Idea discussed at the con.

[Squire]

A few minutes wont make a bigg difference. They will just auger in after 5 minutes then, and re-roll.

Need to have some requirement to land back at a base with at least one a/c intact.

How about the damage caused by formation bombers be only 1/3 if they dont rtb to a base? and full damage if they do? If you want the Lanc bombload fine, but they have to know that if they go on a suicide run or auger, that much of the damge they do will be repaired.

Same for suicide Jabos. If you rtb, full damage, if you dont then 1/2 the damage you did is fixed. Die within X many minutes no damage.

Will cut back on the endless Kamikaze lemmings we see. Zoom, strafe, splat, repeat.

"he's saying that porkers need to think about getting home if they want full effect. That seems reasonable to me."

Me 2.

[GunnerCAF]

Hmmm, seems like the "don't die" thing is much easier to understand then the 6 part wall of text.  But I could be wrong.

[Vudak]

Not to be rude, but I see this as, essentially, a stop-gap, half-hearted attempt to address one of the problems in the MA.  I don't think it is the best way to go about doing this.

I appreciate that you are trying to address this problem, HiTech, but in my honest opinion, this solution is nothing but the above.

What I really like are Widewing's suggestions.  However, his suggestions look like a real pain in the butt to code.  It would take time, which you probably do not have right now.  But rest assured, it would make the game very much better.  Not only would divebombing lancs be ended, but suiciding would at least also have to take less weighty bombs to not suffer a penalty, AND CVs would be less vulnerable to heavy bombers, and more vulnerable to dive and torpedo bombers.  Perhaps they would see more use.  They would certainly be more useful.

This all would certainly take a lot of time and a lot of work to implement (I think you said adding perks to ordinance is especially a pain in the butt).  But I'm positive it is the best proposal in this thread.  It is all expansive and covers most bases.  

I'm willing to wait for it.  I can put up with the suiciding and the divebombing lancs for awhile longer.  I've been doing it all this time.  What's another year or so?

About the only thing I can assure you about the proposal you outlined, is that these boards, the TA, and the MA, are going to be jam full of people who can't figure the details out, asking the same question over and over again.  And it doesn't sound like the easiest one to explain.  I had to read it a few times to get it myself.

I think this is one of those situations where it would be better to save your money to buy a reliable car then blow what you have at the moment to get a possible lemon.

No offense meant by this.

[ghi]

Originally posted by MOIL


The Ostwind, while somewhat effective in the AA dept is no match for such attackers. The complaint about why fields should never have veh's such as the Wirbelwind, 88's, 5" guns, Bofors 40mm's and twin & quad 20mm is borderline hilarious.
The attacker can shoot my turret out with HIS multi-gun 20 & 30mm cannons, rocket pods and bombs and I get to shoot back with a single 37mm slower firing gun????

my 2 cents

   I agree,
 the AA defence needs a tune up, and is more imoptant than bombing
  the bases have no AA defence, all this vulching and pick up at the end of the runway are ridiculos,
  I can go alone, eassy  over a base in a Typhoon, kill vh, all acs , and vulch until run out of amo,/juice.  Who was the super Chuck Noris pilot to do this kind of stunts in WW2?
 
  Those 20mm autoguns/ the auto 88  have very slow rate of fire/weak damage efect, blow up with 1 x 20mm shell,are set  just useles droping the frame rate

[Kev367th]

Why stop at strats/hangers?

Why shouldn't GVs benefit from the same "protection" from dive bombing Lancs and suicide Jabos?

You dive bomb your Lancs on my GV and dont last longer than 2 mins my GV reappears, death is wiped from the record, ditto for suicide jabos.

Whats good for one part of the game, is good for another.

No idea why people keep referring to "in real life".
IRL a guy wouldn't sit behind a box of buffs with a pilot wound, engine smoking, bits coming off his plane etc etc just for the all important one kill.

IRL a guy in a burning plane wouldn't be flying around still trying to get kills, more likely bailing out.

So here my big problem with the proposed solution -
It makes A SINGLE aspect of the game wholly dependent on you staying alive, yet ignores other situations were the same would be relevant.

The solution IMO is to add another manned ack to the field close to the strats ( 2 are grouped on most fields) and give all manned ack proximity fuzes.

[Cr0ssEye]

I like the idea of doing something. I know nothing will be perfect so I would be willing to compromise....what about the rest of you.

Hitech,
 If all planes that were on the ground were treated as proxies it would make a difference in the vulching and some of the shade scorers. the planes would have to be airborne to count as a scored kill.  players could still cap a base for capture with no bad effects but it would deter players who set up vulches for scoring purposes. Just a thought. I know some may think this would not change anything but I have seen minute changes have big effects before.

[timid]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
How about making it so level bombers can no longer dive bomb by putting an angle limiter?


ack-ack

/signed

[MOIL]

kev367:
"The solution IMO is to add another manned ack to the field close to the strats ( 2 are grouped on most fields) and give all manned ack proximity fuzes"

That's a start, but lets make it "somewhat" fair. To only add ONE more manned ack at a field is like adding a 30cal to the M3.

There should be XX amount of guns on a field based on it's size and all gun positions should be manable. That way if no one mans the guns then you have less of a chance to defend yourself/base.

Large field = 4 40mm Bofors guns, can be twin or quad mounts, 6-8 37mm mounts, 8-10  multi-barrel 20mm mounts, 2 5" guns and 1-3 88's or equivelant. We should also have towable/deployable multi-barrel AA guns.
Then scaled back on gun mounts for Med & Sml fields. Ports already have a ton of ack, but you can only man ONE 37mm gun on the dock????
This IMO is ludicrus, an important base in the game, yet once VH is down & the single gun is killed you have no way to defend it.

De-acking a field or trying to take down resources should (and was in ww2) extremely dangerous. I read in one of my ww2 books that the Jabo attack pilot had one of the most stressful & danderous jobs. Now I could be wrong because I'm not a plane/pilot guru like some in here, but would make sense to me.

My 2 cents

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Cr0ssEye
I like the idea of doing something. I know nothing will be perfect so I would be willing to compromise....what about the rest of you.

I'm not against compromise I'm just saying I don't think that this is a problem that needs to be fixed immediately.  Especially not if the only way it can be fixed immediately is with the (IMO) lesser of the suggested changes.

I'm willing to wait for something more indepth like Widewing suggested (maybe compromised a bit) and just deal with the current situation as is for awhile longer.

Now if this were to go in effect I wouldn't complain about it persay, but I'd certainly hope that after CT and whatnot was finished up this issue would be revisited with a more time/coding-intensive solution.

I'm just saying that I do feel as though this is a stop-gap partial solution to some pretty interlinked problems and although you could knock a few down with this solution, if you're going to go and change it later anyway to something better, might as well just leave it as is right now and maybe devote the time it would take to code this now into thinking about how to code something more complex at a later date.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by MOIL
kev367:
"The solution IMO is to add another manned ack to the field close to the strats ( 2 are grouped on most fields) and give all manned ack proximity fuzes"

That's a start, but lets make it "somewhat" fair. To only add ONE more manned ack at a field is like adding a 30cal to the M3.

There should be XX amount of guns on a field based on it's size and all gun positions should be manable. That way if no one mans the guns then you have less of a chance to defend yourself/base.

Large field = 4 40mm Bofors guns, can be twin or quad mounts, 6-8 37mm mounts, 8-10  multi-barrel 20mm mounts, 2 5" guns and 1-3 88's or equivelant. We should also have towable/deployable multi-barrel AA guns.
Then scaled back on gun mounts for Med & Sml fields. Ports already have a ton of ack, but you can only man ONE 37mm gun on the dock????
This IMO is ludicrus, an important base in the game, yet once VH is down & the single gun is killed you have no way to defend it.

De-acking a field or trying to take down resources should (and was in ww2) extremely dangerous. I read in one of my ww2 books that the Jabo attack pilot had one of the most stressful & danderous jobs. Now I could be wrong because I'm not a plane/pilot guru like some in here, but would make sense to me.

My 2 cents

CC Moil totally agree.
A timer is just ignoring the fact the problem really isn't pork/auger, but the fact the fields are so pitifully defended.

Hell the choo choo train of death is worse than the small/medium fields.

[MOIL]

kev:
"Hell the choo choo train of death is worse than the small/medium fields"
Hahahahahahahaha:rofl

You're killin me Smalls!!

[ozrocker]

I think it's moving to gamey. IMO one of the best features in AH1 was, pork the fuel, limit the strat attacks. But then again, many tears came from that feature too. I believe many people will whine even more. I don't think pilot's lives should be a part of it.
                            Oz

[NHawk]

Originally posted by Widewing
.....4) Bombers designed for level bombing should only have bombs released by the bombardier, not the pilot. Only the bombardier should be able to open the bomb bay doors while in flight......

This has got to be the best idea I've heard in a long time. It totally eliminates the dive bombing/suicide runs and doesn't require an arbitrary angle to limit angle of attack.

[APDrone]

Ok, here's an example of poor planning, SA, and just plain bad luck.

Though, had this occured in the MA, only one set of buffs would be destroyed ( assuming you get killshooter with bombs ), the new proposal would render that damage moot.

I'm ok with that.  We should have been more careful.  

Just some of the Thrills we get to enjoy in the Squad Operations series of our Special Events. ( Shameless plug )

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181904

[jamesdeanoo7]

Can I just ask why you would even want to alter this ??? Personally I think if you struggle in unescorted buffs for the long time it takes to hit a target and then return safely they should be down longer. In reality bases and convoys would have fighter cap to stop incoming buffs along way out. The fact that most players in here are not prepared to fly a tactical defence mission and cap fields at altitude  making it difficult to hit suggests that most people arent interested in their bases or task groups. I am not saying they should be, just being honest. If you want to change anything make flying buffs a reasonable proposition by giving them a realistic perk score for a successful mission and supply a decent perk bomber to use their perk points on. Flying for an hour or so to hit a target and return for 5 points or less is madness. I guess this game was originally set up for fighters with little thought for anything else unfortunately what you set up and what has evolved may not be the same thing. You have a large number of players in here now that spend most of their time doing everything else and very litttle in fighters. This game has grown and could get larger If you want it too but I just feel you should spend a little more time thinking outside of fighters.