Somebody get Kranak a tissue......

[SmokinLoon]

Since the change in the icon ranges, I think I've been shot down by an unknown wirby once.  Once.

If people are having trouble comprehending or accepting the change, just remember that the allied players have comms, just like they real deal.  Icons make up for one of those things.

As I say to my 7 year old daughter: "no more drama, just accept it and carry on".   

[Tank-Ace]

You should understand that there is risk.  You act like the guys who up airplanes can just return to base at will.  You act like a perk fighter such as an Me262 or Tempest is immune to being shot down.

Every time somebody ups they risk losing, even if it is perked.

Here is what I would do:

1) Change friendly GV icons to match enemy GV icons as seen from aircraft.  This will help GVs a little bit even as an attacking aircraft wouldn't know if the tank they are lining up on is friendly or hostile until they are inside weapon's release range.
2) Set it so that GVs can only "land successfully" inside a vehicle hangar or if they are more than, say, 3,000 yards from an enemy GV or more than 1,000 yards from an aircraft.
3) Observe the resulting K/D ratios, usage levels and loss rates and adjust the perk costs of perk tanks as needed.

the issue is that GV's can't affect their odds of survival in battle unless the aircraft are being profoundly stupid. A tempest or a 262, on the other hand, should only die if luck isn't on his side as far as people taking 1.5k high angle deflection shots on them, or if they screw up.

Fact is that the 262 or tempest has a better than even chance against every plane in the game, and GV's don't, so the comparison is fundamentally flawed.


If I'm being stupid, and upping a Panther in the middle of a busy bomb-fest, then yes, I deserve to lose my perks. But if I up a panther in a GV fight, and a single aircraft shows up 5 minutes later, then I deserve a chance to survive that. If that means that theres some exploiting going on...... well, we should deal with that problem in particular.



I'd be fine with:

a modified version of #1, where friendly GV icons are reduced to 2k, and theres a generic 'GV' icon until 1000yds, regardless of if a Storch is present. Friendly aircraft should be more aware of where I'm at than the enemy is, and you shouldn't be able to pick out the high-priority targets at 2k. Its both fair and realistic.

That means that you would have to be in fairly close proximity to a flacker in order to be able to run to it, and that people will have to venture danger-close to unknown vehicles to get an ID on them.

#2 provided ranges are 6000yds and 1500 respectively.

[Karnak]

Nope, every time you up a Panther you might lose them.  End of story.  Perk costs would need to be adjusted as the stats right now are completely borked by the concrete sitters.

There are free aircraft that will pretty much mean a Spitfire Mk XIV's perk cost is gone if it meets that aircraft.  You have a vastly overrated sense of aircraft survivability and vastly underrate the survivability of tanks.

You need to man up and accept that sometimes you'll be bombed, sometimes those bombs will even kill you.

[USRanger]

a modified version of #1, where friendly GV icons are reduced to 2k, and theres a generic 'GV' icon until 1000yds

I like this.I don't know if any of you have done vehicle identifications at 1/2 mile or more with the naked eye, but I seriously doubt you could know which kind of GV you are seeing at that range.

A big +1 for a generic "GV" icon after a certain range.  I feel this would be a great addition to the game.  Make it a clipboard adjustable setting for changing during certain events & such.

[guncrasher]

The problem I have with the current icon settings is that cowardly aircraft can see their friendly Wirbels 6,000 yards out and run to them while the aircraft they are running from can't see the Wirbel until 600 yards.  Combined arms communications in WWII was not remotely that effective.

The solution, to me, is clear, just limit friendly GV icons in the same way that hostile GV icons are limited to aircraft.

there is nothing more fun in this game that shooting a guy doing ring-around-the-roses with friendly gv's.  almost as good as vulching a con taking off with full ack and about 20 gv's on the floor, it doesnt make it any better than that.  and karnak we have all ran to base ack or friendly gv's and that includes you .


semp

[Tank-Ace]

Nope, every time you up a Panther you might lose them.  End of story.  Perk costs would need to be adjusted as the stats right now are completely borked by the concrete sitters.

There are free aircraft that will pretty much mean a Spitfire Mk XIV's perk cost is gone if it meets that aircraft.  You have a vastly overrated sense of aircraft survivability and vastly underrate the survivability of tanks.

You need to man up and accept that sometimes you'll be bombed, sometimes those bombs will even kill you.

Yeah, MIGHT is the key word there. It should be the case that I might NOT lose them as well. Flackers give us a method to put some chance of survival for GV's into the mix without screwing around with the effectivness of bombs on GV's.

Either we need to:

1) make it like aircraft, where survival is also largely affected by YOUR skill, not just how well/luckily the enemy aims at you, or

2) completly redo the perk prices, to reflect an assumed loss of the vehicle, as thats basicly what happens whenever vehicles get used offensively.


Unless perked aircraft have the same RISK of loss as a roughly equivelantly perked tank when both are attacking, then something clearly isn't right.

[lyric1]

Simple answer to this icon change with GV's.

I too have stumbled on to the loan flacker that is sitting quietly engine off that I did not see while looking for him bang & off to the tower I go. Rather than change the icon & for those who are historically correct orientated.

How about this one thing I have read about in the past for Jabos who were looking for tanks to bomb & it was very easy to find them. Was tank tracks in the soil they followed them to the obvious end of finding said tank no matter what & they could be seen from a decent height.

So if a tank crosses terrain of green fields model in a period of time you can actually see his foot print.

I know the answer is to much for PCs to handle. Thought I would throw it out there anyway.

[Butcher]

Simple answer to this icon change with GV's.

I too have stumbled on to the loan flacker that is sitting quietly engine off that I did not see while looking for him bang & off to the tower I go. Rather than change the icon & for those who are historically correct orientated.

How about this one thing I have read about in the past for Jabos who were looking for tanks to bomb & it was very easy to find them. Was tank tracks in the soil they followed them to the obvious end of finding said tank no matter what & they could be seen from a decent height.

So if a tank crosses terrain of green fields model in a period of time you can actually see his foot print.

I know the answer is to much for PCs to handle. Thought I would throw it out there anyway.



(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Very interesting, we already have "track dirt" that spits up - when I am Jabo'ing I find tanks on the move quite easily due to this, given you better be zoomed in on a location and looking for it.

Really only thing out of this thread worth mentioning is fact Allied planes can see allied tanks from a far distance, allowing enemy's to run into a wirbl - this is kind of gaming the system.
I have never been shot down by a wirbl, since the patch - although I have shot down a few doing this - not necessary the allied running to me, but unsuspecting newbies flying at 1k above ground near a base.

So if you don't want to get shot down, stay at least 2k above ground and there wouldn't be any reason for this thread period.

Fail to follow the 2k rule, and you deserve to get shot down.

[Karnak]

Yeah, MIGHT is the key word there. It should be the case that I might NOT lose them as well. Flackers give us a method to put some chance of survival for GV's into the mix without screwing around with the effectivness of bombs on GV's.

Either we need to:

1) make it like aircraft, where survival is also largely affected by YOUR skill, not just how well/luckily the enemy aims at you, or

2) completly redo the perk prices, to reflect an assumed loss of the vehicle, as thats basicly what happens whenever vehicles get used offensively.


Unless perked aircraft have the same RISK of loss as a roughly equivelantly perked tank when both are attacking, then something clearly isn't right.

Currently perked aircraft are at a much higher risk of loss.

The system I described would give tanks a fighting chance to "land successfully" regardless.

One more thing, stop pretending that any airplane with a bomb means death to any tank.  Tanks do not suffer 100% losses to aircraft in AH.

[Delirium]

Fact is that the 262 or tempest has a better than even chance against every plane in the game, and GV's don't, so the comparison is fundamentally flawed.

No, it is reality. No, Aces High is actually worse than reality as aircraft are more numerous on average in AH and they can hunt with the biggest ord load they can carry. That doesn't mean the system is broken, tactical aircraft will always decimate the ground war, historically and even today. I'm sure the Iraqi tanks had the same whines when the Apache/A10s used them as fodder in light of complete air superiority in the area.

Instead of changing the nature of GVs ability to take damage, perk certain ord load outs instead or make the load outs depend on the number of ord bunkers at a field. Perhaps small fields only have a limited amount, or not the heavy loads while bigger fields may carry a greater variety and number of bombs. This could always be affected by the number of available ord bunkers at the field, but it is a good start.

Whining about survivability of aircraft when compared to tanks is completely 'apples and oranges'.

edit: I enjoy bombing GVs, usually in this order (perk tanks always first target);

1. Tanks on top of a mountain, particularly if it takes forever to drive there and it gives them a real advantage in the area.

2. Wirbels

3. M16s

4. Tanks shelling a field.

5. Tanks spawn camping

If your tank doesn't fit the above criteria, generally I don't bomb.

[Butcher]

No, it is reality. No, Aces High is actually worse than reality as aircraft are more numerous on average in AH and they can hunt with the biggest ord load they can carry. That doesn't mean the system is broken, tactical aircraft will always decimate the ground war, historically and even today. I'm sure the Iraqi tanks had the same whines when the Apache/A10s used them as fodder in light of complete air superiority in the area.

Instead of changing the nature GVs take damage, perk certain ord load outs instead or make the load outs depend on the number of ord bunkers at a field. Perhaps small fields only have a limited amount, or not the heavy loads while bigger fields may carry a greater variety and number of bombs. This could always be affected by the number of available ord bunkers at the field, but it is a good start.

Whining about survivability of aircraft when compared to tanks is completely 'apples and oranges'.

He doesn't quite understand the situation - again he hasn't played in so many months he hasn't seen the overall changes in game.

In a Panther - with the low ICON range, I control the battlefield now better then before, Jabo's can't see me - and I can free range and do my thing - the only time you get attacked if you sit in one position and don't move.

I generally have a few hundred sorties  and have had up to 3000 sorties in the past year, sometimes massing over 3,000 kills in a tour as well, so I know all about tanking enough to debunk these little "Arguments".

Ground vehicles can survive as long as the tactics employed are met.

A) Spawning into an enemy base you need to have air support, even 1 fighter is enough to discourage an il-2.
B) defending wise you need air support to maneuver safely without being harassed.

Either way you need air support to stay alive, I would say 60% of the time - unless you are some base a few sectors away from any airfields. The game is quite fine the way it is right now, as it is you need at least 3 times the attackers to take out the defenders.
Usually the only time I die in a panther is trying to stop a horde and I will go through a good 20+ tanks before bombed/killed. Given I only have so much room to maneuver based on the maps - it makes it much harder for attackers, however once the VH gets blown up and I die -
then its easy push to take a base.

[Tank-Ace]

OK, I feel we've gotten off topic.


From what little I've seen through film, it seems as though the reduced icon range has sufficiently eased the life of tankers. Even if its still out of their hands, things still aren't too bad.


However Flak runners might be exploiting the reduced icon range. Reducing icon range significantly for everyone will hurt teamwork, which is something nobody wants. Its a big part of what makes the game fun.


We have proposed solutions.

Lets start discussing them.

I'd be fine with:

a modified version of #1, where friendly GV icons are reduced to 2k, and theres a generic 'GV' icon until 1000yds, regardless of if a Storch is present. Friendly aircraft should be more aware of where I'm at than the enemy is, and you shouldn't be able to pick out the high-priority targets at 2k. Its both fair and realistic.

That means that you would have to be in fairly close proximity to a flacker in order to be able to run to it, and that people will have to venture danger-close to unknown vehicles to get an ID on them.

#2 provided ranges are 6000yds and 1500 respectively.

I'm stuck on #2. 6000 yds is probably too great of a distance to let GV's escape from aircraft if there is valid need to do so (not unlikely that, if you anywhere to a fight, theres a GV with 6k of you). 3000yds, on the other hand, will let tanks bail out of a fight at the first near miss.


Also, what about if I get tracked outside of the hanger? Even if I got tracked by someone beyond Karnak's proposed 3k limit, I can no longer tower out, as I've already been hit and it will be registered as a kill. Perhaps we could elminate that particular feature for GV's.

I mean really, just getting out of the danger zone was all of a landing that a GV needed. They could operate from anywhere if they had fuel and ammo, and one patch of forest is as good as the next for camoflauge.

[Ruah]

This is absurd.

Simply make friendly GV icons follow the same rules for aircraft as enemy GV icons do.  Presto.  No more running to Wirbels.

this

[icepac]

The C-47 can at least manuver against fighters; I've had 5 minute dogfights in C-47's before.

Zero base captures with the C47 tells me you were flying one in F3 mode to see cons before the storch showed up in game.

Got the film somewhere.

[B4Buster]

Somebody get Tank-Ace a tissue......