Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: MK-84 on September 23, 2012, 09:32:22 PM
-
Now that the strats are a truly valuable target I wish that the Me163 has a base cost of 75 perks instead of 50.
I think that the new strat changes are the most exciting addition to AH, but, I do not think I've seen a single large bomber raid have members actually make it back to base. This makes even a B29 raid a suicide, which I witnessed three days ago. The reason is that the attackers bring bombers and long range escorts, but at the last moment near the target, the enemy brings up essentially spaceships!
The 163's current perk cost made sense before the strat changes, but not now. It is the only aircraft I feel like I am invincible in, even against a bomber stream. The small fuel load does not matter because a large force attacking strats, tends to be at high altitude with ample warning now.
The escorts can not effectivly defend against a 163, and neither can the bomber pilots. Raising the perk cost will reduce the last minute defenders, which absolutely currently pwns the attacking force and will encourage a more methodical and intelligent defense.
I believe this will be more fun for the attacking force, and the defending force. I personally find the best sortie is to up against a large escorted bomber force at high alt and plot their direction, alt, target, plan an attack route....
The 163 currently is too easily available and lessens gameplay for both the attackers and the defenders.
-
Agreed %100. Anything below 30k should be an easy enough target for the Ta152 and other such high altitude bomber interceptors. :aok
I vote to give the Me163 a boost in perk value, 75 may be a bit too lean, imo.
-
Given the range, limited guns of the 163 - 50 perks is enough... idea is to deter people from raiding HQ every hour for giggles of knocking out someones radar.
You want the HQ, you face 163s.
-
hq on most maps isn't hit because no bombers are interested in facing a bunch of 163s for a target that will be resupplied within 20 minutes or less even if the city is leveled.
most maps have a gv spawn or an airbase right next to the HQ making resupply less than a few minutes trip.
163s should be as expensive as the 262 because of the deterent they are to bombers and they numbers they are used in.
no one cares if they lose 50 perks when they can wipe out a b29 formation with impunity that costs 300 perks.
resupply broke the bomber game so long ago no one remembers what it was like to defend hq from constant bomber attack because it is still so easy to repair strat and hq that the strat game still has almost no effect on the "war".
hq should be a lot harder to resupply and the city complex should not be repairable at all. not with only 3 hour downtimes... up it to six hours and maybe. city was down 6 hours before the change.
the bombers dont hit hq because its not a worthwhile target.
-
How about instead of increasing the perks they just randomly explode every now and then on takeoff. Or else you could have the occasional T-stoff leak and have the pilot dissolve?
-
hq on most maps isn't hit because no bombers are interested in facing a bunch of 163s for a target that will be resupplied within 20 minutes or less even if the city is leveled.
last time i tried to resupply the strats I spent more than 20 min actually several of us did. we never got the strats back up to 100%. I did 4 runs myself plus whatever the other guys did, the strats never went back up to 100%.
semp
-
I would also like to see the 163 perk costs increased.
Reasons:
1.) Buffs have spent alot of time to get to an alt where they have a chance of making the drop.
2.) The aircraft was very rare in real life and prone to malfunctions
3.) Regular defenders in P47's, C-Hogs, 152's, Tempests, 262's and the like, have also spent a good deal of time getting in position for an intercept and it is a bit frustrating to have a few 163's come straight up and harvest the kills before the P47's, C-Hogs, 152's, Tempests, 262's can merge.
-
What MK-84 posted. + 1 :aok
-
The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct. I think the only reason the 163 we have squeaks by is the same reason that the P-47s and P-38s do (and Mossies and B-17s. . .) and that is because the cartoon pilots dont freeze or suffer the same problems at high altitudes that humans do.
-
The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct.
Sounds like a good argument to model a slow onset to blackout at critically hi altitudes on those ac that did not carry the proper gear or cockpits.
Then both defenders and escorts will use the right bird for the job. The 163 ( and others not equipped) can still be used but time at 30k+ is limited pending slow decline into blackout. An RL solution to a a gamey over use of the 163.
-
Sounds like a good argument to model a slow onset to blackout at critically hi altitudes on those ac that did not carry the proper gear or cockpits.
Then both defenders and escorts will use the right bird for the job. The 163 ( and others not equipped) can still be used but time at 30k+ is limited pending slow decline into blackout. An RL solution to a a gamey over use of the 163.
They had oxygen, but that was the extent of it.
Komet pilots were put into a hypobaric chamber as part of their training regimen so that they could handle the conditions at high altitudes better than the average person. It only helped them to endure the stresses for a bit longer, though. It wasn't a good as a pressure suit would have been. It only helped them to keep from passing out during the 2 or 3 passes that they were able to make before being forced to RTB.
Better than nothing, I suppose.
-
The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct. I think the only reason the 163 we have squeaks by is the same reason that the P-47s and P-38s do (and Mossies and B-17s. . .) and that is because the cartoon pilots dont freeze or suffer the same problems at high altitudes that humans do.
FYI, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI was pressurized.
That said, I am aware of unpressurized Spitfires climbing to over 40,000ft during the war.
-
The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct. I think the only reason the 163 we have squeaks by is the same reason that the P-47s and P-38s do (and Mossies and B-17s. . .) and that is because the cartoon pilots dont freeze or suffer the same problems at high altitudes that humans do.
Very interesting. I continue to learn about WW2 aircraft. At high alt, in a pressurized cockpit, what happened when a round suddenly pierced the cockpit and it suddenlly depressurized.
I would think this would have been catastrophic for the pilot.
Oh and, Chalenge is my friend :)
-
WWII pressurization wasn't like airliner pressurization where it holds the internal pressure at a certain altitude, 8,000ft for airliners other than the 787's 6,000ft. In the case of the Mosquito Mk XVI the pressurization reduced the apparent altitude by something like 6,000 to 8,000ft, meaning a Mosquito at 28,000ft would have an internal pressure as though it were at 21,000ft and unpressurized.
I have heard that B-29s depressurized before entering the combat zone, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of that claim.
-
Given the range, limited guns of the 163 - 50 perks is enough... idea is to deter people from raiding HQ every hour for giggles of knocking out someones radar.
You want the HQ, you face 163s.
Agreed bombers need to stick together more fire power.
ive been on 5 strat runs 1 time i didnt make it back.
if you go in single good luck! -1
-
or you could just.........I dont know......kill them
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/163_kill_zps4f320dff.jpg)
-
The current 163 is wrong I believe. The Me-163B never had a pressurised cockpit and so could not fly as high as the one in AH does. The Ta-152H did and so it is correct. I think the only reason the 163 we have squeaks by is the same reason that the P-47s and P-38s do (and Mossies and B-17s. . .) and that is because the cartoon pilots dont freeze or suffer the same problems at high altitudes that humans do.
Since buffs can fly over 30k and some fighters above 30k I say its reasonable the Me-163 is just fine the way it is....
-
Given the range, limited guns of the 163 - 50 perks is enough... idea is to deter people from raiding HQ every hour for giggles of knocking out someones radar.
You want the HQ, you face 163s.
^^^^^ this
-
Since buffs can fly over 30k and some fighters above 30k I say its reasonable the Me-163 is just fine the way it is....
The bombers should have the same problem except like I said about cartoon pilots not suffering from cold air and altitude weaknesses of the human body. B29s are pressurized. As I understand it the PR Mossies had pressurized cabins and not the bombers. The Spit Mk XIV is the same way in that the PR Mk XIX was pressurized but not the XIV fighter. 163s never had it so allowing that is like allowing tail cannons on the Arado.
-
Just add a depress listing to the damage list and that should cause anyone at high alt that is depressurized to head home or risk death just like a pilot wound. B29s at high alt never depressurised. During action over Japan they were most times under 12k and not flying at 30-35k. Seeing a B-17 at 37k is slightly ridiculous. The oxygen would last forever but no one had a suit capable of the temperatures of that altitude.
-
All Mosquito Mk XVI's were pressurized as far as I all of my books have indicated. The B.Mk IV and B.Mk IX were not pressurized.
-
That fine we can have that researched as well. Mossies are really no threat to strats as they dont carry enough ords to hit enough targets. They make good town killers and thats about it.
-
That fine we can have that researched as well. Mossies are really no threat to strats as they dont carry enough ords to hit enough targets. They make good town killers and thats about it.
They're certainly no B-29s, but 18 500lb bombs can do some damage and the sorties are a lot faster.
-
A good Mossie drop on a single factory can almost double the downtimes of the objects associated with it.
I would not call that insignificant.
-
The buff that spent 2 hours getting there did it safely behind his lines. That's why ya see 32k and 36k buffs heavily loaded. To take say a 110g2 up and guess at the guys target (and I've tried) is difficult to say the least. His time spent getting to target has nothing to do with the perk point cost of the 163 I took up to intercept him.
I spent the perks, and know how to fly it to get to alt with the buff, and even then I have to be able to shot it down without getting shot down. So ya 50 is more than enough for that ac.
-
I think it should take more than 6 minutes to resupply a fully downed HQ.
That's without any train resupplying.
-
Better fix, do away with 163's. I always thought this game was modeled somewhat by how many a/c were made and the role that a/c played in the war. From what I have read ( and I could be wrong) only 300 built and only 9 kills, that's not much of a war changer. Now you'll say "HQ will be undefended", well I say "Get your head out of that furball your always in and watch the map if you want dar"(players should have to man dar anyway in this game, but that another topic).
Link I looked at
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=107
-
Ah really lets do away with the 163?? Why because its inconvenient to strat runners :rofl
-
That fine we can have that researched as well. Mossies are really no threat to strats as they dont carry enough ords to hit enough targets. They make good town killers and thats about it.
I can take a factory down to less than %80 with one flight of Mossie bombers and do it in one pass. Certainly not to be underestimated. On maps in which there are forward positions for the strats and no chance of a Me163 intercepting a few flights of Mossi's can do just as much if not more damage than B17's and B24's vs the factories (against the city not so much) in one pass, AND get back home safely. Certainly not to be underestimated or discounted.
-
I think it should take more than 6 minutes to resupply a fully downed HQ.
That's without any train resupplying.
i agree 1 or two guys should take more than 6 minutes.. but what about 20 people?
perhaps it should be not supplyable and just be a fixed downtime. but then everyone might just do hq raids on each other all day and nobody will have radar. yeah, everyone will be happy with that.
-
Ah really lets do away with the 163?? Why because its inconvenient to strat runners :rofl
I could care less about strat runners, 163 had no value during war whats the point of it in this game
-
Could the engine be throttled in RL as it is in AH?
-
Could the engine be throttled in RL as it is in AH?
Yes. In fact the 163C would have had an economy burn - larger fuel tanks - and more wing area in addition to the pressurized cockpit. I dont think any 163Cs ever saw combat and certainly the economy engine was never built. Even if it had the plane would have had power for a mere twelve minutes.
-
Better fix, do away with 163's. I always thought this game was modeled somewhat by how many a/c were made and the role that a/c played in the war. From what I have read ( and I could be wrong) only 300 built and only 9 kills, that's not much of a war changer. Now you'll say "HQ will be undefended", well I say "Get your head out of that furball your always in and watch the map if you want dar"(players should have to man dar anyway in this game, but that another topic).
Link I looked at
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=107
It was in service from May 44 to May 45, in squadron strength (with JG 400) and had 9 confirmed kills. Lack of fuel keeped their number of shorties down and they only got 2-3 passes before they had to head home. With its smaller ammo load and the speeds at which they attacked, I can imagine how hard it was to get a kill. How many times do you make a pass on a B-17 landing good hits only to see it flying along fine. True lines/cables/wires/people maybe damaged/killed but that does not mean its going down. Thats why they were working on that group of 50mm morters fired by PE cells that would fire from the upper wing of a 163 as it passed under the bombers.
How is the Me163 not worthy for AH?
-
Because it caters to 3 minute sorties at the expense of guys who fly 2 hours to bomb the strats or the guys who climb a fighter 30 minutes and set up a proper interception scenario.
The fact that I can fly one to 97,000 feet and fly 10 sectors is also a bit unrealistic.
-
I wish that HTC could code in an altitude affect (influence) that would limit time above 30k for any aircraft that does not have pressurized cockpits. This would make things much more difficult for anyone flying the aircraft and therefore the current perk cost would still make sense. That would stop 90k+ altitude runs and might promote even more 163 flights since the chances of flying at high alt and still getting multiple kills would be less. It would also decrease the likelihood of seeing B17s at 37k but also much fewer fighters that high. Plus throw in loss of pressurized cabins because of combat damage and then everything starts to more closely resemble reality.
-
Ok, the OP requested a perk rise for the 163. Now I have taken my buffs to eny HQ quite alot lately and 1 thing is very clear. Alot of players are crap in a 163, but the good sticks will rip your formation apart. So the newer player has to work harder for those 25 more perks just to fly it for the first time (and probably smash it into the first buff they attack), while the good sticks who have buckets of perks will not even blink as they click the 163 and 4 mins later are picking you apart.
Someone else requested that we just remove the 163. ok we start removing planes that have every right to be in the game because some dont like having to fight against it, in a very small area of the map. When can I remove all those heavy bombs and fast fighters because they outrun my hurri and out score my B5N? Your upping buffs for the strats, you know you have a chance of finding a 163 defending it.
I wish that HTC could code in an altitude affect (influence) that would limit time above 30k for any aircraft that does not have pressurized cockpits. This would make things much more difficult for anyone flying the aircraft and therefore the current perk cost would still make sense. That would stop 90k+ altitude runs and might promote even more 163 flights since the chances of flying at high alt and still getting multiple kills would be less. It would also decrease the likelihood of seeing B17s at 37k but also much fewer fighters that high. Plus throw in loss of pressurized cabins because of combat damage and then everything starts to more closely resemble reality.
Now this is +1, but from my understanding with oxygen you can fly around 30k for a long time without too many problems. this would force buffs to fly lower, but would not really affect 163s who would zoom to 39,000 as they did in the war.
from wiki:
The performance of the Me 163 far exceeded that of contemporary piston engine fighters. At a speed of over 320 km/h (200 mph) the aircraft would take off, in a "sharp start" from the ground, from its two-wheeled dolly. The aircraft would be kept at low altitude until the best climbing speed of around 676 km/h (420 mph) was reached, at which point it would jettison the dolly, pull up into a 70° angle of climb, and rapidly climb to a bomber's altitude. It could go higher if required, reaching 12,000 m (39,000 ft) in an unheard-of three minutes. Once there, it would level off and quickly accelerate to speeds around 880 km/h (550 mph) or faster, which no Allied fighter could match.
-
I'm not exactly sure of how easy of a remedy my idea is, but if there were 6k or higher bases near the HQ many people would be more willing to grab a 109G-14/K-4, 190D-9, Ta152, or even a P47x for interception/interdiction duty instead of the Me163. I really like how ice pointed out how the bomber guys spend 30+ minutes of time essentially being historically accurate and all it takes is a 3 minute sorte' by the Me163 to counter that. That puts it in to perspective.
The Me163 offers a lot for a very small risk of losing 50 perk points.
-
but if there were 6k or higher bases near the HQ many people would be more willing to grab a 109G-14/K-4, 190D-9, Ta152, or even a P47x for interception/interdiction duty instead of the Me163.
If so, they would do it far more for psychological reasons than for a true advantage the 6k base is offering them.
A 109G-14 at 100% fuel takes 11 minutes to reach 30.5k from sea level. Lifting from a 6k base would shorten that time by less than 2 minutes only.
A P-51D at 75% fuel takes 14 minutes to reach the same altitude. A 6k base would reduce that time by only about 2.5 minutes.
Many bases currently close to the HQ are higher then sea level, sometimes reaching 4k and more, so the net effect of a 6k base would be even smaller. The advantage of high altitude bases for high (20k+) altitude sorties is generally very much overrated, for bombers even more than for fighters.
The main problem is that players do not identify HQ/strat raids in time. They have, for whatever reasons, no battle or map SA. If something doesn't make a base flash, it's not of any interest. And the only plane that can hope to catch a raider when the strats/hq are already flashing is the Me 163.
-
If so, they would do it far more for psychological reasons than for a true advantage the 6k base is offering them.
A 109G-14 at 100% fuel takes 11 minutes to reach 30.5k from sea level. Lifting from a 6k base would shorten that time by less than 2 minutes only.
A P-51D at 75% fuel takes 14 minutes to reach the same altitude. A 6k base would reduce that tiem by only about 2.5 minutes.
Many bases currently close to the HQ are higher then sea level, sometimes reaching 4k and more, so the net effect of a 6k base would be even smaller. The advantage of high altitude bases for high (20k+) altitdue sorties is generally very much overated, for bombers even more than for fighters.
The main problem is that players do not identify HQ/strat raids in time. They have, for whatever reasons, no battle or map SA. If something doesn't make a base flash, it's not of any interest. And the only plane that can hope to catch a raider when the strats/hq are already flashing is the Me 163.
And some will not bother lifting a 109k4 etc because in the 11-20 mins you spent climbing there only to see the bomber pilot bail or turn and high tail it out of there, is really frustrating. a 163 takes 3 mins to be in combat and gives the bomber pilot few chances to advoid combat.
The Me163 offers a lot for a very small risk of losing 50 perk points.
The 163 does not get it all its own way here, its current K/D is 3.81 for this tour. That falls to 3.32 when its B-17s vs 163. Thats not good odds for the 163 when its 50 perks while the 3 x B17s will give you less then 1 or 2 perks. And that does not take into account the many ditches there must be for the 163 as I am sure more then a few run short fighting buffs/escort and end up ditching in view of the base.
-
The 163 does not get it all its own way here, its current K/D is 3.81 for this tour. That falls to 3.32 when its B-17s vs 163.
That's almost one Komet for every formation it shoots down. If you look at it as player vs player, it's almost 1-1. :uhoh
The Komet has an awesome performance, but it is one of those planes in need of a experienced hand to make use of that performance. :old:
-
B29s at high alt never depressurised. During action over Japan they were most times under 12k and not flying at 30-35k.
B-29 Superfortress Detail & Scale Part 1 for example clearly states how the cabin was depressurized 30 minutes prior to entering combat zone. Not all B-29 raids were conducted at lower altitudes.
----------------------
People don't just magically drop dead even at extreme altitudes as long as they have an appropriate supply of oxygen. There are previous glider altitude records that are as high as ~46000ft without pressure suits.
-
Not to mention the real b17,b24 raids didnt NOT fly @ 95% throttle all the way to target, like they do in AH.
-
or you could just.........I dont know......kill them
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/163_kill_zps4f320dff.jpg)
WTF!?!?
How dare you suggest combat...
-
B-29 Superfortress Detail & Scale Part 1 for example clearly states how the cabin was depressurized 30 minutes prior to entering combat zone. Not all B-29 raids were
Damn this weak brain, I have a distinct memory of a first person account of flying in b-29s over Japan before they started flying lower. One of the things the veteran said was that they were supposed to depressurize before entering the combat zone but they didn't because they liked flying in short sleeves and comfort. Wish I could remember the source, if it comes to me I'll post it.
-
Not to mention the real b17,b24 raids didnt NOT fly @ 95% throttle all the way to target, like they do in AH.
ding ding
Indeed. Their speeds were closer to 220 TAS and alts were closer 20k than then full throttle/28k+ we see far too often.
-
B-29 Superfortress Detail & Scale Part 1 for example clearly states how the cabin was depressurized 30 minutes prior to entering combat zone. Not all B-29 raids were conducted at lower altitudes.
People don't just magically drop dead even at extreme altitudes as long as they have an appropriate supply of oxygen. There are previous glider altitude records that are as high as ~46000ft without pressure suits.
Detail and Scale is wrong. Read LeMays book on the subject. The early sorties that flew that high did not depressurize. Later sorties did not fly high enough to need to do so.
There are plenty of accounts of pilots "dropping dead" during orientation flights at high altitude. Many P-47 pilots that flew to high altitude never returned. The same is probably true for a lot of pilots that '"disappeared from formation" or "dropped out of formation and was never seen again." You should educate yourself on the problems of high altitude flight.
-
Damn this weak brain, I have a distinct memory of a first person account of flying in b-29s over Japan before they started flying lower. One of the things the veteran said was that they were supposed to depressurize before entering the combat zone but they didn't because they liked flying in short sleeves and comfort. Wish I could remember the source, if it comes to me I'll post it.
In fact the accounts also mention having to plug the holes from cannon fire in order to maintain internal pressure.
-
WTF!?!?
How dare you suggest combat...
:rofl
-
Detail and Scale is wrong. Read LeMays book on the subject. The early sorties that flew that high did not depressurize. Later sorties did not fly high enough to need to do so.
Well I'm sure you can quote the book for me then.
From the B-29's Commander Manual:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Depress1.jpg)
From Detail & Scale:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Depress2.jpg)
There are plenty of accounts of pilots "dropping dead" during orientation flights at high altitude. Many P-47 pilots that flew to high altitude never returned. The same is probably true for a lot of pilots that '"disappeared from formation" or "dropped out of formation and was never seen again." You should educate yourself on the problems of high altitude flight.
I'm aware about the difficulties of high altitude flight, like oxygen systems failing and people dying due to that. Something that most probably happened in the incidents you mentioned.
----------------------
A good read for those who are actually interested:
"Paul later explained in a letter some particulars of his preparation and equipment:
My oxygen equipment was quite similar to that used by most of those who have set altitude records in the wave at Bishop. It was a low pressure system using a pressure demand mask and a regulator such as those used by fighter pilots at the end of World War II. I had no pressure suit; however, I have had considerable altitude experience while flying in service aircraft and have had ample opportunity to test myself in altitude chambers. Although it is not desirable to try to fly at these heights without pressure suits or cabin, I did not detect any particular difficulty from this source. Actually, I was so cold (-65° C outside air temperature) that I could not pay attention to anything else. Maximum rate of climb was about 2,000 feet per minute.
.....
February 25, 1961 - 46, 267ft - Paul Bickle - Mohave, CA SGS 1-23E."
http://www.aerosente.com/2009/09/the-world-altitude-record-of-paul-bickle.html (http://www.aerosente.com/2009/09/the-world-altitude-record-of-paul-bickle.html)
-
Damn this weak brain, I have a distinct memory of a first person account of flying in b-29s over Japan before they started flying lower. One of the things the veteran said was that they were supposed to depressurize before entering the combat zone but they didn't because they liked flying in short sleeves and comfort. Wish I could remember the source, if it comes to me I'll post it.
I heard Lt Theodore Van Kirk on BBC radio saying pretty much just that. Amazingly switched on and proud man, who is last Enola Gay survivor
-
Search this page for "cabin pressure" and you will find a very near exact quote about a B-29 mission from LeMay's book.
http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-40th-bomb-group.htm
-
Search this page for "cabin pressure" and you will find a very near exact quote about a B-29 mission from LeMay's book.
http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-40th-bomb-group.htm
"One of the missions from China made a special mark in the news media. On December 7, 1944, O'Keefe's crew was in a formation heading to bomb Japanese-occupied Mukden (now Shenyang), China, when it encountered heavy fighter opposition. Enemy shells punctured the plane's nose, destroying O'Keefe's gun sight and causing the cabin to lose pressure. O'Keefe and the others plugged every hole they could find with rags, but they were still losing pressure. After a thorough search, they finally found more holes on the deck but, alas, were out of rags. Crewman Edwin Mann then eyed his in-fiight meal, which contained a small package of K-ration cheese. 'Whatever they used to preserve the cheese gave it properties of remarkable toughness and rubbery resilience,' O'Keefe says jokingly. Mann opened two of the packs and pushed the bits of cheese into the holes. The cabin pressure returned to normal levels and held until they returned safely to base."
So based on this quote you made the conclusion that they never depressurized for combat??
Right. :lol
-
I would also like to see the 163 perk costs increased.
Reasons:
1.) Buffs have spent alot of time to get to an alt where they have a chance of making the drop.
2.) The aircraft was very rare in real life and prone to malfunctions
3.) Regular defenders in P47's, C-Hogs, 152's, Tempests, 262's and the like, have also spent a good deal of time getting in position for an intercept and it is a bit frustrating to have a few 163's come straight up and harvest the kills before the P47's, C-Hogs, 152's, Tempests, 262's can merge.
^This just much more eloquently put than I managed :aok
-
I was thinking of what luche said, and I still believe the perk price should increase.
The K/D he posted may possibly not lead to actual results in terms of my wish. I do not have the ability to dissect numbers like he does, but I feel K/D importance of this plane may not accurately show its true impact vs a large HQ raid. Other things to consider as he stated is the huge difference in player skill.
The 163's effectiveness I believe is very much understated in K/D Vs A large HQ raid. I guess that the "experts" in the 163 disrupt the average, and the actual K/D would be lower if you toss out the highs and the lows. That would seem contradictory, except for the role it is being used in. Even a subpar pilot making a dead 6 attack against a bomber stream likely has a chance of getting a kill before getting shot down in return. In this type of scenario you can "throw" yourself at the enemy, and with a 163, it takes just a few minutes to get there.
Luche pointed out that for some reason a large HQ or strat raid is largely ignored until the last moment. I agree, but a quick up of a 163 at the last moment, although effective, is still not good for gameplay. Effectively hitting an enemy's strats hugely affects the game now. So let it. The larger maps often remain fairly stagnant anyways, and the small maps are much harder to create this scenario.
I doubt it will lead to more players actually looking at their map to recognize an inbound raid, but they may pay attention to those that do knowing now it is much harder to up a last minute defense.
-
I might throw in that not only the strats are only protected by 163s on the small maps most of the time, but the strat redesign process is not finished yet. HT gave some hints on more targets which would be spread over the map much more, which could change things a lot in this context.
As far as the current HQ goes, it's my personal opinion that we could simply get rid of it. The immediate effect is too big and simplistic (all dar on/off) and to counter that it's very easy to resupply. It's not particularly balanced.
-
Given the range, limited guns of the 163 - 50 perks is enough... idea is to deter people from raiding HQ every hour for giggles of knocking out someones radar.
You want the HQ, you face 163s.
Agreed 100% :salute
-
ding ding
Indeed. Their speeds were closer to 220 TAS and alts were closer 20k than then full throttle/28k+ we see far too often.
Speeds were closer to 180 in many cases. Let's just say that even early fighters without the massive speeds of 1945-era were able to overtake, HO, turn around, overtake, HO, a formation dozens of times in relatively short encounter. Even fighters with short fuel tanks (meaning short combat times).
-
schweet, at FL280, 180 mph tas is 115 mph cas
-
point of order: Most weren't flying at 28k, either. A small minority flew that high. Relatively speaking. Small compared to the entire force of bombers. When you have 1000 bombers in the air, only the top of the top will be that high. Many B17s and B24s flew around 20k alts. Many at 25k-ish, but some even lower in the 18k-ish range.
-
+1 I believe it is undervalued currently.
-
. . .
So based on this quote you made the conclusion that they never depressurized for combat??
Right. :lol
As usual your attempt at being clever has failed miserably and made you look completely foolish.
No that link was given to you to prove that what I said about patching holes was correct. What you failed to realize is that the only reason to give the order to depressurize would be to avoid rapid decompression. As they knew during B-29 combat that was never a problem.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/B-29CombatReadiness.jpg)
You see. . . I have actually read volumes and volumes on the B-29 and its use in combat. I have read in detail every aspect of the aircraft functions on how each crewman was trained and what equipment he was trained on and how to use it. The B-29 Combat Crew Handbook details everything any crewman involved on the aircraft would have to know. I mean every detail from how to operate the guns to synchronizing in flight controls to the details of the flight engineers station. No where in everything I have read is there the slightest hint that the order to decompress before combat was ever given. The handbook I mention has four specific areas where oxygen systems and air cabin pressure are mentioned in detail. The image above is taken from that handbook. Reading other details. . . the reason the planes flew with pressure was so they could work more efficiently and because it allows humans at high altitude to avoid the risk of death.
Probably the book you have includes some really nice pictures that fooled you into buying the book under the misconception that it had some valuable information in it. Not so much. The problem with subjects like air combat is that readers always want to know things that the writes just dont know. During World War 1 the drug stores were filled with one penny paperbacks with fantasy tales about fighter pilots. The only problem was none of it was true. Today we are a little more sophisticated of course and so most details like this decompression thing dont get past us. You got taken! Maybe you can still get your money back?
-
As usual your attempt at being clever has failed miserably and made you look completely foolish.
No that link was given to you to prove that what I said about patching holes was correct. What you failed to realize is that the only reason to give the order to depressurize would be to avoid rapid decompression. As they knew during B-29 combat that was never a problem.
I didn't say a thing about patching holes. If you meant to provide that quote merely to prove the "patching holes" thing then you posted the link in a totally wrong context, read the thread back a bit.
No that link was given to you to prove that what I said about patching holes was correct. What you failed to realize is that the only reason to give the order to depressurize would be to avoid rapid decompression.
Erm, what exactly did I fail to realize" regarding this?. :huh
You see. . . I have actually read volumes and volumes on the B-29 and its use in combat.
I really couldn't care less what you've read or done or anything else about you really. Why don't you just answer to my posts with facts like I answer to yours instead of bragging what you have done or read. As, like I said, I couldn't care less.
No where in everything I have read is there the slightest hint that the order to decompress before combat was ever given.
Well here you go then!
(http://p2.la-img.com/20/10900/2653243_1_m.jpg)
Like I said, the below is from B-29 Commander Manual. A primary source.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Depress1.jpg)
It rather clearly states the very thing you haven't seen anywhere. :)
Probably the book you have includes some really nice pictures that fooled you into buying the book under the misconception that it had some valuable information in it. Not so much. The problem with subjects like air combat is that readers always want to know things that the writes just dont know. During World War 1 the drug stores were filled with one penny paperbacks with fantasy tales about fighter pilots. The only problem was none of it was true. Today we are a little more sophisticated of course and so most details like this decompression thing dont get past us. You got taken! Maybe you can still get your money back?
I don't own that particular book, although it is actually very good.
The real gist of this is here:
- You clearly had the opinion that aircraft without pressurized cockpits couldn't operate at the high altitudes sometimes seen in AH. (Which is completely false.)
- And that B-29 could because it was pressurized and they didn't depressurize for combat.
I'm sure many times they didn't as a lot of things happened during that war and proper procedures weren't always followed. That doesn't change the fact that people can operate at these altitudes without pressurized cockpits. It's not fun and certainly very fatigue inducing for the crew but very much doable. Paul Bickle flew his glider to 46000ft. Like he said, it wasn't very confortable due to the extreme cold but perfectly doable as far as physiology goes. And that's the whole point. No point in creating artificial limitations.
-
Just admit you were wrong and move on. Geeze!
I cannot find the publishing date on the manual you are citing but it is obviously the early manual. When it comes to the B-29 the problem is the aircraft was still in the process of being updated from the day it left the factory until the day it landed in China. Further updates continued mission after mission. Virtually the entire engine and every subsystem of the plane was changed out and updated until the planes landing in Tinian and Siam hardly resembled the originals.
The manual I cited is the manual issued by Lemay himself for all crewmen under his command. The manual you cite appears to be the earlier U.S.Army manual issued under George Marshall (or Hap Arnold) which indicates that the manual Lemay issued was not only more up to date but more informative as it was issued by airmen and not the Quartermaster General.
Your misunderstand what I am saying about high altitude flight. I am saying that humans fail to function properly when they do not get enough oxygen (21% by volume of air) or heat (humans perish at very low temperatures). Furthermore the exposure to high altitudes can lead to anoxia (lack of oxygen) even if you are on oxygen. AH does not model oxygen. If it did then it could be damaged. Even in the presence of cabin pressure a human can die from expsure to carbon monoxide. AH does not model carbon monoxide. If it did then a pilot could die from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Even in the presence of flying suits and oxygen masks a human cannot fly to very high altitudes (above 42k) without an adequate pressure environment. Above 42k the human body begins to consume its own water through rapidly rising body temperature (actually the relative temperature of evaporation drops below body temperature). If you lose enough water from your own body you die. Above 62k your blood (literally the water in your blood) boils at body temperature. This too is not modeled. If you remain above 32k and your body temperature drops to the point where your core temperature drops below minimum metabolic levels you suffer from hypothermic shock (hypothermia) and you cannot operate an aircraft.
Since these variables would require a huge change in coading the easiest solution would be the blackout method already described and whoever came up with that idea should be saluted!
:salute
-
Just admit you were wrong and move on. Geeze!
Nothing to admit, I've provided my sources.
I cannot find the publishing date on the manual you are citing but it is obviously the early manual. When it comes to the B-29 the problem is the aircraft was still in the process of being updated from the day it left the factory until the day it landed in China. Further updates continued mission after mission. Virtually the entire engine and every subsystem of the plane was changed out and updated until the planes landing in Tinian and Siam hardly resembled the originals.
Indeed it was. And I don't doubt the earlier source about the depressurization being harmless at all. Nor do I doubt the fact that it was SOP to depressurize when expecting combat. How often it was followed is another thing. The aircraft in AH are modelled per the manufacturer specs AFAIK.
Your misunderstand what I am saying about high altitude flight. I am saying that humans fail to function properly when they do not get enough oxygen (21% by volume of air) or heat (humans perish at very low temperatures). Furthermore the exposure to high altitudes can lead to anoxia (lack of oxygen) even if you are on oxygen. AH does not model oxygen. If it did then it could be damaged. Even in the presence of cabin pressure a human can die from expsure to carbon monoxide. AH does not model carbon monoxide. If it did then a pilot could die from carbon monoxide poisoning.
People can die from lack of oxygen, carbon poisoning and in low temperatures? Oh darn, wouldn't have guessed that! :D
I definately advice not to fly naked at 35k in an unpressurized aircraft! :D
Even in the presence of flying suits and oxygen masks a human cannot fly to very high altitudes (above 42k) without an adequate pressure environment.
Just read the sources I posted. It has been done without any adwerse effects. It's not confortable and very fatigue inducing but very doable. And we aren't really even talking about altitudes over 40k regarding AH or are we? Last mention from this thread I remember being about 37k B-17s.
http://www.aerosente.com/2009/09/the-world-altitude-record-of-paul-bickle.html
Above 62k your blood (literally the water in your blood) boils at body temperature. This too is not modeled.
Indeed. As Josef Kittinger was acending to his jump altitude he had a hole in the pressure suit in the glove and his hand got swollen couple times the normal size. All of this is irrelevant to the issue at hand however. Unless we really want to model Me163 pilot blowing up at those alts (havent tested lately how high the current comet can go). :D But regarding intercepting bombers, it's totally irrelevant.
f you remain above 32k and your body temperature drops to the point where your core temperature drops below minimum metabolic levels you suffer from hypothermic shock (hypothermia) and you cannot operate an aircraft.
Like I said before, flying naked at high altitudes is not adviced. :lol
-
Because it caters to 3 minute sorties at the expense of guys who fly 2 hours to bomb the strats or the guys who climb a fighter 30 minutes and set up a proper interception scenario.
The fact that I can fly one to 97,000 feet and fly 10 sectors is also a bit unrealistic.
In RL did the bomber crews not fly for hours to their targets, and 163's conducted short duration missions to intercept them? Don't understand your point, seems realistic enough to me
-
I have read the after action report of a Spitfire Mk IX squadron's commanding officer who took his squadron on a patrol at 40,000ft. No version of the Spitfire MK IX was pressurized. This wasn't done as a test of the aircraft, it was a combat patrol. I have also read accounts of B-17s operating above 30,000ft, though the crews disliked it intensely. It is possible that the cold was more severe for the B-17 crew with only their electric heating suits plugged in compared to the Spitfire pilots seated directly behind a Merlin 61, 63 or 70.
The argument that unpressurized aircraft didn't and couldn't operate above 30,000ft is false.
-
Nothing to admit, I've provided my sources.
As usual nothing more than sarcasm.
Karnak the point is that 163s are currently cruising around far above what was possible during the war. And to make a point. . . if those same spit pilots repeated 40k flights as often as they might in AH then they would dehydrate and perish in the elements. B17 crews often would have a week or more to recover from high altitude. The law of physics has not changed since WWII but in the cartoon world some laws just are not coaded.
-
As usual nothing more than sarcasm.
I provided a primary source saying B-29 should be depressurized for combat. And provided good solid evidence about people flying at extreme altitudes (~46000ft) without pressure suit/pressurized cabin, a documented glider altitude record at the time. As far as other examples go, one could go on and on. I think I provided more than sarcasm.
You on the other hand just tried the spin the isssue using fancy words thinking I wouldn't get what you're saying. :lol Just like I pointed out basically all your points were irrelevant except of course what would start happn from 60k on up but we weren't ever talking about 60k. We were talking about 30-37k, altitudes where the bombers are able to fly. Of course one needs proper insulation and oxygen al those altitudes and lower but that was not the argument to begin with. You obviously were totally unaware on how high people have flown without pressurization. :)
Karnak the point is that 163s are currently cruising around far above what was possible during the war. And to make a point. . . if those same spit pilots repeated 40k flights as often as they might in AH then they would dehydrate and perish in the elements.
Again, you are using these vague terms "perish in the elements". :) If the person is properly insulated and oxygen is provided he can fly at 30k and beyond. There are several examples of that and Paul Bikle is just one of them. He said very clearly that he didn't notice any adwerse effects.
Again,
Paul Bikle:
"My oxygen equipment was quite similar to that used by most of those who have set altitude records in the wave at Bishop. It was a low pressure system using a pressure demand mask and a regulator such as those used by fighter pilots at the end of World War II. I had no pressure suit; however, I have had considerable altitude experience while flying in service aircraft and have had ample opportunity to test myself in altitude chambers. Although it is not desirable to try to fly at these heights without pressure suits or cabin, I did not detect any particular difficulty from this source. Actually, I was so cold (-65° C outside air temperature) that I could not pay attention to anything else. Maximum rate of climb was about 2,000 feet per minute."
http://www.aerosente.com/2009/09/the-world-altitude-record-of-paul-bickle.html (http://www.aerosente.com/2009/09/the-world-altitude-record-of-paul-bickle.html)
B17 crews often would have a week or more to recover from high altitude.
A source? Not that it matters as I'm sure were are provided with fresh crews along with a fresh plane for every sortie. :)
-
I cannot find the publishing date on the manual you are citing but it is obviously the early manual.
Forgot to mention that the manual in question is revised edition dated February '45. Hardly early.
-
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/spitfire-ix-galitzine-bs273-port.jpg)
A russian prince in a modified spit IX said.......
At the end of the first week in September the Flight received the first of our Spitfire IXs which had been modified for very high altitude operations. The aircraft, serial BF273, had been lightened in almost every way possible. A lighter wooden propeller had been substituted for the normal metal one, all of the armour had been removed as had the four machine guns, leaving an armament of only 2 Hispano 20mm cannons. The aircraft was finished in a special lightweight finish, which gave it a colour rather like Cambridge blue and all equipment not strictly necessary for high altitude fighting was removed. It had the normal wingtips. A pressure cabin would have been very nice but the HF VII, essentially a Mk IX with a pressure cabin, was not yet read for operations.
On September 10th I made my first flight in the modified Spitfire IX and found it absolutely delightful to handle. During the war I flew 11 versions of the Spitfire and this was far and away the best. The 450lb reduction in weight was immediately noticeable once airborne and with the Merlin 61 she had plenty of power and was very lively. I made a second flight that day to test the cannons, during which I took her up to 43,000ft. I stayed above 40,000ft for some time and found it quite exhilarating, it was a beautiful day and I could see along the coast of England from Dover to Plymouth and almost the whole of the northern coast of France as far as Belgium and Holland.
During this flight I wore an electrically heated flying suit which kept me warm and comfortable.
On September 12th I made my second high altitude flight and this time it was in earnest. That morning, it had been my turn to wait at readiness and at 09.27hrs I was scrambled to meet an aircraft being watched on radar climbing to height over France; it looked suspiciously like another one of the high-flying raiders.
Climbing away at full throttle, the Spitfire went up like a lift but there was a long way to go – 40,000ft is about 7.5 miles up. I climbed in a wide spiral over Northolt to 15,000ft then the ground controller informed me that the incoming aircraft was over mid-Channel and heading towards the Portsmouth area, I was ordered onto a south-westerly heading to cut him off. After several course corrections I finally caught sight of the enemy aircraft as it was flying up the Solent, I was at about 40,000ft and he was slightly higher and out to starboard. I continued my climb and headed after him, closing in until I could make out the outline of a Junkers 86, By then, I was about half a mile from him and we were both at 42,000ft to the north of Southampton.
The German crew had obviously seen me, because I saw the bomb jettison, the aircraft nose go up to gain altitude and turn for home. My Spitfire had plenty of performance in hand, however. I jettisoned my 30-gal slipper tank and had little difficulty in following him in the climb and getting about 200ft above the bomber. At this stage I kept reminding myself “Take it easy, conserve your strength, keep icy calm”. The grey-blue Junkers seemed enormous and it trailed a long, curling condensation trail. It reminded me of a film I had once seen of an aerial view of an ocean liner ploughing through a calm sea and leaving a wake.
I positioned myself for an attack and dived to about 200yds astern of him, where I opened up with a 3-second burst. At the end of the burst my port cannon jammed and the Spitfire slewed round to starboard, then, as I passed through his slipstream, my canopy misted over. It took about a minute to clear completely, during which time I climbed back into position for the next attack. When I next saw the Junkers he was heading southwards, trying to escape out to sea. I knew I had to get right in close behind him if I was to stand any chance of scoring hits, because it would be difficult to hold the Spitfire straight when the starboard cannon fired and she went into a yaw. Again, I dived to attack but when I was about a hundred yards away the bomber made a surprisingly tight turn to starboard. I opened fire but the Spitfire went into a yaw and fell out of the sky, I broke off the attack, turned outside him and climbed back to 44,000ft.
I carried out two further attacks on the Junkers. On each of them my Spitfire yawed and fell out of the sky whenever I opened fire with my remaining cannon, and my canopy misted over whenever I passed through his slipstream. By the end of the fourth attack the action had lasted about 45 minutes. My engine had been running at full throttle for an hour and a quarter and my fuel was beginning to run low. So when the bomber descended into a patch of mist I did not attempt to follow. Instead I broke away and turned north east for home. How I cursed that jammed cannon, had it not failed, I would certainly have shot down the Ju86. As I neared the coast it became clear that I did not have sufficient fuel to reach Northolt, so I landed at Tangmere to refuel.”
-
The german in the ju86r said.....
The pilot of the Ju86 had been Horst Goetz, on another attack with Erich Sommer as his observer. Soon after the bomber crossed the coast near Southampton, Goetz later recalled
“Suddenly Erich, sitting on my right, said that there was a fighter closing in from his side. I thought there was nothing remarkable about that – almost every time we had been over England in the Ju86, fighters had tried to intercept us. Then he said that the fighter was climbing very fast and was nearly at our altitude. The next thing, it was above us. I thought Erich’s eyes must have been playing tricks on him, so I leaned over to his side of the cabin to see for myself. To my horror I saw the Spitfire, a little above us and still climbing.”
Goetz acted fast. He jettisoned the bomb, switched in full nitrous oxide injection to increase engine power and partially depressurised the cabin so that there wouldn’t be an explosion if it was pierced. He then pushed open the throttles and tried to outclimb his assailant but, as we have seen, the Spitfire succeeded in getting above him.
Goetz managed to avoid the four attacks, then escaped into a thin patch of mist. The Junkers landed at Caen so that the crew could check the damage. There was only one hole, through the port wing and as nothing appeared damaged the bomber continued on to its base at Beauvais. Now it was clear that the period of immunity enjoyed by the Junkers 86R over England was at an end; there would be no more stratospheric bombing attacks by these aircraft.
The combat between Goetz and Galitzine was almost certainly the highest to take place during WWII. Significantly, the movements of both aircraft were tracked by radar sets on the ground, these provided an independent check on the general accuracy of the altitudes stated.
The action had a sequel nearly 33 years later, when the author met Goetz at a Luftwaffe reunion and was able to put him in touch with Galitzine. The two men became firm friends and together stayed at the author’s home to recount their unique battle; later they spoke by telephone with Erich Sommer, who now lives in Australia. Galitzine no longer curses the jammed Hispano cannon, which robbed him of an almost certain victory but which gained him two good friends.
-
I've got a question. Were there any reports of a b29 going down due to explosive decompression in combat?
-
Interesting post Icepac. Thank you
Approaching the Junkers from 200yds astern? He obviously never played AH :lol
-
I've got a question. Were there any reports of a b29 going down due to explosive decompression in combat?
how would they know?
semp
-
I've got a question. Were there any reports of a b29 going down due to explosive decompression in combat?
There is no such thing without a massive internal explosion. See Myth Busters. A bullet hole will not do it. Now if an explosive 88 somehow got inside and the popped. . . different story.
-
Most B-29s downed were from Flak or fighters, never read a single report of one decompressing in combat. Most were brought down by damaged engines, I do know 3 that were brought down by japanese fighters ramming the engines.
-
There is no such thing without a massive internal explosion. See Myth Busters. A bullet hole will not do it. Now if an explosive 88 somehow got inside and the popped. . . different story.
:banana:
-
Slight diversion but relevant. Over the past few days I have been concentrating on defending/attacking strats when I'm on, it's a different game to what's going on below and quite intriguing. The appearance of 163s has been a bit of a mood killer (except for the 163 pilots), it seems to me, no matter what side you are on defending or attacking, 163s turn a very immersing battle into a circus. I know there are quite a few people that have dabbled with the strats, what do you guys think?
0.02c
-
I'd agree.
Everybody has enough perks for a 163. Anyone who happens to have finished a flight can up one, spend 5 minutes whipping back and forth amongst the buffs and the defending fighters, glide back, hey presto.
Hardly worth upping a conventional fighter when the hq is near the strats. 163 = ultimate EZ mode.
-
It wouldnt be much of a loss to see the 163s dropped altogether to me but I know there have to other people that like them too much.
Really the only large effect 163s have is on the smaller maps with the exception of OZkansas where the 163 can just get to strats. Even on the smaller maps there are only a limited amount of people that will launch a 163 over and over because it gets old or they lose perks or whatever reason they have.
I think what makes AH great has changed over time and those old maps just dont satisfy people anymore. Look at Mindanao with its rough terrain and you can see right away how it limits tank drivers. AHBeta2 requires the capture of only four enemy fields from each team to reset (which sucks) and it immediately becomes a game of sit over one field and vultch while our fellow team members mudhen the vbases. The solution is more maps which only come from different map makers (new map makers) because the odds are very low of getting something new out of the guys that have already made maps.
Hopefully the changes HTC has planned will bring even more fixes to the situation.
-
You should educate yourself on the problems of high altitude flight.
:banana:
-
I'm thinking of just not flying them, on principle.
Just took me all of 8 minutes to catch a couple of lancs at 25k. Sure as hell took him a lot longer to get there, don't imagine he got many perks out of it either.
Who'd be sucker enough to fly buffs into 163 country?
-
Dont increase it plz. Otherwise the MA city would be down all the time, withouth much of a chance to defend... who or what else can kill a 32k b17 set??
-
They should be priced to make it hurt if you lose one.
I upped one a few weeks ago and purposely saddled up on a 29 just to see how bad/good my potato aim was. I got one 29 but was blown to bits. Was no big deal. He lost more than I did.
There is almost no way I do something like that if the price was in 262 range.
-
Dont increase it plz. Otherwise the MA city would be down all the time, withouth much of a chance to defend...
If that were the case, the Cities on large map outside the Me 163 coverage would be down all the time... which isn't the case. Not even when they are near the frontlines, such as they are on Tagma, and lots of the time on Ozkansas or Compello
-
If that were the case, the Cities on large map outside the Me 163 coverage would be down all the time... which isn't the case. Not even when they are near the frontlines, such as they are on Tagma, and lots of the time on Ozkansas or Compello
They are, i remember You being proud that how much You could destroy them ;)
In those maps, the resupply times are never close to the 30mins, rather the 60-90... what means, the city is more or less down.
-
They are, i remember You being proud that how much You could destroy them ;)4
But I' am not doing it all the time.
And no, they are not. Absolutely not. For example, The last two days of Compello, the Knight strats had been barely hit even though they had been in the default position. Rook and Bish strats had been hit more, but only rarely single factories or the city were dropping below 50%.
And by the way, when I logged in this mornign I saw the Knight strats being badly smashed in the 30% range despite being only a quarter of a sector away from the 163 base.
Things aren't just black and white :)
-
who or what else can kill a 32k b17 set??
Even with my aim, I'm having decent luck with the 47M, damn thing's a monster. Takes a number of passes though.
City might constantly be damaged, don't think I've ever seen one city down to zero, and I keep looking at our own, and at the bad guys'. And that's on large maps, where the 163s are a good distance away.
-
I want to add that at this very moment, on beta2 with all the strats being right next to the Me 163 base, all strats of all sides had been hit, for example Rook ammo 54%, Bish ammo 30% Knight City 81%.
For all bombers but the B-29 it's terribly dangerous to go there, but while returning is often no an option, surprisinlgy many bombers do make it to the strats and drop at least part of their bombs.
-
Pardon me if I missed something in this long thread, but has anyone yet made a case that properly escorted bombers can't survive the 163s?
Because, if the complaint applies to the case of unescorted bombers, remember that such missions were usually suicide in "real life" as well.
MH
-
So altitude is not an issue......... No O2 or pressurised cabin required for 163 (et al) pilits above 30k.
Could we nueter it via availability of fuel? I.e fuel strat has to be 100% to make 163 rocket fuel available?
-
Could we nueter it via availability of fuel? I.e fuel strat has to be 100% to make 163 rocket fuel available?
That feels wrong to me. It was a desperation weapon, not a "we're all fine here" weapon.
If it is being too disruptive, just increase its perk cost.
-
So altitude is not an issue......... No O2 or pressurised cabin required for 163 (et al) pilits above 30k.
The maximum operational altitude for the Me 163 was set at 12,000m that's 39,000 feet. That makes the altitude 'problem' almost a non issue - contrary to occasional claims bombers are about never flying that high. Even "only" 34k is very rare.
-
Pardon me if I missed something in this long thread, but has anyone yet made a case that properly escorted bombers can't survive the 163s?
Well, then I will do now.
Escorts do not really help against Me 163, as they can simply dart away and get into an attack position not covered by the escorts. The Komet can also regain alt in a few moments, escorts that have dropped below the raid altitude are basically out of play.
Against the Me 163, more bombers do actually help more than some additional fighters. Along with sensible routing, altitude and tight formations.
-
Pardon me if I missed something in this long thread, but has anyone yet made a case that properly escorted bombers can't survive the 163s?
Because, if the complaint applies to the case of unescorted bombers, remember that such missions were usually suicide in "real life" as well.
MH
My point wasn't just referring to attackers, I spent 45 minutes getting a Ta-152 up to 35k and in position to attack an incoming bomber stream only to see a gaggle of Komets up at the last minute and rip them to shreds. There are two sides to this coin.
-
Who'd be sucker enough to fly buffs into 163 country?
I go to stats to hunt 163s.
Last night I got 1 x 163 for the loss of 2 Ki-67s after I dropped on target. My best run was 3x163s and a spit 9 for the loss of 2 betty bombers.
163 are only dangerous when people know how to fly them.
-
We did a HQ run on the ground with tanks and flaks yesterday. It seemed ironic that instead of having 163s come after us they used A-20s and Lancasters.
I do think we got ratted out though since the first thing that spotted us at the rook hq was a very low rook lancaster who couldn't barely hit the ground with his bombs. What a coincidence...
-
Actually.....I spotted MK84 in a m4 climbing away from the spawn about 4 minutes after you guys took the field.
I did badly and flew down the barrel of his main gun.
Then I positioned a tiger between the spawn and lay in wait only to brush a banana tree which threw me rolling down the hill toward spawn as the enemy drove right past me.
I reported it and nobody responded until HQ was downed except for spook13.
When I saw that spawn so close to the city, it was very hard to resist the urge to go bish and shoot up the city or hq.
-
We did a HQ run on the ground with tanks and flaks yesterday. It seemed ironic that instead of having 163s come after us they used A-20s and Lancasters.
I do think we got ratted out though since the first thing that spotted us at the rook hq was a very low rook lancaster who couldn't barely hit the ground with his bombs. What a coincidence...
Could it have been Spiez?! Or maybe just a vehicle spawn or a base close enough to drive from. Even with the stupid 12 hour side switch limitation, the spiez are somehow as prevalent as ever. ;)
163 are only dangerous when people know how to fly them.
Ain't it the truth? I've seen many 163s fly right up the bomber's six, just like most other fighters. 163s are very easy to overspeed or collide and careful fuel management and trigger discipline is required (unless making the aforementioned dead six pass).
Making them more expensive will only hurt the inexperienced players by denying them its use. That is the same argument used against perking the overused P-51D or the easy mode Spit XVI.
-
So altitude is not an issue......... No O2 or pressurised cabin required for 163 (et al) pilits above 30k.
Could we nueter it via availability of fuel? I.e fuel strat has to be 100% to make 163 rocket fuel available?
Altitude is an issue for 163s above 40k (or should be). The few Spits that did it during the war used suits to keep the pilots warm and/or didnt go high enough above 40k to be an issue. 163s at 92k (as reported) would have their exposed body fluids boil and kill them in the real world (Armstrong Limit).
-
The 163 at 92k in game has no use.
It's almost useless above 50k because the critical speed and stall speed are almost equal and the only way to get higher is if you happen to be pointed almost straight up like a ballistic missile as you pass through 55k or so.
-
The 163 at 92k in game has no use.
It's almost useless above 50k because the critical speed and stall speed are almost equal and the only way to get higher is if you happen to be pointed almost straight up like a ballistic missile as you pass through 55k or so.
Ecept you mentioned that you have done this in order to get to different locations on the map. Pretty much thats a use.
-
Yes....to get to a location far away to see how far I can fly it but not for fighting since you have zero fuel with which to fight and it would be a one way mission in which nobody is willing to spend fighter perks.
Setting altitude, speed, and distance recordsare fun but I can't see much use for air combat or I would be using it big time.
If I want to go far........and use it to fight, I use the rearm pads.
-
it would be neat to find some sort of counterbalance.............. it seems a lazy counter move to what has taken some time to plan and even more to execute............. i.e a raid deep in enemy territory to hit a target (HQ) that will be resupplied in 20 minutes or less..............
P47's/109K's/Ta152's lifting to counter a hi alt inbound HQ raid have executed planning and had to commit time to respond. IMO their rewards are well earned. Yet the 163 is pretty safe even with its hi perk cost and can be launched at almost the last minute to eclipse the other interceptors.
163's were not that common deep over Germany in WWII yet they are the default HQ defenders here.
If its jet fuel tanks were to be untra vulnerable to enemy fire (exploding or something) it would be neat. If this is totally contray to historical data then something else or we just have to rely upon hyping the Perk cost. Problem with this is removing choice and I would not want to do that......... I would prefer to initiate risk an consequence for this lazy option some how.
-
it would be neat to find some sort of counterbalance.............. it seems a lazy counter move to what has taken some time to plan and even more to execute............. i.e a raid deep in enemy territory to hit a target (HQ) that will be resupplied in 20 minutes or less..............
P47's/109K's/Ta152's lifting to counter a hi alt inbound HQ raid have executed planning and had to commit time to respond. IMO their rewards are well earned. Yet the 163 is pretty safe even with its hi perk cost and can be launched at almost the last minute to eclipse the other interceptors.
163's were not that common deep over Germany in WWII yet they are the default HQ defenders here.
If its jet fuel tanks were to be untra vulnerable to enemy fire (exploding or something) it would be neat. If this is totally contray to historical data then something else or we just have to rely upon hyping the Perk cost. Problem with this is removing choice and I would not want to do that......... I would prefer to initiate risk an consequence for this lazy option some how.
No jet fuel in Komets :)
T-Stoff
C-Stoff
:D
-
163's don't have the range or the ability to withstand enemy bullets to deserve a higher perk cost.
-
I'm absolutely positive someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the komet's engine essentially a giant bottle rocket? In other words, it was pretty much a 'light the fuse and clench up until it burns out' situation, as opposed to being able to adjust the flow/change the amount of thrust/turn it on or off?
It would seem to me if that's the case, it would be a much better equalizer for it to work how it actually did, wouldn't it? No more getting to alt, killing the engine, gliding for a couple passes and then turning the engine back on to set up for another pass/get away from the escorts.
Wiley.
-
I'm absolutely positive someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the komet's engine essentially a giant bottle rocket? In other words, it was pretty much a 'light the fuse and clench up until it burns out' situation, as opposed to being able to adjust the flow/change the amount of thrust/turn it on or off?
Adjusting thrust ( 1kN to 15.7kN) as well as shutting down and restarting engine were possible.
-
Hmp! The more you know. Thanks Lusche.
Wiley.
-
Adjusting thrust ( 1kN to 15.7kN) as well as shutting down and restarting engine were possible.
I think he meant in RL, not in AH.
-
I think he meant in RL, not in AH.
So did I.
-
So did I.
kilo-newton is spy!