attacking bomber formations

[Ack-Ack]

  As for going for the Lead bomber, I find that less gamey than going for the drones.  Because later in WWII the bomber formations all toggled thier bombs on the lead bomber.  If you take out the lead bomber you throw off the formations bombing.

Killing bomber drones is considered 'gamey' now?  Who determines this, players like you?  If so, maybe explains why the game is in such a state as it is now.

The main reason why people target the drones first is because of the warping associated with killing the lead (crewed) bomber.  If you shoot the lead bomber first, one of the drones will warp to the lead position and more often than not, results in the attacking plane colliding with the drone that just warped into what was a second ago clear.


ack-ack

[Guyver]

personaly i take out what ever bomber i get a beat on.

dureing war you take out any target you can get onto. drone, leader. who cares. its 1 less load droped and 1 set of guns less to blow the cr ap out of you.

ho ing fighters i think isnt sporting but all is fare in love and war. even this went on dureing the war. AH2 is i think one of the best flight sims iv played. i like realistick stuff in what ever i play.

and AH2 has a nice communaty.

but this is war so if i can i will use any means i can to kill you and to win for my team.
i dont care bout scores or rankings. this is a team game imo and it takes teams to get things done.

so lets all get to it and fight to win and fight to live.

<SALUTE> ROOKS

[BnZs]

Do a search for some Fw-190 gun camera footage.

When given the chance, is it gamey to HO the lead bomber?  I know the best way to rid the formation is the top at a steep angle and aim for the wings.

One of the most frustrating situations is having that nasty PW when in your bombsights so I know if a formation is on its lineup, I go straight for the HO on the lead. Even if I fall victim to his guns, I know he/she is going to have a tough time hitting his target.

Just wondering what the majority of ppl think.

[Becinhu]

I always get worried when attacking B-17s because 999000 may be in them...shudder

[999000]

Becinhu.... seems you always kill me Sir <S>...please don't give away any secrets to your success!
<S> 999000

[SmokinLoon]

Interesting.

HOing a fighter is bad but HOing a bomber is OK.

Today's word is:

Hypocrisy

Hy*poc"ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k"r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Hypocrisies (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr. "ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation, outward show, fr. "ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, to play a part; "ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middle voice, to dispute, contend. See Hypo-, and Critic.] The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.

You need to go look up the work "fool" and "ignorant".    

HO'in a bomber is not bad unless the fighter fails to destory the bomber and rams it instead, imo.  If in a fighter, one needs to know and make a judgement call to whether or not they are going to make it, if not, better veer off.  Otherwise... they'll be a ram-tard.  Similar to what dinkis was trying to post above. 

[Blooz]

You need to go look up the work "fool" and "ignorant".    

HO'in a bomber is not bad unless the fighter fails to destory the bomber and rams it instead, imo.  If in a fighter, one needs to know and make a judgement call to whether or not they are going to make it, if not, better veer off.  Otherwise... they'll be a ram-tard.  Similar to what dinkis was trying to post above. 

The jokes on you and before you call someone ignorant and a fool I'd think you'd be able to see that HOing a formation of B17's is no different than HOing a P51 or an F4U. You face the same firepower and the objective is the same, to get the quick pilot kill and end the fight, yet HOing a fighter is considered bad form and HOing a bomber isn't.

They are exactly the same situation and I want to know why one is gamey and the other not?

All you guys that consider HOing a fighter to be in bad form yet HOing a bomber to be acceptable are first class, A#1, practicing, perfect examples of hypocrisy in action.

If you're going to label "gamey" actions at least be consistant.

Nice try.

Next contestant.

[Lusche]

The jokes on you and before you call someone ignorant and a fool I'd think you'd be able to see that HOing a formation of B17's is no different than HOing a P51 or an F4U. You face the same firepower and the objective is the same, to get the quick pilot kill and end the fight, yet HOing a fighter is considered bad form and HOing a bomber isn't.

They are exactly the same situation and I want to know why one is gamey and the other not?

You have been told and choose to ignore it.

But naive as I am, I really hope I'm just feeding another troll again

[Enker]

Bombers don't really ACM much so I don't really see your point.

I try to in bombers...light, medium, heavy, you just need enough speed and spare time.

[Gaboon]

I always attack bombers from about 2K above and 2.5 to 3k out infront then i roll over with throttle chopped come straight down on them aiming for a wing root. this will set bomber on fire. I roll again diving between the drones and tail of lead and weaping out to climb out in front and above by the time I am at attack level bomber is dead and I dive on next bomber. I repeat this untill all bombers are dead and I rarely miss all 3. If done right I usually come out without a scratch.

[oTRALFZo]

I always attack bombers from about 2K above and 2.5 to 3k out infront then i roll over with throttle chopped come straight down on them aiming for a wing root. this will set bomber on fire. I roll again diving between the drones and tail of lead and weaping out to climb out in front and above by the time I am at attack level bomber is dead and I dive on next bomber. I repeat this untill all bombers are dead and I rarely miss all 3. If done right I usually come out without a scratch.

2 icons pateintly hovering over my formation that would really make me cringe from using the above mention:
1) P51 (Skatsr) 2) 109 (Lucshe aka..Snailman). I practice that tactic if I come across a formation that has already dropped ord and is heading back because I know I have time.

[Blooz]

You have been told and choose to ignore it.

But naive as I am, I really hope I'm just feeding another troll again

Your earlier reply wasn't even in the same ballpark as the question.

Why is HOing a bomber any different than HOing a fighter?

The answer is, it's not. It's the same thing. Same action to acheive the same result. So, are both actions considered good tactics or are they both considered gamey? They can't be different so seeing that most consider HOing a bomber a valid tactic (here comes the truth) HOing a fighter must also be a valid tactic.

[Slade]

At the Tyco Airshow in Titusville, FL last year there was a WWII B-17 veteran pilot there.  I asked him what tactics did the Germans tend to use to shoot B-17s down.

He said early in the war they attacked from the rear (6 position) but losses were too great so by the end of the war most German attacks were from the front.

Slade

[RTHolmes]

All you guys that consider HOing a fighter to be in bad form yet HOing a bomber to be acceptable are first class, A#1, practicing, perfect examples of hypocrisy in action.

  form has nothing to do with it - its safer to attack buffs from the front because you get much higher closure rate, safer to attack fighters from the rear because they dont have guns pointed at you. anyway I dont consider HOing fighters bad form, just (usually) bad tactics.

[CAP1]

The jokes on you and before you call someone ignorant and a fool I'd think you'd be able to see that HOing a formation of B17's is no different than HOing a P51 or an F4U. You face the same firepower and the objective is the same, to get the quick pilot kill and end the fight, yet HOing a fighter is considered bad form and HOing a bomber isn't.

They are exactly the same situation and I want to know why one is gamey and the other not? ho'ing a fighter is gamey, because for some reason or other, you're afraid of the fight.  when you're attacking buffs, your purpose is to prevent them from getting their ords on target.
 that being said, i don't ho buffs either, but rather i use slashing attacks.

All you guys that consider HOing a fighter to be in bad form yet HOing a bomber to be acceptable are first class, A#1, practicing, perfect examples of hypocrisy in action.

If you're going to label "gamey" actions at least be consistant.

Nice try.

Next contestant.