realistic bomber speeds

[Citabria]

Sounds like a good argument for AI gunners   

make HT swear thsi will never happen.

the ai in AH in AvA hits from crazy angles jut like the retarded ai in WT and both are completely annoying crutches that change the bomber dynamic into an ai event with the human element removed.

[muzik]

both are completely annoying crutches that change the bomber dynamic into an ai event with the human element removed.

I assume you also believe that AI field guns and CV guns are taking away the human element?

The "human element" is still there because we all joined this game to "fly" not be gunners in a bomber. I don't even think they mention "manning the guns on a WW2 bomber" on any of their advertising for the game.

The key elements in flying buffs are bombing, strategic planning, execution of the attack and flying. Gunning is a novelty and a poorly executed one at that.

The AI can be de-clawed a bit.

[Ack-Ack]

I don't believe fighters flew full throttle from takeoff to landing like we do.

P-38s in the PTO didn't to maximize their flight time and distance.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Sounds like a good argument for AI gunners  

If you ever flew WB, you'd understand why HiTech decided to leave Otto at home when he made AH.

ack-ack

[muzik]

If you ever flew WB, you'd understand why HiTech decided to leave Otto at home when he made AH.

ack-ack

Are you saying he doesn't have the ability to reduce the accuracy of the gunners?

Sounds to me like the programming necessary to do it right was more than he wanted to do (or systems weren't up to the task), not more than he was capable of and priority was given to other issues.

[Ack-Ack]

Are you saying he doesn't have the ability to reduce the accuracy of the gunners?

Sounds to me like the programming necessary to do it right was more than he wanted to do (or systems weren't up to the task), not more than he was capable of and priority was given to other issues.

Saying it was more of a game play issue than a technical one.  Which is why I prefaced it with if you had flown WB then you'd understand.

ack-ack

[Stellaris]

I flew WB, and I liked the autogunners.

I'm sure this is a perennial wishlist topic, but I'd like to see them here with...

1.  Pilot and gunners can still take over guns

2.  They aren't too laser-beam

3.  They have settable parameters - for eg what range to engage, how aggressive to be with ammo, target priorities, etc.

[muzik]

Saying it was more of a game play issue than a technical one.  Which is why I prefaced it with if you had flown WB then you'd understand.

ack-ack

Of course it's a technical issue! And it has nothing to do with game play other than the resulting complaints from the lack of fine tuning of the AI.

There are only two arguments against that I know of. The "game play" argument...... "it should be player skill that kills me even though I don't really care because I get killed by CV and field guns all the time."

The other half think if it we don't already have an acceptable AI lethality it must be impossible.

AI can be programmed to hit the bulls eye every time and it can be programmed to miss it. Hell they could program the AI to start out as rookies and get better the more success they had. Not saying that's what they should do. And you of all people should already know all of this.

So what's the deal? Why didn't they just tune the AI to have an acceptable level of accuracy back in WB?

[gyrene81]

So what's the deal? Why didn't they just tune the AI to have an acceptable level of accuracy back in WB?

they did...but it wasn't acceptable.

if they dummied it down too much...bomb****s complained. if they kicked it up so it would knock chunks off at 600yds if you hung around too long...fightertards complained. in reality the problem was a programable setting referred to as "buff tuff"...nobody could ever figure out how to make it more realistic. as durable as some bombers in ah are, especially against .50 cal., adding auto gunners would produce a high pitched whine everywhere.

[muzik]

they did...but it wasn't acceptable.

if they dummied it down too much...bomb****s complained. if they kicked it up so it would knock chunks off at 600yds if you hung around too long...fightertards complained. in reality the problem was a programable setting referred to as "buff tuff"...nobody could ever figure out how to make it more realistic. as durable as some bombers in ah are, especially against .50 cal., adding auto gunners would produce a high pitched whine everywhere.

They are whining already, that's nothing new. But just like the CV flak and field guns, they'll get over it and only the occasional rants will pop up. Assuming they don't remain laser guided guns of course.

It's a simple formula really. Take the top sticks in the game and let them go at AI formations. When they can take out all three with their best tactics about 30 to 40 percent of the time, (not including arcade style killings like rockets from 1200 yds) then the AI is just right.

Not easy at all for noobs and not excessively easy for vets.

[asterix]

P-38s in the PTO didn't to maximize their flight time and distance.

ack-ack

Could a P38 theoretically fly at max continuous power during climb, cruise and combat maneuvering with the reserve for wep usage and have no oil/coolant overheating problems? I have no idea how it was and how performance is modeled in the game. I am asking because it doesn`t seem logical to me. If those high performance fighters could fly full throttle all the time without overheating they would have reliable reserve to push the engine even further for a short time without the wep. 

[Stellaris]

WEP >is< that reliable reserve - more or less.

But really, do we want to do full-out engine management here?  It's a pain, and it's more buttons, and what does it add, really?  The ability to blow up your engine because you forgot to open the louvres on climbout.  Or crack the head because you didn't close them in a dive.

[colmbo]

Could a P38 theoretically fly at max continuous power during climb, cruise and combat maneuvering

It is called "maximum continuous" for a reason.  Yes you could do that but you're going to run out of gas pretty quick.

Engine overheating comes more from low airspeed than it does from high power settings.

[Ack-Ack]

they did...but it wasn't acceptable.

if they dummied it down too much...bomb****s complained. if they kicked it up so it would knock chunks off at 600yds if you hung around too long...fightertards complained. in reality the problem was a programable setting referred to as "buff tuff"...nobody could ever figure out how to make it more realistic. as durable as some bombers in ah are, especially against .50 cal., adding auto gunners would produce a high pitched whine everywhere.

Also it was rather abused in WB, people would just up bombers and fly them over the base and turn on Otto and use the B-17 as an air mobile AAA platform.

ack-ack

[Stellaris]

You'd also have to make people adjust the throttle more slowly to avoid overboosting the supercharger.