Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MadSquirrel on March 28, 2006, 02:36:41 PM
-
Simply stated, Barrage Balloons.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbarrage.htm (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbarrage.htm)
To prevent low fights and pinpoint bombing by the Luftwaffe, the Air Raid Precautions (ARP) put up huge barrage balloons. Each balloon was moored to a wagon by a cable. These cables were strong enough to destroy any aircraft colliding with them. On the wagon was a winch that enabled the RAF Balloon Command to control the height of the barrage balloon. The balloons achieved the main objective of discouraging dive bombing and low-level attacks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist3_prog11d.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist3_prog11d.shtml)
Barrage balloons, which were set at heights of up to 5,000 feet, would force these aircraft to fly high, making them less accurate, and bring them within range of the anti-aircraft guns, or ack-ack.
During WWI, they were able to set the balloons to heights of 8,000 to 10,000 feet. That would put the bombers to altitude.
Barrage balloons would also reduce if not eliminate the vulch. Thus forcing the furball away from the fields.
If we can't get adequate field Flak, or mobile Flak that won't make the player sick, this would be a worthy alternative.
LTARsqrl <> :aok
-
I like it I like it!
999000
-
Just a few thoughts.
London, during the war years, had about 450-500 balloons deployed. During the V-1 offensive against London in '44 about 1,750 balloons from all over Great Britain were amassed around London.
You may need A LOT of balloons.
Generally, the balloons could be flown up to 10K, 8K was common.
Parking a bunch of balloons over a field or town may well prevent the low level 3-plane diving buff phenomenom.
But be wary of unintended consequences. Those cables will also make it very hard for a Jabo to do his work as well. So just how will you take down the field or town?
And will "friendly cable" be ON or OFF? If you run into your country's balloon cable, will it shear your wing as well as your enemy's?
-
Didnt they fix the Dive bombing issue with the last release?
Since then I've only seen 1 set of bombers try to dive bomb only t have the wings fall off.
Course this doesnt mean they cant still do it as I personally have only seen 1 set try
-
From the minds at Minolta. :D
-
Yes. I would make all those things harder. Guess one would have to bomb the towns from altitide and strafe and pull out before crossing the towns, or be careful and watch for balloons.
On the plus side, it would also make porking a field much more difficult. People might just have to start playing smarter.
LTARsqrl <>
-
The most likely outcome is an increase in Hordewarrior unit size and altitude.
But then, some folks may see that as "smarter".
-
Think of the possibilities, Toad. Since structures remain in place after being destroyed (I assume a great many of us have had a run-in with the angry ghost of the radar operator), shooting the barrage balloons would give the appearance of no defense, but they'd still be there, waiting for the next shortbus loaded with ord to plow into some nice stout cable.
Lions and tigers and balloons, oh my!
-
^
Now THERE'S an idea. Invisiballoons.
Talk about adding excitement to the capture!
lol
-
hey squirl, turn on your ghey filter and those blue guys dissapear.
Anyways, I think it's a cool idea, but work on it some more so that HTC don't have to think so much:D
I think they should make some limit on diving, like the bomb doors close when diving more than 2k/min. or something similiar to that.
Point being, dive bombing in lances or b17s shouldn't be done in the game. Make them use the bombsite!!!
-
Good idea, but does anyone else see guys ducking into the balloons the minute there's a sniff of a fight brewing? Getting dragged into the ack in a 1 vs 1 is bad enough.
Although a balloon slalom would be an interesting idea for a race event. :D
-
If "Friendly Cable" was OFF, diving in to hide amongst the balloons instead of fighting might be a little less appealing.
-
I like dive bombing in buffs, but never mind me, keep limiting the game to please the BB Whimpering. No Night Time, No Fuel Porking, hell let's just get rid of anything but giant spawn in furballs while were at it.
-
Hey now, unlike SOME people in this thread I LIKE the strat/tac aspects of the game. The problem is jabboing buffs is just plain gamey and NEEDS to be fixed. It's something they shouldn't be able to do
-
Originally posted by MadSquirrel
Simply stated, Barrage Balloons.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbarrage.htm (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbarrage.htm)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist3_prog11d.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist3_prog11d.shtml)
During WWI, they were able to set the balloons to heights of 8,000 to 10,000 feet. That would put the bombers to altitude.
Barrage balloons would also reduce if not eliminate the vulch. Thus forcing the furball away from the fields.
If we can't get adequate field Flak, or mobile Flak that won't make the player sick, this would be a worthy alternative.
LTARsqrl <> :aok
Nice...
999000 destroyed VH from 30 000 feet (any doubts he can?) , and after that there is no protection against horde of LTARs coming in GV.
How can I kill GV in plane if it is sitting under balloon?
-
Shoot the balloon down first?
-
Interesting idea, but wouldn't the fighter guys hate it when they ran into them?
-
All the balloons should have a different points award wrote on the. Also , there should be one bright red one at each base with POWERUP on it. :)
I think this goes to the top of the list labeled.......Top Ten Lamest Ideas.
I still haven`t got my tuneable Tokyo Rose broadcasts in the cockpit yet and you want ballons. Shameless. :rofl
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Interesting idea, but wouldn't the fighter guys hate it when they ran into them?
The very best fur occurs mid-way between fields or carriers, a place where there probably wouldn't be any balloons.
So, if balloons moved the fights towards mid-way, that would be another plus.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The very best fur occurs mid-way between fields or carriers, a place where there probably wouldn't be any balloons.
So, if balloons moved the fights towards mid-way, that would be another plus.
Well now I'm sold. :aok Of course..........you're going to have a hard sell with the guys who like to pad their scores by vulching.
-
They're not furballers.... so who cares. :)
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Well now I'm sold. :aok Of course..........you're going to have a hard sell with the guys who like to pad their scores by vulching.
Just flashed on an image of the typical La-7 fiueld vultcher pranging a wing on the cables at 500 mph. :lol :rofl
"Friendly mode" would lead to all kinds of weird abuse.
And wouldn't the baloons just become an aerial toolshed? Or would they be indestructable?
-
Originally posted by Vad
Nice...
999000 destroyed VH from 30 000 feet (any doubts he can?) , and after that there is no protection against horde of LTARs coming in GV.
When's the last time you saw that ?
Yeah all 6-7 of us will "horde" on your base with some Jeeps and a tank:rolleyes:
-
I haven't tried it yet but can you still dive
bomb with Ju-88's without losing the wings?
After all, the thing is designed for that role.
Just wondering...
-
Originally posted by StracCop
I haven't tried it yet but can you still dive
bomb with Ju-88's without losing the wings?
After all, the thing is designed for that role.
Just wondering...
*cough*dive brakes*cough*
-
There are two solutions to fixing this 'problem'.
1. The first one would be a technical, short-term solution.
AH simulates the essence WW2 of aerial combat. While the game itself is NOT a full-scale representation of realistic WW2 situations, the general purpose of the game as expected by many gamers IMO. is to maintain at least some kind of realistic standard towards aerial combat as performed in real-life WW2. Therefore, ahistorical or even unrealistic implementations and 'concessions' do exist in the game - which purpose (ironically) is to strengthen the overall "situational realism" as opposed to "technical realism".
A good example would be the combat trim or the auto-retracting flaps.
On a technical point of view, these artificial devices are unrealistic and no such thing existed in real life planes. However, situationally, the combat trim helps fill the problems caused by lack of real-life stick input and feel, and thus, preventing the game from becoming trimming madness as unknown in real life. Likewise, the auto-retraction of flaps simulates the tendency of real-life pilots to abide by operating procedures of the plane, since intentionally neglecting procedures by using flaps at forbidded speed-zones was hardly anything normal in real life combat.
Therefore, the short-term solution is by introducing a simple 'inhibition' gadget or procedure to discourage people from 'divebombing' in level bombers.
The fact that it might be 'technically possible' for some bombers to drop bombs while diving at certain angles, is not important. The only thing important is the simple fact: no WW2 level bomber in history ever dropped bombs like that on any kind of regular mission flight. Technicaly possible or not, they did not do that stuff, period.
So, add in a simple inhibition;
* Allow bombs to be dropped only at the 'F6' bombardier's position.
The bombardier's position auto-levels the plane, and thus, prevents people from maneuvering bombers and dropping their payload during dives. It also prevents 'scatter bombing' and 'wildly swerving bombdrops'. While this small implementation does not necessarily inhibit the altitude of the bombrun, the auto-levelled status of the plane, and narrow field of view forced by looking at the bombsight, will naturally urge the bomber pilots to drop their bombs at a higher altitude, with calibrated sights.
* Add mannable 88mm anti-aircraft guns to the field.
While there could be many methods on how this might be added in, the important point would be to make the 88mms not very lethal against maneuvering fighters, but deadly lethal against low and slow bombers.
Perhaps the 'gunner' might have to observe an approaching plane and 'set the aim' of the 88mm flak, as one might set the calibration of a bombsight. Find a target, 'lock on' the icon, press a certain 'aim' key for more than 10 seconds, and an approximate 'aiming point' might appear in the screen. An 88mm gun aimed this way will be quite useless against fighters near a field that constantly changes speed and heading, but it'd be very lethal against planes travelling at a certain set heading and speed - especially low-alt bombers.
2. The long-term and fundamental solution.
The long-term and fundamnetal solution would be to redo the MA strat and change the mechanics of the game, so that airfield are NOT the prime tactical/strategical targets of the game. Hitting individual airfields and capturing them was a good idea when the MA had only 150 people with 50 pilots in three countries. However, with 500 people and 160~170 pilots per side it doesn't seem to be doing very well.
There could be many ideas on how strat can change, but to pick out a few;
* Changing land-grab mechanics
Capturing fields and enlarging territories, should perhaps become a result of an overall and consistent amount of attack an a given area - not as a result of attacking a single 'point'.
If this is successfully implemented in the game, attacking an individual field and its hangars, might become less important than attacking other facilities of tactical worth scattered around the entire area, and thus the bombers will target start targetting something else, rather than choose to come in and start spraying at FHs.
* Implementing delayed attrition to the strat system
The effect of hitting individual factories or city structures is hardly worth the effort in the current system. If the strat changes so that hitting a certain facility consistently over a long period of time with large amounts of ordnance, can start effecting the airfield resources on a global scale, then the bombers will finally have a real 'strategic' target to go after, instead of playing the over-bloated tactical/suicidal jabo role.
For instance, a fuel facility set deep inside the enemy factory controls the amount of fuel available at individual fields. If this factory is pounded for days(in-game time) with huge amounts of ord., the cumulated effects will start to show, and the fuel situation of the enemy country will worsen on a global scale, and this effect will go on for a long time.
But to achieve such a destructive blow the attacking nation will have to succeed in large-scale bombing raids regularly. An isolated sneak attack mission will do nothing to the fuel-production efficiency. Or 3~4 dweebs going NOE with Lancs will also do nothing.
-
Blimps with lazers. Nuff said. :rofl
-
Kweassa
I proposed, in another thread, the F6 fix in combination with an inclinometer lock out. The F6 alone wouldn't stop the use of heavy bombers in a dive bombing manner. Pilots could simply start their dive, line up and jump to the F6 position to snap the bombs off. However, combined with an inclinometer lock out it might work. Unfortunately HT does not share this viewpoint. He posted on the thread expressing the view that either or both of these changes would merely be accommodated and worked around by those who wish to dive bomb with heavies.
I'm not crazy about the 88mm solution. It seems that would kill high bombers just about as well as low ones. I'm sure there are many who would not see that as a problem, but as a bomber guy it wouldn't be that great.
I like your ideas on the strat system and hope we'll see something like them in ToD/CT. At this point I'd welcome almost any change to or alternate to the strat system in MA.
Regards,
ChopSaw
-
AH simulates the essence WW2 of aerial combat.
This is not goal in the main arena. You seem to foget drasticly fighter items that are not even close. Is not 1 of the fighters main roles to escort bombers. So under you view you should not be able to up a fighter unless you are escorting a bomber, because thats the way it was done in the war.
You also seem to foget the same dive bombing tacktic that can be use by suisiding fighters to kill CV's. Where is the out cry for this none realism.
These 1 sided realism arguments have been getting under my skin as of late.
HiTech
-
Realism is really a mixed bag, and while we're all a little myopic when discussing that topic, a lot of people seem to feel that bombers have been given all sorts of easy-outs from realism, while fighters have fewer.
This may not be entirely true, but that's what it looks like to me. Having flown bombers since AW3, I know I feel that way, and I know some others do as well, but I don't pretend to speak for the entire community
Give us single bombers again, no formations, just for one or two tours. Leave bombers as they are in all other regards. Divebombing, stallfighting, etc. Make bombers just slightly more realistic, without sweeping changes to everything else, if only as an experiment.
See what happens.
Or, just let me in to closed testing on CT. I'll stay off the bbs for a whole camp. C'mon, you and Skuzzy would have to love that. ;)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Blimps with lazers. Nuff said. :rofl
No ... with Frikkin' Lazer Beams (tm)(c) ... we want realism, afterall.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
When's the last time you saw that ?
Yeah all 6-7 of us will "horde" on your base with some Jeeps and a tank:rolleyes:
Long ago. One year, may be more.
It was just a joke :)
-
You also seem to foget the same dive bombing tacktic that can be use by suisiding fighters to kill CV's. Where is the out cry for this none realism.
Simple, HT.
A fighter doesn't spew 42,000 lbs.
If one suicidal Typhoon could drop a aircraft carrier or a grouped mass of multiple FHs, then there'd be an outcry against it as well.
However, since it takes twenty one Typhoons and twenty one individual pilots in twenty one individual attempts, to do the same amount of damage a single Lancaster formation controlled by a single pilot can do, people tend to be a lot more forgiving towards the fighter dweeb than the bomber dweeb.
-
I think manable 88mm flak and multi barell rapid fire 20mm cannons are needed at the bases. That alone would make this attacks more hazardous.
The AAA deffense at airfields is a joke.
One guy alone in a fighter can clean a base with 10-20 cannon shells and then start a vulch fest.:rolleyes:
-
May not be much outcry against it, but the running porkers are still annoying. Had a dweeb in a 51 earlier today pop off a few rockets against a CV in a dive from 10k earlier today then run like hell to avoid a fight.
-
Yes, individual suicidal jabos are indeed annoying.
Sine the MA is primarily oriented towards late war aircraft, it's basically a gaggle of super-speed jabos that are uninterceptable. If something like a P-51 or a Typh just goes full speed suicidal lob-angle towards his target, about the only thing that might catch it in its attack run is another P-51 or a Typh.
But that being said, at least an individual fighter carries still much smaller payload when compared to a buff. They do damage stuff individually, and the hasty and suicidal run often causes faulty bomb drops which result in non-detonation or totally missing the target.
However, buffs are different. The bombers are being used as bloated jabos. The hard part is making through the defenses, but when in midst of a raging battle it isn't really too difficult to slip a buff formation or two at low alts. The buffs fly full speed to the target at shallow angles, which makes up setting interception runs pretty hard. And then bammo! spray the bombs all over the target - prelude to the modern-day clusterbomb?
-
I am glad to see that others also agree that increasing defensive capabilities causing more offensive sorties to be necessary to do what can be done now in 1 sortie can do a lot to even out numbers imbalance.
-
Originally posted by hitech
This is not goal in the main arena. You seem to foget drasticly fighter items that are not even close. Is not 1 of the fighters main roles to escort bombers. So under you view you should not be able to up a fighter unless you are escorting a bomber, because thats the way it was done in the war.
You also seem to foget the same dive bombing tacktic that can be use by suisiding fighters to kill CV's. Where is the out cry for this none realism.
These 1 sided realism arguments have been getting under my skin as of late.
HiTech
I think dive bombing A/C (not bombers) on CV's is fine, that's what the Japanese did in WWII, no arguement there. However if you watch any, I mean any WWII film footage of the Kamikaze attacking our ships they were met with unGodly amounts of 20mm, 40mm and 5" gunfire. Even if we had enough people to man all the guns we can not reproduce due to the fact there isn't enough gun stations. I think currently we have 10 or so positions avail. Most carriers, crusiers and battleships had 40+ 20mm, 60-80 40mm guns and 14-20 5" guns. .Watch this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5452621640791274884&q=wwii)
I don't like "gamey" game play anymore than the next guy. Yes, it is just a "game" and is impossible to simulate all that actually took place while in a real war. I realize there has to be a balance of realism & fun for us all to enjoy or we wouldn't play. However the diving bombing Lancs & B17's, along with dropping ord's 100' off the deck has been a complaint in the MA for some time. I do not have all the answers to these complaints, maybe the community can throw ideas on the table.
I'll also agree that people have complained that the airfields do not have adequate AA/AT defenses. I too would like to see that changed with the incorperation of either: A) Flak batteries that can be manned B) Mobile or towable AA Flak guns like the Wirbelwind, Ostwind, Flak36, M19, 40mm Bofors and 20mm twin & quad mounts C) All ready in place guns like we have now, just more of them and ALL manable.
There is really nothing to stop a couple of planes from porking a field, heck I can do it myself and I'm one of the worst pilots in the game.
I'm not telling anyone how to play the game or that someone should play "my" way, but when you see post after post of the same complaint seems to me more than just a couple of people don't approve.
My 2 cents
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
No ... with Frikkin' Lazer Beams (tm)(c) ... we want realism, afterall.
How bout giant death rays then? As soon as you up, you get zapped. Then the object of the game would be to see who can win the most at poker int the O`club.
If reaslism was the point, there would be fighter patrol sweeps up to kill said low level bombers and the problem would be solved. this is just another case of someone wanting the game changed to be played "their way".
Realism also has a point that can be reached here with out going from realism to ridiculous.
BTW, the original statement was a sarcastic comment. Guess I should have hung up the tag for the challenged. :D
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
.
AH simulates the essence WW2 of aerial combat.
Originally posted by hitech
This is not goal in the main arena.
HiTech
And da man has spoken.
That should end many of the arguments over what AH is.
Then again, Knowing this group
Probably not LMAO
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
How bout giant death rays then? As soon as you up, you get zapped. Then the object of the game would be to see who can win the most at poker int the O`club.
If reaslism was the point, there would be fighter patrol sweeps up to kill said low level bombers and the problem would be solved. this is just another case of someone wanting the game changed to be played "their way".
Realism also has a point that can be reached here with out going from realism to ridiculous.
BTW, the original statement was a sarcastic comment. Guess I should have hung up the tag for the challenged. :D
No its cool Jackal ... there was a joke going around like two months ago ... I think in the wish list someplace ... and the Austin Power's "Sharks With Frikkin' Lazer Beams on their Heads" came up. That was what I was referencing.
-
Then again, Knowing this group
Probably not LMAO
Perhaps.
But remember that people used to say similar things about, for example;
* gun vibrations
* carb-bombing and grounded buff-acking
* gunnery modelling
* stall modelling
* GVs
* bombsights and calibration
.. etc etc and on and on. All of them suggestions first coming from people ridiculed or put down as 'realism freaks'.
Look where AH is now.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
No its cool Jackal ... there was a joke going around like two months ago ... I think in the wish list someplace ... and the Austin Power's "Sharks With Frikkin' Lazer Beams on their Heads" came up. That was what I was referencing.
Awwww, I see. Missed that one.
As long as Indy is working on my tuneable Tokyo Rose broadcasts I`m a happy camper. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Look where AH is now.
Can`t find it. Got a link? :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
These 1 sided realism arguments have been getting under my skin as of late.
HiTech
A little "release-ct" brand salve will fix that skin problem right away :)
Tumor
-
Jackal1:
Hear ya go.
http://www.earthstation1.com/Orphan_Ann/Orphan_Ann_Sign-on_02.wav (http://www.earthstation1.com/Orphan_Ann/Orphan_Ann_Sign-on_02.wav)
:aok
LTARsqrl <>
-
Originally posted by MadSquirrel
Jackal1:
Hear ya go.
http://www.earthstation1.com/Orphan_Ann/Orphan_Ann_Sign-on_02.wav (http://www.earthstation1.com/Orphan_Ann/Orphan_Ann_Sign-on_02.wav)
:aok
LTARsqrl <>
Thanks , but I have a link to that site on a Tokyo Rose thread in the O`club entitled "Name That Dame game". :)
Interesting stuff.
Oh.....Indy is also working on this and has a thread in the Wish List forum.