Author Topic: For anyone who thinks Buffs are overmodeled (Read 1725 times)

Stang · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2006, 03:27:45 PM »

And who here do you know doesn't use good "tactics" Lepaul? You're talking out of your ass. As Morph said, stop lying to yourself.

Bodhi · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2006, 03:47:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
It's not the guns. It's the bombers' full-out-non-stop FFT speed. Historically they rarely ever reached these speeds.

If you really want to split hairs about top speed, then maybe you ought to realise that it was a rarity that fighters ran around at max emergency power too... Most fighters used there best normal cruise speed till they got into it, and then they used max mil.... but keeping in mind that they watched their guages like hawks too, ever aware of what happens when you run outside the normal parameters for too long.

As for the buffs guns, I think they are rediculously tough, but in the MA they need to be, otherwise these buffs would get waxed right off. If you took the ability of the rediculous diving bombing buffs away, then I'd live with the guns just fine.

Stang · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2006, 03:50:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
As for the buffs guns, I think they are rediculously tough, but in the MA they need to be, otherwise these buffs would get waxed right off. If you took the ability of the rediculous diving bombing buffs away, then I'd live with the guns just fine.

Agreed.

TW9 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2006, 03:57:03 PM »

the question is how far would it have went if carson palmer was flying it..

Stang · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2006, 04:01:14 PM »

Quote

originally posted by Tweeeeeeeeeeeeb
the question is how far would it have went if carson palmer was flying it..

Forever, blown up every FH on the map and shot down 400 la7's. And make it back to base without a scratch.

RTSigma · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2006, 04:34:00 PM »

Gotta realize that this is a game.

Furball · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2006, 05:16:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
Isnt it funny how those that cant shoot em down via decent tactics are the first to whine? Waaah guns, waah too fast, waah too hard to shoot down....etc etc

i cant remember the last time i died attacking a bomber formation, but yes i can see the faults in them - i deathstar from bombers to kill vulchers all the time.

Furball · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2006, 05:17:21 PM »

whos carson palmer?

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2006, 05:23:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
whos carson palmer?

QB for the Bungles

SKJohn · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2006, 05:30:32 PM »

As for there being no return fire - it appears that the ball turret guns are just hanging down - I'd guess the gunners were dead or wounded by this point in the attack.
I've seen this clip many times on different History and Discovery channel programs - each time it amazes me how many cannon hits the 17 takes and keeps on chugging away

Krusty · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2006, 06:29:21 PM »

"Adding a special fuel burn multiplier would only really change the range, not the dynamic (you'd still have people diving their B17's to gain speed)."

Not so. Think of it this way. It's nearly impossible to get a bomber off the ground with 100% gas. You either get bombload OR gas, not both. By FORCING times when you need more gas in a bomber, people will either slog around hugging the ground trying not to hit trees, never getting above 3k and being sluggish and slow the whole time, or they will take less gas and CRUISE, which means they fly slower. Which means they are realistically catchable as they were in real life.

Given the choice of 100% gas in a B17 and 6x1k bombs, and 50% gas in a b17 and 6x 1k bombs, but using reduced manifold to cruise, which would you pick? Any bomber who has EVER tried to do anything with more than 25% gas knows the difference and they will start slowing down.

The newbies won't. They'll FFT it til they run out then glide into the ground. So it's a win-win situation!

EDIT: Not to mention those 32k HQ raid mission would go bye-bye. Climb performance is VERY much affected by the weight of the gas onboard, so they'd never get that high. Again, more realistic.

sharp8th · « **Reply #26 on:** April 30, 2006, 06:33:48 PM »

why do we have to B***H just becasue you get OWNED by a bomber Dont mean thay need to tone down the guns

Krusty · « **Reply #27 on:** April 30, 2006, 06:40:06 PM »

Again the guns are almost no different from US fighter guns. It's the speed at which they scream across the sky (SCRAMJET, anybody?!?!) that causes their long range and lethal 6-oclock angle. If you can actually CATCH a set of bombers they are easy as hell to kill. It's the ones you cannot catch, that put you squarely in their gunsights because you can't even pull along side of them, those are the BS ones. The only reason those guns shoot to 1.5k is the speed at which they fly. You're flying into the bullets.

Other than that, it's just altitude, thinner air, etc, and that works both ways.

LePaul · « **Reply #28 on:** April 30, 2006, 08:19:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
And who here do you know doesn't use good "tactics" Lepaul? You're talking out of your ass. As Morph said, stop lying to yourself.

LOL, I rest my case....pure, emotional dribble and whining at anyone who disagrees with you. Ha Ha, you amuse me.

Booz · « **Reply #29 on:** April 30, 2006, 08:37:16 PM »

I'm 40-2 vs heavy american buffs (and I'm average), I see plenty ride up 6 and die. Un-fortunately, THEY"RE EAGLES dammit!!!