Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: sourkraut on October 10, 2001, 11:33:00 AM
-
Having a taste of no nme inflight radar dots due to a rather fortunate "bug", what do you say?
1. Eliminate all dots (in tower and in flight)
2. Eliminate con dots (in tower and in flight)
3. Eliminate all dots (in flight only)
4. Eliminate con dots (in flight only)
5. Keep dots
I vote #4
## Edit -
As of Bodhi's post (reply 83) the count as near as I can tell is:
0 votes for 1. Eliminate all dots (in tower and in flight)
1 vote for 2. Eliminate con dots (in tower and in flight)
12 votes for 3. Eliminate all dots (in flight only)
13 votes for 4. Eliminate con dots (in flight only)
26 votes for 5. Keep dots
Of course there were some alternatives proposed but it seems about 1/2 of us are for keeping the current system and 1/2 of us
are for making changes).
Sour
## End Edit
[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: sourkraut ]
-
Combat Theater, for the anal retentive radar options.
-SW
-
i vote number 5 today, but may change my mind later.
-
Keep Dots!!
They nicely represent the real info WW2 pilots often had for intercepts.
The ground countrol could say enemy AC at 20,000 feet, sector such and such, heading so and so, speed so and so, over this landmark and the pilots could find it nearly perfectly.
Plus in RL vision at high alts is very much longer than we see the black dots on our monitors.
-
5. Keep dots.
I like finding somebody to fight. :)
Lephturn
-
I vote for 4. Check dar in the tower, suit up and head out. Hire a mouse dweeb to sit in the tower and give ya con data :)
-
5.Keep 'em.
-
5. Keep the dots.
Just delay their update 30 seconds or so, to eliminate "dot SA".
-
4.
-
I pick 4 ;)
-
5
"If its not broke, dont fix it"
-
I vote #3 (no I'm not anal retentive, just think it's cool :) )
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
3
-
The MA dots are fine as they are. If you don't want your opponent to have in flight SA, bomb the hell out of his HQ. ;)
On a very interesting and unrelated side note, there's a video on at work right now talking about the best practices for use of email and the internet.
-
too bad you cant kill hq since it gets totally resupplied by a goonie bird within 5 minutes
i vote friendly dots only, ehichever option taht was.
-
I'd like 4, but with a twist. I know this is too much to ask for but what the hell.
All enemy dots within a specified distance of an allied base, town, radar station would be displayed in flight. (simulates those stations radioing target information to fighter command.
When an allied plane encounters an enemy plane that is out of base/town/radar range, the target is painted, and is displayed on all allied radars until allied fighter is shot down, or contact with enemy is lost (Simulates pilot calling in enemy positions)
All enemy planes out of allied base range, and not encountered by allied plane, or flying below radar, not displayed at all.
(Fog of War)
Sorry for the long post, but a man can dream.
-
5
-
Leave MA alone. Make changes for the "selective realism" crowd in CT.
Mav
-
No dots inflight map. Friend and Enemy dots in twr.
Sharky
-
Had this argument before, there's nothing realistic about artificially dumbing down radar.
If you want a more realistic form of radar, Popeye is on the right track.
Getting rid of dot dar is only to appease those that think this is WWI.
"What? You mean they had radar and radar operators in WWII?!?! I don't believe you!"
-SW
-
5 for the MA.
...and for all of those that felt it necessary to make snide remarks reguarding the CT (http://www.geocities.com/emotiondot/321.gif)
F= :mad:
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]
-
Man, that red X simply hurts me.
I figured no one would get offended if I called the CT the "Anal Retentive Arena"...
After all, I never see more than 4 people in it!
-SW
-
Keep the dots, If you want to change it make it to where the enemy dots can only be viewed if you are flying a goon. That way the goon driver who is more than likely going to get shot down anyway, will be acting as a radar operator if you like or AWAC, this way you have the best of both worlds. The fighters have to depend on someone else to warn them and the unprotected goon has some chance to alter his course in an attempt to survive.
Target #1 ab8aac out
-
The gamers hath spoken.
-
Achtung! Dweebfeur!
-SW
-
:D
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Leave MA alone. Make changes for the "selective realism" crowd in CT.
Mav
Since when is the MA NOT "selective realism"?
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
Hi Al,
If anything I say make the dar even better. This only in the tower stuff just doesn't make sense, WWII pilots did have radios and this is a flight sim not an air-traffic control sim. I think not only should the location of the cons be shown but also some indication of their altitude as well. After all, pilots in WWII were given a bit more than "Cons inbound somewhere over there" This goes for the CT as well. Apart from the historical matchup aspect I think the CT is even less realistic than the MA in this respect. With they AI ack opening up on enemy it makes sense for AI radar to keep us informed of their whereabouts.
TTFN
snafu
-
I agree with SW:
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Had this argument before, there's nothing realistic about artificially dumbing down radar.
I would however, like to add that there is also nothing realistic about artificially beefing up the radar either.
Originally posted by SWulfe:
"What? You mean they had radar and radar operators in WWII?!?! I don't believe you!"
-SW
Believe it! and ya know what else? They sat in control rooms and gave the info out over the radio( :p!! :eek:!!) to their friendlys in the planes.
Last time I checked, AWACS wasn't attached to spitfires and zekes. Wait, maybe I was reading the wrong source? Darn Librarian gave me a bad book. :(
And before anybody tries to label me the old tired *realism freak* or whatever. I'm speaking not from a realism angle, but actually a gameplay angle. With this new version, we have waaaay too much radar. Think about it.
So, I'm with my old buddy SW here when I say I vote #4. Nice compromise for the main arena IMHO.
:cool:
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
5
Moto_MOL
-
Come on SW, round 2 of SW vs. hblair in "Dar Wars!"
You'll never win!
I 0\/\/n 3w!
Bring it!
<cracks knuckles anticipating mucho typing>
(http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/freaky57.jpg)
-
3 ... bar dar suffices for knowing where the action is.
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
The gamers hath spoken.
Hit that nail right on the head!
I say eliminate the con bars completely.
Give Towers the Dots, and let us relay contact info via the radio. (Simulating Realism)
Sure would be a positive move toward TEAM play!
Nothing more effective than letting someone concentrate on Radar while someone else flys.
Hell, we still do that today with AWACS!
Annal retentive? OK, I can live with that. :)
Viper
-
I'm sure that if I whine loud enough I could get HTC to model a much better radar system that eliminates dot dar.
A text based system, now instead of just a dot it tells you exactly how many cons there are, where the cons are, what altitude the cons are at and in what direction they are heading.
Face it, dot dar gives us less information than what pilots had available to them while they were over friendly territory.
-SW
-
I vote #6- STOP THIS SILLY DEBATE
Talking about beating a dead horse. Please, let's not start this whole silly debate again. We've been 'round & 'round this topic. I don't care to dredge up and rehash all the arguments on this topic like a cow chewing on cud.
I think the experience of the CA should be enough to demonstrate the reality of removing dot dar vs. having it. The people have voted with their virtual feet and keeping dot dar wins.
Tango, Sargeant
-------------------------------------------
412 Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron
(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/brandor/images/412.gif)
Of all the things in the world, ask not that events should happen as you will,
but let your will be that events should happen as they do, and you will have peace.
-------Epictetus, Roman Stoic Philosopher-------
-
5 in the MA.
This ain't airport tycoon or such nonsense. This is aerial combat and in the MA, history is out the window.
Some of you suggest having dot dar in tower only and have someone sit there and relay the info. You gonna do it? Ain't seen any volunteers! Don't count on me being bored outta my skull just so someone else can find the enemy. :D
-
Originally posted by snafu:
Hi Al,
If anything I say make the dar even better. This only in the tower stuff just doesn't make sense, WWII pilots did have radios and this is a flight sim not an air-traffic control sim.
Yes, they did have radios...so do we! USE IT!
You seem confused, you DO NOT want an air traffic control sim?
I think not only should the location of the cons be shown but also some indication of their altitude as well. After all, pilots in WWII were given a bit more than "Cons inbound somewhere over there"
OK, you DO want an Air Traffic control sim?
This goes for the CT as well. Apart from the historical matchup aspect I think the CT is even less realistic than the MA in this respect. With they AI ack opening up on enemy it makes sense for AI radar to keep us informed of their whereabouts.
TTFN
snafu
OK, now you not only want and Air Traffic Control Sim, but you want AWACS?
:confused:
Radar in the 1940s didn't say much for altitude or have automatic updates to pilots. They had to have skilled opperators at the controls.
They had very little information on the size and type of aircraft, let alone the RED/Green for enemy/friendly.
In most cases, they didn't have ability to determine any sense of altitude.
It was also hard to distinguish between quantity and type. 4 Zero's in a tight formation looked just like 1 would. 10 Zeros could have been 2 bombers.
Oh by the way...they didn't have radar over every inch of the terrain either.
They had to relay information from scouts and recon sources. That took time. This makes our system of seeing radar counters more than 5 sectors away very unrealistic.
Viper
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Sky Viper ]
-
Originally posted by Apache:
5 in the MA.
This ain't airport tycoon or such nonsense. This is aerial combat and in the MA, history is out the window.
NO HISTORY? Cool...I need an F14, and a MIG 27! :/
Some of you suggest having dot dar in tower only and have someone sit there and relay the info. You gonna do it? Ain't seen any volunteers!
HAND!!!
HAND!!!
Oooh, I'll do it!
And guess what, you don't even have to pay me in points or perks!!!
See, I don't just get fun from shooting enemy down.
There is MUCH fun in being able to out think an enemy and join enough forces together to defeat an enemy!
That is why we have all this other toejam: Trains, Buffs, Cargo, GVs, Cities, Towns, Factories etc.
Strategy is more than knowing how to win the HO! ;)
Viper
-
keep 'em.
-
Who can argue the value of highly realistic dot dar that shows where planes are when they are inbetween mountain ranges and other obstacles.
Who can argue the highly realistic Awacs representation of play by play tracking of clearly identified Friend from Foe contacts via the inflight GPS map.
All these things were present back then, How could anyone NOT want this! I thought you guys were calling for realism. geez lou-eeze
:rolleyes: :D
-
Originally posted by dtango:
I think the experience of the CA should be enough to demonstrate the reality of removing dot dar vs. having it. The people have voted with their virtual feet and keeping dot dar wins.
The CT is empty because of the 'herd mentality' thing. It's not because of radar. There are more people in the main arena, so people tend to be more drawn to where the crowd is.
Did you see people complain the last couple days when the enemy dar bug was affecting the main arena? I actually heard a couple of fellas compliment HTC thinking it was a new feature. I thought it was a new feature myself.
-
rofl highflyer. No kidding.
-
I don’t advocate the elimination of all airborne radar queuing, but it definitely needs some attention. There needs to be a balance between insuring action but still requiring the pilot to exercise SA. Here’s my proposal for an option 6:
1) Ground dot radar would be available for all friendly and enemy aircraft within range, with the following caveat. With HQ up and undamaged, this ground radar would be allow you to see all contacts within range of any friendly radar site. With HQ down, it would only show contacts within range of the base you’re located at.
2) Air borne dot radar would only be available for those currently flying a mission; by that I mean the mission was planned, loaded and launched via the mission planner. To qualify for radar support, at least two pilots would have to be in the mission at launch time. This simulates that ground controllers generally only provided real-time guidance to groups of planes flying specific missions. They didn’t have time to give warning and vectors to every Joe who took off on a loan wolf mission. If you want radar support, you use the mission planner. This function would require a functioning HQ. The level of radar functionality would be based on HQ damage, just as it is now.
3) If you take off without requesting GCI support (i.e. without using the mission planner), you only get the old WB-style vector errors. This simulates that the GCI officers are busy helping people on important missions.
This idea would encourage people to use the mission planner and cooperate. Flame on, guys :).
-
3
-
What Dar....we have dar?
-
5,
but delete radar bar.
Mossie's low-alt HQ raid would be nice.
Mitsu
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Mitsu ]
-
SkyViper,
At least I can agree with you on the subject of Radar showing activity on the other side of the map. But I disagree with you on the accuracy of WWII radar. Yes what you say is true if talking about say the BOB theater but radar was suprisingly sophisticated towards the end of the war and AH has it's fair share of late war aircraft. Lets face it most fields did not have there own radar so perhaps we should position someone at the HQ as well as all the fields. then they can spend all their time relaying enemy info to each tower operator who can then in turn forward that info onto any planes in the locality. Pilots did not just jump into a plane and fly off on there own looking for a fight they flew in groups and were vectored to inbound enemy formations. The whole concept of the MA is to give people the possibily to "Jump straight in" and furball if they want to or to take a more strategic approach if flying with a squad etc. The MA doesn't always have 150+ people online, and when the numbers are low if you have to take even more out of the air to guide the lucky few to the fight it's gonna get pretty lonely up there.
I fully agree with the concept of tower only radar in Scenareo's and other organised events but for the MA (And that is what we were originally debating) anything which gives more precise information about the state of play can only be a good thing in my opinion.
TTFN
snafu
-
HB- My opinon is that one of the reasons the "herd" is not in the CA but in the MA is because it takes too much time to even find anyone in the CA. I believe part of the reason for that is due to the lack of having a dot dar.
Viper- you might want to check your facts on WW2 radar. http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010788)
- Altitude information was readily available
- An effective IFF system existed to distinguish friend and foe
- Radar operators could estimate quantity
We are not covering anything new under the sun here. All the points and counterpoints here have been retread over and over again even in the not too distant past.
Since everyone else is dragging out and dusting off their old arguments on all this I guess I will too :).
The idea of trying to argue the removal of the dot dar for the sake of "realism"- that's a totally preposterous idea as enumerated in the link above as well as for a number of other reasons.
As I have stated before, this is not a realism vs gaming issue, this is a gaming vs. gaming issue. And in my opinion the "herd" of AH pilots have voted with their feet.
Tango, Sargeant
-------------------------------------------
412 Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron
(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/brandor/images/412.gif)
Of all the things in the world, ask not that events should happen as you will,
but let your will be that events should happen as they do, and you will have peace.
-------Epictetus, Roman Stoic Philosopher-------
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: dtango ]
-
3
-
Dtango, the low numbers in the CT do not at all prove that a more realistic version of the AH radar would be unsuccessful. Too many other factors at work.
You forget that the radar is completely broken in the CT. No dot dar in flight, malfunctioning bar dar, and no dot dar in the tower.
And the strat is broken/disabled.
And the map is too big.
And there is a different planeset than the MA.
Dtango, your facts about radar were only true in limited areas during limited time periods. And WW2 pilots never had anything like the AWACS vertical situation display we have in AH.
Current AH radar never existed anywhere during WW2.
But having no radar whatsoever was common in many times and places in WW2.
That pretty much settles which one of those two extremes is more realistic.
The only preposterous notion is that the current AH radar adequately simulates that available to any pilot at any time during WWII.
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Yes, but I recall a lot of people saying that no matter what they would be in the combat theater.
Apparently all 0 of them..
-SW
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Leave MA alone. Make changes for the "selective realism" crowd in CT.
Mav
I agree fully, leave main arena alone
5 - keep them the way it is
-
i vote #5 kepp all dots i would be lost with out them :confused:
-
Who were those guys SW? I keep hearing claims like yours, but I don't remember actually seeing those posts.
[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
You can't be serious Funked.
RAM for starters, work your way down from there.
In fact, there was a whole thread in which several guys stepped forward about flying in the CT even if they were the only ones.
Search for CT, or Combat Theater or whatever the past buzz word was before the arena was created.
It might of mostly been LostWaffles though.
-SW
-
Did some searching. Note: Not all of the people in these threads promoted the arena.
Some even predicted it's demise.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004524 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004524) http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004595 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004595) http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005036 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005036) http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009720 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009720)
Here's a Poll for who wants an HA: http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009396 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009396)
-SW
-
4.
-
Funked:
I agree with you about the point on the current numbers in the CA doesn't necessarily prove a more realistic version of AH radar would not be successful.
Firsty however, I do think that it demonstrates a more fundamental issue and that is AH is a game and people come back to it because it is fun. Part of the fun is being able to actually find a fight. Again, in my opinion ONE reason for the low numbers of CT is the difficulty associated with finding a fight.
Secondly, arguing that removing the dot dar and even replacing it with some of the suggestions made thus far in the name of "realism" is ridiculous when the suggestions themselves have little bearing or resemblance to what "really" existed in WW2.
Thirdly, I have to disagree with you regarding your statement that having no radar whatsoever was common place in WW2. History does not support that. For instance- #1 the Japanese were the only major combatants that did not embrace radar early or mid-war- but everyone else did, #2 UK certainly was covered by Radar as early as '39-'40, #3 Fortress Europe was certainly covered by radar in '41 and the system was extremely sophisticated and provided very broad coverage by '43, #4 the rise of the Soviet VVS reached maturity in '43 when they they become proficient in using radar in aircombat management at the battle of Kursk, #5 US carrier air operations was based on having a CIC that directed air battles with the use of radars. Certainly these represent large theaters of operation across the world and doesn't support the case that a lack of radar was the norm.
Fourthly, I certainly don't claim that the MA radar simulates anything accurately. The reason that I believe it is there is to help keep AH fun by allowing folks to find fights much more easily.
I respect you and others who are argue the radar issue on the merit of game play (e.g. more immersion, more SA, etc., etc.), though I do differ in opinion on the consequences of implementing such a system. I just don't believe there is much merit in trying to argue the radar point in the banner of "realism" when a lot of the counter-suggestions are based in as much "realism" as the current MA radar.
But- as you've eloquently stated before - something like "If historians can't agree on history, it's no surprise that 'simmers' can't agree on 'realism' either". :)
Tango, Sargeant
-------------------------------------------
412 Braunco Mustang Fighter Squadron
(http://www.telusplanet.net/public/brandor/images/412.gif)
Of all the things in the world, ask not that events should happen as you will,
but let your will be that events should happen as they do, and you will have peace.
-------Epictetus, Roman Stoic Philosopher-------
-
Look guys, don't hand me this "find a fight" bull-oney. If person has trouble finding a fight in the mindanao terrain, he's probably using his mommas credit card to play the game anyway. Did any of you guys have trouble finding a fight the last few days when the bug was keeping enemy dot dar from working ?
I heard not one complaint. Does that or does that not tell ya anything?
-
Posted by Viper;
Yes, they did have radios...so do we! USE IT!
So Viper who will do the scouting for enemies in MA, who will sort all incoming enemy reports and relay this info to the sectors, who will organise fighter sweeps, who will man the "HQ" etc etc. Are you going to do that? Or are you just entering the MA and trying to have fun on your own leisure like many others? If you want that kind of realism you need structure and organisation of events during the war.
How often have people complained that they don't want other people to tell them what to do in the MA? E.g. not responding to calls about HQ being attacked or "HELP" A-whatever, it is under attack! Or not joining missions to get the advantage in the war?
Relaying of con info over radio only makes sense if people are willing to do that job, and if people are willing to listen to it and respond to it. In my oppinion that is not the case in the MA. Even if there would be a selective No. of players that would take that responsibility, what if they are not online?
I've played some (and organised some) big historic events in FA2 in the past. I think it only works in events where you have a good organisation of information gathering and distribution and structured and planned events on that information. That not being the case for the MA, I rather stick to the current system (although I think we can do without the con dot info, bar indicators are sufficient to see activity in a sector)
:)
-
I vote 1.08 r3, featuring dot radar bug, & King Tiger! :D
Cheers,
Pepe
-
5.
If I wanted to fly around for hours with nothing to do but listen to luftwhiners I'd be in the CT.
-
3. Eliminate all dots (in flight only)
tower only dots and inflight darbar
-
scratch that.
I want a 30 second delay on dot radar and darbar radar
-
3.
And I fly the CT...when it works again.
Ramjet
-
How many of you guys who are for enemy dot radar ever lead successful field capture missions in the main arena? How many of you have ever even used the mission planner at all ?
If you've led a successful field capture mission in the past week and are a proponant of enemy dot radar, raise your hand.
-
I planned allot of missions in my Bish time under callsign airecoil, some succesful some not succesful. Tried some mission planning flying Knits, but don't get the people to join. Concentrating on squad activities now (including base capture).
-
5 of course... some of us don't live on line and like to get into the best fight possible. the anal retentive can go screw up the CA.... all 6 of em.
lazs
-
4
But I would settle for 3 if it makes Lazs continue complaining like he always does.
:)
[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Mox ]
-
Originally posted by snafu:
SkyViper,
At least I can agree with you on the subject of Radar showing activity on the other side of the map. But I disagree with you on the accuracy of WWII radar. Yes what you say is true if talking about say the BOB theater but radar was suprisingly sophisticated towards the end of the war and AH has it's fair share of late war aircraft. Lets face it most fields did not have there own radar so perhaps we should position someone at the HQ as well as all the fields. then they can spend all their time relaying enemy info to each tower operator who can then in turn forward that info onto any planes in the locality. Pilots did not just jump into a plane and fly off on there own looking for a fight they flew in groups and were vectored to inbound enemy formations. The whole concept of the MA is to give people the possibily to "Jump straight in" and furball if they want to or to take a more strategic approach if flying with a squad etc. The MA doesn't always have 150+ people online, and when the numbers are low if you have to take even more out of the air to guide the lucky few to the fight it's gonna get pretty lonely up there.
I fully agree with the concept of tower only radar in Scenareo's and other organised events but for the MA (And that is what we were originally debating) anything which gives more precise information about the state of play can only be a good thing in my opinion.
TTFN
snafu
Wow, I would like to see some documentation on this "sophisticated" radar you speak of.
The fact is, even today's radar tells you little more than some hunk of metal is out there within range of it's beam.
Altitude, direction, plane type, etc. info comes from modern pulse code electronics that "talk" to each other when a plane comes in range of a radar site.
This is NOT technology that was around in the 1940-1945 era.
I don't see the current MA as being "Jump up and furball" designs. In fact if you look at how HTC has placed Bases at selective altitudes and locations you should see that they created a few areas where furballs will happen, but the majority of the design is toward strategic activity.
Further, the "Jump up and furball" concept requires NO in flight radar. If your in the tower and you see 2 huge radar bars...go there and you will be sure to find a furball.
Viper
-
Yea, I liked the 'bug'. Get rid of inflight enemy dots. #4
-
4
It would make bounces more correct if people dont look around. It would also enchance learning correct SA.
Also 4 instead of 3 because friendlies just dont communicate their positions here on the radio like they did in real. Lazsy buggers? .. dunno. Maybe most just dont know how to use the radio ;)
-
4 for me What i do is look at the dar in the tower if there is enemy aircraft two fields to the east i take off and head east never pulling up map in flight. last time i checked the Yak 9 did not have onboard radar.
-
#4
I have little problems finding the enemy- and they have little problems finding me. Not sure what the solution is but I would like to see more of an "element of surprise".
Too often the bandits know I am inbound and it just turns into a HO.
Radar with a 5 min delay/lag might work.
Anywho-great game.
:cool:
-
what ever it was before it is like it is today, I could only see friendly dots and enemy bar. When I saw a dot that was not on dar, I knew it was an enemy.
At least you had half a chance of sneaking up for a good bounce.
Today's setting is for the tards..
thank you :)
-
Uhmm, the CT isn't what the HA crowd wanted. The CT is nothing more than an Axis-Allied dueling arena using the ETO terrain. There isn't anything more to it than that. Most people who wanted a HA also enjoy the strategy aspect of the game. That's not present in the CT. Of course the anti-CT people won't acknowledge this, and still think it's what the "HA crowd" wanted, and that they're hypocrites for not playing there. I want a historic arena that's more than a furball arena. Last time I checked, there isn't one.
-
5 and we need altitude data!!!! radar in BOB could even supply that.
SKurj
-
We (AKs) captured 2 fields in less than an hour this week HBlair.
Oops.
-SW
-
Option 3 or 4!
I don't know why, I just don't like the number 5.
:)
-
* Inflight sector bars only.
There was absolutely no problem finding a fight when we accidentally lost the dot dar and had sector bars only. Accident it maybe, but I believe it did prove something.
While the past week when us Rooks were stuck at the Mindano South, we were successfully able to keep enemy attacks under control, even after being constantly under attack from both Knit and Bish(flew in all timezones recently. Rooks definately have few numbers this tour).
Only an organized - even in the most loose sense - attack could take our fields away. The element of surprise and high alt caps effectively worked in the tactical sense.
I was actually able to bounce and sneak attack planes, keep the attackers weary and alert. And even then, there were plenty of furballs for furball-lubbers to be satisfied.
After the con dot came back, "tactics" itself became obsolete. No point in taking a fighter up high and wreck havoc in the middle of enemy attack. And the sheer power of brute force furball was superior once more. Besides the fact that strategically impaired fellows kept stuffing hoardes of pilots into meaningless fights against Knits, this also put a big mark in recent Rook misery. No bounces, no surprises.. instant "SA" via dot dar. No matter how hard one tries to prepare a sneak counter attack against impending forces, it was useless. As long as dot dar points out where you are nothing can help 'win the fight' except sheer force by numbers.
Dot dar puts the word 'situational awareness' into misery.
-
I vote 3 + sector bars only 1 sector away from friendly radar.
-
ahhh niffty.... How is any of the 'strat' in AH "historical". The CT IS historical, right as it is, as fighters should not have anything to do with "strat" in a war. You don't want Historical.... U want "sorta historical planesets with gamed up strat elements".
first you remove all parity and variety by insisting on a "historical" planeset so that u can pretend to be a WWII fighter pilot... be "immersed" in the WWII experiance... then, because that is so boring.... you add gamey unrealistic and non historical strat to the game and pretend that it doesn't matter.
Never could figure you "historical" guys out.
And no... I don't want to sneak up on guys. I want to have in flight radar so that i can fly towards the dot's (gee, just like in WWII kinda). Sneaking up as a main objective is for pansies or those who can do nothing else.
lazs
-
4
-
I vote 5. Keep em there, I do not have time to spend chasing around to find the enemy. Cripes, this is not the real world, it is for fun.
-
inflight sector bars only... whatever number that is.
-
Well what do we have here.. HTC's own words:
" Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WWII air combat and sets it in an online high intensity environment "
Gosh, what did the creators themselves mean by 'art and science of vintage WWII air combat'? Any attempt of recreating this 'art and science' is a big 'pretend' anyways, as long as we are not actual pilots flying an actual plane, ain't it?
It just happens us 'historical' people can't figure you 'mocking birds' out, too. Laughing, mocking at the first sight of the words 'history', 'strat', and 'immersion'.
Well, if those words are something that has to do nothing with the whole 'air combat simulation' genre(the typical 'hey, this is a WWII air combat sim, not a WWII sim' riff), why do you people play this game anyways?
Of all the on-line games which allow shooting contenders at first sight, why AH?
-
Fighters affected strat with not small success. Fighters attacked convoys, both land and sea, trains, railyards, fuel dups, airfields etc etc
SKurj
-
Is that so skurj? so... they did what again? "attacked" stuff on the ground? They what, captured railyards, flattened cities and captured airfields? Sheesh... admit it, they never knew how much effect they were having. They were just shooting stuff up. You want to have a "historical" arena in planeset only.... You want to then add a bunch of gamey and highly non-historical "capture the flag" elements to give you board game like "goals"...
The worst of both worlds.
And it's 5... the rest of you guys go out and get some fresh air on occassion... re-introduce yourselves to the family.... go join a war re-enactment group. It's a game! It needs to have parity and variety and ACTION. For everyone.
lazs
[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]
-
4
-
Well, it's happened.
I never ever thought it would, but it has.
I concur with Laz...it needs to be fun for everyone.
Well said Laz, ya turnfightin girlscout!
:)
BTW....I vote leave it as it is...not what I would like personally, but it does promote the best gameplay.
[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Rude ]
-
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
oops, I voted more than once, sorry
-
I like dots. Dweebery is kewl when yer onna time budget. Besides, I like hunting dots in clouds. Pisses the clever beggers off, generates many ch100 whines. :)
Oh, and hey while we're on the subject; who ever heard of a HQ equipped with a radar factory yet it's without a freakin workin radar? Union Shops???
Leave the inflight dots, just remove the bar dar for low dots and GV's.
-
3 !
Czpetr
-
rude.... comon now... admit it... you agree with every word I have ever said including my helpful character assesments of yourself.
lazs
-
5.
I'm sure it really frustrates everyone to have their plane located by radar at ranges of up to 12 miles from a radar installation, but I fail to see how that is inaccurate for a WWII sim.