Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Krusty on January 29, 2007, 11:26:38 AM
-
I suggested this a long time ago, and Bronk reminded me of it.
The Ar234 is all but useless as a bomber. As a perk bomber I don't want to fly it even if I do (on that rare occasion) have enough bomber perks for a formation.
So bomber perks are useless. Why not perk US bombers?
The B-24 is the most common bomber in the skies, by far. Its speed and bombload and defensive firepower make it the best general bomber in the game. So, why not perk it? Oh, quiet down! I'm not talking Ar234 perk prices.
Why not perk the B-24 to 10-14 perks per plane? That's low enough not to stop anybody, but enough to make folks pause for a moment before suicide-dive-bombing an airfield.
The B17 has the same defensive firepower, and possibly a stronger durability. It has a bombload close to that of the B-24 and is probably the second most common bomber I see in this game. It should be half of whatever the B-24 is perked at (single digits, 5-7 perks or so).
This leaves the more-than-worthy B-26, Lancaster, and Ju88, for earning bomber perks, and the A-20 and Ki67 for suicide-dive-bombers (and not much else).
This stems from a lack of purpose for the Ar234. It's a nice "gee... that's cool, what else do you have" bomber, but it's useless in all situations, wish the shortest range of any bomber there is. There's no good plane to use bomber perks on. This way we create an arbitrary perk system so that you pay (a very small fee) for the planes that are the most effective in this game.
Hell, with the way bombers are "enhanced" in AH with supernatural speeds, absurd gun control levels, and 3 lives, you've still got more than an even chance to make it back to base in your perk bombers. Heck, get a friend to fly as escort and you'll get back unscathed most likely.
-
Ar-234 useless? Well, not much firepower that is for sure, real pain to land formations in too. Ask Lynx if he thinks they're useless, his plane of choice to sink CV's. Good to run a quick dar kill and get back home quick though.
Perk US bombers, yeah probably. Not that it matters much though, who uses all their bomber perks anyway. I'd sell them if I could, maybe trade em in fighter perks 5:1 or something.:confused:
-
Originally posted by DREDger
Perk US bombers, yeah probably. Not that it matters much though, who uses all their bomber perks anyway. I'd sell them if I could, maybe trade em in fighter perks 5:1 or something.:confused:
Exactly!!! There's nothing to use them on!!
So why not take the two best bombers (by a long shot) that are the most widely used bombers in the game and give them small perks? That way you USE those perks.
Hell I'm a bomber pilot at heart, as well. I'm all for this.
As for the Ar234, it might be able to sink cvs because it's so fast it can't be intercepted, but aside from that, B24s and B17s do a better job of it, with a sight more bombs per bomber as well, and a chitload of defensive armament. Very little comparison. If you want to kill dar at 20k, you can kill 3 fields' dar in an Ar234, or you can kill 24 fields' dar in a B17/B24, and be in the air a lot longer in order to do this as well.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
If you want to kill dar at 20k, you can kill 3 fields' dar in an Ar234, or you can kill 24 fields' dar in a B17/B24, and be in the air a lot longer in order to do this as well.
He who takes his Arado to 20K wastes only his time and the capabilties of that plane.
-
To be perfectly honest with you, I'd rather face a formation of B-24s or B-17s than one of B-26s.
They're faster, and while smaller with fewer guns, it seems that their fire coverage is a HUGE step superior due to concentration of firepower.
-
B26s aren't faster. Especially not at 10k or higher. If you lose an engine at 15k you can't keep level, that's how slow they are. They also have a very short range, often requiring 100% fuel load for a regular sortie. They only carry 4k bombs, and their guns have problems with the arcs they can position. The tail cuts out most of the dorsal gun, and the left/right guns are useful for spooking lower cons but you'll never get kills with them. The nose gun is very weak, and you're better off using the fixed guns (and some guy was doing that, he was zooming around at 10k in a formation hoing fighters, turning around and hoing them again... actually rather silly)
B26s aren't as much a threat as the B17 or B24, despite the high number of 50cal installations.
EDIT: I just checked the AH charts for B26, B17, and B24. They're all about the same speed at 10k, but the B26 has a huuuuuuuuge power drop above 10k, and its top speed is below 15k, after which it drops off very sharply. The B17 and B24 have a steady drop-less speed chart that extends all the way to 25k
-
Perk the bombs.......... Then perk formations
1 perk per 1000lb bomb
2 perks per 2000lb bomb
3 perks per 4000lb bomb
x 2 multiplier for formations
Then the std allied bomb of WWII (the 500lb) becomes the bomb of choice with more realistic loadouts.
The fact that I can routinely take out all the FH's at either a medium or small airfield in two passes cannot be right..............
-
I agree with Tilt.
-
Going from 8 1k bomb in a B24 to 16 500lbs means you can only take out 5 hangars and wound another, instead of taking out 8 hangars. It's not that much a loss in productivity.
While I agree the 1,000lb bomb wasn't very common on fighters, I'm sure it was fairly common on big bombers. Keep in mind, though, that if the allies had to only bomb a few hardened structures to shut down the enemy's flight capabilities (as in Aces High) they'd have used nothing BUT big bombs. Instead they were carpet bombing for maximum effect. You can see the historical mission required a lot of smaller bombs, just to scatter the damage more. That was real life, this is Aces High. Totally different target profile, so using historic loads (while possible to do and still accomplish the mission) isn't necessarily a direct comparison to historic missions.
I'm sure in CT we'll use a lot of smaller bombs because the mission goal will be carpet bombing (destroy as much of a large city as possible, not just FH/VH). There you will most likely see 500lb, 250lb, and other smaller bomb loads.
-
So, we want to GIMP the existing bomber plane set that's in the game now?
That always goes over well with the players that actually use something in an online game .... yeah...... very popular.....
Okay, let's perk the La-7, the Spit-16, the Pony-D, and the Niki too while we are at it..... since they are over played in the LW arenas compared to the rest of the plane set. Take the Niki, only about 400 ever saw operational status in WWII, and we see more than that in any one LW arena in 1 night, right?
That ought to go over like a lead balloon too.
How 'bout we reduce ord on fields to one strat, with a 3 hour down time, and no option for resup too, that help out any? And add random engine fires to all buffs in flight. Cut their ammo loads in half. Add gun jams? Get rid of drone catch up speed, and have engine overheat if over 1/2 MAN/RPM settings for more than 10 minutes time? Dud bombs/UXO's? Change the color or size of bombers in radar rings or dar bars to make detection and interception easier? Add a strong jet stream at 20K so interceptors don't have to go too high after bombers?
:furious
Rarely do the people running the game choose to GIMP a portion of it, unless it is a serious play balance issue. That is not the case here, IMO.
-
or 6 perks per formation drone............
-
First of all, I never said I'm against perking other fighters.
I said there's nothing to spend bomber perks on.
Forget adding perk-worthy bombers. At this rate we're not going to get any new aircraft (let alone unnecessary bombers) for several years to come.
We have nothing to use these perks on. The Ar234 is a non-entity, basically. It does jack, so it's not worth flying.
Keep that in mind: that is my premise. The B24 is the best bomber in this game hands down, based on performance, payload, and defensive armament (x3 for formations). It is the most-used bomber in the game, 80% of the time I see bombers it's a set of B24s.
So perk it.
If we *HAD* perk-worthy bombers (say we hypothetically already had the B-26 and the B-29, and the Ju-188/388), I wouldn't think of perking the B24. However, we're not going to get any of these anytime soon, so we need to "curve" the bombers in this game. The B24's at the top of the list so it gets the perk price. That's why I brought this up.
EDIT: By "curve" I mean grade on the curve, where the score is adjusted based on the best score out of the collection.
-
This will solve the perk issues.
Gives us the B-29
Gives us the Grand Slam bomb or Tall boy bombs for lancs and put perks on them.
These would be good for perk points, but we won't see any of those in the game so you can just ignore my post.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
or 6 perks per formation drone............
Deal....so long as I can buy FIVE of them for my formation! Three wide, two deep.
Good bye cities and strat factories.....
-
Originally posted by VooWho
This will solve the perk issues.
Gives us the B-29
Gives us the Grand Slam bomb or Tall boy bombs for lancs and put perks on them.
These would be good for perk points, but we won't see any of those in the game so you can just ignore my post.
The A-26B Invader has been listed many times (by me among others) as a perkable buff ride to include in the game, since B-29 is not an option (we keep being told).
Other things for perks would be:
Maximum bomb loads..... have default bomb load set at what the bombers typically carried on most missions in WWII, and the maximum loads purchased with perk points if wanted.
Drones? Sure, If I could buy up to Five drones, I'd accept a reasonable perk cost associated with drones. Not great against field targets, but for HQ raids, strat factories, cities, towns..... could be worth going after strat targets with 3 or 4 pilots.
"Tallboy" and then "Grand Slam", etc.... been told 4,000 "Cookies" will be largest bomb seen in AHII.... okay, see above for max bomb loads ---- Lanc BIII Specials cabacity, B-17's with bomb bay fuel cells removed, Ki-67's had heavier ratings from some sources......
As to the threads original premise:
I agree bomber pilots need something for which to earn and spend perks on. Ar234's I use to kill CV's in flights of 3..... and that's it. Even then, I prefer the Ki-67 flights as a CV killer to the Arados. Buff drivers need more incentive to land their buffs after a mission. A reason to not bomb and bail or use them as buff-divers.
The A-26 would be a perk worthy med buff/attack plane.
I could see paying for drones, if we could get more drones as well.
I can see perking maximum bomb loads.
Some of the German special ord would make the He-177 perk worthy, but we aren't gonna see guided bombs and rockets in this game.
I can even see making it possible to convert bomber perks to other perks at some kind of exchange rate, or even up.
What I can't see is gimping the existing plane set of bombers without giving anything back in return to the buff drivers.
Making bombers or drones cost perk points, just because the Ar-234 isn't enough reason to have perks for most pilots, is not a valid solution, IMHO.
-
The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.
Unless you got the glass nose, then it would be a level bomber and formations would be enabled. I can just hear the masses rioting if they don't get their 8-gun solid nose, though.
Look at the A20G. Solid nose = no bombsight = no formation, and I think it's an attacker, not a bomber (even though it comes from the bomber hangars).
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Deal....so long as I can buy FIVE of them for my formation! Three wide, two deep.
Good bye cities and strat factories.....
Deal but you lose all perks if you lose just 1.
I don't get mulligans in my fighter.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.
Unless you got the glass nose, then it would be a level bomber and formations would be enabled. I can just hear the masses rioting if they don't get their 8-gun solid nose, though.
Look at the A20G. Solid nose = no bombsight = no formation, and I think it's an attacker, not a bomber (even though it comes from the bomber hangars).
True Krusty, I know about the a20, it comes out of a bomber hanger....it is an attacker, but it is more classified as a bomber because of its size....I doubt someone brings a a20 to 10k and level bombs...maybe dive bomb, but not level bomb...we should have attack hangers...for a20, hurri 2D, boston 3 [somewhat], bf110, IL2, etc etc.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.
Unless you got the glass nose, then it would be a level bomber and formations would be enabled. I can just hear the masses rioting if they don't get their 8-gun solid nose, though.
Look at the A20G. Solid nose = no bombsight = no formation, and I think it's an attacker, not a bomber (even though it comes from the bomber hangars).
No reason why it can't come from a bomber hangar AND cost bomber perks. Was the B model more of an attacker in the way it was used? Yes. It replaced the B-26 more than any other plane though. A C model would be a super Ki-67 on speed and ord carried. Also, I'm thinking in terms of the game's perk economy..... bomber perks need an economy sink other than the Ar-234's.
You could even model both..... C model with bombsight and glass nose, and a more expensive model with 8-pack in solid nose and 6-pack in wings. The actual conversion between B and C model could be done in the field in a few hours. Give them the external wing mount cannons, or internals with option for an additional 2,000 pounds of ord on the wing mounts? Single flight, or formations?
Depending on how you modeled it, the A-26 could be a huge bomber perk economy sink. The question is if a single plane in the hangar can have a sliding perk cost associated with it from how it's outfitted. Not sure the code can do that.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Deal but you lose all perks if you lose just 1.
I don't get mulligans in my fighter.
Bronk
But you get to up and fight a dozen times in the amount of time it takes me to run one single high alt, long range bomber mission. Don't think you are hurting in fun factor.
:p
-
But, say we get the attacker version, and maybe it does use perk points from the bomber pool, it still won't be a formation-enabled, level bomber.
We'd STILL be lacking a perked level bomber (not counting Arado)
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
But you get to up and fight a dozen times in the amount of time it takes me to run one single high alt, long range bomber mission. Don't think you are hurting in fun factor.
:p
So, you can up a dozen bomber sorties and auger, bail, or get vulched in the time it takes my P47N to get to 15k. The number of sorties one can up while the other is flying isn't even on the radar, it's not even related to the topic. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Krusty
But, say we get the attacker version, and maybe it does use perk points from the bomber pool, it still won't be a formation-enabled, level bomber.
We'd STILL be lacking a perked level bomber (not counting Arado)
So, again, offer both B and C versions:
Each has 4K internal bomb load and 2 twin .50 turrets (dorsal and ventral). Same flight characteristics, same specs, pretty much identical planes. Both draw perkies from Bomber perk points.
B-version (solid nose): 8 - .50's nose guns. 6 - .50's optional gun pods or 6 - .50's internal in the wings with optional 2,000 external load of bombs, rockets, (and possibly DT's.... not sure if they had 'em in WWII for A-26, but did by Korea). No formations enabled. Best used against GV's and as a strafer. No F6 bomb sight (or you only see black from solid nose) if that is the case, but I think the pilot *did* have a bomb sight in the B-version of sorts, the N-9 Gun Bomb Sight, same as used in the Mustang.
C-version (glass nose): 2 forward firing .50's, option of 6 - wing mounted gun pods or external ordnance, or DT's (see above). F6 Bomb sight enabled. Formations enabled. Best used as a fast, level, penetration bomber.... like a faster, heavily armed Ki-67 or B-26 formation with more ord carried.
So with one plane, you get two perkable rides, 1 level formation, and 1 attack.
I know I've seen the argument for perking existing rides, but I'd hate to see existing planes gimped and not get anything in return. I've looked at other planes from the war that we don't have yet, but nothing really is perk-worthy other than the B-29 (which we won't get), and the He-177 if those special ords (Henschel Hs 293 or Fritz X) could be carried (which is not going to happen) and some of the prototypes that did not see operations.
-
I'd pay perks for a Ju-188 or 388, as long as it had the 20mm dorsal gun in the back of the cockpit, and maybe the 20mm in the nose, too!
-
Originally posted by Saxman
To be perfectly honest with you, I'd rather face a formation of B-24s or B-17s than one of B-26s.
Agreed. Dont sure why, but i have more problems with B-26s. May be just because it smaller.
BTW, just perk formations. With easy calibration and negligible dispersion heavy bombers becomes too effective for no cost.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'd pay perks for a Ju-188 or 388, as long as it had the 20mm dorsal gun in the back of the cockpit, and maybe the 20mm in the nose, too!
hmmmmm....
Ju-188
Role Bomber; Crew 5
First Flight December, 1941
Entered Service 1943
Performance
Maximum speed 499 km/h @ 6,000 m 310 mph @ 19,700 ft
Combat range 2,190 km 1,360 miles
Service ceiling 9,500 m 31,170 ft
Armament
Guns (typical) 1 × MG 151 20 mm cannon, 3 × MG 131 13 mm machine gun
Bombs 3,000 kg 6,600 lb
Just a little more ord than carried by a B-17's 6K, less than B-24's 8K, at a 30mph faster than B17 or B24 at near 20K alt., with less defensive guns available to protect it. Don't think I'd spend any perks on it. I don't think I'd fly it. Better platforms for a 20mm in game already.
---------------------------
JU-388 (3 versions)
* Ju 388 J Night fighter/bomber destroyer --- primarily a response to reports of B-29's capabilities - 2 prototypes built known. None operational known. Ju 388J (proposed) two 20mm cannon and two 30mm forward firing cannon in under fuselage pod. Two 13mm machine guns in remote control tail barbette. No ord carried.
* Ju 388 K high-altitude bomber - about 50 completed, or more often, partially completed, but did not see operations as reported. Had not seen figures for ord load carried.
* Ju 388 L photo-reconnaissance. Highest interception
(44,000 ft) of the war over English Channel of an L model on recon (damned Spits). About 60 built in total. Only model to see operations in late days of the war.
Max. Speed: 383 mph (616 km/h) at 40,300 ft (12285m) 407 mph (655 km/h) at 29,790 ft (9080m) with water-methanol boost
# Time to 36,090 ft (11000m) 30.0 minutes
# Service ceiling: 44,095 ft (13440m)
# Max range: 2,160 miles (3476 km)
Can't see HT introducing this, as it opens up a whole whine-fest about including many the prototypes from the various air forces into the plane set. The J is the only one of interest as a bomber destroyer, especially if we actually HAD the B-29, but never got past prototype stage --- B-29's sent to Pacific by the time engines were built.
Very high speeds at very high altitudes.... which is part of the argument of why we don't get the B-29's, and at least the B-29's saw a lot of operations. Ju388 did not beyond recon missions.
-
Or better yet, instead of all this gibberish about the buffs...
...give us human-controlled 88mm flak batteries, equipped with a reasonable targetting system, so while it may not be a threat to fast maneuvering fighters, it will become the bane of slow and steady flying planes under 15k altitude.
Whenever the dorky horde mission ups, we can merrily take our 88mm batteries and hide them in the nearby woods. Since bombers have formations of three planes, the 88mms will also have 'slaved' batteries of three. The bombers dare come in under 15k, then we target it and let 'er rip if they come nearby. Low flying buffs? Suicidal tard buffs? Let them come - we'll show them some 88mm love.
-
Oh....88mm gun, mounted on the Sonderanhaenger ( Trailer ) 201, and permanently attached to an appropriate tow vehicle (with it's own pintal MG maybe) would be fun.
Modeling a vehicle with a pivot point would be the hard part for the game, as code goes now, I'm betting --- I could live with them fudging that part.
Option for proximity fuse/altimeter fuse for AA, AP, and HE, would be a fun addition.
Vulnerable to incoming tank fire, not very maneuverable, not able to fire past it's tow vehicle at low angles, but effective to snipe enemy vehicles, bombard towns and bases, and defend sites against low flying bombers (or even high, if the gunner is good ---- or an LTAR).
Yes. I'd buy that for a dollar! And, yes, a cheap low price would be justified, I think, to a weapon as capable as the 88mm gun.
Flak 18 and Flak 36 and Flak 37.
High angle range of 35,100 ft.and a horizontal range of 16,200 yards.
They could fire high explosive (HE), armour piercing (AP) or smoke shells.
Muzzle velocity was 2690 ft. per second with HE and 2620 ft.with AP.
Rate of fire was about 20 rounds per minute --- 1 round every 3 seconds.
Plus it gives the GV's another perk ride.
Good idea..... belongs in it's own thread.
Artillery... KING of the BATTLEFIELD..... yet unrepresented in AH-II
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The only problem with the A-26 is it would be an attacker only. It would take up fighter perks, NOT bomber perks.
IMO we should have a proper attack classification with attack perks etc........
see sig
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
No reason why it can't come from a bomber hangar AND cost bomber perks. Was the B model more of an attacker in the way it was used? Yes. It replaced the B-26 more than any other plane though. A C model would be a super Ki-67 on speed and ord carried. Also, I'm thinking in terms of the game's perk economy..... bomber perks need an economy sink other than the Ar-234's.
You could even model both..... C model with bombsight and glass nose, and a more expensive model with 8-pack in solid nose and 6-pack in wings. The actual conversion between B and C model could be done in the field in a few hours. Give them the external wing mount cannons, or internals with option for an additional 2,000 pounds of ord on the wing mounts? Single flight, or formations?
Depending on how you modeled it, the A-26 could be a huge bomber perk economy sink. The question is if a single plane in the hangar can have a sliding perk cost associated with it from how it's outfitted. Not sure the code can do that.
I'm just wondering what happens if buff perks continue to accumulate?
Will there be perk inflation? Suddenly 234s could cost 2,000,000-3,000,000
perks? I can see new planes just for new plane's sake..a perk "economy
sink" seems very odd to me.
-
Originally posted by Rino
I'm just wondering what happens if buff perks continue to accumulate?
Will there be perk inflation? Suddenly 234s could cost 2,000,000-3,000,000
perks? I can see new planes just for new plane's sake..a perk "economy
sink" seems very odd to me.
In game terms, an "economy sink" is simply a mean to spend earned credit, be it gold, experience, or perk points. Like buying clothes and such for avatars in MMORPGs. The perk system is not set to "inflation" as you state it, but tied to overall arena numbers like ENY. For GV's the perk sink is the Tiger.
Right now, the only bomber perk economy sink in AHII is the Arado Ar-234 bomber. Now, not all bomber pilots like the Arado, but that is all we have to spend perk points on.
So, some bomber pilots have been turning to tactics of bomb-an-bail, or bomb-and-bail, or suicide, once they've delivered their eggs to target. They don't need any more bomber perks, so why earn more? Why land your missions? Some like to land their kills. Some like to have high scores, but you can ditch and still keep most of your points, and get back into the air sooner for another run.
The original thread premise is to convert the existing bombers to make use of the existing perk system.... ie.... B-24's, B-17's.... perks needed to fly them, when now, they are free to use. In MMOG's terms, that is "gimping", and I argue against it, and try to provide an alternative: The A-26B/C Invader (since the B-29 is not an option we keep getting told).
-
gimping means to nerf, to make impotent, to reduce efficiency. The bombers themselves would remain unchanged in abilities, but would simply be SOMEthing to spend perks on!
Perk the B24!!!!
-
nope perk all fighters, leave buffs alone.
-
Bear, the problem is we HAVE planes to spend fighter perks on. We have NO PLANES to spend bomber perks on (aside from the non-entity Ar234)
-
Granted, and agreed, and it cause issues and problems as noted many other places ......... I'd just really rather see additional perkable planes added to the planeset rather than turned from free to perked.
That's really my only issue with the original post.
-
But do you think we'll get said bombers any time within a 5 year timeframe? I do not. In the meanwhile, this can fill the hole left. I didn't say "forever" -- just until that time 5 years from now when we do get something.
-
..... B-29? :confused:
-
bomber perks are cheap.
1. perk formations
2. perk heavy bombs
3. all single bombers are free.
Then:
1. add recoil to bomber guns.
GV:
1. add recoil to m16/ostie
2. add vibrations to the gun position when driving - m16/ostie driving in circles and sniping at planes can't be right. Tanks also couldn't hit crap when driving.
Fighters:
1. perks 1000lbs or bigger bombs.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Then:
1. add recoil to bomber guns.
GV:
1. add recoil to m16/ostie
2. add vibrations to the gun position when driving - m16/ostie driving in circles and sniping at planes can't be right. Tanks also couldn't hit crap when driving.
.
Umm Its there. Example fire an osti at a friendly building and watch hit sprites.
They do not hit in the same place.
Further more visual gun shake is there . Jump in a tank commanders position and fire gun with zoom all the way in. It jumps like a flea on a hot brick.
I also can look up the post when the visual component was first implemented. I remember because it was a source of much consternation with the GVers.
Bronk
-
Anyone like the attack hanger idea? could replace a fighter hanger with one,
it would house planes like
hurri IID
a20
boston 3 (maybe)
tbm (maybe)
110
other more attack oriented aircraft....not really MEANT for bombing or fighting...right in the middle
-
Originally posted by spikes
Anyone like the attack hanger idea? could replace a fighter hanger with one,
Not really. How you would divide existing perks among existing players to the two pots is the first big issue that occurs to me.
-
What about all the multi-role fighters? P47s, P51s, hell 3/4 the fighters in the planeset have the "attack" option.
Perk categories should stay as they are. However, we need something to use the bomber perks on!
Perk the B-24!
:aok
-
good point guys, thanks
-
If you stick bombs/rockest on a fighter IMO you are no longer flying a fighter you are flying a ground attack ac.
-
"attack" is only an arbitrary score category. It means "I want GV kills to count". Fighter means "I only want aircraft kills to count". You can up a heavy P47, drop 2 bombs on 2 panzers, kill 4 planes then rtb. If it's in "attack" mode you'll get 2 registered kills. However your death won't ruin the score any, because in attack your deaths don't matter (you're going in to attack an object that will probably kill you) whereas in fighter kills matter more because it's usually air to air, you lost out to another player. If you do the same sortie as "fighter" you would get 4 kills, but if you died after #4 it would be worse off for your score.
So the mission profile doesn't change at all. It's an arbitrary choice "how do I want these points tallied up?". So having an attack perk category is pointless, as is having dedicated attack hangars.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It's an arbitrary choice "how do I want these points tallied up?". So having an attack perk category is pointless, as is having dedicated attack hangars.
It should not be a choice IMO.......... if you bomb stuff and straff stuff then you should not be rewarded with currency (perks) that you can then use to buy(place deposits upon) superior fighters.
Equally when bomb loadouts eventually become perked then you should not be able to earn currency as a fighter to to latterly use it to purchase/place deposit upon bombs.
The score system may be arbitary re rank etc but perks are actually a currency used within the game.
Indeed this thread is about the lack of stuff that perks can be used for with respect to bombers............
My opinion is that bomber perks should be used to buy big bombs............. (for bombers)
My opinion is that attack perks should also be used to buy big bombs..........(for attackers)
My opinion is that fighter perks should be used to buy unusual or heavy cannon loadouts.................
This in addition to the use of perks to aquire superior rides.............
Further we note that some rides are infact pure attack rides and should not be reffered to as bombers or fighters..............
and further still we note that some attack/ bombers should be able to dive bomb with pilot bomb release (ju88) but not when in formation. The attack category (which could eliminate formations when chosen) allows the COAD to switch between formation (level) bombing using F6 and attack non formation bombing using pilots view point.
Providing part of an elegent solution (IMO) to some of the poor game play situations that occurr when folk game the formation model. (dive bombing lancs etc) That allows some duality without sacrifice to game play.
I agree that an "attack hanger" is not required.......
Frankly I dont care a fig for the score system it can stay as it is.................. nothing with respect to attack perk points need change the score system....................... .....
-
Originally posted by Krusty
"attack" is only an arbitrary score category. It means "I want GV kills to count". Fighter means "I only want aircraft kills to count". You can up a heavy P47, drop 2 bombs on 2 panzers, kill 4 planes then rtb. If it's in "attack" mode you'll get 2 registered kills. However your death won't ruin the score any, because in attack your deaths don't matter (you're going in to attack an object that will probably kill you) whereas in fighter kills matter more because it's usually air to air, you lost out to another player. If you do the same sortie as "fighter" you would get 4 kills, but if you died after #4 it would be worse off for your score.
So the mission profile doesn't change at all. It's an arbitrary choice "how do I want these points tallied up?". So having an attack perk category is pointless, as is having dedicated attack hangars.
Yes but it doesn't have to remain arbitrary.
By the end of the war there were AC specifically designed to attack tactical ground targets/GVs.
IMHO Having dedicated attack ac might move lancastukas drivers to other AC.
If there were a plane for them.
Example plane set list
Non perk
Hurri 2d
IL2m
A-20
Perk
Ju87-g
Il2 type 3m, 37 mm up gunned variant
A-26
Bronk
Edit: I'd also like to see Bomber perks tallied on Strat targets/fighter kills only.
Hitting bases and towns is a tactical matter. This is where attack ac come into play.
-
another varation would be to have a early b17 a early b24 and have the later model with the more guns and better bomb load perked.
we do need more bombers and things to use the bomber perks on,but with more bombers we need better strat targets to kill .
how about proper harbours with freighters to sink proper bridges and railways,railway yards to bomb ect ect.
-
I support perking the ord, and the drones, but not the bombers themselves.
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
how about proper harbours with freighters to sink proper bridges and railways,railway yards to bomb ect ect.
depots & rail terminals?.......... a more joined up strat model? I would love to see this too but would it benefit the MA?
I would love to see the depot make a return.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.basically a capturable feature (depot, bridge, rail terminal, cross roads, etc etc) which is not a spawn source but is part of the strat model.
-
No need to perk the planes. HTC is already adding an ordinance perk system. A multitude of problems solved with only a plethora of problems created.
-
Yes, only... perk what ord?
1,000lb bombs were quite common in bombers. Not so common in jabo. So maybe fighters have to pay to use them, bombers probably won't.
4,000lb bombs available on the Lancasters, well they were common, and they cut a large chunk out of your bombload (from 14x 1k bombs down to 9 I think). They're really only useful against strat, which is what they were intended for. Using 3 of them on hangars is overkill since 1x 1k (with a formation) will take down any hangar. So, why perk it?
The Stuka has an 1800kg bomb. Only, it's a stuka. It's pretty much a death trap as-is, even when NOT made to fly even slower and more sluggish with a big 1800kg weight underneath it. It might take out a hangar, if it happens to get into an enemy field without being shot down (let's face it, a B5N could shoot this thing down, and it doesn't even have nose guns!!!!!). So I don't really see a reason to perk that either.
Perking ord might help fighters, but it really won't help bombers. Not anytime soon. This isn't going to come out til after CT is my guess, and that'll be in 2 weeks, we all know.
Which leads us back to our original problem: Nothing to spend bomber perks on.
Perk the B24!!!
-
Not my game. IMHO?
1000 lb: medium perk. 14 1000lb x 3, BIG perks.
500 lb: little perk.
250: free
100: free
I need to double check, but I seem to recall the most common bombs in bombers was not the 1k, and it was rare on fighters. 500 seems to be the "usual" load out, but then they weren't laser guided. These are. My No.1 source on this is a conversation I had long ago with my father, who flew in B24s during that little fracas, and could be wrong. However...
...we don't have historical targets, so why worry about historical bomber load outs. Historically you shut down an airfield by cratering the runway and shooting up the planes. We just drop on a few hangers and *poof*.
8x250=!hanger. 8/3 aircraft in a formation=salvo 3. Job done.
For JABO, that's 4 aircraft with 2 bombs each.
We won't get into the plethora of problems this solution crates. I can think of five or six without actually trying.
-
anyone seen Memphis Belle? they had 500 lb bombs, said they used 500's for their bomb load almost all the time
-
Krusty is begining to get that way.
The B-24 is the easiest 4 engined bomber in this game to kill.
I think I speak for most of the good fighter jockies when i say killing buffs is like taking candy from a baby.
Instead of perking up the bombers and their ords just add another plane to the plane set.. Give us the B-29 or maybe a perk option for formations over 3 planes.. value based on model. Most buff guys would gladly spend perkies on a couple extra buffs.
And as a fighter guy I say bring it on.. I would love to see some of the plebians I eat alive in the MA with more buffs for me to chew up :)
-
Originally posted by skycaptn
Krusty is begining to get that way.
The B-24 is the easiest 4 engined bomber in this game to kill.
I think I speak for most of the good fighter jockies when i say killing buffs is like taking candy from a baby.
Instead of perking up the bombers and their ords just add another plane to the plane set.. Give us the B-29 or maybe a perk option for formations over 3 planes.. value based on model. Most buff guys would gladly spend perkies on a couple extra buffs.
And as a fighter guy I say bring it on.. I would love to see some of the plebians I eat alive in the MA with more buffs for me to chew up :)
It's about over use .
90% of heavy bombers seen are 24s. If HT can perk chog for over use why not the 24?
Bronk
-
Numbers my boy numbers...
The dominance of the C-hog was so complete and total that at its prime it accounted for nearly 50% of the kills in the MA!
The B-24 is neither that dominate or that amazing a bomber.
But, tell you what.. lets keep it nice and even
For the bomber jocks perk the B-24's
Then to make it even perk every fighter plane that can catch a B-24.
Then we will all be happy.
-
Originally posted by skycaptn
Numbers my boy numbers...
The dominance of the C-hog was so complete and total that at its prime it accounted for nearly 50% of the kills in the MA!
The B-24 is neither that dominate or that amazing a bomber.
But, tell you what.. lets keep it nice and even
For the bomber jocks perk the B-24's
Then to make it even perk every fighter plane that can catch a B-24.
Then we will all be happy.
Apples to oranges.
As far as bombers go it's over used.
Care to speak on that or do just want to keep spinning?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
It's about over use .
90% of heavy bombers seen are 24s. If HT can perk chog for over use why not the 24?
Bronk
No 90% of bombers seen are not B-24's. Many buff drivers fly Lancs because they want that 14K bomb load --- never mind it's slow and has very poor defensive fire. They use them for heavy loads on what are usually suicide missions.... because bomber perk are worthless with current plane set. Also why you will find serious B-24 drivers up higher, and Lancs down low more often than not.
The B-24 was the most produced bomber of the war, the C-Hog was a subset of the F4U Vought Corsair, which total production numbers for all varieties falls in overall rank to 23rd.
As to "over use" in game, the IL-2 and Yak and Ju-88 are "under-represented" and Lanc and Me 110 and maybe B-17's are "over-represented", and Niki way way (way) "overrepresented" in the game (the N1K1 barely makes top 100, our in-game N1K2 only 415 produced).
Oddly, the La-Las and Spits are probably not too far over average in-game representation.
Bombers altogether are "underrepresented" as compared to fighters in game. That's because it *is* a game, and the emphasis is on combat.
Rank__Make & Model______Total________Produ cers_______Type
1 Ilyushin Il-2 36,136 USSR Single-engined ground-attack aircraft
2 Yakovlev Yak-1/Yak-3/Yak-7/Yak-9 34,547 USSR Single-engined fighter. Some fighter-bombers & fighter-trainers
3 Messerschmitt Bf 109 33,436 Germany, Hungary Single-engined fighter. Some reconnaissance
4 Lavochkin LaGG-3/La-5/La-7 22,201 USSR Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
5 Polikarpov U-2/Po-2 22,000 USSR Single-engined biplane trainer, utility & harassment bomber
6 Supermarine Spitfire 21,959 Great Britain Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber. Some reconnaissance
7 Focke-Wulf Fw 190 20,001 Germany Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
8 Consolidated B-24 Liberator/PB4Y Privateer 19,264 USA
Four-engined strategic bomber & patrol aircraft. Some transports.
9 North American AT-6 Texan/Harvard 18,650 USA, Canada, Australia, Japan Single-engined trainer
10 Republic P-47 Thunderbolt 15,683 USA Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
11 North American P-51 Mustang 15,576 USA Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber. Some reconnaissance
12 Junkeres Ju 88 15,018 Germany Twin-engined bomber, fighter & reconnaissance aircraft
13 Hawker Hurricane 13,849 Great Britain, Canada Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
14 Curtis P-40 Warhawk 13,378 USA Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
15 Douglas C-47 Dakota 13,140 USA, USSR, Japan Twin-engined transport
16 Bell P-39 Airacobra/P-63 Kingcobra 12,897 USA, Russia Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
17 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress 12,731 USA Four-engined strategic bomber
18 Grumman F6F Hellcat 12,275 USA Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber. Some reconnaissance
19 Vultee BT-17/19 Valiant 11,525 USA Single-engined trainer
20 Petlyakov Pe-2 11,427 USSR Twin-engined light bomber
21 Mitsubishi A6M Zero 11,320 Japan Single-engined fighter. Some trainers
22 Vickers Wellington 11,302 Great Britain Twin-engined strategic bomber & patrol aircraft
23 Vought F4U Corsair 11,071 USA Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
24 Avro Anson 10,302 Great Britain, Canada Twin-engined trainer & light transport
25 Lockheed P-38 Lightning 10.036 USA Twin-engined fighter, fighter-bomber & reconnaissance aircraft
26 Grumman TBM Avenger 9,836 USA Single-engined bomber & patrol aircraft
27 North American B-25 Mitchell 9,816 USA Twin-engined medium bomber
28 Boeing/Stearman Model 75 9,746 USA Single-engined biplane trainer
29 Beech Model 18 9,100 USA Twin-engined trainer & light transport
30 Airspeed Oxford 7,986 Great Britain Twin-engined trainer & light transport
31 De Havilland Tiger Moth 7,915 Great britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand Single-engined biplane trainer
32 Grumman F4F/FM Wildcat 7,808 USA Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
33 De Havilland Mosquito 7,801 Great Britain, Canada, Australia Twin-engined fighter, bomber & reconnaissance aircraft
34 Fairchild Cornell 7,742 USA, Canada Single-engined trainer
35 Douglas A-20 Havoc 7,386 USA Twin-engined light bomber & fighter
36 Avro Lancaster 7,377 Great Britain, Canada Four-engined strategic bomber
37 Curtis SB2C Helldiver 7,200 USA, Canada Single-engined light bomber
38 Lockheed Hudson/Lodestar/Ventura/Harpoon 6,695 USA, Japan Twin-engined patrol & transport aircraft
39 Junkers Ju 87 6,363 Germany Single-engined light bomber
40 Bristol Beaufighter 5,949 Great Britain, Australia Twin-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
41 Handley Page Halifax 5,946 Great Britain Four-engined strategic bomber & patrol aircraft. Some transports
42 Douglas SBD Dauntless 5,937 USA Single-engined light bomber
43 Messerschmitt Bf 110 5,913 Germany Twin-engined fighter and fighter-bomber
44 Nakajima Ki 43 Hayabusa 5,906 Japan Single-engined fighter
45 Yakovlev UT-2 5,743 USSR Single-engined trainer 46 Bristol Blenheim 5,694 Great Britain, Canada Twin-engined light bomber & fighter
47 Piper L-4 Grasshopper 5,611 USA Single-engined observation & utility aircraft
48 Heinkel He 111 5,571 Germany Twin-engined medium bomber
49 Yokosuka K5Y 5,320 Japan Single-engined biplane trainer
50 Ilyushin Il-4 5,256 USSR Single-engined ground-attack aircraft
51 Miles Master/Martinet 5,042 Great Britain Single-engined trainer & target tug
52 Cessna T-50 4,850 USA Twin-engined trainer & light tyransport
53 Martin B-26 Marauder 4,683 USA Twin-engined medium bomber
54 Hawker Typhoon/Tempest 4,230 USSR Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
55 Boeing b-29 Superfortress 3,960
56 Polikarpov I-16 3,644 USSR Single-engined fighter
57 Nakajima Ki 84 Hayate 3,514 Japan Single-engined fighter and fighter-bomber
58 Polikarpov I-153 3,437 USSR Single-engined biplane fighter
59 Arado Ar 96 3,400 Germany, Czechoslovakia Single-engined trainer
60 Curtis C-46 Commando 3,341 USA Twin-engined transport
61 Consolidated PBY Catalina 3,290 USA, Canada Twin-engined patrol flying boat
62 Stinson L-5 Sentinel 3,289 USA Single-engined observation & utility aircraft
63 Junkers Ju 52 3,239 Germany, France Three-engined transport
64 Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-1/MiG-3 3,220 USSR Single-engined fighter
65 Taylorcraft Auster 3,204 USA, Great Britain Single-engined observation & utility aircraft
66 Kawasaki Ki 61 Hien/Ki 100 3,199 Japan Single-engined fighter
67 Nakajima Ki 27 2,999 Japan Single-engined fighter
68 Bucker Bu 181 2,689 Germany, Netherlands Single-engined trainer
69 Macchi MC.200/202/205 2,644 Italy Single-engined fighter
70 Bucker Bu 131 2,616 Germany, Japan, Czechoslovakia Single-engined biplane trainer
71 Fairey Barracuda 2,602 Great Britain Single-engined light bomber
72 Fiesler Fi 156 Storch 2,530 Germany Single-engined observation & utility aircraft
73 Ilyushin Il-10 2,466 USSR Single-engined ground-attack aircraft
74 Douglas A-26 Invader 2,450 USA Twin-engined medium bomber & attack aircraft
75 Mitsubishi G4M 2,414 Japan Twin-engined medium bomber. Some transports
76 Mitsubishi Ki 51 2,385 Japan Single-engined ground-attack aircraft
77 Short Stirling 2,371 Great Britain Four-engined strategic aircraft
78 Tachikawa Ki 9 2,315 Japan Single-engined biplane trainer
79 Fairey Swordfish 2,133 Great Britain Single-engined light bomber & patrol aircraft
80 Bristol Beaufort 2,129 Great Britain Twin-engined medium bomber
81 Yokosuka D4Y Suisei 2,038 Japan Single-engined light bomber
82 Mitsubishi Ki 21 1,981 Japan Twin-engined medium bomber
83 Kawasaki Ki 48 1,968 Japan Twin-engined medium bomber
84 Culver PQ-14 1,967 USA Single-engined target aircraft
85 Vultee A-31 Vengeance 1,931 USA Single-engined light bomber
86 Fiat C.R.42 1,781 Italy Single-engined biplane fighter
87 Mitsubishi Ki 46 1,742 Japan Twin-engined reconnaissance aircraft. Some fighters
88 Dornier Do 217 1,730 Germany Twin-engined medium bomber & heavy fighter
89 Kawasaki Ki 45 1,701 Japan Twin-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
90 Tupolev SB-2 1,656 USSR Twin-engined medium bomber
91 Fairey Battle 1,650 Great Britain Single-engined light bomber
92 Armstrong Whitworth Whitley 1,614 Great Britain Twin-engined medium bomber
93 Martin 187 Baltimore 1,575 USA Twin-engined medium bomber
94 Dornier Do 17/215 1,564 Germany Twin-engined medium bomber
95 Westland Lysander 1,559 Great Britain, Canada Single-engined army cooperation aircraft
96 Vought OS2U Kingfisher 1,519 USA Single-engined utility floatplane
97 Caproni Ca309-316 1,480 Italy Twin-engined transport & light bomber
98 Messerschmitt Me 262 1,453 Germany Twin-engined jet fighter & fighter-bomber
99 Kawasaki N1K1 Shiden 1,430 Japan Single-engined fighter
100 Curtis P-36 Hawk 1,424 USA Single-engined fighter
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
No 90% of bombers seen are not B-24's. Many buff drivers fly Lancs because they want that 14K bomb load --- never mind it's slow and has very poor defensive fire. They use them for heavy loads on what are usually suicide missions.... because bomber perk are worthless with current plane set. Also why you will find serious B-24 drivers up higher, and Lancs down low more often than not.
Okay let's consider that for a second. You say lancs are more common. Maybe that's just what you see. These are from last tour.
Tedrbr
Bomber KillsOf
B-17G 0
B-24J 2
B-26B 4
Lancaster III 12
Bronk
B-17G 10
B-24J 41
B-26B 11
Lancaster III 11
Krusty1
B-17G 10
B-24J 44
B-26B 8
Lancaster III 20
Skycaptn
B-17G 1
B-24J 15
B-26B 7
Lancaster III 4
That's just the 4 of us discussing this. You (Ted) seem to be the minority. Perhaps you don't engage bombers. Or perhaps you don't find it worth the effort (I have run across MANY pilots that "don't do" bombers because they can get 5 fighter kills in the time it takes to get 1 bomber). [Edit: I'm not trying to make a crack or anything, just trying to guess why you dont' see many B-24s] Whatever the reason, you seem to have an atypical cross-section of kills. For almost everybody else B24s top the list by a LARGE multiplier.
For every tour since B24s have been introduced, the aircraft I have most kills of usually is the B-24. And it's usually by a wide margin.
As for altitude, I find the opposite. B24s are more than capable of defending themselves against any aircraft fast enough to catch them. They are more likely to be 10k or lower. Lancasters, much more vulnerable, are more likely to come in at 30K (and yes, I have chased many Lancs at 30K for over 3 sectors before). Just last night we had Lancs at 20k taking out Knit HQ in LW Orange. We also had 5k B24s and 2k B17s hitting fields. The more capable bombers usually go right into the thick of it, because they can make it through, whereas lancasters cannot do this and need the safety of alt. This is a generalization, and you'll find high B24s and high B17s, and low lancs as well. However I often find the B24s are more willing to come in "low" (10k) than lancs are.
Originally posted by tedrbr
The B-24 was the most produced bomber of the war
Sure, and it (along with the B17) was shot down in such large numbers that pilots and crews were in short supply. It was shot down so often the 8th AF suspended daylight bombing missions over Europe. It was so vulnerable that pilots preferred the B17 to the 24, because the 17 would get you home but the B24 would force you to bail.
Oh, and in WW2 they flew at 160mph, not 270 (faster than some late-war fighter cruise speeds).
So in the context of this game, and in how it's used in this game the B-24 is by far the most common and most capable bomber. By a long shot. Seeing as we have no other good candidates for perking, it is the top of the list for a perk price. If (hypothetically) the B17 were 3x as strong and had better guns, and were used 90% of the time I'd have called for it to be perked*. However this is not the case. I hope I have explained my reasoning behind the matter.
* = Note I did call for a small perk on the B17, 1/3 to 1/2 of whatever is placed on the B-24, so we have a variety of lightly perked bombers to choose from
-
here is a chart of B-17F cruise settings
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-17/17FOIC.pdf
zeno's ownz:cool:
-
Deb: the only thing I can make out is the word "IAS" -- I can't read any of the other info. Those IAS numbers seem high, as I've seen 2 other sources that cite 160mph cruise speeds for B17s (I believe B17Gs, the E was the fastest model, if I recall, and got slower with the F and G which had much more weight and more drag)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Okay let's consider that for a second. You say lancs are more common. Maybe that's just what you see. These are from last tour.....
A bit out of context. I was disputing Bronk's:
It's about over use. 90% of heavy bombers seen are 24s. If HT can perk chog for over use why not the 24?
B-24's are not 9 out of 10- bombers seen in the arenas. Lancs are not more common than B-24's, but a very large number of Lancs get flown. B-24's are probably seen more at higher altitudes by serious buff drivers, they are probably more effective on a sortie by sortie basis due to defensive fire abilities, but that is also probably due to the suicidal nature in which Lancs are flown in game.... low, dive bombing, carpet bombing GV's and fields.
Of course, there are exceptions to even this; some buff drivers out there swear by the Lanc, and use it almost exclusively (and players like me who avoid using it at all).
B-24's and B-17's are also more commonly seen in missions run by players using heavy bombers. Rarely do you see a large box of Lancs over enemy territory. But not enough missions running B-24's to account for 90% of all bombers seen in-game.
As the B-24's were the most common bomber seen during the war, they should be common in-game, and I don't see the need for a perk.
As to the C-Hog; it was a minor subset of a series of fighters that in that list, where all models together rank 23rd overall.... in addition to the relative combat power of a Corsair with 4-20mm cannons, it get's lightly perked.
Or as Bronk stated: "Apples to oranges." Not very comparable examples.
As to the score, most of those Lancs I killed were low, and I either did a quick intercept from the threatened field, or hit them with man-ack. I've gotten away from patrols and buff hunting lately. And my heavy bomber of choice is the B-17 with 500 #r's loaded, as I tend to go after strats, not hangars, since strats stay down longer.
-
Okay, yesterday alone I saw 1 enemy mission with 20+ B24 formations. This started low and climbed to 20k. It flew across the entire knit front (not that we had much of one at the time). At the same time I saw a friendly B24 mission with at least 6-8 formations. Possibly more. They were retaking A18.
I also saw 5-6 scattered B24 missions from a16 hitting a14. There was 1 B26 formation, and 1 B17 formation. I also saw 2 scattered B17 formations in the course of the night, as well as 3 more B24s hitting A6.
Then there was another large mission hitting our P4 and HQ that involved more B24s. Estimate half a dozen. Then afterwards a lone Lancaster formation (maybe 2, but by the time I got to it there was only 1 left) snuck around the edge of the map and finished the HQ off.
So, that's 20 + 8 + 3 + 6 = 37 B24 formations, and 3 B17 formations and 1 B26 and 1 lanc formation.
42 total, 37 of them B24s. And that's just in the area I *saw*. There were a lot more bombing missions on the front opposite of me, I know because dar bars were spiking left and right.
So 37 / 42 = over 88% of the bombers in one night alone.
EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered seeing 4-5 more scattered friendly B24 formations trying to hit a16 before the crap hit the fans. That will bring the number up as well.
The "perk the B24" isn't just because of overall use. That's one of the main reasons. The C-hog was perked because it made up 20% of all the kills in the MA. The B-24 has 90%+ of all sorties in the MAs. You can't really count kills, nor can you really count ord on target, as you may never get kills and still bomb, or you may get shot down before you drop your bombs, so you have to just count raw numbers. B-24s have the most. So the most widely used bomber, with the best defensive firepower, the best range, the best speed and second best bombload (best not counting lancaster), is the best choice to be perked.
We have nothing to use our bomber perks on, or I'd not suggest this. This is not the typical "Perk the LA" thread. This is not the typical "Perk the P51!" thread. This is a thread attempting to address a problem unique to the bombers in Aces High.
What if the GVers had no perk ride. What if (for whatever reason) the Tiger's gun fired only 3 shots and had a reload speed of 1 minute, and had a top speed on level ground of 15mph? Then look at the Panzer stats. 99% of all tanks I see are panzers or the rare tiger. T-34s are more rare than tigers. I saw one last night and my jaw literally dropped. I should have taken a screenshot, it was so rare. Anyways, so if you had NO worthwhile perked GV and hundreds of GV perks to spend, it would be entirely reasonable to call for the perking of the Panzer.
Nobody would ever waste perks on the tigr in the above situation. Similarly, nobody is going to waste perks on an Ar234, when the unperked thing does the same job, only better.
So this isn't "look at the stats, look at the performance, look at the usage, add it to the perk list" this is "We HAVE NO perk list, this is the best above and beyond all others, it should be at the top of the new perk list."
-
what you are saying is that the b24 is too powerful to be free?
-
Originally posted by spikes
what you are saying is that the b24 is too powerful to be free?
*sigh*
No.
No.
No.
How hard is this to explain?
The B-24 is the undefeated heavyweight champion of Aces High bombers. We have nothing useful to use our bomber perks on.
So perk the B24. It's the best by a long shot, and since we don't have anything better to perk, and since we won't get any perk-worthy bombers in the next 3+ years, perking the B-24 is the best thing to do for bomber pilots.
-
Buff drivers in this game risk nothing unless in an arado.
Everything is gain.
Go up drop one egg and hit anything points are scored.
Have 2 drones shot down but get the guy with your last plane , get points.
Put SOME risk into it.
A light perk on the 24 would do just that.
Bronk
-
Let me put it this way.
The only way we'll get a decent use for bomber perks is to perk a plane already in the game. There's no use waiting for some future plane to be perked.
So, out of the existing planes, what do you perk? The answer: The best plane. So out of the existing bombers, the B-24 wins hands-down in terms of usage and capability. Thus *IT* is the best bomber to perk, out of the existing bomber we have.
-
exactly....what I am saying...the b24 is too powerful to be free=perk it
:O :O :O
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
That's not what I'm saying.
-
:mad: :mad: :mad:
uhhhh, im saying the same thimg you are
:mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Who's on first! What's on second! I Don't Know's on third!
It sounds similar but it's not the same meaning.
The B-24 as it is probably is about the equivelant of the P51 for fighters.
It's generally not perk-worthy by itself.
It is ONLY perk-worthy when you consider we have nothing better to spend perks on. It is ONLY perk-worthy when you arbitrarily perk it for the sake of perking SOMEthing.
-
i agree with that.....we are on the right track now :O
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Deb: the only thing I can make out is the word "IAS" -- I can't read any of the other info. Those IAS numbers seem high, as I've seen....
(http://[IMG]http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg) [/IMG]
-
What are you, related to Meatwad? Get serious here.
-
roflmao
-
B-24 is the P38 for fighters/bombers compairision... Heavy bombload, decent defensive loadout.. but not overly tough.. the heavy bombload accounts for more of them being encountered.. lets compair to the LA7. Noobs discover that the speed of the plane affords them some mistake time.. vets like the agility and versitiliy of the plane.. same situation for the B-24.
Now lets go into bomber world for experienced bombers..
1.) B-24 heavy bombload. (2nd largest in the game.)
2.) Decent defensive guns. (2nd best defensive arrangement. 1st from some positions.)
Now using some of the above examples would you demand perking of the LA7 because its superior to some other planes in one or two aspects?
Why saddle the B-24 with a perk cost because it has one or two valued assets over another plane?
There are at least 10 or so examples of this among unperked fighters.. each vehicle has its strengths and weaknesses. Rather than demand HTC perk THE MOST COMMONLY PRODUCED BOMBER IN THE WAR.. Lets request another ride...
Another thing Krusty check my kill stats this tour so far... Ive bomber hunted more...
-
Skycaptn, please read the part where I pointed out many many many times that you cannot compare this to asking for a fighter to be perked -- we ***HAVE*** perked fighters to spend perks on.
Don't tell me you didn't read any of this thread? It's been gone over so many times.
You can't honestly post that if you understood what I've been saying the entire thread.
FORGET FIGHTERS. LEAVE THE FIGHTER COMPARISONS ALONE!
This is NOT an LA7, that people are asking to be perked because it's faster than every non-perked plane. This is not a Spit16, that outstripped even the la7 for most kills!
This is a bomber. You tell me WHAT we can spend our bomber perks on. Right here and now. That's right. The Ar234. The most useless bomber in the planeset. The only reason it's perked is because it was a very rare jet. So, having discounted the Ar234 as not worth wasting perks on, YOU TELL ME what we're going to spend bomber perks on.
That's right!
DING DING DING!
NOTHING!
Okay, can I make it any clearer? Yes perhaps I can, but I won't.
We're not getting any new aircraft for a while. When we do there's little chance it'll be a bomber, and even less chance it's a perked bomber. We can't wait 5+ years for something to spend bomber perks on.
Sooo..... Follow me here, logic-wise
1) We only have the AR234 to spend bomber perks on
2) The Ar234 isn't worth buying, so
3) We have nothing worth spending bomber perks on, and
4) we won't get anything worth spending bomber perks on for a long time,
5) Thus we need to perk something we already have, leading us to
6) the most widely used and best performing bomber in the game, which would be by FAR (90% above the rest) the best choice for a reasonable perk price.
Each point leads directly to the next. Please don't mention "well then are you going to perk the 190D?" because it's not even in the same UNIVERSE as the issue at hand.
-
Originally posted by skycaptn
Rather than demand HTC perk THE MOST COMMONLY PRODUCED BOMBER IN THE WAR.. Lets request another ride...
Another thing Krusty check my kill stats this tour so far... Ive bomber hunted more...
:confused:
You mean like.....
the A-26 Invader in both B and C models?
Like in thisthread here: http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198001 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198001)
:t
It comes down to a basic difference in philosophy here:
# Those that want to find a reason for buff perks by changing what is now a free ride to a perk ride to spend perks on, or believe the B-24 "too powerful" or "overused" now.
# Those that want to find a reason for buff perks by asking, begging, pleading with HTC to give us a perk-worthy bomber addition to the game other than the Ar-234.
I'd rather gain something than lose something, and I fly B-17's far more than I do the B-24's, so really, perking the B-24 does not effect my game play, but I still argue against it.
Primarily, I'd rather not give HTC the ability to argue that bomber pilots "already have two perked planes (B-24 and Ar-234)", when I'm trying to argue and crusade for an attack bomber/penetration/and spud gun toting bomber to be added to the plane-set for buff drivers to spend perks on, and currently being able to argue we only have 1 perk ride available to us now.
Giving up the B-24 as a free-ride to become a perk ride weakens the argument for adding a perk buff to the plane-set to spend perks on.
:noid
(and for you GVr's out there with only the Tiger, I also argue for the addition of a perked Flak36 so you have another choice too:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198029 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198029)
Sooo..... Follow me here, logic-wise
1) We only have the AR234 to spend bomber perks on
2) The Ar234 isn't worth buying, so
3) We have nothing worth spending bomber perks on, and
4) we won't get anything worth spending bomber perks on for a long time,
5) Thus we need to perk something we already have, leading us to
6) the most widely used and best performing bomber in the game, which would be by FAR (90% above the rest) the best choice for a reasonable perk price.
I totally agree with the first 3 points, Krusty. I totally disagree with the last three. I'd rather keep a strong argument going that buff drivers deserve an addition to the plane set. Point #4 is of particular interest though..... has there been an announcement or thread confirming that HTC is not going to add anything to the planeset in the foreseeable future that I've missed?
-
Notice none of you against this touched the "no risk" stuff I mentioned.
Typical, don't mess with my style of play.
Buff drivers need a reason to try an survive other than score.
A light perk on 24s do just that.
Bronk
-
I understand your position that it may weaken requests for other aircraft (like the A-26). To answer your question, no HTC has not said anything. Look at their track record. They don't let you in on things until said things are already well underway and being tested for final release. The planeset hasn't changed since the F4us, and those were after a VERY long dry spell after the 109s/spits were done.
We have so many out-dated fighter models (and they said their priority will be updating all the old 3D models to current standards -- less chance of newer models if they're redoing old ones) that even if they keep up steady work we won't see anything new for a while. Including bombers.
Some might call this pessimistic, but I call it being realistic. I maintain hope, but not anticipation.
You can petition for A-26s. You might get the same response every other well-worded and well-argued plane request has gotten (no response or a flat out "no" in rare cases).
You find my #4 interesting. Can you honestly say you think we're getting a new perked bomber within the next 2 weeks? The next 2 months? What about the next year? Oh but wait they're still doing CT that's going to push things back, and they're still updating all the old "Generation 1" skins, that'll push it back more. 2 years? 3? When do you expect, seriously, a perked bomber?
I find that wait far too long. By that I mean too long to not do something as a stop-gap in the meantime.
You may not agree with my #5, and I can understand this, but it is one of the best ideas for filling the void until we get a perked plane.
Say we do get a perk on the B-24s. It's not a permanent perk. It's a perk because we have nothing else. Then when we get an A-26 or a B-29 (in 1, 2, 3, or more years from now), the B-24 perk price reverts to "free".
EDIT:
Bronk: your "no risk" comment doesn't cover just bombers. It cover fighters. It covers GVs. It cover PTs. Nothing in this game has a real risk. Hence I didn't think it was part of the issue. I wasn't ignoring you, honest.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
EDIT:
Bronk: your "no risk" comment doesn't cover just bombers. It cover fighters. It covers GVs. It cover PTs. Nothing in this game has a real risk. Hence I didn't think it was part of the issue. I wasn't ignoring you, honest.
Game risk sheesh, a little perspective please.
What do you think is more frequently used a tiger or 234s?
How about Temp or 234s.
Guys frequently risk perks and lose them in GVs and perk fighters.
Buff guys don't period.
Put a little something on the line from them .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Game risk sheesh, a little perspective please.
What do you think is more frequently used a tiger or 234s?
How about Temp or 234s.
Guys frequently risk perks and lose them in GVs and perk fighters.
Buff guys don't period.
Put a little something on the line from them .
Bronk
Yes, I know what you mean and that it's a game. I was just saying that even so there's no risk for fighters or GVs. Hell the perked fighters are often the best, able to run away (tempest), kill in a single hit (chog), or do everything better than 90% of the rest of its category (4hog). The Tigr can sit there and take multiple 1k eggs off its head, and if one is just a hair off it's able to survive them. It can take strafings by hurr2Ds and IL2s, it can take millions of hits from a T-34 and never take damage (test this offline if you doubt me, there's no way a T-34 can kill a tiger, ever), and while it CAN be killed by a panzer it's more than likely only if the panzer shoots it 5 times in the same spot.
So there's little risk for fighter pilots in perked fighter planes, and there's little risk for GV drivers in the tiger. They take these rides knowing they'll have the chance to ring up countless kills and survive.
And then we have the Ar234. In all my years I've only gotten 1 kill with the tail guns on it. I've never bombed anything of importance, and often have no fun in one, despite being shot down in one many times.
I think overall there's little to no risk in any perked craft. I think that's why you pay for them.
Just a difference of philosophies, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Game risk sheesh, a little perspective please.
What do you think is more frequently used a tiger or 234s?
How about Temp or 234s.
Guys frequently risk perks and lose them in GVs and perk fighters.
Buff guys don't period.
Put a little something on the line from them .
Bronk
NO RISK?? Try climbing for 1 hour to a respectable bombing altitude transitioning to target and fighting off interceptors.
Its a huge risk of how you spend your time...
-
** listens intently **
Perk the boston :aok
**walks out of room**
-
Fear the Boston!!!!!!!!
:noid
-
Originally posted by skycaptn
NO RISK?? Try climbing for 1 hour to a respectable bombing altitude transitioning to target and fighting off interceptors.
Its a huge risk of how you spend your time...
Not sure it qualifies as a "risk", but it certainly is a much higher investment of a player's game time to take a bomber up to medium or high altitudes to run a bomb run. Even planes running intercepts against bombers, don't have as much time invested.
The problem comes down to reward: bomber perks for Arado's not much an incentive to most pilots, so it leads to bomb and bail, bomb and burn, or suicide runs. There is much less incentive to run strategic bomber raids against strat factories and cities unless they are conveniently close (and often from a higher altitude airfield). Bombers are run on the deck in one-way missions.
I don't see how perking B-24's will change that. Make pilots pay for something they've been getting for no cost in the past? Not a popular move, IMHO. It will just put more pilots into B-17's if they don't have the perks to spend on B-24's, or turn them off bombers altogether for a while. It won't encourage the collection of perks for B-24's for most. I hit strat targets, so I tend to use the B-17. Others luv the 14K ord that a Lanc carries.
* The A-26 B and C's as an addition could be an incentive, argued elsewhere.
* Allowing the purchase of up to an additional 3 drones, or perk all drones and allow up to 5 drones for a pilot per sortie altogether (3 wide, 2 deep, rear flights slightly offset), would be an incentive to buff drivers that want to carry out strategic bombing campaigns.
-
Perk formations, dammit :mad:
Not additional 2,3,5,etc drones but 2 we already have.
-
Originally posted by Oleg
Perk formations, dammit :mad:
Not additional 2,3,5,etc drones but 2 we already have.
Why would the majority of current buff drivers want to give up something they already have? To give them a reason to need perk points?
Perk points are supposed to be earned and spent by a pilot as a reward to their accomplishments in the game, and should not be instituted as a limiting or punishing measure for perceived problems that don't exist to any great degree, or just to create another bomber perk point economy sink in the game since the Arado has proven to be inadequate in that role.
-
Originally posted by Oleg
Perk formations, dammit :mad:
Not additional 2,3,5,etc drones but 2 we already have.
So that some without buff perks doesn't even has the slightest chance to get some in the first place? A single buff is utterly defensless.
-
Someone earlier said something about a B-29. I believe that was a late war Bomber. Perhaps HT could incorperate this into AH. Then you would have your perked Bomber.
Just my Opinion:D
-
Originally posted by Malapy
Someone earlier said something about a B-29. I believe that was a late war Bomber. Perhaps HT could incorperate this into AH. Then you would have your perked Bomber.
Just my Opinion:D
You sure you want THAT to be your second post there, Malapy? :huh
-
ja, it is usually evaryone's 1st post...
-
Originally posted by Lusche
So that some without buff perks doesn't even has the slightest chance to get some in the first place? A single buff is utterly defensless.
Yea? How ppl flew buffs before formation options was added?
-
I think there is a logic behind the idea of perking formations.............
However it is not neccesary if bombs are perked............ a formation will carry 3 times the number of bombs so if perkable bombs are chosen then a formation multiplier is sufficient.
With a formation multiplier of 2
if the 500lb was free of perks then the formation would still be free (2 x 0=0).
if each 1000lb was perked by 1 perk and there was a formation multiplier of 2 then a formation of fully loaded lancs would cost 28 perks. (2 x 14 = 28)
This means that most (if not all) of the single player "field killer" loadouts carry a perk risk.
Why is the 234 perked...........? well in formation mode it is the suicide pilots ultimate wet dream......... The 234 would be abused where we could see multiple (or massed) 234 strikes at stuff like CV's and air field targets..........
Imagine free AR234 formations in the hands of the horde............ executing high speed low level mass strikes.
So whilst it may not be the ambition of every "bomber pilot" to fly an AR234 it is his ambition to drop loads of big bombs and IMO perks should target this ambition whether he wants to drop them from level bombers, attack aircraft or what some may refer to as fighter bombers
-
Originally posted by Lusche
He who takes his Arado to 20K wastes only his time and the capabilties of that plane.
oposite infact. 19-21k is the best alt to operate the Arado
on the deck the AR234 can only fly about 150-200miles. up there it can fly 400.
not to mention its faster up there, and you will NEVER get picked up there. If something DOES get close, stick it in a 1000fpm dive, and you will easy pick up 600mph.
-
and you cant really perk a b24.... it burns up even with 303 attacks.....lol
i took down 5 B24s with what cannons i had left, then picked off 2 more with just 2x7mm :rofl
if they get perked why would ANYONE fly them?
-
I want 3 seperate formations. with 3 planes in each formation. I'll pay for that.
-
IMH opinion im all for krustys idea for perking us bombers first off it would put an end to ghi missions of 50 plus b26 raids all this does is drop frame rates of the game
2nd of all most US bombers have armament second to none when it comes to the guns it has a single formation of b whatever can put up a virtual wall of lead in front of any attacking plane
3rd the lanc should be perked as well just for the shear amount of firepower it carrys in weight of bomb loadout a single lanc formation can hover abouve a base and completely pork it in the right pilots hands at a hi alt
4th it would put an end to newbs carpet bombing tank town for gvs now granted i dont have a hi end computer but when on the ground at tt and hearing 30 plus bombs falling in the air not to mention the explosions my frames goto crap as well
what will happen if you do perk these rides is you will see an influx of more ju88s in the air bostons and ki's all good bombers
and most vets that have the bomber perks in the b series bombers just less of them
so all in all i think its a good idea perkem......DeadOne:aok
-
Originally posted by corpse
IMH opinion im all for krustys idea for perking us bombers first off it would put an end to ghi missions of 50 plus b26 raids all this does is drop frame rates of the game
2nd of all most US bombers have armament second to none when it comes to the guns it has a single formation of b whatever can put up a virtual wall of lead in front of any attacking plane
3rd the lanc should be perked as well just for the shear amount of firepower it carrys in weight of bomb loadout a single lanc formation can hover abouve a base and completely pork it in the right pilots hands at a hi alt
4th it would put an end to newbs carpet bombing tank town for gvs now granted i dont have a hi end computer but when on the ground at tt and hearing 30 plus bombs falling in the air not to mention the explosions my frames goto crap as well
what will happen if you do perk these rides is you will see an influx of more ju88s in the air bostons and ki's all good bombers and most vets that have the bomber perks in the b series bombers just less of them so all in all i think its a good idea perk em......DeadOne:aok
Unbelievable.
So, now have ALL US bombers perked, AND the Lanc? Limit free rides to Bostons, JU88's, and Ki-67's? Or maybe perk them too? Maybe perk the Stuka since it has that big bomb, right? And get ride of formations while you are at it? And give bombers a more telling icon on the map so they are easier to intercept? Disable the synchronized turret fire too.... force a hop from gun to gun?
:rolleyes:
Point #1: So ghi is able to put together missions? So the Bish in general are able to assemble more missions than the other two countries combined in the war arenas lately? So pilots looking for cooperative play are gravitating to the Bish to partake in these missions leaving the other two arenas lacking numbers, the ability to communicate, and leadership more often than not? How would perking bombers change this? Perk the B-26, ghi will just switch planes and bring JABOS, JUGs or JU-88's... he gathers the numbers to make his raids work, despite the plane chosen. LTARS don't even have ghi's numbers, and they are proving very effective, using a thought out combination of bombers, JABO and CAP fighters, and GV's to take fields.
Point #2: argued many times elsewhere. Bomber fire-power is not all that overwhelming. Bomber K/D numbers are well in favor of the interceptors. The problem is the majority of intercepting pilots attack from dead six position, where they end up in the buzz-saw of all rear-facing guns. Come in from flanks, come in with alt and E, jink and maneuver on the runs in and out to present a moving target picture... all make for more effective attack vs buffs.
Point #4: And a player's frame rate problems are their own problem, not any one else's. If a player's system has little memory, poor graphics card, 50 tasks and spyware running in the background, or using a dial-up connection to play an online game, that is not anyone else's problem. Stick to the EW and MW areas. Go to 8-player. If a system is not up to LW arena play, don't go there, stay away from heavy action, or deal with the performance problems. Not a valid argument to game changes.
-
Originally posted by Anyone
oposite infact. 19-21k is the best alt to operate the Arado
on the deck the AR234 can only fly about 150-200miles. up there it can fly 400.
not to mention its faster up there, and you will NEVER get picked up there. If something DOES get close, stick it in a 1000fpm dive, and you will easy pick up 600mph.
Best speed alt is not neccesarily best alt to operate at in AH2 (see La-7, best speed at 20k)
You should take into account the abysmal long time a Arado needs to climb to 20k. Getting to 10k takes you much less than half the time, and youre pretty safe there too. You are cruising at about 420mph and if someone dives on you, just drop your nose a few degrees and get quickly to 500 without loosing much alt.
I have never been successfully intercepted at 10-12k. And I can do two runs in the same time others need to climb to 20k :)
And concerning range, once you get to speed at 10k, your range is still about 250-300 miles, not 150. That's at least 5 sectors you can go to target, which is more than sufficent on the small maps we have.
-
talk about hostile take a xanax or something the point i was tryin to make is on the b series bombers is if approaching from the rear u are facin down 18 50 cals
the lancs with the bombload can devastate any base in the right hands
and as far as frame rate issue i have friends on here that have 4-5000 dollar alienware hiend computers that get the same frame rate issue has nothin to do with ghi or the ltars i have flown with them both
so sit back drink a beer and chill out with the hostilitys i was just makin a point not askin for a date with your sister or something
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Best speed alt is not neccesarily best alt to operate at in AH2 (see La-7, best speed at 20k)
You should take into account the abysmal long time a Arado needs to climb to 20k. Getting to 10k takes you much less than half the time, and youre pretty safe there too. You are cruising at about 420mph and if someone dives on you, just drop your nose a few degrees and get quickly to 500 without loosing much alt.
I have never been successfully intercepted at 10-12k. And I can do two runs in the same time others need to climb to 20k :)
And concerning range, once you get to speed at 10k, your range is still about 250-300 miles, not 150. That's at least 5 sectors you can go to target, which is more than sufficent on the small maps we have.
oh sorry i thought you ment you was using it OTD. :)
krusty, have you ever throught that you, and the guys you posted have the most kills on the B24 because they are SO easy to down?
as i said earlier... 300 of my last 7mm guns in my 109a5 and i manged to down TWO B24's due to catching them on fire. 300 rounds of 7mm vs a B17 or Lancaster would have just made it look rough.... not burn it up.
-
The reason we have the kills is not because they are easy. Nay, with the speed they're travelling it's a death trap to attack bombers.
However I love hunting bombers. I know it's more of a challenge than the mindless furball to get in, land hits, and get out.
I've landed over a hundred hits on a bomber before and not brought it down.
I've also sent a single burst and killed the pilot instantly. It all depends.
The same is true of ALL bombers. I made 1 single pass and fired a 2-second burst in a hurr2 while firing on Ju88s. I came in at the 9-oclock angle and instantly killed 2 of them (pilot kills) and wounded the third.
It's not that B24s are more vulnerable. In fact I've survived a HELL of a lot more bomber missions in B17s and B24s than I ever have in Lancs or Ju88s.
The reason we have so many kills is because all of the bombers flown in this game are predominantly B-24s.
-
Krusty, if I remember Dale and Doug talking about their perk plans, they DO plan on introducing perks for ordnance in fairly short order. That means a formation of B-24's with 8x1000 bombs at say 10 perks per 1000lber, would mean 240 perks JUST for the bombs.
I think if you perk the bombs/ordnance, you stem the issue right at the problem. The US bombers aren't the problem, its the amount of bombs they can drop... which is A LOT. :D
-
Incorrect. They were joking. The only officially planned perked weapons set is the 4x20mm cannon which will be on the D-hog (no more separate C-hog).
All the talk about perking individual bombs was a gag.