Author Topic: Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals  (Read 3608 times)

Offline KTM520guy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 593
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2006, 10:48:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty


I think the problem with bombers isn't their guns, at the moment. I think the problem with bombers is their constant 300mph speeds and the fact that they outrun most fighters in this game. If we impose stronger fuel burn on bombers (only bombers, like fighters still have 2x but bombers have 4x or 6x) then they HAVE to conserve gas, which means cruising, which returns bombers to a more historical footing.


Which bombers go 300 mph? None on my computer do. My typical cruise speed during a bomb run is 225 mph.
Everything King Midas touches turns to gold. Everything Chuck Norris touches turns up dead.

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #31 on: March 18, 2006, 10:52:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
...

I suppose the question come round again to the Realism VS Enjoyment catch 22.


Heavy bomber flights are being pretty harshly abused in the MA, and something needs to happen to correct this. Their use as flak platforms. Their use on the deck in pure suicide missions. Their recent tendency to deliberately ram fighters (hey, they got 3 lives, right?). And, of course, everyone's favorite - the dive bombing bomber formations.

Modelling barrel burn-out would be the more practical application of your idea. If the gunners maintain fire discipline, they stay effective. If they do like they do now, they burn out their guns after the first couple attacks (based on current "technique" anyway) and are defenseless. This shouldn't be too tough to code up, just keep a counter of number of seconds the trigger is held down and then decrement it by the number of seconds of cool down times some constant. The cool-down constant could be cranked down for the MA, and kept realistic for event-based arenas. This would mean bomber groups in the MA would need to use teamwork in who fires when at which incoming target. And the gunners or pilot-gunners would need to refine some technique.

As for the other forms of bomber-related idiocy, these all stem from the fact that a flight of BUFF's is a lot of firepower that can be suicided into a target or target area with no perk cost at all. Perk flights and watch these practices stop, and more logical plane choices start to be used.

Care does need to be taken not to penalize the people who are using bombers as intended. These folks usually land their planes, so perks for formations won't affect them. And they usually don't operate completely alone, so fire discipline won't be too big an issue.

Offline B@tfinkV

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5751
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #32 on: March 18, 2006, 12:32:09 PM »
Ok, you've sold me.



now....how do we get HT to pay attention to this?
 400 yrds on my tail, right where i want you... [/size]

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #33 on: March 18, 2006, 01:05:43 PM »
HT reads everything. If he agrees he'll do it. If he don't he won't.

I think the barrel burn-out would add some depth for the bomber guys in ToD. It's one thing to say you need to stay in formation, its another to have a very practical reason to do so.

The way formations are abused in the MA is absurd and has been documented often enough.

Offline ChopSaw

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #34 on: March 18, 2006, 03:29:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Normal, you are a bomber pilot.

And
so you have nothing against bomber flying way faster than during WWII
so you have nothing against bomber able to put several guns on one target
so you have nothing against bomber being a stable gun plateform
...

in short you are biased.

Go back to your 25% fuel thread Mister "I fly fighter 1% of my time" so you can explain us again and again  how 25% fuel is more than enought for a fighter.

Straffo,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're addressing me.

You're right, normally I am a bomber pilot.  It has little to do with my view.  I attempt to view the game in an overall sense and comment accordingly.  I'd like to point out, again, that I myself have little difficulty in shooting down bombers without dying myself.  I do it in both Mustang and Spitfire.  If I, who do not fly fighters that often, can do this, why is it such a trial for those that are more accustomed to fighters?

You're right, I have nothing against the speed of bombers in AH.  I also have nothing against the speed of fighters in AH.  You guys trying to tell me you throttle back to cruise?

You're right, I have nothing against bombers being able to put several guns on one target.  This is a WWII simulator, bombers in WWII could do this and it's not unreasonable to allow it in AH.

You're right, I have nothing against a bomber being a stable gun platform.  See the paragraph above for reasoning.

You're wrong, I'm not biased.  I simply don't want to see bombers nerfed to suit the needs of pilots who don't care to learn how to fight bombers effectively.  I also want bombers to remain at least something of a challenge to shoot down.  Both to provide interest for myself when I shoot them down and to prevent any lame newb from finding it easy to do so.

You're wrong, I've never said 25% fuel is enough for a fighter.  What I have said is that it's sufficient for a base defense.  I've also said it would be a hindrance to fighters wishing to pursue an offense.  Take some time and read that thread again.  If you don't have the patience to read it, just read the last posts between SlapShot and myself.  Might clue you in.

As a side note, how about fighters throttling back to conserve fuel if their field is porked to 25%?

Offline ChopSaw

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #35 on: March 18, 2006, 03:34:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
dont be a mug. I kill buffs just fine.


my view point came from flying in buffs, and it being too easy to kill fighters.

If you kill buffs just fine, then you agree it is not too difficult.  That means you agree the buffs don't have too easy a time of it killing fighters.

What you might be saying here is, it's too easy for buffs to kill fighters who don't know how to kill buffs.  That's still not a good reason to nerf bombers.

What's a mug?

Offline ChopSaw

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #36 on: March 18, 2006, 04:03:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Heavy bomber flights are being pretty harshly abused in the MA, and something needs to happen to correct this. Their use as flak platforms. Their use on the deck in pure suicide missions. Their recent tendency to deliberately ram fighters (hey, they got 3 lives, right?). And, of course, everyone's favorite - the dive bombing bomber formations.

Modelling barrel burn-out would be the more practical application of your idea. If the gunners maintain fire discipline, they stay effective. If they do like they do now, they burn out their guns after the first couple attacks (based on current "technique" anyway) and are defenseless. This shouldn't be too tough to code up, just keep a counter of number of seconds the trigger is held down and then decrement it by the number of seconds of cool down times some constant. The cool-down constant could be cranked down for the MA, and kept realistic for event-based arenas. This would mean bomber groups in the MA would need to use teamwork in who fires when at which incoming target. And the gunners or pilot-gunners would need to refine some technique.

As for the other forms of bomber-related idiocy, these all stem from the fact that a flight of BUFF's is a lot of firepower that can be suicided into a target or target area with no perk cost at all. Perk flights and watch these practices stop, and more logical plane choices start to be used.

Care does need to be taken not to penalize the people who are using bombers as intended. These folks usually land their planes, so perks for formations won't affect them. And they usually don't operate completely alone, so fire discipline won't be too big an issue.

Flak platforms:  I myself am kind of on the fence regarding the flak platform issue.  I have little experience with seeing people use it to break a cap or use it to cap a field, so I'm not sure about the abuse you describe.

On deck pure suicide:  Seems to me there's more fighters doing that than bombers.

Ramming fighters:  I'd really like to see that.  You're telling me that a big, fat, slow and slow maneuvering bomber is deliberately running down the faster and more agile fighters?  How?

Dive bombing bomber formations:  I assume you're talking about heavies, Lancaster and the like.  I agree.  On another thread, I posted in favor of trying to fix this by allowing bombing only from the F6 (bombardiers) position in combination with an inclinometer lock out.  HT posted to the thread and he felt such a fix would just be accommodated by those who dive bomb using the heavies and they'd just work around the limitations.  If you have a suggestion to remedy this situation, I for one would like to hear it.

Modeling for barrel burn out is an interesting idea.  Would that also apply to fighter aircraft?

There is a correlation to your desire to see buffs perked.  Perk all fighter planes except the least capable.  I see more fighter craft suicide than I do bombers.

I do use bombers as they were intended to be used.  I level bomb from a decent altitude.  No lower than 8,500 and usually at ~ 14.  Some of your suggestions would penalize me.  Perks alone would affect me.  It would be difficult to justify spending the time flying buffs if it weren't for formations.  I don't always return with a full formation and sometimes I ditch the drones to get the plane down fast.  I also usually gun for myself.

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
From WW2 Magazine . . .
« Reply #37 on: March 18, 2006, 04:25:03 PM »
A few quotes from the article "Saga of the Short Snorters" in the April 2006 issue of WW2 Magazine that may answer a few points posed here.  The article describes the missions in the early days of three B-17 bombers all named "Short Snorter".

Question 1:  Were bombers "sitting ducks" for the fighters?

". . . the skies cleared completely and [Major Paul L.] Fishburne now knew for certain there were no other friendly planes ahead of him.  Alarmed, he called his tail gunner, staff sgt. Thomas J. Hansbury, and asked how many planes were still in the formation.  Hansbury replied "Sixteen". . . When the 91st was 30 minutes from the target, however, the Germans had recovered their senses . . . Over the next four hours, the group was attacked by 175 enemy fighters.  Four bombers were lost in the melee. . ."

Hmm . . . 175 vs 16, and only 4 bombers lost.  Sitting ducks.

Different mission -- "Fourteen Messerschmitt Me-109 fighters struck the formation as it headed home.  The Luftwaffe pilots approached to within 800 yards of the bombers during their attack . . . Soon afterwards, shrapnel from 88mm anti-aircraft shells broke the window in front of [Lt. William D.] Bloodgood and punctured Short Snorter's No. 1 gas tank.  Picking out the damaged bomber, three Focke Wulf FW-190s pressed their owne attack and hit all four of the B-17s propellers and both wings.  Additional damage was inflicted by a 20mm cannon shell that penetrated the No. 4 engine cowling and a second shell that exploded in the rear of the fuselage and hit the VHF radio transmitter.  Also destroyed were the elevator control and auxiliary cables as well as the oxygen line to the radio combartment.  Nevertheless, Bloodgood brought his aircraft and its crew back to base with only two wounded crew members."

3v1, and made it back.

"Short Snorter II [was] . . . part of a strike force made up of 65 B-17s . . . Fifteen to 20 German fighters, including for the first time twin-engined me-110s, hit the 91st when it was about 10 minutes from the target and continued their attacks until the bombers were on their way home and well out over the North Sea.  Two bombers in the 91st's 323rd Squadron went down as well as three others from the 1st bomb wing."

Bomber losses heavy, to be sure, but no turkey shoot.  Also note the length of time the attack continued.  The LW obviously was taking their time setting up the attacks.

Question 2, Luftwaffe tactics.

"While flak was light, enemy fighter opposition was intense.  Between 50 and 75 aircraft, Me-109s and Fw-190s, began harassing the bomber stream 35 miles inland from the French coast. The attacks continued up to the target and on the return.  German fighters peeled out of their formation four at a time to make a feint at the bombers and then split into two groups that attached the Americans from 11 and 2 o'clock."

Different mission -- "Heavy flak tore into the bombers, and approximately 30 Fw-190A-4s of III Gruppe, Jagdgeschwader 2 (III/JG.2 "Richthofen"), attacked while over Lorient.  The German pilots formed in two lines and them peeled off to charge through the American formation.  Short Snorter was hit in the No. 3 engine just as it cleared the target.  Dropping out of formation and heading down, about five minutes after it had been hit two chutes were seen coming from the plane, but seconds later the bomber exploded in a ball of fire, tiny bits of debris scattering across the water.  None of the 10 man crew survived.  The bomber's destruction was credited to III/JG.2's commander, Captian Egon Meyer, his 56th of an eventual 102 victories before he himself was killed in action on March 2, 1944."

Another mission -- "Soon after the American bombers crossed over to the Continent, approximately 75 Germans attacked the formation . . . The Germans struck head-on with the intent of breaking up the formation and distupting the bomb run.  Four 306th bombers were rapidly brought down . . ."

Last Mission of Short Snorter III -- ". . .  the 91st passed over the East Frisian Islands, they started to fly through dense clouds of flak that followed them until they were attacked by German fighters, which repeatedly hit the formation all the way to the target.  Between passes by Me-109s and Fw-190s, Me-110s stood out beyond the range of the bombers machine guns and lobbed 20mm and 30mm cannon shells into the densely packed American formation."

Question 3:  Effectiveness and range of defensive Guns (bold mine).

"Just east of Heligoland at least 60 enemy aircraft began the day's attacks.  More than half were Fw-190s, with Me-109s, Me-110s and Ju-88s also taking their turns to harass the bombers.

Three minutes before reaching the target, an Me-109 came in on No. 337 (Short Snorter III) from 2 o'clock high, approaching to within 250 yards before breaking away at 5 o'clock.  The left waist gunner, Staff Sgt. Alvin T. Shippang, began firing short bursts at the diving enemy aircraft while it was 1000 yards out and continued to do so as it broke away.  The Me-109 spun sdownward, burst into flames and explodes at about 10,000 feet.  Six minutes after bombs away, an Fw-190 dove on Short Snorter III from 2 o'clock high.  This time it was top turret gunner Tech. Sgt. Sebastian Scavello who shot back, firing 50 rounds at the aircraft when it was 800 yards away.  The fighter dove past the right wing of the bomber and continued straight down into the ground.  Three minutes after Scavello's victory, another Fw-190 passed at 1:30 o'clock level.  Ball turret gunner Staff Sgt. Joseph A. Rekas sighted his twin .50 calibers and fired 50 rounds at the fighter as it closed.  He then whirled the ball turret around and got off two more bursts as the Fw-190 tried to escape.  Hit again by Scavello, the German fighter dove downward; parts flew off the fuselage at about 20,000 feet, and the plane continued down and burrowed into the ground. Having fought off attacks for over an hour and a half, Short Snorter III returned home safely.

The April 4 mission to the Renault works near Paris was another test of the gunnery skills of the 91st's crews.  In addition to moderately heavy flak, on the way back from bombing the factory, the Americans were jumped by at least 60 enemy aircraft.  During the hit-and-run attacks, which persisted all the way to the French coast, Short Snorter III was hit by an Fw-190 coming in from 6 o'clock high.  The tail gunner, Staff Sgt. Anthony J. Roy, let the German come within 600 yards before opening fire.  His aim was accurate, and he saw his foe's right wing cowling fly off, followed by part of the wing itself.

As the German hurtled to earth, two more Fw-190s appeared.  Sgt. Roy immediately switched his focus to those two who, for reasons unknown, decided not to press their own attack.  Eight minutes later yet another Fw-190 dived at Short Snorter III, from 6 o'clock high.  The radio operator, Tech. Sgt. Lawrence J. Brandenburg, engaged it with the radio compartment gun and set the German on fire.  The Fw-190 went into a dive and exploded a few hundred yards below the bomber."

I am not sure I have a basic point beyond the fact that bombers flying in formation were by no means easy prey.  A single fighter in the MA attacking 3 bombers flying in formation should not expect 3 easy kills, which seems to be what many "fighter jocks" want.  Looking at this article and many others like it, it occurs to me that the LW approached the bomber formations almost gingerly, tap-dancing around the perimeter until an advantage could be seen.  Usually this was when flak or (as was the case of Short Snorter II) mechanical failure caused a single bomber to fall out of formation.  They certainly did not simply wade into the formation and shoot down planes at will.

That being said, I do not agree with the statement that this particular idea "nerfs" the bombers. Quite the contrary -- as I already stated, I hate having to waste the ammo of 18 guns on a single target when there are multiple fighters trying to catch the bomber formation.  This idea would stretch out the ammo supply and make defense over a longer period of time a possibility.  It would also avoid the whining that would come from an overheat model (what do you mean all 18 guns overheated at the same time??!!??!?!?!).

BTW -- I related the death of Short Snorter I above.  Although credit was given to one of the LW pilots, the fact that the hit came so close to the target makes me wonder if the engine had really been hit by flak.  Short Snorter II had a mechanical problem and dropped out of formation.  Tail gunners saw the bomber get jumped by five Ju-88s, but it was fighting them off as they left sight.  Its exact fate is unknown, but can be guessed at.  Short Snorter III was hit in the cockpit by AA fire, killing both pilots.  The plane took several more direct hits, and ultimately only two of the crew successfully bailed out and survived.  Between the three aircraft, only 17 missions were flown.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #38 on: March 18, 2006, 05:30:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ChopSaw
:lol Interesting to know that out of the hundreds who play, someone has to shoot you down to be an expert.  Also of interest; I've never said I was an expert in buffs.  I do seem to know more than you on the subject, though.


And this is where you are wrong.  

Karaya
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #39 on: March 18, 2006, 06:09:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ChopSaw
...

There is a correlation to your desire to see buffs perked.  Perk all fighter planes except the least capable.  I see more fighter craft suicide than I do bombers.

...


Did I say that I wanted individual bombers perked? No, I did NOT. I said perk the formations. Big difference. These revisionist tactics may work elsewhere but not here, and certainly not with me. As long as you land one plane of your formation you get your spent perks back. The only "penalty" is that if you want to do something dumb and/or suicidal you need to decide if you want to spend the perks on a formation, or try it for free in a solo ship.

Fighters are supposed to operate at all altitudes - on the Russian front everything was down in the dirt. The use of heavy bombers, designed to run up high, at below 200 feet was not exactly routine duty in WW2. The comparison is inane.

As for ramming - since the head-on shot is the "best" for a fighter to take on our uber-gunned bombers, it does look curious when I see bombers turn into fighters - right into them - often away from their intended target. You do the math.

Just watch 999000 one evening to see the flak platform in action.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2006, 07:29:30 PM »
E25280, you show instances of great numbers of bombers and very few deaths... Don't forget that the fighters weren't reported as shot down, either.

Example: 16 bombers and 150-or-so LW pilots. Bombers lost: 4. LW planes lost: none. In AH: LW lost 150, bombers lost none.

You have an example of 3 FW190s that singled out a b17 and attacked it. It got home. It did not say that the 190s were shot down and the bomber landed. It just said that it made it home.

Keep in mind that these fighters had to shoot up most if not all of the bombers. They only had so much ammo, and by making attack runs on varying boxes/bombers they did as much damage as they could before running out of ammo. They did not suicidally press the attack, as AH bombers often force people to do.

They had a lot of targets and relatively small ammo counts to shoot at them. Its reasonable that only so many bombers were killed, but many more were damaged. Unescorted daylight bombing almost brought the USAF bombing campain to its knees, due to losses of bombers. That speaks a bit on the effectiveness in WW2 of fighters vs bombers.

EDIT: And in real life the bombers were at cruise settings. They only used max power for takeoff. They cruised at maybe 175 to 200 mph. In AH ...

in fact just before I came in here to read the forums I found the typical bombers in AH. 25k, full throttle, going 350TAS. In a 109G14 (one of the faster 109s! Second fastest 109 in the game!!) I could not close in on it until I had been chasing it for 7+ minutes... The rate of closure was very very very small. I came off to one side, a little high, dove down, slashed across, only had time to hit the lead drone before I lost my oil and as I was pulling away out the other side hard to avoid more hits I got instantly pilot-killed.

The BS we see in AH is speed related, not bomber power related.

The altitude is directly affected by gas. They never need more than 25% in this game so they can climb to UNGODLY altitudes, which were historically rare. They can fly at full throttle all day long and at up to 30k (I have personally seen many MANY 30k lancasters in this game).

With more realistic gas loads, these bombers would never reach these altitudes and speeds. To correct this, we need bombers to carry MORE gas, but to burn it faster. A separate bomber gas burn multiplier is what is needed.

This will both slow bombers down to more accurate (and realistic) speeds as they are forced to cruise to save gas, and will pull them down to lower altitude bands (what, 18k isn't enough for you? You have to be at 27k???) because they are much heavier with all the gas they are carrying.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2006, 07:35:11 PM by Krusty »

Offline SuperDud

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4587
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2006, 08:02:39 PM »
Guys, arguing with chopsaw is a lot like arguing with a wall. It's pointless. Even if you are right(which you guys are) he will say you are wrong. What he fails to grasp is when it's either everyone else is wrong, or you... it's gonna be you:lol  Just do what I did and put him on the ignore list, let him cry to himself about how badly bombers have it.
SuperDud
++Blue Knights++

Offline dizman

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #42 on: March 18, 2006, 09:16:42 PM »
DoKGonZo, your idea is good one except for a couple of things. First and foremost, not everyone has a great internet connection. The reason I say this is because when flying in a formation, some internet connections will lag up and freeze the game, when this happens, your drones keep going, sometimes you freeze so long that your drones get far enough away that they explode. that is a waste of dang points. Also, newbs who finally get enough perks to fly in formation wont realize that if u turn fast enough you lose your drones and they explode. Also, cheap bastiches like me wouldnt wanna give up points for extra bombers. This means it would take more runs on an airfield to down just one dang hangar, its f'in rediculous. It's a good idea but in reality it just doesnt work.

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Unmanned drone guns only fire at 3 second burst intervals
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2006, 12:21:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by dizman
DoKGonZo, your idea is good one except for a couple of things. First and foremost, not everyone has a great internet connection. ...


Wasn't aware some connects were still this bad.

Still, as long as you land one bomber you get your perks back - basically you still get 2 throw-away planes to get to and from target without it costing you. But if you don't get home, well, you just lost a perk plane. So the newbie who turns too hard and loses his drones, he can just land and relaunch and it doesn't cost him.

The choice to pay for a formation comes down to the expectation of survival.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Re: From WW2 Magazine . . .
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2006, 02:28:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by E25280
The April 4 mission to the Renault works near Paris was another test of the gunnery skills of the 91st's crews.  In addition to moderately heavy flak, on the way back from bombing the factory, the Americans were jumped by at least 60 enemy aircraft.  During the hit-and-run attacks, which persisted all the way to the French coast, Short Snorter III was hit by an Fw-190 coming in from 6 o'clock high.  The tail gunner, Staff Sgt. Anthony J. Roy, let the German come within 600 yards before opening fire.  His aim was accurate, and he saw his foe's right wing cowling fly off, followed by part of the wing itself.


If it's the 1943 mission ,well ... gunnery was perhaps good but some bomber missed their target by 5 km.