Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Bear69 on February 03, 2010, 11:12:33 AM
-
I'm curious as tot he largest damage ammounts people have seen landed for a single bomber sortie? 17,405 is my best so far.
-
:huh
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
LMAO - Hey you mentioned sheep - wheres da sheep? :rock we need our sheeps back :x :x
HP
-
19,700 give or take 10 I can't remember. Lanc strat run with the 4,000 pounder on a town on my egress.
-
26,864 in a b-26, it wwas in the mid-war (purple arena) the county i was on had a base right next to the strats so i bombed it and can back to refuel/reload my ord. I did that bout 4 times then landed.
-
I'm curious as tot he largest damage ammounts people have seen landed for a single bomber sortie? 17,405 is my best so far.
Nice Bear good job sir . My best so far was 16,089 :aok
-
Did they adjust bomber damage points?
Because I can remember the time when the new strat town came out I got something like 7 Million points for a Lanc run.
-
Did they adjust bomber damage points?
Because I can remember the time when the new strat town came out I got something like 7 Million points for a Lanc run.
Yes they did, the millions of points lasted only a few days.
And for the OP question, my "best" milkrun was 22,561 points landed in a Lancaster when I tested the new strats and landed damage display, no reloads. It was confirming my initial suspicion that attacking the strats is unfortunately not the way to go for score & text buffer fame, as I got this result by not attacking the best defended target in game but was simply milking remote, undefended structures.
-
Somewhere round 15k was my best, most of the time i'm hitting tactical targets. I'll run with 2 others and hit a base to pull pressure off a furball. When we do that,we may get 2-3 targets tops on a run.
-
Waste of text buffer space IMO, It should be like kills where it doesnt show every single bomber landing, I saw someone land 575......make it 10000 for it to even show up on the buffer :salute
-
Waste of text buffer space IMO, It should be like kills where it doesnt show every single bomber landing, I saw someone land 575......make it 10000 for it to even show up on the buffer :salute
Yeah, I agree. The system message of "limp wristed toolshedder landed XXXX points of damage..." is a total waste of buffer space but I guess the fluffers...err I mean buffers were crying that their names weren't in lights. It's honestly one of the gayest things in the game.
ack-ack
-
I'm glad to see it, no doubt fighters would be whining if they didn't get their name in lights. But I'm all for a minimum, I'd make it way less than 10,000 though, probably somewhere between 1-3k.
-
I'm glad to see it, no doubt fighters would be whining if they didn't get their name in lights. But I'm all for a minimum, I'd make it way less than 10,000 though, probably somewhere between 1-3k.
Fighting something that doesn't move at all and can barely defend itself? Hardly deserves having your name in lights. :(
-
Yeah, I agree. The system message of "limp wristed toolshedder landed XXXX points of damage..." is a total waste of buffer space but I guess the fluffers...err I mean buffers were crying that their names weren't in lights. It's honestly one of the gayest things in the game.
ack-ack
This from a buff stick. :rolleyes:
Fighting something that doesn't move at all and can barely defend itself? Hardly deserves having your name in lights. :(
Bombers do get attacked ,not like they don't have to fight.
-
Text BUFFer overload
-
This from a buff stick. :rolleyes:
P-38 is not a bomber! :furious :cry
ack-ack
-
This from a buff stick. :rolleyes:
Bombers do get attacked ,not like they don't have to fight.
Yes, I was just refering to having damage points in lights. If you get kills, that's another thing.
-
Well to get damage points many times you have to fly into a field with many enemy,watch them as you try to get in bomber sight get lined up with a (small) hanger ,all the time watching all the buff killers, get it calibrated correctly make sure you have the correct bombs selected make sure doors are open.....look, still no enemy on you..or worse this is one,then line up drop your eggs,and maybe you live
I think if you make it home threw all that you might have some pride in how well you did.And I'm not saying all this because i fly buffs,i hardly ever.
-
Sometimes bomb runs are easy, some bomb runs are intense.
Vulchers still land their kills, campers still land their kills, with no way to differentiate how hard they fought for them. Sometimes I'm thrilled to land a few thousand points because they were hard earned, other times I'm just satisfied with landing many more points that didn't involve fighting.
You want to get rid of the whole "name in lights" thing all together, fine, but don't tell me that the hour I spent upping those bombers, planning an attack, dropping targets, fighting off red guys, and making it out isn't worth anything.
-
B17s 14469
B24s 16999
Lancs 31199
-
Sometimes bomb runs are easy, some bomb runs are intense.
Vulchers still land their kills, campers still land their kills, with no way to differentiate how hard they fought for them. Sometimes I'm thrilled to land a few thousand points because they were hard earned, other times I'm just satisfied with landing many more points that didn't involve fighting.
You want to get rid of the whole "name in lights" thing all together, fine, but don't tell me that the hour I spent upping those bombers, planning an attack, dropping targets, fighting off red guys, and making it out isn't worth anything.
SIr <S>, respectfully, I thank you for flying buffs and giving more to our game than you take away.
I enjoy hunting bombers but I do not fly them. Truly when I happen upon one of you at 25k, or less even, I feel remorseful that you have spent your time to climb that high to produce a historic and fun mission for both of us as I attack. I am also pleased that now "buff dudes" get the acknowledgment they have earned in the buffer. You gents are seldom "easy" kills and you will always find a <S> from me when I break off no matter if I have shot down 1, 2, 3, or none. It is obvious most "buff dudes" have more patience than many here and again <S> thanks for investing your time to make it more fun here.
Conversly, anyone who wants to grab some alt in a buff and have me escort them has only to ask.
-
I'll run with 2 others and hit a base to pull pressure off a furball.
Furballs do not require pressure to be taken off. :furious
-
Furballs do not require pressure to be taken off. :furious
The above gets "it". :old: :aok
-
P-38 is not a bomber! :furious :cry
ack-ack
Warning All
Do not listen to the above propaganda.
-
Furballs do not require pressure to be taken off. :furious
OK, maybe my definition of a furball is different from yours, so lets try this again. If there are a whole bunch of fighters trying to swarm a base, and we have a problem getting guys off the ground or to there to defend it, then I go hit the base where the enemy is coming from. Conversely, if we're trying to take a base, then I'll hit hangars on outlying bases after hitting the base we're attacking. Those are tactical targets. If you guys are duking it out over the ocean somewhere or in between bases, but aren't really threatening anything, fine. Have fun, I won't interfere. As soon as you start threatening a base, then I'll get involved.
What I don't get is all the animosity towards Buff drivers. We hit hangars, we're stealing fun. We hit a VH, someone gets ticked off because now the spawn the have been camping is inactive. We fly more then 2 deep, we're a horde. If we hit a strat we're score padding.
-
OK, maybe my definition of a furball is different from yours, so lets try this again. If there are a whole bunch of fighters trying to swarm a base, and we have a problem getting guys off the ground or to there to defend it
This is not a furball. This may have been a furball earlier, but turned into a vulchfest. It often is called "furball" by lil generals that are furious that nobody kills a town where they are waiting with troops - but that doesn't make it more correct ;)
-
This is not a furball. This may have been a furball earlier, but turned into a vulchfest. It often is called "furball" by lil generals that are furious that nobody kills a town where they are waiting with troops - but that doesn't make it more correct ;)
LOL, I had a pretty simple definition then: a whole bunch of fighters in one area.
-
It often is called "furball" by lil generals that are furious that nobody kills a town where they are waiting with troops
GET THE TOWN GET THE TOWN :O!
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2115/2480547453_ed6dc2534e.jpg)
-
I'm glad to see it, no doubt fighters would be whining if they didn't get their name in lights. But I'm all for a minimum, I'd make it way less than 10,000 though, probably somewhere between 1-3k.
I landed 1900 -some-odd points for downing a single VH and a barracks that sufferred from my poor aim. That's not a very good run IMO, and not something that rises to the level of "getting your name in lights."
OTOH, I was in B-24s -- had I been in a Val, that would have been a very good run.
:headscratch:
Perhaps a change from points to bombing accuracy? Above 100% gets you an honorable mention?
-
Fighting something that doesn't move at all and can barely defend itself? Hardly deserves having your name in lights. :(
Would you rather have bombers bail in front of your gunsight as soon as you have them lined up to kill? Part of the reason HiTech (the guy you should complain to) implimented it is a small incentive (i.e. recognition) for the bomber pilot/squad/group in completing his/their run from take-off to landing.
Fighter pilots/squads/groups in WW2 were recognized for their kills they scored and staying alive to return home.
Bomber crews/squads/groups were recognized for the damage they inflicted, the kills they scored, and making it home.
But, this is a game. Some apparently believe historical flavor needs to be shelved. :rolleyes:
-
Would you rather have bombers bail in front of your gunsight as soon as you have them lined up to kill? Part of the reason HiTech (the guy you should complain to) implimented it is a small incentive (i.e. recognition) for the bomber pilot/squad/group in completing his/their run from take-off to landing.
Fighter pilots/squads/groups in WW2 were recognized for their kills they scored and staying alive to return home.
Bomber crews/squads/groups were recognized for the damage they inflicted, the kills they scored, and making it home.
But, this is a game. Some apparently believe historical flavor needs to be shelved. :rolleyes:
1. They still bail.
2. Land kills, great they deserve to be recognized.
3. If this was historically acurate, you wouldn't get to jump in another plane immediately after you die.
4. I don't recall bomber crews getting kudos based on the damage each plane incurred.
5. Lighten up, it is a game :lol
-
I landed 1900 -some-odd points for downing a single VH and a barracks that sufferred from my poor aim. That's not a very good run IMO, and not something that rises to the level of "getting your name in lights."
OTOH, I was in B-24s -- had I been in a Val, that would have been a very good run.
Perhaps a change from points to bombing accuracy? Above 100% gets you an honorable mention?
Don't feel bad, I had 1 run where I landed 370 damage. Apparently someone had a tent down there. Definitely not something to go up in lights for. I think a 5k run should be the minimum standard. I don't think it should be based on accuracy, that would pose to many variables. Does a hit consist of the bomb contacting the target or the does the target just have to be in the blast zone? On top of that you have drones too. If I use 250's to drop a hangar, I drop leading, top, and trailing. 1 actually hits, but all are in the blast zone.So is my accuracy 13% or 100% (3 bombs x 3 planes)? 1. They still bail.
2. Land kills, great they deserve to be recognized.
3. If this was historically acurate, you wouldn't get to jump in another plane immediately after you die.
4. I don't recall bomber crews getting kudos based on the damage each plane incurred.
5. Lighten up, it is a game :lol
1: Never bailed to deny a kill, I tend to go down all guns blazing.
2. True, they do deserve to be recognized, so does someone who does 2 passes on a base and knocks out ALL the offensive capabilities of it.
3. You also wouldn't re-arm and re-fuel in 30 seconds
4. "damage each plane incurred" means damage taken.Many bombers are famous for this. Memphis Belle, Ruptured Duck, Nine O' Nine, Old 666 (the cursed bomber), Flak Bait, Sally B just to name a few.On top of that many bombers were recognized for missions flown. The "crush cap" was used to signify that. Bombers were recognized for hitting targets, taking damage and getting home. As for damage dealt, you see it all the time in Naval History. Tonnage sank, tonnage damaged just to prove the point. In 1 year Black Cats sank over 117,000 tons while damaging 47,000 tons and 10 warships.
5. True, it is a game. I just don't think that Buff drivers appreciate having someone tell them that they're "hardly deserving of having their name in lights."
-
Don't feel bad, I had 1 run where I landed 370 damage. Apparently someone had a tent down there. Definitely not something to go up in lights for. I think a 5k run should be the minimum standard. I don't think it should be based on accuracy, that would pose to many variables. Does a hit consist of the bomb contacting the target or the does the target just have to be in the blast zone? On top of that you have drones too. If I use 250's to drop a hangar, I drop leading, top, and trailing. 1 actually hits, but all are in the blast zone.So is my accuracy 13% or 100% (3 bombs x 3 planes)?
1: Never bailed to deny a kill, I tend to go down all guns blazing.
2. True, they do deserve to be recognized, so does someone who does 2 passes on a base and knocks out ALL the offensive capabilities of it.
3. You also wouldn't re-arm and re-fuel in 30 seconds
4. "damage each plane incurred" means damage taken.Many bombers are famous for this. Memphis Belle, Ruptured Duck, Nine O' Nine, Old 666 (the cursed bomber), Flak Bait, Sally B just to name a few.On top of that many bombers were recognized for missions flown. The "crush cap" was used to signify that. Bombers were recognized for hitting targets, taking damage and getting home. As for damage dealt, you see it all the time in Naval History. Tonnage sank, tonnage damaged just to prove the point. In 1 year Black Cats sank over 117,000 tons while damaging 47,000 tons and 10 warships.
5. True, it is a game. I just don't think that Buff drivers appreciate having someone tell them that they're "hardly deserving of having their name in lights."
You want credit for sinking a boat? Fine, I have no problem with that. Blowing up a few buildings? Not necessary to have it flash to the whole arena. That is my point.
-
Don't feel bad, I had 1 run where I landed 370 damage. Apparently someone had a tent down there. Definitely not something to go up in lights for. I think a 5k run should be the minimum standard. I don't think it should be based on accuracy, that would pose to many variables. Does a hit consist of the bomb contacting the target or the does the target just have to be in the blast zone? On top of that you have drones too. If I use 250's to drop a hangar, I drop leading, top, and trailing. 1 actually hits, but all are in the blast zone.So is my accuracy 13% or 100% (3 bombs x 3 planes)?
I was thinking 5K as well until as I was typing the last post I realized that a 5K damage run may be next to impossible if not completely impossible in the light bombers. In other words, if getting the damage listed is any incentive at all, it is only an incentive to take up Lancasters so you have the payload to do more damage even when your accuracy stinks.
Which is why I suggested hit percent as a yardstick. It wouldn't have to be any more complicated than the calculations used for bombing percentage today. As I understand it, any target damaged in the blast radius counts toward the hit %. One target damaged with first bomb, 100% hit. Second bomb dropped, 2 targets damaged, 200% hit. Average for your two bombs, 3 objects damaged, 150% hit. Of all the bombs you dropped, did your damage percent exceed 100%? Yes, then "Bombstud landed bombing run with 150% hit accuracy."
Not sure it is the best way, but it would do some leveling of the light vs. heavy bombers . . . and might make Stukas with the MOABs more plentiful . . . mmmmm crunchy.
-
You want credit for sinking a boat? Fine, I have no problem with that. Blowing up a few buildings? Not necessary to have it flash to the whole arena. That is my point.
You want credit for shooting down a plane? Fine, I have no problem with that. Getting credit because some guy augured next to you? Not necessary to have it flash the whole arena. That is MY point. :D
-
You want credit for shooting down a plane? Fine, I have no problem with that. Getting credit because some guy augured next to you? Not necessary to have it flash the whole arena. That is MY point. :D
I wasn't talking to you and I earn my kills. Feel free to land all the proxy kills you like :lol
-
I wasn't talking to you and I earn my kills. Feel free to land all the proxy kills you like :lol
lol Well my point is that sometimes bomber guys really earn their damage too.
-
lol Well my point is that sometimes bomber guys really earn their damage too.
Someone needs attention :D
-
I've only landed 9,000 :(
-
How about a simple check box on whether or not you want the system messages to be displayed?
-
Someone needs attention :D
Before they made the change, the though of recognizing bomber damage honestly never crossed my mind. Once they did, it made total sense to me. I don't need my name in lights to enjoy myself, I enjoyed bombing long before the damage.
But, you are stuck to your view and I'm not going to change your mind.
So keep being stubborn. :lol <S>
-
Before they made the change, the though of recognizing bomber damage honestly never crossed my mind. Once they did, it made total sense to me. I don't need my name in lights to enjoy myself, I enjoyed bombing long before the damage.
But, you are stuck to your view and I'm not going to change your mind.
So keep being stubborn. :lol <S>
Please explain the "sense" to me. :rolleyes:
-
Please explain the "sense" to me. :rolleyes:
sense (sns)
n.
1.
a. Any of the faculties by which stimuli from outside or inside the body are received and felt, as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium.
b. A perception or feeling produced by a stimulus; sensation: a sense of fatigue and hunger.
2. senses The faculties of sensation as means of providing physical gratification and pleasure.
3.
a. An intuitive or acquired perception or ability to estimate: a sense of diplomatic timing.
b. A capacity to appreciate or understand: a keen sense of humor.
c. A vague feeling or presentiment: a sense of impending doom.
d. Recognition or perception either through the senses or through the intellect; consciousness: has no sense of shame.
4.
a. Natural understanding or intelligence, especially in practical matters: The boy had sense and knew just what to do when he got lost.
b. The normal ability to think or reason soundly. Often used in the plural: Have you taken leave of your senses?
c. Something sound or reasonable: There's no sense in waiting three hours.
5.
a. A meaning that is conveyed, as in speech or writing; signification: The sense of the novel is the inevitability of human tragedy.
b. One of the meanings of a word or phrase: The word set has many senses. See Synonyms at meaning.
6.
a. Judgment; consensus: sounding out the sense of the electorate on capital punishment.
b. Intellectual interpretation, as of the significance of an event or the conclusions reached by a group: I came away from the meeting with the sense that we had resolved all outstanding issues.
Sorry, couldn't resist :D
-
Thanks MadHatter :lol
First of all, explain the sense of showing kills landed for fighters.
-
Thanks MadHatter :lol
First of all, explain the sense of showing kills landed for fighters.
There is none and I could care less. Still waiting for your definition of "sense"?
-
1. They still bail.
2. Land kills, great they deserve to be recognized.
4. I don't recall bomber crews getting kudos based on the damage each plane incurred.
5. Lighten up, it is a game :lol
1. yes they do.
2. They should
3. Bomber crews celebrated drops on target and kills on the noses of their plane. Just like fighter aces.
4. Take your own advise. :aok
On one note. The other day I shot 4 rockets into buildings with a TBM, and still got my name in lights. Alittle more tweaking with the bomber damage thing would be nice IMO. Oopps now the bomber boys will stone me AHHHH!!! :bolt:
-
On one note. The other day I shot 4 rockets into buildings with a TBM, and still got my name in lights. Alittle more tweaking with the bomber damage thing would be nice IMO. Oopps now the bomber boys will stone me AHHHH!!! :bolt:
You are right, it does need tweaking.
There is none and I could care less. Still waiting for your definition of "sense"?
Fair enough, then in that case there is no sense in recognizing bomber damage either. But if you're going to recognize fighters doing what they do, it makes sense to recognize bombers for doing what they do.
-
1. yes they do.
2. They should
3. Bomber crews celebrated drops on target and kills on the noses of their plane. Just like fighter aces.
4. Take your own advise. :aok
On one note. The other day I shot 4 rockets into buildings with a TBM, and still got my name in lights. Alittle more tweaking with the bomber damage thing would be nice IMO. Oopps now the bomber boys will stone me AHHHH!!! :bolt:
This isn't what we are talking about. Don't recall any buildings being painted on the side of a bomber. Take your meds :aok
-
This isn't what we are talking about. Don't recall any buildings being painted on the side of a bomber. Take your meds :aok
Touche, If I do recall. Industry and ammo factories were a form of building. :D Bear :noid
When I land a few kills in a Wildcat, or Hellcat. I think of Butch' Ohare or Thatch landing pics.
Maybe some of the bomber boys have pics of Memphis Belle returning on it's last mission. That's what I was saying any woo. MMM Cookies!
-
For a WWII pilot, it would be a lot easier for a fighter to tell if a plane is down or not. It's not as easy for a bomber to count buildings, or determine if the building is destroyed, what qualifies as destroyed? Fighters could quantify enemy planes really easy, if the plane went down... one. It was impossible to quantify damage.
But in this virtual world we love so much, we can quantify it easy, so why not take advantage of it? Fighters get plenty of benefits from the virtual world. Off the top of my head think if you shot someone up and they head home. You'd never know what happened to that pilot and cannot confirm that as a kill. What if that guy crashed as a result of the damage you had done to him, well through the magic of AH he could be hundreds of miles away yet you still get credited with a kill.
-
Touche, If I do recall. Industry and ammo factories were a form of building. :D Bear :noid
When I land a few kills in a Wildcat, or Hellcat. I think of Butch' Ohare or Thatch landing pics.
Maybe some of the bomber boys have pics of Memphis Belle returning on it's last mission. That's what I was saying any woo. MMM Cookies!
Bombers were tagged according to missions flown and landed and kills. On the nose a bomb usually denoted a mission and a kill was either the rising sun or the swastika.
(http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/845/idiotsdelight.th.jpg) (http://img693.imageshack.us/i/idiotsdelight.jpg/)
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1060/devilhimself.th.jpg) (http://img13.imageshack.us/i/devilhimself.jpg/)
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4364/9o9q.th.jpg) (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/9o9q.jpg/)
Here's some of the "cleaner" ones.
*Edit* Oops, had to delete one that could get me in trouble
-
Don't recall any buildings being painted on the side of a bomber.
Do you read history? Of course, you just stated you don't care.
-
Do you read history? Of course, you just stated you don't care.
All the time. Do you? My point is, air to air kills and assists required verification to receive credit. This wasn't 100% accurate. The "Yamamoto" mission for example. The AAR's reported 3 Betty's shot down. Japanese records after the war stated only 2 were in the flight. On top of that, 2 pilots claimed the kill on Yamamoto's plane. Like I said, not 100% accurate. Bombing missions were usually followed up by an aireal recon. They didn't have the ability to say plane # so and so killed 15 buildings, plane # whatever destroyed 8 buildings. Sure, a single plane mission could do that, but how many missions were like that? That's all I'm saying.
-
All the time. Do you? My point is, air to air kills and assists required verification to receive credit. This wasn't 100% accurate. The "Yamamoto" mission for example. The AAR's reported 3 Betty's shot down. Japanese records after the war stated only 2 were in the flight. On top of that, 2 pilots claimed the kill on Yamamoto's plane. Like I said, not 100% accurate. Bombing missions were usually followed up by an aireal recon. They didn't have the ability to say plane # so and so killed 15 buildings, plane # whatever destroyed 8 buildings. Sure, a single plane mission could do that, but how many missions were like that? That's all I'm saying.
What you've been saying has been buff drivers are pointless and useless, whatever damage we've done was by taking the easy route and not worth any recognition. In case you forgot......
Fighting something that doesn't move at all and can barely defend itself? Hardly deserves having your name in lights. :(
You want credit for sinking a boat? Fine, I have no problem with that. Blowing up a few buildings? Not necessary to have it flash to the whole arena. That is my point.
The fact remains, there are people who like to drive buffs. I'm one, Thndr's another. We have different views on a successful mission and what should qualify for recognition. You're right, kicking over a tent shouldn't be recognized, but landing about 5000 points should be. Besides the whole point of the OP was how much has been brought home, not whether or not you thought it worth the name in lights.
-
What you've been saying has been buff drivers are pointless and useless, whatever damage we've done was by taking the easy route and not worth any recognition. In case you forgot......
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I never stated that nor do I believe that, in case you forgot :lol
-
What you've been saying has been buff drivers are pointless and useless, whatever damage we've done was by taking the easy route and not worth any recognition. In case you forgot......The fact remains, there are people who like to drive buffs. I'm one, Thndr's another. We have different views on a successful mission and what should qualify for recognition. You're right, kicking over a tent shouldn't be recognized, but landing about 5000 points should be. Besides the whole point of the OP was how much has been brought home, not whether or not you thought it worth the name in lights.
Well, I've never felt the need for recognition. Some do I guess.
-
Bombers were tagged according to missions flown and landed and kills. On the nose a bomb usually denoted a mission and a kill was either the rising sun or the swastika.
Here's some of the "cleaner" ones.
*Edit* Oops, had to delete one that could get me in trouble
Some crews would also paint silhouettes of some of their 'kills'. I remember seeing a photo of a Marine B-25 that had silhouettes of a destroyer and barges painted along with bombs denoting missions flown.
ack-ack
-
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I never stated that nor do I believe that, in case you forgot :lol
I just quoted you twice stating the exact opposite. Both times you state that damage landed ( "Blowing up a few buildings....."; "Hardly deserving...." ) wasn't worth the recognition.
Well, I've never felt the need for recognition. Some do I guess.
You're right some do, and if you've never felt the need for recognition then why are you so adamant about damage landed not worthy of it?
Ack-Ack, I've seen art like that too, especially from the Naval side of things.
-
Some crews would also paint silhouettes of some of their 'kills'. I remember seeing a photo of a Marine B-25 that had silhouettes of a destroyer and barges painted along with bombs denoting missions flown.
ack-ack
My crew chief is putting on the finishing touches of an "outhouse" silhoutte on my plane from last nights mission :D
-
My crew chief is putting on the finishing touches of an "outhouse" silhoutte on my plane from last nights mission :D
:rofl yea I think I hit a few of those too
-
I just quoted you twice stating the exact opposite. Both times you state that damage landed ( "Blowing up a few buildings....."; "Hardly deserving...." ) wasn't worth the recognition.
You're right some do, and if you've never felt the need for recognition then why are you so adamant about damage landed not worthy of it?
Ack-Ack, I've seen art like that too, especially from the Naval side of things.
"What you've been saying has been buff drivers are pointless and useless, whatever damage we've done was by taking the easy route and not worth any recognition. In case you forgot......"
I never said this. This is your spin on it. If you're going to quote me, at least get it right. Subliminal guilt maybe?
:lol
-
"What you've been saying has been buff drivers are pointless and useless, whatever damage we've done was by taking the easy route and not worth any recognition. In case you forgot......"
I never said this. This is your spin on it. If you're going to quote me, at least get it right. Subliminal guilt maybe?
:lol
I did get it right. You've inferred it quite often enough. If damage landed is not worth any sort of recognition at all, as you have said twice now, then one would assume that trying to do so would be pointless in your eyes. If this is not how you feel, then why are you so adamant against buffs receiving any sort recognition aside from kills? Hence the uselessness. The recognition is a way for buff drivers to "stack up" against one another. You landed 5k, I'll go land 7k. That sort of thing.
-
I did get it right. You've inferred it quite often enough. If damage landed is not worth any sort of recognition at all, as you have said twice now, then one would assume that trying to do so would be pointless in your eyes. If this is not how you feel, then why are you so adamant against buffs receiving any sort recognition aside from kills? Hence the uselessness. The recognition is a way for buff drivers to "stack up" against one another. You landed 5k, I'll go land 7k. That sort of thing.
No you didn't, but I don't imagine that's anything new. Actually, I was thinking you're the adamant one, this whole thread has had me chuckling. Maybe the fighter guys can start a "Look how many kills I landed thread". Knock yourself out on the text buffer, but give up the mind reading thing. It's not your forte. :D
P.S. - I guess all the hours and thousands of "Bomber" perk points I've accumulated over the years has been "Pointless and Useless". Well, they are pretty much, unless I choose to auger some 234's. :D
-
No you didn't, but I don't imagine that's anything new. Actually, I was thinking you're the adamant one, this whole thread has had me chuckling. Maybe the fighter guys can start a "Look how many kills I landed thread". Knock yourself out on the text buffer, but give up the mind reading thing. It's not your forte. :D
You're right, I am adamant. And yet again, you sidestep the question. You believe kills landed is worth it, but damage landed is not. Why are you so adamant about bombers not receiving recognition for damage landed?
-
You're right, I am adamant. And yet again, you sidestep the question. You believe kills landed is worth it, but damage landed is not. Why are you so adamant about bombers not receiving recognition for damage landed?
re-read my above post. And I believe I stated landing kills is unimportant. Mr. Adamant ;)
-
re-read my above post. And I believe I stated landing kills is unimportant. Mr. Adamant ;)
No you said recognition was unimportant to you. But you've also stated that landing kills deserves to be recognized,
Yes, I was just refering to having damage points in lights. If you get kills, that's another thing.
2. Land kills, great they deserve to be recognized.
and then you go on to say that it makes no sense to you to recognize it. You keep changing your story, which is it going to be?
-
No you said recognition was unimportant to you. But you've also stated that landing kills deserves to be recognized,
and then you go on to say that it makes no sense to you to recognize it. You keep changing your story, which is it going to be?
I know you're a little slow, so try to follow. The old system of landing kills in a bomber makes more sense then landing "damage" points. Am I going too fast? I believe it makes no sense having kills shown on the buffer period. Still with me? Obviously, they aren't going to eliminate that. Damage points in lights just encourages people to do "whatever" to get their name in lights, just like it does for fighters. Now, I know you're new, but I can't explain it any simpler than that.
-
I know you're a little slow, so try to follow. The old system of landing kills in a bomber makes more sense then landing "damage" points. Am I going too fast? I believe it makes no sense having kills shown on the buffer period. Still with me? Obviously, they aren't going to eliminate that. Damage points in lights just encourages people to do "whatever" to get their name in lights, just like it does for fighters. Now, I know you're new, but I can't explain it any simpler than that.
I really doubt many people are taking up bombers now just so they can get their names in lights. It's obvious your argument is falling apart because you're resorted to attacking MadHatter's intelligence because he disagrees with you.
-
I really doubt many people are taking up bombers now just so they can get their names in lights. It's obvious your argument is falling apart because you're resorted to attacking MadHatter's intelligence because he disagrees with you.
Well, repeating myself makes me assume he has a hard time following along. I was never arguing, just commenting on the riculousness of this whole "look at me thread". You guys have been very entertaining though. :lol
Obvious to whom? Like I said, knock yourselves out and pat each other on the back. I'll still be chuckling.
-
MAdHatter, I do believe Bear, is in the process of filibustering now. It's only a matter of time. Till he needs to use the little boys room. :old:
-
MAdHatter, I do believe Bear, is in the process of filibustering now. It's only a matter of time till. He needs to use the little boys room. :old:
That damn bladder again :D
-
Well, repeating myself makes me assume he has a hard time following along. I was never arguing, just commenting on the riculousness of this whole "look at me thread". You guys have been very entertaining though. :lol
Obvious to whom? Like I said, knock yourselves out and pat each other on the back. I'll still be chuckling.
:rolleyes: If you would stick to the same argument it'd be easier. :lol
You're getting desperate now, we're just talking about part of the game we all enjoy. You don't like the damage points, there was no reason for you to get into this thread. You act as if no one ever talks about their ability in a fighter or that they land kills in a fighter. :huh
-
:rolleyes: If you would stick to the same argument it'd be easier. :lol
You're getting desperate now, we're just talking about part of the game we all enjoy. You don't like the damage points, there was no reason for you to get into this thread. You act as if no one ever talks about their ability in a fighter or that they land kills in a fighter. :huh
Desperate for what? I'm not the one looking for recognition, that's your arguement, not mine. I enjoy it too, and I've been doing it a lot longer than you. The "look at me in a fighter" threads get the same reaction. Carry on with your "recognition" crusade and thanks for the laughs. :salute
The whole name in lights thing for "all" is still pointless though, which was my point all along. Sorry you missed it :D
P.S. - actually I did hear someone on country state they weren't landing any kills, so they were going to go bomb some strat. Sure enough, a short while latter they did. When you've been here awhile, you'll find some people will do almost anything to get their name in lights. I'll be sure to "wtg" you when you do.
-
Well, repeating myself makes me assume he has a hard time following along. I was never arguing, just commenting on the riculousness of this whole "look at me thread". You guys have been very entertaining though. :lol
Obvious to whom? Like I said, knock yourselves out and pat each other on the back. I'll still be chuckling.
This is the first time you mentioned the "look at me thread". Matter of fact the first thing you did was attack the issue of bombers getting their name in lights.
Fighting something that doesn't move at all and can barely defend itself? Hardly deserves having your name in lights. :(
Then you go on to say that kills deserve to be recognized. Then you change your story and say it makes no sense for anything to be recognized. And then it's you don't care either way. Now it's you were just commenting on this thread. I keep making you repeat yourself to see which story you're going to stick to.
*edit* Personally, I check the buffer to see the damage I've done. I would like to see the raise in the minimum required for a message tho.
-
Fighting something that doesn't move at all and can barely defend itself? Hardly deserves having your name in lights. :(
Your first quote, you started this with some idea of what deserves recognition and what doesn't. So... The whole name in lights thing for "all" is still pointless though, which was my point all along. Sorry you missed it :D
... yeah no.
Oh and don't worry, I find this discussion just as funny. :cheers:
*edit* Personally, I check the buffer to see the damage I've done. I would like to see the raise in the minimum required for a message tho.
I totally agree with you on that one, it's nice to know.
-
This is the first time you mentioned the "look at me thread". Matter of fact the first thing you did was attack the issue of bombers getting their name in lights.
Then you go on to say that kills deserve to be recognized. Then you change your story and say it makes no sense for anything to be recognized. And then it's you don't care either way. Now it's you were just commenting on this thread. I keep making you repeat yourself to see which story you're going to stick to.
Well you are right to a point, I should have said "More deserving than damage points". Does that help? I love your enthusiasm and I hope you become a buffer legend. I'm pulling for both of you. My "story" as you put it, has been the same all along, I just don't have control of which story you're reading. Carry on :salute
-
Oh and don't worry, I find this discussion just as funny. :cheers:
I totally agree with you on that one, it's nice to know.
Unless your side hurts, I doubt it. And yeah, we agree about one thing :salute
"I'm curious as tot he largest damage ammounts people have seen landed for a single bomber sortie? 17,405 is my best so far." - does qualify as a "Look at me thread". BTW
-
Unless your side hurts, I doubt it. And yeah, we agree about one thing :salute
"I'm curious as tot he largest damage ammounts people have seen landed for a single bomber sortie? 17,405 is my best so far." - does qualify as a "Look at me thread". BTW
See, I never saw it as a "look at me thread". I was excited to see what kind of damage could be landed, what planes they were doing it in, what they hit, etc. That's it.
BTW, we all get your condescending "I've been laughing at this whole thread" so you don't need to say that again.
-
We need GV damage points. :O
-
See, I never saw it as a "look at me thread". I was excited to see what kind of damage could be landed, what planes they were doing it in, what they hit, etc. That's it.
BTW, we all get your condescending "I've been laughing at this whole thread" so you don't need to say that again.
Sorry, but it seems I keep having to repeating myself. Condescending is kind of harsh, sarcastic maybe. :D
In all seriousness, I do applaud that you are sticking up for what you like doing. I wasn't trying to piss off anyone. I just know from experience there will be those that will go out of their way to impress the arena. Kudos to both of you and I hope your aim sucks when I try to shoot you down <S>
-
Sorry, but it seems I keep having to repeating myself. Condescending is kind of harsh, sarcastic maybe. :D
So can we just agree to disagree already? :)
:cheers:
-
Sorry, but it seems I keep having to repeating myself. Condescending is kind of harsh, sarcastic maybe. :D
In all seriousness, I do applaud that you are sticking up for what you like doing. I wasn't trying to piss off anyone. I just know from experience there will be those that will go out of their way to impress the arena. Kudos to both of you and I hope your aim sucks when I try to shoot you down <S>
Yea, hopefully Murphy's your co-pilot and not mine on that one :D I'm trying to figure out a way to get Thundr's crosshairs.
*edit* First time didn't come out the right way.
-
Agreed, get rid of the bombers point totals on landing.
Get rid of the fighters number of kills being posted on upon landing as well.
Heck, get rid of scoring of any kind.
(I can dream, can't I?)
-
<snip> OK, maybe my definition of a furball is different from yours, so lets try this again. If there are a whole bunch of fighters trying to swarm a base, and we have a problem getting guys off the ground or to there to defend it, then I go hit the base where the enemy is coming from. Conversely, if we're trying to take a base, then I'll hit hangars on outlying bases after hitting the base we're attacking. Those are tactical targets. </snip>
Here your saying your part of the fix and a part of the problem. First off your taking their hangars down so they can't continue hitting your base. Second off your taking down their hangars so they can't defend their base.
Exactly what is it you do again??
-
So can we just agree to disagree already? :)
:cheers:
It's a "last word" thing, Jay. My sons do this a lot.
-
Here your saying your part of the fix and a part of the problem. First off your taking their hangars down so they can't continue hitting your base. Second off your taking down their hangars so they can't defend their base.
Exactly what is it you do again??
Put big holes in other peoples backyards. I'm failing to see the solution/fix thing. If we're trying to cap/defend a base isn't that a way to do it?
Delirium, that be nice actually. Some sort of ability to turn off system messages.
-
Can I get a formation of 3 190A8s...so when one of them go down, I can just appear in another as it warps into position of the one that just blew up...and in the process cause a collision with the guy that shot me down? You can keep all the name in light crap that you want...I just want that. mkay thanks.
~S~
-
It's a "last word" thing, Jay. My sons do this a lot.
No it's a "get it right" thing and I'm probably old enough to your father :D
-
I know a lot of people older than me, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. :neener:
When the discussion begins to turn into argument over the discussion, it's probably time to stop. <S>
Oh, and I just noticed your edit up there and want you to know my aim won't be off. My only weekness in bomber guns is on my dead six about 500 out, I can't hit anything there, that's where you need to be if you want to shoot me down. :aok
-
I understand, just like people playing for a short time thinking they know what they are talking about :neener:
Bombers are like candy, too hard to resist :D
-
No it's a "get it right" thing and I'm probably old enough to your father :D
:old:<<<<<<<<<<<<Bear76 :rofl
<S>
Rokit
-
Bombers are like candy, too hard to resist :D
all too true....
-
I understand, just like people playing for a short time thinking they know what they are talking about :neener:
Bombers are like candy, too hard to resist :D
I think they have giant "aluminum magnets" in them, I try to just fly on by and ignore them but they keep pulling my nose to them so there aint nuthin left to do but fire.
-
Well to get damage points many times you have to fly into a field with many enemy,watch them as you try to get in bomber sight get lined up with a (small) hanger ,all the time watching all the buff killers, get it calibrated correctly make sure you have the correct bombs selected make sure doors are open.....look, still no enemy on you..or worse this is one,then line up drop your eggs,and maybe you live
I think if you make it home threw all that you might have some pride in how well you did.And I'm not saying all this because i fly buffs,i hardly ever.
perfect answer this is why you receive credit its just as hard to land this sortie and sometimes harder depending on the situation. :airplane:
-
You want credit for sinking a boat? Fine, I have no problem with that. Blowing up a few buildings? Not necessary to have it flash to the whole arena. That is my point.
Myabe we could have something like this in text buffer then:
JANUARY REPORTS
2 January 1943 - Capt. Clyde G. Gillespie of 322nd
Squadron was appointed Squadron Commander of 401st
Squadron and reported for duty.
3 January 1943 - Target for today was St. Nazaire,
France. Aiming point was torpedo shed near sub pens,
bomb load was 5 x 1000 G. P. bombs. Take off was at
0912 hours and ETR was St. Eval at 1410 hours. Groups
303, 305 91st and 206 were to furnish maximum number
of planes. 91st Group sent 14 A/C over target of
which 5 were from 322nd Squadron. #481, Capt.
Fishburne and Capt. Campbell; #482, Lt. Don C. Bader
(?); #483, Lt. Ralph Felton; #453, Lt. John T. Hardin;
#497, Lt. W. Genheimer.
E/A fighters hit us at target in large numbers. Heavy
flack, at 21,000 feet was intense and accurate, many
hits being scored. Bombing was good, pictures from
Lt. Hardin’s ship showing many hits on the target by
322nd. Coming off target Lt. Bader’s A/C was hit by
flack, one engine and wing catching fire. He was
forced to lose speed and fell behind. He called the
group leader over command set but Maj. Putnam did not
hear. Capt. Campbell leading B Flight heard him and
made a 360 degree circle to pick him up. As Campbell
arrived on Bader’s wing, Bader was being attacked by 5
E/A. Two were shot down and rest fled. E/A followed
our A/C 80 miles to sea, shooting down our A/C piloted
by Lt. Anderson of 401st Squadron. First Division (M)
got 38 E/A of which 24 were bagged by 91st and of these
the 322nd got 17 as follows:
#453, Lt. John T. Hardin; Sgt. Louis M. (?) Greenlee,
T.G., destroyed FW 190.
S/Sgt. Robert L. Rupp R. W., destroyed 2 FW 190s.
T/Sgt. Henry J. Wallach, B.T.G. destroyed FW 190. 2nd
Lt. John W. Beauchamp, Bomb., destroyed FW 190.
#497, Lt. Wm. Genheimer; S/Sgt. Arthur L. Berkowitz,
L.W.G., destroyed FW 190. Sgt. Rowland E. Hale,
T.T.G., damaged FW 190.
#481, Capt. Robert Campbell; Lt. Leonard V. Santoro,
Comb., destroyed FW 190. S/Sgt. N. R. Pidgeon, R.W.G.,
destroyed FW 190.S/Sgt. Leonard A. Panaro, T.T.G.,
destroyed FW 190. S/Sgt. J. A. Arbison (?), T.G.,
destroyed FW 190.
#482, Lt. Don C. Bader; Lt. J. W. Hensley, Nav.,
destroyed FW 190. S/Sgt. T. J. Hansbury, T.G.
destroyed 2 FW 190’s. S/SSgt. J. E. Hall, T.T.G.,
destroyed 2 FW 190’s.
S/Sgt. W. C. Budzisz, B.T.G., destroyed 1 FW 190.
#483, Lt. Ralph Felton; 2nd Lt. Wm. H. Hylton, Nav.,
destroyed FW 190. T/Sgt. Elio Traverso, T.T.G.,
possible FW 190.
Lt. Bader and Lt. Hensley were slightly wounded.
13 January 1943 - Target was the locomotive and
carriage works at Lille, France. Bombs were 10 x 500,
91st Group sent 13 A/C of which 2 were from 322nd
Squadron. Take off was 1233 hours. #453, Lt. Wm.
Beasley, #483, Lt. Ralph Felton, went over target.
Bombing was excellent. E/A were few and one FW 190
was claimed by the group. All safely returned.
23 January 1943 - Lorient, France was target. Take
off was 1055 hours with bomb load of 10 x 500. Group
sent 13 A/C of which one was of 322nd, Lt. Wm. Beasely
in #453. Bombing was good. All ships returned
safely. Flack was heavy, intense and accurate. Only
one E/A was claimed by our group.
27 January 1943 - First raid on Germany by Americans.
First Wing dispatched 25 A/C with bomb load of 5 x
1000 G. P. Group sent 17, of which 4 were 322nd.
Capt. Campbell, #481; Lt. Felton, #511; Lt. Hardin,
#453; Lt. Wm. Beasely, #362. Takeoff was 0830 led by
Col. S.T. Wray. “____” (?) had 10/10 cloud so naval
yards at Wilhelmshaven, “___” (?) was bombed with
moderate success. Flack was intense over the whole
peninsula but not accurate. The 91st had encounters
with some 25 E/A which were ME-109’s and claimed 20
destroyed. 322nd got six (6).
A/C #511, Lt. Felton (3). S/Sgt. Robert M Paul 1
destroyed -ME-109.
S/Sgt. Draden (?) C. Griffin destroyed - ME-109.
S/Sgt. Andrew H. Burnett destroyed - ME-109.
A/C #453 Lt. John T. Harding (2). S/Sgt. Arthur R.
Cressman destroyed - ME-109.
All ships returned safely.
-
Maybe this was the text buffer of WW2
(http://a.imageshack.us/img227/3407/carmoon.jpg)
-
perfect answer this is why you receive credit its just as hard to land this sortie and sometimes harder depending on the situation. :airplane:
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g278/deejayspe/Mine/belly-bump-1.gif)
-
what about ki-67s
-
Waste of text buffer space IMO, It should be like kills where it doesnt show every single bomber landing, I saw someone land 575......make it 10000 for it to even show up on the buffer :salute
Agree.
I fly buffs a bit & don't give a damn about how many ridiculous damage points I get.
Honestly who really does care except the milk runners?
But I guess this is HTC's game & he knows what is best for all as he can do no wrong