Increase the perk cost for the Me163

[TDeacon]

Pardon me if I missed something in this long thread, but has anyone yet made a case that properly escorted bombers can't survive the 163s? 

Because, if the complaint applies to the case of unescorted bombers, remember that such missions were usually suicide in "real life" as well.

MH

[Tilt]

So altitude is not an issue......... No O2 or pressurised cabin required for 163 (et al) pilits above 30k.

Could we nueter it via availability of fuel? I.e fuel strat has to be 100% to make 163 rocket fuel available?

[Karnak]

Could we nueter it via availability of fuel? I.e fuel strat has to be 100% to make 163 rocket fuel available?

That feels wrong to me.  It was a desperation weapon, not a "we're all fine here" weapon.

If it is being too disruptive, just increase its perk cost.

[Lusche]

So altitude is not an issue......... No O2 or pressurised cabin required for 163 (et al) pilits above 30k.

The maximum operational altitude for the Me 163 was set at 12,000m that's 39,000 feet. That makes the altitude 'problem' almost a non issue - contrary to occasional claims bombers are about never flying that high. Even "only" 34k is very rare.

[Lusche]

Pardon me if I missed something in this long thread, but has anyone yet made a case that properly escorted bombers can't survive the 163s?  

Well, then I will do now.

Escorts do not really help against Me 163, as they can simply dart away and get into an attack position not covered by the escorts. The Komet can also regain alt in a few moments, escorts that have dropped below the raid altitude are basically out of play.
Against the Me 163, more bombers do actually help more than some additional fighters. Along with sensible routing, altitude and tight formations.

[phatzo]

Pardon me if I missed something in this long thread, but has anyone yet made a case that properly escorted bombers can't survive the 163s? 

Because, if the complaint applies to the case of unescorted bombers, remember that such missions were usually suicide in "real life" as well.

MH

My point wasn't just referring to attackers, I spent 45 minutes getting a Ta-152 up to 35k and in position to attack an incoming bomber stream only to see a gaggle of Komets up at the last minute and rip them to shreds. There are two sides to this coin.

[Fish42]

Who'd be sucker enough to fly buffs into 163 country?

I go to stats to hunt 163s.

Last night I got 1 x 163 for the loss of 2 Ki-67s after I dropped on target. My best run was 3x163s and a spit 9 for the loss of 2 betty bombers.

163 are only dangerous when people know how to fly them.

[Rob52240]

We did a HQ run on the ground with tanks and flaks yesterday.  It seemed ironic that instead of having 163s come after us they used A-20s and Lancasters.

I do think we got ratted out though since the first thing that spotted us at the rook hq was a very low rook lancaster who couldn't barely hit the ground with his bombs.  What a coincidence...

[icepac]

Actually.....I spotted MK84 in a m4 climbing away from the spawn about 4 minutes after you guys took the field.

I did badly and flew down the barrel of his main gun.

Then I positioned a tiger between the spawn and lay in wait only to brush a banana tree which threw me rolling down the hill toward spawn as the enemy drove right past me.

I reported it and nobody responded until HQ was downed except for spook13.

When I saw that spawn so close to the city, it was very hard to resist the urge to go bish and shoot up the city or hq.

[caldera]

We did a HQ run on the ground with tanks and flaks yesterday.  It seemed ironic that instead of having 163s come after us they used A-20s and Lancasters.

I do think we got ratted out though since the first thing that spotted us at the rook hq was a very low rook lancaster who couldn't barely hit the ground with his bombs.  What a coincidence...

Could it have been Spiez?!  Or maybe just a vehicle spawn or a base close enough to drive from.   Even with the stupid 12 hour side switch limitation, the spiez are somehow as prevalent as ever. 

163 are only dangerous when people know how to fly them.

Ain't it the truth?  I've seen many 163s fly right up the bomber's six, just like most other fighters.  163s are very easy to overspeed or collide and careful fuel management and trigger discipline is required (unless making the aforementioned dead six pass). 

Making them more expensive will only hurt the inexperienced players by denying them its use.  That is the same argument used against perking the overused P-51D or the easy mode Spit XVI.

[Chalenge]

So altitude is not an issue......... No O2 or pressurised cabin required for 163 (et al) pilits above 30k.

Could we nueter it via availability of fuel? I.e fuel strat has to be 100% to make 163 rocket fuel available?

Altitude is an issue for 163s above 40k (or should be). The few Spits that did it during the war used suits to keep the pilots warm and/or didnt go high enough above 40k to be an issue. 163s at 92k (as reported) would have their exposed body fluids boil and kill them in the real world (Armstrong Limit).

[icepac]

The 163 at 92k in game has no use.

It's almost useless above 50k because the critical speed and stall speed are almost equal and the only way to get higher is if you happen to be pointed almost straight up like a ballistic missile as you pass through 55k or so.

[Chalenge]

The 163 at 92k in game has no use.

It's almost useless above 50k because the critical speed and stall speed are almost equal and the only way to get higher is if you happen to be pointed almost straight up like a ballistic missile as you pass through 55k or so.

Ecept you mentioned that you have done this in order to get to different locations on the map. Pretty much thats a use.

[icepac]

Yes....to get to a location far away to see how far I can fly it but not for fighting since you have zero fuel with which to fight and it would be a one way mission in which nobody is willing to spend fighter perks.

Setting altitude, speed, and distance recordsare fun but I can't see much use for air combat or I would be using it big time.

If I want to go far........and use it to fight, I use the rearm pads.

[Tilt]

it would be neat to find some sort of counterbalance.............. it seems a lazy counter move to what has taken some time to plan and even more to execute............. i.e a raid deep in enemy territory to hit a target (HQ) that will be resupplied in 20 minutes or less..............

P47's/109K's/Ta152's lifting to counter a hi alt inbound HQ raid have executed planning and had to commit time to respond. IMO their rewards are well earned. Yet the 163 is pretty safe even with its hi perk cost and can be launched at almost the last minute to eclipse the other interceptors.

163's were not that common deep over Germany in WWII yet they are the default HQ defenders here.

If its jet fuel tanks were to be untra vulnerable to enemy fire (exploding or something) it would be neat. If this is totally contray to historical data then something else or we just have to rely upon hyping the Perk cost. Problem with this is removing choice and I would not want to do that......... I would prefer to initiate risk an consequence for this lazy option some how.