Just a few ideas to improve FH... 1. Pilots over field often need to know reup time of field's structures. This can be only checked from tower. How about '.reup fxx' command which will show 3 next structures and their reup times in flight? 2. Many pilots tend to land gear-up, destroying the engines. Maybe level of damages in landed plane should decrease the sortie-score multiplayer? A lost aileron or stucked flaps can down it by, say, 5-10%, while engine should reduce factor by 50%? 3. Ditches in friendly territory. This has been discussed a lot. But IMO all we want is they should be awarded as a kill. This would cease the ditch-killing. 4. Floating hangar roofs. Strange view, when both walls of hangar are destroyed, but roof (the hangar itself) is up. My proposal: make hangar auto-destroy when both walls are down. And while they stay down, roof waits to reup until at least one wall rebuilds. This would be nice improvement for capture-tactics. 5. Acks don't shoot at hostile human acks. They should. And human acks gunnery should be improved. Now it's unlike to hit anything not moving straight to/from hmack and not as close as 300 yards. That makes hmack a tank often misused for ground attacks and uneffective as anti-aircraft gun. I would trade these 3000 gun rounds for 300, but faster shooting gun. Even 20mm. 6. If a field is captured, all pilots in twr stay in it. Some use this for spying enemy's activity. They should be moved to another friendly field or HQ.
My own 2 cents on the subject: Well, I have yet to come up with an argument, but as I see it you are taking away the use of the people that are in the tower... It would be quite unreal and it would make things too easy... Quite often people think about a feature they think should be improved, whilst forgetting that the feature might be limited on purpose in order to limit the capabilities such a feature offers Yes this has been proposed quite often in the past, designers said something about working on it... but that's quite some time ago now... I don't really mind, but indeed it would be nice to give people that always make perfect landings some sort of a "cherry on the pie" This is about scores and kill messages, it should be modeled a bit to match realism... namely, keep it like it is, if you ditch in your own territory the army will come and get you... were there kills awarded when a pilot shot someone so that he had to ditch? (IRL I mean) Hmmmm, yes, I've wondered about that too, I don't know if it was some sort of bug iEN left untouched or if it was done on purpose... or if it's just an FH feature As I see it the hmack right now is modeled as a tank rather than a self propelled anti aircraft gun, drawings were on the board for another 3 vehicles, meaning each side gets 2 vehicles, one tank and one anti aircraft gun... (the best would be if a troop carrier would be added) but I haven't heard about that in a long time Yes certainly greetze, Zembla
Yes, forcing aircraft to ditch anywhere was a 100% kill in any air force. Even forcing aircraft to emergency land on his own airfield could be counted as victory. There should be take off restriction unabling quaking (like gear - up landing in undamaged plane) and kamikaze flying.
I agree. Sometimes at work I run WB on laptop to serve as a radar controller. But most people come here to fly, not to sit in tower. However, when it's 50+ people in the arena, it's usually no problem with getting radar information. But at late-night it's usually about 10-20 pilots online and usually you can't get info you need. Remember, we count kills as destroyed planes, not dead enemies. And plane ditching off-field is usually very damaged. Ditch should be considered as an alternative to bailing, if altitude is too low. I'm not sure, but in RL it depended of state of ditching plane. And not to mention these famous ditches on water... IMHO that's wrong direction. WB is designed and prepared as the aircrafts game. Time for coding ground forces could be spent more effectively.
disagree to point 2: landing without gear is often the only oportunity landing save and not getting vulched
Getting vulched is the normal part of the game and I don't see anything wrong in it. If you are afraid of it, take off or land at other airfield. "It's a war".
You chose the field you divert to for landing yourself... If you risk getting vulched it's your own fault... And even then... I still feel your remark is bullshit... but then again that's my opinion (probably shared by many though) greetze, Zembla
sometimes you have no choice cause you have no fuel... and sometimes you are forced to land on a field under attack, nothing new... it´s not the point why i´m in this situation, it´s the point to manage this situation... a field could be clear when u asked for rdr, but when you´re arriving it´s under attack... with wojtus´s suggestion the only possibility saving your virtual live is bailing out... btw zembla: are all different points of views "bullshit" in your eyes?
Lol ebola, you think I think like that? I just happen to be very cynical... and that makes me respond like that, I disagree with you about that thing... now again, you can control your fuel expenditure, you control when you start RTB'ing yourself... it's so easy to avert the fault... BTW you're missing the point, we didn't say that landing with the gears up would kill your score, it would just decrease your multiplier by 15% for example... so in the end you can still land with your gears up, only now there's a motivation to make you land with your gears down greetze, Zembla
Hi Wojtus, >1. Pilots over field often need to know reup time of field's structures. This can be only checked from tower. How about '.reup fxx' command which will show 3 next structures and their reup times in flight? Good approach How about this: This feature is only available if a friendly reconnaissance plane photographed the field in the last 120 min. Reconnaissance planes are bombers with a special payload "cameras". You photograph fields by flying over them and entering ".recon fxx". You can reconnoitre several fields in one flight. You have to land the bomber on a friendly airfield to get the benefit from the photographs, but the time runs from the moment the photograph is shot. And no re-up time information is provided either in the air or on the ground if no reconnaissance photographs have been shot. >A lost aileron or stucked flaps can down it by, say, 5-10%, while engine should reduce factor by 50%? To keep it simple, make it engine 50%, everything else doesn't matter. >3. Ditches in friendly territory. This has been discussed a lot. But IMO all we want is they should be awarded as a kill. You're right! Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Zembla, >were there kills awarded when a pilot shot someone so that he had to ditch? (IRL I mean) Kills were awarded for the destruction of enemy aircraft. The problem with aircraft ditching in enemy territory was the confirmation of the fact. However, ditching in most cases made the aircraft a total loss (unless they merely belly-landed on a prepared airfield), and with the fast and heavy WW2 fighters it was more dangerous to the pilots than simply bailing out. So, technically a ditch behind enemy lines was very likely to be a proper kill. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
it wasn´t my point starting a "get vulched" or "landing safe" discussion, it was only one examle why i´m landing without gears and i don´t realy care about my score, but i´m seeing no need for this point if we don´t have a economical or plane restricted system... otherwise i would agree... so who cares at the moment about a proper landing plane or landing without gears (or other missing parts), and, if somebody cares, why?
hi hohun! the .recon idea is very interesting, but considering the speed of progress on server-side evolutions, i would put that on the "in 3-weeks" list but its nice!
