Author Topic: Give me LIBERATOR or give me...Ditch? (Read 1195 times)

Mugzeee · « **on:** February 10, 2003, 01:53:55 PM »

I belive the time has come to Beg HT for the: Consolidated B-24 Liberator D. Including its Historic 12,000 Lb.+ Bomb Load capacity, and extra long Range.

Why?
Well there are several reasons.
1: Aces High Heavy Bombing has taken on a new face in the Main Arena. With the new (Carpet Bombing Model) NME Strategic resupply: Factories, Cities, Depots, and HQ are the targets of choice, and they should be. These targets are perfectly suited to this type of historic bombing. And contrary to popular belief, a well planed strike on this system can have a devastating, and lasting effect on the NME. WTG Hitech.

The problem with these strategic targets is that they are located deep into the NME zones requiring extra long range flights. And these Long range Flights are LONGER that ever before with the larger maps we now use in the MA. The B17 and Lancaster that we currently have in the MA are running out of a Full Fuel Load on many of these long range missions. A Raid on NME HQ will almost Definitely end in a ditch. That is if one can survive those Pesky ME163s. There are 6 of us on our squad alone that are logging 2 hour flights ,sometimes even longer. These missions almost always end in the Ditching of our Bombers.

2: The B24 Liberator had a very nice Armament Configuration that was comparable to the B17G.
A: TEN .50 Cal Machine Guns
B: Gun Positions in the Nose, Ball, Tail, Waist, and one Up stairs too!
C: Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.

Key Factor for AH with its new Larger Maps:
B17 had a Range of 1850 miles with a 4000 lb. Bomb Load.
While the B24 Liberator had a Range of 2300 miles with a 5000 lb. Bomb Load.

The B24 LIBERATOR if modeled historically, has a Greater Range than the B17 or the Lancaster we currently have in the AH Main Arena. It has an Armament configuration as good as the B17. And although it historically carried a smaller Bomb Load, it could carry more than enough bombs to make it a wonderful additon to the AH Heavy Bomber Menu.
After all, the B17 in AH is modeled to carry 6,000lbs. max Bomb Load. While in fact the B17G was capable of carrying 17,600 lbs of bombs!

So i Beg Pretty Please HT.
Give us LIBERTY.....err......... LIBERATOR!

Mugzeee

out1aw · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2003, 02:45:13 PM »

im with mugs on this one, if not only to help with more game play but new features are always welcome in a 24h persistant game....

keep up the good work HTC..................

================================

just out of curiosity, what are the sort of development times for adding new aircraft models to the current database?

streetstang · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2003, 03:41:52 PM »

Im with mugzeee on this a 100%. I have made numerous drops to HQ on this map, both to the rooks and to the nights. Neither one of the bases allow for rtb once the drop is finished. If we have to put up with the little 163 problem then why not make it posible to rtb after we get out of their territory. Im not totally happy about the fact that we have to deal with those pesky little birds either, but at least if we got away from them it would sure be nice if we could get home with at least one bomber after we did. In the intrest of game play alone it would be an exellent addition to the list of great planes already modeled in Aces High. Im not complaining, BUT; it sure would be nice to rtb after a sucsessful drop on a difficult target like the HQ.... So please, pretty please with sugar on top, give us the B24

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2003, 09:55:15 PM »

I agree, but it's not the B-24's longer range that interests me. We need a buff that has a larger bomb load than B-17, but that can still defend itself, unlike the Lancaster with only 2 tail guns and no lower turret.

Other bombers needed: He-111, SM. 79 (or CANT Z 1007), and Ilyushin Il-4.

MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33

Mugzeee · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2003, 01:40:37 AM »

I know what you mean MRPLUTO
Actually the B24 and the B17 can carry way more bomb load than is modeled in Aces High.

TheManx · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2003, 02:32:03 PM »

Quote

I have made numerous drops to HQ on this map, both to the rooks and to the nights. Neither one of the bases allow for rtb once the drop is finished. If we have to put up with the little 163 problem then why not make it posible to rtb after we get out of their territory.

No offence, but why should you feel it necessary to hit someone's HQ more easily from everywhere on the map? Fighters in the game must conduct their missions around limitations, so why shouldn't the bombers as well? The best solution to your problem would be to get your team to take some bases within range of the enemy's HQ.

I hate having to play for hours on end without radar, and I'm sure that most of the people who spend their time in fighters feel the same way. Even knowing that, I realize that bombers need to feel "needed and loved" so have avoided protesting the destructability of HQ too loudly. I will protest any attempts at making it more convenient however.

Mugzeee · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2003, 03:36:36 PM »

ROFLMAO
Manx
HQ is a viable target. Bomber Pilots aren't asking for an un killable Bomber, closer targets, or that our job is easy. The Lack of dedicated Bomber Escort pilots in the Game, means that us bomber pilots usually have to go alone. And the fact that a Single Fighter can take apart an entire Bomber formation, means a flight path that puts us on the target BEFORE we get jumped. Which almost always means taking the LONG WAY around!
Which in turn means major Fuel Consumption. We just want to RTB like all you fighter jocs.

PS....In case you havent noticed. Destroying the HQ isnt the issue. Destroying the HQ can be done with Heavy Ponys too.
The issue is that Bombers want to RB after a 2 hour flight.
And with these larger maps we have noticed that the fuel just isnt holding out like it used to.
No Harm in that

Mugzeee

streetstang · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:00:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TheManx
No offence, but why should you feel it necessary to hit someone's HQ more easily from everywhere on the map? Fighters in the game must conduct their missions around limitations, so why shouldn't the bombers as well? The best solution to your problem would be to get your team to take some bases within range of the enemy's HQ.

I hate having to play for hours on end without radar, and I'm sure that most of the people who spend their time in fighters feel the same way. Even knowing that, I realize that bombers need to feel "needed and loved" so have avoided protesting the destructability of HQ too loudly. I will protest any attempts at making it more convenient however.

TheManx-Now that i have quoted you I will now provide you with a quote from Mr. Webster Dictionary. A great tool when looking to further understand the words which one projects. And I quote:
Convenient- 1) Adding to ones comfort;easy to do, use or get to; causing little trouble or work; handy. 2) easliy accessible (to); near (to)..... (Websters New World Dictionary)

With that being said most of what I need to say has already been stated. I had at no time said to HT, Please make it easier for me to hit the HQ. Nor did I at any time say, through the use of more range it would make it easier to get there. Giving the bombers more range will not in any given senario make drops on the HQ easy. It is a time consuming and unsure venture. If i were asing for an F15 eagle or a stealth bomber then i would be asking HT please make it easier for me to drop on HQ. It is not in any way easily accessed. It takes approximatly two hours for a well planned HQ raid to be undertaken, ONE WAY!!!!... I don't consider that easy at all. Historically speaking, the B17 should go around that map twice on a full tank, but im not talking historically right now. Im talking about game play. The B17 had a range of just over 1800 miles loaded with a full jug of fule. As of right now in the game, we are lucky if we have half that. And on shorter trips, we have to drift back to our fields. If we get to your HQ, Drop on it, deal with the 163's, there is no reason in the world that our planes should not have the ability to take us home. We dont' need to feel needed or loved, thats what out girlfriends do man, all we want is more range on the bombers which would in fact be historically correct in the first place.
JEFFER
Hope to see you at an HQ near you

TheManx · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:27:31 PM »

Quote

And the fact that a Single Fighter can take apart an entire Bomber formation

Until a single formation can't destroy HQ, I have no problems with a single fighter killing the formation.

Quote

The B17 had a range of just over 1800 miles loaded with a full jug of fule. As of right now in the game, we are lucky if we have half that.

Exactly, every plane in the game is subject to the fuel multiplier. Instead of asking for bigger and more powerful bombers to rectify your solution, why not ask for a change in this instead.

Quote

It takes approximatly two hours for a well planned HQ raid to be undertaken, ONE WAY!!!!... I don't consider that easy at all.

Dosen't sound that difficult either. Take off, have dinner...come back...play online Pokemon then do your thing. Or are you trying to tell me you're sitting at your computer working the controls the whole time?

Quote

If we get to your HQ, Drop on it, deal with the 163's, there is no reason in the world that our planes should not have the ability to take us home.

You could say the same to hurricane pilots as well. Limited range should be a part of the game. I said it before...if you want a crack at HQ, your teammates need to get you in position for it.

Quote

We dont' need to feel needed or loved, thats what out girlfriends do man

They'd best be doing a whole lot more to justify a 2 hour flight one way.

Quote

all we want is more range on the bombers which would in fact be historically correct in the first place.

Due to the fuel multiplier, everyone has the ability to run out of fuel. You really do need to get over it. I've had to ditch many times because I overstretched the range.

I do sympathize with you bomber types and your target choices. But HQ isn't the only target on the map. It's the most destructive to the other players in the game, and I sincerely believe many of you who go for it just want to feel important. Please feel free to pick targets of less importance to the rest of us, as fighting you bombers is the last thing I logged in to do. Being forced to because if I don't I'll lose knowing where the fight is just dosen't sound terribly appealing.

DarkHawk · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2003, 06:28:38 PM »

MUGZEE
I have to agree the fuel consumption rate for bomber is way to high
Just think a loaded b17 had a range of over 1800 miles that is a total distance of 3600 miles. Now at 200 mph the plane would be in the air about 18 hours, So the fuel consumption currently used in
AH effectly give you only 2 hours of flying time or a reduction of between 85 to 90 % of it true ability. Wonder how much screaming we would hear if all planes faced that same reduction.
Example: In real life say a 109 had 60 minutes of flying time. How would the fighter pilots react if that time was reduce by 85 to 90 percent or to about 6 minutes

Hitech please change the heavy bomber consumption rate on fuel to one that can get at least 3 hours flying time for the long range mission that can happen on the larger maps

DarkHawk

TheManx · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2003, 07:06:14 PM »

Seems odd for people to be requesting to sit watching a bomber on autopilot fly for 3+ hours but I guess it's better than people requesting bigger bombers. Personally, I think that you bomber types are a few bombs shy of a payload.

My definite preferance would of course be for you guys to hit the factories that don't ruin the game for the other 500 of us online at that time and still give you that immersive feeling of having completed your missions.

Karnak · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2003, 07:44:42 PM »

I like hitting the factories with the Ki.67. Its great at it.

If I want to kill some Me163s I'll take it over to the HQ, though a Ki.67 can do jack all to it.

Try the Ki.67, its the most under rated bomber in AH.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2003, 09:38:41 PM »

Good idea MugZ...coming from a fighter jock, that makes a lot of sense, and I actually do enjoy escorting...to a point.

Seems all you're asking for is a little equity in gameplay, and I see nothing wrong with that. What I do see, is this thread becoming a flame because there are some who want all the advantages, all the time.

AH is a simulation, which means, unfortunately for us fighter types, that we sometimes have to fly blind. Perhaps if we (fighter jocks) paid better attention to the strategic situation we could actually have fighter CAP to intercept bombers that would otherwise reach HQ, and other strategically significant targets. Situational Awareness is not only about watching your six, it also includes what you think the other country is going to attack next, and prevent them from doing so if possible.

I truly wish the furballers would get this straight. They're missing out on a lot of what this game has to offer.

Personally, I'd love to see the Liberator..AFTER the Ki-84!

Gainsie

Mugzeee · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2003, 10:51:24 PM »

Manx said "Exactly, every plane in the game is subject to the fuel multiplier. Instead of asking for bigger and more powerful bombers to rectify your solution, why not ask for a change in this instead."

Sorry but the B24 is NOT a more powerfull bomber than the B17....it just had a longer range.
Remember.?? Thats what this thread was started about.

Mugzeee

TheManx · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2003, 02:56:02 AM »

My point was more to illustrate that there should be some places sacred on this map that bombers can't hit until a team gets close enough. I like radar (as I'm quite certain you do too), and want there to be times that I don't have to worry about guys like you.

I should learn never to argue with a bomber, as the 2 hour flights gives them far too much free time to think.

You posted you want bombers with more range, I'm posting that I don't. I doubt either one of us is going to convince the other.