For anyone who thinks Buffs are overmodeled

[Urchin]

Well, part of the reason that I think the gunners are overmodelled is because if 1 fighter sits behind one bomber and both of em are spraying at eachother... odds are good that the fighter is going to be aiming at the biggest part of the bomber from his POV (i.e. the fuselage).  

The gunners are IN the fuselage, but they never seem to die no matter how many shells you pump into the area where they'd be at.  

If you read most of the anecdotal stories of people hitting planes with gunners they'll read like "I fired a short burst into the rear gunners cockpit, he slumped over dead..."

I actually camped out behind a B26 that was strafing a field I was getting ready to land at in a G14.  I must have been 50 yards behind him just pounding the tail with MGs and as soon as he started shooting at me instead of the fuel tanks on the field, I went down like a drunk prom date.

It is that kinda thing that makes people say "bombers are to tough".. I would assume (I actually DID assume) that the tail gunner would rather resemble a piece of swiss cheese after a couple seconds of MG fire into his position.

[Stang]

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

Hmm, you said people here are whining because they're getting killed by bombers because they don't use the correct tactics.  I asked you to say who doesn't use the proper tactics in killing buffs (if there really is one).  How would you know who uses slashing attacks or who just flies up a buffs 6 guns blazing?  And then you respond with this?  Get you head out of the sand buddy, you miss the point of this thread and the things being discussed in it entirely.

[wetrat]

stang, you should know by now not to converse with idiots on messageboards

[Geeb 2]

Eons ago (1998-2000) I used to slaughter anyone who showed up coalt my 6. Now if they do yoyos to me i die just my thoughts.

[Stang]

 I just always think there's hope I can get through to them...

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by whels
the 1 thing the irks me the most is th AI warp into  position after u kill the lead buff.  i die to this more then buff guns.  

ths instant warp into position collision needs fixing.

I have been flying for 3.5 years and killed hundreds and hundreds of buffs but this has NEVER has happened to me. How close do you actually get? I'd expect you'd be shot down a lot more than to actually die from 'warp collisions'.

[BigR]

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

Actually I think he would have been HO’d and in the ensuing collision, broken his wing. He then would have to watch from the Tower while his fellow countrymen got dismantled.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

IMO the biggest problem is also the gunner toughness.

A world record was made right above my home town when a lone FAF Fokker D-XXI flown by Jorma Sarvanto shot down 6 bombers in just five minutes.

Battle description:

Place of the aerial battle: �Northern edge of the Utti airfield.�

Enemy a/c: � DB�

Fate of the enemy a/c: �Dived burning to the ground between Utti and Kaipiainen, North of the railway line.�

Course of the aerial battle: �On a ferrying flight Lappeenranta-Utti I was informed by radio about the movement of enemy a/c at the Southern fringe of the Haukkasuo swamp, eight a/c, on a course to North from Kotka, flying altitude 3000 m. I intercepted the formation on �collision course�. Having climbed above the enemy I half-rolled my Fokker at the left wing a/c. I shot the gunner at 300m and then approached to a distance of 100m. At that moment the third a/c from the left fired at me, so I gave her a brief burst and the gunner fell silent.

Then I fired brief bursts (at the bomber) and the a/c caught fire. The left engine and wing were burning. The a/c crashed.�

Ammunition consumption: �500 pcs.�

Eventual evidence: �A/c found between Utti and Kaipiainen near the railway line.�

Other obervations: �The enemy a/c supported each other by flanking fire. My fighter took 8 hits.�

Signed by : Lt. P.-E. Sovelius Aircraft: FR-92

The whole story can be found here:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/sarvan/sarvan.htm

[Squire]

#1 Slaved guns in all 3 bombers.

#2 Flying at max speed all the time.

Those two things make Buffs in AH much harder than intercepting them in RL was. Not that fighters would just fly in dead 6, because they usually didn't do that either, but they didnt face the very accurate return fire from all those slaved guns. Its a trade off to make MA buffs more usable, for better or worse.

There are tactics to do better in fighters vs buffs, sure, that will mitigate things somewhat. I find a high speed 3-9 pass on a drone works best, then drone #2, then maybe the formation leader, although the last one is always the hardest to kill it seems. Attacking alone co-alt 5-8 and your dead unless he really is a n00b (or you managed a bounce), and thats a big gamble.

Fighters with large batteries of cannon are best (no shock there).

[Edbert]

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. In AH they only ever reach anything lower when they're taking off (and not even landing, most don't bother with that part of the game).

This is not just true about the bombers, fighters too. We need engine management modeled into the game beyond the modicum of fuel mileage we have now.

Bomber gamage seems about right to me. Guns are not overmodeled at all within D300, maybe about right at D500, but WAY overmodelled beyond 500...IMHO of course.

I did not read all the responses but the film in question was of a captured/repaired B17 being flown on "autopilot" and used for gunnery practise and propaganda film purposes.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I think buffs seem too tough sometimes due to rubber bullets.


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). I'd say maybe do something with changing the engine overheating model, so you couldn't run flat out in heavies all the time. But people would just game that and firewall the engines when they came under fire, and then throttle back afer.
 

Well it wasn't unknown for Lancs that lost an engine early on just to push the throttles to the 'stops' and continue the mission on three engines.

Wheres that leave your overheating model?

[Stang]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Every British plane is undermodeled, we only have free 1943 Brit equipment, spitfires are the best, lancs with three engines can outrun 190's, blah blah blah...

[Kev367th]

Getting that bad you have to invent stuff?

Never said Lancs outran 190s.

Saying they would run the remaining three engines at the stops the rest of the flight.
Kinda kills the idea of an 'overheat' model - doesnt it.

Been dieing to use this, you gave me the excuse -

[Brooke]

I fly bombers at times, and I fly fighters against bombers at times.  I don't find bombers to be overmodelled or unbalancing from either point of view.

All aircraft should be modelled realistically, so I'm not in favor of any special handicap bombers should have (like reduced speed or increased fuel burn relative to fighters) just to make them easier to shoot down.

Yes, the coordination of gunners is good in AH because of one person controlling three bombers.  But as the convergence is statically set, this isn't as deadly as it would be with a full complement of good gunners, which bombers never have in AH.  I think it's a tradeoff, probably favoring bombers somewhat, but not enough to be unbalancing.  Also, I'm not sure what alternative would be better with regard to guns.  The only thing that seems likely to me is not having bomber formations.  Of course, if that were done, bombers would be rare, which I think would make the game less fun.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Kev367th
....

Saying they would run the remaining three engines at the stops the rest of the flight.
Kinda kills the idea of an 'overheat' model - doesnt it.

...

No ... as I said, what would kill it would be people gaming around it. I'm sure 17's and 24's also ran on 3 engines, but the odds of engine failure are greater doing so.

The fact that people routinely use heavy formations as gunship platforms is all the proof I need that the coordinated gunners are overmodelled.