Farewell, AcesHigh

[popeye]

Otto....    Just say NO.

[Rude]

NO!

My real name is Otto:)

[Revvin]

Historically speaking, a lonely buff against a single fighter resulted in a dead buff at least 9 times out of 10

At least? so you're saying most of the time it was a dead cert the bomber would die? sorry thats not true as is 9 times out of 10. A lone bomber was still a salamanderly target for a lone fighter. Instances of a lone bomber vs a lone fighter often was the result of a buff taking damage that was substantial enough for it to fall out of formation, but even then unless the gunners were hurt it would still pose a salamanderly target but often only needing small ammounts of damage to compound what it had already taken and see it killed.

I'm sorry to see you go KFS, have fond memories from flying with 617 and also in AH with you. You were a credit to the bombing community of both sims and I am very sorry to see you go. WW2OL has a more historically accurate norden system but I still feel the rest of the game has a lot of fixing needed which is a shame. Have fun wherever you go and maybe I'll be fortunate enough to wing up with you once again

[AKcurly]

From the aspect of "teamwork," there's nothing more satisfying than to have a field under attack and to shut down the attack by porking the fuel at the attacking fields.  Even better, have a group pork the barracks at nearby fields so that the attacking fields can't be resupplied.

However, it does require teamwork ... typically, more than one field can attack another and similarly for the resupply issue.  I estimate that 10 arados can stop an attack "dead in it tracks" across any front for a period of 30 minutes.  3 B17s with 4 or 5 fighters escorts can accomplish the same thing, but it takes longer.

The issue is teamwork.  There's abundant work for the buffs, but it's not high altitude stuff (>20k).

curly

[mrsid2]

Instances of a lone bomber vs a lone fighter often was the result of a buff taking damage that was substantial enough for it to fall out of formation, but even then unless the gunners were hurt it would still pose a salamanderly target but often only needing small ammounts of damage to compound what it had already taken and see it killed.

Lone buff vs lone fighter and buff falling out of formation? What formation?

I haven't ever seen a fighter pilot story where the fighter would have been actually scared to attack the buff because of it's awesome hitting power, quite the contrary of what we have in AH.

[Kieran]

I think if you weren't afraid of the possibility of a .50 slug hitting you in the face, you weren't smart enough to be in the cockpit. That said, it was relatively easier to attack a single buff than to attack a formation. A buff with all its crew and guns intact was still a formidable opponent, even if alone.

[mrsid2]

Well, the russian bombers must have sucked bigtime because in all the stories I've read, the pilots considered taking them down fairly easy unless the buff was so armoured that the ammo didn't damage it.

They just went in, shot a couple rounds to kill the gunners and then started hitting the engines at a close distance. No mention about extreme approach angles, 1 hit miracle kills or being unable to disable buff gunners. OTOH I read many stories of wildly shooting buff gunners and the fighter pilot approaching close enough to see the gunners eyebulbs before ending his life.

In all the stories I recall, the buff armour was a much worse opponent.. On some planes you had to hit the exhaust pipe opening from the side to be able to penetrate. Some planes like IL-2 was resistant to MG fire in all places except 1x1 meter spot in the root of the wing where it was vulnerable. The cockpit was of course one of the most popular places to shoot to in all planes.

[Don]

>>Well, even though they seem to have been "toss ins" to draw a few bodies into the game, bombers have become totally irrelevent in Aces High outside of scenarios.

Any damage they cause can be repaired in seconds, way too long for some here, and cloning them in 4s would surely raise the whine level to new heights. <<


Well I guess I've been flying a different game
And I guess I gotta wish you guy(s) farewell and good luck whereever the hell yer going.
Perhaps the Buffs I have seen at 25k and above dropping eggs on their targets with uncanny accuracy, then blowing fiters out of the air with relative ease is a figment of my imagination:confused:
Perhaps there is a place/sim for disgruntled buffers where all the fiters are drones, and modeled with the consistency of paper mache, and where buffers have unlimited bombloads and can fly rings around the toughest nme interceptors dropping their bombs while fighting off those pesky lil Focke Wulfs.

[Don]

>>If you are perfectly willing to accept the game concession of buffs that operate 15K over historical altitudes with pinpoint accuracy (please don't quote the B-17's 36K ceiling- first, it seldom went that high, and secondly, it couldn't hit Rhode Island from up there),<<

Ahhh! Sanity at last!:D
And to add, there is a problem with the resupply system which has been discussed many times. It is broken and needs to be fixed. To my knowledge HT or Pyro haven't said: 'no we won't be fixing that".

[Kieran]

I'm speaking mainly of the B-17, Mr.Sid. The Russians didn't put anywhere near as many defensive guns on their bombers as did the Americans.

Take the lowly TBF, for instance. One nearly ended Saburo Sakai's life because he made a belly approach into the belly stinger- a measly .30. Bullet grazed his skull and blinded him in one eye. Now try and imagine the same approach on a B-17, twin .50's with a much better traverse and field of fire.

Point is, while it might be relatively easy to get a single B-17 compared to a flight, it wasn't an easy kill if all the guns and gunners were alive.

[mrsid2]

Kieran: How many 4 kill sorties did B-17 crews pull in WW2? Not to mention they weren't attacking alone but in huge formations in order to stand a chance.

It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, the b17, b26 and lanc are all a) too manouverable up high b) too leathal when compared to historic success. This is especially true with the dedicated buff killing planes such as a8. It was designed to withstand the damage from the defensive fire to frontal part in order to do its job.


If it took 2 fighters per average to down one b17 the luftwaffe would have run out of fighters even without allied introducing escort fighters.

[Jochen]

Onboard radar and ten mile icons are the reasons why AH MA will never be nice place for bomber pilots.

You cannot get to target and home alive unless you have significant altitude advantage. That means you must spend long times for boring climbs. And if you spend long times just climbing, you don't want to get blonw to bits by first fighter that sees you. This means you must have artifically enchanced defensive armament. This means that fighter pilots whine about that armament and rightly so.

Get rid of inflight radar and long range icons. I doubt HTC has guts to do it this is what we are stuck.

[Kieran]

"It doesn't matter how... I... try... to... twist... it..."

Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else. I am pointing out 11 x .50 is a sticky target. If you extrapolate out maneuverability from that, or alt performance, or anything else, you do so on your own.

[Creamo]

Good riddence kfsone. Die in WWIIOL.

I hate that basatrd, he stole my 'Ol lady.

Lazs; it's good to see you are still doing your bit to drive people away from the game.

Nice one from a homewrecker, you sonofasqueak.

[lazs2]

You let some effeminate sounding brit with socialist dental work steal your ol lady?
lazs