Heavy Bomber tweaks

[Jed]

+1.  I like the bomber ideas being tossed around. It seems that every time someone posts a "wish" in the wish list area they are immediately attacked and told to stop whining.
I think some bomber tweaks would be great for the game. Crew management, and some damage control/ more extensive modeling would get me into bombers more. It would be a ton of fun flying to a target having some wounded crew moving them around, putting out engine fires, transferring fuel, overheated engines, losing engines and the list can go on. 
It seems you either lose an aileron,  or the entire wing falls a
Off. Nothing in the middle. Some consideration on the subject isn't a bad thing IMO.

[earl1937]

From pilot stories noting it in turbulence. Also a few notes from a recollection from ferry flights (rough weather sometimes).

I don't mean to suggest it flapped like a bird's wing, but it moved, undulated, and scared more than a few folks that were onboard. One navigator said he had to force himself to NOT watch it, because if he did he would start asking questions about how it keep them in the air like that, and he didn't want to go there. He was more than glad to land safely after that one.

P.S. The performance at 30K is noted in a couple of books from pilots that flew them in formation. It wasn't just trim. The plane would require full concentration just to stay level. It would swerve and the nose would oscillate left and right, and the tail would twist slightly, and the wings would move. The whole plane was alive, and it was impossible to keep fine control of it. It wasn't just trying to lift an aileron during stall. The whole plane flexed.

Even when they tried putting a B-17 nose on one B-24, it worsened this flexing, if I recall, making it harder to control even at lower alts.

Columbo reply has it right. I did not fly either one, but had a lot of hangar talk with guys who did fly them both. didn't hear any of those type stories. The B-24, Davis wing, is a Laminar flow type wing and can't, because of design, flex much or would defeat the purpose of the Laminar flow design. The B-17 has a large vertical stabilizer and rudder for one a purpose and that is slow flight control. The 17 would, or so I have been told would roll off on a wing, one way or the other during takeoff and departure stall practice and approach to landing stalls. In the B-29 and B-26, you were taught real quick that if the left wing broke first, low, then you press right rudder as well as aileron control input to return to wings level condition. If you are uncoordinated in your control response, you could roll the aircraft inverted real quick. Best coordinated control practice is with aircraft in landing config, 5 knots above stall, then roll 30 degrees right and left. Do it wrong and you are going to stall. Any skidding because of improper use of rudder will decay the airspeed in the blink of a eye and there you go.
Most of the aircraft in the WW2 era did not have flexible wing design, except the B-29! We had some flex in turbulence, but not enough to be of a concern for flight safety. All the aircraft of today have a "flex" design in the wing for a purpose. The new Boeing 787's wingtips move up and down 72 feet, 36 up or down. (I think that is the right amount of flex)

[icepac]

Columbo..........you still have that video of you piloting the Collings B24 I saw about six years ago at IEN?

Is it on youtube?

[colmbo]

Columbo..........you still have that video of you piloting the Collings B24 I saw about six years ago at IEN?

Is it on youtube?

It might be here.

[colmbo]

Odd Krusty.  Just haven't seen or heard of any of that...but I certainly haven't heard everything about the B-24.   

Upon reflection there is a bit of noticeable wing flex.  On the ground from the pilots seats you can't see the wingtips (one reason you see the engineer sticking outa the top hatch when taxiing) but once in flight you can see them if you stretch a bit.

[No9Squadron]

Im surprised to be told I'm "whining" by someone who doesn't seem to have properly read my post.

1. Thanks for the nice long lecture about B24s but you actually said nothing at all about their flammability in the game.

2. I can't agree with what is being said about B24D and J being similar. On PB missions I am shooting down bombers and fighters on a daily basis with my nose guns on 17s and 24s, on PB missions that is. Also 262s and other planes are easier dealt with by nose gun. I wouldn't have a chance to do that with a single .50 cal, B24D would make a big difference in PB missions and it would be much much harder to destroy bombers. People saw me yesterday dogfight a spitfire and kill it entire with top and nose guns, my rear gun never got used, I'm doing this all the time on PB missions. Think more clearly and you will see many reasons why B24D and B24J would get played differently. But you are incorrect totally to say that nose gun is not crucial or important, I use it ALL the time.

3. It's a good point by SmokinLoon about B-17E and B-17D, again for the same reasons.

4. Again I don't know where you get your facts from, but the me163 was responsible for either 9, 10 or 16 victories total. The Japanese 163 is not available in the game, but some were built, whether they flew I don't know, because a vital part, some pump, was sunk in a u-boat.

I appreciate the feedback. I have shot 163s down, but my point is about the fact that B24s light up easily. As far as the wing-flex is concerned, I don't have a problem with it, if you roll too hard or pull up too hard, yes you lose your wings, fair enough. The issue is that the me163 is barely in the scope of WW2, it is highly exotic, was responsible for less than 20 kills and in the case of the B24J, while obviously I am wrong, I was feeling it was very unbalanced.

5. "Deal with it"? The lanc does have a flight engineer fold-out seat, so in fact all heavies did have two crew positions in the cockpit. It's perfectly reasonable for players to want the co-pilot or medic option in a heavy bomber, just as a fighter pilot should want speed or turn from his fighter. Sunderlands had a kind of kitchen with boiling water, all I am saying is that there is scope to increase the immersion and interactivity for players when flying bombers and to balance things a little. Heavy bombers didn't fly to Berlin with one pilot, deal with that, I'm just asking for something that is more realistic, more fun, more challenging. SWOTL is even older than AH, but there seemed to be more nursing of engines and radiator management. There could be more challenges once wounded, like "does my gunner take over, or shall I med the pilot 4 mins out from the rwy" there should be consequences of each decision. Also as someone mentioned, engines could get more complex like SWOTL, once damaged.

Jed's ideas are fantastic, didn't cross my mind, but moving and replacing wounded gunners would be fantastic.

[guncrasher]

No9999squadron,  the idea of having a copilot or gunner or "medic" take over goes against the long established tradition of 1 life per airplane.  in a fighter you only get 1 chance, with a bomber you get 3.  asking for the copilot "to take over" kindda goes against this tradition.

but to be fair and if you want to compare to what happened in ww2.  the bomber crews bailed out a lot faster and with less damage than what we do in this game.  and the reason is because we have nothing to lose.

I am pretty sure most of the pilots bailed out if you lost 1/2 a wing, instead of trying to bring it back to base like it happens here in the game.  that is just an example, we play a game here and we try to stop the other guy from getting a kill while in ww2 if you took off 1/2 a wing that counted as a kill.


semp

[Butcher]

4. Again I don't know where you get your facts from, but the me163 was responsible for either 9, 10 or 16 victories total. The Japanese 163 is not available in the game, but some were built, whether they flew I don't know, because a vital part, some pump, was sunk in a u-boat.

In Aces high all vehicles come in perfect condition. There are no malfunctions or hazards real life deals with. Real life the Me-163 has two of the most volatile fuels ever put together, if either of the fuel VAPORS come into contact, it would case Me-163s to explode on the runway. The Fuel trucks were stationed at either end of the runway, one truck would fill one fuel tank, drive away - then the other truck would come to fuel. Some 163s had NO Fuel and just sat on the runway and exploded just because the vapors mixed.
However in Aces High - how would you feel if you were in an Me-163 on the runway waiting to take off, after you put your fresh 50 perks up to fly it - and it exploded on a runway? Not very fun is it? There is a reason the Me-163 is only available at ONE airfield per country (nearest to the HQ).
Don't fly near the HQ, and you generally won't meet the BEST fighter in Aces high (long as its flown right). If HQ was dropped every hour how you feel about having no radar all day long? It unbalances the game again..

The system is in place and works fine, I have no problem with 163s in game, if I want HQ dropped I take a massive mission to do it, and just hope I might get one of the little wings.

[No9Squadron]

Someone has chosen to accuse a new player of "whining" and whining about 163s. This is cowturd. What I actually said was

B24s burned that much against 163s?

My issue was the flammability of B24s. I realize now that it's not the rocket motor burning the plane or some inbalance and that simply I had a run of bad luck and was fighting the top ranking player.

It's an old game, some players are very knowledgeable and skilled and us beginners are not. If when we open our mouths, simply to ask a question, we are attacked for "whining", what will happen is that beginners won't play this game and the game will become more and more stale and exclusive to newcomers. It's hard enough fighting the top ranking player in 163s, when I've been playing only a few weeks and I came here to question the balance of 24 v163 and to make some suggestions about making bombers more fun, having more players on board and more options for players, that is all, how that could warrant such a reaction as it did, reminds me of how players totally screwed up Deus Ex Multiplayer for beginners, that game is now totally dead. With player numbers dwindling slowly, you can't afford to talk to beginners like that for simply asking questions or having an opinion. The lecture on B24s was very patronizing, since you didn't mention any of the realities of a 163, including the liability to explode, so your argument was not only factually incorrect, it was slightly abusive and definitely misleading, and in fact you still didn't give an opinion on whether B24s burned that much or not. I'm not whining, I'm simply pointing out that B24s didn't catch fire as much as they seem to do in Aces High, that's my opinion. You weren't having a discussion, but just a rant at a new player.

I also stand by my words and I think there is an option for the devs to increase the options to bomber pilots.

I don't see what is so bad about suggesting 163s should explode sometimes or 24s should burn less. In SWOTL, for example, a damaged radiator mean't you had option to continue full throttle and kill the engine, or reduce rpm/throttle and nurse the engine home. That's all I was doing, was suggesting that there could be more damage control options for players and while I can see there is no support at all for it, I was suggesting that 163s should explode. My bad for trying to make it more like WW2.

As a new player, I've been firmly put in my place Krusty, I won't dare to disturb your equilibrium again.

[Arlo]

Easy there. This isn't the rough stuff. This, comparatively, is actually rather civil. 

[No9Squadron]

If that is being civil to beginners, then thanks, but no thanks. As I said, I won't bother making any suggestion again. I was under the impression this is the one section where people can suggest or question aspects of AH.

[Arlo]

Ok then.

[No9Squadron]

If HTC check the logs, they will see that 99% of the time Snailman lights my B24s, but roughly 1% of the time, he loses a wing, I've never actually seen a 163 explode the way you describe. I appreciate people being "civil", but I don't think I'm so out of order to suggest there is something wrong with the fact that a 163 never burns, even when I hit it with a lot of .50 cal and B24 always does. Obviously my experience so far is not the norm. It seems like some inbalance going on if the B24 is the one that is always burning when hit. I've seen 163 lose a wing after two pilots pelted it. So how was that balanced or like WW2, I don't think it was, just saying, it should take very little to burn a 163. Perhaps it does, but I haven't seen it personally in the game. Now that you've educated me, I won't ask for that kind of realism again, but I personally would love to see B29s failing to make alt, 163s exploding on a bumpy take-off and other stuff. More challenges. I can appreciate why the devs are never going to do that though, but I don't think mentioning pilot wounded on long distance missions warranted the response it got either, I'm just throwing ideas around, what this section is for isn't it? There are lots of things that could be done to increase damage control options/challenges and gunnery inside bombers. And having lots of gunners I think you will find, actually will make it a lot harder, because already 2 gunners waste a lot of ammo.

[Arlo]

What you might not consider is that this is also an open forum for debating said wishes.
Other players will discuss their practicalities and impracticalities. Players who've seen these
discussions before, and have seen prior responses from Hitech, Pyro or Skuzzy will share
their viewpoints with you. What you 'want' may not actually be good for the game or the
community (or it may just be their honest opinion that it wouldn't be). And no, such wishes
are not limited to new players. In the end, it's up to HTC to weigh the merits of such wishes.
Til then you may get opinions from other players about how they value your suggestion(s)
and it won't always be done in a gentle manner.

I understand that Krusty hurt your feelings. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt. But if it's
a gentle touch in the midst of disagreeing with you that you're asking for then you're a
appearing somewhat desperate for sympathy. While I understand your exuberance I suggest
more patience and humility and less sensitivity.

[Debrody]

I think the 163 has one reason to have a place in this game, and that is to make attacking the HQ (and strats on certain maps) to be more difficult. Nothing could effectively stop a 30k b17 group from flying over and flatten the strats. Even if the losses would be serious, the caused damage would really hurt the other country. Just like in the old MoM missions.