Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Killjoy2 on September 20, 2004, 03:59:44 PM
-
1) Bomber formations at 1000 feet. ( And these are the buff alt monkeys.) I'm just tired of this tactic. It's not historical, (other than Poleski) It tears up the game play. AH2 is not a historical sim, its a flight sim, but using b17s to dive bomb the cv and flight after flight of extreme low level bombers is not fun either. Is there anyone who enjoys this tactic and thinks it should continue?
2) ENY as currently set up. Here's the problem. Bish=90 bases Nits=90 bases Rooks=20 bases. But Rooks are ENY limited because there are too few Bish. So Bish and Nits hammer on the last 20 Rook bases and Rooks can't get the more effective planes. It Stinks.
I fly Rooks and its been a long while since we were underdogs. I don't mind being backed into a corner and hammered, but I want to be able to use the whole planeset to fight back.
Again is there anyone who will defend flight after flight of buffs below 1000 feet as a valid flight sim tactic?
-
I'll bet there is a long list of folks who think the ENY limiter is a major problem. It by no way takes into account many other conditions beyond the instantaneous number count and punishes folks for things beyond their control.
-
It's not exactly historical to have dozens of enemy bases so close together either.
-
I dont remember many la7s shooting down p-51s. Or P51s shooting down B17s on purpose.So there goes even more historical effect. Get over it.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I'll bet there is a long list of folks who think the ENY limiter is a major problem.
I bet there's a long list who don't. And a long list who don't give a damn. And a long list that drink Budweiser. And a long list that drink wine coolers. And a long list that ......
-
Originally posted by kj714
It's not exactly historical to have dozens of enemy bases so close together either.
Amen to that.
And maybe just perk a B17 formation 27 points - one for every life you'd lose using 'em as NOE Jabo raiders.
-
He said AH2 wasn't a historical sim, but a flight sim.
But there is truth that heavy bombers that dive-bomb does ruin the effect.
-
Dok,
You got em talking about something usefull for the game. A few weeks more of constructive posts and you'll have them out of dumps that took over. Be fun to see you and some of the legends do a flying circus rotation of the countries for a tour showing us how to really do it.:)
-
There is nothing that is wrong or historically innacurate with low level heavy bombers. Bombers were used that way, and would have been used even more that way had the situation called for it. The MA is its own world...and there are NUMEROUS tactics used that were never (hardly ever) used in RL. This is a NON ISSUE, it makes little sense to complain that a bomber didnt climb high enough for your tastes. Should we also require that B17s only fly in groups of 100's....because thats the way they were used most in WWII?
Dive bombing heavy bombers is somthing I find silly, but keep in mind I only would like to see an end to negative G releases and force the bombers to actually have the bombs fall from the bay.
-
At first light on August 1, 1943 a force of 178 B-24 Liberator bombers lifted off dusty airstrips in the Libyan desert. They were to fly a 2000 mile round-trip deep into enemy territory, bomb a heavily defended target, and return to their North African base - without fighter escort. So began one of the bloodiest and heroic missions in the annals of aerial warfare. The target - the oil refineries at Ploesti.
One third of Germany's petroleum products were supplied from Ploesti, situated deep in Rumania and well beyond the range of Allied bombers based in England. Deprived of this vital supply of fuel, Germany's mighty war machine would grind to a halt. The high command were aware of this and the installations at Ploesti were defended accordingly. To attack such a heavily defended target with the required degree of accuracy it was necessary to bomb from a perilously low level, a task for which the B-24 was notoriously unsuited. The mission called for inspired leadership, cool determination and courage beyond the call of duty - and all of these were given in plenty.
As the first wave of bombers roared into the target, some as low as 50 feet, the German defenses opened up with a barrage of fire. Within moments the entire area erupted with exploding bombs, bursting shells, gushing flames and billowing palls of smoke. One by one the gallant crews took their aircraft through the intense wall of Ack-Ack and 88mm ground fire, and into the burning inferno to deliver their deadly cargo.
Of the 178 B-24s dispatched, 52 were lost and all but 35 aircraft suffered damage, one limping home after 14 hours and holed in 365 places. Ploesti witnessed countless acts of heroism, for which the crews received more decorations for bravery than any other mission of the war.
-
Other than a useless P38 raid and the misdirected B24 raid above Ploesti was raided several times from altitude (circa 20K)by massed B24's based (latterly) in Italy.
Infact Ploesti continued to produce oil/petroleum for the Whermacht until the Russians threatened to over run Rumania.
Ploesti was further the second most highly defended (AA wise) facility in Hitlers 3rd riech after Berlin.
-
You might notice, I cited Polesti. But it was the exception and a disaster at that.
Nobody has mentioned anything about a country down to 20 bases, getting beaten on by both countries and STILL unable to get a full planeset because they have a few more numbers than the lowest country?
In WB's we ridiculed the "Death Star" B-17s that sat on the runway and used their guns. Or how about the B-17s that would sit on the runway and drop their ord, killing a vulching enemy or two? Both of these stupid tactics were programed out.
Now lets fix the ground hugging ack platforms.
-
Originally posted by Killjoy2
2) ENY as currently set up.
Any set of restrictions or advantages for a team based on number of players will work ONLY in at two teams arena.
-
In the Aluetian theater in WWII. Many raids on Kiska were under 5k.
-
Perking the buff formations will stop alot of the suicide buff jabo's going on ..
-
I wouldnt mind perking bombers. I got plenty of perks to spare after 3 years of collecting and burning em on useless 234s. But I imagine it would kill an already endangered skill of bombing above 10k.
-
Just perk the formations. If you still wanna Jabo a B17 or Lanc, you only get one ship for free.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Just perk the formations. If you still wanna Jabo a B17 or Lanc, you only get once ship for free.
got my vote too.
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
Perking the buff formations will stop alot of the suicide buff jabo's going on ..
It will take awhile to get to that point, considering all the bomber perks many, many people have.
How about this: a window of time to convert bomber perks to fighter perks to a certain level, say down to 200 bomber perks, then go for it.
-
Originally posted by Killjoy2
1) Bomber formations at 1000 feet. ( And these are the buff alt monkeys.) I'm just tired of this tactic. It's not historical, (other than Poleski) It tears up the game play. AH2 is not a historical sim, its a flight sim, but using b17s to dive bomb the cv and flight after flight of extreme low level bombers is not fun either. Is there anyone who enjoys this tactic and thinks it should continue?
2) ENY as currently set up. Here's the problem. Bish=90 bases Nits=90 bases Rooks=20 bases. But Rooks are ENY limited because there are too few Bish. So Bish and Nits hammer on the last 20 Rook bases and Rooks can't get the more effective planes. It Stinks.
I fly Rooks and its been a long while since we were underdogs. I don't mind being backed into a corner and hammered, but I want to be able to use the whole planeset to fight back.
Again is there anyone who will defend flight after flight of buffs below 1000 feet as a valid flight sim tactic?
1. Yes
2. That`s a real knee slapper.
-
You could always give bombers the old bombsight. That'd push em back up to 20k and over. :D
-
perk the loads too
The lowest amount and lb of ordance possible is non-perked, then from there up it up. It would be pointless to not only A.) Dive bomb with a low amount of ordance due to the fact you can do it with a fighter better and fight your way out, and also B.) Using all the bombs in a stupid way that would miss and you get nothing but lost points.
People may say that it'd be a big hurt for those that are trying to learn...but then again, you can fly offline.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Amen to that.
And maybe just perk a B17 formation 27 points - one for every life you'd lose using 'em as NOE Jabo raiders.
That's a really good idea as well as eagl's suggestions about the angle the bomber is at when dropping bombs.
ack-ack
-
Or, let's implement flak batteries.
Around important places, such as a circle of flak batteries around a town, or in important approach channels.
About 30 fully destroyable flak cannons hidden amist woodland spaces, circling the field, and the player in control would slave all the 88mm flak and direct it to a general direction. It would work in a simular manner to the 5" guns.
And then, let's talk about the realism of low level deck buffs.
Admit it dudes. Buffs are being abused.
It's tough. It's well armed. And it will do the cluster bomb gig. People are too lazy to fly them to alt and learn how to bomb properly. At least lazy kamikaze fighter-bombers lob only one~two bombs. These lazy kamikze deck run buffers spray 42 thousand pounds of bombs over 4~5 football field's length of area.
They make fools and mockery out of decent people who actually take the time and risk to fly a buff high in the air. Plan stuff out, calibrate sights, and etc.
They gotta go.
-
I think the best part of bombing is making the trek to 20+k alt. Heck even 15k or 18k is too low for me.
-
There've been some really well run B17 missions of late. 3 or 4 flights of 17's at 30K is not something fun to encounter.
But a lone B17 on the deck is a very different thing - and a lone Lanc is more or less target practice. Just perk flights of bombers and that'll make people keep 'em high out of trouble. If you really know of no other way to drop ord than on the deck, well, you takes your chances.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by Killjoy2
Again is there anyone who will defend flight after flight of buffs below 1000 feet as a valid flight sim tactic?
General Curtis LeMay. He made B-29's attack at 5k instead of 30K.LINK (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-10.html)
This was not a 1 time thing, they flew many, many low level missions. Oh yeah, he stripped every gun except the tail in the B-29's. Low level, no guns...that had to be fun. :(
Concerned about the relative failure of the B-29 offensive to deal any crippling blows to Japan, General LeMay issued a new directive on February 19. LeMay had concluded that the effects of the jet stream, cloud cover, and high operating altitudes were to blame for the failure of the B-29 raids to do any significant damage to the Japanese war industry. The initial raids against Japan had taken place at high-altitudes in order to stay above anti-aircraft fire and the effective altitude of defending fighters. LeMay suggested that high-altitude, daylight attacks be phased out and replaced by low-altitude, high-intensity incendiary raids at nighttime. The aircraft would attack individually, which meant that no assembly over the base at the start of the mission or along the way would be needed. Consequently, aircraft could go directly from the base to the target and return, maximizing the bomb load and saving substantially on fuel. He ordered that all the B-29s be stripped of their General Electric defensive gun systems, leaving only the tail gun. The weight of extra crew members, armament, and ammunition would go into bombs, each B-29 being loaded down with six to eight tons of M69 incendiary bombs. These bombs would be dropped from altitudes of only 5 to 6 thousand feet. This strategy would enable the B-29s to escape the effects of the jet stream and would get the bombers below most of the cloud cover. In addition, the B-29s would no longer have to struggle up to 30,000 feet and this would save on fuel and on wear and tear to the engines. It was believed that Japanese night fighter forces were relatively weak, but flak losses were expected to be substantial.
The first raid to use these new techniques was on the night of March 9/10 against Tokyo. Another wing -- the 314th Bombardment Wing (19th, 29th, 39th, and 330th BG) commanded by Brig. Gen. Thomas S. Power -- had arrived in the Marianas and was stationed at North Field on Guam. A total of 302 B-29s participated in the raid, with 279 arriving over the target. The raid was led by special pathfinder crews who marked central aiming points. It lasted for two hours. The raid was a success beyond General LeMay's wildest expectations. The individual fires caused by the bombs joined to create a general conflagration known as a firestorm. When it was over, sixteen square miles of the center of Tokyo had gone up in flames and nearly 84,000 people had been killed. Fourteen B-29s were lost. The B-29 was finally beginning to have an effect.
-
Perk B17's, yeah right. While Ponys, LALAs go unperked.
Never and shouldn't happen, thanks to the AH gods.
-
Originally posted by GuyNoir
You could always give bombers the old bombsight. That'd push em back up to 20k and over. :D
That is the only way, great suggestion
wipass
-
Originally posted by rpm371
General Curtis LeMay. He made B-29's attack at 5k instead of 30K.LINK (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-10.html)
This was not a 1 time thing, they flew many, many low level missions. Oh yeah, he stripped every gun except the tail in the B-29's. Low level, no guns...that had to be fun. :(
I think that was a result though of the Gulf Stream, which at the time was a very little understood thing. By going lower, the bombs or the planes wouldn't drift so far off target from the effects of the Gulf Stream.
The stripping down was just to get more ordnance onboard to deliver to target.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Perk B17's, yeah right. While Ponys, LALAs go unperked.
Never and shouldn't happen, thanks to the AH gods.
Perk '17's, bombs, formations...geez, why don't we just ban them completely and make everyone jabo!
Lately I've done plenty of 6-8k runs in B-26's attacking towns...how is that not historical? How is that not fun?
386th Bomb Group B-26:
6th Jun '44: Target: Normandy Beach US 1st Army alt- 6000 ft
7th Jun '44: Railway SE Lire alt- 3000 ft
15th Jun '44: Laval Marshalling Yard alt- 3000 ft
Tronsky
-
Why is it that people want to put a limit on other peoples game play. Is it just because you dont like the way its done? Why dont we put a limit on how high someone can come into an area? Or why dont we put a limit on the number of players attacking a particular field/base? You name a tactic and I bet you could find someone that disagrees with the way its done.
Get over it and just play the game. It is a game, isnt it? I will fly bombers high, I will fly the bombers low. I will fly the bombers at medium alt too! Low bombing is just another tactic. I do not do the dive bomb approach with heavy bombers, just my preference not to.
Anyway, my two cents worth
Muttman
-
Low bombing is just another tactic.
No. It's the ONLY tactic that exists in the MA. Otherwise people wouldn't be offended by it in the first place.
AH began out from a small game with a small experienced community whose personal way of flight did not contradict the overall realism of the game.
Realistic environment, which makes the aircombat experience so immersive and thrilling, is what makes AH a great WW2-based air combat sim.
However, as AH grew in numbers the way of flight has been influenced by the principles of efficiency in a massive team-game environment, which due to the limitations of AH as a game, contradicts with overall reality directly.
In other words, some actions are more effective than the realistic way - hence, people will not self-regulate their own actions to not hurt the realism. They will do whatever is necessary and most effective, to win the game. At this point the "freedom to fly one's own way", drifts into dweebery, system abuse, and exploit.
....
In reality, the "real way" was the "most efficient way" as well, because variety of factors existing.
Daylight, low-alt bombing raids were drastically dangerous, so they massed groups of bombers at high alts to up the rate of survival and to make up for the loss of accuracy by numbers of bombs dropped. Either that, or they chose to fly small scale night raids.
In the MA, nobody fears death. They don't care if they die or not, as long as they arrive at the target and just spew bombs whatever way they can.
People expect certain standards and images of the game resembling at least certain bits of reality to the real thing to find 'fun' in it. That's the heart of the simulation game. If things(the things related directly to aircombat itself) go out of hand and start to become fantasy, it starts to suck.
The MA bombing runs suck. It makes a mockery out of people who practice to perfect the bombing system as it was intended to be. People who learn the way the system was implemented, practice making flight plans and approach paths, tinkering with the Norden-ish bombsight.
A band of suicidal fools at 1k can NOE a base and kill all the FHs by spraying their payload and just getting shot down.... while people who want to do it right must suffer the burden of flight time, dar exposure, flightpath planning, and calibration accuracy.
We take careful steps and hope our bomb run was precise enough to do the job, hope no enemy interceptors bounce us on the bomb run or on our way back, and hope our drop was good enough to help our own team... while these suicidal fools just up formations at 1k and fly at max speeds, squirming and wiggling, and do that same shi* over and over and over again until all the FHs are busted from the lame-prettythang deck run kamikazes.
It's a matter of balancing the risk-effect factor. One side risks so much to do the right thing, and yet gets so little, while the other side don't care about risks in the first place, flies recklessly, and still almost always gets what they want.
-
Originally posted by wipass
That is the only way, great suggestion
They have bombsights?
-
The game is really starting to suck and the fun aspect is gone for me. I will be at the con whinning allot, and once I get home I am pretty much through with it unless it changes.
-
Was defending v50 from wave after wave of noe buffs the other day, the old light bulb finally popped on, noe tiff to a60, hit 2 ord bunkers...end of problem
shamus
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Perk '17's, bombs, formations...geez, why don't we just ban them completely and make everyone jabo!
Lately I've done plenty of 6-8k runs in B-26's attacking towns...how is that not historical? How is that not fun?
386th Bomb Group B-26:
6th Jun '44: Target: Normandy Beach US 1st Army alt- 6000 ft
7th Jun '44: Railway SE Lire alt- 3000 ft
15th Jun '44: Laval Marshalling Yard alt- 3000 ft
Tronsky
Uh ... in the cases you cite, I assume people, like, y'know, survived?
Is survival part of the plane with the MA NOE attacks? No. Why drag 3 planes in like that and give away 3X the number of kills? Well, they're free and it improves your odds of lasting long enough to drop on target.
It's an abuse of why formations were put in. Perk *just* formations and then if you want to use level bombers in the way they were intended, you go up with a few friends and you have 9 or 12 '17s in the box and you are damned dangerous at 25K.
-DoK
-
I thought u quit all ready.
-
The last time I flew bombers DKPotter and myself took off in Ki-67 formations. We circled to 22,000ft and then headed for our target at full speed, 334mph. We were swarmed by fighters and neither of us had a bomber get anywhere near the target. I think we got one fighter between the two of us.
Lets see. Bombers have had their bombsights whined away. They've had their guns whined at, and now indirectly removed. Now you want to perk the B-17 and Lanc?
You are talking about units that have practically zero survivability in AH. If the Lanc is perk it means you will be throwing the perk points away. You will absolutely know that none of them will be landing. The B-17 wouldn't fare much better.
Flying at altitude is no safety meassure. Flying at 334mph, faster than either the B-17 or Lancaster can, at 22,000ft we were easily intercepted well short of our target.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
I thought u quit all ready.
I thought you learned how to read already.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
...
Lets see. Bombers have had their bombsights whined away. They've had their guns whined at, and now indirectly removed. Now you want to perk the B-17 and Lanc?
...
The alternative is implement limitations on drop altitude, AOA, and so on before allowing release. Which is fine too.
-
"And it was at that moment I knew I was done with flying AH2 in the MA for a while. Maybe a long, long while. I flew back to base, landed, said "bye" to my squadies, and logged off."
Please enlighten me on how my reading skills misinterpreted you quiting AH2 in the MA.
-
Been said before: if you restrict bomb release to requiring someone to be in the bombadier position, require the bomber to be in a positive G situation and limit the AoA the bomber could be at when releasing, that would be enough to stop a lot fo this.
I don't really agreed with perking formations or bomb loads. This would just server to eliminate the use of bombers. I don't want to see bombers go away, just want to see the a little more practically employeed.
Bombers coming in at 20K', 10K', 1000', 500', 200' AGL, no problem...bring it. It's the dweebish fly in @ 3K and dive on your fighter hangars that is just silly. If anything is done it should be designed to limit that behavior, not reasonable employment and use of the bombers (and their formations).
-
Originally posted by BigGun
"And it was at that moment I knew I was done with flying AH2 in the MA for a while. Maybe a long, long while. I flew back to base, landed, said "bye" to my squadies, and logged off."
Please enlighten me on how my reading skills misinterpreted you quiting AH2 in the MA.
OK ... you read correctly then ... so why impy I had quit entirely and for good?
-
Originally posted by Blammo
Been said before: if you restrict bomb release to requiring someone to be in the bombadier position, require the bomber to be in a positive G situation and limit the AoA the bomber could be at when releasing, that would be enough to stop a lot fo this.
I don't really agreed with perking formations or bomb loads. This would just server to eliminate the use of bombers. I don't want to see bombers go away, just want to see the a little more practically employeed.
Bombers coming in at 20K', 10K', 1000', 500', 200' AGL, no problem...bring it. It's the dweebish fly in @ 3K and dive on your fighter hangars that is just silly. If anything is done it should be designed to limit that behavior, not reasonable employment and use of the bombers (and their formations).
All true enough ... but perking heaviy formations could be done now, today, whereas the proper solution could take "two weeks."
The use of formations on the deck is an abuse of their intent, though, and should be treated as such. Regardless of whether B26's or whatever actually flew missions at those altitudes, there was some intent to survive back then - so that makes the argument void as there is such intent in the MA. Were it isolated to a few dweebs who didn't know any better or just liked to cause trouble it'd be fine. But it has become the dominant application for level bombers in the MA.
-DoK
-
Two points.
1) The B-29 attacks on Japan were late war and at NIGHT. B-25's were used for low lever straffing attacks as well.
2) If this were war and the enemy was sending low level b-17 formations we would quickly put up flak batteries to discourage low level bombing. Oh wait we had flak batteries in WB's. They were so much fun, they disappeared. We should try some of the other options.
Lets try to remember what is fun about AH.
For me it is learning the strengths and weaknesses of the WWII fighters and bombers to defeat an opponent and his squad and his country.
Most of us love these planes and the history. Most of us love to teach new people about the planes and how they are used.
The aspects of the flight sim that turn it from a flight sim to an arcade game make it not worth the time.
-
I rarely see heavies dive bombing anything other than CVs.
What I see them try to do against airfields is very low altitude carpet bombing.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I rarely see heavies dive bombing anything other than CVs.
What I see them try to do against airfields is very low altitude carpet bombing.
I see 'em do it vs. bases and towns all the time ... whethere they release one bomb or 20 is semantics.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I see 'em do it vs. bases and towns all the time ... whethere they release one bomb or 20 is semantics.
I wasn't talking about how many bombs were released. What I see most often is bombers pass level over the field and dump bombs on it. They don't seem to bother aiming either.
-
Perking B17 formations aint gonna happen.
It shouldn't anyway, would just be insanity.
Option is to limit the bombing parameters as discussed earlier and in other threads.
Yes it will take time to implement, but it is the only reasonable solution.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
All true enough ... but perking heaviy formations could be done now, today, whereas the proper solution could take "two weeks."
The use of formations on the deck is an abuse of their intent, though, and should be treated as such. Regardless of whether B26's or whatever actually flew missions at those altitudes, there was some intent to survive back then - so that makes the argument void as there is such intent in the MA. Were it isolated to a few dweebs who didn't know any better or just liked to cause trouble it'd be fine. But it has become the dominant application for level bombers in the MA.
-DoK
Well, I understand where you are coming from, but I have a few thoughts about the comments you made:
1) True, the perking could be done today, but could perking only formations be done? My understanding is that perkies apply to an individual plane so you would be paying perkies whether you took 1 or 3 bombers up. This might have the adverse effect of discouraging bomber use for any purpose (other than strat target bombing, but even then...). Just seems to me you would have to set the perkies pretty high to make them any sort of deterent to 'JABO' bombers, but doing so would really cut into people's willingness to use them at all...even correctly.
2) Whenever I go out on a sortie in AH, I intend to come back. Most people I fly with and around intend to come back. I am sure there are the UT/Quake gamer types that just up and die. However, I think a large number fo the AH mentality still have the "get back home" mentality.
3) Do we have any data to suggest that it isn't the dweeb element that repeatly uses Lanc and 17s to JABOs or pitch bomb? I mean, I know it happens, but exactly how many people do that on a regular basis? My own experience has been that I tend to see the same people doing that sort of thing over and over.
4) While low level wave after wave of bombers is annoying, it is incredibly effective in AH. If it had been this effective in WW2, it probably would have been used more often. Even so, it was used quite a bit. Point is, if they can mount the force needed to push on a base with wave after wave of bomber formation, then it is up to the otherside to defend, not cry "foul."
I do understand what you are saying, DoK, but let me say it again: it is not the use of bombers that it the problem...it is the incorrect use of them that is the problem. If you remove people's ability to use them wrongly (divebombing, pitch bombing, etc), then you remove the problem. Perkies won't do it. If the problem is as wide spread as you say, then there are a lot of people that would probably be willing to burn perkies to do it. The solution has to cut much deeper than just making it cost. You have to do something that makes it impossible.
Bring the wave and wave. It sucks, but I am willing to deal with it.
HTC, change the code so bombs can't be dropped from the cockpit, while is a steep climb or dive (greater that 5 degrees, for example) and prevent bombs from releasing when pulling negative or 0 Gs. That would force level bombers to behave like level bombers.
-
Put up flack alleys out to 3-5 miles from the bases. Just means the buffs have to plan their first runs to account for taking out flack. Tanks could have missions to clear the batteries for the buffs. Oh I'm sorry...that means working together.
-
No one uses historically correct tactics. The MA has created its own tactics due to player wants and needs.
More players want to blow things up quickly then want to spend 20 minutes climbing to altitude, calibrating a bombsight and then getting shot down on their bomb run.
When I started playing, I would climb to 15k, calibrate and get shot down or miss my target. It wasn't long until I started looking for another way to bomb and hit targets. Low-level bombing is one way.
My suggestion: accept low-level bombing and enjoy the game!
-
IMHO - Breath some new life into B-26s, Ju-88s, Ki-67s, A-20s.... limit B-17s and Lancs to bombing over 10k AGL.
Medium bombers bombed low all the time, no question about it. Heavy bombers did it very rarely (although I saw a show on the History Channel last night about low level B-29 straffing missions in Korea).
Limiting the heavies to higher alts (10k was really only considered medium alt, but let's not quibble) would bring the planes more in line with their historical role. Nobody is limiting anybody's ability to come in low and hit an airfield. Nobody is forcing all buffs to be used up high.
Of course, I believe fighters should be limited to 500lb bombs, too :p
Hammer
netAces.org (http://www.netaces.org)
-
Spawning a manable Flak battery just like we spawn a tank is not a bad idea.
It would be great fun for tanks to defend and destoy.
The Flak batterys could be deployed on the approaches to medium and main bases with enough stopping power to discourage low level buffs.
And hey! Its historical too.
Ummm back to problem #1
Can we modify the ENY so that when a country is down 15 bases it gets full planeset without regard to its numbers. When one country gets down the other countries gang up on it.
-
Blammo ... from what I've read bomber crews really didn't like going that low. You got a face full of AAA of all calibres, you had no chance to glide home (and maybe not even bail), fighters were going to come at you fast and from above. Maybe B25's and B26's ... but a big 17 or 24 ... nuh uh.
Maybe you fly bombers expecting to land, but you have to admit that most of the guys doing this do not. And that's the problem - its because of them that something you like doing, and take pride in doing well, is under scrutiny.
The bigger problem is that the longer things like this persist, the worse things get in the MA. And they're pretty bad as it is. I don't suggest perking formations indefinately - only until the right fix as we discussed gets implemented.
KJ ... my original enhancement suggestion for ENY was that it only applied to fields you captured (i.e. you didn't own them at the time of the map reset). That solves the problem you describe completely. Super easy to implement too.
-DoK
-
I'm sure this has been said before, but...
Allow all bomber formations spawning at a base at least a fixed distance from the nearest enemy base (say 50 miles) to be able to spawn at a given altitude and airspeed (say 10000 feet and 100mph). That will alleviate the boredom of climbing to altitude while increasing the interest in bombing.
-
Originally posted by elc7367b
Why is it that people want to put a limit on other peoples game play. Is it just because you dont like the way its done? Why dont we put a limit on how high someone can come into an area? Or why dont we put a limit on the number of players attacking a particular field/base? You name a tactic and I bet you could find someone that disagrees with the way its done.
Get over it and just play the game. It is a game, isnt it? I will fly bombers high, I will fly the bombers low. I will fly the bombers at medium alt too! Low bombing is just another tactic. I do not do the dive bomb approach with heavy bombers, just my preference not to.
Anyway, my two cents worth
Muttman
Sounds all good to me, just quit calling it a SIM
-
Killjoy:
The direction of the game is and has been to passify the fighter jocks....largest share of paying customers...It is my impression that most organized missions in main arena for base captures don't even use heavy bombers now. Bomber pilots are relatively rare....in the MA, and the structure of the game will define the function or lack of function for heavy bombers.
On realizism........not sure where anyone would begin or end on this conversation.....
On how easy or gamey it is to fly noe bombers...its not...its alot easier to fly higher alt and land more kills...I find noe to be much more challenging!..........things like Ack, terrain, manned guns, GV's and fighters with high e make it tough.
Maybe we should just get rid of all bombers????lol
..then GV's????
Or is the really reason people don't like the few bomber pilots we have is that it messes up the fighter pilots who want to vulch fields for their scores and ranks??
BTW do you HAVE TO ATTACK a low level bomber if you don't want to??
<999000>
-
Originally posted by MOIL
Sounds all good to me, just quit calling it a SIM
SIM[/b]ply amazing. :D
-
Anyone ever hear of a BarCap? I have never seen lancs get a CV from low alt unless the protecting fighters are not doing their job. Cap your CVs you wont lose them to low lancs/17s whatever.
-
No one wants to get rid of bombers.
But using formations on the deck is an abuse of why that feature was added to the game. It was put in so that the guys who took the time and effort to use strategic bombers as strategic bombers stood a better chance of surviving. It was not put there to provide 2 extra lives and 3X the defensive gunnery to people too lazy to even learn how to use the bomb sight.
I'd love to see a tactical bomb sight added to planes like the A20 and IL2 so that bomber pilots had more options. I'd love to see CV's and CA's need torpedo hits to sink so that bomber pilots became more important to achieving objectives. I'd love to see cities imune to small calibre cannons so that people really needed the bomber guys to reduce cities for base capture.
But the constant NOE attacks of heavy bomber formations is really messing up gameplay. Sorry. It just is.
-DoK
-
Anyone ever hear of a BarCap? I have never seen lancs get a CV from low alt unless the protecting fighters are not doing their job. Cap your CVs you wont lose them to low lancs/17s whatever.
BarCAP works against people who are thinking straight. It's useless against suicidal people.
Buffs are tuff. Need heavily armed planes to bring them down quick. Even cannoned armed planes have problems setting up an attack position if the buffs come in at 300mph at 500ft altitude.
Considering average skill level of normal MA pilots it takes about 2~3 pilots per one bomber to bring it down. To knock a whole formation out of the sky before it does any damage, it takes at least 4~5 people to do it.
Consider a contest between fields. 10 people at each side. One field has 10 pilots in fighters, other has seven in fighters and three in bomber formations.
That makes total 9 bombers which have to be brought down, which takes more than the total number of all of the 10 pilots in fighter planes of the opposing side, to do it in time. And time is short - since dar detection is hardly available when they come in NOE.
So, assuming about 30 mile distance between the two fields, the 10 defending fighters must face nine bombers and seven fighters.
The defending side can allocate perhaps about half of the fighters into air superiority contest, but it leaves only five to deal with nine bombers which location is detected 8 miles away from the field.
These five guys can shoot down perhaps 3~4 bombers, but the rest 5~6 makes it to the field and sprays.
Why do you think buffers keep doing that shi*? Because it works, and they know its effective.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
No one wants to get rid of bombers.
But using formations on the deck is an abuse of why that feature was added to the game. It was put in so that the guys who took the time and effort to use strategic bombers as strategic bombers stood a better chance of surviving. It was not put there to provide 2 extra lives and 3X the defensive gunnery to people too lazy to even learn how to use the bomb sight.
I'd love to see a tactical bomb sight added to planes like the A20 and IL2 so that bomber pilots had more options. I'd love to see CV's and CA's need torpedo hits to sink so that bomber pilots became more important to achieving objectives. I'd love to see cities imune to small calibre cannons so that people really needed the bomber guys to reduce cities for base capture.
But the constant NOE attacks of heavy bomber formations is really messing up gameplay. Sorry. It just is.
-DoK
The Blood Pig [/b]
This was going to be great: two gunned F/A-26's attacking A3.
TANGO CIRCUS (aka TC) was piloting the first ship, with DoK as his gunner. Flush Garden was piloting the second, with Cap'n Trips gunning.
They launched from C2 and set course around the Westward mountain and a shallow climb. They wanted to be at about 3000 feet when they came around the mountain and the A's saw them. All went according to plan - they turned the corner and enterred the Valley of Death at exactly 3000 feet. The could see that the A's were just about off of radar to the North. They were starting a large raid on B-land. A3 was practically undefended.
"Lets go," TC said ... and started the F/A-26 down. Both ships quickly gathered speed and A3 was coming up fast.
"I'll take the West ack, you take the East," TC called over the radio to Flush. Flush responded with a quick "rgr."
A3 was now in sight, they could make out the dots where the acks were. "All guns forward," DoK called. TC and Flush were on their bomb runs and it would be up to the gunners to suppress planes taking off until the ack was killed. Trips and DoK jumped to their lower turrets and tracked the A3 take-off spot.
Both ships were now just about at the release point when a Zero appeared at A3. "FIRE," DoK yelled. Trips and DoK opened up at the edge of their range at the Zeke which had just started to taxi. They saw hits on the plane just as TC and Flush both called "Bombs away" and pulled up into chandelles to avoid the AAA.
In quick succession the kill messages for the two ack-acks and the lone Zeke appeared on the screen. A set of "HAR!"'s errupted on the radio as the F/A-26's cranked around to land. This was the tricky part. The pilots had to land in direct line about 150 yards behind the take-off spot. They were vulnerable during this stage because they were going too slow to manouever much.
TC and Flush dropped flaps and gear and executed break turns to get into the right pattern. TC touched down first and hit the brakes, Flush was down seconds later. As they inched their way up to the "sweet spot" behind the runway, that same Zero appeared again. The gunners openned up first and killed him in seconds.
By now both planes were side-by-side behind the A3 take-off spot. All turrets were aimed forward, plus the pilot's guns. That made 24 .50 calibre machine guns bore-sighted down the runway.
The A's were starting to die up at B1, so soon they would be trying to take off. The crews of the F/A-26's waited impatiently. But not for long. Soon A's started popping up from the take-off spot. They must have been deciding on a plan inside the field. All guns openned up and the A's dropped like turds out the back of a galloping horse.
Being A's, they kept trying to take off. And they kept getting shot down. Usually before getting 100 yards down the runway. A few started trying to turn off the tarmac the instant they got on the field. This got them out from in front of the main guns, but the turrets then followed them and they were soon quickly killed.
The A's tried taking up a B17 with a tail gunner, but it was no match for the firepower of 2 A26's. The A's now started screaming on the radio about what was happening at their base. This just made the folks in the F/A-26's break out into hysterical laughter. A3 was now in complete turmoil. Planes were dying on the runway almost as fast as they appeared, the few that managed to escape the runway were struggling to stay aloft long enough to get a shot at the two F/A-26's before the gunners did them in.
The A's did eventually hit on the idea of taking off from some field other than A3 and attacking the parked bombers from above. But decades of inbreeding caused them to auger in during their firing runs before being able to register a fatal hit. And, of course, it never occured to them to bring bombs.
Ammunition was now running low, and it looked like a good time to try to break for home. So TC and Flush cranked up their engines. As they sped along gathering speed, they noticed that the planes would not get off the ground. The wings had taken so much dmage, that they were now useless.
"Damn, wings shot to ****," TC said.
"Looks like we drive home," DoK replied.
So the two F/A-26's reduced throttle and started driving back to C2. It was a long drive, but they had plenty of fuel and many, many scalps to get back to base with. A few A's tried to follow, but most fell to either the top turret gunners or to their own galactic stupidity.
It took almost 20 minutes, but eventually the two newly christened "Blood Pigs" made it back to base. The four pilots and gunners were all laughing so hard over the devestation and chaos they had caused, they had to log off for half an hour to collect themselves.
Once tanks and FlakPanzers came onto the scene, BloodPigging became far less prevalent. Once in a while you'll still see one - usually parked on a carrier, waiting for an unsuspecting dweeb in a Zeke to take off.
- by DoK GonZo
:D
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Uh ... in the cases you cite, I assume people, like, y'know, survived?
Is survival part of the plane with the MA NOE attacks? No. Why drag 3 planes in like that and give away 3X the number of kills? Well, they're free and it improves your odds of lasting long enough to drop on target.
It's an abuse of why formations were put in. Perk *just* formations and then if you want to use level bombers in the way they were intended, you go up with a few friends and you have 9 or 12 '17s in the box and you are damned dangerous at 25K.
-DoK
Actually they did survive because they had air superiority...as for the abuse of the formations..bah, make every fighter go up in groups then..no singles!
Originally posted by Kweassa
Why do you think buffers keep doing that shi*? Because it works, and they know its effective.
Formations obviously increase protection, and the ability to hit a target. Whether I go in at 8k/15k/or 20k, (unless in a mission) there is zero protection from fighters, unless the targets already being capped by friendlies. My only object is make target and drop...how anyone defends against that is their problem, and if it makes it hard for them because I'm at 5-8k is their problem not mine
Sigh, perhaps I should start trying high speed runs in P-51's seeing how thats more in the spirit of the game...than level bombing under 10k
Tronsky
-
2 nights in a Row
it was very late in the night not many people on me and my squad leader take a CV to a enemy field i up a F4UC for Cap over the CV and he pounds the field with the cruiser
now 1 guy ups Lancs and trys to get to the CV and i blast him with help we kill all of them
2 mins late same guy ups JU88s and i was able to get 2 of them and then the 3 but he already got 1 torpedo into the CV
1 min later my squad leader tells me that the same guy is uping a form of B17s going for Alt so i go to intercept him while hes low
now this guy is just a scary gunner and rips my F4UC badd with oil everware im forced to RTB
then i get back into the air in my F4UC and i dont see him anyware so i do some 1on1s with a LALA and win both then here comes the same B17s at 10k then this guy puts it into a dive bomb and then dive bombs the CV pulls out and flys away at 300+ in the B17 on the deck
anybody see anything wrong with this?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
SIMply amazing. :D [/B]
Isn't it tho
-
Yea - upping from the cv gave the attack away and the gun's target should have been town not field.
I'd 'v tried sneaking it ;)
-
Originally posted by Darkish
Yea - upping from the cv gave the attack away and the gun's target should have been town not field.
I'd 'v tried sneaking it ;)
it already started it would not have matterd if i uped later
-
Simshell:
"then i get back into the air in my F4UC and i dont see him anyware so i do some 1on1s with a LALA and win both then here comes the same B17s at 10k then this guy puts it into a dive bomb and then dive bombs the CV pulls out and flys away at 300+ in the B17 on the deck
anybody see anything wrong with this?"
Sure do, it's called "gamey" that's what this is, a game. If it were more like a "sim" they prob wouldn't take that approach or tactic to attack a carrier group.
My thoughts, arm the ships with CORRECT gun platforms with all manable postions.
Don't ya remember the WWII footage of the Kamikazi's attacking our ships?
-
Deleted
-
Originally posted by simshell
2 nights in a Row
anybody see anything wrong with this?
yeah almost impossible for two guys to capture a base. CV deserved to get sunk.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The Blood Pig
... [/B]
Yeah Arlo. Those were singles. We fought our way in and out. Only a few of us were good enough to pull it off - others tried, but they all sucked and died before even getting close. Why do you think the first AA GV's came into being anyway? :-)
That's still very different from what we now have where most bombers come in at absurd altitudes and angles just to dump ord and die. We never expected to die - we had to drive home about a third of the time, but we expected to get home.
Just be very glad I've "mellowed" in my old age and am trying to fix this instead of take advantage of it.
-DoK
-
Ratz and here I thought you would help us get Blood Pigs reinstated. I loved accidental Blood Pig duels. Always found the other one by accident while being punishing by a feild.:)
-
Two reasons AH2 doesn't work -
1. Your computer
2. Your connection
-
I've always hated the new bombsight because we can't up humongous formations of bombers like in WWII (even with their large formations, they'd still have a helluva time hitting anything). We, meanwhile, only have 3 planes.
Back in the day, I remember spending 30 or more minutes of clawing my way up to about 20k while dodging flak and fighters. If I made it, I'd at least be assured of downing some field emplacements.
Now, I have no guarantee of hitting anything even if I make it, and bombing gets MUCH harder above the wind layer. When the new bombsight came, I knew that my time would be much better spent in a heaver fighter like the P-38 or P-47 than any heavy "Can't hit the broadside of a barn" bomber. With a fighter, I spend less time flying to the target, AND I get to dogfight after I drop my eggs.
I definitely sympathize with all of the barnstorming heavies we have now.
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
Perking the buff formations will stop alot of the suicide buff jabo's going on ..
it will also kill all bomber useage. Bombers arnt used enough PERIOD right now. they are hardly used at alt anymore, and the few remaining buff pilots seem to be force to using the ground as there cover. Such a shame, AHI was so much more even........
i know i wouldnt bother upping them if they cost perks, simply because ALL bombers in this game are EASY pray for the 1946* planes that dominate MA.........
* (you know dam well what i mean by that)
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
But the constant NOE attacks of heavy bomber formations is really messing up gameplay. Sorry. It just is.
-DoK
You mean "messing up the simulation".....right?
-
Originally posted by Tumor
You mean "messing up the simulation".....right?
No ... I mean gameplay.
This has all been discussed to death already.
-
I know how about a altitude perk ratio the higher you die the less it cost until like over 15k its free yes thats free !!! :rofl
ok back to the real world ...out
-
Originally posted by Gwjr2
I know how about a altitude perk ratio the higher you die the less it cost until like over 15k its free yes thats free !!! :rofl
ok back to the real world ...out
That's actually not a bad idea.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Yeah Arlo. Those were singles. We fought our way in and out. Only a few of us were good enough to pull it off - others tried, but they all sucked and died before even getting close. Why do you think the first AA GV's came into being anyway? :-)
That's still very different from what we now have where most bombers come in at absurd altitudes and angles just to dump ord and die. We never expected to die - we had to drive home about a third of the time, but we expected to get home.
Just be very glad I've "mellowed" in my old age and am trying to fix this instead of take advantage of it.
-DoK
Had me worried until the last line there. Was thinking you just plain missed out on the fact that you were a trendsetter when it came to "pushing the virtual envelope" to test the limits of the game. I see some players .... trying ... to do the same in AH. I'm not saying they impress me as much as reading about your early antics did. Nor am I saying it thrills me to see it become a commonplace thing. But I will say that if HT and co. were as concerned about this type of gameplay as Kelton and co. was about some of the funnier things you managed to discover in AW ... then there would have been measures taken long ago. I don't see it happening.
Then again .... ShruG .....
Time will tell.
Game's still fun. And low alt buffs coming at me over and over generally "pay off" more than a huge formation saturation bombing my base of operations from 20k. Not to mention the fact that the high alt saturation bombing thang was generally reserved for strategic targets.
-
Ok this is the part i don't get....."I'm wrecking the game play"..What is your definition of game play???????next question will be is your definition of game play the RIGHT ONE?
999000
-
Originally posted by 999000
Ok this is the part i don't get....."I'm wrecking the game play"..What is your definition of game play???????next question will be is your definition of game play the RIGHT ONE?
999000
OK ... fair enough.
Level bombers "should" be operating at some reasonable altitude - even just 5000 ft AGL where they're out of small calibre AAA range. That still lets you get in and out at pretty good clip. You may have to spend an extra 5 or 6 minutes climbing, but you may actually live to get home.
If you really want to be an attack bomber, grab an A20G and have a ball - that's what it's there for.
-DoK
-
originally posted by Killjoy2:
2) ENY as currently set up. Here's the problem. Bish=90 bases Nits=90 bases Rooks=20 bases. But Rooks are ENY limited because there are too few Bish. So Bish and Nits hammer on the last 20 Rook bases and Rooks can't get the more effective planes. It Stinks.
I agree. As a result I stopped playing AH2 for now and went to the competition.
Eny is thought to balance player numbers, so I guess its a full success in my case :p
Anyways I am still keeping the subscription active, and hope for better times.
-
Originally posted by 999000
Ok this is the part i don't get....."I'm wrecking the game play"..What is your definition of game play???????next question will be is your definition of game play the RIGHT ONE?
999000
I don't think it's "wrecking" game play, I kinda look at it like Quake with WWII aircraft.:aok
-
The bomber thing I really have no complaint about, except their guns hitting you 1k out.
But killjoy is right about the ENY thing, and a lot of other people have said it. If you want to put the ENY into effect, then it can't be by numbers. Has to go by bases.
Using killjoy's example: Bish 90 Bases, Knights 90 Bases, and Rooks 20. Bishops may have 80 people, Knights have the same amount, but the Rooks as 100 or so. So because we have more pilots, we should be limited to the planes we fly even tho the numbers where they matter most and the war is won based on (i.e. Number of Bases) are low? That's not right. And this has happened to ALL countries. I remember few weeks ago, knights had their ENY up to like 10 or 15 and they only had 8 bases. That's not right. The war is won by the country who has the most bases, which usually means the country who is working together the best. Not by the number of pilots.
Now As far as being backed into a corner, no biggie. But when we are on the same map for 2 weeks straight and have never been within 50 bases of any of the other countries. Something has to be done. Either reset the map or we need a new map. Maybe raise the number of bases it takes to reset a country. Instead of 6 like it is now, make it like 15 or 20 on the big maps??
-
Originally posted by PK1Mw
The bomber thing I really have no complaint about, except their guns hitting you 1k out.
why is it wrong that a b17s guns can hit at 1k if your P47 guns can hit at 1k out? :rolleyes: :confused:
-
Karnak, as we (Rooks) were capturing a78 last night...vh's popped up, a FH popped up, and things were starting to get away from the few cappers still there---then a rook swooped in at a few hundred feet in a deck lanc formation, dumped 42 1000 lb.eggs at once...kilt all 3 hangars, all all the gv's, as I could see. (In fairness, he DID live thru the drop) Though we benefited from it, it was UTTER bs--too many quakers cant figger out how to use the calibration routine in the 37 seconds they spent fiddling with it, so the do this bs.
-
A crazy idea for eny and bombers low alt,when you die you canot take off from the original base for 5 minuts.
I guess i drunk to much lol
-
i think climb rate of aircraft play a major role in bomber use
a Lanc takes me like 20 mins to get to 10k
thats a long wait for 1 flight that may not survive at all and then screw up the bombing
i dont think people that fly the fighters that can get to 10k anyware from 5 mins to 2 mins in them can wait 10 to 20 mins then have to use a bombsight they not very sure how to use then to only screw it all up after using up 30 mins to get to target
now doing a NOE lanc run takes no climbing whatsoever and be at the enemy base in 5 to 10 mins and then level it without having to use the bombsight at all
il let you all talk if its wrong to use NOE or not
but its more easy to bomb without a bombsight going NOE its faster to get to the base for the bombing going NOE and since most MA does not care about living climbing 15k to ensure life is not going to happen anytime soon.
-
The MA bombing runs suck. It makes a mockery out of people who practice to perfect the bombing system as it was intended to be. People who learn the way the system was implemented, practice making flight plans and approach paths, tinkering with the Norden-ish bombsight.
Interesting comment who's name I've omitted as the content shows perhaps a lack of understanding of the what actually happened during the war. 95% of all bombing raids were a bust because they could'nt hit the broad side of a town with them. Why do you think they sent so many bombers over a target? Bombing was inaccurate until radar bombing came into being. Now we have laser guided bombs that go through windows.
What's all the mean to me? If I wanna bomb I get up and bomb.
That fact that I can hit most of what I aim at tells me that the game I'm playing is fun. The fact the I can get shot down flying bombers tells me other players are having fun too. Guess what I shoot down some of the planes too. That can be fun!
I guess when it stops being fun I'll try something else. Doesn't everyone? I'm in this game cause I'm having fun. Come to think of it I've been having fun for over a decade now. That must say something for these games be it perked planes or not.
Ren
-
some bomber crews got bombing down to a fine art though.
same here, you have the select few that can hit at 100% success rate, but most cant hit jack **** ;)
-
The major factor in low-level bombing being so common is there is no penalty for going low. You don't actually die. Bomber and fighter losses were much higher at low altitude. Even in the B-29s. B-29s were lost because they lost control at 5,000 ft in the convection caused by the firestorm.
The 8th Air Force started recording ground kills because it was so dangerous to go down in the flak and get them.
In the game, I find little difference in survivability with altitude. IRL, the bombers went high because more of them came home if they did. Tactics and altitudes varied widely and low-altitudes and delayed fusing were used where it made more sense ( and it could be survived ), usually in the Pacific.
In the game, at altitude, the radar sees you and allows intercepts and you die, often before the bomb run. At low altitude, at least they don't see you quicky enough to react. I RTB in bombers about 1 out of 5 times, usually only when there is little opposition. BTW, I still fly high.
NOE heavies is un-realistic, but it represents folks adapting tactics to the reality of 'combat'.
I think bomb-drop angles should be accurate for the aircraft.
I think bomb detonation damage should be more accurate so the attacker must stay higher.
I think flak should be more lethal for bigger targets, or use Kweassa's idea of rings of flak around the bases.
If you die 9 out of 10 times trying to strafe/bomb a base with a Buff, you'll adapt and try something else. Do we go straight in on base ack and straight out? I bet we all have learned to manuever.
Otherwise, the only thing that will slow this down is a penalty for death, which I think would cause a bigger argument than the ENY deal.
Alternately, simulate ground observers, as were used in the Battle of Britain to report low-level contacts. Oh, boy, another can of worms...
Maybe the answer is teamwork. Advance Jabos to kill the dar, scorts right there with you. We could get some ex-Redtails to teach us how to escort...they obviously had it figured out.
-
i recon once bombers are over 15k it shouldnt show up on dar bar, only dot dar.... but then some maps would need dot dar coverage behind the HQ etc.
-
Bombers should be at 19-20k min. Up there you see few fighters, and the ones you see, you have a good chance of killing. If you attack at that alt...rtb % is like 90%. And yes you kill bldgs too.
-
I think the low level bombing is a matter of choice, If you don't have the alt you are bait for the furballers, so it's a choice.
And low level/dive bombing was practiced out of Forbes field with mixed results. Lots of unexploded ord and as far as I know the result of 2 crashes, both west of Topeka Ks.
Most bombers were used for high alt bombing just because they wanted to make it to the target with less resistance,stay above AA and it lncreased the chances that all of the ord would detonate. As for Dive bombing that reportably was the cause of the 2 crashes so I don't think that was an approved method. and from what my grandfather had told me the angle to release the bombs couldn't be over approx. 10-15 degrees (up or down) with out jamming the bombs in the bomb bay rack.
(another note: after each run the bomb sites were removed and secured under heavy guard)
-
Once Upon a Time in this game, alot of bases sat on plateau's where a Bomber Pilot actually had gear up and 5,000 of air under them. Maybe more of those would encourage folks to take a few minutes and learn to use the bombsite as well as gather a few more feet under them?
One thing is for sure, each person who really dislikes the shrub farming buffs needs to set the example in the MA. Stand in the street and stare at the sky, eventually you'll gather a crowd looking up... or a cop ;)
-
If we had more hi alt bases to roll from I wouldn't mind bombing from altitude. The two reasons I fly bombers on the deck are because they are undetectable below dar, and because I do not wish to spend 20 minutes climbing to medium alt.
I do not fly fighters at alt either. I rarely get above 10k. This is a game and play time gets wasted climbing. My experience in fighters at alt is that after you get someone defensive they dive for home and friendlies. No criticism that decision offers better chance for them. But it means you either let them go or chase them low. So, I stay low and invite those who spent time grabn to come on down and get me. Better them burning up their time than me.
I don't have any issues with anyone and what people fly and how they play is ok with me. Even the players who intentionally ping gvs to pick up cheap kills are not responsible for problems with how the game awards kills.
Recent experience air to air: upt 190a8 at a13 to meet inbound fleet fighters. Landed 2 kills. 7 assists despite watching all 7 get sawed in half or blown apart into pieces. The planes were not smoking or missing major parts etc before I hit them, and I hit them from fairly close range while they were turning.
Kills awarded for merely pinging a tank or plane is a defect and might deserve our attention.
-
Well, maybe it is time to introduce some gameyness to try to get more realistic results.
Say if the nearest enemy base is between 35 and 50 miles away level bombers can airstart at 10,000ft and 180mph indicated airspeed. If the nearest enemy base is more than 50 miles away then level bombers can airstart at 20,000ft, 180mph indicated airspeed.
Is it gamey? Sure is. Will it make the game more realistic? Maybe. It might have a shot. It would certainly increase the number of bombers at altitude.
The bombsite isn't that hard to use. Hitting cities from 22,000ft is a piece of cake. To take out individual hangars I don't go above 14,000ft. I hardly get a lot of practice. It is simply using the calibration routine, holding the marker for more than 15 seconds and not deviating my course by more than 5 degrees after the final calibration.
-
HMMM...mebbe some hi-alt bases which can launch only buffs? (withOUT the $#@$#%$ mountains at end of $#%$#% runway)