Ace Combat Assault Horizon - Part 10 - Hostile Fleet

[GeneralWildDog]

There's one thing that ACE Combat should change is why only two small missiles can be launched each time.

[DragonTwister11]

Awesome music. Just wish Mullot flight did shit. Also, remember when you could take out ships by just shooting the ships instead of worrying about the fucking weaponry first, because I just project aces forgot about that. Also, I would suggest they watch "Sum of All Fears" ships can't intercept cruise missiles like that.

[bryUK]

@DragonTwister11 Let's be fair here. Out of all the ships in the level, only two require you to make these 'saturation' attacks. The rest are little different from the way they have always been. You can take out the weaponry if you want, but going for the main hull is quicker.

Interesting how, in regard to a game based on fiction, you suggest Project Aces should watch a fictional movie, based on a fictional novel. =p

The chances of success are slim, but these anti-missile defences do exist.

[DragonTwister11]

@bryUK Considering Tom Clancy makes his books as every bit realistic as possible, I would have to say that he somewhat portrays accurately what would happen.

[bryUK]

@DragonTwister11 Right down to the F-19 Stealth Fighter in Red Storm Rising, eh?

Its a bit of a moot point anyway.

Ace Combat has never been about realism.

Lest we forget that in every Ace Combat game, the F-117A Nighthawk has been equipped with a radar, carries air to air missiles (complete with entirely new fictional weapons bays for them) and has a gun.

With this in mind, I've found it vaguely amusing how upset people have been about, say, barrel rolling helicopters.

[DragonTwister11]

@bryUK I thought the apache could barrel roll, or was it do an immellman-esque move?

[bryUK]

@DragonTwister11 It actually can do a barrel roll (but the Mi-24 Hind can't), though not in the way portrayed in the game. Nonetheless, it still had a fair bit of the fandom up in arms about how unrealistic and silly it was, as if such a thing has no place at all in an Ace Combat game.

[DragonTwister11]

@bryUK ok, I am still advocating a return to the AC 4/5/0 type single player, while keeping the multiplayer like is in assault horizon. You might get a few people pissed off( more likely reviewers) that the gameplay is different for both parts, but this idea really satisfies most fans I have talked to and really the assault horizon MP was alot more balanced and fun than it was in 6.

[bryUK]

@DragonTwister11 Fair enough, though I do not particular miss the SP of 04/5 or 0. After playing 6 extensively, going back to the old games for my playthroughs made the shortcomings of the earlier games is apparent, including comparatively small maps, lower amounts of enemies and the general formulae of the dogfighting.

I'm quite happy with AH. Its new and different, which isn't always a bad thing.

If I feel like a more classic version of AC, I'll pop 6 back in the tray.

[DragonTwister11]

@bryUK The ground SP's of 6 were given ALOT more firepower than the previous 3, which was a good thing( the only effective ones then were the LASM and LUGB). It was actually nice that the air SP's actually took some skill to use as compared to 6 and AH. The maps were large enough for the missions, ranging from large to small. The enemies were plenty and the combat easily allowed multitasking(even in 6), while AH has its "fuck you" moments. Also, your shortcomings are based on different gen sys

[bryUK]

@DragonTwister11 And? Just because they are different generation systems doesn't affect my interpretation of the gameplay mechanics. I enjoyed playing AC:JA, despite it being a PSP game.

One thing that AH has made me realise is just how much of the previous games actually focused on air-to-ground missions, rather than pure air-to-air combat.

Heck, AC6 only had 1 mission each that didn't involve any ground targets and most only had 2 or 3 missions that were 100% air to air.

[DragonTwister11]

@bryUK I am failing to see your point how that is bad. Also, the gameplay mechanics were absolutely fine.

04-4 5-7(?) 0-8

[bryUK]

@DragonTwister11 I didn't say it was bad, nor did I say the old games were bad.

Just somewhat ironic. You don't become an ace by dropping bombs.

Personally, I found the gameplay mechanics somewhat predictable, especially the air combat. In 4, 5 and 0 the AI had rather distinct traits and followed very specific patterns. It became more about recognising the pattern and pressing the fire button at the right time.

End of the day, fact is I actually like all of the AC games, including AH.

[DragonTwister11]

@bryUK Aces do everything :). The only patterns there were with the aces in the older games was when they had to pull out of the engagement and gain speed to prevent stalling, or at least that's what I forced them to do. The ace squadrons in Zero actually covered their wingman's asses pretty well, which made it a challenge.

[bryUK]

@DragonTwister11 In reality, an Ace is someone who has shot down 5 enemy planes.

With Zero, I learnt that the AI has a recognisable pattern. They will evade a bit, then fly straight and level for several seconds before going into their next move. Once you know what to look for, you can fire your missiles as they are completing their last evasive turn, and will shoot them down almost without fail in that brief moment. AC0 aces had different patterns from the stock AI.

[DragonTwister11]

@bryUK right, I am pretty sure the stock AI is meant to be just a little challenge anyway, considering that you play an ace, Mobius 1 was battle rated at the level of a whole ISAF squadron. The yellows were a challenge in 4, five was somewhat of a joke for aces as it did focus more on the ground. The AI in zero could put up a challenge when you were multitasking, and the aces were pretty good about being unpredictable unless you got the jump on them. the multirole planes also were realistic.