Am I the only succesful BOMBER pilot?

[Seagoon]

Yeah, yeah, we all love the new bombing system, which is why bomber sorties are down 80-90% since the changes were made.

Now I recognize before I even get started, that any attempt at constructive criticism of the new system will be dismissed as a "whine" but I'll try anyway.

The old system was admittedly hopelessly unrealistic. But the new system simply doesn't work in game terms at all, and the fun quotient for bombers outside of the slide rule crowd is minimal. Most of us DO NOT enjoy spending 30 mins getting a Big Ugly Fella to a semi-decent altitude only to have to repeat the process mulitple times because all 3 of our Buffs were popped by a P47 and then when we finally get to the target spending precious minutes calibrating only to find we miss the target for reasons we simply cannot fathom. The prevailing attitude is "Why bother when I can just Jabo it, spend a quarter of the time, hit the target and possibly even survive?"

You can post all the "I Love the New System" messages you want, but the stats tell the what's really going on - bombers are currently non-entities in this game. I don't personally even believe the new bomber experten are making any impact at all because the "Fighters Only" guys would be complaining and they aren't - they're the ones who really love the new system.

The problems as the "Bomber Hacks" (the vast majority of us talentless buffers who love buffs but can't hit a sausage under the new system) see them:

1) The new damage model makes Buffs too easy to shoot down, and the new buff guns are hopelessly inadequate for defense against fighters.

2) The bombing system might work if this was a strategic game with massed formations and giant targets, where all you had to do was land your payload within a few hundred yards of the aimpoint, but this is tactical game demanding pin point accuracy.

If our targets were models of Schweinfurt, Ploesti, our Hamburg I wouldn't be complaining - but they aren't, you can overfly every AH target in a bomber in a matter of seconds.

Admittedly, if you like the idea of bombers being the sole venue of a few individuals who crave complexity and calibration, who want to fly 1 or 2 overly complicated missions a day which add little or nothing to the overall effort of their country, then the system is currently perfect. As I've said before, that's currently the attitude of the fighters only crowd - they're pleased as punch.

The huddled masses yearning to be free in the "talentless bomber hack community" remain unsatisfied.

- Seagoon

[RoyofCA]

I think a very simple, very effective compromise can be made here.

Have the bombsite auto-calculate your speed and adjust for speed, so you do not have to.

This way, you still calibrate but you can adjust speed if shot at.

As of right now, all a fighter has to do is damage 1 engine on each buff, then the buff's calibration is thrown due to engine damage and he has just wasted 2-3 hours of gametime.

And that is what is known as "work" not "fun". That, my friends, is not a game, its a second job.

[Soda]

I was never a big fan of the bombing model before since it turned into a simple exercise to climb really high, then bomb away the hangers at a field before someone could climb up to you.  That was a big detraction though I can understand how some bomber guys feel that was their method of contributing to the "cause" and helping out.

I do wish they would give some area type targets since they've made the bombing work best for area type attacks.  Dockyards, railyards, factories with dozens of buildings close together so you can carpet bomb a bunch of them.  Bridges, packs of ships in port, tank marshalling yards, fuel dumps, artillary pockets, all things where a carpet attack would be a tonne of fun.  I almost half care less whether they mean a whole lot strategically.

A couple of other issues that I haven't gotten clear answers on either are (I can't tell whether they are all fact or fiction):
- damage transfer between bombers.  I still hear cases where the damage done to one is applied to all.  You just can't have that.
- wind.  It's impossible to compensate for wind  though there should be some way to fit that into the calibration, either that or every drop is like a crap shoot above 14K (I rare bomb above 14K so it doesn't really affect me usually)
- gun convergence.  Some people say it's set like in a fighter in the hanger.  That clearly isn't acceptable as by D650 (longest convergence you can set) your bomber is taking punishing damage from anything who fires from further than that (.50's, hispanos).
- strat target issues, where hitting strat targets on some maps is 100% useless since they don't mean anything.

I think the new model is clearly superior though in most respects, or at least a great step in the right direction, though it would be nice to make the bombers a little more useful.  I went offline and did some practice, came back online after the latest patch and was hitting everything I aimed for.  I haven't flown them a tonne though but still had success.

-Soda
The Assassins.

[RoyofCA]

we can't even bomb the hq for christ sake without taking out our OWN radar?

when you bomb a strat target, the map still reads 100% no matter what.

If htc really cared alot about bombing, then why did we already have a patch yet 3/4 of the bombing bugs were not fixed?

[Shiva]

It's impossible to compensate for wind though there should be some way to fit that into the calibration, either that or every drop is like a crap shoot above 14K (I rare bomb above 14K so it doesn't really affect me usually)

It's not impossible to compensate for wind; you just have to understand how wind drift works. You have to adjust your indicated course so that, with the wind drift added to your course vector, the resultant ground track is the line you actually want to fly.

Over in the Gameplay forum, I have a post explaining how to work out the wind triangle to get the drift correction angle without having to do all the math or buy an E-6B Flight Computer (actually, it's more like an aviation slide rule).

[Seagoon]

Shiva,

Respectfully, you're kidding right???

I flunked algebra twice and I'm expected to be able to work out wind drift correction in order to play A GAME? Sorry lad, there was a reason I avoided math and engineering in University. I'd hate a game to be the first time my 8th grade math teacher was proved right when she said "someday you'll need to know this..."

Personally, I think I'll stick to tossing a couple of 2000 pounders at targets from an F6F until HT fixes the problems. You engineering majors feel free to have fun though. ;-)

Actually, perhaps with a little tweaking we could spin off a fun learning game called "Calculus High." Maybe even a PBS kids show as well, hey anything would be better than "Caillou."

- Seagoon

[Soda]

It's easy to calculate course deviation on a plane flying into a constant wind, as you explained in the other post, but for bombing it's a different set of problems.

The bomb is only in the wind until it drops below 14K, at which time the wind drift stops acting on the bomb.  That means if you are really high the bomb will drift more, while at 14,001ft the bomb drift would be almost nil.  So, you have to guess how much drift the bomb is going to have based on altitude above 14K.

Secondly, the bomb sight only has a + on it, which doesn't give any help in adjusting to compensate for drift.  There is no way to tell what the field of vision is, in ft let's say.  How do you place the bomb-sight properly to get the right drift into target even if you managed to calculate the number?  You can't, or at least you make a guess based on how much you feel X feet would be.

That's what makes it a crap shoot that only gets worse with higher altitudes.  It's also the reason so many people who were strato-bombers before are having so many problems hitting anything.  Anyone should be able to fly under 14K (I almost never bomb higher than that) and still laser bomb like before.  For the guys who climbed nice and high though they can't compensate for bomb drift.

-Soda
The Assassins.

[Taiaha]

It's not the bomb sight work.  Really guys, that part of its pretty easy if you plan ahead and get into a routine--and as someone pointed out, if you think this is hard, try WW2OL!

But as seagoon and soda pointed out, there is this host of other stuff that makes buffing a pain in the arse.  What puts me off is that I have maybe a 1 in ten chance of actually reaching the target, at any altitude.  A combination of soft drones and transferring damage means that if a fighter scores hits on one of my planes, it's a good bet I'll lose all three.

And I know this stuff is true from attacking buffs as well.  Shot down a B17 with no visible damage, in a trio that didn't seem to have been attacked by anyone, with the cowl guns on my 109.  Yep, that happened ALL the time in WW2. (Took me back to the bad old days of Jane's WW2 Fighters, remember the softbodies in that one?)

And I can't count the number of times I've shot down one bomber and got a bonus kill.  Great for my fighter stats (such as they are!), but neither fun nor remotely realistic when you're on the receiving end.

And, of course, the lack of anything meaningful to bomb with these new formations.

Still having a great time with the fighter component of AH, but am pretty disappointed now with the bombing component (nice idea, but still very much in beta--and that's being a little generous).

[Shiva]

Secondly, the bomb sight only has a + on it, which doesn't give any help in adjusting to compensate for drift. There is no way to tell what the field of vision is, in ft let's say. How do you place the bomb-sight properly to get the right drift into target even if you managed to calculate the number? You can't, or at least you make a guess based on how much you feel X feet would be.

Your premise is logical, but inaccurate. When you drop your bombs, they fall along the line of your aircraft's ground track -- your aircraft (and the bombs in it) is already at a steady state of motion resulting from the crosswind, so there's no sideways acceleration from the wind as the bombs fall; they'll continue along the same ground track your aircraft was flying.

If you are flying at 200 mph TAS at 30,000' on an indicated course of 180° by your compass, your ground track is actually 171° at a TAS of 202 mph. If you drop a bomb from that altitude, it will take about 41 seconds to impact, having travelled about 12,000' due south and about 1800' east. If you correctly apply a drift correction to your aircraft's course, you will be flying on an indicated course of 189°, with a ground track of 180° at a TAS of 197 mph. In the 41 seconds of bomb fall, the bomb would travel about 11,900' due south.

If you were flying an indicated course of 180° when you calibrated your bomb sight, the calibration would correctly show that the bombs would be landing on a target that is left of the centerline of your plane at the time you drop the bomb. When you notice that you're drifting to the left of your intended target and correct course to starboard, you are changing the vector component of the crosswind, slowing your ground track speed and decreasing the amount of perpendicular crosswind. To make it brief, the further starboard you have to correct to line up your crosshairs, the further right and short your bombs will land relative to where the crosshairs are pointing.

Based on my observation of bombing from 30,000', as long as you apply a correct drift compensation to your course, your bombs will land along the line of your vertical crosshairs. Unfortunately for proving this, when you go back into calibration mode to watch the bomb impacts, your bombsight is realigned with the axis of your aircraft, so the bombs will appear to land to one side or the other depending on the direction of crosswind. You're better off switching to an outside view and looking down past your plane to the impact point, but then the distance makes the explosions hard to see.

[Soda]

your aircraft (and the bombs in it) is already at a steady state of motion resulting from the crosswind, so there's no sideways acceleration from the wind as the bombs fall; they'll continue along the same ground track your aircraft was flying.

This is not realistic, as the sideways component of the drift should only continue as long as the force that causes it continues to be applied or momentum continues the tendancy.  As soon as it is below the wind layer the force would no longer exist and the bomb should return to a free-fall trajectory.

I remember trying this a patch or two ago and found that the bomb "appeared" to follow a pattern where at 14,001ft the bomb fell an insignificant (unmeasurable) difference from one dropped at 13,999ft (I think I actually had them dropped 500ft above and below the layer just to be safe).  If what you are saying is the way it is working now, then the bomb dropped at 14K on a 180degree course should fall roughly 900ft away from the point of the one dropped just below the wind layer.  I know a test that should help confirm this but I will have to wait till I get home to test.

Haven't tried it in the latest patch so maybe something is different, but I don't remember it working this way in the first release with bombing changes.  If it is working this way now then it is clearly incorrect, though might be predictable like you suggest.  I haven't bombed anything over 14K anyway in a month.

All the other bombing issues still apply though and turn people off from bombing.  Same goes for this really, even if it is calculatable nobody will likely want to pull out the charts to look up drift and figure out what heading to change to to keep their ground track over the target.

-Soda
The Assassins.

[Turbot]

There is no substitute for practicing calibration in the TA for as long as it takes to understand how to do it. If you are getting large errors you are not callibrating sufficiently.   I hear all sorts of funny methods - (you dont have to calibrate for 2 minutes etc.)

Nobody is going to be able to give you a magic fix - you MUST go learn it if you want to do it.   (Hey I didn't design the thing, but I am obviously hitting my targets)

[runny]

Originally posted by Soda


This is not realistic, as the sideways component of the drift should only continue as long as the force that causes it continues to be applied or momentum continues the tendancy.  As soon as it is below the wind layer the force would no longer exist and the bomb should return to a free-fall trajectory.

The error in lies in your statement "the force that causes it."  

The bomb moves sideways because the airplane was moving sideways when it was released.  The wind keeps this sideways motion from slowing down.  When the wind changes, this sideways motion will change depending on the wind speed and direction.  The bomb will always be changing its direction of fall so that its ground track points in the same direction, and at the same speed, as the wind.  It's not an instantaneous process, though.

[Innominate]

It depends how you define success.

I can do a bomber run, and depending on the target kill 3-10 buildings without trouble.  Hitting a hangar or two is childs play.

But those bombing runs have no effect on anything except my own bomber stats. Success?  I think not.

[Soda]

The bomb moves sideways because the airplane was moving sideways

Wind component is mearly transmitted through the airplane to the bomb.  Makes no difference if the bomb is inside the airplane or falling.  Same component of force.  In AH that component is rather abrupt though as anyone knows who's flown through the wind layer at 14K can tell you.

My point is, the bomb only drifts due to the force of wind while it is still being applied.  This means that the bomb only has wind effects until it crosses below 14K.  Once below 14K there will be a slowing of drift in relation to loss of force and deterioration of momentum due to drag.  The bomber, if still above 14K, will continue to have the force of wind applied and continue to drift.  This, the path of travel will change between the bomb and bomber.

The higher you are above 14K the longer the bomb will have the full force of wind applied, and the more drift that will occur.  That's what makes the math a little tougher.  It's just not easy to calculate as if the wind was constant between any bombing altitude and the ground.

I'm sure it can be calculated, but I don't know that many people will have the time or patience to do it.  As for me, I bomb from under 14K anyway so once I had the hang of calibrating it became a non-issue. My hit % is something silly like 800% right now and was really high last month too.  I think CV landings are 10 times harder than bombing yet everyone has practiced those enough that they can do them (well, lots of people have).  You don't hear complaints about CV landings being too tough (unless some moron changes course while on final).  Bombing is the same.  I still think some of the other bomber stuff is wrong though, or needs to be addressed to open up bombing as a useful part of the game.  There are just too few targets that mean anything.  Give me a railyard with a bunch of supply trains that mean sometime and let me bomb them back to the stone-age.

-Soda
The Assassins.

[Soda]

I just wanted to make sure people realized what I was talking about with wind drift:

Setup. took off in Ki-67, climbed to around 14K and set the auto-pilot.  No wind.  Calibrated the sight and got a mark.  Had jabo sight on to see actual point of impact of bomb.  Course was mostly due west (265) at 13,957ft.  I left it on auto-pilot from this point on, through the entire test the altitude changed by 1 ft and heading was absolutely constant.

Scenario 1: no wind.  I didn't bother to take a photo.  no change in alt or direction.  I did this to calibrate the sight and had it calibrated pretty well though the bomb impact point was pretty near the top of the + sign.  Bombs would have fallen a tiny bit short, but whatever since this was just the standard.

Scenario 2: winds from 8K and up, south, set at 50 (though the speed shows as 73).  The instant the wind was changed the sight moved.  I didn't recalibrate.  This should indicate that the wind pushes the bomb off sight, as expected, because the bomb will fall through almost 6K of wind.

Scenario 3: wind from sea-level and up, south, set at 50.  The impact point didn't change from Scenario 2 indicating that the game thinks the drift should be exactly the same even though this bomb is falling through 8K more wind force (14K total).  That's clearly wrong as the extended time in the wind should have pushed the bomb more off course.

Attached is a pic, blended them together but tried to label them.  Same zoom level, exactly, and placed the calibrated aim points on same axis so that you could see the calculated aim point stays constant.

What this means... it means drift is calculated once and is the same for any alt over the wind start point.  Bombs dropped above this point all the drift the same amount regardless of how many ft of wind they pass though.

This is good and bad.  If the wind layer is at 14K, then a calibration at 13,999ft is totally inaccurate if you crossed into 14,001ft (or whenever you hit the layer barrier).  If bombing you should always make sure you bomb from a bit under then so you don't risk crossing by accident.  On the good side, drift is the same, once there is drift, all the way up regardless of how many ft of altitude the bomb has to fall through.

I tried this once before and got the same results so it didn't surprise me that it's the same now.  It isn't how you percieve it should be, but once you know it you can work with it.

-Soda
The Assassins.