Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hubsonfire on March 31, 2006, 04:45:56 PM
-
Originally posted by hitech
A year or 2 back I suggested the solution. Make damge to buildings delayed. And enorder for it to be recorded the player would have to live 5 - 10 secs after impact. This would remove the kamakazi for all types of aircraft.
Could also be done 10% on impact, secondary happens after 10 secs if you are still living causing 90% damage.
HiTech
Okay, technically this isn't the best idea ever (the Jeep and headshake rate higher on my list, but whatever), but this seems to have the potential to limit the effectiveness of suicide bombing of all types. I personally like this idea, as it promotes survival as a contributing factor to a player's success during an attack run, as opposed to a tradeoff.
I wish to see this implimented, even if only for a comparatively short time frame. A trial period to see if it in fact improves the gaming experience of the customer base, as it were.
My question for HT and company is, is this simply an idea you had in the past, or is it something for which the code is written, or could be without derailing any other projects in progress?
-
The only problem I would have with this is that while dive-bombing a CV from an appropriate altitude (not in lancs-thats just silly), you can get plugged with the 5in and die instantly. If I have already released my bombs, I would perfer they do their intended damage if they hit.
Bombs already have to be dropped from a certain height, or else they will not explode. Maybe upping the limit would be a better solution? Easier to code, anyway.
-
Suicide bombers pay their monthly fee just like you do, and I suspect they outnumber you. Why shouldn't the way they play the game be valid?
-
Originally posted by E25280
The only problem I would have with this is that while dive-bombing a CV from an appropriate altitude (not in lancs-thats just silly), you can get plugged with the 5in and die instantly. If I have already released my bombs, I would perfer they do their intended damage if they hit.
Bombs already have to be dropped from a certain height, or else they will not explode. Maybe upping the limit would be a better solution? Easier to code, anyway.
Nope. I'm glad it IS, the way it is.
-
I rarely agree with Urchin but alas, a rare moment in time has happend.
If the divebombing bombers are an issue, beat them in the game...in the air. Not by pleading with HiTech to code a solution based on your opinion of how a bomber should behave.
-
Originally posted by Docc
A simple solution to solve everyone's problems:
Increase the hardness of ALL the facilities at all fields by a factor of 4 or more. Make the acks killable only by bombs instead of bullets and cannon shells.
Yes, this may be 'unrealistic' but we already have 'unrealistic' pinpoint bombing ability and would help the gameplay for everyone.
The offense would have more of a challenge, requiring more sorties to destroy a base, having more targets to hit ( or targets to hit more).
The outnumbered defence would have a chance to up at a base and actually defend without a time or distance penalty.
The fights would move from the bases to the cities (minimizing vulching capabilities).
The furballers would have better protected bases or more time to defend them.
The current strat system would have more of an effect because it would be easier to target than bases.
The porkers would require multiple sorties....no more single 51s or typhies sneaking in and killing troops or ordinance for a base.
And best of all, these changes require minimal effort from HTC. At least we should try it
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I rarely agree with Urchin but alas, a rare moment in time has happend.
If the divebombing bombers are an issue, beat them in the game...in the air. Not by pleading with HiTech to code a solution based on your opinion of how a bomber should behave.
Haha, somewhere a star just imploded.
-
Originally posted by E25280
The only problem I would have with this is that while dive-bombing a CV from an appropriate altitude (not in lancs-thats just silly), you can get plugged with the 5in and die instantly. If I have already released my bombs, I would perfer they do their intended damage if they hit.
Bombs already have to be dropped from a certain height, or else they will not explode. Maybe upping the limit would be a better solution? Easier to code, anyway.
CV's are waaaayyyy too easy to kill currently, adding HT's feature would go a long way to remedying this. On some of the HUGE maps CV fights are pretty much the only fights, having CV's live longer is a good thing...
Zazen
-
Not to fond of this for the simple fact that it would sometimes penealize those of us who level bomb. It's no easy feat to be over target and have a con closing fast on your six just as you are about to drop. Without a gunner you have to cocentrate on your bomb run, drop your ordinance, then jump into a gun. If I drop my bombs and the fighter manages to kill me right after my drop, I would like my bombs to count (provided they hit their mark).
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Not to fond of this for the simple fact that it would sometimes penealize those of us who level bomb. It's no easy feat to be over target and have a con closing fast on your six just as you are about to drop. Without a gunner you have to cocentrate on your bomb run, drop your ordinance, then jump into a gun. If I drop my bombs and the fighter manages to kill me right after my drop, I would like my bombs to count (provided they hit their mark).
I guess you'd have to defend your buff and set-up your run again instead of dropping or get a dedicated gunner. As simple as level bombing is in AH, that's not too much to ask...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
having CV's live longer is a good thing...
Zazen
Except when they are a thorn in your side...then you can just switch sides, take control of them and lead them to the slaughter.
-
Easy -
Make CV's invulnerable to .303s, .50s, 20mm, 30mm, 37mm, 40mm rounds.
After all, as if even a 40mm round would worry the cruisers main guns, or for that fact the 5"ers.
Most CVs are sunk after they have had their guns killed by suicide 110's etc, then someone pops in with some eggs to finish it off.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Except when they are a thorn in your side...then you can just switch sides, take control of them and lead them to the slaughter.
He doesnt actually have to switch sides to do it lol... he's got a few accounts.
-
Kamakazis were part of WWII, so I can't see specifically modeling against them. More to the point, most of the "kamakazis" in game are noobs that can't pull out of a dive. Or take a hit as they are making their run..... you lose engine, wing, pilot at the end of a run, you likely will auger.
How do you model that from a 3 plane buff fight, if one drone goes down betweer the drop and the splash?
Is there a special problem in bringing down buildings in game?
As to fixing how easy it is to kill CVs..... hogwash! CV's are easy to kill in game because they never have any protective CAP overhead. Even if there are active operations lifting from a CV's deck, they all run off to the furball..... no one stays aloft to keep buffs away from the CV.
More often than not, someone parks a CV where it is doomed no matter who tries to defend it.
Carrier operations only work consistently well when a squadren or group adopts one and dedicates some time and manppower to operating from it and defending it.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
As to fixing how easy it is to kill CVs..... hogwash! CV's are easy to kill in game because they never have any protective CAP overhead. Even if there are active operations lifting from a CV's deck, they all run off to the furball..... no one stays aloft to keep buffs away from the CV.
More often than not, someone parks a CV where it is doomed no matter who tries to defend it.
Carrier operations only work consistently well when a squadren or group adopts one and dedicates some time and manppower to operating from it and defending it.
No amount of CAP can stop a determined enemy willing to die from dropping on a target. CV's in their current form cannot be adequately defended from such attacks. There's too many dweebs just out to ruin fun that have no regard for their virtual lives...I'd be willing to accept the 'kamikazes existed in real life' argument if we had real attrition like they did. So, let's say if you kamikaze on a CV (or any other target) you cannot fly again for 24 hrs...
As it is now a kamikaze pilot can get up in 3 seconds and do it again, rinse and repeat and CV's dead in 5 minutes or less...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Okay, technically this isn't the best idea ever (the Jeep and headshake rate higher on my list, but whatever), but this seems to have the potential to limit the effectiveness of suicide bombing of all types. I personally like this idea, as it promotes survival as a contributing factor to a player's success during an attack run, as opposed to a tradeoff.
I wish to see this implimented, even if only for a comparatively short time frame. A trial period to see if it in fact improves the gaming experience of the customer base, as it were.
My question for HT and company is, is this simply an idea you had in the past, or is it something for which the code is written, or could be without derailing any other projects in progress?
It may not be the best idea EVAR... But, its so good I wonder what the hell he was thinking when he decided not to code it...
-
Way better to put realistic limits on the bomb release devices.
-
Chef, what planes will spawn on the runway, take off, and accelerate to well over 400mph in the time it takes a formation of bombers to travel 6,000 yards at 325mph? Anyone?
Ted, AFAIK, the USAAF didn't use bombers as kamikazes, and neither did the RAF. There is no attrition in AH, and using the kamikaze (a desparate and unintelligent tactic at best ) as a rationale for the most popular bomber tactic doesn't float.
Most of the suicide buffbombers in AH aren't noobs. They're vets following the path of least resistance.
Donzo, if you aren't going to live until your bombs hit, you are, in fact, one of the unrealistic suicide bombers in question.
Pongo, I'd like to see changes along those lines as well. Drop only from F6, under textbook conditions; level, at speed, at alt, no insane Gs or unsafe speeds, etc. However, I doubt that will ever happen, and HT himself said he'd considered this route, which means this is probably as close as we'll get. Hence my support and this thread.
I see this idea as adding a little bit of realism without taxing anyone too much, taking one of the most frustrating aspects out of AH's naval warfare, reducing the frustration of those customers who wish to play around in the TT areas in GVs, and making folks realize what a fearsome weapon the bomber actually is in AH, instead of just using them to grief.
I'm not sure I really see the downside here. Remember, this isn't my idea, so you don't have to automatically disagree with it. If anyone's got some thoughts on how this would negatively affect gameplay, I'd like to hear them.
I think a lot us had that same thought, Kurt.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Way better to put realistic limits on the bomb release devices.
If that's the case, NO CV in WWII was sunk with Bombers (Level or Suicide Medium/Heavy Bombers). If you are gonna do REAL, do it right.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Donzo, if you aren't going to live until your bombs hit, you are, in fact, one of the unrealistic suicide bombers in question.
I beg to differ, sir.
Read my post this time and tell me how your statement makes sense.
My post pointed out a realistic situation. At no time did I say anything that would suggest I would be doing something suicidal.
-
Without a gunner you have to cocentrate on your bomb run, drop your ordinance, then jump into a gun. If I drop my bombs and the fighter manages to kill me right after my drop, I would like my bombs to count (provided they hit their mark).
You ignore the possibility of defending yourself, or enlisting the help of a gunner, choosing instead to concentrate on your drop. This is a behavior that I would define as suicidal.
I should also emphasize that this idea (which is not my idea, nor is it "my opinion how bombers should work") applies to ALL aircraft which carry ordnance. I don't want this to turn into another fighter vs bomber thread.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
You ignore the possibility of defending yourself, or enlisting the help of a gunner, choosing instead to concentrate on your drop. This is a behavior that I would define as suicidal.
Exactly what I said above. There's a reason you can man your own guns or recruit a gunner to do so. If you are being attacked, defend yourself and set-up for another run once you lazer down the offending fighter(s)...Lord forbid you don't get to point n' click your eggs on the first run everytime...
Zazen
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Suicide bombers pay their monthly fee just like you do, and I suspect they outnumber you. Why shouldn't the way they play the game be valid?
Nice man... haha. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kurt
It may not be the best idea EVAR... But, its so good I wonder what the hell he was thinking when he decided not to code it...
LOL, exactly, that was my exact question to HiTech in the other thread...It's like having a million dollars but instead of spending it you bury it in your backyard and die broke...
Zazen
-
why not only allow bomb drop from the bombsight on level bombers and limit the angle of release to real world norms? Would solve most of the problem and be more realistic too.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Way better to put realistic limits on the bomb release devices.
Word.
culero
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Way better to put realistic limits on the bomb release devices.
Which is something HT has said he will do.
Trouble is, everything has to be prioritized when coding resources are finite, and bomb bay/delivery characteristics are lower on the list right now.
To be honest, the things they've done lately (like the jeep) while working on TOD are far better investments than the bomb bays would be.
Time will come/
-
What happened to the thread about bombsights? I thought (and maybe I'm recalling incorrectly) that HT had said they weren't terribly interested in changing the process, due to numerous possible workarounds that would negate the effort. Not in those words, but that was the impression I got from deciphering his post. Was that your thread, Sim?
:lol I'm trying to search for HT's posts, and I'm sitting here thinking, "hmmm, how many ways can bomber be mispelled if you're in a hurry? How many ways for release?"
C'mon, throw me a bone here, someone link it.
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
CV's are waaaayyyy too easy to kill currently, adding HT's feature would go a long way to remedying this. On some of the HUGE maps CV fights are pretty much the only fights, having CV's live longer is a good thing...
Zazen
CV 's are not easy kill. Only reason they get killed is No one wants to CAP CV while rest vulch bases. You normaly See 15 to 20 guys vulching 1 or 2 newbies while a lone set of bombers flys to cv unmolested. If your cv gets sunk before you get base usally 3 reason's why. 1. guys took off before town shelled or to far out from base, 2. SB were not destoryed before vulching. 3 . No CAP at cv 2 guys maybe 1 at 15k over cv could stop incoming bombers, low bombers easy pickings to avg gunner, but like said before most want name in lights instead of defense of carrier. Greatest worry going to kill knight cv is having Wheels on 5".Going after rook cv only seen 1 squad CAP cv while rest vulching that was Lynx aka steve's SOB's.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
If that's the case, NO CV in WWII was sunk with Bombers (Level or Suicide Medium/Heavy Bombers). If you are gonna do REAL, do it right.
ki67 suicide a Light carrier lost 3 light carriers to suicide attacks
-
I think they should just increase the amount of damage a cv can take.
Just a little though.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Chef, what planes will spawn on the runway, take off, and accelerate to well over 400mph in the time it takes a formation of bombers to travel 6,000 yards at 325mph? Anyone?
Ted, AFAIK, the USAAF didn't use bombers as kamikazes, and neither did the RAF. There is no attrition in AH, and using the kamikaze (a desparate and unintelligent tactic at best ) as a rationale for the most popular bomber tactic doesn't float.
Most of the suicide buffbombers in AH aren't noobs. They're vets following the path of least resistance.
Donzo, if you aren't going to live until your bombs hit, you are, in fact, one of the unrealistic suicide bombers in question.
Pongo, I'd like to see changes along those lines as well. Drop only from F6, under textbook conditions; level, at speed, at alt, no insane Gs or unsafe speeds, etc. However, I doubt that will ever happen, and HT himself said he'd considered this route, which means this is probably as close as we'll get. Hence my support and this thread.
I see this idea as adding a little bit of realism without taxing anyone too much, taking one of the most frustrating aspects out of AH's naval warfare, reducing the frustration of those customers who wish to play around in the TT areas in GVs, and making folks realize what a fearsome weapon the bomber actually is in AH, instead of just using them to grief.
I'm not sure I really see the downside here. Remember, this isn't my idea, so you don't have to automatically disagree with it. If anyone's got some thoughts on how this would negatively affect gameplay, I'd like to hear them.
I think a lot us had that same thought, Kurt.
ah did you miss battle of midway? 12 b25's 8 tbm's all died trying to kill carriers some even dived on cv's to hit them but cap of zero's killed them all. only 6 bombs out of all these planes hit any ships. Japanese would use its crusiers to come along side of carriers so torpedo's didn't get carriers.
And watch Japanese films of american attacks on its fleet. what some of you call suicide is exactly how dive bombers flew dropping or 1k or less on japanese fleet.
-
Originally posted by rod367th
ah did you miss battle of midway? 12 b25's 8 tbm's all died trying to kill carriers some even dived on cv's to hit them but cap of zero's killed them all. only 6 bombs out of all these planes hit any ships. Japanese would use its crusiers to come along side of carriers so torpedo's didn't get carriers.
And watch Japanese films of american attacks on its fleet. what some of you call suicide is exactly how dive bombers flew dropping or 1k or less on japanese fleet.
and as for RAF lol they lost many lanc's trying to sink bismark. low attacks which you all call suicide attacks lol. And yes seen some storys of american polish RAf using planes in suicide attack some rec medals for ramming bomber with thier planes. to stop incoming bomber or v1 or v2 rocket. Same as everyone say HO didn't happen in real life. watermelon its posted right in 1939-44Navy manual to HO planes. And most famous pilot to HO is Chuck Yeager.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Suicide bombers pay their monthly fee just like you do, and I suspect they outnumber you. Why shouldn't the way they play the game be valid?
Because HTC has tried to create a relatively authentic game/simulation, and suicide bombers detract from authenticity. The "hey, some people like it this way, so don't change it" argument stifles any improvement. If HTC adhered to it, we never would have received flight model updates ("Hey, some people LIKE being able to pull the stick all the way back without stalling, and it's their $15.00!"), and would still be using a hit bubble ("Hey some people LIKE being able to land 20 kills!"). While suicide bombers existed in the war, they were comparatively rare, certainly for the type of combat we're supposed to be simulating.
Looking at the comments in this thread, the main objectors seem to focus on a very narrow moment in time - "I've just dropped my bombs and the ack/fighter got me, I still want the bombs to count." Well, hey, you're DEAD, so your score wouldn't have amounted to much anyway.
The idea sounds fine to me, FWIW.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
If that's the case, NO CV in WWII was sunk with Bombers (Level or Suicide Medium/Heavy Bombers). If you are gonna do REAL, do it right.
In all fairness, no cv in WWII was sunk by level heavy bombers bombing from altitude because if any con got within 20 miles, the entire fleet would begin zig-zagging wildly preventing any kind of line-up. In AH, you might see a lazy S pattern at best, and then someone is screaming "Quit turning the CV so I can launch!!" If the fleets all traveled in straight lines, we may have had different history.
So if we want HTC to code automatic, random, constantly turning fleets when a con is in Dar range, that would be doing "Real right".
-
Originally posted by rod367th
ki67 suicide a Light carrier lost 3 light carriers to suicide attacks
But no level correct, since this is 90% of Bombing choices in the MA?
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
snip
Looking at the comments in this thread, the main objectors seem to focus on a very narrow moment in time - "I've just dropped my bombs and the ack/fighter got me, I still want the bombs to count." Well, hey, you're DEAD, so your score wouldn't have amounted to much anyway.
The idea sounds fine to me, FWIW.
- oldman
Me, too, so long as the bomb damage applies to the arena. Score is irrelevant.
culero
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Because HTC has tried to create a relatively authentic game/simulation, and suicide bombers detract from authenticity. The "hey, some people like it this way, so don't change it" argument stifles any improvement. If HTC adhered to it, we never would have received flight model updates ("Hey, some people LIKE being able to pull the stick all the way back without stalling, and it's their $15.00!"), and would still be using a hit bubble ("Hey some people LIKE being able to land 20 kills!"). While suicide bombers existed in the war, they were comparatively rare, certainly for the type of combat we're supposed to be simulating.
Looking at the comments in this thread, the main objectors seem to focus on a very narrow moment in time - "I've just dropped my bombs and the ack/fighter got me, I still want the bombs to count." Well, hey, you're DEAD, so your score wouldn't have amounted to much anyway.
The idea sounds fine to me, FWIW.
- oldman
I'm kind of coming at it from an average jow perspective. If I can't be successful in fighters, whats left? GVs and bombers? GVs take to long for all but the most patient people, so that leaves bombers.
Also, those who play the "win the war" game want to feel like they have an impact on the game. When you fly fighters (well enough to feel as if you are 'successful" the impact is the number of kills you have. If you up a fighter and are fodder for any red con that comes within icon range, how can you have an impact? Easy, you fly a bomber. You can blow enemy buildings up, and fly home satisfied.
Do I think the bomber gameplay is ideal? No, I personally don't. I think there needs to be some kind of strategic targets (factories that actually make stuff like different fighters, GVs, etc, maybe supply stockpiles, that sort of thing so bombers pilots will have something to do other than drop hangars at fields and stifling a2a fights.
I think there needs to be a lot more ground cover, and I don't think bombers should get ID tags on enemy vehicles (formations of bombers, that is), because I don't think it is good gameplay for formations of level bombers to be carpetbombing individual Panzers.
But in the meantime, I don't think that taking away the "easy mode" impact on the game (by hanger busting or CV killing) that newer players can enjoy is warranted simply because a handful of "vets" do nothing buy run suicide NoE missions.
As far as I know, all the maps are big now... if some NoE bomber busts your hangars, fly somewhere else. Don't try to make it impossible for bombers to drop CVs and hangars, there is literally nothing else for them to kill.
-
I'm kind of coming at it from an average jow perspective. If I can't be successful in fighters, whats left? GVs and bombers? GVs take to long for all but the most patient people, so that leaves bombers.
Also, those who play the "win the war" game want to feel like they have an impact on the game. When you fly fighters (well enough to feel as if you are 'successful" the impact is the number of kills you have. If you up a fighter and are fodder for any red con that comes within icon range, how can you have an impact? Easy, you fly a bomber. You can blow enemy buildings up, and fly home satisfied.
Excellent wording Urchin - I admire how you can put it so simply.
I was thinking the same, but was also afraid that if I'd write about it it'd become a full-blown essay. :D Like you've mentioned, the "average joe", indeed, is probably way more numerous than the 'experienced' in the game. On a loose estimate, I'd say about 80% of the entire MA population is 'average', including myself. So, the average joe does have a say in this - perhaps much more than even the self-proclaimed 'vets'.
What you've explained is the common motivation behind the various types of people in the Main Arena. Back in the glorious "old-days", before AH became the giant of on-line combat simulation games, everybody shared a certain similar attitude toward flight and combat. The bombers, vehicles, and the whole strat system itself was IMO a slight addition to the fun factor at best.
However, the MA has grown now. There are a lot of pilots in the Arena. We even have our own small version of "nationalism" between Rooks, Bish, and Knits. The once common goal shared by the small group of 'vets', has now changed to a larger common purpose of 'winning the war'. People fly to win for their own country - not for the sake of combat itself like the 'old ones' used to... and it's my point of view that this is what's making things shaky and complicated regarding these types of discussions.
Do I think the bomber gameplay is ideal? No, I personally don't. I think there needs to be some kind of strategic targets (factories that actually make stuff like different fighters, GVs, etc, maybe supply stockpiles, that sort of thing so bombers pilots will have something to do other than drop hangars at fields and stifling a2a fights.
I think there needs to be a lot more ground cover, and I don't think bombers should get ID tags on enemy vehicles (formations of bombers, that is), because I don't think it is good gameplay for formations of level bombers to be carpetbombing individual Panzers.
This is the part where I smack my head and nod my head madly in agreement. :) I totally agree.
The phenomena common in the MA some people(including myself) perceive as 'problems', is indeed caused by the ever-enlarging rift between arena numbers and basic game mechanics. I personally think we now have enough people to set up a bit more complex strat system for the MA.
But in the meantime, I don't think that taking away the "easy mode" impact on the game (by hanger busting or CV killing) that newer players can enjoy is warranted simply because a handful of "vets" do nothing buy run suicide NoE missions.
The problem is, these things have a way of embedding itself so firmly that when the time for change comes it inevidently meets a huge ruckus of oppositions and protests. Frankly, newer people should be more motivated to try different things and actually get better in achieving the desired results without getting shot down all the time.
There's a school of thought in the MA (probably in any society) that assumes that the "newbie" as a closed and unchanging state of mind.
They treat the newbie like a spoiled child - if something becomes more complex, if something becomes more real, or if something requires a certain amount of practice - then they assume the newbie will not be able to adapt to it, and just quit the game. More realism, new changes, more complex strats, more perk to uber-planes, better DM, even better graphics and etc etc.. will just make it so difficult for newbies that they'll quit and stop playing the game.
I don't agree with that kind of thinking - and especially after having seen the success of IL2/FB and their players, I am very convinced that the "newbie" is an ever-changing state of mind that actively adapts to what's given to them.
Newbies learn, and they change.
If something becomes more difficult or harder, they just practice more. If something becomes more real(such as less icon info or no ammo counters) they adapt to it and start reacting differently according to situations. If the game graphics are enhanced they earn more money and upgrade their system. There could be fights and clashes and disagreements or discontent to what's good or bad, but the point is if things change people learn to adapt to it. Some people may quit, but obviously the new changes also draw in a lot more people who were previously uninterested by the 'lacking' aspects of the game.
In other words, if some sort of action is limited in order to make the game more sound or better towards realism(or any other purpose, for that matter), that doesn't automatically mean that the people who used to do that kind of stuff will feel that their fun is gone. They just simply adapt to the change(despite the gripes and complaints) and start to have their own kind of fun after the adaptation is complete.
Yeah, the newer people may enjoy hangar busting or CV killing or deck-alt runs and suicidal kamikazes. But that doesn't mean that they will not enjoy the new challenges of having to learn to do other things due to limitations.
.......
That being said,
I don't like the idea itself. Ironic, ain't it? :D
-
One of the most memorable moments, for me, in Green Mountain Boy history, is the sinking of a CV by five Green Mountain Boys flying F4U-1Ds. While climbing out to 15,000 feet to target an enemy airfield we came across a CV and its escorts about 14k below us. We closed up our formation, set our salvos to 2, and peeled off one after another, rolling down to the target. At least 8 of our 10 2k bombs found their mark and the CV sunk beautifully and we climbed back up to altitude with the loss of a single Green Mountain Boy to ack. The attack was swift, powerful, and verticle. The ack was horendous! Had an enemy CAP been up, I have no doubt that we would have jettisoned our ordnance to engage the enemy CAP and the CV would have survived.
I have never found CVs "easy" to kill...but, I fly the Corsair...so it takes a determined effort to sink one...especially if I'm alone. Hardening the CVs further will only put out of business those of us who do try to fly somewhat in an "historical" venue. A single, lucky drop, a 500 pound bomb down a smokestack, did sink real life CVs. I believe the battle of Midway proved that. Most, if not all of the Japanese Carriers were sunk by SBDs at Midway.
It is true that heavy bombers proved disappointing in their ability to kill ships from high altitude. However, tactics did change, and there were some heavy bombers that did fly low, and did drop on shipping with fair results in the South Pacific, but not many.
I recommend the following book: "Fire in the Sky" by Eric M. Bergerund, for those who may be interested in the Air War in the South Pacific.
So, while discussing further hardening of CVs, please consider those of us who fly against CVs in aircraft other than heavy bombers and our ability to individually contribute to tactical gameplay. The Battle of Midway showed what happened to the Japanese carriers when the CAP was pulled to the deck. WarBirds showed what happened to a company that listened only to the vocal few.
-
Originally posted by rod367th
and as for RAF lol they lost many lanc's trying to sink bismark. low attacks which you all call suicide attacks lol.
So you do agree that it did not happen? Bismark was parked and the LANCs did not even scrach it.
CAP in the CV is a load of . . . . Cap it at what 1K? They die 20 times in 5 minutes but eventualy they get pass you. How match ammo do you think fighters have? Not to mention that they interfeer with the 5" proxy fuses. You try to hit the bombers but the cells keep exploding behind the friendlies trying to intercept them.
-
Using Rod's examples of Midway and the Bismarck, one could also say that there were examples of friendly fire, and use that same rationale to support a removal of KS. Allies occasionally killed each other, so we should be able to as well, right?
Just because something did happen, doesn't mean that it was standard procedure, or that it should be possible in the game. I'm not as interested in full blown realism as I am in a game that's fun to play.
I don't recall HOing even being an issue in this discussion.
-
Originally posted by Docc
you know why this won't work and shouldn't be implemented?
selfishness.
right now a player can up an heavy "jabo" plane, and have just enough to kill 1 hangar. they do it, they get credit, they get a sence of being for having accomplished something.
if it were to take 4 players to kill one hangar, are you going to be the first, second and third to drop and get credit for nothing? i dont care what anyone says, there are selfish people out there, and most players play for themselves not some mythic community goal
if there is another plane with ord flying around, 2 have already dropped on the hangar, and i have ord too, you bet i'm not going to be the one who drops and let that other guy get the free credit for destroying the target.
sorry that's just the way it is.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
you know why this won't work and shouldn't be implemented?
selfishness.
right now a player can up an heavy "jabo" plane, and have just enough to kill 1 hangar. they do it, they get credit, they get a sence of being for having accomplished something.
if it were to take 4 players to kill one hangar, are you going to be the first, second and third to drop and get credit for nothing? i dont care what anyone says, there are selfish people out there, and most players play for themselves not some mythic community goal
if there is another plane with ord flying around, 2 have already dropped on the hangar, and i have ord too, you bet i'm not going to be the one who drops and let that other guy get the free credit for destroying the target.
sorry that's just the way it is.
I never understood why you did not get credit for what you did. If a damaged hanger is destoryed by someone who just pumped 10 rounds of cannon into it, why should that person get full credit for the hanger? They should just get credit for the damage caused by the 10 rounds they put into it. Damage is damage. If a hanger is set at a certain number fully up and this number is degraded by people inflicting damage, each person should get credit for the damage they inflicted.
This would eliminate the selfishness problem and act as an incentive to make your attack accurate.
-
People wanna hear the whistle, and see the boom when it should happen. I dont like the delayed impact idea.
-
This is wandering offtopic, so what the hell...
I would love to have delayed fusing on bombs. I fly off, the little dork in the flak panzer thinks it's his lucky day, and as he's chuckling about the noob who dropped too low, KAWHUMP!
However, apparently my interests are polar opposites from the rest of the MA.
Filth and Mustaine have 2 interesting points, but being selfish, I don't care. ;) I'm curious though, how do the AH loadouts compare to real life loadouts. The only plane to which I'd paid any attention was the Hurri, in my quest to get rockets as an option for the 2C (may actually have been a different model, been a long time). Anyway, IIRC, the hurricane could carry 8 rockets, 4 per wing rack, but a more common loadout it seems was actually half that, with 4 rockets on 1 rack, and a DT on the other pylon.
-
If your refering to bomb arm time. We already have that.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
This is wandering offtopic, so what the hell...
I would love to have delayed fusing on bombs. I fly off, the little dork in the flak panzer thinks it's his lucky day, and as he's chuckling about the noob who dropped too low, KAWHUMP!
However, apparently my interests are polar opposites from the rest of the MA.
Filth and Mustaine have 2 interesting points, but being selfish, I don't care. ;) I'm curious though, how do the AH loadouts compare to real life loadouts. The only plane to which I'd paid any attention was the Hurri, in my quest to get rockets as an option for the 2C (may actually have been a different model, been a long time). Anyway, IIRC, the hurricane could carry 8 rockets, 4 per wing rack, but a more common loadout it seems was actually half that, with 4 rockets on 1 rack, and a DT on the other pylon.
That's the Mk IV Hurri you are talking about Hub. It gave up the 20mms and only had 1 or 2 303's in the wing for sighting shots if memory serves. 4 rockets under each wing or 4 rockets under one wing and one DT. Still in service with 6 squadron in the Balkans at the end of the war.
-
Originally posted by hitech
If your refering to bomb arm time. We already have that.
HiTech
No, referring specifically to time-delay fusing. Drop bomb, bomb hits, bomb sits there for a bit, then bomb explodes, hopefully smearing some hapless tank or plane spawning on the runway.
Out of curiosity, are the common loadouts in AH historically common, or are we perpetually loaded for bear in the MA?
-
Originally posted by rod367th
ah did you miss battle of midway? 12 b25's 8 tbm's all died trying to kill carriers some even dived on cv's to hit them but cap of zero's killed them all. only 6 bombs out of all these planes hit any ships. Japanese would use its crusiers to come along side of carriers so torpedo's didn't get carriers.
And watch Japanese films of american attacks on its fleet. what some of you call suicide is exactly how dive bombers flew dropping or 1k or less on japanese fleet.
Whoa Whoa Whoa.. There were NO B-25s at Midway. There were 4 B-26s and they along with 6 TBFs made TORPEEDO attacks on the Japanese fleet. 2 B-26s were lost and the other 2 were shot up. One TBF made it back.
I would be real interested in a reference as to where the Japanese films you are refering to are available for screening. Unless they are made by the same people who made Godzilla I doubt they exist. I have never seen any japanese film from that battle. Well other than "Midway" the Movie which was a joke.
Also if you want to make CVs more survivable put a flight of Drones on CAP and extend the radar range. You got to have time to climb up to the bombers which the short radar range does not allow. And the radar should be up if any of the ships are up as the entire fleet had individual radars.
-
The problem with that is that your CAP will show up on the game's radar system and that the enemy will know where your cv is at all times.
-
Originally posted by Docc
The problem with that is that your CAP will show up on the game's radar system and that the enemy will know where your cv is at all times.
They already do with the SPIES. :noid :noid :noid
Bronk
-
Interesting discussion. I see a few options that are, in my opinion, viable solutions to limiting the effectiveness of suicide tactics, however, they each have a dark side, and possibly more negative effects than those that struck me as readily apparent. Anyway, some ideas are:
More ack. Lots of it. (side effect is increased numbers of people hiding in the ack, which means less fighting, and lots more deaths to AI. Possibly fix that by making all of the additional positions mannable guns, and not AI ack)
Limited availability of ordnance. (Either through perking [not popular], or a layer of additional targets in the strat system [probably a lot more coding]. Negative side effect of even more porking, which would mean the damage system might possibly need tweaking, to limit the effectiveness of guns-only porking, which seems to be terribly unpopular with those that enjoy blowing **** up. Also, see below.)
Changes to the damage model, ie, limiting the effectiveness of, or ability to take strategic and tactical targets down with just guns. (obvious side effect of requiring a helluva lotta coding. probably the least popular idea with HTC and company.)
The idea of making targets harder has some merit, but also a lot of side effects, several of which have been mentioned all ready. A CV that requires a low yield tactical nook to sink it might be fun for a furball, but would make a legitimate defense of a field against an attacking CV unbearably difficult. Bad for the low numbers side)
So, moving on, what are the pros and cons of these ideas that you folks see? What are some other alternatives that seem possible, and would have more positive effects than negative? Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)
-
I am shocked to see that folks want what bothers their gameplay most changed to their advantage.......
hehehhe
ok zazen you reality driven pilot...which cv captured a field evah???
ooh another question..which cv stayed alive within range of an operating airbase and carried unlimited planes???
cvs are interesting and fun garbage in this game....they should not be used as base taking fields however in ANY sense of reality and to harden them is silly
i agree with making ack a lot harder to drop at bases...there would be more ded horde and less ded vulchers...and yes im giving zazen better ack...:aok
-
And don't forget to harden troops and ord beyond the bomb capabilities of a single formation of lancs........otherwise we'll have 30K charlie cruising around all day porking each base.
-
Originally posted by Docc
And don't forget to harden troops and ord beyond the bomb capabilities of a single formation of lancs........otherwise we'll have 30K charlie cruising around all day porking each base.
I wouldn't worry about that to much. Most porkers go for the FHs.
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
which cv captured a field evah???
Is this a trick question?
Do most of the islands we took in the Pacific in WWII count?
- oldman
-
although i can sympathize (no spell check) with
the frustration of suacide (no spell check) pilots
i feel this penalizes those who plan on living after their drop.
for example if a jabo pilot is makes a perfect drop on the vh
and is then killed by ack as he pulls out of the dive....
why should those ords not do the same damage as if the jabo
had not gotten hit by the ack?
as far as CVs go if the defence is there (fighter cap)
it can make it next to impossible for a buff pilot to get in.
heck even without cap picking off buffs below 4k from the
fleets guns is childsplay.