Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Maniac on November 02, 2000, 05:52:00 AM
-
"In terms of game play itself, a small random factor has been added to the fall of bombs. The higher the height from which they are dropped, and, consequently, the longer they are in the air, the more they may drift off target. The very high altitude unrealistic pinpoint accuracy of the past is no longer possible. Lower altitude offers increased accuracy, but a greater risk of being intercepted by the defending force. "
This snip above is from AW, i would like this very much in AH.
Regards.
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
Don't hold your breath. This has been asked for since buffs first started dropping bombs in AH.
Maybe its too realistic?
-
One note about bomb trajectories...
Once the weapon is released, its trajectory is simply a matter of the vector the bomber was on at the time of release. Once the weapon is free falling, wind will no longer have any appreciable effect on its trajectory. The only wind that has any effect on bomb delivery is the wind that the bomber was flying in at release.
Time of fall is irrelevant. The problem in manual bombing is knowing the magnitude and direction of the air mass that the bomber is flying in prior to release. The air mass is moving over the ground and the bomber is moving along with that air mass...the direction and speed of the wind must be compensated for by aiming not at the target, but at what is referred to as a 'wind offset'. Knowing what the wind offset should be is probably the biggest unknown in dive bombing!
Andy
-
That Andy feller sure does think he's smart!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Thanks for that interesting information Andy. I woulda thought the wind would have a small effect on the bomb in the air. Guess ya learn something every day. That oughta make for some good conversation.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Andy Bush:
Time of fall is irrelevant. The problem in manual bombing is knowing the magnitude and direction of the air mass that the bomber is flying in prior to release. The air mass is moving over the ground and the bomber is moving along with that air mass...the direction and speed of the wind must be compensated for by aiming not at the target, but at what is referred to as a 'wind offset'. Knowing what the wind offset should be is probably the biggest unknown in dive bombing!
Andy
Andy that can be true or not. If the Bomber is flying at ,say, 25K and there is a wind layer from earth up to 13K and other different from 13K to 25K, the bomber will be displacing to one direction, but when the bomb crosses the 13K layer, it will suffer from a desviation.
Your example is only right with an uniform wind layer. In AH with its succesive layers (10K each) its simply not true,.
-
And, while we are on this matter, remember that Coriolis acceleration also is a matter on high level bombing...
-
Andy - are you saying that an airmass is homogenous all the way from 35,000 feet down? I have to disagree... The different layers may not only have different speed - they might have different directions giving you bomb dispersion which is impossible to predict when dropping from high altitude - we need randomiser...
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
Being an homogeneous effect, Coriolis has no effect on accurate bombing, since it can be calculated by Norden.
Different wind layers should have effect, however. Maybe we can have a weather report to calculate deviations, etc.
Of course, correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
Pepino.
-
Sounds like a good feature huh? I'm sure that if AH implemented this it would KILL the bomber people off.
We do not have armadas of bombers that can carpet bomb an area and therefore hopefuly destroy if not heavily damage the intended target.
What we do see solo efforts, sometimes two and maybe three bombers get togther if you're lucky to hit a target. I think you would kill of bomber interests if a B17 with only xx bombs is only able to deliver a certain percentage due to a gaming factor.
This is a crude form to curtail land grab in the main arenas in AW. It is a start (just like the FW was the grandpappy of all WWII fighters- gratuitous jab (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) but it needs much more refinement so not to turn people off from bombing, but we also need to move away from the "perfect drop every time" gameplay we have now.
-Westy
-
Originally posted by Westy:
We do not have armadas of bombers that can carpet bomb an area and therefore hopefuly destroy if not heavily damage the intended target.
Just make bombing under 20K as accurate as it is now. Make it a bit more difficult to up to 25K, very unnacurate at 25-30K, and absolutely unnefective over 30K.
That way, everyone will be happy, and teh 35K uberdweebs will be gone -forever-
Pepino...yep Norden sight historically calculated the coriolis effect...but I was answerin Andy Bush's state that a freefalling bomb will behave as it does in AH...
and in AH we have no rolling earth under the B17, yah know (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
On a similar note, I've noticed shell fall to go wide when using the pnzr. I kinda like the having to aim off more. Be fun with buffs....
'Nexx'
-
RAM, -lynx-, and others...
I know this sorta defies conventional thinking...and I know you feel pretty sure of your positions...just as I once did as a new F-4 student sitting in my A2G class. I can still remember it...
"Well, look at it this way", I asked the instructor. "Let's say I'm in a helicopter, and I'm hovering right over the target at 5000'....the wind varies from different directions and velocities between me and the target. Do you mean to stand there and tell me that those winds aren't going to affect the bomb in its fall?"
Then I sat back with a smug expression on my face, thinking I had belled the cat.
"That's right, worm. That's exactly what I'm telling you.", replied the instructor.
And then he proceeded to explain about such things as fineness ratio and other stuff that I can't remember anymore (this was before many of you were born). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Later on, when I was a Fighter Weapons School instructor, I had the same question every so often. What it boiled down to was that a typical bomb is a very small but large mass object, and as such, given the relatively short time of fall, is very resistant to having its velocity vector affected by changes in the air mass through which it is falling.
Now, under extreme wind shear conditions, it is probable that the weapon's ballistics might undergo a deviation from the original velocity vector...but the magnitude would be relatively small and of only academic interest. Operationally, it would be of no significance.
Andy
-
RAM, lynx, others.
It depends on whether the bomb is LW or not.
If it is, it has to be a much better bomb to compensate for the poorer performance.
And LW bombs hit too, so LW bombs are smarter than allied bombs.
Now, allied opportunists, bow to the superior egg (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Now, allied opportunists, bow to the superior egg (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
The real question is, which came first, the chicken or the Fw-190?
-
Originally posted by -duma-:
The real question is, which came first, the chicken or the Fw-190?
My superior eggs
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by -duma-:
The real question is, which came first, the chicken or the Fw-190?
LMAO!
Hamish!
-
In other words, your plane is flying, so its ground vector (sorry for incorrect terminology) is its in-air vector (speed and heading on the instruments, adjusted for altitude) + the vector of the wind at that altitude (the speed and direction the airmass in it is moving relative to the earth). You drop the bomb and it falls according to the ground vector.
The bomb isn't flying, so when it crosses a boundary layer, its ground vector is its original ground vector plus whatever puny effects a breeze has on the (very heavy and very streamlined) object.
-
Dinger
Exactly...with the understanding that the effect of differing winds at altitudes below the release altitude is insignificant.
Andy
-
Maniac, don't you remember? HT breaks out in hives at the mention of the word "random".
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Rickenbacker (Ricken)
-ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force
-
Great post Maniac! Regardless of wether the wind effects the bomb or not, I still think it's a good idea. And if you look, Maniacs post mentioned nothing about what causes the 'randomness'. It merely stated they "drift off target" from higher alt. We all know they didn't have our(HTC's) Smart Bombs in WWII. Sounds like a good compromise for gameplay sake. Also might help to keep the fighters at a reasonable alt in Scenario's. If the bombers limited their attack alt, then the attacking fighters wouldn't have to climb to 30k to make sure they are above the incoming bombers for an attack run, also reducing the alt of the escorts. Theoretically.
ts
-
Originally posted by Andy Bush:
RAM, -lynx-, and others...
...
Then I sat back with a smug expression on my face, thinking I had belled the cat.
...
Andy
anyone who has belled the cat knows that the cat can move just as silently with or without a bell if it chooses to (and can therefore catch and bring just as many dead rodents into the house).
Black Hammer
-
Overall I think its a good idea.
Our current Norden/Bomb combo is more accurate than the real life Laser Guided bomb system.
But I would also like to see more realistic blast effects to go with it.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
While I can see why people think they want this, I'm with Westy. If implimented kisss goodbye to any real interest from any of the hard core bomber people.
Right now there are NO area targets for people to bomb, the largest taget there is in the HQ building, which is still a single building. SO we have no realistic targets for the bombers to attack. At this point we have to ask the question, "do we want bombers". If we do then we have to make them useful for hitting the point targets that we do have. If we don't then go ahead, make bombing realistic as possible, but don't expect to see anyone flying them, just just won't be able to contibute.
Most of the hardcore would like to see more realistic bomber. Hell, we used to carpet bomb the cities in Warbirds in 617 Squadron, all dropping on the leader's signal.
Believe it or not, it is already harder to bomb from high altitude. It increases your true airspeed giving you less time to line up and spreading salvos out.
People seem to want bombers at low level, pureply so they are easy targets for their fighters. If bombers are going too high, then let's look at why and resolve that problem rather than try and bring them domn artificaly.
If your plan is to make bombers easy targets for fighters or make them miss then you will just lose the bombers. This is my opinion based on my time flying in Warbirds, first tagging along with the Wildcards, then joining the Red Raiders, then forming 617 Squadron with kfsone. In Aces HIgh I rarely fly bombers, mainly due to the limitations of the 'point all guns at single target' gunnery and the fact that formations just never happen. Solo bombing is boring.
Anyway, I'll shut up now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Oh btw graywolf there's cities with quite a few buildiigns in AH too .. also the barracks make real nice area targets
DW6
-
And this is asked in the grounds of playability. I am sure that noone has anything against 20K bombers. But 95% of the people is against the 35K uberdweebish stratobuffs...
SImple, make bombing over 25K so unnacurate that you have nearly zero chances to hit anything by pin-point bombing. That way the bombers will be at realistic altitudes and the problem will be over (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And the dedicated bomber pilots (the good ones, not the uberdweebish stratopilots) will be as happy as anyone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-03-2000).]
-
"In Aces HIgh I rarely fly bombers, mainly due to the limitations of the 'point all guns at single target' gunnery and the fact that formations just never happen. "
This statement confuses me. What exactly do you mean by the above statement? You can currently only have one gunner in your bomber so why should the guns not all track on a single threat? I am sure it happened in real life so why is it a limitation?
-
Add a cloud layer at a random altitude somewhere between 15 and 30k. If the host could add the cloud layer during the night cycle on a moderate percentage of days. 50% of the time for example
This would save many of us the hassle of dealing with the more altitudinous amongst us.
SKurj
-
Actually... I never liked the fact that the bomber war affected the fighter war so directly (bombing fields) I don't know what a realistic or historical bomb accuracy was but.. seems they were off by hundreds of yards or even more.
No... I say bombing airfields from high alt is way too easy but... There should be huge cities that take massive bombing raids to kill. When a countries cities are killed... the war is over. fields will still be captured by jabo, low alt bombers and ground troops. the way it is set up now just piss's people off.
With large cities taking a lot of raids to kill... bomber formations can be escorted and attacked bringing the bombers into the community rather than having them nothing more than an anoyance. Some may never wish to attack bombers or escort and that will be fine. They can attack or defend airfields. The "war" will be more layered and realistic with something for everyone to do. Getting a low fuel or unable to take off message from a field that has been hi alt bombed just adds animosity and a phony feel.
lazs
-
Part of the problem might be that with the bomb sight the bombardier can focus in TOO closely to the ground target when at alts above 20- 25k.
Bombing is one segment that NEEDS playability. There are not enough people to make an 8TH AAF here and if it was too easy we'd all be pissed trying to take off from closed or damaged bases and if it was too hard we'd nary see a bomber in the skies of AH.
-Westy
-
Maybe I am alone in this westy but.. I find that the fields are far enough away from each other as it is. It seems that every night, the closer fields are closed or partially closed making getting to the fight much too time consuming. The bombers seem willing to sacrafice everything simply to spoil the game for the fighters. "winning" does not seem to be an issue in most cases so far as I can tell.
Addmitedly, i am not a particularly patient man but.... i don't think new players will be thrilled with the lack of action and extremly long flight time either. I do admit that I would not care if I never saw another large bomber in AH tho.
lazs
-
"Well, look at it this way", I asked the instructor. "Let's say I'm in a helicopter, and I'm hovering right over the target at 5000'....the wind varies from different directions and velocities between me and the target. Do you mean to stand there and tell me that those winds aren't going to affect the bomb in its fall?"
With all due respect Andy 5,000' or 35,000' is a massive difference.
Not sure what terminal velocity for a bomb would be but it all depends on how long a bomb will have in a particular airmass.
At the moment we are talking the bomb hitting the exact spot you looked at when you pressed release button at 35,000'. Which is, all instructors can go to hell, roadkill. It just won't happen.
I'm sure there are people reading this who could come up with all sorts of equations to prove that - I went braindead, it's Friday after all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif), cant figure out how to calculate speed, distance based on 1g acceleration - duh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Plus, taking into account blast area from a real 500lber, you can simply ignore the dispersion you get dropping it from 5,000' - it *will* kill your target. In AH if you didn't pretty much hit ack on the muzzle it ain't going to die! Hence all the argument about Strato17s closing fields unopposed. Add what RAM's suggested and we will get the realistic buffing environment.
p.s. Having been through military training myself (albeit not as advanced!) I've learnt not to take everything my instructor said for god's honest truth (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
"In AH if you didn't pretty much hit ack on the muzzle it ain't going to die! "
This statement makes me wonder if you have ever flown a bomber in this game. I got started in this game originally to fly bombers because it was supposed to be practice for the wonderful B17 II (we all know that didnt happen). Every experience I have had in taking down the ack at a field pretty much involves being close with the bomb. You dont have to score a direct hit to knock out an ack gun. I dont know if that is what you were trying to say, but if thats the case the I would have to disagree with you there.
-
Lazs you lost me a bit. I've never made any comment on any base distance or any other terrain issue. I like both terrains when they are available and I have no problem with this terrain or the other as far as base distance regardless of whether or not I am in a vehicle or aircraft.
-Westy
-
Nahhhh..... I think it's fine as it is. I don't like ultra high bombers, but buffers have a hard enough time as it is.
IC
-
-lynx-
35,000 feet!! Who said anything about 35,000'?!!
What WW2 bomber could even get to such an altitude, let alone try to bomb from there? Maybe a B-29? Or a Mosquito? That's about it.
My comments are directed towards dive bombing from typical WW2 release altitudes. The assumptions remain valid for typical level bombing altitudes as well. The main assumption is that given all the other intangibles in the bombing problem, the effect on the bomb of air mass changes that it may pass through is negligible.
Andy
-
A little off topic perhaps, but interesting:
I was talking to one of my professors in college who worked on the b-____. (Don't know if I can say which bomber it was? Let's just say it's big and black and very expensive.) He told me that one of the biggest problems they had was that the bombs, when released, would get "caught" in the turbulent air beneath the bomber's wing and skip like a stone on the denser air below. The solution: Toss the bombs out of the bomb bay instead of letting them freefall. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I guess this was a very serious problem at one time, there was the potential for the bomb to strike the aircraft dropping it.
I would think that given the tremendous density of a bomb compared to air that wind effects would not matter much. (Very high inertia) I'd also imagine that as the bomb picked up speed wind would become quite insignificant. Also, unlike AH, wind does not tend to have sudden discontinuities in its magnitude and direction.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Originally posted by Andy Bush:
-lynx-
35,000 feet!! Who said anything about 35,000'?!!
I do. 30K bombers are commonly seen in the MA and 35K bombers usually are seen too.
Maybe a B29 could do it in WWII, but in AH a B17 can do it too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
sorry westy, my post did make it look as tho you commented on field distance. What was intended was my personal opinion that the close fields were far enough away as it was and that having bombers close or partially close them was a detrement and a cause for animosity.
I see the bombers hitting the close fields and causing everyone to fly for long distances in order to get into the fight. Limiting fuel and radar and such is really just a pain IMO. I find nothing realistic about high alt bombers hitting airfields and limiting things by some percentage. Even in the PAC where bombers did hit airfields it took many raids to close an airfield sometimes months. I just feel that either the bombing is too accurate and/or the fields too easy to damage and that the bombers need huge cities to bomb.
If the bombers have nothing to do but ruin the fighter war there will be animosity. If they contribute to "winning the war" by bombing out the cities so that ground forces can capture them then.... People will think they are useful and part of the game. Or, in my case, I can just ignore them and ignore the progress of the war.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Duckwing6:
Oh btw graywolf there's cities with quite a few buildiigns in AH too .. also the barracks make real nice area targets
DW6
But unlike the Warbirds cities the density is way off. The Warbirds cities were about 80% viable targets and so carpet bombings worked. The Aces High cities are less than 50% target area and it isn't quite so viable...
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Originally posted by sling322:
"In Aces HIgh I rarely fly bombers, mainly due to the limitations of the 'point all guns at single target' gunnery and the fact that formations just never happen. "
This statement confuses me. What exactly do you mean by the above statement? You can currently only have one gunner in your bomber so why should the guns not all track on a single threat? I am sure it happened in real life so why is it a limitation?
Because when you're attacked by multiple enemies you are completely toast. Why should my nose gunner go to sleep when I man the rear turret? Why should there be NO WAY to effectively attack 2 incoming fighters at 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock?
In short A bomber in real life have enough crew to attack multiple targets. It doesn't in Aces High.
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Bloom I haven't heard about the tossing part but I do know that there are spoilers that fold down at the front of the B-2 bomb bays to prevent the problem you describe. B-1 uses a similar system.
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
I do admit that I would not care if I never saw another large bomber in AH tho.
lazs
I would.
Like it or not, fighter vs fighter is a pointless role, the only strategic importance it has in real life is to gain air superiority so that the friendly bomber/ground attack/ground forces can do their stuff with greater safety, and the enemy with a lot more difficulty.
It may have the glamour, but it didn't win any wars...
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
gray.. fighter vs fighter is not pointless in a prop sim. Winning a "war" in a sim is pointless. What is unrealistic is for bombers to have so much effect on the figher war... It is unrealistic and the cause of animosity. Closing fields or limiting any supplies is way too easy. The accuracy of bombing raids is far too good against targets that shouldn't even be targets for high alt bombers.
I am not happy when bombers close the closest fields to the fight no matter if it is a red bomber or a green one. I think that there should be no killshooter for bombers.
lazs
-
Bloom I haven't heard about the tossing part but I do know that there are spoilers that fold down at the front of the B-2 bomb bays to prevent the problem you describe. B-1 uses a similar system.
The skipping bombs problem in the B-1 was discovered some time after they went into service. The B-1 was a solely nuclear strike aircraft for several years. Later, to justify exenses, they attempted to adopt strategic conventional bombing roles. The bomb skipping was discovered on the first test. They thought the bombs didn't release... until they opened the weapons bays and they fell out on the ground.
AKDejaVu
-
The plane in question that I was describing is the B2. (Although I toured a B1 at a recent airshow. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
Perhaps since they have devised a better way to overcome this problem since the time my source was involved with the project?
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
hi all:
well I got tiered of reading this, so I did not read it all. so I will respound to blooms tread.
bloom, in WWII, the bombers did not fly fast enough to worry abouit the bomb hitting the belly of the plane when releasted. I know some guys that skydived out of a B26, they exited out the bomb bay doors. now going on the fact that a person is lighter then the bombs, you would think they might bounce off the belly of the plane, nope. they have the same forward motoin of the plane till they are out of the plane, and seeing how's they drop 34 ft the first second, that is more then enough time with the forward movement on exit of the plane. well thats all I wanted to say.
------------------
wolf37
C.O.
THUNDER BIRDS
-
Wolf, I'm not talking about hitting the belly of the plane per say. What I was talking about was caused by the airflow under the wings. When the bomb was released, it would skip like a rock across a pond a few feet under the aircraft. This created a potential for disaster.
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
How about making the bombsight a little more real, eg: have to aim it like a real tachometric sight and not the idiot-proof CCIP vector sight it is now...
-
Heavier cloud layers and a "fighter town" arena.
Problem solved
SKurj
-
"fighter town arena."
Swell! lets do another FANTASY arena like the main arena we got now instead of making an 2 sided axis vs allies arena.
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
maniac... ANYTHING would be better than a 2 sided axis vs allied arena.
lazs
-
No no no... ANYTHING would be better then ANOTHER FANTASY ARENA <G>
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
I have a question. what model of B-17 is portrayed in AH? the B-17G had a maximum ceiling of 35,600 feet (Aircraft of WWII Stewart Wilson) and the Lancaster had a ceiling of 24,500 feet (same Source). Why not just put in the realistic ceiling limits on the Aircraft. Now in the case of the B-17 I am sure that the 35,600 foot figure was not with a full bombload. Also since you can vary your load out in AH why not make the ceiling comply also? If you carry a max or overloaded load you can not go as high. As for Accuracy make the bombs toggle off in Salvos and base dispersion on the time of drop. Four bombs do not drop simultaneously so the bombs hit in an area of 1 or two seconds per salvo. I have not flown in AH yet, awaiting more Ram, but I have flown FA quite a great deal. the modeling of the bomb drop is quite good as is the blast effects. Just an Idea from an outsider trying to get in.
UncleBuck
-
Don't think you quite get it Maniac..
A lot of the fighter jocks, don't want strategic elements to worry about. They want the fighter v fighter, without worrying about bases, ostwinds, and the like.
A small arena of say 50 client maximum size with multiple countries, 2,3 or 4 it doesn't matter, based on a small map would more than likely satisfy these players.
Permit unlimited side changes, so that players can balance the teams.
An AvA style might work, as I'm sure the LW's all feel they wanna prove something +) (just fighters though, no eggs or rockets)
Just an idea
SKurj
-
I understand your point entirely now Graywolf. It would definitely be interesting to be able to do this. I guess if we could get more than one gunner it would work great. Hint hint HT!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
"A lot of the fighter jocks, don't want strategic elements to worry about. They want the fighter v fighter, without worrying about bases, ostwinds, and the like."
Ya the strategic elements in the current main is really complex.
Bleh!
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
[This message has been edited by Maniac (edited 11-08-2000).]
-
maniac... not comples, just intrusive in the wrong way. Log on for an hour or so and because some "spoiler" Is willing to suicide his buff or waste his time and pinpoint bomb (of all things) airfields and radar from very high alts... The fighter war is affected... The fighter pilots that don't care about anything but a good fight that is within reasonable distance get discouraged, action wanes, and animosity forms.
If, OTOH, the bomber war was more realistically centered on industry and cities then the war could be declared "won" at some point without affecting the fighter war and alienating players.
lazs
-
Well to be honest i would never pay 29$ an month for djust an big furball when i can have that for free with airstarts and all in the h2h arenas.
Regards.
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
What about making the bombers historically accurate. This would necessitate large formations of bombers to have a chance of success. With a limited player base like in Aces High, this severely limits large formations UNLESS we had automated bombers. This could be done by allowing each bomber pilot lead say... 3 other automated bombers in a formation. The 3 otto bombers would do their best to keep up with the lead plane, and would hold a decent formation, and drop with relatively good historical accuracy. The other 3 planes would have otto gunners with accuracy that mirrors the human controlled gunnery statistics of AH. This would bring large formations of bombers to AH, and still allow the effectiveness and sense of accomplishment to bomber pilots WITHOUT having super accurate bombing computers, that somehow negate the effects of turbulence (which there would be in real life, and which would randomize the drop.
To do this, bombers with simplified flight models could be programmed to follow the leader. The leader could select different numbers of bombers for his flight depending on a) the type of airfield he flew from, b) the status of that field with respect to damage, c) relative numbers of players for his country. This would allow large stratiegic formations from rear bases, and smaller tactical strikes from front bases. Also, if a side was outnumbered, they would be allowed more bombers to help keep the balance even. Experimentation in the game could be used to determine a fair (bomber formation modifier) to compensate for being outnumbered 2 to one or 1.5 to one. Maybe it could simply be based on number of aircraft int he air at a given time for each country, so that it would balance out any formation death staring that could occur.
Anyway.. this was just a brain storm.. what do you guys think?
CJ
-
maniac, i don't see your point. I am asking bombers to bomb historical targets in a realistic way and affect the war in a realistic manner. Jabo would still exist as would the ground war.. Far from "one big furball" that you predict. As it is most have no idea what some lone suicide bomber is doing untill their, or the enemy's fields are made useless in some manner or they have no radar or targets.
But... what is it that you want?
lazs
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
gray.. ..What is unrealistic is for bombers to have so much effect on the figher war...
lazs
Lazs, why do you think the allied bombing efforts were concentrated on factories and fuel depots/oil refineries and such? It was to limit the amount of fighters that could be built or put into the sky.
Remember, the original use of bombers in "the great war" was to drop bombs on enemy soldiers. Then fighters came to shoot the bombers BEFORE they could drop bombs. Then the bombers went to drop bombs on the support elements for the fighters BEFORE the fighters could come shoot them down. It is all one big continuous circle of fighters and bombers that cannot be broken.
Admittedly, the effect of a bomber on limiting fuel or fighter availability at an airfield is instantaneous, but without a more advanced strat formula, that's what we have to deal with.
I personally would like to see a strat engine that could accurately model grounded aircraft that would be hidden all over the outskirts of an airfield, but that just won't happen. Therefore, killing the hangers is all you can do to stop the airfield from having fighters takeoff.
Also, it would be nice if the fuel supply accually was consumed at a field depending on the amount taken by each plane leaving that field. That way, after all the fuel was used up, no other planes could take off until the next fuel truck showed up. Of course, if the fuel depot was destroyed, there would be no fuel to bring. That would make the bombers go for the source rather than trying to disable only one field.
It's a long shot, I know
------------------
"Wing up, Get kills, Be happy"
Midnight
[This message has been edited by Midnight (edited 11-10-2000).]
-
"Admittedly, the effect of a bomber on limiting fuel or fighter availability at an airfield is
instantaneous, but without a more advanced strat formula, that's what we have to deal
with."
midnight... it is instantanious and blown WAY out of proportion. And that is the point. Like you, I would like to see 'revertments' and such to limit plane availability but... In the Pacific, where airfields were targeted by very large raids, it took many raids over days, weeks or sometimes months to "close" a field. No way should one or two or even half a dozen of any kind of ac be able to close down a field in one sortie in a matter of minutes. This bogus setup encourages bogus "spoiler" suicide bomber behavior.
The most realistic attacks in AH are at best, pale imitations, one or two bombers escorted by a couple of fighters. This is bad enough but... most attacks are lone suicide bombers.
lazs
-
Anyone remember that rusty old sim ATF Gold? I still have my copy, and play it on occasion. In 1997 it was released with bad graphics, FMs that are questionable, and a few items we don't have here. Padlock in ATF Gold actually moves your head, with the target centered in the view. Bombs have dispersion that would make you scream in frustration. I carpet bombed a large field once, resulting in me killing the field and blowing 5 or 6 targets on it. This in a B-52 armed with 90 Mk. 82 500lb bombs. At 33k, those bombs hit ALL OVER the place, some not even hitting the field. Not because I dropped short or long, but because the dispersion threw them wide.
Some bomb dispersion would be nice. Something around the lines of being able to hit an ack position 1 out of 3 times from 30k. But the bombs we've got now are a tad annoying. They're self-giuded complete with GPS receiver, TERCOM, synthetic aperature radar, and digital satellite uplinks. If I drop a 500lb dumb bomb, I want it to BE dumb.
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000
-
Originally posted by Andy Bush:
And then he proceeded to explain about such things as fineness ratio and other stuff that I can't remember anymore (this was before many of you were born). (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Later on, when I was a Fighter Weapons School instructor, I had the same question every so often. What it boiled down to was that a typical bomb is a very small but large mass object, and as such, given the relatively short time of fall, is very resistant to having its velocity vector affected by changes in the air mass through which it is falling.
Now, under extreme wind shear conditions, it is probable that the weapon's ballistics might undergo a deviation from the original velocity vector...but the magnitude would be relatively small and of only academic interest. Operationally, it would be of no significance.
Andy
Andy,
You are correct here...up to a point. The effects of wind on the bomb are not due to slenderness ratio but rather on the drag coefficient of the bomb with respect to the wind. A bomb that has a high drag profile will be effected by wind whether is has a high slenderness ratio or not. Also, the bombs are affected by toppling at release and other factors. These effects will be small at low altitude but at high altitude will play a significant role in accuracy.
If AH starts to model inaccuracies, we should get the blockbuster gyroscopically stabilised bombs for the Lanc. 10,000 lb (?)bombs that spun while they fell, allowing them to be super accurate.
Just a thought... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Alright dangit enough techo mumbo jumbo!
HERE IS THE DEAL!
Drop 12 bombs from 30k at .2 delay
do the same from 6k
THEY WILL LAND EXACTLY THE SAME IN A NICE PERFECT LITTLE LINE EVENLY SPACED!
i think that from 30k a fast 12bomb salvo should land all over a medium sized field.
In a way as a bomber munkey i would like that better. You get over target and you drop.. thats it you know your gonna hit some stuff how much and what is a mistery you may kill alot you may just get a gun or 2, It sickens me that HTC will go through such detailed modeling and such and then totally neglect the basic principal of freefalling objects.
If they just fixed that, bombing would be MUCH funner and watching the bombs pepper the field would look MUCH cooler than this stupid little perfectly straight line of evenly spaced bombs.
-
"Alright dangit enough techo mumbo jumbo!"
In other words don't confuse the issue with facts. Right-O! "Gimme arcade! Or give me a refund!"
Essentially you want HTC to follow "the basic principal of freefalling objects." so that that "bombing would be MUCH funner" but only if they would change the stupid way they have now so that you can be "watching the bombs pepper the field (to) look MUCH cooler."
kEwl!!
-Westy