Perking Bomb load out's

[thndregg]

When we got the B-25H, it was brought up at the time with Pyro why we didn't have any rockets for it as an ordnance option.  That's when Pyro mentioned that they were looking into some type of ordnance perk system where we would be able to use (I'm guessing bomber perk points) for certain ordnance packages.  But I haven't seen anything from Pyro or anyone else from HTC about it since then.

Hopefully, it wasn't just a passing thought on their part and is something they are actively working on to implement in the arenas.  That would give players something to spend their bomber (if those are the perks to be used) perks on something other than relatively useless jet bombers.


ack-ack

At nearly 18K bomber perks, I need something else besides the jet.

[Anaxogoras]

I'll grant you I only recall meeting 999000 once while on different sides, but it was 3-0 in favor of the Mossie over the B-17s that time. 

Is that 3-0 in one sortie?  My guess is 3-0 over 3 sorties and that you had to rtb because of damage every time.

Biased for fighters. Bombers are dead meat without the two drones' extra guns. Unhistorical and unfair. The drones are the only simple and elegant way to accomodate the bombers' design, which was made for WWII, not AH's MA.

This is a multiplayer game for a reason.  Let bomber pilots fly together if they want the extra protection of a formation.  That's more fun than flying with robots, after all.  The only thing that's "unfair" about 1 player : 1 aircraft is that it would be a change from how things are now.  Change is scary.   Saying it would be "unfair" implies that it was always unfair, for years and years, in online air-combat games where you didn't have drones, e.g. HT's warbirds, which is silly.  Instead, the good bomber pilots stuck together or even brought escorts.  Imagine that, teamwork!  It's up to us to recreate the effective tactics that worked in the war, it's what makes this game fun.

[Karnak]

Is that 3-0 in one sortie?  My guess is 3-0 over 3 sorties and that you had to rtb because of damage every time. :lolve tactics that worked in the war, it's what makes this game fun.

3-0 in one sortie, yes.  Mossie took a few pings, no significant damage.

I attacted from the high four o'clock and came in at about 450mph.

[Anaxogoras]

He was having a bad day!  I've made attacks like that on his bombers, and it doesn't matter; he pings me up no matter my speed or the deflection of my attack.  Next time you know he's up try that again.

[moot]

This is a multiplayer game for a reason.  Let bomber pilots fly together if they want the extra protection of a formation.  That's more fun than flying with robots, after all.  The only thing that's "unfair" about 1 player : 1 aircraft is that it would be a change from how things are now.  Change is scary.   Saying it would be "unfair" implies that it was always unfair, for years and years, in online air-combat games where you didn't have drones, e.g. HT's warbirds, which is silly.  Instead, the good bomber pilots stuck together or even brought escorts.  Imagine that, teamwork!  It's up to us to recreate the effective tactics that worked in the war, it's what makes this game fun.

No, that can't work because there's a natural shortage of bomber players. So they get some handicap. And we're not flying with robots.. If the gunning was by AI, I'd agree. But atm it's just autopilot, the same autopilot you get if you turn the plane with rudders from the bombsight.  There's no automation.  
And I was here long before the drone addition, so the change thing doesnt mean much to me.  In fact it gives me a pretty good perspective.. I would rather have 3-ships than single planes. I've been arguing this one side of the issue, but TBH I'm still curious what would be so much better about losing the drones. Less cannon fodder? Less hits from 1/3 the guns shooting back?  Teamwork? We already have the means for teamwork. The problem is that players just can't be tomatod for it. I don't see how teamwork would fix the bomber player deficit.  And like I said above (we're going in circles now), the two drones mean that you have worse gunning (fixed convergence) than if there were no drones.
Unfair? Yes it was and still is unfair to bombers.. Bombers are just dead meat anytime they're unescorted.. Drones dont change anything there, except in cases with big numbers and tight formation. You definitely have to be looking out for the hot spots where more than one formation is hitting you at their formation convergence.  But that's part of the game... You have to use the right methods. I don't see what the attraction in the old single bombers is. They were so easy it was BORING.

[Anaxogoras]

Yes, I'll grant that drones do offer some positives, but for now I see more negatives.

1. Drones warp like crazy as soon as the bomber pilot starts maneuvering.  Drones should not have been implemented until a glaring problem like that could be fixed.

2. Drones will not follow their leader through a sharp turn, but they will follow through an immelman.

3. By tripling the bombload, drones make it far easier to destroy a cv with level bombing.  They also make it easy for a lone pilot to effectively close a small airfield in two passes (3 fh and vh).

I can live with #3, but 1 and 2 must be fixed before I could be convinced that drones have a positive impact on the game.

[moot]

1/2 Warping - Blame HT/Pyro... It's not an inherent problem to drones. It's a matter of code, not gameplay/historical accuracy.
3 Bombload - Yeah, if we had proper dispersion and not such a gamey bombsight system, it wouldn't be a problem. It would be beyond gamey to alter the bombloads for this.

[BnZs]

Yep, bombers are very easy to shoot down in here.  There are certain angles you can dive at them from where they won't be able to track properly and the end result is a dead buff formation.  Definitely a lot easier than the Deathstars of AW.


ack-ack

What angle is this that simultaneously gives you a enough firing time have a certainty of dropping the buff, carries no risk of collision (especially if you get some warps or frame rate slow down), doesn't expose you to defensive fire either coming in or going out, and sets you up to take out the next drone in a timely manner?

Hint: Don't say "come straight down on 'em", because that ain't it.

[BnZs]

3-0 in one sortie, yes.  Mossie took a few pings, no significant damage.

I attacted from the high four o'clock and came in at about 450mph.

A Mossie is one of the few fighters that carries long-range lethality to match or exceed a buff. Making comparisons with something that carries 4xHispanos in the nose doesn't reflect the reality of most fighters.

[Saxman]

Yes, I'll grant that drones do offer some positives, but for now I see more negatives.

1. Drones warp like crazy as soon as the bomber pilot starts maneuvering.  Drones should not have been implemented until a glaring problem like that could be fixed.

I'll agree with you here. Bombers need some smoothing code implemented so their drones aren't warping all over.

2. Drones will not follow their leader through a sharp turn, but they will follow through an immelman.

The simple solution, and the one I've been proposing ad nauseum, is to tighten the leash. Not just on distance, but speed as well. would solve another problem with buff formations running at ludicrous speeds without losing their drones

3. By tripling the bombload, drones make it far easier to destroy a cv with level bombing.  They also make it easy for a lone pilot to effectively close a small airfield in two passes (3 fh and vh).

Point of order: This is about 80% the result of bad CV driving. Boat captains have bad habits of leaving CVs on nice, steady courses that bomber pilots can line up on with their eyes closed. Granted, total lack of bomb dispersal in-game helps, but guaranteed when the boat is turning donuts and weaving accuracy plummets dramatically.

I can live with #3, but 1 and 2 must be fixed before I could be convinced that drones have a positive impact on the game.

[moot]

What angle is this that simultaneously gives you a enough firing time have a certainty of dropping the buff, carries no risk of collision (especially if you get some warps or frame rate slow down), doesn't expose you to defensive fire either coming in or going out, and sets you up to take out the next drone in a timely manner?

Hint: Don't say "come straight down on 'em", because that ain't it.

One of the safest ones I've found is coming slightly off of 90deg approach somewhere in their fwd quarters (e.g. 10 or 2oc), and doing a slight bend a bit before firing time (exact timing depends on circumstances). Roll to show the smallest aspect possible on your way out.
You can also screw with em on the gunner positions. Make one pass and then reverse for a shot in another gunner's line of sight. Only works with heavy gun loadouts tho.

Another one that for some reason seems to throw off gunners, is the immelman/HO.. You have to come in really fast, pass under em, then reverse upwards. Puts you into a low and shallow front quarter shot, with a pretty high approach speed and a great mugshot... Kills your exit speed though.

[Lusche]

A Mossie is one of the few fighters that carries long-range lethality to match or exceed a buff. Making comparisons with something that carries 4xHispanos in the nose doesn't reflect the reality of most fighters.

Almost all of the frequently used fighters have more than sufficient firepower to bring down heavy bombers.

P-51, P-38, P-47, N1k, Spits, La-7, 190's, Late 109's, F4U's, Typhoon... there is no lack of firepower anywhere.

The only problem are the fighter pilots unwilling to apply that firepower correctly.
The people I see most complaining about "friggin lazer buff guns" slowly creeping up on enemy buffs at low 6 and paying the price for it.

[BnZs]

One of the safest ones I've found is coming slightly off of 90deg approach somewhere in their fwd quarters (e.g. 10 or 2oc), and doing a slight bend a bit before firing time (exact timing depends on circumstances). Roll to show the smallest aspect possible on your way out.

First of all, for this approach, you have to be higher and ahead.

Not giving yourself much of a shot there, unless you get lucky and punch it right in the cockpit. The other guy still has shots on you both coming and going. Any FQ pass on a bomber means greatly extended time setting up again too.

50% of the time conservatively he will ping down your fighter (if he's any good as a gunner) and/or put bombs on target before you chisel down all three.

Like I say, I've tried everything.

[BnZs]

Almost all of the frequently used fighters have more than sufficient firepower to bring down heavy bombers.

P-51, P-38, P-47, N1k, Spits, La-7, 190's, Late 109's, F4U's, Typhoon... there is no lack of firepower anywhere.

The only problem are the fighter pilots unwilling to apply that firepower correctly.
The people I see most complaining about "friggin lazer buff guns" slowly creeping up on enemy buffs at low 6 and paying the price for it.

The slaved gun's firewpower are equivalent to multiple .50s with a single point convergence, like an A-20 except typically the buff formation has more than 6 guns firing at you. And of course, a turret is a much better aiming platform than a A-20.

 All of the fighters you've named have convergence issues that reduce their effective range to perhaps half of the turret-mounted .50s. They are pinging you well before you can do anything but waste ammo.

Furthermore, given the lack of warning regarding buffs (even within the radar ring they are just another dot, they really should have some identification as a buff formation and rough altitude) and the fact they run full-throttle from takeoff to landing, all someone *can* do to reach them before they drop bombs many times is come in from the rear quarter.

[Lusche]

The slaved gun's firewpower are equivalent to multiple .50s with a single point convergence, like an A-20 except typically the buff formation has more than 6 guns firing at you. And of course, a turret is a much better aiming platform than a A-20.

 All of the fighters you've named have convergence issues that reduce their effective range to perhaps half of the turret-mounted .50s. They are pinging you well before you can do anything but waste ammo.

Not really.

The greater physical distance between buff guns from different planes makes convergence an even bigger issue for them. Fighter firepower is much more concentrated at longer ranges.

And aiming is actually easier in a fighter than in a bomber when you follow the golden rule "don't attack from six o clock".  When the fighter attacks from high 2 or 3 o clock, the bomber gunner has  several angles to track and has a hard time to determine the fighter sspeed and the correct aiming point.

When I'm in American planes with wing mounted 50 cals, I'm usually firing & shredding buffs at D800. One of my favorite buff hunters is the P-51B. "Only" 4 .50cal MGs...

The "secret" to kill buffs is just not to play the bomber pilot's game. Correct application of speed & angles makes buff killing quite easy, only at altitudes above 20k it's getting interesting
Unfortunately, most fighter pilots lack the patience to add another 2-5 mins to get into a favorable attacking position. When I'm flying buffs myself and see a fighter not simply closing slow on my six but climb a bit higher and starting tio overtake me, I know I'm in deep trouble, no matter how his actual "skill level" is.