Bomber Time to Climb

[SpitLead]

In the interests of playability I believe the time to climb to altitude for bombers needs to be shortened somewhat (i.e. their climb performance improved by 20-25%, even if this is beyond what realism would dictate).  I'm not saying that it should be on par with fighters by any stretch. That would skew the playability towards the bombers and is too far from the bounds of realism. Yet, one only has to experience spending 20 minutes or more droning on and on in a B17 or Lancaster to get to 15,000-20,000 feet only to get shot down before they even get a chance to make their run will quickly come to the conclusion to discontinue flying bombers.  I think this is one of the reasons you find few people willing to fly bombers.  Most people want to get into the fight quickly.  That's what the game is all about.  Not trying to hold "best rate of climb" for 20 minutes (which IS boring to boot) only to get your bellybutton shot off.  Granted, BUFF flying presents its own unique challenges and is not for everyone.  However,  I think if you improve climb performance, you'll find more people willing to take on the BUFF role which will open up a new dimension of play.  It would be interesting to see the statistics of Fighter sorties vs. BUFF sorties (I'd bet it's at least 20 to 1).  Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Dowding]

This is meant to be a simulation - deviations from reality are one thing, but biasing the game too far towards playability might spoil the experience.

[JimBear]

NO.     At present if you meet a B-17 or Lanc at 30k+  you might mutter about the dweeb meister driving it   , but at least you can appreciate the fact they worked to get there.
We already have super simplfied bombing, please leave the Buff A/C performance alone. what next airstarts in the interest of faster play?

[Mickey1992]

"Most people want to get into the fight quickly. That's what the game is all about."

I disagree.

[SpitLead]

I can appreciate all of your points. ANY adjustment would need to be a balanced one and not skew the playability too much.  Let's face the fact we already have a certain amount of playability built in (lest we forget real bomber missions were 8 hrs long or longer).  I'm just advocating a "tweak" to allow BUFF drivers to get to altitude quicker and therefore on target a little quicker.  I could spend 1-1/2 hrs flying a BUFF and only get 3 sorties in as opposed to most fighter sorties where I could get an easy dozen or more in.  It's no wonder people don't want to fly BUFF missions.  Spare time is a rare commodity these days.  I don't know about you but I can barely find the time to play the game let alone dink around for 1-1/2 hrs. to fly 3 BUFF sorties.  Sure you can appreciate it seeing the guy at 30,000 ft.  But what's going thru his mind after he's spent 30 minutes getting there and now he's spiraling down as a burning hunk of metal after you've shot him down?  That will make him think twice about spending that kind of time on a BUFF mission.

JimBear - hmmmm, airstarts.  Now That idea has merit ;-)   he he he

[TheWobble]

"This is meant to be a simulation - deviations from reality are one thing, but biasing the game too far towards playability might spoil the experience"

yet we still have bombs that can be dropped from 40k into a shotglass without any difficulty.  

[Maverick]

Buffs already have the advantage over fighters in the MA. They can out perform fighters at alt (25k+) in everything but speed. They have more range on the defensive guns (50's) and they have the range to fly past most fighters fuel loads. Couple this with a super simplified super accurate bombing capability there is no reason to give them any more advantages.

If you make them climb as fast as a fighter to 20k they will practically be untouchable.

Mav

[Sunchaser]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

POINTS, PERKS, SUPERPLANES AND NOW YA WANT TO WARP TO ALTITUDE??

OK, I will take some pills and try to be a bit more reasonable.....

no no no no no no no no no no.


------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?

[SpitLead]

Obviously, you guys are all fighter jocks and don't have the same appreciation for BUFF missions (help me out you BUFF pilots).  I'm NOT saying make the climb rate as fast as a fighter.  If you believe the AH published climb rates let's assume a typical fighter can climb at an AVG. 3000 fpm with WEP(recognizing that climb performance drops as altitude increases but I'm trying to keep this example simple for the sake of argument).  At that rate, the typical fighter will reach 20K in 6-7 min.  Even if you improve the time to climb of a bomber from 30 min. to only 20 min. how much of an advantage is THAT? It's still FAR slower than any fighter.  After 20K feet the improved climb performance can drop off. To be successful, any BUFF driver worth his salt will reach altitude in friendly terrrtory well BEFORE their Bomb Run IP before any enemy fighter has a chance to intercept them. So, what little advantage they might gain basically has no impact on engagements.  How many bombers do you ever engage at 25K feet???  I would say VERY few because it takes too darn long to get there and nobody wants to spend the time.  Why do you think you can drop a bomb in a shot glass from 40K feet?  Playability.  No one would bother with bombers if your success hit rate was 5-10% which was probably typical for most daylight bomb raids and that's with TRAINED bombardiers mind you.  Even though this is a simulation based on reality there's an ever present level of playability that must be there.

OK, I'll get off my soap box  :-)

[Maverick]

Here's a suggestion to avoid the long climbs. I have used the very same tactic.

I take off from the high terrain base, each country has one, and then climb to 10 or 15k. I fly, bomb and fight from that altitude.

Mav

[SpitLead]

Mav,

That's not a bad idea. I've done that once. The only drawback is if that base is far away from the intended target then once again it's a long row to hoe...

[Sunchaser]

Obviously you make incorrect assumptions SpitLead, not all who responded are fighter pilots.

Long boring climbs give Bomber Pilots lotsa time to mow the lawn and do other stuff....but I don't, I usually drag out War & Peace and read a couple chapters.

I think AH has way too many gameplay concessions for all involved already and having bombers be given this advantage is not a good idea.

AND
All of the above is simply my opinion and may, and probably should, be totally disregarded.

And please stop calling them buffs!
This is WWII not the fifties-2001.


------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?

[Pepino]

I fly Buffs.

I do not want to spend less time climbing, if that was the real thing.

If you want to climb faster, take Jabo.

Instead of warp climb, how about setting a right Norden sight, instead of the Super-Duper-Mega-Insta-Accu-Sight that we have now? How about improving navigation skills to make those "boring to the boot" long flights?. Just for the sake of a nice planned waypointed route for a buff ride?. The GPS is enough help (too much, IMO, but...oh well).

This is a sim. It has Gameplay concessions, but is a sim, as it is nowadays. If you want to play a game, there is other flavours outside. But we (the sim lovers) have no alternative. This is THE BEST, and the closest to the real thing, if we are to judge by the opinions of real pilots among us, that our money can buy. That's why my money is here.

Cheers,

Pepe

[Fishu]

bleah.. these bombers actually climbs already something like that 20-25% faster than should

[eskimo]

SpitLead,
I used to fly buffs alot, but have all but stopped largly for the reasons you have mentioned.

It's a gameplay problem either way.
Air starts make sense, except capping a field for capture would become... weird.

1 12K bomber only base per country might be OK.

eskimo