Why the Icon Range Change for GV's?

[icepac]

The icon range change is only half the "solution".

Expect F3 to also disappear in heavy buffs............which would be cool.

[Karnak]

Expect F3 to also disappear in heavy buffs............which would be cool.

I doubt that.

You might see a change to bombs only being dropped from F6 though.  The fact is that heavy bombers kill a small fraction of GVs.  The whines about "Lancstukas" are massively disproportionate to their frequency and effect.

[zippo]

I doubt that.

You might see a change to bombs only being dropped from F6 though.  The fact is that heavy bombers kill a small fraction of GVs.  The whines about "Lancstukas" are massively disproportionate to their frequency and effect.

  LW tour 144....8020  total kills by heavys ( B-24, B-17, Lancaster, and B-29)  1610 of these were gv's (all types) 
  20% of the heavy's kills.  Of the Lancaster's 2661 total kills, 1094 were gv's.

  Last time I went through the stats (  to Snailman for all the work he puts in on the stats ), I got bombed about 25% of the time I upped a gv.  Best I remember, it usualy runs somewhere between 20% and 25% for all types gv losses to all type aircraft.     

[Karnak]

  LW tour 144....8020  total kills by heavys ( B-24, B-17, Lancaster, and B-29)  1610 of these were gv's (all types) 
  20% of the heavy's kills.  Of the Lancaster's 2661 total kills, 1094 were gv's.

You're going about it backwards.  What percentage of kills GVs made up for the Lancaster doesn't matter.  What matters is the percentage of vehicle deaths by the Lancaster, and other heavies if you like.

For example, using the last completed tour, 143, in Late War GVs suffered 193648 deaths, of which a whopping 2016 were to Lancasters, or 1.041% of vehicle kills.  Further, of those 2016 vehicle kills 826 were Wirbelwinds, a fully legitimate target in my opinion, with the second most common being the Panzer IV H distantly at 298 kills.

[PFactorDave]

Personally, I rarely GV...  And I rarely bomb GVs...

That said, I think that this is probably a move in the right direction.  When this change goes live, I am sure HTC will be watching it closely, and making adjustments as they deem them to be needed.

If it ends up that the GV guys start to have more fun, and the airplanes start flying a little higher to avoid GVs, I think more fun can be found by all!

I'm perfectly prepared to reserve judgement until the change has been live long enough for both the GV'ers and the Flyboys to adjust to the new system.  I suggest that everyone should adopt this policy.  When the system goes live, adapt as best you can before bringing on the whine threads...

[lyric1]

The new aircraft to gv icon ranges are WONDERFUL!!!  It tips the hat towards realism and away from the arcade gamey feel.    

My only issue is you have a few people that can't hit an aircraft with a GV flack & yet can pop an aircraft with the main gun of their tank at quite long distances. Will that part of the realism arcade gamey feel be addressed?

[Raphael]

My only issue is you have a few people that can't hit an aircraft with a GV flack & yet can pop an aircraft with the main gun of their tank at quite long distances. Will that part of the realism arcade gamey feel be addressed?

make the tank shells do no damage to airborne planes 

[lyric1]

make the tank shells do no damage to airborne planes 

No.

Have the tanks have the same alteration in terms of range visibility & or fix the fact that a tank turret can track & shoot down aircraft that are moving at over 100MPH.

[bmwgs]

You're going about it backwards.  What percentage of kills GVs made up for the Lancaster doesn't matter.  What matters is the percentage of vehicle deaths by the Lancaster, and other heavies if you like.

For example, using the last completed tour, 143, in Late War GVs suffered 193648 deaths, of which a whopping 2016 were to Lancasters, or 1.041% of vehicle kills.  Further, of those 2016 vehicle kills 826 were Wirbelwinds, a fully legitimate target in my opinion, with the second most common being the Panzer IV H distantly at 298 kills.

In Tour 143, 42% of the Lancaster's kills were GVs.  It is simple, there is no way any heavy bomber should have 42% of it kills being armor.  Everyone always tries to compare this game to WWII, and I am no WWII historian, but I am willing to bet there were no heavy bombers in WWII that even came close to 40 plus percentage of their kills being armor.   

In college I had to take a statistics course, not by choice, and the only thing I remember from that class was what the Professor told us on the first day.  It has been over thirty years ago but I'm pretty sure I still remember his words.    He said "using statistics, I can prove anything, just tell me which side you want to prevail".  When I read your response above, those words instantly came to mind.

Fred

[SmokinLoon]

One of the travesties in AH is the ability for Lancasters to up at a field and dive bomb gv's, however shallow that dive bomb may be.  None of the heavy bombers in AH, save for the Ju88, were designed for pinpoint precision in a dive bomb.  There is a reason the Ju88's have dive brakes.

zippo was spot on, and I believe karnak has it backwards: The fact that Lancs have over %40 of their kills be gv's is not at all in line with what they did in the real deal.  It is a blatant abuse of a game piece, and it is a travesty.  If the heavy bombers are at 10,000 ft and they carpet bomb an entire area around the tip of the arrow (spawn point) in multiple passes and they get a few gv's, then fine.  THAT is how they killed gv's in WWII.  They did it completely and totally indirect, they dropped their ordnance for "area effect" on an enemy strong point. 

bmwgs said it perfectly: anyone can take any stat and bend it to their need and you've done exactly that, karnak.

[Tarstar]

Don't allow level Buffs to arm bombs below say, 8 or 10 k.. problem solved? The ability for level buffs to "Dive bomb" is silly.. 

[caldera]

bmwgs said it perfectly: anyone can take any stat and bend it to their need and you've done exactly that, karnak.

How is what Karnak did any different than what bmwgs did?  They both used statistics to prove their points.  One point is not more valid than the other, simply because you agree with it. 

[Karnak]

How is what Karnak did any different than what bmwgs did?  They both used statistics to prove their points.  One point is not more valid than the other, simply because you agree with it.  

Actually, my point was far more valid.  Lancasters suck at killing airplanes, so even if it didn't have the heaviest bombload of a free bomber it would still have a disproportionate percentage of its kills as GVs.

However, the primary point is that Lancasters have a very small impact on the GVers.  For all their whining about the things, only slightly more than 1% of all GV deaths in the last full tour were to Lancasters.  98.969% of GV deaths were to something other than a Lancaster.  The "Lancstuka" is largely a figment of people's imaginations.

From a impact on the game standpoint zippo and bmwgs have it absolutely backwards.  They are looking at it as an "Impact on the Lancaster" statistic.

[bmwgs]

Actually, my point was far more valid.  Lancasters suck at killing airplanes, so even if it didn't have the heaviest bombload of a free bomber it would still have a disproportionate percentage of its kills as GVs.

However, the primary point is that Lancasters have a very small impact on the GVers.  For all their whining about the things, only slightly more than 1% of all GV deaths in the last full tour were to Lancasters.  98.969% of GV deaths were to something other than a Lancaster.  The "Lancstuka" is largely a figment of people's imaginations.

From a impact on the game standpoint zippo and bmwgs have it absolutely backwards.  They are looking at it as an "Impact on the Lancaster" statistic.

I usually do not look up someones statistics, but that one sentence compelled me to go take a look at your scores.  Since you do not have any GV sorties in the last two tours (Late War), I am assuming you don't GV much, if at all.  That one sentence you typed shows this.

I do both, I fly and I GV, so I can see each sides perspective.  Before you start taking about impact, you need to wear the shoes for a while.  When you base your opinion on something you have never or rarely done, your opinion has little or no merit.

That one sentence show how little you know about GVing.

But you are entitled to your opinion.

   

Fred

[icepac]

Far simpler to remove F3 view from heavy buffs.