Bomber speed suggestion

[RTHolmes]

interesting

150-160 IAS does seem to have been standard.

[E25280]

150-160 IAS does seem to have been standard.

The gist of this argument seems to have boiled down to "since bombers flew slower in the war, they should fly slower in AH."  This completely ignores why they flew slower (e.g tighter formations, fuel and engine conservation), which was a tactical decision, not a limit on the airframe.

I'm not sure why people want the abilities of the hardware to be limited by the historic tactics used.  I personally would rather see all the hardware perform to their full potential.

This would be a similar argument to slowing the buffs in AH:  Most WWII tanks did not fire on the move.  They stopped before firing.  Therefore, HTC should model the tanks such that they must come to a complete stop before they can squeeze the trigger.

Silly, silly, silly IMO.

[Beefcake]

Here is a question I was pondering while on the throne. What does slowing buffs down really achieve? I mean seriously, besides maintaining better formations between players, which is rare, it really does nothing. The only thing I can grasp from this is slower moving buffs will be far easier to overtake by fighters and it will make it easier to setup and attack them repeatedly. Also it will take them far longer to fly anywhere and will make them easier to intercept once spotted.

Yep......nothing suspicious about that......nothing at all 

Seriously guys. I think HT is fed up with this and I know as 10 year buff pilot in this game I am fed up with all the anti bomber suggestions. Buffs are a tuff nut to crack, learn to deal with it or don't bother attacking them. Guys who take the time to setup and attack usually kill me, those that don't setup to attack usually die.

[BnZs]

Buffs are a tuff nut to crack, learn to deal with it or don't bother attacking them. Guys who take the time to setup and attack usually kill me, those that don't setup to attack usually die.

I agree that the speed of the buffs probably makes little difference in the exchange rates with fighters, it is the lethality of defensive firepower is the main point.

The question is, are they "too tough a nut" to crack compared to reality?

You wouldn't ask us to ignore a situation where a plane was dramatically faster/slower or otherwise "off" in some performance metric. Buffs are a stickier point because they *ARE* given some "unrealistic" advantages to make flying them practical, without having to actually use 10 players per buff to fill all the positions. The only reasonable way IMO to ascertain whether buffs defensive advantages are too good, not good enough, or just right is to compare to how buffs fared in similar situations in the actual war. This is especially important when we get into the issue of special events, where we are trying to be as realistic as practical.

[RTHolmes]

The gist of this argument seems to have boiled down to "since bombers flew slower in the war, they should fly slower in AH."  This completely ignores why they flew slower (e.g tighter formations, fuel and engine conservation), which was a tactical decision, not a limit on the airframe.

I'm not sure why people want the abilities of the hardware to be limited by the historic tactics used.  I personally would rather see all the hardware perform to their full potential.

This would be a similar argument to slowing the buffs in AH:  Most WWII tanks did not fire on the move.  They stopped before firing.  Therefore, HTC should model the tanks such that they must come to a complete stop before they can squeeze the trigger.

well I think theres 2 separate issues with buffs speeds;

some of the buffs (eg B-17 and B-24) have ahistorical power modelling, meaning that they have unlimited use of settings which were only available for 5mins IRL. this is in contrast to our fighters which have some kind of time-limited WEP. just imagine the complaints if the Spit XIV or F4U-4 had unlimited WEP...

the other issue is that we dont generally have the constraints you mentioned so buffs are flown at speeds which are alot higher than they would typically have used IRL. maybe not such a big deal in the MA where you can have 1945 fighters taking on 1930s buffs, but becomes an issue in scenarios and such. if youve ever flown a Hurri I in a BoB event, you'll wonder how the RAF ever managed to intercept lw bombers.

I wouldnt want to put artificial constraints on buff performance, but for events it would be good to simulate the RL constraints ie. fuel limited to just enough to climb out at normal power, then the rest of the sortie at cruise settings or you will run outta gas.

Beef, the idea isnt to make it easier to attack buffs per se, just possible using historical tactics.

[BnZs]

well I think theres 2 separate issues with buffs speeds;

 if youve ever flown a Hurri I in a BoB event, you'll wonder how the RAF ever managed to intercept lw bombers.

Isn't the problem here actually the fact that a later war bomber is being used for a "stand in"?


Something that should be pointed out in regards to fighters in FSO/special events: Most of the time they *are* cruised at power setting below MIL because of fuel concerns.

[B4Buster]

ONE question.

Did buffs, even the B-17, shoot down about 1 fighter for every ~3 of them downed by fighters in real life?

If this is so, then the bombers in AHII are just fine.

If it is not, then there is a problem somewhere.

BnZs -

You really need to look at tactics employed in WW2 and in AH. Bombers are scary; I'll agree, but they were even more so in WW2. Here, people have fake bullets shooting at them, so they'll just come in straight 6 and present a nice juicy target. In real life, you only get one chance. If you mess up, you're dead, so you can imagine the pilots attacking buffs in real life made sure to tread with caution. Teamwork and speed kept them alive.

[Kev367th]

Isn't the problem here actually the fact that a later war bomber is being used for a "stand in"?


Something that should be pointed out in regards to fighters in FSO/special events: Most of the time they *are* cruised at power setting below MIL because of fuel concerns.

Yes, the BoB scenerio isn't a fair test of what is being discussed. The buffs used in the BoB scenario are a good 40+mph faster than the historical BoB He-111.
Many other issues help to make it less than an ideal yardstick for the discussion.

[BnZs]

B4Buster,
The Germans DID at times use attacks from astern,(you've probably watched as much of the Fw-190 gun camera footage as I have, and know this to be so), and it was apparently not absolutely suicidal to do so.

So I'm sorry, but I do suspect that the way defensive firepower is set up in AHII makes it more lethal against intercepting fighters than it actually was.

BnZs -

You really need to look at tactics employed in WW2 and in AH. Bombers are scary; I'll agree, but they were even more so in WW2. Here, people have fake bullets shooting at them, so they'll just come in straight 6 and present a nice juicy target. In real life, you only get one chance. If you mess up, you're dead, so you can imagine the pilots attacking buffs in real life made sure to tread with caution. Teamwork and speed kept them alive.

[Motherland]

B4Buster,
The Germans DID at times use attacks from astern,(you've probably watched as much of the Fw-190 gun camera footage as I have, and know this to be so), and it was apparently not absolutely suicidal to do so.

This was usually done when one bomber was separated from the main stream.
Wasn't there a Luftwaffe pilot that said something to the affect of, attacking a Spitfire or a Mustang is exciting, even exhilarating, but attacking a box of bombers is terrifying?

[B4Buster]

yup BnZs, watched plenty of it and I agree, it happened. But like I said teamwork was also used. In game, most people will attack a buff formation alone (myself included) because I know If I die I can always just reup.

I'm sure straight 6 attacks weren't the preferred method of attack, like I said in my first post, bomber attackers had to be real carefl because you can't just reup when you get shot down, so your data back on the first page is slightly tainted

[Motherland]

The method used by most successful RVG units was to attack with long range weapons (rockets and bombs) to split up the formations, then proceed with head-on and off angle attacks, and then destroy stragglers by saddling up on them and shooting them down from behind. The first part of the attack had to be ditched as fighter escort began to be used, however generally the rest stayed the same.
Bombers weren't sitting ducks like many would have you believe.

[BnZs]

yup BnZs, watched plenty of it and I agree, it happened. But like I said teamwork was also used. In game, most people will attack a buff formation alone (myself included) because I know If I die I can always just reup.

I'm sure straight 6 attacks weren't the preferred method of attack, like I said in my first post, bomber attackers had to be real carefl because you can't just reup when you get shot down, so your data back on the first page is slightly tainted

Well I might agree about MA data, but the data from FSO is actually similar. And in FSO you have more experienced fighter pilots working more more intelligently as a team and the fighter/buff attrition rate is still pretty much the same.

[BnZs]

, and then destroy stragglers by saddling up on them and shooting them down from behind.

Saddling up on even a lone American heavy is a pretty good way to die fast in AHII.

[B4Buster]

Well I might agree about MA data, but the data from FSO is actually similar. And in FSO you have more experienced fighter pilots working more more intelligently as a team and the fighter/buff attrition rate is still pretty much the same.

The same as the MA?