lancaster?
As I said, I only have the diagrams for one aircraft. I posted it so as to provide an example to you of what we needed you to provide to support your claim that the Lanc's arcs were too large. It is for you to support your claim, not me.
bj229r
England's Radar and 50 miles of water and fighting over friendly territory advantage.
Sorry, no. There are reasons, valid ones, but that is not it. P-47s and P-51s faced the same against Germany, but were successful escorts because they could engage Bf109s and Fw190s from a qualitative parity, whereas the Bf110C-4 was at a disadvantage against both the Hurricane and Spitfire. This isn't to say the Bf110 wasn't a useful type, or that it didn't have successes against Hurricanes and Spitfires, just that the fight favored the Bf110's opponents. Goering's close escort order that came down during the battle exacerbated an already bad situation.
How did England's 'Defiant' interceptor work out?
Guns: 4 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in hydraulically-powered dorsal turret (600 rpg)
No forward firing guns. <---- 110 way better
Yes, the Bf110 is vastly superior to the Defiant. The Defiant saw some initial success due to misidentification and later as a night fighter against bombers, but has to be considered one of the most disastrous aircraft programs of WWII.
So lanc's had no escorts because... spits were very short ranged. Too bad England didn't have 110's!
Bf109s and Fw190s are both significantly superior to Bf110s, hence Bf110s in RAF service would not have been successful trying to escort Lancasters into German airspace during the day.
Late in the war Mosquitoes were sometimes used as escorts for Lancasters during daylight operations, but I don't see that as a valid test of the Mosquito's capability as an escort as the Luftwaffe was a ragged shell of its former self by that time.
-
1st part
uhh, the pictures, then go in game and see how much more the acrh is - we don't need a protractor, its obvious.
2nd part
the 110 could fly probably 5 or 6 times the distance as a spit or huri, fuel tanks and for sure. Especially out over the water, uboat war type stuff. Only fighters out there were probably 110s.
3rd part
At least you admit it; just the same, I'm sure a Defiant pilot would also like an option for 'no auto-trim when go to gunstation' - but noooOOOooOOoo we have to keep A STUPID INTERFACE OPTION OF AUTO TRIM BECAUSE IT MOSTLY ONLY HURTS LUFTWAFFE BOMBERS!!! Like having two triggers when 190s have 3 weapons!
4th part
As I understand, the 110c's do better than the 109e's in the Battle for Britain scenario's... sooo you just suggested the 109e modeling is off... kk, thx!
Battle for Britain stats
1034 lost by England
533 lost by Germany.
-
1st part
uhh, the pictures, then go in game and see how much more the acrh is - we don't need a protractor, its obvious.
What is obvious? I went into the game and I traversed the guns to full depression and, as I noted previously, the inner pair clipped about 2/3rds of their diameter into the shell chutes. I don't know if this is because they depress further than they should or if it is a graphical inaccuracy.
2nd part
the 110 could fly probably 5 or 6 times the distance as a spit or huri, fuel tanks and for sure. Especially out over the water, uboat war type stuff. Only fighters out there were probably 110s.
Yes, they could fly a lot further than the Spit I or Hurri I. In 1940 they were probably the longest ranged fighter in the world and would have been useful for the Brits against uboats and Fw200s. In 1941 the Beaufighter could perform the same role and in 1942 the Mosquito Mk II could do so as well.
3rd part
At least you admit it; just the same, I'm sure a Defiant pilot would also like an option for 'no auto-trim when go to gunstation' - but noooOOOooOOoo we have to keep A STUPID INTERFACE OPTION OF AUTO TRIM BECAUSE IT MOSTLY ONLY HURTS LUFTWAFFE BOMBERS!!! Like having two triggers when 190s have 3 weapons!
I have no issue with such an option, nor have I ever commented on it. Your perception of bias in the current settings is, however, absurd.
Why are you surprised that I admit the Defiant was a terrible aircraft? Contrary to what you seem to think I am not driven to prove British aircraft are best or any such nonsense. You will, in fact, find me an ally in the discussions of many modeling issues with German aircraft, I just don't agree with hyperbolic statements.
4th part
As I understand, the 110c's do better than the 109e's in the Battle for Britain scenario's... sooo you just suggested the 109e modeling is off... kk, thx!
Battle for Britain stats
I have, for years, maintained that the Hurricanes and Bf110C-4b were overmodeled. Fortunately, the Hurricanes have had their handling cut back when they were updated. Hopefully when the Bf110s are updated the Bf110C-4b, a very rare version during the battle that has more powerful engines, is remodeled as a Bf110C-4. As they were originally in AH, had the real aircraft performed thusly, I think that 1945 would have found the Germans deploying Bf110K-4s and the British using Hurricane Mk XIVs while the Bf109 and Spitfire ceased production in 1943 or 1944.
1034 lost by England
533 lost by Germany.
Your numbers are rather dramatically off. You cannot eliminate the bomber losses from the count and pretend that the bomber's presence in the fight did not significantly affect tactics choices.
-
Wikipedia pwns you.
1034 single engine planes lost by England
533 single engine planes lost by Germany
DAS FACTS - GET OVER IT.
England had radar, home territory, 50 miles of water. And the bombers were as much a problem for the 109s and 110s as they were for the spits and huris.
And now its the 110c that is way over modeled?
Karnak,
THE PICTURES
You still haven't produced an arch diagram for the LANCASTER and calling the 110 over modeled. 20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate and you damage this game by doing it.
20,000 posts and you didn't make a wish-list for the LANCASTER's firing arch to be corrected?
AND YEAH, Lancasters had to go to night bombing because THEY WERE GETTING OWNED BY DAY. And yet the seem to fly around the MA doing as well as b-17's and B-24's.
THREE FIRE BUTTONS PLEASE.
In Airwarrior1, there was only 1 trigger. 109K4's had to fire the 65taters with the 600mg rounds. So soon enough k4 had only 535 rounds of mgs.
I GUESS WE SHOULD BE THANKFULL?
190s still have to fire their 30mm's with their 20mms.
MAKE AN OPTION FOR 'NO AUTO-LEVEL' when go to a gunner station PLEASE.
Play favorites on arch and make sure the interface screws Luftwaffe planes too?
-
I haven't seen a luftwhiner of such proportions in a while. Schlowy is that you?
-
Wikipedia pwns you.
1034 single engine planes lost by England
533 single engine planes lost by Germany
DAS FACTS - GET OVER IT.
England had radar, home territory, 50 miles of water. And the bombers were as much a problem for the 109s and 110s as they were for the spits and huris.
Once again, you cannot expect the results of all the Luftwaffe fighters and all of the RAF fighters engaging each other without any bombers involved to produce the same loss results as the historical battle. How many British bullets and attacks do you think the German bombers absorbed? Your "theory" is completely ridiculous.
As to the German bombers being a problem for the German fighters, they were, but a completely different kind of problem.
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not at all claiming that the RAF would win a purely fighter vs fighter version of the Battle of Britain, or stating who would get more of the other. I am saying that the historical numbers have literally no bearing on the outcome of such a theoretical conflict and neither you or I know what the results of the theoretical fight would be.
And now its the 110c that is way over modeled?
I believe so. The Hurricane was as well and perhaps still is. In my opinion.
Karnak,
THE PICTURES
You still haven't produced an arch diagram for the LANCASTER and calling the 110 over modeled. 20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate and you damage this game by doing it.
20,000 posts and you didn't make a wish-list for the LANCASTER's firing arch to be corrected?
You haven't shown any evidence that the Lancaster's gun arcs are wrong. I looked and couldn't find any evidence either way. Barring evidence I have nothing to support or deny. How do you not understand that?
AND YEAH, Lancasters had to go to night bombing because THEY WERE GETTING OWNED BY DAY. And yet the seem to fly around the MA doing as well as b-17's and B-24's.
Yes, they had to go to night bombing because they were not survivable during daylight ops. Not that they ever tried them seriously, but the outcome of such an attempt is as self evident to you and I as it was to the British and Germans in 1942.
In AH the Lancasters get slaughtered compared to the B-17s and, to a slightly lesser degree, the B-24s. B-26s and Ki-67s also do substantially better than Lancasters in terms of survivability.
THREE FIRE BUTTONS PLEASE.
In Airwarrior1, there was only 1 trigger. 109K4's had to fire the 65taters with the 600mg rounds. So soon enough k4 had only 535 rounds of mgs.
I GUESS WE SHOULD BE THANKFULL?
190s still have to fire their 30mm's with their 20mms.
I have posted in favor of such things in the past.
MAKE AN OPTION FOR 'NO AUTO-LEVEL' when go to a gunner station PLEASE.
Play favorites on arch and make sure the interface screws Luftwaffe planes too?
You are turning an ancient game function that predates there being any multi-seat German (or British, Japanese or Russian) aircraft in the game and twisting it into a direct and planned attack on German aircraft. That is absurd. You would be far, far more likely to make headway if you didn't insist on including delusional persecuting complex theories with such a request. I don't care one way or another in terms of that request as the bombers I tend to favor are Japanese and have full tail gun positions. Should the Ju188A-1 ever be added my opinion might change, not sure.
-
Wikipedia pwns you.
1034 single engine planes lost by England
533 single engine planes lost by Germany
DAS FACTS - GET OVER IT.
England had radar, home territory, 50 miles of water. And the bombers were as much a problem for the 109s and 110s as they were for the spits and huris.
And now its the 110c that is way over modeled?
Karnak,
THE PICTURES
You still haven't produced an arch diagram for the LANCASTER and calling the 110 over modeled. 20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate and you damage this game by doing it.
20,000 posts and you didn't make a wish-list for the LANCASTER's firing arch to be corrected?
AND YEAH, Lancasters had to go to night bombing because THEY WERE GETTING OWNED BY DAY. And yet the seem to fly around the MA doing as well as b-17's and B-24's.
THREE FIRE BUTTONS PLEASE.
In Airwarrior1, there was only 1 trigger. 109K4's had to fire the 65taters with the 600mg rounds. So soon enough k4 had only 535 rounds of mgs.
I GUESS WE SHOULD BE THANKFULL?
190s still have to fire their 30mm's with their 20mms.
MAKE AN OPTION FOR 'NO AUTO-LEVEL' when go to a gunner station PLEASE.
Play favorites on arch and make sure the interface screws Luftwaffe planes too?
(http://i.imgur.com/qZ5RpRL.gif)
-
Schlowy is that you?
yes
-
Notice we never heard the term 'rafwhinner' in here? Because the RAF players, that stay long enough, know that its the Luftwhinners that are cheated in here.
Let me guess, schlowy is another luftwhinner, luftwobble, luftwaffle that isn't here anymore for POINTING OUT THE FACTS?
Lancasters were extremely vulnerable, should be in game too. They had lots of fuel, that's about it. <--- the topic
A known issues in the past before the Lancs got updated recently:
1) they were too fast - top speed in game much higher. Did they get slowed down? FIXED?
2) they seem bullet proof, especially to Luftwaffe 7.9mm's, whole stuka amo clip, 1500 to kill one lanc, 500 left so 2nd and 3rd flew away. FIXED?
3) firing arch fixed? its plain to see from the pictures. These things were meat if enemy fighters found them.
111's at least flew in the day time. They may have been vulnerable also, but the modeling here insists they sux and the interface adds insult to injury. The 111 can barely keep up with the offline drones, guessing we got a 1939 version.
Both should be hangar queens. But the lanc is all over the sky and the 111 isn't.
Anything to say about all the other BUGs listed?
-
I like flying Axis planes..but..wow..Franz...you must freaking LOVE them.
-
Notice we never heard the term 'rafwhinner' in here? Because the RAF players, that stay long enough, know that its the Luftwhinners that are cheated in here.
Let me guess, schlowy is another luftwhinner, luftwobble, luftwaffle that isn't here anymore for POINTING OUT THE FACTS?
Lancasters were extremely vulnerable, should be in game too. They had lots of fuel, that's about it. <--- the topic
A known issues in the past before the Lancs got updated recently:
1) they were too fast - top speed in game much higher. Did they get slowed down? FIXED?
2) they seem bullet proof, especially to Luftwaffe 7.9mm's, whole stuka amo clip, 1500 to kill one lanc, 500 left so 2nd and 3rd flew away. FIXED?
3) firing arch fixed? its plain to see from the pictures. These things were meat if enemy fighters found them.
111's at least flew in the day time. They may have been vulnerable also, but the modeling here insists they sux and the interface adds insult to injury. The 111 can barely keep up with the offline drones, guessing we got a 1939 version.
Both should be hangar queens. But the lanc is all over the sky and the 111 isn't.
Anything to say about all the other BUGs listed?
Lancasters were not extremely fragile, having a notably higher return rate than any RAF bomber other than the Mosquito. They were known to be resilient to damage.
You keep referring to pictures, yet the only pictures you posted did not make your claims at all. They were simply photos of the nose and tail guns at rest. You have not supplied any supporting information that the Lancaster's arcs are wrong. Nothing.
As to being bullet proof, I didn't whine when I hosed one down with .303s to no effect instead of 20mms on accident. I just switched to 20mms and killed it. No heavy bomber is going to go down easy to rifle caliber guns.
Stop and think a moment before you whine about people picking the Lancaster over the He111. 1) The single biggest reason the Lancaster gets used as much as it does is the 14,000lb bomb load. No other free bomber compares to that and that alone stops it from being a hangar queen. 2) Both are vulnerable to enemy fighters, but the Lancaster is a little less vulnerable due to its higher speed, greater durability and the fact that it has at least some coverage in the all important rear arc. That you are surprised by any of this begs belief.
Honestly, you come off pretty much exactly like a fundamentalist religious person, interpreting any failure to agree with you as an attack on your subject, and perhaps on you. I have not posted a single anti-Luftwaffe thing in this thread or the vast majority of threads I have posted in. To accuse me of "20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate" is so absurd that I strongly suspect you to be a troll who is laughing his rear off at this entire thread and forum.
-
Merry go round and round and round...
So I say they are bullet proof, you say 'resilient.' whatever. Lancasters also dive bomb when they shouldn't.
While 111's fall apart with the lowest speed in game probably, and/or least G's, with sux archs, sux interface!
Lancs were probably the least machine-gun armed per weight in the war besides, besides mosquitos.
Extra speed and extra archs! <--- very luved plane in the game, recently updated too.
Slow it down to realistic speed, change the gun archs to realistic archs, and lancs would be hangar queens too.
-
Merry go round and round and round...
So I say they are bullet proof, you say 'resilient.' whatever. Lancasters also dive bomb when they shouldn't.
While 111's fall apart with the lowest speed in game probably, and/or least G's, with sux archs, sux interface!
Can't comment on that, I don't fly level bombers in a way that stresses them. That said, Lancasters could be looped.
Lancs were probably the least machine-gun armed per weight in the war besides, besides mosquitos.
Not exactly, but what is your point?
Extra speed and extra archs! <--- very luved plane in the game, recently updated too.
What extra speed? The Lancaster was faster than the He111. You have yet to demonstrate that the gun arcs (not arches) are incorrect.
Slow it down to realistic speed, change the gun archs to realistic archs, and lancs would be hangar queens too.
The only way to slow the Lanc down is to slow all bombers down, including the He111 and Ju88. And even then its 14,000lb payload means it won't be a hangar queen. No amount of prattle on your part is going to give the He111 or Ju88 the payload of the Lancaster, which is the only reason it gets used.
-
Karnak you post too much to read. . . :rolleyes:
-
Germany lost. Deal with it :old:
-
:lol
-
Can't comment on that, I don't fly level bombers in a way that stresses them. That said, Lancasters could be looped.
He's full of crap, the He-111 is damn maneuverable, even with a full bomb load. I've fought off a 109F, a Typhoon, and a P-51 through maneuvering on three separate occasions.
The only way to slow the Lanc down is to slow all bombers down, including the He111 and Ju88. And even then its 14,000lb payload means it won't be a hangar queen. No amount of prattle on your part is going to give the He111 or Ju88 the payload of the Lancaster, which is the only reason it gets used.
Its also pretty fast on the deck, relative to the other heavies we have. IMO, its relative speed for NOE usage is a big reason it doesn't get ousted by the B-24 or B-17.
-
Karnak you post too much to read. . . :rolleyes:
I get bored at work sometimes when it is slow....
Its also pretty fast on the deck, relative to the other heavies we have. IMO, its relative speed for NOE usage is a big reason it doesn't get ousted by the B-24 or B-17.
Good point. That speed does seem accurate though, so still nothing to complain about. Besides, a low Lancaster in AH is nothing but a free kill waiting to be plucked.
-
Karnak you post too much to read. . . :rolleyes:
Yeah, Karnak. Cumulatively, you've posted perhaps a type-written page worth of text in this topic.
My God, man -- how could anyone read as much as that in a discussion topic?
I know that in the olden days they had these things called "magazine articles" that were 5 or 10 pages long, which took teams of people a year or more to read. And I've heard rumors of something called a "book", but I think that it's just a fable.
At any rate, in the future, please try for messages that add the most to the discussion, such as with the entire content being "Yep" or " :aok" or "No way you dont know what your talking about" to meet with modern standards.
;)
-
Well at least I'm getting my money's worth out of this thread.
-
Well at least I'm getting my money's worth out of this thread.
Amen .
-
I hear ya, havent played a second for months, yet pay the sub. IF one day I'd like to log in...
that sums me up. havent played in months but keep the sub active incase i do.
i have found Black OPs 2 fills the itch. its taken me years just to get 10 kills lol
-
Round 2,
Ding ding!
Fight!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/qZ5RpRL.gif)
that relates so well. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
Try Rise of Flight. That's where I've been since I got my new computer.
HAIL THE GRAYCLIF. I AM BACK!!
-
<--- comes out swinging
OK, Mr Karnak...
A lanc, when low and on the deck is ACTUALY about the safest place a lanc can be. <--- its lack of NO BOTTOM TURRET and turrets that can't fire down much as in game, is neutralized because nothing can get below it. EXACTLY the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID "free kill waiting to be plucked"
:rock :uhoh
and a left, and a right! :rock :uhoh
Back to the topic, He-111's have strict gun arch ranges with an interface that restricts it even more, A SIMPLE 'NO AUTO-LEVEL OPTION' when we go to a gun station, IS DENIED BY KARNAK. While KARNAK STILL WONT ADMIT from a PICTURE THAT IS PLAIN AS DAY, that our AcesHigh lanc's can fire down, much further in game, that they should!
And Karnak is stunned and staggering!
:rock :rolleyes:
20,000 posts and can't admit a simple picture... maybe the guy is cross-eyed or something.
And Karnak is down for the count!
:banana: :mad:
But here comes the REF... HTC and his 'delete post rule #4' punch! :aok
And Franz heads out the back window, gets in a cab with 'Esmarelda' :bolt: ;)
to go have blueberry pancakes on Zed's Chopper! :O :cheers: :rofl
-
(http://www.decalguy.com/mobile/prod_images_large/536.jpg)
-
We have an official 'World Wrestling Federation' TAG TEAM MATCH going...
... and in to the ring comes Arlo, tags up with Karnak, so match isn't over!
Arlo seems to have a back issue, or a new style of Kung Fu or... somethin! :headscratch:
:ahand
NEXT! :banana:
-
Stand by.
(http://www.gonzoville.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/luftwhiner.jpg)
Ok, continue losing it.
:D
-
Arlo counters with a side-stepping FAIL of a dodge followed by a WEAK counter punch.
Technology:
No mention of technology, not recently. We are only talking SIMPLE GEOMETRY here... SEE THE PICTUREs of Lanc firing arch, THEN SEE THE IN GAME PLANE firing arch.
Why lost?
Because... Russia was bigger than USA, but even USA's 'Arsenal of Democracy' was even further away from Germany than England was. <-- the short answer.
Sooo Arlo falls flat on his own face, Franz stands victorious!
:D/
M
^ :mad:-v-V
Ok im done with the WWF stuff... can we 'fix' some bugs please? :/
-
<--- comes out swinging
OK, Mr Karnak...
A lanc, when low and on the deck is ACTUALY about the safest place a lanc can be. <--- its lack of NO BOTTOM TURRET and turrets that can't fire down much as in game, is neutralized because nothing can get below it. EXACTLY the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID "free kill waiting to be plucked"
:rock :uhoh
Sorry, but the safest place a Lanc can be in AH is as high as it can get. Much lower chance of being intercepted.
However, being so low as to eliminate belly attacks is better than being at, say, 5,000ft. Nonetheless, the Lanc's defenses are so weak that it is still a free kill waiting to be plucked.
and a left, and a right! :rock :uhoh
Back to the topic, He-111's have strict gun arch ranges with an interface that restricts it even more,
Hand held guns do have more restrictive arcs as compared to turrets and there may, or may not be, some further restrictions due to interface. I do not know what the range of travel the He111's guns had.
A SIMPLE 'NO AUTO-LEVEL OPTION' when we go to a gun station, IS DENIED BY KARNAK.
You're a loon. I said no such thing.
While KARNAK STILL WONT ADMIT from a PICTURE THAT IS PLAIN AS DAY, that our AcesHigh lanc's can fire down, much further in game, that they should!
And Karnak is stunned and staggering!
:rock :rolleyes:
20,000 posts and can't admit a simple picture... maybe the guy is cross-eyed or something.
And Karnak is down for the count!
:banana: :mad:
You have posted no such picture, nor could I find one. You claim that 60 degrees depression is too much, and it may be, but you supply no evidence. A photo of the turret with the guns pointing straight back tells us nothing.
-
You're a loon.
Which observation prompts the question: why are you guys still feeding the troll?
- oldman
-
Which observation prompts the question: why are you guys still feeding the troll?
- oldman
It amuses me for some bizarre reason.
-
Info:
Lancaster guns seem able to point down further than they should - they fire straight down!
They don't fire straight down in game, that's just a major exaggeration on your part, it's closer to a 45 degree angle. This can be easily seen if you were to go into F3 mode and fire the tail guns fully deflected. There is no discrepancy between the max deflection of the tail guns in game compared to real life, since the tail guns in real life had a max 45 degree deflection.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32483d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20.jpg) (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32484d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20___fn.120.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32485d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20__a_.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/43877d1299772704t-lancaster-turret-front-turrent.jpg)
Notice we never heard the term 'rafwhinner' in here? Because the RAF players, that stay long enough, know that its the Luftwhinners that are cheated in here.
2) they seem bullet proof, especially to Luftwaffe 7.9mm's, whole stuka amo clip, 1500 to kill one lanc, 500 left so 2nd and 3rd flew away. FIXED?
Have to response to this claim because it's just so absurd that you're using it as an example that the Lancaster needs to be remodeled.
First of all, the machine guns on the Ju-87D-3 fires rifle caliber ammunition, as opposed to harder hitting machine gun caliber (like the .50 cals) or cannon caliber rounds. You're basically like an ant shooting spit wads at an elephant, all you're going to do is annoy the elephant if you keep it up. Secondly, the Lancaster (like most bombers) have a lot of empty internal space, unlike fighters, which means you're far less likely to hit a critical part of the bomber if you shoot at the fuselage, especially when you're firing 7.92mm caliber rounds.
Basically, the problem isn't that the Lancaster is over modeled or the Ju-87D-3s machine guns aren't powerful enough, the problem is you, I mean you expect to be able to shoot down a Lancaster in a Stuka using very little ammo, let alone a formation of three. It's your modus operandi though, you blame the game for being the reason you don't do very well in this game when it's not the game that is making you suck.
ack-ack
-
He's applying his actual time spent playing to the monthly fee. So if he played one hour this tour AH is costing $14.95 a hour to play.
I think that's what he meant. I'm more gooder at grammar than math really.
BE, take good long break. I pretty much took over a year off aside from DGS II and came back last month. I'm really enjoying the game again.
Damn Firefighters! :furious
-
They don't fire straight down in game, that's just a major exaggeration on your part, it's closer to a 45 degree angle. This can be easily seen if you were to go into F3 mode and fire the tail guns fully deflected. There is no discrepancy between the max deflection of the tail guns in game compared to real life, since the tail guns in real life had a max 45 degree deflection.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32483d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20.jpg) (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32484d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20___fn.120.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32485d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20__a_.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/43877d1299772704t-lancaster-turret-front-turrent.jpg)
Have to response to this claim because it's just so absurd that you're using it as an example that the Lancaster needs to be remodeled.
First of all, the machine guns on the Ju-87D-3 fires rifle caliber ammunition, as opposed to harder hitting machine gun caliber (like the .50 cals) or cannon caliber rounds. You're basically like an ant shooting spit wads at an elephant, all you're going to do is annoy the elephant if you keep it up. Secondly, the Lancaster (like most bombers) have a lot of empty internal space, unlike fighters, which means you're far less likely to hit a critical part of the bomber if you shoot at the fuselage, especially when you're firing 7.92mm caliber rounds.
Basically, the problem isn't that the Lancaster is over modeled or the Ju-87D-3s machine guns aren't powerful enough, the problem is you, I mean you expect to be able to shoot down a Lancaster in a Stuka using very little ammo, let alone a formation of three. It's your modus operandi though, you blame the game for being the reason you don't do very well in this game when it's not the game that is making you suck.
ack-ack
not to mention that out of the alleged 1500 rounds probably 200 or 300 found the target and sprayed all over it
-
They don't fire straight down in game, that's just a major exaggeration on your part, it's closer to a 45 degree angle. This can be easily seen if you were to go into F3 mode and fire the tail guns fully deflected. There is no discrepancy between the max deflection of the tail guns in game compared to real life, since the tail guns in real life had a max 45 degree deflection.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32483d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20.jpg) (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32484d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20___fn.120.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32485d1299767475t-lancaster-turret-fn.20__a_.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/43877d1299772704t-lancaster-turret-front-turrent.jpg)
Have to response to this claim because it's just so absurd that you're using it as an example that the Lancaster needs to be remodeled.
First of all, the machine guns on the Ju-87D-3 fires rifle caliber ammunition, as opposed to harder hitting machine gun caliber (like the .50 cals) or cannon caliber rounds. You're basically like an ant shooting spit wads at an elephant, all you're going to do is annoy the elephant if you keep it up. Secondly, the Lancaster (like most bombers) have a lot of empty internal space, unlike fighters, which means you're far less likely to hit a critical part of the bomber if you shoot at the fuselage, especially when you're firing 7.92mm caliber rounds.
Basically, the problem isn't that the Lancaster is over modeled or the Ju-87D-3s machine guns aren't powerful enough, the problem is you, I mean you expect to be able to shoot down a Lancaster in a Stuka using very little ammo, let alone a formation of three. It's your modus operandi though, you blame the game for being the reason you don't do very well in this game when it's not the game that is making you suck.
ack-ack
Unless the lancaster had a special armor for the tail gunner the 7.7mm should easily kill the tailgunner with the first spray to the tail. When you read historic accounts of real fighter pilots attacking bombers they always describe how they just 'place a short burst to the tail to kill the tail gunner' as the first step of the attack. On AH placing a huge chunk of 20mm to the tail mostly doesn't kill the tail gunner and you get promptly shot to shreads in a second.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtfoAT8OAbo
nuff seen, nuff said.
-
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/Lancastergunturret_zps21e1739a.jpg)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtfoAT8OAbo
nuff seen, nuff said.
You are correct enough said. The lanc depression of the real gun according to our sources is 45 deg, which matches visually with the you tube video you linked.
In AH the lanc rear gun depression is also 45 degrees.
HiTech
-
One thing players seem not to take into account is the effect of lag on the perceived angle enemy bombers are shooting at you.
Due to the universal lag, every player is seeing another player a tad behind the position where that player 'really' (on that players on comp) is. Imagine this as every player towing a copy of his plane, and only this 'copy' will be seen by other players.
The net effect is that the on the bomber's screen, the fighter will still be a bit farther away than the bomber will be to the fighter on the fighter's screen. So, depending on total lag of both, it can very well happen that the buff gunner can still shoot on the fighter (on the bomber's screen) while the fighter happens to be (on the fighters screen) just outside of the gunner's arc of fire, under the belly of the Lanc... but still gets hit.
But that's not because the guns are able to shoot "straight down", it just seems to be that way to the fighter. If the fighter is below the Lancs on the gunner's screen, he can not be shot at.
-
One thing players seem not to take into account is the effect of lag on the perceived angle enemy bombers are shooting at you.
Due to the universal lag, every player is seeing another player a tad behind the position where that player 'really' (on that players on comp) is. Imagine this as every player towing a copy of his plane, and only this 'copy' will be seen by other players.
The net effect is that the on the bomber's screen, the fighter will still be a bit farther away than the bomber will be to the fighter on the fighter's screen. So, depending on total lag of both, it can very well happen that the buff gunner can still shoot on the fighter (on the bomber's screen) while the fighter happens to be (on the fighters screen) just outside of the gunner's arc of fire, under the belly of the Lanc... but still gets hit.
But that's not because the guns are able to shoot "straight down", it just seems to be that way to the fighter. If the fighter is below the Lancs on the gunner's screen, he can not be shot at.
Completely true of course, but I think even bigger problem with players is trying to perceive "what is 45 degrees" when using snap views to look around. Looking "forward up" with fixed snap view ~600 yards from the bomber there aren't much reference points to judge the angle with, considering that the we have limited FoV/cyclops vision and homogenic blue sky.
-
It appears we have a winner! :ahand
-
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh Am I suppose to shoot at the plane on the rope? Please explain again. :headscratch: :headscratch: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old:
-
It's Schlowy...............why are we bothering to respond? :confused:
-
It's Schlowy...............why are we bothering to respond? :confused:
Schlowy is awesome and funny :banana:
:bolt:
-
Schlowy is awesome and funny :banana:
:bolt:
Schlongy is a racist tool and should be flogged by representatives of each minority he belittles. (I'm truly working on my inner AKAK...brief, pointed, on target and true)
-
Uh, Lusche, just one more thing...
I just went and did an off-line practice...
THE GUN POINTS DOWN FURTHER THAN 45 DEGREES.
THE GUNs ACTUALLY GET INTO THE GRAPHICS OF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE TURRET!!!
Sposed to be parallel to the bottom part, not into it!
IN YOUR PICTURE, YOU DONT HAVE THE GUN DOWN AS FAR AS IT GOES!
Shame on you Lusche, tsk tsk tsk!
BOOOOOOOOO!!!
-
Uh, Lusche, just one more thing...
I just went and did an off-line practice...
THE GUN POINTS DOWN FURTHER THAN 45 DEGREES.
THE GUNs ACTUALLY GET INTO THE GRAPHICS OF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE TURRET!!!
Sposed to be parallel to the bottom part, not into it!
IN YOUR PICTURE, YOU DONT HAVE THE GUN DOWN AS FAR AS IT GOES!
Shame on you Lusche, tsk tsk tsk!
BOOOOOOOOO!!!
Dude, teh HiTech himself just stated on the previous page that the tail guns on the lancs points down no farther than 45 degrees! :lol what's wrong with you?
-
Dude, teh HiTech himself just stated on the previous page that the tail guns on the lancs points down no farther than 45 degrees! :lol what's wrong with you?
omg they got to hitech too? it's a conspiracy :noid.
semp
-
omg they got to hitech too? it's a conspiracy :noid.
semp
apparently :rolleyes:
-
Uh, Lusche, just one more thing...
I just went and did an off-line practice...
THE GUN POINTS DOWN FURTHER THAN 45 DEGREES.
THE GUNs ACTUALLY GET INTO THE GRAPHICS OF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE TURRET!!!
Sposed to be parallel to the bottom part, not into it!
IN YOUR PICTURE, YOU DONT HAVE THE GUN DOWN AS FAR AS IT GOES!
Shame on you Lusche, tsk tsk tsk!
BOOOOOOOOO!!!
Parallel to the shell chute would be about 15-20 degrees. What makes you think it should be parallel to the shell chute?
That it clips into the graphic a little bit, which you may recall me also mentioning, doesn't mean anything as it is entirely possible the graphic for the chute is too long. Luche's images showed about 45 degrees and HiTech, who can actually look at the raw code, says it is 45 degrees in the game.
FYI, 45 degrees is steeper than most people think, being exactly halfway between level and vertical.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtfoAT8OAbo
nuff seen, nuff said.
Case 1 and 2
This video shows it almost parallel, in game the gun goes into the chute.
Pointing the gun up gets it into the top of the canopy also.
Observation:\
Go to the turret station, then F3 to see outside the gun.
Use hat to see the side view - you should be looking at the side of the turret.
Next, a piece of paper on your monitor - on the horizon... with a corner near to the axis of rotation - the turret.
Rotate the gun from full down to full up and/or full up to full down, you will see that the horizon rotates plenty more than 90 degrees.
Still waiting on your arch charts Karnak... then we can be done with this hair splitting... bug hehe.
and then go to the next one in the list!
I'll just make one...
>--------< <----- There, that's the front and back arch, official, from spitfire performance website! Fix please! :rofl
*Editting again, from the video, piece of paper on screen test, it rotates a lil more than 90 degrees also. hmm. Very close call.
and again, can we please get the 'no auto level' option! :salute
-
The guns go below parallel in the video. They go to about 45 degrees. HiTech says that is what they do in AH as well. Anything else is going to be graphics anomalies.
You've found a graphics bug, not a arc of fire bug.
-
The guns go below parallel in the video. They go to about 45 degrees. HiTech says that is what they do in AH as well. Anything else is going to be graphics anomalies.
You've found a graphics bug, not a arc of fire bug.
You are now part of the conspiracy :noid
-
Fnord.
-
So ok, one bug on the 'bug list' items might have been wrong IT DOESNT MEAN THEY ARE ALL WRONG.
Maybe it got fixed on the recent lanc update.
And I'm glad that HTC has spoken on it, got half an answer - Karnak couldn't come up with the arch diagram.
Why HALF? Because the arch is measurable in game, so not knowing the top, means we still aren't sure if within the arch or not.
But I'm still RIGHT on 'NO AUTO LEVEL when go to gun station' should be an option.
I don't like the title of this thread but it is to the point.
190's still pull up, instead of it fixed, we get a 410 that noses down. Let alone the rest of what I listed back there.
And so never mind the 190s, never mind logging in at all usually.
Im not bored, just zero morale when I log in here.
Paying or not, if players aren't logging in, the sky becomes empty.
-
45 down + 60 up = greater than 90 degrees
-
So ok, one bug on the 'bug list' items might have been wrong IT DOESNT MEAN THEY ARE ALL WRONG.
Maybe it got fixed on the recent lanc update.
And I'm glad that HTC has spoken on it, got half an answer - Karnak couldn't come up with the arch diagram.
Why HALF? Because the arch is measurable in game, so not knowing the top, means we still aren't sure if within the arch or not.
But I'm still RIGHT on 'NO AUTO LEVEL when go to gun station' should be an option.
I don't like the title of this thread but it is to the point.
190's still pull up, instead of it fixed, we get a 410 that noses down. Let alone the rest of what I listed back there.
And so never mind the 190s, never mind logging in at all usually.
Im not bored, just zero morale when I log in here.
Paying or not, if players aren't logging in, the sky becomes empty.
Your prescription refill just arrived:
(http://mattwindle.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/chill-pill.jpg)
-
why did u photo it? you're sposed to take it! :rofl
-
why did u photo it? you're sposed to take it! :rofl
Legal authorities tend to take a dim view of my taking your meds. A simple 'thank you' would suffice. :)
-
*he111 Has sad face pilots? How insulting, plane did well enough in other fronts, no bomber survives enemy fighters.
18% of America is German-Americans, largest ethinic group in whole country.
On behalf of all of them I say, booo! :frown:
First off, love the line about the sad faced HE111 pilots. Nice touch.
Second, that bit about german being the largest ethnicity in america is a myth.
-
I am a mixture of Finnish, English, German, French and Native American. My last name is Finnish.
-
Wikipedia 2000 usa census, then scroll down, see 13%, used to say 18, but click the 'german american' link and yes it used to say.
And by the way, at the time of the war it was 23%.
Sources are available. Most are in and arround the center, lots in north center, of america.
-
Wikipedia 2000 usa census, then scroll down, see 13%, used to say 18, but click the 'german american' link and yes it used to say.
And by the way, at the time of the war it was 23%.
Sources are available. Most are in and arround the center, lots in north center, of america.
I m confused. What does that have to do with anything?
-
Wikipedia 2000 usa census, then scroll down, see 13%, used to say 18, but click the 'german american' link and yes it used to say.
And by the way, at the time of the war it was 23%.
Sources are available. Most are in and arround the center, lots in north center, of america.
That's because the usa census relies on self reporting. And most white americans aren't very aware of their ancestry, so if somebody had an irish or german great grampa they'll check the irish or german box. Hell my sister in her 40s thought our last name was german. More than a few americans who have obvious british last names have tried to tell me that their name is german. America was a british colony, according to the us census up until the 60's the most common ancestry reported by white americans was english. Somehow that changed to german and irish so either there was a mass migration from west germany after the 50s or white americans are filling out the census wrong. Another factor; in the white american psyche, british colonist aren't thought of as ethnics, so when the question of ethnicity comes up, they read that as "besides english/american".
-
This explains it better, it's probably from the same wikipedia page.
U.S. Census Bureau statistics depend entirely on self-reported ancestry.[43] An analysis of census forms in 1980 and 1990 suggests that self-reported ancestry was influenced by the order of choices listed on the form. In 1980, 'English' was near the top of the list and was chosen by 49.6 million people; in 1990 it was less prominent and was chosen by only 32.7m respondents. 'German' and 'Italian' were higher on the list in 1990 than in 1980, and the number choosing them increased by 20 per cent.[44]
Many citizens listed themselves as "American" on the census (7.2%). They are generally assumed to be of predominantly English stock though some are likely to be people of several other different European ethnicities who are unable or unwilling to choose one. Many people who trace their ancestry to the colonial period or the early days of the Republic consider themselves to be of "American" ancestry. It is estimated that 53 percent of White Americans are the descendants of colonial ancestors. In the late 18th century, 85 percent of White Americans were of British Isles ancestry, 9 percent were German, and 3 or 4 percent were of Dutch origin.[44]
The census is based upon questionnaires and have been compiled from answers given by a sample group. Therefore the answers given will reflect what the individual knows about their ancestry. Many U.S. citizens do not know their ancestry entirely; partly for that reason, a large proportion simply call themselves "American" ancestry (not including American Indians) or know that a part of their ancestry is Irish or at least has an Irish name and will therefore say 'Irish' as their ancestry, when in fact most of their ancestry is English.
An analysis of Census information and immigration records would suggest that 62 percent of White Americans today are of British Isles descent, and a total of 86 percent are of Northwestern European origins. Approximately 14 percent of U.S. whites are of southern and eastern European ancestry.[44]
-
I'd always heard that too, that german was the biggest ethnic group in the usa. Yet for some reason, wherever I went in the US few of my white coworkers, servicemen, classmates had german family names, the majority had anglo family names. That nagged at me, so I looked into it. Think about it, how many of your white coworkers have german surnames vs anglo names?
And before you go there. The vast majority of german immigrants did not anglocize their names. ie. Braun to Brown, Schmidt to Smith. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it did.
-
German Americans are 18% and it means 'mostly of german decent' but different areas of the country have more of some peoples than others.
Eisenhower was a German American, from Wikipedia "Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe" during ww2. <---- Churchill's boss.
And where you come off with 'we don't know our ancestory' is kinda insulting!
Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (pronounced /ˈaɪzənhaʊər/, EYE-zən-how-ər; October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He had previously been a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe; he had responsibility for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944–45 from the Western Front. In 1951, he became the first supreme commander of NATO.[2]
USA beat England in a war by the way.
Wonder how many English were on USA's side though.
check our presidents, Washington is on the $1 bill, he led the charge.
Hamilton was an officer under Washington, he's on the $10 bill.
Jefferson too, officer under Washington, LOL, $2 bill.
Andrew Jackson, below, started his career by not cleaning a British Officers boots, lol, he's on the $20 bill. <--- usa ww2 tank named after him also HAHA
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Andrew-Jackson-disobeys-British-officer-1780.png/769px-Andrew-Jackson-disobeys-British-officer-1780.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/USDnotes.png)
-
:huh
Not sure where you got the idea that Jefferson was an 'officer under Washington' (neither name German, btw) nor does it seem you're going anywhere worthwhile with the point you're struggling with. My ancestry is Scottish, Irish, English, German and Cherokee. If I'd lived during that census period, which one would/should I have put down (ptp)?
Well, when you're done trying to prove that the United States should have helped the Nazis invade Britain, let me know. :D
-
Oh and there is a whole USA Political Party, the 'tea party'...
"the boston tea party" is what set off the war with England, throwing tea into the harbor, and soon kicking their flag off the continent.
Taxed Enough Already party <--- stems from England trying to claim ownership and tax USA.
Jefferson:
uh, ok, not a military officer maybe,
He was in an OFFICE of Washington's administration... wiki him!
1st United States Secretary of State
In office
March 22, 1790 – December 31, 1793
USA should have backed Germany? you said it, not me!
Well, USA broke away from England for them trying to tax USA...
Germany got colonies stole by England, and was getting taxed by England and France for ww1...
Go figure.
THIS IS ALL THE BIAS WHICH IS WHY THE GAME HAS BUGS THAT DON'T GET FIXED MAYBE?
I understand that the HTC's are busy, and some of you would rather have new planes, so do I, but they NEED to go back and ADRESS some ISSUES eventually.
I for one have been waiting for a long time!
And of course there are the Arlo's that would rather any bugs that affect German planes to stay forever!
-
Oh and there is a whole USA Political Party, the 'tea party'...
"the boston tea party" is what set off the war with England, throwing tea into the harbor, and soon kicking their flag off the continent.
Taxed Enough Already party <--- stems from England trying to claim ownership and tax USA.
Jefferson:
uh, ok, not a military officer maybe,
He was in an OFFICE of Washington's administration... wiki him!
1st United States Secretary of State
In office
March 22, 1790 – December 31, 1793
USA should have backed Germany? you said it, not me!
Well, USA broke away from England for them trying to tax USA...
Germany got colonies stole by England, and was getting taxed by England and France for ww1...
Go figure.
THIS IS ALL THE BIAS WHICH IS WHY THE GAME HAS BUGS THAT DON'T GET FIXED MAYBE?
I understand that the HTC's are busy, and some of you would rather have new planes, so do I, but they NEED to go back and ADRESS some ISSUES eventually.
I for one have been waiting for a long time!
And of course there are the Arlo's that would rather any bugs that affect German planes to stay forever!
Imagine if everyones favourite ride would switch from pony to a nazi ride? I don't think the yanks could stomach it :D
-
Oh and there is a whole USA Political Party, the 'tea party'...
"the boston tea party" is what set off the war with England, throwing tea into the harbor, and soon kicking their flag off the continent.
Taxed Enough Already party <--- stems from England trying to claim ownership and tax USA.
Check your history.
The Boston Tea Party happened when the British lowered the taxes on the tea imported by the East India Company to the point where the American businessmen who had been undercutting the tea prices of the East India Company, a state granted monopoly, in a black market economy. This tax reduction was going to put them out of business. State granted monopolies are a bad thing and taxation without representation is a bad thing, but the popular idea that the Boston Tea Party happened because taxes were raised is false.
Now, answer this, why do you hate the British so much? The United States is, culturally, very much a daughter of the United Kingdom, as are Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Our law is based on English Common Law and our sense of Liberty is very much the English sense of Liberty as opposed to the French sense of Liberty. There is no German liberty philosophy at the time, the competition was between the British and French philosophies of liberty.
-
I don't hate Britain. And you need to check your history if you think USA mirrors England in any way.
Again, check out USA's money from the PICTURE above, most of those guys fought England.
Yeah, USA defeated the Imperialist trying to colonize the world, including Ireland, other European states and their already colonized colonies. USA has wars, but USA doesn't keep the place and then try to tax them.
It is obvious that you hate Germany with your 20,000 posts of anti-luft.
Like YOUR HATRED OF THE 177. IT WAS THE BEST OF PLANES, IT WAS JUST ON THE LOSING SIDE OF THE WAR BECAUSE OF AMERICA.
Did you get that LANCASTER GUN ARCH DIAGRAM YET? I still think it fires a bit lower than it should!
-
Ok, explain away the Magna Carta.
-
... wiki him!
I see you finally did.
Thread hijack making up U.S. forefather backgrounds, complete with currency
images to suggest the U.S. struggle for Independence proves a record-setting
percentage of Aryan blood in the veins of citizens during the U.S. census prior
to WWII supports your dismay of how unfairly Luft-fans in AHII are being treated
and how that relates to what may or may not be an acceptable amount of play-time
in this community per day/week/month ... fail.
(The above run-on sentence closely resembles how you post about things, btw.)
:aok
-
Germany got colonies stole by England, and was getting taxed by England and France for ww1...
Go figure.
Is this a joke? They stole colonies? As if a colony (illegal occupation and rape and pillaging of the resources and people of an other country) was somehow the birth right of Germany (or France and England)? How does someone steal something that did not belong to you in the first place?
I don;t see any bias in the plane set. Even if there was one, I never flew WWII planes for both countries extensively to be able to tell. Some planes here are fast and some are slow. Some play good vertically and some turn better. Some do everything good and some suck. Any German ride can compete with any same period allied ride. If you lose all the time it is not because of a conspiracy.
If there really is a conspiracy, why do you need to fly German planes? Just fly the uber allied rides and have fun :old:
-
I don't hate Britain. And you need to check your history if you think USA mirrors England in any way.
Again, check out USA's money from the PICTURE above, most of those guys fought England.
Yeah, USA defeated the Imperialist trying to colonize the world, including Ireland, other European states and their already colonized colonies. USA has wars, but USA doesn't keep the place and then try to tax them.
Your history is extremely deficient if you do not know the origins of the American view of liberty and if you think we've lived up to it. We've done a better job that the Brits did, but we have plenty of mud on our record as well.
I'll give you a hint, don't be so obsessed with military history, there is more to life than that.
It is obvious that you hate Germany with your 20,000 posts of anti-luft.
Like YOUR HATRED OF THE 177. IT WAS THE BEST OF PLANES, IT WAS JUST ON THE LOSING SIDE OF THE WAR BECAUSE OF AMERICA.
The He177 was a piece of junk because Heinkel wasn't allowed to fix it. Heinkel knew what they had to do, the He277, but the German government wouldn't allow it.
Pointing out something was a piece of junk doesn't mean it is hated. You want some British hunks of junk to be listed by me? Manchester, Battle, Blenheim, Defiant, Roc, Hampden, Skua and Whitley are all examples of British junk. Does pointing that out mean I hate British aircraft? I am sure you're thinking something like "Karnak doesn't post about those, but he does post about the He177, bias!", but you're wrong. I never post about the He177 out of the blue, I post in response to people asking for it, just as I have about the Defiant and Manchester.
Did you get that LANCASTER GUN ARCH DIAGRAM YET? I still think it fires a bit lower than it should!
That is your job, not mine. I have no idea why you think I am supposed to supply it for you. You are the one making the claim, therefor it is your responsibility to support that claim. I did a brief unsuccessful search for it out of pity, but that was more than I was obligated to do.
-
Before this thread is getting it's inevitable lock, a jolly tune to brew AH conspiracy theories by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C63HnJT620
-
Before this thread is getting it's inevitable lock, a jolly tune to brew AH conspiracy theories by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C63HnJT620
That song popped into my head yesterday for some reason. Odd.
I agree this is heading for a lock.
-
Before this thread is getting it's inevitable lock, a jolly tune to brew AH conspiracy theories by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C63HnJT620
How fitting. :lol
-
Franz Von Werra , you forgot the 3 dollar bill that had Bill Clinton on it , lol .
-
Franz Von Werra , you forgot the 3 dollar bill that had Bill Clinton on it , lol .
Did he serve under Washington, as well?
-
Did he serve under Washington, as well?
No. He served under Lewinski.
-
And you need to check your history if you think USA mirrors England in any way.
Nevermind that both countries speak the English language.
As per every one of your posts, let's just go ahead and keep ignoring facts and believing in fantasies though
-
No. He served under Lewinski.
LOL
-
Riiight...
Anyway. Now you guys know, if you didnt already, why most white Americans have English names despite the contrary census data.
-
Eisenhower was German-American? I can't seem to find the country German-America on the map.
-
Franz Von Werra.
You sir, are an idiot.
-
German Americans are 18% and it means 'mostly of german decent' but different areas of the country have more of some peoples than others.
Eisenhower was a German American, from Wikipedia "Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe" during ww2. <---- Churchill's boss.
And where you come off with 'we don't know our ancestory' is kinda insulting!
Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (pronounced /ˈaɪzənhaʊər/, EYE-zən-how-ər; October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He had previously been a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe; he had responsibility for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944–45 from the Western Front. In 1951, he became the first supreme commander of NATO.[2]
USA beat England in a war by the way.
Wonder how many English were on USA's side though.
check our presidents, Washington is on the $1 bill, he led the charge.
Hamilton was an officer under Washington, he's on the $10 bill.
Jefferson too, officer under Washington, LOL, $2 bill.
Andrew Jackson, below, started his career by not cleaning a British Officers boots, lol, he's on the $20 bill. <--- usa ww2 tank named after him also HAHA
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Andrew-Jackson-disobeys-British-officer-1780.png/769px-Andrew-Jackson-disobeys-British-officer-1780.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/USDnotes.png)
This is what happens when mental hospitals allow patient's to have internet connections :rolleyes:
-
Eisenhower was a German American, from Wikipedia "Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe" during ww2. <---- Churchill's boss.
I missed this little bit of nonsense earlier.
Eisenhower was not Churchill's boss. That you think he was paints a very broken understanding of history.
Eisenhower was Montgomery's boss. Eisenhower was Patton's boss.
Churchill's boss was, technically, the King, but in practice Churchill's boss was the people of the United Kingdom.
-
The Boston Tea Party happened when the British lowered the taxes on the tea imported by the East India Company to the point where the American businessmen who had been undercutting the tea prices of the East India Company, a state granted monopoly, in a black market economy. This tax reduction was going to put them out of business. State granted monopolies are a bad thing and taxation without representation is a bad thing, but the popular idea that the Boston Tea Party happened because taxes were raised is false.
It is true that the Boston Tea Party was not about high taxes or prices. It was about taxation without representation, the power of Parliament over the colonies, and making colonial officials independent of colonial influence.
-
All these documented haters.
Yeah, and after ww2, both England and France had most of their colonies, including the stolen ones from germany, declare independence from them - Just like America once did. All the world sided with USA or USSR after ww2. England and France were bankrupt.
Check 'the louisiana purchase' - France just sold the middle 1/3rd of America to America, unlike England that got kicked out!
We're talking about the American Revolutionary War' - usa vs england.
Was a battle at a place called Saratoga.
Ships have been named after it ever since, including CVs - two of them
USS Saratoga
Also, STAR TREK, the STARSHIP USS SARATOGA, like the ENTERPRISE.
One was destroyed at the Battle of Wolf359 vs the BORG.
USA never forgetting kicking England's flag off the continent.
Eisenhower was too Churchill's boss.
Example: Same exact time as D-day, there was 'Opperation Anvil,' USA said to do an attack on occupied France from the south side, from in the mediteranian. But Churchill wanted the invasion to only come from England, so all he could do is insist that the opperation be renamed 'Dragoon' because he so disagreed with it. Geographistt! LOL! According to the movie Redtailss, LOL, this is where two p51s, with African American pilots, destroyed a whole luftwaffe airbase. Whateva!
The 177 was just fine after its rushed delivery teething stage, the first 200 had probs, the. Next 1000 only had USA's "arsenal of democracry' probs. It should be in the game. And it even saw combat, unlike the spit16 and British jet. Why don't you go bump that 177 thread mr hater karnak.
Why can't we get bugs fixed that help the Luftwaffe? Well, mr hater karnak? <--- directly related to the topic of this thread.
-
So BaldEagl was contemplating his diminishing return on his subscription... and now the topic of debate is the American revolutionary war and Star Trek?
-
And a bunch of English soldiers.surrendering at Saratoga!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saratoga
The bugs list is why some luft players feel neglected.
Lose hope, and log out to go play some other game.
Mr hater karnak won't allow any luftwaffe bugs to be fixed so he drags a bunch of lies into it instead.
And hence, difficulty staying on topic.
-
All these documented haters.
Yeah, and after ww2, both England and France had most of their colonies declare independence from them. Just like America once did. All the world sided with USA or USSR after ww2. England and France were bankrupt.
Check 'the louisiana purchase' - France just sold the middle 1/3rd of America to America, unlike England that got kicked out!
We're talking about the American Revolutionary War' - usa vs england.
Was a battle at a place called Saratoga.
Ships have been named after it ever since, including CVs - two of them
USS Saratoga
Also, STAR TREK, the STARSHIP USS SARATOGA, like the ENTERPRISE.
One was destroyed at the Battle of Wolf359 vs the BORG.
USA never forgetting kicking England's flag off the continent.
Eisenhower was too Churchill's boss.
Example: Same exact time as D-day, there was 'Opperation Anvil,' USA said to do an attack on occupied France from the south side, from in the mediteranian. But Churchill wanted the invasion to only come from England, so all he could do is insist that the opperation be renamed 'Dragoon' because he so disagreed with it. Geographistt! LOL! According to the movie Redtailss, LOL, this is where two p51s, with African American pilots, destroyed a whole luftwaffe airbase. Whateva!
The 177 was just fine after its rushed delivery teething stage, the first 200 had probs, the. Next 1000 only had USA's "arsenal of democracry' probs. It should be in the game. And it even saw combat, unlike the spit16 and British jet. Why don't you go bump that 177 thread mr hater karnak.
Why can't we get bugs fixed that help the Luftwaffe? Well, mr hater karnak? <--- directly related to the topic of this thread.
The more you type the dumber you come across. If you want all planes to fly the same I'm sure there is an arcade in a mall near you. Of course that would require you removing your homemade tinfoil helmet and being exposed to alien mind control and the IRS.
-
I didn't say I wanted all the planes the same, said I would like some luft plane bugs fixed.
They fixed the stukas up, I like them, amo is a lil weak for an air to air game, but I like them.
Excuse me, but I have to go get fuel for my car.
Thinking to go to one of those 1776 (spirit of) gas stations! ;)
Maybe a BP since I'm sure lots of English-Americans fought for USAs side in the Revolutionary war also.
-
I like them, amo is a lil weak for an air to air game
I'm sure it was 'a lil weak' for real combat, too.
-
I didn't say I wanted all the planes the same, said I would like some luft plane bugs fixed.
They fixed the stukas up, I like them, amo is a lil weak for an air to air game, but I like them.
Excuse me, but I have to go get fuel for my car.
Thinking to go to one of those 1776 (spirit of) gas stations! ;)
Maybe a BP since I'm sure lots of English-Americans fought for USAs side in the Revolutionary war also.
Englishmen did fight for the Americans, hundreds of British Army defectors alone. American born of English ancestry fought the English. So what do you consider English-American?
-
So BaldEagl was contemplating his diminishing return on his subscription... and now the topic of debate is the American revolutionary war and Star Trek?
(http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/ipe5EjcchvY/hqdefault.jpg)
"Ay plegli ianectu flaggen, tupep like for stahn –"
"And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
-
Franz says I hate the Luftwaffe, yet I never rant about the Germans or the Luftwaffe. Franz insists he has nothing against the British, then posts rant after uneducated anti-British rant.....
Hmmmm.
Makes you wonder.
I actually work for a German company.
-
(http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/ipe5EjcchvY/hqdefault.jpg)
"Ay plegli ianectu flaggen, tupep like for stahn –"
"And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"under God" ... That always bugs me. Those two words were added to the pledge in the late '40's - early '50s by religious zealots.
-
I flew in LW squads in the old CT (now AvA). I'm sure I've flown hundreds if not thousands of hours in them. I think I would have noticed all these bugs. The truth is they have strengths and weaknesses like any other plane and if you don't fly them to their strengths you won't have much success. Of course I also flew with Storch ( before menopause) and all he did was squeak about them, but he sucked in everything he flew. Sadly his mouth didn't make up for his short comings.
-
I actually work for a German company.
Not for long, if they find out about your 20k posts of anti-german hate! :old:
:bolt:
-
"under God" ... That always bugs me. Those two words were added to the pledge in the late '40's - early '50s by religious zealots.
Roddenberry is no longer available for comment.
-
Oh I don't know... If I can find the right psychic maybe he'll take a message.
-
Oh I don't know... If I can find the right psychic maybe he'll take a message.
Just look up, he passes over every day..
-
Actually he came back several years ago, but he's planning another flight next year. This time with his wife.
-
Ok this is so far off topic , a poly sci major could not parse the topics.
HiTech