When Is it Ackstarring?

[dosequis]

There is a way to fix this.

M16s and ack reach up as high as 1500 feet. You need to simply disable a bombers guns until he reaches 2k. Problems with that though.

I've figured out an intercept pattern into the front quarter of a bomber that involves a bit of timing, but is pretty hard for the buff gunner to hit. You need to approach the buff while watching him from your front quarter view in an intercept vector but slightly behind, so you 2 are on a collision course but he's going to pass about d.4 in front of you and you won't hit. Just as he CROSSES your front section hold the trigger down and let him fly through your stream.

Gunners cannot track the odd ingress angle. People are just too used to intercepting buffs while holding them in the reticle view. That has to stop.

If a Buff starts to jink around, that means the flyer is in the pilot seat, and just quickly turn into him and hammer him. HT has given Buffs a serious weakness in that you cannot maneuver and gun both. That alone makes the buffs weak enough to kill once you learn the unstoppable ingress path. You must be coalt with the Buff so as to stay outta the hitting arc of the one position that can get you, the top gunner.

In a F4U, this is a one pass kill to the B26, a B17 needs two passes.

Otherwise, if you have a wingman and ANY sort of coordination worthy of that title, one of you may bite it but the other surely gets the kill. Almost nobody in the arena has the patience to make a coordinated run on a Buff. It's like a Kung Fu movie, where the attackers come one at a time.

The problem with a simple alt switch to disable guns, is that bases are at different altitudes. So, change the buffs in two fundamental ways that should be easier to code:

1. Turn guns off while the wheels are down. If you pull the wheels up OTR, it explodes the buff. Even though it was historic at times to make belly in landings, we have to take it away due to abuse. As a fix, perhaps the Gear could be removed as a damagable part on Buffs.

2. Turn guns off unless the bird is in less than an 10 degree bank. I think HT put this into WB.

No Buff pilots should be able to squeak about that. Number 1 is immutable, and as for number 2, buffers should be in level formation boxes. End of story, game fixed.

XX

[funked]

The easy solution is to take away the artificial lethality boost that (as HT has stated) the BUFF guns possess.  

[Dago]

Dosequis
you may not be aware of this, but in the AH buffs, you can take a second player along as a gunner.

So, the pilot stays in his seat and flys, the second player guns all through the flight.

Dago

[Downtown]

I don't think shooting down a B-17 should be easy, IMHO HT could up the hardness/Toughness of the B-17.

I know that B-17s flew low and straffed airfields and flew quickly away.  These were airfield with no anti-craft, and no fighters in the air.  Bombers were afraid of fighters.  If there were fighters B-17s didn't stay in the area. In WWII when bombers went out and flew low so their gunners could attack things they shot up factories, formations of infantry or firemen.  Not airfields, not anitiaircraft, not aircraft.

From my reading a signal fighter should be able to outmanuver a B-17 with will.  A lone fighter should have almost nothing to fear from a lone B-17.

Lone fighters quite often did shoot down bombers.  They generally attacked alone.  That was their tactic.  Early in the War the English tried to use their fighters in formation and mass volleys against German bombers.  When the Brits allowed thier fighters to seperate and attack LW bombers they were more successfull.  A group of fighters together gave bomber gunners a larger target.  That why high speed attacks against bombers became the standard attack.  High Angle High Speed attacks against bombers worked.

I didn't say to disable the guns at low altitude.  HT has allowed the B-17 and B-26 defensive guns an effective range of 1400 to 1800 yards.  The .50s of the fighters can hit at 1100 but aren't effective.  I said if HTC is allowing the bombers to manuver like fighters, then take away this artifical advantage.  Or Keep the Artifical advantage with the gun and take away the artifical advantage of the additional manuverability.  Altitude has nothing to do with it, I said to let B-17s fire from the ground (during the initial ackstar discussions.)  What is the difference now between a B-17 and a Quad .50 on an M-16?  B-17s fly and manuver like fighters.

There is a difference between structrual strength and manuver ability.  THe B-17 was a large HEAVY Aircraft, it didn't turn like a P-38.  Violent manuvers should be costly to bombers they should bleed speed very rapidly when turning, they don't.  IMHO you can make B-17s able to take more damage, right now they deal out too much damage IMHO.

My main issue right now is, people are starting to take bomber up with no intention of using them as bombers.  They are using them to dog fight fighters.  I want that trend reversed.  I want bombers to do bombing missions.  I can understand why they got the range increase.  I don't understand why they are so manuverable.  I don't think they need to be manuveralbe and have the most effective guns in AH.

I would accept increase the toughness of the B-17 (I would have a problem with this being done to the B-26 cause everything I read said that the wings were thin and damaging a B-26 wing would pretty much doom it.)  Keeping the current effectiveness of the B-17s guns and decreaseing the manuverability or E-retention, or whatever it is that allows bombers to turn with fighters at slow speed and low altitude without falling off on a wing.  OR

Allow the Bombers the current manuverability, increase toughness and take away the artificial boost to the weapons.

So, make B-17s take more damage, and keep the guns.  Or Make B-17s take more damage and keep the manuverability.



------------------

"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
    lkbrown1@tir.com    
 http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!

[Downtown]

Or allow a "Blood Dragon" loadout, but make the guns have the same effectiveness as the .50s on fighters.

------------------

"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
    lkbrown1@tir.com    
 http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!

[RAM]

   

Originally posted by Maxopti1:
For understand thing could do a B17, you read thing happened during the attack to Schweinfurt.      

[/b]
Oh yes...that out of a force of 600 bombers, 60 were shot down and another 40-50 were rendered useless.
 That is more than 15% of the mission planes, a complete disaster...and all the daylight bombing effort over Germany was nearly disrupted because it.

   

But, particularly, you read attentively how many German fighter the B17 succeeded to shoot down and/or damage.    

Oh,yes and you must read, attentively, to the LW list of planes shot down during that mission... Happens that the 8th AF bomber crews claimed 5 times more LW planes downed than the true downed ones.

 

Really the greater damages, in terms of casualties of B17, he did the anti-aircraft and not the fighter

Uh yeah because from mid 44 until the end of the war the Jagdwaffe had more problems trying to survive the ESCORTING FIGHTERS than attacking the B17s. Few planes reached firing positions because the escort, but the few that were able to do it always spreaded havoc and disaster between the bombers.

Now get a GOOD book and search this...up to May 1944 (date when P51 escort started to be usual) wich thing did more damage to the B17s?...the Ack or the Fighters?...huh?...

Learn some history, man...if there was such urgency for a long range fighter escort for the B17s and B24s surely it wasnt because they did very well on their own isnt it?...

_____________________________ __________
To the matter:

Buffs are toned up to make bomber lovers come to AH. It is a compromise between realism and playability... But I also think that the dweebish ackstar or the more dweebish use of B26s as fighters must end soon. Because that is not make a game playable. That is to make a game dweebish.

The other day I was fighting a niki in my A8 when I saw a B26 jumping me!!! amazed I had to break my attack on the niki for a moment and downed the idiot (who BTW only remembered that he had bombs on board when I was shooting at him, because I saw his bombs falling)...

later the niki got me...I regard it as a stupid thing that ruined a good one on one fight. But well, at least I downed the stupid B26.

Dunno how to fix the ackstar/fighter thing in bombers...but for sure its not easy with the current settings for the bombers.

But I am sure that HTC will do something to fix it  



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-15-2000).]

[MarkVZ]

 

You need to simply disable a bombers guns until he reaches 2k

That's absolutely ridiculous.  That would encourage vulching of buffs just as they leave their base's ack perimeter.  What about the buff with 2 engines left, on the deck, struggling to get home?  You want him to be totally defenseless?  What about below-dar raids?  Many complain about buffs in the stratosphere, and this would just encourage them to grab alt.  Flying below dar shouldn't make you an easy target.

And what makes it illegal for a buff to drop down and vulch after he nails the ack and has no eggs left?  It's just like taking off from a fighter-vulched field.  It takes two to vulch.  The ball-turret of the B17 makes an excellent vulching platform for those who feel they can takeoff despite the risk of the vulched field.  If the fields not closed (hangars destroyed) why should you wait for a fighter escort for the goon (or M3) when you pack loads of guns and ammo?

I don't think you can label it ack-starring, since there is no otto.  It's just bomber pilots taking advantage of the features of their planes.  They pay for it in low speed, slow climb, low maneuverability, and being a large target.  Also, many buff gunners in AH have MUCH more gunning time and experience than WWII buff gunners.  If the USAF gunners flew a max of 25 missions (if they were lucky) then most definately have more gunning experience, hence some of the sniper characteristics of the buffs guns.  Just like with fighters; if the field's being vulched, take-off somewhere else.

If it's stupid and it works, it's not really stupid[/b]

[This message has been edited by MarkVZ (edited 07-15-2000).]

[Thunder]

Same tired old thread! This ones been run up the flagpole too many times! THE DOG DON'T HUNT!

[jarbo]

Disabling guns on bombers under certain altitudes is absurd.  I personally think net lag has more of an effect on bomber attacks that folks give it credit.  A good cap/or a two-man attack on a bomber makes the buff an easy target. (or just kill the BH)      

Jarbo

[-raxx-]

Normally I avoid these discussions because they are merely retreads of threads that started several years ago in WB and AW and resurface every 6-8months or so.  We've all seen them degenerate into name calling and hurt feelings.  However I won't stand by and see bomber aircraft neutered here, (like they are in other sims), because one person is unhappy that they got shot down several times and won't accept responsibility for their actions.

I believe Downtown's venting his frustration at getting shot down and I can understand that.  I used to get shot down at capped fields and didn't think that was fair either.  Eventually I worked out that you can take off from other fields.  I don't agree with the target of Downtown's frustration.  Downtown's looking for a reason that he got shot down and the easiest thing is to blame someone/something/anything else rather than take personal responsibility for Downtown's mistakes.  There is only one person I blame when I get shot down and currently he's typing this message in for you to read.  However after starting this discussion in the arena last night and not winning us over to his point of view that the bombers are too good and should be neutered, I see that Downtown has decided to drag it out into the board and try to gander popular support by arguing that some aspect of this sim is not fair from his jaundiced point of view.

For those of you who don't like a long read I'll summarise my rebuttal in five words.
"Downtown fly smarter next time".

Since the rest of you are masochists, carry on reading...

I have no opinion on Downtown's summary at the start of the thread because I wasn't there.  He attacked a con, prevented a field capture, was shot down in the process and somewhere amongst it all got straffed trying to respawn from a field that had no AAA cover.  A familiar and often told epic.

It seems to me that Downtown was annoyed at being shot down because he couldn't fight back.
 

The bomber turned after me and his gunner got me as I was crippled and blacked out.

This aggrivated me, so I upped in an F4U 1C.

Getting angry at someone because they shot you down is pointless because you aren't learning from the experience.  <sarcastic mode=on>Although it is nice to see that you are being consistent in your approach to "problems" here by using the ability to instantly respawn<sacarsm=off>.

Downtown you haven't learned that a bomber with guns can be used offensively.  Downtown appears to believe that bombers should be used defensively and that fighters should have an easier time killing them.  By the same token should fighters only be used offensively?  Should fighters and vehicles be disabled from a field under attack?
That's why we destroy hangers!

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't don't like bombers attacking fighters.

I don't like fighters attacking me from a field I attack.  I'll use whatever means available to capture a field which of necessity includes straffing hangers.  Last night that consisted of a kamikaze attack on a fighter hanger in a Typhoon, then returning in a B17 and bombing field 32 and in the process destroying the AAA, vehicle hanger, a lurking m16 and panzer then straffing down the fighter hanger and 8 fighters that tried to launch and defend the field.  The last kill was a Zero who, (after killing an inbound C47), ran away from me and waited until I turned back to the base before chasing me.  They died in a hail of .50cal as I reversed back.  I'm not a toejam hot bomber pilot or a fighter ace but I got 8 easy kills because the fighters took off under my guns and had no protection available.  

It may not be fair, historical or realistic but since there are no "laws" as such other than the physical modelling of the aircraft and weapons in the arena people will push the limits on the sim.  If you don't like being vulched pick another field to launch from.  If you don't like buffs chasing you then shoot them down.  If you don't like respawners destroy the hangers.  

Eliminate the source of the problem with a solution that won't cause harm to anyone else and then you will have an answer that is fair to all.  

Downtown's problem is getting shot down by a bomber.  The simple solution is avoid being shot at by bombers not turning off gunners under 2k.   It isn't realistic, historical and causes harm to the bomber pilots.
Don't want someone to shoot at you in a crippled plane?  Bail out!

If you're defending a field and see a big nasty ol' B17 decending from 12k flying the rook banner and the noseart below it's me coming to hammer your bellybutton before you get mine.

Spotcha in the Air

raxx
 

[Dnil]

He's not upset he got shotdown, he's upset on the gay use of the bomber that way.  Dieing part of the game, not much penalty in it.  

Its the nature of the MA, childish, dweebish, quakish, its all there.  Until a better solution comes along, ya just gotta grin and bear it.

------------------
Dnil
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer

[Jekyll]

For the information of all, I was the pilot of the B17 Downtown referred to.  Here is what happened:

I'd finished bombing radar and all acks at A2.  A C47 was on the way but unfortunately I couldnt get any fighter cover.  I was down on the deck at A2, using guns to destroy the vehicle hanger.

With our C47 about 2 minutes out, Downtown comes diving in.  First pass in his P47 sees me suffer a fuel leak.  Second pass and he overshoots below me and then, for some inexplicable reason, pulls up coalt with me only 300 yds away off my left wing, heading in the same direction I was.  I accepted the gift and shot him down.

Downtown re-ups in a F4U cannon-hog.  Our C47 is now 1 minute out.  He ignores me, heads straight for the C47 immediately after takeoff.  He's probably doing about 180-200 mph at this stage, with me on his left rear quarter.  I turn to follow him, fire a few shots scoring light pings only at about 1000yds.  He shoots down the C47 then makes a hard right hand turn back towards his field.

I cut the corner of his turn, roll out, and find him 400 yds dead ahead.  Go to the ball turret and shoot him down.

1 turn!  That's it.  1 turn to cut off his run back to A2.

That makes it an ackstar???????????

I've long respected DT's posts on a number of topics both on this forum and others.  But the incessant whining I received from this guy last night forced me to eventually squelch him.  And then I find he's continued the tirade on the BBS!  This particularly disappoints me, since I contacted DT on private once he started complaining, and asked what his problem was.  He didn't bother to reply on private, or seek my side of the story, simply continued ranting on common channel.

Personally, I HATE ackstars, which I have always understood to be bomber style aircraft who launch from a field under attack and serve as mobile ack-wagons.

But I'll leave it to you, gentle reader.
What SHOULD I have done?  Allowed DT to blow me out of the sky without firing my guns in anger?  Should I have simply given up on the idea of field capture once I saw a single enemy aircraft moving towards the field?

So was I an ackstar, or not?

------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
'feel the heat .......'

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 07-16-2000).]

[dosequis]

I go back to my former post, #1 and #2.

Both are good ideas, and in addition, and counter the increased range/leth of the gunner's in AH.

I said in my post there were problems with disabling guns under a certain alt. Of course, in true BBS fashion, the quote was out of context.

Anyhow, Pyro is gonna do what he's gonna do. Tonight I saw people trying to ackstar their bases 3 times. All 3 times the buff got creamed within moments.

I don't see the gameplay issue that pressing at the moment, but I would like to see my suggestion of turning guns off in a hard bank done. HT did it once.

XX

[Hangtime]

Would rather not see guns switched off in a hard bank.. these guns are not 'otto'; they are fired by the pilot or his gunner.

Switching off the guns while the pilot manuvers is kinda counter-productive to havin a gunner... and when the pilot guns himself; he can turn with his rudders.. gonna deny him that defensive turn/gun capability? He can only gun when he's a level target?? C'mon.. that's kinda stackin the deck against the buff pilots ain't it?

The guns are currently switched off when there is weight on the wheels. As soon as he lifts off he's a target as it is.. vulchers have no trouble with 'em pinned on the deck.

I just don't see an issue.. if it's ackstarring; it'll be dead in a few moments anyway in that kinda enviornment.

Ackstars are an annoyance.. not a major gameplay issue; same as the dweebs that hide forever in field acks coverage. You can always stay outta the buffs or acks range and shoot at something else... that is; if you can find something more helpless, like a goon.

 

Hang

[Yosus]

I was the Goon.

Let's clarify one thing. If you want historical, the closest thing to that will be a scenario in SEA.

Main Arena is ahistorical, so I don't see the relevance to an historical comparison so far as tactics are concerned.

The only historical aspect of MA which bears scrutiny is the performance of aircraft. So digging up historical reference to strategy and using it as a precedent is flawed to begin with.

Now had we been in Real Life, me with a load of toejam-scared paratroopers, and Jekyll with a B-17 with an equally toejam-scared crew, the B-17 would have had two choices.

One, run away or,
Two, defend as well as he is able.

Now there might not be a precedent to the latter in WWII, but there also wasn't a precedent to Spitfires fighting Mustangs either.

Had the buff run away, I would've wondered what had happened to the gumption of my fearless leader   .

In Real Life people do fight against the odds.

What Jekyll did was not ackstarring.
Ackstarring is when a person seeks to replace the utility of 'Ack-ack' with the armament provided by an aircraft such as the B-17.

However having just said that, even that is not really an issue which bears a comparison to real life. In RL, there would be survivors on the ground to continue shooting. In RL, the B-17 wouldn't be so accurate dropping it's bombs... etc etc ad nauseum ... In other words any attempt to attach a WWII historical precedent is nonsensical.

Furthermore, the arguments have drifted away from the accusation of ackstarring, to the flaws in B-17 game design, or else the two are becoming entwined.

I think the accusation bears resolving on its own merit and not in conjunction with game design, as it besmirches the good name of an individual.

Jekyll was NOT ackstarring, where the implication is that he is cheating or at best, gaming the game. In my experience he is an honourable man, whose integrity is without a doubt.

Downtown owes Jekyll an apology.

Cheers
Yosus


------------------
“One day, flight simulation will be so realistic, that you’ll need to wear brown corduroy … “
Phoenix Squadron.

[This message has been edited by Yosus (edited 07-16-2000).]