Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: caldera on June 29, 2008, 10:13:54 PM
-
This is probably not a new idea, but how about a light perk on all the heavy bombers? A small perk of 10-15 on the B-17, B-24 and Lanc would encourage more light/medium bomber use. This (might) discourage Lanc-Stuka style antics and provide a real use for bomber perks. AR234s are not worth the perks or really the time to fly them (my opinion of course). It wouldn't take too long for newer people to scrape together the perks to fly the heavies if the numbers are kept reasonable.
BTW i tried to surch but can't spell that word. sorry :)
-
If you Perk the b-17/b-24/Lanc the super noobs will have nothing to do, they need all the 1000's they can get to hit the mark. And they would deffinatly never hit any CVs.
-
This is probably not a new idea, but how about a light perk on all the heavy bombers? A small perk of 10-15 on the B-17, B-24 and Lanc would encourage more light/medium bomber use. This (might) discourage Lanc-Stuka style antics and provide a real use for bomber perks. AR234s are not worth the perks or really the time to fly them (my opinion of course). It wouldn't take too long for newer people to scrape together the perks to fly the heavies if the numbers are kept reasonable.
BTW i tried to surch but can't spell that word. sorry :)
Having had many a B-17 fall to lazer-ack, I am somewhat against this, but I guess as long as its MAYBE 5 perks tops for the heavies it isn't too bad. Lanc should be perked most, IMHO, then the Lib, (Second greatest bomb load) and the Fortress the lightest.
-
Lanc should be perked most, IMHO, then the Lib, (Second greatest bomb load) and the Fortress the lightest.
Except that the Lanc is the most lightly defended (read easiest to kill), the B-24 lights up as quick as a Zeke (read second easiest to kill) while the B-17 can be a bear to take down.
I don't think they need to be perked. People just need to get out and fly the other buffs. I took a strat run in a set of Bostons last night. 0-16,500 feet in one sector, 315 mph at my first drop and over 200,000 points for the run. Not bad for 4x500 lb bombs.
-
When you perk the heavies, people won't up light bombers like Ju87, TBM, Bostons - they will use heavy fighters like P47 or F4U that can often carry more ords and have a lot more firepower to strafe things down.
-
When you perk the heavies, people won't up light bombers like Ju87, TBM, Bostons - they will use heavy fighters like P47 or F4U that can often carry more ords and have a lot more firepower to strafe things down.
Until 1ks on fighters get perked. I think that would go a long way towards putting fighters and bombers into their traditional roles.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Until 1ks on fighters get perked. I think that would go a long way towards putting fighters and bombers into their traditional roles.
Regards,
Hammer
That's what I was always hoping to get when there was the first official mention of "perked ords system" a long time ago.
-
I wouldn't mind that on fighters, but definitely think medium bombers have a role in this game.
I brought up the idea of perking the 4-engine bombers probably a year ago and after much debate was laughed at.
I'm glad to see folks have given it time to percolate.
Regarding the lancs: They are easiest to attack, perhaps, but unless you get a cockpit kill, they are the most buggiest with damage modeling (damage disappears, components way too strong, etc). If they are ever remodeled to the quality of the B-17/B-24 and the damage model is revisited during this process, then I agree they will be the most vulnerable. As they stand now they're the hardest to catch and kill because it takes more rounds than on the others.
Oh, and 2x over the past week I've been directly below a lanc after making a pass and both the nose and tail guns have shot directly below the plane and hit me many times (often disabling my oil or some vital component).
We're talking directly below the plane's bomb bays here, 500d and diving away perhaps, and getting nailed. No other cons in the sector.
The plane is so buggy it's hardly defenseless (I say bug, not the c-word)
-
What CAN be done to make people fly attack/bomber sorties more realistically-I.E., get some alt and make SOME attempt to survive?
I mean, I see jabo planes and buffs coming in lone-wolf style to bases crawling with friendly fighters all the time, dump their ords, THEN come back and suicide trying to strafe down the ack. The problem is, this sort of thing can work well and makes air superiority less important than it should be. The buff/jabo pilot managing to RTB is for all intents and purposes less effective than his counterpart who dies and re-ups instantly.
You could put some kind of severe penalty in terms of credit awarded-but "win the war" types might not care and bomb&bail anyway, and rank types might devolve totally to milk running. It is a quandry.
Heres ibe idea I've heard before for using buff perks: Perk the formation, AND allow players to expand the formation beyond 3 with additional perk points.
-
No more than 3 planes. They already get 2 extra lives and 10x the guns pointed at any single attacking con as ever happened historically.
Oh, and if the 4-engines are perked, the drones will also be perked to boot. Keep that in mind.
Somebody had a discussion with Hitech once (last con's podcast??) about reversing damage done if a plane suicide-dives in, by having the code somehow time the bombs and the death of the player, and if within such and such a window, the damage is reversed.
If I recall, Hitech was open to the idea. Guess it's just a matter of priorities.
-
I used to fly KI-67s for perks. While they dont drop much bombs I'd always get 3 to 5 low eny fighters that strayed to close. 67s are so fast fighters cant really setup on them easily and they usually come in stupid.
If your going to come in flat against them I'll giveya a hint. Shoot for the tail gunner of the #1 plane. You probably wont survive anyway but thats the best way to come in flat.
-
No more than 3 planes. They already get 2 extra lives and 10x the guns pointed at any single attacking con as ever happened historically.
Oh, and if the 4-engines are perked, the drones will also be perked to boot. Keep that in mind.
Somebody had a discussion with Hitech once (last con's podcast??) about reversing damage done if a plane suicide-dives in, by having the code somehow time the bombs and the death of the player, and if within such and such a window, the damage is reversed.
If I recall, Hitech was open to the idea. Guess it's just a matter of priorities.
That would be quite hard to code. What if someone shot the bombers down right after the hangers were hit. What if someone tagged them but the bombers evaded the attack, and bombed the hangers, but the bailed right after, registering the kill to the attacker.
-
I'm sure they can figure out all that in the code.
It's been a while. Maybe they were thinking of suicide bombers, that eject or auger after dropping?
Still, that would help reduce it a bit.
-
Thank you all for replying. :salute I don't for a minute think the heavies actually need to be perked, but was just brainstorming (yes it's a small brain). ;) The idea has both merit and faults as you all have pointed out. I like the perked ordinance idea as well as the perked formation. i still like krusty's plan of perking the heavies too (must give credit where it's due).
B-24 - 3 perks per plane
B-17 - 4 perks per plane
Lanc - 5 perks per plane
-
That would be quite hard to code. What if someone shot the bombers down right after the hangers were hit. What if someone tagged them but the bombers evaded the attack, and bombed the hangers, but the bailed right after, registering the kill to the attacker.
That would be bomb and bail dweebery... I see no problem...
-
Our lanc should be perked anyway considering its a "field mod".
-
I like it but how about the first heavy is free. If you want to add planes to the formation it'll cost ya
B-24 - 3 perks per plane
B-17 - 4 perks per plane
Lanc - 5 perks per plane
Let you add up to 5 total planes
That allows new people to the game to fly them but they'll have to earn the right to get a formation. Bomber perks are so easy to get it shouldn't be that big of a deal.
-
I like it but how about the first heavy is free. If you want to add planes to the formation it'll cost ya
B-24 - 3 perks per plane
B-17 - 4 perks per plane
Lanc - 5 perks per plane
Let you add up to 5 total planes
That allows new people to the game to fly them but they'll have to earn the right to get a formation. Bomber perks are so easy to get it shouldn't be that big of a deal.
Switch the 17s and 24s. BUFFs should be perked by ordinance.
-
Our lanc should be perked anyway considering its a "field mod".
No it isn't. Many Lancaster IIIs came from the factory with the dual .50 cal tail turret.
Also, perking heavy bombers is stupid. They already pay a penalty compared to medium bombers in that they are slow and easy to hit.
Perking the 1000lbers on fighters is a good idea though.
-
No it isn't. Many Lancaster IIIs came from the factory with the dual .50 cal tail turret.
Also, perking heavy bombers is stupid. They already pay a penalty compared to medium bombers in that they are slow and easy to hit.
Perking the 1000lbers on fighters is a good idea though.
But they carry a much heavier bomb-load and have increased survivability due to a heavier defensive armament. Im a BUFF guy, and while I don't want to see my heavies get perked, I would like to see the mediums become more popular.
-
I used to fly Lancs almost exclusively. I still love them but rarely fly them anymore. Almost all my buff missions are in AR234's, Bostons or Stukas. Far less time per sortie, better survivability (speed works better than guns and the Stuka can actually dog-fight... so can the Boston) and almost as many points.
I think people are just drawn to the big ord loads and the "legend" of the heavies. No need to perk them.
Plus, I love buff hunting in fighters. Perking the heavies would reduce some of my fun :D
-
Switch the 17s and 24s. BUFFs should be perked by ordinance.
B-17 should be the top of the list. Then B-24s and then Lancs. Only reason the B-24s beat the lancs is the fact that the B-24's have more guns. If your #3 engine is killed, you loose hydraulic power (IIRC) and you're gonna go down.
-
For me the solution is introduce a proper fast Mossie bomber formation and perk it. Too fast to catch up high and a decent bomb load. 6x500lb could take down the hangers, at least 2 plus quick climb and in and out fast. The Cookie would be great invidually for towns and factories individually or in formation.
Bomb quick and back to base and not all that warming up time on the 234
Perfect :rock
The 234 is just not worth it as the only perked bomber late war.
-
B-17 should be the top of the list. Then B-24s and then Lancs. Only reason the B-24s beat the lancs is the fact that the B-24's have more guns. If your #3 engine is killed, you loose hydraulic power (IIRC) and you're gonna go down.
The guns on these planes arent the issue. Most people dont know how to use them. However, its the bomb load that makes them dangerous, because you dont need any skill to dive-bomb a lancaster. The perk system in place perks aircraft by their effect on MA play. Fighters are perked for their firepower if they are unusually strong (F4U-1C, Me-163, Me-262), speed if they are unusually fast (Ar-234, Me-262, Me-163, Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV), maneuverability/capability (Tempest, F4U4). They are perked in relation for what they do best. So unless the issue is bombers acting as gunships, (Which it definately ISN'T) the only other effect they can possibly have on the main arena is their bomb load. So, logically, they must be perked in realtion to the ammount of ordinance they carry. So to break that down, Lancasters carry ~14,000lbs of bombs, B-24s carry ~8,000lbs, and B-17s carry ~6,000lbs. So, Lancaster has the highest perk, then B-24, then B-17.
-
Lancs are so easy to take down. It would be crazy to perk them.
-
Serenity, what good is the bomb load if the platform can't get it to target?
Historically these planes were DOGMEAT to even a few fighters. In this game they can literally outfly all but the fastest planes, outgun every plane (I've seen instant kills from bombers on every plane in the game, no matter how heavy the attacking fighter's weaponry was).
The bombs are not an issue. The issue is that the bombers fly full throttle 100% of the time, climbing faster than they ever did historically, levelling faster, outruning fighters faster than they ever did historically, and on top of that this super-speed compounds existing problems with the lethal guns setup. (Guns would be fine if the plane wasn't moving 2x historical cruising speeds, but as-is they reduce all planes to sitting in tail chase, making them easy targets).
It's not the bombs. A B-25 carries the same 1k bomb as a B-26, as the Ju88, as the B-17, B-24, and Lanc.
The difference is that the bigger bombers are faster, much better defended, and will get to the target and drop the ord more than light bombers will.
Lanc isn't as well defended, but it's buggy-as-hell to kill and still quite survivable.
-
Serenity, what good is the bomb load if the platform can't get it to target?
Historically these planes were DOGMEAT to even a few fighters. In this game they can literally outfly all but the fastest planes, outgun every plane (I've seen instant kills from bombers on every plane in the game, no matter how heavy the attacking fighter's weaponry was).
The bombs are not an issue. The issue is that the bombers fly full throttle 100% of the time, climbing faster than they ever did historically, levelling faster, outruning fighters faster than they ever did historically, and on top of that this super-speed compounds existing problems with the lethal guns setup. (Guns would be fine if the plane wasn't moving 2x historical cruising speeds, but as-is they reduce all planes to sitting in tail chase, making them easy targets).
It's not the bombs. A B-25 carries the same 1k bomb as a B-26, as the Ju88, as the B-17, B-24, and Lanc.
The difference is that the bigger bombers are faster, much better defended, and will get to the target and drop the ord more than light bombers will.
Lanc isn't as well defended, but it's buggy-as-hell to kill and still quite survivable.
While they might carry the SAME bomb, the Lancaster carries more of them. If you are going to perk bombers, perk them by their ordinance load. Or fine, perk them by speed! The B-24 is a few knots faster than the 17, so its STILL perked more, and the lancaster's speed doesnt matter, because with its MASSIVE bomb load in comparison to all others, it would HAVE to be perked the most or you would be irresponsible. Either way, the order is the same one I put forth.
-
The bombload doesn't matter between lancs and b24s. B24s have 8k, lancs have up to 14k. The real issue is that the bombers are too hard to intercept before they RELEASE their load.
On top of that, any single bomber can only drop so many bombs (best you can hope for is 2 separate targets in one pass on an airfield) before having to extend and come around in 5 more minutes.
The problem is they CAN do so repeatedly, 4,5,6 times over and over without being destroyed by ack, without being shot down by fighters, and without obstacle, because their performance is unhistorically superior to the real thing.
You limit their speed to historical cruise speeds and they will have a MUCH harder time climbing to alt, a MUCH harder time getting to the target for 1 pass, let alone 5 or 6, and a MUCH MUCH harder time shooting down 4 enemy fighters in a sortie and landing with all drones intact.
The speed and climb and weight performance issues are the cause of the other problems. It's a chain reaction. Guns are okay, by themselves. Bombs are okay, by themselves. Put them on a platform that flies unmolested around enemy fields too fast to climb up to, and viola you all of a sudden have a super weapon. You slow it down and all of a sudden things start working out a LOT more realistically (as they should IMO)
-
The bombload doesn't matter between lancs and b24s. B24s have 8k, lancs have up to 14k. The real issue is that the bombers are too hard to intercept before they RELEASE their load.
On top of that, any single bomber can only drop so many bombs (best you can hope for is 2 separate targets in one pass on an airfield) before having to extend and come around in 5 more minutes.
The problem is they CAN do so repeatedly, 4,5,6 times over and over without being destroyed by ack, without being shot down by fighters, and without obstacle, because their performance is unhistorically superior to the real thing.
You limit their speed to historical cruise speeds and they will have a MUCH harder time climbing to alt, a MUCH harder time getting to the target for 1 pass, let alone 5 or 6, and a MUCH MUCH harder time shooting down 4 enemy fighters in a sortie and landing with all drones intact.
The speed and climb and weight performance issues are the cause of the other problems. It's a chain reaction. Guns are okay, by themselves. Bombs are okay, by themselves. Put them on a platform that flies unmolested around enemy fields too fast to climb up to, and viola you all of a sudden have a super weapon. You slow it down and all of a sudden things start working out a LOT more realistically (as they should IMO)
Alright, I understand what you mean, but I don't understand your goal. Are you saying the B-24 should be perked highest, then B-17, then Lancaster? Or are you saying to remodel the planes?
-
I'd like a re-coding of the way bomber engines work. They weren't meant to run redlined like fighters did during combat. Even during the heat of combat, the heavy bombers still cruised in formations.
However, seeing as that won't happen anytime soon, in regards to this perk idea, I think the B-24s by a large margin outperform the B-17s at alt and at speed. The engines are much more effective. The lancasters are fast but only have 3 turrets, and since they are less heavily defended, based on their ability to absorb damage, and personal opinion, I'd say B24s the most, B17s next, and then lancs. Leave all twin-engines unperked.
Perhaps 7 perks B-24, 6 perks B-17, 5 perks Lancs?
With that in mind, I forsee a lot of B-26s in the future, but these are easier to intercept given full-frakkin'-throttle habits in the mains.
-
I'd like a re-coding of the way bomber engines work. They weren't meant to run redlined like fighters did during combat. Even during the heat of combat, the heavy bombers still cruised in formations.
However, seeing as that won't happen anytime soon, in regards to this perk idea, I think the B-24s by a large margin outperform the B-17s at alt and at speed. The engines are much more effective. The lancasters are fast but only have 3 turrets, and since they are less heavily defended, based on their ability to absorb damage, and personal opinion, I'd say B24s the most, B17s next, and then lancs. Leave all twin-engines unperked.
Perhaps 7 perks B-24, 6 perks B-17, 5 perks Lancs?
With that in mind, I forsee a lot of B-26s in the future, but these are easier to intercept given full-frakkin'-throttle habits in the mains.
Im sorry, but I cannot possibly consider Lancasters being perked lower than a B-17. Even though it may have more turrets, that bomb load DOES have an effect.
-
Im sorry, but I cannot possibly consider Lancasters being perked lower than a B-17. Even though it may have more turrets, that bomb load DOES have an effect.
Perk the Boston!
-
For what it's worth here's my K/D rate against each of the three heavies over the past 6 months as a guage. These have come mostly in, in order, the Spit XVI, FW190A-8 and BF109K-4 from every concievable attack angle (of these the Spit is the most dangerous to attack with, the A-8 the least):
B-17 - 1.78
B-24 - 3.90
Lanc - 3.62
-
For what it's worth here's my K/D rate against each of the three heavies over the past 6 months as a guage. These have come mostly in, in order, the Spit XVI, FW190A-8 and BF109K-4 from every concievable attack angle (of these the Spit is the most dangerous to attack with, the A-8 the least):
B-17 - 1.78
B-24 - 3.90
Lanc - 3.62
May I be the first to say, that is pretty darn telling.
-
(of these the Spit is the most dangerous to attack with, the A-8 the least):
Youre... youre joking right? When I see a 190A8 coming at my B-17s, I find myself thinking "This is gonna hurt..." When I see a spit, all I think is "Dinner!"
-
Youre... youre joking right? When I see a 190A8 coming at my B-17s, I find myself thinking "This is gonna hurt..." When I see a spit, all I think is "Dinner!"
I meant dangerous to me, the fighter pilot. That's why I said most dangerous to attack WITH.
-
Im sorry, but I cannot possibly consider Lancasters being perked lower than a B-17. Even though it may have more turrets, that bomb load DOES have an effect.
Well then consider perking them all the same. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Also if there would be a perk allow more flexibility with the spread and how bombs are dropped. IE. allow you to tighten up your formation for entry and exit of the bombing target for more protection. Then when you get close to the target spread them out for maximum damage. Also make it so you can drop only out of the planes you want to so not to waste any bombs. This could make bombing a challenge again because you would take a lot of thinking to get it right without wasting ords. Or how about taking 4 planes in a diamond formation for hangers...ok to much thinking going on already :salute
-
Well then consider perking them all the same. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Also if there would be a perk allow more flexibility with the spread and how bombs are dropped. IE. allow you to tighten up your formation for entry and exit of the bombing target for more protection. Then when you get close to the target spread them out for maximum damage. Also make it so you can drop only out of the planes you want to so not to waste any bombs. This could make bombing a challenge again because you would take a lot of thinking to get it right without wasting ords. Or how about taking 4 planes in a diamond formation for hangers...ok to much thinking going on already :salute
I LOVE it!!!
-
my bomber of choice for most short to medium range missions is the JU88 :D
i can hit almost anything with those teeny weeny 250kg eggs. :O
-
my bomber of choice for most short to medium range missions is the JU88 :D
i can hit almost anything with those teeny weeny 250kg eggs. :O
Yeah, but the climb rate drives me crazy.
-
Yeah, but the climb rate drives me crazy.
really? i have less trouble getting to alt in my 88's than i do in lancs. i do believe the lancs are faster flat and level at 15-18k though......
only thing i don't like bout the 88's is the tiny guns....and lack of defensive coverage by said guns. this also has it's advantages. you have any clue how many pilots fly right up my tail feathers thinking the 2x 30cal(or7.2mm i'm not sure which) in the ventral won't hurt em? :devil
<<S>>
-
really? i have less trouble getting to alt in my 88's than i do in lancs. i do believe the lancs are faster flat and level at 15-18k though......
only thing i don't like bout the 88's is the tiny guns....and lack of defensive coverage by said guns. this also has it's advantages. you have any clue how many pilots fly right up my tail feathers thinking the 2x 30cal(or7.2mm i'm not sure which) in the ventral won't hurt em? :devil
<<S>>
Theyre 7.9 IIRC.
Well, I RARELY fly Lancasters, but my B-17G feels like it climbs a LOT faster than the Ju-88...
-
Actually...the B17 can take out as many hangers as the B24 can take out (using the theory of 2 1000lb bombs per plane per hanger. You can take a set of 17s up with 500lb bombs, salvo 3, and squeeze 4 hangers out of the run. You can get 4 hangers out of the run in 24s as well.
-
i have less trouble getting to alt in my 88's than i do in lancs. i do believe the lancs are faster flat and level at 15-18k though......
Well ya Lanc's climb like a dumptruck in compasison to the other bombers, what you need to do is take off from a base far away and go AFK for 20-30 min :D
then your at a good alt
-
Actually...the B17 can take out as many hangers as the B24 can take out (using the theory of 2 1000lb bombs per plane per hanger. You can take a set of 17s up with 500lb bombs, salvo 3, and squeeze 4 hangers out of the run. You can get 4 hangers out of the run in 24s as well.
Yes, but you dont NEED to use 2 x 1,000lb bombs if youre good. Ive done it multiple times with 1, so the B-24 can take out more hangars than the 17.
-
Well ya Lanc's climb like a dumptruck in compasison to the other bombers, what you need to do is take off from a base far away and go AFK for 20-30 min :D
then your at a good alt
funny you should say that......because when i fly lance that's what i do :rofl
sometimes i read 200 channel too, and try to stir the kettle :devil
-
Try to climb the Lancaster with a B17 loadout and see how it climbs :devil
-
The b-24 is man slaughter if it attacks a small field. If you use two bombs for hanger you can destroy the fighters and the Vh and if you are really good and can do it with one you can add the bomber hangers or the ord.
-
Try to climb the Lancaster with a B17 loadout and see how it climbs :devil
So why fly a Lancaster?
-
I'd rather see bomber perks used for base building supplies. The current system is pretty close to useless so might as well help improve gameplay.