Author Topic: Bomber Suggestions (Read 831 times)

Weavling · « **on:** July 26, 2003, 06:14:05 PM »

It seem that the bombers are way too armored, and takes too many bullets to bring them down. In actual WWII, I don't think many bombers went down missing a wing, however that seems to be the case in Aces High. If bombers were this tough to take out, it would have been impossible for the British in the Battle of Britain to take out any of the bombers with those .303's. Instead, it's almost a requirement to have a 30mm to take out Bombers. Bombers are usually thought as reletivly easy targets, and only lethal in large groups. If a trio of B-17's spotted a 109 comming in, they'd probably be pretty worried. In AH, the 109 could be pasted well before any damage was delt.

I haven't really done research on it, but it seems like bombers would be more likely to go down for these reasons in no particular order:
1) Crew was too injured or killed. Structurally, the bombers were very tough, but they had little or no protection for the crew itself, thus they died quite easily. In AH, unless you get a dead on shot, you don't do much damage to the crew, especially the pilots.
2) Fires are a big hazard. Especially if the bombs are still in the bomb bay.

Of course if the fire is on the player bomber, you got a problem. With the drones though, they could burn all day. That could stand to be changed.
3) Control cables and junk inside the bomber could be damaged fairly easily. However, in AH, the only thing you can do to simulate this is to actually knock the control surface off. I'd think if you took a hit, there should be a fair chance that your control cables could be damaged, resulting in A. Mushy control, B. Limited control, or C. Loss of control to the respecive control surfaces the cables were connected to. This could also stand to be implemented on fighters as well. That way, you also don't have to blow off a guys wing or pop off his tail to bring him down. Even in WWII footage, blowing off wings wasn't that common.

Like I said, I didn't do any research on this, so correct me if I'm wrong, or if you can add in anything else.

ccvi · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2003, 07:15:55 PM »

IRL the gunners on the bomber didn't see hit sprites as big as the attacking plane when hitting from 1500 yards...

Weavling · « **Reply #2 on:** July 26, 2003, 07:22:46 PM »

Lol, in RL, I dont think the gunners even hit their targets from 1500 yards.

Something to add...
Perhaps the engines could be a little more prone to damage. Instead of always having a oil leak, radiator hit, or fuel leak, it should be possible to have them shot out completly, or catch on fire more easily.

SKurj · « **Reply #3 on:** July 26, 2003, 08:45:57 PM »

3 b17's would be pretty safe against a single 109...

The 109 was a poor bomber interceptor... lacking firepower.
I actually think the B17 for example is too weak in AH.. Though the lanc maybe abit too tough...

Chances of hitting a control cable would be likely greater when hitting a fighter than hitting a bomber... bigger target.. same size cables... many bombers could take a hell of a shredding and still rtb, as evidenced by the many photos available. A dead crew ... well in AH wound ONE crew member and the whole crew starts losing conciousness. CRAP! kill the tail gunner and the plane should not go down as it does currently.

Hit any bomber.. start a fire and it is guaranteed to blow up... no chance to put the fire out. It just might take 2-3 mins.

A single 17 vs multiple fighters is in trouble.. gee just like RL

SKurj

ALF · « **Reply #4 on:** July 26, 2003, 08:54:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ccvi
IRL the gunners on the bomber didn't see hit sprites as big as the attacking plane when hitting from 1500 yards...

HT has stated (and I agree):

Hits in real WWII combat were very evident from very very long distances. The reason hit sprites are big is to make them visable given the limits on resolution.

Weavling · « **Reply #5 on:** July 26, 2003, 11:55:58 PM »

Ok, so maybe a 109 is a bad example. And actually, I was in a B-17 box, against about 5 or 6 fighters. I downed 4 of them with reletive ease, before reinforcements came, and it took many shots for them to down me. Bombers almost seem to be a better antifighter weapon per person than fighters them selves, that is if the enemy is willing to engage. A 4 kill sortie isn't usually the easist to come by in a fighter, unless you against newbs. It's almost regular in a box of B-17s.

Also, about the crew situation. If you're in the tail gunner spot, and the tail gunner is hit, the tail gun simply does not work anymore, you don't blow up. 2nd, in RL, you could be shooting the bomber from behind and still wreak havoc to those in front. The bombers had no outer armor, thus bullets go right in, and can strike those in front. So far I've only been able to get a pilot kill on a buff if I go head on with'em.

I don't want to nerf the Buffs completely, I think it's just lame how you can totally spray a B-17, and it will fly on with no damage at all. I nailed a B-17 with my Hispanos in my Hurc IIC. I must have got 8 hits on his left wing, 4 hits on the underbelly(which is where the bombs should be, and he was on his way to the target), and 5 hits on the right wing. Nothing at all was wrong with that B-17, and he continued to fly along. I didn't persue since my Hurc wouldn't keep up. LOL.

ccvi · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2003, 05:51:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SKurj
A dead crew ... well in AH wound ONE crew member and the whole crew starts losing conciousness. CRAP! kill the tail gunner and the plane should not go down as it does currently.

A little know fact is that gunner positions on bombers can be killed individually in AH. The problem is that they're so tough that a few hits more blows the whole bomber up. I think it's possible to kill 2 of them at maximum before the buff goes boom.

SKurj · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2003, 09:23:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Weavling

I don't want to nerf the Buffs completely, I think it's just lame how you can totally spray a B-17, and it will fly on with no damage at all. I nailed a B-17 with my Hispanos in my Hurc IIC. I must have got 8 hits on his left wing, 4 hits on the underbelly(which is where the bombs should be, and he was on his way to the target), and 5 hits on the right wing. Nothing at all was wrong with that B-17, and he continued to fly along. I didn't persue since my Hurc wouldn't keep up. LOL.

I don't see anything wrong with the above.... as per the current damage model, (not able to add holes/drag per hit).

Now if you had hit one wing with all those shots.... it likely would have gone down.

In a Typhoon, probably 1 out of every 3 attempts I can take down all 3 17's and rtb.. (with damage)

SKurj

BenDover · « **Reply #8 on:** July 27, 2003, 12:59:47 PM »

IRL it averaged at around 20 20mm hits around the SAME spot with the german 20mm, it would proburly take around 15 haspano hits on a b17.

ccvi · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2003, 01:10:05 PM »

A single 7.9mm through the head of a gunner pretty much disables that gunner position irl...

Devourer · « **Reply #10 on:** July 27, 2003, 02:02:33 PM »

i think icons for all gunner positions in AH should have reduced range. Some guys out there can kill you from 1.4k in a b17. Its like they have perfect aim or something.

Furball · « **Reply #11 on:** July 27, 2003, 04:56:15 PM »

its not how hard the bombers are that p!sses me off when attacking them, its the non-dispersing lazer cannon that really annoy me.

Some time back i think someone posted results of gunner tests here, where it was found the dispersion on buff guns was so great that if you aimed directly at a target at 1k or so the chances of hitting it were virtually nil. Im probably wrong tho!

Kweassa · « **Reply #12 on:** July 27, 2003, 06:04:14 PM »

All in all, actually, bombers have sufficient amount of survivability in AH. At least that's my opinion. People talk about bringing down three buff formations single-handedly all the time, but frankly, in my experience in interception and observation, it's a matter of circumstances - either its always a exceptionally skilled pilot in planes with superb firepower, with superb alt advantage doing that, or someone who has the same kamikaze mindset of field porking approaching a buff from their 6, and taking it down with them.

If an average skilled average pilot sees a buff, gains altitude and tries to catch up with it, then tries engages it single handedly.. it's a very difficult task. The risks are high, and its more than probable he won't bring down any of the buffs.

..

I think the real problem is how the interception should be changed in details, rather than overall difficulty. Making the bombers tougher against structural fatality, but more prone to various situations of damages, from higher probability of death to bomber gunners, more fires, damage in internal systems.. maybe death of co-pilots.. and etc etc. With such changes, should come additional features such as engine extinguishers, dumping fuel, etc..

Currently, it is possible to bring down bombers in prolonged 'realistic' attacks... go for the drones with less protective fire arc, shoot its engines.. and afetr a while, the drones part from the lead buff, lagging behind. Picking them off one by one.. However, this is so inefficient compared to picking off wings or elevators and bringing it instantly down.

Weavling · « **Reply #13 on:** July 28, 2003, 12:31:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
I think the real problem is how the interception should be changed in details, rather than overall difficulty. Making the bombers tougher against structural fatality, but more prone to various situations of damages, from higher probability of death to bomber gunners, more fires, damage in internal systems.. maybe death of co-pilots.. and etc etc. With such changes, should come additional features such as engine extinguishers, dumping fuel, etc..

That's exactly what I'm aiming for! I think the structual integerty of the bombers is just fine! Due to the size of the planes, they were very struturally stong, and hard to knock pieces of it off. however, the way the damage model is in AH, causeing some massive structual failure is currently the only viable way of downing a bomber. Nearly every bomber shot down in AH is because of a missing wing or part of. IRL, I don't think that was the majority case. AH currently has very little internal damage modeled.

I remember flying on Microsoft CFS 1. Desite the easy flight model, and that damn roll bug on the hard setting, there were aspects of the damage model that i really liked! On the medium difficulty settings, after taking slight damage, usually your overall performance was reduced. Get hit in the wing, you can't roll as well, or you'll have a tendancy to roll to one side, or you'll tend to roll when you start turning, or nothing at all. Get hit in the tail area, you're ablilty to use your elevators would be hampered by decreased rate of pitch control, or nothing at all. In some way, your ability to control the plane would be affected, or perhaps not, it depened. So even if you are hit with only a few shots, your ability to fight may be reduced. As you sutained more damage, the effects became worse, and eventually to the point where you cannot effectivly control the plane, thus you may go down, or will not be able to continue the fight. Contrary to AH, a plane going down was not always to a catostrophic structural failure. These aspects would be great in fighters, as well as bombers.

Also about the "lasers" of the buff. I just flew off line, and there is dispersion on the guns, but not much at all. I think the dispersion could stand to be increased to prevent the "sniping" of planes 1000 yards or more away. Rifles in WWII were accurate to about 1000 yards or a little more. Seems a little wierd that the gunners in AH can hit something up to nearly 2000 yards away with a Machine Gun, especially when the bomber they're in is moving, and their target is moving as well. But I don't think the gunner gunnery is as big as a factor as the whole damage aspect, but I think this could be tweaked.

BTW, thx for the replies all!

Weavling · « **Reply #14 on:** July 28, 2003, 12:31:59 AM »

Nooooooo! I double posted!!!!