Wish List

[Boxboy]

1. same random roll for engine hit as to wheather or not it covers cockpit with oil.  (not all engine hits resulted in a covered with oil cockpit)

2. Less than FULL gas loads to be a perked option, the lower you go the more it costs for that flight. (most REAL WWII sorties never took off with 1/4 fuel load) This would be rated by how the lighten load helps a fighter and Bombers would be exempt from this perk requirement.

3. Jets removed from the MA, these are obivious enclusions for particular historic setups but in the MA they are just unbalancing rides that serve no real purpose IMHO.

4. Bomber guns leathality to be lightened up a bit, right now it seems as tho the .50 cals are hitting like 20mm cannon from d 800 yrds??? I know that in a formation you getting numerous guns to bear and that is why I think the leathality should be reverted to the regular .50 cals. (I maybe out on limb on this one and there has been NO increase in .50's on the bombers???)


Jim "Boxboy" Harrison

[nirvana]

1. Ok

2.You take off with full fuel everytime?  Why not just perk every plane.  Do we get extra points for taking DT's?

3.Jets are a fun ride as a way to spend perkies.  You must be expecting everyone to burn all their perks on taking <100% fuel

4.I get ripped apart enough as it is.  Fly the Ki-67 and you will see what a 20MM does at 800 compared to the regular 50.

[Ghosth]

Boxboy, we just need to make it so drop tanks are not enabled unless main tanks are at 100% capacity.

Jets are perked, its rare enough to see one, and its really not that hard to avoid them. Just takes decent SA, and turn into them about 3k out.

Last, buff guns are just fine, if you have a problem, well its your problem.  
Don't sit dead 6, in fact don't make a straight in pass at them from any angle.
Keep mixing it up, left to right, top to bottom, get and keep them busy jumping from gun to gun trying to get on you. Don't give them a steady shot inside of 600 yards.

[Lusche]

1. Good idea.

2. We are not flying REAL WWII sorties in the MA. Donīt think taking less than 100% fuel should be perked.

3. I donīt find jets that unbalancing. I fly alot and see rarely jets. And they are only dangerous to the unaware  and buffs. Pretty easy to deny a 262 a gun solution in a fighter. And 262s are anice way to throw away your perks (did it last night for the first time )

4.  50cal on bombers are deadly because most pilots attack the bombers six and give the gunner a steady and predictable target.

[Boxboy]

Thanks for the input guys, I was not sure on the Buff guns so that one I guess can be removed  As for the fuel, it was just my idea for making some the more popular rides abit less competitive. The one on Jets is just my own feelings about them in the game (they really don't bother me that much)

[SMIDSY]

the reason buff guns are so powerfull is because the rounds have the velocity of a bullet + the velocity of the aircracft they are hitting. they are not too uber, just dont attack from the rear like a moron. frontal attacks on heavy bombers are the only safe bet.

[E25280]

Originally posted by SMIDSY
the reason buff guns are so powerfull is because the rounds have the velocity of a bullet + the velocity of the aircracft they are hitting. they are not too uber, just dont attack from the rear like a moron. frontal attacks on heavy bombers are the only safe bet.

Sorry, have to be anal for a moment . . .

I am tired of seeing posts like this to explain why bomber fire is more leathal.  The guns on the buffs are firing from a MOVING platform, not a stationary one.  The relative velocity of the bullet is therefore the velocity of the gun and the DIFFERENCE IN velocity of the gun platform and target.

So, your statement is true if you are diving on an M16 and he is firing at your front.  The M16 is stationary, you are diving at 300mph, the impact of the bullets is "enhanced" by your 300mph speed.

If you are creeping up on the buffs at 300mph and they are traveling at 250mph, the bullets are "enhanced" by only 50mph.

The added lethality is that they are firing 12 MGs or more at the front of your plane (where your engine is) while you appear to them to be an almost stationary target and therefore easy to hit.

Attacking the buffs from the FRONT as you suggest makes it more difficult for the buffs to hit because you now appear to be a target moving at 550mph instead of 50mph.  By the "added velocity" definition, attacking from the front would actually be a BAD idea since the bullets are so "enhanced" by the closing speed.

Smidsy, this is not directed at you personally -- I have seen this "reasoning" posted several times from different people, and since I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, I decided to rant.  

Your overall message is still sound -- don't attack bombers from dead six and your odds of survival will increase.  

[hitech]

E25280: Gunns firing reward are more lethal at range, not do to the resone given above, but because they are travling at a slower rate threw the air at launch time, and  hence less drag, hence they are travling faster at impact time.

Take the most extream case both planes are travling at 1000 fps and the bullet is shot straight back with a muzzle vel of 1000 fps.

Hence relative to the ground and air it is not moveing other than it is starting to fall.

Now 2 secs later the plane impacts the bullet at 1000fps, notice the bullet did not slow down at all relative to the trailing plane.

This is why reward guns of bombers seem more lethal.


HiTech

[Simaril]

Attacking the buffs from the FRONT as you suggest makes it more difficult for the buffs to hit because you now appear to be a target moving at 550mph instead of 50mph. By the "added velocity" definition, attacking from the front would actually be a BAD idea since the bullets are so "enhanced" by the closing speed.

True enough.... But, remember also that the differential works both for attacker and defender, so projectile velocity does make the 12 o'clock attack better than your comparison implies.

The 6 position fighter's ordnance decelerates with distance travelled, and its impact on the target is reduced by the targets relative velocity away from the guns. Also, the attackers bullets ahve to travel FARTHER than the buffs, becasue of relative flight directions -- so there's effectively less kineteic energy damage from the fighters guns and more from the bombers when atttacking form 6. SO, the fighter has to get more hits to do the same damage as the bomber can, whcih means longer exposure to the defensive fire, which means......significant advantage to defender.

When attacking from 12, the kinetic energy advantage shifts to the fighter. Whats more, the tougher firing solution favors the fighter, since the bomber will move less and change vectors more predictably.

 From the 12 oclock, the fighters guns are more effective, and with equal aiming skill the fighter has a big advatage over the bomber. The chief disadvantage is that it takes significantly longer to set up a 12 oclock attack, and a good buff driver can continually adjust flight angles to almost copnsistantly deny the forward pass. And even under ideal conditions, it takes even longer to set up a second 12 attack than the first one did becasue the reset starts with attacker and defender flying in opposite direcgtions.

[Krusty]

EDIT: I mis-read the post

[Simaril]

EDIT: yep, that would explain it

[Krusty]

I'm sorry, I read it as "that's the situation with the defending bomber" not "the attacking fighter".

[Simaril]

hehe

NP, done that myself...I think it even was with a post you did about the PBY and i jumped in about the catalina (wrong PBY)

[E25280]

Originally posted by hitech
E25280: Gunns firing reward are more lethal at range, not do to the resone given above, but because they are travling at a slower rate threw the air at launch time, and  hence less drag, hence they are travling faster at impact time.

Take the most extream case both planes are travling at 1000 fps and the bullet is shot straight back with a muzzle vel of 1000 fps.

Hence relative to the ground and air it is not moveing other than it is starting to fall.

Now 2 secs later the plane impacts the bullet at 1000fps, notice the bullet did not slow down at all relative to the trailing plane.

This is why reward guns of bombers seem more lethal.


HiTech

Love the "hovering bullet" analogy.  

I admit, I did not consider drag.  In an airless environment, I believe my rant still holds.

Using your extreme example, the planes must start 2000 feet apart for the plane behind to be hit in 2 seconds.  So, assume the plane behind fires back.  In an airless environment, his gun velocity of 1000fps has a "ground speed" of 2000 fps.  In one second it crosses the "hovering bullet", but the target is now 1000ft away due to its speed.  After second number two, the 2000fps bullet hits the target which is now 2000 feet from the original position.  The impact is still at 1000 fps.

So I guess I need a physics lesson.  I tend to think of deceleration as a time-dependent variable.  Is deceleration due to drag purely dependent on distance traveled?  That is, a bullet fired at 2000 feet per second decelerates more rapidly than a bullet fired at 1000 feet per second?

At real-life speeds and when talking about a spinning, aerodynamically designed projectile, is the difference in deceleration all that significant when time-to-target is less than a second?

That is to say, I understand (now) that there is a difference.  I still have a hard time believing that the difference could be so great as to be a more determinant factor than those I cite (multiple guns firing at a relatively easy target at its most vulnerable part (engine)).

Waiting patiently for my smackdown . . .

Until then, as once stated on Mythbusters;  "I reject your reality, and choose to substitute my own."

[Spatula]

Originally posted by Boxboy
1. same random roll for engine hit as to wheather or not it covers cockpit with oil.  (not all engine hits resulted in a covered with oil cockpit)

Yer totally agree.

Originally posted by Boxboy
2. Less than FULL gas loads to be a perked option, the lower you go the more it costs for that flight. (most REAL WWII sorties never took off with 1/4 fuel load) This would be rated by how the lighten load helps a fighter and Bombers would be exempt from this perk requirement.

No way. Real life never had any like the vulchers and cherry-pickers either. If you want to defend a base while being vulched i sure as h*ll dont want to use up perks so i can go up light. And i doubly dont want to go up fully juiced in some kites to defend either. AH2 aint real life.

Originally posted by Boxboy
3. Jets removed from the MA, these are obivious enclusions for particular historic setups but in the MA they are just unbalancing rides that serve no real purpose IMHO.

Nah, Jets arent that much of a threat.
Where should we draw the line between balanced/unbalanced? Not easy. Your in favour of the "in real life" argument, well jets were part of "real life" in WW2. You cant have "real life" for fuel conditions, and not "real life" for jets.

Originally posted by Boxboy
4. Bomber guns leathality to be lightened up a bit, right now it seems as tho the .50 cals are hitting like 20mm cannon from d 800 yrds??? I know that in a formation you getting numerous guns to bear and that is why I think the leathality should be reverted to the regular .50 cals. (I maybe out on limb on this one and there has been NO increase in .50's on the bombers???)

This one is an old issue, that HTC swears they are identical to normal fighter 50 cals. If your getting taken out by them, then try different attack profiles?  Most bombers bellies can be attacked fairly well. Also try front quarter slashing attacks (ive never been hit doing that).