Multiple Gunner's in next patch....

[guttboy]

Hi Guys,

Just a suggestion....how about allowing a bomber or fighter bomber to have more than one gunner position available to more people?  It would be really cool to have multiple gunners on one crew of lets say a B17....you could still allow the guns to train if there were less than max people and you would could still allow the pilot to have access to the guns if no one was on board.

Just a thought.....

Any other opinions?

[SKurj]

Ht was on the server around 1.09 release time saying, the headaches involved with net lag etc make multiple gunners more problematic than they are worth...


SKurj

[streakeagle]

It would be so cool to have fully manned B-17s, but I don't think anyone would do it even if it was possible.

Imagine spending a couple of hours online being a waist gunner:

B-17 takes off (you do nothing).
B-17 climbs to alt in safe airspace (you do nothing).
B-17 transits to enemy airspace (you do nothing).
Skilled opponents approach at high speeds with steep crossing angles (you cannot see or do anything).
Skilled opponents rip your B-17 to shreds (you bail out).

If gunners could join and leave at will in middair it might be more feasible.

If only HT could eliminate net lag entirely, the game would be so much better. HT, get hot!

[Dago]

f gunners could join and leave at will in middair it might be more feasible.

Last I checked, gunners could join in midair.

And leaving inflight too if ya  want to bad enough.


I would like multiple gunners, HT had set it up that way in WB, but there are times it encourages that despised practice of Ackstarring.

Dago

[Revvin]

I'd like to see it taken one step further and have auto gunners like WB has. Maybe I'm missing something but HT coded multiple buff gunners into WB with quite some success so why not here? Not only are fighters upset at the current situation where ALL guns are fired at them but also if two planes attack a buff you cannot fire back at both which gives one of those fighters a turkey shoot. I'd like to see otto added because the current setup means bombers are undefended when in norden, and before you say get a gunner..they are not that forthcoming. This lack of protection leads to the unrealistic situation where fighters let a buff get to target and drop its ord, as the first bomb drops the fighter knows he has a turkey shoot as the pilot is tied up in the bombardier view.

[Nifty]

command to leave a joined bomber midflight is Alt+F4.   Same thing if ya pop that chute a little too high and don't wanna float 10 minutes down to the ground and there is no FDB around to put you outta yer misery.  

[cajun]

That woul be great, you would be able to aim at 2 or 3 different planes at once

This and a few ww2 biwingers and AH would be perfect

[Wlfgng]

FDB's are good for sumpthin'???!!!???

jk.
I can usually get one to oblige if I hit Enter too many times.
although lately I think Creamo is getting soft...

[Puck]

The biggest single gripe against OTTO (the WB auto gunner) is he was too deadly/not deadly enough, depending on who was doing the whining, and it encouraged putting B17s on the runways of capped fields so OTTO could shoot; the infamous ackstar.  

I prefer the good old fashoned person-operated guns, and I especially like the linked aiming system.

[Saurdaukar]

Auto gunners?  YUK!!!!  Please god no...

Multiple gunners?  Well - if its a technical reason for no - so be it - but I see nothing wrong with return to the good ol days of fully manned "Death Stars."  

[guttboy]

No auto gunners and I have to disagree with the post that no one would do multiple gunners.  Our squadron had a blast at that in air warrior where we would take up entire crewed b17s and head into battle...might not be fun for some but fun for others.

[akak]

Originally posted by streakeagle
It would be so cool to have fully manned B-17s, but I don't think anyone would do it even if it was possible.

Air Warrior had multi-crewed buffs.  B-17 Death Stars were a big pain in the ass, especially the AW3 Uber-B17 fighter Death Star that could out loop and out turn any fighter.  


ack-ack

[mipoikel]

I dont want even 1 gunner in to my buff.

Only thing I may use gunner is a 110. Or not..

[Taiaha]

Multiple gunners was interesting in WB, but it definitely had its drawbacks apart from the ackstarring.  Often you'd get guys joining who would obviously just pass out or something, and then when the bad guys put in an appearance, they were taking up a spot snoring and no one else could get on.

I love the AH bomber gunnery, the zone fire system simulates most bomber defense situations in WWII, and as Puck has already pointed out, having an auto gunner inevitably leads to whining about it being too accurate/too hopeless--and god knows these boards don't need any more whining.  (Of course, the problem with WB is that the bomber guns were completely porked anyway, jumping and twitching like an electrocuted rodent).

Revvin makes a good point about the vulnerability of a lone bomber against two fighters who know what they are doing in AH, but the way I look at it, if you don't fly in a realistic fashion, there's a limit to how realistic you should expect the features should be.  Sure you are vulnerable--but that's what a wingman or two is for. . .

[Nefarious]

Make it so an airplane could actually hold it's real life number of crewmembers. If not filled to capacity, The gunners could switch posistions freely, unless of course another gunner was in his posistion or the gun was destroyed. And then add wounded gunners.

Then add Sub's<<