bomber perks

[Wingnutt]

Our lanc should be perked anyway considering its a "field mod".

[stroker71]

I like it but how about the first heavy is free.  If you want to add planes to the formation it'll cost ya

   B-24  -  3 perks per plane
   B-17  -  4 perks per plane
   Lanc  -  5 perks per plane

Let you add up to 5 total planes

That allows new people to the game to fly them but they'll have to earn the right to get a formation.  Bomber perks are so easy to get it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

[Serenity]

I like it but how about the first heavy is free.  If you want to add planes to the formation it'll cost ya

   B-24  -  3 perks per plane
   B-17  -  4 perks per plane
   Lanc  -  5 perks per plane

Let you add up to 5 total planes

That allows new people to the game to fly them but they'll have to earn the right to get a formation.  Bomber perks are so easy to get it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Switch the 17s and 24s. BUFFs should be perked by ordinance.

[Karnak]

Our lanc should be perked anyway considering its a "field mod".

No it isn't.  Many Lancaster IIIs came from the factory with the dual .50 cal tail turret.

Also, perking heavy bombers is stupid.  They already pay a penalty compared to medium bombers in that they are slow and easy to hit.

Perking the 1000lbers on fighters is a good idea though.

[Serenity]

No it isn't.  Many Lancaster IIIs came from the factory with the dual .50 cal tail turret.

Also, perking heavy bombers is stupid.  They already pay a penalty compared to medium bombers in that they are slow and easy to hit.

Perking the 1000lbers on fighters is a good idea though.

But they carry a much heavier bomb-load and have increased survivability due to a heavier defensive armament. Im a BUFF guy, and while I don't want to see my heavies get perked, I would like to see the mediums become more popular.

[BaldEagl]

I used to fly Lancs almost exclusively.  I still love them but rarely fly them anymore.  Almost all my buff missions are in AR234's, Bostons or Stukas.  Far less time per sortie, better survivability (speed works better than guns and the Stuka can actually dog-fight... so can the Boston) and almost as many points. 

I think people are just drawn to the big ord loads and the "legend" of the heavies.  No need to perk them.

Plus, I love buff hunting in fighters.  Perking the heavies would reduce some of my fun 

[angelsandair]

Switch the 17s and 24s. BUFFs should be perked by ordinance.

B-17 should be the top of the list. Then B-24s and then Lancs. Only reason the B-24s beat the lancs is the fact that the B-24's have more guns. If your #3 engine is killed, you loose hydraulic power (IIRC) and you're gonna go down.

[Yarbles]

For me the solution is introduce a proper fast Mossie bomber formation and perk it. Too fast to catch up high and a decent bomb load. 6x500lb could take down the hangers, at least 2 plus quick climb and in and out fast. The Cookie would be great invidually for towns and factories individually or in formation.

Bomb quick and back to base and not all that warming up time on the 234

Perfect


The 234 is just not worth it as the only perked bomber late war.

[Serenity]

B-17 should be the top of the list. Then B-24s and then Lancs. Only reason the B-24s beat the lancs is the fact that the B-24's have more guns. If your #3 engine is killed, you loose hydraulic power (IIRC) and you're gonna go down.

The guns on these planes arent the issue. Most people dont know how to use them. However, its the bomb load that makes them dangerous, because you dont need any skill to dive-bomb a lancaster. The perk system in place perks aircraft by their effect on MA play. Fighters are perked for their firepower if they are unusually strong (F4U-1C, Me-163, Me-262), speed if they are unusually fast (Ar-234, Me-262, Me-163, Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV), maneuverability/capability (Tempest, F4U4). They are perked in relation for what they do best. So unless the issue is bombers acting as gunships, (Which it definately ISN'T) the only other effect they can possibly have on the main arena is their bomb load. So, logically, they must be perked in realtion to the ammount of ordinance they carry. So to break that down, Lancasters carry ~14,000lbs of bombs, B-24s carry ~8,000lbs, and B-17s carry ~6,000lbs. So, Lancaster has the highest perk, then B-24, then B-17.

[*PAPA*]

Lancs are so easy to take down.  It would be crazy to perk them.

[Krusty]

Serenity, what good is the bomb load if the platform can't get it to target?

Historically these planes were DOGMEAT to even a few fighters. In this game they can literally outfly all but the fastest planes, outgun every plane (I've seen instant kills from bombers on every plane in the game, no matter how heavy the attacking fighter's weaponry was).

The bombs are not an issue. The issue is that the bombers fly full throttle 100% of the time, climbing faster than they ever did historically, levelling faster, outruning fighters faster than they ever did historically, and on top of that this super-speed compounds existing problems with the lethal guns setup. (Guns would be fine if the plane wasn't moving 2x historical cruising speeds, but as-is they reduce all planes to sitting in tail chase, making them easy targets).

It's not the bombs. A B-25 carries the same 1k bomb as a B-26, as the Ju88, as the B-17, B-24, and Lanc.

The difference is that the bigger bombers are faster, much better defended, and will get to the target and drop the ord more than light bombers will.



Lanc isn't as well defended, but it's buggy-as-hell to kill and still quite survivable.

[Serenity]

Serenity, what good is the bomb load if the platform can't get it to target?

Historically these planes were DOGMEAT to even a few fighters. In this game they can literally outfly all but the fastest planes, outgun every plane (I've seen instant kills from bombers on every plane in the game, no matter how heavy the attacking fighter's weaponry was).

The bombs are not an issue. The issue is that the bombers fly full throttle 100% of the time, climbing faster than they ever did historically, levelling faster, outruning fighters faster than they ever did historically, and on top of that this super-speed compounds existing problems with the lethal guns setup. (Guns would be fine if the plane wasn't moving 2x historical cruising speeds, but as-is they reduce all planes to sitting in tail chase, making them easy targets).

It's not the bombs. A B-25 carries the same 1k bomb as a B-26, as the Ju88, as the B-17, B-24, and Lanc.

The difference is that the bigger bombers are faster, much better defended, and will get to the target and drop the ord more than light bombers will.



Lanc isn't as well defended, but it's buggy-as-hell to kill and still quite survivable.

While they might carry the SAME bomb, the Lancaster carries more of them. If you are going to perk bombers, perk them by their ordinance load. Or fine, perk them by speed! The B-24 is a few knots faster than the 17, so its STILL perked more, and the lancaster's speed doesnt matter, because with its MASSIVE bomb load in comparison to all others, it would HAVE to be perked the most or you would be irresponsible. Either way, the order is the same one I put forth.

[Krusty]

The bombload doesn't matter between lancs and b24s. B24s have 8k, lancs have up to 14k. The real issue is that the bombers are too hard to intercept before they RELEASE their load.

On top of that, any single bomber can only drop so many bombs (best you can hope for is 2 separate targets in one pass on an airfield) before having to extend and come around in 5 more minutes.

The problem is they CAN do so repeatedly, 4,5,6 times over and over without being destroyed by ack, without being shot down by fighters, and without obstacle, because their performance is unhistorically superior to the real thing.

You limit their speed to historical cruise speeds and they will have a MUCH harder time climbing to alt, a MUCH harder time getting to the target for 1 pass, let alone 5 or 6, and a MUCH MUCH harder time shooting down 4 enemy fighters in a sortie and landing with all drones intact.

The speed and climb and weight performance issues are the cause of the other problems. It's a chain reaction. Guns are okay, by themselves. Bombs are okay, by themselves. Put them on a platform that flies unmolested around enemy fields too fast to climb up to, and viola you all of a sudden have a super weapon. You slow it down and all of a sudden things start working out a LOT more realistically (as they should IMO)

[Serenity]

The bombload doesn't matter between lancs and b24s. B24s have 8k, lancs have up to 14k. The real issue is that the bombers are too hard to intercept before they RELEASE their load.

On top of that, any single bomber can only drop so many bombs (best you can hope for is 2 separate targets in one pass on an airfield) before having to extend and come around in 5 more minutes.

The problem is they CAN do so repeatedly, 4,5,6 times over and over without being destroyed by ack, without being shot down by fighters, and without obstacle, because their performance is unhistorically superior to the real thing.

You limit their speed to historical cruise speeds and they will have a MUCH harder time climbing to alt, a MUCH harder time getting to the target for 1 pass, let alone 5 or 6, and a MUCH MUCH harder time shooting down 4 enemy fighters in a sortie and landing with all drones intact.

The speed and climb and weight performance issues are the cause of the other problems. It's a chain reaction. Guns are okay, by themselves. Bombs are okay, by themselves. Put them on a platform that flies unmolested around enemy fields too fast to climb up to, and viola you all of a sudden have a super weapon. You slow it down and all of a sudden things start working out a LOT more realistically (as they should IMO)

Alright, I understand what you mean, but I don't understand your goal. Are you saying the B-24 should be perked highest, then B-17, then Lancaster? Or are you saying to remodel the planes?

[Krusty]

I'd like a re-coding of the way bomber engines work. They weren't meant to run redlined like fighters did during combat. Even during the heat of combat, the heavy bombers still cruised in formations.


However, seeing as that won't happen anytime soon, in regards to this perk idea, I think the B-24s by a large margin outperform the B-17s at alt and at speed. The engines are much more effective. The lancasters are fast but only have 3 turrets, and since they are less heavily defended, based on their ability to absorb damage, and personal opinion, I'd say B24s the most, B17s next, and then lancs. Leave all twin-engines unperked.

Perhaps 7 perks B-24, 6 perks B-17, 5 perks Lancs?

With that in mind, I forsee a lot of B-26s in the future, but these are easier to intercept given full-frakkin'-throttle habits in the mains.