Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: dashed on November 05, 2009, 05:12:38 AM
-
Don't know that this can be done, but it would be nice if we could add more plane and recoil bounce to bomber guns. Showed my grandfather, who is nearly 100, and his only comment was that he wished they had had lasers in 1944.
Dashe
-
We had a bunch more recoil at one point. The whine created was astounding. ;)
-
Don't know that this can be done, but it would be nice if we could add more plane and recoil bounce to bomber guns. Showed my grandfather, who is nearly 100, and his only comment was that he wished they had had lasers in 1944.
Dashe
I can imagine the bounce of an actual tank gun. Having fired Browning 0.50s I can say our game "bounce" is nothing like the real thing. Not on the M3s, LVTs, Jeeps...ect I imagine the guns on all the fighters, in reality, will shake your teeth far more then the game ones do. And on and on it goes. The thing is no'one can tell me when it stops.
Pretty much the only criteria I hear about changing up concerns the particular gun that has been shooting the poster. I'll go so far as saying I want "everyone else's guns" to have far more "bounce" then my own. At least the ones shooting at me.
-
Knock it off Rich. We don't need your straw-man attacks in the bbs.
What I read is that someone who has actually fired .50 cals from the defensive position of a WW2 bomber remarked that ours are like laser beams in comparison. It seems like a fair criticism to me.
We had a bunch more recoil at one point. The whine created was astounding. ;)
Heck, simply mentioning recoil got Rich started again. Next thing you know he'll be posting pics of pink-clothed fighter pilots wringing their hands over the B-17.
-
The recoil ours have, in both fighters and bombs, is pretty much correct. The rigidity of the mounting is way, way off. Ours are absolutely rigid and in reality the only mountings that were close to that rigid were nose and engine mounts. The wings flex and bomber fuselage mountings twist and bounce. Problem is finding a way to model rigidity, computers are bad at it.
-
other option is to move joystick up and down fast to simulate more recoil. rest of us dweebs have a hard time hitting anything as it is :joystick:
semp
-
other option is to move joystick up and down fast to simulate more recoil. rest of us dweebs have a hard time hitting anything as it is :joystick:
semp
Wow, that was probably the most stupid comment I've heard all day.
Dashed, I agree. More bounce/recoil in gunner positions would be a nice touch of accuracy, as long as its not overdone.
-
Not overdone? Like bombers that fly at over 300mph, over 32k alt as stable as a rock, while firing between 30 and 36 guns all slaved to a single gunner's aimpoint, with laser-accuracy, that can reach out and kill attackers from 1.0 to 1.5 kilometers away?
Yeah... we don't want to over do it... :uhoh
-
Not overdone? Like bombers that fly at over 300mph, over 32k alt as stable as a rock, while firing between 30 and 36 guns all slaved to a single gunner's aimpoint, with laser-accuracy, that can reach out and kill attackers from 1.0 to 1.5 kilometers away?
Yeah... we don't want to over do it... :uhoh
I have...
(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/7449/190tailgun.jpg)
...a slight problem...
(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/277/bomberturretconvergence.jpg)
...with your assessment.(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/8720/turretconvergence1.jpg)
-
Down Krusty! DOWN DOWN!
-
Hahaha! Nice one, thndrEGG! :banana:
-
Wow, that was probably the most stupid comment I've heard all day.
Dashed, I agree. More bounce/recoil in gunner positions would be a nice touch of accuracy, as long as its not overdone.
what would your definition "as long as its not overdone" would be. You talk about stupid comments then make one of your own. zoom in while gunning in buff and you'll see the guns jumping all over the place. the buff guns are fine as they are, my guns dont have lazer beams and they do jump around. on the other hand the fiters do have a more stable platform which is not in my opinion very realistic. You cant fix one without fixing the other.
semp
-
what would your definition "as long as its not overdone" would be. You talk about stupid comments then make one of your own. zoom in while gunning in buff and you'll see the guns jumping all over the place. the buff guns are fine as they are, my guns dont have lazer beams and they do jump around. on the other hand the fiters do have a more stable platform which is not in my opinion very realistic. You cant fix one without fixing the other.
semp
Bomber guns produce much, much tighter grouping in AH than they did in reality.
Krusty is, as usual, wrong though.
-
No, I am not wrong.
Even though bomber guns' best convergent area is a range of d500 from the gunner's position, the guns themselves, due to the bombers' unhistoric level speeds, extend well past 1.5k behind the bomber formation, and can (and do) kill/disable at this range.
Historic ranges were about 300 yards for bomber gunners... Outside of that they had no chance of hitting and didn't fire.
Consider that cannon-armed LW planes were able to attack the bomber formations from "outside" the defensive gun range. This game has it all bass ackwards.
-
Not to go slightly off topic, I was thinking about recoil on GV after watching this video. It purely a judgement call to of course, but IMO the GV recoil seems "light". Watch this short war footage of the Tiger. At about 3:20 there is a nice shot of the inside looking out.
http://www.alanhamby.com/video2.html
-
No, I am not wrong.
Even though bomber guns' best convergent area is a range of d500 from the gunner's position, the guns themselves, due to the bombers' unhistoric level speeds, extend well past 1.5k behind the bomber formation, and can (and do) kill/disable at this range.
Historic ranges were about 300 yards for bomber gunners... Outside of that they had no chance of hitting and didn't fire.
Consider that cannon-armed LW planes were able to attack the bomber formations from "outside" the defensive gun range. This game has it all bass ackwards.
Just admit you exagerted on the distance of the lazer accuracy. It's hyperbloe, it's obviously hyperbole you know you have no numbers.
-
thunderegg, drone guns default to a shorter convergence than where you were firing. I can be good to wait until the bad guy is closer before you open up with all of them.
Krusty wasn't exaggerating about speed at altitude:
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=3&p2=79&pw=0>ype=0)
I'm not so sure about defensive gun accuracy. Some of the inaccuracy we experience in the game is due to the imprecision of our aiming devices (joysticks), but some is also due to genuine dispersion.
And this point is most certainly dubious:
Consider that cannon-armed LW planes were able to attack the bomber formations from "outside" the defensive gun range. This game has it all bass ackwards.
-
Those clips were taken from a film where I opened up on the guy at 1K out (the hash mark below center). This particular 190 was doing the "noob" thing of flying at my level-six, so I waited until he met the 1K mark with 50cal. I have a bad habit of forgetting to just fire my lead's guns instead of all three planes. He went down in just a few seconds.
(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5585/whoops.jpg)(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/7112/goodbye.jpg)
-
Consider that cannon-armed LW planes were able to attack the bomber formations from "outside" the defensive gun range. This game has it all bass ackwards.
No they weren't.
Rockets like the WGR21 or later the R4M were part of the quest to find a weapon that finally could be fired outside the bombers defensive gun range (so were the 5cm guns experiment on the Me 410 and Me 262)
-
I think its funny that the ones whining about the bomber guns probably couldnt hit the broadside of a mountain with one at d.3.
When you consider what it takes to have to jump back and forth from the pilots position , to a limited view gun position (meaning that most times you have to again jump positions to save your ass) and try and stay in formation when defending yourself against a single seater with the cross hairs in your face 100% of the time....its a laughable complaint.
There are plenty in this game that can regularly take apart bombers with little or no damage. Seek them out , and ask for training or head to the training arena with a trainer. But please stop asking for free bomber kills from the mid air refuel position.
-
I think its funny that the ones whining about the bomber guns probably couldnt hit the broadside of a mountain with one at d.3.
Some guy who just came from HALO can shoot the bullseye out of the target D800 from a bomber gun position. Much easier than aiming one's "flying guns" on a fighter. If you have a decent joystick setup putting your fire on your aimpoint is not much harder than pointing and clicking with a mouse. If you don't have a decent joystick setup, its still not terribly difficult, while trying to hit things in a fighter will be a bouncy nightmare.
When you consider what it takes to have to jump back and forth from the pilots position , to a limited view gun position
Limited views eh? Let me tell you about something called F3 view...it'll change our life.
(meaning that most times you have to again jump positions to save your ass) and try and stay in formation when defending yourself against a single seater with the cross hairs in your face 100% of the time....its a laughable complaint.
Um, hit the X key allright? Now if those three buffs were being flown by three INDIVIDUALS I agree keeping a tight formation would be a worthy challenge. :D
The more and more I think about it, the more I am against the formation. A player flying an interceptor mission doesn't get two drone fighters slaved to him a vic, a fighter pilot flying alone into enemy territory doesn't get an AI "wingman", a tanker doesn't get a slaved flak or two to protect him from air assault, so why do the buffs rate?
There are plenty in this game that can regularly take apart bombers with little or no damage. Seek them out , and ask for training or head to the training arena with a trainer. But please stop asking for free bomber kills from the mid air refuel position.
The tactic invariable used by bomber killing "experten" involves building a large E advantage, a pure vertical dive, and pinpoint cockpit shooting. (Unless its a B-24, then pinpoint wingroot shooting will get the job done) It is a very specialized tactic, not resembling what the Luftwaffe typically actually did, and actually requires more skill than the simple speed and flight geometry management required to close in to easy guns range and down fighters most of the time. More to the point, the time required to do this usually precludes pre-drop interception of the formation, unless the fighter pilot is loitering around at way above most of the fight waiting for buffs to appear or sores to develop on his bellybutton from chair time, whichever comes first. The buff formation has far more strategic power than any other equipment in the game, in its hangar dropping role. Dropping them AFTER they drop your hangars is beside the point, it only allows the pilot to return to the fight that much quicker.
The Luftwaffe did both tail-chase and head-on attacks. While it was dangerous, I can see no evidence that the tail-on approach was the absolute suicide it is in the AH MA.
-
Comparing real life combat results with AH combat results is always a difficult thing, because of the totally different combat environment and resulting difference in tactics - lot of them are resulting from having no fear of being killed at all.
But here's an onteresting comparison
The 2nd Schweinfurt raid, the "Black Thursday", the biggest slaughter of American Bomber forces by the Luftwaffe ended in 77 B-17s lost vs a loss 38 German fighters. That's a K/D of 0.49.
In AH, the B-17 has a K/D of ~0.35-0.49.
Despite having "lazer guns", "unrealistic high speed" and a claim that in RL "fighters could attack bombers from outside their defensive gun range"
A huge buff mission in AH will suffere comparable, if not worse losses than it's real life counterpart - see the nDGS scenario for example, where bombers were shot down in droves despite flying in compact formations at high altitudes.
I'm a dedicated buff hunter, but also spend quite some time in buffs myself each tour. In both roles, I do indeed see many fighters getting shot down by buffs. Almost every time it's just because they attacked mindlessly from 6 oclock, refusing even to spend just 1-2 minutes to get into an attack position.
When I'm flying a bomber and I see them crawling up my 6, I know I can blast them even tough I am a lousy buff gunner. If I see my enemy overtaking me and climbing above me, I know I'm dead.
Bombers in AH2 are dead meat on the table - unless you aren't willing to "work" for your kills in any way.
-
Comparing real life combat results with AH combat results is always a difficult thing, because of the totally different combat environment and resulting difference in tactics - lot of them are resulting from having no fear of being killed at all.
But here's an onteresting comparison
The 2nd Schweinfurt raid, the "Black Thursday", the biggest slaughter of American Bomber forces by the Luftwaffe ended in 77 B-17s lost vs a loss 38 German fighters. That's a K/D of 0.49.
In AH, the B-17 has a K/D of ~0.35-0.49.
Those losses based on German or American claims?
Those losses all due to defensive fire from buffs, or operational and other causes?
If the "dedicated buff hunters" like yourself used the same tactics as the Luftwaffe did, (tail on or head on attacks) then the k/d for buffs in this game would probably be 1/1.
-
Those losses based on German or American claims?
Neither. If it were based on claims, there number of "killed" German fighters would have been >150 ;)
-
If the "dedicated buff hunters" like yourself used the same tactics as the Luftwaffe did, (tail on or head on attacks) then the k/d for buffs in this game would probably be 1/1.
I do use head on attacks occasionally, particularly at high altitudes. And even tail attacks sometimes. And my K/D is better than 1 when doing them. :)
-
Some guy who just came from HALO can shoot the bullseye out of the target D800 from a bomber gun position. Much easier than aiming one's "flying guns" on a fighter.
Do you not see the ridiculousness of this statement? Your telling me and all here that the gunnery is better (i.e. more K/d ratio , steadier ect) from a mounted bomber gun position than from a fighter? You really do need to see a trainer.
If you have a decent joystick setup putting your fire on your aimpoint is not much harder than pointing and clicking with a mouse. If you don't have a decent joystick setup, its still not terribly difficult, while trying to hit things in a fighter will be a bouncy nightmare.
Ok, so which is it ? Bouncy nightmare or point and click easy? You seem to have trouble making up your mind here.
Limited views eh? Let me tell you about something called F3 view...it'll change our life.
SooOOooo...hows your gunnery in a bombers gun position while in F3 view? ( see the silliness in this^ statement? )
Um, hit the X key allright? Now if those three buffs were being flown by three INDIVIDUALS I agree keeping a tight formation would be a worthy challenge. :D
I can tell you have little bomber squad experience. i'll break it down for you to save you future embarrassment. Escorts are what saves a group ( <-please note, not singular) of bombers , not defensive guns. If the group becomes scattered, they almost always get taken apart. Again, I'd like to see you try to hold formation from the gunners position..aint happening.
The tactic invariable used by bomber killing "experten" involves building a large E advantage, a pure vertical dive, and pinpoint cockpit shooting. (Unless its a B-24, then pinpoint wingroot shooting will get the job done) It is a very specialized tactic, not resembling what the Luftwaffe typically actually did, and actually requires more skill than the simple speed and flight geometry management required to close in to easy guns range and down fighters most of the time.
Did you get the bolded info off of the history channel? There are some good reading references out there for this info.
More to the point, the time required to do this usually precludes pre-drop interception of the formation, unless the fighter pilot is loitering around at way above most of the fight waiting for buffs to appear or sores to develop on his bellybutton from chair time, whichever comes first.
The best will locate us and wait until our most vulnerable time , which is when we are about to drop. About %99.9 of all the rest will try to park on our rear flight deck like we are a KC-135.
The buff formation has far more strategic power than any other equipment in the game, in its hangar dropping role. Dropping them AFTER they drop your hangars is beside the point, it only allows the pilot to return to the fight that much quicker.
Cant comment really as I've yet to see a large group of bombers doing this. Mostly singles , which if defended against are easy prey. Guess they get luck when everyone is OTD mowing the grass. <shrug> Cant really say that dropping a hanger has anything to do with strategic value either.
The Luftwaffe did both tail-chase and head-on attacks. While it was dangerous, I can see no evidence that the tail-on approach was the absolute suicide it is in the AH MA.
Again, tons of great reference material out there.
-
Knock it off Rich. We don't need your straw-man attacks in the bbs.
No-one was talking to you boy. Mind your own business. Maybe you ought to ask the poster what he meant instead of, once again, telling the world what "others" meant. Seems the rest of the world was able to respond without being a jerk except for you.
I'll say again if you change one set of guns around you have to change them all. At most a bomber gun should have more recoil then a single 0.50, dbl 0.50, single 20mm, or the lesser guns...ect If you change them to historic levels then you have to change the PTs, the other planes, the GVs. And yes, "to the loud mouthed meddling little Tank Queen", you have to change the tank guns.
Boy the world is out to get you aint it kid? I wasnt even thinking about you or your precious little tanks when I first said that.
-
Some guy who just came from HALO can shoot the bullseye out of the target D800 from a bomber gun position. Much easier than aiming one's "flying guns" on a fighter. If you have a decent joystick setup putting your fire on your aimpoint is not much harder than pointing and clicking with a mouse. If you don't have a decent joystick setup, its still not terribly difficult, while trying to hit things in a fighter will be a bouncy nightmare.
You can use your mouse to gun in bombers? This was a big question for me in my first couple months and I understood it could not be done.
-
I will say, that if Krusty and BnZs got the changes they want implemented, bombers would be utterly helpless in the face of the fighter capabilities we have in AH. Our toughest bomber, the B-17G, would probably be looking at a K/D ratio of ~0.05% and who wants to fly that?
-
Anyone know how many rounds per gun bombers actually carried on WWII missions? I swear from history accounts (books, documentary, etc.) the bombers only carried 100 rounds per gun. Obviously weight limitations were a factor and the crews could carry more if they wanted.
-
Edited to avoid skuzzy's wrath. :P
-
re: thundereggs point...we USED to have "set convergence" in hangar for buffs, just like fighters. Would be nice to have again :) elfy
-
Anyone know how many rounds per gun bombers actually carried on WWII missions? I swear from history accounts (books, documentary, etc.) the bombers only carried 100 rounds per gun. Obviously weight limitations were a factor and the crews could carry more if they wanted.
All aircraft in AH have historically documented ammunition totals. AH is as reliable a source for that as any I have seen.
-
Do you not see the ridiculousness of this statement? Your telling me and all here that the gunnery is better (i.e. more K/d ratio , steadier ect) from a mounted bomber gun position than from a fighter? You really do need to see a trainer.
Yes, the gunnery is steadier from a bomber flying along in auto-level than from a fighter, just as it is steadier from a field gun. This is pretty obvious, undisputed, and what this thread is about. A fighter's guns must be flown to whatever the desired point-of-aim is, which is much more challenging when it comes to pinpoint long-range shooting.
Ok, so which is it ? Bouncy nightmare or point and click easy? You seem to have trouble making up your mind here.
I was *clearly* using the comparison between gunning and flying with a worn-out joystick to illustrate the difference between aiming a fixed gun position and flying a forward mounted gun.
SooOOooo...hows your gunnery in a bombers gun position while in F3 view? ( see the silliness in this^ statement? )
Again, I'd like to see you try to hold formation from the gunners position..aint happening.
Umm...again do you know what the X key does in the game?
The best will locate us and wait until our most vulnerable time , which is when we are about to drop.
If game terms, if they wait 'till you are about to drop, then they have already waited too late for shooting down your bombers to be of any strategic value.
-
You clearly have no clue as to how a bomber mission with a squadron works and the correlation between keeping the formation together , getting steel on target ,and surviving the mission. Its not as easy as "typing x" or "using F3 mode". That may well work with the dweeby 5k hanger runs for a single bomber(which are easily defendable if folks werent worried about thier fighter kill score) , I couldn't say because I don't do those. Maybe you need to try it for a while to understand.
As an aside we have no otto in this game like others do , and believe me I'm not wanting it here. But in comparing it to their RL counterparts , the gunners did not have to fly the aircraft and drop bombs as well. All they had to do is keep eyes on contacts covering all of the fields of view from the available gunner positions 100% of the time. My opinion is that the balance here has been achieved.
-
If dive bombing becomes limited, please make the enemy gv labels show up at distances greater than 1.5k. I believe the game intentionally limits the viewing distance to give gv’s a chance to evade being seen and/or dive bombed.
I question the accuracy of modeling the game so enemy gv’s won’t show up until about 1.5k. When I’m flying a 30,000 feet in a commercial airliner I can see cars on the ground. I obviously can’t make out the model, but I can see they are cars. And yes military gv’s are camouflaged, but give a break, 1.5k?
An individual with 20/10 vision has a good probability of making out a pile dog doodoo at 1.5k. Of course it would have to be a relatively large pile of dog doodoo.
-
I question the accuracy of modeling the game so enemy gv’s won’t show up until about 1.5k. When I’m flying a 30,000 feet in a commercial airliner I can see cars on the ground. I obviously can’t make out the model, but I can see they are cars. And yes military gv’s are camouflaged, but give a break, 1.5k?
try flying at 30k and see a car standing in the middle of nowhere, you wont see it. U can see cars because you know where they are on the roads or on city streets but if they park somewhere else then u have no chance.
same for the pile of doodoo, you can find it if you look hard enought and long enough, but if you only have a few seconds, no way.
semp
-
The recoil ours have, in both fighters and bombs, is pretty much correct. The rigidity of the mounting is way, way off. Ours are absolutely rigid and in reality the only mountings that were close to that rigid were nose and engine mounts. The wings flex and bomber fuselage mountings twist and bounce. Problem is finding a way to model rigidity, computers are bad at it.
Didn't really mean recoil, meant bounce. As far as model, you could randomize a cone of fire or something simple, but hit reading might get more complicated.
Dashe
-
Umm...again do you know what the X key does in the game?
There is a confusion about formation here, we're talking this formation:
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv23/Jayhawk1/5.jpg)
Now I'm sure you'd say this is an almost impossible formation to break through, with all those guns. But it was all we could do to survive. This formation got us to the objective and we successfully dropped most of our targets. We ended up only returning 6 or 7 of those bombers (total not formations).
As for the F3 comment, yes it helps with SA but when was the last time you fired your guns from that position?
It's obvious from your comments you haven't spent much time flying bombers, so this sounds like a lot of whining because you haven't figured out how to attack bombers successfully yet.
-
A fighter's guns must be flown to whatever the desired point-of-aim is, which is much more challenging when it comes to pinpoint long-range shooting.
But the buff gunner has to account not only for his targets movement, but also for the movement of his own bomber (and the resulting airstream) which is much less intuitive to adjust for,because the guns are pointing at ever-changing angles relative to the bombers own movement. Only when the fighter is insisting on attacking from 6 o clock, that's not much of an issue for the gunner. Also when the fighter is doing a slashing attack from the high 2-4 sectors, you also have few reference points on your actual turret position (and thus angle relative to the bombers movement) which makes aiming even more difficult.
And another point concerning long-range pinpoint shooting: Convergence.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d64/fuzeman/Bomberguns.jpg)
picture provided by Fuzeman
As you can see, at long ranges there isn't much advantage left in having a box of three bombers. Two of them will always just hit thin air.
-
.
And another point concerning long-range pinpoint shooting: Convergence.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d64/fuzeman/Bomberguns.jpg)
picture provided by Fuzeman
As you can see, at long ranges there isn't much advantage left in having a box of three bombers. Two of them will always just hit thin air.
And there will also be a broad area of sweetspot where, while the guns are not all hitting the same spot (which is over-kill anyway) it will make a pattern large enough that it is virtually impossible to miss.
I think things would be reasonable if fire only came from the selected gun positions in the formations. (3 tailguns, 3 ball-turrets) etc. OR, if all positions fired from a bomber but there was only one bomber (no formations). Having both is overkill. The defensive capabilities are too much combined with the strategic power it gives one individual player and hurt gameplay. I'd prefer free perk planes to the buff system we have in the MA currently, because at least it is impossible for one guy in a Tempest to completely shut down defense at a base.
-
There is a confusion about formation here, we're talking this formation:
(http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv23/Jayhawk1/5.jpg)
Now I'm sure you'd say this is an almost impossible formation to break through, with all those guns. But it was all we could do to survive. This formation got us to the objective and we successfully dropped most of our targets. We ended up only returning 6 or 7 of those bombers (total not formations).
I speak more of the effects of bombers in the MA than Special Events (although I have been glad to see them get away from using the 3-vic in FSO*, despite the fact that it forces more people to fly bombers every event.). ...When you say you got to the objective and dropped your targets, that is all that counts in MA play. All some super-patient "buff hunter" who has taken the time to climb to 22K accomplishes by taking the formation out after that is getting the buff flier back up sooner.
*I have seen it occur in FSO where the escorts were absolutely slaughtered or put to flight by the intercepting fighters, at which point the "escorts" fled through the protection of the buff gunners, at which point said gunners managed to wreak a havoc amongst the fighters that the escorts never managed
-
When you say you got to the objective and dropped your targets, that is all that counts in MA play. All some super-patient "buff hunter" who has taken the time to climb to 22K accomplishes by taking the formation out after that is getting the buff flier back up sooner.
Well except for the fun of attacking bombers, that counts for something. I don't think it takes a super-patient guy to get up to alt with the buffs either, well as long as you don't plan on engaging them in lancs or something. :banana: If a few of those planes had lifted up a couple minutes before they could have brought havoc on us dropping targets. All it takes is keeping one hanger up and our mission (besides the simple enjoyment) is pointless. We were showing a full dar for at least 100 miles before the target, wouldn't be hard to find us.
I guess the difference is how we see gameplay. But I'm not quite sure what you like, just dogfights? Is your overall point that bombers are too hard to take down?
-
I guess the difference is how we see gameplay. But I'm not quite sure what you like, just dogfights? Is your overall point that bombers are too hard to take down?
Yes, I think for MA play they are too hard to take down *in time* vs. the power they put in an individual player's hands. The most lethal fighter plane, the best tank, etc, whatever else you wish to name, does not give an individual player the ability to render a base defenseless. Which IMO, is not only no fun for the defenders, but also no fun for the attackers!
And surely the fact that their defensive lethality at times seems to render escort superfulous, and indeed *fighters* have been known to use the bombers for protection, must give you pause.
-
Yes, I think for MA play they are too hard to take down *in time* vs. the power they put in an individual player's hands. The most lethal fighter plane, the best tank, etc, whatever else you wish to name, does not give an individual player the ability to render a base defenseless. Which IMO, is not only no fun for the defenders, but also no fun for the attackers!
And surely the fact that their defensive lethality at times seems to render escort superfulous, and indeed *fighters* have been known to use the bombers for protection, must give you pause.
And yet they somehow only manage to get the K/D ratios that were had in reality. Amazing how much better AH fighter pilots must be than AH bomber pilots. :rolleyes:
-
And yet they somehow only manage to get the K/D ratios that were had in reality. Amazing how much better AH fighter pilots must be than AH bomber pilots. :rolleyes:
AHII fighter pilots ARE for the most part vastly more practiced than their real life counterparts, and the "technique" for buff attack is much more refined than what the Luftwaffe actually used.
-
AHII fighter pilots ARE for the most part vastly more practiced than their real life counterparts, and the "technique" for buff attack is much more refined than what the Luftwaffe actually used.
You can't have it both ways, whining on the one hand about bombers slaughtering the poor, helpless fighters enmasse and then saying how great the skills are of the fighters that they somehow manage a massive K/D ratio over the bombers.
We both know that the only reason bombers have even that high a K/D ratio is that many, many fighter pilot players in AH fly right up the bellybutton of the bombers, giving them an almost free kill. So much for skill on the fighter pilot's end.
What you are asking for is bombers to be free kills, even to idiots who fly straight up the bellybutton end of the bomber.
-
AHII fighter pilots ARE for the most part vastly more practiced than their real life counterparts, and the "technique" for buff attack is much more refined than what the Luftwaffe actually used.
You should actually start to fly buffs. Or at least the next time you encounter them, take your time and just watch your teammates attacking them...
You might be in for a surprise about that "refined" technique the fighter pilots are using vs. buffs ;)
-
You can't have it both ways, whining on the one hand about bombers slaughtering the poor, helpless fighters enmasse and then saying how great the skills are of the fighters that they somehow manage a massive K/D ratio over the bombers.
We both know that the only reason bombers have even that high a K/D ratio is that many, many fighter pilot players in AH fly right up the bellybutton of the bombers, giving them an almost free kill. So much for skill on the fighter pilot's end.
What you are asking for is bombers to be free kills, even to idiots who fly straight up the bellybutton end of the bomber.
The k/d ratio cited comes from Luftwaffe "idiots" flying straight up the "ass end" of bombers. I've seen the gun camera footage. Whereas a fighter pilot in AHII would be lucky to achieve a k/d of 1:1 flying straight up the tail of B-24s or B-17s. Furthermore, all this "straight up the tail" is a paper tiger, bomber guns are still lethal with high closure and angle-off.
What I'm asking for is not to disable defensive fire. I'm asking individuals in bombers to be limited to a paltry 6 .50s for defense (when you're in the tail gun, the tail gun shoots, etc), OR, to be given only one plane. Not both, that would be too much the other way.
-
The k/d ratio cited comes from Luftwaffe "idiots" flying straight up the "ass end" of bombers. I've seen the gun camera footage. Whereas a fighter pilot in AHII would be lucky to achieve a k/d of 1:1 flying straight up the tail of B-24s or B-17s. Furthermore, all this "straight up the tail" is a paper tiger, bomber guns are still lethal with high closure and angle-off.
What I'm asking for is not to disable defensive fire. I'm asking individuals in bombers to be limited to a paltry 6 .50s for defense (when you're in the tail gun, the tail gun shoots, etc), OR, to be given only one plane. Not both, that would be too much the other way.
However you want to try to sell it, what you are asking for is bombers in AH to be free kills.
I am not arguing that the guns are realistic in their accuracy. I am arguing that the increased accuracy is required for bombers to be viable in the ad hoc world of AH where structured missions are exceedingly rare.
In other words, having unrealistically modeled bomber guns creates a more realistic outcome.
-
However you want to try to sell it, what you are asking for is bombers in AH to be free kills.
I am not arguing that the guns are realistic in their accuracy. I am arguing that the increased accuracy is required for bombers to be viable in the ad hoc world of AH where structured missions are exceedingly rare.
In other words, having unrealistically modeled bomber guns creates a more realistic outcome.
Ah.
I thought this was diametrically opposed to the principle of modelling the physics, not trying to model "the war".
Isn't that abit like me asking for changes to P-47D performance to make them more viable in the world of the AH MA where high-altitude escort missions are exceedingly rare?
I do not, btw, see how anything with buff-toughness and several .50 cals firing at you can ever be a "free kill". And I don't believe it would be bad at all for gameplay if it took several individuals flying together in a box to get bombs on target in the MA most of the time.
-
BnZs, I honestly can't see why you are asking for this.
At the moment, here's the basic situation with bombers:
- If you're attacking bombers, and you make a good approach (i.e. NOT from dead six, with an altitude + speed advantage, and maybe from 9 oclock), assuming the bomber pilot isn't outstanding at gunnery, chances are you'll escape largely unharmed.
- If you're attacking bombers, and make a lazy/careless/bad approach (so maybe from dead six, at a lower altitude and roughly the same speed as the buffs), you'll probably get killed very quickly, assuming the bomber pilot/gunner knows how to aim and shoot.
If you implement your suggestion, that basically means any non-lazy fighter pilot will have almost free kills of bombers. NOT an ideal situation.
And from the historical aspect, IRL each gun was manned by a separate person. Since we can't have that in Aces High, we get the next best thing where each gun can be fired at once by one person.
Also, out of curiosity I checked your stats (nice K/D ratio in fighters, btw!), and saw you've barely flown any bomber missions - why don't you try flying bombers, so you can get a better idea of what it's like for them?
-
Isn't that abit like me asking for changes to P-47D performance to make them more viable in the world of the AH MA where high-altitude escort missions are exceedingly rare?
No. It would be if you were talking about all fighters not being viable or I was only talking about the B-17G needing unrealistic accuracy.
I do not, btw, see how anything with buff-toughness and several .50 cals firing at you can ever be a "free kill". And I don't believe it would be bad at all for gameplay if it took several individuals flying together in a box to get bombs on target in the MA most of the time.
I don't know how you can rationalize that. We already know that things with "buff toughness" and many, many .50 cals firing at you are basically free kills. How reducing the number of guns firing and massively increasing their inaccuracy would have any result other than making them absolutely helpless I cannot imagine. What you would see is not cooperative bomber missions, but even more nape of the earth Bf110G-2 and N1K2-J missions. Your idea would basically make bombers extinct.
-
BnZs, I honestly can't see why you are asking for this.
At the moment, here's the basic situation with bombers:
- If you're attacking bombers, and you make a good approach (i.e. NOT from dead six, with an altitude + speed advantage, and maybe from 9 oclock), assuming the bomber pilot isn't outstanding at gunnery, chances are you'll escape largely unharmed.
- If you're attacking bombers, and make a lazy/careless/bad approach (so maybe from dead six, at a lower altitude and roughly the same speed as the buffs), you'll probably get killed very quickly, assuming the bomber pilot/gunner knows how to aim and shoot.
This is NOT so. Even making off-angle passes with a great speed, you can and usually will get pinged going and coming. A directly vertical approach is required to exploit the fact that the top turret cannot point straight up, and that, and nothing else, is the "experten technique" of those with huge k/d ratios against buffs.
This is not even discussing the "trickery" that some buffers use, like making very abrupty maneuvers with loosing the drones and unloading in shallow dives to make the fighter pilots chase longer/fore him into dead six, again without loosing drones.
If you implement your suggestion, that basically means any non-lazy fighter pilot will have almost free kills of bombers. NOT an ideal situation.
"Lazy" Luftwaffe flyers wreaked havoc flying in from six, (admittedly with rather high losses), so I can't really see the problem here...
-
The necessity of human cooperation for success is a principle that everyone seems to agree with except for bomber aircraft. There, the lone wolf being able to completely change the game and its tactical possibilities is applauded.
-
Let me get this straight...
1. You don't think buffs get through to the target now?
2. You think 6x.50s from 3 planes or multiple .50s from a single plane is an inadequate anti-air defense?
I doubt it would make bombers extinct. It might require formations and more importantly, ESCORTS. Good for gameplay.
What you would see is not cooperative bomber missions, but even more nape of the earth Bf110G-2 and N1K2-J missions.
Would be a viable objection if I had not over and over pointed out that I think DAR coverage should reach all the way to the ground. :)
-
This is NOT so. Even making off-angle passes with a great speed, you can and usually will get pinged going and coming. A directly vertical approach is required to exploit the fact that the top turret cannot point straight up, and that, and nothing else, is the "experten technique" of those with huge k/d ratios against buffs.
So you want only a couple guns firing so a fighter can make as many high angle high speed passes without the bomber having a chance of hitting you? Because a couple of pings upsets you.
*And, it usually take a good aim in those bombers to hit someone coming in at a high angle 2 o' clock attack.
-
So you want only a couple guns firing so a fighter can make as many high angle high speed passes without the bomber having a chance of hitting you? Because a couple of pings upsets you.
*And, it usually take a good aim in those bombers to hit someone coming in at a high angle 2 o' clock attack.
You could jump to the ball turret and hit the attacking fighter. You would be throwing a formidable amount of lead. Just not an overwhelming wall of lead.
-
You could jump to the ball turret and hit the attacking fighter. You would be throwing a formidable amount of lead. Just not an overwhelming wall of lead.
See that shows me you don't spend much time in bombers. Hitting a plane going away from you at 500mph+, factor in you won't get to the ball turret and guns on him until he's 400-600 out. It's nearly impossible to hit a plane going away from you.
-
Let me get this straight...
1. You don't think buffs get through to the target now?
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It doesn't matter that much as long as the answer is sometimes. If you think bombers too often reach and destroy the target, perhaps you should focus on advocating useful and viable bomber targets be set further back so that defenders have time to respond rather than trying to get bombers removed from the game.
2. You think 6x.50s from 3 planes or multiple .50s from a single plane is an inadequate anti-air defense?
Evidence, though I know you despise it, is clear on that count. The defenses we have now in AH are about right. They give both the bomber and fighter players a fighting chance. Two .50 cals (not the six you claim as those would only hit at about 450-550 yards) would be absolutely inadequate to deal with something like an Fw190A-8, P-47 or Mosquito coming in on a formation.
I doubt it would make bombers extinct. It might require formations and more importantly, ESCORTS. Good for gameplay.
It would make bombers extinct as the difficulty of setting up what you propose far exceeds the reward. It would be far easier to do a nape of the earth raid with Bf110G-2s and N1K2-Js or have a mass number of F4Us/F6Fs/P-38s/P-47s/P-51Ds/Typhoons dive in and bomb the target.
Would be a viable objection if I had not over and over pointed out that I think DAR coverage should reach all the way to the ground. :)
That has no effect on this. Unless you are assuming that HTC would implement all of your suggestions you cannot in good faith advocate positions requiring other suggested changes. You have to look at it as though the suggested change would be the only change from the current live MA environment.
-
I think people are really fishing for ways to justify making bomber killing easier for them. I think it's an attempt to justify steering this game into the favor of the "immediate gratification" crowd, those that choose not to learn patience in this genre' of online games. You will notice after all these years of AH being in exsistence, Hitech has not made any drastic changes to bombers to favor the fighter pilots. Ask him (as in, ask the originator of the game) why and why not, for a change. :rolleyes:
-
Evidence, though I know you despise it, is clear on that count.
I can't believe you have the gall to say this after admitting you know the buff guns are excessively accurate compared to reality, but believe this should be maintained for "balance".
Hmmm, wouldn't it be simpler to manipulate the flight models to eliminate the need for the knotty and controversial perk system? Million examples like that, IF we are willing to throw out the principle of modeling physics and not "the war".
That has no effect on this. Unless you are assuming that HTC would implement all of your suggestions you cannot in good faith advocate positions requiring other suggested changes. You have to look at it as though the suggested change would be the only change from the current live MA environment.
You cannot in good faith justify using one flaw in the game in justify another.
And Anax made a good point as well. Why are only buffs given special treatment in regards to teamwork or lack thereof? For instance, it is impossible for any tank to survive under attack planes without either air or flak support, but there is no such thing as the "flak" drone.
-
I think people are really fishing for ways to justify making bomber killing easier for them.
Nope, I am quite happy to make red bombers easier for *all* the green guys to kill. Come to think of it, I'm quite happy to make green bombers easy for the red guys to kill as well.
-
Err nevermind, I shouldn't post while I'm asleep.
-
LOL I get tired of all this blather about guys INSISTING on a 6 oclock attack position, with the speed of bombers in this game and their alt advantage (usually), and if I recall right the bomber can be "steered" using rudder pedals while in the gunners position, not attacking from the 6 oclock is VERY difficult and 1 to 2 minutes to setup is a joke right.
This subject is like affrimative action, if you get the benefit from it you love it and if you get the shaft from it you hate it.
-
, not attacking from the 6 oclock is VERY difficult and 1 to 2 minutes to setup is a joke right.
No it isn't "very" difficult.
Oh, it's more difficult than attacking from dead 6, but almost all the time the bombers are flying straight & level at steady speed, so it's actually much less difficult than attacking an enemy fighter. The only time it's getting really difficult is at very high altitudes (20+ k), but most bombers are flying way below that.
And of course you shouldn't attack to kill a bomber with each attack - that would indeed be difficult, but you don't have to. The main advantage of slashing high-speed attacks is that you will live to try another one. A simple-six attack (tm) seems easier because of the higher probability to kill 1 bomber before you go down, but other forms of attack have a much higher chance of getting all three of them.
But like all things, it has to practices a bit. If you are not used to it, you may collide a few times before getting some feel - but it's not a thing that you have to practice for months to get any amount of success.
And regarding the "2 minutes are a joke" - Most fighters are at least 100 mph faster than the bombers. 100mph means 5k yards relative distance gain in 2 minutes.
-
Lusche, maybe we should film a sortie much like how you busted up our Ki67's a few nights ago. Nice tactics. :)
-
Lusche, maybe we should film a sortie much like how you busted up our Ki67's a few nights ago. Nice tactics. :)
Oh thank you, but that particular sortie was indeed a very lucky one. The Ki-67 is the only bomber I really dread, and I have rarely that much success against them as I had that night.
And when I noticed who I did attack, I pondered how much I should press my luck :D
Anyhow, here's the film: http://www.mediafire.com/?xlzizwlzik4
-
Your luck was holding out. My top 20mm turret kept running out of traverse at the angles you were coming in at. Couldn't hit you. Was fun anyway.
-
[quote author=Lusche link=topic=277528.msg3492334#msg3492334 date=1257856152
And regarding the "2 minutes are a joke" - Most fighters are at least 100 mph faster than the bombers. 100mph means 5k yards relative distance gain in 2 minutes.
[/quote]
LOL you don't play the same AH I do Snail, how many fighters in the plane set are 100 mph faster than the Lanc or B-17?
Slashing attacks are "easy" to setup if you are coalt or higher to BEGIN with, if you have to climb to the bomber set, it will take a hell of alot longer than 2 minutes to setup and while he is flying straight and level at 300 plus you are climbing at a much slower speed OR a very low climb rate to keep up with the bomber either way (unless ur in a 262) it will take longer than 1 or 2 minutes
-
LOL you don't play the same AH I do Snail, how many fighters in the plane set are 100 mph faster than the Lanc or B-17?
I guess you are judging more by feel than by actual numbers - Almost all of them are:
(http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/571/speedcompnt5.jpg)
Or feel free to use AH's own speed comparison tool: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php
if you have to climb to the bomber set, it will take a hell of alot longer than 2 minutes to setup and while he is flying straight and level at 300 plus you are climbing at a much slower speed OR a very low climb rate to keep up with the bomber either way (unless ur in a 262) it will take longer than 1 or 2 minutes
Please note that I always talk about 2 additional minutes after you already climbed up to him ;)
It's about players spending 5-15 minutes getting to the buffs and then lacking the patience for just a few additional minutes to set up his attack. and this is exactly what is getting them killed. I see that stuff every day.
-
It's about players spending 5-15 minutes getting to the buffs and then lacking the patience for just a few additional minutes to set up his attack.
:aok
-
The only real challenge when it comes to bombers is patients....
Give me altitude and speed on one of them, well, its going to be a quick ride for them.
Even with four 50 cal birds....
Strip
-
Well I stand corrected :o
-
I can't believe you have the gall to say this after admitting you know the buff guns are excessively accurate compared to reality, but believe this should be maintained for "balance".
The difference is that I acknowledge that data, but you deny or ignore any data that disagrees with your opinion.
-
Please note that I always talk about 2 additional minutes after you already climbed up to him ;)
It's about players spending 5-15 minutes getting to the buffs and then lacking the patience for just a few additional minutes to set up his attack. and this is exactly what is getting them killed. I see that stuff every day.
If the buff already dropped all his ord no point in chasing him. if he only droped a portion no point in chasing him either, he'll come back to u. either way i think chasing buffs just to get kills is a waste of time.
semp