Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: AKDejaVu on August 25, 2002, 12:09:33 AM
-
Any structure you damage only stays down for 2x the time you survive after the attack. If you survive for 30 seconds... it stays down a minute. If you survive for 15 minutes, it stays down 30. Of course, time down would top out at whatever the current limits are.
AKDejaVu
-
perk the 1000lb bombs on non-bombers.
Return the perks if said pilot lands successfully.
Jabos would then be ideal for dealing with towns and GV's but unable to effectivly suicide hangars to death.
Then again, doing so would effectivly render fighter hangars invulnerable, since the only bomber we have which would be half-way viable is the a-20.
-
You guys cannot be serious! :rolleyes:
-
Perk Trolls
-
Don't we have another forum for this kind of thread?
I think it would take too much time and effort to track the movements of every player that straps a bomb to his AC and attacks a ground target. I don't see these suicide jabo's as much as you try to imply. I certainly try to live through a jabo run and most of the players I see around me do.
-
Not talking just about "suicide". Anyone that instantly RTBs to get a new plane.
The times are currently tracked. Its just a matter of putting an additional variable in. Guess that's something HTC could look at.
The problem is, that any defenders have to deal with wave after wave of the same people hitting a target... all the while the same ack/buildings/hangars/radar staying down as the same person comes and destroys another building.
AKDejaVu
-
... i do eventually return when shot down in a jabo or bomber ...
... but i try to do it better when returning, new tactics etc ...
... after the third time ile give up and go for other targets ...
it hurts to be shot down - but its the best way of learning ;)
after all, i have much to learn...
-
youve got to be kidding .
-
Any structure you damage only stays down for 2x the time you survive after the attack. If you survive for 30 seconds... it stays down a minute. If you survive for 15 minutes, it stays down 30. Of course, time down would top out at whatever the current limits are.
By that logic, and what I've been seeing lately in the MA, most structures would only stay down for 2 seconds. The CV would likely only be never sink since the suicide plane is often already dead (or at least missing almost every important component) before the bombs even hit.
-Soda
The Assassins.
-
Originally posted by Soda
The CV would likely only be never sink since the suicide plane is often already dead (or at least missing almost every important component) before the bombs even hit.
-Soda
The Assassins.
Guys that know what they are doing can dive bomb a CV and live. They can release bombs from higher alt than your typical CV suicide jockey.
-
Originally posted by Soda
By that logic, and what I've been seeing lately in the MA, most structures would only stay down for 2 seconds. The CV would likely only be never sink since the suicide plane is often already dead (or at least missing almost every important component) before the bombs even hit.
-Soda
The Assassins.
I wonder how often planes released their bombs from below 2k over a CV? I can't imagine it was as many as I see do it on a regular basis. Can't really fault the pilots for not trying to survive... the game really does nothing to promote it.
I do recall when it only took 2k of bombs to sink a CV on one of the maps... watching a P-38 release his bombs from about 6k and destroy the CV just barely entering the ack envelope. That's what I'd call skill from practice. Right now JABO does not require that technique or skill.
As for killing CVs... it should be tough... unless someone is stupid enough to park it 2 miles off shore. There really should be more shore batteries to remedy this aspect of the game.
We've taken a step forward by making Buff bombing more involved and actually require some skill/practice. Either people will learn that or they'll move to the much easier way to drop bombs... low alt via JABO or bomber with no penalties in regards to not making it back to base. Then rinse/repeat
AKDejaVu
-
Not talking just about "suicide". Anyone that instantly RTBs to get a new plane
And what is wrong with that? if I RTB from a jabo run and the field needs more ord I will land and go again with more ord.
Its just a matter of putting an additional variable in
Really? so what happens when 'pilot x' put's 500lb on target and dies, 'pilot y' put's 1000 on target and lives and then 'pilot z' put's 1500 on target but dies? starting to get complicated, overly so for a problem that is small by comparison. Most jabo pilots I see do one of the following, hover over the field to CAP for the incomming goon, RTB to get more ord or RTB and go somewhere else.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
As for killing CVs... it should be tough... unless someone is stupid enough to park it 2 miles off shore. There really should be more shore batteries to remedy this aspect of the game.AKDejaVu
That would be a great idea - or make the existing units multi-gun emplacements if more practical from a technical/programing standpoint.
-
Originally posted by Revvin
And what is wrong with that? if I RTB from a jabo run and the field needs more ord I will land and go again with more ord.
I said get a new plane.. not rearm refuel. One I can see... the other I cannot.
Originally posted by Revvin
Really? so what happens when 'pilot x' put's 500lb on target and dies, 'pilot y' put's 1000 on target and lives and then 'pilot z' put's 1500 on target but dies? starting to get complicated, overly so for a problem that is small by comparison. Most jabo pilots I see do one of the following, hover over the field to CAP for the incomming goon, RTB to get more ord or RTB and go somewhere else.
Its no more complicated that the current system. Tracking damage starts and stops at a certain point... for each person that drops on ord. In that aspect its no more/less complicated. The only thing that is different is factoring in the survival time... I don't know if this is implimentable or not... but it would just be one factor in an equation that already exists. Some kind of counter always starts for each and every hit on a structure... its just a matter of adding to the equation that calculates when it stops.
AKDejaVu
-
I said get a new plane.. not rearm refuel. One I can see... the other I cannot.
So if I nurse a wounded plane back home and land it, I am penalized for reupping a new one. Doesn't really make sense.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So if I nurse a wounded plane back home and land it, I am penalized for reupping a new one. Doesn't really make sense.
So... the enemy structure stays down for however long it takes for you to get back to base and land (10 mins?)... and will continue to stay down for that much longer after you exit. Its the whole grabbing a fresh/different plane and returning as if they hadn't just been shot to hell thing that I'd like to see penalized.
BTW Revvin... I think I kind of misunderstood what you were saying. The proposal I've made could only apply to the person that took the target down... or to pending damage. Once someone else comes in and finishes it (if it is within the 2 x the survival of the previous attacker) then its a moot point. It would just mean that its less likely that someone that couldn't finish the job the first time can come back and build on that cumulative damage total.
AKDejaVu
-
So... the enemy structure stays down for however long it takes for you to get back to base and land (10 mins?)... and will continue to stay down for that much longer after you exit. Its the whole grabbing a fresh/different plane and returning as if they hadn't just been shot to hell thing that I'd like to see penalized.
So if I get my damaged plane down so it can be repaired and up another in the meantime while the next pilot come's in later and uses my patched up plane to re-up while his is fixed; that is less realistic than a completely obliterated hangar respawning in 15 minutes? If you proposal includes a realistic downtime for the targets involved then it may merit a little more thought but right now on the surface what you propose sounds more like something Lazs would propose in one of his anti strat whines. I also think the solution is not as easy as you think.
-
Originally posted by Revvin
So if I get my damaged plane down so it can be repaired and up another in the meantime while the next pilot come's in later and uses my patched up plane to re-up while his is fixed; that is less realistic than a completely obliterated hangar respawning in 15 minutes?
So... what it does is encourage someone to get a damaged plane back as close to base as possible. Nobody brings your plane back up. The longer you survive in the plane, the longer the hangar/ack stays down.. Once again... 10 minutes to get back means 20 minutes... moot point for hangars... more important for ack.If you proposal includes a realistic downtime for the targets involved then it may merit a little more thought but right now on the surface what you propose sounds more like something Lazs would propose in one of his anti strat whines. I also think the solution is not as easy as you think.
Realistic downtime for targets? Hmmm... don't believe I ever introduced that concept. I suppose we can have that just as soon as we can have realistic downtime for dead pilots.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Turbot
Guys that know what they are doing can dive bomb a CV and live. They can release bombs from higher alt than your typical CV suicide jockey.
I find suicide bombing of CVs to be about as lame as lame can get. No-skill dweebs who otherwise couldn’t hit their tulips with chairs love nothing more than to dive straight into a ship. I can think of several ways to put a stop to it via programming. But, you know what? I’m getting a gozillion kills shooting these dorks down with my Wildcat. CV commanders can help, and so can individual players. Here’s how.
1) Keep the CV at least 30k distant from an enemy airfield. That’s still within range of the cruiser’s 8” guns.
2) Don’t close the range until the enemy field under attack is reasonably capped.
3) Set up and maintain a proper BARCAP (barrier CAP) to keep enemy suicide dorks from ever reaching the TG.
4) Keep a local CAP on place to intercept any leakers.
5) Maneuver the TG as soon as the threat closes to less than 10k yards.
6) Use C-47s whenever possible. A Goon can fly across two full sectors faster than an LVT can waddle in from 8k out. There is little reason to bring a TG inside effective shore battery range. Anyone can level a town from 30k out (with 8” guns) if they take the time to learn to use the gun aiming system.
7) Discourage idiots from commanding TGs, regardless of their ranking in the game. In other words, introduce a penalty for the commander (maybe one death added to each category) if the CV is sunk (subject to last person who directed or commanded the TG). Over the past two days, I’ve watched the #1 ranked player destroy three TGs through shear ineptness. Just because you’re good at gaming the game, does not mean that you have clue-one about the proper use of a TG, which is a team asset, not a personal plaything. The player in question repeatedly took a TG from someone doing a good job, sailed it in a straight line, directly at the enemy. In each case the TG was destroyed. I’m beginning to wonder if ranking is not an accurate inverse indicator of intelligence, which tends to make me not strive to crack the top 50. :D
My regards,
Widewing
-
Returning a broken plane to base so it can be patched up and used by the next pilot to bring in a crippled plane is what we should be encouraging as more realistic and yet you want to penalize it?
Realistic downtime for targets? Hmmm... don't believe I ever introduced that concept. I suppose we can have that just as soon as we can have realistic downtime for dead pilots.
Hence the "If you proposal includes a realistic downtime" I did'nt say you did but my first impression's were right that this thread is more about introducing more gamey aspect's in the interest of those who don't want strat to be in the game. As for downtime for pilots..well choose a target, one particular hangar or radar station. There is one instance of that target it IS the target and there are 500 max player in AH (250-300 Euro time) when in reality there were thousands of pilots flying in waves against those particular targets. The VH is down for 15 mins the same time as hangars which leads to the spawning of flakpanzer anfter flakpanzer to replace those destroyed acks so that point is moot.
-
Pyro! They're not dying right!
Make them die right!
-
Perk the 1,000 pound bombs?
Oh geez, the buff element has been all but quashed, so now we're down to JABO planes on captures...now you wanna take the bombs away? What next, perk cannon rounds?
No wait, nevermind, dont tell me...I wanna act surprised.
:p
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Pyro! They're not dying right!
Make them die right!
It has nothing to do with how people are dieing fatty. It has to do with there not really being all that much of a point in living.
Have a broken plane? better to ditch... you get back sooner. Keep making passes until ack finally gets you? Why not.. you'll just be back sooner.
Its not about what people are/aren't doing. Its about what the game itself rewards/does not reward. People could still dive in and drop a bomb on something getting a "you have destroyed xxx hangar". All the reward and occomplishment is still there... its just doesn't last as long if you die doing it.
AKDejaVu
-
When I push the stick forward and nose in I can promise you strat never enters my mind. I'd imagine it's the same for pretty much anyone else dying on purpose, and the ones dying on accident are irrelevant anyway.
Not to mention back to the heart of gameplay changes, anything that discourages engagement is not likely to make it into a combat flight sim.
-
By default... attacking a base is an attempt to discourage engagement... just as taking out all the ack and vulching the field are.
Seems to me it would be adding a bit more of a reason for people to meet attacks head on as opposed to later after they become an issue. In effect... encouraging engagements.
AKDejaVu
-
Widewing
On you through of TG command, it should be that anyone command the TG must stay on board the CV. Such as give him a command spot near the top of the CV as long as he is there he has control but if he leave then he looses command and some one else can take command. IF you command the TG, you have to stay aboard the CV and control it not take command move it some where then go fly and not let some one else control it when danger arrives.
I have taken command a few times and when I do I am in a gun position so I can protect my TG and not get it sunk. But being of low rank I get over ridden and the TG goes to pot with stupid moves and no fighter protection.
comments welcome to the above suggestion
DarkHawk
-
1.10=Furballers 1 buffers 0
1.11 Furballers 1 jabo 0
1.12 Furballers 1 Gvers 0
we need new lobbiest's...The ones we have now our biased...
The AK's suicide Jabo as good as the rest of em...been there and watched it...
-
Revvin is right, Dejavu's point seems pathetic.
A jabo that runs away and flies circles in friendly territody where it is save till max rebuild time and then get's shot down archives more than a jabo that runs away and lands.
After a jabo drops it is low alt, thus easy target. best option in that situation is to get away as soon as possible. I'm almost sure that was the tactic used IRL. And this is what should be rewarded in a sim.
Encouraging useless fights would be airquake.
-
Originally posted by DarkHawk
Widewing
On you through of TG command, it should be that anyone command the TG must stay on board the CV. Such as give him a command spot near the top of the CV as long as he is there he has control but if he leave then he looses command and some one else can take command. IF you command the TG, you have to stay aboard the CV and control it not take command move it some where then go fly and not let some one else control it when danger arrives.
I have taken command a few times and when I do I am in a gun position so I can protect my TG and not get it sunk. But being of low rank I get over ridden and the TG goes to pot with stupid moves and no fighter protection.
comments welcome to the above suggestion
DarkHawk
As a general rule, I stay with the TG I am commanding. There are exceptions, such as when combat is hours away. However, once in proximity to the enemy, I am at or on the CV. By “at”, I mean that I will probably be airborne in a Wildcat or SBD, circling the task force. I do this for two reasons:
1) An aerial view allows me to more accurately assess threats, such as incoming aircraft, ships and PTs. This is critical for determining when torpedos are an actual threat, or will pass harmlessly by. This cannot be accurately determined from a gun mount.
2) I am the last line of defense for anything that gets past any existing CAP. Even the SBD (Slow But Deadly) can kill a Ju 88 or TBM. Indeed, you would be surprised how many kills I have with the SBD performing this function. You can even get a few Proxy kills too. ;)
Frequently, you will get requests to take the TG in closer to the target field. Despite being well meaning, often such requests create unacceptable risks. Things to be considered are; what happens if the TG is sunk? Will this weaken our position? How long will it take to get another TG into the area. There are a myriad of things to consider prior to answering the request.
Regardless of all other considerations, TGs belong to that specific country, and misusing or mishandling it may have a notably adverse effect on the game for that country. Therefore wisdom is paramount in use and application of that asset. Using it as one's personal platform is irresponsible, and a common problem for all countries.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Revvin is right, Dejavu's point seems pathetic.
A jabo that runs away and flies circles in friendly territody where it is save till max rebuild time and then get's shot down archives more than a jabo that runs away and lands.
LOL! Do you really think people would do this? I mean... really? Why not just rearm/refuel? What good does flying circles to avoid all chance of death do? You've effectively removed yourself from the arena.After a jabo drops it is low alt, thus easy target. best option in that situation is to get away as soon as possible. I'm almost sure that was the tactic used IRL. And this is what should be rewarded in a sim.
I thought you said my point seemed pathetic? You just spent an entire paragraph re-enforcing it.Encouraging useless fights would be airquake.
Encouraging useless fights? Where the hell did you get this one? Dude.. you are totally coming out of left field here.
AKDejaVu
-
Suicide plunging is so popular because it's effective, more effective than any other method for many people and there is no real penalty to it. Sure, your score might get beat up a bit, but score means zippo in most cases anyway. It's undefendable, that's what is the key. A Typhoon, P-47, P-51, etc diving with 2K of bombs, or more in the case of the P-47, at 575mph is beyond what any plane can honestly defend against. In order to catch them you have to exceed the performance of your plane and are just as likely to crash or peel the wings off yourself. The attacker doesn't care though, his whole purpose is to kill target X and he never plans on trying to survive. Aiming is a non-issue, you just ride it right into the target and release within the last 1K.. the horizontal travel at 550mph is easily enough to arm the bomb if you have even a steep angle to your dive. Add to that the fact that not having to return to base doubles your sortie rate... no more wasting time flying back or blowing an additional 30 seconds reloading.
Can't say I like it, but the game promotes it in a number of ways. Against hangers or a town, well, that's 15 minutes of penalty. Against a CV group that spent half an evening trying to navigate to a target, well, that's hours worth of time wasted to someone how needs to make only 2-3 suicide runs in P-47 with bombs, rockets, and guns firing.
-Soda
The Assassins.
-
I agree. I've been gone most of the spring/summer and now that I'm back I can't believe the ammount of sucide chumps (thanks Zappa).
IMO letting this go 'unpunished' is as much gaming the game as putting in some kind of 'penalty' for such acts.
If you say this is 'UNREALISTIC' I say that this 'suicide chump' stuff is as unrealistic as it gets.
Sure there were sucide pilots but once they plowed the farm, they never returned. In AH they just re-up before the thing they ran into is even rebuilt.
Too bad there isn't a way to make these chumps unable to fly for an extended period of time.... closer to RL if you ask me.
-
Turbot:
Guys that know what they are doing can dive bomb a CV and live. They can release bombs from higher alt than your typical CV suicide jockey.
Exactly! The CV, or CA, are huge targets, very easy to hit in a dive bomb from medium altitudes. Once you get an idea of how to aim at a moving target you can nail them every time from above ack range (or by barely dipping into it). It's not like trying to pick off a GV or fuel bunker which requires you to get fairly close.
The incentive is to suicide bomb though. You can carry rockets and use cannons if you plan to suicide, thus put more ordinance on target. Also, you don't have to worry about time wasted returning to base and reloading, if you suicide you get double the sortie rate. Two quick P-47 attacks with full load and 25% fuel gives a light load of fuel so climb is better... if you survive long enough to put your rockets on target and some guns you are likely inflicting 3K+ in damage in a single dive.
Hard to identify whether someone is trying to suicide or not vs. someone who is just not very good and is trying everything they can to land a bomb.
-Soda
The Assassins.
-
There is a possible answer to the suicide plunge.
If you hit an enemy building or other objects such as GV's, or TG, no damage and you die plus loose perk points. Make it a stiff fine. Like 25 or 50 perks. In this way they can not game the game it has no benifit except remove them from the battle. The exception would be if the plane has major damage and is out of control they strike one of the above items, then damage would be normal.
Question: Is there any documentation for each suicide run in WW2which hit its target caused a ship to sink, such as a carrier, cuiser or Battleship? Or was this manily just damage to that ship.
I enjoy killing the suicide jock with the CV 5 inch guns. One night 25 kills in a gun turrent.
The CV was still up also.
Widewing
I agree that not all people who command the TG know what they are doing. I have seen to many time where one take command and holds it then head into the nears fighter battle and the TG gets destroyed.
DarkHawk
-
Those meanieheads are still dying?
They should cancel your account if you auger, this has to be stopped!
-
umm... so what do you do if the guy has less than 30 or 50 perkies.. or none?
-
I don't see all these suicide bombers you speak of and returning a plane damaged or not and then returning to the target is more realistic than some hokey time limit equation to pander to the furballers. The current downtime for airfield target's is a joke as is the ammount of ordnance needed to kill it..3000lb's for a hangar? get real c'mon. It's a concession to gameplay...to the furballers, trying to add some hokey time equation tied to the time the player who finishes the target lives is just ludicrous.
-
There is nothing quite like diving into a carrier in a hvy P38 from 10K. The plane starts shaking like crazy, the ack is flying everywhere. And the sweet sweet sound of falling bombs and rockets that last three nanoseconds, just before your explode into a glorious fireball, all over the deck.
And as bonus you get to see: "System Message: Ship Destroyed"
-
Ahh... OK revvin.
Let's lessen the impact of ack some more. I mean... enemy planes should be able to loiter around a base knowing the ack won't touch them as long as they keep turning.
While we're at it... let's make it so ack doesn't do well against a high speed aircraft. God forbid ack should hit someone that is flying right down the middle of the runway at 100 feet as long as they're at high speed.
Yep... all that goes on here is pandering to "furballers". I'm rather amazed at how fast that label came out seeing as how I haven't spent 1 second this tour doing it. Yeppers... furballers always want to promote slightly more realistic tactics... its what we live for. :rolleyes:
There is ZERO about base attack that is realistic. Absolutely ZERO. Its absolutely the most gamey aspect of the game and this portion of the strat promotes the most gamey type of behavior. Vulching, spawning, suiciding and what have you. I find it quite hilarious that you think a change to add a tad more incentive to bomb more realistically would be making the most gamey aspect of the game worse. Its not a furballer vs strat debate.
Talk about ludicrous. Oh yeah... but then you wanted to make it even easier for low flying planes to come in and level a base.
AKDejaVu
-
Ahem!tttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhpppppppp ppp!
Lost interest after 4th reply.
RafBader
-
Question: Is there any documentation for each suicide run in WW2which hit its target caused a ship to sink, such as a carrier, cuiser or Battleship? Or was this manily just damage to that ship.
23-26 Oct, 1944. Off Leyte, 55 Kamikaze pilots, in the first planned mass suicide attack of the war, coordinated with the IJN attack on Leyte Gulf, hit the escort carriers and sank the St. Lo (CVE-63) and damaged the large escorts Sangamon (CVE-26), Suwannee (CVE-27), Santee (CVE-29), and small escorts White Plains, Kalinin Bay, and Kitkun Bay. In all, 7 carriers were hit and 40 other types damaged; five ships were sunk, 23 heavily damaged, and 12 moderate damage.
9 Jan, 1945. The cruiser HMAS Australia was struck by a kamikaze carrying a 15" or 16" British artillery shell, and was forced to retire with her fore funnel smashed, a large hole in her port side, steering reduced, several boilers shut down and bulkheads flexing alarmingly. She took no further part in the war.
25 Mar, 1945 - 21 Jun, 1945. Off Okinawa -- Ten "Kikusui", swarms of Kamikaze, up to 350 attackers at a time, 1,900 in total, damaged 250 ships with 34 destroyers and smaller ships sunk. Several ships were damaged so badly they were not repaired. One in seven of all naval causalities occurred off Okinawa.
Specific attacks:
6 Jun, 1943. After the last of the Japanese carriers had been set afire by American dive bombers, some of the pilots were ordered to chase Japanese heavy cruisers trying to escape. After being badly shot up and his plane set afire, Captain Richard E. Fleming crashed his plane into the after gun turret of the cruiser Mikuma, causing severe damage from the flaming gasoline that leaked down into the engine spaces. Captain Soji, commander of the nearby cruiser Mogami, later said about this that "I saw a dive-bomber dive into the last turret and start fires. He was very brave." Richard Fleming was posthumously awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor as a result -- for being a sort of American kamikaze pilot.
7 Dec, 1944. In Ormoc Bay at Leyte, the USS Ward (DD-139) is struck amidships by a two-engine Japanese bomber, hitting the troop compartment, although the resulting blast took out power and communications throughout the ship. The Japanese bomber was moving so fast that it came out the opposite side of the ship. USS Ward is sunk by the USS O'Brien about an hour and a half later.
12 Apr, 1945. Off Okinawa, destroyer Mannert L. Abele (DD-733) is sunk by Okha -- she is the first U.S. Navy ship to be sunk by that type of weapon. Destroyer Stanly (DD-478) is damaged by Baka. High speed minesweeper Jeffers (DMS-27) is damaged by Okha and kamikaze.
4 May, 1945. Light minelayer Shea (DM-30) is damaged by an Okha. Minesweeper Gayety (AM-239) is damaged by near-misses of kamikaze and Okha.
24July, 1945. Destroyer escort Underhill (DE-682), destroyed while intercepting 4 Kaitens from Japanese submarine I-53 off Luzon.
On a casualties-per-person basis, the kamikaze program was very effective. On a ships-damaged-per-kamikaze basis, the kamikaze program was moderately effective; at the time it was implemented, Japan was losing the war of production badly enough that all it was doing was slowing down the rate at which the US was winning. As a means of turning the war around and destroying the American forces or their will to fight, it was an abject failure.
Some discussions of the kamikaze pilots:
- Divine Wind and Ancient Heroes: Reconstructing the Kamikaze Ideology (http://www.stanford.edu/~nickpk/writings/Kamikaze.html)
- The Divine Wind: Japanese Kamikazes (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/wwii/facts/kamikaze.txt)
- Thunder Gods and Kamikazes (http://www.wtj.com/articles/kamikaze)
- One Shot-Down Kamikaze Pilot's Story (http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/nov98/novpg40.htm)
- Kamikaze Down: A Tale of Survival and Reunion 55 Years after the War (http://www.usna.com/News_Pubs/Publications/Shipmate/2000/2000_01/kam.htm)
- Kamikaze ni tsuite (About the Kamikaze) (http://www.kyokipress.com/kamikaze.html)
- The Last Notes of the Kamikaze Pilots and the Japanese View of Death and Afterlife (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~liminal/papers/matsuo/kamikaze.html)
- JAAF / Suicide Tactics (http://www.danford.net/kamikaze.htm)
-
Why is it such a no-no to do a suicide attack? Sure you get to fly after you die but it happend in WW2 (japanese).
Jesus people, it's just a game, stfu and fly.
-
Huh, what is this talk about unrealistic bombing of ships. As far as I know at least the divebombers released their bombs as late as possible and the casualty rates were often horrible.
How often jabos attacked CV's...well never heard of such but surely must have happened. Maybe there should be certain AP-bombs only available for real bombers and not for jabos and GP bombs would do much less damage to ships - as they should.
-
Originally posted by janjan
Huh, what is this talk about unrealistic bombing of ships. As far as I know at least the divebombers released their bombs as late as possible and the casualty rates were often horrible.
How often jabos attacked CV's...well never heard of such but surely must have happened. Maybe there should be certain AP-bombs only available for real bombers and not for jabos and GP bombs would do much less damage to ships - as they should.
Typically, dive bombers attacking heavily defended (by tripleA) ships released their bombs beween 5,000 and 8,000 feet. Survival was a great motivator. Usually, release altitude was specified in the mission briefing.
We have entirely too many unskilled dorks who can't kill anything without getting killed themselves. If everyone decided to engage in suicide tactics, the game would degenerate into an arcade.
I say, any bomb dropped within 3k of any ship or structure should not arm. Problem solved. Rockets should be uneffected.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Not too many arcade games require a 15 minute climbout. Can you remember any that do? If not, which arcade game exactly would it be becoming?
Even if HT was to implement everything suggested in this, the silliest thread I've read in a good while, you're never going to get the rest of us to take death as seriously as you do in this thread. We're just not that sad.
-
AH was the sim that's become a game and is sliding head first into being an arcade.
you really think so? lol. whatever.
If AH is becoming arcadish it's because of players, not the game.
-
And the little napoleans too it would seem.
-
We have entirely too many unskilled dorks who can't kill anything without getting killed themselves. If everyone decided to engage in suicide tactics, the game would degenerate into an arcade.
All you unskilled dorks out of the game until Widewing decides you're good enough to play.... OUT!
-
Honestly Dejavu have you even stopped to consider what you have asked for? can't you see having rebuild time tied to player life will just result in a new game the game technique where player's find a place to land and hide?
So increase the ack's at a field, it's not really going to make a hell of a difference neither is decreasing their rebuild time to a gamey 15 mins like hangar's when you can still trundle round in the ostie with it's force field protection. If anything is gamey and needs changing it's the rebuild time of 15 mins for a hangar and the ammount of ord required to kill the structure.
The reference to furballer's was because your post sounded just like one of their predictable anti strat whines and it does!
Let's not dress this up any more than you already have, it's about wanting gamey rebuild times linked to a gamey time equation so you can fly your plane from whatever field you want and not be too distracted by strat. Many examples of suicide missions from WW2 but I've yet to hear of a story where a target rebuilt quicker because the pilots died....
-
There you go again Revvin. Let's keep trying to put it into an "us and them" category.
I have nothing against people doing stupid things and getting themselves killed in the game. Hell... furballers probably do it more than anyone else.
I am against having it be more beneficial to be killed than to waste the time to RTB, rearm and THEN return.
And if you really believe people will park and wait 10 minutes... well... you are just being obtuse. Not much point in going on then.
As for the rest of you... I really like the "dweebs", "suiciders", "suiciders", "napoleons" and whatever other label you decide to put on anyone in this game. I really like that all of you feel so justified in it too. Especially you fatty. Pretty pathetic man.
AKDejaVu
-
Deja, have you looked at any of your supporters(?) posts? I don't really care if HT put in your suggestions (though I think it would be a waste of time that would be better spent elsewhere), but once the newbie slamming gets started I'm going to take the side of the unwashed dweebs every single time. I'd rather have a hundred of them than a single self-rightous "proper way to play" preacher.
-
Droping ord, running home, landing and exiting shouldn't be punished in any way, not even by reduced down time of targets. That's a successfull sorty, but rearming is a gamey way to increase kill streaks, not anything too commonly used by jabos considering the long distances they often had to fly.
Reducing down time on suicide runs may be ok though. To add an option for the historical version add a check box for suicide mode, which costs x perks, you're allowed to die on drop without downtime penalty (pp returned if not died during attack).
-
And if you really believe people will park and wait 10 minutes... well... you are just being obtuse. Not much point in going on then.
No more you being deliberately ignorant to human nature, if there is a way to exploit the game they will just as much as you believe people exploit your perceived loophole in the gameplay. How do you know these people are deliberately crashing just to re-plane quicker? I'll be the first to admit I've accidentally compressed a few times and felt like a right fool as everyone watches me die a pointless death nobody is perfect we've all done it.
Historically there would be thousands of airmen in the air, some of separate mission's some with the same target flying in the next wave of attack. In AH you rarely have more than 30 players all going to the same target so if you replane you're just being part of that next wave, this has historical reference as does suicide missions but I've yet to see reference of a target rebuilding faster when the attacking pilot dies.
-
The only problem I have with the suicide jabos is that they cannot be dealt with from within the context of the game. They are uninterceptable.
Revin,
We know they are intentionally suiciding because:
- They do it enmasse
- They do it repreatedly
If they were trying to live, they'd eventually figure out how not to compress and die. But seeing whole groups do it repeatedly kinda points towards the obvious. If it was just one or two guys on occasion nobody would care, but when 15 P-51s or Typhoons come in they cannot be stopped and the base will be closed. There is no response unless you are in a 262, end you'd need a few at least.
AKDejaVu,
The structure downtime should be maxed if they live, even if that is just a five minute flight back to a friendly base to deplane. As long as they get a "You have landed successfully" message the downtime should be maxed.
Or:
So long as they live for 1 minute after they take the structure down the down time is maxed. That would still force people to make attacks with the intent of surviving the attack. That's all that really matters here. What they do after doesn't, so long as there is a reason not to dive in at 550mph in an unrecoverable dive. If they have to make a controlled attack they are interceptable.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
And if you really believe people will park and wait 10 minutes... well... you are just being obtuse. Not much point in going on then.
Come on ... this type of gaming the game is no different that those that play "hide the CV". If it is available, someone will do it, so I don't believe that Revvin is being obtuse at all ... rather realistic.
I JABO and de-ack all the time, with all intentions of returning to base. But if I destroy a target (any target), and get killed by the ack or a defender, and all the time I spent getting to target is nullified by my death, then you have basically ruined the game for me.
This idea will never be implemented ... we should not waste anymore time discussing it.
-
I disagree, I see pilots dying at fields but I can't say for sure they were intentionally dying to replane quicker and I don't think anyone here can say that with any ammount of certainty, either that or you guys are playing in a different arean I've not played in.
What Deja proposes would quite often lead to lower rebuild times not through people exploiting some perceived hole in gameplay but by simple attrition. A new wave of planes returning to target is more realistic than wave after wave of planes taking off from a field that has successively been blown to smithereens then magically rebuild in 15 minutes and allowing wave after wave of planes to re-up when in reality there would be no more planes left. If you're going to punish those players who you believe are dying on purpose then you must also punish those who constantly re-up fighter after fighter at a field being attacked and throw themselves suicidally at any target that moves and also penalize those who spawn ground vehicle after ground vehicle when supplies would not be there in the first place after the first wave or two waves of attack.
-
What's the goal?
Are we trying to keep people from dieing? Or dieing while bombing? Or what? How about this then:
If you get a wing shot off, we send a hit team over to your house to rip off an arm. Sure it'll hurt, but the gamey suicide runs will stop!
-
Revin,
I also see a lot of people die that I cannot tell if it was intentional, but when you see fifteen 51s or Tiffes all do it simultaneously there isn't any doubt. I think you are being way, way over generous towards some people.
I'm not at all concerned with the occasional accident. That's just the way it goes.
But when a mission is formed to take a mass formation of fast Jabo aircraft and all dive into the ground, well, that's just gaming the game. For the defenders it is a good reason to throw up their hands and log off. You can't defend against it and it is garanteed to take the base down. It makes the game pointless.
You can't fail and I can't stop you. What's the point in even running the scenario? We already know the outcome. Forgone conclusions make for a lousy game.
-
If you've got 15 tiffies hitting a base and they all auger, be happy. The base would be much worse off if they'd lived to use those cannons.
-
If you've got 15 tiffies hitting a base and they all auger, be happy. The base would be much worse off if they'd lived to use those cannons.
Exactly! and I might add I have never seen 15 planes all suicide like you suggest Karnak.
The system that Dejavu proposes penalizes pilots who die trying to capture a field but does not penalize those who constantly launch from a field under attack and throw themselves suicidally at any attacker, infact the system Dejavu proposes actually rewards them for doing so.
-
There are very few ways in AH to make people's actions have consequences. K/S is one of them and some people hate it as a result. Still... it makes people think twice about squezing the trigger with a plane in front of them. It makes people think twice about sending a "I'm behind you" round into the friendly in front of you. It makes people behave as if their actions had consequences.
That's what this idea does. Some have said that the RTB aspect of it is questionable... OK... I can see your point though I don't agree. Quick turns were a regular part of military life (re-arm pads)... so I don't see those as gamey. Hopping in a brand new aircraft instantly I do see as gamey... You've eliminated having to deal with the consequences of your actions.
I'm not trying to discourage engagements... I'm trying to make ignoring them less appealing. I'm trying to make it less appealing for someone to crash into the ground and return to the same spot than it is to stick around and have to fight your way out (or even bother returning to base). Both situations have less than likely survival rates... so why bother with even trying? Life (fear of death) would be what encouraged many to do that in real life... but we don't have that here... what do we have?
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Revvin
Exactly! and I might add I have never seen 15 planes all suicide like you suggest Karnak.
I have to agree with this.. I've never seen this either. Its a mythical event that people seem to throw into arguments... I could never quite figure it out.The system that Dejavu proposes penalizes pilots who die trying to capture a field but does not penalize those who constantly launch from a field under attack and throw themselves suicidally at any attacker, infact the system Dejavu proposes actually rewards them for doing so.
Rewards people for launching from a field under attack? I don't believe so.
It does make it more difficult to take a field. I'm sorry about that Revvin, because you seem to think this is the end all be all of the arguement. The fact that most attackers prefer an endless source of vulch victims pretty much makes the rest of it moot.
Attackers can fly NOE to a base undetected with only a couple of minutes notice prior to arriving at the base... at full speed. They know exactly how far in the can get prior to being detected and the know if anyone is 500 feet or higher over the base. They know exactly where all of the emplacements are, they know exactly what needs to be taken down and exactly how long it will stay down. They know that if they can get the ack and vh, they can endless massacre anyone that attempts to launch. They know that on the odd occassion that this isn't successful, they can instantly up and try the same thing at a different base.
Tell me again how bad it is to have people spawn at an airfield revvin? Tell me again how bad it is that they can respawn the second they are killed... only to get killed again. Really... I'd like to hear just how much easier you'd like to make capturing a base... and how much harder you'd like to make defending it.
AKDejaVu
-
not saying i agree with deja here :D
BUT theres a silly but very enjoyable game online at the moment called 'Battlefield1942' by electronic arts(boooo) that is an arcade like WW2 FPS with planes and vehicles.It has a very simple system of making you wait longer for a respawn if you aimlessly run into a fight and die.The longer you survive and the more you kill the less the respawn time (its always a short period of 5-10 secs or so but if you die quick you wait 25 etc).
it works well.I know the first time i played it i charged in gun blazing and was promptly shot. after sitting for 20 seconds watching others play i was dieing to get back in there.Then i die again, more waiting then i think right THIS time i take my time,scout around, creep behind things for cover etc and after quite a good round i get shot but respawn instantly (almost).
it was a reward for not playing like a quake nut and soon you learn to change the way you play and its a great game and a lot of fun.
all games are based around challenge and reward and penalty and thats not just computer games is it?? :)
if it's just as rewarding to just point the nose down, bomb and crash as it is to try to do it correctly and survive people wont try to survive much will they?.
if it means they lose out for doing it they'll soon stop i bet.
-
Right now for all kills landed you get perk points which allow you to fly better planes. Now each time you die you loose perks points. Now lets perk more of the planes, like the tiffie, p51d, and others. make the perks low starting at about 15 and going up. Just think 5 perks lost for each time u die, 3 perks for each capture no perks lost for a bail or ditch in friendly terriority.
Some say they want rank so tie perks into a rank achivement. The more Perks the higher rank, but you loose rank with you perk count drops below the required level for that rank.
I have flow FAIII, there the rank system is tied to the points you score. Starting from zero and going up. You get so many for each kill and loose so many when you crash, die or get captured.
For one thing while flying there you do not see may sucide jockies. and they have ground target that need kill and airbase same as here.
Comments please.
I fly here instead of in FAIII for a number of reasons
1) varity of GV's ( FAIII none)
2) manned guns positions (FAIII None)
3) manned buff guns (FAIII uses AI with a lot of complaints}
4) the Ground Battles (FAIII none)
FAIII does have more plane about 80+ many bombers for Russian, German and Japan
Terrain is better here in AH, in FA3 there are 5 sides in each map most of the time.
Map select is better here including the pizza one
DarkHawk
-
Originally posted by DarkHawk
Right now for all kills landed you get perk points which allow you to fly better planes. Now each time you die you loose perks points. Now lets perk more of the planes, like the tiffie, p51d, and others. make the perks low starting at about 15 and going up. Just think 5 perks lost for each time u die, 3 perks for each capture no perks lost for a bail or ditch in friendly terriority.
Some say they want rank so tie perks into a rank achivement. The more Perks the higher rank, but you loose rank with you perk count drops below the required level for that rank.
I have flow FAIII, there the rank system is tied to the points you score. Starting from zero and going up. You get so many for each kill and loose so many when you crash, die or get captured.
For one thing while flying there you do not see may sucide jockies. and they have ground target that need kill and airbase same as here.
Comments please.
Way, way, way, way, way too much a a penalty. This would have everybody popsiclefooting around eachother. It completely discourages combat unless the odds are dramatically in your favor. It would drive fans of certain aircraft from the game (as an example, I'm a Spit XIV fan and I'd rather it hadn't been added).
Furthermore it would have the horrible effect of limiting the top end aircraft to the top players. Remember that the average player's K/D ratio is approximately 1/1. That means that he'll lose more perks than he earns under your system.
Bad, bad, bad idea.
-
Baaaa...this thread is useless. WTF do you think we have M3's and C47's for? When I see a base getting raped like this I'll up in a supply plane or vehicle...that smoking base will be rebuilt before the 3rd wave comes in and all those "percieved" suicide jabo pilots will have to do it all over again.
Lately I've seen more and more players willing to run supplies, maybe THEY have already found a solution to your problem but just haven't told ya about it :D
-
It does make it more difficult to take a field. I'm sorry about that Revvin, because you seem to think this is the end all be all of the arguement. The fact that most attackers prefer an endless source of vulch victims pretty much makes the rest of it moot.
Absolute tosh! if you're attackign afield to capture it how in the hell outside this fantasy vision of your's would an attacker love to see an endless supply of cons to up? It's got nothing to do with making it hard, it would probably lead to more bomber's being needed but if it needs a gimmick as gamey as you propose to do this then the AH MA really is in a sad state of affairs.
Attackers can fly NOE to a base undetected with only a couple of minutes notice prior to arriving at the base... at full speed.
Nice touch of realism there why should you have AWACS warning you all the time? many have waited a long time to be able to NOE.
Tell me again how bad it is to have people spawn at an airfield revvin? Tell me again how bad it is that they can respawn the second they are killed... only to get killed again. Really... I'd like to hear just how much easier you'd like to make capturing a base... and how much harder you'd like to make defending it.
If a base is shot to bit's then it's horribly gamey to see most of the important structure's rebuild in a gamey 15 mins, where are these reserve planes coming from if the base was shot to bit's 15 minutes ago? from underground? beamed in from outer space? perhaps they were special invisible planes :rolleyes: This is not about making it easier to capture a base what this is about is your desire to make it easier to have a field rebuild in an even quicker more gamey fashion.
Now I've answered your question answer mine, show me historical reference where a target's rebuild time was dramatically increased because of the later death of the attacking pilot.
-
seems to me if some of these ideas needed testing it could be done in a seperate arena.
slight alterations to the way bases are captured could certainly add some depth to the existing setup.
if you disagree why did you say nothing when we got 3 or 4 hangers instead of the old 2? Why did you not disagree with towns at bases and radar warnings?
all these things have been added to make thinks a little more complex or difficult and all have been a success really. (I dont like the flashing base warning personally but its there and i plan around it)
Revvin it seems to me you dont want anything you dont agree with even looked at or tried.AKDeja is only proposing certain additions which who knows, could make AH even better?
could make it worse of course but hell, we can just change it back.
As to the mass suicide missions I hope you dont mean all of them are designed that way! I am constantly using jabo as my form of attack and i assure you i NEVER want to die doing it.Thats the whole point of playing isnt it? I would have NO PROBLEM trying out what Deja said about rewarding a pilot for living and it seems to me only those that do just dive in drop and crash like suicide lanc drops on CV's would argue against it.
They neednt penalise kamakazi players...let them score what they do now but why not give those players who land them an even better deal???? longer downtime, more points, no respwan delays etc etc , whatever the rewards are.
to me it sounds perfectly correct for any game to do this sort of thing.why do some not? maybe they just want a shoot-em-up?
-
if you disagree why did you say nothing when we got 3 or 4 hangers instead of the old 2? Why did you not disagree with towns at bases and radar warnings?
Dejavu insinuated that I wanted base capture made easy and he was way of the mark, if I did want it made easy I would have spoken out against more hangars but I did'nt I welcomed the new targets, hangars, towns etc so that expel's that myth about what I want :rolleyes:
Revvin it seems to me you dont want anything you dont agree with even looked at or tried.AKDeja is only proposing certain additions which who knows, could make AH even better?
WRONG! I read the forums and there are plenty of suggestions I agree with and plenty of gamey gimmicky ones like this that reward players who spawn at contested fields and throw themselves endlessley at the attackers knowing they can re-up into the action and do the same again in seconds, this is what Deja's proposal rewards and that's why I'm against it, it's gimmicky and gamey.
I would have NO PROBLEM trying out what Deja said about rewarding a pilot for living and it seems to me only those that do just dive in drop and crash like suicide lanc drops on CV's would argue against it.
:rolleyes: So it's oh so terrible if somebody suicide's against a hangar or a CV but perfectly acceptable to introduce a feature that will reward suicidal fighter's constantly respawning unlimited ammount's of times from a field under attack. Sounds more like what Fatty said right at the start "Pyro! They're not dying right! Make them die right!"