SiMPLE | Forum

Maybe it's just me .  I was on earlier this evening and was the victim of two shoot-downs during take off (once as Spitfire pilot, once as gunner on B-17).  Also got in another B-17, and the pilot started to take off then just inexplicably turned off the throttle and crashed at the end of the runway, killing himself, the other gunner, and me; then he TKed me with a machine gun as soon as I re-spawned.

There's also somebody named Moonbather who was on the game I complained about last night.  I can't quite figure him out; maybe he's a kid.  He's very friendly and gives people lots of compliments but also misbehaves.  Last night he killed me during a base attack; I called it out in chat, but he was still on the base when I re-spawned (right behind him), and I shot him as he was in prone position as if he were trying to base snipe.  He claimed he was confused because he just came from Moongamers, but I pointed out that I had just seen him here in the previous game.  I can't remember what his excuse was, but I let it go.  Anyway, I saw him again today and at the end of one game he TKed me again.  Maybe he thought it was OK because the game was a few seconds from over, but anyway.  Just keep an eye out for him (I'm not asking to ban him or anything, yet).

I think somebody else may have TKed me today, but can't remember.  I get TKed so many times...

That should explain last night's base-attack fest on Bocage, since there were quite a few new names.  Probably would have helped if there had been an admin on-line the whole game, but I realize the admins are (much-appreciated) volunteers and as far as I know don't have assigned shifts, so that's not a criticism of anyone.  Just to let you know you may be needed more than usual for a while until new people learn the rules.

I can remember, and it hasn't been all that long ago that I started playing multi-player, that for new people it's not always obvious that you actually need to go to a web site and read a list of rules.  It's also not that easy to get to a browser when you've already started up the game.  I can understand that for new people there might be the attitude that when playing a computer game, anything the game lets you do should be OK to do.  So I'm trying to be more understanding myself, especially when I think of the numbers of players and servers we used to have before the GameSpy shutdown.

Maybe for a while the server should display more messages about the web site, and even (maybe just summaries of) each rule; there aren't so many rules that that couldn't be done.

Just kidding.

I tend to release my bombs too close to the ground .  Sometimes that gives me a TK with myself as the victim, but usually just significant damage to my plane, so I'll often put it down to repair.

I guess I was just surprised when that happened because the rule wasn't intuitive to me (nor explicit in the Server Rules) since I had landed and was in the hangar, and I didn't even know I had been pursued .

It is intuitive to me, however, that you should at least be able to continue a dogfight against someone who is still flying, or even landing, which takes us back to Fjumpis' ban appeal.

Almost a demonstration of how naval air power replaced the battleship.  Just not enough planes on the small escort carriers to turn a defensive operation into an offensive one, but enough to hold the Japanese back.  Imagine what would have happened if the CVEs had instead been CVs.

I wasn't there to see what happened, and I don't want to take one side or the other, but this discussion brings up questions for me.

I believe Flick is saying that the kick was unjustified, because it was for returning fire on an AA gun.

The way I interpret what Tookie said is that the base attacks that resulted in the kick occurred before the attack on the AA gun, but that he was unable to identify the attacker until they returned to bomb the AA.  He acknowledges the AA was firing at the time of the last attack, but claims that the AA was not firing during those previous attacks.  Now that could be total BS, or he could have identified the wrong pilot, or maybe that's what really happened, but I haven't seen anyone address that yet.

So regarding Tookie's claim about the kick being for base attacks that occurred before the last attack on the AA gun, can anyone say that that's what happened, not what happened, etc?  If so, how would that affect whether the kick was justified or not?

   My main point is that losing a capital ship should be a major event in this battle, something that can even decide the battle.  Right now it doesn't really matter if you sink an enemy carrier, because it will re-spawn in a minute or two as if nothing had happened.

   My point about realism is not that we need to add more and more detail, but if we have the choice between whether to make Midway a land battle (which it wasn't) or a naval air battle (which it was), why not choose what it was instead of what it wasn't?  I agree with you about carrier camping on Coral Sea; see my post Camping aircraft carriers and airbases.  I know not all players are pilots, but imagine this game if the carriers were important to defend, and bailing over them were not allowed so that non-pilots could man the AA guns instead of having to "repel boarders" all the time.

   It can still be a land battle, but losing the support of your ships should make that land battle much harder to win.

   What I mean by "realism" here is following the real battle as far as the framework of the game allows, and not choosing to make it less "realistic" if we don't have to.  Making a map called "Battle of Midway" more of a naval battle and less of an infantry battle makes it more realistic, because the real battle wasn't an infantry battle.  It probably would have become one if the Japanese had won the naval battle, but they didn't (and if they had there still would have had to be a naval battle beforehand).

   Interesting point about not needing a second carrier vs. carrier map, but why can't we have them?  Couldn't we also say we don't need two tank vs. tank maps, or two infantry vs. infantry maps, etc?

   Regarding your question "why ships only," I agree that the same could be done for defguns.  They are similar in that both types are major weapons and very limited in number; with tanks, jeeps, planes, and especially men, the game can't handle the numbers that would have been present at the real battle, so we kind of pretend that they just came in from somewhere else.  It might be interesting to find a way to limit the number of re-spawns for these as well, I guess trivially it could be done by increasing the re-spawn times.

Thanks. Hope I don't get too annoying during the games when I complain about players like this, but he really made a strong first impression in the first minute of the game by crashing an APC head-on into my plane before I even started moving.

   I can think of even more bad things about it.  For one, it's unfair to your teammates who are trying to get an airplane while following the server rules.  And in addition to being a runway hazard for planes taking off, eventually these abandoned jeeps will explode on the runway and damage any nearby parked aircraft or even kill or wound a teammate.

   Easier said than done. Many a-time I've incurred TKs for mines left in places only the enemy should be maneuvering.  For example, one might think that when playing on the Allied side in Market Garden, it would be safe to mine the south side of either bridge.  Never mind the fact that crossing either bridge takes you to the enemy uncap main, some fool (or bot) will drive over it anyway.  Some games you can just tell it's not worth it trying to lay mines anywhere.

I figured it was something like that.  Thanks, SurrenderMonkey!  I think my Reputation was still 0, but it reminds me of the quote by Raymond Donovan, though: "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" :-)

Yeah, this makes my point.