Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: SEraider on December 29, 2008, 05:20:32 PM
-
We aint using bomb perks for anything else and AR-234's are not exactly in high demand.
This could cut down furball killing high altitude bombing and ruining others fun.
-
This could cut down furball killing high altitude bombing and ruining others fun.
You can perk bomb loadouts when I can take fuel down to 25%.
Would cut down on those TnB hotshot jocks not trying to win the war.
:noid
Seriously? Youd have to reset bomber perks......I have been playing 3 months and have over 500 perks. I hate buff running tooo.....
Steel
-
I don't know about the loadout. I generally fly Lancs with squaddies, and if we are going to hit hangers, we take the 14 1000lbers. If we are going for the town, the 18 500lbers and 1 4000lber does wonders with .30 delay (keeping the 4000lber for hangers of course). The bombers in game all have their weakness (eg. B24 speed and guns make up for the loadout, Lancs loadout make up for the guns). But to agree with you, the 234 sucks IMO. That being said, we don't go for ruining peoples furballing fun. We go for strategic base takes (yes, we are the ones doing some of the map taking). It seems to be more difficult to perk the loadouts in a bird rather than perking the bird itself. I wouldn't mind having to pay some (5-10 perks) for my lancs though, just to use some of my perkies. But, then again, I don't really care about perks in a bomber.
-
IIRC some of our bomb loadouts were pretty rare. Dunno which and how rare, but it's been an unchallenged point so I'd say it's accurate.
The perk loadout system would be great. It'd put some of the rarer loadouts back in their correct proportions (e.g. 3-gun la7), and would allow us to have some of the really rare but historical loadouts, e.g. some of the Il2 or Me410 weapon loadouts, or some of the higher octane fuel loadouts.
-
Dont get me wrong it would definitely be nice to have some new perk candy.
-
IIRC some of our bomb loadouts were pretty rare. Dunno which and how rare, but it's been an unchallenged point so I'd say it's accurate.
The perk loadout system would be great. It'd put some of the rarer loadouts back in their correct proportions (e.g. 3-gun la7), and would allow us to have some of the really rare but historical loadouts, e.g. some of the Il2 or Me410 weapon loadouts, or some of the higher octane fuel loadouts.
Some of the loadouts on fighters were rare. None of the loadouts on bombers were rare.
-
I was thinking of some of the Il2's loadouts.. Are all those you see in Il2 (the game) common?
And Steel, there's so many unused perks from years of accumulation, in so many accounts, that we'd prolly have to have either a reset or a new perk point category when they roll out the perk loadout system.
-
+1 I totally agree. Wouldn't effect me any but I think it would make the game a little more realistic. Ordanance wasn't free in real life...now I know this isn't real life, I think it would give some use of Bomber Perks for you bomber guys
-
I'd try giving level bombers free bombs. Making them cost something if you divebombed them. Also if you died within a certain short time of release (suiciding). I'd make them a bit more expensive for fighters, so that it'd encourage more bombers in the game... I would make it easy enough to earn perks for bombs though, so you didnt have to grind for long to earn em.
-
I'd try giving level bombers free bombs. Making them cost something if you divebombed them. Also if you died within a certain short time of release (suiciding). I'd make them a bit more expensive for fighters, so that it'd encourage more bombers in the game... I would make it easy enough to earn perks for bombs though, so you didnt have to grind for long to earn em.
That could be a way to particulary encourage more light bombers.. TBM, SBD, Ju87, along with Ju 88s, Ki67s or Bostons
-
Perk drones, then you'll have something to spend the perks on.
-
We aint using bomb perks for anything else and AR-234's are not exactly in high demand.
This could cut down furball killing high altitude bombing and ruining others fun.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247406.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247406.0.html)
-
IMO all bombs over 500lb (250kg) could be perked.
-
Why?
Perking bombs over 500lbs does no good on some planes. They carry the same total regardless of 500lb or 1000lb bombs. It's just another attempt to get people to play your way. This is a classic furballers whine so if you dont like them bombing you up a plane and kill them....
The best option is to fix the dive bombing part by fixing the bomb release.....not the bombs.
Perk ord options then bring back 25% fuel!
Steel
-
it's an ok idea
but they just need add another bomber to use thos perks on and no it doesn't have to be a b-29 so don't start yelling at me
there has to be another WWII bomber that deserves perking, maybe a b25h with more HE ammo? of course I, as of I'm sure most of you would prefer an entirly new bomber to use those perks on, maybe theres another german bomber? I'll look around my WWII aircraft encylopedia see if anything catches my eye, nothings coming to mind at the moment.
-
Why?
Perking bombs over 500lbs does no good on some planes. They carry the same total regardless of 500lb or 1000lb bombs. It's just another attempt to get people to play your way. This is a classic furballers whine so if you dont like them bombing you up a plane and kill them....
The best option is to fix the dive bombing part by fixing the bomb release.....not the bombs.
Perk ord options then bring back 25% fuel!
Steel
It should only be applied to Fighters, and the "why" is because fighters very rarely carried bombs larger than 500lbs in reality. Bombs shouldn't have to pay perks for any of their bombs.
-
If you applie it strictly to fighters I can see the benifits...
In many bombers it makes nosense tho.
-
Forget perking the bomb loadouts, perk the bombers.
The Ar234 is damned fast but cant carry any more than a B25. The Lancaster can carry a massive amount of ord and %80 more than the next nearest bomber, but yet it isnt perked. The B24 and B17 can carry enough ord to level an airbase and still defend themselves... yet they are not perked (yeah, the Ju88 can carry just as much but it is quite weak in defense).
It isnt the bomb loads that need to be perked, it is the bombers themselves. Oh? You dont like that idea? Hmm. Stop and think about the destruction those bombers can cause... AND... what do we spend out bomber perks on now (and bomber perks are the easiest to earn, too)?
IMO, the following bombers need to be perked and how much per plane (at least for starters):
Ar234 (20)
Lanc (11)
B24 (8)
B17 (5)
B26 (3)
The Ar234 is fast, but it is not easy to fly. It takes a long time for it to "settle" for a constant bombing speed and fuel management is key to any long range mission. Plus, it only carries a max of about 3300lbs of ord (per plane), and it can really only drop on three targets. The rest of the bombers are all more steady, more effective, and can hit more targets.
Maybe losing those perks will control some of the bomb-n-bail gamers. :rolleyes:
-
It isnt the bomb loads that need to be perked, it is the bombers themselves. Oh? You dont like that idea? Hmm. Stop and think about the destruction those bombers can cause... AND... what do we spend out bomber perks on now (and bomber perks are the easiest to earn, too)?
Stop and think how easy bombers are to bring down. Look at the stats how bombers fall out of the sky in droves. See how long it takes to get them to reasonable alt to have a half decent chance to survive. Take into account who is flying most of that buffs after all ("NEED GUNNA!")
And how are all those n00bs supposed to earn the perks for buffs? By flying helpless Ju 88s and Boston III's ?
Your proposal would shut down bomnber operations to a huge degree. Only "vets" like me would still be able to fly buffs, new players would hardly ever be able to fly a B24 or Lancaster. And certainly all remaining standard buffs in the air would probably be inclined to climb to VERY high altitudes... I don't think that this will please everybody ;)
Instead of low & medium lancs we would see an even greater amount of bomb-carrying fighters, which are much harder to stop before reaching their target. Exactly the opposite what we should try to accomplish - getting more variety in the air instead of less.
Perking the Lanc in the LW is, I dare to say, an almost rediculous idea.
-
This is clearly a troll. Stop feeding it before it climbs out from under the bridge and touches you.
Perk planes are Perk planes because in the hands of the right person they can cause exceptional damage or have characteristics outside of the "norm" troll.
IN your trollingness you have failed to realize that even in the hands of a master if one or two people with more intelligence then a trice dropped crack baby attack a bomber specifically a lancaster, any damage done by that bomber formation will be short lived.
Also nothing about a bomber forces you to stay at a base and fight there..Perhaps if in addition to being a troll you where not a gangbanger you would be able to branch out and explore the game in other bases than "A1 to A2"
IN conclusion your a troll.
-
Forget perking the bomb loadouts, perk the bombers.
The Ar234 is damned fast but cant carry any more than a B25. The Lancaster can carry a massive amount of ord and %80 more than the next nearest bomber, but yet it isnt perked. The B24 and B17 can carry enough ord to level an airbase and still defend themselves... yet they are not perked (yeah, the Ju88 can carry just as much but it is quite weak in defense).
It isnt the bomb loads that need to be perked, it is the bombers themselves. Oh? You dont like that idea? Hmm. Stop and think about the destruction those bombers can cause... AND... what do we spend out bomber perks on now (and bomber perks are the easiest to earn, too)?
IMO, the following bombers need to be perked and how much per plane (at least for starters):
Ar234 (20)
Lanc (11)
B24 (8)
B17 (5)
B26 (3)
The Ar234 is fast, but it is not easy to fly. It takes a long time for it to "settle" for a constant bombing speed and fuel management is key to any long range mission. Plus, it only carries a max of about 3300lbs of ord (per plane), and it can really only drop on three targets. The rest of the bombers are all more steady, more effective, and can hit more targets.
Maybe losing those perks will control some of the bomb-n-bail gamers. :rolleyes:
You ever notice how a lanc can be up in the air for 1 hour and gain 5k alt? Yeah, dont perk it, it has a weak defense; i could easily go below it and then rise with 6 x 50.cals firing and break the poor thing to peices.
B-17G and B-24J are like the P-51D and P-51B, they are for everyone. Even exp pilots fly em'. So are you suggesting we perk those planes too? :confused:
-FYB
-
Here's an idea:
What about differentiating AP bombs from GP munitions? Midway is a great example of how you didn't use the same type of bomb against shipping that you would against a ground target.
-
Great comment Sax.. One more way to enrich gameplay.
-
Here's an idea:
What about differentiating AP bombs from GP munitions? Midway is a great example of how you didn't use the same type of bomb against shipping that you would against a ground target.
Where do you get these things?
Bet you have a magic knowledge box no?
I'm all in for it.
-FYB
-
I keep telling everyone - implement the Fairey Battle and perk it heavily - that'll use up those perks! :lol
Seriously though, I have 2k bomber perks that I can't really use up. So maybe if they made the destruction of strategic targets a little more crippling and then added small perks to all the heavies, say 5 pts (or maybe 10?) to B24/B17/Lanc that might help balance things out a little more in the long run. It would give us bombers more of an incentive and more of a cost at the same time.
Also I think the AR-234 is overly perked. Yes it's fast (eventually) but has little defence and is not very accurate when bombing - and only carries a light load.
As far as bombing/strat/bomber perks are concerned the game doesn't seem to balanced quite right.
-
AR-234 has the same inherent accuracy as all the other bombers...
Its over perked in my eyes as well and could be knocked down to 1/2 to 2/3rds of its current level.
Steele
-
You're probably right, the accuracy is implemented the same way as the other bombers but the AR-234's apparent inaccuracy (I believe) is due to the speed induced oscillations. It needs longer to settle down as compared to the prop driven bombers. Thus it needs more care/skill to aim effectively - unless you're good at dive bombing - which I haven't really explored yet.
-
I keep telling everyone - implement the Fairey Battle and perk it heavily - that'll use up those perks! :lol
Seriously though, I have 2k bomber perks that I can't really use up.
well its nice to know you have all those points, but take it from someone who is relatively new- having been playing for a little over a month- The first bomber I flew was a 17, then a Lanc, because I know those two a/c. Newbies enjoy flying a/c that are familiar to them, and perking a/c, that 1- are very hard to survive in unless you spend 2 hours climbing to alt, and 2- take a long time to get to and from target whether you climb out or not will make it that much more difficult for new subscribers to stay with the game;
Hell, I think it sucks already to have planes perked when I pay 15 a month to play a game, only for the game to tell me I cant fly something- but thats not near as bad as that red devil ENY telling me I cant fly something.
-
it sucks already to have planes perked when I pay 15 a month to play a game, only for the game to tell me I cant fly something- but thats not near as bad as that red devil ENY telling me I cant fly something.
The planes are historical. It would suck even more if those perk planes were free.
Without ENY you'd be burried even deeper under hordes and would have even less fun.
-
The OP is correct to point out that bombers are a problem in this game. They are the single biggest factor in moving the map. Virtually *every* fight that ends is decided by the use of buffs to toolshed the other base into submission.
I see some here have repeated the absurdity that unescorted bombers are defenseless. Hardly. In point of fact, they are more dangerous to attack than the average AH stick in a fighter. American heavies especially are death-stars from every reasonable attacking angle. Yes, buffs that come in below 12K tend to get ganged to death eventually, but not before taking out hangars and some hapless noobs trying to attack them from a position of altitude disadvantage.
Now a Jabo with a heavy bomb-load out, THAT is a defenseless target up until it pickles the ordinance, at which point its mission is busted, thus the interceptor has accomplished its primary function.
However, I do not think perking bombs or formations is the way to go. A four-pronged plan:
1. Unlink the defensive guns in a formation so an interceptor fighter diving is being fired at by 6 .50s, not 18. This will still make attacking bombers dangerous, equivalent to strafing an M-16 or HOing an A-20, but not the absurd suicide run it is for a lone fighter against even mildly competent gunner.
2. Introduce some shifting wind currents, starting at 8K, to make bombing more difficult. A layer of randomly shifting wind every 5K or so would greatly reduce J-DAM like bombing precision. It should be a *VERY* lucky thing to hit a hangar from 15K or higher. Thus, the issue of forcing the buffs to go to 30K would be deflected by the fact that IF they go that high, they might not even hit the base, much less the hangar.
3. As a general measure, I think hangars should be hardened, it would be nice if one jabo couldn't take one out.
4. With the stick, a carrot. I think we should decent strat targets for buffer to carpet bomb. See Krusty's wish...
-
The OP is correct to point out that bombers are a problem in this game. They are the single biggest factor in moving the map. Virtually *every* fight that ends is decided by the use of buffs to toolshed the other base into submission.
I see some here have repeated the absurdity that unescorted bombers are defenseless. Hardly. In point of fact, they are more dangerous to attack than the average AH stick in a fighter. American heavies especially are death-stars from every reasonable attacking angle. Yes, buffs that come in below 12K tend to get ganged to death eventually, but not before taking out hangars and some hapless noobs trying to attack them from a position of altitude disadvantage.
Now a Jabo with a heavy bomb-load out, THAT is a defenseless target up until it pickles the ordinance, at which point its mission is busted, thus the interceptor has accomplished its primary function.
However, I do not think perking bombs or formations is the way to go. A four-pronged plan:
1. Unlink the defensive guns in a formation so an interceptor fighter diving is being fired at by 6 .50s, not 18. This will still make attacking bombers dangerous, equivalent to strafing an M-16 or HOing an A-20, but not the absurd suicide run it is for a lone fighter against even mildly competent gunner.
2. Introduce some shifting wind currents, starting at 8K, to make bombing more difficult. A layer of randomly shifting wind every 5K or so would greatly reduce J-DAM like bombing precision. It should be a *VERY* lucky thing to hit a hangar from 15K or higher. Thus, the issue of forcing the buffs to go to 30K would be deflected by the fact that IF they go that high, they might not even hit the base, much less the hangar.
3. As a general measure, I think hangars should be hardened, it would be nice if one jabo couldn't take one out.
4. With the stick, a carrot. I think we should decent strat targets for buffer to carpet bomb. See Krusty's wish...
I like the wind idea the best. More realistic IMO.
I think hangers are fine though.
-
BnZ,
Your post is not backed up by the evidence. K/D ratios say that bombers are very easy to kill, certainly that was my experience, even against the likes of 999000.
Implement your suggestions and watch the already silly pro-jabo aspect go even further nuts. When you call jabos defenseless until they pickle their bombs you use the same argument that the RAF used to say the Mosquito would be helpless. In actuality the speed of the Mosquito in rality, and jabos in AH, makes them far, far more likely to survive to hit their targets.
-
I think perking the more rare loadouts on fighters would be a better idea
infact I would like to see more bomber usage
its not like giving you all slower targets would make anything harder
and if you perk bombers, then all your going to get is Suicide jabos which unlike bombers can be almost unstoppable
-
Bah...... Give it a year, have over 12,000 perks, then you will really want something more then a 234........ :salute
...I have been playing 3 months and have over 500 perks. I hate buff running tooo.....
-
Well, you can get the B-29 and perk it like a 262.
-
BnZ,
Your post is not backed up by the evidence. K/D ratios say that bombers are very easy to kill, certainly that was my experience, even against the likes of 999000.
The low K/D ratios of the B-17 and B-24 are due to how they are used, not an inherent lack of defense. I'm nothing more than a moonlighter when I fly bombers, and even I kill more fighters than the number of bombers I lose (B-17/B-24).
My solution will displease you even more than BnZ's: disable drones in the main arena. One player, one aircraft or vehicle. Now there's an elegant proposition.
-
Biased for fighters. Bombers are dead meat without the two drones' extra guns. Unhistorical and unfair. The drones are the only simple and elegant way to accomodate the bombers' design, which was made for WWII, not AH's MA.
-
BnZ,
Your post is not backed up by the evidence. K/D ratios say that bombers are very easy to kill, certainly that was my experience, even against the likes of 999000.
999000 currently has a K/D of 79/79 in B-17s, and that is a bad month for him. 1/1 kill loss ratio for unescorted bombers strikes you as realistic?
Me and a squaddie of mine both achieved a kill 2-3 kill loss ratio against a horde of 37MM birds while flying Ju-88s in Kursk FSO, the outstanding fact being here that he isn't all that great a gunner and I am terrible at shooting in general and not a buffer. The fact that the inexperienced gravitate to buff flying tilts the k/d ratios somewhat.
I've tried every approach imaginable Karnak.
When approaching a buff formation, you can choose 1 of 2 options. You can choose an approach which gives you a decent chance of a killing gun solution, or you can choose an approach that *doesn't* carry an extreme risk of collision and makes you *less* vulnerable to defensive fire. You can't completely avoid pings from a good gunner though so even if you choose option 1 and try to work patiently, you are likely to get pinged down before you can slowly saw the whole formation to pieces.
Yes fighters were brought down by defensive buff fire...but in reality buff drivers didn't have perfectly steady laser guns on rock-like platforms. And obviously every gun in the formation wasn't being aimed a single point..
They were firing recoiling, vibrating, flex mounted weapons from a platform floating on a sea of air. Fighter pilots in AHII have to face the challenge of steadying a flying machine to aim with forward-firing guns, but gunners in buffs should have a platform equivalent to a ground gun? I don't buy it.
Odd how there have been a million perk the WW threads yet folks think it odd to complain about what amount to flying WWs...
Then there is the easy mode bombing...
Most experienced fighter pilots have learned these lessons, and simply don't tackle formations, except in gangs or for the free "in the bombsight view" kills. At which point its too late of course.
Implement your suggestions and watch the already silly pro-jabo aspect go even further nuts. When you call jabos defenseless until they pickle their bombs you use the same argument that the RAF used to say the Mosquito would be helpless. In actuality the speed of the Mosquito in rality, and jabos in AH, makes them far, far more likely to survive to hit their targets.
According to the website,the top speed of a B-24J at 10K is about 262mph. This is not all that inferior to a fully loaded Jug at that alt (305-310, easily caught by most any co-alt fighter), and the formation carries alot more ordinance.
A suicide jabo and a suicide buff and a suicide everything else are problems in this game. But that is another subject entirely. You can't disable more than one hangar with a jabo though, you can't just follow a simply 3 step process to guarantee accuracy with divebombing, and you can't do anything about a fighter closing on your six in a Jabo except pickle the ords and fight.
-
Biased for fighters. Bombers are dead meat without the two drones' extra guns. Unhistorical and unfair. The drones are the only simple and elegant way to accomodate the bombers' design, which was made for WWII, not AH's MA.
The fact that unescorted buffs are by far the single largest factor in moving the map right now and that air-superiority is semi-meaningless is not my idea of balancing.
Another thing that should give you pause about comparing the AH MA to reality too closely is the non-existence of attrition. The destruction of a single-seat interceptor means the (possible) loss of one trained pilot and one fighter. I say possible because by definition a interceptor tends to be fighting over his own territory. Whereas the loss of a multi-engine bomber meant the probably death/capture of ten trained men and the loss of a more expensive aircraft. Yet another factor is the total lack of high altitude AA fire, except auto ack around CVs. Which seems to preferentially chase fighters anyway.
A good buff gunner can destroy 1 or nearly 1 fighter plane for every bomber lost...in real terms that means that if you had one team flying nothing but fighters and a team with equal numbers flying nothing but buffs, the latter would conceivably "win the war". Madness!
-
Attrition (lack of) is the same for all vehicles.
The 1:1 gunner:destroyer comparison isn't linear, the same way you dont have 2:1 fighter duel being the same odds as 14:7 team furball. A pack of 4 fighters/destroyers will wipe out bomber formations much larger than them, if they follow proper tactics and there aren't any escorts. Unescorted buffs do as well as you say they do (if they do; taking your word for it) because players don't follow proper tactics. Whereas drones slaved to the player bomber are perfectly disciplined.
-
A pack of 4 fighters/destroyers will wipe out bomber formations much larger than them, if they follow proper tactics and there aren't any escorts.
Which tactics consist of climbing to what are otherwise absurd altitudes for AHII combat, and sitting there waiting for the buffs who may or not be coming (you don't have the sort of forewarning you would really have had), then sending the new player, that kid who wears a helmet all the time and eats paste, to distract the death-lasers while you happy three successfully destroy the formation, unless one of them warps in front of you causing a collision.
But seriously, do you realize what you've just said here...you are basically stating that it takes 4 organized and disciplined players to be effective against one player with a buff formation. And you don't perhaps see anything slightly wrong with that? :huh
Unescorted buffs do as well as you say they do (if they do; taking your word for it) because players don't follow proper tactics. Whereas drones slaved to the player bomber are perfectly disciplined.
I'd say they put bombs on target at least 75% of the time...give me a box to click that automatically gives me two perfectly disciplined wingmen to take with me and we'll call it even.
-
All I know is that no bomber group I ever ran into was effective against me if I set up proper attacks.
I'll grant you I only recall meeting 999000 once while on different sides, but it was 3-0 in favor of the Mossie over the B-17s that time. Yes, bombers in AH have a far better K/D ratio than the real ones did in WWII. If gameplay was corrected for historical accuracy you would see bombers entirely abandoned as anything other than a curiosity.
As to your claim that 310mph is no better than 262mph, that is silly. First you are granting that which normally in AH has to be clawed for, co-alt with the incoming bombers or jabos. In the three to four minutes it takes fighters to take off and reach 10,000ft the P-47 will have traveled 1.5-2.5 miles closer to the target. Once co-alt you need to accelerate to speed, climb speed is usually about 180mph, time to gain 130mph gives the P-47 even more distance. Once you have matched speed you need to overtake the P-47, which takes even longer and all of this assumes the P-47 does not punch WEP and go into a shallow dive. It also assumes it is a P-47 and not a faster P-38, P-51, Typhoon, Bf110 or Mosquito.
You may think I am lying, but the Luftwaffe found it extremely difficult to effect an interception of Mosquito B.Mk IVs which cruised at about 300mph. Your insistence that speed does not matter does not bear up to actual results.
-
Which tactics consist of climbing to what are otherwise absurd altitudes for AHII combat, and sitting there waiting for the buffs who may or not be coming (you don't have the sort of forewarning you would really have had), then sending the new player, that kid who wears a helmet all the time and eats paste, to distract the death-lasers while you happy three successfully destroy the formation, unless one of them warps in front of you causing a collision.
Second part of the argument is loaded. First part doesn't favor anyone: both bomber and fighter players have the same restrictions (none) on climbing to crazy alts. It's not that hard to see em coming. You might make a mistake every now and then, but it's fairly easy to predict.
But seriously, do you realize what you've just said here...you are basically stating that it takes 4 organized and disciplined players to be effective against one player with a buff formation. And you don't perhaps see anything slightly wrong with that? :huh
Nope to the last question, it accomodates the bomber:fighter player ratio in the game pretty well. If we go back to no drones, bombers will be trashed like they were. As things are (like I said above) we already have pretty even odds, and pretty historical too. It would be even more difficult if we had no drones. You'd have more players per bomber (since now it's at most 2: pilot+gunner per formation). And gunning a moving bomber is really laggy. So: lower player density in the planes, and aiming hampered by lag. No advantage there. To that, you add the fact that without escorts, something like a 10+ bomber formation (I can see twice that with very well trained platoon) stands no chance vs a pack of 4-5 attackers. You know as well as I do that you can take a 152 and drop 3 formations of the best defended models easily, provided enough fuel, single-handedly. Bombers are just too easy to kill to not get drones.
To the bolded text: you don't even need that much, like I said just above. One player in a fighter can kill a 3-ship everytime, no matter how aware the bomber pilot, so long as he plays it right. 999000 wouldn't even make a difference if he didn't have his external view to exploit. So the tally is that even with three ships, a bomber player can't survive a fighter player, or at the very least, can't drop his load without exchanging it for his bombers' lives.
I'd say they put bombs on target at least 75% of the time...give me a box to click that automatically gives me two perfectly disciplined wingmen to take with me and we'll call it even.
I was saying that strictly on the fighter-bomber combat aspect. Bombing should be more difficult, but for that to be worth it, the MA needs correspondingly historical targets (to match historical bombing circumstances, e.g. dispersion, weather, turbulence, calibration, etc etc). And again.... The bomber drones can be as disciplined as they are, they're still stupid freakin dummy planes with a fixed convergence and no mind of their own. The point is that any comparably disciplined 2 (not even 3) player group of fighters will decimate a 3-ship bomber formation. Historicaly, there was a lot more than just one man in each plane, behind all those guns. Even with two drones, the odds are well on the fighters' side. All that cannon fodder, nothing to complain about. :)
-
We aint using bomb perks for anything else and AR-234's are not exactly in high demand.
This could cut down furball killing high altitude bombing and ruining others fun.
When we got the B-25H, it was brought up at the time with Pyro why we didn't have any rockets for it as an ordnance option. That's when Pyro mentioned that they were looking into some type of ordnance perk system where we would be able to use (I'm guessing bomber perk points) for certain ordnance packages. But I haven't seen anything from Pyro or anyone else from HTC about it since then.
Hopefully, it wasn't just a passing thought on their part and is something they are actively working on to implement in the arenas. That would give players something to spend their bomber (if those are the perks to be used) perks on something other than relatively useless jet bombers.
ack-ack
-
BnZ,
Your post is not backed up by the evidence. K/D ratios say that bombers are very easy to kill, certainly that was my experience, even against the likes of 999000.
Yep, bombers are very easy to shoot down in here. There are certain angles you can dive at them from where they won't be able to track properly and the end result is a dead buff formation. Definitely a lot easier than the Deathstars of AW.
ack-ack
-
When we got the B-25H, it was brought up at the time with Pyro why we didn't have any rockets for it as an ordnance option. That's when Pyro mentioned that they were looking into some type of ordnance perk system where we would be able to use (I'm guessing bomber perk points) for certain ordnance packages. But I haven't seen anything from Pyro or anyone else from HTC about it since then.
Hopefully, it wasn't just a passing thought on their part and is something they are actively working on to implement in the arenas. That would give players something to spend their bomber (if those are the perks to be used) perks on something other than relatively useless jet bombers.
ack-ack
At nearly 18K bomber perks, I need something else besides the jet.
-
I'll grant you I only recall meeting 999000 once while on different sides, but it was 3-0 in favor of the Mossie over the B-17s that time.
Is that 3-0 in one sortie? My guess is 3-0 over 3 sorties and that you had to rtb because of damage every time. :lol
Biased for fighters. Bombers are dead meat without the two drones' extra guns. Unhistorical and unfair. The drones are the only simple and elegant way to accomodate the bombers' design, which was made for WWII, not AH's MA.
This is a multiplayer game for a reason. Let bomber pilots fly together if they want the extra protection of a formation. That's more fun than flying with robots, after all. The only thing that's "unfair" about 1 player : 1 aircraft is that it would be a change from how things are now. Change is scary. ;) Saying it would be "unfair" implies that it was always unfair, for years and years, in online air-combat games where you didn't have drones, e.g. HT's warbirds, which is silly. Instead, the good bomber pilots stuck together or even brought escorts. Imagine that, teamwork! It's up to us to recreate the effective tactics that worked in the war, it's what makes this game fun.
-
Is that 3-0 in one sortie? My guess is 3-0 over 3 sorties and that you had to rtb because of damage every time. :lolve tactics that worked in the war, it's what makes this game fun.
3-0 in one sortie, yes. Mossie took a few pings, no significant damage.
I attacted from the high four o'clock and came in at about 450mph.
-
He was having a bad day! I've made attacks like that on his bombers, and it doesn't matter; he pings me up no matter my speed or the deflection of my attack. Next time you know he's up try that again. :lol
-
This is a multiplayer game for a reason. Let bomber pilots fly together if they want the extra protection of a formation. That's more fun than flying with robots, after all. The only thing that's "unfair" about 1 player : 1 aircraft is that it would be a change from how things are now. Change is scary. ;) Saying it would be "unfair" implies that it was always unfair, for years and years, in online air-combat games where you didn't have drones, e.g. HT's warbirds, which is silly. Instead, the good bomber pilots stuck together or even brought escorts. Imagine that, teamwork! It's up to us to recreate the effective tactics that worked in the war, it's what makes this game fun.
No, that can't work because there's a natural shortage of bomber players. So they get some handicap. And we're not flying with robots.. If the gunning was by AI, I'd agree. But atm it's just autopilot, the same autopilot you get if you turn the plane with rudders from the bombsight. There's no automation.
And I was here long before the drone addition, so the change thing doesnt mean much to me. In fact it gives me a pretty good perspective.. I would rather have 3-ships than single planes. I've been arguing this one side of the issue, but TBH I'm still curious what would be so much better about losing the drones. Less cannon fodder? Less hits from 1/3 the guns shooting back? Teamwork? We already have the means for teamwork. The problem is that players just can't be tomatod for it. I don't see how teamwork would fix the bomber player deficit. And like I said above (we're going in circles now), the two drones mean that you have worse gunning (fixed convergence) than if there were no drones.
Unfair? Yes it was and still is unfair to bombers.. Bombers are just dead meat anytime they're unescorted.. Drones dont change anything there, except in cases with big numbers and tight formation. You definitely have to be looking out for the hot spots where more than one formation is hitting you at their formation convergence. But that's part of the game... You have to use the right methods. I don't see what the attraction in the old single bombers is. They were so easy it was BORING.
-
Yes, I'll grant that drones do offer some positives, but for now I see more negatives.
1. Drones warp like crazy as soon as the bomber pilot starts maneuvering. Drones should not have been implemented until a glaring problem like that could be fixed.
2. Drones will not follow their leader through a sharp turn, but they will follow through an immelman. :huh
3. By tripling the bombload, drones make it far easier to destroy a cv with level bombing. They also make it easy for a lone pilot to effectively close a small airfield in two passes (3 fh and vh).
I can live with #3, but 1 and 2 must be fixed before I could be convinced that drones have a positive impact on the game.
-
1/2 Warping - Blame HT/Pyro... It's not an inherent problem to drones. It's a matter of code, not gameplay/historical accuracy.
3 Bombload - Yeah, if we had proper dispersion and not such a gamey bombsight system, it wouldn't be a problem. It would be beyond gamey to alter the bombloads for this.
-
Yep, bombers are very easy to shoot down in here. There are certain angles you can dive at them from where they won't be able to track properly and the end result is a dead buff formation. Definitely a lot easier than the Deathstars of AW.
ack-ack
What angle is this that simultaneously gives you a enough firing time have a certainty of dropping the buff, carries no risk of collision (especially if you get some warps or frame rate slow down), doesn't expose you to defensive fire either coming in or going out, and sets you up to take out the next drone in a timely manner?
Hint: Don't say "come straight down on 'em", because that ain't it.
-
3-0 in one sortie, yes. Mossie took a few pings, no significant damage.
I attacted from the high four o'clock and came in at about 450mph.
A Mossie is one of the few fighters that carries long-range lethality to match or exceed a buff. Making comparisons with something that carries 4xHispanos in the nose doesn't reflect the reality of most fighters.
-
Yes, I'll grant that drones do offer some positives, but for now I see more negatives.
1. Drones warp like crazy as soon as the bomber pilot starts maneuvering. Drones should not have been implemented until a glaring problem like that could be fixed.
I'll agree with you here. Bombers need some smoothing code implemented so their drones aren't warping all over.
2. Drones will not follow their leader through a sharp turn, but they will follow through an immelman. :huh
The simple solution, and the one I've been proposing ad nauseum, is to tighten the leash. Not just on distance, but speed as well. would solve another problem with buff formations running at ludicrous speeds without losing their drones
3. By tripling the bombload, drones make it far easier to destroy a cv with level bombing. They also make it easy for a lone pilot to effectively close a small airfield in two passes (3 fh and vh).
Point of order: This is about 80% the result of bad CV driving. Boat captains have bad habits of leaving CVs on nice, steady courses that bomber pilots can line up on with their eyes closed. Granted, total lack of bomb dispersal in-game helps, but guaranteed when the boat is turning donuts and weaving accuracy plummets dramatically.
I can live with #3, but 1 and 2 must be fixed before I could be convinced that drones have a positive impact on the game.
-
What angle is this that simultaneously gives you a enough firing time have a certainty of dropping the buff, carries no risk of collision (especially if you get some warps or frame rate slow down), doesn't expose you to defensive fire either coming in or going out, and sets you up to take out the next drone in a timely manner?
Hint: Don't say "come straight down on 'em", because that ain't it.
One of the safest ones I've found is coming slightly off of 90deg approach somewhere in their fwd quarters (e.g. 10 or 2oc), and doing a slight bend a bit before firing time (exact timing depends on circumstances). Roll to show the smallest aspect possible on your way out.
You can also screw with em on the gunner positions. Make one pass and then reverse for a shot in another gunner's line of sight. Only works with heavy gun loadouts tho.
Another one that for some reason seems to throw off gunners, is the immelman/HO.. You have to come in really fast, pass under em, then reverse upwards. Puts you into a low and shallow front quarter shot, with a pretty high approach speed and a great mugshot... Kills your exit speed though.
-
A Mossie is one of the few fighters that carries long-range lethality to match or exceed a buff. Making comparisons with something that carries 4xHispanos in the nose doesn't reflect the reality of most fighters.
Almost all of the frequently used fighters have more than sufficient firepower to bring down heavy bombers.
P-51, P-38, P-47, N1k, Spits, La-7, 190's, Late 109's, F4U's, Typhoon... there is no lack of firepower anywhere.
The only problem are the fighter pilots unwilling to apply that firepower correctly.
The people I see most complaining about "friggin lazer buff guns" slowly creeping up on enemy buffs at low 6 and paying the price for it.
-
One of the safest ones I've found is coming slightly off of 90deg approach somewhere in their fwd quarters (e.g. 10 or 2oc), and doing a slight bend a bit before firing time (exact timing depends on circumstances). Roll to show the smallest aspect possible on your way out.
First of all, for this approach, you have to be higher and ahead.
Not giving yourself much of a shot there, unless you get lucky and punch it right in the cockpit. The other guy still has shots on you both coming and going. Any FQ pass on a bomber means greatly extended time setting up again too.
50% of the time conservatively he will ping down your fighter (if he's any good as a gunner) and/or put bombs on target before you chisel down all three.
Like I say, I've tried everything.
-
Almost all of the frequently used fighters have more than sufficient firepower to bring down heavy bombers.
P-51, P-38, P-47, N1k, Spits, La-7, 190's, Late 109's, F4U's, Typhoon... there is no lack of firepower anywhere.
The only problem are the fighter pilots unwilling to apply that firepower correctly.
The people I see most complaining about "friggin lazer buff guns" slowly creeping up on enemy buffs at low 6 and paying the price for it.
The slaved gun's firewpower are equivalent to multiple .50s with a single point convergence, like an A-20 except typically the buff formation has more than 6 guns firing at you. And of course, a turret is a much better aiming platform than a A-20.
All of the fighters you've named have convergence issues that reduce their effective range to perhaps half of the turret-mounted .50s. They are pinging you well before you can do anything but waste ammo.
Furthermore, given the lack of warning regarding buffs (even within the radar ring they are just another dot, they really should have some identification as a buff formation and rough altitude) and the fact they run full-throttle from takeoff to landing, all someone *can* do to reach them before they drop bombs many times is come in from the rear quarter.
-
The slaved gun's firewpower are equivalent to multiple .50s with a single point convergence, like an A-20 except typically the buff formation has more than 6 guns firing at you. And of course, a turret is a much better aiming platform than a A-20.
All of the fighters you've named have convergence issues that reduce their effective range to perhaps half of the turret-mounted .50s. They are pinging you well before you can do anything but waste ammo.
Not really.
The greater physical distance between buff guns from different planes makes convergence an even bigger issue for them. Fighter firepower is much more concentrated at longer ranges.
And aiming is actually easier in a fighter than in a bomber when you follow the golden rule "don't attack from six o clock". When the fighter attacks from high 2 or 3 o clock, the bomber gunner has several angles to track and has a hard time to determine the fighter sspeed and the correct aiming point.
When I'm in American planes with wing mounted 50 cals, I'm usually firing & shredding buffs at D800. One of my favorite buff hunters is the P-51B. "Only" 4 .50cal MGs...
The "secret" to kill buffs is just not to play the bomber pilot's game. Correct application of speed & angles makes buff killing quite easy, only at altitudes above 20k it's getting interesting ;)
Unfortunately, most fighter pilots lack the patience to add another 2-5 mins to get into a favorable attacking position. When I'm flying buffs myself and see a fighter not simply closing slow on my six but climb a bit higher and starting tio overtake me, I know I'm in deep trouble, no matter how his actual "skill level" is.
-
That single point of convergence is 600 yards and cannot be changed. This makes the guns on the drones 90% useless.
-
What angle is this that simultaneously gives you a enough firing time have a certainty of dropping the buff, carries no risk of collision (especially if you get some warps or frame rate slow down), doesn't expose you to defensive fire either coming in or going out, and sets you up to take out the next drone in a timely manner?
Hint: Don't say "come straight down on 'em", because that ain't it.
Come in at a steep angle, pointing your nose at area between the cockpit and the nose of the bomber. Your rounds will impact around the cockpit/wing root area, usually resulting in catastrophic damage to the bomber. Take out the drones first so you avoid the warp collision of the drone warping to the lead position. After you make your pass, extend a little ahead of the bomber then pull into a vertical climb, loop over and repeat the attack. 3 passes, 3 kills, no damage.
It really is that easy to kill a buff in AH and you don't need a cannon equipped bird to do it, 4x .50 calibers is enough to take out any bomber in one pass. Last tour I think I was 65-6 against bombers, out of those deaths all were from collisions when I hit the lead bomber on my first run instead of a drone, resulting in a collision when a drone warped to the lead position.
ack-ack
-
Oops.. I meant 90deg horizontal and 45deg vertical or more.. Yep, you need to be ahead and higher.. rest is like AKAK says.. SOP. You must be doing something wrong to take pings every single time.
When I'm in American planes with wing mounted 50 cals, I'm usually firing & shredding buffs at D800. One of my favorite buff hunters is the P-51B. "Only" 4 .50cal MGs...
Were you here back when we still had the big tennis ball hit sprites and less granular DM? Back then you could do that from 1K out. It was great to connect shots like that.. 1/2 second constant bursts.. Laser-like. You didn't even need speed to take em down. With a P47 or even a real stable platform like the F6F, you could do those shots from very low speed and way below and behind. Even time it so that your shot happened in sync with the plane's nose-drop departure from hanging on its prop. :lol
-
Perk the bombers.
Ar234
Lanc
B24
B17
B26
They all should have a perk score applied to a certain degree.
Perking the bomb loadout is like asking Mike Tyson to put some extra padding in his boxing gloves. It is still going to hurt like a &%$#@. Each bomber is able to carry X pounds of ord, whether that package is delievered in 24/100lb bombs or 6/1000lb bombs is regardless. Perk the planes ability. I suppose I could be swayed to perk only the 500lb and higher ords, perhaps it would allow for mor eof the 250lbs and 100lb bombs to be used?
Stop and think about the raw damage those bombers above are able to deliver AND defend themselves at the same time. The Ar234 is perked for a single attribute: speed. What are not the Lanc, B24, B17, and B26 perked for their ability to destory and defend themselves? Some can argue that the Ju88's should be perked as well, it can carry more ord weight than the B17. How much of the ord above 4/500kg bombs is usable is another story. I wont vouch for the Ju88 to be perked, it has a very particular nitche to fit in and its defensive capabilities are marginal at best. ;)
-
All of the fighters you've named have convergence issues that reduce their effective range to perhaps half of the turret-mounted .50s. They are pinging you well before you can do anything but waste ammo.
The greater physical distance between buff guns from different planes makes convergence an even bigger issue for them. Fighter firepower is much more concentrated at longer ranges.
To illustrate that point:
Case: A P-51 is shooting at a formation of B-24s at 800yards. B-24's are firing back.
The buff drone tail turrets are about 220 ft apart. When shooting at D800 (200yds beyond bomber gun convergece range) that results in a spread of 73 feet between both turret's bullet streams. Including the lead plane's tail turret, there's a distance of 37 ft between the bullet streams. As the P-51's wingspan is 37ft, it's clear that only one turret will achive hits at that range.
Now the P-51: It's outer guns are about 15ft apart. Assuming a standard convergence range of 400yds, the spread is 15ft at D800. Compare that to the B-24's wingspan of 110ft. With proper aim, all 6 MG's will hit the same wing.
-
What are not the Lanc, B24, B17, and B26 perked for their ability to destory and defend themselves?
Because as even the most cursory investigation would reveal, they can't effectively defend themselves.
-
I think people want bombers to be completely unable to defend themselves because they're incapable of properly setting up an attack. As a veteran buff pilot I would venture to say 75% of people that attack my formations come from dead 6, high dead 6 or low dead 6, and whats sad is they usually take out one of my buffs before I can down them. These comments about taking drones away and making buff pilots form up with each other wouldn't solve a thing. Back in pre-drone days it was hard to get anyone to group together, and when we did, we would die just as easy as a formation does today.
-
So you are saying the gun positions from the drones don't aim at the same point the master gun is aiming at?
To illustrate that point:
Case: A P-51 is shooting at a formation of B-24s at 800yards. B-24's are firing back.
The buff drone tail turrets are about 220 ft apart. When shooting at D800 (200yds beyond bomber gun convergece range) that results in a spread of 73 feet between both turret's bullet streams. Including the lead plane's tail turret, there's a distance of 37 ft between the bullet streams. As the P-51's wingspan is 37ft, it's clear that only one turret will achive hits at that range.
Now the P-51: It's outer guns are about 15ft apart. Assuming a standard convergence range of 400yds, the spread is 15ft at D800. Compare that to the B-24's wingspan of 110ft. With proper aim, all 6 MG's will hit the same wing.
-
The guns on the single bomber you are firing from do not converge, they fire parallel. The guns from the drones fire parallel to the other guns on that drone. The bullet streams from all three bombers converge at a range of 600 yards. Because of the distance from each bomber in the three ship formation the guns from the drones can only hit if the target is near the convergence range or if the gunner misses badly with the guns from the bomber he is actually in.
The common myth seems to be that the guns of all the bombers converge on the target in the gunner's sights. That is simply not true.
EDIT:
The main thing the drones brought was nearly tripled durability (it is easier to shoot the drones down because of the defensive gunner's angles) in the form of three, on the fly, lives and tripled payload to compensate for the decreased accuracy when the bombsight was changed (harder to calibrate than the one we have now) and bomb drift was added.
-
I wont vouch for the Ju88 to be perked, it has a very particular nitche to fit in and its defensive capabilities are marginal at best. ;)
Honestly, the pea shooters on that thing are pretty deadly. I've downed countless planes who think they can sit behind me while I pound away at them when the ventral turret and they eventually lose a wing.
-
Honestly, the pea shooters on that thing are pretty deadly. I've downed countless planes who think they can sit behind me while I pound away at them when the ventral turret and they eventually lose a wing.
Lower your throttle and you can hit with the dorsal turrets at the same time.
-
After you make your pass, extend a little ahead of the bomber
During which time you are vulnerable to the nose/ball turret or nose/top gunner positions. I have taken damage/been shot down during this phase out to D1000. I would suggest that if they are not shooting at you on the way out from these two positions you are not dealing with a very good gunner. Increasing your distance faster by extending away in a steep dive or energy-bleeding jinking about can make you a harder target but also interfere with any timely execution of step two. And step two...
then pull into a vertical climb, loop over and repeat the attack. 3 passes, 3 kills, no damage.
...requires a very high initial energy overhead which may not even be possible for all fighter to maintain for 3 consecutive passes, especially at high altitude. And that is making the relatively optimistic assumption that 3 passes will do it, which may *not* be the case if is B-17s instead of B-24s with their magic wing-root fire button, or if you are keeping your airspeed especially high to minimize your vulnerability during the extension as described in step 1.
-
The more I think about perking the bomb loadouts the more I am warming up to the idea and here is why: If a B17 takes up 6/1k bombs it can do a lot more damage and take out a lot more specific targets vs the the 24/100lb bombs. The 24/100lb bombs are going to be used to carbet bomb a town or field, and the tonnage is quite different as well (6k vs 2400lbs). Im still not %100 sold on the idea of perking bomb loadouts instead of the plane... but we'll see.
The big question now is are ALL of the bombers going to have the 500lb and up ords perked regardless? Are we goin gto perk the B25's 3/1k bombs? What about the B25's 6/500lb bombs? The TBM's 2000lb bomb? Or are we only talking about the B26, B17, B24, and Lanc? What about the Ju88? If the plane is perked... much of the problem is soved. Perk the bomber based on its ord capablity and range, with defensive ability being a consideration (B24>B17 in defensive guns but the B17>b24 in dmg absorbtion). Oh, and what about the Stuka and its 1800kg's of butt humpin'? You going to let that go without a perk? If one wants to talk about having a bomb loadout perked... you cant ignore the Stuka.
btw.. as for the Lanc to be perked in EW, it is right on vs the other bombers. Why the issue? The Lanc is even MOAR powahful in the EW than in the LW arena. I guess I'm still unsure why we're looking at perking other than the aircraft. It is that single AIRCRAFT that delivers the dustruction, the bombs dont get there alone. And as far as the new guys not being able to take the perked bombers... *gasp*.. ya mean they might have to learn how to bomb with the Boston, B25, Ju88, Ki67 or TBM (none were on my list to perk)??? Oh the horror! The thing is, the perked value I suggested would be easily reached. I suggested those bombers be perked, but not perked out of reach for the new guy like the Ar234 (or as devistating if lost).
Bomber perk points are the easiest to earn of any perks able to be earned. We earn so many but are able to spend it on so little. There is nothign wrong with taking up a set of bumbers *responsibly* and not bombing and bailing or flying at 5k over a large airfield. Fly the buffs right and the chance of getting shot down is minimized. Get those buffs to 18k+, get an escort or 2, and THEN enter the combat area.
-
The slaved gun's firewpower are equivalent to multiple .50s with a single point convergence, like an A-20 except typically the buff formation has more than 6 guns firing at you. And of course, a turret is a much better aiming platform than a A-20.
All of the fighters you've named have convergence issues that reduce their effective range to perhaps half of the turret-mounted .50s. They are pinging you well before you can do anything but waste ammo.
Furthermore, given the lack of warning regarding buffs (even within the radar ring they are just another dot, they really should have some identification as a buff formation and rough altitude) and the fact they run full-throttle from takeoff to landing, all someone *can* do to reach them before they drop bombs many times is come in from the rear quarter.
just another blob on radar just like on the primitive radars back in the day.......... and just like back then, most fighters that were able to attack bombers were ALREADY at altitude waiting...... not trying to lift and climb hard onto the bombers 6, barely above stall, just floating their pancaked out for an easy shot..
CAP (Combat Air Patrol) if your base is a HVT (High value target) to the enemy, gain some alt, and go look for bombers.. I do it a decent amount, and its pretty rewarding
-
So you are saying the gun positions from the drones don't aim at the same point the master gun is aiming at?
Yes. As Karnak already explained, they converge on a single point. And actually that is 500yds, not 600 as I wrote earlier (I'm always messing that one up :(). So the spread is even bigger than the 37ft I posted.
Fuzeman made a better illustration than my dry math:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d64/fuzeman/Bomberguns.jpg)
-
Yes. As Karnak already explained, they converge on a single point. And actually that is 500yds, not 600 as I wrote earlier (I'm always messing that one up :(). So the spread is even bigger than the 37ft I posted.
Fuzeman made a better illustration than my dry math:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d64/fuzeman/Bomberguns.jpg)
Okay, so the poor babies can only guarantee 4-6 .50s converging on one point. That's heartbreaking. I know the most frustrating part of the A-20 is the impotent firepower. :devil
-
Okay, so the poor babies can only guarantee 4-6 .50s converging on one point. That's heartbreaking. I know the most frustrating part of the A-20 is the impotent firepower. :devil
They don't converge. The guns on your bomber fire in parallel to each other.
-
I was talking about the 2-3 positions on the single bomber firing on the target Karnak.
-
I was talking about the 2-3 positions on the single bomber firing on the target Karnak.
Yes, they don't converge. They fire in parallel.
-
about the bombs and perk thing ... what about the drones instead ?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,250138.0.html
-
During which time you are vulnerable to the nose/ball turret or nose/top gunner positions. I have taken damage/been shot down during this phase out to D1000. I would suggest that if they are not shooting at you on the way out from these two positions you are not dealing with a very good gunner. Increasing your distance faster by extending away in a steep dive or energy-bleeding jinking about can make you a harder target but also interfere with any timely execution of step two. And step two...
No, you are not. You're making the attack from above and then extending out beyong gun range before going vertical and looping over.
...requires a very high initial energy overhead which may not even be possible for all fighter to maintain for 3 consecutive passes, especially at high altitude.
Again, no it doesn't. I usually start my attacks at 300mph IAS and always have enough energy to be able to repeat my attacks. At this point, it's all about energy management, those of us that know how to, will always have sufficient energy to repeat the attacks. Those that don't, well, let's say they need to learn how to manage their energy.
And that is making the relatively optimistic assumption that 3 passes will do it, which may *not* be the case if is B-17s instead of B-24s with their magic wing-root fire button, or if you are keeping your airspeed especially high to minimize your vulnerability during the extension as described in step 1.
It's not a 'relatively optimistic assumption' that 3 passes will do it. It's a given fact. It never takes me more than 3 passes to kill a bomber, one pass, one kill. There is not one bomber in this game that is not impossible to shoot down in one pass, as long as you know what you are doing, shooting down bombers is very easy.
I think the problem is that you aren't very experienced in engaging bombers or just don't know how. Those of us that do, have absolutely no troubles whatsoever in shooting down bombers.
ack-ack
-
No, you are not. You're making the attack from above and then extending out beyong gun range before going vertical and looping over.
You realize buffs have guns that are capable of being fired forwards right? Several of them in fact. The nose, ball, and top turrets. If you are not being shot at by them during your extension then something very odd is going on.
Again, no it doesn't. I usually start my attacks at 300mph IAS and always have enough energy to be able to repeat my attacks. At this point, it's all about energy management, those of us that know how to, will always have sufficient energy to repeat the attacks. Those that don't, well, let's say they need to learn how to manage their energy.
Yeah, I know nothing about managing energy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: THATs the explanation.
I think the problem is that you aren't very experienced in engaging bombers or just don't know how. Those of us that do, have absolutely no troubles whatsoever in shooting down bombers.
I think the problem is that people DO have high k/d ratios against bombers-including me, if you wish to check-but don't admit that this comes largely from the fact that many bomber pilots are clueless, that they are only attacking from a good position, and probably bugging out if the buff gunner proves too dangerous. All of which does nothing to argue against my point that strategically buffs rule the game, due to the twin factors of the difficulties of intercepting them and the supreme accuracy of the bombing.
-
Bombing is too easy (and too easy to game, e.g. divebomb) and it's kinda hard to intercept them; but not too hard. And those two don't amount to them ruling the game by any stretch. They might if there were about twice as many bomber players.
Another thing that should change, along with the bombsight system, is external views. You should be put right back into first person perspective when you pull the trigger in gunner position.
-
I think the problem is that people DO have high k/d ratios against bombers-including me, if you wish to check-but don't admit that this comes largely from the fact that many bomber pilots are clueless, that they are only attacking from a good position, and probably bugging out if the buff gunner proves too dangerous. All of which does nothing to argue against my point that strategically buffs rule the game, due to the twin factors of the difficulties of intercepting them and the supreme accuracy of the bombing.
All of it argues against your point, and even more: The reality of MA gameplay.
Bombers do not "rule the game". Every day flying & fighting and killing buffs in droves does show it. Occasionally there is the odd bomber mission by a few guys knowing their stuff and manage to shut down an airfield completely - but thats not the norm. And usually even those raids can be stopped if players would only take attention to the tale-telling darbars
Buffs are vulnerable, fly in in single formations most of the time, far too low to get any amount of safety from altitude. Most buff gunners are not good enough to prevent the death of their ride by any serious attacker. Bombers need much time to climb to alt & get to target - why is it that almost all serious porking is done by hvy jabos? It's them who really "rule" the game, being much harder to intercept, can drop a hangar on their own, are tactically much more flexible.
The majority of buffs in game are not muich more than targets. Buff in this game are far from being an unbalancing force. Disabling formations would effectively remove them from game, thus greatly impacting gameplay in a negative way: Less choices, less options, less fun for new players, less variety.
-
Did some more "testing".
The idea that there is ANY angle you can approach a good buff gunner from for a high% guns solutions without standing a good chance of being shot by hugely lethal guns remains fantasy fed by all the clueless noobs trying to gun or the number of kill garnered while the buffer is in the bombsight.
-
You realize buffs have guns that are capable of being fired forwards right? Several of them in fact. The nose, ball, and top turrets. If you are not being shot at by them during your extension then something very odd is going on.
You don't say? Wow, and all this time I thought it was just party favors they were tossing my way. Sure, they can shoot at me but the chances of a hit are very low.
Yeah, I know nothing about managing energy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: THATs the explanation.
I wasn't sure with your previous comment, sounded like it came from someone that really doesn't know how to manage their E state properly. *shrug*
I think the problem is that people DO have high k/d ratios against bombers-including me, if you wish to check-but don't admit that this comes largely from the fact that many bomber pilots are clueless, that they are only attacking from a good position, and probably bugging out if the buff gunner proves too dangerous. All of which does nothing to argue against my point that strategically buffs rule the game, due to the twin factors of the difficulties of intercepting them and the supreme accuracy of the bombing.
The fact is bombers are easy to shoot down when you use proper tactics.
ack-ack
-
Did some more "testing".
The idea that there is ANY angle you can approach a good buff gunner from for a high% guns solutions without standing a good chance of being shot by hugely lethal guns remains fantasy fed by all the clueless noobs trying to gun or the number of kill garnered while the buffer is in the bombsight.
So what? How many of those gunners are there that can shoot you down over ~60% of the time before you've done >60% damage to their bombers? You can't unbalance the game just for some unrealistic need to stick to historical features/gameplay. If you admit that there's an opportunity for a shot while they're scoped, you admit that they're open to losing easily 1 or 2 thirds of their bombload (their whole purpose to play) from what's a damn easy shot (tho the timing prolly takes practice) that any noob past the plane control learning stage can manage.
-
I struggle with the original reasons (given at the start of the thread) for perking bombs (ie so fun is spoilt for furballers)
However in the melee of the MA I do believe the present set up re buffs is potentially unbalancing whilst not representative of typical (combat) challanges of bombing. (please dont come at me with boring this aint real arguements I know this)
I can quite easily take out all the hangers in a small or medium field with either a formations of B24's or Lancs. I will do this in two passes and only have to suffer (ususally) any sense of challenge on the 2nd pass if some one is already at Alt waiting.
I can bracket a hanger with 6 x 1000lbs with absolute precision from 20k thru a layer of light cloud. There is no skill to this or even judgement I merely follow procedure calibrating and checking speed against E6B speed to garantee absolute accuracy.
My view re the above is that what ever bomb drift there is now it is not enough.............. it should not be that easy.............
Taking 500lbers I can bracket the same hangers with a slightly wider spread of 12 x 500lbs to also achieve the same. Its marginally more difficult but not greatly so. However if bomb drift were more prevelent it would make it harder than when playing with 6 x 1000lbs.
In reality the temptation (when loaded with 500lb'ers) is to use 9 x 500lbs to achieve the same end............. and it can be done more often than not but at least its some sort of challenge. Its easier lower down but then interception is more likely lower down too.
If 1000lb + bombs on buffs were perked then those not wishing to risk bomber perks on these would be more challanged but could in the main achieve much the same with only a little more challenge.
For me there is insufficient bomb drift. I should not be able to identify a GV dot at 15K and pickle a single bomb right down its cupula...... but I can (provided it does not move).
There are of course other issues about level buffs being used in shallow diving low level attacks or even formations of heavy buffs used in anti GV roles. I believe forcing F6 for level bombers is the solution here I would even consider adding a greater delay on bomb arming fuzes when dropping from "level bombers".
IMO a mechanism in game that forces "bombers" to use the bomb aimer F6 (whilst enabling formations) whilst forcing "attackers" to drop from the cockpit (whilst disabling formations) would also open the way to addressing some balancing to the way Jabos are used.
Jabos carrying 2 x 1000lbs are unrepresentative. If we want to take a "rarer" load out we can invest our perks on it. Equally if we load ordinance on a fighter it should automatically switch classification to attacker and thoses perks won or lost should be "attacker perks".
Even 2 x 500lbs was considered a heavy load out.
So in summary I am all for perking ordinance and I would make it simple and apply a scale of perks that went on the bomb weight upto 500 (inc) no perk. Over 500LB(250 kg) a light perk scale would be applied. It would be based upon the average bomb weight not the total bomb weight.
I am not so sure about perking formations given the other balancing factors of increased bomb drift and a 500+ perk I am not sure if its then required.
-
Waiting to grab your easy kill when they are in the bombsight means you have probably waited too late.
So what? How many of those gunners are there that can shoot you down over ~60% of the time before you've done >60% damage to their bombers? You can't unbalance the game just for some unrealistic need to stick to historical features/gameplay. If you admit that there's an opportunity for a shot while they're scoped, you admit that they're open to losing easily 1 or 2 thirds of their bombload (their whole purpose to play) from what's a damn easy shot (tho the timing prolly takes practice) that any noob past the plane control learning stage can manage.
-
You don't say? Wow, and all this time I thought it was just party favors they were tossing my way. Sure, they can shoot at me but the chances of a hit are very low.
ack-ack
I'm sure you just laugh at someone who thinks they are safe from your 38 at D800...but the shot is impossible for turret mounted .50s from a perfectly steady platform?
-
BnZ That's a minor point. If you pop em before they drop, their sortie is instantly void.
The main point is that there's no imbalance in the first place if they do as much damage to you as you to them. Which isn't the case.
-
I'm sure you just laugh at someone who thinks they are safe from your 38 at D800...but the shot is impossible for turret mounted .50s from a perfectly steady platform?
Who said anything about firing from long range? I do not fire unless I am a minimum of 600 yards out from my target, whether it be a fighter or a bomber. And the angle and speed that I am making my attack run, it is very difficult for the bomber guns to properly track me as I make my attack. By attacking at a steep angle and high speed, even the top turret will have a very difficult time tracking me. Since I am going at a high rate of speed, I am only exposure to enemy fire is at a minimum and the energy gained in my dive is sufficient enough for me to escape any return gunfire safely out of range and to zoom vertically and repeat my attack.
ack-ack
-
Objective:
Increase the average release alt of ordinance used in the main arena relative to historical operational altitudes as applicable by aircraft type and use.
Proposal:
Perk bomb load outs based on release alt (ASL) for 2 and 4 engine aircraft related to historical operational altitudes, while awarding more perk points for damage done with ordinance released from higher altitudes. Bombs damage is reduced proportionally if you do not have sufficient perk points for the release altitude.
Examples:
Lanc formation w/14X1000lbs: -420 perks < 5000, 5001 > -42 perks < 10000, 10000 > 0 perks < 15000, 15001 > +42 perks
B26 formation w/4x1000lbs: -160 perks < 1500, 1501 > -16 perks < 3000; > 3000 0 perks < 5000, 5001 > +16 perks
Restrict 2 and 4 eng bombers to F6 view to drop bombs (w/exceptions for JU-88 and A20, etc.)(w/exceptions for Torpedoes and Rockets to F1 view)
Perk the use of heavy (>250 lbs) ordinance by 1 & 2 eng aircraft (w/exceptions for special purpose AC such as Stuka, etc.)
Add the ability to choose a 3 or 4 or 5 plane formation and charge additional perk points for 4th and 5th plane.
Add the ability to change the bomber formation during flight. Example: Line Abreast, Echelon Left/Right, V, Box, etc.
Create Air Start spawn points for 2 & 4 engine aircraft at large Airfields.