Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Sakai on May 30, 2006, 06:49:10 AM
-
The use of Lancasters, B-17s, B-24s, etc. at low alts is mind numbingly awful.
How about:
Only twing engined bombers can dispense payloads at lower altitudes--say below 8k, 10k, 6k, whatever is fair. I would start at 12k and see how that works.
Only single--no formation--twins can drop at certain degree elevations--no dive bombing formations of anything--unless we're going to model formations of Stukas--say 3,4 or 6--and SBDs to even it out.
Give dive bombers a role please. Why take an SBD when three Ju88s are available?
Single plane dive bombers--like the A-20--makes sense. Let twins drop at any alt, but in formation only at level to a slight depression in climb. Let heavies only drop above a certain altitude.
For heaven's sake, yesterday I got a hit sprite on a Lanc with my .45 he was that low over my base!!!
Just a thought.
Sakai
-
LOVE THE SOUND OF THAT IDEA!........:aok :aok :aok :aok
(Grabs his ear defenders to prepare for all the whines!)
Although I do believe the Ju88 was meant to also have a diving role...Guessing due to presence of Dive Brakes?
-
Originally posted by Hazard69
LOVE THE SOUND OF THAT IDEA!........:aok :aok :aok :aok
(Grabs his ear defenders to prepare for all the whines!)
Although I do believe the Ju88 was meant to also have a diving role...Guessing due to presence of Dive Brakes?
Indeed, the Ju 88 was designed with dive bombing capability as this was a requirement at the time. In Aces High, the Ju 88 is a very capable dive bomber, but almost no one uses it that way.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Sakai
The use of Lancasters, B-17s, B-24s, etc. at low alts is mind numbingly awful.
How about:
Only twing engined bombers can dispense payloads at lower altitudes--say below 8k, 10k, 6k, whatever is fair. I would start at 12k and see how that works.
Two words : Ploesti raid.
Only single--no formation--twins can drop at certain degree elevations--no dive bombing formations of anything--unless we're going to model formations of Stukas--say 3,4 or 6--and SBDs to even it out.
Give dive bombers a role please. Why take an SBD when three Ju88s are available?
Yea its a shame ht modeled dive brake on the Ju88. Ohh wait a min the Germans put it there too.
Single plane dive bombers--like the A-20--makes sense. Let twins drop at any alt, but in formation only at level to a slight depression in climb. Let heavies only drop above a certain altitude.
Getting close here. The best way to solve the problem is to disable drop when beyond a certain angle past lvl. This would apply to heavys. Also no drop when in negative G condition. This should apply to all.
For heaven's sake, yesterday I got a hit sprite on a Lanc with my .45 he was that low over my base!!!
Just a thought.
Sakai
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Only twing engined bombers can dispense payloads at lower altitudes--say below 8k, 10k, 6k, whatever is fair. I would start at 12k and see how that works.
Two words : Ploesti raid.
Bronk
And they did it how often and how many bombers were lost? I'd hardly use Ploesti as justification for low alt 4 engine bombers. There is a reason they only did it once.
Lets go back to talking Spit XII's Bronk :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
And they did it how often and how many bombers were lost? I'd hardly use Ploesti as justification for low alt 4 engine bombers. There is a reason they only did it once.
Lets go back to talking Spit XII's Bronk :)
Hey I didn't say it worked just that it can and was done.
That mission went wrong from start.
1st One plane crashed on take off.
2nd The lead nav plane crashed into the sea for some reason.
3rd The second best nav plane turned to see if any survived. Thus loosing the formation and leaving no experienced low lvl navigator.
Ect ect ect
If something could go wrong it did on that raid .
Ohh and Bring the spit XII to AH . :aok
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk Getting close here. The best way to solve the problem is to disable drop when beyond a certain angle past lvl. This would apply to heavys. Also no drop when in negative G condition. This should apply to all.
Bronk
HT has said he wants to do this -- but not by arbitrarily setting an angle. He has said that he wants to model bomb bays, complete with their geometric restrictions like limiting dive angles.
But, again, HTC is a small copany and they have to allocate resources by priority. Bomb bays are the kinds of things that are easily shunted to the bottom of the stack over and over again.
About the Polesti question, and low level buffs in general -- the BIGGEST differences between AH and real bomber experiences are twofold:
1) In real life, pilots had only one life. As long as a new plane is one click away, AHers are going to do weird stuff with their planes.
2) In real life, assets were commited to defense. Low llevel buffs would be suicide in AH if there was a defensive air patrol -- but there wont be, so thats the way it is.
-
The fix for the heavies is easy, just make it so you can only drop while in the bombsite. The bombs already stop falling if you leave the bombsite once you release, just make it so you must be in the site to drop.
Problem solved.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
The fix for the heavies is easy, just make it so you can only drop while in the bombsite. The bombs already stop falling if you leave the bombsite once you release, just make it so you must be in the site to drop.
Problem solved.
Really... what do you do for the Ju88, has sight and dive brake?
Bronk
-
These are all good ideas and thoughts. Obviously there is still a good chunk of people who feel the same way about this topic.
What I don't understand is why would HT take the time to model all these planes to as close to RL standards as possible, yet there very seldom used in that fashion.
It seems kinda funny to hear all these guys complain or whine about "this plane does this" OR "this plane can't do that" in RL the Spit out-turned such & such.
Then if your going to model how the plane really was and how it was used, then do so, if not why would someone care if a Yak out-turned a A6M or a SBD outran a Tiffy.
My 2 cents
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
[BThe bombs already stop falling if you leave the bombsite once you release, just make it so you must be in the site to drop.
Problem solved. [/B]
Que?
-
What? And make me climb to 25K to drop 14,000LBS of bombs from a Lanc? They regularly performed NOE raids (at night). No, bombers don't always fly historically accurate missions, but how accurate is a P51 or P47 ripping apart a B17? You want to stop them from dive bombing, I say shoot them down before they get a chance. You want HTC to fix something so you can play your way and have fun, what about other peoples fun? Of course that doesn't matter...
-
You're absolutely right, Nirvana. We must disable formations, and the ability to man your own guns, since these are equally ludicrous.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Indeed, the Ju 88 was designed with dive bombing capability as this was a requirement at the time. In Aces High, the Ju 88 is a very capable dive bomber, but almost no one uses it that way.
My regards,
Widewing
Exactly, I use it entirely that way as did my old squad.
That's why twins should be used for DBing, a la the A-20 and Ju-88, but not in formations (or shouldn't we then have formations of A-20s also?).
But no DBing or 1k drop Lanc formations please.
See, something simply is not quite Chippewa here.
Sakai
-
Personally I think its a great idea, but I hear HT never looks at wishlist posts, I dont know if he will see it, but yes good idea.
-
We have formations of the A-20, it's called the Boston III and carries 2,000lbs less ord then an A-20.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
These are all good ideas and thoughts. Obviously there is still a good chunk of people who feel the same way about this topic.
What I don't understand is why would HT take the time to model all these planes to as close to RL standards as possible, yet there very seldom used in that fashion.
It seems kinda funny to hear all these guys complain or whine about "this plane does this" OR "this plane can't do that" in RL the Spit out-turned such & such.
Then if your going to model how the plane really was and how it was used, then do so, if not why would someone care if a Yak out-turned a A6M or a SBD outran a Tiffy.
My 2 cents
Ha, kinda reminds me of what a coworker said when i got him into Aces High. If the La7 were as uber the plane it is in this game, the History Channel would be raving about it all the time. Up til playing Aces, neither he or I had heard a thing about it.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
We have formations of the A-20, it's called the Boston III and carries 2,000lbs less ord then an A-20.
Really?
So that's why it's called the Boston and not the A-20? It isn't the accent after all?
Do they have different machineguns and markings too? Almost as if they were built for another country, like France (designated DB-7 I think first), initially (like as I recall the Baltimore/Maryland series) but then shipped to England instead?
Balitmore/Maryland was designed to compete with the A-20 for the same contract, when the A-20 won Martin started shopping the plane to other nations.
Interesting story told by Canadians about Bostons, said they loaded a butt load of Ord on those babies, a la the Yanks, said they'd carry beaucoup crap on short hauls. But, being used as "intruder" or maritime patrols, they most typically carried only 1k ord for less fuel consumption. I think only teh Boston III series and out had enough range for real use by England in intruder/maritime roles.
Sakai