Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Shuckins on August 15, 2007, 12:29:25 PM
-
that you could make, what would it be?
-
Stop threads like this.
[EDIT] I couldn't resist. I was first!
-
Fixing the Mossie
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
that you could make, what would it be?
Eliminate rank.
- oldman
-
BOOMERANG!!! :D :aok
(http://www.adf-serials.com/gallery/albums/Boomerang-A46-122/GA_2A46_122.jpg)
-
Separate the planeset into countries in the MA:
Bish- US/British
Knits- Germans/Italians
Rooks- Russians/Japanese
or something of that sort.
Barring that, make the Axis vs. Allies as popular as the MA is now.
-
Fix the flaps on the P40. Must be a really huge change since it cannot be done for the last 4 years
-
OK, here's my real answer... Bring back the big maps.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Eliminate rank.
- oldman
I'm with ya. Lose the points the perks, the rank. Make it about the flying and fighting.
-
I would fix the Bf109 cockpits' vertical front frames ;)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I'm with ya. Lose the points the perks, the rank. Make it about the flying and fighting.
Yup. Make perks go away and see the arenas flooded with F4U-C's again (and Tempests, of course) :aok
-
No perks = temp/262/ar234/tiger/f4u1c ONLY arena. You can bank on that.
If I were to change 1 thing, I would remove the EW arena, which is just a private playground for score whoring milkrunners, rename the MW arena to EW arena and make sure it's got all the EWA planelist enabled as well (it's relatively "early" compared to LWAs), and I'd remove the AvA, which is just a private playground to a small group of folks. The resulting "EWA" would be removed from the scores, and/or have its own set (better to just remove it).
Barring all THAT, my #1 change would be
STOP LISTING #1 RANKS ON THE MAIN PAGE!. Once you reach a rank of 20 you can go no lower. Anybody that attains a rank of "20" can take over any CV from anybody else with this rank. Rank plays a small part in the game -- can't remove it entirely, but we CAN limit its impact on player abuse.
-
A 2007 damage model.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No perks = temp/262/ar234/tiger/f4u1c ONLY arena. You can bank on that.
If I were to change 1 thing, I would remove the EW arena, which is just a private playground for score whoring milkrunners,
What would be improved for you if our "private playground" would go away?
Just give all arenas seperate scores, and the "milk for rank" problem is solved to a large degree.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I'm with ya. Lose the points the perks, the rank. Make it about the flying and fighting.
Yep
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Just give all arenas seperate scores, and the "milk for rank" problem is solved to a large degree.
Fine point. AvA scores already have nothing to do with non-AvA arenas. I suspect Krusher just wants to have everyone together in one big happy family.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Fix the flaps on the P40. Must be a really huge change since it cannot be done for the last 4 years
I know very little about the P-40 but I do find it a legendary and underrated plane.
What is exactly wrong with its flaps?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
that you could make, what would it be?
Give my P-47 a pair of miniguns. Oh wait...I already have them, and they fire bigger rounds.
-
Have one server set aside strictly for an AH1 MA.
All old maps will be in rotation (mindano, pizza, etc)
Classic small towns, tanktown with tunnels.......
All the FUN things before AH2 :D
-
No ground game...
Bring back the old DA..
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK, here's my real answer... Bring back the big maps.
Yes, yes, yes!
-
Originally posted by FX1
No ground game...
:mad: :furious :mad:
-
Originally posted by Krusty
and I'd remove the AvA, which is just a private playground to a small group of folks.
And you are not invited. :p
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK, here's my real answer... Bring back the big maps.
Winner. :aok
-
add the f14 the zero killer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyjNInIH4Hw
-
I'd like to see real engine management and avionics.
-
Then the new people would be even easier to slaughter!
But i sure would like that!
-
Dogfights would be more realistic, and people would have to be more careful. No more yank and bank noobishness.
-
I'd make the plane lose weight when your landing gear snap off.:rolleyes:
-
Landing gear shouldn't snap off at all from excessive speed. I don't know why simulators insist on doing this, especially at relatively low speeds.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
OK, here's my real answer... Bring back the big maps.
-
Fix the A8.
-C+
-
I'd change the strat.
-
Seaplanes & flying boats!
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Seaplanes & flying boats!
THAT would be awsome. Enabled from the ports, or even airfields if they also have wheels.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Dogfights would be more realistic, and people would have to be more careful. No more yank and bank noobishness.
Good fighters in WWII, like the Fw190 and Spitfire, were pretty much "yank and bank" once in combat. Bad fighters, like the P-38, had a lot of things the pilot had to manage in combat.
-
Bad fighters, like the P-38,
Passes Karnak his fire retardent suit (he'll be needing it )
-
well being able to hit the ammo storage in CV with 100lb bomb :D
travel to exotic lands meet exotic people AND KILL THEM.......US MARINES
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I'm with ya. Lose the points the perks, the rank. Make it about the flying and fighting.
even if they did this though, wouldn't there still be hordes? i mean, last night in lw, i followed a corsair off pretty far from the main furball over TT island,,,,,,,we were fighting, and to be honest, i think he wasn't too far from gettin on my six.......but next i know, there's a tiff, la, and spit ALL commin for me,,,,and i DID see them a ways out, they just got there WAY faster than i expected.......so basicly, although not on too big of a scale, i got ganged. it would seem to me that since this mentality is so ingrained into most pilots in the arenas, it'll continue till some way of making it NOT a good idea to do it comes along.
as for rank.......ya, sometimes i look to see what mine is......but for the most part, all i personally want is good fun fights....be it in furball,(sometimes i feel safer in furball, as everyone's too busy tryin to stay alive to gang a single plane) or 1-1.
anyway, that's my 2 cents.....
<>
john
-
Korea........:cool:
-
How about engine problems, such as a 262 will suddenly flare up sometimes or 163 will suddenly explode when starting up the engine!
It would really be funny to see 163s spontaneously combust!
jk
-
Removing auto-retracting flaps from the game. If I'm dumb enough to keep my flaps out when I go to fast then let me pay the consequences. No need for this hand holding coddling feature.
No, this isn't an excuse to be able to keep my flaps out beyond their limits, it's must wanting to have more control in deciding when my flaps should raise and not having the game deciding it for me.
ack-ack
-
turn off "auto take-off" and laugh as noobs kill them self while taking off. :lol jk:rolleyes:
He-111
Beaufighter
G4M2 betty
....must i say it? JUDY JUDY JUDY
Lagg-3
P-61
Yak-7
Pe-2
and for ze noobs.... B-29!!! bring ze N00kE!!!:D :D
-
I agree with Panzer IV and Ack.
The 262 pilots were trained religiously to not move their throttle controls back and forth too quickly. Flame outs occurred often and in numbers.
Plus the whole flaps thing is understandable. Finding noobs trying to use flaps then jamming them would be so fun to watch. Also, it's an excuse for ME to push my flaps beyond the limits :D
Also more diversity in Italian planes is always welcome. I never fly 'em but some people do and need more choice.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Landing gear shouldn't snap off at all from excessive speed. I don't know why simulators insist on doing this, especially at relatively low speeds.
For once i can agree with you.
They shouldnt snap off, they should bend and stay on that position for ever, they should create a ungodly amount of drag and -g's due to that drag at high speed.
Not what you were counting on tho. :rofl
-
Originally posted by kennyhayes
add the f14 the zero killer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyjNInIH4Hw
aawww...mannnnn........now i'm gonna hafta go rent that movie............
:aok :D
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
I'd like to see real engine management and avionics.
How far you wanna take it Benny? We gonna need oxygen over 10K too? Does my house start on fire if my engine does? :)
I think it becomes overkill to throw too many bells and whistles in to the game, because in the end it still is just that...a game.
You'd end up driving half if not more of the paying customers out the door.
There has to be a middle ground and I think HTC has found it nicely.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Good fighters in WWII, like the Fw190 and Spitfire, were pretty much "yank and bank" once in combat. Bad fighters, like the P-38, had a lot of things the pilot had to manage in combat.
LOL here we go again. According to who karnak? The guys that trained on 38s flew and fought in them quite well. One report by one guy does not a all encompassing truth make.
-
undo the pony's exccesive drag update from last year:aok
-
excessive drag???
every pony I ever saw was able to run like greased lightning.:confused:
-
I'd like to see more importance placed on bombers. Most of all control on spreading out the 3 plane formation for maximum bombing control. That way you can carpet bomb a little better.
-
I'd like to see a pre-set mission planner.
Every 15 minutes or half hour i'd like to see a computer generated mission pop up, so all you'd have to do is click on the plane you want to fly.
They could be based on popular MA missions, or strat destruction missions, like in some scenario's.
There would be a system run count down on country channnel.
Just a loose idea.
-
The strat re-done so that it is useful. Bombers need something more to do than just smash hangers.
More ord options.
Formations for CV based bombers.
Less barracks at bases
Additional Japanese Carrier based planes.
The ability to run your engines rich or lean (you could have an auto setting like trim to help)
Switch the numbers of auto-acks and manned acks. There should be more manned acks and less autos at bases.
Add additional picket destroyers to CV groups, and move them further away from the CV.
Remove the towns. (Why do you need to destroy innocent civilians just because they live near an airfield) Bomb the tower at the base (make it take 8-10k lbs to destroy) and drop your troops there.
Increase local radar ranges. Get rid of DarBar.
Add a 'death penalty' If you die or bail you cannot re-up for X-minutes. Make it progressive. You die, 6 mins, you bail/ditch in enemy territory 5 mins, bail/ditch in friendly territory 4 mins. Would encourage people to actually land.
Reset all perk points to 100. Perk all but a basic set of 4-5 planes. Increase the perk rewards with increased incentive on surviving. Perk the vast majority of the planes. This would also encourage people to survive and land rather than banzai into unwinnable situation and suicide attack fields and CVs
Make it so that landing at the field but not on concrete does not count as a ditch.
And most importantly, introduce people to the fun that is AvA... 2 sides and historic planes sets.
-
A whole couple of bad proposals, but I'll just pick those two:
Originally posted by Tiger
Add a 'death penalty' If you die or bail you cannot re-up for X-minutes. Make it progressive. You die, 6 mins, you bail/ditch in enemy territory 5 mins, bail/ditch in friendly territory 4 mins. Would encourage people to actually land.
That would actually encourage people to stay over own territory and engaging the enmy less often.
And many people do only log in for an hour or so (I have been told there is a real life out there!). I guess they won't be happy when having to spend half of their time sitting in a tower.
Originally posted by Tiger
Reset all perk points to 100. Perk all but a basic set of 4-5 planes. Increase the perk rewards with increased incentive on surviving. Perk the vast majority of the planes.
Noobs would be punished. Veteran players with their experience can soon afford all the better planes again, while new or casual players will try to have fun flying P40B's vs all that latewar planes. Would hardly be good for buissness ;)
-
more ships with the TG. perhaps troop carrying ships, destroy them and you can't use the LVTA2. also ammo carrying ships, destroy them and planes can't use rockets, bombs, and torpedoes.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
How far you wanna take it Benny? We gonna need oxygen over 10K too? Does my house start on fire if my engine does? :)
I think it becomes overkill to throw too many bells and whistles in to the game, because in the end it still is just that...a game.
You'd end up driving half if not more of the paying customers out the door.
My dream is to fly a real Lockheed P-38 Lightning (though not in combat, excepting mock combat). I will, however, never have the opportunity to fly a real P-38, and I also probably won't be able to fly any real airplanes anymore. This game is as close as I can come, and it's a far cry from the real thing. Do you wonder, then, that I want it closer?
Karnak, you're only correct in that the FW-190 was a good fighter because, among other reasons, of its light pilot workload, and that the P-38 did have a relatively heavy pilot workload (at least until the L model). That hardly made it a bad fighter, however, you cretin.
Originally posted by Rich46yo
I'd like to see more importance placed on bombers.
That's funny, I don't know what about "Aces High" implies bombers. There were no aces in bombers.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
That's funny, I don't know what about "Aces High" implies bombers. There were no aces in bombers.
Fortunately HTC claims AH being the "Internet's Premier WWII Combat Experience" and not "Premier Dogfighting Experience". :)
-
it doesnt have to do with buffs its all about aces gettin alt among other things:lol
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Fortunately HTC claims AH being the "Internet's Premier WWII Combat Experience" and not "Premier Dogfighting Experience". :)
Whatever happened to the HT montra of:
"This game is all about pissing off the other guy."
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Whatever happened to the HT montra of:
"This game is all about pissing off the other guy."
That's unofficial, you won't find it on the Homepage ;)
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Fortunately HTC claims AH being the "Internet's Premier WWII Combat Experience" and not "Premier Dogfighting Experience".
That's funny, I don't see any infantry combat.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
That's funny, I don't see any infantry combat.
We are still waiting for it. The journey hasn't ended yet...
-
For infantry comabt push Enter three times.(this is a tried and true technique).
Have fun!
-
Make ALL bases capturable again
Remove arena caps
Put ALL maps back in rotation with a map change every friday.
Go back to the old "win the war" game where you bring one country down to 2 bases
Be able to pork fuel down to 25% like it used to
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Make ALL bases capturable again
Go back to the old "win the war" game where you bring one country down to 2 bases
That would be a horrible thing.
-
It was fine way back then, but the vocal minority cried and stamped their feet long enough to get it changed.
Soon the only map that will be available is the horrid islands map with a TT that seems to be up for weeks at a time. All the rest are too fun, so naturally they arent there anymore.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
It was fine way back then, but the vocal minority cried and stamped their feet long enough to get it changed.
Interestingly I do not recall any proposal or campainging (=crying and feet stomping) on this board for this new win-teh-war rules.
Maybe you are part of the feet-stomping vocal minority right now?
There would be other, better ways to handle a slow map rotation than reintroducing the same old constant dogpiling on only one country (knights). Now at one point both bigger countries are forced to face each other at some point. One of the best changes ever introduced.
-
That's funny, I don't know what about "Aces High" implies bombers. There were no aces in bombers. [/B]
yes the gunners in the bombers acually became aces because it's harder to kill a fighter in a bomber than a fighter
-
Originally posted by Tiger
Switch the numbers of auto-acks and manned acks. There should be more manned acks and less autos at bases.
so you can milk run undefended bases easier? Go killer!
Remove the towns. (Why do you need to destroy innocent civilians just because they live near an airfield) Bomb the tower at the base (make it take 8-10k lbs to destroy) and drop your troops there.
It's not war if you can't kill innocent civilians. It's called collateral damage. It's their stupid fault to plant the old homestead next to a military target. They deserve to die, especially those little bastards in the orphanage.
Add a 'death penalty' If you die or bail you cannot re-up for X-minutes. Make it progressive. You die, 6 mins, you bail/ditch in enemy territory 5 mins, bail/ditch in friendly territory 4 mins. Would encourage people to actually land.
No, it would encourage to 1)log off because they don't want to wait or 2) to fly like timid little gits. Both would result in less fights in an arena full of timid players.
Reset all perk points to 100. Perk all but a basic set of 4-5 planes. Increase the perk rewards with increased incentive on surviving. Perk the vast majority of the planes. This would also encourage people to survive and land rather than banzai into unwinnable situation and suicide attack fields and CVs.
There is already enough incentive for someone to land their plane after a successful mission. There is no reason why you have to encourage timid flying, unless you're that sort of flyer yourself.
ack-ack
-
My "Death Penalty" suggestion was never meant to make people more timid. It was meant as a way to put an end to the banzai charges at bases, reduce the number of CV dive bombing Lancs, and add a penalty to the bomb & bailers.
-
I) Give the Stuka's their siren. :D
and add the variants Ju87 D5, with 20mm wing cannons, or the G1 with 37mm wing cannons. And a Ju87 T for carrier opperations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87
II) 109T with the tail hook and larger wings and stuff?
Modified Bf 109E-3's I guess... a 109 off a carrier... would be nice. :cool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bf109T_3Seiten_neu.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
Which would have flown from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin
De-nersquealing the entire luftwaffe?... would be too much to ask. :cry
Schlowy2
-
Hi,
i would like to see the aaa and flak hitting straint flying planes, while wild rolling and tunring planes should be rather safe.
Currently the best way to deack a field is to line up to some aaa´s, keep a strait flight and shoot the aaa´s in a line, then disenage in a strait flight, once out of range, turn again and do the same untill all aaa´s are down.
Once you turn, inside the gun range, you will be dead.
I only can guess this is not very realistic. This make vulching and deacking rather easy.
Another point is: The fields should get a manned Flak (similar to the 5" hard gun on the CV´s), but the Flak effect should be downrated.
Currently the manned aaa isnt very effective against flying targets, while the 5" ship gun kill all and everything very easy on some miles distance.
Just and idea. :)
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Seems to me there is loads of stuf HTC has "ongoing" any way. To a point where if it is not in the pipeline now it will be.
I find myself agreeing with updating various ac and their damage models which could also include stuff like the auto retracting flap which is not intune with e.g. the gear damage model. I believe however that this is something HTC would like to do.
Equally I can agree with the reward/scoring/ranking system being revisited which I understand it is to be. However there are so many differing agendas across the player base on this subject that it seems to be a hard one to define if it is to be substantially different to what it is now.
What (IMO)has a significant bearing on arena game play and is "very old" in terms of its application is the AH arena strat/game model.
What ever we individually think the game play purpose of AH should be the arena/terrain game-play architecture is based upon a contest between three sides where the side able to dominate the arena via field capture becomes the eventual winner.
We know the model we have towns, map-rooms, strat, logistics, spawn points etc.
There are many alternatives and many of them would show IMO considerable advances in air combat and ground based game play whilst also re creating tactical/strategic environments more similar to those experienced in WWII.
I would therefore present the need to establish the criteria for the next generation of AH arena strat/game model.
-
I,d like to get credit for killing fighters that are attacking my buffs.
One half way decent pilot can knock down a formation of bombers.
Its really not that hard.
And the attacker will get 3 kills.
Bomber holds off an attacker for 10 minutes and finally shoots him down?
Nothing.
God forbid you get a gaggle of guys attacking you, your chances are slim and none.
Guys can sit in gvs and spawn camp all nite long, and they get credit towards their score for every cheap kill they get.
I actually fight off the enemy and get nothing.
And don,t give me that lazer beam bomber guns crap----buffs are an easy target.
Try flyin at 10k over an enemy base sometime and see how long you last.
You'll have 12 guys on you in no time.
And you'll be dead.
-
Originally posted by 1Boner
One half way decent pilot can knock down a formation of bombers.
Its really not that hard.
Actually, against the bombers with full coverage flown by a guy who knows his stuff, it's impossible. You will be killed even using the correct tactics. He has far more guns than you, and can shoot no matter where you are relative to him and where he is relative to you, as long as you're in range. That means that even when you can't shoot him (as in, when diving away after a vertical pass), you'll still get hit. Bombers in this game are for wimps. It takes patience and a lot of gunnery skill, but absolutely no flying skill. It takes even less flying ability than a Spitfire 16.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Actually, against the bombers with full coverage flown by a guy who knows his stuff, it's impossible.
Unless the fighter pilot also knows his stuff, then the buff pilot is in deep dodo again, no matter how skilled he is.... :rolleyes:
-
Bombers in this game are for wimps. It takes patience and a lot of gunnery skill, but absolutely no flying skill. It takes even less flying ability than a Spitfire 16.< Benny Moore>
How can you argue with that kind of logic?
Wow,
Boner
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Actually, against the bombers with full coverage flown by a guy who knows his stuff, it's impossible. You will be killed even using the correct tactics. He has far more guns than you, and can shoot no matter where you are relative to him and where he is relative to you, as long as you're in range. That means that even when you can't shoot him (as in, when diving away after a vertical pass), you'll still get hit. Bombers in this game are for wimps. It takes patience and a lot of gunnery skill, but absolutely no flying skill. It takes even less flying ability than a Spitfire 16.
Well maybe we think flying fighters takes no flying skill, and are for wimps. Imagine thinking that someone takes 3 Buffs into enemy territory alone, successfully takes out targets, and survives the fighters and ack, turns around and makes it home? Imagine that taking no skill?
I suspect during the war fighter pilots thought the same thing, tho you never caught one of them flying a 70,000 lb bomber, loaded with 4,000 gallons of gas and 6,000 lbs of bombs, within 300' of 6 other bombers. Boy if I want an easy day I'll fly a fighter around, chasing my tail in a firball. A hard day is flying a B-24 in BOX.
There are also very few fighter pilots that know how to take on bombers. Last night I had a guy in a spit circle my 24s, no doubt thinking he was slick, and he didnt notice I gradually cut power to get him to 1,000', where he probably thought he was still safe. A 2 sec burst taught him otherwise.
That took a lot of hours in a bomber to learn that lead, to learn to get them to target, take it out, and get them home. And one thing it wasnt was "easy". Luckily Ive found "fighters in this game are for wimps.;)
Lusche is one guy who "knows how to take on bombers". Flying around in his German rocket ship of his against a stick like that, in a fighter like that, its almost impossable to defend against. The best way to do so is avoid him, avoid the radar, plan well, be patient...ect. And thats another thing, the very good bomber sticks are generally very smart. And "older", which means they have wisdom.
-
Originally posted by 1Boner
Bombers in this game are for wimps. It takes patience and a lot of gunnery skill, but absolutely no flying skill. It takes even less flying ability than a Spitfire 16.< Benny Moore>
How can you argue with that kind of logic?
Wow,
Boner
You can't, you just laugh at it because it's a funnier joke knowing the person believes it.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
That's funny, I don't know what about "Aces High" implies bombers. There were no aces in bombers. [/B]
US gunners gave a remarkable account of themselves. In Eighth Air Force, bombers claimed 6,259 enemy aircraft destroyed, 1,836 probables, and 3,210 damaged. On all counts, the record topped that of the Eighth's fighter pilots. Other heavy, medium, and light bomber units showed similar records.
Some units gave the gunners more recognition, and some of their stories have survived. In 1989, for example, the newsletter of the 99th Bomb Group Historical Society reprinted an old article from Impact Magazine titled "Our Only Enlisted Man to Become an Air Ace." The subject was SSgt. Benjamin Warmer, who joined the 99th as a B-17 waist gunner and flew during the invasion of Italy. The piece credits Sergeant Warmer with shooting down two planes on a mission to Naples and seven more during a strike against German airfields on Sicily.
Sergeant Warmer's story also is recounted in a 1986 book, Aerial Gunners: The Unknown Aces of World War II, by Charles Watry and Duane Hall. The book confirms Warmer's nine kills but challenges the claim that he was the only enlisted gunner ace in World War II. It names several others, including three noncommissioned officers who flew with the Army Air Forces.
Aerial Gunners reports that, in the China-Burma-India theater, TSgt. Arthur P. Benko may have downed nine planes and TSgt. George W. Gouldthrite five. Watry and Hall also credit SSgt. John P. Quinlan with five victories in Europe and three in the Pacific. Sergeant Quinlan was the tail gunner of Memphis Belle, the B-17 bomber that became the subject of a wartime documentary and a recent fictionalized movie. Neither Sergeant Quinlan's name nor those of the other three airmen appear on USAF's official list of aces.
Source: Air Force Magazine Online
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0491aces.asp (http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0491aces.asp)
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Unless the fighter pilot also knows his stuff, then the buff pilot is in deep dodo again, no matter how skilled he is...
You're quite wrong. If both players are equally skilled gunners, then there's nothing the fighter pilot can do. The bomber has several times the fighter's firepower, and it can fire regardless of either aircraft's orientation. The fighter can only fire when it is facing the bomber, and the bomber can return fire at this time (with more firepower, remember). Now when the fighter stops facing the bomber (when he dives past the bomber, for instance), the bomber still gets to fire at him, and now the fighter can't fire back.
You people claiming that it takes flying skill to fight in a bomber are fools. You don't manuever in a bomber; you fly pretty much straight and level and gun the other guy down, and no maneuver he does will save him. As I said, it takes gunnery skill to get survive in a bomber, but no flying skill.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Well maybe we think flying fighters takes no flying skill, and are for wimps. Imagine thinking that someone takes 3 Buffs into enemy territory alone, successfully takes out targets, and survives the fighters and ack, turns around and makes it home? Imagine that taking no skill?
That took a lot of hours in a bomber to learn that lead, to learn to get them to target, take it out, and get them home. And one thing it wasnt was "easy".
Hey moron, learn to read. Re-read my post. I said no flying skill. I also expressely stated that it did take gunnery skill. Maybe if you had half a brain, you'd realize that there's a difference. Flying skill is the ability to maneuver your airplane (fighters require this, bombers do not. If you can't get that, then you're hopeless). Gunnery skill is the ability to estimate the correct point at which to shoot in order to hit a target.
I'm sick of you fruitcakes ignoring half of my post, taking my words out of context, and twisting them to fit your dishonest agendas. And Ack-Ack, you can kiss my double empennage.
-
Originally posted by 475FG Savlan
US gunners gave a remarkable account of themselves.
No matter how well-meaning, the account was mostly in their minds. Post-war review of enemy aircraft losses showed that the bomber gunners' claims were wildly exaggerated.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Hey moron, learn to read. Re-read my post. I said no flying skill. I also expressely stated that it did take gunnery skill. Maybe if you had half a brain, you'd realize that there's a difference. Flying skill is the ability to maneuver your airplane (fighters require this, bombers do not. If you can't get that, then you're hopeless). Gunnery skill is the ability to estimate the correct point at which to shoot in order to hit a target.
I'm sick of you fruitcakes ignoring half of my post, taking my words out of context, and twisting them to fit your dishonest agendas. And Ack-Ack, you can kiss my double empennage.
Your a fool boy. just an all around fool. And now joining some other "all around fools" on my ignore list.
What makes a "fool"? Its a fool who resorts to name calling in a thread. Frankly im a little surprised AH tolerates so many like this boy.
-
This place has an ignore list? Yes!! This has made my day. Bye-bye, idiot who can't comprehend simple definitions.
-
Hey moron, learn to read. Re-read my post. I said no flying skill. I also expressely stated that it did take gunnery skill. Maybe if you had half a brain, you'd realize that there's a difference. Flying skill is the ability to maneuver your airplane (fighters require this, bombers do not. If you can't get that, then you're hopeless). Gunnery skill is the ability to estimate the correct point at which to shoot in order to hit a target.
I'm sick of you fruitcakes ignoring half of my post, taking my words out of context, and twisting them to fit your dishonest agendas. And Ack-Ack, you can kiss my double empennage.
__________________
Flying online as "Benny,"
Benny Moore
You don,t even fly in the MA arenas do you.
I didn,t think you did.
Anyone who does, knows the difficulties of defending bombers.
Still absolutley amazed,
Boner
-
"Pearl of the sky" would be a greate addition to plane set.:aok
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
You're quite wrong. If both players are equally skilled gunners, then there's nothing the fighter pilot can do. The bomber has several times the fighter's firepower, and it can fire regardless of either aircraft's orientation. The fighter can only fire when it is facing the bomber, and the bomber can return fire at this time (with more firepower, remember). Now when the fighter stops facing the bomber (when he dives past the bomber, for instance), the bomber still gets to fire at him, and now the fighter can't fire back.
(...)
You don't manuever in a bomber; you fly pretty much straight and level and gun the other guy down, and no maneuver he does will save him.
I call BS... completely BS.
There are many ways to give a buff gunner a hard time hitting the fighter. Your little description is only valid for the 6oclock attackers, who fly straight and level after the attack.
-
That's not true. I attack bombers from directly above, leading them properly so that I don't lag onto their tails. I attack from above, make one high-speed pass, and dive away. It's the proper recommended attack (although, interestingly, a lot of real life pilots chose the dead six attack, even aces). The other way I attack bombers is the frontal pass, going for the cockpit shot. This is also proper tactics.
The cold, hard fact is that any time you are shooting at the bomber, he can shoot back—and he has far more firepower. As if that weren't enough, he can also shoot at you when you are no longer facing him. And with perhaps a dozen guns on you, he's going to hit you if he's any good at bomber gunnery.
The only time it's an even fight is if the fighter has thirty millimeter cannons. And even then, it's the same as a head-on pass (only the bomber can keep firing at you even after you no longer can). No flying skill, just gunnery.
-
The "cold hard fact is": If you do high speed slashing attacks on a bomber, the buff gunner has more trouble hitting the fighter than vice versa. He has 3 different angles to track, and each of them is changing rapidly.
Also he can't always use all of his firepower, which is further reduced by having a fixed 600yds convergence. Only very good buff gunners do have a better chance of success, and they are quite rare in this game.
Also don't just dive straight away after the bomber...
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
No matter how well-meaning, the account was mostly in their minds. Post-war review of enemy aircraft losses showed that the bomber gunners' claims were wildly exaggerated.
- oldman
Agreed, oldman. Im sure many gunners in several buffs all made claims on the same enemy a/c they were shooting at and saw go down. Hence, the bloated USAF stats.
However, I wouldnt totally disregard the 3 documented gunner aces, that certainly sounds plausible in a war that went on for several years with thousands of sorties. The poster stated that there was never a gunner ace, I was curious and did a little googling.
Anyhow, that was a cut and paste from the web page I sited, not my words :)
-
One of the things talked about for the DGS scenario is not posting logs until the end of the scenario.
Instead we'd have folks do combat reports for their claims and do the tallies from that
we're curious as to whether that overclaiming would show itself in the scenario, in particular with bomber gunners.
It would also be interesting to see how close the fighter claims would be to actual losses etc.
-
Guppy35,
I think the holding of results for general consumption is a great idea. I hope it is implemented.
-
I'd add a 15 kiloton bomb for 50k perk points. Complete with graphic effects and strange orange/greenish glow.