Tigerspook

Regia Aeronautica
  • Content count

    509
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

124 Neutral

About Tigerspook

  1. lead indicator

    The Gorge is the worst.
  2. lead indicator

    If I could ask for one thing, it would be a hotkey to let me change the indicator's color. In some places in some maps, it disappears into the terrain. And I only need 2 choices; I don't want to have to cycle through all 8 colors, even with a hotkey. Black and Ultra Green for me.
  3. Is the plane spaded? If not, do you have non-default ammo belts? I've suffered poor maneuverability and ineffective weaponry on my unspaded Spitfire Mk Vc lately. As I earned engine modifications, the performance issues slowly abated. My guess is that the weaponry will improve with each of the three(!) cannon upgrades. From the video, it looked like you were missing. Try using belts with tracer rounds and verify you are using the correct lead.
  4. It was a failed attempt at humor and nothing more.
  5. Not if your B-24 is in a 800kph screaming vertical powerdive! Not to worry, we can pull a 24G maneuver and pull out without difficulty!
  6. I never specified the radius of the 'no reload' zone. The radius would have to be determined through testing. My experience is that bombers fly 15 seconds away, then return to bomb again. So what would happen in a more realistic setting? At 160 mph (typical cruising speed of a B-17G), a bomber flies about 1 km in 15 seconds. And if you take the turn-around time into that, it's not even that far. So even small no-/slow-reload areas would make a difference. We're postulating a change to game mechanics, so we can certainly add an RP penalty/loss if we deem that will prevent some negative behavior. Removing the UFO-like FM makes it very hard to bomber-spam. They don't built up who-knows-what speeds and blow right past the defenders which they could outmaneuver anyway. We don't need to penalize death; we need to remove the exploit that makes death a viable tactic. That is, I think you're addressing a symptom, not the problem.
  7. Exactly what consequences concern you? What's that mean? When we lose a fighter, we lose thousands of SL or RP? Or does it mean our crew is locked for a day?
  8. Fair enough. I am addressing several recurring issues. One is the crazy FM. Another is the 30 second reload on bombers, really. The altitude isn't an issue except that it can take a couple of minutes to get up there, then more time to catch the bomber, then more time to maneuver to avoid the zone of death behind it. By this time it will have dropped 4 or more loads on a base. With two or three bombers doing this, the game is pretty much over.
  9. No, we have real problems in arcade. Part of these problems include a stratospheric bomber getting 30 second reloads. You evidently purposefully misunderstood what I mean by "hover". You know it means they can do small horizontal circles over their targets. I will change that word in my post to "loiter" if that will help. And what exactly is your point about bases being on the edge of the map? Yep. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I bet that not one bomber in 10 makes it out of the "red" zone much less running to its airfield. Indeed, one of the complaints is that bomber pilots are suiciding into bases, and not bothering to fly home. Maybe at BR 7+ this happens, I don't play much over BR 6.0 or so. If a player has to chase a bomber 15km back to its base and needs multiple ammo reloads, then he's a rubbish pilot anyway. I would not build a game mechanic around this sort of player. Further, if a bomber were to try to run home, then it would not be bombing. That's pure win. Finally, when I am having trouble with a bomber, I call for assistance. "Hey guys, BV-238 at the South base, I shot out some gunners. Come get some." does the trick. Who mentioned a 5 or 6 km radius? Not me. In any event, I am presenting an idea, not a coding specification for Gaijin developers. I would expect them to choose a radius that's appropriate. Further, if "no reloads" was too severe, then it isn't a big mental leap to make it "slow reloads". Or even a graduated reload so reloads get slower as one is closer to a base. Yes, it addresses many of the concerns I hear most about War Thunder. It: eases the effect of bomber spam and spawn camping, tones down the shockingly crazy bomber FM, encourages and rewards co-operation between allies, discourages unsportsman-like behavior without prohibiting it, does not disrupt the current ground-target game or the furball meta. Slowing down reloads and removing some UFO bomber FM does not somehow convert Arcade to Realistic. Maybe. But you did not offer a single compelling counter-argument. *** At this time 9:15 EST, 6/24/2017 I'm changing the word "hover" to "loiter" in my posting, and adding a new benefit of this idea. ***
  10. 1. They might like how it looks 2. Player made skins are not visible to other players.
  11. 1) No ammo reloads over the enemy spawn and bases. That is, you have to move away. Now bombers can't just loiter in the stratosphere; they have to move away. Spawn campers also have to move away. *note, per feedback from Pat, "no reloads" could be "slow reloads". It would accomplish the same thing without being as severe. 2) Make bomber FM more realistic. No more out-yoyo-ing Spitfires. Now we don't go 'hmmm' when a defensive gunner, while be subjected to 9Gs, snipes our engine straight to 0%. 3) Aircraft suicide never causes degradation of ground targets. 4) Fighters and Attackers are richly rewarded by getting an "assist" when they are near a friendly bomber when some bombing happens. 5) Fighters and Attackers are richly rewarded when they destroy an enemy fighter or attacker that's near a bomber. There's currently a "Bomber Defender" award but the reward is trivial. 6) Escort fighter cannot be ignored with impunity. If a red fighter is defending (close to) a red bomber, a blue fighter cannot bypass the defender and attack the bomber. If the blue fighter shoots down the bomber, good job. However, if the blue fighter is downed by the red fighter, then the blue fighter is penalized heavily in SL and/or RP. The reason for this is that in Real Life, pilots were not suicidal. (Even Kamikaze pilots didn't have a death wish, as such; they were following orders. They owed the Emperor a debt not even their deaths could repay. But I digress...) It would not do to remove bombers' 9G capabilities and encourage defenders to be close, and then reward a 4x 20mm plane for simply ignoring the escort and disintegrating the bomber, this being a valid tactic because there are no real consequences to the flesh! Being shot down by the bomber's defenses would not incur the stiff penalty. 7) If Fighters don't want to do this, they can dive into the furball, hunt ground targets, or whatever, just as before. 8) This adds a new map dynamic that could be applied to current maps, similar to weather. 8a) Current maps could be augmented to sometimes include additional slow-reload markers. Imagine "Fiery Arc" or some other frontline map with a "slow reload" right on the ground targets. How would the players handle this? Would Attackers gain a benefit as they reloaded and blew through the area at speed? It would be interesting to see. 8b) "Slow reloads" implies there can be "Fast reloads". Now imagine maps with a slow reload area, and a few smaller "fast reload" areas. The latter become strategic points. Now bombers need fighters; they can't just dive to victory. Fighters can share the bombers' riches by participating as an escort. The rewards should be material even if they are not challenged by defenders (point #4) Fighters will be rewarded for fulfilling their traditional roles.
  12. I am amused by the bomber spammers and the spawn campers arguing about moral superiority.
  13. I had not flown the A-36 in a while, and my KDR was just awful. Tried it again because of this posting. I can see it's pretty darned dangerous when used with a little bit of skill.
  14. My favorite Japanese plane is the Ki-61 otsu. It has 4x .50 cal. Absolutely deadly. Tons of fun. Overall KDR of 3.0, but many deaths were from before I knew anything about anything. I don't have any issues with Japanese 20mm. If your planes are not spaded, expect real problems. Research belts for your primary guns (either .50 cals or 20mm) as soon as you can. The default ammo makes Baby Jesus cry.
  15. I suppose it is obvious that I don't go for ground targets. The P-38E should be better at killing ground targets than the F-1, if you can keep the P-38E alive.
  16. I don't know, but i missing being able to see the players' overall BR, after the match. You can see it during the match as per normal.
  17. I don't know if the average forum-dweller is anti-bomber, so much as anti-uber-deadly AI turret with anti- crazy insane mad nutty and somewhat preposterous bomber maneuverability. With a side order of those AI gunners being 100% immune to the effects of the 8+ G maneuvers that bombers can effortlessly pull time and time again. Attacking a bomber equates to the death of my engine or pilot about 1/3 of the time. If that doesn't happen, my plane is almost always significantly damaged. What this means is that if I attack two bombers, or make a prolonged attack on one bomber, there's about a 50/50 chance* I'll be burning on the ground or sitting on the runway repairing while people who don't attack bombers are scoring kills. Last night my F4U attacked a B-34. I shot him up. The smoking wreck out-dove me from 4km to the deck. He then gave it full elevators and out-G'd my F4U; I could not hang with the bomber. Then he almost out-climbed me. I finally caught him at 2 or 3km and killed him; but I was not sure I was going to be able to catch him. This breaks my suspension of disbelief and reduces my enjoyment of the game. Finally, I do not like the idea that bombers can suicide into ground targets to cause significant damage. For bombs to work, they have to be armed. The don't arm in the aircraft. If a bomb can survive hitting the ground without exploding prematurely, it can survive an air crash without exploding prematurely and in this case, the bomb is not armed and cannot explode. Can a bomb cook off in a fire? Maybe. But if a plane's fuel is scattered over 2 acres, then the chance of a bomb being in enough of a fire is low. And of course the meta-game of 'suicide my bomber, get another, and do it again' feels like an exploit. Further, when a bomber I am pursuing crashes into a base and destroys it, I feel cheated; cheated out of my air-victory (or my heroic death, heh), and cheated because the base is inexplicably destroyed. My points about AI gunner accuracy, bomber maneuverability, gunner G-force immunity, and the suicide bombers are incontrovertible. All are unrealistic in the extreme. If these observations are to be deemed as "good for the game regardless of realism", then the supporter should explain to me why my Yak-1 can't fly at 2,000 miles an hour. Sure it is plaid-impossible, but Spitfires outmaneuver me and P-47s outgun me. That's not fair. Where's my justice?? What about my needs? * for the math-impaired: What are the chances of surviving two bomber attacks where each causes your destruction 1/3 of the time? Think of it the other way; 2/3 of the time, you won't be destroyed. So you must survive the first AND the second. Because of the "and", the formula is easy: (chance of surviving the first) x (chance of surviving the second) = (chance of surviving both). So (2/3 x 2/3) = 4/9 chance of surviving, which means there's a 5/9 chance of being destroyed by one bomber or the other. Close enough to 50%.
  18. Historically I have done very poorly with the P-38E. I tried it again last night, and got an average result, maybe. I email a friend about my WT exploits when something interesting happens. I mentioned to him that my result was not great, even with the buff that affected .50 cals. He was surprised and expected better. I do ok in the Bf 109 F-1 and to him, the P-38E sounds similar (BNZ, nose-mounted weaponry, good in a dive). Both these planes are BR 3.0. When would you choose a P-38E if you could have a Bf 109 F-1? I can't think of a case where I'd favor the P-38.
  19. If you shoot their wing off, they won't be able to ram you.
  20. So some people (including me) go on and about some plane or another being OP. I yammer about Soviet Premiums, some people say the Bf 109 F-4 is OP, others say the 4x 20mm Mustang is OP, and most people go on and on about the Firebrand TF Mk IV. Of course some planes are better than others while being at the same BR; Gaijin isn't perfect, and the Battle Rating scale is pretty coarse. (seriously - this is not a Gaijin-bashing thread, please steer clear) What sorts of things make a plane OP, specifically?