Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Boxboy on May 24, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
-
Can anyone give me an actual WWII statistic on the effectiveness of level bombers vs CV's?? I can't seem to recall a single CV lost to level bombers, yet in AH the SOP to take down the carrier is to launch a set of Lancs, B-17s, B-24's, etc etc.
-
This is one of the biggest pet peeves I have about AH2, that being the hyper-accurate BUFFS. But, realistically, if the wind was turned on in the MA, this would all go away.
In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000ft of their aim point; even a fighter-bomber in a 40 degree dive releasing a bomb at 7,000 ft could have a circular error (CEP) of as much as 1,000 ft. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 per cent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 by 500 ft area (a German power-generation plant.)
The ability of one set of bombers to hit a moving CV from 10,000 feet is wildly out of sync with reality.
-
Those bombers didnt calibrate back in the day, only the lead bomber really did anything. And again HTC has to make it so noobs can jump in and take off so they get more players :salute
-
As far as I know, no level bombers hit moving ships during WW2. Ever.
I think, HTC leave it that way, because otherwise CV would be very hard to kill w/o SB or cruiser.
Easy calibration is a shame though.
-
As far as I know, no level bombers hit moving ships during WW2. Ever.
I think, HTC leave it that way, because otherwise CV would be very hard to kill w/o SB or cruiser.
Easy calibration is a shame though.
+1. The manual calibration in FSO doesnt seem to disrupt most targets getting hit *yet the guys Ive seen bombing were older than dirt playing this game*, but then again, most everyone is used to the easy mode of calibration and there would be too much whinage if they changed it back
-
HELLO! This is just a game. :rolleyes:
-
.
-
Level bombers (Lancasters) were send out to bomb the Tirpitz, she was sitting in port though :aok
-
I think the first wave of aircraft to attack Force Z comprised level bombing G3M "Nell". They scored a single hit on the Repulse. Torpedo bombing Nells and Bettys did the major work on the Prince of Wales and the Repulse from that point on.
-
b25s were used alot againts ships and dams but at low alt(up to 3000ft) and droped either the HIGHBALL bombs which were round and skipped across the water,and regular ap bombs that they also skipped across the water,the highballs were not very effective so they switched to the reg, ap bombs that did pretty good.
personally i dont see how they were able to skip the reg, ap bombs on the water but somehow they did.
-
b25s were used alot againts ships and dams but at low alt(up to 3000ft) and droped either the HIGHBALL bombs which were round and skipped across the water,and regular ap bombs that they also skipped across the water,the highballs were not very effective so they switched to the reg, ap bombs that did pretty good.
personally i dont see how they were able to skip the reg, ap bombs on the water but somehow they did.
I don't think the Americans ever used Highball did they? That was the version of the bouncing bomb developed for the Mosquito by the British - As far as i know it was never used operationally.
The standard bombs had time delay fuses on them so that they did not detonate on impact.
-
I can hit CV's consistently in B26's (chosen for thier durability). 8K altitude puts these bombers just out of reach of the auto-ack, but still in effective range of the 5-inchers. Yesterday, I was able to sink a CV although the defensive fighter cap over it swarmed in a wiped my flight totally out.
-
They sent waves of 17's against the 4 cv's at Midway.......nuthin
(note: in WW2, if you wanted to kill a building, you destroyed the city in which said building resided....politically incorrect nowadays)
-
(note: in WW2, if you wanted to kill a building, you destroyed the city in which said building resided....politically incorrect nowadays)
But it got the job done! :aok
-
HELLO! This is just a game. :rolleyes:
That's supposed to accurately simulate the abilities of WWII aircraft? ;)
In order to counter the increased accuracy of level bombing, AH has the super auto-puffy ack, which I'm yet to see bring down a slow and large 4 engined bomber.
Manual calibration isn't going to make CVs safe from level bombing. It would only force players to learn a new trick before they go back to the same old thing. These things might help:
- Wind
- Randomness in how bombs fall through the wind (they don't fall in a perfect straight line)
- CV without human commander does auto-evasives when 4-engine bombers approach
-
... what? This is probobly the first whine iv ever seen about bombers LEVEL bombing a CV! :lol All the whines seem to be about the "lanc stukas" dive bombing the CV.
-
... what? This is probably the first whine iv ever seen about bombers LEVEL bombing a CV! :lol All the whines seem to be about the "lanc stukas" dive bombing the CV.
Amen to that Clone155 from one nerf the bomber whine to another.
Anyway one thing I think you guys are forgetting is the fact that our buff pilots have 1000's of chances to bomb ships unlike in WWII. Fleets always travel at the same speed unless turning so with practice you can hit just about anything. I will however agree on the flak though, bombers can pass through the ack with little problem, even when moving at just 200mph, yet a 500mph 262 gets nailed on the first burst once it gets in range.
Carry on.
-
Bombers are for clueless noobs, so to keep the clueless noobs playing and paying, they have to be easy mode stupid. I mean look at the P-38. Sheesh...
-
This is one of the biggest pet peeves I have about AH2, that being the hyper-accurate BUFFS. But, realistically, if the wind was turned on in the MA, this would all go away.
The ability of one set of bombers to hit a moving CV from 10,000 feet is wildly out of sync with reality.
There are a lot of factors making it ridiculously easy compared to R\the RL war, most of which have been mentioned:
* Easy calibration and hyper-accurate bombsights
* Perfect and uniform ballistics for bombs
* No wind, turbulence, haze, clouds, smoke, or other variations in atmospheric conditions
* Target often not maneuvering
* Targets always move at the same speed and are always the same size (making lead calculation easy)
* Lack of fighter opposition
* Ineffective AA
* Relatively low alt bombing made possible by the previous two factors
OTOH we use CVs in ways that in no way resemble anything that would have been done with them in WW2. Even having (invisible) transports and cruisers getting as close to the beach as our ships routinely do is ahistorical. There's also no need to turn CVs into the wind for flight ops, which is HUGE advantage.
My pet nitpick: why don't our destroyers have long-range torps? That would certainly discourage passing opposing TFs right through each other.
-
I think that the CV's puffy ack is more in need of change than this...something needs to be changed so it targets either this way:
1.) Bombers
2.) Bomb-laiden Fighters
or simply any plane with a bomb on it.
-
OK thanks guys, and to the bomber guys I didn't see this as a whine but I guess if your ox is getting gored you see it that way.
As for it being "just" a game, I doubt many of us would have played had it just been a game without some basis in real WWII action.
I think "wind" should be put in both for bombing and for takeoffs, an invisible shoreline zone of control should be setup which prevents LARGE ships from approaching (this same zone around the fleets prevents close proxcimity closures of LARGE ships).
-
They need to slow the CVs down to more accurate speeds... granted, Essex class carriers could move at 32knots but rarely did so so they would have more range. Until the CV speeds are slowed you won't see much divebombing and even less torpedo use.
Yes, I know they have the speed of the CVs up in the game to simulate them turning into the wind but there has to be some happy moderation between cruising speed and giving the damn thing a rooster tail.
-
I believe, (real) CVs always move at full speed when attacked or launch planes.
-
Manual calibration isn't going to make CVs safe from level bombing. It would only force players to learn a new trick before they go back to the same old thing. These things might help:
There was full manual calibration in the MA and we saw the results. Wind, bomb dispersion and things that make level bombing less effective lead to only one thing - dive bombing lancasters/B17s. Unless some mechanism that prevents heavy bombers from dive bombing (bomb release from F6 view, restriction on dive angle for release, etc.) is installed, this will happen again.
-
I don't get this, "I want wind" requests. What team should have the advantage?
-
I got an idea ....Turn the CV......
999000 <S>
-
I got an idea ....Turn the CV......
999000 <S>
:rofl :rofl :aok
-
This is one of the biggest pet peeves I have about AH2, that being the hyper-accurate BUFFS. But, realistically, if the wind was turned on in the MA, this would all go away.
The ability of one set of bombers to hit a moving CV from 10,000 feet is wildly out of sync with reality.
<<sighs>>
looks like another ""i'm pissed, so play my way thread"
even bombing stationary targets we're more accurate than the real buffs were in ww2.
you don't want your cv bombed.....then turn it when the eggs are let loose. pretty simple really.
-
you don't want your cv bombed.....then turn it when the eggs are let loose...
...after which they park it in front of an enemy harbor...
:D
-
I got an idea ....Turn the CV......
999000 <S>
ssshhhh..........they want to whine, 'cause they lost their cv when they took it within 200 yards of the shore.
-
For those who have said that CV's are too hard to kill except with bombers and that dive bombing is not a possible tactic to kill a CV, ju are wrong.
-
There was full manual calibration in the MA and we saw the results. Wind, bomb dispersion and things that make level bombing less effective lead to only one thing - dive bombing lancasters/B17s. Unless some mechanism that prevents heavy bombers from dive bombing (bomb release from F6 view, restriction on dive angle for release, etc.) is installed, this will happen again.
2 wrongs do not make a right IMO.
I would welcome full manual calibration, windage etc regardless of what ever fix may reduce the "missuse" of of heavy bombers. I would equally welcome a fix re the "misuse" of heavy bombers regardless of what ever fix may reduce the use of easymode level bombing.
As it is a game then (IMO) both could be available but with a penalty of some sort (higher random drift? 50% lethality?) applied to easy mode calibration.
-
Sheez if ya have nothing to add why post?? What are you scared of Cap1?? Everytime someone comes in here and suggests a change, in jump you silly bulldogs of the bbs to drive them off with not a shred of anything to add to the subject except perhaps to get it locked??
-
Sheez if ya have nothing to add why post?? What are you scared of Cap1?? Everytime someone comes in here and suggests a change, in jump you silly bulldogs of the bbs to drive them off with not a shred of anything to add to the subject except perhaps to get it locked??
because this is a game dude. when i have trouble with something, i adapt. i change what i do.
-
...after which they park it in front of an enemy harbor...
:D
:rofl :rofl
you're so right!!
-
because this is a game dude. when i have trouble with something, i adapt. i change what i do.
apparently this is not one your adaptive days :rofl
-
apparently this is not one your adaptive days :rofl
sure it is.
me thinks i'll get online tonight and do nothing else but bomb cv's. :aok :rofl
-
I don't get this, "I want wind" requests. What team should have the advantage?
Just a thought... Tie wind direction to ENY in some fashion. Maybe the team with the most players gets a head wind.
-
because this is a game dude. when i have trouble with something, i adapt. i change what i do.
I'll send $20 to anyone who does a quick search and finds a post of CAP whining or wanting a change in the game. I just don't have time myself right now, but twenty bones would be worth it. :D
-
I'll send $20 to anyone who does a quick search and finds a post of CAP whining or wanting a change in the game. I just don't have time myself right now, but twenty bones would be worth it. :D
oooooooo.....you're gonna go broke dude.
WAIT.......
I've posted whines, but i don't think i asked for changes.......so many i don't remember though..... :rofl
-
I miss the wind it blows without it. :D
-
oooooooo.....you're gonna go broke dude.
WAIT.......
I've posted whines, but i don't think i asked for changes.......so many i don't remember though..... :rofl
Oh crap, yeah, I meant to say "the first person that..." :D
-
Oh crap, yeah, I meant to say "the first person that..." :D
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
OK thanks guys, and to the bomber guys I didn't see this as a whine but I guess if your ox is getting gored you see it that way.
It isn't a whine. On these boards anything that someone disagrees with gets the whine moniker attached to it. Seems many discussions are buried beneath that word. We should not be so limited in our vocabulary.
-
sure it is.
me thinks i'll get online tonight and do nothing else but bomb cv's. :aok :rofl
Heh you and alot if others, of course it has nothing to with this subject but if thats what turns your crank go to it. If I recall correctly we started calling it a game when EZ mode was introduced and Dale has said its a game now so I have no arguement with that I guess, but suggestions to improve the game are still accepted as far as I know. Since it's a game I wonder why we post fm stats??
-
I'll send $20 to anyone who does a quick search and finds a post of CAP whining or wanting a change in the game. I just don't have time myself right now, but twenty bones would be worth it. :D
Apparently Sunbat thinks never contributing to the community is some type of badge of honor? I just don't understand why these folks are sooooooo sensitive to anyone posting a question or request? This is my last reply to either of these guys since they have nothing to say really.
-
Heh you and alot if others, of course it has nothing to with this subject but if thats what turns your crank go to it. If I recall correctly we started calling it a game when EZ mode was introduced and Dale has said its a game now so I have no arguement with that I guess, but suggestions to improve the game are still accepted as far as I know. Since it's a game I wonder why we post fm stats??
actually, i generally only bomb when i can't find a good fight....or i'm not in a mood to fly a fighter.............
-
Apparently Sunbat thinks never contributing to the community is some type of badge of honor? I just don't understand why these folks are sooooooo sensitive to anyone posting a question or request? This is my last reply to either of these guys since they have nothing to say really.
Meh. I was just trying to help your cause, but I see I really need to see about helping your reading comprehension. But whadeva...
And for the record, I think bombers killing CV's is ghey too.
And nothing to say? Well here is what I have to say: whycome you have the same name as my BFF, BoxBoy28?
-
Apparently Sunbat thinks never contributing to the community is some type of badge of honor? I just don't understand why these folks are sooooooo sensitive to anyone posting a question or request? This is my last reply to either of these guys since they have nothing to say really.
butcha see though....i DID contribute to it. i said that to avoid having a cv sunk, one should turn it. one could also man the 5" guns, the quad 20mm's, or the 40mm(i think it has them).
so see.....i have contributed.
on the other hand, if they want to change it, go for it..........
-
Just a thought... Tie wind direction to ENY in some fashion. Maybe the team with the most players gets a head wind.
I like it :aok
-
They sent waves of 17's against the 4 cv's at Midway.......nuthin
(note: in WW2, if you wanted to kill a building, you destroyed the city in which said building resided....politically incorrect nowadays)
Waves? I think it was 1 strike of very limited #s :huh I could be wrong, I guess
-
Waves? I think it was 1 strike of very limity #s :huh I could be wrong, I guess
i was wondering the same..i didn't think there were that many stationed out there.........
-
As long as people take evasive action, its still not an easy thing to do. Theres a bit of guesswork involved. Adding anything to make it harder would simply force more people to divebomb the heavies. What Id like to see is the bombs only kill the guns,dar,and hangar, making its so you couldnt spawn planes like a base. Make it so only aerial torpedoes, gunfire from ships or sbs could actually sink it.
-
As long as people take evasive action, its still not an easy thing to do. Theres a bit of guesswork involved. Adding anything to make it harder would simply force more people to divebomb the heavies. What Id like to see is the bombs only kill the guns,dar,and hangar, making its so you couldnt spawn planes like a base. Make it so only aerial torpedoes, gunfire from ships or sbs could actually sink it.
correct. when i'm keeping an eye on a cv, i wait till i hear bombs in the air........if they're at 10k when they drop, a quick turn in any direction will make em miss.
-
I think that there were a lot of Ju 88's used for antishipping in level bombing around North Africa, but they did bomb from lower altitude.
There is a huge difference in ability to hit a ship between one that is maneuvering and one that isn't (or is just put into a predicatable turn before the bomber has even reached its drop point). We see this in scenarios -- ships maneuvered by a human watching the action and maneuvering to make bombers miss are much, much harder to hit.
Here's an example of ship that would have been obliterated by B-17 attacks (bombs quite well placed, looks to me) if it hadn't been quite adeptly maneuvered.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/f000001/f003725.jpg)
-
I'll send $20 to anyone who does a quick search and finds a post of CAP whining or wanting a change in the game. I just don't have time myself right now, but twenty bones would be worth it. :D
I THINk ya got lucky dude.....no one posted anything here yet.
:noid
-
Just a thought... Tie wind direction to ENY in some fashion. Maybe the team with the most players gets a head wind.
yaknow......i was thinking about this on the way to mcguire afb tonight.
it would kinda be fun, if they just added variable winds. not a lot.....maybe 20kts or so tops.,......but have it varying in direction and speeds. would make it much more challenging and fun for the bombers i think......
-
I recall hearing a documentary on the military channel that said some Ju88's hit a fleet of american merchant ships heading to britain.
-
I think that there were a lot of Ju 88's used for antishipping in level bombing around North Africa, but they did bomb from lower altitude.
There is a huge difference in ability to hit a ship between one that is maneuvering and one that isn't (or is just put into a predicatable turn before the bomber has even reached its drop point). We see this in scenarios -- ships maneuvered by a human watching the action and maneuvering to make bombers miss are much, much harder to hit.
Here's an example of ship that would have been obliterated by B-17 attacks (bombs quite well placed, looks to me) if it hadn't been quite adeptly maneuvered.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/f000001/f003725.jpg)
Your picture shows one glaring fact... it all depends upon your perspective. From 25,000 feet they look pretty close......BUT:
Hiryu was 728' 5" long at the waterline. The CLOSEST bomb splash in that particular picture, around two boat lengths away... most are further. So, the closest splash to the Hiryu, around 1500 feet. I guess hitting within a quarter mile of your target is good (Horribly ineffective, but good)...actually about the average in the war.
Hitting moving ships with large level bombers is asinine...they lacked the maneuver capability to keep up with one turn of even the largest ship. It took 68 Lancasters to get 2 (Possibly 3) hits on a stationary Tirpitz in Tromse, in two separate operations ("Obviate" and "Catechism") FYI: The Tirpitz was 40 m longer than Hiryu.
-
Your picture shows one glaring fact... it all depends upon your perspective. From 25,000 feet they look pretty close......BUT:
Hiryu was 728' 5" long at the waterline. The CLOSEST bomb splash in that particular picture, around two boat lengths away... most are further. So, the closest splash to the Hiryu, around 1500 feet. I guess hitting within a quarter mile of your target is good (Horribly ineffective, but good)...actually about the average in the war.
Hitting moving ships with large level bombers is asinine...they lacked the maneuver capability to keep up with one turn of even the largest ship. It took 68 Lancasters to get 2 (Possibly 3) hits on a stationary Tirpitz in Tromse, in two separate operations ("Obviate" and "Catechism") FYI: The Tirpitz was 40 m longer than Hiryu.
it looks like a little closer to 1 boatlength to me.......
wait....i'm looking at the upper left corner...are the explosions, or clouds?
-
There was full manual calibration in the MA and we saw the results. Wind, bomb dispersion and things that make level bombing less effective lead to only one thing - dive bombing lancasters/B17s. Unless some mechanism that prevents heavy bombers from dive bombing (bomb release from F6 view, restriction on dive angle for release, etc.) is installed, this will happen again.
Out of all of these posts, this one is the best idea I have read so far. But that is just my opinion, and we all know about opinions...... :D
-
Did somebody already say...... "NO THEY DIDN'T!" ?
They sent waves of 17's against the 4 cv's at Midway.......nuthin
-
Can anyone give me an actual WWII statistic on the effectiveness of level bombers vs CV's?? I can't seem to recall a single CV lost to level bombers, yet in AH the SOP to take down the carrier is to launch a set of Lancs, B-17s, B-24's, etc etc.
Fist this is a classic hidden attempt at wanting the game to be changed to fit the OP playing style. The reason it is classic is because it is an attempt to use a "Realism" argument to justify a change. The problem with the basic argument is that it is a very selective form of realism. I.E. level bombing was not very effective. But the OP does not begin to analyze why they were less effective in real life, but immediately wants the bombers role limited.
The answer is obvious to most people why they were less effective.
1. Low and level bombing a task group made for easy pickings by gunners, and does also in the game.
2. High and level bombing , all a boat would have to do is turn, and a bomber would miss.
So what is different in the game than real life?
The most important factor is the Maneuvering.
Now here is where the selective realism comes in, the OP does not even consider the possibilities of 1, forcing someone to be on the bridge at all times.This is an example of a post exactly as the OP makes.
I think all boats should be maned at all times, or should automatically be sunk, because real boats always had a crew at the helm.
The only option I could see would be to make the CV auto maneuver. But this also has a large draw back, manly of the CV turning more often during take offs.
2 do to the way CV's work, it would create more of a discrepancy of how all people would see the CV differently.
What do I think the real answer is?
1. Don't change a thing. You already have the option of manning the CV to keep it from being sunk if you desire.
2. I may consider is changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
HiTech
-
What do I think the real answer is?
1. Don't change a thing. You already have the option of manning the CV to keep it from being sunk if you desire.
2. I may consider is changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
Some changes in manning CV would be nice, i believe. First, force CV commander to stay at CV (tower or gun) all the time he at command. Second, give him ability to turn CV with joystick, like PT boat.
Making bombers high priority target for puffy acks wouldnt hurt as well.
-
Some changes in manning CV would be nice, i believe. First, force CV commander to stay at CV (tower or gun) all the time he at command. Second, give him ability to turn CV with joystick, like PT boat.
Making bombers high priority target for puffy acks wouldnt hurt as well.
now THESE are excellent ideas.
-
Maybe 2 types of turn HT. 1 is normal course turning. the 2nd is hard evasive turn <very hard turn> to avoid
bomber drops. have 2 buttons while in the CV tower maybe. ER (Evasice Right) EL (Evasive Left), would turn
the ship hard in that direction for few secs and then return the fleet on the regular WP course.
-
Maybe 2 types of turn HT. 1 is normal course turning. the 2nd is hard evasive turn <very hard turn> to avoid
bomber drops. have 2 buttons while in the CV tower maybe. ER (Evasice Right) EL (Evasive Left), would turn
the ship hard in that direction for few secs and then return the fleet on the regular WP course.
but keep it as mentioned earlier.....someone in the tower, and it has to be manually activated......
-
Whels and oleg are both on to something!!!
but keep it as mentioned earlier.....someone in the tower, and it has to be manually activated......
-
Hitech . while you at it . decrease effectiviness of puffy acks by range from CV. HAppens often you get waisted bwr (beyond visual range ) even if u turn
Puffy acks effectiviness even at long range is the most annoying feature of the game IMHO.
<S>
-
That sounds like a video card problem. You can always see the cv before the puffy ack starts.
Hitech . while you at it . decrease effectiviness of puffy acks by range from CV. HAppens often you get waisted bwr (beyond visual range ) even if u turn
Puffy acks effectiviness even at long range is the most annoying feature of the game IMHO.
<S>
-
Woot wtg HT...... you spelled OP right. :D
-
Hitech, Would you ever consider adding more CV's to a task force?? (might be part of the answer for low level bombers) ...... Another factor could be to stop a task force you would need to sink all the CV's ...the catch being a single sunk CV could respawn with in the task force in 15 mins as long as any one CV was still up in that particulair task force.
999000 <S> love the game Hitech
-
Hitech, Would you ever consider adding more CV's to a task force?? (might be part of the answer for low level bombers) ...... Another factor could be to stop a task force you would need to sink all the CV's ...the catch being a single sunk CV could respawn with in the task force in 15 mins as long as any one CV was still up in that particulair task force.
999000 <S> love the game Hitech
actually, this is another decent idea. we don't necessarily need more carriers in a single group......but what you said about sinking everything to stop the group. THAT is a good idea. possibly, if the carrier is sunk, the flag, and command could be transferred to one of the cruisers.
the rest of the group can still do damage if there;s a battle going on, or the commander could retreat to safety, until a new carrier could join them(the re-spawn)
-
What do I think the real answer is?
1. Don't change a thing. You already have the option of manning the CV to keep it from being sunk if you desire.
2. I may consider is changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
HiTech
Moving the cv doesn't work against an experienced bomber pilot at 8k altitude. Not to brag, but I'll kill the cv every time at that alt regardless if they move it or not. I just keep my eye on the cruiser to see the direction it is going to turn, then lead the CV from there. I set salvo at 4 and delay at 0.19, end of story.
The manned ack can be a great factor if someone knows how to use the guns. A very few however, can pick of bombers at 6 to 8 k. At that low an altitude, the ships movements can't overcome the time of bombs to fall. It is an achillies heal of this game.
It would be great if the TA had more options for 5" training. For example, that little cursor that shows you where to fire or where bombs fall in TA.
In other words, have a TA area dedicated to mannable 5", with bombers at varous altitutes passing over a ship. Once people got proficient at the 5", this problem would go away. Bombers would be forced to higher altitudes, then the ships movement could make a difference.
FANTASTIC idea about the 3k puffy ack against bombers only. Please for the love of god do this, and stop this low level bombing with complete IMPUNITY.
Some of the other ideas were good, like the joystick moving of CV. Right now there is a substantial delay in CV movement.
Anyway, that aside, fun game HiTech.
Dredger
ps. It was fun flying with you in the RV8 after Con 2006, though I felt a bit jipped by the wx that day. You got a parachute for your passengers yet?
-
2. I may consider is changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
HiTech
One caveat, bombers loaded with torps and below 500 feet shouldn't get the same treatment as those doing suicide level bombing...just a thought. Upping torp bombers for a cv is impossible enough already, shouldn'd be 'penalized' like those just lazy for gaining alt.
-
Moving the cv doesn't work against an experienced bomber pilot at 8k altitude. Not to brag, but I'll kill the cv every time at that alt regardless if they move it or not.
Out of curiosity, how is your success rate at 8k alt against the CV on this map (just S of the airfield on the island)?
http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/torpedoBombing/brooke1.zip
-
Can anyone give me an actual WWII statistic on the effectiveness of level bombers vs CV's?? I can't seem to recall a single CV lost to level bombers, yet in AH the SOP to take down the carrier is to launch a set of Lancs, B-17s, B-24's, etc etc.
314 bombs dropped by Midway B17s during the battle. Two B17s lost during the battle time frame. One near miss, and they forced a US Submarine, the Grayling to have to crash dive. 5 minutes before the SBDs destroyed Kaka, Akagi and Soryu, B17s dropped 112 bombs with no hits. Needless to say, the SBD's were a bit more successful.
Info from "Fortress against the Sun" by Gene Salacker
-
I am sorry if I gored your ox Dale, and it's YOUR prespective what the OP (me) had on his mind, or what he knew or didn't know about how and why level bombers didn't do well vs aircraft carriers.
My obsevations come from playing the game, you are the author of said game and have total control on content and how things are done.
As far as "realisim" is concerned you seem upset that the facts are there for anyone to read? My original question still stands and BTW any bomber that has "dive brakes" like the JU88 doesn't qualify as a level bomber.
I am not changing how anyone plays or what the owner of the game does by asking the question, but if the post had the effect of you changing puffy ack great it had some merit. The facts are that high level bombers are used in AH to neuteralize a task force, I didn't make that happen, people who play figured out the best equipment to get the job done in the game JUST like real life.
-
Moving the cv doesn't work against an experienced bomber pilot at 8k altitude.
Usually I agree to that. There are rare occasions that whoever is steering the CV really tightens the turns and throws me off. Most times I hit it right on.
-
Idea to help with level bombers vs Ships.
Did B17s Lancs and such level bombers use AP bombs or did they only
use GPs? If they used only GPs then make it require alot of GP hits to
sink a CV or Cruiser ( a moving Capital ship was never sank with level
bombers in WW2, much less a Fleet CV).
We need AP/Anti-ship bombs. only allow planes that attacked ships to use them.
Make the Kates,Nates, TBMs and such worth while to use. 8 AP bombs
CV dies like now. If level buffs did use APs but rarely, them makem pay
a perk per bomb, and have to rtb atleast 1 plane to get price back.
someone mentioned give the fleets more CVs. Id say 2 CV fleets, since the CV is really
a mobile FH/BH/VH. 2 CVs would be like a small field with 2 FHs/BHs.
-
Usually I agree to that. There are rare occasions that whoever is steering the CV really tightens the turns and throws me off. Most times I hit it right on.
really,. even from 8k, if someone is in the tower and watching, and ready.......has the turn already planned,,,,soonz you hear eggs in the air, click submit, and they miss. i've done it to a few....and had it done to me tool.
-
But now we have to model a difference between AP and HE bombs. CV dies just the same with 8 1000lbs.
2 CV's would be a good idea!!! BIG +1 on that!!!
Idea to help with level bombers vs Ships.
We need AP/Anti-ship bombs. only allow planes that attacked ships to use them.
Make the Kates,Nates, TBMs and such worth while to use. 8 AP bombs
CV dies like now.
someone mentioned give the fleets more CVs. Id say 2 CV fleets, since the CV is really
a mobile FH/BH/VH. 2 CVs would be like a small field with 2 FHs/BHs.
-
But now we have to model a difference between AP and HE bombs. CV dies just the same with 8 1000lbs.
2 CV's would be a good idea!!! BIG +1 on that!!!
he has different damage modeled with different bullets. Bomb damage diff wouldnt be different
to be done.
-
someone mentioned give the fleets more CVs. Id say 2 CV fleets, since the CV is really
a mobile FH/BH/VH. 2 CVs would be like a small field with 2 FHs/BHs.
I like this idea. I suggest moving it to the wishlist Sir.
-
True, that's the easy part. But buildings would need to be updated based on the bomb. Town building = 250 HE and 500 AP CV = 8000 AP and 10,000 HE. That would be the more time consuming fix. I'm all for this though. I failed to mention that a moment ago.
he has different damage modeled with different bullets. Bomb damage diff wouldnt be different
to be done.
waystin2 is right, we should double this up in Wishlist.
-
oh and someone would say how would you work out if the main CV is sunk, how would we takeoff.
Well 2 H buttons, H1 (Flag CV) H2( 2nd CV). If both are up, either button works( kinda like taking off
a field with north or south runway option). If either CV is down, the H button to that CV runway
would be greyed out.
-
Boxboy: I just get really tired of people trying to justify their desire with "Selective Realism", and then claiming we do not wish to have realism because we do not agree with their desire.
HiTech
-
I have sank as many 60 cvs in one tour and yes 7500-8k salvo 14, delay.05 are the key settings I use.
The key to saving a cv is to wait till you here the bombs falling before you turn the group or keep a friendly cap over cv when in harms way. :salute
-
2. I may consider changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
HiTech
Not knowing how coading works would the following* be possible in the interest of fairness or would it be to impossible.
* Puff ack lethality 100% accurate from zero ft to 150ft altitude to a range of 1.5K radius of the cv.
75% lethality 150ft to 3k ft to a range of 3k radius
50% lethality 3k to 8K out to 5.5K of cv radius
As is for anything above 8k
These just being example figures only. I say in fairness because of torp runs and those patient enough to get altitude. Yes...I hate suicide bombers my thinking being their strived pixel detonation should be bestowed upon them sooner rather than later :aok
Edit :- On second thoughts 100% leathality on any bomber not carrying a torp zero ft to 10K ft :devil
Edit edit :- 100 leathality on any bomber with torps and bombs :devil :aok
-
In WarBirds, before the CV could be sunk, all escort ships had to first be sunk. This leaves the CV fully vulnerable after escorts are gone. I don't know if this is possible, but here are some thoughts along those lines:
CV currently takes 8K ords to sink and I think it takes 2K ords to sink an escort, or a Cruiser.
So, if we had 8 escorts, including Crusiers, and we sunk 1 escort, or Cruiser in the CV Fleet, then we could reduce the CV's ability to repair itself by 1K. The CV hardness would still be 8K when all escorts and Cruisers are sunk, but, it can no longer repair itself after all of the escorts and Cruisers are sunk. This makes the CV impervious to any attack by Bombers, or Dive bombers, until the escorts and Cruisers are sunk.
The one exception to this would be by Torpedo attack. If Torpedo carrying Aircraft, or PT Boats, can get inside of the escort/Cruiser defensive ring, then two torpedos could sink the CV even if all of the escorts/Cruisers are still up and the only defensive Ack firing would be from the CV.
Just some thoughts...
<S> Semper Fidelis
-
I have sank as many 60 cvs in one tour and yes 7500-8k salvo 14, delay.05 are the key settings I use.
The key to saving a cv is to wait till you here the bombs falling before you turn the group or keep a friendly cap over cv when in harms way. :salute
Ive battled guys who do this, and the next time I went out to attack it, id drop 1 set of bombs early, just in case they could hear them. It seems to work because the same guy who seemed to turn just as I dropped, did the same at the fake release, giving me the slight change in direction on the bow, in tine to release the rest.
-
Boxboy: I just get really tired of people trying to justify their desire with "Selective Realism", and then claiming we do not wish to have realism because we do not agree with their desire.
HiTech
I know it's tough to please everyone and I didn't mean to imply your intent when writing the code, I did object to your to tone when you implied I was trying a sneaky way to whine :o
We have been at this a long time Dale you as a player then later a programmer/game producer, and I as a player. I don't have a high post count because I usually don't run in here and :cry everytime something doesn't go my way but I just thought the way things are done with cv control going to the best rated player that turning the cv isn't the only answer.
-
"cv isn't the only answer"
Boxboy, you make the assumption there is a problem in your first statement, level bombers was not a tactic used. And continue to with "The only answer" which also implies a problem.
Not to jump on you, but could it be that there really is not a problem?
As we have said, this is not a sim of WWII. It is a game/sim using WWII equipment.
Your request of wanting to eliminate level bombing of ships because it was not done very often in WWII is trying to simulate WWII, not the equipment.
HiTech
-
I want realism..... the other day on a mission I peed my pants...... I was airborn, nowhere else to go..
:D
-
As we have said, this is not a sim of WWII. It is a game/sim using WWII equipment.
You mean destroying the town, then putting 10 troops in the maproom to capture the airfield wasn't how land was taken in WW2?
The CV's though, are suseptable to 'gamey' features of the game, which I think is the real topic of the thread.
As I've said level bombers at 8k, with a proficeint pilot, will kill the CV every time. Moving the CV will have little affect, at least for me it doesn't.
Low level bombers will easily kill the CV unless there are people manning the 5"; puffy ack has little to no affect.
Bombers over 8k are extremely hard to kill with 5" guns, at least for me. Some guys are really good at it, but not enough to make much difference. A good TA for 5" might make more dead eye 'killers' out there.
At 8k the CV can't move fast enough or manuever to get out of the way of the bomb spread.
-
I want realism..... the other day on a mission I peed my pants...... I was airborn, nowhere else to go..
:D
Atta boy! :lol
-
I want realism..... the other day on a mission I peed my pants...... I was airborn, nowhere else to go..
:D
Thats just because you're old and you sometimes like the warmth. I'm sure the blender plays a part too! :rofl
-
IMO CV's should be harder to sink than just 8,000 lbs of bombs. They aren't made of paper last I checked. (Did someone say A6)
-
It's very difficult to figure a good setting for CV's. Some were destroyed with much less than 8000 lbs of ord. Some took a lot more.
For the upcoming Coral Sea 2009 scenario, I did research on what it took to destroy various ships in WWII, what the various types of weapons had in lbs HE inside them. The spreadsheet is here for any interested:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/ships.xls
-
It's very difficult to figure a good setting for CV's. Some were destroyed with much less than 8000 lbs of ord. Some took a lot more.
For the upcoming Coral Sea 2009 scenario, I did research on what it took to destroy various ships in WWII, what the various types of weapons had in lbs HE inside them. The spreadsheet is here for any interested:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/ships.xls
didn't click oin the link for now....will when i get home though. but.........has anyone taken into account the ordinance stored on the cv's? or the fuel stored onboard for the aircraft? or the powder stored for the big guns on the cruisers and battleships?
-
IMO CV's should be harder to sink than just 8,000 lbs of bombs. They aren't made of paper last I checked. (Did someone say A6)
Few things -
a) Concussive effects of bombs aren't modelled.
b) If as happened at Midway you hit a CV that has planes taking off nothing happens in AH. There is no collateral damage.
c) Damage on CVs is applied globally, not to the specific area hit.
d) Anything hitting a CV does damage, bomb, cannon round, MG round, torp, tank round (LOL), prob even a pilots sidearm.
Look on the bright side - Right up to a CV is sunk it keeps on steaming and you can launch aircraft.
Want more realism? How about the ability to damage the engines, or close the flightdeck?
Its a give and take.
-
Few things -
a) Concussive effects of bombs aren't modelled.
b) If as happened at Midway you hit a CV that has planes taking off nothing happens in AH. There is no collateral damage.
c) Damage on CVs is applied globally, not to the specific area hit.
d) Anything hitting a CV does damage, bomb, cannon round, MG round, torp, tank round (LOL), prob even a pilots sidearm.
Look on the bright side - Right up to a CV is sunk it keeps on steaming and you can launch aircraft.
Want more realism? How about the ability to damage the engines, or close the flightdeck?
Its a give and take.
i wouldn't laugh about the tank round. a couple of us sat along the shore shooting one with panzers. we did sink it. the dork just kept cruising back n forth, allowing us ample time to get enough rounds in it.
-
i wouldn't laugh about the tank round. a couple of us sat along the shore shooting one with panzers. we did sink it. the dork just kept cruising back n forth, allowing us ample time to get enough rounds in it.
Done it myself, thats why I was laughing about it!
Problem is simple -
Everyone wants to go to the airfield under attack, no-one wants to just sit over the CV on CAP.
The amount of times I've come in at 8k on a CV with enemy planes all over the airfield and not one protecting the CV beggars belief! But oh yeah plenty will chase you once you've sunk it.
So how about it's not a CV/buff problem, but more accurately a player problem.
[edit] Lets not forget a CVs stealth ability - You can park one off an airfield and as long as no-one ups the base doesn't flash! So you can jump in the guns take 90%+ of the town down and no-one is the wiser.
-
I want realism..... the other day on a mission I peed my pants...... I was airborn, nowhere else to go..
:D
Maybe when we get killed in game Hitech could fly to our houses, soak us in gasoline, light us on fire then shove a piece of steel into our necks :aok This would increase the realism a bit I would think :rock
-
Done it myself, thats why I was laughing about it!HAHA!! sorry dude...i misinterpreted ya there.......
Problem is simple -
Everyone wants to go to the airfield under attack, no-one wants to just sit over the CV on CAP.well, i would hope no one wants to sit on me. i'm a skinny guy yaknow......it might break me in two. :rofl
The amount of times I've come in at 8k on a CV with enemy planes all over the airfield and not one protecting the CV beggars belief! But oh yeah plenty will chase you once you've sunk it.
So how about it's not a CV/buff problem, but more accurately a player problem.
[edit] Lets not forget a CVs stealth ability - You can park one off an airfield and as long as no-one ups the base doesn't flash! So you can jump in the guns take 90%+ of the town down and no-one is the wiser.
these last two things you stated.....are probably the truest things said so far in this thread......... :aok
-
As the head of the Chawks Bomber wing, ive sank alot of carriers (in jan. 09 i sank over 200 carriers, not counting the cruisers) and almost everyone of em was from an alt of 7500'. an from what ive learned if at that alt, maybe 50% of the time ill lose 1 bird max, for some reason the 5"er's cant seem to hit me if ur 500-1000 feet diff. either way they tear me up. not sure if its a glitch or what but it is very effective. but there isnt a doubt in my mind that in RL that wouldnt work, the ack would be the end of the buffs at that alt. w/ a set of b-24's ive been able to sink 2 carriers w/ the 1000's. the next time i do it ill film it an post it to see if its something to send in hoping that they may increase the hardness or something cuz its just getting to easy. but for those of us that dont spend our time bombing factorys to make our score look good ( which is useless to me unless its done by a squad to stop the constent resuppling) we need a new challenge. IMO if they do increase the difficulty, then maybe they can increase the dmg points. not sure what can be done but if anyone has any ideas ill be more than willing to help w/ testin or provide films of some carrier runs or what ever that will prove we need a change or two. just pm me on here or look me up in the Orange Ma an throw ur ideas my way if i can help.
<<S>> QcareCh
CO Chawks/RTC Bomber Wing
-
As the head of the Chawks Bomber wing, ive sank alot of carriers (in jan. 09 i sank over 200 carriers, not counting the cruisers) and almost everyone of em was from an alt of 7500'. an from what ive learned if at that alt, maybe 50% of the time ill lose 1 bird max, for some reason the 5"er's cant seem to hit me if ur 500-1000 feet diff. either way they tear me up. not sure if its a glitch or what but it is very effective. but there isnt a doubt in my mind that in RL that wouldnt work, the ack would be the end of the buffs at that alt. w/ a set of b-24's ive been able to sink 2 carriers w/ the 1000's. the next time i do it ill film it an post it to see if its something to send in hoping that they may increase the hardness or something cuz its just getting to easy. but for those of us that dont spend our time bombing factorys to make our score look good ( which is useless to me unless its done by a squad to stop the constent resuppling) we need a new challenge. IMO if they do increase the difficulty, then maybe they can increase the dmg points. not sure what can be done but if anyone has any ideas ill be more than willing to help w/ testin or provide films of some carrier runs or what ever that will prove we need a change or two. just pm me on here or look me up in the Orange Ma an throw ur ideas my way if i can help.
<<S>> QcareCh
CO Chawks/RTC Bomber Wing
Thats the thing though, I don't see it bas a CV/buff problem.
If I can get 3 buffs to a position where I can bomb a CV with 30+ cons around who's fault is it?
The perceived CV/buff problem, or the 30+ cons all of whom are over the airfield?
Why?
Because the cons were to busy going to the airfield under attack and ignoring everything else.
There has already been a slew of changes the root of which are to sidestep the players CHOICE not to defend.
I think enough is enough.
-
From the same page Brook's pic was on: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm)
Then, somewhat after 0800, fifteen Army B-17s struck, raining down sticks of bombs from high altitude. Much was expected of this kind of attack, but no hits were scored, a result that further war experience would demonstrate was all-too-typical. On the other hand, the "Flying Fortresses" were little damaged by Japanese anti-aircraft fire and fighters. They made several fine photographs of the Japanese carriers maneuvering far below, an indication of the true role of these heavy bombers in contemporary maritime warfare: long-distance reconnaissance by aircraft capable of defending themselves.
I think the difference between RL and game. in this situation, can be summed up in one word: ALTITUDE
Bombers sinking cv's in game are doing it at a pretty low altitude. The "historical" attacks were made at 20-25k feet against maneuvering ships.
Compare the successes of B-25s or PBY-4s at low level in sinking ships. Big difference. Granted, they are not cv's but a four engined bomber at low level is a formidable force against a ship. It is also an easier target for AAA to hit. Still, what percentage of low level bombers were killed by AAA?
wrongway
-
From the same page Brook's pic was on: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4d.htm)
I think the difference between RL and game. in this situation, can be summed up in one word: ALTITUDE
Bombers sinking cv's in game are doing it at a pretty low altitude. The "historical" attacks were made at 20-25k feet against maneuvering ships.
Compare the successes of B-25s or PBY-4s at low level in sinking ships. Big difference. Granted, they are not cv's but a four engined bomber at low level is a formidable force against a ship. It is also an easier target for AAA to hit. Still, what percentage of low level bombers were killed by AAA?
wrongway
no..i think kev's got it. a cv tht's not being watched is super easy to hit....i generally hit em from 10k. if someone is watching, and the buffs are above 7k, it's fairly easy to dodge the eggs. i've done it. i've had it done to me. the
like kev said.......there'll be 30 cons...and they;re all over the airbase trying to do whatever.....and the buffs can go in unharrassed.
-
Few things -
d) Anything hitting a CV does damage, bomb, cannon round, MG round, torp, tank round (LOL), prob even a pilots sidearm.
im not so sure of that.. I've bounced many a mg and tank round (ap and he) off a cv.. maybe it still counts as damage, but on my FE, it shows the rounds ricochet.
-
IMO CV's should be harder to sink than just 8,000 lbs of bombs. They aren't made of paper last I checked. (Did someone say A6)
I believe the Jap CV's at Midway were sunk with only around 4,000lbs of bombs each or less. I believe Akagi only took 1 1,000 lbs to destroy it. This was done by SBD dive bombers. It depends of course where the bomb hits to the extent of damage. Remember the Arizona took only 1 key hit to destroy it unfortunately.
-
I understand the historical and physical effects of damage and CV's. My point was they are fun to sink and making it a bit harder to do so might had to the challenge of it and maybe force people to acquire some new tactics. Just my $.02.
-
I think all boats should be maned at all times, or should automatically be sunk, because real boats always had a crew at the helm.
i agree with that idea, atleast during combat !someone should have to be in command of the cv and must be on it , not flying , maybe manning a gun!!
it would also be nice if you could lock out flight during a cv mission like when your shelling down a field or town!
but that might give someone to much control over all the other players,and could allow someone from another side to switch sides and take control,maybe a time limit on
how long you have to be on a certain side before you could gain control!
2. I may consider is changing CV Puffy ack to be more accurate at low level bombers , and shoot below 3k for buffs only.
can we get the cv ack to stop firing above the feilds they are parked near?
like when they are almost on the beach?
HiTech
sorry i messed up you very nice and well thought out post!! :salute
What was you like to drink again??
-
Ratpack1 :) I was just throwing some history in there cause I love sharing that stuff with everyone.
I like the idea of the AP bombs that cost perkies needed for sinking CV. This would keep the low bomber formations down, maybe. It would also add time of the return trip to bomber pilots that immediately ditch after dropping bombs hence cut bomber formations down by half.
-
Bombers sinking cv's in game are doing it at a pretty low altitude. The "historical" attacks were made at 20-25k feet against maneuvering ships.
[/thread]
This is it, percisely. The Norden bombsight was said to be able to put a bomb "in the pickle barrel," and that was no idle boast. The reason Allied daylight bombing was so inaccurate was that they were doing it from 25,000 feet to avoid murderous ground fire, (and they still got hammered, as was.) At least at that altitude only the 88s could reach you; at 7,000, even the 37 and 40mm is going to have a go. Consider the spectacular success and horrendous casualties of the low-level raid on Polesti.
From 25,000 feet, the bombs have to fall through more then a few wind layers, and that is what destroys their accuracy. Now, when a bomber has an oppertunity to fly lower, watch out. They'll put those bombs where they bloody well please. Historically, B-24s could- and did- nail more then a few Japanese ships (and warships,) but they were generally lone vessels, unable to put up significant AAA defense. That's percisely why the B-24s were able to get low enough to make those accurate strikes.
I saw people on these boards elsewhere saying that the five-inch ack was downright murderous. Why doesn't it have that effect on low-level bombers? Perhaps the bomber damage models simply need to be tweaked. And perhaps the better question is, how are big lumbering bombers able to mosey on up to the CV without getting pounced upon by a CAP, or even an opportunistic pilot? It's not like fast-climbing, cannon-armed, carrier launchable interceptors arent' availiable. Isn't the carrier version of the Spitfire in this game? Eh?
EDIT:
The amount of times I've come in at 8k on a CV with enemy planes all over the airfield and not one protecting the CV beggars belief! But oh yeah plenty will chase you once you've sunk it.
WELL THAT EXPLAINS THAT. :rofl
-
been trying to remember which ship it was that the RAF hit with 15 Halifaxes from Stanton Harcourt (about 10 miles from me), found out it was Scharnhorst. lots of damage but didnt sink it. not sure about the alt, my guess 10k ish.
-
[/thread]
Isn't the carrier version of the Spitfire in this game? Eh?
The Seafire?
-
The Seafire?
ya, i think the seafire is the equivalent of the spit5. if i up off a carrier though, unless i'm trying to chase down buffs, i up one of the zeeks. if i'm chasing buffs.......f6f.