Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Jekyll on November 13, 2000, 03:57:00 AM
-
Not wishing to detract from our buffing brethren, but I'm sure even they would admit that bombing is a little too easy at the moment.
So lets put the skill back in bombing!
Instead of just 'put the crosshairs on the target and let fly', why not force bombadiers to manually input the aircraft's current altitude and ground speed into the Norden? By itself this would introduce a little dispersion into bombing, and the greater the height, the greater the error due to incorrect speed/alt inputs.
I don't know if the real Norden needed manual inputs, but for sure the analogue instruments of the '40s couldn't correctly calculate AGL and ground speed to the exact foot and MPH respectively.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix
Aces High Training Corps
-
I thought about the same thing, but considering that AH instruments probably are perfect it would really have little effect on bombing accuracy.
It might make bombers more vulnerable once they are on their bomb run though, as the pilot can't really manoeuvere.
I believe the following inputs were needed from the bombadier when using a Norden sight:
Air speed
Altitude
Wind speed
Wind direction
Drift
Ballistic coef of bombs
Then he had to aim and hold the sight crosshairs on the target, while an analogue computer calculated the bombers path from his aiming inputs and fed info to the autopilot, which flew the plane into position and the bombs were then dropped automatically.
As you can imagine, losing sight of the target would ruin the accuracy of the drop as the bombadier would have to guess where to aim the crosshairs.
What AH has is a magical CCIP sight which constantly shows the exact impact point if the bombs were released at that very moment.
-
I like it. It might not make much of a difference for a one-pass bomber pilot but it sure would make it more realistic and interesting for those who have to make a second and a third trip back through the target.
As it is now once the base is in sight all the pilot has to do is go to the bombadier sight and fly the bomber to the exact target they want to hit. Miss or get interfered with by enemy aircraft then all they do is a hard turn hit F6 asap and line up again. Not so with this suggestion. It would really give weight to being a good bombardier in aH if you actually had to do even some of what a real bombardier had to. I'm all for it. Grand idea!
-Westy
-
Real Bombadiers didn't have to pilot the plane, navigate, gun and maintain comms. If you are going to de-automate the bombing process, you need to automate some of the others.
Besides, the stuff the bombadier input was simple to do requiring only time. Why would that increase the bombers fun?
-
Westy; how would having to enter airspeed/altitude make much difference on a second or third pass? I think all it would mean is a little more time to stabilise speed after the 180º turn...
Like I said before, I think all this would really do is make bombers even easier targets on their bomb run.
-
How? Because most bomber runs I see in the MA constitute a first pass followed shortly by a hard banking turn 1.5-3k out and a re-run back over the base....rinse, repeat. Untill they are either shot down or they have run out of bombs.
As it is bombing doesn't take much skill. As Jekyll pointed out. By having to at least manully enter this kind of info the bomber pilot would need to be a bit more skilled AND wily than your typical pork&run pilots we have now.
Maybe bombers are just side dishes, as vehicles are, to a central fighter world here.
Too many times I've seen a good time furballing between two bases by tow opposiung sides get ruined by one, solo moron who takes a Lanc or B-26 in and wipes out the FH. With no further ability or intention of capturing the now "porked" base. So now anywhere from 6 to 20 folks who were having fun now have to find it elsewhere, due to the self centered actions of a lone individual. But had there been some complexity ot bombing. Said bomber dOoD, who's on day 11 of his two week freebiue, may have had to take more time to line up a run and in the mean time could be intercepted.
Make it a skill is all.
-Westy
-
Westy,
You are wrong that bombing doesnt take much skill. There are bomber pilots out there who you can depend to take the target down fast, then there are tose who will take 10 minutew to de ack a field. I fall in the latter category (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But I think its kinda insulting to our experten b17 drivers outthere to say it isn't a skill (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Bombers are fine as they are. It forces the fighters to pay attention to them.
Eagler
-
Zigrat, my apologies to the guys who love bombers. I did not mean to specifically insult them.
My point was that literally anyone walking off the street can bomb successfully, if they know the keys for the controls.
Some guys like CavemanJ and Beefcake are the best. They do have skill, and they would be the best even if bombing was more complex.
I think I'm posting too much and adding my .02 into too many topics.
I never ment to insult anyone who flies bombers. Even though my choice of words can be misconstrued and end up having a different impression and inflection than intended.
Jekyll? This one's all yours. Good luck (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Sorry for the tangent I spun it out onto.
-Westy
-
Hmmmmmm...
What info does a bomb-aimer have, and need?
Gauges:
Air speed
Altitude
Weather report:
Wind speed
Wind direction
In the air:
Drift - I think this was calculated from the above info by a simple computer, in RL?
1. The major factor is going to be the wind, which would have to be reported by a weather report.
2. Some error would enter in the reading of the gauges because they aren't that clear to read.
3. The weather report could be made to be slightly off, in order to deliberately reduce bombing accuracy.
4. Possibly introduce weather recon sorties for appropriate aircraft(eg: Mossie), the successful completion of which would increase the accuracy of the weather report for a while.
I'd also like to see the two different types of bombsights and their aiming methods represented:
1.Tachometric(Norden) - more accurate in clear conditions and high altitudes
2.Vector(What AH has) - better at low altitudes and in poor visibility
All of that doesn't require much more in terms of skill, but it would make bombing more inaccurate I think, as it introduces the possibility of error, when currently there is none.
-
Leave the bombers alone.
SKurj
-
Westy. You may be right about bombing in AH. I haven't done enough online to say one way or the other. But about Warbirds, we have had this same discussion, and I have to say that your point is not valid.
Someone who "knows the keys" may be able to hit something, sometimes, but can he close a field by himself? Can he hit a moving ship from 10,000? Fly NOE for 200 miles and not smack the ground(that one is tough, there, buddy)? Dive bomb, torpedo and, yes, even skip bomb?
As I stated on the AGW, I had a 5 kill sortie long before I closed a small field in 2 passes.
Dropping bombs, like killing what flys in front of your guns, requires no skill. The skill is in the flying that allows you to complete the bombing with precision and speed.
-
Gadfly, I have flown across the ENTIRE Med map NOE in a Typhoon offline and not smacked anything. I'm not talking E-W I'm talking N-S, and I've done the same thing in both the Sfterr and BETA maps. Luzon, all versions too. NOE flight isn't hard when you know what you're doing.
As for bombing. That's an easy one; give AH the same bomb dispersion ATF Gold had. You'd be lucky to hit a field from 30k unless you dumped everything you were carrying. ATF Gold may have been a bad sim, but the bomb dispersion was killer. If my copy didn't crash every 15 minutes, I'd post a screen shot of a B-52 dumping Mk. 82s from 20k. By the time those bombs are down to 10k, they spread out equal to the wingspan of a B-52. Could be a bit overboard, but it's great watching 80+ 500lb bombs walk across a field!
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Whattaya mean I can't kill 'em? Why the hell not?!
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/behappy.jpg)
[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
I for one am almost strictly a bomber pilot in the MA. I havent learned to fly fighters effectively yet.....although I can manage to get a random kill in a Chog or a Niki (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It would be interesting to find out how many of you who are complaining about bombers have actually flown them for any length of time. Its hard enough staying alive to return to base in a bomber much less having to worry about inputting all that info. Others have said it in this forum and in others as well....if you make the bombers harder then you wont see them in the air anymore.
-
There is a serious lack of bomber units in AH. I don't think making their aiming job more difficult is going to help this situation unless some other tasks are automated as Gadfly suggested. It would be fun to have a 100% realistic Norden model, but operating the Norden while flying the plane and manning the guns is not possible.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-13-2000).]
-
Aiming bombs in AH requires as much skill as it takes for me to hit the Submit Reply button at the bottom of this text box...
-
OK, I will admit it... I don't care if I never see another bomber in the game so long as they have so much effect on the fighters with their one plane suicide "spoiler" sorties.
Bombers in WWII had little if any effect on fighters. More bomb dispertion, huge cities, and or tougher (way tougher) fields would increase the realism and stop some of the animosity. Face it... Most pilots don't "notice" the bombers untill they have ruined the fighter war and.... When that happens, there is animosity not admiration.
Give them huge cities to bomb and when the city is ded... The war is over. leave the airfields to the fighters.
Bombers didn't close airfields (for long) or affect fuel or kill radar. They couldn't even hit something as big as a battleship or and aircraft carrier!
The bombers in AH do not seem to be interested in "winning the war" They seem onluy interested in getting attention by closing the close fields in suicidal runs so that everyone gets pissed off. Why don't they close and kill back fields? Why do they allways insist on making the fight harder to get into?
How many fun fites between two close fields are ruined by some jerk in a bomber closing one of the fields? If I could, I would shoot down my own countries bomber in that situation.
lazs
-
I believe its called suppression of the enemy lazs. I thought one of the objects of this sim was to capture bases and territory. If the hangars were never bombed then a base could never be captured and you would have one of two things....an endless furball along the front between two countries or an endless vulchfest by whichever side had superior numbers over the base in question. Then the channel one buffer would be full of accusations and whining about whatever team was shooting who on the runway....doesnt sound like too much fun to me.
-
sling... I can't make any sense of what you are saying. Are you saying that only bombers should be able to capture "territory" or that "suppressing the enemy" is the job of bombers? When fighters supress the enemy then that is "vultching"?
Is the game more realistic or fun if bombers kill or cripple all the fields that are close enough to the action to be useful?
Let's face facts here... People want to fight their fighters against other fighters. Also.. No one cares about bombers.... They neither support or defend against them in any meanigfull way. Most are simply pissed when the bombers screw up the fight.
Also... Define "furball". Does that mean any time fighters engage in more than a couple of planes? I think most would agree that "furballs" are the most fun and the real point of even logging on! Honestly.... How many log on with the intent of some sort of "winning the game"? LOL.
Like I said.... turn off killshooter for bombers and you will see how much people like having em in the game.
lazs
-
Killshooter off for bombers? Cool, I can get the kill if a friendly ackstar starts up!
------------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Whattaya mean I can't kill em? Why the hell not?!
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/behappy.jpg)
-
I can tell you that I log on to try strategy. I purposely try to stay away from furballs because that's not the kind of fun I'm looking for -- 2 years of Fighter Ace was enough of that for me.
The great part about games like AH is that you can have the furballers and the strategy guys all in one arena.
Fury
-
Its real simple to understand lazs, but I guess it does no good to explain it when you already state your opinion that "nobody cares about bombers anyway." I think you would be surprised at how many people have a differing view.
-
I must be a nobody, because I care about bombers. Personally, it doesn't bother me if someone doesn't care for my tactics or not. If I'm trying to take a field with my teammates, and we are being stopped by wave upon wave of Nikis and Spits, I will sure as hell grab a buff and turn that FH into smoking rubble.
You like furballs, fine. Everyone has their own reasons and motivations for playing. But please don't tell me how to play the game until you start paying my sub.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Originally posted by lazs:
Is the game more realistic or fun if bombers kill or cripple all the fields that are close enough to the action to be useful? [/B/]
Yup, if we're trying to take a field I'll be at the front of the queue buying beer for the guys that have the sense and the ability to go out and close the neighboring bases, both ground vehicle and aircraft. Makes the job SO much easier.
Originally posted by lazs:
Let's face facts here... People want to fight their fighters against other fighters. Also.. No one cares about bombers.... They neither support or defend against them in any meanigfull way. Most are simply pissed when the bombers screw up the fight.
Yes, lets face facts here, this is /your/ opinion is is /not/ the opinion of everyone. I'd like to fly bomber a lot more than I do right now (but the bombers have issues IMO) and instead mostly fly fighter/bomber type sorties.
I only really fly fighters when I have to defend a base or it looks like the current 'push' at the enemy need that more than blowing things up.
Originally posted by lazs:
Also... Define "furball". Does that mean any time fighters engage in more than a couple of planes? I think most would agree that "furballs" are the most fun and the real point of even logging on! Honestly.... How many log on with the intent of some sort of "winning the game"? LOL.
Furballs are tedious boring and pointless. workking as part of a team towards a common goal is /much/ more fun. OK the comman goal is only a reset and sometimes gets a bit like some sort of 'capture the flag' game but right now that's what we have, this a 'work in progress' game and always will be.
For now you're far more likely to see me flying past the furballs in a loaded Typhoon to go and bomb the crap out the hangers than joining in =)
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Well... i don[t believe it's "either or". Having fun in the game is not simply a choice between "mindless furballs" or suicide bombing.
first of all, I have yet to see a reset or win or whatever you call it. I couldn't care less actually. Also... Eveyone logs on for 'strategy' it's just that laser guided bomb drops by suicide bombers are not part of it for most people. Strategy is not simply making the game less fun for others. Fighter vs fighter involves strat.
To get back to the original topic... Bomb drops are silly in AH. Closing a field with one suicide bomber is silly and unrealistic. Bombers have waaay to much affect on airfields. The fact that they do makes em unrealistic in the game. The fact that they are unrealistic makes em nothing but a pain in the butt. Their only mission seems to destroy the fun of other players.
To me, bombers in AH are extactly like the 12 year olds that shoot down their own teammates in a sim that doesn't have killshoooter.... They are doing it to get attention by pissing people off. As such... I think we ought to not have killshooter enabled for buffs.
One of my squaddies grabbed a B26 and threatened to bomb the enemy fighter hanger... I told him that if he did I would go to his town, hunt him down in the streets and beat him like the gore supporter he was.
Give the bombers something realistic to bomb with realistic results and leave the airfields alone.
lazs
-
Heck... look at it this way... The only feasable defense against the unrealistic lone bomber and his unrealistic ability to close or cripple a field is.... for every field to be capped by fighters at high alt. If that happens then there will be no fites. We simply don't have enough players to have a realistic cap over every field. Not to mention, this would be boring in the extreme and.... It is a solution to problem that should not exist.
Make large cities that take many concerted bomber raids to destroy. When the city is destroyed... end of game. Players can participate or not.
-
Yeah, having one player ruin another player's fun is right out. I vote we set all the bombs and bullets to zero lethality. We can still get points for hitting a guy, but it won't shoot him down and ruin his fun. When someone gets enough points, he becomes UberGeneral and gets a mountain named after him, then everyone's points are set to zero and we start over.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Seriously, if we're gonna have bombers, they have to be able to affect other players, not just run up points. That's what online sims are about. The problem is balancing the amount of damage a player can inflict with the risk, skill, and time necessary to do it.
As it is now, a single player can shut down a field for 15 minutes. To do that, it takes a minimum of skill, and maybe 15-60 minutes of his time depending on the risk assumed. Maybe that's not a good balance.
Possible solutions:
Make it harder to hit small targets from very high altitude. Make it harder to see them, or add some dispersion to the bomb trajectory. This will increase both the skill and risk required of the bomber pilot.
Get rid of the "you are here" map. Add navigation features to the terrain, and make it harder to find the fields, especially from high altitude. This increases the skill required from the bomber pilot.
Add player-controlled 88mm ack at the fields.
Add engine management to buffs. This would add to the skill required for buff driving, and give buff pilots something to do on that long climb to 35k. (We know they're all anal gadget types anyway.) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by popeye (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
Hmm I rarely takeoff from any field without a Jabo loadout of some sort. My first targets are usually Ack, VH, Then oops FH!! I must be a spoiler, and noone cares about me +(
If I must engage to help a friendly out(non plane specific, be he a buff or fighter) I will. If my loadout is rockets I will keep them through the first and maybe the second pass on the bogey. If he is persitent in attacking the friend or engaging me I then dump ord. Otherwise I make my way to spoil your day +)
HTC givem a Fighters Only arena!!
SKurj
-
well pop... that is pretty much what I am saying. I obviously have no interest in bombers tho so I am very biased on how much of a role they should have in "affecting the fighter war"..... How much they affect the score or the "winning" of the war has no interest to me.
skurj... jabo is a totally different matter to me. Most can see the difference. If nothing else, it is not a high alt norden situation. it requires getting into the fight but.... Even for jabo... the fields are still waaaaay too easy to damage.
More bomb dispertion and tougher fields are needed. How much is arguable. I also would like killshooter turned off for/against buffs tho just to see how that would go.
lazs
-
What we need is a special "fighter puke only" arena for flight-sim cretins like the bald harmless one. FFA in the TA or H2H is probably more appropriate for him.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-15-2000).]
-
So... you urepentant purveyer of blue haired favors... You believe that the balance between buff accuracy and field hardness is correct at this time?
lazs
-
Getting real tired of the bomber whines......
Check the number of bomber sorties flown in any tour, and tell me what you see.
SKurj
-
skurj... I think you would agreee.... it is not the number of sorties flown but the effect of the sorties. If asking for bombing to have a realistic affect on the airfields is whining then, I accept the mantle of whiner.
Adding dispertion to bombing.... Hardening airfields to realistic levels or giving the bombers historical and difficult targets to take out can only improve the game in my mind. Leave the feilds and carriers to the jabo's. failing that.... Why can't we just turn off killshooter for bombers?
lazs
-
I miss the treatment that the *other* sim gave to Norden sight. Lining was a lot harder, and navigational skills were a must. Multiple passes over target took a lot longer. I think that kind of stuff would make bomber task a little more challenging. And I am for it.
Cheers,
Pepe aka Pepino
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
Why can't we just turn off killshooter for bombers?
lazs
Are you saying you want to be able to shoot down your own buffs?
(http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/rcain.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Yes, that is what he is saying.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
well raub... I hate to talk to an officer like this but yes.... That is what I am saying. Certainly I(as I have said) would rather have the bombers have realistic targets and/or capabilities but.... failing that.... I can only conclude that buffs that bomb close fields are doing so in order to spoil the fun of the majority and for the sole purpose of getting attention. They are hurting the fun of both sides equally.
If I am wrong about this then turning killshooter off will have no affect on buffing. Certainly they would be able to attack back fields unmolested by their own teammates. If however, they continue to act like little kids just out to get attention by making a nusiance of themselves then i would like to have the option of giving them some personal attention. For sure.... I have heard on many occassions, "somebody kill that friggin buff!" and they were talking about a "friendly".
lazs
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
I can only conclude that buffs that bomb close fields are doing so in order to spoil the fun of the majority and for the sole purpose of getting attention. They are hurting the fun of both sides equally.
Ok, 2 questions:
1) Was there some poll done that concluded that the majority of the folks in the MA only want to furball, and have no interest in the tactical aspect?
2)Did you ever consider that the buffs are trying to suppress the field so that their teammates can take it? I'm pretty sure people aren't out "to spoil the fun of the majority." That's a pretty sociopathic stereotype.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
I couldent even finish reading all of the posts cause it disgusts me, if you want a pilot to enter all that crap the you give them automated gunners nav and an autopilot that will turn and commence runs, oh and also have someone work the radio... first off bomber pilots arnt some kinda crappy furball monkey that just wants to shoot something, they spend the better part of an hour often heading to their target and planning its demise and when they do their job it is felt by the whole arena. all this by them selves because %90 of you hotshot fighter pilots wont lift a finger to escort them either...oh thats right your furballing like in practice arena. You can gripe about bombers all ya want but they deserve more respect than anyone EVER gives them. They have patence, SKILL, and they know that if they complete their mission it WILL make a difference, like maby it will end up giving you little fighters a new base to play with.
-
What TheWobble said.
Wilfrid
-
Well Wobble, that's basically what I was trying to say, I was just attempting to be diplomatic about it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Well said.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Ok slowly and loudly now.... Unless you give the bombers realistic targets that have realistic results.... They are, well..... Unrealistic... The affect of bombing needs to be made realistic. Real bombers didn't close a field in one pass from high alt. Henderson field was a small field that was bombed from the air and shelled from the sea for weeks and it allways managed to get planes in the air. It never ran out of fuel. Jap bases were closed by single engined bombers and fighter bombers and strafing but it took many sorties. Fighter bomber is the more realistic field attack. If buffers continue to take advantage of this unrealistic bug in order to get attention then I feel that it would be good to turn off killshooter for buffs.
Furball? So... anything NOT buffing is furballing? Please define "furball". Buffing is the only "strat" in AH? Hmmm. You are correct however that your hour long mission affects the entire game. Adversely IMO. You have too much affect for the amount of effort put in.
Look.... No one can (or even wants to) cap every field from lone, suicide, high alt buffs. It is impossible with the numbers we have and as fun as watching paint dry in any case. If buffers want to be useful then kill and capture some back fields that are close to other fields. don't just kill the fuel or the fighter hanger at the close fields so that there are no close fields capable of launching fighters. What exactly are fighter pilots suppossed to do when you heros have made it a full tank of fuel to get to an enemy fighter and killed the radar so that you can't even find em to boot?
So... The affect of bombers on targets is unrealistic. Also, the small number of bomber pilots has a huge and lopsided affect on the larger number of fighter pilots and gameplay.
Why can't u get escorts? do I really have to answer that one? I bet a group of sturmavics or Ju 87's would have no trouble getting escort to attack an armored column. Without huge cities to bomb there really is no place in a sim as small as AH for four engined bombers, especially if they had realistic results from their bombing.
lazs
-
Oh God I'm scared !!!!
I actually agree with lazs. My life is now over.
-
TheWobble....
Your rant above which contains mucho good stuff brings to mind a question...
You have posted in other threads that you don't want to be able to hit your target as effectively. Soooo all your skill, and patience to get to the target could very well be wasted when 90% of your eggs miss anything important at that base you needed to suppress for your teammates.
Make up your mind...
Making buffing less accurate will lead to the extinction of the buff, and expand the fur.
My thots..
LEAVE BUFFS ALONE
AKSKurj
-
but skurj.... 10 buffs hitting 10% each would close it. Or 5 buffs making two passes each or 2 buffs making 5 passes or... They may not get every single target (a realistic result by anyones standards) but that many bombs would render it pretty ineffective for a time or... easily captured.
my thots.... A lone suicide buff should not be able to close or seriously limit a field
Oh, can you please define "furball" for me? It appears that some feel that anytime fighters fight each other it is a bad thing?
lazs
[This message has been edited by -lazs- (edited 11-19-2000).]
-
Skurg, the overaccuracy is a DISADVANTAGE for buffers in a way,
Buffers HAVE to aim every single bomb because they will not drift apart if ya just crap out a salvo over the target, they will just make a perfectly straight line across field, no matter what your alt they will land the same, with a realistic drift you could salvo 12 bombs from 22k and they would land randomly in and about the perimiter of the base and sometime they would kill ALOT and sometime just a few acks, if you wanna drop from 35k...well you better aiming at an entire city you STRATOUBERTARD! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I would MUCH rather barf all my bombs over the target and know that they will drift apart and pepper the target nicley, plus it would look much cooler. I may not get as many hits all the time but at least i didnt have to AIM EVERY SINGLE BOMB.
-
My definition of furballing is the following:
whenever fighter just flys to 10k and slug it out in the middle of no where for no real reason. then they just go look for another fighter, they are not clearing airspace for a goon or bomber or providing fighter cover for ground forces. they are just looking for some FFA Love.
Nothing wrong with that in and of it self. its jsut that when im flying my 17 headed for the enima HQ and ask for fighter cover i get no help because all the fighters are buisy playing with themselves ( I dont mean that in a nasty derogitory way) When was the last time any of you buffers got an escort anywhere? what were the fighters doing? yes all 40 of them were in this big ball resembling the maiting habits of the Mayfly nymph.
-
wobble... in the end, fighters allways were there to fight other fighters. The pretense of escort and attack of buffs was simply to kill fighters. most fighter missions and personal missions were, to kill other fighters. It was and is an end unto itself.
Why can't you get escort? Escort is boring. We don't play to be bored. Sorry about that. So what do you suggest? You can force escort by making the whole emphisis of the game..... bombing by lone or few bombers. This is of course hugely unrealistic. Or, as we do... You can make bombers have an unhistorical and lopsided effect on the fighter war. If you go with either of these, as we have, then you will have to expect some animosity from the majority of fighter pilots who see bombers as mostly just a pain in the butt. No fun to escort and no fun to attack with too much affect on the game.
I feel the effect of bombers in the game is lopsided. I feel they should have less effect on the fighters. I would be glad to hear what you think should be done and what kind of balance you think would be realistic and fair.
lazs
-
I have the cure... leave buffs alone
By having to aim every egg it permits a fighter to sneak up and attack while the buff is aiming. If he opens fire well likely he will have to make another pass, which buys the fighter more time to set up a better attack, and possibly more fighters to reach the area.
We don't see that many buffs in flight at any time. The lone buffs that reduce a fields effectiveness are usually part of an attack force that has the intent of capturing that field anyways. By upping from that field you risk being vulched etc anyways.
I find buffs don't take much away from the fighter war at all. Watch the arena for a few days and see how often a buff just wanders around porking fighter hangars of bases not under attack.
AKSKurj
-
Oh c'mon Skurj, you know all the buff drivers are just out to "ruin everyone's fun" (http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/rcain.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 11-20-2000).]
-
skurj... maybe i am wrong. I can only go by what i see prime time as a knight. The close fields are allways either closed or fuel limited and there is radar only about half the time. I would say that those things greatly affect the fighter war. I see lone suicide bombers every single night don't you? I see bombers hitting ack from 20+ K with a single bomb. You son't see these things?
lazs
-
I see buffs hittin ack from 20k+ sure, but how does that detract from the fighter war?
A buff doing that is likely prepping a field for an attack anyways.
The close bases being porked, well perhaps it is your team not paying attention. A lot of the time in the MA, you have a couple of bases to up from on the front line. I've not had a problem yet finding a base close to the action to up from, with any loadout I wish.
AKSKurj
-
If the bombs would disperse and drift the higher the alt like i have suggested, bomber will not be able to affect the fighter war so drasticaly. they wont be able to come over at 35k and hit every hangar and shut down a field, they will have to drop a salvo and head home, they will still do stuff but it will vary from alt to just plain luck of the fall.
I thinkthat simpley fixing the "bomb dispersion problem" as i have often herd it called. would solve many problems
NO more 35k sniping
NO more dropping all hangars in 10 min
They WILL still do much damage if they drop their but it will be more like this.
Insted of
1 buff run =
all hangars dead
all ack dead, field disabled.
everything else iintact
It will be
1 buff run =
2 or 3 guns dead
1 hangar gone
a few fuel/ammo hit
some damage on runway
Ya see, there wont be any less damage it will just be spread areound to where the field is still usable but yet the bomber accomplished his mission (BOMB THE FIELD)
Of course 1 Lancaster dropping 14 1000pounders randomly within the perimiter of a field would still probably still render the field pretty screwed up.
my vote is to fix the bombs, make them historically accurate, its probably an easy thing to fix and it FOR SURE wont worsen any kind of problem, and might just fix a few. needs to be done anyway, bombs falling PERFECTLY straight and landing PERFECTLY spaced from ANY alt exactly the same is pretty ridiculous.
Sorry for being so wordy.
-
No buff in the game is able to drop all ack and all hangars on one mission.
AKSKurj
-
skurj... last night... A5 and A28 good long fighter war until... a lone bbuff ruins it. Now, I don't know which side or what players were happy about this but I can't believe that anyone involved was. I see this time after time. If a lone buff can kill the ability of fighters to take off then there is something wrong.
wobble has the best solution i have seen so far. I would also go so far as to say that fighters should be available all the way up untill the field is closed. Fuel should never get down to 25% and radar was and should be allmost impossible to completely dissable.
lazs
-
A lancaster loaded with all 14 1000's can pretty much level a medium field, it cant kill BOTH all ack and hangars but i could could kill ALL of one and MOST of the other,
I fly buff %100 of the time and of course there being NO dispersion or bomb drift I HAVE to aim every single bomb, so what do I aim for? hangars of course! If i can pick every target im gonn hit ill will pick the important stuff, do I like having this choice? NO!, BIG FAT NO!!! It really kills the game play. as soon as the bomb drops I know what will happen, i dont even need to bother looking.
I would like it much more if I came cruising over target and clickclickclickclick..etc an 8 bomb salvo away. I go to outside view and watch as the bombs fall and spread out, anxiously waiting to see what my trip has yealded. Then pop, pop popopopop little creaters spatter all over the place around and within my target area... as i fly away I see the smoke rising from my hit targets..... AAAHHH *sigh*
call me a romantic, but which would you prefer?
-
-lazs- I don't know who you are, but I really think maybe you should just go play Quake or something. What is the point of just dogfighting all day and not trying to kill a base? Are you going to start whining when a P-47D-30 kills your fuel? WHAAAA!!!! What about tanks and Ostwinds? Should those go away also? What are you going to do when 1.05 comes out and the battlewagons start pounding the beach? You are just not seeing that fighter planes are only around for air-superiorty. That is to stop Bombers and scout planes and other gound attack planes from affecting the ground war. Quit whining about about bombers, if you don't like them, shoot them down!
Wobble, I would much rather escort a buff to target than just fly into an endless dogfight that goes no where. If you are Bish, let me know when your planning a mission, I'll escort you BOTH ways.
I am one who would also like to see bombs with more realistic damage effects and not have to AIM every one before dropping, but until that happens, bombers have to drop on something.
Tell you what -lazs-, why don't you go fight at one of the backfields somewhere. Afterall, fighters fly a lot faster than buffs do, so they can get further quicker.
What I would really like to see is historical type missions, where I can fly my P-51D escorting buffs. It makes it so much better because there is a teamwork effort and enemy fighters trying to shoot at bombers are so much easier to kill.
And one last thing.. -lazs- if you would shoot down your own countryman because of your own self-centered agenda, I call you a coward!
------------------
"Wing up, Get kills, Be happy"
Midnight
13th TAS
-
I now have a new mission in the Main Arena. Just because of lazs statements, I will dedicate myself to the utter destruction of any and all Knit fighter hangars that are close to the Rook front. I will get great joy from knowing that I, alone in my buff, will be "ruining his fun." So, lazs....look for me in a Lanc or B17 over a fighter hangar near you.
[This message has been edited by sling322 (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Hey guys, lets not go for personal attacks on lazs or anyone else, we all have our opinion.
I mean lazs is a full time fighter so of course his gut tells him bombers are EVIL and that any work HTC puts into them is a total waste, to him yes it actually is a total waste. I cant begrudge him for his feelings. Besides if there were no bomber haters I wouldent have all the fun I have gunning (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I used to want a superfortress and other stuff, but that is a little selfish and would be too much work to "waste" on a bomber.
I realize that most people fly fighters and I too agree that more work should be put into them than buffs...
But cmon how hard can it be to just make the bombs fall dirrerently?
I dont ask for much, I dont bash fighters Im a good person, my only wish is to fix something that will benifit EVERYONE. I love this game and if id didnt feel that what i am suggesting is a good and worthy cause I would remain silent regardless of my pesonall interests, but as you know I am not alone in my opinion of this matter.
-
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 11-24-2000).]
-
What's needed is a realistic bombsight, not some bogus gameplay-motivated "bomb drift", if you want to affect bomber accuracy. That will force them to either salvo the lot to try and hit one target from on high, or come in lower to ensure accuracy. Of course, a highly skilled bombadier might be able to put his bombs in a pickle barrel from 30k. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
"BOGUS GAMEPLAY MOTIVATED BOMB DRIFT"!
have you ever thrown frigin rocks at something?
does EVERY single one of them hit in the EXACT same spot no matter how far away you are?
Have you ever bombed in AH, If you drop 12 bombs from 35k and then 3k they will land EXACTLY the same, in a PERFECTLY straight line, perfectly spaced out no matter what!
You think THAT is realistic?
Let me draw an analogy here..
OK say your in your fighter on the runway, you aim at a target 20 miles away, but you dont have to aim above or anything because the bullets dont drop they just fly PERFECTLY straight no matter how far gravity and wind has no effect on them. also as soon as the first bullet hits the target you cant tell anymore because every shot after it is going through the hole the first bullet made. That sound realistic to you?
Thats EXACTLY how the bombs are modelled now.
Altering the bomb sight because the bombs are not modeled right is like. changing the gravity because a plane climbs too fast.
If you made the bomb sight less accurate and a bomber salvos off bombs they will STILL land perfectly straight and evenly spaced, just not exactly where the crosshair is.
I just dont understand why you would rather change something that has no real problem to compensate for something that is:
A: completly screwed up in the first place.
B: easyer to fix.
C: would make the game more realistic.
Fix the bombs and you wont need to make the sight less accurate. In ww2 b-17's hardly aimed with the nordern sight and it WAS VERY accurate but still they just aimed right in the middle of a cluster of whatever they want to hit because the bombs scatter and disperse so no matter if it was aimed perfect or not they still didnt know EXACTLY where they would hit.
-
So the current bombsight is a perfectly accurate representation of a WW2 era bombsight huh?
-
No of course its not, it shouldent be able to zoom like that.
but the innaccuracy of the bomb sight pails in comparison to the inaccuracy of the bomb modeling. I think the bombsight should be less accurate too, but not untill the bombs are fixed. If you fix the bombsight first it will be next to impossable to hit anything, however if you make it less accurate AFTER the bombs are fixed it will just add to the realness of the inhernent inaccuracy of the falling bombs.
Juzz I in no way disagree with you that the sight needs to be changed, but I feel the bombs are the biggest part of the prob, the sight accuracy is just iceing on the cake.
-
Juzz, ok I think ive got a good coagulation between our ideas of what needs to be done.
OK here goes.
Make the bomb sight less accurate, by making it misjudge EACH AND EVERY bomb differently, as in if you drop them all at onec (which is what your supposed to do) the sight will be a little off (or alot depending on alt) for Each bomb diferently, as in say you salvo 3 click click click maby bomb1 will be off to the front left of where the bomb sight says bomb2 will be off to back right2, bomb3 will be even with target but a little to the right.... and so on and the higher ya get the more off they become.
Do ya get waht Im saying, I dont know if i Explained it well. But that would fix it and it would use BOTH of our ideas.
What you think?
-
midnight... i don't know who you are but why don't you just leave and go play a board game somewhere? No? Coward? LOL brave little toejam on the internet aint ya?
sling... thank you. I think you can do more for my cause than anyone. Get started right away.
wobble. I have had this arguement many times in other sims also.. You are the first dedicated buffer who explained the situation without dancing around the real problem. I completely agree that if the buffs are capable of inflicting unrealistic damage then it is not the fault of the buffer and that he would be some kinda moral paragon to not do it. I believe that you may have gotten my point... There should be no reason why a friendly fighter would want to shoot down his own buff.... The fact that this is the case means something is wrong. We know what that is. The way the war is "won" and the effect that bombs have on an airfield and their accuracy all contribute to making buffs a joke.
I don't know what the solution is but I think you have a partial one. I'm not sure that any sim with only 100 or so players on three teams can even find a realistic place for 4 engined bombers. Along with your suggestion...I would, and have, suggested that huge cities be built that took hundreds of tons of carpet bombing to level. When the city is ded then the "war" is over. The long amount of time and effort needed to level these "cities" would give people a chance to participate in bomber interception or escort. The "furballs" might actually be high alt melees involving the escort or interception of bombers.
All we can do now is adjust accuracy and field strength one way or the other..... asuring that on group or the other is pissed.
lazs
-
All I want is for bomb accuracy to be dependant on the SKILL of the bombadier.
Either that, or give me a magical deflection-calculating gunsite, 'cause my ata gunnery SUCKS! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Wobble, what is this mysterious "bomb drift" you keep speaking of? You ever seen an actual bomb drop? I've seen quite a few B-52 drops, and guess what, the bomb craters were pretty much in a straight line.
Sling, think I'll put my fighter in the hanger for a while, and help ya "ruin the fun." lol
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
There should be no reason why a friendly fighter would want to shoot down his own buff.... The fact that this is the case means something is wrong.
Unless of course the person wanting to shoot down his own buffs is certifiably insane.
Hmmm, now who was it said he wanted to shoot down his own buffs?
Oh, it was lazs.
Maybe the buffs ARE alright?
-
LJK Raubvogel
For one thing the bombs being dropped form b-52 are designed better to be more aimable, ww2 bombs were much Fatter and shorter so the wind and such affected them much more,
second:
NOTE you said Pretty straight.
the ones in HA fall PERCECTLY straight and they land PERFECTLY spaced no matter how high up you are. in real life dropping bombs from 35k no matter how well aimed they would go all over the place and they certinly wouldent land exactly the same as they do for 1k.
-
Wobble, what is this mysterious "bomb drift" you keep speaking of? You ever seen an actual bomb drop? I've seen quite a few B-52 drops, and guess what, the bomb craters were pretty much in a straight line.
Rab - look at some WW2 bombsight footage - you'll see exactly what thewobble is on about. There was absolutely no straight lines there but a wide dispersion of a salvo unloaded from a single bomber.
lazs - stop arguing with thewobble - you're both after the same thing: to stop a single bomber screwing the fun for all from 35K. Granted, you want it for different reasons but it still the same idea - more realistic buffs (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
vicious lie! I was never actually certified.
wobble... watcha think, will sling and raubie help their case or mine?
lazs
-
Laz...HUH? wht you speeka?
Anywho, I have noticed that alot of what people are arguing me this on is the fact that there is a VERY low ratio of buffs to fighters in the MA so thats why they need to be as accurate as they are..Ok i conceede that is a valid point..so here is what i propose.
Make Bomb drift a host option and have it scaleable.. Like wind, or manueverkill range or down time or everything else.
.drift 0 no bomb drift (like now)
.drift 1 1ft of drift for every 100 feet fallen.
and so on and so on.
This would be good for 2 reasons.
1: if people REALLY dont like the way it in the MA they can ask HTC to turn some drift on for like a day and then ask people which they prefer on the BB and if most eerybody like it with no drift leave it off, that away everyone can have their cake and eat it too.
2.for the H2H folk!
there is a much highter ratio of bombers to fighters in h2h than in the MA, in the MA bombers to fighters migh be something like 1/25, HOWEVER in H2H with far less players it is often 1/1 or 1/2 in which buffs are WAY too powerful and accurate for the amount of fighters they will encounter and the fact that if a buff kills a field in H2H its pretty much over. So the host just sets some drift to where the bombs are inaccurate to where it takes 3 or 4 runs to really mess up a field.
I think that is a good way to make EVERYONE happy.
People who dont want change: well they dont get change THEY ARE HAPPY
People who DO want change: well they Do get change and THEY ARE HAPPY
People who are not sure: well they can try it both ways and decide wich one they like and then no matter which one they pick....THEY ARE HAPPY.
thoughts?
-
You are at last seeing the light Wobble +)
Your proposal for host selectable drift is a good idea. For scenarios where formations of buffs will not need to neccessarily hit a specific building, just get the eggs on the field, dispersion is good.
Ya got my vote
AKSKurj
-
WoW thanks
, all i every wanted was to make it a better game and I realized that what would make it best is SELECTION, that way nobody is left out, and nobody has anyone's will imposed upon them. I play H2H and design maps for it alot so i think i can yield to the popular opinion because its for the good of most, but in H2H at least i can have my bombs falling everywhere fun, and nobody suffers.
Thanks of the support Skurj. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
wobble... in the end, fighters allways were there to fight other fighters. The pretense of escort and attack of buffs was simply to kill fighters. most fighter missions and personal missions were, to kill other fighters. It was and is an end unto itself.
Why can't you get escort? Escort is boring. We don't play to be bored. Sorry about that. So what do you suggest? You can force escort by making the whole emphisis of the game..... bombing by lone or few bombers. This is of course hugely unrealistic. Or, as we do... You can make bombers have an unhistorical and lopsided effect on the fighter war. If you go with either of these, as we have, then you will have to expect some animosity from the majority of fighter pilots who see bombers as mostly just a pain in the butt. No fun to escort and no fun to attack with too much affect on the game.
I feel the effect of bombers in the game is lopsided. I feel they should have less effect on the fighters. I would be glad to hear what you think should be done and what kind of balance you think would be realistic and fair.
lazs
Huh? Fighters have not always been to kill other fighters... quick history:
WWI. Observers take pictures. Other side sends out scouts to kill observers and get their own info. Other side sends out scouts to kill scouts, who send out other scouts in return. ok...
WWII. Germany builds a strong tactical bomber force, with fighters to PROTECT THE
BOMBERS. Britain builds fighters to INTERCEPT RAIDERS. Germany later builds fighters to INTERCEPT RAIDERS. USA enters war with fighter to ESCORT AND PROTECT BOMBERS. You getting the picture? Fighters killing fighters is only an element of their basic design. Very few fighters have been designed from the outset to simply kill fighters.
So, hold on... bombers have an unhistorical effect on the fighter war? Oh. So, in other words, your "historically accurate" FURBALLING is ruined because someone is actually trying to get something useful done. Which of course begs proof of the historical accuracy of USAAF, RAF, LW, and IJN planes from 1941 to 1945 all duking it out in a 500 x 500 mile arena, with no plane type restrictions for any of the THREE (3) equally strong/viable/well defended countries!
Gimme a break. I can tell you that when I just started, I was grateful for the ease of bombing. I felt like I could actually accomplish something, instead of making a fool of myself.
-
God I hate to get into this but can't help myself... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As a former member of an Escort squadron..
main purpose was to escort bombers..
I found the job tedious and boring. There
are times when it's necessary and even fun
but mostly.. long periods of boredom.
I think the bomb dispersion idea from height
is a great idea. I also like the addition of
larger cities, ports, etc as bomb targets.
One other idea is the ME163. possibly with
the ability to kill only at high alt near HQ.
I really dislike the lone uber-alt buff.
(I know I know.. get ready for reprisal on
that one)
The bombers have thier place but the fact
that they can disable an airfield so easily
quite often distrupts what I like most
about the game.. fighter-fighter combat.
Not so much if it's preperation for taking
over a field, but when it's just the lone
bomber spoiling it for the rest.
I will also add that I do like to sending
a buff down in flames while I dodge thier
recently separated wings! doiiiing.
-
ispar... you are confusing WWII with a game and most especially with the limitations of an arena setting but.... even granting you your premise.... WWII lone low alt buffs were meat on the table. High alt buffs had terrible accuracy.... Targets for multi engined buffs were not airfields and airfields did not (typically) get shut down or limited by a single buff. Plus... with the current setup we have no way to encourage escort/attack and large formations over historical targets. Perhaps you have a better idea?
wlf.... I agree with your post. We need more dispertion and better (more realistic) targets with more realistic affect on the game, for buffs.
lazs
-
wow i couldnt be bothered to wade throught entire post but i think just putting a realistic wind effect on bombs would solve problem.if its like an archery target and the nearer the better the damage it will be useful to salvo more.would also encourage the use of smaller bombs for acks and larger bombs for hangers, meaning the need for 2 bombers min (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
this way the JU88 will shine with its mixed payload (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
just think wind effect or a random spread factor would be acceptable..If im close with 1 50kg bomb but might miss i'll drop 2 to be more sure and maybe drop 4x1000lb on a hanger as 2 could be near misses.would this be so bad? what do you think?
hazed
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 12-03-2000).]
-
Thank you hazed, thats what ive been getting at all along.
-
Hazed,
Somebody with the experience of actually dropping the dang things pointed out that wind does not significantly effect the falling path's of bombs.
Arrow = slow object with high surface area to mass ratio
Bombs = fast object with very low surface area to mass ratio
The only thing that significantly effects the bomb's fall path is the motion (yaw, pitch, roll and forward velocity) of the dropping aircraft.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
http://www.dogfighter.com/briefs/show.php3?brief=939059554 (http://www.dogfighter.com/briefs/show.php3?brief=939059554)
Guess the intended plan fell through (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Kernak,
Its not so much the wind but the fact that when real bombs leave the bay they are woobleing and if its a tight salvo even banging into eachother (which is why they arm a while after dropping) that is what makes them drift apart and disperse, the wind affets too but no so much as the inital pitch an yaw of the bomb itself. If the aerodynamice in AH are modeled right all HTC would have to do is give the bombs alittle jiggle and shake as they come out of the bay (which is normal) and aerodynamics would take care of the rest. Watch a WW2 video of bombers dropping ord when the bomb come out they are eather tight ow widley spaced, the wide spaced one the bombs wobble and shake a bit, the tight salvos the bomb clang into eachother and all kinds of stuff. That sure would look neat as opposed to the perfect lines ya see now.