Author Topic: ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..  (Read 5685 times)

Offline texace

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
      • http://www.usmc.mil
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2001, 09:27:00 PM »
Ok lazs, heres a good option for you. If you think the bombers are messed up, there isn't any need for you to come here squeaking about it, just don't fly them. If all you want to do is furball to your hearts content, then fine. I see no need for you to squeak about the bombers and "shooting them if killshooter was off" just because YOU think that they are worthless. I am a bomber pilot, and I don't think anything is wrong. I would like to see a more difficult bomb aiming and blast radius though.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: texace ]

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2001, 08:29:00 AM »
texace... I understand but... What about what I've said about bombers in AH is untrue?  And, as you say, the blast radius and accuracy are wrong to boot.   I am saying that the way the game is layed out there is no place for bombers and that they simply annoy people and make the game more gimicky.   They are not able to do anything in the game that is close to simulation of bombers or tactics... How am I wrong?
lazs

Offline Mox

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2001, 08:46:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
texace... I understand but... What about what I've said about bombers in AH is untrue?  And, as you say, the blast radius and accuracy are wrong to boot.   I am saying that the way the game is layed out there is no place for bombers and that they simply annoy people and make the game more gimicky.   They are not able to do anything in the game that is close to simulation of bombers or tactics... How am I wrong?
lazs

As if P51's, 109's, 190's, all vulching each other upping from the "same" exact field and always fight below 10K is any better than being called "gimicky"?  We're all playing a "game" now not a sim, I believe we had a sim at one time but now it's just a "game".

Lazs, Didn't you cry enough to get your own furball arena?  Why don't you play in the dueling/laz arena?  Wait let me guess the dueling arena bases are too far apart?   :) j/k

Mox

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Mox ]

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2001, 08:50:00 AM »
You people have some twisted definitions of what "simulation" means and how it gets applied.

This is an air combat simulation with advanced flight modelling. Says so on the first page.

Anything else is just your imagination, this is not a war simulation or supposed to fully simulate WWII.
-SW

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2001, 08:23:00 AM »
mox... the planes are simulated.   I care not for reenacting history.   The bombers are not simulated they are hashed up comprimise messes.

The reason bombers didn't hit fields from high alt was because it was useless.   In this game it is a valid tactic no matter how bogus.   Having all guns slaved to one player is absurd.   Haveing the buff guns have more range than the fighter guns is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Targets for fighters are other fighters.  I don't care what type of fighter that is (the more variety the better) but I want it to be a well simulated fighter.   My FM and gunnery are simulated and my targets are correct.   This is not the case with bombers.  In fact all bombs in AH are bogus and create a suicide mentality.   I watched the same P47 bomb the cv at least 6 times.   He died every time but he was rewarded with a kill of the cv on the sixth.  

mox... I have never asked for a furball arena.  you are either misinformed, stupid, a liar or some combination of these.   since you have made the same statement in the past about me and I have corrected u.... I believe the latter is the case.
lazs

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]

Offline texace

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
      • http://www.usmc.mil
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2001, 01:51:00 PM »
Lazs..you don't get it do you? Yes there are some things the bombers have that aren't real, like gun ranges and slaving, but that's for gameplay. Now tell me, what is so bad about the gun slaving? You'd rather have them fireing only the gun occupied, or worse yet, OTTO? I don't think that when a B-17 was attacked, the tail gunner said, "No one else fire, he's mine!"

My statement still stands. I care not that bombers have more things over fighters, and that YOU (as in lazs the Great Almighty Only My Opinion Counts Person) think they are wrong. If you don't like them, DON'T FLY THEM!!!!! If youthink they make AH more gamey, DON'T FLY THEM!!!!! If all you want to do is fly fighters, DON'T FLY BOMBERS!!!!

I said it before, there is no need to come here telling all of us that YOU think the bombers shouldn't be here. Just don't fly one, don't help ne, don't kill one. And I'm sure we'd all be happier....

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: texace ]

Offline Mox

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2001, 02:52:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
mox... the planes are simulated.   I care not for reenacting history.   The bombers are not simulated they are hashed up comprimise messes.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Pyro and the rest of the HiTech crew actually do the research and try to accurately model the flight model of the bombers exactly like they do for the fighters.  I see no difference in the way that the flight model is designed for a fighter versus a bomber.  How are the bomber flight models “compromised”?

I agree the bombers guns are a little “gimmicky” but HiTech has to make them playable.

 
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:

I watched the same P47 bomb the cv at least 6 times.   He died every time but he was rewarded with a kill of the cv on the sixth.  

IMHO the addition of the perk points system made the “suicide attack” more prevalent in the MA.  I see a lot more suiciders in the MA these days.  Lets face it that P47 stood to lose nothing (perk points) but he had everything to gain from killing that carrier regardless if it took him 50 tries.

 
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:

mox... I have never asked for a furball arena.  you are either misinformed, stupid, a liar or some combination of these.   since you have made the same statement in the past about me and I have corrected u.... I believe the latter is the case.
lazs
 

I thought about bringing that old thread up but I realized it really doesn’t matter.  You seem to think the MA would be better off without bombers or at least the kind of bombers we have now.  I disagree.

I say add more bombers AND more fighters!  Variety is the key!

Mox

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: Mox ]

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2001, 04:36:00 PM »
The MA would be better if the bomber's unrealistic features (i.e. incredible bomb accuracy) were fixed.  Of course then the bombers wouldn't be much use against airfields and CVs so the MA would need to have "strategic" targets added that were physically large and well defended against low level attacks (i.e. we don't want jabos to be the best strategic bombers).  The only way to effectively destroy these would be by launching many buff sorties against them.  Perhaps if each country had 10 "cities" that had to be significantly damaged before a country could lose this would give the buffs suitable targets.  The cities should never rebuild (you get new cities after a reset/map change) and the more damage they've taken the easier it is to cause a reset.  Perhaps you would have to take all of a country's airfields to cause a reset if the cities are undamaged but capture progressively less airfields as the cities suffer more damage.  This would give the buffs "strategic" targets that would take concentrated effort over a long time (at least a couple of days in the game) to reduce.  If you totally ignore your city defense, then after a couple of days your country becomes terribly easy to reset.

Of course, hitting the cities shouldn't cause any silly side effects like lowering fuel availability.

Hooligan

Offline dirtball

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2001, 07:57:00 PM »
i personally have always targeted the vh first then fh,andack due to the fact that they are all you really need to be able to capture a base in either order but when im lancin i take both w/ one load out

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2001, 08:36:00 AM »
mox... please do bring up the thread where I asked for a seperate arena.   I think you will find that I have allways said just the oppossite... That I don't think seperate arenas work and that people tend to go where the numbers are.

tex and mox.... gunnery is the most important thing... bombers don't really have much of a Flight model.   If all the ordinance of a plane is bogus and one part of that ordinance  is bombs that can ruin the game for a dozen people.... then yes, ordinance/gunnery is VERY important.  

Watch a dozen or 20 guys merrily haveing a fight between two close but unimportant fields.   the fights stay low because it does no good and indeed, cuts down on your defense to go high.... Look up while RTB and see a big fat unskilled A hole at 20k in a four engined suicide bomber all by himself with no opposition.... hitting a bunch of hangers and feeling all proud of himself because he has found a way to "affect" the game even tho he is so unskilled.

It boils down to... I fly fighters.  I have no need or desire to "affect" the game.   I don't need to say "look at me look at me i just made the game a drag for a dozen guys".  I don't believe that bombers need to be quite so bogus and/or have quite so much impact on quite so many people.  

Tex... I don't fly em and I don't attack em unless I'm really, really bored but.... That doesn't stop em from ruining a good time.  whether you fly fighters or not makes no difference to me or anyone else, and that..... is the difference.
lazs

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2001, 09:25:00 AM »
Lasz, just for sake of curiosity, take a b17 full of bombs and fuel, and climb to 20k.
Looooong climb.

Someone think it's suitable to defend a country hopping in a vulched field, other prefer a GV, other want to use the mid alt fighters to cut the attack flow, finally someone want to spend lot of time to gain a safe alt and try to disable the attack by hitting the attack's origin field.

The same, with due differences, apply when you are in offensive.

It's just the way different people like to play in different ways, all of us are paying customers, and want to have fun.

as to the playability, well, the bombers guns are strong, indeed, but you can still attack and down a bomber untouched, if you use the right tactic, more easyly, if you have a countrymate for a coordinated attack.
The laserguided bombs fact is true, but the blast range is ridiculous compared to most of the targets in fields or factories.

When an old, unexploded US bomb is found here in Italy (yes, there are still some stuck underground), they use to evacuate a 4-5 square Km area (500 lbs bombs in majority), for people safety, in case the baby decide to wake up before deactivation.

with 100 Kg (little more than 200 lbs) of TNT, mafia cut in half an highway to kill a judge some year ago, can you imagine 500 (or, better 400, the rest must be iron) of HE exploding in a runway, or near a can made hangar? or even a small building?

less precision, more blast
 (and maybe one shot salvo)

nice slogan  :)

p.s.
And I sometime fly buffs, so I must be a damn dweeb, like 90% of ppl, but this is well know.  :)

Real men dont fly buffs!  :p

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2001, 09:28:00 AM »
Oh, I forgot to mention the "collective blackout" phenomenon.

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2001, 12:13:00 PM »
Heh I like those long boring flights too: Sometimes I took a P-51 or P-38 to HQ patrol; Just cruising over HQ @ 30k waiting if some StratoFortress would like to come visit us:
First boring 20-30mins and then hectic fight trying to avoid those .50cals which can kill you with one ping  :D
Kinda like the real thing isn't it  :)

Offline Fury

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
      • http://n/a
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2001, 12:16:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
.....Watch a dozen or 20 guys merrily haveing a fight between two close but unimportant fields.   the fights stay low because it does no good and indeed, cuts down on your defense to go high.... Look up while RTB and see a big fat unskilled A hole at 20k in a four engined suicide bomber all by himself with no opposition.... hitting a bunch of hangers and feeling all proud of himself because he has found a way to "affect" the game even tho he is so unskilled......
lazs

Unfortunately, the MA is a combination of those who like to furball and those who prefer more to their game than furballing.

A "shoot-em-up" arena would be great...turn off all strat and ground damage, put a tiny map with a few bases near each other, and let the furballers fight it out!  Until that happens, you'll never get rid of your example.

That's not my cup of tea, I had enough furballing at Fighter Ace.

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
ok, bomber sis.. er, guys. I gotta ask..
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2001, 09:38:00 AM »
no fury... a "shoot em up arena" would not be great.   The point is that the arena is fine it's just that a very few people now have the power to affect a very large group and that they do it in a very unrealistic way.  

Why would i climb to kill a hashed up unrealistic buff when there are more realistic fights easier to get to?   what do I care how long it took that idiot to climb to 20k so that he could do his solitary gaming the game thing?   All I care about is how each element of the game affects me.  right now, the bombers have an extremely lopsided affect on the game.  

They are no fun to kill and even less fun to fly but they have a huge lopsided effect on the game.   The only defense is to have a cap at all times at all fields.   That would take allmost all fighter resources and be as fun to do as watch a baseball game or watch paint dry.   Killing em after they drop bombs is also boring and useless to boot.   nothing but vengence.   i would rather kill their chutes after someone else does the work.

You are pretty much stuck with playing as boring and unrealistic a game as the buff guys (escort/climb attack or cap) do or ignoring them and hoping they don't screw up the fites too much.   Far as I can see that is the way it is right now.  We are forced to play their game but have no simular affect on their game.
lazs