Stop Lancstuckas

[Nemisis]

OK, thats sounds good Karnak. If they bomb too steeply, then the bombs will impact with the plane, causing some spining, flipping, or maybe just death depending on were it hits. Cause 1000lbs is a LOT when it hits a plane.

[Yossarian]

I would like to see collisions between the airframe and the bombs modeled, but I don't think that there should be artificial tools added to stop heavy bombers from slope bombing.

+1

[321BAR]

to tell the truth i carpet bomb when in lancs so i hit 7 at a time... if worried about a game lanc eating dirt when suicide bombing you, just stick with an osti...

[Ardy123]

I agree it needs to be fixed.  How?  I will leave that to HTC...

make the wings weaker. If you dive and gain too much e, wings rip off, try to pull out of a steep dive, wings rip off. that will end it.

[SmokinLoon]

The 2 concepts are not even close to the same. If it could, vs if it did. Where do you draw the line on if it did? Most thing done in the main arena were never done in the war. Things like going out alone in a tank. Things like spawning rapidly to defend a base. I.E. What you propose would be the first thing ever changed just because it was never tried in the war.  But then again the main reason it wasn't don in real life, is it made you very likely to die before you would return to base.

Also the physics are not just about angle of release. In the calculations , the G load must also be considered because the  plane then flys away from the bomb after drop.

HiTech

Point taken on the "if it could vs if it did" when bringing the entire AH realm into the fray.  Where does the line get drawn?  I believe that when a weapons platform is grossly abused or misused it at least warrants a review and if there is a simple fix then hopefully it can at least be contemplated.  In the case of the Lancs-Stuka, coding the Lancaster and the rest of the big bombers ('cept for the the Ju88's) to only be able to drop bombs from the bombardiers (F6) position, seems to be an "easy" fix at least according to other coders here. I'm sure the gamers will figure out a way to Lanc-Stuka regardless, much like the guys who hit "open doors-release ords-close doors" all in about 1.5 seconds.  Obviously.. that is an issue in its own right.

At one time, I was a proponent of the "minimum altitude", but that might actually be too restricting.  I know there were some very low alt bombing raids against prepared Japanese defensive positions in "the slot", I have my grandfather's pilot logs and he flew his B24D at 550ft (est) while dropping ord on more that one mission.    

[Nemisis]

So I say we get an official answer, is there any reason something that limits unrealistic things (bombs passing through an A/C, etc) from happening shouldn't be added?

[ShrkBite]

hmm what i think is that the only way this WILL happen is if it in a Frame or FSO or something relistic. Its gonna stay in the MA 

[kvuo75]

Point remains that you can drop bombs from a Lancaster while inverted.

1g is 1g, inverted or not... the bomb doesn't know its upside down    and a lanc pulling 1 g inverted probbly aint surviving long anyway..


is there really a problem with people bombing while inverted? 

[Yossarian]

1g is 1g, inverted or not... the bomb doesn't know its upside down    and a lanc pulling 1 g inverted probbly aint surviving long anyway..


is there really a problem with people bombing while inverted? 

Actually no, since noone in the right mind does it in a 4-engined bomber.

[Gabriel]

  Essentially, your 'solution' has just gotten extremely complicated.

It's not complicated at all.

If the code this game is written in is worth two toejams, it would be very easy to add angle of attack limitations to particular aircraft. Other games already do this. 

It would be a matter of HTC deciding which aircraft.

[zarkov]

The gaminess is due to the following:

1)  There are no negative consequences of dying; in fact, there are some POSITIVE consequences of dying (you don't have to RTB and land and you can re-up faster).

2)  There's no guilt associated with not only killing yourself, but destroying a very expensive bomber and killing a bunch of crew members that you've flown with for a long time.

The conditions in the MA basically steer players's behavior so that in real life, they'd be categorized as narcissistic sociopaths.

I'm not sure if anyone's played Dungeons and Dragons but WAYYY back in the day, when it was first published, there was an obscure rule referred to as the "Angry Villager Rule".  What this rule said was that no matter how powerful and well armed the party, if they went around and started acting like a bunch of sociopaths (killing villagers for no reason just to steal their stuff), the DM could rule that the villagers somehow devise a way to defeat them.  It was basically a way to steer people's behavior so they would face consequences for narcissistic sociopathic behavior and basically avoid gamey stuff.  A bit heavy-handed, but it worked.

However, people thought the rule impinged on their "fun" so it disappeared in later editions of the game.

If you want to get rid of gaminess, you're going to need some kind of "Angry Village Rule" and have to steal yourself to the fact that there will be an uproar from people who have just had their fun squashed.

[Anaxogoras]

1g is 1g, inverted or not... the bomb doesn't know its upside down   and a lanc pulling 1 g inverted probbly aint surviving long anyway..


is there really a problem with people bombing while inverted?  

Accuracy is valuable for its own sake where it won't impede gameplay.