POLL: How many of you want the buffs changed?

[mrfish]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
I want Lanc and B17 and b26 whiners to feel what it's like to fly the JU88  

exactly  

i choose 'B' though it's clearly worded for drama...i think lethal distance should be reduced and perhaps lethal effect.

 i have had a single half inch bullet fired from a bouncing buff, 1,400 yards away cause the entire back of my plane to fall off -

thats 14 football fields folks - i think i could probably catch a bullet from that distance i seriously doubt it would cause a plane to split in two. i mean maybe make a dent but rip the empanage off?

werner moulder's slashing attacks on buffs were highly effective because a speeding plane was hard to hit in a deflection shot etc etc...he would have died 1st time out if life were like a.h.

if .50 cal were really that lethal why would we use torches and explosives to disassemble buildings? just point a .50 cal at them and you could take down the world trade center from 50 yds by that logic!

short story = status quo with minor adjustments.

[MANDOBLE]

A) And give us Harpoons, AMRAAMs and backwinders, night goggles and JDAMs. Surelly we'll duplicate the number of buff pilots.

Ups! And dont forget the stealth capabilities of the B17.

[Jebo44]

Fidd,

I aint gonna argue how they stowed the gear in 48.   All I am saying is that some if all of the guns could be, hypothetically manned if they were rolling down a runway. So if we are going to make every thing realistic allow all or some of the 17's guns to be fired while on the deck. If your saying that the reason they are turned off is because the gun crews had to be here and there because of during takeoff duties fine, I'll go with that. But I really doubt there was a 17 crew in the world that had their guns unstowed and locked in to their bases and locked and loaded the second the wheels were up. So what do you suggest HT should do?

I am not jackin' with ya just trying to provide a different view point from a bomber driver.

[Fidd]

It's ok, although my post was factually correct, I was teasing you a bit! I do think that HT has it right, as regards buff guns being U/S until airborne. Imagine what might happen if this were not the case:

1. b17(s) alts to filed, kills acks and FH, VH.
2. B17 lands at field and uses gunners to destroy remaining soft targets.
3. B17 remains parked as a mobile MG position.

Thats *exactly* what would happen, therefore HT is wise to prevent it. The reality is that it would be sheer suicide to attempt to takeoff a B17 from a field under attack by fighters; so in this regard HT has also got it right!

Fidd


 

Originally posted by Jebo44:
Fidd,

I aint gonna argue how they stowed the gear in 48.   All I am saying is that some if all of the guns could be, hypothetically manned if they were rolling down a runway. So if we are going to make every thing realistic allow all or some of the 17's guns to be fired while on the deck. If your saying that the reason they are turned off is because the gun crews had to be here and there because of during takeoff duties fine, I'll go with that. But I really doubt there was a 17 crew in the world that had their guns unstowed and locked in to their bases and locked and loaded the second the wheels were up. So what do you suggest HT should do?

I am not jackin' with ya just trying to provide a different view point from a bomber driver.

[Mark Luper]

I say "A" but with a caveat. I think if anything is changed then it should be to the effect that flying a buff would increase immersion.

Make the manifold pressure increase if you increase prop pitch with a steady throttle,(like real life)

Make it possible to adjust mixture (like real life)

Make these things automatic if you don't want to fool with them.

Make the Buff, especially the 17, able to take a LOT more punishment.

I like the idea of the norden sight working like it did in WB, but I don't beleive that makeing bombs disperse like in real life would do much to enhance gameplay (from a buff crew's perspective anyway).

I think it would be ok to reduce the effectiveness of the guns down to 1k, no closer though unless the toughness was increased dramaticaly.

If these can't be implemented then leave it the way it is as far as I'm concerned.

I fly fighters more than buffs for the simple reason that landing a buff mission is almost impossible with the arena populated at over 100.

Getting fighter escorts is near impossible but my squad has done that. Even with escort, buff missions are not very succesfull as far as making it back to a landing.

There will always be this argument. In here, in WB and in WWIIOL when and if it ever gets going.

If you are patient in a fighter you will kill the buff. All it takes is the proper approach. If you don't want to have that patience, then don't bother. And don't whine about it either  

'Nuff said.

[bowser]

"...Why do you think a lone bomber shouldn't make evasive actions?...".

I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't take evasive actions.  What we're talking about is several changes in heading over or near the target made possible by the "instant" norden in AH.  In RL the bombers had to maintain a heading for a period of time, which would allow fighters to set up a proper attack.  In AH, the bombers can continually turn their 6 to you and still get the bombs on target, and fire accurately.

For all the people talking about proper attacks, patience, etc..you're obviously not facing the same bombers I see, who are continually turning their 6 to you, making a properly set up attack impossible.

In Warbirds, it would take about a minute for the Nordon to calibrate once the heading was changed, meaning you had to use a proper IP and bombing run, similiar to RL.  Maybe something like this would help.

bowser

[This message has been edited by bowser (edited 04-19-2001).]

[Mark Luper]

Yes Bowser,
I have faced them too. It makes it really interesting to say the least. But we come back to that little word...patience. You really need to set up your attack correctly or you WILL get shot down.

I have worked on a buff for what I thought was a long, long time before I got the shot I was looking for. Most of the time, I don't have the necessary patience and he ends up shooting me down  .

If they are below 20k... hehehehehehehehe

I still get shot down a lot, but with the proper setup, you will get your con.

[lemur]

Status quo with one very small change

Like everything else in this game, you have to learn how to do it correctly. The only complaint I have is this:

An unskilled fighter against an unskilled buff gunner = dead fighter
A skilled fighter against a skilled gunner = an even fight.

Model wind deflection for the bullets to raise the skill bar a bit for the gunner and all would be well.

People who attack buffs from 6 O'Clock get what they deserve and should stop whining.

~Lemur

[juzz]

lemur said: "Model wind deflection for the bullets to raise the skill bar a bit for the gunner and all would be well"

This IS modelled. Fire out to the side of the bomber and observe the tracer stream curving backwards.

janjan said: "1st fix should be the buff firing arcs. Why the hell can they shoot thru vertical stab?"

AGREED! The B-17G is the worst culprit - eg: the ball turret can fire through the fuselage, allowing it to fire on attacks that are coming from slightly ABOVE the bomber! A level HO attack against the B-17G faces 8 .50in guns!!!

[darling]

I wish.

I wish the bombs would drift with the wind shears at 12k, 14k and 16k. I wish the guns were modelled differently to make it harder for the gunner. But those things continue to be my wish. I fully understand the reasons for the buffs being overmodelled. - oh, my, I said the words :-( - Getting escorts for buffs is nigh on impossible. Getting gunners even harder.
I asked HiTech about better high altitude modelling, for the high altitude fighters, e.g. the TA-152, Jug, P-38, 109G10, etc. He said they were aware of the issue, but that other matters had higher priority, since to change this would entail a lot of other *game engine* changes.

As for B17 mission altitudes in WWII, check out these sites. They cronicle real B17 missions in world war 2 and are taken from various Real Life Pilots that flew Real Missions.
 http://www88.pair.com/davepaul/b17/major.htm  http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/history/history2/wilson_1.htm  http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/history/history3/johnson1.htm  http://www.91stbombgroup.com/lookingback.html

Hope you enjoy. BTW, none of them mention ever flying below 25000 feet, unless in an emergency, such as loss of oxygen tanks for the masks, etc. For the ones interested, I have a long list of these sites, and can share if you want. Email me at klumhru@simnet.is and I'll send you a link list.

Nit for life
Darling