« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Slower bombers!  (Read 1506 times)

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
Slower bombers!
« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2007, 12:19:23 PM »
Slower bombers would be ideal for Early War setups, but I doubt anyone in the MA would fly planes that are slower AND have less payload than many other bombers! (not even speaking of armament)

Something easier to accomplish this, is adding some kind of speed limit (like in the real life) The speed limit being your engine temperature, aircraft couldn't maintain full throttle all time...
Implement this, and you'll have enough slow bombers :aok
Logged

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Slower bombers!
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2007, 12:35:21 PM »
Karnak: Okay, it's not very heavy when compared to the lancaster, but it's more than the B-26, the B-25, almost as much as the B-17 (which some sources state carried 5k normally, not sure why AH has 6). Even with "only 4.5k" it still wouldn't be able to sub for the Betty, or the Heinkel, or the Beaufort, or the SM79. It carries too much, when the average early war bomber load was usually half that much. Betty carried 800-something kilograms total. The He111 carried 1000kg internal in early models and 2000kg in the later models (it would probably be the heavyweight on my list). The Beaufort had 2000lbs max load. The blenheim had only 1000lbs bombload.

I had to look it up just now, but the Hampden has a load of 4000lbs. So maybe I should remove the Hampden and the Heinkel from my list?



Frank:
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Disclaimer: I hereby admit any of those planes would almost entirely be a hangar queen, but it is VERY much needed for all the events we run here in AH! We just can't plug this hole with any of the planes we've already got!
Logged

Offline FiLtH

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6448
Slower bombers!
« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2007, 12:37:04 PM »
I voted for the he111
Logged

~AoM~

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
Krusty's quote
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2007, 01:46:56 PM »
Didn't bother reading the entire thread, missed that one, sorry! :)
Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Slower bombers!
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2007, 05:32:00 PM »
I really don't think payload is an issue at all.  Speed is the only issue.

The Wellington, G4M2 and He111 are the logical choices as they saw service throughout the war, not just the beginning and then withdrawn from service.


(G4M2's payload was 1,000kg or an 800kg torpedo)
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Slower bombers!
« Reply #20 on: May 16, 2007, 08:03:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by frank3
Something easier to accomplish this, is adding some kind of speed limit (like in the real life) The speed limit being your engine temperature, aircraft couldn't maintain full throttle all time...
Implement this, and you'll have enough slow bombers :aok
I suggested once in the past that the way to slow the bombers, or at least formations of bombers, is to true up the flight physics of the drones.  There is no reason why, if I have the throttle full open from take off, those drones should be able to catch my lead aircraft.  

If a separation results from a tight turn, force the lead to slow down to let the drones catch up.  If one of them loses an engine, let it drop behind unless the lead slows.

No drone "overspeed" would help keep formations a bit slower without adding artificial limits that other aircraft don't suffer from.  It also continues to allow the option to use a single bomber to its max performance if that is preferred.
Logged
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 tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
Slower bombers!
« Reply #21 on: May 16, 2007, 08:39:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by frank3
Slower bombers would be ideal for Early War setups, but I doubt anyone in the MA would fly planes that are slower AND have less payload than many other bombers! (not even speaking of armament)


But they WILL vote to add one that is slower and carries less payload apparently.

Quote
Something easier to accomplish this, is adding some kind of speed limit (like in the real life) The speed limit being your engine temperature, aircraft couldn't maintain full throttle all time...
Implement this, and you'll have enough slow bombers :aok


I can agree with getting rid of the drone catch up speeds that was stated, and myself, when bombing from altitude run at about 75 to 80% power to maintain a very level flight to take advantage of the hyper accurate bombs.

BUT, if you make the bombers as true to life as you suggest, you won't see very many bombers at all.  It takes a big investment in time to run a bomber mission correctly, and large missions of buffs are pretty rare events compared to the furballs seen in the game.  We don't see 60 plane groups and 1,000 plane missions.  The full speed runs, external views, drones, and slaved turrets are all part of the game mechanics geared toward playability.  

How many fighters could operate at full throttle all the time?  How many actually did operate that way?  


I'd like to see more EW planes, I'd love to see more planes added to the Russian, Italian, German, and Japanese plane sets.  I'd like to see the FlaK36 added to the grunts.  I'd like to see something to spend buff perk points on, other than the Arado.  
Just don't think any of it will come to pass.
Logged

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Slower bombers!
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2007, 05:35:26 AM »
id love the 111 and Hampden
Logged

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Slower bombers!
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2007, 10:19:12 AM »
Just monkeying with drones isn't the solution, because often scenarios and events use just 1 plane without formations. Seeing that the main user of the planes on the above list would be for setups/scenarios/events, that doesn't really help.

Besides, not counting the Ju88, it doesn't help to slow down the bombers we already have, because they still don't fit in a pre-1943 setup. We need genuine early war bombers
Logged

Offline VooWho

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
Slower bombers!
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2007, 03:51:48 PM »
Amen Krusty, Amen. I just hate it how people hate the EW fighters. The EW fighters are so cool.
Logged
Non Sibi Sed Patriae!

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Slower bombers!
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2007, 12:14:36 AM »
VOTE HEINKEL!!! lol. ANY model of Heinkel He-111 would do fine for me, so long as I get my "spade"!
Logged

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
Slower bombers!
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2007, 03:31:53 AM »
I believe the only real EW bomber we have is the Stuka, slow enough for a Hurricane to catch up :)
Logged

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Slower bombers!
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2007, 01:19:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by frank3
I believe the only real EW bomber we have is the Stuka, slow enough for a Hurricane to catch up :)


Too bad you never see them during the BoB ;)
Logged

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
Slower bombers!
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2007, 04:34:05 PM »
Hehe, no, nobody is foolish enough :D
Logged

Offline VooWho

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
Slower bombers!
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2007, 09:55:37 PM »
Probably because no one will fly cover for them. But what do I know I'm a freeloader :noid
Logged
Non Sibi Sed Patriae!
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »