Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on April 28, 2003, 05:59:54 PM
-
Why cant bombers fire from all gun positions on the airfield?
They certainly can be shot.
Is it that they can land on a nme airfield and vulch?
Lemme catch nme bombers sitting on my airbase!
Is it that they will spawn and use the buffs as base defense?
Lemme catch a buff sitting on a runway!
Is it unrealistic?
If there were bombers taking off from an airfiled and being
assaulted by nme planes would the gunners shoot?:confused:
-
"Is it that they will spawn and use the buffs as base defense?"
You win cupie doll !!!
-
Ok..does this really scare anybody?
-
It would, if 10 people spawn at various positions with 30 B-17s pointing 60~180 .50 cal machine guns firing towards the sky. Not to mention the mega-lag buff formations cause.
-
Good thinkin..1 bomb would wipe out the whole bunch.
Ok..how about if a bomber is moving, then the gns are active?
-
No Ack-stars and no car-bombing!
If you need the defence of your guns to take off then you should be taking off from a different (safer) field.
If you don't have a safer field to take off from then tough, you have just about lost the war: Getting away to Argentina with as many sheep as possible before the end should now be your goal.
-
I miss carbombing, I miss it even more now that we have the Stuka and that 4000lb bomb.. :D
-
Hehe, I used to love carbombers. Just shoot em a couple times from 1,000 yards out, and wait for them to blow themselves up. It was so much easier than regular vulching.
-
Originally posted by Pei
No Ack-stars and no car-bombing!
If you need the defence of your guns to take off then you should be taking off from a different (safer) field.
If you don't have a safer field to take off from then tough, you have just about lost the war: Getting away to Argentina with as many sheep as possible before the end should now be your goal.
good point, but what about when I try to land my crippled bomber and some suicidal maniac screams in in his la7 to blast
my defenseless arse when im coasting to a stop on the runway,
trying to land my hard earned 4 kills and some strat targets
destroyed. Gimme my damm guns, I may get him 1 out of 10 times but least I dont have to sit there and watch helplessly.
As far as taking off, disable the bombers, not the guns. In fact,
if the bombers as a base defense thing is effective at all, the
attackers can simply kill the bomber hangars and everything
balnces out.
-
Not wanting to hijack, but...
How exactly does car bombing work? (or how did it work when there was no distance travelled for bombs required0? Isn't it pretty useless to drop bombs where you spawn a bomber - usually on your own field that is?
-
Spawn onto runway in a plane loaded with bombs and drop the bombs. The bombs used to explode when dropped from zero altitude. Not only did this kill the dipsh*t dropping his bombs but it killed any enemy plane within....oh, lets say within 700 feet.
When it started happening was when AH really nose dived as far as clientel was concerned. In other words, once AH became really popular ;)
-
OR one might deack a base, kill the VH and park buff behind the runway spawn point killin all that ups...iirc, it was referred to as a "Bloodpig" the a-26 'vaders were the buff of choice for the task...
h
-
All of these possibilities are legitimate concerns, except that
if an airfield is properly perepped for capture, there should be
no buff hangars up anyhow. The insignificance of
buff hangars is blatantly clear here. What I hear is
'lawd have mercy, if buffs were allowed active guns at takeoff,
how would we capture a base?!?!?!?!" This is obsurd,
if you get sick of killing them on the ground, simply kill the buff hangars. If you get killed by them while your trying to vulch,
dont vulch. Give me an airfield with 30 buffs parked on the runway and give me 1 3800lb stuka knucklebuster. I'll
win the 100 bucks for the camp.
-
It is better this way. Dont focus on getting killed once and thinking the game should be changed in some way because of it.
-
yes..better for the vulchers, which is the only ones who fear
the gunned buffs on the ground;)
-
It used to be that way, then the carbombing and ack-star ground buff base defense stuff started and it just got to the point of sheer stupidity.
You holler about realism, but there has to be some sort of game play compromises if for no other reason than you never really die in the game. If it is like TOD and you only have one life until next month, things might be a bit different, but with what amounts to unlimited lives, car bombing and ground based buff defenses are what's absurd.
I guess the bottom line is: we've been there, done that and it sucked...for everyone.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Is it unrealistic?
If there were bombers taking off from an airfiled and being
assaulted by nme planes would the gunners shoot?:confused:
You speak of realism, how often in the war did bombers up when they knew enemy fighters were lerking about over the field?
And what's pei on about? "Getting away to Argentina with as many sheep as possible"
And car-bombing was fun, hehe
-
BenDover..just raising a question. I can see some good
points against bombers gunners activated during takeoff,
but, they just arent good enuff to justify disabling guns, in any
event.
If the guns afre disabled, the plane shouldnt take damage until they are enabled. it is not fair to be argue, 'You shouldnt be on
a runway in a buff with nme around therefore, disable the guns'
That makes no sense at all.
-
What was that old trick in AW... bust fuel at a forward field in a 'vader then fly low towards the resupply field, pop the first c47, kill the ack at the resupply field, land, and then sit there and vultch the constantly respawning c47's until someone got wise to what you were doing and upped the field in the next sector or you were out of ammo.
Bring the AI controlled C47 resupply runs to AH!
-
that was hella fun in Warbirds to let Otto gun and just fly easy circles .... playing Puff the Dragon. LOL.
you fire from a buff at 1.7k and lead enuf you can knock most attacking fighter planes out in Aces easily.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Good thinkin..1 bomb would wipe out the whole bunch.
I managed to do that one time back when we had laser guided bomb drops. I was about to hit a hanger and noticed a squad of b-17s lining up at the end of then runway. I shifted my line a bit and droped a salvo on the squad. I killed about 14 of them and that was before formations.
Originally posted by BenDover
You speak of realism, how often in the war did bombers up when they knew enemy fighters were lerking about over the field?
Never happened all the bombers were airborne by the time the cons arrived over the field. The bombers would take off when the cons were about 12 miles out causing the airfield to start flashing. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by zipity
I managed to do that one time back when we had laser guided bomb drops. I was about to hit a hanger and noticed a squad of b-17s lining up at the end of then runway. I shifted my line a bit and droped a salvo on the squad. I killed about 14 of them and that was before formations.
It's always entertaining when you can vulch people from 10,000' or higher... I'll never forget the time back in the old DOS Air Warrior when I was making a B-17 run on field 87 (one of the capturable fields) at 25,000 feet, and had unloaded my bombload on the runway (for those who weren't around back then, the way you closed a field was to drop 8 [later 10, then 12] bombs on the runway), and saw the first bomb hit, then got a huge string of 'A kill has been recorded' messages pop up in the radio buffer. Apparently some B-land squad had upped onto 87 to take off en masse just before my bombs hit, and I wiped out the entire squadron -- and then closed the field so they couldn't take off again. My escorts and I damn near died laughing when we figured out what had happened.
It's a lot rarer to do that now, with there being no purpose in AH behind bombing a runway, but I have gotten two people who were upping fighters from hangars when I hit the hangar they were launching from.
-
AKWarp, it couldn't be said better. Thanks
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
It used to be that way, then the carbombing and ack-star ground buff base defense stuff started and it just got to the point of sheer stupidity.
You holler about realism, but there has to be some sort of game play compromises if for no other reason than you never really die in the game. If it is like TOD and you only have one life until next month, things might be a bit different, but with what amounts to unlimited lives, car bombing and ground based buff defenses are what's absurd.
I guess the bottom line is: we've been there, done that and it sucked...for everyone.
Gee AKWarp. Did anybody ever think of killing the bomber hangars before attempting to capture a base or was it just
easier to lobby HTC to put this rediculous 'disable guns' rule
into effect?
Dear HTC, base capture is far to easy. The maps grow huge
because of this fact. Im not sure why the airfields are not
required to be damaged at all in order to caputure a base.
The other day, I took a b17 form deep into injun country,
successfully bombed the airbase from 15k, and fought my way
back to friendly turf, brilliantly. I guided my last
remaining buff, (rudderless, 2 engines out, and 2 smoking,
missing right aierlon and flap and other assorted carnage
including at least 3 dead crew) back to base and was
approaching the runway when i notice the crazed suicide
freak lurking just out of range until I touched down. here he comes, fw190, flying headlong into the ack, full speed ahead,
guns a blazing. I instinctively jump to my top turret, oooops.
My guns are disabled, it should be the 190's guns who are disabled. Luckily, the embicile missed and crashed and I got
another kill. Hehehe, that makes 3 on this maroon this mission!
This 'disable guns' as opposed to 'thouroughly kill airbase' thiing
has a flaw. A small one on the surface, because of 1
traditional buff pilot angry at an attempted murder, but
if you claw a bit deeper, it snowballs into a mass of
simple airbase captures that leads to huge maps that
makes people sick that reuqires more special rules to remedy
and etc etc etc.
Thank you for your time and goodnight :p
-
With all due respect WhiteH, if realism is what you want, then you should think about the situational aspect of 'realism' before the physical aspect.
If an enemy fighter chases a crippled bomber home, and no friendlies meet it, or there are no acks to defend you, basically that buff sortie is at a 'failed to return' consequence.
To make it short, if you are in a situation where you are exposed, that an enemy fighter will try and vulch you while your buff wheels touch the ground - it means for whatever various reasons, you have practically mismanaged that particular buff sortie, and probably just asking to be shot down.
If there was any, any sort of cooperation at all, your friends nearby would've covered your landing.
...
There's an even simpler solution to your problem, besides asking to go back to a miserable system where many people complained about it:
1; Ask your friends to escort you.
2; Ask friendly planes to cover your landing
3; Plan a better escape route.
4; Don't touch down at undefended fields.
Either that, or limit the numbers of aircraft on an airfield. This 'bottomless pit' where unending numbers of buffs in formations just upping and upping and upping... soaking up the precious ammo of the vulchers, is probably the most 'unrealistic' thing of them all.
I'm very sure HTC will NEVER go back to Ack-stars and carbombs.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I'm very sure HTC will NEVER go back to Ack-stars and carbombs.
Ok. I'm not naive enuff to think that this thread is going to
change anything HTC does.
1. Carbombs have nuthing to do with guns enabled.
I guess if somebody can answer me this question I would feel
better that AH isnt going the way of the suicide speed burnin jabo man instead of fighter sweeps, CAPS, intercepts, escorts and bomber formations.
When HTC was made aware of the ackstar problem, why didnt
they say "So kill the bomber hangars." Why is it out of the
question to kill bomber hangars? Why would HTC chose to
disable defensive armament with very short range, as opposed
to require the attackers to PREP THE DAMM AIRBASE BEFORE
you vulch??
Who gets killed by the ackstars and what are they doing so
close to an active airfield? Its every bit as dumb for an
airplane to be buzzing an operating airfield as it is for a bomber to try to take off from a capped airbase!?!? The 'disable guns until alt>0 ' answer just astounds me. it really does.
Q. Why is it better to disable guns until alt>0 as
opposed to destroy nme airbase as much as necessary
to capture it?
I realize the realism thing is just not possible in some
cases, but here it seems to me that this is a 'turn the radio
up so i cant hear the engine knocking' cop out.
Oh well, theres my 15 bucks worth:)
Thnx for keeping this debate civilized.
:) :)
-
You
Are
Gay
Just thought I'd make it a little un-civilized;)
-
Hmmmm....BenDover calling someone gay eh? Did your uncle
give you that callsign there farmboy?:D
-
Guns enabled on bombers on the ground have far more to do with OTHER things besides shooting at vulchers (although that does still factor in).
Buffs would often drive aorund on the ground shooting at everything they could. You think an m16 has a buttload of .50 cals? Try a formation of b17's taxiing toward your osti or panzer with their guns blazing....you'll understand the meaning of "lead enema".
Again, I refer to the unlimited lives in the game. A buff formation appears on the ground with guns blazing, he dies, he immediately reups, and the viscious circle continues.
Take out bomber hangars you say? Right, that happened too, but it's near impossible to do so with the whacked out bombing system we have now and 20, frame rate robbing buff formations all scattering about on the ground trying to be an ack-star BEFORE the buff hangars get taken out (don't forget, bases flash well in advance of you arriving to kill it).
Making maps larger was done to accomodate the double fold increase in player numbers that were crowding the smaller maps. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. The small maps now only last a day or two at best. Most of them are nothing but a giant furball (but I guess that's ok for the furballers, huh?).
Spreading bases out and some of the terrain features create a challenge..it means the teams have to act as just that...a team...it takes strategy, although I've noticed a bad trend lately in poor team playing. Not a big deal though, it's a game, if you have fun, that's what matters.
The system we have now is by far better than any in the past...even if I think the new bombing system sucks...but that's ok, I simply don't do high alt bombing anymore. External, rear view dive bombing in a b17 formation is much more exciting anyway.
Personally, I'm much more concerned with issues like rubber bullets, the whole issue surrounding the problems with GV's (I like fighting in GVs) and things that make the combat system awkward or frustrating in terms of consistency. Now some of that stuff borders on absurdity. Not having buff guns on the ground roll is a non-issue as far as I am concerned because of the past experiences in the game when things were different.
Again, we had it that way in the past and it sucked...for everyone.
See, not everyone sees your point the way you do or feels the same way about it. HT makes certain changes based on the masses, not on what one or two of us think or want. As much as we hate to admit it, realism can only go so far in this game. Fact is, really, if it were as real as he probably has the ability to make it, a good majority of the folks in here couldn't even get a plane off the ground imuch less worry about gunning in a buff.
The system in place now is better than any in the past in terms of playability and what can or can't be done. Issues with warping, rubber bullets, inconsistencies with damage, etc are things that I think HT should be looking at....but, that's my opinion.
-
Farmboy?
And the name is an old joke, unlike you.
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Farmboy?
And the name is an old joke, unlike you.
Sorry Bend Over, I was kidding, i thought. Didnt mean to strike
a raw nerve. (hehe, Dont watch deliverence :o)
AKWarp, i am just bantering here. Lets just say that I am
amazed that only 1 or 2 of us are opposed to a
WEAKER base defense. Weaker base defenses mean
easier time for the suicide bomber. It is not uncommon for
a single plane to kill the VH and deack a field before anyone
can up to defend. Now what. we take off fighters and get vulched until the attacker dies or flees? Its just getting too
far removed from anything resembling WW2 combat.
Somebody tried to homicide bomber my crippled b17 after
a 45 minute romp thru nme turf. I am mad. Gimme my fricken guns. We eliminated the carbombers, now lets eliminate the
suicide bombers.
If 1 man tries to come into a full up airbase, ack should maul him
9 times out of 10. if the airbase is somewhat damaged, maybe he does somewhat bettter, if the airbase is nearly destroyed
he has a good chacne. etc etc.
My opinion, for what its worth.
BendOver, stop right there. You started it, we are even.
-
Its BEN DOVER!
And I was joking both times. Guess you lack the IQ to detect sarcasm:p
And I still want to know where you got the Farm Boy comment from...
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Its BEN DOVER!
And I was joking both times. Guess you lack the IQ to detect sarcasm:p
And I still want to know where you got the Farm Boy comment from...
Well, the 'Are you Gay?' question, your callsign Bend Over, and
your obvious worship of male genitals with the
'cheekbones is part of something bigger' autograph you attach to your post, is a bit much for me. I shouldnt have said farmboy in
a derrogative manner, I apologize, but i didnt want to say 'gayboy' for obvious political reasons.
IQ check..Can You detect the sarcasm?
:)
-
Thats not an autograph, thats a quotation. If you notice its has the name of the person who wrote it, and is dated
-
Ok BenDover.. Sorry.
Can you give me 1 reason why guns are disabled for buffs
until alt>0 that coldnt be fixed by destroying the bomber hangars?
I really am sorry about the verbal jousting, Im really mad at that
190 who tried to maul me, and you stepped into the ring.
:(
-
You have a point, which is undisputable ... destroying all the the bomber hangers will solve the problem, but I think, from previous posts, your question has been answered as to why they have been disabled until liftoff.
The real bottom line here is ... "cause HiTech says so". Unless he answers this question personally (don't hold your breath), then no matter what answer we give you, you will not be satisfied.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
your question has been answered as to why they have been disabled until liftoff.
The real bottom line here is ... "cause HiTech says so". Unless he answers this question personally (don't hold your breath), then no matter what answer we give you, you will not be satisfied.
Rgr that slapshot..But you make my point in a small way.
It is not 'guns disabled until liftoff', it is 'guns disabled
until alt>0', which means my guns are disabled when I am landing which is, in my humble, yet correct opinion, a slight
oversight in HiTechs rational for the rule.
I have heard that if buff guns were enabled on the ground
people would land and tear up bases with the buff guns.
I am not gonna waste my timing adrressing this issue, as it
is the dumbest way to try to vulch or destroy a field.
OK, HiTech, how about, 'guns disabled til liftoff, after that
gimme my guns'.
-
humble, yet correct opinion??? Heh...if only.
No,no,no..."MY" opinion is correct...buffs shouldn't have guns at all......
Landing at a base and shooting it up, or driving around on the ground doing same may sound dumb to you, but it was an extremely effective way to take one down..and to vultch it. So much so, HT had to change it. It's not realism, it's gaming the game. Nothing about that tactic was WII in any way either....
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
Landing at a base and shooting it up, or driving around on the ground doing same may sound dumb to you, but it was an extremely effective way to take one down..and to vultch it. So much so, HT had to change it. It's not realism, it's gaming the game. Nothing about that tactic was WII in any way either....
I agree with you there warp. I believe that people would try to do that, and maybe have some success at it. Trying to be respectful, I ask if you are concerned about the simplicicity in which 1 or 2 or 3 fighters can devestate a fields strats now?
I just watched from a manned ack, 2 f6fs kill vh, deack a field
and proceed to devestate the strats. I could do nothing but
try to hit one with that damm 37mm. If I try to take off, I get kilt immediatley. I had to wait until all thier ammo was spent, I upped a Yak and chased a wounded one down and shot him as he was trying to ditch.
Give it try AKWarp, try to deack a field and land a buff.
If the auto ack dont get you, the fighter will. Things have changed. I think the flashing base has taken care of any low alt buff problem, including the park and vulch.
-
and I contend your scenario where 2 or 3 fighters, or even 1, can kill vh and deack field is perfectly realistic in as much as realism goes in the game.
The issue has more to do with people WANTING to defend the field than it does any inequality in buff guns or ack accuracy.
Since we don't have players "stationed" at every field in sufficient numbers as would be in real life, we have that flashing base to give us a fair heads up. If that gets ignored, then the field does (and should) suffer the consquences.
As long as a bunch of fighters don't try to up all at once, one plane can effectively, with a little practice, kill vh, deack the field and keep fighters suppressed. Nothing wrong with that at all. Now, if the field guns get manned by a bunch of folks that are decent shots, the story would most likely be different, but as is the usual case, flashing fields get ignored until it is too late.
A lone fighter over an undefended airfield has a tremendous advantage...as it should be.
-
Well, I agree that having a buff land at an enemy airbase/city and shread it with its guns is a little on the extreme side, however, I do believe the bomber should be able to defend itself on takeoff.
I don't see why a compromise can't be reached.
Currently, the logic reads that if you end your flight on a runway or VH ( or very close proximity to VH ) of a FRIENDLY base, you will receive the 'Landed Succesfully' message, thus earning full points accumulated for the mission. I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that there's a funky little subroutine/function that returns a code indicating the type of landing you made. ( captured, successful, bailed..etc )
Let's call this routine when the bomber's guns are triggered. If you get the same return code as 'succesful landing' ( allowing, somehow, to ignore the 'must be stopped to exit flight' check )
then the guns will fire.
In short, allow the bombers' guns to operate while on a friendly runway or parked at a friendly VH.
The bombers' gunners, however, will have to remember that killshooter will still ruin their day if they're firing when somebody spawns at the same spot, or rolls through them on takeoff.
Sorry if this has been proposed before. If so, I missed it and apologize.
<.S>
-
That's the same problem we are discussing. Allowing buff guns to fire on the ground creates instant AC-17's, etc.
The best strategy is to simply not up buffs on fields where enemy are vultching.
It amazes me still how many people will continue to pad enemy scores by trying to up at vultched fields or camped spawn points...over and over and over...and not just the newbies doing it either.
Ya know, the definition of insanity is to repetitively do the same thing over and over expecting a different result..... :D
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
The best strategy is to simply not up buffs on fields where enemy are vultching.
LOL.. and with a couple tweaks of the code, this becomes..
The best strategy to survive vulching a field is to not do it if the bomber hangars are up.
But for the grace of God....
Anyway, as far as why people up from vulched fields.. well, you will run out of ammo.. and you will RTB.. and you will do it about 30 seconds before your goon drops troops so one of the vulchees can get an LA-7 or Spit up to kill the troops.
At least that's how it seems from the goon driver's perspective.. :rolleyes:
The glory of preventing your base from being captured outweighs the drudgery of repetitive trips to the tower from getting vulched. Some folks aren't driven by k/d ratios. They're very loyal to their country and will provide maximum effort to the cause.
And.. another thing.. Oh, wait. . starting to ramble..lol
<.S>
-
Salute to the baby seals...ermm...I mean heros.
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
The issue has more to do with people WANTING to defend the field than it does any inequality in buff guns or ack accuracy.
Since we don't have players "stationed" at every field in sufficient numbers as would be in real life, we have that flashing base to give us a fair heads up. If that gets ignored, then the field does (and should) suffer the consquences.
As long as a bunch of fighters don't try to up all at once, one plane can effectively, with a little practice, kill vh, deack the field and keep fighters suppressed. Nothing wrong with that at all. Now, if the field guns get manned by a bunch of folks that are decent shots, the story would most likely be different, but as is the usual case, flashing fields get ignored until it is too late.
A lone fighter over an undefended airfield has a tremendous advantage...as it should be.
I agree wholeheartedly. I just cant follow your reasoning that a fighter or 2 should be able to punish an undefended airbase, but a bomber should be castrated, because not all bases can be expected to be defended? That a vulcher should have free pass to supress any defense with a tremendous advantage, as long as a "special" line in the code keeps those pesky buff guns off thier arse. I guess the whole point is, it is a "special" line in the code that tips the scales, unfairly IMHYCO.
It was useful and necessary at one time, but it is now a loose end.
1. You cannot land a buff form at an nme airbase and rip it to shreads. There are defensive specialists, who watch for flashing bases and take appropriate action. The 37mm makes mincemeat of slow moving straight line buffs. I can easily kill a town in 2 passes with either b17 or lancs if it is undefended, I have no reason to fuss with the airbase.
2. it should not be viewed as ludicrous for an attcking force to destroy the bomber hangars before proceeding to vulch.
3. "Bombers upping a capped airbase deserve to die." Ok,
gimme my guns and let's see who deserves to die. the bomber or the maniac trying to take over an airbase singlhandedly.
Enabling the buff guns at all times would change the game, for the better IMO.
-
No it wouldn't.
-
> agree wholeheartedly. I just cant follow your reasoning that a >ighter or 2 should be able to punish an undefended airbase, but > bomber should be castrated, because not all bases can be >xpected to be defended?
My reasoning is that to have the buff guns enabled, while they may provide specifically what you are looking for, invites all manner of absurd side effects that tip the scales back in favor of keeping them turned off on the ground. As I said twice before, and repeat again, it used to be that way. The results were absolutely ridiculous...much more so than this supposed unfair advantage that fighters have at undefended air fields.
Field ack can be manned. Osti's can be launched. The unmanned ack are shooting at the fighters. If there are only 1-2 fighters approaching a field, 2-3 friendlies can certainly put a couple planes in the air IF THEY PAY ATTENTION and get to a flashing field soon enough, but that's the crux of the whole issue. People HAVE TO WANT TO DEFEND the field. If they don't, the field is gonna get hit...period.
> That a vulcher should have free pass to supress any defense >with a tremendous advantage, as long as a "special" line in the >code keeps those pesky buff guns off thier arse. I guess the >whole point is, it is a "special" line in the code that tips the >scales, unfairly IMHYCO.
It's not a matter of what is or isn't perceived to be fair, it's a matter of making the game playable. Fighters coming in to a field do not have "free pass" to suppress the field. They have ack to contend with, possbile ground based air defense (Osti's) and fighters trying to up. You make it sould like all you have to do is get a fighter to a field and you own it. It is far from that simple. A few guys in here can make it look easy because they have a lot of practice at it, but it's certainly no walk in the park.
>it was useful and necessary at one time, but it is now a loose >end.
It is still necessary.
>1. You cannot land a buff form at an nme airbase and rip it to >shreads. There are defensive specialists, who watch for flashing >bases and take appropriate action. The 37mm makes >mincemeat of slow moving straight line buffs. I can easily kill a >town in 2 passes with either b17 or lancs if it is undefended, I >have no reason to fuss with the airbase.
I don't understand, if it's so easy, then what are you all about here?
>2. it should not be viewed as ludicrous for an attcking force to >destroy the bomber hangars before proceeding to vulch.
I never said it was ludicrous to kill bomber hangars, I said it gets extremely ludicrous when you have 10 buff formations with ground guns pop up before any forces arrive at a base to do just that. Ever been near a base with 5-10 buff formations on the ground or in the area? Your frame rates will go to single digits, if it doesn't crash the server first.
>3. "Bombers upping a capped airbase deserve to die." Ok,
>gimme my guns and let's see who deserves to die. the bomber >or the maniac trying to take over an airbase singlhandedly.
I never said they deserve to die, but common sense tells you that upping buffs at vultched fields is well....not real smart.
>Enabling the buff guns at all times would change the game, for >the better IMO.
And I completely disagree. We've had buff guns on the ground before. It was outrageous and ridiculous and a lot of people got really pissed off.
One thing to keep in mind here. People constantly search for ways to "game the game". Anyhting and everything they can do to get an advantage, be it smart or just plain ridiculous. No reason to give them a way to do that.
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
[B My reasoning is that to have the buff guns enabled, while they may provide specifically what you are looking for, invites all manner of absurd side effects that tip the scales back in favor of keeping them turned off on the ground. As I said twice before, and repeat again, it used to be that way. The results were absolutely ridiculous...much more so than this supposed unfair advantage that fighters have at undefended air fields.
Field ack can be manned. Osti's can be launched. The unmanned ack are shooting at the fighters. If there are only 1-2 fighters approaching a field, 2-3 friendlies can certainly put a couple planes in the air IF THEY PAY ATTENTION and get to a flashing field soon enough, but that's the crux of the whole issue. People HAVE TO WANT TO DEFEND the field. If they don't, the field is gonna get hit...period.
[/B]
So it all boils down to 2 points
1. "Gamers of the Game" would land at nme airbases and unfairly destroy them or shoot them up.
My answer> Plug in the word "bomber" for "fighter" in the second quoted paragraph above.
2. masses of buff forms would litter the runway causing big lags and server crashes and creating a general nuisance of gameplay.
(I assume its not the fact that they would create an affective base defense).
-->I cant argue with this, I wasnt here for the guns enabled thing.
But I will agree, it would be a problem, I get big frame rate hit just viewing my buff form in flight.
If this is the reason, what is the maximum number of bomber forms that can launch on a legitamate non-defensive mission?
When wil the "gamers of the Game" realize they can cause havoc by upping 15 or 20 buff forms from the same base?
Maybe a good compromise is to have guns enabled at 20mph or greater, or guns enabled after liftoff and until tower.
But what I would really like to see is a much improved auto base defense. Many more manned gun positions, that takes more than a fragment from a ricocheted bullet to kill.
Instead of 10 buff forms on the runway, provide 30 .50cal gun nests.
Im not an historian, but it would seem that basic airfield defense would be capable of repelling a cupple of fighters (or bombers).
AW's ack would kill a single plane 9 times of 10 before he got within gun range. Aw's ack commanded respect and skill to take out.
When I am coasting to a stop on the runway and the 190 dora comes plowing in at 500mph, mashing the trigger, get the auto ack on his butt at 5k out, or give me my guns.
-
>So it all boils down to 2 points
>1. "Gamers of the Game" would land at nme airbases and >unfairly destroy them or shoot them up.
>My answer - Plug in the word "bomber" for "fighter" in the >second quoted paragraph above.
Comparing a couple of fighters that took off from a distant base, flew to an undefended field and proceed to take it down to allowing buff guns on the runway is an apples to oranges comparison. They have nothing in common.
>2. masses of buff forms would litter the runway causing big lags >and server crashes and creating a general nuisance of >gameplay. (I assume its not the fact that they would create an >affective base defense).
Effective? Sure, but then again, so would B-29's with nukes....
The point is that effectiveness has to be balanced somehow in this less than perfect 2d world. This is a game. Sure, we'd like it to be as realistic as is REASONABLY possible, but if you factor in the limitations of the medium we play on, and the equipment we use to play it with, there is NO WAY HT can make it as real as possible. The game would simply not work that way. If he did, it would be so difficult that most of the players on now wouldn't even want to play (or would even be ABLE to play) and the ones that did would be facing a game world so far removed from reality as to be ridiculous.
If nothing else, the biggest factor in this whole thing is that you can die and re-up instantly. That factor alone places the most limitations on any sort of realistic modelling.
>I cant argue with this, I wasnt here for the guns enabled thing.
>But I will agree, it would be a problem, I get big frame rate hit >just viewing my buff form in flight.
>If this is the reason, what is the maximum number of bomber >forms that can launch on a legitamate non-defensive mission?
>When wil the "gamers of the Game" realize they can cause >havoc by upping 15 or 20 buff forms from the same base?
They have...and it's been done already. Why it's not more prevelent, I can't say. Maybe the players are more interested in playing than crashing the server? Or there aren't enough of them willing to do it to have the desired effect? I don't know. One thing I will wager on though, if it becomes prevelent to up buff formations en mass, and it causes undo effects on the game/server, HT will certainly implement some sort of change to dissuade it or not allow it at all.
>Maybe a good compromise is to have guns enabled at 20mph or >greater, or guns enabled after liftoff and until tower.
>But what I would really like to see is a much improved auto >base defense. Many more manned gun positions, that takes >more than a fragment from a ricocheted bullet to kill.
>Instead of 10 buff forms on the runway, provide 30 .50cal gun >nests.
>Im not an historian, but it would seem that basic airfield >defense would be capable of repelling a cupple of fighters (or >bombers).
>AW's ack would kill a single plane 9 times of 10 before he got >within gun range. Aw's ack commanded respect and skill to take >out.
Have you taken down a field in a fighter by yourself? Have you tried it in AH? It's not nearly as easy as you make it out to be.
In fact, I see more folks complaining about the uber ground ack than those contending it is not accurate enough....
>When I am coasting to a stop on the runway and the 190 dora >comes plowing in at 500mph, mashing the trigger, get the auto >ack on his butt at 5k out, or give me my guns.
Launching and landing buffs when enemy fighters are in the area presents a difficult challenge. Would enabled guns on the runway make this easier for the buff pilot? Sure, I am not arguing that at all. My point was, and still is, the side effects of that would make the rest of the game ridiculous in terms of playability.
-
I guess I have to concede this discussion to you. Since, today, the Rooks were down to 3 bases heavily vulched and deacked,
I upped a b17 form for defensive purposes. I lost 1 b17 on the ground but managed to get the other 2 up. I shot my way out of the vulch fest into the clear and climbed up to 10k. Kilt a cupple of glory seekers, and waited for more to come up and get me. I felt kind of bad arse when the spit and the pony broke off thier pursuit of me to go down and wait for a scrap to try to take off so they could get an unchallenged kill or maybe get a chute. I lost another bomber to an la7, but nailed his butt with my chin guns as he was posing at my 12 clk. Landed an undamaged b17 with 5 kills and 12 eggs at the VH of a friendly port. My only chance at a safe landing.
As far is landing and strafing nme airbases, its just a buff drivers opinion vs a fighters opinion, but I can guarantee I can clobber an airbase from 500ft far better than parked on the runway, assuming it has been deacked first.
Tonight I am going to try to deack an airbase with 1 fighter. I will post my result, and I will film it, althogh I dont know how to post attachemtns, I can email it to you. In return, you can try to deack and land a buff form at an nme airbase. I dont think you are overestimating the awsome power of a buff form, I just think that disabling guns for the reason that a buff may land and shoot up an airbase is not an accurate argument. It does not justify leaving a crippled bomber completely defenseless on the runway.
-
>Tonight I am going to try to deack an airbase with 1 fighter. I >will post my result, and I will film it, althogh I dont know how to >post attachemtns, I can email it to you. In return, you can try to >deack and land a buff form at an nme airbase. I dont think you >are overestimating the awsome power of a buff form, I just >think that disabling guns for the reason that a buff may land >and shoot up an airbase is not an accurate argument. It does >not justify leaving a crippled bomber completely defenseless on >the runway.
It is 100% accurate, because, for the 4th time, it used to be that way and the results were horrid. I'm not arguing a buff formation's ability to deack a field and land at it...you have not been paying attention to what I said!!
The issue with buff guns and bombs on the ground was the carbombing and instant "field ack" guns that buff formations provided at a field being attacked.
HT has changed bombing so that a bomb must travel 1000 feet before it is armed. This is in fact close to reality. Some bombs in WWII had little propellers on the nose that would spin when the bomb was released and thus arm the fuse. This is an effective, and realistic way, to do away with the car bombers.
As for the guns, the only thing that could be done was to shut them off when the buffs were on the ground. Otherwise, many people would up formations of buffs at the end of the runway and just sit there and start gunning. This is the problem that created so much hoopla when guns used to be armed at all times. Combine that with the frame rate robbing buff formations and the potential to crash the server and you get the idea. Imagine an airfield under attack, imagine 10-15 people all upping buff formations to sit at the end of the runway and gun from them. It's ridiculous. It was when guns were on all the time, and would still be now.
-
LOLOL did I read that right that AW's ack commanded respect ??
You have got to be joking AW's ack was a lot easier to take down than the ack here in AH. I know some people here find ack easy to remove on an AH field but not me, then again I'm no expert.
-
The only fix i can think of is one whereby with wheels down (or on the ground) bombs will not detonate (as we have now) and "fire all gun positions" will not function.........
ie only the gun you are at on the plane you are in will function.
Then each buff (or buff formation) has one and one only gun position that functions on the ground .
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
[B
The issue with buff guns and bombs on the ground was the carbombing and instant "field ack" guns that buff formations provided at a field being attacked.
HT has changed bombing so that a bomb must travel 1000 feet before it is armed. This is in fact close to reality. Some bombs in WWII had little propellers on the nose that would spin when the bomb was released and thus arm the fuse. This is an effective, and realistic way, to do away with the car bombers.
As for the guns, the only thing that could be done was to shut them off when the buffs were on the ground. Otherwise, many people would up formations of buffs at the end of the runway and just sit there and start gunning. This is the problem that created so much hoopla when guns used to be armed at all times. Combine that with the frame rate robbing buff formations and the potential to crash the server and you get the idea. Imagine an airfield under attack, imagine 10-15 people all upping buff formations to sit at the end of the runway and gun from them. It's ridiculous. It was when guns were on all the time, and would still be now. [/B]
Ok. Then we can start all over again
1. Disabling buff guns has nuthing to do with carbombing, does it? I have never advocated enabling bombs at ground level. This, I guess is necessary so the vulcher doesnt feel cheated when he zooms in for an unchallenged kill, only to be surprised by a big explosion.
2. The sight of 40 buff forms on the field scares YOU, not me. I can kill them with a bomb. If somebody is dumb enuff to try to strafe them, then they deserve to die. However, I concede to you, the server crashes and the frame rate hit would be a problem with this. I also refined my suggestion to disabling buff guns until takeoff, and then you have them until tower.
Now, no more frame rate or server crash problem.
No more carbombing problem.
I am saying that deacking and strafing an nme airbase with a buff form is possible, and some fool may even think that he is getting away with something by doing it. But what I said to you was,
IF..IF..IF.. you advocate disabling buff guns on the ground when landing because somebody might deack a field and land the buffs and then strafe the town, I challenge you to try it, aside from the strafing part, since the guns are disabled at landing too. In fact, if you are able to deack a field with a buff form, just fly above it at 500 feet and let the guns rip, then answer me this...Why would you want to land and strafe, when the 500ft strafe is 100 times more effective?
Q. I should have my guns when I land so I can defend myself from the maniac suicide speed freak vulcher who doesnt want me to land my 4 kills, 3 of which are him. He know I am defenseless on the ground and may decide to take advantage of that. Dont tell me I have to fly until he runs out of gas or I need to plan my attack better. My airplane is crippled and I cant make it any further. Do you agree or disagree that i should have my guns?
If you disagree, then why?
xbrit.. Iflew FR in air warrior and if you were trying to deack a base, then yes, it may have been easier, if you were vulching with ack up, you were a dead man after 2 pases.
Tilt, that is a good idea, but i am geting the feeling that 'vulcher protection' is the real order here, since all these supposed impossible situations that would result of 'guns enabled on the ground' can be fixed by killing the bomber hangars in preparation for base capture.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I also refined my suggestion to disabling buff guns until takeoff, and then you have them until tower.
And whats to stop someone taking off, circling, and then landing and acting as an ack battery?
-
Originally posted by BenDover
And whats to stop someone taking off, circling, and then landing and acting as an ack battery?
Ok BenDover, common sense?
but if that dont work
1. What stops them now from upping and floating at 200 ft for base defense?
2. If you can up a buff form without getting whacked, why not up a fighter? Or are you currently lobbying HTC to ban all fighters from upping until you are ready for another vulch?
3. Are you scared of a buff form on the ground? Dont try to vuclh them! Oh wait a minute, they are defensless, go ahead.
You see, you put up the most rediculous possibilities that have nothing to do with anything.
Whats to stop 20 buff forms from upping all at once and crashing the server? Whats to stop 300 fighters from upping all at once and causing lag? Whats to stop 400 vechicles from upping all at once and overloading the net?
I feel I should have guns to defend myself, you feel that would corrupt the game. Any arguemnt you can give me can be solved by killing the bomber hangars. I simply feel that this would be a more realistic and positive solution than the disable guns rule.
Decrease the number of bombers allowed on the runway, enable collisions on the runway, make a large airbase have 3 BH a med 2Bh and a small 1 BH, there are a number of solutions but dont strip a pilot of his guns.
I asked the question before to AKWarp, the only answer he gave was "because HiTech says so" That tells me that I am right, I am just over ruled by the boss. Maybe you can answer it Ben
"why is it impossible or rediculous to consider killing the Bomber hangars prior to the vuclh fest?"
-
Rediculous my arse.
I instantly came up with that scenerio, no doubt someone else would come up with that, then word would spread, and massive lameness would ensue.
You then say, "1. What stops them now from upping and floating at 200 ft for base defense?".
1. You don't float, you glide. Shooting from a moving platform is alot different than firing from a stationary one.
2. There's nothing stopping them.
3. You can ignore those bombers.
If you can't up a bomber, up a fighter.
If you can't up a fighter, get a GV.
If you can't get a GV, hop in a ground gun.
If you can't hop in a ground gun, TS, you should have defended the field better, up from another field.
If you have no other fields to up from, TS, you've lost the war.
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Rediculous my arse.
I instantly came up with that scenerio, no doubt someone else would come up with that, then word would spread, and massive lameness would ensue.
You then say, "1. What stops them now from upping and floating at 200 ft for base defense?".
1. You don't float, you glide. Shooting from a moving platform is alot different than firing from a stationary one.
2. There's nothing stopping them.
3. You can ignore those bombers.
If you can't up a bomber, up a fighter.
If you can't up a fighter, get a GV.
If you can't get a GV, hop in a ground gun.
If you can't hop in a ground gun, TS, you should have defended the field better, up from another field.
If you have no other fields to up from, TS, you've lost the war.
1. You havnt answered the question BenDover. You continue to babble endlessly about what could happen to the skilless vulcher
if there were bullets in the nme's guns.
Why is it better for the game, to disable a pilots and crews defensive armament, as opposed to require that the Bomber hangars be taken out in preparation for base capture?
Frame rate lag, servercrashes? Other?:eek: :eek:
-
To piss you off, I'm sorry I had to be the one to reveal the secret, but the 'no guns on the ground' was implamented just to piss you off.
-
Originally posted by BenDover
To piss you off, I'm sorry I had to be the one to reveal the secret, but the 'no guns on the ground' was implamented just to piss you off.
I am not pissed off :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Im not Im not:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Since the maproom was moved off the field I see no reason why bombers can't gun on the ground again.....
The carbombers and such all basically became obsolete when the maproom was moved off the base...
SKurj
-
>1. Disabling buff guns has nuthing to do with carbombing, does >it? I have never advocated enabling bombs at ground level. >This, I guess is necessary so the vulcher doesnt feel cheated >when he zooms in for an unchallenged kill, only to be surprised >by a big explosion.
Carbombing and ack gunning from the field were all tactics used when guns wer enabled all the time and bombs were armed the instant they were released. I never said you advocated carbombing, did I? I included it because it was the scenario we all faced at one time. Ack starring and carbombing were used togther.
>2. The sight of 40 buff forms on the field scares YOU, not me. I >can kill them with a bomb. If somebody is dumb enuff to try to >strafe them, then they deserve to die.
LOL! You know not what you speak of. I'm not scared of 40 buff formations on a field because if that happened, the server would probably crash. If it didn't, I certainly wouldn't go anywhere near it...and that's exactly the point being made here. Upping 40 buff formations to sit and protect a field is ridiculous. If it doesn't kill the server, it would kill the frame rates and completely stop any attack on the field. That's as one sided as it gets...oh wait, you, you like flying buffs, so I can see how YOU'D like this. If we are going to have such silly abilities, HT might as well make nukes for us all to carry too.
>However, I concede to you, the server crashes and the frame >rate hit would be a problem with this. I also refined my >suggestion to disabling buff guns until takeoff, and then you >have them until tower.
>Now, no more frame rate or server crash problem.
>No more carbombing problem.
Not a problem until 40 buff formations roll enough to to hop into the air and back down on runway and stop. VOILA, instant ack star.
>I am saying that deacking and strafing an nme airbase with a >buff form is possible, and some fool may even think that he is >getting away with something by doing it.
So label me a fool...I've deacked plenty of fields with a low flying buff before.
>But what I said to you was, IF..IF..IF.. you advocate disabling >buff guns on the ground when landing because somebody might >deack a field and land the buffs and then strafe the town, I >challenge you to try it, aside from the strafing part, since the >guns are disabled at landing too.
So what are you getting at here? I don't know why you bring this up, I never said anyhting about landing at an enemy base and playing ack star. I specifically addressed, and continue to address, the ack starring at friendly bases as a means of base protection and how crazy it was when we used to be able to do that.
>In fact, if you are able to deack a field with a buff form, just fly >above it at 500 feet and let the guns rip, then answer me >this...Why would you want to land and strafe, when the 500ft >strafe is 100 times more effective?
I don't know...you tell me, you are the one that keeps bringing this up as if it were one of my points of contention (which I never said anyhting about before).
>Q. I should have my guns when I land so I can defend myself >from the maniac suicide speed freak vulcher who doesnt want >me to land my 4 kills, 3 of which are him. He know I am >defenseless on the ground and may decide to take advantage >of that. Dont tell me I have to fly until he runs out of gas or I >need to plan my attack better. My airplane is crippled and I cant >make it any further. Do you agree or disagree that i should have >my guns?
>If you disagree, then why?
100% disagree. Why should the rest of the arena suffer because YOU want your guns on the ground when you are in a crippled buff?
What about crippled fighters trying to land? Afterall, it's not fair their guns can only shoot in one direction and are fixed. Why don't we make everyhting in the landing pattern invulnerable to bullets? It's not fair a fighter can take advantage of a low slow plane? Please. A lot of my deaths are the result of trying to land at a field where enemy fighters are present. It happens to everyone, not just to buffs.
>Tilt, that is a good idea, but i am geting the feeling that 'vulcher >protection' is the real order here, since all these supposed >impossible situations that would result of 'guns enabled on the >ground' can be fixed by killing the bomber hangars in >preparation for base capture.
BS! These are not "supposed" situations, they are fact, have been here in the past...anyone that's been here for a while can tell you that. Supposed my arse. This sounds more to me like a buff flyer whining than anyhting.
If the bomber hangars are so easy to kill before an attack, then go try it yourself. Wait, let's turn on guns on the ground first, then you go give it a try and see....
-
De-acking is what I was talking about in AW it was an easier task than here in AH, and yes if you did leave the ack up you did tend to end up back in the tower after a pass or two.
-
Originally posted by xbrit
De-acking is what I was talking about in AW it was an easier task than here in AH, and yes if you did leave the ack up you did tend to end up back in the tower after a pass or two.
You ended up in the tower? Damn I always ended up in the ready room or HQ (sorry couldnt resist). "easier" depends on what arena or timeframe you are talking about. They toyed with range and accuracy quite a bit. I prefer evading AH 37mm tracers to dying to a first or second salvo from AW proxie rounds. However I still like the ideas from fester and others about additional defensive gun types and positions.
KoolAid, have to agree it is stupid you cant defend your buff while landing, but appearntly that side effect bothers less people than the problem it cured. Personally, if it wasnt for the graphics problem, I could care less if guns were active on the ground.
-
picky picky picky !!!!
You meant what I knew !!
-
well, AKWarp has got a point there.
<-- agrees with him
-
Not one person has come up with a good reason to disable guns on buffs on the ground... in AH in its CURRENT form
All they would do is help defence against vulchers, their range is NOT enough to cover the town... so they would be useless at preventing captures.
SKurj
-
Just answer the question AKWarp. Why is it better for the game to disable buff guns on the ground, than to disable the bombers, using the tools provided within the game. eg kill the bomber hangars? (Dont talk about carbombing anymore, plz. It has nuthing to do with guns enabled or disabled on the runway.
Grasping for this as a reason only reinforces my belief that you are out of options.)
Server crashes would be a ligitamate explanation, lets disect this a bit..
First,w e have to assume that there are going to be massive quantities of people defending the particular airbase. So the 3 or 4 fighter kill vh, deack airbase vulcharama wouldnt inspire droves of people to defend it. It sure doesnt now anyhow. There are usually 5 or 6 minimun bases being attacked at any one time, and not to mention the offensive minded guys who never defend a base. Very unlikely.
Second, IF it did inspire droves of defenders, They would have to believe that sitting on the runway in a top turret of a buff gun is the pinnacle of defensive technology. By our hypothesis, we have droves of defenders, I think la7's and nikis and spits would prolly be the choice of most. At most, 2 gun stations would be effective from a buff on the ground.
Third, IF it did inspire massive quatnitites of defenders AND they all hopped in their favorite buff and parked on the runway, we could assume that they are trying to crash the server, which the guns enabled or disabled has nothing to do with. I dont know what country you fly for but I have never over heard anybody trying to plan a server crash.
I just think that your server crash thoery wont happen. WIll people park buffs on the runways at shoot at vulchers, yes.
And that is all that will happen.
-
Well, if someone can tell me how to post a film, I will display in graphic detail my side of the argument.
Upped 3 b17's, did a run into nme turf, bish homeland in the big isles. La7 ups to defend, I kill him, I kill the town, he ups again,
I kill him, he ups again cahsing me back to my base, I kill him.
he ups again, In the meantime a nme 110 kilt vh deacked base
when I thought i would try to sucker him into a fight, well, he fought and shot me up real good. I kilt the 110 eventually,
crash landed my buff on the runway, when I heard the roar of the la7. Guns a blazing, full speed ahead, he plows into me and kills me.
I can deal with a guy upping time and time again, I can deal with him doing suicide runs at my buff form with guns a blazing until he dies, and i could accept the suicide plow on the runway, except my guns are disabled and his arent. thats un fediddleing american. Gimme my guns so I can have a shot at these taliban fools.:mad:
In fact I just viewed the film, and AKWarp, here is a perfect example of how a carbomber operates. :mad:
-
Not true Skurj, launch 10 buff formations and taxi to the town. As long as a field is covered by lots of buff formation ack-stars, enemy fighters will up like crazy as well. It provides a very unrealistic and ridiculous means of covering a base.
-
>Just answer the question AKWarp. Why is it better for the game >to disable buff guns on the ground, than to disable the >bombers, using the tools provided within the game. eg kill the >bomber hangars? (Dont talk about carbombing anymore, plz. It >has nuthing to do with guns enabled or disabled on the runway.
>Grasping for this as a reason only reinforces my belief that you >are out of options.)
WTF are you talking about? Let me repeat what I said (for about the 10th time since you can't seem to grasp it)....I included carbombing because the previous incarnation if this ridiculous guns on the ground seting included that as well. Now, forget bombs, and let's talk only guns...
For yet the 5th or 6th time...having guns enabled on the ground will have extremely detrimental effects on the game for multiple reasons:
1. Huge amounts of buff formations will kill the server.
2. If the server doesn't die, then frame rates will be trashed.
3. Killing all the bomber hangars BEFORE buff formations up is not an option because the fields flash long in advance of an attack. Plenty of time for buff formations to up in the ackstar role (this is exactly what happened in the past when guns were enabled on the ground).
4. Buffs will also becaome a mass way to defend towns as well.
The whole notion of buff guns on the ground is not a viable option in the game, even in its current version, unless you jkust want to total absurdity in the game.
>Server crashes would be a ligitamate explanation, lets disect >this a bit..
>First,we have to assume that there are going to be massive >quantities of people defending the particular airbase. So the 3 >or 4 fighter kill vh, deack airbase vulcharama wouldnt inspire >droves of people to defend it.
This is pure conjecture on your part. Having played this game the time I have, I would wager that you'd be wrong in this case on many occasions, especially when a team is down to only a few bases....
> It sure doesnt now anyhow. There are usually 5 or 6 minimun >bases being attacked at any one time, and not to mention the >offensive minded guys who never defend a base. Very unlikely.
Regardless, it would happen more than you think (see reason above) and just the fact that it can happen is enough to turn off the buff guns on the ground. You obviously haven't been playing this game long enough to know that ANY sort of advantage any team can get in any way, shape or form will be utilized.
>Second, IF it did inspire droves of defenders, They would have >to believe that sitting on the runway in a top turret of a buff gun >is the pinnacle of defensive technology.
You've obviously never experienced the buffs on the ground defending then.
>By our hypothesis, we have droves of defenders, I think la7's >and nikis and spits would prolly be the choice of most. At most, >2 gun stations would be effective from a buff on the ground.
And with a large number of formations on the ground, including the reduced frame rates, the effectiveness is a lot better than you give it credit for. I have been here online when this happened in the past (have you?). It is far more effective than you think...not to mention ridiculous.
>Third, IF it did inspire massive quatnitites of defenders AND they >all hopped in their favorite buff and parked on the runway, we >could assume that they are trying to crash the server, which the >guns enabled or disabled has nothing to do with.
Huh? Yeah, let's all crash the server to save a field! LOL! You make silly assumptions....
>I dont know what country you fly for but I have never over >heard anybody trying to plan a server crash.
Exactly, and this kind of flies in the face of your carzy assumption above...
>I just think that your server crash thoery wont happen.
Think all you want, it has happened already.
> WIll people park buffs on the runways at shoot at vulchers, yes. And that is all that will happen.
And that's exactly the problem with turning on buff guns on the ground.
-
Well, if someone can tell me how to post a film, I will display in graphic detail my side of the argument.
Upped 3 b17's, did a run into nme turf, bish homeland in the big isles. La7 ups to defend, I kill him, I kill the town, he ups again,
I kill him, he ups again cahsing me back to my base, I kill him.
he ups again, In the meantime a nme 110 kilt vh deacked base
when I thought i would try to sucker him into a fight, well, he fought and shot me up real good. I kilt the 110 eventually,
crash landed my buff on the runway, when I heard the roar of the la7. Guns a blazing, full speed ahead, he plows into me and kills me.
I can deal with a guy upping time and time again, I can deal with him doing suicide runs at my buff form with guns a blazing until he dies, and i could accept the suicide plow on the runway, except my guns are disabled and his arent. thats un fediddleing american. Gimme my guns so I can have a shot at these taliban fools.
In fact I just viewed the film, and AKWarp, here is a perfect example of how a carbomber operates.
LOL! Get over it...it happens to everyone...and not just to buffs...it happens to crippled fighters too. Still a hell of a lot better option than having 35 freakin buffs sitting on a runway playing ackstar.
-
The biggest reason for disabling guns on Bombers that are in contact with the ground is the ackstar phenomenon. I don't see any reason why the guns should be disabled for a bomber that has left the ground and is returning. Obviously with some form of time check to make sure that the plane didn't just get wheels up and then skid to halt at the end of the runway. The main complaint here is getting blasted after a sortie by a maniac dodging field AAA while going for a defenseless target. If I want to fly a defenseless target I'll jump into a C47.
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
LOL! Get over it...it happens to everyone...and not just to buffs...it happens to crippled fighters too. Still a hell of a lot better option than having 35 freakin buffs sitting on a runway playing ackstar.
WOW..35 buffs sitting on the runway, and me overhead with 42000lbs of high explosives.
Question still stands, why is it better for the game to disable the buff guns on the runway instead of requiring an attacking force to kill the bomber hangars?
Thats my question.
Give me a scenario where 35 people would up buffs and sit on the runway.
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
Not true Skurj, launch 10 buff formations and taxi to the town. As long as a field is covered by lots of buff formation ack-stars, enemy fighters will up like crazy as well. It provides a very unrealistic and ridiculous means of covering a base.
+) lemme know how successfully you can get 1 formation of buffs to the town within lets say 5 mins...
(then try find 9 friends to do it with you...)
With alot of maps the terrain isn't level between the base and the town. Ok so why not land at the town? Not as simple as it may seem...
SKurj
-
hehe skurj, these guys come up some some goofy sht, dont they?:confused:
Somebody actually gonna try to bounce a buff form over to a town without crashing, or getting creamed:eek:
pahhleeeze
-
>WOW..35 buffs sitting on the runway, and me overhead with >42000lbs of high explosives.
Wow, and just imagine, the second they die (if you even manage to hit any of them with your bombs) they pop right back up in another buff.
>Question still stands, why is it better for the game to disable >the buff guns on the runway instead of requiring an attacking >force to kill the bomber hangars?
>Thats my question.
And the same one that's been answered over and over, yet you still don't seem to get it, or just can't comprehend what you read.
>Give me a scenario where 35 people would up buffs and sit on >the runway.
Helllooo, McFly........
>hehe skurj, these guys come up some some goofy sht, dont >they?
You're obviously a newbie here. You haven't been around long enough to see or "appreciate" the goofy sh*t that people do in this game.
>Somebody actually gonna try to bounce a buff form over to a >town without crashing, or getting creamed
>pahhleeeze
Absolutely. If we have ack-star buffs, and invisible planes at will (which actually happened in the past when someone figured out how to do it with a linksys router) and all sorts of goofy crap like that, someone will certainly figure out a way to land their ackstar buffs at a town. Hell, I can land a lancaster, undamaged, on a cv. Landing at or near a town ain't too difficult. Of course, you completely ignore the fact one doesn't have to land AT the town to be effective, or that some towns might not be accessible to the buff formations, but many will, etc, et al.
Either way, it's plainly obvious you just want to ignore the facts, buff guns are, and should be, disabled on the ground, so go right ahead and keep on about the buff guns. I'm done with this nonsense. For purposes of the game,
-
You assume that buffs are the pinacle of defensive technology.
Buff guns disabled protects 1 group nowadays, the vulchers.
Thats it.
Last saturday night, 21 b17's and at least 5 escorts upped simultaneaously from an airbase for a HQ raid. Sure, there was a lag, no server crash however.
You are stretching your theory wayyyy far to justify a rule that punishes the honest player.
You dont have to participate in this nonsense, but you still havnt answered the question...
Why is it better for the game to disable buff guns on the ground instead of requiring the attackers to consider killing the BH's before vulching?
If it is unrealistic to consider this kind of base prep, why not just put 1 BH per airbase?
Lets rule out the server crash theory, because thats not the reason HTC disabled the buff guns and thats not the reason they keep them disabled. And it would take a whole bunch of cheaters coordinated to cause this to happen. Im not saying its impossible, I just think if they were here to crash the servers, they would be doing it with multiple goon drops.
BTW, the big b17 raid i spoke of above again gained huge participation from both sides once the alarm was sounded.
Hoards of interceptors, escorts and gunners parked their nikis and spit5's and eagerly participated in a traditional ww2 air combat scenario. If more work were required to disabvle a bases defenses, we would see more of these kinds of missions. The
kill the vh, deack and vulch, would still happen, but iot wouldnt be the 99% of the norm.
-
to answer your original question :
Tell me again why....
A short answer is : because HTC wanted it THIS way.
A longuer answer is : to reduce te amount of whine and forbid carbombing and ackstarring
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
Not true Skurj, launch 10 buff formations and taxi to the town. As long as a field is covered by lots of buff formation ack-stars, enemy fighters will up like crazy as well. It provides a very unrealistic and ridiculous means of covering a base.
Kill the BH's before you vulch
-
Originally posted by straffo
to answer your original question :
A short answer is : because HTC wanted it THIS way.
A longuer answer is : to reduce te amount of whine and forbid carbombing and ackstarring
Kill the BH's before you vulch
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Kill the BH's before you vulch
Naaaaaaaaa... I prefer vulching the sorry bomber dweed to oblivion :p
After all the map room is at the town now not anymore on the field.
Were you in AH when it was the old field layout without town ?
-
Ah is far away from realism.
It can only be topped by divebombing levelbombers, carbombed by ackstarring buffs standing on the runway.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Naaaaaaaaa... I prefer vulching the sorry bomber dweed to oblivion :p
After all the map room is at the town now not anymore on the field.
Were you in AH when it was the old field layout without town ?
Yes..I just started, so i never saw what supposedly wil happen if buff guns are enabled. I too would like to vulch the buffs, but they wont come up, since they have no defensive armamnet on the ground!
-
Like Skurj said previously there is IMO no need to keep this limitation but there was a time were it was necessary to keep whine level acceptable :p
-
A Bomber with guns enabled would be a more powerful GV than a lot of "real" GV's. This also happened in Warbirds. People would land then taxi around a base destroying things with their guns.
Leave the guns off. Like killshooter it is a neccessary small evil to prevent greater evils.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
A Bomber with guns enabled would be a more powerful GV than a lot of "real" GV's. This also happened in Warbirds. People would land then taxi around a base destroying things with their guns.
Leave the guns off. Like killshooter it is a neccessary small evil to prevent greater evils.
Ya see, this is what amazes me. One guy argues that if the guns were enabled, people would sit on the runaway and kill attackers causing mass hysteria.
The other guy argues that people would land and shoot up bases because, of course, nobody is going to be sitting on the runway killing attackers.
Enable the guns, disable the bombers where appropriate.
it is a minor defect in the game, but all I ask for is a compromise.
As soon as my wheels hit the ground I am defenseless in a buff,
I wouldnt need any defense if it werent for the few who know damm well that i am defenselss on the ground and 'game the game' by comming in for a kill when i am limping down the runway trying to land safely.
Possible compromise, let me hit the tower button as soon as my guns become disabled.
Make me immune to any further damage as soon as My guns become disabled.
My guns become disabled unrealistically and magically, apparently to prevent all sorts of horrible things from transpiring.
Ok..fair enuff. Make the compromise.:eek:
-
1. Bombers in WW2 tried to launch from bases outside the range of enemy fighters. (your la7 wouldnt be able to kill your bomber on landing. if it was more realistic you wouldnt even try to take off or land when enemy planes are there)
2. Bombers didnt just appear at the end of runways with a full crew all happily firing off their guns and launch into an attacking force.
3. if you need your guns on launch YOU are flying unrealistically. Calling for realism here for guns but ignoring the glaring holes in realism we already have is absurd.
4. listen to the many replies from people wh had to fly with it like it was and just accept its very likely you would agree with them. Especially when you consider the diverse types of pilots in here who all agree it was silly as it was.
finally,,,,,,,,If we do go the realism way and add active guns for stationary bombers then for the sake of realism , may i ask for:
adding 'failures' for various bomber features...
Bombs getting hung-up in the bomb racks if a player attempts to drop the bombs whilst pulling excessive G or manouvering wildly.
Bombers to spawn in hangers and have to taxy to position for flight,
Gunners receive injuries to simulate frostbite or oxygen starvation when bombers fly high altitudes (26K +)
Gun Jams for prolonged bursts.
No slaving of all guns to one position but instead calculate each gun as having the average 1% to 10% hit rate they really had in those days, have good and bad skills for each of the ai gunners.
A better system for calculating injuries to crew members with more injuries to ball turrets or waiste/tail gunners, as it is AH rarely loses guns seperately from structural failures like tail loss.
better sun glare so fighters can use it to sneak in without being detected.
Gunners to lose the yards display below 1000 yards.
add extinguishers but also 'in aircraft' fires that players have to fight by pressing a button hehe :)
there that should put a dampner on the ack-star like guns on take off idea :p you know actually , i kinda like the sound of this lol ! ya cant win can ya :D
-
the question still remains. Why is it better for the game to strip anybody of thier defense for no other reason than to allow vulchers to vulch? Any problem described in this entire longwinded thread can be delt with by the attackers by disabling the bomber hangars before the vulch.
I'll answer the question for you.
HTC has decided that people dont want to be bothered with perpping an airbase for capture, they prolly dont even want to be bothered with capturaing the airbase, they just want an easy kill, or 2, or, 4 or 5, of more than race back to base for the headlines.
HTC has spoken.
I disagree, but am willing to admit, if I were a simple-minded, limited, not really interested in traditional ww2 combat situations,
I wouldnt want my vulch festivals ruined by defensive gun positions either.
You win, let the thread die.
I advoceate a compromise. Disable the bombers where appropriate, reduce the number of hangars on each airfield to 1,
so the f6f can kill the VH kill the BH deack the base and proceed to vuclh.
I just want my guns..., and gard dammit, after a 45 minute fricken mission, giving the simpletons pot shot after potshot at my buff form, killing the same guy 4 or 5 times as he leapforgs from base to base after each death, riding my rudder half the way home,cuz I got 2 engines shot out out, just trying to enjoy the thrill of a traditional ww2 mission,... i deserve them.
Hazed ive heard al of the arguments before, dont say I deserve to die. Give me my guns and lets see who deserves to die. Maybe me, maybe you. Certainly not you as long as you got your guns.
But, its like this, if you cant beat them, join them. And I intend to do just that.:D
-
Oh man, I'm gonna be shot for resurrecting this thread but I just have to say it...
I agree with ya 100% KoolAid ...oops, (damn you "murdr"!) I mean I agree with you "WhiteHawk".
And your idea to have guns enabled at 20mph or greater is a good one!
Why? Because then the only time a bombers guns could be used on the
ground would be during take-off. (Obviously a player could only switch to
their bombers gunner positions in auto-takeoff mode & travelling straight
down a runway).
Nobody would be able to taxi across a field and stop to be an ackstar
because their plane would HAVE to be moving 20mph+ before their guns
were enabled.
Also, nobody would switch to a gunner position while rolling across a field
because their plane would auto-pilot (or should I say auto-taxi?) into a
building,tree, slope etc. while they're firing their guns at incoming planes.
So, only on the obstruction-free airstrip during "auto-takeoff
enabled" take-off could a bombers guns be used to fend off in-
coming nme fighters... A restrictive compromise like that is better than
the way it is now IMO.