Author Topic: ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask.. (Read 5364 times)

lazs1 · « **Reply #60 on:** July 17, 2001, 08:29:00 AM »

Nooo... the point still remains that bombers have too big an effedt on the fighter war while the oppossite is not true. this is nothing like WWII save for the BOB where very few planes and airfields were involved. I did not say that bombers had less effect on the war than fighters as has been stated. Nor, did i say anything about c47's or a multitude of other things I am credited with.

Look at it this way.... say the bombers in the game were limited by a number that corresponded to the number that would be parked at the airfield. Now, say that every time in the game that they were all strafed into burning hulks that they were no longer available at that field... Now the effect of fighters would be great (and realistic) on the bomber game. fighters would have more reason to attack a field and risk the ack. My guess is that the bomber guys would scream bloody murder when suddenly they were affected by other players in any way other than the joke of an attack on them. And why shouldn't the guns on buffs have to be manned by real people? If you can't even get up a crew...

And yes... I am saying that if one element has too big and lopsided of an effect on other elements then yes.... something should be done. especially if the element having such a large effect consists of so few players comparitively. Conversely.... you are saying that we "need" bombers in the game even tho they are so badly done and even tho we need to bribe people into flyin em with outrageous, concession ridden and unrealistic features. The case for having buffs seems weak and unfair. It is like a bribe given to small children just to get em to shut up.

so far the only argument for bombers in the game seems to be "so that we can say we have em".
lazs

lazs1 · « **Reply #61 on:** July 17, 2001, 08:44:00 AM »

and sw... they werent that tough. lone nightfighters brought down lanks by the score... B17's were easily killed by 20 or so rounds... Jap bombers died in clumps to single U.S. fighters sure, fighters had a lot of time to set up attacks but still.....

Think of it this way. Every fight you have with another fighter is a simulation of what would have happened. the fields are close together and the alts are low but it is still a simulation of events, "realistic".

With bombers..... They are flying much higher than the average player... The "time to target" once they are at alt is short. Any attack on them doesn't have the hours it normally would in WWII. the plane is piloted by one guy who has his guns slaved to one input and the range stretched out. There is no pentration that would allow 50 or so .50's to kill every gunner in the plane. their only targets are ones that affect fighters (something that is completely wrong) and they have laser guided bombs that can shut down a field in seconds. They are a very few of the player base and are affectin a very many. suicide bombers are 10 times more effective than suicide fighters.

Until buffs can be affected by fighters and/or they have some realistic targets... they are a joke for the lame to game the game in. fix em and we will talk again.
lazs

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #62 on:** July 17, 2001, 09:01:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs1:
and sw... they werent that tough. lone nightfighters brought down lanks by the score... B17's were easily killed by 20 or so rounds... Jap bombers died in clumps to single U.S. fighters sure, fighters had a lot of time to set up attacks but still.....

I've seen that figure thrown around a lot.. the 20 or so 20mm rounds. Problem is, were these B17s already damaged? What did they hit? Bomber's wings and tails just don't fall off like they do in AH. The preferred points to aim at were the engines and cockpit.

As for the US shooting down Jap bombers in droves, you are absolutely correct. Of course they were using the G4M Betty that was a flying cigar. One shot, one light.

In all honesty Lazs, I don't like the bombers either. Especially when the people flying them game the hell out of them up to 35K where even a freaking Ta152 is like a rock without wings! (You know who you are.. I tried to intercept you while you attacked Knight HQ)

If they put a hard code alt limit on the bombers, then it would be a whole hell of a lot better.

A) Wind drift meant bombers were ineffective unless there were hoards of them above 20K.

B) B17s effective alt fully loaded was 26-27K.. not 35-38K!!!

C) It took B17s TEN minutes to line up their targets, atleast make the in game bombsight SOMEWHAT harder to use than this "point and release" crap.

D) I agree with you lazs, ironically, but I don't believe they should be removed. Just made a whole hell of a lot less of a weenie mess.
-SW

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]

Pepe · « **Reply #63 on:** July 17, 2001, 10:53:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SWulfe:

...In all honesty Lazs, I don't like the bombers either. Especially when the people flying them game the hell out of them up to 35K where even a freaking Ta152 is like a rock without wings! (You know who you are.. I tried to intercept you while you attacked Knight HQ)...

[ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]

Hehehehe, been there, done that.

SW, I subscribe each of your points, and quite more beyond

Cheers,

Pepe

Hangtime · « **Reply #64 on:** July 17, 2001, 10:41:00 PM »

Ya'all is talkin 'bout bummers, raaaight?

I saw a bummer once..

Dude stepped off the curb; got hit by a truck..

Bummer.

ET · « **Reply #65 on:** July 18, 2001, 07:00:00 AM »

A Question.
Does any one know how many fighters B17s shot down and vice versa in WW2.I know B17s did shoot down a lot of fighters and ack killed a lot of buffs.Maybe more than fighters did.Maybe not.Itwould be interesting to know.