Bomber Guns

[BnZs]

And yet they somehow only manage to get the K/D ratios that were had in reality.  Amazing how much better AH fighter pilots must be than AH bomber pilots.   

AHII fighter pilots ARE for the most part vastly more practiced than their real life counterparts, and the "technique" for buff attack is much more refined than what the Luftwaffe actually used.

[Karnak]

AHII fighter pilots ARE for the most part vastly more practiced than their real life counterparts, and the "technique" for buff attack is much more refined than what the Luftwaffe actually used.

You can't have it both ways, whining on the one hand about bombers slaughtering the poor, helpless fighters enmasse and then saying how great the skills are of the fighters that they somehow manage a massive K/D ratio over the bombers.

We both know that the only reason bombers have even that high a K/D ratio is that many, many fighter pilot players in AH fly right up the bellybutton of the bombers, giving them an almost free kill.  So much for skill on the fighter pilot's end.

What you are asking for is bombers to be free kills, even to idiots who fly straight up the bellybutton end of the bomber.

[Lusche]

AHII fighter pilots ARE for the most part vastly more practiced than their real life counterparts, and the "technique" for buff attack is much more refined than what the Luftwaffe actually used.

You should actually start to fly buffs. Or at least the next time you encounter them, take your time and just watch your teammates attacking them...
You might be in for a surprise about that "refined" technique the fighter pilots are using vs. buffs

[BnZs]

You can't have it both ways, whining on the one hand about bombers slaughtering the poor, helpless fighters enmasse and then saying how great the skills are of the fighters that they somehow manage a massive K/D ratio over the bombers.

We both know that the only reason bombers have even that high a K/D ratio is that many, many fighter pilot players in AH fly right up the bellybutton of the bombers, giving them an almost free kill.  So much for skill on the fighter pilot's end.

What you are asking for is bombers to be free kills, even to idiots who fly straight up the bellybutton end of the bomber.

The k/d ratio cited comes from Luftwaffe "idiots" flying straight up the "ass end" of bombers. I've seen the gun camera footage. Whereas a fighter pilot in AHII would be lucky to achieve a k/d of 1:1 flying straight up the tail of B-24s or B-17s. Furthermore, all this "straight up the tail" is a paper tiger, bomber guns are still lethal with high closure and angle-off.

What I'm asking for is not to disable defensive fire. I'm asking individuals in bombers to be limited to a paltry 6 .50s for defense (when you're in the tail gun, the tail gun shoots, etc), OR, to be given only one plane. Not both, that would be too much the other way.

[Karnak]

The k/d ratio cited comes from Luftwaffe "idiots" flying straight up the "ass end" of bombers. I've seen the gun camera footage. Whereas a fighter pilot in AHII would be lucky to achieve a k/d of 1:1 flying straight up the tail of B-24s or B-17s. Furthermore, all this "straight up the tail" is a paper tiger, bomber guns are still lethal with high closure and angle-off.

What I'm asking for is not to disable defensive fire. I'm asking individuals in bombers to be limited to a paltry 6 .50s for defense (when you're in the tail gun, the tail gun shoots, etc), OR, to be given only one plane. Not both, that would be too much the other way.

However you want to try to sell it, what you are asking for is bombers in AH to be free kills.

I am not arguing that the guns are realistic in their accuracy.  I am arguing that the increased accuracy is required for bombers to be viable in the ad hoc world of AH where structured missions are exceedingly rare.

In other words, having unrealistically modeled bomber guns creates a more realistic outcome.

[BnZs]

However you want to try to sell it, what you are asking for is bombers in AH to be free kills.

I am not arguing that the guns are realistic in their accuracy.  I am arguing that the increased accuracy is required for bombers to be viable in the ad hoc world of AH where structured missions are exceedingly rare.

In other words, having unrealistically modeled bomber guns creates a more realistic outcome.

Ah.

I thought this was diametrically opposed to the principle of modelling the physics, not trying to model "the war".

Isn't that abit like me asking for changes to P-47D performance to make them more viable in the world of the AH MA where high-altitude escort missions are exceedingly rare?

I do not, btw, see how anything with buff-toughness and several .50 cals firing at you can ever be a "free kill". And I don't believe it would be bad at all for gameplay if it took several individuals flying together in a box to get bombs on target in the MA most of the time.

[Yossarian]

BnZs, I honestly can't see why you are asking for this.

At the moment, here's the basic situation with bombers:

• If you're attacking bombers, and you make a good approach (i.e. NOT from dead six, with an altitude + speed advantage, and maybe from 9 oclock), assuming the bomber pilot isn't outstanding at gunnery, chances are you'll escape largely unharmed.
• If you're attacking bombers, and make a lazy/careless/bad approach (so maybe from dead six, at a lower altitude and roughly the same speed as the buffs), you'll probably get killed very quickly, assuming the bomber pilot/gunner knows how to aim and shoot.

If you implement your suggestion, that basically means any non-lazy fighter pilot will have almost free kills of bombers.  NOT an ideal situation.

And from the historical aspect, IRL each gun was manned by a separate person.  Since we can't have that in Aces High, we get the next best thing where each gun can be fired at once by one person.


Also, out of curiosity I checked your stats (nice K/D ratio in fighters, btw!), and saw you've barely flown any bomber missions - why don't you try flying bombers, so you can get a better idea of what it's like for them?

[Karnak]

Isn't that abit like me asking for changes to P-47D performance to make them more viable in the world of the AH MA where high-altitude escort missions are exceedingly rare?

No.  It would be if you were talking about all fighters not being viable or I was only talking about the B-17G needing unrealistic accuracy.

I do not, btw, see how anything with buff-toughness and several .50 cals firing at you can ever be a "free kill". And I don't believe it would be bad at all for gameplay if it took several individuals flying together in a box to get bombs on target in the MA most of the time.

I don't know how you can rationalize that.  We already know that things with "buff toughness" and many, many .50 cals firing at you are basically free kills.  How reducing the number of guns firing and massively increasing their inaccuracy would have any result other than making them absolutely helpless I cannot imagine.  What you would see is not cooperative bomber missions, but even more nape of the earth Bf110G-2 and N1K2-J missions.  Your idea would basically make bombers extinct.

[BnZs]

BnZs, I honestly can't see why you are asking for this.

At the moment, here's the basic situation with bombers:

• If you're attacking bombers, and you make a good approach (i.e. NOT from dead six, with an altitude + speed advantage, and maybe from 9 oclock), assuming the bomber pilot isn't outstanding at gunnery, chances are you'll escape largely unharmed.
• If you're attacking bombers, and make a lazy/careless/bad approach (so maybe from dead six, at a lower altitude and roughly the same speed as the buffs), you'll probably get killed very quickly, assuming the bomber pilot/gunner knows how to aim and shoot.

This is NOT so. Even making off-angle passes with a great speed, you can and usually will get pinged going and coming. A directly vertical approach is required to exploit the fact that the top turret cannot point straight up, and that, and nothing else, is the "experten technique" of those with huge k/d ratios against buffs.

This is not even discussing the "trickery" that some buffers use, like making very abrupty maneuvers with loosing the drones and unloading in shallow dives to make the fighter pilots chase longer/fore him into dead six, again without loosing drones.

If you implement your suggestion, that basically means any non-lazy fighter pilot will have almost free kills of bombers.  NOT an ideal situation.

"Lazy" Luftwaffe flyers wreaked havoc flying in from six, (admittedly with rather high losses), so I can't really see the problem here...

[Anaxogoras]

The necessity of human cooperation for success is a principle that everyone seems to agree with except for bomber aircraft.  There, the lone wolf being able to completely change the game and its tactical possibilities is applauded.

[BnZs]

Let me get this straight...

1. You don't think buffs get through to the target now?

2. You think 6x.50s from 3 planes or multiple .50s from a single plane is an inadequate anti-air defense?

I doubt it would make bombers extinct. It might require formations and more importantly, ESCORTS. Good for gameplay.

What you would see is not cooperative bomber missions, but even more nape of the earth Bf110G-2 and N1K2-J missions. 

Would be a viable objection if I had not over and over pointed out that I think DAR coverage should reach all the way to the ground.  

[Jayhawk]

This is NOT so. Even making off-angle passes with a great speed, you can and usually will get pinged going and coming. A directly vertical approach is required to exploit the fact that the top turret cannot point straight up, and that, and nothing else, is the "experten technique" of those with huge k/d ratios against buffs.

So you want only a couple guns firing so a fighter can make as many high angle high speed passes without the bomber having a chance of hitting you?  Because a couple of pings upsets you.

*And, it usually take a good aim in those bombers to hit someone coming in at a high angle 2 o' clock attack.

[BnZs]

So you want only a couple guns firing so a fighter can make as many high angle high speed passes without the bomber having a chance of hitting you?  Because a couple of pings upsets you.

*And, it usually take a good aim in those bombers to hit someone coming in at a high angle 2 o' clock attack.

You could jump to the ball turret and hit the attacking fighter. You would be throwing a formidable amount of lead. Just not an overwhelming wall of lead.

[Jayhawk]

You could jump to the ball turret and hit the attacking fighter. You would be throwing a formidable amount of lead. Just not an overwhelming wall of lead.

See that shows me you don't spend much time in bombers.  Hitting a plane going away from you at 500mph+, factor in you won't get to the ball turret and guns on him until he's 400-600 out.  It's nearly impossible to hit a plane going away from you.

[Karnak]

Let me get this straight...

1. You don't think buffs get through to the target now?

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  It doesn't matter that much as long as the answer is sometimes.  If you think bombers too often reach and destroy the target, perhaps you should focus on advocating useful and viable bomber targets be set further back so that defenders have time to respond rather than trying to get bombers removed from the game.

2. You think 6x.50s from 3 planes or multiple .50s from a single plane is an inadequate anti-air defense?

Evidence, though I know you despise it, is clear on that count.  The defenses we have now in AH are about right.  They give both the bomber and fighter players a fighting chance.  Two .50 cals (not the six you claim as those would only hit at about 450-550 yards) would be absolutely inadequate to deal with something like an Fw190A-8, P-47 or Mosquito coming in on a formation.

I doubt it would make bombers extinct. It might require formations and more importantly, ESCORTS. Good for gameplay.

It would make bombers extinct as the difficulty of setting up what you propose far exceeds the reward.  It would be far easier to do a nape of the earth raid with Bf110G-2s and N1K2-Js or have a mass number of F4Us/F6Fs/P-38s/P-47s/P-51Ds/Typhoons dive in and bomb the target.

Would be a viable objection if I had not over and over pointed out that I think DAR coverage should reach all the way to the ground. 

That has no effect on this.  Unless you are assuming that HTC would implement all of your suggestions you cannot in good faith advocate positions requiring other suggested changes.  You have to look at it as though the suggested change would be the only change from the current live MA environment.