And all I am saying is fair is fair. It's bad enough that we don't get otto weenies in this game. That is one option I find makes Warbirds better than AH. How do you think I feel when I labor to climb to 28k since altitude is perhaps my only true defense only to have the whole effort scrubbed by a few passed of a 190? It works both ways. You wanna talk realism? No pilot should need to run all over his plane to man guns from every port. The otto simulates those crack gunners that should be there already. The players should have the option to man those guns but if he want to stay in the cockpit and maneuver defensively then those gunners should very much be at their stations shooting. And if the otto shoots the fighter down than the otto gets the credit and not the player. I am very cool with that. And as a reward, the more missions a player survives in that particular model, the more deadlier a shot their otto weenies become to simulate gained experience by the gunners.
And I never said it was your idea to perk 4 engined heavies. I was addressing SmokinLoon there.
The lack of adequate bomber defense is more than likely the whole root cause for bomb n bail. The bomber pilot is at the distinct disadvantage from the get go. I do not bail but I lose far more aerial fights for life than I win. The three ship formation should have automatic defenses that simulate a full crew. This is to simulate the effectiveness of the combat box which makes those easy pick'ins you guys enjoy a lot harder. But since they don't why stop there? Make all the bases triple A inert unless we all jump into those positions and start firing. But when it comes right down to it, it's just a game that is far from perfect. Frustrated bomber pilots are gonna bail cuz they have no effective combat box, fighter jocks are gonna keep getting pissed and threads like this are gonna continue. But then what do you expect from a game where a 26 ton T-34/85 gets its butt stopped cold by a flimsy little tree.
I find it hard to agree with your notion that the "whole root cause of bomb n bail" is the "lack of adequate bomber defense" because bombers are at "a distinct disadvantage from the get go". That is a bit off topic, but I would argue that bombers shoot down more fighters in AH than they did in real life. Bomber formations already fire all guns that can bear from all 3 bombers
simultaneously at a single target regardless of which gun position you are shooting from. That alone probably simulates more closely the weight of fire of a full combat box. And the notion that AI gunners should be used and get more accurate over time to simulate experience is just silly. Experience should come from PLAYERS actually playing, practicing and getting better. Should a fighter's gunnery artificially become more accurate as a result of more sorties, as opposed to the player just getting better at gunnery? That notion is absurd, IMO. Remember, plenty of fighters also climb to 28K just to lose their engine to the first burst from a bomber formation and that is just as frustrating for the fighter guy.
But what we are really talking about here is not who has advantage, who is better or who should win. The topic is BAILING OUT of UNDAMAGED planes to avoid having to RTB or to avoid contact with the enemy. That is what I am suggesting a fix for.
Your argument seems to suggest that bombers have the right to bail out simply because they are (or feel they are) at a disadvantage. By that logic, every plane at a disadvantage should just bail out whenever they see an enemy with advantage. Should someone in a lone P40 with an enemy 190 5K above him just bail because he feels he is at a disadvantage? No? Because he can fight it out and actually win some times, right? Well, so can the bombers.
I hope you are not defending the act of bomb-and-bailing based on what you said above. If you aren't defending bomb and bailing, and simply feel bombers can't defend themselves, I suggest you go start a separate wishlist thread for that issue.
Thanks for the comments!
<S>
Ryno
