Author Topic: New change? (Read 1434 times)

Virage · « **Reply #15 on:** June 30, 2007, 09:35:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLED

Personally I think we should just run it as is, maybe less targets, but that is it.

I'm with you Sled.

TUXC · « **Reply #16 on:** June 30, 2007, 09:47:53 AM »

What about turning formations on, but telling the squad(s) with Arados not to use them? As a trade-off there could be an altitude cap for the Allied buffs of 20-25k. The drawback of this is that it relies on an "honor-code" type system. The pilots themselves are in chare of making sure they don't break the rules and up a formation of jets or bomb from 28k.

Of course we could always keep it the way it is now and the buff pilots will just have to fly in tight formation (which actually makes it a bit more realistic for them if you think about it). The one good thing about formations off is that it doesn't wreck the framerate of anyone attacking the bombers.

Also, who do I have to bribe to get a few Ta 152Hs for JG11 to fly?

daddog · « **Reply #17 on:** June 30, 2007, 12:57:46 PM »

I think formations should be on. If the concern is 60 formation of Arado's then limit them.

It is no fun flying a single buff just to get shot down by some LW cannon's. With 3 at least they have a chance. Besides 80% of the FSO players want to be in a fighter. With buff formations they can have a chance to fly a bit longer with their squadies as gunners which sure beats sitting in the tower or logging off to the MA.

It is a fun factor gents. Turn on the buff formations.

My two cents.

Drano · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2007, 12:58:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Virage
My guess is the 'no formation' rule was to keep 60 234s from swarming the Allied fields, but you'll have to ask Nomde.

This'd be my guess too. Even with Tempests to chase them down--which you did quite nicely btw-- they'd be quickly overwhelmed by sheer numbers of them if formations were on. I only had 9 apiece hit 9 and 66. 27 apiece would have been nice.

I'm sure my bored meat grinders on jet base defense last night would have welcomed the additional allied targets tho.

Drano

Squire · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2007, 06:36:36 PM »

According to the rules, the Allies only need to use 7 types per frame:

Allied Planeset
B-17G
B-24J
P-38J
P-47D-40
P-47N - Only 15 Per Frame
P-51D
Spit IX
Spit XIV
Tempest V - Only 15 Per Frame
Typhoon
Mosquito Mk VI

...so if they want to use B-24s or B-17s they can but they dont HAVE to.

That being said formations could be enabled and have them limited to the heavies, every FSO has rules.

Krusty · « **Reply #20 on:** June 30, 2007, 07:01:28 PM »

IMO, folks are too overly-reliant on formations. Bombers WERE historically dead meat for any attacking fighters. Even "slow" fighters were able to catch and heavily damage US bombers.

However in this game you get all guns firing on one spot (instead of just 1 position) and you get 3 planes with all their guns firing on one spot.

With 30mm you might get lucky and set something on fire with 1 ping (and hey this happened to me Thursday night!) but most of the time you have to pump most of your ammo into a single plane, and by then you're out of position unable to attack again or you're a sitting duck and his 30x 50cal (all slaved to 1 target) kill you on the spot.

You are all overly reliant on drones. So much so that the escorts weren't set up or in the right spot or whatever. I'm not laying blame, I'm just saying 1) most often the bombers get through on their own (when they have drones) and 2) because of that nobody practices close cover for bombers anymore.

Feel free to tell me I'm stupid, crazy, out of touch, whatever, but I don't think I'm wrong. Academically speaking, the bombers supplied could have got the job done easily. HOW they get the job done is where all the planning comes into play.

EDIT: Before anybody asks, I couldn't be there. Power outage right at FSO time.

trax1 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 30, 2007, 07:16:48 PM »

Your stupid, crazy, and out of touch....j/k

Lastnight my squad was in 24's and with no formations, so we just got in close to each other and making sure we weren't on a squadies 6 so we all had clear shots, this worked on our way to the target, but after we circled back for a second pass our formation broke up and thats when we got picked off.

Vulcan · « **Reply #22 on:** June 30, 2007, 07:25:46 PM »

We need breathelizer checks on the escort pilots IMHO.

AKH · « **Reply #23 on:** June 30, 2007, 07:34:13 PM »

Enable formations and allow the axis to decide how they fly them. Irrespective of whether the axis use formations or not, the writeup says that 234s are restricted to 20 per frame - that's aircraft, not pilots.

AKDogg · « **Reply #24 on:** June 30, 2007, 08:13:26 PM »

The B24's esentially had a Alt cap. With the targets that had to be hit by t+60, the B24's had to do a slow rate of climb. Bombers were climbing at 160-170mph in order to get to both targets in time which kept us from getting higher then 23k Just NW of A53. I happen to be the last b24 that was mentioned earlier in the post that just got to a49 at t+59. My bomber got its wing and tail shot off just before I was able to drop on target. I just needed 5 secs longer and I would have actually hit the target.

Now we had about 21 fighter escorts with our 15 B24's. They did a outstanding job considering the odds against them. The LW planes had plenty of cannon power and performance (meaning able to get to 30K and manev at that alt). Unlike a earlier FSO (not sure which one it was) that had 190 A8's and A5's that don't before well above 24k+. All the LW planes in this FSO can catch b24's at 25k+ with ease and have the Gun package to kill them easily and still have enough for the fighter escort. This is why Formation should be enabled for this FSO, because of the performance of this planeset.

A Krusty. If we would have 300+ people in FSO's, I would support your reasoning on formations but since we only have avg of 220 give or take, That doesn't leave enough per side to support no formations for this planeset.

AKKaz · « **Reply #25 on:** July 01, 2007, 05:08:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
With 30mm you might get lucky and set something on fire with 1 ping (and hey this happened to me Thursday night!) but most of the time you have to pump most of your ammo into a single plane, and by then you're out of position unable to attack again or you're a sitting duck and his 30x 50cal (all slaved to 1 target) kill you on the spot.

Not necessarily true.... even at the best setup, with drones the most guns that will fire are 5 on each aircraft (total of 15). And that would be the aircraft comin in from a 4 or 8 o'clock position (2x50 in tail, 2x50 in top OR ball, and 1x50 door gun). Even a dead 6 setup would allow just 4x50 from each aircraft. And worst case they hit that sweet spot where the top and ball doesn't even have sight, now you down to 2x50 each. But I get your point.

I wasn't trying to start a pro or con on this subject, was asking why the change? If enough ords can be carried by single buffs, then no formations should be used in all events. If drones are to be used or not used is of no difference to me. I guess I should clarify my thought train here, formations being used or not should solely be based on the type of scenerio and ords needed. Not because they just happen to be available or the reasoning of we want to control another aircraft type not utilizing them.

After looking in the past FSO's, the amount and type of targets could have all been accomplished by NOT using drones. But drones were used, so that is why I posed as to why the change in this one.

My opinion (which is of no importance

) that only singles should be used and only consider drones if the targets are so hardened that the extra ords have to be there. But reasonably, all scenerios that I have been involved in did not require the use of drones. So I posed the question as to why mostly drones before and not now.

Apologies if my original question started any controversy, but I beleive the question was a valid one to be asked and considered.

4XTCH · « **Reply #26 on:** July 01, 2007, 05:31:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKKaz
My opinion (which is of no importance)

Your opinion is of great importance. That is why we have this forum, and this is the way to express them.

4XTCH

Sketch · « **Reply #27 on:** July 01, 2007, 07:47:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
IMO, folks are too overly-reliant on formations. Bombers WERE historically dead meat for any attacking fighters. Even "slow" fighters were able to catch and heavily damage US bombers.

However in this game you get all guns firing on one spot (instead of just 1 position) and you get 3 planes with all their guns firing on one spot.

With 30mm you might get lucky and set something on fire with 1 ping (and hey this happened to me Thursday night!) but most of the time you have to pump most of your ammo into a single plane, and by then you're out of position unable to attack again or you're a sitting duck and his 30x 50cal (all slaved to 1 target) kill you on the spot.

You are all overly reliant on drones. So much so that the escorts weren't set up or in the right spot or whatever. I'm not laying blame, I'm just saying 1) most often the bombers get through on their own (when they have drones) and 2) because of that nobody practices close cover for bombers anymore.

Feel free to tell me I'm stupid, crazy, out of touch, whatever, but I don't think I'm wrong. Academically speaking, the bombers supplied could have got the job done easily. HOW they get the job done is where all the planning comes into play.

EDIT: Before anybody asks, I couldn't be there. Power outage right at FSO time.

Not sure about this, but how often in 'real' life combat would you just saddle up on the six of a buff and blast away? I would be BnZ all the time and believe that would be the tactic that was used. It is a game with flaws to a certain extent, but if I blast away on a guy and have shots all over his nose... in real life, would you stay in that 6 position if you were that pilot? I doubt it...
As far as getting the job done, it is not really that easy when your outnumbered by a sheer mass of 109/190's. Trust me, even 999000 & Tatertot would have been fish in a barrel with thier accuracy. (No offense guys

) We had a good plan, but with a 50/50 split of people, it was not compleatly accurate historically wise was it? I am not sure, just my .02

Virage · « **Reply #28 on:** July 01, 2007, 08:57:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sketch
We had a good plan, but with a 50/50 split of people, it was not compleatly accurate historically wise was it?

This isn't an 8th airforce vs. Luftwaffe scenario with all the german aircraft waiting on defense. Each team has 4 offensive and 4 defensive objectives and the forces are divided as the CIC sees fit.

Both sides have the same limitations. The late war Allied fighters aren't exactly what I would call lemons. And lets not even talk about the Ju88 vs B17/24.

I know it must suck to get stuck with a single bomber and get shot down. That is the only real reason in my mind to change the formations in this scenario. I'd like to see an FSO not change rules midstream.

Sketch · « **Reply #29 on:** July 02, 2007, 05:24:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Virage
This isn't an 8th airforce vs. Luftwaffe scenario with all the german aircraft waiting on defense. Each team has 4 offensive and 4 defensive objectives and the forces are divided as the CIC sees fit.

Both sides have the same limitations. The late war Allied fighters aren't exactly what I would call lemons. And lets not even talk about the Ju88 vs B17/24.

I know it must suck to get stuck with a single bomber and get shot down. That is the only real reason in my mind to change the formations in this scenario. I'd like to see an FSO not change rules midstream.

I was just wondering people wise is all.... Were the Allies ever really outnumbered in the skies while in buffs I guess is what I am asking? Like 20 B17's against 40 109/190's.