Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tracerfi on August 06, 2012, 02:11:46 PM

Title: Plane Gunners
Post by: Tracerfi on August 06, 2012, 02:11:46 PM
I wish that Bomber,Attack planes,etc with gunners were able to work on the ground as in real life
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Karnak on August 06, 2012, 02:44:46 PM
I wish that Bomber,Attack planes,etc with gunners were able to work on the ground as in real life
This was specifically removed as people were launching B-17Gs to use as light AA batteries.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Tracerfi on August 06, 2012, 02:56:18 PM
This was specifically removed as people were launching B-17Gs to use as light AA batteries.
i heard a story that a guy on a aircraft carrier used a SBD bombers tail gunner to shoot a betty as it was trying to crash into there CV
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Tracerfi on August 06, 2012, 04:25:48 PM
and if there is no AA it would help i think just a thought
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Karnak on August 06, 2012, 05:26:09 PM
i heard a story that a guy on a aircraft carrier used a SBD bombers tail gunner to shoot a betty as it was trying to crash into there CV
Given the AA fire coming from a CV I am quite skeptical that the SBD's tailgun would make the difference.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Tracerfi on August 06, 2012, 05:29:06 PM
Given the AA fire coming from a CV I am quite skeptical that the SBD's tailgun would make the difference.
still its realistic the F2.B Has that feature so i think it should be readded
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Karnak on August 06, 2012, 05:49:24 PM
still its realistic the F2.B Has that feature so i think it should be readded
It is not at all realistic for gunners to run to their parked bombers to man their guns when their field is being strafed.  I have no idea why you would think that would be realistic.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Melvin on August 06, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
Given the AA fire coming from a CV I am quite skeptical that the SBD's tailgun would make the difference.

I can't remember if it was Carrier Admiral by J.J Clark or The Big E by Edward P. Stafford, but one of these books told of deck crewmen manning rear guns during attacks.

If I recall correctly, at least one man was lost when the A/C he was in was blown overboard by a near miss. (I could be way off on that one as it's been a few years since I've read either.)

 :salute
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Ack-Ack on August 06, 2012, 07:07:56 PM
still its realistic the F2.B Has that feature so i think it should be readded

When the Japanese raided Clark Field in December of 1941, did any of the B-17 crews run out to their planes to man their guns on the flight line to fight off the Japanese attackers?  No, they did not.

As Karnak noted, it was removed for a reason.  If you were alive when WB was around and played it, you'd know why.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: fuzeman on August 06, 2012, 10:40:58 PM
<snip> I have no idea why you would think that would be realistic.

His signature line:
I reject reality and substitute my own
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: tunnelrat on August 07, 2012, 10:54:20 AM
When the Japanese raided Clark Field in December of 1941, did any of the B-17 crews run out to their planes to man their guns on the flight line to fight off the Japanese attackers?  No, they did not.

As Karnak noted, it was removed for a reason.  If you were alive when WB was around and played it, you'd know why.

ack-ack

Go read up on the guy who manned the Dauntless rear gun on the USS Enterprise to thwart a Betty attack.... (or just watch it on Battle 360)

You can't argue this from a "didn't happen" stand point, as there is nothing preventing it from happening (like 262's strafing paratroopers mid air)

You can argue it from a gameplay standpoint and that is all.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Karnak on August 07, 2012, 11:26:14 AM
Go read up on the guy who manned the Dauntless rear gun on the USS Enterprise to thwart a Betty attack.... (or just watch it on Battle 360)

You can't argue this from a "didn't happen" stand point, as there is nothing preventing it from happening (like 262's strafing paratroopers mid air)

You can argue it from a gameplay standpoint and that is all.

It doesn't matter.  It is such a minor, rare circumstance that in no way justifies the rampant, and it was rampant, upping of B-17s and B-26s to use as fragile light AA batteries.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Tracerfi on August 07, 2012, 11:47:20 AM
It doesn't matter.  It is such a minor, rare circumstance that in no way justifies the rampant, and it was rampant, upping of B-17s and B-26s to use as fragile light AA batteries.
if a field has no AA guns it could work
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Karnak on August 07, 2012, 12:03:35 PM
if a field has no AA guns it could work
All it would be is a great way to get your aircrew killed.  There is a reason aircrew take shelter when the field is under attack rather than run to their aircraft's turrets.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Tracerfi on August 07, 2012, 12:18:13 PM
All it would be is a great way to get your aircrew killed.  There is a reason aircrew take shelter when the field is under attack rather than run to their aircraft's turrets.
True  :rofl
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: tunnelrat on August 07, 2012, 12:18:39 PM
All it would be is a great way to get your aircrew killed.  There is a reason aircrew take shelter when the field is under attack rather than run to their aircraft's turrets.

Really?  Do any of you guys ever step back and assess the ramifications of your statements when taken into account with everything else in the game?

You are artificially preventing something that was possible, because it's not realistic... applied across the board, you'd have a 4.5GB patch coming to address all of the non-historical, unrealistic uses of vehicles in the game.

Just call it what it is, an artificial limitation for the sake of gameplay and stop trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Ack-Ack on August 07, 2012, 12:25:46 PM
Really?  Do any of you guys ever step back and assess the ramifications of your statements when taken into account with everything else in the game?

You are artificially preventing something that was possible, because it's not realistic... applied across the board, you'd have a 4.5GB patch coming to address all of the non-historical, unrealistic uses of vehicles in the game.

Just call it what it is, an artificial limitation for the sake of gameplay and stop trying to put lipstick on a pig.


There is a reason why it was removed.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: tunnelrat on August 07, 2012, 12:29:16 PM
There is a reason why it was removed.

ack-ack

I agree 100% that it was bad for the game, saying "no" because "people wouldn't do that in real life" is not only untrue, since it actually happened (unlike, say, Lancasters dive bombing carriers), it invites descent down the slippery slope of dictating what players can and can't do based upon "realism" or "historicity".

The guns can't fire from the ground because of llamas do llama things with it.  End of file.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: Karnak on August 08, 2012, 12:12:59 PM
tunnelrat,

I was refuting his argument that it would be realistic.  I was not endorsing other activities in AH as realistic.  Don't read more into what I say than is actually there.
Title: Re: Plane Gunners
Post by: tuton25 on August 08, 2012, 01:33:45 PM
Mayby only allow the one gun to fire on the ground instead of the combined guns
Just my $0.02