Improving the Bomber Model (suggestion)

[MOSQ]

StracCop,
I agree with the theme of this thread. The Imporoving Bomber Model idea is a good one. I hope it is implemented.
However it will likely take a lot of coding to get it done.
We now have suitable terrain, targets, and strat (possibly) to make bomber missions worthwhile again. (As opposed to constant and unrelenting suicide jabos, which has brought the normal fight to just above ground level).
I suggest two quick fixes to get more bombers up in the sky, and return the role of P-51's, Bf109 G-10's, and other high alt interceptors to their historic roles.

1) Increase the bomb loadout of the B-17. Every refrence says typically about 17.5 to 18.5K of bombs was max load. Our current is 6k bombs. I believe this was done to encourage people to fly the less well defended Lancs during the days of laser bombsites. The laser bombsight is gone, so too should the low bomb load on the 17.

Raise the B-17 bomb load to at least 12K.

2) Lancs and 17's climb extremely poorly. Especially Lancs.  At many of the bases on the new Pizza map, you can barely get a Lanc in the air due to the unrealistically high altitude bases. We can get into a long thread about  historical accuracy etc, and how lots of things here are/are not historically accurate, but I think the climb rate should be tweaked up for all bombers.

Raise the climb rate of all bombers by 30% except the Lanc, which needs a 50% boost at least.

These two changes should be able to be implemented rapidly and will bring high altitude buff runs, with their attendant high altitude escorts and interceptors back into the game.

By the way, in what dept. are you a Strack Cop ?

[muckmaw]

Not to knock some of the other pilots, but I find flying in formation to a be a challenge that keeps me occupied and adds to the realism of the Bomber mission.

The lead flight always calls out his heading, Alt, rate of climb or descent, and manifold pressure. We take these numbers down, and can make a pretty tight box formation ourselves.

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd use it.

Meanwhile, Bombing seems to be a lost art. I almost never see heavies in the air anymore. No one seems to be bothering with Strat targets. Jabos are the ride of choice these days. Even I don't both with bombing much anymore. It just does not have an impact, in my opinion.

I can't wait for the mission arena, or a change in the Strat so we can get the heavies flying with a purpose again.

[StracCop]

Originally posted by MOSQ
By the way, in what dept. are you a Strack Cop ?

I've been with the Philadelphia PD for 18 years now.
GeezLouise..has it been that long?

Just FYI, the Strac is an acronym I borrowed from my days with the 82nd Airborne Division.  Back then we were part of something called the Rapid Deployment Force and to be called a "Strac" trooper was a great compliment.

Anyway, it stands for:

S = skilled
T = tough
R = ready
A = around the
C = clock

And of course the 'Cop" is self-explanatory.

Now if I could just get people to say or spell my nickname correctly

Originally posted by muckmaw
Meanwhile, Bombing seems to be a lost art. I almost never see heavies in the air anymore. No one seems to be bothering with Strat targets.  

I bumped this post precisely because you are correct:  you seldom ever see bomber groups operating in the MA.  What you do see is an occasional pilot with his group of 3 trying to get to a target, usually getting waxed as he tries to calibrate.  No fun.

I would love to see more bomber groups at high alt (instead of just an odd formation) to intercept or to be a part of.  Makes getting up that high and spending all that time in flight worthwhile.  

Until we see something like this we'll continue to see large bomber groups as an endangered species.  And that, IMHO, would be a real shame.

Thanks for posting your thoughts!

[Midnight]

Good idea, but this is already completely possible with the current bomner model. The reason it doesn't happen very often is almost no one knows how to fly a simple formation.

412th has done this several times. We go up in bombers and the leader calls out heading, climb and engine settings. The wings get formed up and can go on auto-pilot.

As we approach target (Chosing an IP is critical. You can't expect to get everyone lined up at the last second) the group pulls into final formation and go Auto-pilot level all on the exact same heading and engine settings.

As the leader runs through calibration, the rest of the bomber pilots man their guns and keep a look out. Just before the leader is about to drop bombs, he tells the rest. They all jump to pilot seat and release salvo on command.

Yes, this takes more coordination and effort. However, allowing one pilot to run the entire formation "automatically" would be just the same as allowing 1 pilot to take up a formation of 12, 20 or 30 bombers by his self and then asking for gunners.

My vote. No. It dosen't take too much effort to fly formation with another bomber group, especially when the leader knows how to fly formation lead. Auto-pilot is just way to easy.

[keyapaha]

very nice idea indeed

[leeburt]

I am all for some changes in the bomber model, but only those that reflect historical accuracy.  As example, if the historical max bomb load for a B-17 is 12 or 15k, vs. the current 6k, then it should be raised.  Any resulting degredation in performance (climb and runway requirement) as a result of the higher weight should also be reflected.  

I am not in favor of changes that differ from historical reality.  As an example, I would not favor increasing rate of climb to exceed that of the real machine.  This despite the fact that I spend a lot of my time grabbing altitude in buffs.  And, I'm not so sure about grouping the bomb relaease control to the flight leader.

Just my $.05's worth.  Season's best to all ye buff drivers.

Navy49

[Keez]

I think I have to agree with Midnight. Someone in this thread said "The art of bombing is lost." I think that if you implement this idea, it wont be an art anymore. It is, as Midnight says, the same as giving one pilot 30 bombers and 9 gunners. Too easy.

In the No9 RAF we pride ourselves for our tight formations which we fly every week during squadron meeting. The leader tells everyone what his settings are, we form up and head out. We keep formation during the heat of battle, simply by peeking out the cockpit for a second every minute, and then making very small corrections. Then its back to the guns. If someone is about to stray away from the formation we tell him and give a short advice, "Keez, you're straying, a bit to the right and you're ok."

You would make big formations of well flown bombers with a good bombardier something common. A good buffer can attach 3 newbies to his bombers and voila, the effect is the same as 4 good pilots flying. It's like a fighterace being able to fly the fighters of his wingmen as well, and all the wingmen have to do is squeeze the trigger when an enemy is steered into their sights.

I can imagine that this idea appeals to a lot of people tough, as it makes it easier to get good results for minimum effort. I'm afraid I'm one of the very few who thinks that this would not be such a good addition.

[StracCop]

Midnight,

I can see the merits of your point of view and agree with you that with practice what I propose could be done manually as your unit demonstrates.  

The problem is, as I see it, that most players don't want to apply that much of their scarce leisure time to practicing that element of the task because it isn't exactly ringing their 'fun' bell.  From my perspective, your proposal, while workable, would serve to lengthen an already challenging learning curve, something that I think most players would not have the inclination to navigate...and have not done to date.

Additionally, your unit has the advantage of working and practicing these skills together on a regular basis.  Pilots who are not affiliated with a squad and who wish to participate in large-scale bomber raids that are manual in nature would find their skills inadequate to the task.  They would effectively be locked out of such operations which isn't ideal at all.

Still, nothing in my idea would prohibit pilots from doing as your unit does.  It's only offered as an option for those of us who want to experience large-scale strategic bombing operations (both as bomber pilots and as fighter interceptors) but don't want to navigate an obstacle like a long learning curve to enjoy.

In summary, my idea would put more large bomber groups in the air.  The fact that few units/members do this now testifies to the need for such a provision, IMHO.

Call me selfish, but I get a charge out of seeing a large bomber formation as either a foe or ally and, if the radio chatter I hear from those opposing or participating in such groups is any indication, everyone else gets quite excited by them too!  I want to see more of them...!  Thats the bottom line objective of this idea.

Thanks for your feedback Midnight!

- David

[StracCop]

Keez,

You and Midnight are both viewing the issue from within a squad.  What happens to the unaffiliated members who want to do what you are doing?  They don't 'practice' with a squad so they can never attain the level of proficiency you have.  They just become prey, get discouraged from both never hitting the target or getting waxed while calibrating, and never fly BUFs again.  This experience only serves to further reduce the number of BUFs being used in their proper role, a trend that needs to be reversed.

STRATEGIC BOMBERS BEING USED AS TACTICAL BOMBERS
This is where we are now.  Since the update that added the calibration bombing model few BUFs are in the air, at altitude and in large formations.  I think we can readily agree on that. Perhaps worse, they are now increasingly being used to death star bases, dive-bomb carriers and for low level no-bombsite bombing raids on fields.  

I think this is a chronic and worsening problem and have proposed a solution.  While a few squads have been able to muster the necessary time to practice and attain some level of proficiency at effective large group strategic bombing missions, the vast majority of players have not and, if history since the bombing model update is any guide, won't.

Thanks Keez...hope to run into one of your bomber missions someday...actually, I hope to run into any large-scale bomber mission.  

- David

[Midnight]

StracCop

My point exactly is that huge formations of bombers should be allowed ONLY by pilots contributing with skill. If the game is reduced to allowing one skilled bomber pilot to control multiple bomber formations, the new wave of mega dweebism will soon follow.

The current trend is massive numbers of players joining huge JaBo raids to assault enemy fields. The majority of these raids are inspired and lead by one or two good pilots who rally a large number of lesser skilled pilots to follow them into battle.

Why? because the lesser skilled pilots think either..
A. They might learn from the experienced leaders
or
B. They won't have to try too hard with such large numbers.

Allowing single leaders the multi formation bomber control will only promote the same thing in bombers. The sky will be filled with huge bomber formations that will be, for the most part, unstoppable. Most of the leisurely pilots will only stay with the formation just long enough to see their bomby away, at which point they will bail out and grab a fighter to go vulch or cherry pick on the target that was just destroyed.

People hate mass suicide Jabo raids... They will HATE mass bomber formations even more.

Keep the bombers working the way they are now. Promote some learning and skill development. Why should the lazy game player be rewarded? For crying out loud it's a game... why play if you don't even want to learn it?

[culero]

On a side note - I'm seeing people discussing the B17 loadout issue, and noting that they've heard of higher bomb weights than 6K being carried.

In fact, the reality was that ordnance loadout was a partial factor only in terms of total loadout. More fuel for longer missions would mean less ability to load bombs, and vice versa. Heavier bomb loads were only possible on shorter range missions. Even gun ammunition had to be taken into account.

For HTC to make this exactly realistic, in other words, would be complicated. Pilots wishing to carry more bombs would have to be limited in terms of how much fuel they could load.

A customer of mine who flew B24s for 8th AF in the war explained this in detail one day for me, and even returned home to get a really neat tool to show me - a slide-rule like device called a load computer that he was issued to use when calculating his takeoff weight. Using it, he had to balance his plane before launching to make sure max limits were not exceeded and that the various loads were distributed to maintain optimal center of gravity. I was truly impressed

culero (just wanted to share)

PS - I really DO like the idea of being able to slave bomber formations for the purpose of IP-to-drop runs. I also can understand those who object for reasons of possible abuse. Perhaps a compromise would be that the slaving could be allowed only when the lead pilot is in the bombsight, and time limited?

[Karnak]

Midnight,

I'm skeptical of your claims.  They sound a bit exagerated to me.

I have flown in situations like you describe, but the bomber pilots can never quite get the exact same heading and exact same power settings.  Inevitably the formation fragments as soon as people have to go to guns to defend the formation.

I've never tried the "drop on the leader" like you describe, but based on the above I would expect everyone besides the leader to miss.

[Virage]

How about offering a 12 plane formation as a Perk option?  1 pilot gets 12 instead of 3 for 60 perkies.

[Blue Mako]

Originally posted by Karnak
I have flown in situations like you describe, but the bomber pilots can never quite get the exact same heading and exact same power settings.  Inevitably the formation fragments as soon as people have to go to guns to defend the formation.

I've never tried the "drop on the leader" like you describe, but based on the above I would expect everyone besides the leader to miss.

Karnak,

The 412th routinely uses formation flying even on non-squad nights and we don't have too much trouble getting steady headings, power settings etc (it just takes a lot of practice, as you'd expect).  As for most of the bombers missing, that is the nature of carpet bombing, which is the only way this formation would be employed...

I'm with Midnight.  Keep formation flying and bombing a skill.  Too many flight aids = too little realism in my books.  I much prefer the simulation aspects of this game.  In real life the pilot had to hold formation, we should here too (yes, I realise the pilot didn't have to bomb and gun also).  We have autopilot to help, that should be enough IMO...

[MOSQ]

I knew suggesting that we up the bomb load on B-17's and the climb rate for buffs in general would bring objections from the keep it historical folks. However, there are plenty of non-historically accurate aspects of Aces High that are made to increase the enjoyment and playability of the game.
I need not go thru a laundry list here (25 to 45 mins of fuel in a fighter ?). The issue for all of us who like to fly buffs, or like to attack buffs at 20 to 25 K, is how do we make the gameplay of flying a buff to high alts to bomb strategic targets more fun ?

HTC has started to fix the issue. The new cities and factories are tightly packed with targets suitable to a high alt buff formation. The strat system has been tweaked so that hitting a city and the factories will force them to stay down for longer periods of time, and allegedly HQ has been adjusted so that it stays down longer as well. Hence the need for the Me163 to defend it.

So how do we get those buffs up there so the Me163 has a purpose ? I truly believe we need to make a non-historical adjustment to the buffs climb rate and give the 17 a decent payload.

Historically a strategic bomber had hours to climb to 25 K.  We obviuosly don't have hours here. But because the buffs have historical climb rates, it takes forever to get to high alts. The interceptors designed to lift off and reach 25K are modelled historically, and that works just fine for gameplay. Fire up a Me163 and you can attack those 25K Lancs in a just a couple of minutes. A Bf109G-10 will be there in a jiffy. Meanwhile the buff pilot has spent 45 minutes to an hour climbing like a dog in a Lanc to be there. Historical climb rates for buffs does not "work" for good gameplay in the MA.

I'm not talking about putting booster rockets on buffs or "starting" them at 20K over a base as I've seen suggested. Increasing a Lanc 50% means it will fully loaded go from around 600 fpm to 900 fpm, hardly enough to turn them into a rocketship. But it is enough to add a measure of fun factor back into the flying of them.  A 30% boost of all the other buffs will also make them much more enjoyable.

A year ago we had lots of high alt buffs in the arena. Why did the climb rate annoy the buff drivers prior to 1.10, but not be seen as a critical problem? Because you could climb from a nearby base all the way to the target and jump to the scope at the last second, drop your laser guided bombs, and hit your targets.

Now, you have to climb to 20-25K, adjust your approach to take in the wind factor, level out and let the buff settle into a very constant speed. And you better have done all this a full sector from your target if you want to have any hope of hitting it accurately. The whole process has added a lot more time to a high alt buff run, too much time as far as most players are concerned, hence no one flies them much anymore. We can speed the time to alt a bit by adjusting the climb rate, so you don't have to start an hour away from your target.

I'm all for keeping the new bombsight system. I like the challenge. ( I do wish you could see your speed in the sight though). I think with my two suggestions, we may see high alt buffs return to the pre v.1.10 levels.

I see both sides of the formation lock up issue. I always have to remember when considering these type issues is what are we trying to accomplish? The goal is to get more buffs at high alts to add another dimension to the game.

Keeping that goal in mind, I restate my quick fixes of upping the climb rate and increasing the load on the 17.
1) They are easy to code and can be applied very quickly.
2) They don't require a lot of programming time that might go down the drain if in fact they don't work well.(That is the biggest drawback HTC would see to StracCops idea. What if HTC spends $50K in programming time and it doesn't work, either technically or customer acceptance?)
3) If the two changes I suggest cause a gameplay problem, they can be easily undone in a flash.

If the quick fixes combined with the new targets don't bring about the stated goal, then more serious programming efforts like StracCop's idea should be explored.


And StracCop, I'm a retired 23 year veteren of the Portland OR. Police Bureau. Strac is a term we proudly use all over the west coast for the sharpest cops. To be refered to as "Strack" was, and is, an honor.