Havent had time to read the entire thread (life is short!) but...
In real life, bombers never flew at maximum throttle for very long. Something like maximum throttle to get airborne, then 90-95% power for climbout to cruising altitude, build up speed, cut back throttle to maybe 80-85% power... on lengthy flights, keep cutting power back to maintain a constant airspeed as the weight of fuel burnt affects the performance of the plane.. drop bombs, cut throttle back even further due to sudden large drop in weight and consequent jump in performace...
How often do you see people fly bombers like that in AH?
If you're wondering WHY they flew like that in WW2, the answer is that
(a) real engines sieze up if you run them too hard for too long
(b) most raids were planned to fairly tight schedules - if you think about the daylight raids on Germany, the endurance of the escorting fighters had to be taken into consideration, and also flying to a schedule meant that "reception" fighters sent up hours after the raid started to see the returning bombers and their escorts, now very tired, safely home over the last leg of the trip, could be sure of where they would find their charges at the designated time.
(c) If you fly economically in terms of fuel use, you need to carry less fuel, and that means you can fly faster and higher than you would otherwise on the same settings.
Not to mention, of course, that you can't hold a formation together with everyone at full throttle. The flight leader HAS to be at a reduced throttle setting so that the rest of the formation has sufficient power in hand to be able to maintain station.
If engine overheating were introduced into AH, bombers would fly at more realistic speeds and altitudes, rather than the silliness we see so often now, of them thumping along at full throttle from takeoff to end of flight. I mean - a Lancaster with 14,000lb bombload doing 300mph at over 27th feet?! I've done it myself in the MA, but it sure as heck wasnt flown like that in real life.
Comments about people blaming their poor attack technique on supposed over-toughness of bombers are spot on, IMO, as are those saying that bombers can't take as much damage as they ought to be able to, that defensive gunnery is too potent, and that point out that the extreme aerobatics possible when gunning for oneself are VERY unrealistic. The G-forces on the gunner would make aiming rather difficult for a start, as well as quite possibly distracting the gunner by making them feel ill.
Also, most planes had a set of "thou shalt nots" with regard to their handling. Here, you might be surprised to know that the standard evasive manouvre for RAF bombers, yes, even the 4-engined ones (flying at night) was a hard "corkscrew" to left followed by similar to right. That is, nose down and hard left turn followed by nose up and hard right turn, leaving you roughly back on track, but hopefully now without a nightfighter on your tail. Ive read somewhere of B17s doing similarly violent evasives when caught alone, but can't confirm that, however doing that kind of thing was an act of desperation, risking various damage to airframe and engines.
Then too... in real life, friendly collisions are always ON :-} So a formation of B17s wouldnt suddenly start gyrating when attacked, they'd stay level and in formation to give their gunners best chance of hitting their attackers, AND to avoid colliding with other planes in the formation. Also, in real life, pilots wee sent on missions, they didnt just grab a plane and wander over to enemy territory to see what they could get up to - and they would rtb if damaged or lost, or had some kind of equipment failure. And they really, REALLY did not want to die, and preferably not be captured. All of which made them tend to fly fairly directly along their routes, so they could navigate and get back home qicker.
In Aces High, I've yet to see a nice tight formation of B17s or suchlike (grnted I've not been in AH long though), so I cant comment on how effective their massed gunnery would be at defending them against attack. I do know that when flying solo, if I DONT use the steering capabilities from the gunner position to the full, then chances are I'll be dead within seconds, even against an attack from astern, unless my attacker is a lousy shot.
So, my guess at what would make things better here would be
-model engine overheating (make sure that fighter engines arent as constrained as bomber engines, though)
- allow bombers to take more realistic levels of damage
- put constraints on how much G can be pulled and still have defensive guns shoot
-decrease the potency of defensive gunnery
- allow up to 2 gunners per bomber (if they actualy had 3+crew) to allow for defence against more than 1 attack at a time.
- have Otto as an observer, calling out when enemy planes get close, so that solo pilots get a chance to jump to their guns to defend themselves, OR introduce Otto gunners, but less accurate than most human gunners.
- if necessary, rework buff engine management to reward realistic engine management (your engines dont catch fire! Also fuel lasts longer so you dont need as much*) and penalise unrealistic engine management (your engines DO catch fire if run too fast for too long). A "generic" solution to this would be fine - itd give OVERALL more realsim. There's other things more important than having engine control utterly as per real on a plane by plane basis even for a realism nut like me!
Esme
CO, Kampfgeschwader 2 "Holzhammer"
* Yes, I know, that kind of works now. I'd vote for exagerrating the effect slightly, to encourage more realistic flying practices, and have engine overheating affected by both MPs and RPM, so that buffs fly slower, but can fly considerably further on a given amount of fuel than they do now
(added in edit) Skurj.. Ju88s can out-dive Spit 1s and Hurricanes
