Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: kfsone on May 25, 2001, 05:21:00 PM
-
Finally dawned on me that a lot of issues on the buff vs fighter issues come from a common source; unrealistic flying - on both sides.
How to tackle that?
The answer isn't ottos, but it is.
I'd suggest that the solution is, instead, auto-tracers; HT, if you're reading, I know you're busy - stick with me on this a moment (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Here's how I propose to tackle most of the issues that everyone is about to throw violently at me.
1. The 'bogeys at 3 oclock' key I proposed has to be used by the gunner/pilot to 'enable' otto. The con must be within d2.0 for otto to take notice, but otto only stands down once there are no cons within d6.0 of the plane. Thus is tackled the problem of pilot vigilance being removed by the otto gunner.
2. Allow the player to choose between robotic tracking of multiple guns to the player's target and otto mode, where the guns track targets for themselves, individually.
3. Make otto bullets 0.1% lethal. They're tracers. They're visual only. Thing is, they should look exactly like ordinary tracers, and the gunners should have little mock firing patterns instead of firing ack streams. You could toy with this to your hearts content - make them fire rarely when the plane has 0% damage and make them trigger hogs when there are 3 engines on fire and the pilot is wounded (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
4. Make them turn sensitive. Make them less likely to fire the more the aircraft maneuvers / buffets. I'd suggest some kind of algorithm which sometimes decides to 'misfire' instead of 'not fire' to add a little touch of realism.
Purpose? When ya get near a buff that's seen you, there should be gunfire incoming. It shouldn't be lethal, because this game is player-vs-player, not player-vs-droid. And heck, I'm saying this as a buff pilot friends. But outgoing rounds of ammo mean that players will have to attack buffs realistically. Buff drivers will have to try and use realistic evasive maneuvers if they want to keep the defensive fire effective, but without modifying the realistic modelling of the aircraft's flight profile.
Ideally players should only be able to tell which is an otto and which is a human by whether or not their wings come off. The only way to test that is by getting shot.
This would put an end to the (unrealistic) situations like the 2-man-pincer where two fighters agree to take a buff down by flying one either end. The buffs single human gunner can only point at one, and the other finds the buff easy pickings.
However, if the guns are all tracking and firing, then the attacker has to fly defensively.
And 0.25% damage means you won't die from random otto effects, but if you insist on trying to ram a buff with a 5 fpm close rate, you're eventually going to take some significant punishment.
This would put a whole different spin on the buff/fighter thing.
K
-
id rather have a buff have field ack-like AI in EACH gun position instead of having this idiotic perfectconvergenceatanyrange shotgun .50s with boosted range. And yes, if the human pilot wants to gun, let him, im sure he can aim better than the bot guns... but not have all guns fire at the EXACT damn spot he's shooting at.
-
That and being able to fire through fuselage really anoying!
-
To be honest, the last thing I want are laser-ottos on my buff. They're far too easily avoided by gaming it.
What I'd prefer to see are idiot-defeating tracers with as much realism as possible to make the more-experienced pilot switch to a defensive attack.
I'm not asking to make the bombers ackstars, I'm suggesting we make them appear to bristle with the armament they bear.
PERHAPS, being non-lethal, they shouldn't need to be manually kicked in. It'd be nice if the gunners could observe visiblity obstructions like night time and cloud so that attacking a buff at night has a very good chance of letting you get up much closer before you're noticed.
Situation currenty:
B17 proceeds to bomb run. Pilot is in the f6 seat. Moving from this seat and back requires lots of fiddly keypresses. It's just a LOT of hassle.
However, unless there is an oboard gunner in the RIGHT position a fighter can sneak up on the bomber and have shredded it before the pilot can get out of the bomb site and get auto disengaged to regain control.
There is NOTHING realistic about a fighter sneaking up on a B17 with out a single one of the 6 gunners spotting them and not a single round of returned fire.
This is reflected in the totally unrealistic attacks that a day-to-day bomber generally experiences - no offense to the many of you (CUCKOO and many others) who actually take pleasure in attacking a buff in a realistic fashion with every intention of being the victor, not just trying to ensure the buff burns at any cost.
So again: Proposed solution: Make the buffs have the appearance of defensive fire. Simulate as much as you like the conditions that will make it harder for pilots to determine what is firing back at them. Don't make it super accurate. Perhaps make it need the player to spot the con, or perhaps make the gunners call them out when they meet some sort of 'spotting' algorithm. Simulate 'firing confidence', which has a possible random spike so that auto gunners occasionally squeeze off in the wrong direction entirely or fire at a con outside range.
But leave it up to players to kill bogeys still...
K
-
Philosophy: An engaging fighter should be looking at a B26 and thinking, "Hmm, that's got 5 guns. Might wanna approach this carefully". Not, "Ha, a b26! And he can only see out of one gun at a time! Unless 'he' is the gun facing me, 90% of his aircraft is a blindspot MUAHAHAHA".
Consider simulated-gunners as an extension of the turrest, rather than as extra armor for the buff.
-
there is nothing realistic about a lone buff whacking 4+ fighters out of the sky with relative ease, ball turret shooting through fuselage, pinpoint convergence of all guns on the same spot human gunner is aiming at no matter what the range nor is a b17 receiving half the ammo of an airplane on tail turret or accross the fuselage and not have half the buff guns knocked out due to gunners getting killed. FYI, straight 6 attacks were the best attack for a buff, the first few rounds the fighter scored would generally KILL the tail gunner.. and no other guns could hit you if you stayed on that buff's 6.
I mean, heck I can understand buffs need to have some survival ability when they fly alone, but giving them OFFENSIVE advantages is not the answer. Make em tougher.. a hell of a lot tougher and seriously tone down those 40mm buff guns.
-
Tac; I'm not one for the pinpoint gunnery thing - I personally want us to have multiple gunners, and I would want to use individual guns myself.
I would disagree with your points about realism except I don't see the point. There are plenty of 'reports' of buffs bouncing numerous fighters and sending them packing. I could dig up lots of reports for you claiming that the majority of gunner deaths with ball turret gunners - killed by schrage musik, or that they were nose gunners killed in headons, or that they were tail gunners killed by fires in the aircraft making it impossible to exit the plane. Or B17 amazing-battle stories where planes were rattled with bullets and survived.
But I won't. Instead I will consider your prospect on 'real' and weigh it against the fact that many of the battle stories we see come from tail gunners. That the number of tail gunners who died from failure to bail properly from an aircraft is amongst the highest. But that the one statistic which commonly is not the highest is the death or disability rate of tail gunners on-board.
Here are some anecdotal tales:
`The one failing of the whole training system was that we weren't told more of what to expect. We just learned it strictly from experience, except for the pilot who had done two trips as a rule before he took his own crew. He didn't tell us much about what to expect; in fact I don't remember the pilot telling us anything.
'I was a tail gunner in a Halifax and away we went. One night we got attacked by two fighters. I shot down the one that came in from the rear, a Ju-88, and the mid-gunner spotted the one underneath and the pilot was able to take violent evasive action. Unfortunately the bomb aimer was mortally wounded and died after we went back to England. Within a few hours everybody was shook up. The wireless operator got hit in the rear end with a fragment of cannon shell and the aircraft was just shattered. The bomb aimer was standing in the astrodome and he was hit in the head. The attack hit the top of the aircraft. The flaps came down and the undercarriage came down; the bomb doors fell open; we had no hydraulics; the wireless set blew up and we had to fly another 2 hours or more to get back to England. We landed at a fighterdrome in the south of England. We didn't crash, we landed wheels down.
'We had some leave to go to the bomb aimer's funeral and then we went back on ops. From then on you were pretty apprehensive. I'm not going to say strict discipline because it wasn't a matter of strictness, it was a matter of strong discipline. There was no chatter, no unneccssary banter on the intercom. There was silence. When somebody switched that mike on everybody knew it and everybody was listening. You'd hear them breathing, and if they'd nothing to say the pilot would ask who was on the mike. You were apprehensive.
'After my original crew got shot down I flew with various crews. One crew I went with on their first trip and that was at the time I'd done 20/21 trips. That was an unforgettable experience because they just chattered the whole time: "Look at the lights", "Look at that", "Do you see that?". Finally I was such a nervous wreck that I had to tell them to keep quiet and they did. It was not a happy trip, but we got home fine. They unfortunately went missing a couple of trips later. They never did get any experience.'
-- Wilkie Wanless, Bomber Command rear gunner
Note in this one, the plane was attacked FROM THE REAR, and yet the tail gunner was not killed.
'It was a simple raid. It was east of Paris in daylight at the end of July [1944], and we were bombing this tunnel that stored V1 bombs 30 miles east of Paris. 617 Squadron were bombing the southern end and 9 Squadron were bombing the northern end to shut the tunnel. There were 300 planes with 12 single 1,000-pound delayed-action bombs to drop to prevent the Germans from salvaging the V1s. We had 12,000-pounders and we were at 12,000 feet to make sure we could see it. We went in in a gaggle. It was the first time I took my camera with me in the plane. It was supposed to be bad luck taking a camera! I took a few shots of the other planes. There was Flak ahead and the crew told me not to bother to take pictures of it because there were Mosquitoes covering the picture side. There were four and a half minutes left to stabilise the bomb sight. The bomb aimer said "Hold it. Hold it" and then BANG! The outer engine fell off and something went through the plane. The stick went sloppy in my hand and I said, "Stand by to bale out".
'My engineer handed me my chute. Took my helmet off and put my chute on. I shouted, "Bale out!", and the crew all dashed to the front to get their chutes and to get down the escape hatch at the front. If you have plenty of time you ask the rear gunners to come up, but in an emergency like this, with the plane beginning to spin down, they get out as soon as they can from the back. I could not get out of my seat, so I tried to open the side window but couldn't open it. I couldn't open the other window. I remember all the dinghies fell out. I turned the escape handle in the escape hatch, and as I turned it the whole nose of the plane must have come off, because the next thing I knew I was falling through the air and felt for my chute. There was quiet - no engine noise. I felt for my cord, pulled it. I thought it was not working when it suddenly jerked. I held on like grim death because I was not sure if I had put it on right. I could see trees coming up. I kept my legs together as all good men should do and slid into the trees. I thought I had broken my leg it was so numb. My hand was broken, hit when I came through the hatch, and my face was all burned.
'I got down from the tree, took my chute off and poked it under a bush and then looked for my escape route. I could hear the bombs still going off because of the delayed action. I was quite near the target so I headed away. I had a dressing with me which you always carried and I sat and wrapped up my hand. I thought, "If I go further south I could speak French and make my way back".
'The invasion forces were the other side of Paris. I stodd up, and there were three big Germans with rifles and bayonets standing round me. They had seen the parachutes coming down into the trees. I saw the tail part of my plane in the trees and I pointed to it to see if I could go to it. By that time a German had come up who spoke better English than I did. He was wearing white jodhpurs. He thought I was American because it was a daylight raid. I went to my plane. The mid upper gunner was just inside, in the tailplane, dead. The rear turret was about 20 yards from the plane with the rear gunner in it dead with his chute. He had managed to get his chute on, but when he headed out he hit the ground. Twenty minutes later they came up with my wireless operator with his ankle all twisted. His chute must have opened in the plane and torn, because he hit the ground too fast and knocked himself out.
'I took it that the rest of the crew were all safe. They had been in front of me and I had followed out after them. Our navigator was a French Canadian, so I thought he would be all right, and Chunky, my engineer, was a big strong chap. I thought, "Lucky devils, they are definitely away".
'And it was not until we came back from prison that I found out that they had all been killed. Whether they had been trapped in the nose, or their chutes had not opened, I don't know. They are buried in France.'
-- Bill Reid VC, Bomber Command pilot
But, to argue your case for you Tac:
'I pedalled into the aerodrome and they said, "Hurry up, you're flying."
'This was 8 o'clock in the morning. There was not a cloud in the sky, it was unreal. Wellingtons were scattered all over the sky. You thought the flak was going to hit you straight between the eyes and then it veered off. We went through a huge barrage and you couldn't see anything except big puffs of black smoke. As we came through the barrage there were the Messerschmitts waiting for us. We hadn't got any guns at all. All our gadgets had packed in so we had no front gun, no rear gun or anything. We discovered afterwards that they used the wrong oil in our hydraulic system.
'During one of these attacks I was hit in the back and then through the ankle. I rang up the skipper and said, "I've been hit and it bloody well hurts."
'He told me to come to the front and get it dressed. I staggered to the front of the aircraft. The wireless operator saw my ankle and got a hypodermic syringe and bunged this stuff through my flying trousers into my leg, which killed some of the pain. He was hit and killed immediately. He went a funny sort of grey and purple and died. A Messerschmitt sat on our tail and shot right through the aeroplane, through the rear turret and out through the front of the aircraft. I was sitting on the bed behind the wireless operator's area watching the blood coming out of my foot. The second pilot had to stand with his legs astride and the bullets going between his legs. Then a bullet hit him in the thigh.
'I heard the skipper say he had got to go down. We had caught fire. We were over an island off the German coast and he found a bit of beach to land on. We were burning by now. I got to the hatch at the top and pulled myself up but I got stuck and I could feel the flames burning my rear end. They pulled me out and carried me to the sand dunes.'
-- Harry Jones, Bomber Command rear gunner
-
Whatever you say...you know it all.
[This message has been edited by DmdNexus (edited 05-27-2001).]
-
Firstly, Tac, read my point 2 in the original post again man. I'm actually asking for the exact same thing as you.
Then I obviously wrote my last post poorly, since my point was that only those who were there really know, and we can only argue anecdotes.
What I do know is that in AH I most often die to pilots who attack with total disregard for the presence of 5 machine guns on my b26, who don't feel the need for 'e' to engage a buff. I survive only if they level out more than 800 feet away, so I get chance to do some damage before they can open fire.
The guys who enact ''realistic'' daylight attacks on me by outclimbing me outside gun range and b/zing or weaving, those are a fight, although the auto-tracking guns means one good squirt of 4 guns and the bogey is toast.
-
otto can rot in hell
-
Why, Cit?
I'm not asking for AI-super-gunners, I'm asking for show-and-tell. Knowing that a buff has 6 guns covering all angles of the sky doesn't deter most the majority of attacks on buffs in-game being conducted as though the buff only has a nose gun.
What we have instead is really rather meagre, and since we can only have one gunner at a time, it's very inaccurate, and will keep buff issues going for a long time.
-
I believe kfs, youre asking for the otto guns to fire tracers only. I'd like them to fire NORMAL .50 cal guns as they should but without the instant-convergence that they have now. Giving each gun an AI firing logic of its own will give a buff a true 720 cover (if they have turrets all over) and it wont be a suicide mission for a fighter to attack a lone buff.
-
Here is a thought...
I just got finished flying some of the craptasiest b17 missions. Large formations of b17s are not possible due to lag... so jus get rid of bombers all together so i can log (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Tac: In an ideal world =(
I'm asking for unlinked guns, and the bonus of using unlinked guns being that your unmanned guns fire back tracers or sub-lethal rounds, as sort of an extension of the gun-graphics, which currently appear to have an effect on only a few pilots.
They don't have to be tracers, if we had agreement maybe we could twist hitech to make them very unlethal, but enough that a really stupid buff-kill-dweeb who sits in an ottos sites is not gonna survive.
I don't think HT will go for making it so that unmanned guns save your bacon during your bomb run. I would *hope* this first step might improve buff durability enough to encourage more people to fly buffs/gunner.
K
[This message has been edited by kfsone (edited 05-29-2001).]
-
S!
Interesting stories from the Allied side.Also about the LW side...The Sturmbocks(190's with extra armor and 30mm) used to attack from dead 6.And succeeded.According to one pilot they first killed the reargunner with MG's and the fired 20/30mm on fuselage/wings.On a single pass over 10 buffs could go down without a single loss of attackers.This was RL and AH is just a game with concessions to make it more playable.We can't expect too much,but try to learn different tactics on bombers than dead 6.Real world methods just don't work here in some areas.
I have personally learned the hard way to exploit the very few blind spots Buffs have and do slashing attacks to minimize the amount of time player aiming at me with those laser guns (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Or leave the buffs alone if they are well above 20k where even a BIG and HEAVY Lanc can outmaneuver my 109... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
DB603,
Furthermore, according to historical documentories, not antidotal stories, that I have seen, tail and ball gunners had an average life expectancy of 5 missions.
A bomber crew's tour of duty was 25 missions, however few bombers during the early part of the war made it to 25 missions.
Thus, one of the reasons why the Memphis Belle was so famous - it was one of the first (other reasons being propaganda and raising moral)
In the early part of the war, the American B17s flew during the day with out fighter escorts, and as a result their losses were heavy - I've heard, as much as 15 to 20% per sortie.
That means if 800 bombers sortie, 120 to 160 did not return.
If I recall correctly there was one raid which suffered a loss of over 300 B17s, and as a result the allies stood down for a few weeks to re-accessed the situation.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong - or add more detail if I'm right.
My impression, is that the B17s were not defenseless, but they were also not as all powerful as some of these "wannabe" buff experts think they should be.
Another tactic the German's employed was to attack the B17 from the left or right front quarter, and kill pilot and co-pilot and knock out the flight controls.
Seems as if these type of canopy shots are not modeled at all in this game.
Have to chop off a wing, hit a gas tank or something to make the plane explode to take down a buff.
Nexus
-
"Seems as if these type of canopy shots are not modeled at all in this game"
Yes it is. Get a 202 and HO a buff. film it. If the buff blows up, look at the film, you will see a hit sprite on the cockpit windows. SPLAT went the pilot and copilot.
Gunners on the other hand, are almost unkillable. Ive constantly sprayd a lanc from nose to tail, hitting with .50's on the fuselage, lighting it up like an x-mas tree.. and all gunners still alive. B17's are even worse, one such pass wouldve turned half or more of the gunners into sloppy joe.
I really dont mind about that, just take that superconvergence crap out of the buff guns, not even a jug's EIGHT .50's do THAT much damage as the "alleged" 2 .50's that can fire at you (straight from below or straight above, or straigth HO or dead 6 attacks where only 2 .50's should be able to bear on you).
-
Nex: The use of 3 anecdotal tales was to emphasise the easy discrepancy (and I didn't feel like typing out reams of stats from the Bomber Command Diaries - so count me lazy =).
Yes, on a B17 the most likely to die were ball gnr and tail gnr. Naturally the Air Forces were investigating this, and the prime reason was those two points of the aircraft being in the main point of attack.
A lot of folks look at gun-cam footage of a fighter taking down a bomber in a single pass, coming in slow from behind. I warn these same folks not to turn on a 'How to make sushi' show half way thru =) ('And you just take your slice of blowfish and wrap it in a leaf. That easy')
I sometimes think that some of the 'buffs are too tough' arguers have lost sight of how large the target is that they are intending to destroy, or think they are projecting that final-pass guncam footage.
Buffs *should* take at least a few passes, and the buff guns should be powerful enough that a solo fighter may not want to make a 'reckless' extra pass. Having had your engine or aileron shot out, you probably wouldn't have made additional passes at the bomber in real-life.
I've been accused of 'cheating' because after using turns to spoil a low-e attacking fighters run on me, having taken some damage anyway and my gunner having laid damage on the fighter, the fighter has then gone fixation-nuts and made additional passes, during which his low-e and damage have allowed my gunner to kill him.
And these have been well-known names. Who seemed royally peeved that an empty lanc rtb'ing would maneuver to defend itself. LOL =)
-
A buff is good for maybe 2 fighters: "4 with relative ease"? No way. The way many people attack a buff around here is to fly right in, pretty much cripple the buff, then fall to the bomber's guns. Next fighter comes along, does the same. Wing falls off bomber. Fighter takes damage, may not get shot down.
Those of you who constantly complain about buff guns really need some data to back up your complaint. I'd say that when I fly bombers, 75% (Data! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) of the attacks easily come from the dead six, high six, or low six, and the above scenario comes into play. Buff guns are the way they are simply because most intend to ram their plane into the tail gunner, then they get shot down, and then they complain.
You'll note the guys that *know* how to attack a bomber, are not the ones complaining.
Sorry KFS, to steal your thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
BTW, I like your idea (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<S>IC
-
S!
OK..Lanc is best killed from above or below.No sweat.But B17 is different story.Hard to get and needs extreme luck and good marksmanship.The gunners are not dying even when hit by 20mm...
Tested WB3 today(as every day) and buffs there.Guess what..No shrecking uber guns!Those guns shaked when firing making it impossible to have these AH-style 200rd bursts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)Like the cockpit shake we have in fighters but a bit stronger.Otto gunners..no comment.But NO through fuselage firing guns (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)Also bombing much more harder than this Paveway III we have here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)*end of comparison*
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
Iculus, AH buff guns have perfect convergence from ALL guns in one spot at any range up to d1.3 . Being pinged ONCE by it is like being hit by a P-47's 8 .50's at d200...when the p47 has the guns SET to 200 convergence. One shot, you're OUT. Add to that the happy shoot-thru-fuselage ball turret (and why not, top turret may do it too, need mitsu to get us a pic of that), the non-shaking of buff guns (last time I checked, the human body is NOT a steady gun platform) and you have all the evidence you need.
Get a b17 to fly level for you, then have the gunner see you diving from 12 OC hi, where only the top turret should be able to bear on you.. then watch how quickly the "2" .50's will shoot you down..even when you diving at 450mph.
In AH, if the gunner sees you and is not an extremely lame shot, he will kill you, no matter what angle you attack from.
[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 06-05-2001).]
-
Here we go again... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Buffs almost made me quit this game. No, I do not take the risk of fighting them now. Not unless my field is still alive and they are a threat to it, and they are not complete dweebs (that is, flying 30k and over). I have utmost respect for buff drivers sticking to real working conditions. I deeply depise those gaming the game. Don't tell me alt is their defense. Those deadly zillion-perfect-convergence-firing-through-fuselage-super-duper .50's are.
I think I'm an average buff killer, and I definitely know how to set up a "safe" attack (now implementing that is a different animal (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)). I think the main problem with buffs is that they are skill-less gun platforms. There is not a single gram of skill needed to perform a successful buff mission when you take your time to climb. You do not need to fire, if you don't want to. Just climb to your 38k (yes, I've seen that), and that's all. Chances you will have to fight anything up there are really slim, and in that unlikely event, your kill-o-matic weapons will make an easy work of whatever (Ta152 included) figthter dumb enough to engage. Did I mention that buffs can still pinpoint SINGLE acks from that heigth?
On my side, on my particular side, there is no interest in flying or engaging buffs. I would fly buffs if I had a norden sight that force me to spend some time lining. So I would have to navigate to the target. Of course I would love to get rid of GPS system, but I realize this could be asking a little bit too much.
I think the Norden Sight could solve a great deal of the current problems with buffs. CAP could harass buffs, knowing that if they change the course, the buff run is porked, so not risking a fatal hit. Buffs would still retain its ability to defend...
For me, a new Norden Sight, revamped ceiling figures, and have frost-bite modelled (so a buff can not effectively fly over 30k for a long time) would be a great improvement in Buff works. I would fly Buffs again.
Cheers,
Pepe