Author Topic: Why have bombers  (Read 1184 times)

Offline Geeb

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Why have bombers
« on: May 24, 2001, 08:13:00 PM »
it used to take 3 b17s to close a small field now i lookin feekit ill jus take jabo & deak it & pray goon gets there?
ps. i suk in ftr but i been killin lots of ak in ftr, but i do love the russian jabo

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Why have bombers
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2001, 08:49:00 PM »
are you talkin sneak a base? Buffs are needed to take out a field that is heavily defended unless u send in the kabos (kamikazee jabos). Buffs are stable normally hi alt de-basing platforms.
but if you prefer the back door action   the noe il-2's to undefended bases are were always easy grabs

------------------
 
Im Auftrage der Reichsbahn
(By order of the State Railway)

  Pray not for an end to the slaughter...but for VICTORY!!!

[This message has been edited by Wotan (edited 05-24-2001).]

Offline Geeb

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Why have bombers
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2001, 08:53:00 PM »
neg 3 b17s for complete closure of small field 1 for fhs the other for vh & bh & one more for aks as it looks now we need atleast 4 mabe 5 & it wus hard enough to get 3  

as far as i can tell it looks like the organized small strikes jus got killed & nothing but attrition & sneak captures are the way to go now

i think it is a sad day for any group not numbering in the +20 catagory

[This message has been edited by Geeb (edited 05-24-2001).]

Offline Sunchaser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Why have bombers
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2001, 10:39:00 PM »
The B17 is now totally useless in this airplane game but no matter.

I have just about given up on Aces High as a WWII simulation.

It is a great airplane game though.

Fortunately for anyone interested in WWII there are untested options on the horizon.

And more fortunately I am going to test one of them soon, I hope.



------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?

Offline texace

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
      • http://www.usmc.mil
Why have bombers
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2001, 12:23:00 AM »
Fine, let's do that. Let's remove all bombers from the game. While we're at it, let's remove the ability to destroy structres. Now we have the ultimate furball sim! Chogs only, DM on.

Bombers aren't useless. They promote teamwork to reach an objective.

------------------
semperfi
 
Everything dead in 30 minutes or less or the next one's free.
-Marines

[This message has been edited by texace (edited 05-25-2001).]

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
Why have bombers
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2001, 01:11:00 AM »
Beef up Buff bombs big time, and add them a nice, big, blast effect. Tone down .50's closer to the real thing. And simulate cold effects over 25K as kinda WEP usage, progressively. The higher you climb, the faster your crew will be disabled. Once we are at it, fix the Norden sight, in order to have (at least) some kind of gyro calibration. That would improve Buff operations big time, IMHO.

Cheers,

Pepe

Hans

  • Guest
Why have bombers
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2001, 04:31:00 AM »
Actually, having fighters strafe and bomb is MORE realistic now.

B-17 is a strategic bomber.  Go after their HQ, thier factories and thier city with it.  Deep penetration, high altitude bomber missions to disrupt the enemy far inland of the front line.

On the front line, you use low altitude, close air support.  P-47s and the like.

Remember, in the real war the USAF used high altitude B-17 formations only a handful of times for close air support, and I think about half those times they bombed the Americans instead of the Germans.

There is nothing wrong with this setup.

Hans.

Offline BigBen

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Why have bombers
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2001, 04:52:00 AM »
Sun,

I know you have been very fond of bombers... so have I in the past, particularly in earlier tours.  And now, you are correct, their utility is somewhat diminished.  You can look at it a couple of ways -

1) Buffs are useless

Well, not really.  Even a single buff can still have an impact (acks, ord/fuel/barracks, "select" hangars, strat targets).  It is harder for one man to be a hero now, though.

2) Time to work together

Two B17s in tandem will now still be able to shut down fighter ops at a small field.  The moral of the story is to recruit a second B17 to fly with you.  That's more realistic, in my opinion.  Fly formation, double your firepower against attacking con interceptors, drop your load and head for home.  Frankly, I'm looking forward to the higher level of teamwork required by the changes made last night.  Heck, if I'm on your team I'll fly with ya.

So basically.. before you flee, wait and see.  Buffs won't be as useless as you think as long as there's a greater level of teamwork.

Regards,
BB

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
Why have bombers
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2001, 05:33:00 AM »
Exactly Hans. That's the point. Beef up Buff's bombs, so blast radius have a meaning, and carpet bombing can be done. Harden structures like cities, factories and HQ to the point that a Jabo attack is meaningless, unles it is a MASS attack. Tune down Buffs .50's, fix the firing angles, and add dispersion to model some reality in the weapons system. Use some gyro lining time on the Norden sight, so the buff pilot has something to plan before IP, and straight route from there to the target. Model cold damage to the crew so that no space-shuttle bomb missions are possible at no cost. You still could fly over 30k, only not on a permanent basis, just as a defensive manouver.

I FULLY agree with you. Jaboing airfields is the way to go when you want to close an airfield. There is no sense in having some Sputnik with laser-targeting device and fire-and-forget bombs pinpointing acks from 20k. Same lack of sense I see in jaboing a City. Factories and HQ....blurry. As a gameplay concession, I would assimilate them to kinda cities. So no jabo there, unless massive and with high loss ratio.

I realise that these mods would make Buff missions a bit harder. But the problem I see (and this is from my particular point of view, I'm not qualified to voice other than my own position) with Buffs in AH is that they are too easy to fly, too easy to defend by themselves, too easy to deliver ordinance, WAY too easy to aim and pinpoint individual targets at stratospheric heights and, at the very end, when flown 35k and over, they only open the possibility of porking a whole string of bases with no real possible (in terms of AH risk/reward) counter.

I definitely would fly more buff if that kind of things were modelled. I don't know if I am the only one at this point, but I would love having to plan a route to have a good lining, I would like to have to think what .salvo and .delay are best for a particular target, and that kind of stuff.

The absolutely best time involving Buffs I had in AH was I think in 1.05, in island terrains when a MASSIVE formation of buffs with hvy fighter escort attacked Rookland's HQ, city, fields....scrambling in G10's, messing with the Fortress, being wiped out by escorts and/or buff fire, was the only resemblance of the real thing I can think I had in AH, when we talk about Buffs. ANYTHING that promotes that kind of flying has my vote, regardless the possible loss of the solo flyer. I think hardening the flight model will penalize the solo flyer, for sure. But the hardened strategic targets would encourage Buff escorted formations. Well, I think It would.

Buffs are fun. Are REALLY fun. But you have to be in a Buff formation to fully understand that. Now, as a final point to all prior tweaks, get rid of in-flight GPS, board a 5-6 planes mission, stick with a competent buff driver, and I bet you WILL sweat.

Cheers,

Pepe

Sandman_SBM

  • Guest
Why have bombers
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2001, 06:50:00 AM »
I find that bombers can be quite useful in slowing the advance of other countries. I've often went up and hit nothing but barracks and radars from high altitude and can hit 4-5 fields along the front before returning. That's something you'll never do with a JABO aircraft.

Hell... if that isn't strategic bombing... I don't know what is.

------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs
The SBM's are hiring!

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
Why have bombers
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2001, 06:53:00 AM »
How about some "tactical" bombers, ones that aren't big, slow targets, bristling with überguns?

Tu-2, Pe-2, Mosquito, P1Y1, Ki-67, A-20, A-26, P-61...  

And a "droop snoot" Lightning!  

Offline Pepe

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
Why have bombers
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2001, 07:10:00 AM »
Sandman, that's tactic bombing, IMO. Strategic one would be hitting factories, or cities as whe strategic goal would be....no strategy here. Tactic, maybe. Definitely no strategy.  

Cheers,

Pepe

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Why have bombers
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2001, 07:39:00 AM »
I predict the mannable ack, and additional hangars at small fields will bring a golden era of level bombing to Aces High. The mannable acks are very deadly and will likely have an effect on jabo runs...

Offline Sunchaser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Why have bombers
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2001, 08:19:00 AM »
Good points BigBen.

I may be in a burnout phase with AH, I spend way too much time doing it.

AH is a fine product but actually the only reason I am still here is the total failure of B17-2 and the delays with IL2 Sturmovik.

This is the only one that works properly online for me.

If IL2 fails in its online capability and HTC ever make the B17 a bit less ugly(I doubt they will revamp it anytime soon but one can wish, right?) and implement some of the bomb reality suggestions then here I stay till something better happens along.

One of the major problems with AH bombers, outside the well documented gunnery and bombing issues, is organization.

The DHBG guys may have it but I have never flown with them.

Another is keeping guys interested, bombers are boring unless most missions have at least 4 bombers with escort that do not all chase the first contact to the deck.

Another problem, for me at least, is flying across the map carrying a large "Here I come, shoot me with anything but an Axis plane" sign.

If HTC lost every dedicated bomber pilot in the game it would not cause a ripple, the jabo planeset can handle any target on the map.

I once vowed to never hit an airfield again and I think I will go back to that concept.

I think that after the "hide under the radar" new wears off the jabo guys will get bored flying so far to hit the strat targets.

I gotta stick around awhile longer anyway, I just paid for another month and the IL2 beta is not here yet.




------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?

SeaWulfe

  • Guest
Why have bombers
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2001, 09:07:00 AM »
Better yet: "Why be a dedicated bomber pilot?"

You're paying a monthly subscription for what AH offers, so why not enjoy every part of what you are paying for?

I rarely fly bombers, only for squad night stuff.
Does the IL2 constitute a bomber or an attack aircraft?
I flew that last night in a run with Tac, SIL0 and ROT. We blew up a bunch of stuff at the field, so me and SIL0 drove back in M3s.

First run we both died. Second run we were so close together (43ft) that we could cover each other with our single .50... It was sssooo cool cuz we forced a 109 to run away from us and two Ki61s never bothered to come near us. As we got close the map room an IL2 took off, I let my troops go and the combined firepower from me and SIL0 knocked down the IL2 as he prepared to make a strafing run on us.

We captured 31 just as the IL2 smashed into the ground.
-SW