Author Topic: How to Stop Buff Alt Monkeys & Make Bombing a Bit More Realistic (Read 1293 times)

MRPLUTO · « **on:** May 06, 2003, 06:43:20 PM »

Since bombers in real life couldn't hit much of anything from above 30k, why not have a second wind layer at 30K moving in a direction different from the lower layer. Anyone bombing from above 30K would be adjusting only for the wind layer they are flying in. When the bombs hit the lower wind layer they would begin to be blown off course.

This would discourage people from flying at dweebishly hi altitudes. Recently, I saw Ki-67s flying at about 33,000 feet. This was a plane designed to be used around 20,000 feet. At 33K, it's meager bombload would have been very inaccurate, its gunners incapacitated by cold, and its guns frozen and useless.

I hope that in AH2 gun positions will become useless if pilots fly for long periods of time above 30k or so.

Alt Monkeys, what say you?

MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33

Chairboy · « **Reply #1 on:** May 06, 2003, 07:37:16 PM »

Why do you care?

Bombers are already ineffective against the current targets, and it's not like they auto-spawn at 30+k, it takes them a LONG time to get there, sometimes over an hour.

So again, why do you care?

Don · « **Reply #2 on:** May 06, 2003, 07:45:50 PM »

If anyone takes the time to climb to 33k in a Buff its for one reason; they want to get to their target area safely. They have a better than even chance of making it to the target and surviving at hi alts than making low alt runs. Comparatively, there are few alt dweeb fiter pilots who spend a lot of time at 33k simply because there aint nobody up there to fight. Hmmm, come to think of it, thats prolly why some do fly that high, so they can be safe:rolleyes:

Buffers have just as much right to try to fight the way they prefer as fiter jocks do, so I say let em be.
Buffing is difficult as hell as it is, to do it well that is. IMO it is unreasonable to criticize them for doing what is natural for a buffer as, TnB or BnZ is for fiter jocks.
If Hi alt buffers bother you that much, then get on up there where they are and stop em:D

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #3 on:** May 06, 2003, 10:49:04 PM »

Why do I care?

1. Because, as AH is set up, people are taking advantage of unrealistic aspects of the game to "game the game". You may be familiar with the "car bomb" problem involving people driving planes (usually IL-2's) into paratroopers as a last ditch effort to save a base from capture back when the map room was right at the field. It was solved by moving the map room to a slightly distant town.

2. Also, because as someone who enjoys hunting buffs (not necessarily in Uber-planes), I do find it annoying to spend time climbing to meet the incoming foe only to find he's at 33, 34, even 35K. For the record, as an avid buff pilot, I rarely fly above 25k, and can't remember the last time I was above 26k in a buff.

*******

Bombers ARE effective against current targets. Employed with even some forethought they do make a difference. Try flying from a country who's bases take forever to get rejuvinated.

Buffing isn't that hard; certainly it's much, much easier to hit something from above 30K in AH than in real life, where it was next to impossible. (Think of Curtis LeMay ordering the B-29s down to 9K over Tokyo so they could hit the target, for a change.)

It does take a long time to climb to 30K+, but I assume these people do what I do when I climb to 25K; we eat a snack, take a quick shower; make phone calls. Don't laugh...I've heard other buff pilots do this, too!

Don, I do agree buff pilots have a right to fight the battle their way, but I'd rather they not be allowed to take advantage of unrealistic aspects of AH to gain unhistorical advantages, at least without giving up things like bombing accuracy and operable gun positions. For example, you may have noticed that although in real life it would be possible to shoot buff guns while on the runway, you can't in AH. Why? Because people would (and did) just park buffs on the runways as deadly flak positions. It was very silly and unrealistic. Well, buffs flying at 33k and hitting thier target easily without having their gunners or guns freeze seems silly and unrealistic to me.

MRPLUTO

bockko · « **Reply #4 on:** May 07, 2003, 10:40:29 AM »

ehhhh, sounds like you want the game changed to suit your personal taste and style. Probably not a good idea. I would personally prefer to see gv's gone, irritating things, like termites. However, they are a part of the game just as much as the 30k buff guys, added all together they make the game more diverse and interesting. Nothing like that pucker factor you get when something you don't expect happens like coming home on vapors only to find gv's on the runway! or when you find that 1 enemy in 3 sectors, only he is at 30k!

BlackCross · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2003, 11:20:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MRPLUTO

Bombers ARE effective against current targets. Employed with even some forethought they do make a difference. Try flying from a country who's bases take forever to get rejuvinated.

This is true

Buffing isn't that hard; certainly it's much, much easier to hit something from above 30K in AH than in real life, where it was next to impossible. (Think of Curtis LeMay ordering the B-29s down to 9K over Tokyo so they could hit the target, for a change.)

LeMay ordered the buffs that low for two (2) reasons

1. The bombers would not need as much fuel to climb to alt saving weight for more bombs.

2. The Jetstream. It is kinda hard to fly 300 MPH North West when you are being blown South East 150-200 MPH

It does take a long time to climb to 30K+, but I assume these people do what I do when I climb to 25K; we eat a snack, take a quick shower; make phone calls.

SHHHH!!! That is a state secret!

Don, I do agree buff pilots have a right to fight the battle their way, but I'd rather they not be allowed to take advantage of unrealistic aspects of AH to gain unhistorical advantages, at least without giving up things like bombing accuracy and operable gun positions.

Bombing from altitude is difficult, and not as accurate as bombing from a lower altitude. That is realistic, historical, and portrayed in the game the best that Hitech can.

Historicaly Buffs started out at 10-12k. This gave them phenominal accuracy, just like your stating we have now. We also have the same problems of operating at that altitude, enemy fighters can easily get to 15k in practically no time. So I see no reason to penalise people for flying at 30-35k. They take the time to climb there because they want to return to base with their virtual lives, and give up on the pickle barrel and go for the ballpark. Also that is what P-47, Spit IX, Bf 109 G-10, Fw 190-D, Ta 152's are for. Getting hi with the performance to kill the buffs at that altitude

MRPLUTO [/B]

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2003, 01:51:56 PM »

bockko,

When you make statements like that you need to back them up with facts...like I did. I pointed out that what was going on was highly unrealistic and explained why, suggesting that it be changed for more realism and better gameplay. To reduce my argument to simple selfishness and "probably not a good idea" [without explaining why] does nothing to make whatever point you might have.

By the way, I can deal with 30K buffs; my complaint was against the 30K+ alt monkeys. I've intercepted bombers that were at 35-36K.

*******

BlackCross,

There were three reasons LeMay ordered the B-29s lower:

the two you gave, and the one I gave: they couldn't hit stuff 'cause of the altitude (and the winds at those alts).

*******

People should pay a penalty for flying at ultra-high alts: much lower bombing accuracy and frozen people and things. That is historical. If you want to fly at 30K+ to avoid enemy fighters, then you must suffer ALL the consequences of flying that high, good and bad.

MRPLUTO

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2003, 07:55:23 PM »

P.S. to BlackCross:

Thanks for letting me know you agreed with me sometimes, and I'm sorry about the state secret.

MRPLUTO

Karnak · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2003, 07:57:50 PM »

I see bombers rarely and I can't remember the last time I saw a bomber over 20,000ft that wasn't piloted by me or a squad mate.

Is this really that much of a problem?

No.

There are far, far bigger gameplay issues than this.

Kweassa · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2003, 08:17:09 PM »

Quote

Is this really that much of a problem?

No.

There are far, far bigger gameplay issues than this.

..

So?

We supposed to post only the mega-important super gameplay threatening issues here?

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2003, 10:38:28 PM »

It's not a major problem, but it is a problem. And one that's easily solved, I think.

MRPLUTO

bockko · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2003, 10:51:15 PM »

So i do agree that buffs couldnt hit much at hi alts. To simulate real tactics would require several hundred of us to fly buffs in tight formation, which is not going to happen (in the interest of game play). The subject of this thread hits at the nature of "simulating" real life events. So while bombing from 35k with a single bomber would be totally ineffective, bombing in general must be simulated through a set of compromises in program modeling. I have come to the belief that if a guy wants to alt a buff to 30+k, more power to him! It is not worth my limited time to go get him, yet I don't see a need to change the game to penalize him any more than penalizing other facets of game play that have modeling compromises.

Now, not sure, but I would bet the overriding reason Lemay was able to order buffs lower was because 1) fighter resistance was essentially nonexistant and 2) any fighters that showed up were sure to be destroyed.

Mr pluto, i see your point, yet there are many gray lines where reality and the game diverge...anyway, my two cents..

enjoy gents

Pongo · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2003, 12:23:20 PM »

As long as the fighters have to sit in thier cockpits on the ground for 4 hours waiting for buffs to come I think this would be a great idea.
If you want to be available to intercept buffs you have to commit to an airfield for a 4 hour stint. In the plane.
That would be more realistic and stop the totaly unrealistic "gameing the game" behavior or waiting till a dot shows up on dar telleporting to a near by field and taking off instantly in an interceptor with 1/2 fuel.

It would be easy to implement, fro more realistic and would be much more fair to the bombers. They could bomb from reasonable alt and have a higher sorti rate to boot.

bockko · « **Reply #13 on:** May 08, 2003, 01:27:39 PM »

PONGO! that avatar....that la7.....whine....cry...its just, well don't know what to say, its hilarious!

EDO43 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 08, 2003, 02:04:10 PM »

Well let me say this with respect to bombing altitudes. The B17's BEST operational altitude is 30,000 ft. It was designed for high altitude precision bombardment. The bomb modeling is relatively accurate when a good hit was considered any bomb that hit within 1,000 ft of the aiming point. Why do you think the Germans developed the Me163? Precisely for point defense at high altitude against American bomber streams.

Your third reason regarding the "LeMay" treatment is a byproduct of the previously mentioned "jetstream" reason. Bombs falling through 150-300 mph winds are generally NOT going to hit anywhere near where they were aimed at. Again, the bombing model that we have here is as near as can be gotten to real life (from those bombardiers I've talked to personally) Lastly, in the "real life" bomber stream, only two bombers per group carried a Norden bombsight. Every other bomber in the formation would drop it's bombs when the lead, or deputy lead bomber released his. Damage inflicted by sheer tonnage dropped, not by pickle barrel precision bombardment. So you see that 30k+ bombers are not unrealistic and if you read combat reports you'll see that there do exist missions where the operational altitude was 30k+. The B17 was, overall, a very minor player in the Pacific war so the modeling of the aircraft, it's performance, bombload and accuracy are based on an ETO basis.

I do agree that 30k+ Ki67's are a little drastic though. Not only were they not designed for that altitude, I doubt they could've reached and maintained it for very long if at all.

OORAH