Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: F4UDOA on January 20, 2003, 11:48:20 PM
-
Gents,
This is not a flame or even a squeak. It's just feedback as the forum says. This statement really concerns me about the new arena.
Once your a 1st you will the loose 150 for a death and recieve 10 carreer points for mission successes. If you reach 0 your back to 2nd or 1000 your promoted. Along with a promtion comes better ground crews. So your guns might jam less,eng run better, but your expected perform a lot better. There's also medals and other stuff.
This is a problem for these reasons.
Not all aircraft are created equal. Having a Pratt and Whitney overheat as much as a Merlin is not historically accurate under any circumstance. Nor would the realiabilty of a NIK2 compared to a Hellcat. The two are simply not in the same league.
Likewise a M2 .50 cal should not jam as much as a 20mill Hispano. Also gun jamming is not the same in all birds. A P-51B had sideways mounted guns that jammed under G load. The F4U had 6 dynamically charged .50cals that rarely jammed and cleared quickly when they did. This is simply the facts of war. Even Pappy Boyington never had a dedicated A/C so nobody had a preffered ride. It simply was not that way in the Marine Squads. Maybe in the AAF, RAF or Luftwaffe. Also the Navy had an outsanding maintenance record throughout the war. You can't change history for parity.
If you want a REAL Realistic gameplay arena use the following criteria.
ENGINE MANAGMENT. If someone runs above Max continous power for longer than allowed then the engine overheats. Also implement real fuel managment. The fuel duration of the LA-7 and BF-109 are way out of line. Make player use fuel management by increasing the fuel burn multiplier.
If you want realism stick to facts not random events. Just my opinion.
-
HT never said anything about how he would accertain or represent the reliability of engines or armement. Yet you complain that its not fair to US aircraft.
thats a whine.
Any game that tried to simulate the reliablilty or ww2 aircraft engines and didnt give the fully developed PW radials a better reliablility then some of the other engines wouldnt be much a simulation. Would it.
Heres the non whining version of your post
Im glad to hear that HT will be including engine and armement reliablility in Aces High: Blah. This will greatly benifit planes like the Hellcat against planes like the Niki and the 109G10 and the me262 and probably the La7 as well. It will also benifit mg151/20 armed fighters vs Hispano armed fighters. It brings a refreshing new angle to the differences between these planes.
As far as randomness. We allready have it with crash to desk tops and discos and the qualitly of our enemies conects. All of which effect our score but we have no control over.
-
This "mission arena" isn't going to be totally accurate anyway since it's a pretty safe bet that the fighter guys flying P-38's or P-51's aren't going to have to sit through 8-hour-long missons like the pilots of history had to.
I think of this "mission arena" as HTC's way of dealing with the number one complaint of boxed gamers when they try an online flightsim (no structured missions/campaign mode).
J_A_B
-
F4UDOA?? Where are you getting your quotes from??
This is the first time I've ever heard about such issues :eek:
-
It does sound a bit whiney but there is a "point" to what your saying. But you overlook to much for it to be a real concern.
The engs dont "overheat" in AH. Its just eyecandy to simulate wep running out. All that happens is wep shuts off. You wont see f6fs and f4us in a western europe theater. On allied planes the engs "cool" quicker then on axis planes. 5 min wep 5 min cool.
We dont have the planes available to do any sort of "good pac set up. So until we get the planes we need and have a chance to compare them theres nothing to "whine" about.
Now the 1st set up in the MT will be an 8th force run. But if you end up matching d11s, p38ls and p51bs against our ah g6 then thats not "historically correct". Our g6 is the earliest version.
We have a 44 b17g a 44 jug a 44 p38l. The lw has the a5 a8 and g6. At altitude where most missions will be flown the allies have a performance advantage even without wep. I nmot whining here I expect it to be fun.
I dunno know what ht has planned but its premature to begin criticizing something when we dont know the details.
Gunjams will only be problem if they happen all the time. The idea that all your guns will jam at the same time doesnt make sense. So you may loose 1 hispano or 1 50 cal. You then can decide to to abort the mission or continue. It may not represent true "realism" but its more immerssive then "fly till ya die in the main".
Performances issues mostly effect top speed and the allies would have a clear speed advantage in most setup given the current planeset. If wep were historically modelled the axis would have the advantage.
I guess what I am saying is until ht gives more info theres not enough facts to make a good judgement.
I dont suspect the MT to appeal to everyone. But I like the idea behind it. I hope it has the potential to give the same type of immersion that a good il2 coop can give.
I do expect the mt to appeal more to a squad level. Even missions against ai alone maybe a bad idea.
The main will always be there. Didja read about better graphics :)
Kweassa read the thread by hts about naming the mt. Its all there.
-
Kawasea,
Aces High BB > General Forums > Aces High General Discussion > Need a Name.
<.S>
-
JAB,
Actually your point about P-38 and P-51 pilots is a good one. But easily simulated by proper use of the Fuel multiplier. This should also affect the duration of flight for the intercepting 109's and 190's would be needed as well. I think this "simulates" reality much better than a random gun jam or engine failure/lost performance.
Wotan,
I know this is premature to complain before we see the product. However the way it has been presented does not sound logical or tempting. And I know there are better alternatives for modeling of such an arena. So better to get it out now than wait.
And BTW, there were some F4U's and F6F's in Western Europe.
Pongo,
HT did not say that a P&W would be more reliable than a rice burner. What he said is that it would be based on ground crews. That is just a little to vague for my taste.
-
And BTW, there were some F4U's and F6F's in Western Europe
not in an 8th airforce setup, if we see f4us escorting b17s to berlin I'll quit, again :)
I will admit I whinced at the idea of of better performing planes and less gunjams with rank but as long as it doesnt overwhelm the experience then its fine with me.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You wont see f6fs and f4us in a western europe theater.
The British got 252 F6F-3s, 930 F6F-5s, 95 'birdcage' canopy F4U-1s, 510 bubble-canopy F4U-1s, 430 F3A-1s (F4U-1s produced by Brewster), and 977 FG-1s (F4U-1s produced by Goodyear) as part of the Lend-Lease program. As a matter of fact, it was the British who first demonstrated that the Corsair could be reliably operated from a carrier; Navy concerns about the visibility over the long nose had kept the Corsair restricted to land-based use.
-
Read what you quoted me as saying. Did I say they werent there or that we wont see (as a part of a set up) them there.
I appreciate the history lesson but its not necessary.
To make a good set up you something that has depth. Like an 8th airforce set up, bob, rubarbs and circuses etc. For the life of me I dont see where any of those include the f6f or f4u.
-
Wotan,
I would luv to have seen F6F's and F4U's escorting B-17's over Germany. I never understood why the Allies didn't take advantage of this capability from there carriers during the war in 43 and 44.
I actually read about operation "Danny" which was F4U-1's loaded with TinyTim 11.75" rockets to take out V-1 sites in France. The task group was in training when the project was cancelled. Gen. George Marshall ended it because "He didn't want any Marine Aviators flying in his war". So much for inter service co-operation.
-
yup the f6f and the f4u would have fit well in the eto.
I am not to familiar with the range of the f6f and f4u but you figure if operated in ther pacific ocean it shouldf have decent range.
The VVS ever get any f6fs or F4us?
-
Not during WW2.
Maybe they captured one during Korea?
The Soviets should have been aware of the F4U. In the late 1940's a F4U-4B shot down a Russian TU-2 that got to close to the Fleet.
They were also involved in another incedent in 1954 off the Korean coast with a couple of La-7's and AD-1's. Don't know if they were Russian, Chinese or Korean.
-
HiTech
This has got to make your day
The game isn't even out yet and they are finding bugs with it already....lol
NwBie
-
WOTAN where at in Jacksonville do you live?
-
Some people take stuff way to litterly and miss key words.
"So your guns MIGHT jam less", just giveing an example on a concept we wish to implement, and people discussing details.
How about we descuss things we like to see implemented , or ideas on how to implent the concept, instead of simple model details.
Think GAME play Not Sim.
The sim will be change slightly to improve some items but the game play side of this arena will make or brake it.
Btw I'm defining GAME here as the same as War SIM.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
How about we descuss things we like to see implemented , or ideas on how to implent the concept, instead of simple model details.
I would suggest that, because of the difference in the types of skills involved, that you make separate rank trees for level bombing, fighter/attack, and GV 'careers'. It wasn't common for a pilot to get shifted between fighters and bombers, and between any aircraft and GVs was even rarer. This lets people create a more true-to-life career. It would also give people more freedom to pick a mission outside their normal range, knowing that they're not going to be nuking their fighter rank by getting killed in a running GV battle.
-
HT
look, with all due.....
"So your guns MIGHT jam less"
could mean anything. Does the MIGHT mean that you MIGHT or MIGHT not implement it or does it mean that the figures you'll be using are generated randomly?
I mean after all, gamers can be the most anal and nit-picky group of people on the planet (yeah right, like you hadn't worked THAT one out a long time ago) so of course any information issued that is unclear is going to be questioned. What do you expect?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
I think things like gun jams are fine as long as all your guns dont fail. Some planes had guns that would jam more often the others.
If this is something you really are thinking of then I think that if its universal, as it effects all planes equally, that it needs to be quite random and rare.
What would be the trigger? gs when firing or just suddenly your guns dont work?
Clearly in rl the better pilots got the better planes. But how is this going to effect the game. I mean if all the good pilots get all the good planes would this effect player numbers. If the average guy thinks he has very little chance to advance against better pilots in better performing planes how long will he fly in the mt.
With your hint about ai elements and training missions I wouldnt be to worried about that but persception may lead some not to even try.
If you decided not go inthis direction you could always prioritize missions.
Level 1 missions are for folks with xx rank
level 2
level 3 etc.
Level 1 could get the better missions with the better plane type etc. I dont how workable that would be though.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
If the average guy thinks he has very little chance to advance against better pilots in better performing planes how long will he fly in the mt.
See this is the problem of giving little bits of information. This rumour above will circle the world before you get up tomorrow.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Wotan,
You said two things that are exactly what I am afraid of.
1. If this is something you really are thinking of then I think that if its universal, as it effects all planes equally, that it needs to be quite random and rare.
I disagree. All A/C were not created equally. It is a drawback in realistic gameplay when you have NIK2's that fail at the same random rate as a F6F. In reality one was described as part of the "Grumman Iron Works" for relibility and toughness and the other was described as a pile of junk by Saburu Saki. Clearly these two A/C cannot have the same reliability issues.
2.Clearly in rl the better pilots got the better planes.
Bad, Bad, Bad!!! No this was not right. In fact most Marine Aces that I was aware did not have personal A/C. The Greg Boyington LuLu Belle Bird was a myth. So this was not a true statement. Also maintenance was not the same in every theater. I have read the Brits did not overhaul their F4U's until 2,000hours of flight time while Navy and Marine squads overhauled them every 500Hours.
It's easy to say random failures were regular but random is not truely random.
-
Bad, Bad, Bad!!! No this was not right. In fact most Marine Aces that I was aware did not have personal A/C. The Greg Boyington LuLu Belle Bird was a myth. So this was not a true statement. Also maintenance was not the same in every theater. I have read the Brits did not overhaul their F4U's until 2,000hours of flight time while Navy and Marine squads overhauled them every 500Hours.
My statement is true for the lw, ija and VVS though. I am sure someone will post about individual USAAF pilots whos ground crews made field mods to beef up their engs.
I dont want equal but random gun jams either. Hispanos jammed quite often. As much as folks say that this was solved it never really was. Dirt and sand getting into the gun barrels were enough cause jams and jams happened through out the war.
Performance in 2 like planes from the same squadron may perform different. Even prestine airraft off the line may have variations in performance.
The question is how much variation does ht envision. The niki is slower then any f4u and f6f. I doudt that will change. I dont think ht would cause numerous repeated eng problems in the f6f or f4u while keeping the niki at peak at all times. If these are universly random and kept somewhat rare then we really arent any worse off then what we have now with perfect eng under all conditions.
The niki btw has only a very small window be included in a set up.
Alot of what is written about plane quality I take with a grain of salt. On one side 1 guy will write "xxx was perfect I never had a problem" otoh you get the opposite "the was plagued with problems and wasnt very resistant to damage".
I see guys on here post how a p38 could fly through a telephone pole or bomber and fly home so that means the p38 was tough. They never post stories where another plane fell apart after 1 hit.
This goes for all planes. German pilots say the b24 was an easy kill, b24 pilots say the plane was tough. A "mossie is tough because look at this pic, it survived a 30mm strike" etc.....
Eng reliability is the same way. we get folks saying 262 blew up if you moved the throttle to quick or the he 177 was just fire ball. Then you see guys post the dirtect opposite.
Again I dont know what % of variation in eng performce ht has in mind but like I said if folks percieve the arena to be where a new guy gets the worse plane and the experts gets the best they may not choose to fly there.
How you go about modelling gun jams and eng reliability based mostly on anecdotal stories? I dont know. I dont think you can. But as long as the variation is minimal and the effect is rare and as close to random as possible I can live with it.
These arent immersion killers to me. And thats what appeals to me the most is immersion. Planes turned back due to problems, guns jammed etc....... As artificial as "random" effects maybe be in the game I just hope that are few and far between. I had for them to dominate gameplay.
-
random is best word :)
anyway looking back to history, most of engine damage and guns jam was not depend only from dirt, weather etc
Most importand for that was ground crew.
At start all polish squadrons ground crew in UK have huge numbers of brits mechanics, and lots of technical problems with aircraft.
When polish crews fully take care about technical condition, most of engine failure and guns jam gone. For both bombers and fighters squadrons.
And as history show every aircraft have your own "soul", even 2 spits/hurris produced same day , same factory not fly the same.
If/when HT give us smth like that will be great.
I dont understand/like one part posted by HT
5. If your points go to 0 you are demoted back to a cadet and have to go back threw training.
everyone somtimes die, but make traning once again?
not better to use this ppl as recon pilots or for SAR mission?.
Its not whine, i think. But not everyone can be fighter ace, and as u know bombers get allways heavy losses. Mby som ppl wonna help others and make recon missions over enemy teritory. Or patrol mission for rescue downed pilots on sea. Thats kinde of service was great part of history ww2. Recon mission are easy to plug in AH and not need many changes with current bomb system. /if somone ask, "how u imagine that?", i make post with examples/
About SAR we read many post, but i dont know any online sim who have smth like that.
Both make game more RL
greetings
ramzey
-
Yup Ramzey SAR is still a good idea, even though its been mentioned a zillion times before. And would fit in well in AcesII because there would be a really good reason for it. You pickup a downed countryman in your -very unsubtle request coming- Catalina, he gets to keep his rank and points, and maybe you get a few too for a successful rescue.
I vote search and rescue in as a feature please, along with all those others who have asked for it in the past. Only problem with it would be land rescue with the C47. I mean the current bizarre and unrealistic trees/rocks generation on the users FE. Perhaps the "totally different terrains" Hitech mentioned in another post could include sensible positioning (ie proper forests and stuff) and generated from the AH server end. If thats possible also please, for a whole ton of oft-heard reasons. (is it allowed to have more than one request in a post, sry HT).
Anyone disagree?
Achttag
<>
-
Gentlemen realize there will be a lot of AI bombers & Vehicles controled by the host only. They will be what lead an attack type mission.
This realy is a must for the game because it is what provides targets so that one persone dosn't have to die for every kill.
The success of the attack mission can then be how well you defended the bombers, and not how many planes you shot down. I.E. Just chacing off the defender is a success.
As a defender your mission will be successful based on how well you stoped the attack. Think of if it in terms of 20% of the bomber force destroyed, the defender mission was a success.
Notice you didn't have to kill any real player on either offense or defense to succede.
With out this one concept in the game there is no way to put a hi penalty on dieing, and hence a desire to live. By simply adjusting the points per mission / points lost for death we can control this incentive to live. The back to training is needed for a 2nd LT death, btw a 1st LT 0 points would just return you to a 2nd LT, because with out it there would not be a real penalty for a 2nd LT death.
This is just a basic outline,im sure details will change on how you recieve mission points, like a bonus for killing a buff or fighter or high ranking player.
Also keep in mind this realy is a new game, and will be completly different than the MA, i.e. base capture,strat like the main,war win & reset,vulching, will not be there.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
This is just a basic outline,im sure details will change on how you recieve mission points, like a bonus for killing a buff or fighter or high ranking player.
Something like this might be the answer to the concerns I voiced in another thread about unrealistic flying as a result of a high death penalty but a low mission victory reward (or no mission failure penalty).
What if bonus points were awarded in a graduated manner based on mission performance? So a bare minimum for defense success would be 20% enemies killed, but a maximum would be 100% enemies killed. This maximum outcome would score many more mission points than the bare minimum, perhaps enough to offset the cost of death itself. Thus while runners could flee all they want, the rewards as well as the dangers of aggressively pursuing mission objectives pay off.
In other words, the quicker path to rank advancement would be aggressiveness and self-preservation instead of merely playing the numbers.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Theres a balance between those Dead Man,what your talking about is more akin to MA play, death in the mission has to have a large penalty to make back up. Want to have the feeling that you are forced to engage,but will want to live.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Theres a balance between those Dead Man,what your talking about is more akin to MA play, death in the mission has to have a large penalty to make back up. Want to have the feeling that you are forced to engage,but will want to live.
What I'm suggesting would do that (hopefully) without turning it into an MA-style arena. Mainly what it would do is reduce the cost of dying with graduated mission success... in essence rewarding sticking to the mission objectives. So killing 90% of buffs while dying might cost 15 career points instead of 100 when everything is said and done. On the other hand, surviving such an encounter could yield 85 career points, thus creating the dual incentives of sticking around to complete the mission objectives (since this substantially increases rewards) while still keeping the incentive to live (as there are still costs associated with dying).
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Gentlemen realize there will be a lot of AI bombers & Vehicles controled by the host only. They will be what lead an attack type mission.
This is huge!! This idea I luv!!
Hopefully there will be no distinction between icons of manned A/C and unmanned A/C. I do have a few questions though.
1. Will there be a distinction between live players and drones?
2. Will there be drone fighters as well? Does this mean HTC is going to right AI code? Holey moley;)
3. Will there be a change in the IFF type icons? Such as fighter instead of La-7 at D2.0 or greater. Or FW190 instead of TA-152 at D1.0 or greater. Also no range data inside 1,000yards?
4. Will a player be able to switch between his A/C and a drone A/C? Probably not I'm guessing for scoring reasons.
HT/Wotan,
I think I am explaining something wrong. When I say I don't like random failures in the NIK2 and Hellcat being the same I mean the same frequency. Such as if the F6F has a random engine gun or hydraulic malfunction in 1 of every 10 sorties then the NIK2 should have 3 times as many per same number of sorties. The reason being one was far more reliable. The reliability % of these A/C I feel should be independent of gameplay considerations with maybe a 5% shift in performance up or down depending on your A/C per sortie which would be historically accurate. However reliability should be left unique to each individual A/C based on real wartime performance IMHO.
BTW Hitech,
I have very detailed numbers from the Navy on losses per sortie of each individual A/C. If you want them I can post them or email them. The document is quite large.
And thanks for the frequent updates. It is greatly appreciated!!
-
I still seem to be missing a key concept about this design. What is going to prevent the same folks that love to “pork and auger” from doing this in a detrimental way in the mission theater? Other than busting them down and keeping them at 2nd Lt. for their entire virtual lives –what other penalties will they face. I.E. What does having a higher rank get me that a 2nd Lt. would not have access too?
Hope that makes sense…
:confused:
-
Couple of other questions:
Are the mission points based on the number of “live” users online (or perhaps in the mission)? I mean lets say we have 2 identical missions where you are escorting B17 to target. One is taking place at 9PM EST when there are 400 people on-line and 50 “live” fighter pilots in the mission-(assume you are facing equal number or so of “live” enemy opponents. Now lets say you run this mission again at 4AM EST when there are only 100 people online and only 8 “live” pilots in there. Don’t you by virtue of less resistance stand a better chance doing easier “milk” runs during the dead of night for perhaps the same payoff?
I don’t think that would be very fair for those of us that fly during Prime Time hours. Also-the AI fighters? How sophisticated will they be? Both on the enemy and friendly side? I will they attack in groups? Proper ACM? Or will they just fly around like AW C-47 drones? Can I issue basic attack orders to AI Wingman (like Protect formation- sweep forward, etc?)
Thanks
-
MWHUN: The hours of becoming a cadet and going threw training again, hence why you must go back to training. Btw training = not in a mission, and no one to kill.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
Also keep in mind this realy is a new game, and will be completly different than the MA, i.e. base capture,strat like the main,war win & reset,vulching, will not be there.
I would expect that vulching would remain; after all, catching enemy planes taking off or landing was one of the easiest ways to get a kill. On the other hand, I would expect that the AI would get smart a lot faster than the players in the MA do and not try to up planes with a wing of P-47s overhead shooting anything that tries to move. So vulching as it's practiced in the MA would disappear, but not catching enemy aircraft when they're vulnerable at a field. Of course, the situations where you do catch enemy planes that way is going to be a lot rarer, too...
-
From what it sounds like to me, I like this idea. It kinda sounds to me as though it's a boxed sim (such as maybe the Falcon 4 Campaign) which is constantly running and players can join into the enviroment and then become part of it. You never know, your squadron may run into only AI enemy aircraft or you may run into a full force of player-controlled enemy fighters protecting some bombers. There may be milk runs and there may be very difficult situations you end up running away from. Variety is the spice of life and from what this sounds, I think this is a step in the right direction.
With an improvement in the graphics engine, this will be excellent. Now the question is, will it take 2 years, 1 year, a few months?
-
My .02 to this brainstorming session.
The high penalty for death may do more harm then good for this new arena.
It promotes milkruning by hunting AI while avoiding each other.
Punishes the newbi and low skill players by having them retrace their steps in training. These players will be frustrated the most and may not come back.
I believe the 'will to live' will be inherent in the system as it stands without having to penalize it further. If you die in a mission, you must wait for the next. There is no insta spawn back into the same fight like the MA. This is a result most gamers can barely stand.
"... forced to engage,but will want to live. " some ideas:
To advance in rank you must succeed at your mission and survive. If you dont succeed and survive, you don't advance but you don't go back either.
Make the gaining of rank meaningful. Think of each rank as a 'level' in traditional RPGs, offering new and better toys to play with. The toys could be better aircraft, better maintance, the ability to be a flight leader, etc.
Successful rpgs have 2 things in common.
Varied 'classes' that cater to the wide range of individual tastes of the players. Bomber school, jabo school, fighter school, armor school, Command school (the ability to get involved in mission planning) could serve as separate advancement trees.
Carrots. the reward for advancement. Whanna fly that spit? Become a capt. until then learn to luv the hurri. Imagine an English Channel setup with rookies flying 109e's, veterns flying 109f's , and experts getting the new 190s. Wanna lead a squadron into battle? become a maj. you get the idea.