Bomber Combat simulation in Aces High

[LCADolby]

Not inevitable.  There are many things where HTC doesn't say "no", and discussion is then not moot.

But if you still want to discuss AI gunners (even though it's not going to happen), I'm up for it.

I think that AI gunners would be useless except for the brief time the pilot is on the bomb run.  Then, they could be useful throwing out some rounds toward the enemy, if only so that he can't be sure the pilot isn't in the guns still.  Other than that, in my opinion, for playability and for philosophical reasons (that the game should be about humans doing things, not AI doing things), AI gunners should not be as good as human gunners and thus not very useful.

If the AI is anything  like the AI in staged missions they will be more often than not, gunnery like 999000

[muzik]

See rule #2

You're quite right, bombing is a skill, but not what the last 4 pages have been discussing.

Bombing, piloting, and gunning are THREE skills and humanly impossible to do simultaneously.

[Scca]

I'm not reading the whole thread, but will comment that bombers are easy kills most of the time.  I haven't played much of late (summer fun'n), but over the winter one month I was 14v1 against B-17's, arguably the toughest bomber out there.

If you are having trouble with bombers, feel free to look me up and we can go bomber hunting.  I am not a Lusche, but bomber hunting is one of my "things"...

[BnZs]

You're quite right, bombing is a skill, but not what the last 4 pages have been discussing.

Bombing, piloting, and gunning are THREE skills and humanly impossible to do simultaneously.

As most formations don't have a pilot, a gunner, AND a bombardier aboard, I.E they are being manned by only a single individual, why is this a problem?

[bozon]

As most formations don't have a pilot, a gunner, AND a bombardier aboard, I.E they are being manned by only a single individual, why is this a problem?

It is not a problem - doing all 3 jobs is an advantage. No group with any sense will put gunners in their buffs.

Say a squadron wants to do a bomber mission together. With 4 players they can bring two formations (3 planes each) and have a gunner in each formation, OR they can bring four formations without gunners. I have no doubt which option they will choose. Of course, if they are smart they will bring 4 formations and players who lost all 3 planes then join as gunners to the others... they can lose two full formations and then they are at the situation of taking off with gunners.

[BnZs]

It is not a problem - doing all 3 jobs is an advantage. No group with any sense will put gunners in their buffs.

Say a squadron wants to do a bomber mission together. With 4 players they can bring two formations (3 planes each) and have a gunner in each formation, OR they can bring four formations without gunners. I have no doubt which option they will choose. Of course, if they are smart they will bring 4 formations and players who lost all 3 planes then join as gunners to the others... they can lose two full formations and then they are at the situation of taking off with gunners.

And those 4 individuals in 4 formations totaling 12 bombers will be wielding a level of defensive firepower and ordinance delivery capacity that in reality required about 100 individuals to operate.

[Karnak]

And those 4 individuals in 4 formations totaling 12 bombers will be wielding a level of defensive firepower and ordinance delivery capacity that in reality required about 100 individuals to operate.

And yet they have little effect on the game and are all but free kills waiting to be picked.

Get over it.

[EagleDNY]

Really? So what are the odds for a new player? One with no previous experience? And what about the most prevalent player type who won't check help files or actually put an effort into understanding his task? What is that 90% of the player base?

They have about the same odds that a late 1944 luftwaffe newbie with 160 hours total flight time did when the stuck him in a 109 and sent him up against the a stream of escorted B17s. 

[Xavier]

And those 4 individuals in 4 formations totaling 12 bombers will be wielding a level of defensive firepower and ordinance delivery capacity that in reality required about 100 individuals to operate.

`

But you have no problem asking for fighter drones, that's called a double standard.

[FLS]

`

But you have no problem asking for fighter drones, that's called a double standard.

I believe that idea is for parity.

Personally I think the current system works.

[Lusche]

I believe his idea is parity.

If so, he would ask the bombers to be beefed up a bit

[FLS]

If so, he would ask the bombers to be beefed up a bit

Depends on your point of view. I'm not saying you're wrong. 

[BnZs]

`

But you have no problem asking for fighter drones, that's called a double standard.

Actually it's called demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, also known as satire. For further research into the genre I suggest reading the following:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

[BnZs]

I believe that idea is for parity.

Personally I think the current system works.

Parity? Not necessarily. I would be okay with a buff formation being as lethal as a pilot, a bombardier, and 18 999000s  on the guns could make them. The hard part will of course be finding 18 999000s to gun for you, but everything has its challenges right? 

[Karnak]

Actually it's called demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, also known as satire. For further research into the genre I suggest reading the following:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

That would require the thing you are claiming to be absurd to actually be absurd.  As it isn't, you fail.