Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saxman on January 02, 2006, 03:12:57 AM
-
Does anyone else here think that the way Buffs are set right now, with the ability to fire all guns in the formation at one target with absolutely insane accuracy make them seem a bit... overpowered in their defense?
I'd like to propose this for BUFFs and smaller crewed planes:
1) If the aircraft is unmanned, all guns are wholly under AI control
a) This allows Buff pilots to fly their planes without having to worry about air defense as the AI does it for them
b) It gives fighter pilots a bit of break because they don't have to worry about flying into hailstorm of ridiculously accurate massed BUFF return fire.
2) Allow an individual BUFF to be FULLY manned
a) More teamwork, rewarding guys who actually con(vince) a full crew into joining up
3) If the BUFF is PARTIALLY manned, all unmanned positions are under AI control
a) Again, allows a buff pilot to fly his plane without worrying about empty gun positions
b) And again, by eliminating the single gun aiming the entire formation (or bomber) fighter pilots have it a little easier.
4) Drones are ENTIRELY under AI control, their gunners act completely independently of gunners in the manned BUFF.
An additional advantage this gives to a BUFF formation is that if the bombers are attacked by multiple targets they can actually DEFEND against multiple targets, rather than having to concentrate on a single bandit.
Either that or at least do SOMETHING about the accuracy of those guns. It's insane being picked apart with surgical precision in a 400+ mph high-side pass from off the target's wing.
-
You have a lot of misconcpetions about the accuracy of bomber guns.
Also most of these things have been covered many times. Try using the search function and search for posts by hitech involving bombers.
-
imagine the huge ammounts of wasted ammo that those stupid AI would use up. i dont want to shift into my tailgun and find that there is no ammo.
besides, i love luring enemy fighter noobs in close till they are about 300 yards off (they do that if you dont shoot em sometimes) and blast em in the cockpit.
-
man if i attack a bomber gunned by AI, i could see myself already gettin picked off 2.5K away.
<-----bad luck with computerized AK
-
bomber guns are way way way overmodeld but they have to be because people fly solo with no escourt
im sure if we allways had 30+ bombers it would work fine with normal model setup but with only 3 bombers most of the time they have to be overpowerd just so people could have a chance
-
I don't think it's so much the guns are overpowered as people don't know how to attack bombers correctly. If your regularly getting blasted out of the sky by bombers then maybe you should look at how your attacking them. There is nothing super uber about the bombers guns, unless your trying to tail chase a bomber to get the kill. Stupid place to be and if you get wasted you deserve it.
-
I can always tell who knows how to kill bombers and who doesn't. Those that do send me back to the tower with a minimum of effort. Those that don't I sucker in close then light 'em up.
:)
-
Again, like I said I usually go in with high-side passes around 400mph off the wings, (even with air speed I don't like low-side runs) occaisonally with slashing runs across the rear of the formation, (from 8 o'clock to 4 o'clock low or vice-versa, at an attitude that gives a shot at each bomber in turn).
-
If you're getting consistantly killed, your passes arent right.
In WW2, if you attacked a bomber from the 6 o'clock position, you died. Even early, in SWP area, the lowly betty was notorious for torching fighters that attacked from behind. The surviving allied fighters learned what most MA fliers are too impatient to do -- climb above, attack from uncovered regions, take time to set up and do it again.
I am far from a AH star, but this tour I've killed 27 B-26s without dying once. Against other buffs I've succeeded though not as spectacularly. I've been killed a few times when REALLY good gunners light me up unexpectedly, but usually my deaths come when I get impatient and take a risker pass rather than climb out with lateral and vertical separation.
Best buff attack is from 2k or more above and slightly ahead, flying parallel course. Dive in at nearly vertical, target wing root FROM ABOVE (not behind), dive under, pull out and extend in front, climb, and repeat. It is VERY hard for even good gunners to hit you with this attack. Once you master it, you can efven make the good ones lose you by forcing them to rotate top turret with slight course shifts --- at high angles, slight realtive position changes require lots of turret traverse.
Side attack will work against most gunners, but the moderately good ones will compensate and kill. A little vertical shift so they have to go from top to bottom to top gun position will throw many off, but its still mroe dangerous than the vertical attack.
Its not that buff guns are overmodelled -- its that MA anti-buff tactics are undermodelled.
-
AH has the 3rd different method of buff gunning I've seen so far. They've worked like this:
AW: Pilot couldn't man his own guns (unless he exploited a bug, hehe) so buffs had no return fire at all unless a separate player joined as a gunner. Gunners had to join on the ground before flight, and could only leave by bailing, so it was a very boring thing to do. Thus, most buffs lacked any defensive fire at all, which limited their number and kept them up high where they belong, instead of on the deck carpetbombing CVs and airfields, which was good for gameplay. However, each position could have its own gunner, up to 6 in the B17. But 1 gunner could only fire 1 gun position at once.
WB: IIRC, all buff guns were under AI control with no player gunner capability at all. The AI gunners were exceptionally accurate, easily able to kill or maim at 1000+ yards regardless of how you attacked. As a result, buffs were usually avoided, and buffng was discouraged by community outcry. This kept them out of the tactical side of things, which was good.
AH: Pilot can man his own guns. Can also take 1 gunner along, who can join in flight, leave without bailing, and can shoot all guns that bear at once. And we have a rash of dweeb kamikaze NOE buffers.
Personally, I'd like to go back to the AW system to discourage dweeb buffing in general. If you want to blow up buildings instead of fight like a man, take your unarmed buff up to 25k and bomb strats. Most folks won't bother you because the fighting's down low and killing an unarmed buff is nothing to brag about. OTOH, if you want to buff down in the furballs, take a bunch of gunners, but they're in for the duration and have to join before launch.
-
Good points, BH. To add to that, on several occaisons I've seen someone up a bomber formation (primarily B-26s) as an airborne AAA platform. WTF?! Something's not right with that picture.
-
i did not say they were overpowerd because i was getting killed all the time i no how to attack bombers but i still feel there way to powerful
-
That's the important thing about it. Because of the way guns are modelled, Buffs are able to do things in the MA they shouldn't (and didn't) do.
-
I think you guys are seriously mistaken.
First, as to being "overpowered." In the December tour, look at the kills per deaths for level bombers. I rounded to the nearest thousand, checking model vs all countries.
Kills: 29,000
Deaths: 78,000
If this is the effect of "overpowered" guns, I'd hate to see them underpowered! Buffs are fresh meat for anyone who knows how to attack them. Their guns are not overmodelled FROM A GAME STANDPOINT -- any tougher on the bombers, and you wont see them around. As for "realism", its hard to say -- there's no doubt that buff guns killed less ini WW2 than they do in AH2, BUT in ww2 fighters didnt come from suicidal angles and speeds 90% of the time....
Second, as to game impact. Realism in AH is centered on flight and combat modelling. Beyond that, its a game -- appropriately. We DONT want realism in this part of the game.
Who wants to take 15 minutes on runway to warm up their piston engine? Who wants to get off work/school and be forced into 6 hours of boring CAP? Why should 10 robotic soldiers change ownership of an airbase? What WW2 pilot would deliberately go suicidal on a base jsut to kill a few planes? Why should a few passes from a typhoon deprive a base of bombs or troops?
And most importantly, who wants to play if yuo only get 1 life, forever? Nothing else distorts reality nearly as much as the fact that we are 1 click away from taking off again. 99% of "unrealistic" behavior comes from this, but I sure wouldnt watn to change it.
Planes and tanks are used in ways unrealistic for ww2, but perfectly logical for the game. Its the way it has to be if its going to be a game. Everywhere the game amkes realism compromises for the sake of gameplay quality, an "unrealistic" opportunity for exploitation will exist.
There are issues with buffs, but gunning isnt one of them.
-
Simaril: You stated my thoughts on game play vs modeling very well.
HiTech
-
I fly buffs A LOT along with others in my squad. I agree with the opinion that tactics and patience need to improve if you are to be successful in tearing my planes to pieces. In many flights, I have shot down an assortment of planes that rely on thier heavy cannons to do the work, but they are easy to pick off nonetheless because the are stuck in that level 6:00 position. Some are successful eventually in taking me down that way, but not before I've killed at least three planes. The ones that ARE successful, without sustaining serious injury, TAKE TIME and climb, get "E" built up, and B&Z either from above to below, laterally, or in some cases, head-on.
-
Talk to SkatSr on how to kill buffs. He does it in a P-51 all the time.
Here are his K/D stats for last tour against the bombers
B-17G: 28/4 - that's 7:1
B-24J: 108/2 - that's 54:1
B-26B: 41/2 - that's 20.5:1
Ki-67: 3/0
Those numbers show a couple things. One is that if you know how to attack a bomber formation, you can kill them without getting your own arse shot off.
The other, has also been discussed before... The bomber damage model seems to be too easy. The B-24J, especially, dies easily. I for one have been able to kill 2 in one pass, using a P-51D with 6x .50 cal guns. Two coordinated P-51s can kill a formation of 3 B-24s in less than 30 seconds.
-
B-24 wasn't exactly noted for its ability to take damage. At least, not the early models.
-
We need more heros like Midnight.
What are this 51 dweebs doing?
They climb to 25k - come down with 400mph and more - attack the buff with much speed from the left or right frontside.
-rofl
Not everybody is happy with wasting time in a pony climbing that much. But thats the way they doing it. And not everybody like to fly a dweeb pony.
:lol :lol
-
If buff guns are overpowered then I must be doing something wrong...
Note that an earlier formation in the same sortie took my engine down (but I got my revenge!).
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1136407491_110vb24s.ahf
EDIT: although... there are the odd times when I'm in a fresh plane and the VERY FIRST PING out of a bomber kills me instantly or shreds my wing. Those BS instant kills are not so common.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Good points, BH. To add to that, on several occaisons I've seen someone up a bomber formation (primarily B-26s) as an airborne AAA platform. WTF?! Something's not right with that picture.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen fighters get out-flown and run to bombers for escort and help..There's something messed up with that..
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Kolibri
We need more heros like Midnight.
What are this 51 dweebs doing?
They climb to 25k - come down with 400mph and more - attack the buff with much speed from the left or right frontside.
-rofl
Not everybody is happy with wasting time in a pony climbing that much. But thats the way they doing it. And not everybody like to fly a dweeb pony.
:lol :lol
Where do you get such a foolish opinion from? We dweebs of the 412th RARELY get above 20K anymore because it's a waste of time going up there. Guessing, I would say over 80% of bomber kills are below 16K (under the cloud layer).
But yes, we make attacks from high 6:00 positions, diving very fast and making concentrated shots on inboard engines. This usually results in the Bomber catching fire and then explosion shortly after.
-
I'm with thundr on this one...
I certainly cannot say that I have any way to measure the modelling of the .50 cals in the game...been done to death anyway by people who've never fired a single round from one.
However, as for bomber hunting performance, I'll say this:
If you know how to buff hunt...you will win.
If you do not know how to buff hunt...correctly...you will die. Every time.
Each and every piece of equipment in this game has advantages and disadvantages. If you fly/drive your advantages, and correctly target the nme's disadvantages...you'll win. This is nothing new.
If you fly up behind a buff formation, with barely enough energy advantage to maintain the climb, run out of patience and attack from the wrong position or e-state, you will die.
Last night alone (or night before??)...on one flight...I took out 4 fighters...all from dead-six. They came up full power, but in a steep climb...struggling the whole way and bleeding off energy. Get up to altitude, begin a slow creep to close range...the whole time I'm watching. I held fire to lure them in..."no shots fired from the bombers and I'm only 400 out!" When I finally decided to let loose a 1 sec burst...it was an insta-shred. That can easily feel like something wasn't "fair", since death would be sudden and unexpected. But...can't fault the game...only the tactics.
Be patient...take time to build speed and altitude...and remember what tactics work, and which don't. The .50's could be shooting dried peas for all it matters, and if you attack dead-six...you'll know why they call it "Dead-6" There are potentially 20 guns firing at an nme attacking the lead bomber from dead-6. I'm not sure about over-modelled...but that's no place for any aircraft to survive.
Also...it's supposed to be dangerous to attack bomber formations!
Speed, Angles and Surprise...How to Hunt a Buff.
..and just in case....I'm opinionated, not flaming anyone :D
-
Last map, you and I BOTH demonstrated excellent pilot vs. gunnery skills.
I very much appreciated the good fight, and the compliment that followed, even though it was short and came to a draw.
I will write up an AAR of sorts later on.
Simaril:aok
-
Here's a brief example from a week or so ago that something is at least slightly flakey.
I'm at ~10k, cruising to target when I spot a con on the map at the field I'd left, so I turn around and head back. Thinking it's the usual pork runner I start shedding alt, then suddenly find myself with the con a good 5000ft above and heading towards me. I pull back up, he passes me (still out of con range) and I start a climbing spiral to follow and regain alt, at which poing I'm still lagging behind him.
Finally I get back to co-alt and decrease my climb rate to pick up more speed. The con turns back towards the field, at which point I'm FINALLY conning him as a solo B-24. I'm now above him by about a thousand feet, turning to follow, and end up more or less at his 9 o'clock High, ~1.5k out. By this time I've also got my speed back. He starts shooting at a range of ~D1.5k. And he's HITTING ME. D1.5k with nearly 90 degrees of deflection (I'm pulling ahead of him and climbing, but it's pretty close).
Long story short we're at 15,000 feet and I get above the soup, start making diving passes through the cloud layer and flame him.
The point is, in the GAME, even a P-38 has problems hitting a target at 1.5k with Brownings and a 0 deflection or saddle shot, but THIS guy was pinging the HECK out of me from a POORER firing position (he only stopped shooting because I got above the cloud layer and he lost vis).
-
Okay, now that I've had my coffee this morning...
I was returning from a strat bomb run at 20k in what remained of Knight-land last night. Heading east I encountered a Bish mission heading west, followed by an enemy con some distance back above 20k. I radioed those that were still in range about it and continued on my way home, all the while keeping an eye on the high dot.
It didn't take long before that dot turned and caught up with my flight. I identified it as a P47, although I don't recall the variant. He hung out straight above at approximately 1.5k distance for a few minutes, tipping wings to get a look at his intended victim.
Finally he dove. The few shots he fired hit their mark on my right wing causing fuel leak. I had great difficultly training by top and tail guns on him due to the speed of his dive as he sped down past my 6:00. No hits on his jug at all.
I switched suddenly to the ball guns, instinctively knowing where he would be coming up at as he recovered his alt. He still had enough "E" built up as he ascended from low on my right that he got out of range. My last chance was the chin-gun, thinking I might get SOMETHING on him before he went back up to his initial tactical position.
To my surprise, I landed enough shots that smoke emerged from his engine. So the next concern for me was whether or not he would desperately come back for another pass even though time ( and the loss of oil pressure) was not on his side. To my relief, he continued on his present course, extending away from me back towards the safe haven of his countrymen.
I recieved a salute from the pilot of that 47 on open channel, and he complimented me on my quick gunnery skills, and I expressed to him my admiration of his skills and patience.
Simaril. It was a brief fight, but an excellent example of patience and accuracy. Nicely done, sir.
-
My point was this guy was lighting me up ACCURATELY from D1.5k at ~75-90 degrees deflection. I'm talking like 5-10 seconds until I got above the cloud layer there was a constant stream of pings. Probably the only reason I wasn't dead after that was because at that range the .50s had lost their hitting power. I can accept a lucky shot at that range, but THAT kind of sustained accuracy?
BTW, Rooklander. That sucked losing the last map (and to have Rookland suddenly turn into Knit country with no gas to get to safe territory. I was near A200 patrolling for a couple pork-running P-47s). :-P Eh well, I shot up a radar tower and fuel dump before map reset.
-
The perceived problem is the maximized "cone of fire" effect.
Like Karnak said some time ago HT himself clarified that the buff guns don't just converge automatically at a single point, with the so called "laser-targetting" accuracy. While the explanation was a bit vague, since IIRC he didn't exactly explain how the guns converged to what accuracy, I think we can loosely assume that all the buff guns will just 'try' to shoot at the point where the current defensive gunner is aiming/firing at. It won't EXACTLY converge at a single point, but all the rest of the gunners will fire towards it.
Now, the "problem" in my theory, if we can agree there's such a thing, is this:
Bear in mind that while a nose/centerline armed fighter armament is much more powerful and efficient when it comes to destructive power, the actual ease of hitting the target is better with wing-armament due to the shots spreading out in a so-called "shotgun effect". The P-38s with 4x .50s in the nose, will always hit grouped shots that are deadly. However, the same 4x .50s with the P-51B, won't be as destructive due to the convergence problem, but will be much easier to land 'pings' on the target.
The problem with the wing-armament is that armament like 4x .50s or 6x .50, or sometimes even 8x .50s for that matter, isn't as efficient due to the nature of the shots spreading out. The RAF, moments before the opening of WW2 IIRC, used a standard convergence pattern which spread the shots out in a "box" pattern. However this idea was quickly discarded with the actual advent of combat, as WW2 fighter experience proved that spread out shots are basically worthelss. It is for this very reason a much more powerful HMG like the .50s, still needed 6~8 guns at the price of all the extra weight.
However, imagine the "shotgun effect" of a three-plane formation of bombers this time. Look at how all the gunner positions vary slightly in its placement, and then consider another group of variation in placement due to three bombers flying in a Vee formation.
In a word, it might actually be easier to evade buff guns if they truly did converge at a single point. In this case, if the defensive gunner doesn't aim the gun exactly right, most of the bullets will miss the target. We now know that the guns don't EXACLTY converge at a single point. However they do fire at the target direction up to certain accuracy.
This means, in essence, a mungo shot-gun effect of easily 10~20x 50cal HMGs are now brought into effect by the buff formations (!!!) Instead of all guns converging at a single target point with slight variations due to dispersion, 10 to 20 .50cals are sprayed towards the target at an very large circular pattern. If the general aim of the defensive gun position the player is sitting at is reasonably good enough, in effect a big circle of .50s are sprayed in the entire area. In this case the number of .50s pointed at the target is so numerous, that shots being sprayed are not much of a problem.
Assume you are trying to hit a B-17 formation from the left in a sweeping pattern. Add in the fact that the buff guns fire through the drones to what is explained above, and what you'll be facing is a "shotgun" that fires rounds at 800~1000rpm, with a firepower equivalent to that of 21 (count them.. twenty-one!!!) 50cal guns.
Yes, twenty one. Two from the ball turret, two from the tail gunner, two from the upper turret, and one from the port side waist gunner... multiplied by three, since the guns fire through the drones and doesn't have a "halt fire" or "interrupter gear" angle.
Scattered fire that is out of convergence from four 50cals may be shrugged off... but a scattered fire from twenty-one 50cals with a maximized cone of fire is just plain deadly. We have veterans claiming they can kill buffs easily, but that is purely situational. Against experienced buff gunners in a three-plane buff formation the only safe way is a coordinated attack with numbers of at least three interceptor planes. IIRC, it was Urchin and Toad who tested this out, with Toad claiming that buffs aren't a problem. The results, I believe, was all Urchin defended all three buffs, with only minor damages to a few of a drones.
In a word, imagine a situation where there are three P-51Ds behind you, at the exact same interval and intenisty, all of them aiming at you generally, and spraying all their guns non-stop until ammo runs dry. That's what going against buff formations is like. Either catch them offguard, or meet a very inexperienced gunner. Someone even remotely experienced in defensive gunnery, and the interceptors are basically toast.
IMO, some ideas without the introduction of "Otto", to solve/ease this problem;
1) Stop buff guns from firing through other planes in the formation
This one is an absolute. This will at least make it possible for the interceptor plane to cut down on the number of guns pointing at him.
2) Add a 'randomization' factor that greatly reduces the effectiveness of all the hand-held guns on board
With the suggested randomization factor, all 'slaved' hand-held guns like the waist guns, will be firing at the general direction of the target point of the current defensive gun position the player is manning, but in many cases their dispersion will vary upto great levels.
3) Add vibrations to guns
The mechanized guns should have a small vibration effect. The hand-held guns should have a big vibration effect.
4) Add a varying interval of gun fire.
When the guns from the currently manned position begins to fire, all guns slaved to it will start fire... but after that they will fire at varied intervals. Instead of acting like a one big shotgun with 10~20 barrels, they will fire at random intervals as long as the manned position keeps his trigger down. This would sort of depict individual gunners on board stopping fire, correcting their aim, and etc etc..
-
Originally posted by thndregg
...snip...
Simaril. It was a brief fight, but an excellent example of patience and accuracy. Nicely done, sir.
It was fun on my end, too. Just wish it didnt take so long to get the high alt fights going!
You're supposed to learn from clashes with skilled enemies, and this engagement taught me that my attack profile was too shallow on pull out. Up to this point, that near vertical high speed dive threw enemies off enough that I could level out, extend and begin the climb ahead for the next pass at my leisure. From now on, I'll plan on dropping nearly 1k below before levelling and extending. It'll mean a longer rebuild for the next pass, but it also means I wont take pings on extension!
thndregg
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
...snip...
Scattered fire that is out of convergence from four 50cals may be shrugged off... but a scattered fire from twenty-one 50cals with a maximized cone of fire is just plain deadly. We have veterans claiming they can kill buffs easily, but that is purely situational. Against experienced buff gunners in a three-plane buff formation the only safe way is a coordinated attack with numbers of at least three interceptor planes. IIRC, it was Urchin and Toad who tested this out, with Toad claiming that buffs aren't a problem. The results, I believe, was all Urchin defended all three buffs, with only minor damages to a few of a drones.
...snip...
Really interesting perspective, Kweassa.
With AI controlled gunners pending in TOD, these ideas will be important considerations. However, in the MA -- the proof is in the pudding, as they used to say. The fact remains that buffs are almost always easy kills. The KPD ratios posted above show that bombers are very vulnerable, and that they die far more than they are killed.
I suspect this is true because most experienced players get bored with buffs and spend their time in fighters or vehicles. I flew mostly buff missions when I first started, and I think that's true of many others. When experienced players fly buffs regularly, they tend to get a name for themselves and are treated with respect by knowledgable attackers.
Because buffs die SO often in the MA, I dont think its practical to talk about any limitations on their gunnery effectiveness. I also suspect that buffs are an important link in the AH business model, since they keep players having some fun -- and continuing to subscribe -- during the painfully long learning curve.
-
NAY
-
This is turning into as divided a thread as any "hangar-bangers" vs furballers suggestion flame-fest. I think it's pretty safe to say that the line has more or less been drawn. Everyone for "Buffs are overpowered" on the left, everyone else on the right.
There must be SOME compromise that would work for both camps. Kweassa had a lot of good suggestions. ESPECIALLY things like Buffs being able to shoot through their drones would be a good place to start. That would open up more angles of attack if you could approach from angles where the drones would prevent one or both of the other aircraft in the formation from lending their guns. It'd still require the interceptor to choose his approach angle carefully to take advantage, but at LEAST it gives him something to take advantage OF rather than just high angles of attack.
I'd be interested in seeing a ballistics comparison on the .target between the nose .50s on the P-38 and one from the B-17, see if there's any difference (and I'm NOT the first person to suggest Buff guns might have increased range over the same guns from fighters--and the .50 cal on the American buffs is the SAME Ma Deuce used by the fighters. It came up in another thread somewhere 'round here).
-
Saxman, I'm confused.
If bombers die roughly 2.5 times for every one time they get a kill, why do you want to make their fire weaker? Why does there need to be "a compromise"?
If you weaken them enough that people dont make it home, no one will fly them and you wont get kills on them anyway. How low do you want their KPD to go?
And about the 50s -- why would HTC go to the trouble (not to mention the deceptiveness) of making 2 50cal models? If you think carefully about Kweassa's area effect concept, i think you'll find that it fully explains what people perceive about buff guns' "increased accuracy".
-
Okay, so I grab a form of B26s, lift off a runway, turn sharp, lose 2 drones, then kill 3 fighters and land. K/D of .75.
You can't determine how effective bombers are by looking at 2 stats. We all know exactly how bombers are used by a majority in here, and I think it's a safe assumption that the guys who, for example, up 88s and b26s ,continuously slamming them into the side of a fleet are certainly affecting the stats.
Spend some time in bombers, practice gunning. You'll be surprised.
-
I did a series of tests offline to prove my theory - and I think I'm right.
While there are distinct differences according to attacking angles, usually at the rear angles the bullet patterns land at an astonishing pattern.
At a maximal scattered pattern, the fired rounds cover an area in a rectangular box, that covers more than half the radius of the .target bull's eye in the horizontal, and about 100~200 yards vertical.
Here's a tip I found out - when trying to evade buff guns, don't turn horizontally. It's no use.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Okay, so I grab a form of B26s, lift off a runway, turn sharp, lose 2 drones, then kill 3 fighters and land. K/D of .75.
You can't determine how effective bombers are by looking at 2 stats. We all know exactly how bombers are used by a majority in here, and I think it's a safe assumption that the guys who, for example, up 88s and b26s ,continuously slamming them into the side of a fleet are certainly affecting the stats.
Spend some time in bombers, practice gunning. You'll be surprised.
First, a brief math pointer. 3 Kills divided by 2 deaths equals 1.5 KPD. ;)
Getting the ratio right in your eaxmple would require getting ONE kill while losing all three in your formation.
MA totals were something like 80000 deaths and 30000 kills for level bombers last tour. It worked out to 0.37 kpd. This means that level bombers did slightly worse than the Hurri2D (the one with 40mm) and a bit better than the C.202. Would you want to weaken the attacking power of either of those rides? Here's tour 71 data (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168058)
Like I said, I used to fly buffs a lot. Now I'm essentially exclusively in fighters. (I am trying IL-2 as capped base defense, but I'm 0-6....thats obviously not going well).
I dont consider myself all that good, but I'm 26-1 attacking buffs this month. My only death came when I got greedy and collided. IN the MA world, buffs are FUNCTIONALLY very weak. Yes, a skilled pilot and gunner will own 95% of solo attackers -- but there are very few with those skills who floy buffs a lot. If I take pings at extreme ranges, I will only make VERY safe runs -- and will consider just looking for safer meat to hunt.
Watch the typical MA attack on buffs. 90% will climb slowly up to the buffs and attack from the 6 position, with very little E. Even when attackers start with extra alt, they almost always dive onto the 6, fly over the top, pull back, and park on the 6 again. When I'm setting up an attack, I really dont mind if someone else attacks first -- because almost every time, the attacker just pulls up behind and hacks away at the bomber.
Blaming the MA buff model is no different than blaming the unperked LA7. Either way, its not that hard to beat if you do it right -- and either way, a good pilot driving the bird is plain scary. But, most La7 pilots are inexperienced, and most buff drivers are killable.
AH buffs are NOT too strong a force in gameplay. The numbers show it. If you routinely are dying to buffs, your tactics are at fault -- either attack right, or dont press a losing attack because your bloodlust is up. With all due respect, I'd have to say dont blame the model because youre not doing things right.
-
Be it tactics, patience, lousey gunnery, whatever. I just don't attack them any more. I decided it's a waste of my time to catch, climb above, attack and die. I just wasted 20 minutes to watch my engine smoke as i spin towards earth.
-
If you took the time to climb above, you're really close to getting it....
Make sure you have built speed up after climb. If you're going same speed as buffs, and you're even with them -- when you turn your speed vertical to dive, the buff continues forward horizontally and you end up on his 6.
When Thundregg thought I was wagging the wings, i was really just waitng for my speed to build up, and was checking to make sure he didnt change direction under me.
Get right over the top, dive and aim for the wing root of the lead buff. Stop pullling to keep on target when you get to 200-300 and let the buff go in front so you pass under and just behind.
As far as aim goes, you can try this with offline drones and targeting turned on - you'll get a green cross that shows where your dive and gunsight should focus.
Pick the right plane too -- for high alt (postentially 20k plus) nothing beats the P-47N when hunting buffs. Lower alts give lots more choices, but some buff pilots will use alt as a defense and climb up to where other pklanes get harder to fly.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Here's a brief example from a week or so ago that something is at least slightly flakey.
I'm at ~10k, cruising to target when I spot a con on the map at the field I'd left, so I turn around and head back. Thinking it's the usual pork runner I start shedding alt, then suddenly find myself with the con a good 5000ft above and heading towards me. I pull back up, he passes me (still out of con range) and I start a climbing spiral to follow and regain alt, at which poing I'm still lagging behind him.
Finally I get back to co-alt and decrease my climb rate to pick up more speed. The con turns back towards the field, at which point I'm FINALLY conning him as a solo B-24. I'm now above him by about a thousand feet, turning to follow, and end up more or less at his 9 o'clock High, ~1.5k out. By this time I've also got my speed back. He starts shooting at a range of ~D1.5k. And he's HITTING ME. D1.5k with nearly 90 degrees of deflection (I'm pulling ahead of him and climbing, but it's pretty close).
Long story short we're at 15,000 feet and I get above the soup, start making diving passes through the cloud layer and flame him.
The point is, in the GAME, even a P-38 has problems hitting a target at 1.5k with Brownings and a 0 deflection or saddle shot, but THIS guy was pinging the HECK out of me from a POORER firing position (he only stopped shooting because I got above the cloud layer and he lost vis).
That is strange since B24 50 cals vanish at 1.1k
We do not have a 1.5k range on bomber guns. Maybe you were lagging and was closer than you thought
-
I had the tail sawn off my 262 in my only combat loss of a 262, by a b17 at my 3, 2 miles out, and he was tailsteering away from me.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The perceived problem is the maximized "cone of fire" effect.
Like Karnak said some time ago HT himself clarified that the buff guns don't just converge automatically at a single point, with the so called "laser-targetting" accuracy. While the explanation was a bit vague, since IIRC he didn't exactly explain how the guns converged to what accuracy, I think we can loosely assume that all the buff guns will just 'try' to shoot at the point where the current defensive gunner is aiming/firing at. It won't EXACTLY converge at a single point, but all the rest of the gunners will fire towards it.
The bomber guns center at 500, the only time you will not find this true is if there is a gunner onboard and the pilot is shooting also. Other wise I have to aim either a little left or right to hit you at 1000
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
I had the tail sawn off my 262 in my only combat loss of a 262, by a b17 at my 3, 2 miles out, and he was tailsteering away from me.
Wow the more storie that come the better they get. Check your lag
-
lol I have none, I was really 2k from him as I was attempting to get ahead to come in from his 11ish. I can regularly hit up to 2k with a buff gun and I dont even fly the dang things, I mean just cause you cant, well I mean thats why one flys buffs anyway, cause they die in fighters.
-
I don't often lag, get pings ~30+/- most of the time.
-
What say you HT can buff guns shoot 2miles or even 1200 yards
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Okay, so I grab a form of B26s, lift off a runway, turn sharp, lose 2 drones, then kill 3 fighters and land. K/D of .75.
You can't determine how effective bombers are by looking at 2 stats. We all know exactly how bombers are used by a majority in here, and I think it's a safe assumption that the guys who, for example, up 88s and b26s ,continuously slamming them into the side of a fleet are certainly affecting the stats.
Spend some time in bombers, practice gunning. You'll be surprised.
Right on the money!
-
That is strange since B24 50 cals vanish at 1.1k
We do not have a 1.5k range on bomber guns. Maybe you were lagging and was closer than you thought
IIRC the bullet disappears after a set time, not distance.
The bomber guns center at 500, the only time you will not find this true is if there is a gunner onboard and the pilot is shooting also. Other wise I have to aim either a little left or right to hit you at 1000
Try a little .target experiment with the bull's eye at various angles. You'll be surprised how the pattern shifts aroung.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
First, a brief math pointer. 3 Kills divided by 2 deaths equals 1.5 KPD. ;)
Getting the ratio right in your eaxmple would require getting ONE kill while losing all three in your formation.
Kills per deaths is calculated as [Kills/(Deaths +1)].
I got the ratio right in my example.
Edit: No, damnit, I did it twice. Was probably drunk. Up a form, lose 2, get 3 kills, K/D as scored in game is 1. (Neither 1.5, nor .75) I transposed the 2 and 3, I guess. Math is hard. :huh
-
wish we could still set convergence on buff guns
-
Originally posted by Saxman
I'd be interested in seeing a ballistics comparison on the .target between the nose .50s on the P-38 and one from the B-17, see if there's any difference (and I'm NOT the first person to suggest Buff guns might have increased range over the same guns from fighters--and the .50 cal on the American buffs is the SAME Ma Deuce used by the fighters. It came up in another thread somewhere 'round here).
Anyone can conduct this test for themselves. Just type .target 1000 (or any other range) in the radio buffer and you'll find a target suspended that distance from your plane to your due north. Fire your P38 guns at it and fire your B17 guns at it.
As a guy who usually flys buffs, I'm getting better at hitting nme fighters. It isn't all that easy sometimes, although as pointed out here, bad fighter tactics can make it easy. I've sometimes fired at fighters out at 1.5k just to let them know I'm looking, and just to throw them off track so I can jump into my bombsight and make my drop. On rare occasions I've seen hit sprites on them between 1k and 1.5k also. That's just pure dumb luck, basically.
As a former Marine who has fired a "Ma Deuce", Browning M2 machine gun, I can tell you, I wouldn't want anyone shooting one at me at 1500 yards. I certainly wouldn't want 20 of them shooting at me at that distance either. The bomber guns are not overmodelled, buff gunners are sometimes lucky and sometimes very good. Better have a healthy respect for them either way. As someone who shoots 1000 yard rifle matches with an 1874 Sharps Buffalo rifle with 45-70 ammo, I know that 1000 yards is an easy shot for the bomber guns and the .50 BMG for a good gunner. The maximum range of a .50 BMG is 7400 yards. That isn't the effective range, that's the maximum distance for a Ball M2 projectile's flight. In the 1940s, the maximum effective range for the Browning .50 cal machine gun was listed as 2600 yards. During Gulf War I, a Marine sniper reputedly disabled two enemy armored vehicles with two shots into the engine compartments with a .50 BMG Barrett sniper rifle at two miles (around 3500 yards).
F4jCH