Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: LCCajun on November 06, 2009, 07:30:02 PM
-
I know this has been wished for, but I feel the need to bring it up again. I don't mind if I am in a gv and somebody dive bombs me in a fighter, but being dive bombed by lancs is gamey, and yes I do realize this is a game. I would like for HTC to fix this. Let the flaming begin.
-
No flame from me, I agree with you.
:cheers:
-
I'm all for the proper, historical roll of all of the heavy bombers featured here. But, there's always going to be the gamey side. (sigh)
-
I know this has been wished for, but I feel the need to bring it up again. I don't mind if I am in a gv and somebody dive bombs me in a fighter, but being dive bombed by lancs is gamey, and yes I do realize this is a game. I would like for HTC to fix this. Let the flaming begin.
It's a fine idea, and I like it, but the key word is HOW?
There is no practical way to fix this - what can you do - prevent bombs from being dropped with a significantly negative rate of descent? Yeah, it might work, but then you run into other problems. What about someone bombing GVs in a B-25H? They've got no bombsight, so suddenly you have one bomber where you need to allow bombs to be dropped whilst in a dive. Then the same will probably go for the TBM, the SBD, IL-2, A-20 and so on. Essentially, your 'solution' has just gotten extremely complicated.
What I'm trying to say is that preventing bombs from being released in a dive would prevent lancstukaing, but it would create other problems - a few of which I mentioned above. Additionally, if you did take that measure, you'd be detracting from one key freedom in the game - the ability to do what you want in a plane, wherever and however you want to do it. That is NOT something I'd like to see happen at all.
Plus, if you couldn't lancstuka, people would just find other ways to do it. Maybe very low, but still level Lanc carpet bombing. Think of the whines that would cause.
-
I think one idea that HiTech seemed to like was modeling bomb collisions within the bomb-bay or something of that matter. Not sure what will come of it though.
-
"What about someone bombing GVs in a B-25H? They've got no bombsight, so suddenly you have one bomber where you need to allow bombs to be dropped whilst in a dive."
Quite - but not in a steep dive. Add a li'l code to the types of bombers that drop their load out of internal bomb-bays; 'more than 30 degrees nose-down and the bombs detonate within the bomber' would fix it, while still allowing realistic drops from the B-25, B-26, TBM et al.
:cool:
-
"It's a fine idea, and I like it, but the key word is HOW?" -Yoss
Maybe it can somehow be done so that bombs can not be released in a dive when formation is enabled. Would remove that part, but as you said they could just go level and carpet bomb. Maybe make it so you have to be in F6 view to release bombs when in formation?
Just throwing out ideas.
-
"What about someone bombing GVs in a B-25H? They've got no bombsight, so suddenly you have one bomber where you need to allow bombs to be dropped whilst in a dive."
Quite - but not in a steep dive. Add a li'l code to the types of bombers that drop their load out of internal bomb-bays; 'more than 30 degrees nose-down and the bombs detonate within the bomber' would fix it, while still allowing realistic drops from the B-25, B-26, TBM et al.
:cool:
I routinely dive bomb from B-25Hs at far steeper angles than 30 degrees...yeah, I'm a bomb****, but man is it fun :x
And 1701E, that's a great idea! :aok :aok :aok
-
"What about someone bombing GVs in a B-25H? They've got no bombsight, so suddenly you have one bomber where you need to allow bombs to be dropped whilst in a dive."
Quite - but not in a steep dive. Add a li'l code to the types of bombers that drop their load out of internal bomb-bays; 'more than 30 degrees nose-down and the bombs detonate within the bomber' would fix it, while still allowing realistic drops from the B-25, B-26, TBM et al.
:cool:
30 degrees is probably steeper than most Lancasters doing that in AH are doing it at. Also, have you looked at a Lancaster's bomb bay? There is nothing to stop it from doing it reality. It wasn't a deep bomb bay like on the B-17.
-
Yeah, but if a 4k bomb hit the fuselage anywhere, then your gona feel it. It may have knocked the plane off course.
-
Yeah, but if a 4k bomb hit the fuselage anywhere, then your gona feel it. It may have knocked the plane off course.
It wouldn't hit the fuselage is what I am telling you. Somebody posted the max allowable angle of release for Lancasters a couple of years ago and it was pretty steep.
-
The other day I was defending a Vbase which was near an enemy airbase with some Alt.
Wave after wave of Lanc-stukas flew in, flung their ords out, and then bailed for another re-do. It was so gamey I not only left the base but left the arena, sick with the thought players like that were in our game.
Boy was that cheesy. And not just the stuka'ing, but also the bailing and re'upping right away with another set of useonceandthrowawayLancasters .
-
Lancstuckaing happens so much in the MW that its patethic. Because of the low numbers in there a 'strongly held' Vbase has maybe five flackers defending if you're lucky. One or two sets of lancs come in and its all over with. IMO lancs should be perked in the MW.
Again IMO anything with a bombsite and drones excluding the Ju88s should not be able to drop bombs outside the F6 mode.
-
How is simple.
Depending on the plane and the bombs loaded, releasing at more than a 15 - 20 degree downward angle would have one or more bombs impacting the planes frame. Chances are they wouldn't go off, as they haven't armed yet. But it could still do significant damage to the frame.
So for "level bombers" only, make it so that damage would send you back to the tower.
Anything with dive flaps, or externally hung bombs like the A20 should not have a problem.
(Ju-88)
-
I agree it needs to be fixed. How? I will leave that to HTC...
-
simple Lancstuka fix (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,265611.0.html)
:)
-
Again IMO anything with a bombsite and drones excluding the Ju88s should not be able to drop bombs outside the F6 mode.
No more torpedoes from Ki-67s?
-
Question for the experts: Did the pilot in these planes have a mechanism to release the bombs?
If the answer is no, then one should only be able to release from the F6 (bombardier) position. If the answer is yes, then the historical limits of the plane should be applied.
Regards,
Hammer
-
I'm not sure I get these release angle things...I see how they would work if you nosed down into a <0g dive after releasing your bombs, then you'd get hit by the bombs, but if you pulled up after releasing, then you wouldn't get hit.
Am I looking at this the wrong way, or are those limitations more there to protect the bomb release mechanism or something?
Please don't forget the B-25H...if it is put under the same limitations as the other planes, it wil become a bit more of a hangar queen - dive bombing is very important for it!
-
You can release bombs from a bomb-bay while inverted in AH. :P
-
I know this has been wished for, but I feel the need to bring it up again. I don't mind if I am in a gv and somebody dive bombs me in a fighter, but being dive bombed by lancs is gamey, and yes I do realize this is a game. I would like for HTC to fix this. Let the flaming begin.
:aok
-
You can release bombs from a bomb-bay while inverted in AH. :P
:rofl
-
Lancstuckaing happens so much in the MW that its patethic. Because of the low numbers in there a 'strongly held' Vbase has maybe five flackers defending if you're lucky. One or two sets of lancs come in and its all over with. IMO lancs should be perked in the MW.
Again IMO anything with a bombsite and drones excluding the Ju88s should not be able to drop bombs outside the F6 mode.
the ki 67 has torps, i havent found a way to do a torp run not in f3 or f1 mode if you can, please enlighteh me
-
Lancstuckaing happens so much in the MW that its patethic. Because of the low numbers in there a 'strongly held' Vbase has maybe five flackers defending if you're lucky. One or two sets of lancs come in and its all over with. IMO lancs should be perked in the MW.
Again IMO anything with a bombsite and drones excluding the Ju88s should not be able to drop bombs outside the F6 mode.
I agree with yor second opinion. The lanc is just too vulnerable to fighters for it to be a perk A/C.
And your right about the flack thing too.
-
It's a fine idea, and I like it, but the key word is HOW?
There is no practical way to fix this - what can you do - prevent bombs from being dropped with a significantly negative rate of descent? Yeah, it might work, but then you run into other problems. What about someone bombing GVs in a B-25H? They've got no bombsight, so suddenly you have one bomber where you need to allow bombs to be dropped whilst in a dive. Then the same will probably go for the TBM, the SBD, IL-2, A-20 and so on. Essentially, your 'solution' has just gotten extremely complicated.
What I'm trying to say is that preventing bombs from being released in a dive would prevent lancstukaing, but it would create other problems - a few of which I mentioned above. Additionally, if you did take that measure, you'd be detracting from one key freedom in the game - the ability to do what you want in a plane, wherever and however you want to do it. That is NOT something I'd like to see happen at all.
Plus, if you couldn't lancstuka, people would just find other ways to do it. Maybe very low, but still level Lanc carpet bombing. Think of the whines that would cause.
Auto pilot on? Level flight only? Bomb sight only? Altitude minimums (bomb flight minimums)?
-
No more torpedoes from Ki-67s?
the ki 67 has torps, i havent found a way to do a torp run not in f3 or f1 mode if you can, please enlighteh me
:rolleyes:
I don't remember saying anything about torpedoes being effected.
-
bombs shouldnt be released under neg g. I posted this picture before, but of course the "game experts" indicated that It couldn't be done without recoding ah from scratch. its funny how some people will argue to death to have accuracy in fighters, but mention buff dive bombing and it's ok with them. btw look at this picture b26 releasing bombs while upside down, is funny.
semp
(http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr285/semperac/bombingupsidedown.jpg)
-
bombs should be releasable within the stated limits for the airframe, if the real aircraft could do it, the AH one should too. I dont remember anyone posting that heavies should be allowed to dive bomb.
another thing to mention is that lancstukaing gvs really isnt very effective, plenty of times I see people making a couple of passes salvo 5, getting 1 or 2 kills then landing and wonder why they bother. A20 is way more effective - potentially 8 tank kills with bombs plus a bunch of m3, jeep, m8, wirble kills with the .50 cals. 15 is my best so far without a rearm. even a heavy spit XVI will net you more kills than the average lancstuka sortie, and alot quicker too...
-
nothing should be allowed to dive bomb at any angle that would cause the bomb to come into contact with their plane after release. The stuka had a special bomb deflector mounted so its bomb wouldn't destroy it's propeller.
-
Bomb trapeze not a deflector. It would swing the bomb out of the prop arc.
-
OK. Sorry, I forgot exactly what it was. Either way, the germans took into account that a steep enough dive would cause the bomb to hit the propeller. I think we should make it so you can't drop at any angle that would cause the bomb to hit the plane.
-
nothing should be allowed to dive bomb at any angle that would cause the bomb to come into contact with their plane after release. The stuka had a special bomb deflector mounted so its bomb wouldn't destroy it's propeller.
Seeing as the B-25 has no propellers on the nose, none of this should apply to it (except the negative-g bit, of course) :D
-
You still shouldn't be able to drop it the bomb would hit or glanse of the plane in any way.
-
You still shouldn't be able to drop it. The bomb would hit or glance off the plane anyway.
Fixed so others would not get a headache translating squeaker.
;)
-
you should have changed the "t" in "it" to an "f".
-
Damn, have to update my squeaker translator to version 2.5. :neener:
-
Its really not that hard to understand Bronk. If you feel like flaming go flame the OP.
-
Its really not that hard to understand Bronk. If you feel like flaming go flame the OP.
Why.. I want lancastucas stopped.
Boy are you thin skinned.
-
I'm not upset Bronk. And I'm sorry, I meant flame those that like lancstukas.
-
You need to look at how the release mechanism worked in the real plane.
If it couldn't release after a certain angle then is shouldn't release in here.
-
You need to look at how the release mechanism worked in the real plane.
If it couldn't release after a certain angle then is shouldn't release in here.
actually, one could take that a bit further and say if the aircraft didnt perform that role in the real deal then why allow it in AH? I'll be the first in line to say that Lancasters did NOT do laps around a single, or two, or three gv's in order to get a perfect angle on them for a dive bomb. I dont even have to look that up. Lancs may have done low level bombing raids at 1000ft and lower, but dive bombing gv's, or cv's, etc was not in the SOP. They were far too valuable to expose them in that manner AND there were far more effective aircraft for that role (direct support) than the Lanc.
Lancasters performed level bombing, while using the bomb sight, and the pilot didnt even have control of the aircraft.
-
actually, one could take that a bit further and say if the aircraft didnt perform that role in the real deal then why allow it in AH? I'll be the first in line to say that Lancasters did NOT do laps around a single, or two, or three gv's in order to get a perfect angle on them for a dive bomb. I dont even have to look that up. Lancs may have done low level bombing raids at 1000ft and lower, but dive bombing gv's, or cv's, etc was not in the SOP. They were far too valuable to expose them in that manner AND there were far more effective aircraft for that role (direct support) than the Lanc.
Lancasters performed level bombing, while using the bomb sight, and the pilot didnt even have control of the aircraft.
Nevermind IIRC they opperated mostly at night...something we dont have.
-
actually, one could take that a bit further and say if the aircraft didnt perform that role in the real deal then why allow it in AH? I'll be the first in line to say that Lancasters did NOT do laps around a single, or two, or three gv's in order to get a perfect angle on them for a dive bomb. I dont even have to look that up. Lancs may have done low level bombing raids at 1000ft and lower, but dive bombing gv's, or cv's, etc was not in the SOP. They were far too valuable to expose them in that manner AND there were far more effective aircraft for that role (direct support) than the Lanc.
Lancasters performed level bombing, while using the bomb sight, and the pilot didnt even have control of the aircraft.
The 2 concepts are not even close to the same. If it could, vs if it did. Where do you draw the line on if it did? Most thing done in the main arena were never done in the war. Things like going out alone in a tank. Things like spawning rapidly to defend a base. I.E. What you propose would be the first thing ever changed just because it was never tried in the war. But then again the main reason it wasn't don in real life, is it made you very likely to die before you would return to base.
Also the physics are not just about angle of release. In the calculations , the G load must also be considered because the plane then flys away from the bomb after drop.
HiTech
-
Point remains that you can drop bombs from a Lancaster while inverted. :banana:
-
I would like to see collisions between the airframe and the bombs modeled, but I don't think that there should be artificial tools added to stop heavy bombers from slope bombing.
-
OK, thats sounds good Karnak. If they bomb too steeply, then the bombs will impact with the plane, causing some spining, flipping, or maybe just death depending on were it hits. Cause 1000lbs is a LOT when it hits a plane.
-
I would like to see collisions between the airframe and the bombs modeled, but I don't think that there should be artificial tools added to stop heavy bombers from slope bombing.
+1
-
to tell the truth i carpet bomb when in lancs so i hit 7 at a time... if worried about a game lanc eating dirt when suicide bombing you, just stick with an osti...
-
I agree it needs to be fixed. How? I will leave that to HTC...
make the wings weaker. If you dive and gain too much e, wings rip off, try to pull out of a steep dive, wings rip off. that will end it.
-
The 2 concepts are not even close to the same. If it could, vs if it did. Where do you draw the line on if it did? Most thing done in the main arena were never done in the war. Things like going out alone in a tank. Things like spawning rapidly to defend a base. I.E. What you propose would be the first thing ever changed just because it was never tried in the war. But then again the main reason it wasn't don in real life, is it made you very likely to die before you would return to base.
Also the physics are not just about angle of release. In the calculations , the G load must also be considered because the plane then flys away from the bomb after drop.
HiTech
Point taken on the "if it could vs if it did" when bringing the entire AH realm into the fray. Where does the line get drawn? I believe that when a weapons platform is grossly abused or misused it at least warrants a review and if there is a simple fix then hopefully it can at least be contemplated. In the case of the Lancs-Stuka, coding the Lancaster and the rest of the big bombers ('cept for the the Ju88's) to only be able to drop bombs from the bombardiers (F6) position, seems to be an "easy" fix at least according to other coders here. I'm sure the gamers will figure out a way to Lanc-Stuka regardless, much like the guys who hit "open doors-release ords-close doors" all in about 1.5 seconds. Obviously.. that is an issue in its own right.
At one time, I was a proponent of the "minimum altitude", but that might actually be too restricting. I know there were some very low alt bombing raids against prepared Japanese defensive positions in "the slot", I have my grandfather's pilot logs and he flew his B24D at 550ft (est) while dropping ord on more that one mission.
-
So I say we get an official answer, is there any reason something that limits unrealistic things (bombs passing through an A/C, etc) from happening shouldn't be added?
-
hmm what i think is that the only way this WILL happen is if it in a Frame or FSO or something relistic. Its gonna stay in the MA :huh
-
Point remains that you can drop bombs from a Lancaster while inverted. :banana:
1g is 1g, inverted or not... the bomb doesn't know its upside down :) and a lanc pulling 1 g inverted probbly aint surviving long anyway..
is there really a problem with people bombing while inverted? :uhoh
-
1g is 1g, inverted or not... the bomb doesn't know its upside down :) and a lanc pulling 1 g inverted probbly aint surviving long anyway..
is there really a problem with people bombing while inverted? :uhoh
Actually no, since noone in the right mind does it in a 4-engined bomber.
-
Essentially, your 'solution' has just gotten extremely complicated.
It's not complicated at all.
If the code this game is written in is worth two toejams, it would be very easy to add angle of attack limitations to particular aircraft. Other games already do this.
It would be a matter of HTC deciding which aircraft.
-
The gaminess is due to the following:
1) There are no negative consequences of dying; in fact, there are some POSITIVE consequences of dying (you don't have to RTB and land and you can re-up faster).
2) There's no guilt associated with not only killing yourself, but destroying a very expensive bomber and killing a bunch of crew members that you've flown with for a long time.
The conditions in the MA basically steer players's behavior so that in real life, they'd be categorized as narcissistic sociopaths.
I'm not sure if anyone's played Dungeons and Dragons but WAYYY back in the day, when it was first published, there was an obscure rule referred to as the "Angry Villager Rule". What this rule said was that no matter how powerful and well armed the party, if they went around and started acting like a bunch of sociopaths (killing villagers for no reason just to steal their stuff), the DM could rule that the villagers somehow devise a way to defeat them. It was basically a way to steer people's behavior so they would face consequences for narcissistic sociopathic behavior and basically avoid gamey stuff. A bit heavy-handed, but it worked.
However, people thought the rule impinged on their "fun" so it disappeared in later editions of the game.
If you want to get rid of gaminess, you're going to need some kind of "Angry Village Rule" and have to steal yourself to the fact that there will be an uproar from people who have just had their fun squashed.
-
1g is 1g, inverted or not... the bomb doesn't know its upside down :) and a lanc pulling 1 g inverted probbly aint surviving long anyway..
is there really a problem with people bombing while inverted? :uhoh
Accuracy is valuable for its own sake where it won't impede gameplay.