• Announcements

    • BLKHWK8

      Squad vs Squad Battle for Notre Dame Postponed   08/03/2018

      The event for this weekend will be postponed... We have not been able to get a solid commitment to run the event. I will be posting a poll to select a better date and time. Poll:    Welcome back our Squad vs Squad events. Please check out the forum post here   
dre21

AFFMS

69 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, madrebel said:

then make the source vulnerable first. now mobile AFs actually matter as you might be able to hide them and use them either to better attack opposition AFs and AOs or use them as defense for your own AFs. mobile fields are a cool idea in search of a problem. vulnerable home bases are a problem mobile AFs can solve.

Didn't I say that all along ? I know I did .

Make AF a Target that's worth attacking and Mobile AF are actually of use . 

I know I said something along that line. But when you bring up destroyable AF , via taking stuff out of the Spawn pool then some guys go on a rampage hissy fit cause heaven for bit Fighters would actually patrol the Air space in search and destroy missions. We rather lawnmow Trucks and Inf leaving FBS .

I know there is a compromise that all this could work .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, madrebel said:

then make the source vulnerable first. now mobile AFs actually matter as you might be able to hide them and use them either to better attack opposition AFs and AOs or use them as defense for your own AFs. mobile fields are a cool idea in search of a problem. vulnerable home bases are a problem mobile AFs can solve.

I understand your logic. Again, we both agree that All AFs should be destroyable. But, that was not the topic of this thread. it was about mobile AFs...

 

And actually trust me, there is a stage in the middle of the map where very few fly. Because they are lazy and because there are few AFs in that area. All pilots know what I am talking about. I, and some others, lift, no matter how far the target is. But the reality is that the 'modern' player, wether we like it or not, does NOT have this mentality. They are used to get to action fast. So, mobile AFs could actually serve an important purpose, in activating an otherwise dead area on the map, airwise. If you dont know which are I am talking about, I can dig it up and post screenshots.

Edited by bogol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That area as I recall is missing like 4 air fields that existed IRL. There were a lot more smallish airfields than what we currently have and places like antwerp and brussels are tiny compared to what they actually were. again, mobile airfields isn't the right answer to that problem. getting the historic simulation more accurate especially when reality includes more in this example has to be the right answer.

 

we have two 'air fields' btw but only one is used on the game map. the one from training IMO should be used in places like antwerp. then add more of the existing everywhere that had them.

now make them bombable. does it cause any problems? if it does then you tune the numbers, if that doesn't work, now air field PPOs have a problem they can solve.

 

also, why after years do we continue to cater towards the presumed 'modern' player that doesn't actually play this game? again, we used to have a very healthy community of simulation leaning game players. we're still the only fluid 24/7 persistent online war that has the ability to offer organic roaming PvP conflict. Why then must all aspects of this game conform to the same goals? Navy for instance can NEVER have time to combat like say infantry on defense. spawn in, boom, you're there. in a boat you have to drive for, in some cases, literally hours.

It might be a good time to ask ourselves that question in relation to the airwar. This game offers unique combat that can attract more simulation oriented pilots - like we used to have. Granted, we fall well short of 'full sim' for those purists but even many of those guys used to fly in this game, because we were in fact, different. 

 

Dumbing down the airwar hasn't seemed to attract numbers to said airwar - attempting to go even further towards casual ... to  me misses the mark. if instead we focus on what we do well, i bet we pull people away from warthunder, get old guys back, etc. none of the competing flight sims at present are all that great from an online perspective - imo. i think we ought to consider moving the airwar back towards the simulation bias and away from casual. focus casual efforts on infantry and tanks. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, madrebel said:

Dumbing down the airwar hasn't seemed to attract numbers to said airwar - attempting to go even further towards casual ... to  me misses the mark. if instead we focus on what we do well, i bet we pull people away from warthunder, get old guys back, etc. none of the competing flight sims at present are all that great from an online perspective - imo. i think we ought to consider moving the airwar back towards the simulation bias and away from casual. focus casual efforts on infantry and tanks. IMO.

I was not saying that mobile AFs have the primary focus to cater towards 'modern' player. Although, at some point, we might ask ourselves, as we get older and replaced. Should the game adapt with the times or not? But again, that is a completely different discussion, and I dont think the answer is a simple yes or no. So lets put a pin on that.  I do not see how placing mobile AFs, which is what actually happened in the real war is moving the airwar away from simulation.  If anything, quite the contrary. If a pilot wants to fly on the deck, they can lift 10000 squares away and still end up on the deck. Its not distance to the frontline that creates gameplay at altitude, although it helps. I can lift in the SAME square at the target, and if I want to, and need to I will end up at target at 3+km. Its after all a 3D virtual reality, I am not forced to go on the shortest path to action.  Moreover, if you make them vulnerable to attacks from bombers, you bet those bombers will not come in at 1km alt. They would get blasted if they do. So the defenders would have to scramble and fight at altitude as well. And strategically one would like to place the mobile AF somewhat away from frontline, such that defenders can scramble once AWS kicks in. 

Mobile AFs could create a new type of scenario for air play, one that this game has not seen yet, and one that in my opinion, has the potential of having a positive impact on the game overall. AS with all gedanken experiments, they can go only that far. Only if implemented in reality we will now for sure. 

I am surprised that nobody commented yet on my idea to allow one mobile AF to be placed by the Air Squad with the most active members(or even better the most air kills)  in the previous campaign. Maybe not restrict spawning to members of that squad, that would be too limiting, but have some visible decal on the hangars that identifies said squadron, or something similar. I really think that would encourage squads to grow larger instead of fragmenting, as they used to. Also it would encourage healthy competition among squadrons, which is really lacking now. 

Edited by bogol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bogol said:

Absolutely not. This type of balance changing PPO (if we are still talking about mobile AFs) need to require coordination between players to place. 

At least 3-4 Trucks and maybe a few engineers. Also, one side should not be able to have more than a limited number of such AFs at any given time on the map. Maybe 3? 

Also, the air Squad with most ACTIVE members each side would be allowed to place one, where only the members of the squadron can spawn from. That would really foster healthy competition between squads, and discourage fragmentation. Which is what led to LW being in shambles today.

HC must decide its place and I would limit it around rear fbs only. 

If you want engineers and trucks to move up there and finish the construction, why not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In lieu of bombable airfields we could just do away with AF flak. Maybe keep one as a beacon. Maybe keep AAA. That’ll flock pilots to airfields instead of (only) AO towns and FBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bmbm said:

In lieu of bombable airfields we could just do away with AF flak. Maybe keep one as a beacon. Maybe keep AAA. That’ll flock pilots to airfields instead of (only) AO towns and FBs.

It would lead to Vulching and people moaning and quitting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zebbeee said:

HC must decide its place and I would limit it around rear fbs only. 

If you want engineers and trucks to move up there and finish the construction, why not.

 This game was at its best when squads actually had a say in game. Squads is what makes a MMO immersive, not HCs... Give squads a sense of meaning again and you will see the numbers increase in game. 

Give HC another reason for the PB to [censored] about them and yet another task, and you will see the opposite.

 

Edited by bogol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bogol said:

It would lead to Vulching and people moaning and quitting. 

Yes, much as the virtually undefended ppo would. Now we have grunts moaning and quitting at the AO instead. 

Less flak would require local CAP over the AF and ops from rear fields instead, as in the old days. It also promoted more AF vs AF fights, longer flights with interception opportunity in between and generally speaking a more diverse air war. And as always you can roll your own AA at the AF. What’s not to like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bmbm said:

Yes, much as the virtually undefended ppo would. Now we have grunts moaning and quitting at the AO instead. 

Less flak would require local CAP over the AF and ops from rear fields instead, as in the old days. It also promoted more AF vs AF fights, longer flights with interception opportunity in between and generally speaking a more diverse air war. And as always you can roll your own AA at the AF. What’s not to like?

I like this. But need an air ews 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bmbm said:

Yes, much as the virtually undefended ppo would. Now we have grunts moaning and quitting at the AO instead. 

Less flak would require local CAP over the AF and ops from rear fields instead, as in the old days. It also promoted more AF vs AF fights, longer flights with interception opportunity in between and generally speaking a more diverse air war. And as always you can roll your own AA at the AF. What’s not to like?

The AF PPO would NOT be the only choice to lift from. Defenders could lift from regular AFs nearby to eliminate the Vulchers at the mobile strip AF. Why do you have to deflect the discussion in another direction? We are talking here about AF PPOs not about the toning down of AF flack guns. While per se that is not a bad idea, I still think the regular AFs should have some serious AA guns to take care of potential vulchers. The way it is now, seems OK to me, I dont really see a reason to change it drastically.  

Are you  suggesting that exactly the same gameplay that mobile AFs would lead to can be  achieved with toning down AA at large AFs without the need to implement mobile AFs? If so,  I disagree.  I think mobile AFs adds more layers to the game, and if implemented in such a way to tie it to squadron growth, as I suggested before, could have a great positive effect on the game.  Really, imagine your squad being rewarded for excellence in the past campaign by essentially being able to place an AF on the map and call it their base. And competitor squadrons on the other side, of course would target that base, just because thats what foes do... Now thats some rivalry right there, that this game has not seen in years...

Edited by bogol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bmbm said:

In lieu of bombable airfields we could just do away with AF flak. Maybe keep one as a beacon. Maybe keep AAA. That’ll flock pilots to airfields instead of (only) AO towns and FBs.

No. Don't take stuff out ,add new stuff , why do you think I propose Bombable AF and Docks.  This game has neglected the Bomber Pilot way to long . So much potential so underused . 

All that stuff is way over due , if we would have had all that and the RDP factor in game where the tiers get delayed because Factories are out of commission , docks and AF destroyable , plus Bridges that don't need an AO 1st ,I think the Air war would be Healthy and striving full of Fighter Pilots and Bombers doing all sorts of things on the map. 

From RDP runs to intercepts, to Bombing AF and Docks to keep supply and certain AF surrpressed,  and the Ground units would actually be able to set FMS leave FBS without being Strafed and Bombed to oblivion before a good ground war can even start. 

We wouldn't see the AIR quake complaint threads in the forum cause the Bomber pilots would have such a multitude of Targets that they would have a choice same with the Fighter Pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m OK with you guys wanting a safe zone at AFs, just testing the water :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bmbm said:

I’m OK with you guys wanting a safe zone at AFs, just testing the water :)

Is this a new euphemism for trolling? How does the water taste :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bogol said:

 This game was at its best when squads actually had a say in game. Squads is what makes a MMO immersive, not HCs... Give squads a sense of meaning again and you will see the numbers increase in game. 

you're referencing coincidence and ascribing your own feelings to this time period. the days of zerging mega squads dictating the map was significantly worse than the issues flag moving and TOEs brought ... to everyone not in said mega squad. squads need more things to 'own' as theirs in game, for sure. however whatever it is that squads get next needs to have risk vs reward as part of the design and must avoid the whack-a-mole we used to have when squads led attacks. 

 

players leading mega squads identified and then exploited the hell out of the old divide between french/british. we the players did that. we the players leading mega squads, chose our own self interests over the health of the game ... thats what we the players do.

 

giving the squad that happens to have the most people logged in anything just for the sake of numeric superiority ... may as well have a reality TV star as president. oh wait.  i digress, what qualifies the squad to have this? understanding of the game? skill? cause rewarding someone for either turning on advertising in the squad list or spamming side chat and accepting anyone into your squad doesn't qualify you in my book to have control over a game asset that, as history shows, you're only going to use for your benefit.

 

sorry but i'm still a hard no on mobile AFs. there is no compelling reason to focus on this before making the static AFs vulnerable. none thus far presented anyway. everything presented thus far applies to static AFs and if that statement is true (i think it is) then why add mobile AFs when the underlying logic should apply to the static AFs too?

 

because all you're after is that power right? that squad only power? yeah, that right there ... the fact that your motivation seems to really be to gain power over others ... i'm triple down on that hard no.

 

No

No

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmbm said:

I’m OK with you guys wanting a safe zone at AFs, just testing the water :)

systems like this have to be in place BMBM. until people are literally paid to play and you've got an uninterrupted 4 shift rotation ... you have to afford safe zones so people can at least spawn in to assess the situation. sure, comms, map intel, etc should be checked first but at the end of the day, this is a game meant to entertain. 

 

the real problem is when the AF and its safety screen ARE the front now you have completely BS unrealistic gameplay because we the player can't reasonably take out said AF from the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, madrebel said:

you're referencing coincidence and ascribing your own feelings to this time period. the days of zerging mega squads dictating the map was significantly worse than the issues flag moving and TOEs brought ... to everyone not in said mega squad. squads need more things to 'own' as theirs in game, for sure. however whatever it is that squads get next needs to have risk vs reward as part of the design and must avoid the whack-a-mole we used to have when squads led attacks. 

 

players leading mega squads identified and then exploited the hell out of the old divide between french/british. we the players did that. we the players leading mega squads, chose our own self interests over the health of the game ... thats what we the players do.

 

giving the squad that happens to have the most people logged in anything just for the sake of numeric superiority ... may as well have a reality TV star as president. oh wait.  i digress, what qualifies the squad to have this? understanding of the game? skill? cause rewarding someone for either turning on advertising in the squad list or spamming side chat and accepting anyone into your squad doesn't qualify you in my book to have control over a game asset that, as history shows, you're only going to use for your benefit.

 

sorry but i'm still a hard no on mobile AFs. there is no compelling reason to focus on this before making the static AFs vulnerable. none thus far presented anyway. everything presented thus far applies to static AFs and if that statement is true (i think it is) then why add mobile AFs when the underlying logic should apply to the static AFs too?

 

because all you're after is that power right? that squad only power? yeah, that right there ... the fact that your motivation seems to really be to gain power over others ... i'm triple down on that hard no.

 

No

No

No

LMAO you are crazy. It has nothing to do with power. So, I will just reply with the same three words

No 

No 

No

Nothing to do with power. More to do with encouraging a healthy COMPETITION AMONG SQUADS. I really wish jester was here, he would know what the fk I am talking about... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this adds too many problems if you think about it...

- if you don't add AI, planes will be easy to camp

- if these  are place too close to a battle this will make the Af easily camped

- the strategic location and value of AF will be significantly reduced

- adding strips and ai in not fixed locations, would probably not be easy to implement  and prone to generate bugs..

Finally this doesn't add much to the game, interdicting  rpd won't happen since the key is climbing altitude and the current af setup covers well the map.

In the end this will make air quake which mainly happens against axis worst, the little breath that you got when bombers are rtbing would not happen. 

So big thumbs down from me..

 

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pbveteran said:

I think this adds too many problems if you think about it...

- if you don't add AI, planes will be easy to camp

- if these  are place too close to a battle this will make the Af easily camped

- the strategic location and value of AF will be significantly reduced

- adding strips and ai in not fixed locations, would probably not be easy to implement  and prone to generate bugs..

Finally this doesn't add much to the game, interdicting  rpd won't happen since the key is climbing altitude and the current af setup covers well the map.

In the end this will make air quake which mainly happens against axis worst, the little breath that you got when bombers are rtbing would not happen. 

So big thumbs down from me..

 

- I dont think anyone here said mobile AF strips should have no AI whatsoever

- Players will soon lean not to place them too close to the frontline, or it could be coded (I hope) in such a way that they can only be placed a minimum distance to the front. Also, frontlines move. Which opens an interesting question. If implemented, I think it would be interesting if they can be redeployed once the frontline advances either too close or too far from them. 

- RDP.... LOL, enough said. RDP currently is almost non-existent. The Mobile AF has the potential to actually bring the fight to altitude, at least in my opinion. I made my argument as to why numerous times in those threads, if you are curious you can find it out. 

- IF you restrict only fighters to spawn at those AFs (and maybe fighter bombers as well, now that we have them in game) I don't think the air quake problem you are mentioning will be really affected by it. If anything, the side that is being Air quaked, could have closer base to lift from to deal with them quakers...

So, big thumbs UP from me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.