Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: FireDrgn on May 28, 2009, 02:05:32 PM
-
this would solve most of the bomb tard problems.......I mean come on...You ALREADY get 3 bombers. It unbalances the ground fight.//.
Is this not a good idea?
Too hard to code?
Too many dweebs that are paying customers that like the stukalanks....?
-
What's the wish? Get rid of ords? (Not going to happen)
Pork the ords? (Go for it, pork away!!! For you to pork ords, will take no coding.)
Is this not a good idea?
Too hard to code?
Too many dweebs that are paying customers that like the stukalanks....?
I would love to see film of anybody that lancstuka'd ords........... Unless it was a kamikaze LancStuka of course........ :salute
-
Perk the ORDS just like I said....... Make it so you have to spend perk pionts on them...
How did you get.........get rid of ords adn pork ords out of that?
-
Sooooo, you are saying new players should never get to use bombers? That would be the result if your idea were implemented.
-
A far more effective solution would be to put a dive angle limiter on buffs to prevent them from dropping bombs beyond the angle it was safe to do so.
ack-ack
-
How about perking ord at fields that have their ord bunkers destroyed instead of disabling it?
-
How about perking ord at fields that have their ord bunkers destroyed instead of disabling it?
So ord would never be disabled? :huh
-
That would be the idea.
I'm not really invested in this idea. It was just something off the top of my head.
-
How many of you noticed that the OP wants ords perked because of gv fights?
-
How many of you noticed that the OP wants ords perked because of gv fights?
I considered commenting about this being a flight game, but decided against it.
-
Don't perk ords. Surely there is a better solution than this to airplanes annoying GV battles to an excessive degree.
-
Don't perk ords. Surely there is a better solution than this to airplanes annoying GV battles to an excessive degree.
Air cover.
But that actually requires cooperation and coordination with other players.
-
Air cover.
But that actually requires cooperation and coordination with other players.
Air/Flak cover easier said than done...and when you get it it often comes with guys who are more interested in banging down the enemy's VH and grabbing territory than duelling it out for hours on end. :frown: So no Karnak, I want two flak "drones" to protect my tank from Il2s and Jabos, which are after all quite helpless against this threat, correct? :D
-
OK, I'll throw a bone out there for the anti-bomber community. What if they just lightly perked every bomber that held more than 4,000lbs of ord? That way the heavies would be flown by true buff pilots in the most part that actually intend to survive the run and it would give some of the truly great but overlooked bombers like the B-25c and B-26 their due.
-
OK, I'll throw a bone out there for the anti-bomber community. What if they just lightly perked every bomber that held more than 4,000lbs of ord? That way the heavies would be flown by true buff pilots in the most part that actually intend to survive the run and it would give some of the truly great but overlooked bombers like the B-25c and B-26 their due.
It would make more sense than perking ords, since airplanes and crews are obviously more costly to lose in an attrition sense than a bomb.
But honestly, I don't want to perk bombers or bombs. If you have a half-dozen tanks and 12 jabos/bombers over them, you die...it may suck but I can't say it is "unrealistic".
I think it would be reasonable to give as many/more perk points for shooting down a 4 engine heavy as you get for shooting down a late-model fighter...after all buff hunting is probably MORE difficult than fighter hunting under most circumstances and buffs were historically the more important target to bring down.
-
It would make more sense than perking ords, since airplanes and crews are obviously more costly to lose in an attrition sense than a bomb.
But honestly, I don't want to perk bombers or bombs. If you have a half-dozen tanks and 12 jabos/bombers over them, you die...it may suck but I can't say it is "unrealistic".
I think it would be reasonable to give as many/more perk points for shooting down a 4 engine heavy as you get for shooting down a late-model fighter...after all buff hunting is probably MORE difficult than fighter hunting under most circumstances and buffs were historically the more important target to bring down.
I really like this idea. In my opinion you should get significantly more perks for shooting down 17s/24s ect..At this point they are so difficult to bring down in my experience most people just avoid them, as do I.
-
I really like this idea. In my opinion you should get significantly more perks for shooting down 17s/24s ect..At this point they are so difficult to bring down in my experience most people just avoid them, as do I.
+1
-
I really like this idea. In my opinion you should get significantly more perks for shooting down 17s/24s ect..At this point they are so difficult to bring down in my experience most people just avoid them, as do I.
Difficult? They are frickin' helpless target drones.
-
Yep.. three bombers with "dumb" AI fixed convergence are pretty much even with one properly equipped fighter.
What should be perked is uncommon ordnance on fighters (e.g. 1000# on 51s). The bombsight should be the only way to drop ordnance in the heavy bombers.
-
The bombsight should be the only way to drop ordnance in the heavy bombers.
sounds good to me.
-
Difficult? They are frickin' helpless target drones.
Karnak, you and Moot exaggerate wildly here.
Player for player, bouncing your average P-51 and kill it is FAR less difficult and dangerous than killing the V of bombers it is escorting in the game right now.
This is ESPECIALLY true if the fighter in question is bomb-laden...it either drops the bombs to have a prayer of having enough speed or maneuverability to defend itself (mission busted), or dies.
And historically, and in-game, killing a 4 engine heavy is more important strategically than shooting down a fighter. So yeah, more points for it I say.
-
Agree to disagree.
-
Agree to disagree.
I guess we'll have too. Although wouldn't you agree that defending yourself effectively and reversing the situation in a fighter through air combat maneuvering is just a *little* more counter-intuitive and dependent upon training and player experience than aiming a the flex-mounted machine guns from a perfectly steady platform and squeezing the trigger?
-
No. Bombers are dead meat. They're going nowhere. Fighters like the 51 can just run off to avoid being killed. The perfectly steady platform is easy to kill except for B17s and 24s which have no blind spots. For those you just have to be prepared. All you need is time, and they're just sitting ducks.
-
The bombsight should be the only way to drop ordnance in the heavy bombers.
Why? Later during the war, only a few of the lead aircraft in each group actually had bombadiers onboard. 8th AF would actually employ "togglers" who never even had a Norden in the mount up front. All they did was watch the lead plane, and when it pickled, they "toggled" the bomb release. Not to mention the 5th Air Force (and others) B-25s and B-17s that skip bombed without use of a bombsite.
-
No. Bombers are dead meat. They're going nowhere. Fighters like the 51 can just run off to avoid being killed.
No, they can't. Unless you are flying a 262 or 163 no fighter has a speed edge large enough to guarantee that it can avoid fighting something that has converted alt to catch it. And the fighter that DOES successfully run away has removed itself from the combat for the time being.
The perfectly steady platform is easy to kill except for B17s and 24s which have no blind spots. For those you just have to be prepared. All you need is time, and they're just sitting ducks.
For future references in these discussions, "buffs" probably means B-17s and B-24s.
No blind spot? I've noticed. How can something which you have almost no angle to attack from without facing the chance of being shot by .50 cals be called "easy"? About as "easy" as de-acking a base by yourself and coming through with a whole plane.
-
How can something which you have almost no angle to attack from without facing the chance of being shot by .50 cals be called "easy"?
Like I said in the other post, there is a way to attack B-24s and B-17s without them being able to fire on you until after you're pulling off the target in front of them. You have to be patient though, and that's where most players fail, including myself from time to time when I get impatient and push to hard.
-
Why? Later during the war, only a few of the lead aircraft in each group actually had bombadiers onboard. 8th AF would actually employ "togglers" who never even had a Norden in the mount up front. All they did was watch the lead plane, and when it pickled, they "toggled" the bomb release. Not to mention the 5th Air Force (and others) B-25s and B-17s that skip bombed without use of a bombsite.
Suiciders. I'm pretty sure (very very old memory there) you can look up from the bombsight and drop with the lead that way.
-
No, they can't. Unless you are flying a 262 or 163 no fighter has a speed edge large enough to guarantee that it can avoid fighting something that has converted alt to catch it. And the fighter that DOES successfully run away has removed itself from the combat for the time being.
I'm not going to argue it, you're exagerating.
For future references in these discussions, "buffs" probably means B-17s and B-24s.
No blind spot? I've noticed. How can something which you have almost no angle to attack from without facing the chance of being shot by .50 cals be called "easy"? About as "easy" as de-acking a base by yourself and coming through with a whole plane.
Kill the pilot. Come in from an off angle and at high speed. You know this.
-
(http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/3buff.JPG)
Dead meat, with the correct equipment for the job. A little intelligence in the attack is all it takes. B24s/17s are very vulnerable from the front quarters and belly.
-
-1
-
Sooooo, you are saying new players should never get to use bombers? That would be the result if your idea were implemented.
No actually i did not say any such thing. I think AK AK makes the most sence here.. My idea was to perk ord on formations. Why should one player get 3 bombers full of ord to dive bomb then bail.... It is not any were close to being balanced.
You would think it crazy if someone asked for a formation of gvs.......
-
I'm not so sure I'm on the "perk the ord loadout" bandwagon just yet. However, I do think there should be some type of incentive to take a B17 w the 16/250lb bombs vs taking the 6/1k bombs (or any aircraft with lighter ords). Currently, though I'm not a stat-rat like some I'd be willing to be for every single 250lb or 100kg bomb taken up there are twenty (or more) 1000lb or 500kg bomb taken up. I'm not sure just how the ord would be perked, if one were to take notice the ENY/perk status is coded at the aircraft level and not below (into the "guts" for the aircraft). Something tells me it makes for a complicated coding situation if HTC were to dive into that realm. They are busy with things they deem more important.
I've often thought that the ord system should be coded similar to the fuel (3 fuel depots destroyed = no DT, the 4th = %75 max fuel). If one ord bunker is taken out, then no 1000lb bombs (or bigger), if 2 ord bunkers are taken out then no 500lbs, if 3 ord bunkers are taken out then no 250lbs bombs. Regardless if the 4th one is taken out, always allow the 100lb or 50kg bombs to be loaded up.
-
...I do think there should be some type of incentive to take a B17 w the 16/250lb bombs vs taking the 6/1k bombs (or any aircraft with lighter ords)...
If you salvo 4 X 250lb bombs with no delay, they'll practically behave as 1 X 1000lb bomb. I'm not sure this accomplishes anything, other than limiting the overall bomb load to 4,000 pounds.
-
I say no to perked ords unless they are special ordnance or gun packages. Otherwise I suggest you disable the ords near your fight, up a plane to deal with the offenders, or learn how to Wirbel. :aok
-
BnZ,
My K/D ratio vs bombers was always monstrously in my favor compared to my K/D vs fighters, which was still in my favor. Bombers are easy targets unless you crawl up their tulips or attack them at WWI speeds.
-
No blind spot? I've noticed. How can something which you have almost no angle to attack from without facing the chance of being shot by .50 cals be called "easy"? About as "easy" as de-acking a base by yourself and coming through with a whole plane.
While the B-17s and -24s have no blind spots, they do have areas where they can't get full deflection on their guns. The smart and skilled players know how to exploit this and engage bombers with virtually no worries of being shot down or damaged. These boards have many threads on the proper tactics to successfully engage bombers, I would suggest you try reading them and you'll see why some of us think they're easy to shoot down but since its a contrary position to yours, you'll just ignore it.
ack-ack
-
BnZ,
My K/D ratio vs bombers was always monstrously in my favor compared to my K/D vs fighters, which was still in my favor. Bombers are easy targets unless you crawl up their tulips or attack them at WWI speeds.
That makes some sense, considering the plane in your avatar.
-
While the B-17s and -24s have no blind spots, they do have areas where they can't get full deflection on their guns. The smart and skilled players know how to exploit
"Exploit" may be the right word here. The angle you *don't* see in gun camera footage is boring in on the buffs in a pure vertical Dive. Basically, you see front-quarter and rear quarter attacks. Now, explain to me AGAIN why questioning why these approachs were apparently *not* a death sentence in RL but is suicidal in AHII is unreasonable?
hese boards have many threads on the proper tactics to successfully engage bombers, I would suggest you try reading them and you'll see why some of us think they're easy to shoot down but since its a contrary position to yours, you'll just ignore it.
I wonder, why has no one answered my question about k/d ratios of interceptors vs. American heavies in the war?
-
BnZs i think its because we shoot alot better in a game than is possible in real life. And practice alot more too.
-
BnZs i think its because we shoot alot better in a game than is possible in real life. And practice alot more too.
That should make the increase in lethality go both ways though shouldn't it? And I was under the impression the gun performance was pretty closely modeled in this game anyway.
I think the principal difference, though this sounds counter-intuitive , is that one guy focusing the power of 6-9 gun positions can be a lot more lethal than 6-9 separate gunners firing at will.
-
I wonder, why has no one answered my question about k/d ratios of interceptors vs. American heavies in the war?
Probably because the real world K/D of interceptor vs. US heavy bombers isn't relevent within the game. We don't use the same tactics and we don't face bomber streams made up of thousands of bombers or their hundreds of fighter escorts.
ack-ack
-
Probably because the real world K/D of interceptor vs. US heavy bombers isn't relevent within the game. We don't use the same tactics and we don't face bomber streams made up of thousands of bombers or their hundreds of fighter escorts.
ack-ack
Uh, why precisely is it not relevant? Especially when I compare to stats from FSOs where conditions are set up to be as realistic as practical and the relevant aircraft (carefully modeled for accuracy) are crossing swords? C-Hog vs. random B-17 Vs in the MA may make for skewed results, 190A vs. bomber formations in FSO much less so.
The situation from the actual war you are describing is actually much more perilous than what interceptors typically face in-game in either the MA or FSO. Therefore the exchange rates in-game should actually be better for the interceptors, correct?
-
The situation from the actual war you are describing is actually much more perilous than what interceptors typically face in-game in either the MA or FSO. Therefore the exchange rates in-game should actually be better for the interceptors, correct?
I believe I addressed this in other threads bearing on this topic, but...
There is no way to accurately compare the conditions faced by Allied bomber pilots and Luftwaffe interceptor pilots in real life to what we do in-game. Yes, we know some of the same lingo, formations, aircraft nuances, etc. but AH2 is a much more lethal (as opposed to dangerous) place, across the board, than real life was during the war. So again, I'll repeat what I've contended in other threads: the more aggressive and less patient tactics used by AH2 pilots when intercepting bombers, does not allow for a credible comparison between historical and in-game kill to death ratios.
-
Oh man, that is the kind of thing that makes you a SPEIR!!! :lol
Probably because the real world K/D of interceptor vs. US heavy bombers isn't relevent within the game. We don't use the same tactics and we don't face bomber streams made up of thousands of bombers or their hundreds of fighter escorts.
ack-ack
-
"Exploit" may be the right word here. The angle you *don't* see in gun camera footage is boring in on the buffs in a pure vertical Dive. Basically, you see front-quarter and rear quarter attacks. Now, explain to me AGAIN why questioning why these approachs were apparently *not* a death sentence in RL but is suicidal in AHII is unreasonable?
I wonder, why has no one answered my question about k/d ratios of interceptors vs. American heavies in the war?
You're extrapolating what the characteristics of a video game meant to simulate combat vehicles in an unhistorical setting should be, from anecdotical evidence of the circumstances of a very limited set of WWII footage. The way out of this overcomplicated attempt at authenticity is to simply simulate the physics.
Stoney beat me to it.
-
So.... SPEIR-heading is what your saying?
You're extrapolating what the characteristics of a video game meant to simulate combat vehicles in an unhistorical setting should be, from anecdotical evidence of the circumstances of a very limited set of WWII footage. The way out of this overcomplicated attempt at authenticity is to simply simulate the physics.
-
Uh, why precisely is it not relevant? Especially when I compare to stats from FSOs where conditions are set up to be as realistic as practical and the relevant aircraft (carefully modeled for accuracy) are crossing swords? C-Hog vs. random B-17 Vs in the MA may make for skewed results, 190A vs. bomber formations in FSO much less so.
The situation from the actual war you are describing is actually much more perilous than what interceptors typically face in-game in either the MA or FSO. Therefore the exchange rates in-game should actually be better for the interceptors, correct?
Stoney and m00t beat me to it. Read their replies for the reason why.
ack-ack
-
The way out of this overcomplicated attempt at authenticity is to simply simulate the physics.
Moot,
You do realize that I am not questioning a B-17's top speed at 22K or the ballistics of .50 caliber machine guns right? The ability to have multiple guns from multiple bombers slaved to one gunner is OTOH plainly unrealistic. It is a convention aimed at playability. The *ONLY* benchmark I can see to decide whether this convention is too much help, too little, or "just right" is the historical comparison.
-
You mean.. Aimed at a fixed convergence point? It's nowhere near as lethal as if real gunners were manning the guns, and since it's just about even between a bomber interceptor and a bomber formation, there's no reason to change anything that I can see. There's plenty of plainly unrealistic features in the game.. The aim of this air combat game is to give us good gameplay, not unrestricted realism. We don't have attrition, don't need to taxi to take off, have GPS accurate radar, etc etc.
The strictly historical standard was out the window from the start. Physics are the real substance.
-
+1
Remember you only lose perks when you lose the ac
For me we earn bomber perks with no real range of oppurtunity to use them.
Its an old record from my side but.................
Perk Ord greater than 500lb/250kg (either by perking each bomb [punative IMO] or by perking the generic loadout[preferred IMO])
Multiply the perk by 3 for formations.
Force all level bombers to drop from F6 after calibrating in F6.
Introduce an "attack" category with attack perks available.
Disable formations in "attack" category.
Disable F3 for all ac where "attack" is chosen.
Enable pilot to release bombs when "attack" is chosen.
Force all fighters into the "attack" category when ordinance is loaded.
what does this achieve? Well IMO
Single player field killing level bombing missions require some risk of perk loss. (you risk lossing points for those 1000lbers if you dont bring the plane back) The 500lb/250kg was by far the most common bomb any way.
Dive bombing formations/level bombers is very impracticable from F6 if you are forced to calibrate first. (there is no quick jump into F6 and release) This also impedes the use of Formations agin GV's.
However some level bombers were also used in attack roles. Here the pilot can dive bomb when "attack" is chosen but he/she is deprived of formations and the ability to dog fight/bomb from the F3 view. (Ju88, B25, Boston)
Some ac are pure attackers (Il2M3, A20) and should only be available as such. Again these AC should not be avaialble to dog fight from F3 view which enhances SA on an AC which traditionally had limited access to rear views.
Fighters are forced to earn perks fighting and not bombing.
Regarding gameplay v realism
The objective is obviously best gameplay yet it is based upon aspects of realism. IMO 2 wrongs do not make a right. It is better (IMO) to apply realistic attributes in a manner that support good game play than it is to add unrealistic attributes to correct other unrealistic attributes.
i.e
Objective = best game play
Method = application of realism (where possible) to achieve above.
To be avoided = unrealistic gameplay "fixes" to achieve above.
-
Some ac are pure attackers (Il2M3, A20) and should only be available as such. Again these AC should not be avaialble to dog fight from F3 view which enhances SA on an AC which traditionally had limited access to rear views.
I disagree...I think all airplanes that have gunner(s) should have F3 view available to replicate the extra sets of eyes. An A-20 doesn't have a "limited" rear view, it has squat for a rear view with F3.
For the sake of consistency with this principle, I believe the 110 should be allowed to use F3 and cannot see why alone among aircraft of this type it is not.
-
You mean.. Aimed at a fixed convergence point? It's nowhere near as lethal as if real gunners were manning the guns,
Regarding this point, we must agree to disagree.
and since it's just about even between a bomber interceptor and a bomber formation, there's no reason to change anything that I can see.
Hey...even I don't think its quite "even" between buffs and fighters. :D If it ever had been "about even" between buffs and fighters, one wonders why anyone would have bothered to build long-range escort fighters...
But since you have admitted that it is a matter of what desirable gameplay is rather than accusing me of wanting to suspend some laws of physics in the game, ;) and gameplay is a matter of taste, we can agree to disagree on this as well.
-
Convergence - I'm curious how you figure that guns slaved to fire at a single, static convergence are more lethal than if all guns were manned by humans, or if they fired at the same aiming accuracy as the manned position.
In the game right now, it's even. That's what matters for the game, not history.
Look at the scales. You need* to have one formula that fits both the defensively weakest at one end of the scale, and the offensively strongest at the other. That happens to be 2 drones, given the balancing act between allowing players to defend themselves (how survivable is a single Ju88 vs +2 drones?), not giving players too much destructive power (although this is most likely regulated outside of the drones equation: e.g. bomb dispersion and objects hardness), and keeping bombers vulnerable enough so that bomber hunters have a fair chance at killing them. This last one: You don't go hunting bombers in an A6M2. Same argument at a different spot on the scale (feasibility threshold): 190A5. It's damn near sure that you'll be going down by the time you take out the last B17/24, but you certainly have a shot at taking all three out without taking any terminal damage. I could've included the 26 in there, but it has a nice blind spot in the belly, which means you just need to be patient and set up for that. The 17 and 24? We're playing a game here, with designs made for historical purposes. Of course many planes aren't up to the task! A true hint that something's amiss would be for the historical bomber interceptor designs to fail to deliver... So, do you think those models fail to live up to their intended purpose?
What better alternative would you propose? What do you find wrong with this part of gameplay in AH? I think it's fine. I have no trouble killing a formation on my own. The good gunners will send me home with a radiator leak... But it's really rare that I can't take em all down.
* because of coading habits - KISS
-
For the sake of consistency with this principle, I believe the 110 should be allowed to use F3 and cannot see why alone among aircraft of this type it is not.
Not from the pilot seat... Maybe from the gunner position, but that's it. That's already gamey: in a formation the bomber really do have that field of view. In the back of a 110?
-
If you salvo 4 X 250lb bombs with no delay, they'll practically behave as 1 X 1000lb bomb. I'm not sure this accomplishes anything, other than limiting the overall bomb load to 4,000 pounds.
By taking a B17 with the 250lb bombs, one can climb quicker, fly faster, and actually spread out the damage a bit more. The thing is, in AH2 the bombers are used for far more "precision" bombing that they ever did in WWII. The use of carpet bombing, true carpet bombing in AH2 is almsot nil. A couple of flights of B17's with those 250lb bombs can lay waste to an airbase with a salvo of 8 and a delay of .8 seconds. All objects aside from the hangers are done for. Oh... then move on to the next base. ;)
-
Convergence - I'm curious how you figure that guns slaved to fire at a single, static convergence are more lethal than if all guns were manned by humans
Sorta the reason you don't get anywhere if you throw a bunch of guys in a boat, give them all an oar, and then let them row anyway they want...ya need drums and and some guy going "Yo-e-O" :D But more seriously 1. If 2 or more fully manned bombers want to cover each other, that requires at least a little formation flying. 2. When you get into the situation of more than one fighter attacking X number of buffs, slaved guns have their own advantages. Catch a good burst right at convergence, fighter is gone, move on the next one. You could easily run into situations in a multi-fighter/multi-bomber situation where firepower was not divided efficiently and one or more fighters essentially had a free run at the buffs. 3. In reality, buff gunners faced the very real problem of not shooting other buffs, and gun positions that didn't have a clear shot at the fighter could not be used to track and fire for those that *do*...nor could a gun position that has been taken out.
If I had my 'druthers, on a trial basis we'd set the formations up to where firing from the tail-gun of a V fired the tail guns of the drones. This would give more meaning to taking out a gun position as well, since it would reduce defensive firepower from that angle by 1/3rd. I would not eliminate or perk the formation. The idea of allowing buffers to use perks to add additional planes to the formation is an idea I feel is worthy of consideration.
You apparently think it is appropriate that one player can take up a formation of buffs and have a roughly equivocal chance of getting through with his cargo. Cargo which of course has more strategic impact than killing a double-handful of fighters in dogfights. Myself, I am not so sure that one guy with buffs without buddies to form up with or escort fighters should have much chance of getting through. If nothing else, I feel the role of escort fighters should have some meaning outside of "guy who steals kills from the buff gunner" :devil
I have no trouble killing a formation on my own. The good gunners will send me home with a radiator leak... But it's really rare that I can't take em all down.
Actually, the really good gunners like 999000 go about 1:1 with fighters. But okay...your usual result is 3 bombers down with damage that demands landing quickly? I find that interesting, because I am pretty sure you can go kill five (or more) fighters whenever you want, and have more fun doing. So I stand by my statement that buff-hunting is onerous duty, and that buff-killers should get more perks than they currently do for a job that is both more unpleasant but also more strategically important than hunting fighters.
-
I disagree...I think all airplanes that have gunner(s) should have F3 view available to replicate the extra sets of eyes. An A-20 doesn't have a "limited" rear view, it has squat for a rear view with F3.
For the sake of consistency with this principle, I believe the 110 should be allowed to use F3 and cannot see why alone among aircraft of this type it is not.
I understand this arguement but cannot rationalise the extent of SA given by F3 with the often garbled communications between pilots and gunners. Certainly the pilot never enjoyed the 360 degree intant view given by F3.
Indeed flicking thru the gunner positions with the speed we can.... probably (if used) would give the pilot a better indication of the world around him than would be achieved in RL.
But this can be cumbersome to playewrs with limited JS capacity.
Given only this choice my preference would be to eliminate F3. I think a more ideal solution would be to be able to model the POV hat to look from the various gunner views when operated from the pilots posistion.
-
Actually, the really good gunners like 999000 go about 1:1 with fighters.
That is true proof how overpowered bomber guns are, indeed :rolleyes:
-
That is true proof how overpowered bomber guns are, indeed :rolleyes:
That figure makes me wonder what all the hubub over developing escort fighters was about :D
-
If you are saying buff hunting is too dangerous then you just don't use the right tactic. I take a plane with plenty of guns like the P47, the B25 (the one without the 75mm), or the A20-G although it is less effictive at this, or a plane with huge guns like the P39 or the B25 with the 75mm. I know a hit with that thing is unlikely but still a hit with the P39's 37mm (I think) cannon will kill most if not all fighters. That means the 75mm will kill a four engined bomber and DESTROY anything with 2 engines or less. well anyway, you want to come in at high speed like from a good dive, and at a 20-30 degree downward angle and shoot up the length of the bomber. I once came in at full speed with a P51 (I needed to intercept him fast) and shot up the bomber and I think took out the chin turret, without taking a single bullet. I estimate it would have taken 4 good solid passes to kill him but a slower Fw190 finally caught up and killed my bomber. (muttered and kidding) damn cannon S.O.B. took my kill :mad:
-
NO SCREW YOU!!!!!! all the newbies would want to bomb but cant because they dont have enough perks!!! that would suck! plus if they perk bombs might as well add bombers to attack and take out bomber ranks
-
NO SCREW YOU!!!!!! all the newbies would want to bomb but cant because they dont have enough perks!!! that would suck! plus if they perk bombs might as well add bombers to attack and take out bomber ranks
Lighten up little kid, it's just a wish and one that hopefully will be coming soon. The fact is there were certain ordnance packages that some planes used that we cannot use in game due to the limitations of the ordnance system. That's why planes like the B-25H can't carry rockets, torpedoes or HVAR rockets.
There also some ordnance packages we have in the game that are used quite regularly when in real life, those loadouts were rarely used. Perking these types of ordnance packages would help get rid of some of the gamey 'Pork N' Auger' sorties.
So, yes to a perked ordnance system.
ack-ack
-
YES!!! PERK IT!!! :x
Perk it all. :rock