When Is it Ackstarring?

[Yosus]

 

Originally posted by 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 So digging up historical reference to strategy and using it as a precedent is flawed to begin with.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.

With respect,
Yosus

[Yosus]

Hehe .. now how did that happen???

Oh well ...

[Downtown]

Jekyll, I made two comments, two, then it was about 30 people who were all over channel one.  I said "Nothing like ackstarring first thing in the morning,eh?" and "so long as you can ackstar right?."

That was it, and you and yousus and I don't know who else went off for 15 minutes, I didn't whine incessantly.  YOu may have taken affront because I directed my comments at you at the time, but this isn't just about your attack on me with a bomber.

It is about the fact that many folks are flying bombers like fighters.  They go up with no intention of bombing anything.  Later that day I came across a B-26 that had an alt advantage on me and he turned and started after me.  I was close to 15K.

Bombers are not turn fighters.  With HT giving the bombers addtional range for their guns he has given them an artifical advantage that people are exploiting by dogfighting fighters with bombers.  I get attacked by bombers alot.  Maybe I am the only person getting attacked by people in bombers.

At the altitude you chased me from A2 at, turning a B-17 that sharply should have caused you to auger in.  You should have lost airspeed and dropped off on a wing and crashed.

Raxx, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.  It isn't just this instance.  I have been at 20K and bombers attack my fighter, I have been at 30K and bombers attack my fighter, I have been at 10K and have bombers attack my fighter, I have been at fields that weren't capped, between fields, and been attacked by bombers.  I want bombers to be able to defend themselves.  I want bombers to be able to fly to enemy fields, targets and drop bombs, then fly back to their base and land, not loiter as CAP and vultures.  I don't want to be flying along and get bounced by a B-26.  I don't want to dogfight B-17s.  If people are going to fly B-17s and B-26s, which they are, with an advantage that they did not have.  Saying that they are flying within allowable aspects of the game don't hold water in my boat.  The bombers have an artificial advantage.  HT Gave them the Artifical advantage so they could survive bombing missions and drop bombs, not so they would become large dogfighters with a 1.5X weapons range advantage on every other aircraft in the sim.

People take up a B-26 or B-17, drop the bombs after clearing the runway, and go out looking to dogfight.  That is what I want to put an end too, dogfighting in Bombers.

I wish I was one of the apparently charmed people who haven't been attacked by a bomber, but IMHO it is becomming an all to often occurance.

I wasn't angy because he shot me down, I was angry because he was in a bomber and chased a fighter and used his bomber as a fighter.

When people are using bombers as fighters I start to have a problem with that.  People in bombers have almost no fear of fighters.

How about this.

Keep every advantage that bombers have now, so long as they have bombs.  Drop the bombs and your plane manuvers like it did historically, and your weapons range like similar weapons of the other aircraft in this sim (I.E. every .50 cal armed fighter.)

Quote Raxx
_____________________________ _______________________
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.
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____

Typical Game Gamers comments from Raxx. HT gave buffs an advantage so that buffs could survive bomber missions.  People are using those advantages to turn bombers into fighters.  

Why don't we all just fly bombers, why have fighters at all?  B-17s and B-26s turn with F4U-1Cs?  B-17s have more guns and more armament, they have a longer weapons range, why fly a fighter at all?  Take a B-26 bomb the ack, cap the field taking out all the supporting figters with your artifical range advantage from your weapons. then vultch away.  In this sim the B-26 can and does do it all.  They are FB-26s now.

I want bombers to be bombers!

Since some of you don't seem to understand.

MY PROBLEM IS WHEN PEOPLE FLY BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, I DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, THEY ARE NOT FIGHTERS THEY ARE BOMBERS! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS.  I SEE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS ALOT.  I THINK THIS IS A TREND AND I DO NOT LIKE IT.  I DON'T WANT TO NUETER BOMBERS I WANT TO NUETER FIGHTER BOMBERS.

[RangerBob]

Only when we see a true historical arena will this type of problem go away.

A main arena always breeds this type of problem and changing the plane characteristics won't solve the problem it will just create more problems.

This would not happen in a special historical event, and wouldn't happen in a historical arena.

Aces High is still in the early stages. Eventually, I hope we will see an Historical type Arena where this type of thing wouldn't be tolerated.

Aside from checking the field before taking off to see what's lurking around there just isn't any good way around this type of problem.

Ranger Bob

[Yosus]

This has never been a level headed discussion.

From the outset it has been an exercise in name-callin and an attempt at public humiliation.

I have a problem with that. Because when the attempt to arrive at a 'truth' begins in this manner, 'truth' will not be the end product. Instead the end product will be hurt and bent ego's.

Downtown, you made the issue public by broadcasting on channel one. In other words, your intent from the outset appears to have been to humiliate.

The term 'ackstar' is emotive and carries with it a negative connotation. It could have been a knee jerk reaction though.

What did you expect from the gallery after broadcasting an accusation like that? In hind-sight the best retort would have been to ignore your comment and let it blow over.

I believe I made one comment to the effect that 'respawing' at said airbase over and again was gaming the game as well. I can't remember my exact words, however at the time I said them without malice. My comments then, can also be construed as a knee jerk reaction.

If you hadn't again broached the subject on this BBS, in a similar style that you broadcast on channel one, I could assume that you had reacted in the heat of the moment.

It appears to me that your intent is to provoke public disapproval of a game feature, and that your cause is best served by the public execution of a scape-goat.

Is this the case?

If it really is a game feature that you disapprove of, then say so from the outset, and abstain from name-calling.

I will draw your attention to the forum "Gameplay feedback/Issues", which to my mind should be used for the purpose which I believe you aspire.

Finally, I have issue with your last comment re:

"Since some of you don't seem to understand.

MY PROBLEM IS WHEN PEOPLE FLY BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS ..."

where I cannot help but make the assumption that your method of communication hinges on sarcasm and belittlement.

There're better methods!

Might I suggest that if you desire changes, clouting a fellow over the head with a smelly fish, rarely produces agreement from those you wish to convince.

My dear fellow, I actually agree that the game could do with some changes   ... although I haven't frequented the MA nearly enough to be beset upon by killer bombers  ... but isn't that why the other forum I mentioned before, exists?

HTC appear to listen to many suggestions, but ultimately it is their game design, and we are merely the players.

I still think you owe an apology, as I do you for thinking the less of you earlier.

My sincerest to you! Now be a chum and shake hands with the people whom you've called names, and let's move the heart of this matter to the correct forum in a platonic fashion  .

Cheers
Yosus.




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

[Downtown]

Yosus.

People have different definitions of Ackstars.  Mine is when people fly fighters as bombers, whether it is to cap a field or at your home field doesn't matter to me.  

People bring up "Blood Dragons."

Well, a blood dragon did two thing.

One, flew with bomber formations and carried extra guns and extra ammo for the guns.  They flew on the outskirt of the formations and engaged enemy fighters.  This didn't work very well.

The other was to strafe ground targets.  They didn't do this at airfields cause you couldn't just take out the ack.  They straffed troop fromations and enemy columns.

I didn't have a problem with Jekyll flying low and orbiting, and strafing cons as they come up at the spawn point.  I take offense when someone in a B-17 chases a fighter.  When a B-17 turns with a fighter.  Yosus, would you in RL ride in a B-17 at 200 Ft of Altitude that was turning to chase a F-4U?  I don't think so because you would be afraid that the B-17 would stall and auger in.

The issue is that people are using Bombers to attack fighters, you are entitled to your definition of Ackstarring.  When an official WWII Era Flight Sim Dictionary is released and say HT, Pyro, MO, HS, DocDoom, Stigler, Laz, Udie, Reviin, Yeager, Lapwin, and Thrax agree on the definition I will probably adhere to that one.  If it doesn't match my current definition of what I saw jekyll and others doing, I will insist that a new term be developed.

Why I posted here (And I didn't mention you are Jekyll, you both posted your side, and I wanted you to do that is) I don't have an answer.  I would post on gameplay and feedback If I thought I had a fair solution.  I don't want to nueter the bombers, I want to nueter fighter bombers.

Are any of the things I suggested above acceptable to bomber pilots.  I think they are fair?  

1. Blood Dragons, .50Cal Effectiveness same as all .50 Call armed fighters.  Increase ammo for guns carried by B-17/B-26 with blood dragon option.  Oh, yeah, they painted these planes with loud gaudy paint jobs, I want the White one with the Red, Green, Purpls and Yellow polka dots on it.  No External View, but make all 10 gun postions manable.  As a matter of fact I will put this one on the GP/FB Message board!

2. Dropping Bombs returns .50Cal Effectiveness to the same as .50Cal armed fighters.

3. Keep range of guns and bring manuverability within realistic specifications at all altitudes?

4. Make the .50Cal in the bomber same effectiveness as current .50cal armed fighters, let bombers keep additional manuverability.

In all cases improve the Hardness/Toughness of the B-17 so it will take more damage.

Do you like any of those options, would they be acceptable to you?  Do you have any other options?

Should we hammer out a "Text Book" definition of AckStarring that is acceptable to everyone.  Then we can post it on all the Flight Sim UBBs, so it is standardized?

IMHO bombers have too great and advantage now, it is such an advantage that it is being misused.  HT did something to encourage people to fly bombers, people are abusing that privelidge, I think something needs to be done about it.

I am frustrated being attacked by bombers.

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

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

[ygsmilo]

Here is a little historical perspective.

April 23 1944

"The German pilots hadn't seen this in a long time-a Pulk of 25-30 heavy bombers, without fighter escort.  Staiger's men carried out a textbook attack from 12 o'clock high.  Staigers's own Me 109 carried a 30mm MK 108 cannon in its nose, and he used it to good effect, shooting down 2 B-17s and forcing two two more from their formations, to be shot down by Staiger's wingman. The German fighters attacked repeatedly, retiring only when they had exhausted their ammunition.  Their final score totaled 17 confirmed victories, which were gained without a single loss.  Thier repeated head-on attacks succeeded in breaking up up the enemy combat box; thus speparated, the B17s were fairly easy prey"

Taken from JG 26 Top Guns of the LW by Donald Caldwell.

This was during a time when the LW was going thru the so called "Jagerschreck" or fear of fighters.  When the bombers were heavily escorted, the LW units would shy away from the big formations and try to find smaller formation to attack.

The only point I am trying to make is that lone or small formations of unescorted bombers were considered to be easy targets by the LW.

------------------
JG 2's current cannon magnet

Milo

[Vulcan]

Hmm, sorry Downtown, but I have to disagree. Low flying 17s are piss easy to kill. Theres only a couple of hard ones where the guys can gun real good (Wardog for example).

Best attack is a 60 degree dive from his hi 6 sliding down the fusalage.

I hate ackstars as much as anyone but I must say they pad my score quite nicely.

-vlkn- in

[Kamchak]

I have 2 big gripes with the bomber situation:  

First is, real fighters had a significant speed advantage against real bombers.  Here, the advantage is quite minimal.

Second, although the bomber pilot can hit you from mulitple locations, he can't do it at the same time.  The most guns he can bring to bear is two, yet two machine guns can lay terrible damage from long range when shot by a bomber, yet 8 cannot do ANY damage at that range when shot by a fighter.

Clearly, there needs some more work to be done with the speed, firepower and manuverability of the bombers.

[Jigster]

Downtown, I don't think manuverability of the bombers has been changed any for game play's sake.

A fully loaded B-17 weights about 65,000lbs. Take out 6k lbs of bombs, and 75% less fuel from a plane with enough wing area to carry it into the air and a plane stable enough to be a bomber. With the above the deletions the 17 now weighs not much more 45,000 lbs.

That much extra power is available, along with much less wing loading. 1,420 sq ft of wing area at full weight is 45 pounds per square foot. Okay it should be a brick there. Then try it at the avg AH load out without bombs. 31 pounds per square foot. Thats better then alot of fighters. Now at that same 45,000 lbs weight it's power loading isn't so hot, about 9.3lbs per HP. Seems on there. Doesn't climb well, loops and other ACM are possible but not without a serious struggle.

So, not taking into account the enormous amount of strength need to move B-17's yoke to make sharp turns, the B-17 is behaving within it's capabilities.

The B-26 follows pretty much the same trend, take a stable air frame, give it nearly the same amount of power as the much heavier B-17 (ala the P&W DW) and the power loading is very good on a lighter plane while the wing loading is rather crappy, and the B-26 shows this.

The only way bombers are going to reflect the poor manuverability that was common during the war are to make full fuel loads mandatory, make control and to make control input slower once it gets near the end of the axis (well slower then it already is, it's modeled pretty well as it is.) Add a few confused gunners, altitude fatique, and maybe it might represent a historical bomber crew.

And gunners really didn't have much problem firing even during manuvers, although hitting anything was another story. Oh well, they had trouble hitting stuff when the plane was flying straight. But most were strapped in or attached to the gun by some method.

Might want to go look up the story on how the "Flying Porcupine" got it's name  

- Jig

[Yosus]

I have no idea as to the veracity of the simulation, with regard to any vehicle portrayed, much less the bombers in it   .

However, there is one thing I am aware of, and that is that Aces High is not a World War II simulation!

It is an ACM sim with tanks   ... which just so happens to render World War II vehicles.

That is why any comparison to what strategists did or didn't do in WWII has little bearing within the game.

To make history your basis, you need to be reasonably assured that the rest of the simulation adheres to it. I don't think Aces High was so designed from the outset. There're too many elements missing for it to be properly classified as a WWII sim.

Having said that, it must model the vehicles/aircraft reasonably well, as one is able for the most part to recreate specific air combat manoeuvres with a reasonable expectation of the results given the variables.

It is a mistake to assume that fidelity in aircraft performance from a specific period, to be synonymous with fidelity with an entire war!

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).]

[Thunder]

In Aces High there is only one real gunner on board (1 v 1). There is no otto gunners and both can hit or miss! Neither has an advantage over the other. The bomber has few advantages and usually the advantage he gets is attained by a poor desision made by the attacker! Remember, a bomber can't run down a fighter. If you are upping a field under heavy attack by fighters or buffs.. remember.."Life a squeak Anyway"! All are vulching planes trying to defend there attack. The is no such thing as an "ACKSTAR in Aces High! I think all of us should use any vehicle or fighter or plane to its maximum potential/effectiveness and have fun! If there is a flaw in the gameplay lets bring it up! -- BUT I DON"T SEE IT HERE!-- IMHO the Bomber has more disadvantages then advantages in a pissing contest with a fighter. I have flown Bombers for almost 10 years. I respect your opinion Downtown but I think you are way off base here. Get over the fact that this guy killed you and get more altitude and energy, set him up and KILL HIM next time. You are a fine pilot! I have been in formations when four F4U's took down all TWELVE of our bombers. Bombers are not OVERMODELED and can rarely win in a 1 v 1 with a savy, patient fighter pilot. When I see buuffs being used like this is in field capture mostly. Usually this behavior happens after the buff drops his load and C-47 is otw and all he has is guns to help with. Also his gunner may have been flying for 30 min and not fired a shot yet       He may be takin him down to help and give his gunner an oportunity to get a shot.. who knows. Usually the attackers have better numbers and cap. Defending fighters get caught low & slow in these situations. You probably got caught in a turn fight with a bird you couldn't get a good solution on. His gunner probably had you bracketed. This result was determined by a poor set up probably. Extend out climb and come back with the advantage. Sounds like you made  made a bad desision that got you killed.

Salute,
Thunder

------------------
       



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

[Minotaur]

LOL  

A few comments.

I did not read DownTown naming the names of any players involved until those very players jumped in and identified themselves.

I have seen many times where a player has used a bomber solely as a guns platform.  This includes my own squadmates.  

From my own experience in bombers.  I can pull off almost any manuver that I can do in a fighter, but just much slower and alot less G's.

I have chased fighters and other bombers in my bomber.  I have shot them down on occasion and it was a riot.

If it is in the game, it is in the game.  You have to get over it and move on.

However; I salute anyones attempt to get something changed in the game that they strongly disagree with.  The purpose of this forum?

Good Luck and Have Fun!  

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"So what do you post here? Poetic love letters?"
Ram

[hblair]

 

Originally posted by Vulcan:
Hmm, sorry Downtown, but I have to disagree. Low flying 17s are piss easy to kill. Theres only a couple of hard ones where the guys can gun real good (Wardog for example).

Best attack is a 60 degree dive from his hi 6 sliding down the fusalage.

I hate ackstars as much as anyone but I must say they pad my score quite nicely.

-vlkn- in

I respectfully disagree with downtown too. If I look around and see a bomber, my mouth starts watering. Most of them are easy kills.  

Last TOD:

hblair has 39 kills and has been killed 10 times against the B-17G.

[Jekyll]

 

MY PROBLEM IS WHEN PEOPLE FLY BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, I DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, THEY ARE NOT FIGHTERS THEY ARE BOMBERS! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS. I SEE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS ALOT. I THINK THIS IS A TREND AND I DO NOT LIKE IT. I DON'T WANT TO NUETER BOMBERS I WANT TO NUETER FIGHTER BOMBERS.

Ahh Downtown, finally I know what you look like  

   

Mino, I identified myself as the B17 pilot in order to correct some of the wild inaccuracies made in DT's original post.  From the tone of that post, you might have been forgiven for thinking I'd done a complete aerobatic pattern including slow rolls and lomcevak    Just one lead turn, that was all  

 

When an official WWII Era Flight Sim Dictionary is released and say HT, Pyro, MO, HS, DocDoom, Stigler, Laz, Udie, Reviin, Yeager, Lapwin, and Thrax agree on the definition I will probably adhere to that one.

"Ackstar:     A bomber being used as a flying AAA battery.  The majority of Warbirds pilots frown on this practice".

Source: 'Warbirds - The Story so far', by DocDoom, Prophet, Krod and Burbank.

   Seriously DT, I can understand your concerns about buffs.  I've been shot down many times against buffs doing high speed 3-9 passes that I thought were completely safe.
But I really took offence at your suggestion on common channel that I was ackstarring.  You've been flying long enough to know that 'ackstar' is a perjorative term.  But I was never pulling more than about 2g's at any time in that B17 in order to get the kill.  It's not like I was thrashing it around like a Pitts Special!  Just gentle turns and banks, rolling out level whenever I wanted to take a shot.  If you remove THAT kind of maneuverability from a buff you might as well put it on railway tracks and call it a train!


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

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 07-17-2000).]