Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Zanth on March 18, 2007, 04:42:42 PM
-
Formation of 3 bombers was added to allow for inaccuracy of new bomb site. You already know where I am going , I will not insult you intelligence further.
-
i totally disagree, infact i'd like to see larger formations of buffs...
they're more fun, nicer to look at and better for my kill tally :D
seriously, buffs are too easy to shoot down. i'd like to see 6 plane buff formations, with a hangar function to change formation and spacing.
-
The formations are one of the better features in this game.
Attacking 24s or 17s requires some actual preparation, energy building, etc, not just "OOOH BOMBA I KEEEEEELLL IT!!".
One of my new favorite things to do in game is climb a Yak-9T up high for base defense and use the 37mm sniper rifle from d800. Ive only done it perfectly once but I knocked down a formation with perhaps 5 rounds expended. :D
-
:huh
Agreed, all we get now is three people ruining 25+ other people fun by upping x3 b24j's and flying them at 25k with impunity and by my eyes,are hitting the target just the same. Even a ducking & weavin' carrier.
so, we have players who can bomb with ease, who can have x2 the ord.
and in most bombers have 12-18 .50 or .30 cal machineguns all focused on one target.
"Thats it, im making my .50 cal sound like a starwars tie fighter laser fire."
Dont know why bombs are so pinpoint in this game, sometimes wish the wind would blow them off course,or the freefall distance would add more bomb scatter.
Somehow i get the fealin' some c47 landed and i got 10 troops each with laser guiders for some #$%'s b24 bombload.
right.
-
You want to change buffs from being easy targets back to completely helpless?
-
I am all for bigger formations, but their guns should have more reasonable dispersion. Nowadays they are like lasers.
-
I like the formations. I think the problem when calibration was added was no one took the time to learn how to use it. No one liked to fly them because it was to hard. Seems a little strange in a game like this.
I liked the way it worked in the game B17 2. The sight is calibrated on the bomb run, and the sight was aimed at the target well before you reached it. When you cross over the bomb release point, the bombs would release automaticly. In addition, many times the clouds were broken. You needed to find an opening to set the sight, and it is possible the target wouldn't even be visible when the bombs released. Once set, you jump to the guns and defend the bombers during the bomb run.
Gunner
-
Bomber formations suck. Warping, teleporting, easier bombing than AH1, and 3 chances to make it home. They make spawncamping look complex.
-
OOOH BOMBA I KEEEEEELLL IT!!
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Bomber formations suck. Warping, teleporting, easier bombing than AH1, and 3 chances to make it home. They make spawncamping look complex.
I agree. Thats one of my gripes, you see the bomber formations (most of the time drones) warping back and fourth catching up to the lead. And when you shoot the lead down, and he doesn't bail out you end up chasing drones down. And then once he does bail out, the drones warp back up to the lead again.
Also agree with the laser guns, I don't think larger formations would change anything in a good way nor would a single bomber like old. I think some tweaking on the current setup of buffs would be best.
-
One player, one plane!
-
Major Biggles
-
In game a formation of 3 bombers was unheard of until a little while ago. 2/3's of ya maybe to new to remember that. NO one was screaming for bombers be more powerful - in fact the reverse! BUffs "laser" sight was to be replaced by a harder sight WITH 3 BOMBERS TO MAKE UP FOR IT.
That is all forgot and the lazer sight is BACK ON, however the 2 extra bombers didn't go away.
Many a great cv vs port battle been messed up by one point monger.
Not to mention - level bombers have never - ever - if I wasn't clear -NEVER- sunk a cv in war
EVER!
I don't even think they tried?
Anyway formations were made for a reason and this wasn't it.
-
It's not the laser sight it WAS--before, ya could do a hard 180, barrel roll, put cross hairs on hangar, and hit it dead center. NOW, if your speed varies even 3 mph between final calibration and drop, ya will miss by at least the width of the hangar---that few hundred feet is the difference between 45 wasted minutes and a successful sortie
-
And lusche would know..He shot down my lances just the other day...
I have not been playing long,maybe 5 months,and I almost always fly lances..I just got offline and at 20k I missed a few of my targets because something was off..I think speed.and yes,it does not take much..
To make up for it sometimes,I drop 3 times the ord I need to because my calibration may be off..
I know that if there were no drones,I would probably not fly them as much at all. and it is for the reason that Lusche listed.they would be totally helpless..
Kevin.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
One player, one plane!
One Player, One Plane, and Up To 6 GUNNERS!!!
Bring Back Da Death Star!!!!!
Seriously, these threads are usually full of people that only want bombers in the game as easy targets to pad their scores with and see their names in lights, or don't want any bombers at all, or ord. If three bombers give them problems, they want only 1 to deal with. Nothing should interfere with the furball.
Don't bomb our hangars! We don't want to defend them! Oh, they over 10K, takes too long to climb up there.
The 3 bomber flight is a decent compromise. Bombers easy to shoot down in game, which is why they operated in groups of 60 to 100 with escorts during WWII. If you are getting killed by bombers easily, you are doing it wrong. No patience.
Buff drivers often can't get a mission going with many folks. Gunners often are inexperienced noobs that can't hit anything, or burn off your limited ammo. If a buff driver get's an "escort", he usually uses the buff as bait, or runs off after the first con he sees, again leaving the bomber un-escorted.
Buff drivers also invest ALOT more time in any one sortie than most fighter pilots do. So, by all means, create another reason to leave the buffs in the hangars.
As to the ease in which CV's are sunk. CV's during the war had high, middle, and low CAP, as well as picket destroyers. CV's in game almost NEVER have ANY CAP over them. They are undefended. So, they get sunk.
Not always bombers gets the CV either, running a CV right up on to Shore Batteries and leaving enemy ord up are bases near a CV get them sunk often enough as well.
-
Dont blame the bombers for ruining your fun. Fleets can be straffed down by any plane in the game and then theres the dive bombing lanc syndrome. Ive seen both too many times to count. One determined con is all it takes. I think what your really upset about is that someone actually took the time to learn how to use a bomber the right way.
-
when ever the mood stikes me I make complete formations "go" the gamey 1,000,000 guns slaved to the zoom sight is what should go.
-
Also, during WWII any ship under attack by high-altitude level bombers would be maneuvering like MAD to evade. CVs also wouldn't park a mile off an enemy base.
The vulnerability of CVs in the game is as much due to moronic use OF the carriers, as any overbalanced bombers.
-
From a different perspective, I agree with Zanth.
I remember when the bombsight calibration theme was first added to the game - I wrote the "how-to" manual on it. We were all guessing that the concept behind the 3-buff formation was to increase the general survivabilityand volume of ordnance dropped, in compensation for the loss of accuracy the bombsight calibration brought.
While the old calibration method didn't resemble the actual Norden by much, it did bring in an adequate skill factor into the process of calibration so that it brought out a situation that roughly matched that of real life. The calibration was done by hand, by "marking" a target space to configure the relative ground speed of the buffs. This created a certain margin of error in the bombing process, and while the most experienced players could minimize this margin, it still took some effort to achieve pin-point accuracy.
For the vast majority of average skilled players, playing it "safely" and spreading out the bombs in salvos in compensation for the lack of accuracy was desirable.
...
Unfortunately, for some reason, HTC succumbed to the whines and exchanged the calibration method to a vastly dumbed-down version of it. No more manual calibration required - just stabilize airspeed, press a button and there, it's done.
The end result is what we have nowadays. There are pin-point hangar-busting buffs in the game again. We've gone backwards in time and arrived at the old days of AH1.
However, unlike AH1, where we had only one bomber aircraft doing the "smartbombing", now we have three.
So either perk the 3 formations, or bring back the old bombsight.
-
I agree that the bombing seems too accurate, but i wouldnt support removing the formations. It makes a heavy bomber mission feel more realistic (even if its not).
A single bomber would be just about useless when attacking fields. And Considering FH's pop after 15 mins, making them slightly easier to destroy is no big thing. Its pretty tough to take them all down with a single formation - it is possible i know, ive done it. But they pop before you can even get back to base and land.
I guess i'd support a change to the bombsight - the old method where you had to track a spot on the ground is attractive to me. It would require more skill as a bombadier. I also like how it works in the b-17 games as someone mentioned above. I used to play it on the Amiga back in the day :)
It'd also be awesome if the gun turrets worked like auto-ack when no-one was manning them - except this would probably make the formations near-invincible ;)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
I am all for bigger formations, but their guns should have more reasonable dispersion. Nowadays they are like lasers.
I remember this discussion from long ago. HT saw no reason to change anything, so he stated.
-
this discussion has been on going since the early 1990s. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
-
yes please ban fighters from the game, everytime i spawn in there strafing and bombing the AF.
If 90% of the clowns i encounter didn't fly straight to my six they might live longer and not whine on the forums.
-
I like the formations and if I get killed by their lazers, it's my dumb fault. It makes me a better pilot to figure out a way to NOT get hit by them while knifing through the formations. That is a good time.
Now bombers that can release 3X the bomb load at 800 feet AGL, thats a different story.
:furious
-
Originally posted by Zanth
In game a formation of 3 bombers was unheard of until a little while ago. 2/3's of ya maybe to new to remember that. NO one was screaming for bombers be more powerful - in fact the reverse! BUffs "laser" sight was to be replaced by a harder sight WITH 3 BOMBERS TO MAKE UP FOR IT.
That is all forgot and the lazer sight is BACK ON, however the 2 extra bombers didn't go away.
Many a great cv vs port battle been messed up by one point monger.
Not to mention - level bombers have never - ever - if I wasn't clear -NEVER- sunk a cv in war
EVER!
I don't even think they tried?
Anyway formations were made for a reason and this wasn't it.
Although not exactly a CV, the tirpitz was indeed a large battleship attacked by level bombers with success:
The smokescreen was not active on the third attempt - "Operation Catechism". Tirpitz was finally sunk immediately to the west of Tromsø, in the bay of Håkøybotn, on 12 November 1944 by 617 and 9 Squadron Lancasters with Tallboys on their third attempt. The ship was struck by three Tallboys. One glanced off turret armour, but the other two pierced the ship's armour and blew a 200 foot hole into her port side. Soon after, internal fires set off a magazine and blew off "C" turret. Tirpitz capsized within minutes of the attack, and close to 1,000 German sailors, out of 1,700 aboard, died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz
Not saying it should be as easy as it can be in Aces High, but definitely possible.
Emu
-
It should be mentioned that the Tirpitz was docked--apparently it was concluded that it would befall the same fate as the Bismark at sea
-
I like formations but guns should be only be shooting from manned position...Single buf option gets all guns converging like it is now.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I like formations but guns should be only be shooting from manned position...Single buf option gets all guns converging like it is now.
The guns from the three bombers converge at 500 yards, not at the target.
The guns on a single buff do not converge at all.
Somehow I doubt SirLoin will ever open this thread and read this though, as nobody ever seems to listen to it.
-
My vote would go for keeping formations available.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The guns from the three bombers converge at 500 yards, not at the target.
The guns on a single buff do not converge at all.
Somehow I doubt SirLoin will ever open this thread and read this though, as nobody ever seems to listen to it.
Pffft..
-
KEEP THE FORMATIONS...........!!!!!!!!!!!
and whaaaa..buffs blew up my tonka toys!!
-
Go back to the old bomb site. That's all, carry on.
-
Even with the guns like they are now I s**k as a buff gunner (althogh some out there are very good at it). On the other hand I RULE as a buff killer and it gives me 3 times the number of targets :)
As to bombing I usually fly Lancs at over 20K and set my drop to the number I need to take down the target as though I was in only one plane (i.e. if the target calls for 3000 lbs I set my drop for 3 1000 lb bombs). I rarely miss that way and still seem to score just fine. I do wish they went back to the old calibration method though. This one is just TOO easy.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Formation of 3 bombers was added to allow for inaccuracy of new bomb site. You already know where I am going , I will not insult you intelligence further.
the fighters should have formation option also,
Vulch, Ho and run in 3 x LA7s,
and never die like "Highlander"!
-
Bombers need some tweaking for sure. Perking formations would be easiest solution (not best though).
Complex calibration was nice (way too inaccurate imho, but still nice). However many bombers was prefer to dive-bomb with heavies or to fly at sea-level instead of learning how to calibrate. That was worster than easy calibration we have now, imho.
There are some fixes i would like to see:
- Limit speed of drones to cruising or slightly above.
- Allow bomb drop only from level flight or very shallow dive.
- Count only direct bomb hits for ships. Near misses can kill soft guns though.
- May be increase bomb dispersion, its too negligible imho.
Leave guns alone, they are far from "lasers" and bombers are easy kills already.
-
Yeah, i always wounderd how a plane pushing - G's can drop a bomb out of a bay.
...wouldnt the bomb stick inside while the bomber/fighter dives. untill the g's would return to normal on the bomb,thus it would then fall down/out?:huh
Funky.
-
In any of the big bombers, if it's not in level flight, the bombs should not be armed. That would prevent them from glide bombing targets.
-
The buff formations will stay.
Hunting them in fun and gets you up and away from the furballing spit16 quake HO'ing squeakers that buzz around at treetop level.
-
From a fighter perspective if you take the time to do it right bombers are easy kills.....very easy. Last TOD I killed 130+ b24 to just 11 losses to 24's. Bombers are perk points waiting to happen.
If you do it wrong then you'll moan about laser guns, one man one plane, warping drones and how :rolleyes: fast they are.
From a bombers perspective any fighter slow to merge is going to A) Die or B) Leave smoking and or pilot wounded. You do have to lead your aim and maintaining hit sprites on the faster fighters.
Bombing is a joke. I have bombed a City to 96 % flat with 1 set of Lancs at 20k. That's right folks...just 6% was remaining after 4 passes. It's way to easy and I would love to see the older method return. A method where you had to set salvo's and delays. Where you had to "think" just a little and I mean just a little. Anyone still remember the salvo / delay settings for hitting a town ?
AH2 towns are much larger than AH1 towns that had just 21 structures. I think that's why we now have formations. I believe the simpler aiming method was to encourage folk to actually use bombers like :rolleyes: level bombers. However, gaming bombers are more the nintendo norm these days, it's endemic and cannot be purged without HTC remodeling.
Oh PS...this topic has been done to death in the past.
-
I would like it if the bombs from buffs didnt arm if you dropped them below 5 or maybe even 10k.
Buff formations belong up high with me and my A8 as company :).
-
Mentionning warping drones does not help the credibility of arguing against formations.
Warping drones give you more time to set up the next pass.
-
Formations are important. They prevent buffs from "dogfighting" or doing silly manuvers and so fly more historicly like.
The only problem with formations is that they don't need to carpet bomb. Since the full manual calibration has been replace with the semi-auto version, any buff that has not been taken off course can achieve pin-point accuracy. I've seen some players deck a field with one (3 of the entire formation) bomb per gun.
A small random error in the auto-calibration or greater bomb scatter is required. It may represent actual accuracy limit of calibration or effects such as wind sheers and bomb instability due to turbulance. The current accuracy is better than what can be done with a modern fighter dropping a GP bomb, in a dive.
-
Originally posted by moot
Mentionning warping drones does not help the credibility of arguing against formations.
Warping drones give you more time to set up the next pass.
shoot the buff and another drone jumps in it's place, warping and twisting all over the place is cheesy!:aok
-
Anyone know exactly when we got formations?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Anyone know exactly when we got formations?
I think they were introduced May 2002 as 4 bomber-formations (version 1.1) , short time later patched to 3 bomber boxes.
-
Sounds like alot of people got up on the wrong side of the hanger....I'll be seeing you on the buisness end of my tail guns:D:aok
-
I see nothing wrong with the 3 bomber formation.. I can always tell when someone comes after me that knows how to kill bombers VS those that have no patience or are noobs.. Down time on hangers is so low that it dosn't matter much if they are taken out any way...
I will say I was quite dissapointed when the hard callibration meathod was taken out.. I really enjoyed actually callibrating to bomb a target vs this thing we have now, as long as your speed and alt stay the same if you hold Y down for exactly 10 seconds you get a perfect callibration within 1mph every time.
I still see a lot of dweebs that don't use the bomb sight any way.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
snip....
.... Unfortunately, for some reason, HTC succumbed to the whines and exchanged the calibration method to a vastly dumbed-down version of it. No more manual calibration required - just stabilize airspeed, press a button and there, it's done.
The end result is what we have nowadays. There are pin-point hangar-busting buffs in the game again. We've gone backwards in time and arrived at the old days of AH1.
However, unlike AH1, where we had only one bomber aircraft doing the "smartbombing", now we have three.
So either perk the 3 formations, or bring back the old bombsight.
Gotta disagree here.
You're not thinking like a game developer, much less a businessman. Bombers fill a very important niche in the game's survivability -- they allow newer players to have some fun, feel like they're accomplishing something, during the otherwise dead zone where the learning curve can be overwhelming. Since they have something to enjoy, they are more likely to stay with AH and keep plugging away at the frustrating but rewarding business of learning the harder skills. Easier buffs were not implemented for the whiners, or for simulation value, or for the vets' enjoyment -- they were put in place to keep the 2 month newbs hooked.
Better subscriber retention means better business for HTC, but it also means the rest of us get a better, more competitive game in the long run.
Even in the short run, I think the complaints are wrong. I'm not going to analyse the data again, but last time I checked all buffs together had a KPD of under 0.6. In that context, it would be stupid[/b] to make them weaker.
If you die to buffs a lot, you're plain attacking them wrong. I'm not an uber pilot by any means, and I only attack buffs when they're not out of the way. But I'm 25-2 right now -- and my deaths were from stupid mistakes, not from uber gun triads. If I can learn how to slaughter like that, anyone can.
-
Have to agree with Simaril since Im 36:0 against bombers. I cringe and even try to correct noobs when I see them go into a bomber at their dead six but even then the bombers often times die.
-
The 2 arguments against buffs are false:
1. Defensive guns are too lethal.
2. Bombs are too accurate.
1. Proven in the crucible of the MA ... buffs are 'Meat on the Table.' Players fight over themselves to get to the bombers for the 3 easy kills. Sure you may die once in a bit, but lets be honest. If you see a low formation of buffs.. you race to get there.
2. The average player can't hit a thing with the bombsite. Sure many dump 36 eggs on a carrier and kill it, but a relative few 'Aces' take the time to learn to do pinpoint bombing from alt. This is a none issue. How many times do you see bombs scattered all over the base vs. the times you see one buff at alt nail something on every drop?
This is just another "I Hate Buffs" temper tantrum.
-
One player should only be able to fly one plane at a time. fighters flew in formation, would it be fair for one player to fly 3 fighters at a time? Having the ability to up 3 planes at the same time is one of the gamiest, silly things in AH2! :aok
Mark
-
My complaint with buff is the drones need a bit of tweaking.
Shoot a wing off the lead and the drones start doing the falling leaf, following it down. Then once they bail out of the lead, its back to full speed at a lower alt.
Drones should continue on and if you don't bail in time, they go poof.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by moot
Mentionning warping drones does not help the credibility of arguing against formations.
Warping drones give you more time to set up the next pass.
Unless, of course, the drone warped into you as you made the first
pass.
-
I am your worst enemy.:p :aok :p
-
you bomb therefore I hunt you and kill you with fairly good success trade off. most of my bomber deaths are from hitting the warping drones or from attacking from a low E and below initial attack. If I go hunting buffs specifically I get a 110 with full fuel drop tanks and big nose package and return with pretty good kills numbers in the bag. I'm still against the 1,000,000 slaved guns to one shooter concept but if you attack from above with speed you will easily kill all but the most seasoned bufftards. even the most seasoned bufftards will fall but that takes a little more work.
-
I'm not making the argument that bombers are too hard to kill, or that their guns are too lethal. The K/D ratio of .6 is less than mine was as a complete noob to AH (when I spent most of my time in PT boats because I couldn't figure out how to fly a plane). That isn't because bombers are too easy or too hard to kill, or because noobs now are too stupid, but because of the vets that run NOE formation after formation into the side of a CV, or the guys that do the bomb and bail over factories in the unpopulated arenas.
New players can't hit anything, because they haven't bothered to read anything. You could make the argument that we need a lead calculating gunsight or a built in aimbot on all fighters for the same reason we need the simplified bombsight. The only criteria I see mentioned for any suggested changes, are how difficult would it be to do, and what would the effect on gameplay be. Well, what's the positive effect on gameplay of the near constant stream of suicide jabo bomber missions?
As was pretty clear in my first post, it's not the guns, and it's not the durability that I take issue with. It's the ridiculous behavior of the drones, and the simplistic bombing, It's an overwhelming set of advantages that allow a single player to have a far greater impact on the game than anyone else in anything else, and how that is put to use in the MAs.
-
Originally posted by 4deck
I am your worst enemy.:p :aok :p
With more bomber deaths than kills, I'd say you present a greater threat to yourself than others.
-
How are bomber deaths score?
If you lose a formation is it one death or three?
-
3, 1 for each plane you lose.
-
Originally posted by quintv
How are bomber deaths score?
If you lose a formation is it one death or three?
A drone death does count as a kill to us, but if ya go to scores main page you will see the amount of kills we have in bombers, and that does out way our deaths
-
I don't know much about scores and stats but if thats the case then perhaps the bomber deaths are a tad misleading; when one considers how many drones are lost to maneuvering and take off/landings.
-
As a advide buff dweeb,i must ask is everything in the game perfect or accurate??things have been done to fix issues for a while now field layouts more ack,and such kinda made carpet bombing bases more dificult.
if its a issue of being killed by deadly guns i diagree there to thats a number game many pilots in the game will tell you that
let me explain bad numbers 6,12,
good numbers 9 3 and the good old belly shot
point being ways around everything and fixes will come good and bad
-
Originally posted by storch
you bomb therefore I hunt you and kill you with fairly good success trade off. most of my bomber deaths are from hitting the warping drones or from attacking from a low E and below initial attack. If I go hunting buffs specifically I get a 110 with full fuel drop tanks and big nose package and return with pretty good kills numbers in the bag. I'm still against the 1,000,000 slaved guns to one shooter concept but if you attack from above with speed you will easily kill all but the most seasoned bufftards. even the most seasoned bufftards will fall but that takes a little more work.
for i most part i (choke ) agree with ya storch.
especially that buffs are easy points and perks for the most part.
even with the slaved guns, buffs are an easy meal for a smart flyer.
so why when a buff finally gets to shoot down a fighter does he not get any points etc. towards his score? or does he? i could be wrong on this.
and the previous version of using the bomb sights was much better than this new "idiot" version.
i was never really any good at it.
but i did get alot of satisfaction when it all fell together and worked for me.
it really wasn,t that hard.
why the hell did they have to dummy it up???
what they gonna dummy up next???
i think when i finally shoot down a plane thats been doggin me for 20 minutes , i should get some type of point/perk for it.
god knows the fighter will get all the bennies of killin my buffs!!
as far as the formations?
i say keep em--its the one thing that makes it them a little more difficult to fly.
to get them to engage you gotta be above 300 ft 1st.( pretty sure)
no radical manuvering or they go bye bye etc,etc.
flyin a single buff for the most part would be cartoonicide!!!
most of the guys i see droppin in here couldn,t hit the broad side of a base if they had a formation with 5 drones anyway!!!
checkin my 6,
Boner
-
Originally posted by Bronk
My complaint with buff is the drones need a bit of tweaking.
Shoot a wing off the lead and the drones start doing the falling leaf, following it down. Then once they bail out of the lead, its back to full speed at a lower alt.
Drones should continue on and if you don't bail in time, they go poof.
Bronk
I am not the best, but I found that if I go for the left drone first, then the right drone, I don't have to deal with the warping drone issue.
Personally, I like buff hunting. If I stay out of their 6, I usually go 3 for 3...
-
Hey Boner, IINM, you get the perk points, and the kills appear in your stats, but there seems to be no scoring or ranking categories for kills in bombers. I thought they used to do this, but I see nothing in the score pages now about kills. So, you do get some reward, but only in the form of perks.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Hey Boner, IINM, you get the perk points, and the kills appear in your stats, but there seems to be no scoring or ranking categories for kills in bombers. I thought they used to do this, but I see nothing in the score pages now about kills. So, you do get some reward, but only in the form of perks. [/QUOTE
thanks hub,
perks only?
i want more!!
i want it all :cry !!!!!!
Boner
-
Originally posted by Virage
The 2 arguments against buffs are false:...
2. The average player can't hit a thing with the bombsite. Sure many dump 36 eggs on a carrier and kill it, but a relative few 'Aces' take the time to learn to do pinpoint bombing from alt. This is a none issue. How many times do you see bombs scattered all over the base vs. the times you see one buff at alt nail something on every drop?
Your #2 is off base. Here's a novel idea... learn to do it properly:eek: Most people can't bomb because they don't try. Heaven forbid someone should have to spend a few hours in the TA practicing to get good at something. Heck I very rarely fly bombers but I can do it and hit more than I miss from 10k+. No wonder we got hordes high, people won't even take the time to learn to do the simplest thing like bombing let alone something tougher like dogfighting.
-
I've posted a film before of me in a 190 attacking B17s at 16k+. For whatever reason, they were doing a more historical cruising speed of about 150 or 160 or so. Now, before I got to them, they'd managed to shoot down 2 other countrymen of mine. They weren't a poor aim. However, when I got to them they were mincemeat.
Why?
Because they weren't doing nearly TWICE their historical speeds like 99.999999% of all other bombers in this game.
The ONLY problem with bombers, right now, as-modeled, is their speed. Gun slaving becomes a non-issue if the bomber is flying at realistic speeds. Bomb accuracy isn't so much an issue, because the bombers take longer to get to the target, bomb, and get out. You have more time to intercept them.
The ONLY problem with bombers is their speed. Fix that (i.e. engine overheat or whatever restriction HTC adds), and the other problems go away.
-
I find this funny. I've flown literally hundreds and hundreds of bomber misions since the mid 90's in a few different sims including this one, and the buff WaaaaAAAAwAAAmbulance siren is the same in each game. I know its awfull that you furballers have to take the 5-6 minutes to climb to altitude, and heaven forbid you loose a couple more stat points, to intercept bombers. Its a crying shame.
So go ahead and n3rf da bombzors. Your really not hurting the ones who are really pizzing you off, your driving away the ones who fly them correctly. Because in all my experience in all of these sims tells me.....once a dweeb, always a dweeb. Change the bombers, and the dweebs will just use a different tactic to, yes you got it, be a dweeb.
If were going for reality here, lets throw in pilot fatigue controll loss in fighters that continually pull masive G's, and extreme cols at altitude. Slipstream effect for fighters who think bombers are kc135's and try to mid air refule to get a kill. And a half a dozen other things of the like I can think of. But you know what? we cant. This is a game. Its a great game, and probably the best game of its genre ATM. But the fact is that we are all sitting comfortably in our homes behind a monitor, and there are some things we have to accept as such. Works for both bombers and fighters. Ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard a bomber pilot whining about any fighter. We dont, because we understand that we are big flying targets to those of you who take the time to attack us correctly. Maybe some of you can accept that our job is to blow stuff up. Take that away,or nerf it into rediculousness, and theres no reason for us to be here.
from the other side of the coin.
magic sends.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
(snip)
The ONLY problem with bombers, right now, as-modeled, is their speed. Gun slaving becomes a non-issue if the bomber is flying at realistic speeds. Bomb accuracy isn't so much an issue, because the bombers take longer to get to the target, bomb, and get out. You have more time to intercept them.
The ONLY problem with bombers is their speed. Fix that (i.e. engine overheat or whatever restriction HTC adds), and the other problems go away.
I don't think you can, Krusty. The problem wasn't that they weren't capable of cruising at 250 MPH, it was that they weren't capable of running on full throttle for a whole mission when there and back was 8 hours plus.
The problem is the map distances ... but I don't know who would want to play a game where an average mission length were measured in hours.
-
Originally posted by Ghastly
The problem is the map distances ... but I don't know who would want to play a game where an average mission length were measured in hours.
The longer the better.Actually its needed for bombers loaded heavy. As a matter of fact, were going to start incorporating seperate rollout fields for the escort AC and set RP points into the HARM missions. It makes it more realistic. Why, I can remember flying for 3 hours on a single mission in.. erm..well you know. As dedicated bomber pilots, its what we do.
BTW, does Ghastly= Ghost? (recognise the avatar) if so, man, been a long time.
-
Well, average missions historically ran over 1000 miles. In-game they rarely last more than 50 miles (and that's IF you want to get to 20k before bombing), often as little as 25 miles (if you don't want to climb to 20k). Each sector in AH is 25 miles. You up from the closest field (often 25 mi away or less) if you don't care about alt, but you often take off 1 field back if you do care.
A historic mission would be like taking off on the far side of a 512x512 map, climbing to 23k, flying ALL the way across the map until the very edge of the other side, dropping your bombs, and flying ALL the way back across the map to your same take-off field, and landing there.
Real bombers rarely took off without full fuel. Real bombers climbed worse and flew slower because of all the fuel onboard. Forget the fact that half the bombers I see in this game eject or suicide-dive-bomb into the target along with the bombs (forget RTB and landing! HAH!)
What we have in AH is an ugly bastardization of what happened historically.
The fuel multiplier works okay for fighters. It condenses horizontal distances between fields. It just doesn't work on bomber.
Another option, rather than limit engine power/overheat, is to amp up the fuel burn on the 4-engined bombers, to the point where you NEED to throttle back or you'll never reach your target.
Say the historical range was 1000 miles. Say the AH range MAX is 100 miles (4 sectors, 1-way or 2 sectors round trip, or 4 sectors 1 way and glide down from 25k (this does work, btw, with 25k alt you can glide up to 3 sectors with engines off).
1000:100, we need a fuel burn multiplier of 10 for 4-engined bombers.
THAT would very much change the speed and fuel load taken on by bombers in this game. Most of the 2-engined bombers have shorter ranges. You really can't up a B-26 with less than 100%, or you'll never make it back home IMO. That is why I say "4-engined."
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well, average missions historically ran over 1000 miles. In-game they rarely last more than 50 miles (and that's IF you want to get to 20k before bombing), often as little as 25 miles (if you don't want to climb to 20k). Each sector in AH is 25 miles. You up from the closest field (often 25 mi away or less) if you don't care about alt, but you often take off 1 field back if you do care.
A historic mission would be like taking off on the far side of a 512x512 map, climbing to 23k, flying ALL the way across the map until the very edge of the other side, dropping your bombs, and flying ALL the way back across the map to your same take-off field, and landing there.
Real bombers rarely took off without full fuel. Real bombers climbed worse and flew slower because of all the fuel onboard. Forget the fact that half the bombers I see in this game eject or suicide-dive-bomb into the target along with the bombs (forget RTB and landing! HAH!)
What we have in AH is an ugly bastardization of what happened historically.
The fuel multiplier works okay for fighters. It condenses horizontal distances between fields. It just doesn't work on bomber.
Another option, rather than limit engine power/overheat, is to amp up the fuel burn on the 4-engined bombers, to the point where you NEED to throttle back or you'll never reach your target.
Say the historical range was 1000 miles. Say the AH range MAX is 100 miles (4 sectors, 1-way or 2 sectors round trip, or 4 sectors 1 way and glide down from 25k (this does work, btw, with 25k alt you can glide up to 3 sectors with engines off).
1000:100, we need a fuel burn multiplier of 10 for 4-engined bombers.
THAT would very much change the speed and fuel load taken on by bombers in this game. Most of the 2-engined bombers have shorter ranges. You really can't up a B-26 with less than 100%, or you'll never
make it back home IMO. That is why I say "4-engined."
i,m not sure i get your point!!
is this a game or a history lesson
if we applied historical facts to every machine in this game ---trust me it wouldn,t be half as much FUN as it is now.
it would probably have half the players too.
or less.
there will always be somebody complaining about something in this game
i guess it makes for good bbs fodder. historically speaking that is.
amused,
Boner
real this and real that---puulease.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
1000:100, we need a fuel burn multiplier of 10 for 4-engined bombers.
THAT would very much change the speed and fuel load taken on by bombers in this game. "
And how should buffs like the lanc should reach it's "historic" or any other altitude at which they will not get slaughtered before getting close to target?
At FB 10.0, a fully loaded Lanc would have a full-power endurance of about 33 minutes. Cruise setting won't help you when you need at least 25mins of full power to get to 10k...
-
Boner, the loadout of the aircraft very much affects their performance. On top of that even if they were forced to take 100% fuel there would be no limiting their top speed, further disrupting the gameplay balance.
To force them to slow down there seem to be only 2 options. 1) induce engine death if they run it too high too long (not likely to show up in this game) or 2) increase fuel burn so high they HAVE to throttle back even with 100% fuel.
The whole 1000:100 was a way of figuring out what the fuel burn needs to be set to, so that bombers are forced to cruise to and from the target, as they did historically.
EDIT: Saw lusche's post.
Lusche, I'll do some testing offline, but bombers didn't use full throttle when climbing, either. 10 is just a rough estimate.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Boner, the loadout of the aircraft very much affects their performance. On top of that even if they were forced to take 100% fuel there would be no limiting their top speed, further disrupting the gameplay balance.
To force them to slow down there seem to be only 2 options. 1) induce engine death if they run it too high too long (not likely to show up in this game) or 2) increase fuel burn so high they HAVE to throttle back even with 100% fuel.
The whole 1000:100 was a way of figuring out what the fuel burn needs to be set to, so that bombers are forced to cruise to and from the target, as they did historically.
EDIT: Saw lusche's post.
Lusche, I'll do some testing offline, but bombers didn't use full throttle when climbing, either. 10 is just a rough estimate.
gameplay balance???
the planes are all fine.
enough of the historically correct stuff already
the game is what it is!!!
yeah--lets slow the buffs down and make them even easier to kill. yaaaaay!!
C'MON LETS GET OUTTA HERE AND GO PLAY---ITS FUN!!!! REALLY!!!!
im not tryin to cut down your point Krusty
and i admire your knowledge on the subject.
but ---- its a game
its not meant to be 100% historically correct.
its supposed to be fun.
your playground buddy,
Boner
-
Boner, not to be offensive.. okay maybe a little, but..
Do you even play this game?
Do you do anything other than mindless furballing at 100 feet AGL?
Have you ever shot a bomber down this tour? The past 5 tours?
If you answered yes to those three questions you know the planes are NOT "all fine"
And that "gameplay balance??" you scoff at -- it's what makes this game such a hit. It's why 262s and tempests are perked (for gameplay balance) and why we have ENY, and why the arenas were split up, and many many many other aspects that make this game unique amongst all others. This entire game is about balance. The balance with the bombers is off. It has been for a while. Slowing the bombers down would restore balance, and wouldn't infringe on your mindless furballing at all, so I can't see why you'd be so upset at suggestions regarding it.
EDIT: What if you had a racing game where a Pinto was almost twice as fast as it ever ran in real life? What if you could stomp on the gas pedal and HOLD in there in said pinto, and not blow out a rod or a piston, and actually hold your own against Ford Mustangs and Chargers? Historical situations DO come into play, even if you're not trying to make it a historical re-creation of what happened. You have to at LEAST get the end results right (i.e. the pinto isn't going to out run jack or squat).
-
The way to fix the buffs is to turn on the "Wind". Even a lite cross wind is going to make pin point bombing harder.
But to do this I think HTC has to turn off auto-takeoffs...
CAVALRY
-
So far, this is the first time (hack-cough-excuse me) I agree with Krusty.
Bombers that are flat out doing just under 300 is historicaly a little INSANE, I understand that B24's were a faster cruise, but how long was that possible before they caught fire?
Outside of that, Oh powers that be, please leave everything the same.
My TA-152-H gets buff hungry on a daily basis for milk runners and strat eggers.
PLEASE take up 3 at a time!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE!!!!!
:D :rofl :lol
68ROX
-
many fine points being made here,and while I would be considered a noob,I also consider myself to be pretty good at bombing..It is what I always do..I am not so great in a fighter plane I admit.And I could probably be better if I practiced more,but the fact of the matter is,that my connection lacks..What I mean is that I am on satellite link-up,and quite often when flying And working on getting another plane in my sight's.they will warp a bit due to the latency,but not always so I get some kills.But I do not like to take chance,so I BOMB...
For those of you who think bombing is easy for us..think about this..If I we want to get to 19-20K,we are going to have to have a high altitude base close to where we want to go,or we are going to be about 30 minutes minimum flying to our target...And for what??? So that someone in a 110 or 109 will more than likely be waiting for us there.yea I want to take out what I am aiming for,most of the time I do,and sometimes I miss one or two.So lets say I hit what I intended and I want to hit more..
so I turn....
Well if I do not turn slow enough my drones want to go torwards another base.lol
or high to left or right of the heavens.I am going to have to slow my turn enough for them to keep up,but I have accepted this..I think it is an ok problem I am willing to deal with.
Lets say I am over a furball,as it has been stated lances=easy kills usually,IF you know how to come at them...I have been killed easily by someone who KNOWS how to take them down.And if the BB's on a lance do knock you down out of the sky..you have some things to re-think about your way of attacking them..
And another thing to think about...If you are on my 6 and you knock out my tail-guns,and I have bombs left,and I HAVE to get my target..what am I to do?? I am going to fly that puppy to within an inch of its rated flying parameters..And I have to do this all the while trying to keep my drones with me..NO it is not easy by any means..
My last chance is to dive bomb my target,hoping I have my drones with me,and sometimes I dont,and hope and pray it hits the target...
Maybe the bombers do go faster in this game as opposed to real life.But are they really so fast that anyone who is smart enough to go up "TOP' of a base cant catch them?
See you in my bomb sight,
Kevin
-
Easy solution falcon... get a few friends to go with you.
1 110 flying into a formation of 3-4 boxes of buffs= dead 110
Fight jocks realize to take a friend or 2 into a fight, why don't the bomber guys wise up and do the same?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Boner, not to be offensive.. okay maybe a little, but..
Do you even play this game?
Do you do anything other than mindless furballing at 100 feet AGL?
Have you ever shot a bomber down this tour? The past 5 tours?
If you answered yes to those three questions you know the planes are NOT "all fine"
And that "gameplay balance??" you scoff at -- it's what makes this game such a hit. It's why 262s and tempests are perked (for gameplay balance) and why we have ENY, and why the arenas were split up, and many many many other aspects that make this game unique amongst all others. This entire game is about balance. The balance with the bombers is off. It has been for a while. Slowing the bombers down would restore balance, and wouldn't infringe on your mindless furballing at all, so I can't see why you'd be so upset at suggestions regarding it.
EDIT: What if you had a racing game where a Pinto was almost twice as fast as it ever ran in real life? What if you could stomp on the gas pedal and HOLD in there in said pinto, and not blow out a rod or a piston, and actually hold your own against Ford Mustangs and Chargers? Historical situations DO come into play, even if you're not trying to make it a historical re-creation of what happened. You have to at LEAST get the end results right (i.e. the pinto isn't going to out run jack or squat). [/B
yeah-i play every now and then. you??
mindless furballing??? am i that transparent??
used to fly buff alot more than i have lately
got 5x more bomber perks than fighter and attack perks.
i love flying buffs----reeeal hard defending them though.
b-17==287mph @25k
lancaster mk.1==286 @12k
b24m==290 mph@25k
b24d==303mph@25k
too fast for fighters to make mincemeat of?? c,mon.
i can,t seem to remember getting a fully loaded lanc up to that speed.
sure they couldn,t sustain that speed forever without inherent problems.
but for the sake of this game and making the flights of an endurable length
they can sustain those speeds, if they can even reach them---barely.
bombers are already easy prey.
lets slow them down and make the guns less accurate too!!! yaaaaaay!!
lets take away the drones too!!!!
no wait---lets not give them any scores for shootin down fighters either!!
you are absolutley correct----what was i thinking
gonna go and mindlessly furball now,
Boner:cool:
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
Easy solution falcon... get a few friends to go with you.
1 110 flying into a formation of 3-4 boxes of buffs= dead 110
Fight jocks realize to take a friend or 2 into a fight, why don't the bomber guys wise up and do the same?
I disagree to an extent, there have been many occassions where I've upped a single 110 and chanced upon multiple boxes of B24s or Lancs and come home with 12 kills and little damage. I would be reticent to engage multiple boxes of B17s and if I did I come away with fewer killls. the B24s and lancs light up fairly easily so I allow them to burn out while I hit the subsequent box and then return to a softened 1st box and so forth. I love high front quarter slash passes they often net three quick kills but sometimes a ram which I inevitably lose.
-
i want to make it so buffs can't dive bomb. I hate the dive bombing lancs that drop there whole payload on the pad at Vbase.:furious :mad: :furious
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
So far, this is the first time (hack-cough-excuse me) I agree with Krusty.
Bombers that are flat out doing just under 300 ............
68ROX
What game are you playing? The most we do in level flight is around 200, and thats empty. Fully loaded, we are more like 165-170. 300 is quite an exageration.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
What game are you playing? The most we do in level flight is around 200, and thats empty. Fully loaded, we are more like 165-170. 300 is quite an exageration.
Climb up off the deck...the speed will be at least 250+ up high ;)
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
What game are you playing? The most we do in level flight is around 200, and thats empty. Fully loaded, we are more like 165-170. 300 is quite an exageration.
yes-- i agree!!!!
my usual bomb release speed maxed out in a lanc or 17 is aprox. 225mph. flyin between 15k and 20+k
maybe we should cut the speed in half and not fire back at fighters at all.
don,t think i.ve seen the max airspeed of any of the buffs--ever!!
in fact i think i,ve had my wings and stuff start ripping off at a steep descending speed of aprox. 350 mph ,empty!!
fully loaded and level doing 300mph is laughable!!
sorry couldn,t help myself:rofl
Boner
and Krusty--my source for those buff speeds was from a book written by: enzo angelucci--paolo matricardi--and are you ready for this one??????
pierluigi PINTO!!!! lmfao!!
Krusty--i,m not trying to belittle your opinion or cut you down by calling you idiotic names---i just happen to disagree with your proposal.
-
What comes to my attention most after reading this thread,is that everything people are complaining about,is exactly what bombers on each respective side do everyday to help your side come closer to winning the war...
Kevin
EDIT:,by the way,the fastest I have ever seen my buff on calibration is 274.
-
I disagree that bombers should be slowed down, there just shouldn't be 3 of them, and they should have to aim like everyone else. The buff dorks have been coddled long enough, and they should have to buck up and face the same cartoon risks as everyone else. Ferchrissakes, some of these guys have been playing longer than I have, so I think we can dismiss the "but noobs need to be able to fly a bunch of bombers at once because the game is hard" rationale. If they can't figure the game out in 7 years, it's time to admit defeat.
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Climb up off the deck...the speed will be at least 250+ up high ;)
Nope, never happen.All of the missions I've flown are at altitude. Can provide a TS server and some ingame time so you can prove this 250+ speed claim if you'd like .
-
Dammit! Typed this whole thing up and lost it. Retyping it now.
I spent a couple of hours testing the 10x fuel burn rate offline.
I chose a B-17 because a B-24 does everything a b17 does, only better and faster and with more gas. If a 17 can do it, a 24 can do it. A lanc has even more range than a 17 as well and should do the same as well.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174352793_b17.jpg)
Yellow is my flight path. Blue is coasting down, 2 engines below max cruise to help descent in auto-speed. Ended up with plenty of speed and made a rather hot landing without any engines running, but still quite safe.
I chose a target 2 sectors away, so I'd be 2 sectors in, 2 sectors out (about 100 miles). Only, when I as 14k over the target I still had so much flight time left I picked an even further target!.
[EDIT: "when I was over the target" -- I wasn't 14k at this time, but over 10k]
I was screwing around with the gun turrets, firing off the rounds, and wasted 5+ minutes just firing the rounds -- more later on this -- which might have helped me get home better. I as able to come around and make another pass with ease.
I took off on full throttle, and as soon as I could pull my flaps all the way up and engage autopilot (this took a couple of minutes) I reduced to "normal power," or 2300 RPM and 38" MAP. I took this all the way up during climb.
The climb rate was almost a steady 500fpm. It remained steady because as I climbed, the fuel burned off. It actually improved at higher altitudes because the aircraft was considerably lighter. In my second test, done at full throttle, I was climbing somewhat better above 10k
First test: At 15 minutes I was 8k and halfway to the target. I was about 10k at the 20 minute mark, but please note I didn't take off at zero on the clock, I had to change the fuel burn settings and choose an aircraft, a runway, a direction, a target, etc... At 25 minutes on the clock I was at 13k, and leveled off at 14k (26 minutes). At this point I had 14 minutes still remaining at "normal power". I reduced to "max cruise" after leveling out. That gave me about 20 minutes of flight time, and my target was only about 10 miles out. More than enough time to get to alt and hit a target.
On the first bomb pass I noted the max speeds on max cruise. It was 134 IAS, 167 TAS with doors open and 6 bombs on board. I dropped 3 to simulate a bombing run (missed, wasn't paying attention), and extended to turn around. I wasted a lot of time wondering if it would get lighter if I fired off some ammo, to simulate defending the bombers. Cruising speed with bombs gone was about 165 IAS.
side note
Go, Go, Gadget thruster jets!
Get in level flight. Open E6B. Get in tail gun. Fire all guns so you get as many firing as possible. Fire straight back. Note E6B. Get in nose gun. Fire ahead. Note E6B. The guns can add speed to your bomber (I am NOT making this up!!!!!). In fact, as I was gliding down, to decrease the descent rate to a gentle -200fpm, I fired my rear guns as much as I could. By this time I'd already fired off most of them playing around with this speed boost thing, but it helped while I had ammo left!!!
end side note
So At 38 minutes on the clock I'd made 2 lengthly passes over a very distant target at a semi-safe altitude of 14k (I didn't want to get higher but I could have), at a target 3 bases behind enemy lines, and was egressing. I still had enough alt to glide down on 2 engines to save gas, and landed safely. At 43 minutes I shut down eng 1 and 4 to reduce gas consumption. When I was about 2 miles from the end of the runway my last engines conked out due to lack of fuel. I glided down easily.
Judging by the route on the map (image above) I flew 125 miles (5 sectors) at a relatively safe alt. Now if you wanted to go higher you could, it would just take more time. Perhaps if I took off East and then turned back West so I wasn't so close to my primary target I'd have hit it instead of going to the next target.
I did another test with full throttle. FYI: Full throttle gives you 30 minutes, "normal power" about 42 minutes, and "max cruise" about 50 minutes of engine running time. You can use this to your advantage. I climbed full throttle, doing about 750fpm at first, and then up to 800+ fpm later as I burned off the fuel. I leveled out at 14k again. It took much less time to get up to 15k. It took only 15 minutes to get to 15k, roughly. At that alt, I leveled out and checked the time I had at "normal power" and "cruise". I had about 12 minutes max throttle, 16 minutes normal power, and 23 minutes max cruise, and had already covered almost 2 sectors.
I think 10x fuel burn will make bombers slow down but still allow them to push into enemy front lines over a hundred miles. And if they wish to run FFT all the time, they will do so for very short durations.
EDIT: And if 10x is a bit too much, then 8x.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
Nope, never happen.All of the missions I've flown are at altitude. Can provide a TS server and some ingame time so you can prove this 250+ speed claim if you'd like .
Apparently you don't ever hunt bombers. 99.9999% of bombers are nearly 280mph when I check the film after the fact. They're in the 270 range most of the time. It doesn't take that long to get to this speed after leveling off, once at alt.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
Nope, never happen.All of the missions I've flown are at altitude. Can provide a TS server and some ingame time so you can prove this 250+ speed claim if you'd like .
I've seen 280 TAS at altitude in B-17's. B-24's almost as fast. TAS increases with altitude, while IAS decreases. Regardless, any P-47 or P-51, TA-152, can do 400+ True at the same altitudes. That's still 120 mph rate of closure if you're coming in from behind them. That means you'll gain 2 miles a minute on them, or you can catch them from a sector away in 12 minutes.
And, Krusty, IMHO, a bomber in this game ought to be able to climb to 20K+ if that's their perogative. 14K is not safe, its a sitting duck. You raise the fuel burn to a level that prevents them from climbing up to a historically accurate altitude before they cross into bad-guy territory, you're hamstringing them. Take away the formations and slaved guns if you like, but don't up the fuel burn. Its cut the legs out from under a number of planes in the game already, especially those that climb slow and have radial engines, but I'm not naming any names...[cough] JUG [cough] :)
-
Originally posted by Lusche
You want to change buffs from being easy targets back to completely helpless?
Quoting this from the beginning of the thread, because after reading the 4+ pages here, this appears to be what it boils down to.
For some reason, a lot of people believe bombers should be helpless.
I disagree. They are fine the way they are. As it is, they have a half a chance against a fighter. Most of the suggestions here would reduce it to a snowballs chance in you know where.
Bombers do not have the luxury of maneuvering out of the way of an incoming figther. Their firepower and the formation are their only chance of survival. Why take it away? Hurt your ego too much to get shot down by one or three?
-
Leave 'em alone.
:)
-
Stoney, as-is they climb way way faster than they ever did historically, because they almost never take more than 25% fuel. They climb and accelerate 4x faster than they ever did in real life, because in real life they always had 100% fuel.
EDIT: okay, not 4x, but much better. I typed it quickly and was thinking 100% is 4x that of 25%, but that's not counting the existing airframe weights etc.
I only climbed to 14k in my tests. You can still climb higher if you wish. Getting up to 20k should take a long time, as you are in a heavy 4-engined bomber, not a single-engined fighter. You will be able to get to 20k with 100% fuel, you just need to give yourself more time because you're heavier. You also need to conserve fuel on the way up, so that once you're up there, you don't run out before getting to target.
I think the fuel burn for 4-engined bombers should be 10, personally. I'd say 8 at least. Even increasing it to as little as 5 or 6x fuel burn would greatly help the situation, but folks would still run FFT, at speeds far superior to those achieved in combat, with such a low fuel burn rate.
Keep in mind, that you say the best of the high-alt fighters would have 120mph closure rate. That's IF they are already at that alititude, and IF they're already at full speed. Realistically, these aircraft would have closure rates of 250+mph (attacking at 400+ mph on a 150mph target), so by the bombers flying 2x their historic speeds, it puts all fighters in a bad position.
-
Can somebody check the kill to death of bombers verses fighters in Aces High please.......I'm not good at finding that kind of information.....After these facts are found .........lets ask a new series of questions.
999000
-
Yeah, it's a bit annoying to be maneuvering for position to make a run on the formation, then suddenly have the guy pull a hard diving turn to 300+ mph without losing ONE of his drones.
Edit:
WTF?! I was at the end of the thread and the topic was about formation speed/maneuvering silliness. I post and suddenly it gains almost a full page.
-
Before we get too carried away with wild fuel burn, or K/D, let's give a little bit of thought to the initial point Zanth was making.
Formation of 3 bombers was added to allow for inaccuracy of new bomb site.
Point being, the bombers were given a huge advantage to offset a change to the game that was made and rapidly undone. Is this not the case?
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
What game are you playing? The most we do in level flight is around 200, and thats empty. Fully loaded, we are more like 165-170. 300 is quite an exageration.
I think you are talking about IAS and the rest are talking about ground speed.
-
Its a waste of time talking about this since they aren't gonna do anything about it. Remember that little thing called Combat Tour? I'm sure they aren't gonna do anything until AFTER it gets done. That is IF they did.
I think bombers are just fine the way they are. When we do the HARM missions we usually have 30-40% loss ratio and that with us flying in tight formations WITH gunners and escorts. Theres nothing wrong with bombers.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Apparently you don't ever hunt bombers. 99.9999% of bombers are nearly 280mph when I check the film after the fact. They're in the 270 range most of the time. It doesn't take that long to get to this speed after leveling off, once at alt.
and????
thats the speed they,re supposed to fly at !!!!!!
i never seem to be able to get em up to that speed but --if you say so
i believe it!! just haven,t seen it.
the stats i posted earlier only attest to the fact that you are right!!
they are indeed going 270--280 or so.
thats what they,re supposed to do ---historically speaking.
so if a lanc can do 286 mph according to stats
whats your point????????????
we should slow them down because-----------------?
and yes---i hunt bombers--
and yes sometimes they.re a biotch to catch----at alt.
and?
-
If anything I would like to see an option for bomber fuel burn vs. fighter fuel burn.
I doubt it would be used in the MA's but it would be rather useful in scenarios.
In the last BoB (Battle of Britain) the Ju88's were so fast that the Hurris had only 1 chance to engage them then the 88's just walked away with a closer rate of about 5mph ;)
That or give us the Do17 and He111 :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Stoney, as-is they climb way way faster than they ever did historically, because they almost never take more than 25% fuel. They climb and accelerate 4x faster than they ever did in real life, because in real life they always had 100% fuel......
Krusty I know you said "almost never", but please keep in mind that when I do my bombing runs, I take off from the highest base my side has at the time and to climb to 30k-ish, transit to target, drop load, and return home to a safe base takes more than 25% for me. I usualy take 100%. I hate running out of gas. By the time I get home I have less than 10 minutes of fuel left. So please leave the fuel burn where its at.
I'd like to think there are others who fly their bombers that way as well, but I doubt it.
Somebody also said that a B-24 out performs a B-17. I agree to a point. I have found that at about 28k a B-24 doesnt climb very well. A B-17 on the other hand has about a 300fpm climb to 32k. I know the stats will say what they say, but these are my observations between the two from personal experience flying them in game at those alts. I have also had both over 300tas at those alts as well. B-17 gets faster the higher it goes.
Been awhile since I have been up that high, but I'll try to do a few runs this weekend and post some picks.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Stoney, as-is they climb way way faster than they ever did historically, because they almost never take more than 25% fuel. They climb and accelerate 4x faster than they ever did in real life, because in real life they always had 100% fuel...
...Realistically, these aircraft would have closure rates of 250+mph (attacking at 400+ mph on a 150mph target), so by the bombers flying 2x their historic speeds, it puts all fighters in a bad position.
150 TAS for bombers is not realistic. At 20K+, 150TAS has any plane in the set losing altitude, because IAS sinks into the double digits up there. On the other hand, 150 IAS is approaching 300 TAS. Further, and I believe Lynx first stated this in another thread, fighters didn't fly WOT all the time either, so its pretty balanced in my opinion. Last, bomb loads carried during the war weren't typically governed by total bomb rack space. They took whatever fuel load they needed to get to the target, and made up the difference in max takeoff weight with bombs. That might be 5,000 lbs for a flight to Berlin, and 8,000 for the sub pens on the French coast. So, 100% fuel is a moving number depending on mission.
I think the lazer guided bomb site is a bit too much. I guess my personal opinion would be to bring back the old calibration method and leave things the way they are. Either that, or drop the formation option. That way the original catalyst for the change would be restored.
Sorry for perpetuating the semi-hijack. Let's start another thread on this subject Krusty?
-
So Hub this "huge advantage" as you would say ...well lets look at the data ..the kill to death ratio ..anyone?
999000
-
So 2 extra planes, 3 times the ord, and 3 times the defensive armament isn't an advantage?
The K/D is deceiving, because of the many folks who will, as an example you're extremely familiar with, drive formation after formation after formation of buffs NOE into the side of a CV, or, as another example, the guys like Fortress who would do the same thing trying to take out hangars. Waffle used to up formations at a capped field to lure the vulchers into wasting ammo. The BKs used to up formations en masse at a vulched field, figuring they can't get everyone. And, as you know, once the drones are airborn and the lead plane is killed, you're instantly in the air and gunning. I should also add the people like me, who will fly to TT, bomb the neatly aligned rows of spawncampers, then troll for fighters until I'm out of ammo or drones, something that simply wasn't possible before drones were added. Bombers have created a lot of wildly unrealistic situations in AH, and I (and others) don't think they've done anything to improve the game.
And of course, the main point in all of this is that formations were added so carpet bombing in single planes wouldn't be an exercise in futility. But, we don't have carpet bombing, we have nearly the same accuracy we had in AH1 (this might be before your time, not sure), except we're dropping 3 times the ord.
-
one player, one plane! Fair is fair! :t
:noid
-
Interesting stats. I broke this down by the three strat bomber types and included the number one killer of each type, and the corresponding k/d for that type. For last months (Feb) tour. Here we go:
B-24
Overall K/D: 12071 Kills / 28870 Deaths = .42 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 1002 Deaths / 2437 Kills = 2.43 K/D vs. B-24
B-17
Overall K/D: 5144 Kills / 15255 Deaths = .34 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 434 Deaths / 1222 Kills = 2.82 K/D vs. B-17
Lancs
Overall K/D: 6505 Kills / 23125 Deaths = .28 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 354 Deaths / 1824 Kills = 5.15 K/D vs. Lancs
Some of the other usual suspects had high K/D against all three, but the P-51D shot down more per type than any other aircraft last month. Surprising, to me anyway...
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Waffle used to up formations at a capped field to lure the vulchers into wasting ammo.
Best Fred Sanford Voice "Lamont! - you big dummy!"
waffles bomber radio tuning during these attacks (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/sounds/sanfordandson.wav)
-
Tour 23
B17 7085 kills of all models, 10424 deaths to all models. .68 K/D
B26 6467 kills of all models, 9480 deaths to all models. .68 K/D
Pony was the lead killer of 17s, Spit IX was the bane of B26s. Interesting.
mmmm waffles
forgot the lazscasters. They didn't do so well
Lancaster III has 2683 Kills of All models
All models have 6578 Kills of Lancaster III .41 K/D
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
150 TAS for bombers is not realistic. At 20K+, 150TAS has any plane in the set losing altitude, because IAS sinks into the double digits up there.
B-17G: Performance: Maximum speed 263 mph at 25,000 feet, 300 mph at 30,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed 150 mph at 25,000 feet.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_16.html
-
Stoney good information Sir!.....so even with formations the kill to death ratio is still isn't even close to ONE!..........ok now what you think the kill to death ratio would drop to with single formations???.20?
Maybe we should be talking about making Bombers Stronger?
999000
-
The 2 arguments against buffs are false:
1. Defensive guns are too lethal.
2. Bombs are too accurate.
1. Proven in the crucible of the MA ... buffs are 'Meat on the Table.' Players fight over themselves to get to the bombers for the 3 easy kills. Sure you may die once in a bit, but lets be honest. If you see a low formation of buffs.. you race to get there.
2. The average player can't hit a thing with the bombsite. Sure many dump 36 eggs on a carrier and kill it, but a relative few 'Aces' take the time to learn to do pinpoint bombing from alt. This is a none issue. How many times do you see bombs scattered all over the base vs. the times you see one buff at alt nail something on every drop?
This is just another "I Hate Buffs" temper tantrum.
My beef is with the second argument. Bombs are indeed too accurate, or rather the process of calibration is too simple. I know you've been playing since AH1 so try and think back on what kind of arguments people had back then.
Back in AH1, when we had the "laser-guided" 100% on target bombsight, people were complaining of how a single Lancaster can kill off all four fighters hangars from high altitudes with pin point accuracy.
This led to the implementation of the manual calibration method, which manifested in a very distinct manner in the MA. When the manual calibration was in the game, the 'average' people were having trouble in dealing with pin-point accuracy and therefore the attitudes of the MA buffs changed to a very characteristic method we called "deck-alt suicidal runs". The bombers were changed to a bloated super-jabo, and it became the preferred method of the pitiful bomber geeks who barely took enough time to practice and yet still wanted to knock stuff out so they can become the patriots to their chess pieces. Every where you go would see bombers just running through field ack, spraying their bombload from 2k alt and then getting shot down by either the defenses or the ack.
The de-facto number one preferred method of closing airfields was by fighter jabo, and it started the days of mass jabo raids.
...
Then came the dumbed-down bombsight, and then recently HTC's decision to strengthen field ack.
This changed the behavior of the buffs yet again. Fighter jabo effectiveness was reduced due to the strengthened field defenses. In turn, with the help of the dumbed-down bombsight, the high-alt pin-point hangar busting is now officially back in the game. When you fly for any give hour's flight in the peak time of the MA, the number one reason you would observe behind fighter bases being closed down, would be by bombers, and by near pin-point hangar busting.
Back when we had the manual bombsight, the average player couldn't hit a thing dead on. That's why many bomber pilots were recommended to increase the delay time and 'carpet bomb' the target zone. Instead, they just got rid of the calibration phase entirely and began dropping bombs at deck altitudes.
Now, the bomb-sight is dumbed down to plain silly levels, and we're right back to where we started in AH1.
-
It's not that hard to deack and close a base with 10 jabos. DREDger has been leading strikes like that, almost everytime like it's a walk in the park.
There should be a compromise made (since we're already in gamey compromises) to disperse bombs some more, proportionaly to the altitude of the drop.
The wind model is too simple to do the job, so a random dispersion would have to substitute.
Triple buffs definitely shouldn't go.. if anything, with that much more dispersion, they should get a perk option for 5 ship formations.
I've been playing again after 2 years off, and while there are more clueless to ACM, and gamey exploiters like dive bombers and kami jabos (I'm not saying anything about the average "skill"), the quality of gameplay is probably no better or worse.. Splitting up the arenas was a good idea.
I've seen a number of really intense battles over fields.. I can't remember any battles of that length and intensity in the past. I think it's good proof that guns and horsepower are the same in one respect: You can never have too much.
More fuel should be thrown into the fire of the arenas' battles.
And the bomber guns' dispersion was debated a long while back, and IIRC, shown to be pretty much spot on as they have been since then.
-
one player, one plane! all those stats about low K/D'sin bombers is basically due to many times folks just bail over their target after bombs are dropped, which counts as a death. Many suicide runs in buffs too, so much so that bringing stats up is a moot point!
It's really simple, one player should only be able to control one plane/vehicle!
Mark
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Interesting stats. I broke this down by the three strat bomber types and included the number one killer of each type, and the corresponding k/d for that type. For last months (Feb) tour. Here we go:
B-24
Overall K/D: 12071 Kills / 28870 Deaths = .42 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 1002 Deaths / 2437 Kills = 2.43 K/D vs. B-24
B-17
Overall K/D: 5144 Kills / 15255 Deaths = .34 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 434 Deaths / 1222 Kills = 2.82 K/D vs. B-17
Lancs
Overall K/D: 6505 Kills / 23125 Deaths = .28 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 354 Deaths / 1824 Kills = 5.15 K/D vs. Lancs
Some of the other usual suspects had high K/D against all three, but the P-51D shot down more per type than any other aircraft last month. Surprising, to me anyway...
Of the most oft used planes in game, the P.51s are the likeliest to be flown at altitude, and therefore in a position to get to the bombers.
At least thats how I read it.
-
Stats are just numbers.. AH is about having fun, not about math.. Is there a math forum around here I missed? :p
Now why would players not be allowed to control more than one vehicle? Towing an 88 with an M3, or slaving the battleship's guns to one sighting tower is nonsense because?
The only reason we don't get to fire all guns on the ships at once is to leave other players a chance to get a shot at it too.. Comparatively, who is penalized or restricted or whatever, by bomber drones?
All formations need is more dispersion to reflect the reality of high altitude bombing. Last night I could not remember how calibrating even worked (2 years off like I said, and I never flew bombers anyway), and after two tries (first one I botched calib + forgot to open bomb doors), could hit targets dead on.
That's not difficult.
edit - You have to give a good reason SkyRock.. it seems Hitech has a different point of view - He has said in the past that he intended to give players GV drones too.
The more firepower the better.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
o all those stats about low K/D'sin bombers is basically due to many times folks just bail over their target after bombs are dropped, which counts as a death.
Mark
Only if someone is close enough to get the proxy kills, which is rarely the case with bomb'n'bailers.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
With more bomber deaths than kills, I'd say you present a greater threat to yourself than others.
Well hub you are more then welcome to come greet me. Coming to a city near you soon. Where would like your easter present?:p
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Only if someone is close enough to get the proxy kills, which is rarely the case with bomb'n'bailers.
nope, if you bail over enemy territory and are captured, whether or not u get the message: Someone has killed you..... u still get a death!:aok
-
ok a few interesting points in this thread:
1. Buffs fly too fast compared to what they did historically.
2. Buffs have almost no weight considerations or fuel management when loading the plane and in flight.
3. Buffs can drop a bomb on a mouse from 16k.
Suggested so far:
1. Increase fuel burn multiplier for buffs:
Pro: Conceptually already in the game for all planes via the areana FBM. This will force buffs to load more than 25% and actually monitor the fuel load, RPM and throttle. Trade off heavy climbout and fast cruise vs. lighter plane and economic (slower) cruise.
Con: Loooong climb out with heavy fuel load. The vertical dimention is not scaled as the distance between fields (the same fighter argument from the 2.0 FBM debates).
remark: Allow also smaller bomb loads to improve climb out and range at the cost of damage potential. This is also historical.
2. Add wind sheers:
Pro: Mechanism already in the game. Natural way to reduce bombing accuracy. Interesting tactical consideration as the wind direction dictates a prefered bombing line for better accuracy (to minimize cross winds). If wind is sheered in direction as well, it creates prefered cruising alts depending on the direction you are going (minimum up-wind component).
Con: Problematic at low altitudes for takeoff and landings. The sheer has to be gradual (several layers) and moderate (small vector difference in wind velocity between layers) or it has a terrible effect on dogfighting. Wind is global and therefor will put the country up-wind at an advantage. The accuracy is not reduced if calibration is right and flight direction is not modified, since the bomb does not actually "feel" the wind sheer (I think...). It will be slightly harder to bring the target into the crosshairs in a cross wind (plane flies a little sideways).
3. Calibration accuracy as function of speed - Adding random error on calibrated speed with standard deviation proportional to the speed.
Pro: Reasonably realistic. Encourages slower bomb runs for better accuracy, but does not slow down climbout and cruise. Allow full manual calibration for the skilled buff pilots who can do better then the random deviation - Same as with the stall limiter, the training wheels can come off.
Con: Requires programing and testing by HTC. Too much scatter in calibration and buff pilots will start dive bombing again.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
nope, if you bail over enemy territory and are captured, whether or not u get the message: Someone has killed you..... u still get a death!:aok
Yes. YOU get a death. But your death is not recorded on the STATS page, so the stats brought up in this thread do not include people bailing without any enemy getting the kill.
-
Originally posted by Oleg
B-17G: Performance: Maximum speed 263 mph at 25,000 feet, 300 mph at 30,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed 150 mph at 25,000 feet.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_16.html
OK, did some math. 150 TAS at 25,000ft is 100 IAS. That's about 5 mph above landing speed for the B-17. Add in the weight of fuel, the guns/ammo, and the bombs, and also take into account that they aren't flying with flaps down and I'll tell ya that they aren't flying a mission at 25K doing 100 IAS or 150 TAS.
According to the Flight Operations Chart for the B-17F, recommended cruise power settings for 25000 feet is 2300 RPM and 32" MP, giving a plane weighing between 65 and 60,000 pounds and IAS of 170 or so. TAS at 25,000 at an IAS of 170 equals 255 TAS. Even at lower settings and altitudes, the chart doesn't show anything below 150 IAS, which is still 225 TAS. (source are performance charts listed on Zeno's Warbirds site)
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Yes. YOU get a death. But your death is not recorded on the STATS page, so the stats brought up in this thread do not include people bailing without any enemy getting the kill.
yes it does affect your stats, as does ctd's! If you run out of fuel and noone has so much even knicked your plane with a bullet and noone is around to get your proxie, if you do not bail in friendly territory and you are captured, it counts as a death on your stats page!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
yes it does affect your stats, as does ctd's! If you run out of fuel and noone has so much even knicked your plane with a bullet and noone is around to get your proxie, if you do not bail in friendly territory and you are captured, it counts as a death on your stats page!
Trust me, it does not. Yes, you will get one entry showing "death" in your scorepage, but not under killstats! For example, I lost 10 Tempest this tour so far. My stats only show 7. I lost 4 262s, 2 of them without any enemy getting the kill. Guess what? My kill stats only show 2 262s lost...
-
Originally posted by 999000
Stoney good information Sir!.....so even with formations the kill to death ratio is still isn't even close to ONE!..........ok now what you think the kill to death ratio would drop to with single formations???.20?
Maybe we should be talking about making Bombers Stronger?
999000
999 sir, please make note sir, that the K/D was markedly higher before formations were added. This supports the argument that most folks use them as manned cruisemissles, exactly like you do! This may come as a surprise, but any kamikaze missions are going to enjoy very poor K/D ratios, because they die every time! Crazy isn't it?!
-
Stoney, you've got 2 major flaws in what you've said since I last checked this thread:
1) kills/deaths
Mean jack. I've seen so many dive bomb, suicide pickle at 2k, fly directly over an enemy runway to vulch with bombs, suicide dive on CVs, to know that the vast majority of the deaths bombers receive is because most of their pilots are rejects.
On the other hand, look at the kills. In ANY situation, scenario, or even just MA play, a bomber pilot can safely get at least 3 kills (if not 6 or more) before landing.
These numbers were UNHEARD of in the war. Bombers accounted for almost 0% of the enemy fighters downed in the war, but in this game ...??
12,000 for the B-24 alone? MY GOD, man, that almost rivals the P51D and N1K2!!!!!
Do you have any idea how ABSURD that is????
2) Fighters didn't run FFT either.
They did. Fighters were designed to cruise to and from a fight (p.s. their "cruise" speed was still much more than the bombers' full speed), and in the fight they'd be full throttle, if not WEP, for the entire duration.
Bombers NEVER flew at full throttle. Not even in form-up and climb. They flew reduced speed even when climbing. When flying to a target at alt, they were throttled way the hell back. Guess what? When the fighters engaged them, they weren't. The fighters would attack at FFT/WEP, and the bombers would stay slow.
You argument doesn't hold. Just saying "fighters also have no limitations in this game" -- well the fighters don't gain such a substantial boost as the bombers do with this current system. Fighters fought at full throttle. Bombers often defended themselves at minimum throttle.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Stoney, you've got 2 major flaws in what you've said since I last checked this thread:
1) kills/deaths
Mean jack. I've seen so many dive bomb, suicide pickle at 2k, fly directly over an enemy runway to vulch with bombs, suicide dive on CVs, to know that the vast majority of the deaths bombers receive is because most of their pilots are rejects.
You can say that for the fighters dying by buffs too.
Yes, a decent buff pilot can rack up kills, but only because most people dying to buff gunners are just flying plain stupid. We all know the sight: a B24 formation with a tail of fighters following it, all attacking plain, simple and dumb from 6 oclock. How many fighter jocks in this game do actually take their time to set up a proper attack?
If you consider all kills against & by fighters only, in this tour Lancs have a K/D of 0.196, B24s one of 0.384
-
And it's nearly impossible to set up a proper attack unless you are already above and in front of the bombers. After 1 attack, due to the increased speed of the bombers, you will fall behind into a tail chase, even if you weren't there to begin with. If you have enough surplus speed or alt you might make 2 attacks before being a sitting duck behind the bombers.
No, I think you can't count on the deaths, because the majority of them are meaningless. The pilot doesn't want to survive. There's no intent other than to die as quickly as possible after bombing something. I think you CAN count the kills, because there's active attempts to shoot the bombers down, and the end result is the fighters die and the bombers survive.
Oh, and I've seen 3 fighters go after bombers in a dead6 attack. They often shoot the bombers down if there's enough of them to distract the gunner.
12-frakkin'-thousand kills. That's more than all the 109K-4s. Almost as much as all 190Ds. Totally unheard of. With fighters you might be able to cherry pick, kill-pad, vulch, something that would boost the score a bit, but with bombers, the determining factor is usually a fighter attacks a bomber, and the bomber kills it.
I find that highly disturbing.
-
Hey Krusty did you get shot down by the bomber in a previous life. First you want to perk em, now you want em handicapped. I mean cmon bro, the game rox, period. I think the speeds are just fine.
Cheers
-
The perking was an idea so we'd have something (anything other than the crappy Arado) to spend bomber perks on. Totally removed from this debate.
-
Krusty, setting up a foolproof attack on a formation is only difficult if you're chasing Ki67 in a very slow plane... in which case you are attempting to solve a problem with a method expressedly made to solve a completely different problem.
It doesn't take much effort (less than bombers to set up a good bombing run as safely as they can) to improve an attack strategy from good to best.. all you have to do is save your speed.
2 fighters are enough to shred a formation easily, 3 if the pilot and gunner are exceptionaly good.. that sounds about right, in terms of realism.
If it took genius and extraordinary ACM and gunnery skills to ensure shooting down one formation alone, I'd agree the bombers would be advantaged, but it doesn't.
Bombers should get more bomb dispersion, a slightly more difficult calibration method, and 2 extra drones for a perk cost.
-
Hub, I'm not really sure what your problem is......I don't have a problem with anyones opinion. However I do take exception to you trying to blatant slander a player...To say I fly my bombers as a "manned cruise missle...and then Kamikaze" is not true and you know better!!!....
It is my opinion that the vast majority of bomber pilots fight like hell to get to and back from their target.
Krusty a small foot note...I have bombed the runway (usually annouced ahead of time) instead of taking out all the FH out of respect to fighter pilots game play.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
These numbers were UNHEARD of in the war. Bombers accounted for almost 0% of the enemy fighters downed in the war, but in this game ...??
Is this another one of those Krustyism's???? This is so laughable! Where does Krusty get his data? The WWII bubble gum machine down at the local Wal-Mart's???:rofl
-
Moot is right ...a dang good fighter pilot can make a bomber pilot look like a fool. Good fighter pilotts can and do kill all 3 of my B17's often. as a matter a fact Shawk killed my bombers for 6 months without me getting a single kill on him!....ask Him!
999000
-
Often the easyest trick to regain a vulched airfield is to up B17 formations a couple times. Sure you die doing that, but the lazers wipe the sky clean in a couple tries usually where using a fighter would get you killed mercilessly.
-
2 Extra drones for a perk cost. I like that idea. And I really dont want to se much more changed on the bomber. I run bombers everyday. It just stikes me as odd, that the people who dont like em, dont fly em, and they're the people who want em changed. As far as calibration goes, I thnk it as far as the game goes its right on. I mean half the time, your lining up a shot, and you got a plane on your six, and hes 1.5 out, and your 30 seconds till drop. Usually the plane comes in just about when your ready to drop, or your in the site, and you here the tell tale sounds of cannon. Just to see the Niki 800 out. Sometime you can get your shot off, sometimes you cant. Makes for great game play. I do want to take note of the Play. I want to have fun ina game. Right now I do, so I play. More formations = more guns + Kills, then we would have something to really biatch about. Leave my bombers alone, go pick on the LA already
-
cmon 99 "blatantly slander" :lol its not like he said somethin about you personaly.
-
While Im at it.
Krusty you play for the nites, I put up mission after mission after mission. I have yet to see you escort me to and from a airfield ina mission uless we happen to come by. I usually pick up a few straglers along the way, when Im on range going hey bud, you mind watching my six, while I blow this mess apart. Anyway this is the point. Im not attacking you Krusty, But I would like you to know how friggin hard it is to get escort. Which is one of the reasons, were going to be supplying our own. If this was a real war, you bet your Arse there would be escort out the ying yang, but people on their kill time dont want to fly 2-3 sectors. Its very difficult. People demand instant gratification. And the play styles just are too hard to get together. Maybe when CT comes out (2 Weeks) well see a change, but for now, The LA is still open for slander. Here I'll start it off. The LA moves to fast. there.
-
As for Skyrock's "comment" (for lack of a better word), ask Tony Williams. How many millions of rounds were fired off for any one single hit (not even a kill!) on an enemy fighter? Hit % from bomber guns was extremely low across the board. Often just the threat of the guns, or the muzzle blast, would scare a fighter off, but that doesn't mean they actually hit the fighter.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Interesting stats. I broke this down by the three strat bomber types and included the number one killer of each type, and the corresponding k/d for that type. For last months (Feb) tour. Here we go:
B-24
Overall K/D: 12071 Kills / 28870 Deaths = .42 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 1002 Deaths / 2437 Kills = 2.43 K/D vs. B-24
B-17
Overall K/D: 5144 Kills / 15255 Deaths = .34 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 434 Deaths / 1222 Kills = 2.82 K/D vs. B-17
Lancs
Overall K/D: 6505 Kills / 23125 Deaths = .28 K/D
Biggest Killer: P-51D 354 Deaths / 1824 Kills = 5.15 K/D vs. Lancs
Some of the other usual suspects had high K/D against all three, but the P-51D shot down more per type than any other aircraft last month. Surprising, to me anyway...
This confirms what us LA7 drivers have been saying for minutes...the p51 is a dweeb ride!!!! Perk the P51!!!!!
and btw...999000 rocks!!!
The part of Falconwing was portrayed by Falconwing
Falconwing's Girlfriend was portrayed by Maggie Gyllenhall
Falconwing's ex-girlfreind he is just using was portrayed by Marisa Tomei
Falconwing's ex-girlfriend who has put on some weight was portrayed by Mariah Carey (but he would still hit it)
-
It is surprising that the p51D surpassed the La7. When did this happen? I *have* noticed a lot of timid P51D pilots lately...
It seems it goes back a frame or two, as well. I wonder if this is because of the arena split, or some other reason?
4deck, check your PM :furious
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As for Skyrock's "comment" (for lack of a better word), ask Tony Williams. How many millions of rounds were fired off for any one single hit (not even a kill!) on an enemy fighter? Hit % from bomber guns was extremely low across the board. Often just the threat of the guns, or the muzzle blast, would scare a fighter off, but that doesn't mean they actually hit the fighter.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
You just made a proof against your argument . . .
The buffs in the game are not the problem. It is the fighters who blindly/fearlessly plow forward toward the buffs that are the cause of the apparent "overly lethal" defensive gunnery.
-
Im reminded of something I saw on vacation (http://www.ifilm.com/video/2776675/collection/401/channel/viralvideo)
-
No, you've missed the point.
The bombers are not the problem. The formations are not the problem. The slaved guns are not the problem. The excessive speeds at which they always travel are the problem, that force even the best-positioned fighters attacking them into a dead6 position after 1 or 2 attacks, without possibility of repositioning. The guns by themselves are .... annoying as hell, let's say. The reason they are is because the closure rates are absurdly slow. It is impossible to do more than 1 "slashing" attack without a 5-10 minute "reposition" in this game, simply because they are too fast. Realistically, if bombers were this effective in the war they'd never have needed escorts to Berlin. Realistically daylight operations were cancelled until they COULD get escorts, because they were being decimated horribly.
In this game, it's a perverse representation of what bombers could ever pull off. I'm of the opinion the main reason behind this is the speed the bombers travel.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
even the best-positioned fighters attacking them into a dead6 position after 1 or 2 attacks, without possibility of repositioning.
This is complete nonsense, especially the "no possibillity of repositioning" phrase.
Most of my attacks on buff formations take much more than 1-2 attacks. Usually 4-8 (Im not that good at shooting). But I almost never end on their dead6. (IF I do, I usually pay the price for getting lazy & careless)
In fact the fighter pilot like this Originally posted by Krusty
"After 1 attack, due to the increased speed of the bombers, you will fall behind into a tail chase, even if you weren't there to begin with. If you have enough surplus speed or alt you might make 2 attacks before being a sitting duck behind the bombers."
falls clearly into the "dumb" category.
If you dont have the speed and alt to begin with, gain it! I always wonder why pilots climb for 5 minutes to catch a bomber formation, don't spend the 1-2 minutes extra time to set up their attack.
And if you lose momentum after 1 or 2 slashing attacks, just gain a bit altitude again. There is no reason you have to end on a buffs 6 o clock.
Buffs are defenitely traveling much faster in game than in real life, which makes attacks more difficult on them.
But your arguments in regard to fighter attacks on them in game do border on ridiculousness...
-
I find bombing easy........... with E6B up I can make every bomb count from any alt you want to name...............
Formations mean that I can knock out small and medium fields in two passes......every time.
Yet I see some folk who miss by so much I cannot understand why................. I just assume they are not attempting to calibrate at all.
I find gunning from a bomber troublesome............ for some reason my lead shooting ability is totally rubbish.......... which is wierd cause I am a good clay pigeon shooter but in AH my ability to shoot has always been very poor.
Equally I have the same problem killing buffs........... basically I cannot knock out a full formation.......... my sights have to spend time "locked on" to achieve any thing near serious damage and that means only one thing............ I can spend loads of time doing sweep passes and straffing wings etc as I do......... however usually a few bits fall off and I run out of ammo before the bomber falls out the sky........
-
Lusche, I disagree. The only thing ridiculous about it, is that the entire gameplay dynamic of the bombers is geared so that the majority of all attacks WILL be dead 6. The main reason is the speed they fly at.
It may very well take 5 to 10 minutes to get above and in front of the bombers after a split-second, slashing attack, that may or may not land any hits at all. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, said bombers go from "edge of radar" to "bombs away" in less than 5 minutes. That means you have almost no chance of stopping them, even if you're already in position at alt waiting for them. In the time you waste to get back in front of them, they have already disabled your airfield, have flown back out the other side of DAR, and are heading home to land.
I find *THAT* ridiculous.
Maybe bombers wouldn't be such a problem, even WITH speed, if we had a third dar bar, below the red there should be a yellow. The yellow shows up regardless of where it is on the map, and only shows heavy bombers. Then folks could see bombers well outside of dar circle range and get into position well in advance. That would afford at least ONE attack before degenerating into a tail chase. Realistically these things had all the stealth of a garbage truck outside your window at 2 AM. In this game, they go undetected until they're already un-stoppable.
By unstoppable I mean you can't prevent them from getting to the target. The only thing you can hope for is to shoot them down after they drop.
-
Simple solution.
Faster the formations go the more spread out they get and easier to lose in a sharp turns.
1.This would allow them faster transit times to and from target.
2.Moves slaved guns on drones further out.
3. Bomb dispersion.
So if you want a tighter bomb group at target you have to slow to cruise speeds.
Instead of mil power.
Just a suggestion.
Bronk
-
Krusty, while I don't disagree with your take on the speed of bombers, it is possible to make multiple attacks. I usually try to climb at least 3-4k above the formation. I will dive in from the 6 position and try to be better than 400 on my attack. I hit the lead ship first (especially if they are close to dropping). I then pass under the formation, zoom out front and up. I am then already out front. I gain a bit more alt and speed and repeat. The only time I get nailed is when I am impatient, and don't allow enough alt to gain sufficient speed for the attack.
-
Originally posted by Target2
Krusty, while I don't disagree with your take on the speed of bombers, it is possible to make multiple attacks. I usually try to climb at least 3-4k above the formation. I will dive in from the 6 position and try to be better than 400 on my attack. I hit the lead ship first (especially if they are close to dropping). I then pass under the formation, zoom out front and up. I am then already out front. I gain a bit more alt and speed and repeat. The only time I get nailed is when I am impatient, and don't allow enough alt to gain sufficient speed for the attack.
Dead, right on.
Krusty, if you have trouble with killing bombers, or setting up the attacks, I just have to say it's not because of the game system. It's because you're not doing it right.
-
Ok I fly a B17 occassionally..lol....I'm not sure what all the speed disscusion is all about..... the B17 does about just over 200 mph ....215 level flight
you really can't pull hard on it with out ripping the wings off.
And if you ever reach just over 300 it all falls apart.!
999000
-
Originally posted by 999000
Hub, I'm not really sure what your problem is......I don't have a problem with anyones opinion. However I do take exception to you trying to blatant slander a player...To say I fly my bombers as a "manned cruise missle...and then Kamikaze" is not true and you know better!!!....
It is my opinion that the vast majority of bomber pilots fight like hell to get to and back from their target.
Krusty a small foot note...I have bombed the runway (usually annouced ahead of time) instead of taking out all the FH out of respect to fighter pilots game play.
I am with you on this 999.... The other night I made way to an nme base and ended up just having to do a dive/drop/shot guns a blazin' because I knew I couldn't get a good run in.... but I did take 5 of them with me! I have flown bombers with you, and have had you gun for me. Gunning in a bomber is something that takes practice, that is all. Some it comes quicker than others and some just can't shoot.... :D
Anytime I am in a bomber I fight all the way and do my best to get a good run in. If you hear a guy screaming gun-ho it is me in a firery death spinning to the ground. It's only a fleash wound! :aok
-
Simaril, every tour except this one (been flying planes without cannons this tour) I have had more B-24 kills than any other type. Going back probably for a year.
It's not that I don't know how to attack them. Even when I'm 10k directly over the enemy formation that's flying toward me, if I nose down and dive on the lead, I can only zoom forward, loop around and make another attack 2-3 times before the speed of the bombers puts them in front of my loop (thus, putting me back into a tail chase, from 10k alt and 300mph speed advantage to tail chase, all because the bombers are flying full frakkin' throttle).
Last Friday I was in a 262. I had B24s at 25k. I flew out in front of them several times in a row, past 3K, and turned around as fast as was possible. Before I was even 100 degrees into the turn (just past halfway) the bombers would scream past under my wing. That's how fast they fly: You can't even fly out in front of them and turn around before they're past you.
That's messed up, I don't care what you say. If bombers performed like this in the war, it would have been over in 1940 and Britain would have fallen totally and completely to the Ju88s and He111s bombing it.
-
In all this discussion, one thing really stands out --
Lots of guys who've played the game for a long time are talking about bombers from their veteran's perspective alone. I think many of us have lost sight of what it feels like to be a newb....and for newbs, or the hatchlings that grow from newbs, bombers are completely different things.
Unlike many of you, I've only been in the game for about 3 years, and I am not a natural gamer. I just love WW2 aviation, and that's what kept me in the game during the long months it took for me to attain survivable mediocrity in fighters. In those months, after being continually reminded of my incompetence in A2A combat, I could still feel like part of the big picture by upping buffs to hit strats or to be part of an attack. Without that ability to feel successful, I would likely have given AH up as being just too hard.
I submit that we ought to think of the bombing model more in terms of player retention. Looking only at their simulation accuracy is shortsighted, because the buff pilot of today may become the combat opponent of tomorrow...if we can keep him hooked long enough to get there.
I see what Zanth, Hub and others are saying about the context in which the bomb modes were made easier. But, I would argue that the FACT of their remaining easier has less to do with realistic bombing for the vets, and more to do with keeping players in the game while they negotiate the incredibly steep leaining curve.
-
Side note: The "realistic bombing" thing didn't work for everybody. One person couldn't hit even though he was doing it all right. He ended up contacting somebody at HTC and they told him "you can't do it with your hardware".
I know for a fact I did exactly as everybody told me. Word of mouth, reading webpages, forum posts, I followed them to a T, and my bombs would never even be close to target.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
OK, did some math. 150 TAS at 25,000ft is 100 IAS. That's about 5 mph above landing speed for the B-17. Add in the weight of fuel, the guns/ammo, and the bombs, and also take into account that they aren't flying with flaps down and I'll tell ya that they aren't flying a mission at 25K doing 100 IAS or 150 TAS.
Beat this. Your math dont work.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html
Cruising speed: 150 mph
-
Right off the boeng site
First flight: July 28, 1935 (prototype)
Model number: 299
Classification: Bomber
Span: 103 feet 9 inches
Length: 74 feet 9 inches
Gross weight: 65,000 pounds
Top speed: 287 mph
Cruising speed: 150 mph
Range (max.): 3,750 miles
Ceiling: 35,600 feet
Power: Four 1,200-horsepower Wright R-1820-97 engines
Accommodation: 2 pilots, bombardier, radio-operator, 5 gunners
Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load
Pay attention to the MAX Speed
Thanx
Enough said.
LA is dweeb ride. THere:p
-
Just looks to me like its a crusade to nerf bombers.
We had a P-47 pilot come in on us with about a dozen bombers IN a tight formation on our last HARM run. He made 2 high angle passes on us and killed 2 17s with no problem. Only thing that prevented him from coming back at us was not our speed or the lasers, but MWL flying escort.
That 47 pilot had no problem catching us and getting into position. He used something that most fighter pilots don't use, patience.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Hit % from bomber guns was extremely low across the board.
Dunno about bombers, but average WW2 fighter had gunnery ~1%. Compare with ours.
btw, i agreed bomber's speed is a problem.
-
Ok somebody help me here with bomber speed..a B17 flies level at about 215MPH in here I just read that a P51 level flight goes 440MPH what does a p51 level flight do in the game here ??
999000
-
like 400 somthin above 15k 999 i think
-
Originally posted by Tango
but MWL flying escort.
Well there's your problem!! :D
J/K MWL :t
-
OK so if fighters go about twice as fast as Bombers whats the problem?
Thanks respected Husky!
-
You're comparing IAS in bombers to TAS in fighters at alts over 15k....
Might want to rethink your strategy there.
-
I don't know what the problem is, those who fly bombers take off from bases generally a fair distance from where the action is, then they have to gain the Alt, decide what salvo to use, get in line for a productive run on target, control there speed to calibrate, if ground is uneven calibration can take several attemps,scan the air around them for enemy planes, which there generally are, defend the bombers, make there drops and then get back to base, and with all of that going on you still don't like the bombers because there are those of us out there that can do all of that and still knock you out of the air!!!
-
Originally posted by marcdsm
control there speed to calibrate, if ground is uneven calibration can take several attemps
Topography has no influence on calibration.
-
Krusty, bombers aren't hard to kill. You need to show some facts that they are.. prove it. If you're so convinced they are, then you should have no difficulty at all in showing, with facts rather than just saying you're right, why that's true.
I could post a film of me killing off a formation without those 5+ minutes of repositioning between passes, as you say.
You can't bend the reality of a design made for a specific purpose (the design of planes in this planeset) just to suit the game. If bombers are going to be restricted in their engine use, then it would only be fair if fighters stopped having magicaly renewing WEP coolants.
Bombers are such that you need to set up your interception of them correctly, not just see their dot come into dar range, up a fighter - any fighter, climb up and past them, and just shoot em up like sitting ducks.
CT is where the full realism arena setup will be interesting, not in the present MA.
Tilt, and Simaril,
The bombing calibration we have is not difficult at all. I did a perfect drop from ~18kft on my second try ever.
As Tilt said, you need only set your throttle right with the E6B readings.. It's less difficult than landing on a CV. Newbies can do that.
-
I submit that we ought to think of the bombing model more in terms of player retention. Looking only at their simulation accuracy is shortsighted, because the buff pilot of today may become the combat opponent of tomorrow...if we can keep him hooked long enough to get there.
And why should of all things, only the bombers be subjected to these terms? What's to stop some other person from trying to apply the same terms to a variety of things including flight characteristics, damage modelling, gunnery, and what not?
Your category of thought takes for granted that bombers are n00b material, which it is not.
-
Kweassa, that's a fallacious argument. My whole POINT is that bombers' easier mode settings keep people having fun so they CAN hang around to learn the very challenging fighter model. Applying that logic to the fighter model itself is silly.
If you watch what new players actually DO it;s obvious. They try fighters. and when they get frustrated they up buffs so they can feel like SOMETHING they did went right. Do an informal observational study next time you fly -- watch the proportion of vets:newbs in the fighters around you, and see how different it is from vets:newbs in bombers!!
I still remember a time when a gang of us just happened to start furballing from a carrier and nearby base, in an otherwise empty arena. We fought for a good while, and nobody cared about points. Both countries had an unofficial truce for the sake of the fun --- the carrier side called off their capture people, and the base side called off their ord mongers. But after a while, a guy who wasnt as experienced, and who got tired of repeatedly dying, upped buffs in spite of us an sank the carrier. He said he did it because "You guys do fighters, and I do bombers, and that's that."
You old time vets have completely forgotten how hard it is to learn fighters, and some of you don't seem to care about how the game flows for new guys. It's not been long since I was in those shoes, and bombers kept me from giving up...since I COULD find something to do when all else failed. How many vets reading this can say that they spend as much time in bombers as they used to?
-
Actually Simaril, I'd say bombers are more difficult to stay alive in than fighters.
I can say I spend more time in bombers now than before.
The calibration as it is is a piece of cake, anyone can do it. Gunning is difficult to master, but no more difficult than lead shooting fixed forward guns.
Everyone plays by the same rules, and you don't need to be Einstein or have professional Counter-Strike like hand-eye coordination to succeed in fighters.. you just need to understand where and when you need to be.
How to get there is simple enough in theory for anyone to understand, and in practice it just takes practice.
When I first started, I watched Fester in his 38 over the beta map, clean up entire furballs, and I realized that no matter how extraordinary it might seem, the "solution" to doing what he did had to be constrained to Brain+Joystick. Noobs have that.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
You old time vets have completely forgotten how hard it is to learn fighters, and some of you don't seem to care about how the game flows for new guys. It's not been long since I was in those shoes, and bombers kept me from giving up...since I COULD find something to do when all else failed. How many vets reading this can say that they spend as much time in bombers as they used to?
Heh. I CAN!
Simaril, you raise a good point, which is, how do you keep people from getting frustrated by the steep learning curve? There are probably a lot of different answers to this. Back in AW we had a new pilots arena, and there were relaxed realism arenas as well. Here in AH you have stall limiter, and you can fly with squad mates on missions where you've got someone more experienced to fly cover for you while you learn. So far as it goes, I'm with you on bomber formations, because they offer the opposing fighter an exciting challenge while they give the frustrated tenderfoot a rest from fighter operations.
I agree with Krusty that bombers with ordnance should be limited to cruise speed - heck, if they can come up with a stall limiter, they should be able to come up with some sort of speed limiter. But this is an historical limitation, not a balance limitation. Those who have said that it takes patience to attack bombers formations successfully are absolutely right. And it should, because it did.
- oldman (and stop pretending that you're some sort of mediocre pilot. We know better.)
-
How do you keep people from getting frustrated by the learning curve?
You give them planes that are uber easy to fly, & have tons of ammo. Unfortunately we have many skilled players who choose to slum in these planes primarily designed for newbies. Just figure out a way to keep skilled sticks out of the trainer rides & gamepley will imrove alot
-
Aces High has thrived, at least from a business standpoint, for what, just over 7 years now? It has not done so simply because of formations, or no one would have played the first 2+ years.
999000, I have not slandered you, I have simply described the only thing I ever see you doing, and that's trying to play Deathstar in a formation at treetop level. If you wish to deny do this, that is fine. In fact, you can continue to do it, and simultaneously deny it- I really don't care. It is not my opinion that most bomber pilots fight like hell. It is my observation that they act like cruisemissles. Go in, hit target, die.
Now, if HT wanted to come in and say, "yes, we originally wanted carpet bombing, but most of our customers can't manage to read 3 simple instructions and follow them, but we've kept these bombers that disobey the laws of time and space (the awful drone behavior and warping, not speed or payload) because the noobs we've got now are even dumber than the first group", I'd probably let it go. Maybe I missed it, but I never saw anyone from HTC say that- I see players suggesting that's the case.
One thing that hasn't seemed very accurate in the past are the theories put forward by players regarding HT's reasoning behind changes.
Out of curiouosity, how many of you only flew bombers for your first few years?
-
Originally posted by Oleg
Beat this. Your math dont work.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html
Cruising speed: 150 mph
Does it say what altitude that best cruise speed is achieved? I saw on another site that it was 150 mph at 6,000 ft. That also doesn't tell you the configuration of the plane for that cruise speed either.
The charts I referenced, posted below, are USAAF charts that were used for mission planning.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/B-17A.jpg)
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/B-17B.jpg)
A mission to Berlin from England typically covered 1800 miles (and that's not a straight shot great circle route either, but a tactical route that took them north of the Netherlands and Denmark to avoid flak and fighters). According to the mission logs posted on http://www.398th.org, the missions lasted between 8-10 hours. So, the planes would have had to average 180-225 mph ground speed to make the mission in the times listed. Ground speed is roughly equivalent to TAS when there's no wind taken into account. Given that the routes were typically mirrored we could generalize and say that the headwind and tailwind components cancelled each other out, so average ground speed would equal average true air speed. That mission time includes the 30-45 minutes it took to form up and begin their climb. They climbed at 300 fpm (a typical ROC for B-17's on a tactical mission) so the first 1.5 hours of that time was merely forming up and climbing out. They could not have flown a 150 TAS cruise at altitude and made that mission time, period, not to mention keep the plane at altitude at that speed, which is again 100 IAS. That's straight math for you.
If I can't change your mind after this, I'm not going to, regardless.
-
Hub,..you state "playing deathstar at tree top level?"..wait now I thought I was "cruisemissle on a kasmikasi run"... as you stated? ...which is it? ...Hub seriously when was the last time you attacked my B17's?...are we playing the same game?.....And why do you say such dissperaging things about someone that are not ground in reality?....Hub you are a liar...and its diffucult for any of us to beleive anything you say.
999000.
-
Originally posted by Oleg
Beat this. Your math dont work.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html
Cruising speed: 150 mph
his math was correct... 150 true is 100 indicated at FL250.. now, if B17's flew around at 100 indicated, I will not presume to know..
ahh.. stoney74 posts real data and proves it.. they aint to fly around at 150mph tas..
-
Leave buffs alone!!
If you think your a fighter jock,
Learn how to engage them. Learn how to Escort. Learn how to defend against them.
Only thing that should be fixed is the AOA on the drop.
-
why don't the C47s up in formation as well? they are categorized as bombers n'est pas?
-
I have never scene 999900000 fly at treetop level to be deathstar..maybe a great once in ahwile...
But for some guy named hub to say thats all he sees him do....Hes lying
And Im not a mind reader..but I read hubs mind saying.."Im scared of bombers"
-
Not the place for pursefighting. I stand by my opinions, and my observations of how bombers are used in the game. If you choose to disagree with them, that's fine, but it doesn't make me a liar.
-
Originally posted by 4deck
Right off the boeng site
Top speed: 287 mph
Cruising speed: 150 mph
load
Pay attention to the MAX Speed
Thanx
Enough said.
What bomber was able to run with max speed loaded with 1000s of lbs of bombs fuel,crew, defensive gunz, from London to Berlin 7-10 hours with the engine 100% power ? it would puke a coctail of oil ,pistons and rings
Go to garage, start your car, put a concrete block on gas pedal, for max rpm, and leave it for 7-8 hours, See what's happen.
-
I think Hub might mean Fortress. At least thats who I thought of when he made that comment about flying low level into cv's and stuff.
Wolfy
-
Fortress is probably the most well known bombikazi pilot currently, but he learned that trick from someone else.
As an aside, fortress is getting better. I've seen him survive a couple of bomb runs, where he normally used to blow himself up before anyone could shoot him. ;)
-
If I see Olive drab B-17s roaming around at low to medium alts I attack them with extreme caution, if at all.
999
-
Originally posted by ghi
What bomber was able to run with max speed loaded with 1000s of lbs of bombs fuel,crew, defensive gunz, from London to Berlin 7-10 hours with the engine 100% power ? it would puke a coctail of oil ,pistons and rings
Go to garage, start your car, put a concrete block on gas pedal, for max rpm, and leave it for 7-8 hours, See what's happen.
I didn't say they ran 100% power for 7-10 hours, and the weight of the airplane doesn't matter to the engines. The only thing weight affects are ceiling (max altitude you can attain) and speed (because, put simply, a heavier load creates more drag). Second, automotive engines aren't designed to run at rated horsepower for long durations of time. Aircraft engines are. The power settings listed on the charts above show cruise conditions of the max continuous power rating of the engines or less. Not to be condesending, but that's the rating at which the manufacturer says they can be run continuously without threat of damaging the "coctail of oil, pistons and rings". And, at those settings listed on the charts, you will see TAS between a range of 240-275 at the higher settings for the 64,000lb load at 25,000 feet.
I don't know how much plainer I can state it, but True Airspeed at those types of altitudes skyrockets. That's why the 163 or 262 can go into Mach effect at extreme altitudes in level flight. The use and difference of IAS and TAS is a basic flying principle. Do a Google search and tell me I'm wrong...
I hate to be so obstinate, but I'm getting frustrated. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
The charts I referenced, posted below, are USAAF charts that were used for mission planning.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/B-17A.jpg)
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/B-17B.jpg)
Your charts for B-17F, which was faster than B-17G we have and had cruising speed 200 mph at 25k according baugher page.
btw, it dont means they always flew at this speed regardless of range, bombload etc.
-
Originally posted by 999000
OK so if fighters go about twice as fast as Bombers whats the problem?
Speed dont make bombers stronger target (it does, but not too much, lets ignore it), but it takes a lot of time to climb above them and catch them, unless you are above bombers already. Usually bombers will do at least one pass over their target before you get attack position (if you dont want to sit at his 6).
-
Oleg what about fighters that climbed to 30k 1 sector before the frontline.. should we nerf those too?
What about infinitely renewing WEP, should that go too?
Some people are having "a really hard time" catching them, for those reasons.
Seriously, bombers 1) are easy kills, 2) could use a slightly more easily missed calibration and/or more dispersion to compensate for high altitude precision of the current bombsite, 3) could use 2 more drones for a perk cost if they had realistic dispersion.
Drones don't always follow the real FM, but not having them catch up on take off as they do now would just be a hassle, the same way the good would far outweigh the bad if we got full engine management for dogfighters.
While in flight, it is easier to lose them than keep them in range of the lead bomber, so if there is any overmodel there, it isn't enough of a handicap to make them overly advantaged..
As for the warping.. it lasts a few seconds. Enough to regain some more energy for the next pass than you would get if they didn't warp... so that means as it stands, fighters are the ones with something to gain from bombers warping.
Bombers certainly can't shoot accurately while spinning out.
Bombers always have and always will require pre-emptively climbing up to them for interception.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
I have never scene 999900000 fly at treetop level to be deathstar..maybe a great once in ahwile...
But for some guy named hub to say thats all he sees him do....Hes lying
And Im not a mind reader..but I read hubs mind saying.."Im scared of bombers"
Spot on! Hub is just a clueless noob.
-
Originally posted by Oleg
Your charts for B-17F, which was faster than B-17G we have and had cruising speed 200 mph at 25k according baugher page.
btw, it dont means they always flew at this speed regardless of range, bombload etc.
Here's a challenge for anyone that wants to try it. Take the TA terrain and load it offline. Go to one of the 30K bases and takeoff in a B-17 with 6,000 lbs of bombs and 100% fuel. Gross weight will be 64,000lbs and change. Once you get out of the nose dive at the end of the runway, level off at 25,000 feet and try to fly the plane at 150 mph TAS. It is impossible as the plane stalls out.
Then, you can tell HTC that their model is wrong and hear how they explain it.
-
Originally posted by E25280
:rofl :rofl :rofl
You just made a proof against your argument . . .
The buffs in the game are not the problem. It is the fighters who blindly/fearlessly plow forward toward the buffs that are the cause of the apparent "overly lethal" defensive gunnery.
Yeah right, I tried attacking 999000 a couple times. I was positioned high 2 o'clock and started my descent for attack. D800 1 ping and bang wing gone.
I'd take 3 vs 1 in fighters any time compared to 3 drones vs 1 fighter. Buffs are so rediculously leathal that if they were like this in real world, the allied would never bother to manufacture a single fighter. They'd fly NOE all the way to germany and cherrypick any fighter who was forced to follow them on the deck after the initial pass with an option to regain alt and speed for 20 minutes to get another pass. Anyone recognize the scenario I'm talking about?
Then they'd just circle around Hitlers bunker and strafe everything on the ground with the megalazers.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
They'd fly NOE all the way to germany and cherrypick any fighter who was forced to follow them on the deck after the initial pass with an option to regain alt and speed for 20 minutes to get another pass. Anyone recognize the scenario I'm talking about?
Bombers never flew tree top........................
Or so I am told.
:noid :rofl :noid :rofl
Bronk
-
Originally posted by moot
Oleg what about fighters that climbed to 30k 1 sector before the frontline.. should we nerf those too?
Bombers always have and always will require pre-emptively climbing up to them for interception.
And without a stupid yellow dar bar please. GEEZUS. This thread is phreaking pathetic. Thanx moot.
I swear when I get home tonight, Im bombing the living crap out of everyone. In VERY LARGE BOMBER FORMATIONS. YOU want to See what 18 Bombers can do. Here go gents Your Capitals are mine tonight BIAtchres.
:furious :furious :aok :furious :furious :p
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No, you've missed the point.
The bombers are not the problem. The formations are not the problem. The slaved guns are not the problem. The excessive speeds at which they always travel are the problem, _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ ____ Krusty I do see your point on the speed of the bombers...however floats brought up the number one issue we have had as bombers and that is the lack of fighter support on the missions, and thats s why I woud vote to leave the bombers speed and guns alone ....UNTIL things with fighter escort has been resolved efficasiosly..... just my thoughts:D
-
Originally posted by 999000
Ok I fly a B17 occassionally..lol....I'm not sure what all the speed disscusion is all about..... the B17 does about just over 200 mph ....215 level flight
you really can't pull hard on it with out ripping the wings off.
And if you ever reach just over 300 it all falls apart.!
999000
Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i,d certainly love to get my hands on some of these 300 mph buffs i,ve been hearin so much about!!!!
are they locked up with the rv?????
do i need a special code???
or do i just need some reeeeal good drugs.
screaming past you in a lancaster,
Boner:cool:
-
Everybody, in everything, gets to fly around at WFOT all the time. I really don't think that's a problem, except in the more realistically minded scenarios and such. In the MA, it's kind of moot. What everybody doesn't get is 3 planes, 2 of which are prone to some really odd behavior, and everybody else has to aim.
-
What's the problem Hub?
The drones warp while you setup your next approach.. or do you mean it's a problem because you can't sit on their six?
While they are spiralling down, they can't aim at you.
While they're trying to regroup from level dispersion, they may not be warping and as such do have an advantage over you, if scoring hits while you can't. But how does that justify removing the drones? It's a netcode problem.
-
Originally posted by moot
What's the problem Hub?
The drones warp while you setup your next approach.. or do you mean it's a problem because you can't sit on their six?
While they are spiralling down, they can't aim at you.
While they're trying to regroup from level dispersion, they may not be warping and as such do have an advantage over you, if scoring hits while you can't. But how does that justify removing the drones? It's a netcode problem.
The problem is that one player gets 3 platforms to kill things with. It's a thing of the past and should be done away with. One player, one plane!!!!!
Mark:aok
-
The fuel multiplier works okay for fighters. Debatable to begin with, as the higher the multiplier the greater the comparative advantage of the faster climbing aircraft. As a result I'm opposed to any multiplier greater than about 1.6, where the advantage becomes significant between the fastest and slowest climbers. And a multiplier of 8 would guarantee that the bomber pilots who perform more realistic missions in them would become frustrated, and all that would be left with would be tree-top dweebery. I stand opposed in anyway shape or form to forcing that on any pilot in any aircraft no matter how good the intentions.
1. Buffs fly too fast compared to what they did historically. Fighters do too - for the most part they patrolled at greatly reduced throttle settings. And in most aircraft, there was a significant number of tasks that had to be performed to ready your aircraft for an engagement - some even risked a blown engine if you just firewalled them improperly. We get off easy...
2. Buffs have almost no weight considerations or fuel management when loading the plane and in flight. Again, fighters too. Our front is 10 miles long and 10 miles away....
As long as a person and not a robot has to man the guns, I'm OK with the concession that allows a single or pair of players to successfully simulate a full crew (i.e synchronized aiming). And the same game mechanics that enable bombers also allow fighters to their aircraft at a greatly increased throttle setting a far greater portion of the time that they are flying than would really be the case, so in my humble opinion, it's a case of "fair is fair is OK".
Dive bombing with level bombers s should probably not be allowed though, but unless it's so rampant (and successful) to have an impact on gameplay I'd argue that there are other things more beneficial for HTC's consideration than implementing a solution.
And to blkmgc, it has indeed been awhile!!
-
Fighters fought at their fastest speed possible.
Bombers never did.
Doesn't compare between heavy bombers and fighters.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Here's a challenge for anyone that wants to try it. Take the TA terrain and load it offline. Go to one of the 30K bases and takeoff in a B-17 with 6,000 lbs of bombs and 100% fuel. Gross weight will be 64,000lbs and change. Once you get out of the nose dive at the end of the runway, level off at 25,000 feet and try to fly the plane at 150 mph TAS. It is impossible as the plane stalls out.
Then, you can tell HTC that their model is wrong and hear how they explain it.
It can not, in AH2 at least. But i will rather believe AH2 model is wrong than baugher's site is wrong.
Have better idea, though. Probably cruising speed in both baugher's and boeng's sites is IAC not TAC. Looks weird because top speed is TAC for sure, but makes some sense at least.
Originally posted by 1Boner
i,d certainly love to get my hands on some of these 300 mph buffs i,ve been hearin so much about!!!!
are they locked up with the rv?????
do i need a special code???
Just climb to 30k ;)
-
Originally posted by Ghastly
The fuel multiplier works okay for fighters. Debatable to begin with, as the higher the multiplier the greater the comparative advantage of the faster climbing aircraft. As a result I'm opposed to any multiplier greater than about 1.6, where the advantage becomes significant between the fastest and slowest climbers. And a multiplier of 8 would guarantee that the bomber pilots who perform more realistic missions in them would become frustrated, and all that would be left with would be tree-top dweebery. I stand opposed in anyway shape or form to forcing that on any pilot in any aircraft no matter how good the intentions.
1. Buffs fly too fast compared to what they did historically. Fighters do too - for the most part they patrolled at greatly reduced throttle settings. And in most aircraft, there was a significant number of tasks that had to be performed to ready your aircraft for an engagement - some even risked a blown engine if you just firewalled them improperly. We get off easy...
2. Buffs have almost no weight considerations or fuel management when loading the plane and in flight. Again, fighters too. Our front is 10 miles long and 10 miles away....
As long as a person and not a robot has to man the guns, I'm OK with the concession that allows a single or pair of players to successfully simulate a full crew (i.e synchronized aiming). And the same game mechanics that enable bombers also allow fighters to their aircraft at a greatly increased throttle setting a far greater portion of the time that they are flying than would really be the case, so in my humble opinion, it's a case of "fair is fair is OK".
Dive bombing with level bombers s should probably not be allowed though, but unless it's so rampant (and successful) to have an impact on gameplay I'd argue that there are other things more beneficial for HTC's consideration than implementing a solution.
And to blkmgc, it has indeed been awhile!!
Real world crews didn't have sync aiming. The rear gunner saw it, warned it and the side gunner saw it zoom past him before managing to pull the trigger.
In AH gunners are friggin BORG with an assimilated conciousness.
-
Oh, and FYI: the B17 doesn't do max cruise at alt too well when weighed down 100%, because you burn off 30-50% climbing up to those alts. It cannot maintain level flight in max cruise.
However, the more powerful engines of the B-24 *can* maintain max cruise at alt with 100%. I tested this and the B17 back when we first got the Liberators.
-
3 man bombing crews with gunners. Vulching a field near you:aok
-
Originally posted by Ghastly
1. Buffs fly too fast compared to what they did historically. Fighters do too - for the most part they patrolled at greatly reduced throttle settings. And in most aircraft, there was a significant number of tasks that had to be performed to ready your aircraft for an engagement - some even risked a blown engine if you just firewalled them improperly. We get off easy...
2. Buffs have almost no weight considerations or fuel management when loading the plane and in flight. Again, fighters too. Our front is 10 miles long and 10 miles away....
1. Fighters do their fighting while flying as fast as possible. Bombers fight fighters while still flying slower than their max speed.
2. If you fly spit16, La7 or 109s you have no weight considerations. You always take 100% internal because the fuel tank is made of a recycled beer can. If you fly P47s, P38s, mosquitos, Ta152 or a few others that carry A LOT of fuel, you balance performance and endurance. These planes suffer badly from over loading. If you really want to get the most out of them you have to manage your fuel and cruise at reduced RPM and MAN. As for ordnance - You can load a P47N with 10 rockets, 500lbs central and 2*1000lbs on the wings, 8*0.5 and 3400 rounds. You'll climb slower than a lanc, so you might as well get 3 buffs for the same cost, much bigger bang and better defense.
-
Originally posted by 999000
Stoney good information Sir!.....so even with formations the kill to death ratio is still isn't even close to ONE!..........ok now what you think the kill to death ratio would drop to with single formations???.20?
Maybe we should be talking about making Bombers Stronger?
999000
Hey... I have noticed something after 5 pages of "stuff." I am seeing the word "realistic" a lot.
Has anyone thought of this? Attack 3 bombers with TWO (2) fighters.
Is it "realistic" that a single fighter would
Yes...ALL guns are slaved but have a fixed convergence of about 500 yards.
Realistically....shouldn't every gun point at the TARGET the "commanding gun" is shooting at? I mean...how many times in WWII did two tailgunners, two waist gunners, two ball turret/top turret gunners shoot to intentionaly MISS their target because it wasn't exactly at 500 yards?
With the guns slaved to one point in space and one operator....you (the bomber pilot) can only shoot at 1 target at time. So someone edges in from the high 6 and the other cuts across the 3-9. Bomber pilot shoots at the dead six pilot and BOOM... Dead bombers. Realistically shouldn't the outside waistgunner see the other plane coming in, call it in one the intercom and commence firing? I mean...if you want to be "realistic".
Given the numbers of kills/deaths... I don't see bombers as that big of a threat to fighters.
As for perking bomber formations....go ahead. I need something to spend my 4000+ bomber points on. AR234's just don't seem worth it to me. ;-)
Actually...making it so I can fly an entire squadron of bombers would be kool too ;-)
Later.
Softail
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
The problem is that one player gets 3 platforms to kill things with. It's a thing of the past and should be done away with. One player, one plane!!!!!
Mark:aok
in order to have a 50% chance of surviving the mission and make it home,
you almost have to have 3 platforms.
without the benefit of 3 platforms, you won,t last 5 minutes.
with every fighter in a 15 mile radius chasing you down for those easy points!!!
and the buffs will get little or nothing for shooting the fighters down.
sure, some guys abuse the 3 plane platform
but the guys who don,t shouldn,t be penalized because of those who do.
"screaming" by you at 300mph in my lancs,
Boner:aok
-
Points? Who said you get any points for killing bombers? You can kill 6 bombers in one sortie and still only make 0.9 perks. They're all but worthless compared to killing a la7 or spit16.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Points? Who said you get any points for killing bombers? You can kill 6 bombers in one sortie and still only make 0.9 perks. They're all but worthless compared to killing a la7 or spit16.
points towards your score
not perks.
bombers get nothing toward there scores for killing a fighter.
6 bombers in one sortie???
boy them buffs sure are easy to kill, huh??
but who's countin???
Boner:noid
-
B-29s had snyc'd guns
-
Way to twist things I say, 1boner.
If you're interested in score-whoring, bombers are the last thing you'd attack. Ask all the #1 ranked score potatos out there. They'd rather take on 5 enemy fighters than 1 group of bombers.
"points" my arse. :D
-
Missing the point i guess......one player should only get one ride....period! It is the gamiest thing in AH2.:aok
Mark
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Way to twist things I say, 1boner.
If you're interested in score-whoring, bombers are the last thing you'd attack. Ask all the #1 ranked score potatos out there. They'd rather take on 5 enemy fighters than 1 group of bombers.
"points" my arse. :D
Twist???:confused:
ladies and germs, Boner has left the building!!!!:cool:
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Missing the point i guess......one player should only get one ride....period! It is the gamiest thing in AH2.:aok
Mark
I doubt there would be any bombers seen in the air if that happened.
-
I believe that to be untrue, unless they're only flying the bombers to be gamey! 12 synched guns is enough for one player, and 13,000 lbs of ordinance is enough as well!:aok
Mark
-
I don't know when the bombers were added to the game (I started playing in tour 22), but I know we flew them before there were formations. I would imagine anyone who was actually interested in bombers would fly them regardless.
-
I have no issue with the buff guns, or the formations, or even the drone warping (unless it's obvious that the pilot is intentionally exploiting it).
My ONLY problem with buffs is their effectiveness against CVs and the corresponding dismissal of torpedo planes. Yes, I know AH2 isn't historically accurate, thus rendering the argument that buffs were not used against carriers kind of pointless.
But as it is, it's just TOO EASY for buffs to take down CVs. Such an important target should require a lot more work and coordination to take down.
Yeah yeah, "you fighter jocks should defend them then", but as I've just granted you bufftards the benefit of the doubt in regards to the realities of AH, then you guys must also accept that in AH, expecting people to up fighters to 20K to guard a CV that can be knocked out with 1 or 2 easy buff passes is pretty freakin' unreasonable. Every time a CV gets anywhere near a base, it's as if every bufftard in the arena pitches a tent and next thing you know there are 15 Lancs flying in, 5 or 6 pilots literally racing each other for the free meal.
Even when this is done to an opposing CV, I usually hate it. It generally means an awesome battle was averted by some weiner in a flying barcalounger.
I personally think CVs should be as difficult to bring down as an airfield, though I know that's a subjective measurement. Still, it should be a CHALLENGE to destroy something that is so important and adds so much fun to the game.
What gets me is that there is torpedo ordinance in AH2, and planes built especially for that role, but the current bomber vs. CV modeling essentially renders torpedo missions entirely pointless.
My solution? Up the amount of ordinance it takes to sink a CV, by a lot. That'll make these buff runs on them more difficult. Then, up the damage factor of torpedoes to compensate, thus maintaining (perhaps improve) their effectiveness on CVs.
Organizing torpedo runs on CVs would be a lot of fun. My guess is 99% of AH players have never even launched a torpedo from a plane. It's a whole other skill to master but as it stands it has no purpose.:furious
-
Originally posted by frosty
I have no issue with the buff guns, or the formations, or even the drone warping (unless it's obvious that the pilot is intentionally exploiting it).
My ONLY problem with buffs is their effectiveness against CVs and the corresponding dismissal of torpedo planes. Yes, I know AH2 isn't historically accurate, thus rendering the argument that buffs were not used against carriers kind of pointless.
But as it is, it's just TOO EASY for buffs to take down CVs. Such an important target should require a lot more work and coordination to take down.
Yeah yeah, "you fighter jocks should defend them then", but as I've just granted you bufftards the benefit of the doubt in regards to the realities of AH, then you guys must also accept that in AH, expecting people to up fighters to 20K to guard a CV that can be knocked out with 1 or 2 easy buff passes is pretty freakin' unreasonable. Every time a CV gets anywhere near a base, it's as if every bufftard in the arena pitches a tent and next thing you know there are 15 Lancs flying in, 5 or 6 pilots literally racing each other for the free meal.
Even when this is done to an opposing CV, I usually hate it. It generally means an awesome battle was averted by some weiner in a flying barcalounger.
I personally think CVs should be as difficult to bring down as an airfield, though I know that's a subjective measurement. Still, it should be a CHALLENGE to destroy something that is so important and adds so much fun to the game.
What gets me is that there is torpedo ordinance in AH2, and planes built especially for that role, but the current bomber vs. CV modeling essentially renders torpedo missions entirely pointless.
My solution? Up the amount of ordinance it takes to sink a CV, by a lot. That'll make these buff runs on them more difficult. Then, up the damage factor of torpedoes to compensate, thus maintaining (perhaps improve) their effectiveness on CVs.
Organizing torpedo runs on CVs would be a lot of fun. My guess is 99% of AH players have never even launched a torpedo from a plane. It's a whole other skill to master but as it stands it has no purpose.:furious
other than the fact that i don't know many(if any) guys that can hit a moving cv from 20k.
Bravo!!!
i agree , wholeheartedly with the rest of your proposal!!!
oooops,
i forgot, i left the building!!
Boner:D
-
Just saying 1-man 1-plane means nothing.
1-man 3-planes :aok
Are you convinced yet? Me neither.
So like I asked, what's the problem with formations?
Do you really expect bombers to survive as single ships?
Like I said before, and someone repeated, and neither Hub nor Skyrock refuted, bombers are meant to be attacked at least with a wingman.
Like I said before, the worst case for a fighter, is if the formation is manned by a pilot and a gunner both very proficient at gunning. In which case you will need to be three to guarantee gunning down the entire formation without taking any damage.
How is that unfair to the bombers' benefit?
Consider that this worst case scenario seldom happens, and it's questionable how one might ask for more handicaping.
-
OK - there are a few issues, but they really are easily fixed.
1. The buff boys should get their 3 buff box - they get that because they don't get the 6-7 independent AI gunners that can take on multiple targets at the same time that they should have in a perfect world.
Even with a 3 plane formation, a buff driver is meat for multiple fighters, and if you know what you are doing and don't come in dead on his Six, you can tear up bombers pretty much at will. Its up to you so-called bad-oscar fighter jocks to figure out how, and if you can't then just run away, climb up to 25K and spend your time looking for easy picks.
2. The laser sight bombing is easily remedied - just stop showing the airspeed on the calibration screen! What happens is that people calibrate badly and then adjust their airspeed with the throttle to get that laser accuracy - if the calibration airspeed isn't shown, the problem goes away and people have to learn how to calibrate correctly to get hits. This also stops the buffs from dropping a few bombs and then turning around for another pass without recalibrating.
3. I like the idea of increasing the burn multiplier for buffs - they should have to carry more fuel, so I'd suggest starting at 4x and maybe working up from there. I don't think this will solve the bombers running at full speed issue, but since the fighters have a significant speed and climb advantage anyway, I don't see that as all that important. If the fighters have sufficient warning, they can intercept.
4. Buffs need to be more visible on the radar to give the defense a more reasonable time to up and intercept. The AH radar system really needs some work, and it would be easy to do: just up the default radar range to 25 miles for all bases and CVs (which should definitely help them survive) and show buffs as larger dots. This doesn't stop buff raids, but makes it definitely more desirable for buffs to wing up into bigger groups and take escorts along, which should make things more fun on both the offense and defense.
We've seen some big buff missions in the arenas recently, and they have been an absolute blast. Having 10-12 boxes of B24s come rollin through with escorts at 22K and fighting your way through to get an intercept is some of the best action I've seen. IMHO, hamstringing the buff drivers because you don't know what angles to use in the attack is pretty lame.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by frosty
Snip
IMO
The flaw is in the CV handling model.
It's not as simple spin the wheel for a course correction.
So it takes a lot of practice learning how to avoid bombs with the interface we have.
Bronk
-
The E6B tells you your speed precisely, so removing the speed readout in the bombsight would change nothing.
I do agree large formations of bombers should show up more readily on radar, and that larger battles are the way to go.
Bombers don't need to be slowed down so much to warrant a 4x fuel burn. Unless you're attacking them with Hurricanes (which Krusty and others seem to be, from the way they describe their difficulties), you don't have to be especially good.
-
Originally posted by moot
The E6B tells you your speed precisely, so removing the speed readout in the bombsight would change nothing.
It would a bit. You don`t know the exact value your sight is calibrated to. 1mph off? 2? 4?
-
That's almost negligible.. I haven't used the bomb sight speed at all, so far. I just pull up the E6B, throttle to 0 acceleration, open doors, line up, and calibrate..
That's given me negligible margins of error.
-
Bombing is too easy. E6B and laser targeting precision. Yawn.
-
Lets get to the real meat of the subject instead of beating around the bush. You furballers are just PO'd that you have to take time away from your mowing the grass at 8 G's, and have to defend against buffs in big formations lately. Well..tough.
I've flown a good number of missions in here recently, and there are some really great interceptor pilots. We've lost whole formations to cons, even with our "laser sighted guns", and jet assist 300 MPh capabilities. E6B for speed yadda yadda yadda? Never heard of it.Maybe some of you should wipe the tears away, and seek these folks out, stick your V-ego's in your pocket, and actually learn how to do it. Cause guess what, were here to stay. Get used to it.
Oh, and you better get organized. because the fine escorts we have been flying with have and will continue to hand "it" to you if you try the mid air refuel, or hang on your props to try and get us.:aok OTOH, big to those who have shot us down. You've earned it.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
Lets get to the real meat of the subject instead of beating around the bush. You furballers are just PO'd that you have to take time away from your mowing the grass at 8 G's, and have to defend against buffs in big formations lately. Well..tough.
I've flown a good number of missions in here recently, and there are some really great interceptor pilots. We've lost whole formations to cons, even with our "laser sighted guns", and jet assist 300 MPh capabilities. E6B for speed yadda yadda yadda? Never heard of it.Maybe some of you should wipe the tears away, and seek these folks out, stick your V-ego's in your pocket, and actually learn how to do it. Cause guess what, were here to stay. Get used to it.
Oh, and you better get organized. because the fine escorts we have been flying with have and will continue to hand "it" to you if you try the mid air refuel, or hang on your props to try and get us.:aok OTOH, big to those who have shot us down. You've earned it.
Well, the real subject is why do we still have formations when the accuracy wasn't reduced, since the whole premise of adding formations was because there would be no more pinpoint bombing. As one who does a little bit of everything, including bombing, I think the current setup is ridiculous. When you think about it, a bomber can do more damage than any other plane or vehicle to any field, CV, Vbase, strat factory, etc in the game, and can therefore have the most impact on gameplay. Looking at it from that standpoint, why should even the least experienced players be able to have the most impact on the game with the least amount of effort, training, and time?
-
Hub, Sorry we don't play the game YOUR WAY...If you want it YOUR WAY go to Burgerking!
999000
-
Have you actually read and comprehended anything I've posted?
-
Originally posted by Oleg
It can not, in AH2 at least. But i will rather believe AH2 model is wrong than baugher's site is wrong.
Have better idea, though. Probably cruising speed in both baugher's and boeng's sites is IAC not TAC. Looks weird because top speed is TAC for sure, but makes some sense at least.
Just climb to 30k ;)
Post this in the Bugs Forum and see what the reply is. Also, ask Widewing (if you value his opinion) about Baugher's site.
-
Hub, I've read it all .....including the lies and slander!....comprehend..YES
I understand fully the imature and self-centeredness of you and the BK's as read on your own Homepage.....In short the disregarding of every aspect of the game/people who don't strictly furball.
Please try demonstrating respect for all those who play .....the bomber guys, the GV guys, the toolsheders, land grabbers and the furballers.!
999000
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Well, the real subject is why do we still have formations when the accuracy wasn't reduced, since the whole premise of adding formations was because there would be no more pinpoint bombing. As one who does a little bit of everything, including bombing, I think the current setup is ridiculous. When you think about it, a bomber can do more damage than any other plane or vehicle to any field, CV, Vbase, strat factory, etc in the game, and can therefore have the most impact on gameplay. Looking at it from that standpoint, why should even the least experienced players be able to have the most impact on the game with the least amount of effort, training, and time?
Long and short of it. I've been shot down plenty by better then you. You talk of skill effort and training. Seek those out who are better than you, and learn. Because the ones who can, far outnumber the ones in this thread whining they cant. ;)
-
New sim, same old frakking whiny ***, crybaby, score*****ing, roundy-round at treetop level, last day of the war ride only dweebs. Sigh.:D
Could you imagine the crying that would go on in here if we let "Otto von ***birds version 2.77" loose for a week? They'd probably give us whole bombgroups just to go back to human gunners.:lol :D
-
Nice derail.
-
Originally posted by 68slayr
i want to make it so buffs can't dive bomb. I hate the dive bombing lancs that drop there whole payload on the pad at Vbase.:furious :mad: :furious
Agreed, I spent several hours hovering above a V base lastnight defending against losers in divebombing lancs and 24s.
Perhaps we could reduce the strength of the wingroots or something? (not make them less resistant to weapon damage, just airframe stress).
Thus, if some dweeb tries to put his lancs a 3k ft/s dive and hold it with his doors open, he loses a wing or something?
Or, we could even 'invent' bomb door damage that prevents the releasing of bombs in a suicide dive?
Say, if the indicated airspeed rose above a certain speed, the airflow bends the doors 'in' and jams the bombs?
Perhaps not the most historically acurate thing in the world, but it would help to hinder buff diving lamers.
:noid
-
Originally posted by moot
Just saying 1-man 1-plane means nothing.
So like I asked, what's the problem with formations?
Do you really expect bombers to survive as single ships?
You kind of answered this for the opposition in your case. You are saying that bombers need 3 lives to be functional and I am saying that is a load of crap! GV's are an example we can use. It is soo incredibly easy for GV's to be stopped at a base by one guy with an Il2, but GVer's don't get a formation! They get one ride per player, just all the other fighters and attackers..........except bombers! I would like to mention that I have nothing at all against peeps who like to Buff it. I just don't like the gaminess of drones! :aok
Mark
-
Originally posted by 999000
Hub, I've read it all .....including the lies and slander!....comprehend..YES
I understand fully the imature and self-centeredness of you and the BK's as read on your own Homepage.....In short the disregarding of every aspect of the game/people who don't strictly furball.
Please try demonstrating respect for all those who play .....the bomber guys, the GV guys, the toolsheders, land grabbers and the furballers.!
999000
Great points, 999000, except that I'm not a BK. You can try to bait me into a pursefight with you, but I'm not going to let you. I play all aspects of the game, so this furballer vs the world **** isn't holding water.
-
Hub, seriously what happened ..they kick you out? or did the BK's go under due to poor reputation?
999000
-
Naw just tired of all the timid building battlers:aok
SuperDud
Oh and 1 more thing. For a guy who likes to be thought of as a "good" guy you sure are showing your true colors here. Your arguments with hub, why drag a whole squad into it? Has anyone else from the BKs attacked you in this thread?
-
The FW 190 D is a very cool ride.
:noid
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
from the BKs
Guess this means your in??? Doesn't take much!:aok
Mark
-
from gameplay aspect i think having 1 bomber, though yes it would be more vulnerable, might make people work together more.....which i would assume strat guys would love. I think it would make the need for escorts much more necessary. maybe moving fights away from the runway. sounds like an improvement to me.
then again i realize this thread has moved far away from discussion and more to name calling and avatar score settling.
-
Hub, seriously what happened ..they kick you out? or did the BK's go under due to poor reputation?
Oh and 1 more thing. For a guy who likes to be thought of as a "good" guy you sure are showing your true colors here. Your arguments with hub, why drag a whole squad into it? Has anyone else from the BKs attacked you in this thread?
LOLH Super, don't be fooled by number boy's superficial nice guy attitude. He has shown his sweetheartbag side a few times.
How many can forget his tantrum when he was asked not to drop Fighter Hangers. Hell he pissed and moaned then vowed never to fly as a knight again LOLH as if anyone gave a crap LOLH. And I am sure no one can forget his tantrum and attack on HT when HT wouldn't give up HTC confidential demographic info etc. which he felt he was entitled too hahahaha, please LOLH. It looks like his ugly head is poking out again.
The BK rep is exactly how we like it and we aren't going anywhere.
Nice try on the bash tho, poor execution LOLH.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
Formation of 3 bombers was added to allow for inaccuracy of new bomb site. You already know where I am going , I will not insult you intelligence further.
_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _______So Zanth do ya think this is a controversial subject bud ....:lol
-
Why don't you guys take your purse swingin to PM?
Originally posted by SkyRock
You kind of answered this for the opposition in your case. You are saying that bombers need 3 lives to be functional and I am saying that is a load of crap! GV's are an example we can use. It is soo incredibly easy for GV's to be stopped at a base by one guy with an Il2, but GVer's don't get a formation! They get one ride per player, just all the other fighters and attackers..........except bombers!
You're just going to have to demonstrate why it's crap. Bombers would be crap if they had only one plane with the current bombing setup.
GVs are not analogous because they're not bombers - GVs don't need to look into a pinhole to deliver the entine purpose of their mission, while flying with an icon over their head as fighters look on, in the middle of empty space, while presenting almost a thousand square feet of target... and GVs are not bombers.
Bombers don't have 3 lives, they have one life per plane.
It doesn't hold any water towards removing the 2 drones anyway, as those 2 drones are not that hard to dispatch for a "gamey" unhistorical one-plane attack, nevermind a well prepared one carried out by 2 or more attackers.
And like I said you need to come up with a good reason why drones are no fun. Hitech has said in the past he intended to give GVs slaved drones as well.
-
Originally posted by pluck
from gameplay aspect i think having 1 bomber, though yes it would be more vulnerable, might make people work together more.....which i would assume strat guys would love. I think it would make the need for escorts much more necessary.
PLeeeaaaasseeee. Us Statosphere guys do work damn hard already. Sorry If I come off pissed off, its because I am. I rarely get a descent turnout of escorts, unless its the weekend. I Salute every single person that has given me an escort though, hats off to those chaps. But the bottom line 80% of the people are furballing, and they'd do it till the sheep come back. Honestly this is a damn game, a damn fine one at that, but the bottom line if you aint having fun time to move on. Stay out of my bomber and Ill stay in out of this thread. It just pizzes me off no end the people wanting to kill the formations are the same people who dont fly it. Period. Well stay the **CK awy from them then. Buffs can just go after buffs from now on. Which is a blast I must say.
This thread just needs to die. Im just getting fumed over this. Buncha damn hipocrites. BTW Salute 9, and I dont blame ya for being pizzed, I am too. People really have no idea what CH!T Storm you opened when you started this thread.
Good day.
-
lol, ok then. yep, never flew a buff ever, never dropped bombs, played the land grab game:rolleyes: yes i'm being sarcastic. don't presume to know everything about everyone posting here. the fact is many have played both style of play for long periods of time before finding out what they like the best. it's just a discussion about a game, not sure what there is to get all mad about.
obviously there will be 2 varrying opionions. people base opinions on experience and what they like to do. some people here have been playing a long time, and have had many experiences. the sole purpose of my post was to try to add to the discussion the idea that maybe changing the way buffs work may help involve more of the community in a certain style of play. you are welcome to disagree, personally, i'm not sure it would have much success myself....brought it up for the sake of discussion.
-
Numbersdude didn't start the thread, he's only in here because I posted.
Seriously though, who needs an escort fighter when a single gunner can bring 6 to 15 guns to bear on a target? Am I the only guy who flies bombers that wants it to require the same effort and offer the same challenge as everything else in the game?
Hell, even improving the drone behavior (maybe it is purely some funky netcoad that results in the wildly warping drones) and taking out the pinpoint accuracy would be reasonably acceptable. What's the rationale for keeping them as they are? The only thing I'm seeing out of you guys is "but we die all the time" (I pointed out why), "you just don't know how to kill bombers" (actually, I do, thanks), and "stupid furballers" (I was flying bombers before your mommies paid for your first account).
So, to get back on topic, we still have formations because we're supposed to be carpet bombing, but instead we're still salvoing 1 and dropping hangars consistently from alt. Why?
-
Originally posted by moot
The E6B tells you your speed precisely, so removing the speed readout in the bombsight would change nothing.
I do agree large formations of bombers should show up more readily on radar, and that larger battles are the way to go.
Bombers don't need to be slowed down so much to warrant a 4x fuel burn. Unless you're attacking them with Hurricanes (which Krusty and others seem to be, from the way they describe their difficulties), you don't have to be especially good.
If you don't know your calibration speed as a digital readout in the bombsight, then using E6B to match the speed isn't possible is it? With a variance of 1-5mph, coupled with high-altitude, you can still bomb hangers down, but you can't be guaranteed of laser precision. Instead of 1 B17 taking down 4 hangers, you might only be able to take down 2 by lining up and letting your whole load out (which would be more historically accurate).
Further, if you drop half your load, your speed starts to increase throwing your bombsight calibration that much further off, so you have to either slow down or recalibrate before coming around for your next run.
You can bring your buffs in lower to lessen the loss of accuracy and make calibration easier, but then you are more easily intercepted by enemy aircraft.
I still think it is a good idea to remove the mph indicator from the bombsight - you don't need it to calibrate, and it tells you exactly how far off your calibration is (high or low) which coupled with the E6B gives the laser accuracy. If we don't have the bombsight calibration speed indicated, we lose a great deal of the laser accuracy problem. It will still be possible to get high accuracy, but it will take more practice and effort.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
But using your E6B during the setup for your pass, you can still simply watch until your speed stabilizes, then calibrate, and the readout in the sight is irrelevant, because you know that through the E6B. Net effect of removing the display- 0.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Seriously though, who needs an escort fighter when a single gunner can bring 6 to 15 guns to bear on a target? Am I the only guy who flies bombers that wants it to require the same effort and offer the same challenge as everything else in the game?
B]
it is a valid point. was just trying to think of solution for those who find the notion of flying only 1 plane horrifying. I figure most guys flying bombers are strat guys (could be wrong)....and strat guys are usually explaining to me and the other furballers that we are not contributing to their goals. so i figure these guys are working together to win the map, and therefor would enjoy working together to keep the bombers alive. As a side affect the furballers might find better targets which are protecting the bombers. just a highly skeptical thought. wasn't trying to make it easier on bombers though, i think they could use more of a challenge not less. and yes the accuracy of bombs is a bit much.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
So, to get back on topic, we still have formations because we're supposed to be carpet bombing, but instead we're still salvoing 1 and dropping hangars consistently from alt. Why?
The laser sighting can be fixed (see above), and we can make it easier to intercept a buff raid with increased warning (better radar coverage), but unless the fighter jocks start intercepting the raids, nothing will change. Frankly, if we want to encourage interception, I'd start awarding a fat perk bonus for every bomber killed since they are the real threat to your bases. Add 4x normal perks for 4 engine buffs and 2x for 2 engine buffs and see if that helps - if nothing else you reward the intrepid fighter jock willing to take on a buff box.
I still think formations are reasonable given that the buff drivers do not have the other 9 crew members aboard gunning for them. If all the buffs had independent AI gunners manning the guns, they might have a chance as a single ship. As it is now, even with the firepower concentration of a buff box, you can only target one fighter at a time - if fighters wing up and hit at the same time, somebody gets a clean shot.
As a buff driver myself, I wish we had real strat targets - something you want to go bomb (and the defense wants to protect) because it makes a difference to your country. Give me something besides bases that it makes sense to bomb, and I'll go bomb it. If hitting the zone oil refinery knocked out drop tanks and limited fuel to 75% in the zone, I'd damn well go over there and blast it. If there was a Spit factory (or an La factory ;) ) which kept people from taking up new Las or Spits when it was down, I'd bomb it, and I suspect people would up in droves to keep me from bombing it.
We're supposed to be carpet bombing, but the problem is there is very little worthy of carpet bombing. If we want strategic bombers used as they should be used, give us something strategic besides bases to bomb.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Ya know. have you guys even taking into account
15 mins [/font] is how long somehting stays down.
How about we have 1 hour for the hangers to be down, then you can nerf the bomber.
How about it. Makes it a little more realistic, how about carpet bombing runways. then you have to resuplly the base to get it back up. This thread is ridiclus
-
I was flying bombers before your mommies paid for your first account
LOLHROTFF
I love the meltdowns some people have on these BBs. Priceless. :aok
-
Can't argue about the strat system, but I think a complete revamp of that is even less likely than removing formations or the EZ mode bombing.
-
The Disposable Heroes are to the BKs what Frasier is to Cheers.
Or what Joanie Loves Chachi is to Happy Days. We're still trying to figure this one out.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The Disposable Heroes are to the BKs what Frasier is to Cheers.
Or what Joanie Loves Chachi is to Happy Days. We're still trying to figure this one out.
-- Todd/Leviathn
More like Laverne and Shirley is to Happy days. :D
Bronk
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
You kind of answered this for the opposition in your case. You are saying that bombers need 3 lives to be functional and I am saying that is a load of crap! GV's are an example we can use. It is soo incredibly easy for GV's to be stopped at a base by one guy with an Il2, but GVer's don't get a formation! They get one ride per player, just all the other fighters and attackers..........except bombers! I would like to mention that I have nothing at all against peeps who like to Buff it. I just don't like the gaminess of drones! :aok
Mark
Difference is the GV players can simply respawn since they don't have to drive all the way from thier base to the enemy base.
Bombers are just fine as they are. I wouldn't mind seeing something done to stop the glide bombing 24s and 17s though.
-
Folks...I've read through this entire thread with interest; I've no dislike of the current bomber set up. Personally, I think that the current model gives the best of all worlds for new folks, and veteran players.
I regularly shoot bombers down with my F4U-1, F4U-1A, F4U-1D without too much difficulty. Most of the time I can take out all 3 of the bombers in the box. Occassionally, I become impatient and take out only one, or two before having my engine shot out, or just flat get killed by a good gunner. And, then there are the occassions where I simply mess up my pass and get shot down right away.
Sure...my Squaddies, and perhaps others, have heard my diatribes about lazer-accurate buff guns and hyper-sonic speeds of bombers...but that's really me covering-up the mistake I made in my attack. It's easier to blame others for my own failures and lack of skill, or patience.
I enjoy the challenge of killing bombers and surviving to land; and I've dead-sticked many a Corsair to a sucessfull landing. I'll engage bombers on the deck, or at 30,000 feet. The higher the bombers fly, the more challenging they are to shoot down. And, I do take the time to climb. I also study the clipboard map before I take off and plan my mission. And, I've learned to recognise a skilled bomber pilot by the way they fly their bombers as I make my approach.
Many folks herein have expressed an opinion that the bomb sight should be more complicated than it currently is. In my opinion, the current bomb sight is a reasonable compromise between the more complex bomb sight we previously had and the even simpler bomber sight than current bomb sight we now have. I enjoyed the more complex bomb sight, but many others did not, and thus, it was changed. I think the compromise is fair.
What annoys me is the cry I hear for further hardening of Ground, or Sea, targets; make it harder for bombers to destroy FHs, BHs, VHs and CVs? Add more AAA...add more Barracks....put more AAA in the town? What I really hear is...make it easier for Fighters.
-
The removal of formations is the only thing that would make glidebombing less effective.
-
I am not a bomber pilot, but I actually like buffs! I say give them 4 drones...definately meat on the table. They can reduce a base to a pancake, but the base should have had high alt interceptors anyhow.
-
That option is available in the Hangar.
-
Read through the thread again, and try to comprehend what we're really saying, not what you thought we were going to say before you even opened this thread.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Read through the thread again, and try to comprehend what we're really saying,
Nerf the bombers.
-
The point of a debate is to find out what's true, not who's right or wrong.
This thread is getting too complex to discuss in full because people aren't replying to each others refutals.
So I'll be brief:
It's not hard to kill formations of 3 bombers. If you come up against a gunner that breaks you in half everytime... then you've met your match. It's not happening in any more than a minority of cases, so using it as reason for handicapped bombers is akin to wanting the old spit5 nerfed because Lev flies it.
It's not hard to bomb pickles in a barrel from high alt with the current calibration and bomb dispersion model. The calibration should be easier to fudge, and the bomb should disperse a bit more... and to compensate for these two, bombers should get (2?) more drones for a perk cost.
Bombers flying in their target too high for interceptors to just pull back on their joystick and shoot them down is not excuse enough to nerf them.
Bombers certainly did fly a lot slower, but that's a can of worms because fighters didn't fly WFO either, nor have infinitely renewing WEP. In any case it's not necessary for bombers to be slowed down, as they're already easy to kill.
A system to stop divebombing in the heavier buffs should be used.. bombs hitting the top of the bomb bay, or whatever. Suicide dweebs are a more important concern than bomber formations that no one can even make a case to handicap.
-
I'm just an old man who flies for fun.
I've read through the thread, Hubsonfire....and the only "we" I see is "you". And, Sir....I didn't open this thread. I think the "thought" of this thread is well understood. I think you simply resist it's thought.
-
I'm aware that Zanth started the thread, and not you. By open, I was referring to you clicking the link. As happens in any thread where bombers are discussed, those who much prefer the current system of formations, no dispersion, and no calibration, and those who do not, are opposed to the ideas of the others. That's fine, all discussions would be incredibly dull were this not the case.
However, simply saying, "you just want to take away my fun" is currently the canned (arguably the only) response, so we don't really wind up with a discussion. I keep seeing the terms furballers and fighters used to describe anyone who wants the bombers changed, which ignores the fact that many of us, despite the labels we're given, aren't the single-minded furballers that some would claim we are.
I don't have a problem with bomber speeds, or fuel burn, or durability, or payload, or the defensive guns, or any of the other reasons people are trying to insert as the reasons we're asking for change. My issues with buffs are exactly what I have stated several times already. You don't know me, you have zero interaction with me in the game, and yet you ignore what I say, substitute some contrived reasoning in place of my own, and claim that my only goal is to ruin your fun. That's simply not true.
-
Just how do we improve the current Bomber experience?
Remember to take into account all of the new folks who wish to succeed in their initial sorties versus the well qualified veteran bomber pilots who have had the experience of traveling through all of the Aces High changes to date.
To me, heavy bombers dive bombing a target are no more an anomaly than jeeps that can kill Tiger tanks. However, little is spoken about Jeeps crawling up a Tigers rear end...perhaps because the GV perspective is limited to the ground...until bombers arrive?
Just a question?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
...Seriously though, who needs an escort fighter when a single gunner can bring 6 to 15 guns to bear on a target? Am I the only guy who flies bombers that wants it to require the same effort and offer the same challenge as everything else in the game?.....
Hub I see you point to a degree I think and I'd personaly like to have wind back at alts abouve 16k. I used to have a blast with the old system, climbing to 30k, calibrating, alotting for the drift caused by the wind, releaseing my load to carpet bomb a town, and seeing them all fall where I pretty much wanted them.
Doing all that was a chalenge to me. It took more time than I think most want to give, but it was something I worked at to make happen correctly. you couldnt hit hangers at that alt because of the wind and having to go below 16k kinda gave the defenders a chance to get to an alt to intercept. As the model is set now, yes the calibration is easier, but adding the wind back I think would bring things back into perspective.
Now A question I have for yall bashing the "Laser" guns the buffs have.
Do you think its fair that a set of bombers which has took time to climb to a resonable alt and make a legit drop wheather its a pin point or carpet drop only to get shot down by the same person through attrition?
I vote to not nerf the bombers any at all until something is in place to prevent the same person from comming back at you in a new plane and getting a garunteed kill through attrition.
Example for those who may not be following me:
I'm at 24k flying home after a good bomb run.
Player 1234 comes in, takes a few shots at me and maybe takes a gun or two before I can shoot him down. Hell even with an escort they can still get in to make this happen. I'm not dead, but I'm now handicapped because of losing a gun(s).
Now on the way home I get attacked by another plane and this time I get an engine on fire. After shooting the guy down I found out its 1234 guy again. He was in a new plane with a known intercept course and I am in damaged goods.
So I'm flying along and sure enough another contact appears and this time I get shot down by 1234.
A bomber cant run or manuver like a fighter and to be whittled down by the same guy is quite frankly a big crock of poopy. I dont think that aspect alone is a point to good fair gameplay. I have every right to land my kills as the fighter guys do. The same fella that keeps comming back has many advantages already at hand and I am pretty much a garunteed kill through attrition.
So until there is something like a "Defense Bubble" that extends outside gun range preventing a fighter who has already lost to an attempted attack of a formation of bombers for say 20 minutes, the "Laser" Guns and Formations need to stay.
This of course wouldnt apply to multiple planes, just to the idiot that decides to be a griefer and keep attacking for the garunteed kill through attrition.
Wolfy
-
One Bummer Pilot , One Bommer .... simple as that !
Also bring their top warp dive speeds back to reaility.....
I flew Bommers in AW FR loved um, lots of fun ...:D
Regards
CHECKERS
-
There was a discussion of GVs, specifically about the lack of a collision model, and the ability of jeeps to exploit this. Basically,IIRC, a collision model affecting GVs could result in vehicles getting welded together, or flying apart at high speed, so we had to accept one unrealistic scenario to avoid an even worse one.
I think that's why you see more mention of formation kamikazis than jeeps.
-
Wolf, you make an absurd argument. So what if a pilot reups? It takes him 10 minutes to climb back up to your alt. You shot him down. TWICE. That tells you a little something about the effectiveness of your guns.
If he didn't, somebody else would have. It doesn't matter if the same player reups 4 times in a row (it would take over an hour to do this, and he'd have to die almost instantly,... but still, it's possible), or if 1 pilot died, called out the location and heading, and another pilot took up the call, died, called out the heading and location, and another pilot took up the call, and so on and so forth.
Arguing that people reupping is gamey is about as stupid as asking for a "defensive bubble around the bombers".
If you're still over the frakking target 20 minutes later you deserve to be attacked by the same guy multiple times. It takes less than 5 minutes for a bomber at 15k to cross an entire sector. You can enter radar range, bomb the target 3-4 minutes later, and shoot somebody down, then head for home. If he follows you back, you're out of radar range before he's even at 10k alt, and only getting further away.
If you get shot down by the same guy over and over, it means you've screwed up your mission and hung around over enemy land asking for it.
You can outrun him, if he just takes off. You can out gun him (hell, you even said you shot him down 2x in a row). Yet historically the bomber you were in would have been caught and killed in a fraction of the time.
And you still want MORE benefits/advantages????
invisible force field that keeps him from attacking again?!?!?!
OMG... dude.... think about what you're typing.
-
Originally posted by CHECKERS
One Bummer Pilot , One Bommer .... simple as that !
Also bring their top warp dive speeds back to reaility.....
I flew Bommers in AW FR loved um, lots of fun ...:D
Regards
CHECKERS
Agreed....
As long as there are 1 163 and 1 262 per 1000 of any other aircraft sortied. As it is, when you get toa strat target, the closest large airfield looks like Laguardia. Thats total arcade game stuff right there.
-
Wolf, I disagree on preventing players from reupping. Those same people who keep coming back, while irritating at times, helped me improve my gunnery, and rack up easy kills. Also, it would penalize those who defend fields, and would be bad for gameplay on the whole, IMO.
The wind thing, eh... it's too predictable, and in a map with the 3 country setup, would mean someone's always got a tailwind, and the other side is going to have a crosswind or headwind, so someone's got easier bombing, and someone's got a harder time of it. Unfair IMO. Now, if wind could be randomized, or maybe even add turbulence or moving fronts or whatever... that would be cool, but probably a nightmare to coad. Too much work for HTC for the same results. I would think that it would be much easier to randomize the bomb spread to simulate the effects of wind or turbulence or whatever, but I really don't know.
Also, and I'll probably make more friends with this one, I'd can the 163s if formations were removed as well. 262s I'd leave in, as they're more expensive, and pretty rarely seen, at least when I'm on.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
OMG... dude.... think about what you're typing.
Sorry dude never have been good at typing what I'm trying to say. As far as shooting the same guy down twice....I'm sorry Its not my fault he didnt learn the first time. He had his chance the first time to get me then and it didnt work. I already dropped my bombs fended off his attack once and just want to get home and land. I have nothing else to drop so I am really nothing more than an offensively empty dot on his radar.
When I climb to 30k I tend to fly 50-100 miles behind enemy lines. So I am still trying to get out of there at the 15 minute mark, but I guess from your comment I musta did something to mess up my mission. Sorry I didnt go out and buy your book about playing the game your way.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Yet historically the bomber you were in would have been caught and killed in a fraction of the time.
I admire you're persistence Krusty, but this argument never gets any less tiresome. Show us, through some sort of credible historic documentation, something that supports your point, and I'll be quiet. While you pay absolutely no regard to that which I post, I promise I'll give yours due deference.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Yet historically the bomber you were in would have been caught and killed in a fraction of the time.
And since you want to talk in terms of what is or is not historicaly correct, The fella I jusy happened to shoot down wouldnt be able to re-up in a plane 25miles in front of me and re-intercept me either.
So please Krusty, think about what your typing before you type it.
:)
-
Seems...I've hit a nerve...
"You don't know me, you have zero interaction with me in the game, and yet you ignore what I say, substitute some contrived reasoning in place of my own, and claim that my only goal is to ruin your fun. That's simply not true."
Errr....I'm a bit confused with your argument at this point, Sir.
-
Originally posted by 68slayr
i want to make it so buffs can't dive bomb. I hate the dive bombing lancs that drop there whole payload on the pad at Vbase.:furious :mad: :furious
Actually when I do have to dive bomb,which in reality is not that much,as I usually fly 18-20k,is a last ditch effort ot take out a gv or something..maybe ord,ON AN AIRBASE....
But that will only happen if I have lost 2 drones and am in my last plane..It is not worth dive bombing with all 3..because if someone is on my 6,I am going to be wanting to shoot them down,not take a chance with losing them,and my ord load.
Again,it is only after releasing my first round of ord that this may happen,and I can honestly say it is very rare..
And as far as VH's at vehicle bases...those are easy to destroy,I dont see how anyone has to dive-bomb them..
ANd you know,let's not forget,and I will repeat it...
What is going on in bombers on the enemys side of the war,is going on with your pilots as well.
Kevin
-
This thread is what needs to go not triple buffs.
-
Have you read all of it, Husky01? Of Course you have! Why would you post otherwise?
-
Wolf: Only if the bomber is allowed to up 1/3 as much as the fighter is, because he has 3 drones. Oh, and he's got all guns slaved to the same gunnery spot, as well. So make it only 1 up allowed per 2 hours (30 minutes per sortie minimum). Then he's also got superhuman speed above normal cruising, so he's got added defensive measures (forcing most of the aircraft that attack him into a dead6 position for his slaved-guns to kill more efficiently) on top of that nobody has any idea a bomber is near a target until it hits radar circles, which are 20 miles or less, and the bomber can cover that inside of 4 minutes, drop bombs, and get out the other side of the dar circle inside of 7 minutes...
So if any player takes up a bomber for any reason, and dies for any reason (up to and including their own stupidity) they are not allowed to fly online, offline, in any arena, for a period of 3 hours after that, regardless of the outcome.
How's that? Following your argument this would be perfectly valid, right? No bomber would fly long missions more than once a day. Hell, how about if you lose a drone somebody comes to your house and shoots you dead?
Dude, your rant is illogical to the extreme. It doesn't matter WHO shoots you. In this game you can up anywhere there is an open field. It doesn't matter if 1 guy reups 3x or if 3 separate guys up 1x. The end result is you shoot down 3 attackers before landing your bombers with your name in lights. Do you think bomber pilots (including myself) should be allowed to fly around nearly unstoppable as they are? When I fly a bomber mission, I come into the target, calibrate, line up, drop, maybe defend myself against 1 enemy fighter that's bothered to climb up to me, I turn, leave the target area, and head home.
Most of the time bomber missions are boring as hell. I have no real risk of death. Even when I'm caught on the way out of the target, I more often than not kill all the enemies that trail me, and land safely despite having lost all 4 engines a sector from my landing field.
Yeah, sure, that's realistic. Bombers in this game have it MADE.
P.S. Stoney, your arguments are flawed. I ignore you because you keep harping on having proven something, but IMO you haven't. This isn't the place to get into it.
-
Superdud, Hub, and Mars,........You state I have a "good guy " reputation..I supose there are reasons for that. You state you don't care about your or the BK's reputation......I suppose there are reasons for that.
Mars my ugly head as you state only comes out when people like Hub earliear in this post blatantly lie.
Mars just to jar your memory the Bk's didn't ask or request hangers not to be dropped ....being polite is not a Bk trade mark......If I remember correctly it was in the most disrespectful, intimadating, and bullying nature you guys went off on a fellow bomber pilot who was on the same team.
I suppose there are reasons for ones reputation.
999000
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Do you think bomber pilots (including myself) should be allowed to fly around nearly unstoppable as they are?
Unstoppable against different pilots.... no.
Unstoppable against the griefer who keeps comming back after dieng to shoot ya cause he's worn ya down enough that you cant fight back...yes.
Hey there is this chain on the ground.....what happens if I jerk it?
Oh Krusty I went to Amazon and for the life of me I cant seem to find a copy of "Krusty's guide to Aces High" anywhere. Is it out of print? If so can you send me a copy if you have one left in your private stash?
Sorry if you find my rant illogical to the extreme, but at the same time its just a rant. Nothing more. I find yours amounts to a bunch of breast baggin as well. So I figure I'll sit back and cry with ya. We'll agree to disagree umkay? Dont get so worked up.
Now I lost place of that chain. Look in this mirror while I go look for that chain. I'm gonna pull it and see what happens
-
Originally posted by Krusty
P.S. Stoney, your arguments are flawed. I ignore you because you keep harping on having proven something, but IMO you haven't. This isn't the place to get into it. [/B]
Oh, I have no doubt I haven't proven it to you, I may never. But, I started another thread in which you could lay it all out, but you never showed up. Look for Bomber Speeds or words to that affect from about 2 days ago or so. I appreciate your contribution to the game, honestly, but this bomber speed thing keeps appearing in any post you make that has anything to do with bombers. So, take your argument to the other thread, and we'll discuss it. Or am I, and the rest of the forum going to have to suffer through this every single time you post in a bomber thread?
-
Originally posted by 999000
Superdud, Hub, and Mars,........You state I have a "good guy " reputation..
I don't think I've ever stated you have a "good guy" reputation. I don't think I've ever believed that you have, either.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Or am I, and the rest of the forum going to have to suffer through this every single time you post in a bomber thread?
Stoney, don't you already know the answer to this? It's just not worth arguing about with him.
-
So, the conclusion is that no one can give a good reason why bomber drones should go.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Stoney, don't you already know the answer to this? It's just not worth arguing about with him.
Does this mean I have to stop to?
:)
-
Insulting me to my face aside, one thing stands out:
Originally posted by Wolf14
Unstoppable against different pilots.... no.
Unstoppable against the griefer who keeps comming back after dieng
So, you're calling somebody that shoots you down a griefer? It doesn't matter WHO it is, man! He's not solely taking off just for the sake disrupting your fun at the expense of all of his fun.
I have been in a furball many times, shot somebody down once, got an assist on them again, and then been shot down by them not long after.
That doesn't make them griefers. It means they simply reupped. If it wasn't them it'd be any one of hundreds on their team. Or it means they got shot down and wanted revenge for their recent demise. You simply can't say this is griefing in any sense of the word.
As for Hubs: You were doing so well insulting everybody else, why did you start insulting me, too? Is it just anybody around you? I'm sure therapy might help with this problem :)
Stoney, your problem is you're trying to find a way to discredit me. You look hard enough you'll find anything. Have you ever just taken a bomber up from sea level, climbed to 20k, and then set the cruise settings listed in the E6B? These are taken directly from flight manuals, if I'm correct. HTC isn't in the habit of making sh** up just for giggles. Note the speed after a sector's flight on max cruise. That's about what the speed would be of the real thing. Say what you will about games vs real life, but HTC and crew seem to have gotten the speeds correct on most things in this game. Max cruise at 15k gives you 134 IAS, 167 TAS. And you come in here saying that really they would be just 10 mph shy of their top speed. Sure.. right... Their max cruise would be just shy of their max speed. I don't think the laws of physics apply in that theory, Stoney.
Like I said this isn't the place to get into it.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Stoney, don't you already know the answer to this? It's just not worth arguing about with him.
Sorry Hubs, but I'm tired of seeing it every single time. I was going to go after it in the FSO thread last weekend after the "B-24 outran my 262" post, but waved off.
-
By the way, I filmed all FSO frames. It's a habit. I can point out how the B24s were so fast I literally could not engage them in a HO attack, because they would zip below my nose before I was halfway around. This happened 3 times and I ran out in front of them to ranges past 3k before turning. So, frankly, stow it. Anything that can close 3k+ before you've turned 90 degrees into them is messed up.
-
Originally posted by moot
So, the conclusion is that no one can give a good reason why bomber drones should go.
To take the opposite tack, moot, why do we even have formations?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As for Hubs: You were doing so well insulting everybody else, why did you start insulting me, too? Is it just anybody around you? I'm sure therapy might help with this problem :)
When 999 calls me a liar, that's an insult. When anyone calls you a liar, that's an observation. Subtle but important difference.
btw. let's see this film of a bomber that's too fast to shoot at.
-
[Edit: I'm just not going to sink to your low levels man. Go back to the BKs. You truly belong there.]
EDIT: I'm not getting into the whole 999000 thing, I wasn't there.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
By the way, I filmed all FSO frames. It's a habit. I can point out how the B24s were so fast I literally could not engage them in a HO attack, because they would zip below my nose before I was halfway around. This happened 3 times and I ran out in front of them to ranges past 3k before turning. So, frankly, stow it. Anything that can close 3k+ before you've turned 90 degrees into them is messed up.
Do me a favor, post the film in the other thread I started in General Discussion. I'd personally like to see what the rate of separation was once you shot past them and began your turn back, and also what the rate of closure was as you went into the head-on pass. If you were anywhere near a range of 500-600 TAS rate of closure during the HO passes, that would be somewhere in the range of 8-10 (or 13-16km)miles a minute or so meaning every six seconds you're closing one mile and after you pass them, you're extending one mile every six seconds. Even when you were perpendicular to their flight path, if they were around 270 TAS, they're covering over 4 miles (or 6.5km) a minute. That would mean you would have 30 seconds to complete your turn and line up a shot before they pass by you if you start your turn at 3.0K (and that doesn't count your motion towards them)
-
Krusty, Combat Tour is where realism is meant to be at its prime.
The MA is meant to put gameplay ahead of absolute realism.
-
Originally posted by 999000
Superdud, Hub, and Mars,........You state I have a "good guy " reputation..I supose there are reasons for that. You state you don't care about your or the BK's reputation......I suppose there are reasons for that.
Mars my ugly head as you state only comes out when people like Hub earliear in this post blatantly lie.
Mars just to jar your memory the Bk's didn't ask or request hangers not to be dropped ....being polite is not a Bk trade mark......If I remember correctly it was in the most disrespectful, intimadating, and bullying nature you guys went off on a fellow bomber pilot who was on the same team.
I suppose there are reasons for ones reputation.
999000
Well you couldn't be more wrong. Go try to find a post were I belittle someone. You might get lucky and find 1(and only 1) but I doubt it. When you belittle the BKs you belittle me and I take offense to that. It's as if I said everyone who's flys bombers is a skilless waste of time who should just quit. Why don't you step back and not mark everyone from a particle group as a certain "type". As for the bomber pilot you speak of, I haven't a clue. Once again you use a wide brush with no real right to do so. Say what you want, but with post like these I find you much worse than what any BK could ever be. That's why I find your reputation as a "nice guy" undeserving.
-
i wouldnt give this a thought ,but hub please leave me out of this one
do i think there are some fixes for these issues yes,will they make them yes,when its justified for all
but remember one thing you fix one thing another needs adjusted,1 2 3 buffs i dont care people will still do what you think they are doing now again
killling buffs isnt that hard with a little thought and patience i now i die alot
i would just like not be mentioned when ever this crap gets put out there i do fly fighters some uno
ty and
-
Sorry i got off track i went back and read the first 3 posts are we talking about guns of bombing in this,i think someone somewere stated that a hgnr ,cv,town hardning effect equal to lethelness of buffs would be the answer,tree top into a base is not a option anymore look at the ack performance as we have to date,cvs are to easy anyway ask anyone,higher alt just gives 5incers more accuracy anyway so in case if we take away 3 buffs take away auto ack and 5 incers.See were im going for every quirk theres another side quark,htc has made many changes to everything in the game and so to will thewe be fixed
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
But using your E6B during the setup for your pass, you can still simply watch until your speed stabilizes, then calibrate, and the readout in the sight is irrelevant, because you know that through the E6B. Net effect of removing the display- 0.
How do you know what speed you are calibrated to? You figure you can just open the E6B, calibrate, and be 100% accurate every time? Maybe you can with practice, but a little jump during the calibration and you are off a few mph, and more importantly, you dont know it by looking at the bombsight and comparing it to your E6B.
Easy laser sighting is possible because you match your E6B to the speed indicated in your bombsight, whatever your calibration skill. Those that have better calibration skills SHOULD have better accuracy. Right now, you can do a quick, dirty 2 sec calibration and use the throttle, E6B, and bombsight speed display to correct for your lack of calibration skill, or your extreme high altitude, and hit every time. Without that bombsight display, the chance of error increases, especially at high altitude, which is what we need.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
I know if my speed is stable, my calibration will be fine, regardless of what my speed is. I don't even use the display in the bombsight. It's not skill or practice. There's only 2 things you have do when calibrating- keep your speed steady, and have the crosshairs on the same spot when you press the button, and when you let off.
Let's ask ourselves, what would the game be like without formations? What would change? CVs would have to be sunk by jabos, PTs, or torp planes? Bomber missions would fly at realistic alts, or with escorts, or maybe just in large groups like we used to? It wouldn't be worth the trouble for many people to hunt them, since they'd only get 1 kill, and the threat of one bomber destroying a field or CV is far less than 3 of them.
What would the game breaker be? What is it that I'm missing that would keep you from flying bombers ever again?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I know if my speed is stable, my calibration will be fine, regardless of what my speed is. I don't even use the display in the bombsight. It's not skill or practice. There's only 2 things you have do when calibrating- keep your speed steady, and have the crosshairs on the same spot when you press the button, and when you let off.
Let's ask ourselves, what would the game be like without formations? What would change? CVs would have to be sunk by jabos, PTs, or torp planes? Bomber missions would fly at realistic alts, or with escorts, or maybe just in large groups like we used to? It wouldn't be worth the trouble for many people to hunt them, since they'd only get 1 kill, and the threat of one bomber destroying a field or CV is far less than 3 of them.
What would the game breaker be? What is it that I'm missing that would keep you from flying bombers ever again?
This is a joke. Period. And heres my example. The knights ahve been flying alot more missions in fairy large numbers. And thats due to people flying bombers. Where do u say like we used to fly large groups.
THis thread is a joke. and if the formations were to change I gurantee that you should see a signigificant change inthe bomber community fo rme included. I would also suspect that my squad would also go the route of starting to lose intrest. We would probable just try it out, then it would peter off. and you can have your game back i guess. Franky this thread is ridiculus. Havent seen this much controversy since the Areana split. And all u have to do is look at the great change that did. Now you have 2 areana which are practically unused, and 2 areanas that are full, and we have a hard time getting in to play with friends.
Really this thread at this point needs a moderator to come in and just say were looking into the change or t wont change. Frankly im outta it, just dont want to see anymore nerfing.
Later im out
-
Wooot thinly veiled arena split wine.
Arena split = The gift that keeps on giving.
:D
Bronk
-
i have done the wed senerios were your buffs spawn or fall into a certain altitude,would this be a fix?then with a speed and or bomb sight vertical only (no diving buffs)maybe a little fix
anyone else remember how those senerios work were you spawn in>??its been a long time since ive attended one may be a thing of the past
as i stated i am not against any of the issues you and many even myself have,the real question is there are many gamey things in the game so lm just comenting on one aspect here,gvs pts they spawn so no spawn jokes!
one more thing i was told im owned by skyrock so dont blast me!!!
-
Thank you floatsup. Another strong argument from the canned response probomber lobby. :rolleyes:
Tater, I think we can agree that of the things that put gameplay over realism, bombers are going just a bit far. One player can nuke a V base, or sink a CV, with little to no effort or skill required. You don't think that is upsetting to the general balance of things?
-
i think you are right on.I just think its something that everyone has a opinion on and i think alot of ideas on the bb are great for it,most people in fighters will not attack a buff form because of the guns unless some jerk and i will use me as a example is flying straight into the furbal
i agree alot of the buff stuff is gamey way gamey,i stated that cv hgngers and such should be hardened in someway i by no means am against anything stated in this post,i just think going back to the old 1 buff bomb sight idea is a thing of the past because of the guys who would fly buffs,its kinda a no win issue unless they implement some of the ah2ers ideas,dont take them out make it harder somewere ie speed load perks level armmenent and such
1 last thing though no matter what they fix or not fix someone will figure out how to do what they do,i fly buffs because i dont seem to have the patience to figure out fighters i enjoy the fight to the base am i good at bombing probaly not am i a good shot in one buff i cannot remember 3 yes but i no deep down i have6x3 sets of guns on board but i still get killed by the patient pilots.so it works i guess o yeah if we wouls have the skillless gv base and cv kills would this mean suicide porkers and or armement on attack planes also?
-
Superdud, Hub, and Mars,........You state I have a "good guy " reputation..I supose there are reasons for that. You state you don't care about your or the BK's reputation......I suppose there are reasons for that.
Mars my ugly head as you state only comes out when people like Hub earliear in this post blatantly lie.
Mars just to jar your memory the Bk's didn't ask or request hangers not to be dropped ....being polite is not a Bk trade mark......If I remember correctly it was in the most disrespectful, intimadating, and bullying nature you guys went off on a fellow bomber pilot who was on the same team.
I suppose there are reasons for ones reputation.
999000
Your memory is far from good 999. The problem you had back when you through your hissy fit and left the knights, was you didn't have a clue as to who was doing the "disrespectful, intimadating, and bullying ". It was meddog. Then I flew in a min later, asked why did you bomber guys drop the FHrs when we had a large cap and the VH and city were still up. At that point you blew a gasket and all your nice guy crap went out the window.
And no it is not your reputation that is good, it is just your perception you give off with your "sir this" and "sir that" crap as long as people are doing what you want them to do. Go against you and we, HT and most others that have witnessed your tantrums know your real rep.
Now I am not into drudging old wounds that have healed, but you are the one spewing crap not us. You don't like the retourt stop spewing BS from your lips. :aok
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
-
Thanks Mars,.....I think Your right....not only did we have one member of the community trying to bully in the rudest way I have ever seen a fellow bomber pilot..but your right ..you then piggyback making a terrrible situation worse.
Mars you state I'm a nice guy as long as people are doing what I want them to do.......Funny You choose to be horride because you were worried a vulch fest might end...in psychology 101 this is call projection...blaming others for the very thing you are guilty of.
Mars in regards to the "sirs" etc.. I don't have a problem with being polite, and positive, always have been always will be.
Mars I have also seen a hundred different ways bases have been captured....I have also seen a hundred different ways bases have fail to be captured.... Its good to know you know everything...including how the rest of us should play the game.....YOUR WAY....
Thanks for bringing the details up.
999000
-
Dude your out of control and completely fabricating a story here. All I said verbatim that night was, "Why did you bomber guys drop the Fhrs when the VH and City are still up and we have a complete cap over the field?" And I probably have the film to prove it.
I'm not projecting you are fabricating. You started this purse fight by attacking the BKs and now you are continuing your delusional rant. Your not fooling anyone 999 at least anyone that has seen you act the way you do when you lose it. Personally I think it is pretty funny, so carry on. :aok
-
I had an internet outage.
(in no particular order) Mars, 999000 & al. why don't you PM yourselves instead?
Originally posted by hubsonfire
To take the opposite tack, moot, why do we even have formations?
Hub, like I said before and like it has been proven in the past (hence Hitech's decision to add formations in the first place), bombers are too easy to kill when flying single-ship.
Bombers flew in formations in reality. This is not a "that's how it was" two-bit excuse, it's refering to the simple fact that bomber design for the B17, 24 etc (not the Il2 and others, duh) was intended for formation flying and bomb dropping. Not dive bombing, not single-plane (which you advocate) laser-accurate drops, but large formations to ensure target hit, and survival.
Target hit is a given in AH, since the calibration and dispersion is easy (easier than in reality), so in that sense we would need less bombers to compensate for that plus the fact that there aren't that many targets to match such mass carpet bombing; except for a second major factor: surviving fighters.
Mass bombing raids had to deal with interception by fighters and flak as you know, and in AH this largely offsets the damage bombers can reciprocate, almost single-handedly because of the number of fighters available to simply swarm them when they deem it interesting..
We need formations because bombers would simply be too easy to kill. Because without them, bomber accuracy would have to go up in compensation for the reduced volume of bombs dropped.
And because, hubs, (probably) the whole point of this game is trigger time. You are asking for less trigger time, rather than an accomodation of not-unrealistic bomber modeling (formations, higher dispersion, more difficult calibration (btw where the heck went storm fronts?), more shaking from the gunner positions, less perfectly smooth ride in flight).
You're asking for nerfing rather than more fun, more instagib rather than longer actual fighting leading up to the fragging conclusion.
As for single players being able to ruin a VH.. well that's the same as dying repeatedly to a good gunner, or Lev in dogfights.. would you nerf the spit5 or admit you've simply met your match?
You meet your match in hangar(etc)-killing bombers when you fail to adapt beyond simply furballing, and just refuse to account for the few minutes it takes to set up a foolproof attack on them. All it takes is two wingmen with the right, simple tactics to wrap it up in a few minutes... there are easily at least two fighter planes willing to fry a big lumbering target for every bomber formation in the MA.
Bombers need these: more dispersion, a slightly more difficult calibration that doesnt give new players too hard a time (btw fighter flying is tougher to learn than bombers), but rewards perfect handling, less perfectly smooth gunner aim and ride in the air, and to offset all these, two more drones, if the netcode etc can take it.
-
Moot, I'm not sure where you got the reasons for formations being added, but if I'm understanding you, you're asking for 5 plane formations with no other changes. A calibration routine simple enough that new players can do it without difficulty?
If you can't blindly hit something with 90,000 pounds of ordnance, it can't be hit at all. Do you really think 5 planes will result in any less divebombing, sinking of CVs, or trashing of fields? With that much ord, there's no way 90% of those guys are even going to bother calibrating.
How easy does the game have to be made in order for these guys to play it?
And what does being killed by a player with years of experience have to do with being able to wipe out a field in one pass on autopilot without having to do anything? The guys like lev worked at it, they practiced and setup controls and worked on tactics and gunnery. Random buffer noob just hits x, o, and stabs b repeatedly as he flies over the Vbase. That's a horrible analogy.
HT says that their goal is the make sure the most people have the most fun possible, but bombers allow the least people to have the best chance to affect the most people, with the least effort. Explain to me how that's good. I'm not seeing how it can be.
"fail to adapt beyond simple furballing". Oh, please. Stick to speaking of things that you actually know something about. This topic doesn't seem to be one of those things.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I know if my speed is stable, my calibration will be fine, regardless of what my speed is. I don't even use the display in the bombsight. It's not skill or practice. There's only 2 things you have do when calibrating- keep your speed steady, and have the crosshairs on the same spot when you press the button, and when you let off.
Let's ask ourselves, what would the game be like without formations? What would change? CVs would have to be sunk by jabos, PTs, or torp planes? Bomber missions would fly at realistic alts, or with escorts, or maybe just in large groups like we used to? It wouldn't be worth the trouble for many people to hunt them, since they'd only get 1 kill, and the threat of one bomber destroying a field or CV is far less than 3 of them.
What would the game breaker be? What is it that I'm missing that would keep you from flying bombers ever again?
If you are at 5K, or 10K, its easy to calibrate on a small spot when you zoom in the crosshairs. It's a little more difficult at 20-25K to keep the site on a small spot - couple that with not showing the calibration speed, and you get enough error to make most of the bomber boys lose the laser sight and have to drop more bombs to take out each hanger. The cumulative effect - it takes more bombers to close a base.
Also - you make my point here as well - if your speed is STABLE you can calibrate and have good accuracy. What we can do now with the speed display in the bombsight, is calibrate with our speed still climbing after we have leveled out. If we do a quick and dirty 2 sec calibration, we know exactly how much more we need to accelerate (or throttle back) to keep the laser accuracy and can adjust easily. With the bombsight speed indicator, we've removed the need to be level at a stable speed to get bombing accuracy.
The formations are there for defensive firepower - without AI gunnery at each position, the bombers are at a huge disadvantage vs the fighters and the buff box helps make up for it. I've been on both ends - I've ripped up fighters that engage stupidly, and I've been ripped up by fighters that did it right and took out my drones at angles where I couldn't get a clean shot. I think it is a reasonable compromise system given that we don't have 10 players in each bomber manning each gun position.
Can it be improved - sure. I hate the dive-bombing 4-engine buffs, and I think that could be easily fixed.
1. Make the bombs drop only if the autopilot is on straight and level.
2. Make it so the bomb bay doors do not open unless the bombsight is calibrated.
3. Make it so that the calibration resets to zero (bomb bay doors close automatically / bombs do not drop) if the autopilot kicks off.
That ends dive bombing buffs right there. It isn't possible to dive in, open the doors and spew bombs everywhere anymore. The buff drivers still have a reasonable shot if they go level and calibrate, but if they dive in, level, calibrate at a changing speed, and then drop, accuracy will be poor. They might still get lucky and get the CV, but hey - war is often decided by luck.
They other suggestion (multiply the perks value of buff kills by the number of engines they have) I think would also have the useful effect of making bombers a primary target during a battle. If 3-4 fighters all take out after a buff box because of the bonus perks, I think we'll see the bomber boys forced to wing up and/or take escorts to get to target.
EagleDNY
-
That's interesting about calibrating early, and adjusting your speed just before the drop. I've always let my speed settle before calibrating. I see your point now.
Perking drones, or changing buff eny/obj values, might work to some extent, but perks on the whole don't seem to be an effective way to motivate most people to change their behaviors.
-
LOL Hub, am I speaking chinese or what?
You:
if I'm understanding you, you're asking for 5 plane formations with no other changes.
Me:
Bombers need these: [color=dark red]more dispersion, a slightly more difficult calibration that doesnt give new players too hard a time (btw fighter flying is tougher to learn than bombers), but rewards perfect handling, less perfectly smooth gunner aim and ride in the air, [/color]and to offset all these, two more drones, if the netcode etc can take it.
You: A calibration routine simple enough that new players can do it without difficulty?
Me: a slightly more difficult calibration that doesnt give new players too hard a time (btw fighter flying is tougher to learn than bombers), but rewards perfect handling,
If you can't blindly hit something with 90,000 pounds of ordnance, it can't be hit at all. Do you really think 5 planes will result in any less divebombing, sinking of CVs, or trashing of fields? With that much ord, there's no way 90% of those guys are even going to bother calibrating.
I didn't mention it in this thread, but divebombing should be fixed.. Hitech has said he was looking for a good method. Bombs detonating when jerked too hard.. or not releasing, etc.
Sinking less CVs is not the problem. Hubs are you just biased towards fighters at the expense of bombers?
I said 2 extra drones IF we had the aformentionned modifications (dark red text) properly weighed to balance it all towards less bomber laser accuracy.
And what does being killed by a player with years of experience have to do with being able to wipe out a field in one pass on autopilot without having to do anything?
Who said anything about razing a field like that? I didn't; are you starting to speak for me now? I never asked for such easy bombing, in fact, I said three times already the more difficult things I would add bombers, so that they can't do just what you say in the above quote, nor gun you down as if they were shooting and flying on a perfectly smooth platform.
HT says that their goal is the make sure the most people have the most fun possible, but bombers allow the least people to have the best chance to affect the most people, with the least effort. Explain to me how that's good. I'm not seeing how it can be. [...]
The guys like lev worked at it, they practiced and setup controls and worked on tactics and gunnery.
Which is what I suggest bombers get, a longer learning curve with not too stiff an initial slope.
Unless I should understand you're just intent on a strawman refutal?
HT says that their goal is the make sure the most people have the most fun possible, but bombers allow the least people to have the best chance to affect the most people, with the least effort. Explain to me how that's good. I'm not seeing how it can be.
It's not good, but then it's not exactly true either. All you have to do is take 2 people per formations to kill the buggers. It would not be true at all, if the things I suggested (dark red text if you forgot again) and others like those EagleDNY suggested would be implemented.
"fail to adapt beyond simple furballing". Oh, please. Stick to speaking of things that you actually know something about. This topic doesn't seem to be one of those things.
Don't start with the woe-is-me bleeding heart cryin please :) I respect you, I hope it's mutual, so keep in mind we're discussing things here, not looking for some stupid bickering like others have already tried in this and 98,246 threads before it.
And Hubs, I know about Furballing at least as much as you do, so I am qualified to say it doesn't take much effort from a gang of furballers to kill as many as 4-5 formations.
And all three of EagleDNY's suggestions are good, but #3 is really worth telling Hitech about.. Although it still wouldn't fix near-90degree divers.
-
Perk the formations.
Re-vamp the actual bombing procedure. (I wish i was around for the old way.)
Disable the ability to drop bombs in outside view.
:aok
-
not looking for some stupid bickering like others have already tried in this and 98,246 threads before it.
LOLHROTFFPAOMS hahahahahaha Priceless!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol :lol :lol :aok
-
Moot, you've outquoted me. While I agree with you on some points, it is my opinion that you're not being completely realistic on others.
This doesn't change the facts, your opinions, or mine, and if I come across as being irritated, it is not at you. Good day.
-
Alright Hub.. :)
-
One pilot One plane ..... " NO ? .....
OK, then how about one pilot 3 fighters !
-
Originally posted by CHECKERS
One pilot One plane ..... " NO ? .....
OK, then how about one pilot 3 fighters !
Sure thing. You turn hard. Your drones go poof! I get two easy proxy kills.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Sure thing. You turn hard. Your drones go poof! I get two easy proxy kills.
One of my points exactly ..... You turn with your 3 bommer formations ...
they "go into warping " ...:rolleyes:
-
If they remove buff boxes they should then allow free "trial" accounts to fly buffs only. Bomber numbers need to be increased and significant. They are lacking as it is.