Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Virage on December 16, 2003, 03:44:42 PM
-
Disable 'secondary fire' from cockpit in all level bombers.
ie. players must be in the 'bombardier's position' to drop bombs when flying the b17, lanc, ki67, etc.
bombers that could dive bomb (tbm, ju88 etc) would not be restricted of course.
-
im all for it
im geting tired of lancasters carpet bombing tanks
:rofl
-
AGREED!
-
Wow!!!!
That's like the "Columbus' Egg" story!! :D
Virage, you just provided the most simple, and yet most effective solution for curing the dive bombing level bombers!
ps) of course, the Ju-88 would be an exception. It WAS a dive bomber as well, complete with dive flaps. Maybe the bomb vay ordnance would be disabled inside cockpit??
-
Did the pilot or bombardier drop the torpedo from a Ki-67?
Other than that I think it is a good idea for the B-17, B-26 and Lanc.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Did the pilot or bombardier drop the torpedo from a Ki-67?
Good point. Ki67 pilots should be able to drop torps.
-
while i said agreed at first, there are some moments that make it impossible to do this right. Afterall Lancasters have been used to do NOE raids in real life as well... although AH it all seems to be NOE (except for the skilled few).
Planned NOE raids are still fun, and the ones i do arnt ment to be suicide NOE raids either. Force instance I and "Theking" (not sure if he plays anymore he is a knight) did a 150miles NOE raid mostly through NME airspace to a HQ on the small island map with a tank island in the middle. We Flew around islands, hid from any other cons, and the first warning they got was there HQ flashing, then there Radar screen going black....If we had climbed to 20k we would have had to taken off 125miles further back..
We both got home too :aok
Some would call that dweebish, but we both found it very fun for 2 hours and even landed some kills each, getting a 20+ perk sortie in a lanc is rare for me...
stopping the bomb drops in the cockpit would lose things like this but it might be the price to pay for the other dweebish actions :(
-
I am 100% for this idea ! I'm sick of suicide Lancasters diving in on CVs.
Great Idea !
-
Overlag...
you could still do ur 150 mile NOE raid. but u would have to use the f6 view to do ur drop.
-
which would be near impossible at 500AGL
but thats the price we will have to pay i guess.......
-
Um, no, it wouldnt be if AH gave players the option of having either a stabilised vector or tachometric sight on their bomber (where there was either fitted in RL). The current system is an odd mix of the two.
For better realism, we shoudl be able to dial in our intended attack altitude, say with a dot command, and also "windage" data to allow for wind. NOE wind wouldnt really mattter, of course. Having dialled in the data, what happens with a tachometric sight is that you find the target with your sight, and move the cross hairs onto the target and keep them there. A link between the sight and the autopilot adjusts the planes course, within reason, if need be. (in RL, especially early on, there was no link, jut the bombardier yelling "left a bit" to the pilot...)
The bombsight "knows" where the plane is in relation to the target from the angle the sight is pointing down, and can measure the speed from the rate of change of angle. At the right moment (so long as the crosshairs have been held on teh target), the bombs are automatically released by the sight.
I doubt that a tachometric sight could be used effectively at very low level,though.
A stabilised vetor sight, you'd dial in the altitude and speed (vector sights are simpler than tachometric ones. The vector sight doesnt measure anything) and windage. Then, when near target, you use the bombsight to guide your plane so that the crosshairs pass over teh target. At that moment, you manually release the bombs. Rather like the AH bombsight used to be, except that instead of the sight magically knowing the speed, alt, windage, etc, you;d have to tell it those things.
That's my understanding, anyway - I believe there;s a small number of people in teh community who've actually used the real things or have been able to research them more thoroughly.
Anyway, a stabilised vector sight could easily be used low-level.
I'd also add that nothing is likely to ever stop unrealistic dweebery in the MA, which, no matter what, is simply a general melee with WW2 equipment. If you want realistic behaviour from participants, you need organised games... :-}
Esme
Esme
-
How about bombs disabled for pilot unless the auto-pilot is engaged of make them disabled if ROC is negative?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
which would be near impossible at 500AGL
Bombardier View allows you to look forward without being 'in the scope'. You could still 'eyeball' it( and it shouldn't be hard to do @ 500agl) , but you will have to fly level.
-
Totally agree
To go further you will note that many buffs can be configured as attack.
I would say if its a non formation, non bomb site buff then its an attack ac and no bomber/attacker option should be available.
If its loaded with torps its forced to attack ac status.
If it still has a Bomber/attack ac choice then...........
When attack is chosen the
formation is disabled
F6 Bomb site is disabled
Only pilot has bomb/torp release control
When bomber is chosen
formation is enabled (by choice)
F6 bomb site is enabled
only bomb aimer has bomb release control.
We then end up with the following
Bombers only(must use F6 can have formations)
B17
Lanc
B26 ?
Ar 234
Bombers/Attackers (depending on A/B choice[torps=attack])
TBM
Ju88
Ki 67
B5N2 Kate
Boston
Attackers (No F6, no formations)
A20
C47
D3A1
Il2m3
Ju87 D3
SBD 5
-
have the bombs not dop under negative g's. it would still be possible to dive bomb, but very difficult to hit anything.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
have the bombs not dop under negative g's. it would still be possible to dive bomb, but very difficult to hit anything.
if you bombed with negative G's, your plane would get hit by the bomb and blow up, like it does now.......:)
-
Suggestion to reduce gaming via the AH bombing model.
The following is an attempt to achieve
1. The elimination of use of formation bombers in a dive bombing role
2. To penalise/reduce the use of attack bombers in a suicidal manner to pork enemy fields.
3. To reward/promote the use of attack bombers that RTB successfully.
4. To separate attack and fighter perk systems to reward fighters for fighter activity and attackers for attack activity separately.
AC selection changes on the Clipboard.
Presently aircraft can be subselected from lists being labelled All, Fighters, Attackers, Bombers, Vehicles and Boats.
This proposal would propose deleting the “All” category and configuring the lists generated under the remaining buttons as follows.
This proposal would also propose deleting the separate button that allowed the ac to be changed from fighter/attack/bomber after selection.
Fighter.
Under the Fighter category no bombs or rockets are available.
Attack
Under the Attack category bombs, rockets and torpedoes are available as per present choice sets.
Under the Attack category no formations would be available.
Under the Attack category F6 bomb sights would be disabled.
C47 would be an Attack plane.
Bomber
Under the Bomber category only bombers with F6 bombsights would be available.
Under the Bomber category bombs may only be released when using the F6 bombsight.
Under the Bomber category formations would be available as a matter of choice.
Under the Bomber category torpedoes would not be available.
Vehicle & Boat categories
Would remain unchanged for the purposes of this proposal
Perk system changes.
Perk points would be available and usable for every category.
Fighter perks
This would be configured much as HTC wish to do so now. Both in respect to potential cost and reward.
Attack perks.
This would allow HTC to differentiate between the value of an AC used in an attack role to its value in a fighter role.
A simple extension of the existing perk system would be to perk those Attack AC capable of massive strike potential or typically “massively” abused in suicide type attack roles. Hence it could be found that as a Fighter the P51 is free of perk cost but incurs a perk cost if not returned safely when chosen/used in an Attack role.
**A more complex extension of the existing perk system would be to perk the actual bomb load out. This could be by a 1) cost per bomb over a certain weight, 2) cost for total bomb weight or 3) cost when a bomb type over a certain weight is used.
Unfortunately perking bombs in any of the above three alternatives produces anomalies not easily solved. Option 3 is the most anomaly free option but (like the other options) would for example still perk a Stuka in most of its load outs.
Bomber perks
This would be configured much as HTC wish to do so now.
Anomalies present and future.
C47. In my opinion would be best configured as an Attack ac. It releases its payload from the cockpit. It does not have formation enabled. When dropping troops whilst it may be considered a transport it is in an “attack” mode.
Torpedoes. The above basically disables the use of formation delivery of torpedoes. (Ki67 and Ju88). This is a by product of the requirement to limit cockpit release of ordinance to single (non formation) AC classified as Attack AC. This may have a game play effect in the MA but this proposal would argue that the delivery of torpedoes by large bombers flying in formations is not a re creation of any WWII delivery tactic.
Attack Perking. Having long favoured the perking of ordinance I now believe that the ability to perk AC differently under each category would suffice given that HTC can use the perk point process appropriately. Given that the goal is to reduce the tendency for suicide raids of fast jabos then I am sure the actual values and ac concerned can be left to HTC’s best judgement.
Under the above many AC currently would lose their bomber status in favour of a sole attack status. (Vals, Il2m3’s)
Under the above some AC presently considered as only bombers may have a new attack role as a none formation AC (B26, Ar234, Boston)
Rockets. There are some air to air rockets featured in AH. If they were allowed in the fighter load out this proposal assumes this would not become unbalancing.
Bomber Perking. Perks presently earned in this category can only be used to place a deposit on the Ar 234. Future perked bombers would encourage more perk orientated missions. Eg Tallboy/Grand slam capable Lancasters could be added as a 2nd Lanc option obviously perked. MkXVII Mosquitoes similarly may carry a perk value.
Mistel's. Should these ever be available then they would be a perked attack option.
Gliders. Should these ever be available then they would be an attack option.
Ultra low level carpet bombing formations. The choice of a Bombing category could be used to flag and increase the bomb arming time required when selecting from this category. By appropriate choice of arming time low level formation carpet bombing can be made ineffective. (ie bomber = long arming period, attack = short arming period).
Salvo and delay setting/setup. Would remain the same regardless of category chosen.
The mission editor. The category would have to be chosen here prior to AC choice. The small pop up window prior to launch in a mission would be redundant.
Whilst the above seems a lengthy explanation in practice it is very simply to use.
The player chooses a category then an an air craft then a load out and then a runway.
-
Interesting methods, Tilt.
I like the way how the suggested method seeks to prevent the suicidal mentality in its fundamental state, rather than just adding in an inhibiting mechanism that provides a temporary solution at best.
(Any sort of perk suggestion is going to meet a lot of resistance though - the laissez-fairists believing in the "invisble hand" of AH just simply would not tolerate it ;) )
-
Aye, interesting....
question, Tilt - any ramifications of your proposed changes with regard to early war/late war planes? Or for use in scenario games as against MA play? (bearing in mind that just occasionally in RL some fairly odd raids were carried out, like 4-engined bombers at low level, etc).
Anything that improves MA play is fine by me, so long as it doesnt accidentally kneecap scenario play so as to prevent usahe that actually did take place, albeit rarely.
Esme
-
Originally posted by EsmeNhaMaire
Aye, interesting....
question, Tilt - any ramifications of your proposed changes with regard to early war/late war planes? Or for use in scenario games as against MA play? (bearing in mind that just occasionally in RL some fairly odd raids were carried out, like 4-engined bombers at low level, etc). Esme
If the Long arming period and short arming period were arena settings set as #.## secs Then for scenarios they would be configurable.
Indeed then not only could they be configured to allow NOE they could both be configured to prevent it if the scenario game play demanded it.
Other wise none of this impacts upon scenario play...........
-
Wonderful - gets my vote, then! :-)
Esme
Hmmn.. pondering whether there's anything relating to fusing that'd be interesting/practicable for players to be able to set (within the parameters allowed by an arena).
Just thought of one - delayed explosion, so it'd be possible to do very low level raids without risking blowing oneself up. Half a second or a second delay after impact could make all the difference...
... but that's certainly not a "must have" at this stage of things!
-
why dont we jest get rid of all bombers to make you guy happy going noe is the only way you will make it to a target in a bomber it dont mater what happens you guys wont be happy
-
Originally posted by yb11
why dont we jest get rid of all bombers to make you guy happy going noe is the only way you will make it to a target in a bomber it dont mater what happens you guys wont be happy
I fly bombers............... I dont want to get rid of them.........
with the above NOE is still very possible................. even low level drops are possible...........its just an arena setting that could be used to disable ultra low level carpet bombing.
Even this setting is not at the core of the proposal...............many "ills" would be cured if such a setting was not available and the rest was made possible.
Further the proposals above are still only one methodology of skinning these particular cats
-
Good ideas; however, the big issue if promoting the idea that surviving a flight is a good course of action. I personally like the "realism" idea enough to try operate the airplane with eventually landing in mind. I like to think that a succesful landing is the conclusion of a succesful mission. Not everyone shares this view.
If a guy flys a bomber, with that view point, there isn't much return on the investment. He's looking at a long boring flight. That's realistic, and long uneventful flights were exactly what the guys that really flew bombers liked to have. Doesn't work well from a game point of view.
I don't know if the dive-bombing thing is directly related to it, maybe revisting the calibrated bombsite is in order. If the simple mode was available, with a loss of scoring and/or accuracy, maybe this would be reduced.
-
Actually, the bombers also need delayed fuses or parachute bombs and bombs that still detonate at minimum altitudes (e.g., B-24 raid on Ploesti, B-25 low levels on Pacific airfields).
-
Disabling secondary fire in the cockpit for buffs won't work. I'm for it, but it's not enough. You'll just get dweebs with their finger on the bombsite key, and they'll just change views and release bombs in two quick button presses when they intend to drop during a dive.
I'm in favour of both disallowing secondary fire from the cockpit and disabling the ability to drop bombs from a level bomber during anything more than a very shallow dive (~20 degrees to the horizon).