Fixing bombers

[Zoney]

4'2 & 3/4 dude.

[BnZs]

You're entire point about the P-47s is rendered completely invalid as you ignore the single biggest strength the P-47s have, speed.  Because of their speed the initiative will be with them and they will have dropped their ordnance on their targets before the defenders are able to intercept them.

Almost every fighter commonly used in the LW can run down a P-47D-40 carrying max ords. Bomber formations being run down otoh, it hardly matters since they apparently themselves against fighters so well with their guns.

Look, bombers are a marginally useful in the game as it stands.

Incorrect, the heavy hand of B-planes can decide any fight, and often does. In an even fight, the side that has more pilots willing to fly bomber wins. I have mathematically demonstrated the enormous advantages that individual pilots in bombers have when encountering and equal number of adversaries in fighters, I can't make it any more clear than that.
 

What do you propose their purpose should be if you make them free kills to any fighter regardless of that fighter's skill level?  You seem to be ignoring any and all negative consequences your desire would have.

Well, if they actually needed escorting, which they currently don't, then a flight of bombers might serve as a nucleus about which a swirling dogfight between escorts and interceptors could develop. That would be better than their current purpose, which is ending fun fights  But I gave up escorting in the MA long ago, I felt like I was mostly stealing kills from the bomber gunner.

Hey listen, give me an option to check "Interceptor" on certain planes in the hangar, such as the 190-A8, Me-410, or hell, the Me-262. This option will give me two other drones who will fly formation with me and shoot where I shoot. Do this and I'll call it even on the buff thing  

[BnZs]

Luckily that isn't how it plays out in the MAs. Very rarely do you see more than a PAIR of buff groups running together in any kind of formation to were those extra guns can cover each other.

Very rarely do you see more than a pair of fighters flying together as an effective element in the MA...so what? We can break it down to singles if you want to, and it still works: The individual player in a single fighter has to bring down 3 very tough airplanes defended by 36 .50 caliber in a timely manner, if he is defending against another individual player in heavy buffs, which the statistics strongly indicate he will fail to do. You can call the defender "unskilled" all you want, but so what? Most players are unskilled. You think the buffers they're facing are mostly experten? Unlikely, they just have inherent advantages the way things are currently set up.

[Karnak]

Almost every fighter commonly used in the LW can run down a P-47D-40 carrying max ords

That is a fantasy setting though as the defenders are only lifting as the 47s come in at 10k+, already at speed.  There is no way for the defenders to intercept before the 47s, 51s, 38s, 110s, Tiffies, Spits, Mossies, 190s or what have you hit their target.

Yes, sometimes a lucky fighter or two will be in position to intercept them, but oh well, overall the fighter-bombers are far harder to stop.  You are painting scenarios that do not match what actually happens in the MA in order to strengthen your argument.  Fine, in your fictional MA you have a point, but in the actual MA things don't play out as you claim they do, hence the prevalence of mass fighter-bomber raids rather than the almost never seen mass bomber raids.

[BnZs]

That is a fantasy setting though as the defenders are only lifting as the 47s come in at 10k+, already at speed.  There is no way for the defenders to intercept before the 47s, 51s, 38s, 110s, Tiffies, Spits, Mossies, 190s or what have you hit their target.

Yes, sometimes a lucky fighter or two will be in position to intercept them, but oh well, overall the fighter-bombers are far harder to stop.  You are painting scenarios that do not match what actually happens in the MA in order to strengthen your argument.  Fine, in your fictional MA you have a point, but in the actual MA things don't play out as you claim they do, hence the prevalence of mass fighter-bomber raids rather than the almost never seen mass bomber raids.

You're one stretching to make a point now. What CAN be intercepted effectively if you're just lifting on the runway when it crosses the radar ring doing cruise speed@10K? Probably nothing, not even Stukas This is a lot like arguing that a Tiger is no better than a Panzer, 'cause either will murder the hell out of jeeps The difference between a group of jabos and a group of buffs coming in under the same circumstances is that it takes far fewer individuals flying buffs to level your base.


Furthermore, it's not an either-or proposition. If you didn't get this earlier, I repeat myself: I heartily back the proposal to add perks to 1000 pounders on fighters. I think this would help the MA almost as much as making bomber formations slightly less insane.

the almost never seen mass bomber raids.

I've seen several just in the couple o weeks I've been back playing, but if you rarely see 10 buff formations together, it is because 2-5 is almost always overwhelming enough to get the job done. Three or more seems to be plenty to always overwhelm defenders and guarantee the CV is going to sink or the base is going to be toolshedded. I only used the 10 on 10 example just to show how enormous the advantages handed to individuals controlling buff formations really are. In actual MA play these advantages allow buffs to often get the job done in spite of superior numbers of defenders.

[Karnak]

Wow!  Several in the past few weeks?  Stop the presses!

Oh wait.  There are more mass fighter bomber raids on any given night than that.


Bombers are marginally useful as they are.  You want to make them less useful and you think players would still use them.  Why do you think people would want to invest that kind of time, and a bomber sortie does take far, far more time than a fighter or fighter-bomber sortie, in an activity that has significantly less effect and is far more likely to have no effect?

[BnZs]

Wow!  Several in the past few weeks?  Stop the presses!

These two weeks are actually more like two weekends. The stats page says I've logged a total of 15 hours and 20 minutes since my return. And I know that I've left myself logged in for several hours while I did other things more than once.
[/quote]

Bombers are marginally useful as they are. 

No, bombers are decisive. I'd like them to have a 50/50 chance of being intercepted and righteously executed , instead of being what ends furballs practically at will.

Fighter-bombers: We don't really disagree much here! The ideas for somewhat limiting them complement rather than conflict with my pointing out that the current potency of bombers needs to be tweaked a bit.

[Karnak]

No, bombers are decisive. I'd like them to have a 50/50 chance of being intercepted and righteously executed , instead of being what ends furballs practically at will.

If I only had a 50/50 shot (in I am assuming a B-17G, so make that much less for a Lancaster or He111 or G4M1) at making it to my target why would I ever commit to the 1-2 hour flight required?

I cannot think of any reason I would do so.  Bombers would cease to interest me at all.

You want to "fix" bombers the way a vet "fixes" a dog or a cat.  If you were able to ask the dog or cat I am quite sure they would argue they weren't broken and were not now fixed.

[Lusche]

I can follow this discussion totally laid back, because rarely I was so conviced none of the 'fixes' will ever happen 

[The Fugitive]

Very rarely do you see more than a pair of fighters flying together as an effective element in the MA...so what? We can break it down to singles if you want to, and it still works: The individual player in a single fighter has to bring down 3 very tough airplanes defended by 36 .50 caliber in a timely manner, if he is defending against another individual player in heavy buffs, which the statistics strongly indicate he will fail to do. You can call the defender "unskilled" all you want, but so what? Most players are unskilled. You think the buffers they're facing are mostly experten? Unlikely, they just have inherent advantages the way things are currently set up.

The toughness of the buffs is made up by the maneuverability of the fighters. The buffs as a single box will have a hard time surviving. In the last 87 tours I have flown the B17 very little and have 9 kills to 12 deaths. SO I have lost 4 boxes to the 9 fighters I have downed.... seemingly to support your theory, but again those 4 boxes may have been the only flights I had.

On the other hand for that same time period I have almost 200 kills of B17's and only 50 deaths to B17s. 4 to 1, easily taking out a box per fighter. While I'm a better pilot now I always wasn't   I STILL am ahead on the kills killing more buffs. As long as the buffs are single boxes, or just plain single aircraft they are easy to take down with a few simple rules as to "how" to shot them down.

However, I did once wing with JG11 when they were practicing attacking large formations of of buffs in the MAs before one of the scenarios. The "Allied" bomber groups numbered in the 15-20 box area and they flew tight with in a couple thousand yards of each other. I don't care how fast you were, what angle you came in at nor how many came in from different angles to confound the gunners, everyone was swiss cheese and limping home if not down after a single pass.

A single average fighter will take down a single average buff group far more often than the other way around.

[Chalenge]

I once ran into a group of seven B17s flying formation and escorted by a single November Jug (21 ships plus the jug). Only three of those planes flew home. Two other bishops came into the bomber string. Both of them went to the formations six and had to land early after getting a single kill. That sortie resulted in seventeen kills against one of the toughest bombers in the game, and that's without rearming. When the wind layers were introduced things got a little harder, but just a little.

Bombers do not need fixing.

[BnZs]

If I only had a 50/50 shot (in I am assuming a B-17G, so make that much less for a Lancaster or He111 or G4M1) at making it to my target why would I ever commit to the 1-2 hour flight required?

Now you have veered off into fantasy world my friend, if you are seriously claiming it takes an hour or two to up buffs and drive them to target in the MA

You want to "fix" bombers the way a vet "fixes" a dog or a cat.  If you were able to ask the dog or cat I am quite sure they would argue they weren't broken and were not now fixed.

More hyperbole. Calling for an adjustment to the unbalancing near 100% chance of buff success is not the same as calling for a 100% chance of failure, as this poorly thought out metaphor implies.

A 3 buff element in real life took 30 men to control. In AHII, that firepower and bomb load are handed to one player. Now I understand there will always be a certain amount of unrealistic advantage handed to bombers to make them flyable in a game, such as allowing one player to control 3 aircraft at all. I'm not suggesting all that be eliminated, just scaled back a little. To wit, as I said, I think the "Big 3" should be ENY 5, a single pilot/gunner should be able to fire the guns of a single position at once. Giving one player three tough aircraft with the firepower of a P-51D to train on enemies in any direction is still more than fair.

I was also sincere when I said it would be cool if more than one gunner could be allowed on board. If a 3 ship element is utterly lethal because the labor of 6 skilled players is tied up in manning it's guns, more power to them! As it currently stands though, those 6 players can bring not 3 but 18 bombers to the fight and still be almost as lethal.

[BnZs]

The toughness of the buffs is made up by the maneuverability of the fighters. The buffs as a single box will have a hard time surviving. In the last 87 tours I have flown the B17 very little and have 9 kills to 12 deaths. SO I have lost 4 boxes to the 9 fighters I have downed.... seemingly to support your theory, but again those 4 boxes may have been the only flights I had.

It doesn't matter, your experience is still evidence for my point. The boxes that you, a single player controlled, were more than a match for the fighters single players controlled at a rate of two to 1. These numbers indicate that, on average, the fighters playing defense to your bomber offense have to outnumber you to stop you. And your number of deaths says nothing about the number of times you were actually prevented from making your bomb run, which the factor of main importance. Probably less than the number of times you lost a drone or two.

On the other hand for that same time period I have almost 200 kills of B17's and only 50 deaths to B17s. 4 to 1, easily taking out a box per fighter.

I'd like to know what "almost" 200 B-17s is...195? 185? 175?  

Even so, dividing by 3 indicates that you have taken out tntire B-17 boxes 66.6 times and have been taken out by them 50 times. This is a k/d of 1.33333. Your fighter k/d in Late War Tour 167 was 1.50. These numbers would indicate that on average, an individual flying a B-17 box is slightly more likely to kill you than than the average of individuals flying everything in the MA, including fighters. And you are a relative "experten".

 

However, I did once wing with JG11 when they were practicing attacking large formations of of buffs in the MAs before one of the scenarios. The "Allied" bomber groups numbered in the 15-20 box area and they flew tight with in a couple thousand yards of each other. I don't care how fast you were, what angle you came in at nor how many came in from different angles to confound the gunners, everyone was swiss cheese and limping home if not down after a single pass.

In the ETO before bombers were escorted, German pilots had a field day attacking them. And yes, they often did attack even from 6 o'clock. I've seen ample gun cam footage of such approaches. Such operations were dangerous and rough on the German pilots and their planes no doubt, but they were sheer bloody murder on the bombers. In AHII, numbers clearly indicate it is the opposite.

A single average fighter will take down a single average buff group far more often than the other way around.

The hard numbers indicate that this statement is false. For this to be true, the k/d for a given fighter against a given bomber would have to be in excess of 3. In tour 167, the most popular fighter in the game, the P-51D, average firepower, excellent speed, often lingering up high, killed 685 B-17s (the most formidable non-perk bomber) and B-17s killed 273 P-51Ds, for a k/d of 2.5. Dividing 685 by 3, we get 228, which means that in tour 167 the P-51D shot down 228 boxes of B-17s, but 273 P-51Ds were shot down.  Simply put, individuals flying B-17 boxes won fights with P-51Ds more often than they lost, to the tune of 1.2 to 1.

The B-24, probably the most popular bomber, was killed by the P-51D 553 times and was killed by it 173 times. This indicates that the P-51D is SLIGHTLY more likely to win a fight with a box of B-24s than lose it. 553/3=184.3 times individuals flying B-24 boxes were destroyed by P-51s, vs. 173 times P-51Ds were destroyed by individuals flying B-24 boxes. This works out to a P-51vB24 box k/d of  1.065. The total k/d for P-51Ds in LW tour 167 was 1.35. So in other words, in tour 167 the B-24 box had almost a 1/1 kd ratio fighting the P-51D, and was significantly more dangerous to the most popular fighter in the game than the average of all threats in the MA.

What these k/d numbers do not tell is on what percentage of attempts the bomber formation got through to sink the CV/level the base, whether or not it managed to RTB, which is the most important bit. Experience and observations suggests that it was way, way higher than a coin toss though.

[Karnak]

Yes, a bomber sortie is usually 1-2 hours, assuming you aren't a bomb 'n bailer.

And yes, having a 50% shot of success for that time investment whereas the fighter gets to have, by your desired change, a 50/50 chance of success if he is a drooling moron and climbs slowly up the bomber's six after his five to ten minute intercept.  Of course, if the drooling moron has a 50/50 shot at winning then somebody like Lusche, Icepac or myself is nigh guaranteed to win.  How can I tell this?  Because, by your own numbers, B-17s currently enjoy a 2.5 to 1 K/D death ratio against P-51Ds, not very far off of 50/50 for success in combat for the entire formation, so that can't be what you are asking for.

You seem to be asking for bombers to have a 50/50 shot at actually bombing their targets.  How can that result be reached?  Well, either bombers need to be far easier to intercept and kill or they need to be drastically less accurate with their bombs.  Either solution will lead to players abandoning bombers as attack platforms.  It boggles my mind that you think players would put up with that kind of nonsense.

You are really pushing to have more kamikaze fighter-bombers in AH.

[The Fugitive]

It looks to me that your numbers (even the ones you can't back up) are very close and so it looks pretty balanced. So why change it?