Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: AKP on July 01, 2009, 08:48:45 AM

Title: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: AKP on July 01, 2009, 08:48:45 AM
Ok... this isnt going in the Wishlist section, because it isnt a wish... yet. 

As you all know, the only perked bomber we currently have is the Ar234... which is only available in the LW arenas.  I have scoured the web and all my aircraft books looking for a bomber that is better than any of the ones we have now (leaving out the obvious "bomber that shall not be named lest little kitties and puppies be put to death" ) that would deserve being perked.

Everything I have seen is either what we already have, equivalent to what we already have, wasnt produced in enough numbers, or wasnt as good as what we have now... with the exception of ONE.  And even as an "in game" bomber pilot, I wouldn't want to see that one introduced.

So my question is this:  Is there a bomber out there.... SOMEWHERE.... that I have missed somehow.... that meets the criteria for inclusion in AH2... as a perked bomber... for ANY arena?    If there is, I havent found it.

Anyone, Anyone?.... Bueller?  Bueller?

Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: 4deck on July 01, 2009, 08:59:00 AM
A26
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: RufusLeaking on July 01, 2009, 08:59:53 AM
Lancs are perked in EW.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Lusche on July 01, 2009, 09:00:52 AM
my question is this:  Is there a bomber out there.... SOMEWHERE.... that I have missed somehow.... that meets the criteria for inclusion in AH2... as a perked bomber... for ANY arena?    If there is, I havent found it.

As you said "any arena" ... I could imagine the Do 217 being perked in EW arena, if it ever gets introduced to AH, just like the Lancaster is.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Vudak on July 01, 2009, 09:13:57 AM
A26

I don't understand why the A26 should be perked for any reason other than that we "need" another perked bomber?
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: AKP on July 01, 2009, 09:16:07 AM
Lancs are perked in EW.

DOH!   :huh  Shows you how often I have been in the EW arena!  I will have to grab my wallet full of perks and head over.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: danny37 on July 01, 2009, 09:27:13 AM
the british vampire :aok
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: BaldEagl on July 01, 2009, 10:23:57 AM
That's why I've always advocated a very highly perked B1 Lancaster with the Grand Slam and/or Tallboy as a perk option although it would have to also not be available in formation mode.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: waystin2 on July 01, 2009, 11:04:38 AM
Waits for the first mention of a certain uber american bomber and the mayhem that will surely follow... :uhoh
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Karnak on July 01, 2009, 11:08:40 AM
Examples of bombers that could be added that would be perked would the A-26, B-29 and Mosquito B.Mk XVI.

I guess the B7A2 'Grace', Il-10 and He177A-5 Grief might be potential perk bombers as well.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: 1Boner on July 01, 2009, 11:11:14 AM
A26

A-26 is an "attack" aircraft.

And if added wouldn't need to be perked.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Karnak on July 01, 2009, 11:14:16 AM
And if added wouldn't need to be perked.
Pyro has said otherwise.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: 1Boner on July 01, 2009, 11:21:44 AM
Pyro has said otherwise.

That really wouldn't surprise me.

The A-26 would really tear up the arenas.

That is before it was taken down by any number of planes or gvs.

Yup it would really upset the balance of gameplay.

Lmao!!
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Spikes on July 01, 2009, 11:30:49 AM
You can send your bomber perks to my account so I can fly my 234s more often. :)
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Karnak on July 01, 2009, 11:41:59 AM
That really wouldn't surprise me.

The A-26 would really tear up the arenas.

That is before it was taken down by any number of planes or gvs.

Yup it would really upset the balance of gameplay.

Lmao!!
I think you are significantly under estimating the A-26.

Is it going to be at a disadvantage in a 1v1 fight with a Spit XVI?  Yes, but it will also be significantly capable of evading said Spitfire.  In addition, flown with a bit of panache, it will easily down most fighters.

Think of it as an A-20G on steroids.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Nightmare on July 01, 2009, 11:46:20 AM
Maybe you can perk the A-1 or AD-1 Skyraider
it was originally designed for WWII but it came just a little late
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Strip on July 01, 2009, 11:52:11 AM
At the risk of being flamed you cant look past the B-29....

Its a bomber worth heavy perk and perhaps one of the few that belong perked.

B-29.... This plane belongs in the game at some point period, however, without the bomb.

A-26......perhaps and its perk price will be heavily debated.

Lancaster....with Grand Slam or Tall Boy but nothing over 4k is going to be in the game.

What else?
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Crash Orange on July 01, 2009, 11:55:28 AM
A-26 is an "attack" aircraft.

It can just as well be used as a bomber, and given the hyper-accurate and easily calibrated bombsights we have I expect it would be used that way more than in an attack role.

And if added wouldn't need to be perked.

If added, it would make every other medium/high level bomber aside from the Lanc and the 234 obsolete. It has a superior combination of speed/power and carrying capacity to any medium bomber currently in the game, and the way we use bombers (usually shallow penetration with very brief radar warning) its speed would make it more survivable than a B-17 or B-24 with a bomb load in the same ballpark. It would have a significant impact on CV survivability. No one would fly anything else for a level bomber unless they needed torpedoes or 14k lbs. of bombs. IMHO that adds up to perk territory.

The A-26 would really tear up the arenas.

That is before it was taken down by any number of planes or gvs.

You can't kill what you can't catch, and no GV in the game can kill a bomber at 10k+.

Yup it would really upset the balance of gameplay.

Neither would unperking any other piston engine plane, in the sense you're talking about. But it would completely dominate its role, more than C-hogs or Spit XIVs would if unperked.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Rich46yo on July 01, 2009, 12:03:43 PM
I don't understand why the A26 should be perked for any reason other than that we "need" another perked bomber?

Speed and bombload. It was the fastest Yank bomber of the War. Your talking a 6,000lb bomb load with a top speed of about 360 mph. The A-26 was also able to be configured with up to 12 5" rockets on the wings and an internal 4,000lb bomb load.

So it was about 20 mph faster then the A-20, carried 2,000lb more ords, and was better protected with 2 2x0.50 gun turrets top and bottom, "as well as 6 in the nose". By all accounts it also had far better handling characteristics then the A-20 it replaced as well.

The 26 was able to carry 8 500 lb bombs in the bomb bay and an additional 4 500lb bombs on the wings. Just one, screaming in at 350 mph, would have enough ords to prep a base. VH, Ords bunkers, Dar. It would be murder on CV groups as well.

No, this thing would be a killer and deserving a light perk price. Oh, say in the range of 30 .

I gotta tellya. I took up 3 AR-234s last night and felt like ditching out of them 5 mins after I upped. Its old news. Its not very usefull and its old news. We desperatly need a new perk bomber.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Strip on July 01, 2009, 12:04:43 PM
You can't kill what you can't catch, and no GV in the game can kill a bomber at 10k+.

No bomber can kill a gv at that altitude either save a hail mary shot.....
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Spikes on July 01, 2009, 12:09:19 PM
I've bombed GV's from 10-15K before :)
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: BillyD on July 01, 2009, 12:13:06 PM
He177A-5 Grief


LOL wasn't this the "flying lighter" cause it used to catch on fire all the twiddlen time? HTC would have a ball modelling that! It would be hilarious..... right after take off, flushin your perkies cause all the engines are burning LMFAO  :x
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: moot on July 01, 2009, 12:13:35 PM
Speed and bombload. It was the fastest Yank bomber of the War. Your talking a 6,000lb bomb load with a top speed of about 360 mph. The A-26 was also able to be configured with up to 12 5" rockets on the wings and an internal 4,000lb bomb load.

So it was about 20 mph faster then the A-20, carried 2,000lb more ords, and was better protected with 2 2x0.50 gun turrets top and bottom, "as well as 6 in the nose". By all accounts it also had far better handling characteristics then the A-20 it replaced as well.

The 26 was able to carry 8 500 lb bombs in the bomb bay and an additional 4 500lb bombs on the wings. Just one, screaming in at 350 mph, would have enough ords to prep a base. VH, Ords bunkers, Dar. It would be murder on CV groups as well.

No, this thing would be a killer and deserving a light perk price. Oh, say in the range of 30 .

I gotta tellya. I took up 3 AR-234s last night and felt like ditching out of them 5 mins after I upped. Its old news. Its not very usefull and its old news. We desperatly need a new perk bomber.
I can't see what would top the 234 as tactical blitz bomber.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: CAP1 on July 01, 2009, 12:18:03 PM
Ok... this isnt going in the Wishlist section, because it isnt a wish... yet. 

As you all know, the only perked bomber we currently have is the Ar234... which is only available in the LW arenas.  I have scoured the web and all my aircraft books looking for a bomber that is better than any of the ones we have now (leaving out the obvious "bomber that shall not be named lest little kitties and puppies be put to death" ) that would deserve being perked.

Everything I have seen is either what we already have, equivalent to what we already have, wasnt produced in enough numbers, or wasnt as good as what we have now... with the exception of ONE.  And even as an "in game" bomber pilot, I wouldn't want to see that one introduced.

So my question is this:  Is there a bomber out there.... SOMEWHERE.... that I have missed somehow.... that meets the criteria for inclusion in AH2... as a perked bomber... for ANY arena?    If there is, I havent found it.

Anyone, Anyone?.... Bueller?  Bueller?



i believe lancasters are perked in ew.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Rich46yo on July 01, 2009, 12:21:24 PM
I can't see what would top the 234 as tactical blitz bomber.


The problem with the 234 is hitting anything. Sure I can set it to warp 10 and scream in and take out a VH but its a lot harder turning to change your heading into a CV. In fact its hard turning any time, most of all with drones. Then if you slow it down it get hard to maintain calibration.

The bomb load leaves very little room for different missions as well. Not just that but very few fly them and its difficult building missions around them.

Oh no regrets. Its a fascinating airplane with a fascinating history. But it has turned into a Queen and we need new rides in the bomber hangar.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Karnak on July 01, 2009, 12:22:54 PM

LOL wasn't this the "flying lighter" cause it used to catch on fire all the twiddlen time?

Due to mechanical failures that would not be modeled in AH.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: A8TOOL on July 01, 2009, 12:24:07 PM
I don't understand why the A26 should be perked for any reason other than that we "need" another perked bomber?

I would have said it that way too.

Perking it still would be nice and 30 is very reasonable as someone suggested.

I think we AH will get this plane in game at some point...just a matter of time.

Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: AKP on July 01, 2009, 12:26:45 PM
The A-26 would be a nice addition to the game.  And if perked, you wouldnt see too many of them.  Especially, since the role they are designed primarily for, will but them in low altitude combat, and get them swarmed by every fighter that sees one. 

the A-26 packs more forward firepower than anything we have in game now (14 X .50 cals if you include the 8 in optional underwing pods + the 6 in the nose), and carries more ordinance than either the A-20 or the B-25 (either the H or the C in strafer configuration), its two closest comparisons we have in game.  And yes, its faster too.

Its introduction into service in 1943 could also place it into MW service, filling a gap that currently exists.

If the "bomber that shall not be named lest little kitties and puppies be put to death" were to be put into the game, it would most certainly go into the LW arena, where we already have a perked bomber.  That, and the 20,000 lb bombload per aircraft is reason enough to me to leave it out.

Oh... and to everyone that has pointed out to me that the Lancaster is perked in EW, yes... I admit I missed that.  My bad, I can count on one hand the number of times I have flown EW.  I should have looked at the EW aircraft before I posted.  But it still leaves us with a gap that needs to be filled.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: moot on July 01, 2009, 12:29:39 PM

The problem with the 234 is hitting anything. Sure I can set it to warp 10 and scream in and take out a VH but its a lot harder turning to change your heading into a CV. In fact its hard turning any time, most of all with drones. Then if you slow it down it get hard to maintain calibration.

The bomb load leaves very little room for different missions as well. Not just that but very few fly them and its difficult building missions around them.

Oh no regrets. Its a fascinating airplane with a fascinating history. But it has turned into a Queen and we need new rides in the bomber hangar.
Calibration depends only on speed, right?  So if you calibrate at 300TAS, the sight will aim correctly regardless of your altitude and attitude?  If so, you can plan your run to be (e.g.) NOE up to a point where you pop up to a certain alt, throttle (if necessary) to a precise speed, and drop in very little time.  Calibrate at your target speed ahead of time, and practice offline a couple of times so that the pop-up hits just target speed just right.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Rich46yo on July 01, 2009, 12:39:17 PM
Calibration depends only on speed, right?  So if you calibrate at 300TAS, the sight will aim correctly regardless of your altitude and attitude?  If so, you can plan your run to be (e.g.) NOE up to a point where you pop up to a certain alt, throttle (if necessary) to a precise speed, and drop in very little time.  Calibrate at your target speed ahead of time, and practice offline a couple of times so that the pop-up hits just target speed just right.

Ive seen those kind of attacks and frankly they dont look very effective to me. That and it seems like a whole lot of adjustments with very little time to make errors. Maybe your good at it but I doubt I could ever be. Ive seen 234 attacks on CVs like that and they are certain suicide.

I guess maybe if you set auto-speed to 300 mph, hit alt/X while on the deck, and then hit X at the top of your arc right at 300 mph. Then, if you are able, maintain that speed, calibrate, and then drop. Of course 3 AR-234s coming over a CV at 3,000' would probably have a short and exciting life. I guess as long as your level bombing its not dweebish, tho I prefer surviving and flying home.

Maybe practicing and finding the exact manifold setting needed to maintain 300 mph would help. That way you wouldn't have to fumble as much.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: moot on July 01, 2009, 12:57:20 PM
Yep that's what I was saying.  Doesnt seem nearly as long or complex a learning curve as learning to dogfight.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Guppy35 on July 01, 2009, 01:07:53 PM
The A-26 would be a nice addition to the game.  And if perked, you wouldnt see too many of them.  Especially, since the role they are designed primarily for, will but them in low altitude combat, and get them swarmed by every fighter that sees one. 

the A-26 packs more forward firepower than anything we have in game now (14 X .50 cals if you include the 8 in optional underwing pods + the 6 in the nose), and carries more ordinance than either the A-20 or the B-25 (either the H or the C in strafer configuration), its two closest comparisons we have in game.  And yes, its faster too.

Its introduction into service in 1943 could also place it into MW service, filling a gap that currently exists.

If the "bomber that shall not be named lest little kitties and puppies be put to death" were to be put into the game, it would most certainly go into the LW arena, where we already have a perked bomber.  That, and the 20,000 lb bombload per aircraft is reason enough to me to leave it out.

Oh... and to everyone that has pointed out to me that the Lancaster is perked in EW, yes... I admit I missed that.  My bad, I can count on one hand the number of times I have flown EW.  I should have looked at the EW aircraft before I posted.  But it still leaves us with a gap that needs to be filled.

Where was the A26 introduced to service in 1943.  It saw limited use with the 9th AF in the ETO from about October 44 on.  It saw very limited use in the PTO later then that.

It just wasn't a factor of any consequence.  In terms of adding it to AH, it should be way down the list behind any number of birds that were of consequence to WW2 air combat, but not as uber.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: AKP on July 01, 2009, 01:20:20 PM
Where was the A26 introduced to service in 1943.  It saw limited use with the 9th AF in the ETO from about October 44 on.  It saw very limited use in the PTO later then that.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/ ,  lists it as entering service in August 1943... while http://www.warbirdalley.com/ , google, and http://milhist.blogspot.com/ list it as not entering service until 1944. 

So I guess more research from verifiable sources is needed on that point.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Lusche on July 01, 2009, 01:22:06 PM
So I guess more research from verifiable sources is needed on that point.

Not if you have Dan and his infinite library  :D


http://en.wikipedia.org/ ,  lists it as entering service in August 1943...

This is what Wikipedia actually says:

"The Douglas company began delivering the production model A-26B in August 1943 with the new bomber first seeing action with the Fifth Air Force in the Southwest Pacific theater on 23 June 1944, when they bombed Japanese-held islands near Manokwari"
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Motherland on July 01, 2009, 01:29:04 PM
Military Factory is terrible.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Vudak on July 01, 2009, 01:43:57 PM
Did Air Warrior really have it THAT flat-out wrong?  I don't recall it ever being unbalancing there, but then again I'd imagine HTC would do a better job with the flight model, etc., and it would turn out to be very unbalancing here.

I just can't see it being any more annoying than the average D9 or Mustang from an A2A perspective, except when flown by a select few who bother to learn this game.  From a A2G perspective, I can't see it being any more annoying than the average suicide bomber in on whatever hanger doesn't really need to go down.

Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: moot on July 01, 2009, 01:51:33 PM
Just 8x500+4x500 lbs on a platform even brawnier than the A20 is enough for perks, IMO.  If on top of that it makes for an A2A tool that's like an A20 on steroids, it removes pretty much any doubt that it should be perked.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Vudak on July 01, 2009, 01:58:57 PM
Just 8x500+4x500 lbs on a platform even brawnier than the A20 is enough for perks, IMO.  If on top of that it makes for an A2A tool that's like an A20 on steroids, it removes pretty much any doubt that it should be perked.

I'm just curious because of it being available in Air Warrior.  Granted, I was basically a little kid when that game was out (and never even thought of the concept of a forum message board), but I don't remember any complaints about the A26 being a "dweeb ride" or the like.

I just wonder why that was?  Was it poorly modeled?  Were people just not flying it to its potential/thinking of it as a fighter?  What was the issue?

It's just that then it didn't strike me as a big deal, and now if it's not perked it will be a huge deal. 

Just curious is all.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: AKP on July 01, 2009, 02:09:41 PM
Ok... so lets go with 1944.  I assume that is LW? 
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Rich46yo on July 01, 2009, 02:38:43 PM
In the ATA game it wouldnt have much impact. Nobody is going to dogfight in the thing, or very few. As far as guns go it would be a little less capable then the B-26. The A-26 has two defensive guns, both dbl 0.50s, one ventral, one dorsal. With its speed however it would be more defendable I would think, as it would make it difficult for enemy fighters to set up on you properly.

No I think all things being equal it would deserve a light perk. Which doesnt mean much anyways cause we all have so many bomber perks to begin with.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: moot on July 01, 2009, 02:42:34 PM
Vudak I don't know either.. I'm just going from the specs, Pyro's comment, and comparing those to the closest analog we have, the A20.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: 999000 on July 01, 2009, 03:52:47 PM
I'm not sure where the general notion that the B29 is wrong came from? ...close to 4000 were produced...There might not be anything that could compare it to in aces high but there is nothing to compare a the ME  262 in aces high either.  Only 1500 ME262 were produced of which only about 20% were ever even used.
but give me the PBY first!
999000 <S>
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Ciaphas on July 01, 2009, 04:44:40 PM
Quote
we need new rides in the bomber hangar.

Agreed!    :aok

Give us something, anything will do just as long as a few people have fun flying. In the end that's what it's all about anyway. right?
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: GreenEagle43 on July 01, 2009, 04:50:25 PM
ok how about the tupolev sb2 Russian bomber
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Karnak on July 01, 2009, 06:01:53 PM
ok how about the tupolev sb2 Russian bomber
Not even remotely a perk bomber.

Maybe the Tu-2.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Nutzoid on July 01, 2009, 06:05:29 PM
HE-219 Owl, maybe the ME-410.  :pray
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Karnak on July 01, 2009, 06:09:44 PM
HE-219 Owl, maybe the ME-410.  :pray
Those are both fighters, and neither would be remotely perkworthy.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: stephen on July 01, 2009, 06:11:30 PM
How about a bigger cargo plane> loaded with more troops...?

Not a bomber really, but would make a good use of perks.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: BaldEagl on July 01, 2009, 06:12:41 PM
Did Air Warrior really have it THAT flat-out wrong?  I don't recall it ever being unbalancing there...

Yeah, I don't remember it being that unbalancing either but IIRC all we had was the A-26, B-17 and B-25 and with the ability to individually man every gun in every bomber the B-17 Death Star was far more deadly in a furball than an A-26.  That said a couple of gunners in your A-26 was a lot of fun to dogfight in.

Anyway, if it wasn't perked here you'd never see another A-20 or any number of other light/medium bombers.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Nutzoid on July 01, 2009, 06:28:25 PM
Those are both fighters, and neither would be remotely perkworthy.

Doh! Your right, my bad. But it would be a hoot to have the 219 chase down and chew up a Mossie.  :devil
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Scherf on July 01, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
*sigh*
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Karnak on July 01, 2009, 06:45:28 PM
Doh! Your right, my bad. But it would be a hoot to have the 219 chase down and chew up a Mossie.  :devil
Only in its wet dreams. :P
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: B4Buster on July 01, 2009, 11:55:52 PM
sorry off topic, but you really can't go by everything you read on wikipedia. Anyone can go on there and make crap up.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Cooley on July 02, 2009, 03:22:02 AM
Bring in the Ju52, and perk it
It has a gun!

(http://home.solcon.nl/gjkool/extra-4/Ju52-02.jpg)
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Cooley on July 02, 2009, 03:30:04 AM
Back in WB's 2.77 we had two Mossies, not sure which Model it was but one of em had no guns
and used a bombsite, and was very fast, think it carried x4 500 ponders

I wouldnt mind spendin some perks for that, not sure that it qualifies a bomber though
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: stephen on July 02, 2009, 05:41:38 AM
It qualify's egsactly as a bomber.....
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: frank3 on July 02, 2009, 06:34:34 AM
Bring in the Ju52, and perk it
It has a gun!

Haha good one  :aok
Besides, it has 3 engines, no other aircraft in AH has that, perk perk!
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Oldman731 on July 02, 2009, 07:23:21 AM
Anyway, if it wasn't perked here you'd never see another A-20 or any number of other light/medium bombers.

An excellent point.

- oldman
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: hammer on July 02, 2009, 07:27:37 AM
Did Air Warrior really have it THAT flat-out wrong?  I don't recall it ever being unbalancing there, but then again I'd imagine HTC would do a better job with the flight model, etc., and it would turn out to be very unbalancing here.

I just can't see it being any more annoying than the average D9 or Mustang from an A2A perspective, except when flown by a select few who bother to learn this game.  From a A2G perspective, I can't see it being any more annoying than the average suicide bomber in on whatever hanger doesn't really need to go down.

Bombers had a much more limited role in AW. With only a few bases capturable, the B-17 was mainly used for taking out the plane factories and as deathstars (always fun!). The A-26 was often used as a challenging heavy fighter. In that role, it was not unbalancing. As a bomber, it could reduce fuel loads available, etc, but really couldn't disrupt the normal flow of game play in that role.

In the AH world, where a large portion of the population puts emphasis on porking everything in sight as quickly as possible in order to avoid having to fight, think of the impact of a B-17 sized payload in a platform that is 80 - 100 mph faster.

Regards,

Hammer
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Oldman731 on July 02, 2009, 07:55:43 AM
Bombers had a much more limited role in AW. With only a few bases capturable, the B-17 was mainly used for taking out the plane factories and as deathstars (always fun!). The A-26 was often used as a challenging heavy fighter. In that role, it was not unbalancing. As a bomber, it could reduce fuel loads available, etc, but really couldn't disrupt the normal flow of game play in that role.

In the AH world, where a large portion of the population puts emphasis on porking everything in sight as quickly as possible in order to avoid having to fight, think of the impact of a B-17 sized payload in a platform that is 80 - 100 mph faster.

Another overlooked difference:  AW factored out head-on shots.  Even from an A26 or a Mosquito you were in no danger if you flew directly toward it.  AH, by contrast, rewards the HO shot, and this would make a significant difference in the combat effectiveness of the A26.

- oldman
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Yarbles on July 02, 2009, 08:51:20 AM
It has to be the Mossie in high flying Bomber mode with say 6x500.

It would be a more user firendly verson of the 234 and should have a lower perk imho.

Of course like the 234 its main enemy would be the 262.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: BaldEagl on July 02, 2009, 09:00:44 AM
Back in WB's 2.77 we had two Mossies, not sure which Model it was but one of em had no guns
and used a bombsite, and was very fast, think it carried x4 500 ponders

I wouldnt mind spendin some perks for that, not sure that it qualifies a bomber though

I forgot about that but in AW the Mossie we had had a level bombsight too.  It could out-run anything in the arena at 20K and IIRC also carried 4x500 lbs.

The first time I flew a Mossie in AH I took it to just under 20K, was wondering why it was so slow, then arrived at target and was disssapointed when I discovered there was no bomb sight.

The speed alone of that high alt Mossie level bomber would be worth a light perk and it would be easy to model off the existing Mossie.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: RTHolmes on July 02, 2009, 09:20:26 AM
read an interesting anaysis of bomber commands effectiveness somewhere which suggested that replacing almost all of the 4 engined bombers with B mossies would have given a large increase in ords delivered to target, with a large reduction of cost in terms of £££s, raw materials and casualties. Lancs would have been retained for area bombing and specialised missions requiring bombs over 4k.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Yarbles on July 02, 2009, 09:37:27 AM
read an interesting anaysis of bomber commands effectiveness somewhere which suggested that replacing almost all of the 4 engined bombers with B mossies would have given a large increase in ords delivered to target, with a large reduction of cost in terms of £££s, raw materials and casualties. Lancs would have been retained for area bombing and specialised missions requiring bombs over 4k.

I was raving and ranting on about this a year or 2 ago on here.

I concluded that the reason this didnt happen was beacuae Bomber Harris was always going to win the war in the next 6 months and therefore their would never be time to re tool etc and shift from conventional aluminium aircraft to wooeden wonders.

Statistically it makes perfect sense the mossie carrying say one third the bomb load of the heavies but with around one fifth the attrition rate and with a crew of 2 instead of 8. And able to go to berlin and back twice in the time it took the sterling to make the journey once.

The mossie was the longest serving and undoubtedly the most modern of the uk ww2 bombers. It was only replaced by the canberra which flew the same high speed extreme altitude type of mission.

Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: CDR1 on July 02, 2009, 12:45:36 PM
i get a kick when i read these, cause it always shows the amazing amount of knowledge AHers have about ww2 planes. i would like to see some "Almost made it planes" planes that lost the completion for production and use. in the bomber fleet i suggest the American B31 Dominator, big brother to the b24. it was produced in small numbers and used in ww2 but it lost the completion to the b29.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Rich46yo on July 02, 2009, 01:48:08 PM
Quote
In the AH world, where a large portion of the population puts emphasis on porking everything in sight as quickly as possible in order to avoid having to fight, think of the impact of a B-17 sized payload in a platform that is 80 - 100 mph faster.


Or..maybe they just enjoy flying cartoon bombers, as you enjoy flying cartoon fighters.
Quote
Another overlooked difference:  AW factored out head-on shots.  Even from an A26 or a Mosquito you were in no danger if you flew directly toward it.  AH, by contrast, rewards the HO shot, and this would make a significant difference in the combat effectiveness of the A26.

Hos aren't that big a factor from Attack planes and medium bombers in this game. Even Mossies are pretty easy to avoid.
Quote
Of course like the 234 its main enemy would be the 262.

All those 234 sorties and I only ran into a 262 once, tho I agree capability-wise. And its not like I was tool shedding all those 234 runs. I'd normally aim towards the largest dar-bar on the map to drop and then run thru. Just for excitement. I only got kilt twice too. Once by a Corsair and once by a KI-84.

Quote
read an interesting anaysis of bomber commands effectiveness somewhere which suggested that replacing almost all of the 4 engined bombers with B mossies would have given a large increase in ords delivered to target, with a large reduction of cost in terms of £££s, raw materials and casualties. Lancs would have been retained for area bombing and specialised missions requiring bombs over 4k.

That was a comment by a Mossie squadron commander was it not? I never saw much supportive evidence to back this up. Clearly the Brits found more then enough work for the Mossies they had already built, and one has to wonder how it would be possible to have fielded an all-Mossie bomber force.

And while there is plenty of fuel for the fire of discussion as to whether the strategic bombing effort had great impact on German war production one thing that has no room for argument is the fact the heavy 4 engined birds did just fine destroying German cities. Could the Mossie, or all-Mossie force, have had the impact the heavies had in city busting? I very much doubt it.

Back to the A-26, both the "B" and "C", by the time it entered the fight in squadron strength the air war had been pretty much won by using lesser air craft. By Nov. '44 in Europe, and Jan. '45 in Asia, we were fast running out of targets for mediums and attack planes. In the Pacific amphib OPs support was better supported by the vast Yank carrier force and heavy surface gunnery of the big boys. The Pitiful ,unprotected, Jap convoy system had been pretty much wrecked already by other planes. There wasn't a whole lot left of the IJN after the summer of '44. So here we were with a great attack plane and nothing much for it to do.

It would be successful in the game, and after the initial rush of perk spending, would be easily controlled by perking it. Tigers, 262s, Tempests...ect aren't ruining the game by over-use so why would anyone think a perk bomber would?
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: AWwrgwy on July 02, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
How about a bigger cargo plane> loaded with more troops...?

Not a bomber really, but would make a good use of perks.

The maximum number of troops carried is based purely on the number needed for capture not how many could actually be carried.

C-47 could actually carry more than 10 paratroopers.

Same for field supplies.

Interesting to think what the rick versus reward strategy would be if this was possible though.  Perk it a bit unrealistically high.  Maybe per extra drunk.  Would anyone really fly an unarmed perk transport into harms way?

Won't happen though.


wrongway
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 02, 2009, 04:17:43 PM
Did Air Warrior really have it THAT flat-out wrong?



In a nutshell, yes.  All bombers in AW were modeled incorrectly, that's why you had B17s that could out turn any fighter and as a Deathstar, a fighting B-17 was by far the deadliest aircraft to go against.


ack-ack
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 02, 2009, 04:21:07 PM
Back in WB's 2.77 we had two Mossies, not sure which Model it was but one of em had no guns
and used a bombsite, and was very fast, think it carried x4 500 ponders

I wouldnt mind spendin some perks for that, not sure that it qualifies a bomber though

AW had an ungunned Mossie as well.  Was great for behind the lines attacks on rear enemy bases.  Nothing could touch you when you got up to speed in that thing, was great.


ack-ack
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Lye-El on July 02, 2009, 07:06:11 PM
and as a Deathstar, a fighting B-17 was by far the deadliest aircraft to go against.


ack-ack

And you never knew if it was full of gunners until you got in range.....
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Yarbles on July 03, 2009, 02:37:44 AM

And while there is plenty of fuel for the fire of discussion as to whether the strategic bombing effort had great impact on German war production one thing that has no room for argument is the fact the heavy 4 engined birds did just fine destroying German cities. Could the Mossie, or all-Mossie force, have had the impact the heavies had in city busting? I very much doubt it.


Assuming production was transferable definately (well in my opinion) because the force would have grown in size due to the much lower attrition rate. Accuracy would also have improved as Bombardiers were effected by their slim chances or surviving a tour and would drop early before the target and the crew in general have a high propensity to abbort.

I think they average air crew had considerably less than a 50% chance of surviving 30 missions while a mossie Pilot or navigator had around 70%. Therefore the majority of now more experienced flyers would see a second tour.

The heavies had a crew of 8 to train the mossie a crew of 2 who flew in the dark at 30,000 ft and at around 400mph. How easy would they be to shoot down in a Ju88 or a 110!!!!

The mossie carried about half the load of the average heavy and could carry the 4000lb cookie, The may not have had the shear volume in the bomb bay to carry all the incendiaries but maybe these could have been adapted in some way. Again though with the increasing size of the force this would be likely overcome.

Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: froger on July 04, 2009, 12:08:53 AM

LOL wasn't this the "flying lighter" cause it used to catch on fire all the twiddlen time? HTC would have a ball modelling that! It would be hilarious..... right after take off, flushin your perkies cause all the engines are burning LMFAO  :x



LOL yup......Got a match...... :rock
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: froger on July 04, 2009, 12:30:03 AM
B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
   B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
     B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
       B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
         B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
            B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
              B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
                 B29 B29 B29 B229
                   B29 B29 B29
                     B29 B29
                        B29
                         :pray


    There......i said it :aok


froger
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Yarbles on July 07, 2009, 05:39:56 AM
B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
   B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
     B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
       B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
         B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
            B29 B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
              B29 B29 B29 B29 B29
                 B29 B29 B29 B229
                   B29 B29 B29
                     B29 B29
                        B29
                         :pray


    There......i said it :aok


froger

Flying around at 30k+ at 350 mph with 20k of bombs, how do we kill it  :uhoh

Would have to have a major perk value.

And the A Bomb for the HQ.

Wow what a great idea :O :x :rolleyes: :D
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: Yarbles on July 16, 2009, 11:11:55 AM
Actually having been bomber huting lately I would perk the B17 and maybe even the b26.

If flown by an experienced flyer they can come back relatively undamaged with maybe 5 kills. I think Krusty has put this down to excess speed. Certainly it takes a long time to set up a viable atack on these planes and when they realise you are setting up an atack and take early evasive action I find it near impossibe.

Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: BaldEagl on July 16, 2009, 11:54:03 AM
Actually having been bomber huting lately I would perk the B17 and maybe even the b26.

If flown by an experienced flyer they can come back relatively undamaged with maybe 5 kills. I think Krusty has put this down to excess speed. Certainly it takes a long time to set up a viable atack on these planes and when they realise you are setting up an atack and take early evasive action I find it near impossibe.



I don't mind B-17's that much but I always take in a gulp of air, hold my breath and resign myself to a possible death when I have to go up against B-26's (or Ki-67's for that matter).

Every time in my head I think (in a sighing voice)... OK... here we go.
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: druski85 on July 16, 2009, 12:58:15 PM
I don't mind B-17's that much but I always take in a gulp of air, hold my breath and resign myself to a possible death when I have to go up against B-26's (or Ki-67's for that matter).

Every time in my head I think (in a sighing voice)... OK... here we go.

Couldn't agree more Eagle.  B-17s are easy enough to defeat it you strike from just slightly offset and above them in extremely harsh cutting vertical attacks. (aiming for wing roots)  It may take a few passes and some -- god forbid -- patience...but you can take them down in most any bird pretty easily. 

On the other hand, B-26s flame less easily, are significantly faster, (and therefore difficult to come in directly above, not somewhat behind) and are smaller targets.  Only the faster birds in the game can maintain the speed necessary to make several slicing attacks from above within a reasonable amount of time.  Sure you can hit from underneath, but with their speed you better be going a LOT faster than they are to avoid floating in their rear guns. 

Back on topic -- bring on the A-26  :rock
Title: Re: Perked Bomber - I am at a loss...
Post by: moot on July 16, 2009, 01:24:55 PM
In my experience, the 26's advantages are void by its blind spot below.  The 67s are pretty fast and have a 20mm in the tail, but also have that bottom blind spot and catch fire as easily as anything.