Ground target nonsense and other things.

[AKDejaVu]

What is the primary role of a fighter aircraft?

Why were fighters made to climb faster?

Why were fighters made to fly faster?

Why were fighters made to fly farther?

Why were fighters made with bigger guns?

Who is really being unrealistic in regards to bombers aproaching a base?

Were bombers this accurate in WW2?

Would they have been this accurate if they knew there were never going to be fighters in the area?

You want a solution to a single bomber taking out a FH?  How about making the bomber loaded with bombs worth so many perk points that a fighter pilot would be stupid not to fly up there to catch it.

How about making a Jabo plane loaded with bombs worth mega perk points too?

There is a solution.  Unfortunately for those arguing the point this doesn't really suit your needs.  That is because it causes pilots to fly more realistically.. wich really isn't what you wanted at all.

AKDejaVu

[wulfie]

Where did I ever say I didn't want pilots to fly realistically?

My favorite times in online flight sims have always been realistic/historical events.

My comments about suicide fighter bombers basically show what I think about non realistic flying *and it's ability to impact the 'war' strategically*.

Please take careful note there. I have no problem with 'furball addicts' at all - I have a problem (as far as AH goes that is) with the ability of a 'brave' online kamikaze to close a field's ability to launch defending fighters so easily.

So how do you reach the conclusion that I don't want people to fly realistically?

Is a lone/unescorted B-17 at 30,000' altitude on an attack mission 'realistic' flying? I don't care. B-17s can fly alone all they want. Just make them have real bomb sights.

I'd scold you for putting words in my mouth but with the posts above this one the offense is visible enough to everyone reading the thread...so I don't need to bother.

Tell me why you are against revetments instead of hangars. Tell me why you are against AAA positions that are more difficult to spot and don't always appear in the exact same place. Don't ask me some off topic out of the blue question like 'why were fighters designed to climb faster' and expect a response. 8)

Mike (wulfie)

[Jekyll]

So many good points in some of the above posts I hardly know where to begin  

Lazs spake:
 

Why can't a field be restocked from another field (land there and now they got one plane).

Couldn't agree more Lazs (bet THAT comes as a surprise).  We've got a C47 at the moment which does nothing other than deliver troops.  How about the following loadouts?

1.  Mobile acks - C47 to carry two .50 cal acks and operators
2.  Fuel - for when a field's fuel storage is knocked out
3.  Radar parts - for when a field's radar has been destroyed
4.  Engineers - repairs to hangers etc

But at least give us a reason to fly the Gooney OTHER than simply to bring drunks.

AkDejavu offered:
 

Wind effects on the bomb path are negligeable according to them and their attack trainers.

So are you trying to tell me that the US Government spends millions each year developing laser guided/optical guided bombs when they could accomplish the same level of accuracy just by bombing from 30k using a WW2 Norden Bombsight?

And wulfie said:
 

Hide the AAA

I have to agree with this one too.  Last night I took up a solitary B17 loaded with 500lb bombs on a run to an enemy field.  I shot down 4 enemy fighters en route (how realistic is THAT?) and then dropped every single ack at the field with one bomb each, followed by the field radar and a fuel tank.
Them big white circles are sure easy to aim at, and HIT!

As I see it, we need to have less of 'one buff closes a field' and more of 'Holy %^$# there's a gaggle of buffs headed this way'.

But I ain't silly enough to get caught in a 'fighter-v-buff' argument  

------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11

[AKDejaVu]

 

So are you trying to tell me that the US Government spends millions each year developing laser guided/optical guided bombs when they could accomplish the same level of accuracy just by bombing from 30k using a WW2 Norden Bombsight?

Research the Norden and find out why it is totally impractical in today's aircraft before making such ignorant statements.  What were the requirements for an accurate drop?  Why would that make a bomber a total sitting duck with today's anti-aircraft weaponry?

The Norden was accurate.  That wasn't what made bombs miss.

AKDejaVu

[lazs]

For whatever reason... make the bombing less gimicky.   Simple enough deja?

Notice you didn't answer the question about what you have against revetments..

Anyone who knows flight sim history may find it a more than a little odd tho that me and wufie and jekyl are all in agreement (for the most part)on this.   Maybe this doesn't make it right but... it does show that people with completly different viewpoints on sims can find some comprimise.

And deja.... I don't care how many stupid perkies you make the bombers worth.... I won't use the ones i got much less worry about getting more of em!   I am totally amazed  by this group (and that takes a lot since I been around a while).... The cries of "this plane is too good in the arena" have all died away and now everyone wants to fly a plane that is better than everyone elses???  Everyone wants to have an unfair advantage and they won't care when someone in a perk plane clubs them out of the sky???? i't all ok because.... because why?   Do we need these few fantasy planes so much that we are willing to skew the arena every single day?
lazs

[Mox]

 

Originally posted by lazs:
For whatever reason... make the bombing less gimicky.   Simple enough deja?

Isn't air starts, undestructable bases, power ups etc "gimicky"?

Lazs why are you so against asking for a Quake arena so you and the few others that want it can go play it the way "you" want instead of asking for the entire sim of AH to be changed for you?

You do know why Quake doesn't have a monthly fee, don't you?  

Mox

[AKDejaVu]

 

For whatever reason... make the bombing less gimicky. Simple enough deja?

Very simple.  Make bombing less gimicky so fighers can be more gimicky.

I didn't notice you arguing against less gimick when stating you'd rather auger your plane than RTB.

AKDejaVu

[AKDejaVu]

 

Is a lone/unescorted B-17 at 30,000' altitude on an attack mission 'realistic' flying? I don't care. B-17s can fly alone all they want. Just make them have real bomb sights.

Ah.. thankyou for finally seeing the light.  I don't believe a bomber over 30,000' should be able to resolve the targets the way they are in AH.  Now, what does this have to do with this thread?

You are arguing against fixed target location.  You aply strato-buffing when it suits the argument.. kamakazi when you want to go in that direction.

Let me ask you this, how effective would bombers have been in Europe if fighters never engaged them?  I guarantee airbases would have been closed for a hell of a lot longer than 15 minutes.

Last night, my squad was flying between 24 and 43.  One of my squadies enjoys flying the Ju-88 and would take it up and bomb the hell out of 43 ever sortie.  He would come in just under 10k.  He was only intercepted once in 5 sorties.  No strato-buffing.  Just flying high enough to stay out of ack.

He'd take out the FH on one sortie... the ack on another... all with relative impunity.  Was any of this because the bombers are way too uber in AH?  Was any of this because he could bomb from way too high?  Nope.. it was because nobody wanted to bother with him.  Instead, they'd rather come here and complain that bombers shouldn't be able to do that (not a reference to you wulfie, though a direct reference to people participating in this thread).

BTW, the fighter hangar was down at that base 50% of the time.  There was never a lack of enemy fighters in the area.

Sure its easy to take down a hangar, but its just as easy for fighters to find low impact alternatives (hot-pad.. 5 minute flight from nearby base).  This thread is dedicated to isolating a specific issue and taking it out of context.

AKDejaVu

[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 03-06-2001).]

[hblair]

Lots of good ideas here, and some of BS too.  

Ok, wulfie your handle is "wulfie" no? If so, you've had 1 bomber sortie last TOD, none this one. Although I think you've got some very interesting ideas, don't you think you should have more in-game experience on the subject? But then again, maybe an outsiders view might be beneficial.

Of course, lazs never flies bombers.  

I like doing jabo runs myself, my squad typically does at least one jabo mission a night. Usually successful, and lemme tell ya, the ack is plenty deadly. As far as the pesky guys who kill only the fighter hangar()s at a field, if you look around, There's probably a field next door in the process of getting torched by a field capture mission. Killing fighter hangars at surrounding fields is an effective form of keeping your mission flight clear. Wish we could do that more often.  


Dejavu said...
 

Sure its easy to take down a hangar, but its just as easy for fighters to find low impact alternatives (hot-pad.. 5 minute flight from nearby base). This thread is dedicated to isolating a specific issue and taking it out of context.

Gotta agree with dejavu here.

[Vermillion]

Its all a viscious circle, driven by gameplay concessions.

#1.) I think we can all agree that we want to see bombers in the game.

#2.) Bombers are too accurate because if they weren't no one would fly them. They just aren't fun unless they make an impact in the arena, but since they are so accurate they make too much of an impact in the arena.

#3.) Bombers are not commonly intercepted (unless your flying a hispano plane or a heavy cannon bird), because alot of pilots just don't think its worth the risk. Basically due to the strength of the bombers, and they're uber targeting gunners and artifical range increases. But if you weaken buffs, or remove the range advantage, again no one will fly them. See point #1.

Its a damned Catch 22 situation. I hate it too, but I honestly don't think there is a solution.



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[lazs]

verm has stated it very well.  

deja thinks that the balance is right and is saying that since he finds the fights right for him then everything must be ok.   I would submit that if he say, flew for rooks this tour he would  not be quite so happy.

I believe that the bish are very strat centric for this tour at least.   They don't care for air to air fighting (comparitively) so much as the "strat" of the game.  This is fine but it does seem to unbalance the gameplay.  On the one hand they kill HQ for the understrength rooks and then send their bomber crews to simply take out fighter hangers at knight bases.  I can see where hitting understrength bases would appeal to some but a lot of guys would rather have large, fairly even numbered fights.   It is no fun to be badly outnumbered but it is also no fun IMO, to fight for scraps when you outnumber the enemy badly.   6-10 guys all fighting to kill the one guy stupid enough to go over to a defensles field to defend is not my idea of fighting.

For people who care not about the strat element there is little or no action in such gameplay.   an 8-10 min flight to maybe find a fite and maybe not is not appealing no matter how much deja tells us we are wrong and that we are having fun.

If refueling and rearming is is such a great alternative to actually being able to take off then why even bother to kill the fighter hangers or even have em?  

what is realistic about hiting undefended airfields?   If there is no one at them then they should not exist.   There should be no targets at an undefended airbase.  

As verm says... most guys have no interest in killing bombers.  They are a waste of time to get to and no fun at all when you do.  sorta like fighting the alt weenies except that they can't run away as well.  

so it boils down to.... why not have revetments?   Why not have a realistically tough set of fields (lots of revetments).   The strat guys could continue to do whatever it is they think they are doing and the furballers could have their fun untill the strat guys closed all their fields and then concentrated on the remaining "hard fields".   Everyone would have MORE choice and if the furballers didn't defend their outer fields they would lose the (chuckle) war.  

the strat guys would have their "affect"...the furballers would have their hour or so of fighting.... No one would be sol simply because they were badly outnumbered... Everyone could claim moral superiority and that they and only they knew the true way to play AH.

I sorta believe that some are afraid of a fair fite.
lazs

[AKSeaWulfe]

We flew for rooks last tour Lazs.

However, regarding the level bombing issue.. if we are going to take into account wind drift and potential wind gusts as well as creating a "realistic" level bombing sight then that's about 4 months of coding right there.

That, and the fact that you are going to force bombers to fly in packs. No, you don't want to force the fighters to fly in packs to have their fun but you are going to force bombers to fly in packs to have their fun?

The whole point behind "easy mode" bombing that we have in this game is so it doesn't take 10 minutes to perfectly sight the target, calculate wind drift, altitude, speed, and properly locking the target into the bomb sight. This makes it so the guys can keep an eye on their guns if they need to clear themselves while still being able to bomb.

You want to find out what operating the norden really is like, go buy B17 The Mighty Eigth. Not only would you realise how non-practical it would be to include that feature into AH, but you would also see what it takes to actually master aiming it.
-SW

[lazs]

sea... i think you will agree that being rook last tour in a different map entirely is quite different than being one of the radarless and fighter hangerless few in this new map.   Apples and oranges really.   I am not really sure what you mean about the bombers tho.   Are you saying that for gameplay lone bombers should be able to affect dozens of players?   why shouldn't bombers have to fly in groups?   why should  a lone bomber be given any more chance to ruin peoples game than a lone fighter?   How can fighters affect the bombing war?   Most furballers aren't even interested in bombers they aren't much fun to kill even.

No... having some very "hard" fields close together would be a good thing for the game.  strat guys would not have to participate in the resulting action until they had finished off all the other fields.   action oriented players would not find themselves faced with nothing fun to do.

Bottom line is that the balance has shifted and people are being forced to fly a certain way and that "way" is not much fun for them.  By "them" i mean only myself and those dozen or so that I have spoken to.
lazs

[AKDejaVu]

 

I sorta believe that some are afraid of a fair fite.

Wow.. I thought this same thing when you ran away screaming like a little girl from a 1:1 in the arena last night lazs.  For someone who complains about how long it takes to find a fight, you sure spend alot of time running from them.

AKDejaVu

[lazs]

refresh my memory deja.
lazs