[Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

towedarray
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun 11 May 2014 08:51
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby towedarray » Sat 31 May 2014 05:40

Xeno426 wrote:
towedarray wrote:[b]You're also forgetting that RD has significantly more restrictive deck slot allowances than ALB did, so you're now forcing everyone to fill at least 3 slots with AA units just to have a baseline AA presence. That's extremely brutal to deck creation in RD where we're already short 4 slots in every category (standard decks only get 5 slots instead of 9 like in ALB).

If this change forces the deck system to be tweaked, is that a bad thing?

Of course not, but given their past statements about not changing the deck system, adding this new altitude scheme without a return to ALB-style lesser slot restrictions would make the current frustrations with the deck system that much worse.

User avatar
COMThing
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat 7 Apr 2012 11:54
Location: NZ
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby COMThing » Sat 31 May 2014 05:53

2 - If you are refering to the minimum altitude of the MovementHandler Module, it only seems to work when a plane is on an attack run so mountainous maps are still a problem. Of course if we are going with non map-of-the-Earth flying altitudes this shouldn't matter

4 - Just change the angles in the turret of the weapon. Since they are not applied to the weapon itself it can be somewhat tedious though. The turrets have minimum and maximum angles, along with the acceptable firing angle of the weapon (compared to where the turret is aiming).

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby Bullfrog » Sat 31 May 2014 05:59

towedarray wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:
towedarray wrote:[b]You're also forgetting that RD has significantly more restrictive deck slot allowances than ALB did, so you're now forcing everyone to fill at least 3 slots with AA units just to have a baseline AA presence. That's extremely brutal to deck creation in RD where we're already short 4 slots in every category (standard decks only get 5 slots instead of 9 like in ALB).

If this change forces the deck system to be tweaked, is that a bad thing?

Of course not, but given their past statements about not changing the deck system, adding this new altitude scheme without a return to ALB-style lesser slot restrictions would make the current frustrations with the deck system that much worse.


I don't see how.
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby chykka » Sat 31 May 2014 07:03

Iris wrote:.

5. Planes munitions are affected by height.
a. Dumbbomb munitions lose accuracy and have increased dispersion the higher the altitude of the plane; the bombs also have increased "drop" time making them less likely to hit moving targets.

6. TO BE CONTINUED as I test it out.


:) This sound really interesting
It would really change up planes

Deck system feels fine to me, and plane altitude really wouldn't have much to do with it. Besides making some units more desirable, like the F117 :P
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6708
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby molnibalage » Sat 31 May 2014 10:39

Before any further wishes it would be great if Iris explain how it works what he have done. I can accept modeling what uses the actucal and calculated distance but creating new categories in DB and simply preventing weapon usage seems to me a very, very bad idea...

User avatar
MILINTarctrooper
Major
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon 27 Jan 2014 04:19

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby MILINTarctrooper » Sat 31 May 2014 15:51

Iris wrote:
molnibalage wrote:Too complicated system... Is not obvious that so hard game mechanic change never will be applied....? One of th biggest reason the AI in campaigns the second that this is not a flight sim...


There likely wouldn't be any need for more than 3 tiers; Low, Medium, and High. So you're best to mix a variety of low, medium, high aircraft and anti-aircraft.

A good set-up as West Germany would be Gepard (Low), Stinger Infantry (Low), Roland 3 (Med), F4F ICE's (High); a good setup with the Soviet Union would be; Tunguska (Low), Igla (Low) OSA AKM / TOR (Med), Buk M1 (High), and Fighter of your choice for (High).

It's pretty much the same thing you should already be doing or already did in ALB. Light AA, Medium AA, and Heavy AA. The only real change is that these are more defined rather than a centrally focuses meta; (Aka the current manpad AA meta from hell)

orcbuster wrote:My main concern with the proposed system is with balancing the different altitudes. High altitude might become insanely OP compared with low altitude and so forth.

Anyway interesting suggestion, I've relayed it in the marshall forums.


I just noticed I forgot to add that planes lose accuracy on their dumb-bomb munitions the higher they drop them from; a bomber in current gameplay is generally 200-400m off the ground, if the increased height to some bombers went to upwards of 2000 meters high....they have a fairly large increase in dispersion at the benefit of increased chance of survival. It also ruins their ability to hit moving targets because of the increased fall time.

That last section...is a very good case why the MiG-17 family for DDR is just utterly horrible. Their bombs are releasing at 3500m...but their gun attacks...are in and under 2000m 1750 around abouts. You would think the MiG-17 family would be a "dive bomber" for point destruction attacks...but no. Also the height is affecting the MiG-21 Rocket Plane family...they come in so low...almost tree top level....and then "pop up" after an attack. Alot of the MiG-21 family is suffering from being artifically set too low in attacks.
Image
52.2% 1v1 Ranked 32.2% Multi since Open Beta.

Suriel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri 18 Oct 2013 11:49
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby Suriel » Sat 31 May 2014 16:53

Regarding the demonstration movie.
Please make Tomcat fight to Danger Zone and Mig-31 to Firefox theme.;)

HoveringKiller
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue 22 Oct 2013 18:43
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby HoveringKiller » Sat 31 May 2014 17:22

Regarding the deck slot limitations, Really if you have a card of manpads, a card of ASF and a card of Mid-High AA then you are set. I usually have A card of Hawks, A card of Chaps, a card of pivads, a card of Stingers, and a card of F15C. That seems plenty. Most decks already would be set to deal with this change as is.
Image

LittleJP
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 19:24
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby LittleJP » Sat 31 May 2014 17:48

Does this mean we can finally have dive bombers :D :D :D

CloakandDagger
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri 3 Jan 2014 21:51
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby CloakandDagger » Sat 31 May 2014 19:39

LittleJP wrote:Does this mean we can finally have dive bombers :D :D :D


1. Give plane high altitude.

2. Give bombs short range.

3. Give bombs no aim time.

4. Watch plane dive down to attack.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

cron