Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: whels on May 28, 2009, 11:23:50 AM
-
We see buffs full throttle bombing in AH, when in RL they didnt go full speed.
how about do to bombers what HT has for the Torp planes. They have to be
under a certain speed to have the torps arm. Make the level bombers
have to be within a certain speed(alot slower then 100% throttle) range,
or you cant calibrate for the drop.
-
I get really really tired of selective realism disguised as a desire to make bombers easier to kill.
HiTech
-
I'm not sure about this. Whereas RL bombers typically bombed at cruise speed, they could and sometimes did release at much higher speeds. It wasn't a limitation for the RL aircraft so I dont think it should be for our cartoon aircraft.
edit: btw HT do you only check the wishlist forum? wondered if you had any comment on my B-24 power settings modelling (i think its under aircraft and vehicles) :)
-
I get really really tired of selective realism disguised as a desire to make bombers easier to kill.
HiTech
actually HT, i could care less what speed they go, i kill them easy now. you program the game
so you select what realism you want. but i guess we cant suggest any. heaven forbid a plane had to
do something it had to do in RL.
-
I feel where you're coming from on this but so many other things go into the drop......... As a decent Buff pilot, I'm never at full throttle. Too many variables come into play. Minor course adjustments that knock you back 2-3 mph.
(The slow bomber is a better defender.)
I really don't think somebody ups, plots the course from 100 miles out and just flies to target and drops.
Do they?
And besides, 234's aside........ Full power? What is that.... 276mph?
-
heaven forbid a plane had to
do something it had to do in RL.
That is the selective realism I speak of, you try state it HAD TO when in fact it did not.
HiTech
-
2 replies in 1 thread..........
STOP PISSING OFF THE BIG MAN!!!
-
Bomber pilots of AH thank you for your support Hitech! :D :salute
My biggest problem with ideas like this is the fact that no one mentions that fighter pilots never ran at full power all the time either. Yet everyone wants buffs to have forced reduced throttling but yet no one ever asks fighters to have limited full power.
-
Beef.... Fighter planes DID run at full power (not counting WEP) for 30+ minutes to an hour (depending on the plane and engine setup). You're comparing apples and martians.
-
I get really really tired of selective realism disguised as a desire to make bombers easier to kill.
HiTech
ONE question.
Did buffs, even the B-17, shoot down about 1 fighter for every ~3 of them downed by fighters in real life?
If this is so, then the bombers in AHII are just fine.
If it is not, then there is a problem somewhere.
-
Last FSO bombers carried just shy of HALF of all allied kills. On top of that the ratios were so high in the allied fighter department that allies had almost parity with LW planes. Yet the bombers got half the kills. Even the allied players said it was like the bombers were escorting the fighters.
Hrm... yeah... Apparently AH is modeled after "The Bomber Will Always get Through!" mentality? </sarcasm>
-
I did a quick hand count, the ratio of bombers killed by fighters to fighters killed by bombers was 95/35 or 2.71:1 in Frame 3. This includes kills of bombers by the 110 and deaths of B-25s. I should probably isolate for different bomber types.
Last FSO bombers carried just shy of HALF of all allied kills. On top of that the ratios were so high in the allied fighter department that allies had almost parity with LW planes. Yet the bombers got half the kills. Even the allied players said it was like the bombers were escorting the fighters.
Hrm... yeah... Apparently AH is modeled after "The Bomber Will Always get Through!" mentality? </sarcasm>
-
The specific numbers I recall somebody compiled and shared with me were frame 2, but frame 3 was equally bad.
-
The specific numbers I recall somebody compiled and shared with me were frame 2, but frame 3 was equally bad.
Oh, you mean Disco's Data? That was interesting too, yes.
I've got to say though, IMO the bulk of the evidence indicates that the speed, altitude, and toughness of the buffs are not that far out of whack. Lethality of the defensive fire seems to be the problem.
-
Beef.... Fighter planes DID run at full power (not counting WEP) for 30+ minutes to an hour (depending on the plane and engine setup). You're comparing apples and martians.
Krusty I believe Holmes listed the power times for some of our heavy bombers. IIRC the B17's and B24's could run at full power for climbing for well over an hour.
-
I think that the normal power option should be what the full power fuel is worth. And if you go over normal you get less minutes to fly. I also think that engine temperature should be a factor when going full speed. IDK, but I do hate how every one always flies at full speed the entire time, I like to form up and its hard to do when you can't catch up.
-
Krusty,
Having flown a real B-17G with the CAF (and spending 100's of hours with WW2 pilots) I can tell you that B-17's were flow at military power just as much as fighters. Matter of fact, a common trick in the field was to "adjust" the 4 turbo amplifiers to get more power. It was a real easy tweak, all the flight engineer had to do was reach into the 4 adjustable slot head screws next to the turbo controller on the pedestal and presto! you had more turbo boost, the important thing to do was turn it back down after the flight once you landed.
NOTE- In game you can actually see the screw holes around the turbo controller knob (round knob to the left of the mixture controls, and in front of the throttle) on the pedestal
Trying to make the absurd claim that fighter engines were somehow completely different is absolute BS. They were ALL pushed well beyond there design limits routinely. That's why engines were being overhauled every hundred hours vs 1,000 to 1,500 hours they were rated for.
Every fighter aircraft I have documentation for, can run continuously at a power setting that should either be limited to 5, 10, 30 or 60 minutes. It would appear that HTC has made a decision about how they wanted to map engine settings and they have stuck with it on ALL aircraft. Once someone can show me documentation that a fighter can't run continuously at rated Military Power (not WEP) in this game, then I'd be willing to consider changing my opinion. Is there any evidence that will get you to change your opinion Krusty?
-
No, they made a decision based on the fact that most sorties in this game don't last as long as the "max time" is for continuous power.
Bombers slipped through the cracks in this decision, and as such have gained tremendous potential.
I have films of B24s at 32k in AH's MA.
32K... That's about 5K higher than their max alt. Completely untouchable, for a plane that was lost in the thousands and thousands.
EDIT: Oh, and HTC doesn't do field mods, so that blows away your "10-second fix" claim -- all specs HTC models are in the manuals, NOT from some hearsay 50 years after the fact on a restored warbird.
-
Hitech, can we trade some sort of drones speed limit for 700 - 1k convergence of bomber's guns + all 3 bombers shootin in one spot? So overall vulnerability of bombers wouldnt hurt?
Gunning bombers is pain right now, it shoot anywhere but your target :mad: Planes like P-51D/F4U/Typhoon can just sit on your tail beyond 600m almost w/o any risk :cry
In other side, catching high alt bombers in pain as well. It takes forever to setup your attack unless you 2-3k above them already. In most times they will drop bombs well before you get attack position.
-
Hitech, can we trade some sort of drones speed limit for 700 - 1k convergence of bomber's guns + all 3 bombers shootin in one spot? So overall vulnerability of bombers wouldnt hurt?
Gunning bombers is pain right now, it shoot anywhere but your target :mad: Planes like P-51D/F4U/Typhoon can just sit on your tail beyond 600m almost w/o any risk :cry
In other side, catching high alt bombers in pain as well. It takes forever to setup your attack unless you 2-3k above them already. In most times they will drop bombs well before you get attack position.
:confused:
If you are 600 behind a bomber and he is not tearing your plane apart, that is poor gunnery on the gunners part, not the convergence of the bullet stream.
As for climbing to the bombers, yea, it takes more than a few minutes to get there. Just like it did in 1939-1945.
While we're at it, let's impose an altitude restriction, speed restriction, gun range restriction, and what ever other restriction is needed to make the bombers utterly helpless! :rolleyes:
-
Once someone can show me documentation that a fighter can't run continuously at rated Military Power (not WEP) in this game, then I'd be willing to consider changing my opinion.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-50030-final.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-50030-final.pdf)
enjoy :)
-
ONE question.
Did buffs, even the B-17, shoot down about 1 fighter for every ~3 of them downed by fighters in real life?
If this is so, then the bombers in AHII are just fine.
If it is not, then there is a problem somewhere.
One answer.
I'm guessing that real fighter pilots weren't as careless attacking buffs as we all can be.
Real pilots weren't playing a game. :salute
It was a little tougher for them to "re-up".
-
In other side, catching high alt bombers in pain as well. It takes forever to setup your attack unless you 2-3k above them already. In most times they will drop bombs well before you get attack position.
Plan ahead. Bombers can be stopped. My B17's have been shot down by the best of them. Lusche, Simaril, Dakone are three names that come to mind. On a larger scale, one or two observant Rooks took the initiative Wednesday (LWO), and hatched a plan to stop a whole 10+ flights from making it home. They planned ahead, and it worked successfully. Only a few escorts survived.
Flying bombers takes patience. Attacking bombers takes as much or more patience. Patience is something I fear the player base in this genre' is losing, hence the requests to the "governing body" of Aces High to make things easier for it's subscribers, to cater more to immediate gratification.
-
One answer.
I'm guessing that real fighter pilots weren't as careless attacking buffs as we all can be.
Real pilots weren't playing a game. :salute
It was a little tougher for them to "re-up".
The Luftwaffe figured their pilots had a hit percentage of around 2%. The main problem you read about them having is teaching green pilots how to shoot, and to hold fire until close enough.
Many AHII players have hit%s 5 times that...on fighters!!! Thousands more hours of gunnery practice than real pilots had will do that for you.
Increased aggression against buffs could result in more dead fighters yes....it should also result in more dead buffs for a basically unchanged ratio.
-
ONE question.
Did buffs, even the B-17, shoot down about 1 fighter for every ~3 of them downed by fighters in real life?
If this is so, then the bombers in AHII are just fine.
If it is not, then there is a problem somewhere.
WOW, again one of the biggest selective realism questions I have ever seen.
Just a few other type questions,
What was the greatest % of bombers shot down in a sortie over Europe?
What was the normal % of fighters shot down in a sortie?
Just a few questions that I would also guess that the answer of our sim vs real world do not even come close. But you choose to only select a question that would support your desire to make bombers easier to kill.
And once again you go against the basic principle of siming aircraft & vehicles not the war.
HiTech
-
The ceiling for the B-24D was 32,000 feet and 30,000 for a B-24J. So to be clear, it appears that HTC follows the documents as you pointed out. I brought up the point about adjusting the boost, to point out that it was routine for everyone to use their equipment beyond the "spec's". I did not ask for an increase to the bombers to get any "extra" boost. It seems that, just as HiTech posted, you want to change something to make it easier for yourself, regardless of the facts or contradicting your earlier position.
-
Thanks for not answering the question.
Of course there were milk runs where little opposition was met...and this has absolutely no bearing on the important question of how lethal the fighters and buffs were relative one another when they DID meet.
"Selective realism"?.. :rolleyes:...Hell, there is every chance in the that I'll be flying buffs for at least one frame next FSO...as I have done in the past, and commented that the k/d ratio I managed to rack up against fighters seemed a bit ridiculous. So your theory is I want to handicap those same buffs I have a good chance of being assigned to fly, for some sort of personal gain? :huh
And once again you go against the basic principle of siming aircraft & vehicles not the war.
Pretensions of absolute fidelity in simulation are hard to maintain when one person is simultaneously flying 3 B-17s. Obviously, conditions being what they are buffs will be given *some* unrealistic advantages, like the way defensive fire is set up, otherwise we'd have to assign multiple players per individual bomber. The question is, how much "help" is too much? It is hardly unreasonable to compare the sim with the real record of interceptors vs. buffs to seek an answer to that question.
For the record, IMO the fellows here have admirably shown that the altitude and speed the buffs are capable of is not that far out of whack from reality. However, that still leaves open questions about their lethality vs. interceptors.
-
BnZ, you have to go to the next Con and talk HiTech's ear off. He seems to really love you on here. :rofl
-
We see buffs full throttle bombing in AH, when in RL they didnt go full speed.
how about do to bombers what HT has for the Torp planes. They have to be
under a certain speed to have the torps arm. Make the level bombers
have to be within a certain speed(alot slower then 100% throttle) range,
or you cant calibrate for the drop.
Fighters did not fly on military power all the time aether, so are you now going to make a thread saying that fighters should be limited to there top speed?
-
The ceiling for the B-24D was 32,000 feet and 30,000 for a B-24J.
Seems the selective folks are pulling out details in defense of the status quo.
"Under optimum conditions and for brief periods, the B-24 had a top speed of about 300 miles per hour, could carry 8,800 pounds of bombs 3,000 miles at altitudes of up to 30,000 feet. However, standard operational procedure in actual combat operations with the 8th and 15th Air Force in Europe called for 155 miles per hour indicated, 25000 feet altitude with a bomb load of 5500 pounds and a maximum total range of 1200 miles. In the Pacific, Liberators gradually replaced the B-17 in the heavy bomber role, largely because of the B-24's greater range. During the early part of the war, the B-24 and PB4Y were the only American heavy bombers covering the seas from Alaska to India.
---- Colonel John R. Kane, leader of the 98th Bomb Group ("The Pyramiders") in the Ploesti Air Raids."
As for alts,
"It was designed with the high aspect ratio 'Davis Wing' (long and thin) which was theoretically more efficient and faster for flying at high altitudes. However, the Liberator had been designed for more powerful engines than it got, so its performance at high altitude wasn't what it should have been and it's ceiling was limited because it could not achieve the intended design cruise speed. Even though it was still 10-15 knots faster, the B-24 wing did not actually provide as much lift under the same load at the same altitude as the Fortress."
More info about the wing and alts:
"The design team choose a wing - the 'Davis' wing - that is thinner when compared to the B-17 but generates more lift. However, the plane is heavier and the plane has to fly faster to achieve takeoff speed and just in cruise.
However, the Davis wing on the Liberator creates an altitude design limit by using the efficient wing which limited its high altitude ceiling since it used the same horsepower as the Fortress - thus with a combat load it could not get to the same altitude as a B-17. The pre-war thick B-17 wing is more lift efficient at a slower speed in thinner air."
B-24s capabilities were even noted by the USAAF as being insufficient:
"The availability of the Consolidated B-24 in increasing numbers soon made it evident that, whatever the qualities of its companion, the B-17, the Liberator led in several vital areas, especially in range and bomb load. But by 1944, an additional turret in the nose had increased weight and drag reduced the margin. In addition, the Liberator's ceiling, already less than the B-17s, was further reduced. Furthermore, the addition of the turred reduced forward vision from the flight deck, and cramped the working areas of the naviagtor and bombardier, in the nose."
Several projects were undertaken to test various fixes for this, one of them the frankenstein B-17 nose on a B-24J body. (this was a failure, FYI).
Then there was Col. Lawrence Gilbert, who commanded a B-24 squadron:
"The esteem in which the American fighter pilots held the B-24's was not high; the B-17, by the nature of the beast, was able to fly tighter more compact formations then we were. We often joined the bomber stream in loose and scattered formations, whereas the Fort's were very tight and compact. Most B-24 pilots will tell you, that it was a difficult aircraft to hold in formation. It was physically demanding and after twenty or thirty minutes at altitude, you were worn out.
Initially, we attempted to fly with the B-17's because there were not sufficient numbers for them to route us independently. From July of 1943, we were scheduled by necessity, with the Forts because of the limited fighter cover available. They were bombing at 27,000 feet, which was four to five thousand feet higher than the optimum altitude for the B-24. It was not a comfortable ride, although we could stay with them by pulling excessive power. The wing lost a lot of it's efficiency up there and we burned up tremendous amounts of fuel. It was something like a boat on a lake. . . just mashing along. The tail would drop down and the nose would tip up, and the engines would suffer badly."
Doesn't seem to be modeled correctly, as B-24s keep going up past 30K with no engine/performance falloff.
Clyde Whitt's B-24 diary:
http://www.unc.edu/~landon/combat.html
Only once did they go to 25k, most other times 20k or lower, where it apparently (according to the quotes I've listed above, and MANY other books and resources) had better performance.
Another quote, from "Wings of Morning":
"The B-24 was a difficult plane to handle. The long, tapering Davis wing, which gave the aircraft its speed and power, also created problems. Although the Liberator could sustain considerable damage and still keep flying, hit that wing, one instructor delighted in warning them, and the plane would go down. Many veteran pilots also felt that the B-24 was less table and more prone to high-speed stalls than the slower B-17, and at altitudes over twenty thousand feet the controls tended to go sluggish. These problems became particularly hazardous in high-alititude formation flying, which was the key to American air strategy in Europe. "You don't know what toejam hittin' the fan means," one veteran told them, "till you've seen a Liberator flip over on its side in the middle of a forty-plane formation." "
In-game it's just a B-17 flight model with more engine power, when historically they were quite different in handling and altitude performance, according to EVERY source I've ever read.
-
interesting :aok
150-160 IAS does seem to have been standard.
-
150-160 IAS does seem to have been standard.
The gist of this argument seems to have boiled down to "since bombers flew slower in the war, they should fly slower in AH." This completely ignores why they flew slower (e.g tighter formations, fuel and engine conservation), which was a tactical decision, not a limit on the airframe.
I'm not sure why people want the abilities of the hardware to be limited by the historic tactics used. I personally would rather see all the hardware perform to their full potential.
This would be a similar argument to slowing the buffs in AH: Most WWII tanks did not fire on the move. They stopped before firing. Therefore, HTC should model the tanks such that they must come to a complete stop before they can squeeze the trigger.
Silly, silly, silly IMO.
-
Here is a question I was pondering while on the throne. What does slowing buffs down really achieve? I mean seriously, besides maintaining better formations between players, which is rare, it really does nothing. The only thing I can grasp from this is slower moving buffs will be far easier to overtake by fighters and it will make it easier to setup and attack them repeatedly. Also it will take them far longer to fly anywhere and will make them easier to intercept once spotted.
Yep......nothing suspicious about that......nothing at all :rolleyes:
Seriously guys. I think HT is fed up with this and I know as 10 year buff pilot in this game I am fed up with all the anti bomber suggestions. Buffs are a tuff nut to crack, learn to deal with it or don't bother attacking them. Guys who take the time to setup and attack usually kill me, those that don't setup to attack usually die.
-
Buffs are a tuff nut to crack, learn to deal with it or don't bother attacking them. Guys who take the time to setup and attack usually kill me, those that don't setup to attack usually die.
I agree that the speed of the buffs probably makes little difference in the exchange rates with fighters, it is the lethality of defensive firepower is the main point.
The question is, are they "too tough a nut" to crack compared to reality?
You wouldn't ask us to ignore a situation where a plane was dramatically faster/slower or otherwise "off" in some performance metric. Buffs are a stickier point because they *ARE* given some "unrealistic" advantages to make flying them practical, without having to actually use 10 players per buff to fill all the positions. The only reasonable way IMO to ascertain whether buffs defensive advantages are too good, not good enough, or just right is to compare to how buffs fared in similar situations in the actual war. This is especially important when we get into the issue of special events, where we are trying to be as realistic as practical.
-
The gist of this argument seems to have boiled down to "since bombers flew slower in the war, they should fly slower in AH." This completely ignores why they flew slower (e.g tighter formations, fuel and engine conservation), which was a tactical decision, not a limit on the airframe.
I'm not sure why people want the abilities of the hardware to be limited by the historic tactics used. I personally would rather see all the hardware perform to their full potential.
This would be a similar argument to slowing the buffs in AH: Most WWII tanks did not fire on the move. They stopped before firing. Therefore, HTC should model the tanks such that they must come to a complete stop before they can squeeze the trigger.
well I think theres 2 separate issues with buffs speeds;
some of the buffs (eg B-17 and B-24) have ahistorical power modelling, meaning that they have unlimited use of settings which were only available for 5mins IRL. this is in contrast to our fighters which have some kind of time-limited WEP. just imagine the complaints if the Spit XIV or F4U-4 had unlimited WEP...
the other issue is that we dont generally have the constraints you mentioned so buffs are flown at speeds which are alot higher than they would typically have used IRL. maybe not such a big deal in the MA where you can have 1945 fighters taking on 1930s buffs, but becomes an issue in scenarios and such. if youve ever flown a Hurri I in a BoB event, you'll wonder how the RAF ever managed to intercept lw bombers.
I wouldnt want to put artificial constraints on buff performance, but for events it would be good to simulate the RL constraints ie. fuel limited to just enough to climb out at normal power, then the rest of the sortie at cruise settings or you will run outta gas.
Beef, the idea isnt to make it easier to attack buffs per se, just possible using historical tactics.
-
well I think theres 2 separate issues with buffs speeds;
if youve ever flown a Hurri I in a BoB event, you'll wonder how the RAF ever managed to intercept lw bombers.
Isn't the problem here actually the fact that a later war bomber is being used for a "stand in"?
Something that should be pointed out in regards to fighters in FSO/special events: Most of the time they *are* cruised at power setting below MIL because of fuel concerns.
-
ONE question.
Did buffs, even the B-17, shoot down about 1 fighter for every ~3 of them downed by fighters in real life?
If this is so, then the bombers in AHII are just fine.
If it is not, then there is a problem somewhere.
BnZs -
You really need to look at tactics employed in WW2 and in AH. Bombers are scary; I'll agree, but they were even more so in WW2. Here, people have fake bullets shooting at them, so they'll just come in straight 6 and present a nice juicy target. In real life, you only get one chance. If you mess up, you're dead, so you can imagine the pilots attacking buffs in real life made sure to tread with caution. Teamwork and speed kept them alive.
-
Isn't the problem here actually the fact that a later war bomber is being used for a "stand in"?
Something that should be pointed out in regards to fighters in FSO/special events: Most of the time they *are* cruised at power setting below MIL because of fuel concerns.
Yes, the BoB scenerio isn't a fair test of what is being discussed. The buffs used in the BoB scenario are a good 40+mph faster than the historical BoB He-111.
Many other issues help to make it less than an ideal yardstick for the discussion.
-
B4Buster,
The Germans DID at times use attacks from astern,(you've probably watched as much of the Fw-190 gun camera footage as I have, and know this to be so), and it was apparently not absolutely suicidal to do so.
So I'm sorry, but I do suspect that the way defensive firepower is set up in AHII makes it more lethal against intercepting fighters than it actually was.
BnZs -
You really need to look at tactics employed in WW2 and in AH. Bombers are scary; I'll agree, but they were even more so in WW2. Here, people have fake bullets shooting at them, so they'll just come in straight 6 and present a nice juicy target. In real life, you only get one chance. If you mess up, you're dead, so you can imagine the pilots attacking buffs in real life made sure to tread with caution. Teamwork and speed kept them alive.
-
B4Buster,
The Germans DID at times use attacks from astern,(you've probably watched as much of the Fw-190 gun camera footage as I have, and know this to be so), and it was apparently not absolutely suicidal to do so.
This was usually done when one bomber was separated from the main stream.
Wasn't there a Luftwaffe pilot that said something to the affect of, attacking a Spitfire or a Mustang is exciting, even exhilarating, but attacking a box of bombers is terrifying?
-
yup BnZs, watched plenty of it and I agree, it happened. But like I said teamwork was also used. In game, most people will attack a buff formation alone (myself included) because I know If I die I can always just reup.
I'm sure straight 6 attacks weren't the preferred method of attack, like I said in my first post, bomber attackers had to be real carefl because you can't just reup when you get shot down, so your data back on the first page is slightly tainted
-
The method used by most successful RVG units was to attack with long range weapons (rockets and bombs) to split up the formations, then proceed with head-on and off angle attacks, and then destroy stragglers by saddling up on them and shooting them down from behind. The first part of the attack had to be ditched as fighter escort began to be used, however generally the rest stayed the same.
Bombers weren't sitting ducks like many would have you believe.
-
yup BnZs, watched plenty of it and I agree, it happened. But like I said teamwork was also used. In game, most people will attack a buff formation alone (myself included) because I know If I die I can always just reup.
I'm sure straight 6 attacks weren't the preferred method of attack, like I said in my first post, bomber attackers had to be real carefl because you can't just reup when you get shot down, so your data back on the first page is slightly tainted
Well I might agree about MA data, but the data from FSO is actually similar. And in FSO you have more experienced fighter pilots working more more intelligently as a team and the fighter/buff attrition rate is still pretty much the same.
-
, and then destroy stragglers by saddling up on them and shooting them down from behind.
Saddling up on even a lone American heavy is a pretty good way to die fast in AHII.
-
Well I might agree about MA data, but the data from FSO is actually similar. And in FSO you have more experienced fighter pilots working more more intelligently as a team and the fighter/buff attrition rate is still pretty much the same.
The same as the MA?
-
Saddling up on even a lone American heavy is a pretty good way to die fast in AHII.
If you have cannons and enough speed to get into ~300 yards quickly then a lone heavy bomber is meat on the table. The only thing I find odd about this is that the gunners seem nearly invulnerable to fire in Aces High, while from what I understand being a tail or a ball gunner was a highly dangerous job, and if you look at gun cameras they're rarely firing (since by the time that the fighter is that close they've been incapacitated or killed).
-
The same as the MA?
The k/d for B-17s and B-24s seems to between .33 and .38 consistently in the MA. Planes are the majority of kills for these two types.
The ratio fighters killed by buffs to buffs killed by fighters in frame 3 of the last FSO was 35/95, .36.
Interestingly, when you read the event logs it becomes apparent that a significant number of buffs downed in the last FSO were brought down by friendly fire!
-
If you have cannons and enough speed to get into ~300 yards quickly then a lone heavy bomber is meat on the table.
I disagree in the case of the dead-astern attack. .50 calibers firing on you from a perfectly steady platform...at best it tends to be a recipe for one dead bomber+one dead/severely damaged fighter.
The only thing I find odd about this is that the gunners seem nearly invulnerable to fire in Aces High, while from what I understand being a tail or a ball gunner was a highly dangerous job, and if you look at gun cameras they're rarely firing (since by the time that the fighter is that close they've been incapacitated or killed).
Correct. The iron gunner problem something that deserves attention.
-
The k/d for B-17s and B-24s seems to between .33 and .38 consistently in the MA. Planes are the majority of kills for these two types.
The ratio fighters killed by buffs to buffs killed by fighters in frame 3 of the last FSO was 35/95, .36.
Interestingly, when you read the event logs it becomes apparent that a significant number of buffs downed in the last FSO were brought down by friendly fire!
I think this is why so many fighters are downed by bombers in FSO:
(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp278/B4B/bomberformation.png)
Tight formation makes it impossible for a lone fighter to make an attack without getting lit up. The FSO bomber K/D seems low I think, I would have thought it would have been higher than that.
As for the MA statistics, that seems about right. There's alot of guys that will bomb and bail, or divebomb, ripping their wings off and augering.
I guess I'm just confused now...3 bombers get downed for every fighter...I don't see a problem with that.
-
I guess I'm just confused now...3 bombers get downed for every fighter...I don't see a problem with that.
Is it accurate? That is the question.
Now, the problem? Picture this: A squadron-sized number of individuals in P-47s, a competitive fighter plane that can supposedly defend itself gets bounced by a similar number of German fighters and is slaughtered to the last man, the German fighters in this instance attaining an exchange rate of 2.5:1 against the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter airplane.
Now picture a scenario where a similar number of Germans bounce a similar number of individual players in the light bombers, and the Germans get an exchange rate of 1.5:1 while the buffs complete their mission and RTB...sounds a little odd, no?
Picture fighter-escorts diving to buff formations for protection!!!! It happened.
I actually believe the CiC of last FSO could have achieved better results by sending nothing *but* players in massive bomber formations.
These happenstances convince me that "the silly penny has been dropped in the stupid machine" so to speak as regards bomber lethality vs. interceptors.
Maybe I just think the job of escort ought to have some sort of meaning in these events, too.
-
Is it accurate? That is the question.
Now, the problem? Picture this: A squadron-sized number of individuals in P-47s, a competitive fighter plane that can supposedly defend itself gets bounced by a similar number of German fighters and is slaughtered to the last man, the German fighters in this instance attaining an exchange rate of 2.5:1 against the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter airplane.
Now picture a scenario where a similar number of Germans bounce a similar number of individual players in the light bombers, and the Germans get an exchange rate of 1.5:1 while the buffs complete their mission and RTB...sounds a little odd, no?
Picture fighter-escorts diving to buff formations for protection!!!! It happened.
I actually believe the CiC of last FSO could have achieved better results by sending nothing *but* players in massive bomber formations.
These happenstances convince me that "the silly penny has been dropped in the stupid machine" so to speak as regards bomber lethality vs. interceptors.
Maybe I just think the job of escort ought to have some sort of meaning in these events, too.
BnZs...whether it's accurate or not is a great question. I'll have too look into that..
The difference betweeb bouncing a P-47 and a bomber is like night and day IMO.
The fighter is manuverable, but it lacks defensive firepower, and requires alot less rounds to knock it down.
It's funny you mention the escorts diving to the bombers for help, because that's what happened with us last frame. I belive we had two squads escorting our flight of 26s. They were quickly overwhelmed, so we told them to dive to us so we could clear them :lol
I think bomber K/D (in FSO aleast) just comes down to organization and teamwork used by the opposing sides. I can tell you, our 26s weren't running full power to target in the last frame, yet we had great success. Our tight formation and greater cartoon - plane - piloting kept us alive. Every formation of enemy planes that attacked us broke up after their first pass. Numbers will never match real life until the fear of death is implemented in the game, which we all know can't happen...because it's a game! :lol (well for most of us anyway)
-
BnZs...whether it's accurate or not is a great question. I'll have too look into that..
The difference betweeb bouncing a P-47 and a bomber is like night and day IMO.
Yes...the single seat fighter SHOULD have the better chance than the bomber, or it makesthe trouble and expense that went into building fighters, training fighter pilots, and finally designing one that could escort the buffs all the way to target and back a rather moot point. Lets face it, as it stands in-game, player for player right now the average P-51 is less difficult and dangerous to engage and kill than the V of bombers it is escorting.
-
Correct. The iron gunner problem something that deserves attention.
I agree whole-heartedly with this, and I'll take it a bit further...
I have no idea what the coding requirement would be, but, I believe that if a gunner position is damaged, you shouldn't be able to fire from that position at all. For example, if my tail gun is damaged, I can still man the position, track targets with the site, and when the trigger is pulled, any of the other guns in the formation that can bear on the target will fire at it. In my opinion, if the turret you occupy is inoperative from damage or lack of ammo, you should have to be in a different, operative turret, in order to track targets and get the ability to have other gunner turrets focus fire.
However, I still think the lethality of the defensive fire is compounded by poor interceptor tactics. Bombers would not nearly be as lethal if interceptor pilots flew like they were actually getting shot at. But, fighter on fighter engagements during the war were rarely as lethal as they are in-game as well, so I'm not sure your comparison is proper. I know we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
-
Yes...the single seat fighter SHOULD have the better chance than the bomber, or it makesthe trouble and expense that went into building fighters, training fighter pilots, and finally designing one that could escort the buffs all the way to target and back a rather moot point. Lets face it, as it stands in-game, player for player right now the average P-51 is less difficult and dangerous to engage and kill than the V of bombers it is escorting.
I disagree.
There's nothing easier to kill in this game in the MA's as your average buff player. The only reason fighters get an average k/d vs B-24s of "only" 2.54-1 (tour 111) is because 90% of all fighter pilots attack exclusively from 6 o'clock. Which is about the same as if every fighter would exclusively go for the HO vs other fighters.
Almost every fighter in the planeset has a much higher K/D vs bombers than against other fighters.
For example, P51D:
K/D vs all fighters: 1.06
K/D VS
- B-17 2.29
- B-24 2.87
- Lanc 5.79
An enemy fighter will try to evade your attack and to maneuver so he will get into a favorable position. Or, if nothing else works, he will try to run.
A bomber will almost always leave the initiative to the fighter, flying on a steady course, giving the fighter an opportunity to set up his attack.
It's not the bombers speed that's the "problem". It's the lack of patience on the fighter pilots part. Fighters climbing for 5 Min's to get to a formation of B-24's and dying in 20 seconds instead of just investing another 3 minutes to get into position.
But even then, the overwhelming majority of bombers is getting slaughtered without ever reaching their target. Most of the time only those using speed % alt have a chance not only to get to target, but even back to base.
-
I agree whole-heartedly with this, and I'll take it a bit further...
I have no idea what the coding requirement would be, but, I believe that if a gunner position is damaged, you shouldn't be able to fire from that position at all. For example, if my tail gun is damaged, I can still man the position, track targets with the site, and when the trigger is pulled, any of the other guns in the formation that can bear on the target will fire at it. In my opinion, if the turret you occupy is inoperative from damage or lack of ammo, you should have to be in a different, operative turret, in order to track targets and get the ability to have other gunner turrets focus fire.
Eh...kind of lukewarm on that idea. Forcing the gunner to switch turrets would basically be an annoyance but nothing more once gunners got the hang of it, so why bother adding it? The main point is, how difficult should it be to kill a tail-gunner protected mostly by plexiglass?
However, I still think the lethality of the defensive fire is compounded by poor interceptor tactics. Bombers would not nearly be as lethal if interceptor pilots flew like they were actually getting shot at. I know we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
Considering that AH'ers are commonly attacking with identical/better angle-off than shows up in Luftwaffe gun camera footage, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Like I say, the main problem discussed always seem to have been getting the pilots to close in sufficiently and hit the buffs effectively at all, rather than how to survive the defensive fire.
On that subject, I am open to the possibility that while the buffs firepower may be a little too lethal, the buffs themselves may also be a little *too vulnerable* to 20mm and heavy machine-gun fire.
-
Eh...kind of lukewarm on that idea. Forcing the gunner to switch turrets would basically be an annoyance but nothing more once gunners got the hang of it, so why bother adding it. The main point is, how difficult should it be to kill a tail-gunner protected mostly by plexiglass?
Well, because "firing" from the tail gun or top turret gives a much better field of fire and observation than say the waist gunner positions, for example. That would be the penalty--either that or you have to change to another aircraft.
Considering that AH'ers are commonly attacking identical/better angle-off than shows up in Luftwaffe gun camera footage, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Like I say, the main problem discussed always seem to have been getting the pilots to close in sufficiently and hit the buffs effectively at all, rather than how to survive the defensive fire.
On that subject, I am open to the possibility that while the buffs firepower may be a little too lethal, the buffs themselves may also be a little *too vulnerable* to 20mm and heavy machine-gun fire.
I cut my teeth intercepting bombers in P-47s and I can tell you that even with 8 X Ma Deuce, you've got to be precise if you want a one pass kill. I pretty much have a single type of attack I'll make with the Jug, and whenever I deviate from it, I die. Whenever I stick to it, I kill all three planes without taking any damage at all.
Most of that dead-six Luftwaffe gun footage is of damaged stragglers where there's no return fire, as you mentioned in another thread. The problem in AH is that our pilots make the same attacks, just into the teeth of all that defensive fire that hasn't been reduced due to damage. I think the durability of the bombers is fine.
-
Historical trends aren't the gospel, accurate physics are.
-
I agree with Lusche. I find it much more difficult to shoot down bombers rather than fighters (most of the time). There are a few exceptions
-
I agree with Lusche. I find it much more difficult to shoot down bombers rather than fighters (most of the time).
If you find shooting down bombers more difficult than shooting down fighters, you actually do not agree with Lusche ;)
-
I pretty much have a single type of attack I'll make with the Jug, and whenever I deviate from it, I die.
You've likely had hours and hours more practice than your typical pilot going into combat...I think that if attacking buffs without kicking the bucket had really required that sort of precision out of the poor Krauts, then it would have been the B-17s and not the 56th that attrited the Luftwaffe down and drop-tanks or North American Aviation's most famous bird would have been unnecessary inventions. :D
-
The gunners didn't have near as much practice either ;)
-
I disagree.
There's nothing easier to kill in this game in the MA's as your average buff player.
If you find shooting down bombers more difficult than shooting down fighters, you actually do not agree with Lusche
Oh?
I guess I read your text wrong.
In most fights, I find myself behind the guy in 2 turns...guess I'm just that good? :lol :aok
Bombers are much more difficult...even a mediocre gunner is a force to be reckoned with when you're by yourself trying to take out a box of buffs.
-
You've likely had hours and hours more practice than your typical pilot going into combat...I think that if attacking buffs without kicking the bucket had really required that sort of precision out of the poor Krauts, then it would have been the B-17s and not the 56th that attrited the Luftwaffe down and drop-tanks or North American Aviation's most famous bird would have been unnecessary inventions. :D
But, as you know, the type of attacks that the Luftwaffe made on bomber formations in real life look very different from what you typically see in the MA or SEA.
-
I agree that the speed of the buffs probably makes little difference in the exchange rates with fighters, it is the lethality of defensive firepower is the main point.
This slipped by me unnoticed.
In fact, it makes all the difference in the world. Even with 3 drones and 30 guns all pointing in the same place, when you run across bombers going at slower speeds (I have on many occasions run across B-17s flying at 150-200mph historic speeds in the MA), this counters all the advantages of the drone system.
If you can make any attack other than a rear attack, you WILL. One of the biggest problems in this game is that you can NOT make any attack other than a rear angle dead-6 attack on most bombers. They're flying so fast you can't even make one slashing attack before you're in chase mode and they're in front of you.
I've even dove down on B-24s with 10k alt on them and after 3 slashing attacks all my E was gone and I was chasing them dead astern. It's not a matter of positioning, luck, tactics, it's a matter of them flying so fast no matter WHAT you do you end up behind them instantly. Historically this is fubar.
When I have run across bombers flying at slower speeds I've actually taken great delight in setting up slashing attacks, being able to zoom up and dive down towards them, etc. Very much like the many reports pilots gave about attacking them in WW2. When your closure rate is 250mph you have a lot of options. When it's 30mph you have no options, period.
-
3 drones? 30 guns?
One of the biggest problems in this game is that you can NOT make any attack other than a rear angle dead-6 attack on most bombers.
BS!! :lol
-
BS!! :lol
+1
:rofl
-
One of the biggest problems in this game is that you can NOT make any attack other than a rear angle dead-6 attack on most bombers.
(...)
When your closure rate is 250mph you have a lot of options. When it's 30mph you have no options, period.
Recalibrate your throttle.
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5498/17vsspit9.jpg)
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3453/17vs38.jpg)
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3193/17vs51.jpg)
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3350/17vs109g6.jpg)
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7482/17vs205.jpg)
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9535/17vsa8.jpg)
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5392/17vsf6f.jpg)
-
Lusche nice charts but for a Trainer i thought you would know better. Speed is not the whole story especially
at higher alts. In Ah with buffs zoomin around @ full throttle at 20K+ alts, fighters have 2 maybe 3 attack runs before
they are in chase mode. because fighters that high take so long to turn back for another attack, that they
will bleed off that extra speed advantage and never regain the extra alt they had.
-
Totally wrong.. It just takes more time. If your plane is one of those that's indeed barely ahead of that ~31kft B17 peak speed, you brought the wrong tool for the job. No amount of complaining is going to make nerfing historical performance the right thing to do. It was lame in Il2, and it'd be lame in AH.
-
actually HT, i could care less what speed they go, i kill them easy now. you program the game
so you select what realism you want. but i guess we cant suggest any. heaven forbid a plane had to
do something it had to do in RL.
Lusche nice charts but for a Trainer i thought you would know better. Speed is not the whole story especially
at higher alts. In Ah with buffs zoomin around @ full throttle at 20K+ alts, fighters have 2 maybe 3 attack runs before
they are in chase mode. because fighters that high take so long to turn back for another attack, that they
will bleed off that extra speed advantage and never regain the extra alt they had.
Hmm, does not sound like caring less to me?
I can just see the 3 buffs in formation, trying to get home.
REar Gunner, Gunner to pilot incoming 6:00 Hi,
whew he missed that pass, Captn, can you speed up for our run home,
Sorry rear gunner, I can not go full throttle per the base commanders orders, he would rather have us die.
Ok sir, I understand that we may not abuse our plane buy running full throttle, because we need those good engines to take us to the crash sight.
-
Hmm, does not sound like caring less to me?
really? i thought i was replying to someone posting charts, with a counter post. stick you head
back in the sand HT
-
Lusche nice charts but for a Trainer i thought you would know better. Speed is not the whole story especially
at higher alts. In Ah with buffs zoomin around @ full throttle at 20K+ alts, fighters have 2 maybe 3 attack runs before
they are in chase mode. because fighters that high take so long to turn back for another attack, that they
will bleed off that extra speed advantage and never regain the extra alt they had.
first, buffs at 20k and above are the exception in AH. I'd guess less than 10% of all buff sorties are flown at that altitude. Those few players invested a lot of time to climb to that altitude, which is basically the only real defense buffs have. Yes, it IS the point of climbing to 20+k - making it more difficult for the attacker and having a better chance to survive.
"Forcing buffs" to fly at reduced power while fighters still being able to fly at full power is just nerfing the buffs and making them even more vulnerable.
If you would apply the same limitations to both of them, it's the same situation again for fighters vs high-alt buffs.
But still, you can do slashing attacks repeatedly even at 25K in a 109G-2 with gondolas even now, even with B17s at full power:
http://www.mediafire.com/?nbdizimqmf1
It's a long battle at 25k. After first trying my luck with a 6 o'clock attack, I have to resort to slashing attacks. Sometimes the 17's try to climb away, but mostly they fly level at about 270mph, their maximum speed.
-
Lusche nice charts but for a Trainer i thought you would know better. Speed is not the whole story especially
at higher alts. In Ah with buffs zoomin around @ full throttle at 20K+ alts, fighters have 2 maybe 3 attack runs before
they are in chase mode. because fighters that high take so long to turn back for another attack, that they
will bleed off that extra speed advantage and never regain the extra alt they had.
The keys are speed and attack geometry. First, the planes I fly go more than 150 mph (or 2.5 miles per minute) faster than the bombers at those altitudes. If you're in a tail chase after 2-3 passes, you set up poor attack geometry for that aircraft. Its like playing billiards--you have to lead the cue ball. Ensure that whatever attack you make allows you the ability to reattack without subjecting your aircraft to punishing defensive fire or destroying all of the kinetic and potential energy of the aircraft. Even at altitude, the only time when I get killed is when I get impatient and don't create sufficient energy and geometry to survive a successful pass and set up the next one (a.k.a patience).
And, when Moot said:
If your plane is one of those that's indeed barely ahead of that ~31kft B17 peak speed, you brought the wrong tool for the job.
he hit the nail right on the head.
-
If your plane is one of those that's indeed barely ahead of that ~31kft B17 peak speed, you brought the wrong tool for the job.
It's like that one time I tried to engage some B17's in an F4F......didn't end well for me. :D