Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tapakeg on April 30, 2006, 12:04:15 PM
-
Flying Fortress (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/B-17inBattle.wmv)
It kept flying in this video, not sure how far it flew after this.........
Tap
-
Buff guns are overmodeled, I'm fine with the ammount of damage buffs can take.
-
I agree with Stang, I think the guns should be toned down alot. I wouldn't even mind if the Buffs were able to take MORE damage. It's the guns that are a bit retarded. Killing ya 1500 out, is a bit of a Stretch.
-
I've seen this clip before and I've always wondered--why are there no gunners firing back at the attacker?
The B-17 just flies on and on, taking hit after hit.
None of the guns are pointed in the attacker's direction and none appear to be firing---why?
-
It's not the guns. It's the bombers' full-out-non-stop FFT speed. Historically they rarely ever reached these speeds. In AH they only ever reach anything lower when they're taking off (and not even landing, most don't bother with that part of the game).
They *wouldn't* get 1.2k shots off on you if you weren't struggling to keep up with them in a fighter (bombers outrunning fighters, right. Like THAT was the norm!). They would be flying slower, you would be flying faster, you wouldn't loiter behind them, you'd be able to actually overtake them, set up slashing runs, side runs, attacks from anywhere other than dead 6, where the speeds involved mean that they can shoot further (you're heading into the bullets from dead 6). Once I'm ahead or abeam of a bomber, the most they can ever hope to ping me is at 800, 600 or less more realistically. It's only the aft angle that allows such long range shots.
And it's all because of the retarded speed of bombers. A second fuel burn for heavy bombers would solve this problem. Just bump it up 4x (so instead of 25% for 1+ hours flight time, you need 100% for 1+ hours flight time).
-
Originally posted by hulk31st
I've seen this clip before and I've always wondered--why are there no gunners firing back at the attacker?
The B-17 just flies on and on, taking hit after hit.
None of the guns are pointed in the attacker's direction and none appear to be firing---why?
The tail gunner was prolly dead at that point.If ya look close you will see two ball turrets on the bottom of the plane.This was one of those up-guned 17s that was suppose to act as a flyin anit-aircraft platform.
Pipz
-
Nope. That second turret is the chin gun. YB-40s had 2 dorsal turrets, I think. Not 2 ventral.
There's been some debate about this film, just going from memory on these forums. Some think it was a captured plane and the pilot bailed just before the attack (to me it looks like 1 person bails just seconds before the fighter opens fire).
It looked like the chin gun was rotating, however. Nothing else was moving, it seemed.
-
guns are overmodelled and the gun positions should be far more vunerable.
as for the video, there are also cases of bombers being brought down by single rounds. you cannot argue 1 incident to be the norm.
-
the 1 thing the irks me the most is th AI warp into position after u kill the lead buff. i die to this more then buff guns.
ths instant warp into position collision needs fixing.
-
It does kinda look like someone bailed there, early in the clip.
I think the gunners are WAY to tough, personally. The structure I don't really know... sometimes it seems to tough , sometimes to weak.
-
I think buffs seem too tough sometimes due to rubber bullets.
Adding a special fuel burn multiplier would only really change the range, not the dynamic (you'd still have people diving their B17's to gain speed). I'd say maybe do something with changing the engine overheating model, so you couldn't run flat out in heavies all the time. But people would just game that and firewall the engines when they came under fire, and then throttle back afer.
Which leaves the gunners. And here is where the biggest leap of modelling really occurs. The way a formation of heavies is modelled now, every gunner on three different planes - with WW2 era comm's and no IFF - is coordinating fire on one target with near-perfect telemetry. Riiiiiight. It ain't the per-gun lethality - its this level of coordination which is nuts. Gunner stations not on the lead ship at the very least shouldn't be as coordinated.
-
EVERYTHING about buffs in AH is overmodeled. The bomb site out of an F117 and Lazer gunners from starwars.
Stop lying.
-
Well, that looks about how I look attacking buffs...with one exception, I disappear after about 10 seconds sitting on the 6 of a buff.....
These are good arguments, but how realistic is it for a fighter to shoot down a formation of 3 buffs? Happens all the time in AH.
-
Buff guns are way overmodeled. Being able to fire constantly without any stoppage and the distance of their guns.
Same here whels, that drone popping in front really gets on my nerve. Lose many 262s to that cause I would go after the lead then drone would pop and if dont go after lead they can keep firing at you when you kill it. Happened to me last night, dove straight from direct top of a buff made it go pop and the drone behind it collided with me and I died.
-
Isnt it funny how those that cant shoot em down via decent tactics are the first to whine? Waaah guns, waah too fast, waah too hard to shoot down....etc etc
I do agree that the AI warp after a buff is killed sux
-
And who here do you know doesn't use good "tactics" Lepaul? You're talking out of your ass. As Morph said, stop lying to yourself.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It's not the guns. It's the bombers' full-out-non-stop FFT speed. Historically they rarely ever reached these speeds.
If you really want to split hairs about top speed, then maybe you ought to realise that it was a rarity that fighters ran around at max emergency power too... Most fighters used there best normal cruise speed till they got into it, and then they used max mil.... but keeping in mind that they watched their guages like hawks too, ever aware of what happens when you run outside the normal parameters for too long.
As for the buffs guns, I think they are rediculously tough, but in the MA they need to be, otherwise these buffs would get waxed right off. If you took the ability of the rediculous diving bombing buffs away, then I'd live with the guns just fine.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
As for the buffs guns, I think they are rediculously tough, but in the MA they need to be, otherwise these buffs would get waxed right off. If you took the ability of the rediculous diving bombing buffs away, then I'd live with the guns just fine.
Agreed.
-
the question is how far would it have went if carson palmer was flying it.. :noid
-
originally posted by Tweeeeeeeeeeeeb
the question is how far would it have went if carson palmer was flying it..
Forever, blown up every FH on the map and shot down 400 la7's. And make it back to base without a scratch.
:t
-
Gotta realize that this is a game.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Isnt it funny how those that cant shoot em down via decent tactics are the first to whine? Waaah guns, waah too fast, waah too hard to shoot down....etc etc
i cant remember the last time i died attacking a bomber formation, but yes i can see the faults in them - i deathstar from bombers to kill vulchers all the time.
-
whos carson palmer?
-
Originally posted by Furball
whos carson palmer?
QB for the Bungles
-
As for there being no return fire - it appears that the ball turret guns are just hanging down - I'd guess the gunners were dead or wounded by this point in the attack.
I've seen this clip many times on different History and Discovery channel programs - each time it amazes me how many cannon hits the 17 takes and keeps on chugging away
-
"Adding a special fuel burn multiplier would only really change the range, not the dynamic (you'd still have people diving their B17's to gain speed)."
Not so. Think of it this way. It's nearly impossible to get a bomber off the ground with 100% gas. You either get bombload OR gas, not both. By FORCING times when you need more gas in a bomber, people will either slog around hugging the ground trying not to hit trees, never getting above 3k and being sluggish and slow the whole time, or they will take less gas and CRUISE, which means they fly slower. Which means they are realistically catchable as they were in real life.
Given the choice of 100% gas in a B17 and 6x1k bombs, and 50% gas in a b17 and 6x 1k bombs, but using reduced manifold to cruise, which would you pick? Any bomber who has EVER tried to do anything with more than 25% gas knows the difference and they will start slowing down.
The newbies won't. They'll FFT it til they run out then glide into the ground. So it's a win-win situation!
EDIT: Not to mention those 32k HQ raid mission would go bye-bye. Climb performance is VERY much affected by the weight of the gas onboard, so they'd never get that high. Again, more realistic.
-
why do we have to B***H just becasue you get OWNED by a bomber Dont mean thay need to tone down the guns
-
Again the guns are almost no different from US fighter guns. It's the speed at which they scream across the sky (SCRAMJET, anybody?!?!) that causes their long range and lethal 6-oclock angle. If you can actually CATCH a set of bombers they are easy as hell to kill. It's the ones you cannot catch, that put you squarely in their gunsights because you can't even pull along side of them, those are the BS ones. The only reason those guns shoot to 1.5k is the speed at which they fly. You're flying into the bullets.
Other than that, it's just altitude, thinner air, etc, and that works both ways.
-
Originally posted by Stang
And who here do you know doesn't use good "tactics" Lepaul? You're talking out of your ass. As Morph said, stop lying to yourself.
LOL, I rest my case....pure, emotional dribble and whining at anyone who disagrees with you. Ha Ha, you amuse me.
-
I'm 40-2 vs heavy american buffs (and I'm average), I see plenty ride up 6 and die. Un-fortunately, THEY"RE EAGLES dammit!!!
-
Well, part of the reason that I think the gunners are overmodelled is because if 1 fighter sits behind one bomber and both of em are spraying at eachother... odds are good that the fighter is going to be aiming at the biggest part of the bomber from his POV (i.e. the fuselage).
The gunners are IN the fuselage, but they never seem to die no matter how many shells you pump into the area where they'd be at.
If you read most of the anecdotal stories of people hitting planes with gunners they'll read like "I fired a short burst into the rear gunners cockpit, he slumped over dead..."
I actually camped out behind a B26 that was strafing a field I was getting ready to land at in a G14. I must have been 50 yards behind him just pounding the tail with MGs and as soon as he started shooting at me instead of the fuel tanks on the field, I went down like a drunk prom date.
It is that kinda thing that makes people say "bombers are to tough".. I would assume (I actually DID assume) that the tail gunner would rather resemble a piece of swiss cheese after a couple seconds of MG fire into his position.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
LOL, I rest my case....pure, emotional dribble and whining at anyone who disagrees with you. Ha Ha, you amuse me.
Hmm, you said people here are whining because they're getting killed by bombers because they don't use the correct tactics. I asked you to say who doesn't use the proper tactics in killing buffs (if there really is one). How would you know who uses slashing attacks or who just flies up a buffs 6 guns blazing? And then you respond with this? Get you head out of the sand buddy, you miss the point of this thread and the things being discussed in it entirely.
-
stang, you should know by now not to converse with idiots on messageboards
-
Eons ago (1998-2000) I used to slaughter anyone who showed up coalt my 6. Now if they do yoyos to me i die just my thoughts.
-
I just always think there's hope I can get through to them...
:(
-
Originally posted by whels
the 1 thing the irks me the most is th AI warp into position after u kill the lead buff. i die to this more then buff guns.
ths instant warp into position collision needs fixing.
I have been flying for 3.5 years and killed hundreds and hundreds of buffs but this has NEVER has happened to me. How close do you actually get? I'd expect you'd be shot down a lot more than to actually die from 'warp collisions'.
-
Originally posted by Stang
Forever, blown up every FH on the map and shot down 400 la7's. And make it back to base without a scratch.
:t
Actually I think he would have been HO’d and in the ensuing collision, broken his wing. He then would have to watch from the Tower while his fellow countrymen got dismantled.
:)
-
IMO the biggest problem is also the gunner toughness.
A world record was made right above my home town when a lone FAF Fokker D-XXI flown by Jorma Sarvanto shot down 6 bombers in just five minutes.
Battle description:
Place of the aerial battle: �Northern edge of the Utti airfield.�
Enemy a/c: � DB�
Fate of the enemy a/c: �Dived burning to the ground between Utti and Kaipiainen, North of the railway line.�
Course of the aerial battle: �On a ferrying flight Lappeenranta-Utti I was informed by radio about the movement of enemy a/c at the Southern fringe of the Haukkasuo swamp, eight a/c, on a course to North from Kotka, flying altitude 3000 m. I intercepted the formation on �collision course�. Having climbed above the enemy I half-rolled my Fokker at the left wing a/c. I shot the gunner at 300m and then approached to a distance of 100m. At that moment the third a/c from the left fired at me, so I gave her a brief burst and the gunner fell silent.
Then I fired brief bursts (at the bomber) and the a/c caught fire. The left engine and wing were burning. The a/c crashed.�
Ammunition consumption: �500 pcs.�
Eventual evidence: �A/c found between Utti and Kaipiainen near the railway line.�
Other obervations: �The enemy a/c supported each other by flanking fire. My fighter took 8 hits.�
Signed by : Lt. P.-E. Sovelius Aircraft: FR-92
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Il-4.jpg)
The whole story can be found here:
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/sarvan/sarvan.htm
-
#1 Slaved guns in all 3 bombers.
#2 Flying at max speed all the time.
Those two things make Buffs in AH much harder than intercepting them in RL was. Not that fighters would just fly in dead 6, because they usually didn't do that either, but they didnt face the very accurate return fire from all those slaved guns. Its a trade off to make MA buffs more usable, for better or worse.
There are tactics to do better in fighters vs buffs, sure, that will mitigate things somewhat. I find a high speed 3-9 pass on a drone works best, then drone #2, then maybe the formation leader, although the last one is always the hardest to kill it seems. Attacking alone co-alt 5-8 and your dead unless he really is a n00b (or you managed a bounce), and thats a big gamble.
Fighters with large batteries of cannon are best (no shock there).
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It's not the guns. It's the bombers' full-out-non-stop FFT speed. Historically they rarely ever reached these speeds. In AH they only ever reach anything lower when they're taking off (and not even landing, most don't bother with that part of the game).
This is not just true about the bombers, fighters too. We need engine management modeled into the game beyond the modicum of fuel mileage we have now.
Bomber gamage seems about right to me. Guns are not overmodeled at all within D300, maybe about right at D500, but WAY overmodelled beyond 500...IMHO of course.
I did not read all the responses but the film in question was of a captured/repaired B17 being flown on "autopilot" and used for gunnery practise and propaganda film purposes.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I think buffs seem too tough sometimes due to rubber bullets.
Adding a special fuel burn multiplier would only really change the range, not the dynamic (you'd still have people diving their B17's to gain speed). I'd say maybe do something with changing the engine overheating model, so you couldn't run flat out in heavies all the time. But people would just game that and firewall the engines when they came under fire, and then throttle back afer.
Well it wasn't unknown for Lancs that lost an engine early on just to push the throttles to the 'stops' and continue the mission on three engines.
Wheres that leave your overheating model?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Every British plane is undermodeled, we only have free 1943 Brit equipment, spitfires are the best, lancs with three engines can outrun 190's, blah blah blah...
:noid
-
Getting that bad you have to invent stuff?
Never said Lancs outran 190s.
Saying they would run the remaining three engines at the stops the rest of the flight.
Kinda kills the idea of an 'overheat' model - doesnt it.
Been dieing to use this, you gave me the excuse -
(http://www.cyberonic.com/~kreed/damn.gif)
-
I fly bombers at times, and I fly fighters against bombers at times. I don't find bombers to be overmodelled or unbalancing from either point of view.
All aircraft should be modelled realistically, so I'm not in favor of any special handicap bombers should have (like reduced speed or increased fuel burn relative to fighters) just to make them easier to shoot down.
Yes, the coordination of gunners is good in AH because of one person controlling three bombers. But as the convergence is statically set, this isn't as deadly as it would be with a full complement of good gunners, which bombers never have in AH. I think it's a tradeoff, probably favoring bombers somewhat, but not enough to be unbalancing. Also, I'm not sure what alternative would be better with regard to guns. The only thing that seems likely to me is not having bomber formations. Of course, if that were done, bombers would be rare, which I think would make the game less fun.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
....
Saying they would run the remaining three engines at the stops the rest of the flight.
Kinda kills the idea of an 'overheat' model - doesnt it.
...
No ... as I said, what would kill it would be people gaming around it. I'm sure 17's and 24's also ran on 3 engines, but the odds of engine failure are greater doing so.
The fact that people routinely use heavy formations as gunship platforms is all the proof I need that the coordinated gunners are overmodelled.
-
Originally posted by Stang
Hmm, you said people here are whining because they're getting killed by bombers because they don't use the correct tactics. I asked you to say who doesn't use the proper tactics in killing buffs (if there really is one). How would you know who uses slashing attacks or who just flies up a buffs 6 guns blazing? And then you respond with this? Get you head out of the sand buddy, you miss the point of this thread and the things being discussed in it entirely.
So tell me, are you one of those guys who climbs on a buff's dead six, starts spraying at 2k out and then are *shocked* that the buff tears you apart?
Because in all seriousness, I see that a lot. From noobs and older players too. They just slowly sit on a bombers dead 6, or in a steady climb into the buff...and get torn apart. Some bombers are tougher than others. B26s are fast and pretty salamanderly thanks to great gun coverage, much like the B24. Lancs are a cinch, come from below and shoot off their wingtip. That's all you need to do, they'll spiral and break apart. Ju88s, for having a measly definsive guns (more like Nerf darts) have amazing armor and can take a huge amount of punishment.
Ar234s, well, once you catch up to one, they are pretty easy prey.
I fly P-38s and bombers most, I just think its funny how a bad attack is almost always the defenders fault. Seldom do people fess up to having a bad plan. That's all.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
So tell me, are you one of those guys who climbs on a buff's dead six, starts spraying at 2k out and then are *shocked* that the buff tears you apart?
Because in all seriousness, I see that a lot. From noobs and older players too. They just slowly sit on a bombers dead 6, or in a steady climb into the buff...and get torn apart. Some bombers are tougher than others. B26s are fast and pretty salamanderly thanks to great gun coverage, much like the B24. Lancs are a cinch, come from below and shoot off their wingtip. That's all you need to do, they'll spiral and break apart. Ju88s, for having a measly definsive guns (more like Nerf darts) have amazing armor and can take a huge amount of punishment.
Ar234s, well, once you catch up to one, they are pretty easy prey.
I fly P-38s and bombers most, I just think its funny how a bad attack is almost always the defenders fault. Seldom do people fess up to having a bad plan. That's all.
You proved my point for me. Like I said, you have no idea how anyone who's posted here attacks a buff, so your comment, like I said, was out of your ass. And no, I don't attack buffs from the rear, usually headon or at angles from the side.
Btw Kev, I was just trying to get a rise out of you.
:D
-
Only time I have a hard time catching buffs is taking off when they are overhead at 20K+. Better to leave a field way ahead of them to be in place when they get there or leave you in a better chase position.
I have never had a problem with them out running me once at their altitude.
I don't have much problem with them gunning me at 1.5K either, because I dont sit 1.5K out waiting for my speed to build.
Sometimes I do get antsy and go in on their 6 for the quick kill and get chopped up, but that's my fault, certainly not due to any overmodelling.
If this game were modelled to be truely realistic, a good majority of the people playing would never even be able to get off the ground, much less worry about catching anything.
I suspect some folks here wouldn't be satisfied if their targets were big boxes that couldn't maneuver or fight back.
-
Originally posted by AKWarp
I suspect some folks here wouldn't be satisfied if their targets were big boxes that couldn't maneuver or fight back.
Well, considering the vast majority play the toolshed game in this very manner (those FH's really fight back hard), you might be wrong.
;)