Perk the ORd

[moot]

"Exploit" may be the right word here. The angle you *don't* see in gun camera footage is boring in on the buffs in a pure vertical Dive. Basically, you see front-quarter and rear quarter attacks. Now, explain to me AGAIN why questioning why these approachs were apparently *not* a death sentence in RL but is suicidal in AHII is unreasonable?
 

I wonder, why has no one answered my question about k/d ratios of interceptors vs. American heavies in the war?

You're extrapolating what the characteristics of a video game meant to simulate combat vehicles in an unhistorical setting should be, from anecdotical evidence of the circumstances of a very limited set of WWII footage.  The way out of this overcomplicated attempt at authenticity is to simply simulate the physics.

Stoney beat me to it.

[LLogann]

So.... SPEIR-heading is what your saying?

You're extrapolating what the characteristics of a video game meant to simulate combat vehicles in an unhistorical setting should be, from anecdotical evidence of the circumstances of a very limited set of WWII footage.  The way out of this overcomplicated attempt at authenticity is to simply simulate the physics.

[Ack-Ack]

Uh, why precisely is it not relevant? Especially when I compare to stats from FSOs where conditions are set up to be as realistic as practical and the relevant aircraft (carefully modeled for accuracy) are crossing swords? C-Hog vs. random B-17 Vs in the MA may make for skewed results, 190A vs. bomber formations in FSO much less so.

The situation from the actual war you are describing is actually much more perilous than what interceptors typically face in-game in either the MA or FSO.  Therefore the exchange rates in-game should actually be better for the interceptors, correct?

Stoney and m00t beat me to it.  Read their replies for the reason why.


ack-ack

[BnZs]

  The way out of this overcomplicated attempt at authenticity is to simply simulate the physics.

Moot,
You do realize that I am not questioning a B-17's top speed at 22K or the ballistics of .50 caliber machine guns right? The ability to have multiple guns from multiple bombers slaved to one gunner is OTOH plainly unrealistic. It is a convention aimed at playability. The  *ONLY* benchmark I can see to decide whether this convention is too much help, too little, or "just right" is the historical comparison.

[moot]

You mean.. Aimed at a fixed convergence point?  It's nowhere near as lethal as if real gunners were manning the guns, and since it's just about even between a bomber interceptor and a bomber formation, there's no reason to change anything that I can see.  There's plenty of plainly unrealistic features in the game.. The aim of this air combat game is to give us good gameplay, not unrestricted realism.  We don't have attrition, don't need to taxi to take off, have GPS accurate radar, etc etc.

The strictly historical standard was out the window from the start.  Physics are the real substance.

[Tilt]

+1

Remember you only lose perks when you lose the ac

For me we earn bomber perks with no real range of oppurtunity to use them.

Its an old record from my side but.................

Perk Ord greater than 500lb/250kg (either by perking each bomb [punative IMO] or by perking the generic loadout[preferred IMO])
Multiply the perk by 3 for formations.
Force all level bombers to drop from F6  after calibrating in F6.
Introduce an "attack" category with attack perks available.
Disable formations in "attack" category.
Disable F3 for all ac where "attack" is chosen.
Enable pilot to release bombs when "attack" is chosen.
Force all fighters into the "attack" category when ordinance is loaded.

what does this achieve? Well IMO

Single player field killing level bombing missions require some risk of perk loss. (you risk lossing points for those 1000lbers if you dont bring the plane back) The 500lb/250kg was by far the most common bomb any way.
Dive bombing formations/level bombers is very impracticable from F6 if you are forced to calibrate first. (there is no quick jump into F6 and release) This also impedes the use of Formations agin GV's.
However some level bombers were also used in attack roles. Here the pilot can dive bomb when "attack" is chosen but he/she is deprived of formations and the ability to dog fight/bomb from the F3 view. (Ju88, B25, Boston)
Some ac are pure attackers (Il2M3, A20) and should only be available as such. Again these AC should not be avaialble to dog fight from F3 view which enhances SA on an AC which traditionally had limited access to rear views.
Fighters are forced to earn perks fighting and not bombing.

Regarding gameplay v realism

The objective is obviously best gameplay yet it is based upon aspects of realism. IMO 2 wrongs do not make a right. It is better (IMO) to apply  realistic attributes in a manner that support good game play than it is to add unrealistic attributes to correct other unrealistic attributes.

i.e

Objective = best game play

Method = application of realism (where possible) to achieve above.

To be avoided = unrealistic gameplay "fixes" to achieve above.

[BnZs]

Some ac are pure attackers (Il2M3, A20) and should only be available as such. Again these AC should not be avaialble to dog fight from F3 view which enhances SA on an AC which traditionally had limited access to rear views.

I disagree...I think all airplanes that have gunner(s) should have F3 view available to replicate the extra sets of eyes. An A-20 doesn't have a "limited" rear view, it has squat for a rear view with F3.

For the sake of consistency with this principle, I believe the 110 should be allowed to use F3 and cannot see why alone among aircraft of this type it is not.

[BnZs]

You mean.. Aimed at a fixed convergence point? It's nowhere near as lethal as if real gunners were manning the guns,

Regarding this point, we must agree to disagree.

and since it's just about even between a bomber interceptor and a bomber formation, there's no reason to change anything that I can see. 

Hey...even I don't think its quite "even" between buffs and fighters. If it ever had been "about even" between buffs and fighters, one wonders why anyone would have bothered to build long-range escort fighters...

But since you have admitted that it is a matter of what desirable gameplay is rather than accusing me of wanting to suspend some laws of physics in the game, and gameplay is a matter of taste, we can agree to disagree on this as well.

[moot]

Convergence - I'm curious how you figure that guns slaved to fire at a single, static convergence are more lethal than if all guns were manned by humans, or if they fired at the same aiming accuracy as the manned position.


In the game right now, it's even. That's what matters for the game, not history. 
Look at the scales.  You need* to have one formula that fits both the defensively weakest at one end of the scale, and the offensively strongest at the other.  That happens to be 2 drones, given the balancing act between allowing players to defend themselves (how survivable is a single Ju88 vs +2 drones?), not giving players too much destructive power (although this is most likely regulated outside of the drones equation: e.g. bomb dispersion and objects hardness), and keeping bombers vulnerable enough so that bomber hunters have a fair chance at killing them.  This last one:  You don't go hunting bombers in an A6M2.  Same argument at a different spot on the scale (feasibility threshold): 190A5.  It's damn near sure that you'll be going down by the time you take out the last B17/24, but you certainly have a shot at taking all three out without taking any terminal damage.  I could've included the 26 in there, but it has a nice blind spot in the belly, which means you just need to be patient and set up for that.  The 17 and 24?  We're playing a game here, with designs made for historical purposes.  Of course many planes aren't up to the task!  A true hint that something's amiss would be for the historical bomber interceptor designs to fail to deliver... So, do you think those models fail to live up to their intended purpose?   
What better alternative would you propose?  What do you find wrong with this part of gameplay in AH?  I think it's fine.  I have no trouble killing a formation on my own.  The good gunners will send me home with a radiator leak... But it's really rare that I can't take em all down. 


* because of coading habits - KISS

[moot]

For the sake of consistency with this principle, I believe the 110 should be allowed to use F3 and cannot see why alone among aircraft of this type it is not.

Not from the pilot seat... Maybe from the gunner position, but that's it.  That's already gamey: in a formation the bomber really do have that field of view.  In the back of a 110?

[SmokinLoon]

If you salvo 4 X 250lb bombs with no delay, they'll practically behave as 1 X 1000lb bomb.  I'm not sure this accomplishes anything, other than limiting the overall bomb load to 4,000 pounds.

By taking a B17 with the 250lb bombs, one can climb quicker, fly faster, and actually spread out the damage a bit more.  The thing is, in AH2 the bombers are used for far more "precision" bombing that they ever did in WWII.  The use of carpet bombing, true carpet bombing in AH2 is almsot nil.  A couple of flights of B17's with those 250lb bombs can lay waste to an airbase with a salvo of 8 and a delay of .8 seconds.  All objects aside from the hangers are done for.  Oh... then move on to the next base.   

[BnZs]

Convergence - I'm curious how you figure that guns slaved to fire at a single, static convergence are more lethal than if all guns were manned by humans

Sorta the reason you don't get anywhere if you throw a bunch of guys in a boat, give them all an oar, and then let them row anyway they want...ya need drums and and some guy going "Yo-e-O" But more seriously 1. If 2 or more fully manned bombers want to cover each other, that requires at least a little formation flying. 2. When you get into the situation of more than one fighter attacking X number of buffs, slaved guns have their own advantages. Catch a good burst right at convergence, fighter is gone, move on the next one. You could easily run into situations in a multi-fighter/multi-bomber situation where firepower was not divided efficiently and one or more fighters essentially had a free run at the buffs. 3. In reality, buff gunners faced the very real problem of not shooting other buffs, and gun positions that didn't have a clear shot at the fighter could not be used to track and fire for those that *do*...nor could a gun position that has been taken out.

If I had my 'druthers, on a trial basis we'd set the formations up to where firing from the tail-gun of a V fired the tail guns of the drones. This would give more meaning to taking out a gun position as well, since it would reduce defensive firepower from that angle by 1/3rd. I would not eliminate or perk the formation. The idea of allowing buffers to use perks to add additional planes to the formation is an idea I feel is worthy of consideration.

You apparently think it is appropriate that one player can take up a formation of buffs and have a roughly equivocal chance of getting through with his cargo. Cargo which of course has more strategic impact than killing a double-handful of fighters in dogfights. Myself, I am not so sure that one guy with buffs without  buddies to form up with or escort fighters should have much chance of getting through. If nothing else, I feel the role of escort fighters should have some meaning outside of "guy who steals kills from the buff gunner"

I have no trouble killing a formation on my own.  The good gunners will send me home with a radiator leak... But it's really rare that I can't take em all down. 

Actually, the really good gunners like 999000 go about 1:1 with fighters. But okay...your usual result is 3 bombers down with damage that demands landing quickly? I find that interesting, because I am pretty sure you can go kill five (or more) fighters whenever you want, and have more fun doing. So I stand by my statement that buff-hunting is onerous duty, and that buff-killers should get more perks than they currently do for a job that is both more unpleasant but also more strategically important than hunting fighters.

[Tilt]

I disagree...I think all airplanes that have gunner(s) should have F3 view available to replicate the extra sets of eyes. An A-20 doesn't have a "limited" rear view, it has squat for a rear view with F3.

For the sake of consistency with this principle, I believe the 110 should be allowed to use F3 and cannot see why alone among aircraft of this type it is not.

I understand this arguement but cannot rationalise the extent of SA given by F3 with the often garbled communications between pilots and gunners. Certainly the pilot never enjoyed the 360 degree intant view given by F3.

Indeed flicking thru the gunner positions with the speed we can.... probably (if used) would give the pilot a better  indication of the world around him than would be achieved in RL. 

But this can be cumbersome to playewrs with limited JS capacity.

Given only this choice  my preference would be to eliminate F3. I think a more ideal solution would be to be able to model the POV hat to look from the various gunner views when operated from the pilots posistion.

[Oleg]

Actually, the really good gunners like 999000 go about 1:1 with fighters.

That is true proof how overpowered bomber guns are, indeed 

[BnZs]

That is true proof how overpowered bomber guns are, indeed 

That figure makes me wonder what all the hubub over developing escort fighters was about