Author Topic: Cooley's idea for controlling lowlevel bombers (Read 316 times)

rod367th · « **on:** October 20, 2004, 05:53:52 PM »

Hitech I really think cooleys got real good idea on controlling lowlevel bombers. Putting manable 5" guns at towns and bases that can fire aa or he.
This would stop alot of gamey situations, No more killing ack easy just to vulch with not intentions of takeing base, No more driving gvs onto undefended bases to vulch or kill towns easy. Low level bombers would be easy targets in 5" guns just like they are suicideing cv vo no doubt suiciders can get bombs off just before the die, but at field you couldn't get 2nd chance. at hitting other targets. Putting 5" at bases could be a good way to see incoming attackers either planes or gvs.

Tails · « **Reply #1 on:** October 20, 2004, 06:45:46 PM »

How about the German '88 there? Would be perfect with your idea of a multi-purpose AA/AT gun.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2004, 06:51:19 PM »

So you'll get guys booming in with P51's or F4U's to pork the 5" guns and then its business as usual.

rod367th · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2004, 09:00:53 PM »

Sure if they live thru 4 manned 5 " they deserve base and enemy fighters.

Octavius · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2004, 09:04:13 PM »

I loathe the fleet's 5" insta-death cannons. Throwing them in a town isn't a wise idea... I know I wouldn't like it.

This is for another thread, but I would rather see any and all puffy ack to be player controlled instead and require a FUSE setting. The Aegis radar and the proximity mines the AI fleet ack is using never was any fun

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2004, 09:47:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rod367th
Sure if they live thru 4 manned 5 " they deserve base and enemy fighters.

Swing in at speed from 10K and then dive in pure vertical. Porkers don't care about dying so this'll be happening all the time. The quickest "fix" would be to turn off formations - maybe leave 'em available at the fields which have 163's.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2004, 10:22:54 PM »

I completely agree with the fuzes. However, would you set them for altitudes or length in air?

pellik · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2004, 01:50:27 PM »

So you're proposing changing the game to give small groups of fighters absolutely no chance anywhere within 10 miles of an enemy field? The massive hordes arn't bad enough for you yet? The more dangerous we make ack and other random killers the more pilots are going to need to fly with the horde, and the less actual fighting we're going to get in the MA.

-pellik

rod367th · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2004, 11:09:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by pellik
So you're proposing changing the game to give small groups of fighters absolutely no chance anywhere within 10 miles of an enemy field? The massive hordes arn't bad enough for you yet? The more dangerous we make ack and other random killers the more pilots are going to need to fly with the horde, and the less actual fighting we're going to get in the MA.

-pellik

llololololooooooooooooooooooo oloollololoolollololololoollo lolololololololoololloloololo lolollololoolololloolololollo ollo......................... ...........no it makes those 5 fighters fight for a base instead of deacking and vulching..................... ............Fighters alone shouldn't be able to take a base, You should have team work . This would make more have to come hvy to base. Instead of guys who follow horde hoping to get vulches in after they kill ack for them........Now its deack base get dive bombing bombers into towns and hangers. Put 5"'s in and now its high alt bombers to bomb towns. Anyone whos says bombing (at high ALT) is to hard hasn't taken time to learn. Everyone knows I can drop all 18 bombs from 35k on hq building with ease so hitting a town is nothing. And I've always posted and said If you need lesson just ask.

Furball · « **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2004, 03:40:49 AM »

i am very anti mannable 5 inch guns at airbases.

5 inch guns, although useful against bombers - will just ruin anyone's fun who is trying to enjoy a fight anywhere within 5k of the base.

IMO the only way mannable 88's or 5 inch should be added is if you do not model proximity shells. You should have to set the altitude which the shell will explode, therefore it will be pretty useless vs fighters but should still be lethal against bombers.

Kweassa · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2004, 05:22:35 AM »

I was thinking of something a bit different, like a mannable 88mm flak battery comprised of 5~10 cannons spread over a loose area, and a central "command station" where you would be able to zoom and look at the sky with a "binocular" function.

The players will control the guns a bit indirectly, they will be able to set the detonation altitude, and use the stick to move the cross hairs to aim and point at a target. And when the player fires, the 5~10 cannons will fire with a random dispersion pattern that is grouped loosely around the aiming point, each shell with a blast radius. Of course, the 88mms will be much more slower to reload than the 5" guns.

In this sense, placing these batteries around key places would be very dangerous for slow and predictable targets such as bombers at low alts, but the 88mms would be much too slow to respond to pick off individual fighters, like the 5" on the fleet guns can, especially if they are maneuvering and are at alts over 10k.

Tilt · « **Reply #11 on:** October 24, 2004, 05:29:39 AM »

Pro mannable 88's and 5" 'ers here but would agree that proximity fuses are too gamey whetehr they had been invented then or not.

Fuze time or alt should be adjustable over a spread

and yes if it was heavy AA that stopped RL perpetual Low level bombing then we should have it.