Make 163 More Perks

[mia389]

I think you should make 163 200 perks or something,50 is not enough. They are everywhere. Maybe you plan to and just set it for 50 so everyone could try it out. I sure like the new release,biggest improvement I noticed is when less than 300 on someone they are very smooth compared to before.

[SOB]

Sit on it for a couple of weeks...the numbers will die down.  Right now they're a big novelty!  


SOB

[hazed-]

mia youre only likely to see any within 25 miles of the base they launch from.

I was one of the me163's that killed one of your b17s but I also had a rough time of it over bish HQ in my 3xb17s.

2 me163s killed all 3 of my bombers in a few minutes .

like SOB says its a novelty atm and will wear off when people start to realise they need a HQ attack or a base next to the me163 base to be attacked or they are next to useless.

I think 50 is a superb price for its introduction. its not cheap but you can afford to lose a few, if they were 200 i wouldnt fly them much at all until id learned to use them offline, as it is i dont mind losing a few while i learn in MA now. good price i say.

[vorticon]

youd be wasting your 200 perks...there a squeak to land properly so you get your kill count...anyway they un out of fuel so fast that there only good for intercepting if the bombers are to close to take out any other way(as they were intended) anyway right now there just a really big novelty even if they dont vertically take off as they should

[paulieb]

Originally posted by vorticon
...there a squeak to land properly so you get your kill count...anyway they un out of fuel so fast that there only good for intercepting if the bombers are to close to take out any other way(as they were intended) anyway right now there just a really big novelty even if they dont vertically take off as they should

Actually, I found that they're quite easy to land when I was trying it offline.. also, the 163 did not launch vertically. They used a disposable undercarriage with wheels. Maybe you're thinking of the V2 rocket?

[mia389]

yes but we are pushing knights towards hq trying to take 31 I think and like 5 of them buzzing around, that brings up another question do we get them at them bases now?

[Doyle]

Hey Mia,


     I see your point, but hey man just up a 190 or something kick there butt and make them run out of perks!  Then get one and kick butt.  




                                  See ya later


                   Doyle <165th Fighter Group>

[Innominate]

No need.

The 163 self destructs regularly, if the pilot merely touches the stick too much at high speeds.

[Wilbus]

anyway right now there just a really big novelty even if they dont vertically take off as they should

Me 163 took off in about 50 degree angle, not verticaly.

The rocket interceptor that took off verticaly was called Bachem BA 349 Natter, it was never used in combat though.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by paulieb
 Maybe you're thinking of the V2 rocket?

Could be, those are real tough to land

-Sik

[Curval]

Originally posted by Innominate
No need.

The 163 self destructs regularly, if the pilot merely touches the stick too much at high speeds.

I flew them during the evil con mission and ripped off the wings every time.  Way too easy to self destruct...I agree.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Innominate
The 163 self destructs regularly, if the pilot merely touches the stick too much at high speeds.

You don't even need to touch the stick; I tried to up one last night, and it exploded less than a second after I'd clicked the 'launch' button -- without awarding a kill to anyone, and without there being a crater at the launch point, so I know that I was neither vulched nor unlucky enough to launch right when a bomb hit.

[Pepe]

Originally posted by Shiva
You don't even need to touch the stick; I tried to up one last night, and it exploded less than a second after I'd clicked the 'launch' button -- without awarding a kill to anyone, and without there being a crater at the launch point, so I know that I was neither vulched nor unlucky enough to launch right when a bomb hit.

Hehehe...rocket failure modelled?  

[Sabre]

You can climb to 30K with about half your fuel, then glide for a considerable distance.  It only takes a few seconds of re-igniting the motor to regain the lost alt, then rinse and repeat.  The main problem is, it takes too long to re-ignite the motor.  This was an instantanious ignition, but is modeled like turbines with a spool-up period.  Also, you can keep the "candle" lit, but just pull the throttle all the way back.  It still burns fuel, but much more slowly.  I had no problems landing it off line, but that might not be the case if you're trying to set it down at a field under attack.  Finally, to prevent people from using it, just kill one fuel tank at their base.  This drops the available fuel at that field from 125% to 100%, making drop tanks unavailable.  Due to a modeling oddity, the 163 is treated as if it has drop tanks. Disabling drop tanks at their field disables 163 there as well.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Curval
I flew them during the evil con mission and ripped off the wings every time.  Way too easy to self destruct...I agree.

The me163 was notorious for doing this very thing. Im afraid the modeling isnt over the top but rather quite forgiving compared to the real thing.

Try getting a copy of 'wings of the luftwaffe' by Capt. Eric Brown and you will see an excellent write up on the me163.

In it he mentions that the pilots used to either use rocket to get above bombers and dive gliding through the combat boxes.They then re-lit the engines to pull up and either repeat the glide attack or even attack as they flew up through the boxes again.
However due to the incredibly dangerous explosive qualities of the C-stoff, t-stoff mix a simple blocked valve or even a slight residue of fuel in the pipes would cause irregular mixes resulting in an instant and catastrophic explosion.Relighting the engines was fraut with danger of this happening.
He also mentions that a hard jolt on landing even , would jog some mixture out of the pipes etc and again cause an explosion.If not the likelyhood of the fuel splashing over the pilot and burning/corroding them even with their protective suits was high.Not only that but misjudging the landing and stalling even a few feet above the ground before contact of the skid could cause SEVERE injuries to the pilots, broken spines etc. There was a term used by the German pilots for this and it was the "Komet-back".
Also a point of interest is the deadly compressability the komet had when it hit mach 0.84 where it would 'buffeted badly and then dropped its nose violently in a "graveyard dive".'
(Not sure what speed mach .84 is but mach 0.80 is 440mph)

all in all a very dangerous aircraft but a sensational one