HTC Quick request re. new bomber stuff..

[Esme]

I wanna complain! They aren't modelling the differences between stabilised vector and tachometric bomb sights!


(chuckle...)

Seriously, though, nice, VERY nice!  HTC I would prefer for the pilot to have a choice of how many "wingmen" they have, though; the USAF flew in 4-ship boxes, but the LW (and RAF when it flew by day) flew in 3-ship Ketten/Vics.  Can we have a choice of how many "wingmen" for scenario games, please?

Now, howsabout we take the GPS map away so our fighter friends have to learn to navigate, eh Wotan? ;-)  :-P

Esme
(VERY much looking forward to the new bomber systems!)

[Wotan]

S! esme i may take up a ju88 i may need you to "learn me" on how to do it right

I would wish that we be given the choice of fuel in percentages ie 45 65 33 etc... that way theres a little more to planning the flight.

remember we are getting a 512 x 512 map so the days of 25% fuel max for buffs made need adjusting

[eskimo2]

Esme,
You want a 3-ship?
Just taxi #4 into an ammo bunker, then take off.



eskimo

[Esme]

Eskimo, two things; if you read HTCs post, it simply doesnt work that way, wont be possible. Secondly, I'm more a "historic scenario"/"realism nnut"  flyer, and having to try to prang an extra unwanted plane into a hangar at the start of every sortie just doesn't cut it. :-)

Wotan, I would VERY much like to be able to set the fuel load actually taken to the nearest percent.  So that the strat supply system for the MA isnt affected, I wouldnt in the least mind if the MAXIMUM amount allowed is either 25, 50, 75 or 100%, but I'd like to be able to choose how much less than that I carry with some precision.  The ability to do so is one of the very few things I miss from my time in War Birds, as it allowed some very precise planning of loadouts, allowing for a safety factor, winds, mission profile, etc.

I doubt I could teach you anything about the actual flying of a Ju88, Wotan, but I suspect I could teach most who aren't pilots for real a little about proper mission-planning and DR navigation
:-)

As for taking up just 25% fuel, I almost NEVER do that. 75% or 100% are more common for me, whether because I want to gain altitude, or fly a circuitous route, or allow for holed tanks, or because I'm out trying to spot enemy CVs...  - this is why I want the fuel load options for the Ju88 extended to include bomb bay tankage, and also some tweaking of the engine control/fuel burn to ensure that there is a real advantage to flying at less than full throttle (Ju88's could fly for a LOT longer than a couple of hours) - I'd prefer to see a 1:1 fuel burn rate for arenas as standard, too, as using anything else plays hell with mission planning, involves a LOT of work to allow for fuel burning faster than it should.

I quite frankly don't understand why anyone would take just 25% fuel in a bomber unless they are going to do a low-level raid on a nearby target where air superiority is assured - which is seldom the case in the MA.

Anyone interested in flying Axis bombers in an organised and reasonably historical fashion in a unit focused on scenario games (using the CT for practice), please feel free to contact me at  

esmenhamaire@tiscali.co.uk

Esme
CO, Kampfgschwader 2 "Holzhammer"

PS: please note; I cannot teach anyone (bar the rawest newbies) anything about MA style bombing, as it is so different that I'm not too good at it myself! :-}  I fly the MA purely for fun, not seriously - if you want to get good at bombing effectively in the MA, best to ask someone else.

Also please note: this does NOT imply I look down on MA flying; it's simply different. So far as I'm concerned, what is important is that we all get the opportunity to do the kind of flying we each enjoy most.

[Black Sheep]

dont know if your fuel request will be granted - but you can decrease your fuel burn by dropping the rpms (using the numpad + and - keys) I think somehow you already know that - but that coupled with dro-pping the manifold pressure down will conserve alot of fuel:)

[Esme]

Black Sheep... you missed the point. If after all my planning, I find I need, including margin, 51% fuel, I do NOT want to HAVE to take 75% fuel instead. I could live with having to carry 60% without grumbling too hard (ie: being able to select the amount of fuel I carry in 10% increments), but 25% chunks really doesn't cut it.

It's not a question of how to squeeze range out of the fuel I take - I know that (and the RPMS doesnt affect fuel burn, unless I dreamt the tests I did recently (I have heard that the secondary effects of rpm changes are only modelled for the P51, btw); I just don't want to take more weight than I need for the mission.

Esme

[brendo]

ESME, I am under the impression that USA users buff boxes comprised of 3 aircraft in each element.

HTC were going to add 4 aircraft formations, but found out that the boxes were made of 3 ships.

[Qnm]

There is an obvious AH reason for forcing 3- instead of giving optional 2- to 4-ship flights?

[Octavius]

Check out this link:  http://www.486th.org/Aircraft/B17/box1.htm

Having a 3-ship formation allows another player to form directly behind a lead and create a box between himself and the leading player's two drones.  Instead of flying around a single box, this promotes realistic formations by multiple pilots and their drones.

[cajun]

I thought we had the option of only taking 1 drone bomber if we wanted to?  

  And yes being able to select like 60% fuel would be nice, I love strategic bombing but usuelly dont pay much attintion to fuel (Since I play in H2H Where fuel burn rate is allways like 0% and maps are much smaller) But I find I do like a Higher fuel burn rate than 1 like 2 or so since the maps in the h2h are so small.