Lose buff external view

[Dead Man Flying]

Pinpoint accuracy at 40k?  No problem!

Increased range and lethality of guns in order to provide play balance?  Bring it on!

But please at least force buff pilots to jump into the gunner positions to check for bandits just like vehicle drivers must now do.  This would be both historically accurate and a reasonable play concession given that players can now auto-call "Check 6."

Thoughts or comments?

-- Todd/DMF

[Fester']

but im skeerd!

[R4M]

at least in CT, please. 100% agree.

[Sky Viper]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:
Pinpoint accuracy at 40k?  No problem!

Increased range and lethality of guns in order to provide play balance?  Bring it on!

But please at least force buff pilots to jump into the gunner positions to check for bandits just like vehicle drivers must now do.  This would be both historically accurate and a reasonable play concession given that players can now auto-call "Check 6."

Thoughts or comments?

-- Todd/DMF

Hmm...I don't seem to have this "Increased range and lethality of guns..." in my buffs.
I have to get 50-100 hits at D100 in order to do any damage with my B17, and in a Lanc, forget it! I recently unloded 2 full Lanc guns on an F6 and when I died he was only smoking.

However, I do seem to have the opposite problem if I am on the attacking end.  Buffs all seem to have lethal guns. Even those damn BB guns in the Ju88 tear me up.
What gives?

So, given the way my FE operates, I have to say I disagree TOTALY with getting rid of the external views.  It's the only chance I have at survival.

One exception to my objection: The Il2.  Given that it is a dive bomber and an attack aircraft, and can be flow like a fighter (better than some fighters IMHO) it should not have an external view.

As for the 40K laser Norden...windage, we need windage!  Put some wind speed indicators in the sight and make us compensate.  

Viper

[iculus]

This has been debated over and over.  As it is, a lone buff is free lunch.  Limiting the veiws is not right.  A B-17 had 10 pairs of eyes, not just looking around, but scanning every corner of the sky, because more than just their lives depended on it.

If you want some sort of realism concession for the CT, simply tone down buff gun lethality, forcing the need for formation flight.

In short, removing external view is wrong.

[vega]

Here we go again......
some people just can't resist trying to weaken the poor old bufs....
sheeeesh!  give it a rest.

If anything, the buf gun prohibition on the ground should be removed.  It is nothing but a holdover from WarBirds and no longer has any purpose.  

Leave the bufs alone.  
 

[GRUNHERZ]

A very simple and fair compromise is possible here.


Limit buffs to autopilot level "X key" when in outside wiew.


If as all of you buff drivers always say, you never fly or fight in the external view, this change should have no effect on you, and there should be no resistance to this change.

[StSanta]

I'm pro remiving the F3 function. All would be good and well if the buffs flew straight and level. The outside view would mean they'd be able to detect enemy threats earlier.

But more and more I meet turn fighting buffs; people who're using the rudders to spoil yer attack. B26's who use rear guns when yer behind them, turn with rudders to get a shot when yer below and if you go to the side to gain some alt, HO you. In short, they're defending themselves ver succesfully  .

Such skilled pilots can do that without the benefits of the f3 view mode.

[iculus]

These arguments are quite silly.  

I could write a pretty good paragraph (not counting spelling and grammer) on why it is the "fighter" pilots who "game the game" in the fighter vs. buff debate.  In fact, I've already done it somewhere else on the BB.

Leave the buffs alone.

[LePaul]

Ok, if we are talking about "fixing" things with the Buffs, hows about this....

All the buffs had crews of what...3, 4..? crewmembers?  Yet when ONE is hit, the whole damn plane blacks out.  So, if you are in the tail gun and take a 20mm to the face, the pilot, sitting fat dumb and happy, is weaving in and out of conscienceness.

Further, as you get closer to an airfield, you pass out more frequqently!  So, you can't land.  Yet you bail out, and while sailing to Earth, you do not black out at all.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm    

2 cents  

[Nifty]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
A very simple and fair compromise is possible here.

Limit buffs to autopilot level "X key" when in outside wiew.

If as all of you buff drivers always say, you never fly or fight in the external view, this change should have no effect on you, and there should be no resistance to this change.

I'd go for this concession, though I'd also add the other auto (angle and speed) settings as well.

[Karnak]

But more and more I meet turn fighting buffs; people who're using the rudders to spoil yer attack. B26's who use rear guns when yer behind them, turn with rudders to get a shot when yer below and if you go to the side to gain some alt, HO you. In short, they're defending themselves ver succesfully  .

StSanta,

Once again you are trying to take away the Lancaster's historical (at least a semblance of it) defense.

When the tail gunner in a Lanc spotted an enemy fighter he would instruct the pilot to do a corkscrew maneuver in one direction or the other. The corkscrew was a tight diving turn that then becomes a tight turning climb. While the maneuver happened, the tail gunner would blaze away at the enemy.

[R4M]

Karnak:

1- This was done because Lancaster had no low defence. Not because it was a GOOD defence against someone in your low quarters.

2- This was done mostly to force the enemy NIGHTfighter to lose dar/visual track on the buff by starting a violent move the fighter couldnt predict.

3- This worked against Ju88s and Me110s, in night fights. No B-17 tried to do it at the light of the day and against a Fw190. With good reason: in the middle of daylight the fighter will assassinate the lonely buff if he tries to do any violent maneouver.  

4- ANY of such moves had a DRAMATICAL effect on the gunner. HE wont predict exactly what the pilot would do and thus his gunnery would be screwed. Not to mention that not many gunners were trained to fire while in the middle of a corkscrew.

6- This is done by ANY bomber in AH. Not just the lancaster, but also the B-17 (when historically any violent maneouver would throw half the crew out of the plane)

7- You CANT stall a bomber from a gunner position by using rudders. You can turn as close as you want without having to get worried about losing control. Laughable.

8- You have a BIG FAT rangefinder on all the fighters's icons. You have ACCURATE ranges on anyone who attack you. I dont think that ANY Lancaster, B17, Ju88, or B26 had this    .

9- not to mention the tuned up guns of the buffs

Summing up, if we are going to go historical and realistic, then you have much more to lose than to win.

In the MA put the buffs as you want. After all is a fantasy land. But in the CT, please -NO- External view,and -NO- tuned up gunnery for buffs. Thanks.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[bloom25]

My thoughts are that the outside view on bombers is a semi-realistic concession to account for the extra crew members looking in nearly every direction.  As such, I think outside views for bombers are a good idea.  I do however understand the issue with the guns.  

Here is what I see:  First of all I have absolutely no problems killing bombers.  In fact if I see one I always attack it first, because I know I can kill it with at most minor damage.  Every bomber in AH has a weak point, and if anything they are too fragile.  There is also some type of perpetuating myth going around that the bombers' guns have been "turned up."  This is incorrect, the damage they do is the same as the fighters .50 cal or .30 (.303).  What is different is the effective range they have in rear facing positions.  This is because of the realities of internet gaming.  The fact is that when attacking a bomber at high speed the range seen by the fighter can be much less than that seen by the bomber.  (With good connects about .4 seconds travel time difference.)  Do you think anyone would fly bombers if they knew that any fighter attacking them at high speed could kill them before on their FE they were even in range!?!  There are a couple things that I believe could be done that would be fair though IMO.  First of all, implement the gun vibration effect just like in fighters.  Hand held positions should have more vibration than turreted guns.  This would act to increase the difficulty of hitting long range targets.  I also think there should be more dispersion for handheld guns.

[Olgzr3]

buffs need external view

Olgzr