gamey bombing

[Anaxogoras]

One crew never simultaneously manned three separate planes with slaved gun positions either. Just get rid of the formations entirely.

One player, one aircraft or vehicle.

[dkff49]

I agree with Jetblast.  A real tank could sit under some trees and not be seen by aircraft.  In this game the big red icon gives your position away to aircraft even in the middle of a dense forest.

If you like icons on gv's it means two things: you like to bomb them without much fuss, and you don't drive tanks yourself.

not true I drive gv's and I do like to bomb them. Problem for me is the gv's look the same as the bushes on the ground. The only time I can tell the difference is whe they are moving. Otherwise they could hide from me sitting in the wide open.

btw I have had gv icons only show on one side of tree when at just the right angle. So if you want to be hidden then get well under the tree. The forest in this game are not very dense so to get hidden you will need to make sure you are actually under a tree not just sitting inside the woods.

[RTHolmes]

Loon I accept your argument about the cost invloved (I personally think both formations and heavy bombers should be perked to some degree) but really not sure about putting physical limitations in the FM. The lanc is a good point - apart from the obvious example which used ords we dont have, low level and NOE lanc raids (with up to 100 lancs IIRC) did happen, although rarely and at great cost. using time-delayed ords, lancs dropped from 500' (so they didnt even have to pop into radar like we do in AH to drop):


Fixing the FM to make buffs more realistically fragile, then perking formations and the heavier buffs would reduce this alot.

so yeah, you can lancstuka in a formation, but you only get one dive which ends in death to all of the crew. and you'll be flying a single boston around for the next month

[Dadsguns]

It's a given these days, if you see a CV, it'll be carpet bombed. Would love to see light bombers killing CVs more, heck even SBD's, B5N's, etc...I know this game isn't historical, but isn't it nice to see some obsolete planes once in a while.

You mean no more heavy 38's and 51's and Jugs making their gravity defying, ack resistantant, stick stirring, dives of death?

One crew never simultaneously manned three separate planes with slaved gun positions either. Just get rid of the formations entirely.

One player, one aircraft or vehicle.

Would agree if you want to give up the heavy cannons on the fighters.....   

Didnt think so.   

seems to me that the FM is far too relaxed for buffs. RL usage depended on the capability of the aircraft, if the usage in AH isnt realistic, the modelling is the place to look, not artificial restrictions.

I disagree, some aspects of using buffs are totally restrictive compared to other aircraft abilities, one that I totally dont agree with is not being able to fire guns while on the ground in a heavy bomber.

I've always felt a dive angle limiter would cure that problem.

This would be a logical solution.

[RTHolmes]

I disagree, some aspects of using buffs are totally restrictive compared to other aircraft abilities, one that I totally dont agree with is not being able to fire guns while on the ground in a heavy bomber.

actually I think we probably agree here, what i'm saying is model it realistically and you'll get historical usage. I agree, cant see any reason why the guns shouldnt work on the ground because they would have IRL. I also know that you could (and some pilots did) do some pretty impressive aerobatics in a light lanc. Im almost certain this was never done in tight formation though...

as for restictive ... hmmm ... all guns in a 3 truck formation chained with one convergence point making the formation unrealistically deadly, buffs always flying at or near vmax so closure speeds are half what they should be ... i'd say its clear that the buff part of AH is nerfed to a pretty large degree because otherwise noone would fly them.

[SmokinLoon]

Loon I accept your argument about the cost invloved (I personally think both formations and heavy bombers should be perked to some degree) but really not sure about putting physical limitations in the FM. The lanc is a good point - apart from the obvious example which used ords we dont have, low level and NOE lanc raids (with up to 100 lancs IIRC) did happen, although rarely and at great cost. using time-delayed ords, lancs dropped from 500' (so they didnt even have to pop into radar like we do in AH to drop):
(Image removed from quote.)

Fixing the FM to make buffs more realistically fragile, then perking formations and the heavier buffs would reduce this alot.

so yeah, you can lancstuka in a formation, but you only get one dive which ends in death to all of the crew. and you'll be flying a single boston around for the next month

Regarding those Lanc raids at 500ft, if they did in fact happen at that level I'd wager that they were done vs a sprawling complex with minimal AA and minimal chance of fighter interception.  Oh, and certainly they were not done vs a gv or two.     

I've advocated perking hvy bombers for a long time now.  HTC has yet to even appear to even read these forums and our suggestions let alone consider perking, however token it may be, those heavy bombers.  Stop and think just how much destruction those aircraft are able to let loose, especially in a flight of 3.  Couple their ability to level entire airfields in a 2-3 passes and the absolute no recourse for bailing out within seconds after doing so... and we see what we have today: an gross abuse of the original intent and use of the aircraft.  What really puzzles many of us is the absolute lack of anything to spend those easily earned bomber perk points on.  Give the Lanc a perk of 5, the Liberator 4, the Flying Fortress 3, and the Maruader 2.  Times three if you take formations.  I dont see this having a huge effect up front since many of us have thousands of bomber perk point to spend... but ultimately it would level things off (pun intended).   

And/or...

Install an alt limiter to drop bombs from those heavy bombers at XYZ feet.

"Fixing" theflight modal wont fix anything becuase many of those fools bail out soon after dropping their ords anyways.   

[Rich46yo]

Were all agreed that there is a limit as to how much realism can be included in a computer flight game right?

But how hard could it be to just re-write the code to prevent bomb release at a dive angle in 4 engined heavies? The sad thing is the Lancaster is a truly wonderful bird to take up to 20,000' to fly and bomb in in historically correct fashion and the stuka crowd will never know that.

[Ack-Ack]

The sad thing is the Lancaster is a truly wonderful bird to take up to 20,000' to fly and bomb in in historically correct fashion and the stuka crowd will never know that.

It isn't all entirely inaccurate about the Lancaster and some other heavy bombers being used to dive bomb.  The problem is that some people in these forums take 'dive bombing' quite literally and equate it to diving like a Stuka or other dive bombers.  As was noted in previous threads and in this one, Lancasters and other bombers were used to dive bomb but they used shallow dive bombing tactics, not the near vertical dive tactics used by regular dive bombers.  1st Air Commandos in the CBU frequently used their B-25s in the shallow dive bombing role.  IIRC, the only known account of a bomber using standard dive bombing tactics was a B-17G that was dumping their bombs in the North Sea on returning to England and they almost didn't make it and it wasn't on any target, just open ocean.


ack-ack

[Rich46yo]

Can you imagine a Lancaster in WW-ll, flying over a raging tank battle, "shallow dive bombing" away at tanks and GVs?

We all know what were talking about here and if its continued to be allowed you might as well put jet engines on them and let them be ICBM lazer bombers.

[WWhiskey]

Can you imagine a Lancaster in WW-ll, flying over a raging tank battle, "shallow dive bombing" away at tanks and GVs?

 in short yes i can , if given the opportunity to help save lives they would do all they could to kill the bad guy.s
can you imagine a dead pilot coming back to the battle in a new plane?
 i posted this in the new "gamey bombing thread" but i will post it here as well



leave those bomber drivers alone!! most of the stuff done in most of the aircraft in this game was never done by a live pilot, more than once!! i said it before,kill the ords if you don't like the bombers!! why should HTC make it easy for you to role a base without doing all the preparations necessary? if they are flying from distant bases to kill you , you took to long!
as far as cv's are concerned some of you might not remember, but the ack was increased about tenfold, not that long ago! and it made killing them alot more difficult!
 if you don't want to see bombers bail, don't re-up after they kill you,
 in no war ever in history, did a dead pilot get up in another plane to shoot down some bombers!
 the only thing that could help would be a more isolated tank town group of bases!
 some of the old maps have those. maybe the old tank town could be brought back, maybe in a well isolated area.
being in a tank should be no less difficult than in a plane in that you should always have S.A. check to see if your part of the map has dar, look at the radar, look up! just be cause you cant fly does not mean the air should not be a threat!

[RTHolmes]

I really dont see low level buffs as a threat for GVs because there is an almost 100% effective remedy. a formation of lancs at 500'agl wont get to drop distance with an Osty there (remember those?)  

[Rich46yo]

in short yes i can , if given the opportunity to help save lives they would do all they could to kill the bad guy.s
can you imagine a dead pilot coming back to the battle in a new plane?
 i posted this in the new "gamey bombing thread" but i will post it here as well

In short "no" the Lancaster was never used that way and was incapable of being used that way. Maybe if you put a suicidal kamikaze in it but the Brit Generals were far to smart to allow the destruction of such valuable aircraft, and crews, with such stupidity. While there were some low alt attacks by heavy 4 engined bombers in the European air war even then they bombed level. The closest was probably Operation Chastise but even when skip bombing they flew level, losing almost 1/2 their aircraft.

I only know of one incidence of low level dive bombing a Lancaster and even that was only to mark a target for higher bombing Lancs. And even then High command realized the stupidity of using Lancasters this way and future target lighting was done by Mossies. Fact is the Brits were smarter and better bombers then we were. They started achieving comparable accuracy, or better, then USAAF while flying at night.

To even consider a C/O in WW-ll would allow his Lancaster squadron to dive bomb tanks in a battle is laughable even if you aren't a student of the war.

[waystin2]

If a certain plane was able to take the stress load and handle the mechanics of divebombing then do not limit them in any way.  However, if they were not able to handle such maneuvers then limit them by changing the code.  Otherwise leave the appropriate code(s) as is.

[Ack-Ack]

Can you imagine a Lancaster in WW-ll, flying over a raging tank battle, "shallow dive bombing" away at tanks and GVs?

We all know what were talking about here and if its continued to be allowed you might as well put jet engines on them and let them be ICBM lazer bombers.

The only real solution to solve the problem is what I stated in a previous post, put a dive angle limiter.  This will still allow heavy bombers to shallow dive bomb while eliminating 'pure' dive bombing tactics.  Unless your real aim is to prevent bombers from bombing GVs.

ack-ack

[FLOTSOM]

personally i sux at bombing and i have only GVed a few times.

i understand and empathize with the plight of those who do GV. the absurdity of being spotted by bombers when you are hiding in woods is completely unrealistic. i will draw your attention to operation market garden. 2 full panzer divisions where sitting in the woods just outside of Arnhem and they were invisible to the low flying recon aircraft sent in to photograph the area.

i hate the fact that bombers can hit targets (vehicles hangers ect) with an unreal accuracy (please don't dispute that fact. we all know that even with the Norton bomb sight strategic bombing required hundreds and thousands of bombs dropped at a target in the hope of scoring even a few effective hits on it. strategic was just a prettier word than carpet) but i doubt this is likely to be modified to be more realistic, so that is not the discussion here.

if we are going to give bombers skills and abilities that their RL counter parts did not have, then the least we could do is not hang a glowing red neon sign around the necks of the GVers.

get rid of the icons, let them hide if they can find cover.

i have flown as a spotter against enemy GV's hiding in trees many times. on more than one occasion I have managed to radio in fire from friendly GV's onto targets that they couldn't see. to do this effectively i had to stay low and slow over the tops of the enemy, so low that without the icon i could still see the vehicle clearly. if a pilot is willing to fly low and look then spotting the GV's even without a blazing red neon sign is something that could be done without much issue.as it is you only need to view your map to know where the spawn points are located, so you already know where they will come from. tracking them from there wouldn't be too difficult.

if the pilot is willing to put in the effort then GV's are easy to spot from the air when flying at a reasonable alt. especially when they are in the open. so dump the icons and make the pilots work a little for it.

well those are just my thoughts on the issue

FLOTSOM