[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

I disagree. The battle of hawkinge as you put it, is because most reds, not all, spawn at the front line bases. That makes easy pickings for a cannon equipped 109 hovering above. The reason this accumulates and turns into the hawkinge show is because more reds spawn in at hawkinge to try to get the low flying 109 that was already there because of the decision of the red pilot to spawn at hawkinge in the 1st place. People's bad decisions shouldn't be blamed on mission design. Every single red pilot could take off and get to 20K without ever a thought of a 109 in the vicinity during the entire climb if they really wanted to. There's more than enough airfields spread out all over England to do just that.

The same can be applied for the 109 fields. I generally take off quite a bit inland so by the time I reach the coast of France I'm already at 4-5km at altitude. Actually most of the 109's I fly with on coms generally take off inland as well.

I do agree that the FMs are not the greatest, but at altitude, real altitude, the spit performs much better than it does on the deck, where as the 109 starts performing a lot worse. The higher the engagement the more even (not saying it's even) the better for a spitfire.

Altitude also takes flak/AAA completely out of the picture. So my suggestion is to simply not spawn anywhere near the front lines. When everyone on red figures this out, there won't be anyone at hawkinge for the blues to shoot at.

Actually, you're not disagreeing with me at all...just talking about something different in half of your post. I agree with what you're saying completely here. Reds love throwing their aircraft into the meat grinder for some reason despite constant efforts to rally or strategize the mindless uncollectiveness. I am not one of those, mind you...10k ft is my MINIMUM engagement/first contact altitude in any sortie.

The battle of Hawkinge...I'm not saying this is bad mission design by common definition, but it's a condition that hasn't been addressed effectively, so affords some sort of fault to the mission design simply because it's a misallocation of resources and motivation to get those "meat-grinder" pilots away from the deathmatch areas and start engaging in a proper flight SIMULATOR fashion. I understand what the mission designer was trying to accomplish, but that's not what is happening. It's like trying to make a irrigation ditch with the intentions of routing water around the Eastern side of your house, implementing your planned dig route, then when the water escapes and flows on the Western side of your house you just stare at it and say, "Well, this isn't what's SUPPOSED to happen."...that isn't going to fix the issue. We all know the problem, now the next step is to find the solution. The players are "gaming the game", so now the mission builders need to "game the game" right back to balance it out.

Example, there's not a lot, well...enough motivation and emphasis right now on objectives for the common non-regular player, whether that be to go bomb something (which is not on the common Red pilot's mind/agenda...we only have one buggy bomber), escort AI bombers (no real reason to other than hopes to find other enemy fighters, possibly exacerbating the air-quake mentality issue) defend a grid/building from bombers, etc. If there was a constant stream of AI bombers attacking each Army's *vital, round winning objectives* and actually had purpose there would be constant pressure to take out bomber formations and get pilots off the airfields and onto escorting/intercept missions. As I see it right now, AI bombers are fairly immaterial and just serve as target practice and/or a stage for a high altitude contact scenario with their escorts, if applicable, and go to the wayside never to be seen again after the engagement.

This is a matter of a mission designer providing motivation to do the fun, interactive and balanced activities this simulator has to offer (bombing runs, escorts, interception, recon), meanwhile discouraging the less desirable, unfair, unbalanced activities (vulching, base raping, unrealistic altitude engagements, lone wolfing, "gaming the game"). Stuff like Wolf's Channel Command seems promising with missions on demand, limited aircraft supply (this will be a big one, as it will discourage unrealistic/unsportmanlike bailing out/crashing to skip the flight home), random AI fighter engagements, etc.

Bliss you seem to turn a blind eye to the current mission's faults and have repeatedly cited the pilots as the issue (did you make it yourself or something?), while I don't disagree with you, the pilot's actions are not something that is going to change because of forum posts. Said pilot's actions are a constant. We cannot force or change them, but the mission parameters in-game can. It can be something complicated like an aircraft supply system, or a simple on-screen notification of a formation of bomber's location heading toward a critical mission objective...Or ailerons falling off of an aircraft upon spawn because you don't want to deal with that aircraft in the sky, you big blue babies .