Why the Icon Range Change for GV's?

[Karnak]

 You're probably right as to how they are being misused....LW143  Lancasters killed 826 Wirbelwinds while  Wirblewinds killed 1283 Lancasters.   In what senario should an AA weapon with a wirble's range get a shot at a strategic bomber?  Maybe LancStuka mode?

They are being used as desperation weapons to defend airfields from attacks by GVs.  That is obvious.  It should also be obvious that the effect on GVs is slight to put it mildly.

[Ack-Ack]

Krusty, just shut your trap man. Your constant accusations of whining and selfish posting gets annoying. And I mean REAL annoying when its comming from someone that hasn't made more than a couple GV sorties per tour in more than two years.

1) you haven't had ANY recent expierence in GV's, you're not qualified to talk about their vulnerabilities.

You suck in airplanes and don't play anymore but yet you keep on posting about their vulnerabilities.  Krusty has all the right to post about GVs as you do about airplanes and his being a paid subscriber makes him qualified to post in any thread he wishes, just like it does with you.

ack-ack

[bmwgs]

They are being used as desperation weapons to defend airfields from attacks by GVs.  That is obvious.  It should also be obvious that the effect on GVs is slight to put it mildly.

By far the most commonly killed GV is a Panzer IV, yet the Lancaster has almost three times as many kills of Wirbelwinds as it does of Panzer IV Hs.  That is too much of a difference to be a statistical blip and has to have a cause, likely due to how both the Lancaster is used and how the Wirbelwind is used.

These two statement really shows how you can take a statistic and come up with a completely wrong interpretation.  Everyone that spends any time in a GV knows why the Lancasters have a larger percentage kills of Wirbles over Panzers, and it has nothing to do with Lancasters defending a base.  Like I said in an earlier post, spend some time in a GV and you will know to.

Fred


[/quote]

[Karnak]

These two statement really shows how you can take a statistic and come up with a completely wrong interpretation.  Everyone that spends any time in a GV knows why the Lancasters have a larger percentage kills of Wirbles over Panzers, and it has nothing to do with Lancasters defending a base.  Like I said in an earlier post, spend some time in a GV and you will know to.

Fred

The only time Lancasters should be in range of Wirbelwinds to be killed by them, which was zippo's driving point in his post, is when they are being used defensively from a base that is too close for them to climb above the Wirbelwind's effective range. There are plenty of people lacking the skill needed to bomb from even 5,000ft AGL so I wouldn't be shocked if Lancasters attack from low altitude when they don't have to as well. In addition Lancasters are likely the be used as desperation weapons by players who cannot crack the Wirbelwind's defenses with A-20s, Il-2s or the like, which would make the Wirbelwinds the focus of the Lancaster's efforts.  The Lancaster, as demonstrated by the statistics, is a very inefficient killer of GVs.  GV players whine endlessly about "Lancstukas" as though they kill droves of GVs each tour with hyperbole such as "If the Lancaster was as good at killing GVs as it is in AH the Air Force should replace its A-10s with Lancasters."  As has been proven, the Lancaster in AH sucks at killing GVs.  Zippo even noting that the Lancaster's most common GV kill scored half again as many kills on the Lancasters than the Lancasters did on it.

Above even that is the fact that any fighter as top cover renders the Lancaster helpless to have any effect at all.  But instead of using the tools readily and effectively available in the game, GVers come onto the board and whine, whine, whine about something that has almost no effect on them, demanding technical changes to make them safer.

[Lusche]

Seems I have missed an interesting thread during my absence, with many points already covered.

So just a few personal thoughts fro me:

- Much is still speculation. We can't tell for sure how it all will play out, but fortunately we will know very soon

- The importance of icons seems to be overrated by some, or the ability of players to adapt and over come may be underestimated. A change of tactics will be necessary, but I may remind older players about the impact the introduction of the Wirbelwind had. Sometimes you would think the sky was falling ("perk the WW!"), and it was predicted vulching would be a thing of the past. And indeed, in the first few weeks planes fell from the skies in droves... until players had learned not to fly that close to enemy Flakpanzers any more as they had done before when there was just the Ostwind.
And despite the new icon ranges, tanks can still be seen, particularly when moving. I may add that in my last regular bomber sortie I had deliberately and successfully bombed an enemy tank from 15k - no, he wasn't just in my sights by accident, I spotted him on the airfield, turned around, reacquired my target and send him back to tower. Not a single incident either, I have quite a number of GV kills in the B5N by level bombing them from 10K+


In one of the posts I someone trying to support his point of view regarding Lancs vs GV by stating 42% of the Lancaster's kills are GV. But that is more a result of the Lancasters weak defensive armament... after all, the GV kill quota of the B5N is in 90% range. That still doesn't mean the B5N has any big impact on the tank game at all.
In the end, the tank killing Lancaster is one of the most exaggerated things in AH:  In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.

[bmwgs]

The only time Lancasters should be in range of Wirbelwinds to be killed by them, which was zippo's driving point in his post, is when they are being used defensively from a base that is too close for them to climb above the Wirbelwind's effective range.

You are so wrong.  Will all due respect, your recent statements show that do not have a clue as to how they are being used.

Fred

[Raphael]

In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.

the lord of thruth has spoken, numbers don't lie

[bmwgs]

Seems I have missed an interesting thread during my absence, with many points already covered.

So just a few personal thoughts fro me:

- Much is still speculation. We can't tell for sure how it all will play out, but fortunately we will know very soon

- The importance of icons seems to be overrated by some, or the ability of players to adapt and over come may be underestimated. A change of tactics will be necessary, but I may remind older players about the impact the introduction of the Wirbelwind had. Sometimes you would think the sky was falling ("perk the WW!"), and it was predicted vulching would be a thing of the past. And indeed, in the first few weeks planes fell from the skies in droves... until players had learned not to fly that close to enemy Flakpanzers any more as they had done before when there was just the Ostwind.
And despite the new icon ranges, tanks can still be seen, particularly when moving. I may add that in my last regular bomber sortie I had deliberately and successfully bombed an enemy tank from 15k - no, he wasn't just in my sights by accident, I spotted him on the airfield, turned around, reacquired my target and send him back to tower. Not a single incident either, I have quite a number of GV kills in the B5N by level bombing them from 10K+


In one of the posts I someone trying to support his point of view regarding Lancs vs GV by stating 42% of the Lancaster's kills are GV. But that is more a result of the Lancasters weak defensive armament... after all, the GV kill quota of the B5N is in 90% range. That still doesn't mean the B5N has any big impact on the tank game at all.
In the end, the tank killing Lancaster is one of the most exaggerated things in AH:  In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.

Your misinterpreting why I posted the percentage.  I used it to show how a heavy bomber, that should not be any where near the ground, except for landings and takeoffs, has 42% of it's kills being GV's.  Doesn't that seem strange?  Just looking at the numbers does not always show the true impact on something.

 

Fred

[Lusche]

Your misinterpreting why I posted the percentage.  I used it to show how a heavy bomber, that should not be any where near the ground, except for landings and takeoffs, has 42% of it's kills being GV's.  Doesn't that seem strange?  Just looking at the numbers does not always show the true impact on something.

 

Fred

A huge part of it is just because it sucks at shooting down planes. Yes, just looking at the numbers doesn't show the true impact - if you chose the wrong numbers to look at in the first place. That's what I was trying to point out by the B5N example. If the Lancaster was unarmed, the percentage would be way over 90%.
If you want to evaluate the tactical impact of the Lancaster on the battlefield, you have to look at the corresponding numbers - How many tanks are they actually killing, and how much is that in  comparison to other planes? And then you will see that only a very small minority of tanks being killed by planes had suffered their fate by the hands of a Lancaster pilot.
Someone reading only this forum (and Ch 200) would probably think it's 90%, not 4% as it actually is.

[bmwgs]

A huge part of it is just because it sucks at shooting down planes. Yes, just looking at the numbers doesn't show the true impact - if you chose the wrong numbers to look at in the first place. That's what I was trying to point out by the B5N example. If the Lancaster was unarmed, the percentage would be way over 90%.
If you want to evaluate the tactical impact of the Lancaster on the battlefield, you have to look at the corresponding numbers - How many tanks are they actually killing, and how much is that in  comparison to other planes? And then you will see that only a very small minority of tanks being killed by planes had suffered their fate by the hands of a Lancaster pilot.
Someone reading only this forum (and Ch 200) would probably think it's 90%, not 4% as it actually is.

I am not disagreeing with the numbers, I guess I need to put it a different way.  

Looking at numbers alone does not necessarily show how something can impact game play.  Lancasters were used as an example.  A B5N can not roll in on a decent tank battle and totally disrupt it by dropping 42 bombs.  If I remember correctly the B5N carries three bombs, so it would take at least 13 planes and pilots to create the same impact as one pilot with one set of Lancasters.    

The whole point of this is about game play.  It is not that one should have a greater advantage than another, but one should not have a complete and over whelming advantage over other.

I stated earlier, I could care less about the icon change, and I do have my opinions as to what I think would make it better, but I see no point in getting worked worked up about a change that has not even occurred, and no one know what impact it may or may not have.

Fred

[icepac]

 In 2011, only 4% of all tank kills by planes had been made by the Lancaster.

What's the lancaster GV kill percentage as compared to the rest of the bombers?

Just curious.

[Lusche]

Looking at numbers alone does not necessarily show how something can impact game play.  Lancasters were used as an example.  A B5N can not roll in on a decent tank battle and totally disrupt it by dropping 42 bombs.  If I remember correctly the B5N carries three bombs, so it would take at least 13 planes and pilots to create the same impact as one pilot with one set of Lancasters.    

The B5n was just an example. I wasn't actually comparing the B5N's impact to the Lancasters.


And in actual gameplay, Lancasters do very rarely "totally disrupt" tank battles by bombing tanks. They do disrupt them... by bombing the VH's. That is their true main impact on gameplay. As a tank buster on the actual battlefield, they are rare and overall quite ineffective. Only few pilots use Lancs regularly to hunt GVs, and on average they don't get that many kills as one could expect when looking at the (theoretically) impressive number of 42 bombs. The A-20 is much more impressive, both in overall GV kills as well as the number of kills being landed per sortie.
The actual tactical impact of the Lancaster on the battlefield is quite small.

[Lusche]

What's the lancaster GV kill percentage as compared to the rest of the bombers?

Just curious.

I guess by "bombers" you are specifically referring to 'traditional' level/heavy bombers?

Lancaster 4%, B-17 & B-24 and B-26 1%.
A-20 has 17%, Il-2 11%, P-51 7%, F6F 6%

All percentages are "of tank kills by planes", which amount to 13% of all tank kills in AH.

[SmokinLoon]

the lord of thruth has spoken, numbers don't lie

tsk tsk tsk

Anyone can take any set of stats of make them say anything they want those stats to say.   

[SmokinLoon]

Realism .....
.

Being an intimate recipient of friendly fire from the air, this stuff happens, and happens often.

Real life use of spotters (air & ground), ground forces marking enemy position with colored smoke and
radio vectoring of air inventory is more realistic. No kill shooter for friendly kills, maybe a msg that pilot X just killed friendly
with no perk points awarded or deducted.

Eliminating GV icons for both sides would actually lend to realism.
The fact that you can use the same tank on both sides of a battle lends itself to mistakes. Shouldn't be hard to
use a marker panel when spawning a gv to indicate what side it is on. You know kinda like the town flags do now ?
In Normandy tanks had air recognition panels visible on the top of the tank to minimize friendly fire. I am sure
the recognition of the panels from a pilots view depended on the acft. speed, eyesight of the pilot and
cockpit visibility factors.

I communicated with friends of the pilot that mistakenly hit our positions with rocket fire, and their description
as to the effect it had on that pilots life after the event was chilling.

killshooter is ON for a reason.   

As I've said in previous threads: think of it this way- the friendly icons are making up for communications that were existent in WWII, but no so much so in AH.