Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TheRapier on November 13, 2012, 05:20:52 PM
-
After witnessing weeks of bombers making high gee manuevers and viermots doing dive bombing, I will suggest some changes to address this.
As history has proven, unescorted bombers didn't fair well in running attacks on their own, with only gunners to defend. The current implementation makes them into near Death Stars.
Gunners
1. There is a group of people who have become expert in flying the machines just inside their structural limits. That seems fair. However what is NOT fair is that they have all their guns working. Given that all crewed weapons are manned by gunners that are standing or not strapped with the possible exception of belly turrets (in planes that have them), and these crew members would probably be nursing broken bones and injuries from a split S or roll, these guns should be disabled after high gee manuevers. That could be on a timer with a total limit to numbers of times it can be repeated. What should not happen is that the bomber split esses and emerges with all guns firing.
2. Gunners in real planes would vary in skill and have limited points of view. In the current set up, ALL gunners in all bombers of a flight of 3 are as good as the best gunner with an unlimited F3 view. That means an attacking fighter essentially runs into a buzz saw. Accuracy of guns in various positions can be degraded by a percentage to simulate various skill levels.
Bombs
1. Bombs should not release above a certain dive angle.
2. If this is difficult, bombs should not release above a certain speed.
Bomb and Bail
1. Allowing bomb and bail essentially doubles (or more) the number of sorties for a given pilot, which creates a volume of attack that makes it difficult for defenders to hold a field. If a bail is registered from an undamaged plane, damage of the bombs is halved.
I believe this will result in more equal and realistic fights and to some extent, stem the endemic horde warrior mentality.
-
I agree with everything except for the bomb and bail
It should be like a C47 were if you spawn back in the bombs dissapear
-
I agree with everything except for the bomb and bail
It should be like a C47 were if you spawn back in the bombs dissapear
been like that for years.
midway
-
As history has proven, unescorted bombers didn't fair well in running attacks on their own, with only gunners to defend. The current implementation makes them into near Death Stars.
bombers dont fare well in this game either, if the attacker knows what he is doing..
I dare say most people in game either dont know how or are too impatient to set up a proper attack on bombers.
when done right, a set of unescorted bombers is free kills.
-
I bomb a lot, and I do agree with some of this. 4-engine bombers are not dive bombers, and their bombs should NOT release unless the autopilot is in level flight and the player is in the bombardier position. Period. The driving of lancstukas from the pilots position in F3 mode and carpetbombing the gvs is just playstation gamey. That said, there are plenty of twin engine bombers (JU88s, A20s, B25s, B26s, etc) that did dive bombing and attack missions, and these should be gone thru on a case by case basis to see who should be allowed to bomb from the pilots seat. (Somebody check me, but I don't think the Betty or the Ki-67 did dive bombing).
That said, the gunnery is just fine as it is. You have told them what I DO get - let me tell you what I DO NOT get:
1. I don't get 8 sets of eyes searching the skies for enemy fighters.
2. I don't get gunners in multiple planes engaging multiple targets at once.
3. I don't get the ability to have my gunners actually engage anything while I am in the bombsite over the target.
So if you are insane enough to try to crawl up by B-17s tail, I can step on the rudder and turn right & left, but I am not pulling some high-G split-S on you. I may go ahead and nose up or down to make you have to climb up to catch me, or give you a longer tail chase, but that is about it.
The "bomb and bail" problem is not limited to bombers - I see plenty of P-51 base porkers that do the same thing. A quick suicidal bomb run, strafe a couple of strats until the ack gets you, then rinse & repeat. The disappearing bombs solution you propose would do nothing to stop either one, as I could just wait until bomb impact then then fly into the dirt and crash instead of bailing out. A lot of coding by HTC for no benefit at all. The problem is that there is very little benefit to me flying home (in either a bomber or a fighter) unless I need perks, and I usually don't. If there was some other benefit to actually bringing a ride home that might change (and there have been some other proposals in the forums about that).
$.02
-
Gunners
1. There is a group of people who have become expert in flying the machines just inside their structural limits. That seems fair. However what is NOT fair is that they have all their guns working. Given that all crewed weapons are manned by gunners that are standing or not strapped with the possible exception of belly turrets (in planes that have them), and these crew members would probably be nursing broken bones and injuries from a split S or roll, these guns should be disabled after high gee manuevers. That could be on a timer with a total limit to numbers of times it can be repeated. What should not happen is that the bomber split esses and emerges with all guns firing.
2. Gunners in real planes would vary in skill and have limited points of view. In the current set up, ALL gunners in all bombers of a flight of 3 are as good as the best gunner with an unlimited F3 view. That means an attacking fighter essentially runs into a buzz saw. Accuracy of guns in various positions can be degraded by a percentage to simulate various skill levels.
Are you going to apply the same kind of reasoning to fighters too? Or is it really just meant to dumb down bombers under the flag of 'realism' ? :)
-
Getting rid of the F3 bombing is probably the best solution
-
yes get rid of f3
-
Are you going to apply the same kind of reasoning to fighters too? Or is it really just meant to dumb down bombers under the flag of 'realism' ?
That is an interesting choice of words and it presupposes that the bombers weren't jacked up first :). They haven't always been this way, correct? So from my point of view, its not "dumbing down". It's more about reaching some point of reasonable game balance.
You are also sort of implying that I have an agenda, which I feel is really unworthy of you. I will say that I have thought about this a long time before making the suggestion.
It seems fairly obvious to me that there is an imbalance and an inaccuracy here. Dumbing 4 engined bombers down from aerobatic manuevers is a silly suggestion and I withdraw it. Of course most B17s in WWII pulled split esses as a regular thing so I stand corrected about realism.
We can of course assume the game is perfect the way it is and leave it at that. That seems to be the prevalent response to suggestions. Thank you all for your attention.
Please, play on! I will leave this to the experts who enjoy the game of the BBS.
-
Getting rid of the F3 bombing is probably the best solution
yes get rid of f3
It's been mentioned before (not word for word); Bob didn't wait for Carl to finish scanning the skies in the Top Turret before he could start scanning in the Bottom Turret. Get rid of F3 in bombers, give me AI Gunners AND the ability to man all guns if I wish. :aok
-
My view would be
If Bomber (re bomber/attack) is chosen......
Then
Formations enabled
Bomb release only from F6 after # secs in F6.
If Attack (re bomber/attack) is chosen
Then
Formations disabled
Bomb/Torpedo release from either F1 or F6 after # secs in F1/F6
Obviously if only the "Bomber" option (e.g Lanc, B17 etc) is available then the bomber settings are forced on.
This allows the pilot to operate his attack ac ( Boston, B26, B25, Ju88) in attack mode to dive bomb targets and release bombs from the pilots seat whilst being limited to a single plane and (during the bomb release period) having the same view over the nose that a pilot would have enjoyed.
It also disables F3 low level carpet bombing of vehicles and limits the heavy formation "pure bombers" to level bombing. (F6 always returnes the ac to level flight)
-
Then you would either need to drop the definition of bomber from a few A/C or give them the correct varients (if they exsisted) to compensate for a bomb site. (A20, Stuka, SBD, D3A etc)
-
Then you would either need to drop the definition of bomber from a few A/C or give them the correct varients (if they exsisted) to compensate for a bomb site. (A20, Stuka, SBD, D3A etc)
It's an attack/bomber choice and you can do it with the plane set choice we have as it is. The biggest change is that torpedo planes have to be designated attack( when torps are loaded) to allow the pilot to release. This also stops the ju88 taking a formation for torpedoes.
-
It's been mentioned before (not word for word); Bob didn't wait for Carl to finish scanning the skies in the Top Turret before he could start scanning in the Bottom Turret. Get rid of F3 in bombers, give me AI Gunners AND the ability to man all guns if I wish. :aok
So you want three chances AND otto autogunners to fill in for missing humans?? Um, no.
-
F3 has been afforded to a class of aircraft, it appears that anything in that class of aircraft is automatically gifted F3 views.
Ever wonder why the IL-2 and Stuka Ju87G-2 no longer have F3 capability? Look at how they are "coaded". Neither have "bomber" behind their name.
I'm not sure how this monster they call "coad" works, but I'd like to think HTC would be able to limit some functions in certain circumstances. For instance, if troops can not be let out of an M3 unless the player is in the driver seat, then why can't level bombers not be able to drop ord unless they are either in the pilot or bombardier's seat?
-
I say get rid of formations its not possible in real life so why is it in game After all it is suppose to be a combat Sim Flame on :bolt:
-
So you want three chances AND otto autogunners to fill in for missing humans?? Um, no.
Sure do. :P It was on the assumption that formations would be gotten rid of as well. :aok
-
So make bailing out take 5 seconds per crew member, regardless of plane... once you start your bail you lose control of the aircraft...
(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/13/132154/2262045-FlameShield.jpg)
-
I agree with everything except for the bomb and bail
It should be like a C47 were if you spawn back in the bombs dissapear
I dare say that this would not change any behavior.
I of course dare say this, because this is the way it all ready works.
HiTech
-
I say get rid of formations its not possible in real life so why is it in game After all it is suppose to be a combat Sim Flame on :bolt:
bomber formations weren't possible in real life? I seriously hope you weren't trying to claim that and the translation was lost in your poor writing.
ack-ack
-
bomber formations weren't possible in real life? I seriously hope you weren't trying to claim that and the translation was lost in your poor writing.
ack-ack
what I mean is the pilot should only be able to fly one plane. what I mean is there should be no drones
-
what I mean is the pilot should only be able to fly one plane. what I mean is there should be no drones
Then it would be a good idea to actually type what you mean.
ack-ack
-
Then it would be a good idea to actually type what you mean.
ack-ack
I am a mentally handicaped 15 year old i dont proof read sorry if i am annoying to you guys sheesh
-
I hate the Lancastuka attacks as well as the up a set of buffs from the airfield, get to a 1000 ft and then just drop all your bombs on a spawn point to just get a few GVs as much as anyone else, but I will also say that if someone can outfly you in a Bomber than your doing something very wrong. I have on a number of occasions ran into a pilot in a lone Lanc outturn me or do some kind of Hail Mary type of manuever and end up with a PW or running into said plane and I used to get so upset and blame that pilot for "cheating" or some other BS...then as time went on realised that I was to blame for allowing it to happen in the first place. Get used to it cuz there is nothing that is going to change it. I learned to just slow down, gain a little alt, then come back and send that plane down in a blaze of glory and then offer a :salute.
-
I am a mentally handicaped 15 year old i dont proof read sorry if i am annoying to you guys sheesh
I don't think lazy qualifies as a mental handicap, but I have been out of the medical field forever so I could be wrong.
-
I don't think lazy qualifies as a mental handicap, but I have been out of the medical field forever so I could be wrong.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I don't think lazy qualifies as a mental handicap, but I have been out of the medical field forever so I could be wrong.
i am lazy yes but i really am mentally handicapped sorry for the hijack
-
I say get rid of formations its not possible in real life so why is it in game After all it is suppose to be a combat Sim Flame on :bolt:
:airplane: Just to set the record straight: in WW2, all bombers, no matter which type, had a 3 aircraft "element", and it took 4, 3 aircraft elements to make a squadron combat box in the air! If you had say, 48 aircraft in a Group wing, then you would have 4 combat boxes, flying in formation as one defensive unit. I think what you meant to say, one pilot can't fly 3 aircraft at once, but Aces High did this correctly, with the 3 aircraft element because of the bomb loads required to "kill" hangars and etc. Example, if your took 6, 1,000 lbers in a B-17, you could only kill 2 hangars! With the 3 aircraft element, you would have at your disposal, 18, 1,000 lbers, hence, you could kill 6 hangars!(From a 79 year old, ex Air Force bomber pilot)
-
:airplane: Just to set the record straight: in WW2, all bombers, no matter which type, had a 3 aircraft "element", and it took 4, 3 aircraft elements to make a squadron combat box in the air! If you had say, 48 aircraft in a Group wing, then you would have 4 combat boxes, flying in formation as one defensive unit. I think what you meant to say, one pilot can't fly 3 aircraft at once, but Aces High did this correctly, with the 3 aircraft element because of the bomb loads required to "kill" hangars and etc. Example, if your took 6, 1,000 lbers in a B-17, you could only kill 2 hangars! With the 3 aircraft element, you would have at your disposal, 18, 1,000 lbers, hence, you could kill 6 hangars!(From a 79 year old, ex Air Force bomber pilot)
i know but there was only one plane each plane had a different pilot that is my point right now one pilot can fly three planes
-
The abilities of the bombers online versus fighters online is directly relative to the real world. I know this because I researched it quite thoroughly in coming up with the way I attack bombers (modifed 12 o'clock express is what B-29 gunners called the attack).
If a bomber is attacked properly (and by properly I mean with at least one wingman and by experienced fighter pilots) then it is exactly as pointed out already very easy to kill any bomber. If you attack one alone at high altitude then the bomber can easily out turn any fighter. So either way you need to demonstrate great patience. If you lack the experience then go look for easier targets.
-
The abilities of the bombers online versus fighters online is directly relative to the real world. I know this because I researched it quite thoroughly in coming up with the way I attack bombers (modifed 12 o'clock express is what B-29 gunners called the attack).
If a bomber is attacked properly (and by properly I mean with at least one wingman and by experienced fighter pilots) then it is exactly as pointed out already very easy to kill any bomber. If you attack one alone at high altitude then the bomber can easily out turn any fighter. So either way you need to demonstrate great patience. If you lack the experience then go look for easier targets.
Wish you would have posted this before my paragraph long rant lol...Amen brother! It took me a very long time to swallow my pride, kick my stubborness to the curb, and quit attacking buffs from the 6 "O" position thinking I could put more rounds into them before they got any lethal hits on me. Then, I somebody had mentioned to me attacking them from the 12 o'clock position and the rest is history. The only other method I may sometimes use is coming in from the high 3 or 9 position on a 45 degree dive and just laying into all 3 aircraftand then looping around and doing it from the other side. :salute
-
The most successful attack takes a lot of practice (experience) and patience but once you get it right then you will hardly ever get hit by the defensive guns. The reason I think you should have wingmen is because you really need to approach from at least 6k in front and I prefer a nice 10k separation so I can build speed on the way in. The wingmen sit out to either side of the bomber to prevent it from turning (attacking a turning bomber can mean three dead bombers in one pass). So after your pass you would climb out to the side of the bomber and let one of your wingmen go out in front. I do this with my wingmen but they seldom have the patience to go out as far as I do (there is a reason I go so far out: keep reading).
When you make your attack from high 12 the bomber is going to do one of four things.
1) He will remain level and man the guns.
2) He will zoom into your attack with a gunner defending.
3) He will dive and try to force you to compress.
4) He will turn.
If he remains level when you get to 1k you execute a constant rate (smooth) roll and then open fire at 500 yds (just as the range changes from 600 to 400) with the throttle back to about 80% (you should have more speed because of the long acceleration on the way in. Because of the speed involved the roll protects you from defensive guns and it is much easier to put your pipper on the bombers vector line. You exit laterally to avoid compression and defensive fire.
If he zooms you have a perfect shot at his cockpit but the risk of collision is higher. If you do not come in from directly off 12oc then it may spoil your shot. B29s will do this almost everytime once they get to 36k. Rather than the cockpit aim for the wings and when he pushes the nose down his tail may take damage too.
If he dives immediately pull the power back and attempt to rake his wings as you exit laterally. I have seen B29s shed all control surfaces trying to jump to the guns once they start taking fire. Its their fault for being gamey (yes I think this is gamey).
If he turns then turn opposite his turn and let your wingman at him.
A B29 at 36k is playing scared. He DOES NOT have the fuel to out run a Ta152 at that alt. Probably a November or Mike model jug has even more fuel. So if you are alone try to show even more patience and wait for him to lose altitude. This ALWAYS works but you have to give it a chance and not jump the gun. Remember: A B29 at low altitude cannot out maneuver a fighter. Below 13k it is very likely he will pull his own aircraft apart trying.
-
The only thing that needs fixing is the way the OP attacks bombers. Read Challenge's advice and then embrace it. Have more patience than the bomber. Don't fly with emotions, fly with the aircraft controls. Stop trying to fix how others play and fix how you play. Fix how you perceive the game. Maybe next time you attack a set of buffs and you have skillifully dispatched the first 2, give the pilot a salute, tell him he is free to land his last aircraft and break off, you just might make a new friend.
-
The only thing that needs fixing is the way the OP attacks bombers.
The OP has more time flying and probably better gunnery skills than 9/10s of the player base.
In fact, here is what the stats for Late War tour 167 say about the OP's gunnery. Hit percentage and rank in hit percentage.
Kills Hit Percentage 11.19 86
BTW, the OP's k/d against B-24J in tour 167 was 39-0.
I think personal incompetence or inability to kill bombers may be thoroughly dismissed as a cause for the OP's concerns.
Now let's look at some other stats:
Most popular bomber's kills/deaths/ratio
B-24J 1347 3850 0.35
Looks terrible for the B-24J doesn't it? However, each player gets to control not one but 3 bombers in a formation. That means if we consider the single player-controlled formation as a unit vrs. the single player-controlled fighter as a unit, the B-24 box basically kills as often as it dies. And it makes sense to consider the box a unit, because loosing one or two drones doesn't mean the mission is over, anymore than loosing an aileron and/or a gun means a fighter pilot must return to the tower or that a jabo run is over.
This is ignoring the fact that many bomber death are suicides from bomb and bail or bomb and auger. If we could filter those out, the effective k/d for bombers would be higher.
The B-17G box does even better:
B-17G 2610 6417 0.41
While to be fair the Lancaster box does worse. But hey, it is often *literally* used in drone-losing stuka-type maneuvers, now isn't it?
Lancaster III 2474 11851 0.21
Now, the fact that bomber boxes are killing as often as they die would be unimportant except for the fact that bombers essentially ARE the map movers. How hard they are to intercept in real terms has a real effect on game play. If we want buff piloting to be the main show in the MA, everything else to be kind of a sideshow, and escorting to be completely unnecessary (everyone who is honest about the game knows a box of B-planes is more dangerous to fight than a P-51), leave things as they are.
If there were any jabo aircraft that could reliably get to target and even fight off fighters otw to get there WITHOUT skinning its bombs, that killed as often as it died, AND which carried enough bomb load to shut down any base or wipe out a town, which sank CVs with a small percentage of its bombload, then the people poo-pooing the OP's concerns would likely be crying out for it to be perked, don't ya think? But change that to a bomber box and suddenly views change, for no reason that I can ascertain.
I see some of the most skilled players talking about how they kill bombers easily. Great, but that kind of goes along with a high degree of skill doesn't it? Skilled players kill everyone in everything easily. It could be argued they kill the average MA player in fighters with even less risk than they do buff formations. It kind of begs the question, should elite gunnery skills, a precise flight path, and a time-consuming setup you may not have time for if successful INTERCEPTION is your goal be required to shoot down freakin' bombers?
Lusche/Snailman is a skilled vet, no doubt one of the best buff hunters in the game. Being curious, I pulled his stats.
In late war tour 167, he had 135 kills of B-17G, and was killed by them 4 times. A k/d ratio of 33.75. Impressive. He had 69 kills of B-24 and was killed by them 3 times. K/D of 23. Impressive again, surely this demonstrates his high skill level, lethal aim, thought it also possibly demonstrates that the Ta-152, Tempest, Me-262, and Me-163 are better equipped for buff hunting than most of the other fighters in the game.
I'm also going to say that judging by remarks Snail himself has made on the forums, he has almost a talent for detecting large bomber missions in advance. I'm going to guess he rarely if ever accepts less than ideal bomber attack profiles against buffs upped with little warning in order to "save a base".
Of course, that tour Snail also killed Fw-190D9 thirteen times and was killed by it once. A k/d of 13, which to be fair is only about half his k/d against the B-17 and only about 2/3rds his k/d against the B-24. Still, it shows that some highly skilled player saying "I have a huge k/d ratio against bombers and they are easy kills" doesn't mean much, because almost everything is an easy kill for a highly skilled player.
But wait, there is more...if we consider that say, those 69 B-24s should really be divided by 3, because as I've pointed out a single-player controlled "box" should be considered a unit, then it becomes 23 "boxes" killed by Snail vs. 3 times such boxes have killed him. That brings the K/D for Snailman vs. the B-24 box to about 7.66. Still impressive on Snail's part, but it reveals a startling fact: You are probably going to die vs. Snailman :D, but in tour 167, you had a chance almost twice as good of killing Snail by upping a B-24 box than by upping the Dora *fighter*. But sure, this is normal, no need to take a look at anything :D
-
More stats!
In LW tour 167 the P-51D, killed the B-17 685 times and was killed by it 273 times. This works out to a K/d of 2.5. Okay, this seems to be clearly in the P-51's favor, although probably by a far lesser margin than anyone would have guessed.
But wait, let us apply the principle I explained earlier, and divide the 685 B-17s by 3 to arrive at 228 boxes, 228 units controlled by individual players. That means that in tour 167, 228 of these units, controlled by a single player were shot down by P-51s. Meanwhile, 273 P-51s, controlled by a single player, were shot down by single players controlling these B-17 units.
This means that in the world of the AH main in tour 167, on average the single player flying a B-17 BOMBER in a box was slightly more lethal to the single player in the P-51D FIGHTER than the other way around. Oh, and a P-51D carries what, about 2500 hundred pounds of ordinance? Whereas a *single* B-17 carries up to 6000 pounds of ord. But sure, everything is fine, change nothing...
(At least make the "big 3" of buffs ENY 5. The outnumbered side has much less to fear from a horde of P-51Ds than they have from the same number of players upping buffs and leveling their bases....)
-
More stats!
In LW tour 167 the P-51D, killed the B-17 685 times and was killed by it 273 times. This works out to a K/d of 2.5. Okay, this seems to be clearly in the P-51's favor, although probably by a far lesser margin than anyone would have guessed.
But wait, let us apply the principle I explained earlier, and divide the 685 B-17s by 3 to arrive at 228 boxes, 228 units controlled by individual players. That means that in tour 167, 228 of these units, controlled by a single player were shot down by P-51s. Meanwhile, 273 P-51s, controlled by a single player, were shot down by single players controlling these B-17 units.
This means that in the world of the AH main in tour 167, on average the single player flying a B-17 BOMBER in a box was slightly more lethal to the single player in the P-51D FIGHTER than the other way around. Oh, and a P-51D carries what, about 2500 hundred pounds of ordinance? Whereas a *single* B-17 carries up to 6000 pounds of ord. But sure, everything is fine, change nothing...
(At least make the "big 3" of buffs ENY 5. The outnumbered side has much less to fear from a horde of P-51Ds than they have from the same number of players upping buffs and leveling their bases....)
Redo that with a fighter not armed with popguns that would have been discarded as ineffective had we been faced with defending against heavy bombers attacking in large numbers.
In other words, check cannon armed birds. Preferably the fast German ones.
-
In other words, check cannon armed birds. Preferably the fast German ones.
We are talking about the MA, where interception most often must be done on the fly with whatever you've got. Thus I used the most popular fighter, which makes perfect sense.
Also, I have a concern because most German rides are disproportionately flown by Aces. Still, I'll take your challenge, using the D-9 (probably the most popular "fast German cannon ride in the LW MA"). From a quick glance it seems to have the most kills of such planes, with over seven thousand.
In tour 167 the D9 killed the B-17 463 times and was in turn killed by it 165 times. That works out to 2.8, only slighter better than the Pony with it's popguns, and the average skill level for D9 drivers is probably higher than that of the average for the Pony. Going with my treating boxes as a unit principle, 463/2=154 boxes controlled by single players being killed by the Dora and 165 Doras controlled by single players being killed by B-17s. Is that similar or different from what you expected?
-
The second most popular "fast German cannon ride" in the MA, the 109K4, killed the B-17 234 times and was killed by it 128 times. 1.8. 234/3=78 boxes controlled by a single player. A box of B-17s controlled by one player was substantially more likely to kill a 109 K4 controlled by a single player than the other way around in tour 167.
-
The 109 G14, with the capability to carry both a 30 mm cannon AND two 20 mm gondolas, killed the B-17 162 times. The B-17 killed it 55 times. K/D of 2.94, the best so far. This leads me to suspect that the G-14 is often being upped specifically for buff-hunting because of it's extra armament, and quite possibly by sticks who are better than the MA average. Still, if you divide 162/3 to arrive at 54 single-player controlled units, the B-17 slightly outfought the G-14 in tour 167.
-
The P-47M is tough, heavily armed with .50s that are easier to hit with for most, and wicked fast.
In tour 167, the P-47M killed the B-17G 388 times and was killed by it 143 times. That gives us a K/D of 2.71, slightly above the Pony, slightly below the D9. Dividing by 3, 129 boxes of B-17s, again controlled by single players, fell to P-47Ms vs. 143 P-47Ms controlled by single players falling to B-17 boxes.
-
Redo that with a fighter not armed with popguns that would have been discarded as ineffective had we been faced with defending against heavy bombers attacking in large numbers.
In other words, check cannon armed birds. Preferably the fast German ones.
I think the P-51D may actually be an *above average* interceptor of buffs in the LW MA, at least according to statistics. The Spitfire XVI, also very popular and armed with .50s+Hizookas, had 231 kills of B-17s in 167 and was killed by B-17s 147 times. 1.57. So the Spixteen killed 77 boxes of B-17s an was killed by these boxes 147 times. Horrible.
Now the P-51D is no doubt a little tougher and decidedly faster than the Spit, but OTOH the latter is more heavily armed and still substantially faster than a bomber. I think the difference is that the P-51D is often hanging around at nose-bleed alts where it can set up a pass on any buffs it spots, whereas the Spixteen is often used for base defense and *actual interception* of formations, between the time they are detected and the time they drop their bombs. Which under MA conditions, is a Quixotic thing that many experienced players shun in favor of the (arguably easier and inarguably more fun) task of racking up a decent k/d fighter vs. fighter.
-
Sure do. :P It was on the assumption that formations would be gotten rid of as well. :aok
Sir, if I want 2 extra sets of guns to up with me to attack bombers, I have to manage to coordinate it with two other human players.
A buff pilot has to check a box in a hangar.
If I want to arrive in formation and make a decent coordinated gun pass on a bomber, I once again need human cooperation, I need all 3 of us to be skilled in formation flying and skilled in keeping our aircraft steady on a guns pass.
On the other hand, a buff pilot has to hit the "X" key. By doing so he gets a *perfectly* steady gun platform (in R/L buff gunners would have had minor turbulence disturbing their aim) which requires little skill to aim, with the all the concentrated firepower of his box at his disposal.
Look man, if your box of B-17s is formidable because you have 3 skillful pilots flying formation possibly backed by 3 skillful gunners, more power to you. :salute Or 6 B-17s in formation, whichever one works for you. That involves skill and is taking up the labor of 6 individuals. Against 6 other individuals flying 6 fighters, I'd call that even.
But as it stands, those 6 individual players in the B-17s could conceivably bring the firepower and bomb load of up to18 B-17s in an attack. Opposed equally by 6 individual players in fighters, it is hardly even a contest-There is virtual certainty that enough of those buffs will get through with enough massive bomb overkill to shut down any base.
Under MA conditions, the current set up for buffs puts a disproportionate level of power in the hands of bomber pilots, making them the most important element of map moving, also making fighter escort irrelevant and interception Quixotic. This is the fact of it. If you think this is optimum for gameplay, fine, we will agree to disagree.
As I said earlier, at least make the Big 3 heavies ENY 5. Waves of buffs shutting down bases are a far bigger problem for the heavily outnumbered side on the map than P-51Ds and Spit16s, so said buffs should be among the first airplanes taken off the table for the high numbers side.
-
The heavy bombers should have lower ENY. Encourage more medium bomber usage. +1
Despite your extrapolations of statistics, bombers are no match for fighters. All it takes is patience and the fighter pilot will win almost every time.
-
The heavy bombers should have lower ENY. Encourage more medium bomber usage. +1
Despite your extrapolations of statistics, bombers are no match for fighters. All it takes is patience and the fighter pilot will win almost every time, unless 999000 is at the helm. Then you effed.
FIXED
:D
-
The problem is that you are focused on the K/D ratio and are ignoring the gameplay aspect. If you make bombers into singles and essentially free kills then why should you ever take a slow flying, slow climbing B-17G with 6,000lbs of bombs when you can take a P-38L or P-47N that have ~3,500-4,250lbs of destruction (not counting guns) and can do two, three or four sorties in the time the B-17G does one and are more likely to make it to the target? Fewer level bombers means more suicide jabos.
Do you want to see bombers in the game or do you want that diversity eliminated?
Also consider new player retention. New players frequently start out in bombers as they can participate and have some successes and useful contribution in them whereas if they are forced into fighters they are just killed over and over and over with little or no reward.
-
The problem is that you are focused on the K/D ratio and are ignoring the gameplay aspect. If you make bombers into singles and essentially free kills then why should you ever take a slow flying, slow climbing B-17G with 6,000lbs of bombs when you can take a P-38L or P-47N that have ~3,500-4,250lbs of destruction (not counting guns) and can do two, three or four sorties in the time the B-17G does one and are more likely to make it to the target? Fewer level bombers means more suicide jabos.
Do you want to see bombers in the game or do you want that diversity eliminated?
Also consider new player retention. New players frequently start out in bombers as they can participate and have some successes and useful contribution in them whereas if they are forced into fighters they are just killed over and over and over with little or no reward.
problem with bombes is that everybody seems to think that bombers are only useful from 20k up. for example I have seen bombers at 10k or more trying to sink cv's. the optimal altitude is 5.5 to 6k altitude, you may get an oil leak from ack perhaps every other sorty but you will live.
I really dont like going to target above 10k. over most targets there isnt fighters at that altitude anyway. no reason to go to 20k unless you already know there's fighters at that altitude.
semp
-
problem with bombes is that everybody seems to think that bombers are only useful from 20k up. for example I have seen bombers at 10k or more trying to sink cv's. the optimal altitude is 5.5 to 6k altitude, you may get an oil leak from ack perhaps every other sorty but you will live.
I really dont like going to target above 10k. over most targets there isnt fighters at that altitude anyway. no reason to go to 20k unless you already know there's fighters at that altitude.
semp
I am a bomber hunter, that's my thing. I only go after fighters if there are no bombers or they mess with me. The majority of bombers I encounter of late are above 15, usually 18K.
A good 5" gunner can take out a formation of bombers running under 8K before they can drop on a CV. Be cautious.
With a proper approach and patience, even 999000 is downable.
-
I am a bomber hunter, that's my thing. I only go after fighters if there are no bombers or they mess with me. The majority of bombers I encounter of late are above 15, usually 18K.
A good 5" gunner can take out a formation of bombers running under 8K before they can drop on a CV. Be cautious.
With a proper approach and patience, even 999000 is downable.
99% of the time, the gunners are busy shelling the field with the 5in. I actually pray for gunners to be on the cv as that's the easiest way to find it :rofl.
semp
-
most effective method I used to use against cv's was a set of 234's screaming in at 1000-1500 ft.
100% effective in my experience. usually would lose a drone or two to the ack.. so it could get expensive if you did nothing but kill cv's.
-
Despite your extrapolations of statistics, bombers are no match for fighters.
My statistics show that when a box of bombers controlled by the average MA single player meets a fighter controlled by average MA single player, on average the guy with the buffs is the last one left standing at least as often as the other way around. This is inarguable, the numbers clearly show it. This is the definition of bombers being a match for fighters.
Again, I remind that reader that many bomber "deaths" are essentially suicide, a sizable proportion of the of kills awarded to fighters aren't actually victories at all, but involve pinged bombers bailing/auguring/deliberately flying through ack, etc. If these deaths could be filtered out, no doubt buff formations in AHII would be demonstrated to be even stronger relative fighters.
All it takes is patience and the fighter pilot will win almost every time.
The statistics do no support this assertion. There is of course some truth to what you say, but ultimately it is as meaningless as saying "With sufficient skill, a P-39 pilot can defeat SpitfireXVIs almost every time". This statement is just as true as yours, but it has nothing to do with the reality of what on average happens when the typical MAer clashes with another typical MAer.
With sufficient "patience", i.e. a willingness to never engage unless the odds are in your favor, a pilot in most any fast fighter can rack of a k/d of Skies-The-Limit/Naught vs. all plane types. Funny how this is called "skill" when engaging bombers, but is called timidness/lack of a boredom gene when it comes to other endeavors in AHII... However, while you are showing "patience" with that buff box, often as not it just leveled a base and has completed its objective. If you destroy the entire thing instead of letting them RTB, why that just gets them back up in a fresh set of buffs more quickly.
-
My statistics show that when a box of bombers controlled by the average MA single player meets a fighter controlled by average MA single player, on average the guy with the buffs is the last one left standing at least as often as the other way around. This is inarguable, the numbers clearly show it. This is the definition of bombers being a match for fighters.
No, the B-17G is, perhaps, a match for the average fighter player. The Lancaster certainly is not.
Again, I remind that reader that many bomber "deaths" are essentially suicide, a sizable proportion of the of kills awarded to fighters aren't actually victories at all, but involve pinged bombers bailing/auguring/deliberately flying through ack, etc. If these deaths could be filtered out, no doubt buff formations in AHII would be demonstrated to be even stronger relative fighters.
Really? You have evidence to support this? I've never seen it. Every bomber I've ever seen suicide did so well before getting pinged, before my fighter was even within range to be granted a proxy. If the bomber hangs on long enough for the fighter to be in range of pinging it then the bomber is going to fight it out.
The statistics do no support this assertion. There is of course some truth to what you say, but ultimately it is as meaningless as saying "With sufficient skill, a P-39 pilot can defeat SpitfireXVIs almost every time". This statement is just as true as yours, but it has nothing to do with the reality of what on average happens when the typical MAer clashes with another typical MAer.
The statistics do bear that out. The outcome of a bomber vs fighter fight is far, far more in the hands of the fighter player than it is of the bomber player. Look at Lusche's states. Every time I have encountered 999000 he has lost aircraft to me, I have never been killed by him.
With sufficient "patience", i.e. a willingness to never engage unless the odds are in your favor, a pilot in most any fast fighter can rack of a k/d of Skies-The-Limit/Naught vs. all plane types. Funny how this is called "skill" when engaging bombers, but is called timidness/lack of a boredom gene when it comes to other endeavors in AHII... However, while you are showing "patience" with that buff box, often as not it just leveled a base and has completed its objective. If you destroy the entire thing instead of letting them RTB, why that just gets them back up in a fresh set of buffs more quickly.
The nature of the bomber vs fighter fight is different than the fighter vs fighter fight. When I am in a bomber and the fighter takes the time to setup proper attacks I never feel like he is being timid or wasting my time. Its not like I'd be going anywhere else anyways. This comes from the fact that the bomber's purpose is to hit things on the ground while the fighter's purpose is to shoot things in the air. So if I am in a fighter and a P-51D is being so cautious of engaging me that essentially nothing is happening for many minutes, well, I could be elsewhere killing aircraft. When I am in a bomber and an Fw190A-8 is taking his time to set up a proper attack, well, that just gives me something to look at and calculate a response to as I fly towards my target, and flying towards my target is all that I'd be doing if Mr Fw190A-8 wasn't there.
This still comes back to you wanting to eliminate bombers from the game. Take away their formations and the B-17's 2.5 deaths per kill suddenly means most bomber sorties are complete wastes of time. Not only do they take much longer to do than a fighter sortie or fighter-bomber sortie, they are also accomplish a lot less on average than a fighter or fighter-bomber sortie. Bombers are often the first place that new players find fun, some success and some contribution that encourages them to sign up and pay to play. Further, gutting the effectiveness of bombers is likely to lead to even more kamikaze fighter-bombers.
Your desire to gut the ability of bombers to succeed would be very harmful to the game if actually implemented.
-
With sufficient "patience", i.e. a willingness to never engage unless the odds are in your favor, a pilot in most any fast fighter can rack of a k/d of Skies-The-Limit/Naught vs. all plane types. Funny how this is called "skill" when engaging bombers, but is called timidness/lack of a boredom gene when it comes to other endeavors in AHII...
nice burn on the so called "fighters" :aok.
semp
-
The problem is that you are focused on the K/D ratio and are ignoring the gameplay aspect. If you make bombers into singles and essentially free kills then why should you ever take a slow flying, slow climbing B-17G with 6,000lbs of bombs when you can take a P-38L or P-47N that have ~3,500-4,250lbs of destruction (not counting guns) and can do two, three or four sorties in the time the B-17G does one and are more likely to make it to the target? Fewer level bombers means more suicide jabos.
The P-47D-40, probably the most popular bomb truck, had a k/d of .80 in tour 167. This of course includes instances when it was *not* flown as a bomb truck, these cannot be filtered out. And no one had two extra P-47Ds flying along with them after their first one got shot down. These numbers strongly imply that level bombers are at least as likely to place ord on target as the P-47D40, but alot more of it.
In cases where the the single jabo is shot down, the mission is over. In cases where the jabo is forced to dump ords to defend itself, the mission is also over. This is a common MA experience-jabos encountered a reasonable distance from the base are burdened enough that they are easy to run down, and easy to kill. They must either skin ords or die, and likely still die. Whereas buffs can and often do *kill a fighter or two* and still deliver between 6000 and 18,000 pounds of ord to the target.
If some sort of attack aircraft allowed a single player to actually fight its way to target, rack up what amounts to a 1-1 k/d doing so, and still deliver at least 6K and as much as 18k ords, there would be cries to have it perked. But that is exactly what buffs boxes amount to in AHII.
However, it is not an either-or proposition. Correctly me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have proposed that 1000 pound bombs on fighters be lightly perked, and I would also support that.
Do you want to see bombers in the game or do you want that diversity eliminated?
I actually don't favor eliminating formations, but taking certain other steps. But let's run with your logic here anyway...
Certain fighters like the 109E are difficult and relatively unrewarding to fly in the LW MA. You almost never see them. Therefore I think we should allow anyone who ups an Emil to have two drone "wingmen" and F3 mode...it would make things more "diverse".
Seriously, it is unlikely that bombers would ever be completely eliminated. But what we have is not really diversity. The buff formation is what moves maps in the MA, it is about the only mission profile that really matters. Interception is an exercise in masochism and escort is irrelevant. It would in fact be grand if there were fewer buffs being flown in the MA and more fighters being flown to escort them so that said buffs would stand a decent chance of reaching a defended target.
Instead we have a situation where 6 players in single fighters attempting to defend a base from 6 players in heavy buffs must shoot down 18 almost ludicrously tough aircraft defended by, if I calculate correctly, 216 .50 caliber machine guns, and carrying 108,000 pounds of ordinance. If even one or two of those 18 bombers get through, it carries enough to level a base and essentially win the fight. And it is demonstrable that average MA buffer vs. average MA fighter pilot, more than one or two WILL get through. Offense/defense are ridiculously mismatched in this case, to the detriment of game play IMO.
(Average MA buffer vs. "leet" buff hunter, the "leet" buff hunter will use his "patience" to set up and eliminate the buffs long after doing so does his side any good, then poo-poo any suggestions that heavies are a bit unbalancing in the MA by crowing about his k/d vs. buffs :devil )
However, I don't think boxes will ever be eliminated, for aesthetic reasons if nothing else. My most conservative suggestion is lowering the ENY of the big heavies to 5. The last thing the outnumbered side needs is waves of bombers taking their hangars away. That is the most boredom inducing non-fight imaginable.
My other suggestion is to limit single players to controlling single defensive positions on buffs. Three tail guns firing at an incoming attacker is still a lot of discouragement, but not ridiculously so. It is also my perception that the individual gunner positions are very hard to kill, even when pouring fire directly into them, and this should be looked at. Maybe 30 millimeter cannon fire walking down the fuselage of a buff shouldn't bring it down, but it should probably kill/disable every theoretical "human" inside.
Also, were it possible to coad, I would throw bomber pilots a bone by allowing them to fill all gunner positions with additional players beyond the one gunner currently allowed. Hey, if your bomber formation is a death star because you got 6 really skillful gunners to join you, more power to you. This is teamwork, this is what MMO games are about, but this is NOT an overwhelming flotilla of destruction that is unfair to the poor devils trying to defend.
Also consider new player retention. New players frequently start out in bombers as they can participate and have some successes and useful contribution in them whereas if they are forced into fighters they are just killed over and over and over with little or no reward.
This is highly speculative at best. You could just as easily speculate that we lose noobs who are looking to shoot down bombers for easy kills but who (correctly) call horsehockey when they get buzz-sawed to death by another can't-fly noob in buffs because of the overwhelming firepower given to single players by buff formations vs. driving any other plane or vehicle.
-
My statistics show that when a box of bombers controlled by the average MA single player meets a fighter controlled by average MA single player, on average the guy with the buffs is the last one left standing at least as often as the other way around. This is inarguable, the numbers clearly show it. This is the definition of bombers being a match for fighters.
Again, I remind that reader that many bomber "deaths" are essentially suicide, a sizable proportion of the of kills awarded to fighters aren't actually victories at all, but involve pinged bombers bailing/auguring/deliberately flying through ack, etc. If these deaths could be filtered out, no doubt buff formations in AHII would be demonstrated to be even stronger relative fighters.
The statistics do no support this assertion. There is of course some truth to what you say, but ultimately it is as meaningless as saying "With sufficient skill, a P-39 pilot can defeat SpitfireXVIs almost every time". This statement is just as true as yours, but it has nothing to do with the reality of what on average happens when the typical MAer clashes with another typical MAer.
With sufficient "patience", i.e. a willingness to never engage unless the odds are in your favor, a pilot in most any fast fighter can rack of a k/d of Skies-The-Limit/Naught vs. all plane types. Funny how this is called "skill" when engaging bombers, but is called timidness/lack of a boredom gene when it comes to other endeavors in AHII... However, while you are showing "patience" with that buff box, often as not it just leveled a base and has completed its objective. If you destroy the entire thing instead of letting them RTB, why that just gets them back up in a fresh set of buffs more quickly.
You are comparing apples to oranges. A fighter engages the bomber when and where it chooses. The bomber can only be defensive. Most fighters lose to bombers because they spend 10 minutes climbing up to them but can't wait another few minutes to get above them for a proper attack run. Lack of patience causes their demise. They don't need to improve their piloting skills one iota, in order to greatly increase their success against bombers.
I just follow the same routine every time and have been overwhelmingly successful at it: high speed passes from 11/1 O'clock high. Use the speed built in the dive to pull out ahead and climb back up to a perch. Rinse and repeat. It's more of a technique than a skill.
ACM versus other fighters is so much more complex and ever changing, requiring BFM skills, marksmanship and strategy. My success rate against other fighters pales greatly, compared to the relative ease of killing thousands of bombers over the years.
-
Your desire to gut the ability of bombers to succeed would be very harmful to the game if actually implemented.
OTOH, I think the near certainty that bombers WILL succeed in their mission under MA conditions, to the point that buff flying is practically the only mission profile that matters, is harmful to game play. I think putting such a massive amount of firepower and ordinance, unlike that found in other planes/vehicles in the hands of single players unbalances offense/defense in a deleterious manner. I think changes that would encourage cooperation with other bomber pilots, make fighter escort useful, and interception non-masochistic would help gameplay in a MMO about WWII aerial combat. As it is fighter air superiority is somewhat spurious and buffs do more to end combat rather than promote it.
-
I bomb a lot, and I do agree with some of this. 4-engine bombers are not dive bombers, and their bombs should NOT release unless the autopilot is in level flight and the player is in the bombardier position. Period. The driving of lancstukas from the pilots position in F3 mode and carpetbombing the gvs is just playstation gamey. That said, there are plenty of twin engine bombers (JU88s, A20s, B25s, B26s, etc) that did dive bombing and attack missions, and these should be gone thru on a case by case basis to see who should be allowed to bomb from the pilots seat. (Somebody check me, but I don't think the Betty or the Ki-67 did dive bombing).
That said, the gunnery is just fine as it is. You have told them what I DO get - let me tell you what I DO NOT get:
1. I don't get 8 sets of eyes searching the skies for enemy fighters.
2. I don't get gunners in multiple planes engaging multiple targets at once.
3. I don't get the ability to have my gunners actually engage anything while I am in the bombsite over the target.
So if you are insane enough to try to crawl up by B-17s tail, I can step on the rudder and turn right & left, but I am not pulling some high-G split-S on you. I may go ahead and nose up or down to make you have to climb up to catch me, or give you a longer tail chase, but that is about it.
The "bomb and bail" problem is not limited to bombers - I see plenty of P-51 base porkers that do the same thing. A quick suicidal bomb run, strafe a couple of strats until the ack gets you, then rinse & repeat. The disappearing bombs solution you propose would do nothing to stop either one, as I could just wait until bomb impact then then fly into the dirt and crash instead of bailing out. A lot of coding by HTC for no benefit at all. The problem is that there is very little benefit to me flying home (in either a bomber or a fighter) unless I need perks, and I usually don't. If there was some other benefit to actually bringing a ride home that might change (and there have been some other proposals in the forums about that).
$.02
AR-234B was almost completely used as a dive bomber the horizontal bomb sight was only on the flight leaders aircraft & the rest of the squadron would drop on his command.
-
You are comparing apples to oranges. A fighter engages the bomber when and where it chooses. The bomber can only be defensive. Most fighters lose to bombers because they spend 10 minutes climbing up to them but can't wait another few minutes to get above them for a proper attack run.
And in the time you do all this patient setup in the MA, like as not the bomber formation renders the hangars of the base you are attempting to defend level. The MA is not a scenario, whether the bombers are destroyed by you or stagger back to base after getting their ords off is irrelevant to the ebb and flow of combat. In fact, destroying bombers on RTB simply increases the number of sorties per hour the bomber pilot can fly.
Lack of patience causes their demise. They don't need to improve their piloting skills one iota, in order to greatly increase their success against bombers.
You are trying to explain away the fact that the average a single player in a buff formation is in fact a match for the average single player in a fighter. It just doesn't work, anymore than claiming P-39>SpitXVI because you or or some other elite pilot kill spixteens regularly in P-39s works.
The reality of the MA is that large numbers of average fighter sticks will tell you that they avoid attacking buffs and stick with engaging other fighters because engaging buffs (piloted by players generally at least as "average") is so masochistic.
-
With sufficient "patience", i.e. a willingness to never engage unless the odds are in your favor, a pilot in most any fast fighter can rack of a k/d of Skies-The-Limit/Naught vs. all plane types. Funny how this is called "skill" when engaging bombers, but is called timidness/lack of a boredom gene when it comes to other endeavors in AHII... However, while you are showing "patience" with that buff box, often as not it just leveled a base and has completed its objective. If you destroy the entire thing instead of letting them RTB, why that just gets them back up in a fresh set of buffs more quickly.
There is a big difference between an attacking fighter showing "patience" in setting up their attack on a formation of bombers and a player in a fighter that isn't willing to fight.
ack-ack
-
There is a big difference between an attacking fighter showing "patience" in setting up their attack on a formation of bombers and a player in a fighter that isn't willing to fight.
ack-ack
There's really not too much difference. Both involve racking up a large k/d at the expense of time. A fighter pilot born with a boredom gene and simply out for fun will avoid the masochism of attacking bombers and simply play with other fighters, as large numbers of pilots in the MA do. A fighter pilot interested in the "war"/base defense/keeping the freakin' fight from being toolshedded out of existence will often end up making "bad" approaches, not out of stupidity but because taking the time to be smarter else means that the buffs will get their bombs off. If he is smart, he'll also ignore buffs that have already dropped because their RTB simply increases the amount of time it takes to bring back more bombs. Escorting and the fight for air superiority will continue to be an irrelevant sideshow as far as map moving goes, that will be decided mostly by the buff pilots on each side. All of that is not such a bad thing that it ruins the game, but it is not exactly a good thing either.
-
The bomber guys have a pretty tough gig in the MA. No adjustments to the gunners or F3 are needed. They have resonable defensive ability versus average MA pilots. My biggest issue with bombers is their ability to fly with the throttles firewalled and somehow maintain formation (a guy who owns an RV should know better). That's a nearly impossible feat in reality as the trailing planes would be unable to make corrections and still manage to keep up. I do agree with earlier posts that bombs should only be able to be released from the bombardier posisition in 4 engined bombers and only from smaller bombers if they have no drones.
To sum up and keep it simple... No bomb release from the pilots seat if formation is enabled. Formations limited to 90% power.
-
I would like a message to pop up saying what guns on the bomber where killed when I attack it.
-
The bomber guys have a pretty tough gig in the MA.
Do they? Experience suggests that in the MA that the bomber will get through.
Of course, this has also been said about real life, but in real life it takes about ten men to control one such bomber, men you very likely to lose if the buffs are unescorted. In the MA, ten individuals can effectively fly 30 bombers to attack a base.
Meanwhile, 10 people defending get 10 single seat fighters, making the offense/defense balance ridiculously lopsided. And of course, strategically it costs nothing in the MA if most or all of those bombers are shot down eventually, as long as enough of them get their bombs off.
I think my suggestions would be easier to implement and do more to solve the problem than your throttle thing, but hey, I can't fault you for spitballing new approaches. Something needs to be done at any rate.
-
There's really not too much difference. Both involve racking up a large k/d at the expense of time. A fighter pilot born with a boredom gene and simply out for fun will avoid the masochism of attacking bombers and simply play with other fighters, as large numbers of pilots in the MA do. A fighter pilot interested in the "war"/base defense/keeping the freakin' fight from being toolshedded out of existence will often end up making "bad" approaches, not out of stupidity but because taking the time to be smarter else means that the buffs will get their bombs off. If he is smart, he'll also ignore buffs that have already dropped because their RTB simply increases the amount of time it takes to bring back more bombs. Escorting and the fight for air superiority will continue to be an irrelevant sideshow as far as map moving goes, that will be decided mostly by the buff pilots on each side. All of that is not such a bad thing that it ruins the game, but it is not exactly a good thing either.
...What game are you playing? Heavy fighter smash and grabs move far, far more mud than these unstoppable 30 buff formations you are imagining.
In my experience, it's a rare thing to see more than two sets of buffs headed in the same direction, let alone flying in formation. Maybe once a night. Sure, they will get to their target if you don't have alt on them and you only head out to attack them once they've broken the radar circle. However, it is technically possible for defenders to fly outside of their radar circle, high, and engage bombers when they are further away from your base with a chance to kill them before they make their drops. It does involve a bit of forethought, and sometimes you come up dry. To me, that's gameplay.
Bluntly put, if you're flying a plane that is a decent bomber killer and you have alt on the buff when the fight starts, it is rare the bomber survives unless you make mistakes/he gets lucky. If you waited too long to engage/got unlucky, that's just the way it happens sometimes.
The stats in the main reflect that very few people in the MA actually do this though, instead creeping from dead six making crappy attacks and dying a lot. That's on them, it's not the game design's fault. If you make it so the guy creeping from dead six has an equal chance against the buff, a decent attack will be completely unsurvivable.
Wiley.
-
Do they? Experience suggests that in the MA that the bomber will get through.
Well considering me, a pilot of average skill, can kill them at a rate of about 20 to 1. I'd consider that a pretty tough gig. We want to have bomers in game and we shouldn't hamper them so bad that no one will fly them. We already have fleets of fighters wiping out bases and providing their own cap. If the bombers become much harder to defend they'll never leave the hangars. I'd like to see 1k bombs removed or perked for heavy fighters just to add more reasons to see attack aircraft used instead of the MA standard 30 Lightning/Pony auger missions that close bases now. But divebombing formations and lancstukas have always been an issue. Simplest solution to me seems to take away the ability for divebombing with a formation. The speed thing is less important and just a pet peev.
-
Well considering me, a pilot of average skill, can kill them at a rate of about 20 to 1. I'd consider that a pretty tough gig.
You're pretty above average, Mak. See Lusche's stats on what actually constitutes an 'average' MA player.
Back to the original point of the thread though, I think it would be pretty ok to have the gunners that aren't strapped in unable to fire for a few seconds after an extreme maneuver in a buff. Some people really have riding the edge of plane performance and drone following down to an art form.
I rarely see the buffs doing anything too extreme, my personal nemesis is the shallow dive guys. They get it up to max speed headed away from me and I find it really tough to get to them sometimes if they make their turns at the right times.
It's a bit gamey, but when you consider the way fighters stallfight with flaps and whatnot, that's not exactly how most altercations occurred IRL either. We can do things in here that lack of dying when they screw up make worthwhile moves versus the real world. Just the way it is.
Wiley.
-
See rule #4
-
And in the time you do all this patient setup in the MA, like as not the bomber formation renders the hangars of the base you are attempting to defend level. The MA is not a scenario, whether the bombers are destroyed by you or stagger back to base after getting their ords off is irrelevant to the ebb and flow of combat. In fact, destroying bombers on RTB simply increases the number of sorties per hour the bomber pilot can fly.
You are right about the MA not being a scenario. It is an open sandbox to play any way you want. There is no requirement to make suicidal attacks on bombers to protect your base.
You are trying to explain away the fact that the average a single player in a buff formation is in fact a match for the average single player in a fighter. It just doesn't work, anymore than claiming P-39>SpitXVI because you or or some other elite pilot kill spixteens regularly in P-39s works.
The reality of the MA is that large numbers of average fighter sticks will tell you that they avoid attacking buffs and stick with engaging other fighters because engaging buffs (piloted by players generally at least as "average") is so masochistic.
Behold the 2013 Kills Of/KilledBy stats of yours truly, versus some popular fighters:
109K4 37/26 - 1.37/1
F4U-1A 94/30 - 3.03/1
190D-9 75/28 - 2.58/1
La-7 70/30 - 2.25/1
N1K 58/14 - 3.86/1
P-38J 50/19 - 2.50/1
P-47M 55/21 - 2.50/1
P-51D 333/78 - 4.21/1
SpitXVI 85/44 - 1.88/1
Total 857/290 - 2.94/1
Above average, but hardly "leet". Now compare those numbers to the K/D versus level bombers in 2013:
B-17 283/10 - 25.72/1
B-24 264/5 - 44.00/1
B-25C 49/0 - 49.00/1
B-26 100/15 - 16.66/1
B-29 4/0 - 4.00/1
Boston 27/0 - 27.00/1
G4M1 22/1 - 11.00/1
He-111 22/0 - 22.00/1
Ju-88 54/3 - 13.50/1
Ki-67 21/2 - 7.00/1
Lanc 628/8 - 69.70/1
Total 1474/34 - 42.11/1
There you have it. Killing bombers much easier than killing fighters. Unless I somehow got magically "skilled" only when attacking bombers.
-
You're pretty above average, Mak. See Lusche's stats on what actually constitutes an 'average' MA player.
Back to the original point of the thread though, I think it would be pretty ok to have the gunners that aren't strapped in unable to fire for a few seconds after an extreme maneuver in a buff. Some people really have riding the edge of plane performance and drone following down to an art form.
I rarely see the buffs doing anything too extreme, my personal nemesis is the shallow dive guys. They get it up to max speed headed away from me and I find it really tough to get to them sometimes if they make their turns at the right times.
It's a bit gamey, but when you consider the way fighters stallfight with flaps and whatnot, that's not exactly how most altercations occurred IRL either. We can do things in here that lack of dying when they screw up make worthwhile moves versus the real world. Just the way it is.
Wiley.
:airplane: You sir, have good point! The shallow dive in a B-17 is the best defense in that particular bomber, as it is the only one which will hold attitude by pressing shft + X, after getting the nose slightly below the horizon. Use of the throttle then to stay around 315 to 325 seems to be best speed in this attitude. I have been using this method just about every mission now and have been preaching to my squad mates about using this tatic.
I don't know what my stats would be, but I only die about 1 time out of 20 missions in the 17, when flying a solo mission. The B-24 will NOT hold attitude when pressing shft + X at all, so you are at the mercy of the escorting fighters and other bombers in formation.
I made a "wish" for Shift + A in this forum, so that I could hold a descending or climbing attitude and still be able to man guns, but guess that is not going to happen. When a bomber is climbing or descending in a turn is the attitude that the bomber is in to make the firing solution for fighters much harder. Sometimes you lose drones maneuvering away from fighter attack, if you bank over 30 degrees and it shouldn't be that way. The drones should act like they have a pilot at the controls, and if they did, they would follow the mother ship, no matter what the maneuver.
I have seen lanc's pull straight up, kick hard rudder, usually to the left and the drones stay right with the mother ship, a little behind, but they never blow up, which I do not understand at all. Mr.Crowly is the best lanc driver that I have seen doing this, killing a V base and de-acking.
The B-26 seems to be the worst at losing drones while maneuvering.
-
There you have it. Killing bombers much easier than killing fighters. Unless I somehow got magically "skilled" only when attacking bombers.
You're right. Shooting down bombers is far easier than shooting down a fighter in this game, provided you know how to properly engage bombers. Once you figure out what tactics to use, it's as easy as shooting down a C-47.
ack-ack
-
...What game are you playing? Heavy fighter smash and grabs move far, far more mud than these unstoppable 30 buff formations you are imagining.
You are talking about the advantages of surprise and overwhelming numbers, which things tend to guarantee success whether the equipment used is fighter, bomber, or vehicle. This truism is irrelevant to what I'm discussing, which is the unique amount of power buff boxes as modeled hand to an individual player vs. any other aircraft or vehicle.
I am going to use simplified numbers because reducing the variables serves to illuminate the point. Ten players decide to set out on a jabo raid flying P-47D-40s. IIRC, this aircraft can carry about 3,000 pounds of ord, giving this team of ten collective total of 30,000 pounds of ord that can be dropped on target.
If they are bounced at a typical intercept distance, say about a sector out, by a conveniently equal number of defenders, they are in real trouble because the ordinance has slowed their jabos down to the point that most LW fighters can catch, especially the ubiquitous P-51D. (Any average MA pilot will tell you that a fighter loaded down with ords, unlike a box of heavies, really IS generally an easy kill for the average pilot.)
To defend themselves, these P-47s have a total of 80 .50 caliber machine guns at their disposal, guns they must maneuver to bring to bear. And to maneuver for their lives means that they must almost certainly skin their ords. Mission busted right there.
To stop this attack, the defenders must manage to shoot down a total of 10 aircraft. Now the Jug is tough for a single-seat fighter, but nothing like one of the big heavies. If the defenders manage to force 9/10s of the Jugs to skin ords and/or shoot them down, then the surviving 1/10 can deliver about 3,000 pounds of ord to the defender's base.
Moreover, if most of the Jugs skin ords and go to fighting,a furball has broken out. If that doesn't make you :D , maybe you should be playing some other game.
Now let's look at what happens if those same 10 attackers take B-17 formations....
The same 10 players who could only cart 30,000 pounds of ord in their Jugs will now be toting a whopping 180,000 pounds of ord. These same ten players, who were effectively helpless in their Jugs until they dumped the ordinance, will now 360 .50 cal machine guns which they CAN bring to bear effectively in their defense without ending or altering their bomb run one iota. The 10 defenders, which previously had to shoot down 10 single-seat fighters, will now have to instead shoot down 30 almost ludicrously tough bombers before they complete their bomb run. And in this case, if the fighters manage 90%, (an unlikely figure in their circumstances), 18,000 pounds of ord will still be dropped on their base. Enough to effectively toolshed the defense out of the fight. Yawnfest.
The numbers don't lie. The big heavies give an individual player almost ridiculous amount of strategic power vs. anything else.
The stats in the main reflect that very few people in the MA actually do this though, instead creeping from dead six making crappy attacks and dying a lot. That's on them, it's not the game design's fault. If you make it so the guy creeping from dead six has an equal chance against the buff, a decent attack will be completely unsurvivable.
Wiley.
The stats in the MA reflect that the average pilot in fighters is unlikely to prevent the equally average bomber pilot from completing his mission. You can cry "But if they were SKILLED..." all you want, but that doesn't really mean anything. There are players on this forum who can go into the MA and kill Spit16s flying P-39s and C205s all day long, but we still acknowledge that the Spit pilot has inherent advantages by virtue of the ride he's in. Sufficient skill overcomes huge inherent disadvantages. This does not change the fact that in the current MA setup, average players doing buff offense have an enormous advantage over average players on the fighter defense side.
-
The stats in the MA reflect that the average pilot in fighters is unlikely to prevent the equally average bomber pilot from completing his mission.
I don't think that means what you think it means though. It's not inability, it's the fact that the vast majority of buffs come in higher than the average player climbs in a fighter. Little to do with ability, more to do with desire.
You can cry "But if they were SKILLED..." all you want, but that doesn't really mean anything. There are players on this forum who can go into the MA and kill Spit16s flying P-39s and C205s all day long, but we still acknowledge that the Spit pilot has inherent advantages by virtue of the ride he's in. Sufficient skill overcomes huge inherent disadvantages. This does not change the fact that in the current MA setup, average players doing buff offense have an enormous advantage over average players on the fighter defense side.
People who specifically up to go after buffs are a tiny minority in the game. Fly into the average furball, 80% of the planes in it never get above 5k feet AGL. 80% of the buffs I see are above 10k, most at 20ish.
Wiley.
-
The same 10 players who could only cart 30,000 pounds of ord in their Jugs will now be toting a whopping 180,000 pounds of ord. These same ten players, who were effectively helpless in their Jugs until they dumped the ordinance, will now 360 .50 cal machine guns which they CAN bring to bear effectively in their defense without ending or altering their bomb run one iota. The 10 defenders, which previously had to shoot down 10 single-seat fighters, will now have to instead shoot down 30 almost ludicrously tough bombers before they complete their bomb run. And in this case, if the fighters manage 90%, (an unlikely figure in their circumstances), 18,000 pounds of ord will still be dropped on their base. Enough to effectively toolshed the defense out of the fight. Yawnfest.
The numbers don't lie. The big heavies give an individual player almost ridiculous amount of strategic power vs. anything else.
Luckily that isn't how it plays out in the MAs. Very rarely do you see more than a PAIR of buff groups running together in any kind of formation to were those extra guns can cover each other. With out the boxes covering each other the buff groups become MUCH less a formidable tool. Singles and single boxes have already been pointed out by many easy prey to those with a bit of skill and patience.
I don't think they are as tuff as you make them out to be..... as they don't run in big groups covering each other. Should we see large groups of 10 bomber formations in a tight formation working together THEN you might have a leg to stand on.
-
You're entire point about the P-47s is rendered completely invalid as you ignore the single biggest strength the P-47s have, speed. Because of their speed the initiative will be with them and they will have dropped their ordnance on their targets before the defenders are able to intercept them.
Look, bombers are a marginally useful in the game as it stands. What do you propose their purpose should be if you make them free kills to any fighter regardless of that fighter's skill level? You seem to be ignoring any and all negative consequences your desire would have.
-
I don't think that means what you think it means though. It's not inability, it's the fact that the vast majority of buffs come in higher than the average player climbs in a fighter. Little to do with ability, more to do with desire.
People who specifically up to go after buffs are a tiny minority in the game. Fly into the average furball, 80% of the planes in it never get above 5k feet AGL. 80% of the buffs I see are above 10k, most at 20ish.
Wiley.
Who you calling tiny . . . . . . .
-
Who you calling tiny . . . . . . .
The oxygen deprivation inhibits their growth. You're 4'2", aren't you? :D
Wiley.
-
4'2 & 3/4 dude.
-
You're entire point about the P-47s is rendered completely invalid as you ignore the single biggest strength the P-47s have, speed. Because of their speed the initiative will be with them and they will have dropped their ordnance on their targets before the defenders are able to intercept them.
Almost every fighter commonly used in the LW can run down a P-47D-40 carrying max ords. Bomber formations being run down otoh, it hardly matters since they apparently themselves against fighters so well with their guns.
Look, bombers are a marginally useful in the game as it stands.
Incorrect, the heavy hand of B-planes can decide any fight, and often does. In an even fight, the side that has more pilots willing to fly bomber wins. I have mathematically demonstrated the enormous advantages that individual pilots in bombers have when encountering and equal number of adversaries in fighters, I can't make it any more clear than that.
What do you propose their purpose should be if you make them free kills to any fighter regardless of that fighter's skill level? You seem to be ignoring any and all negative consequences your desire would have.
Well, if they actually needed escorting, which they currently don't, then a flight of bombers might serve as a nucleus about which a swirling dogfight between escorts and interceptors could develop. That would be better than their current purpose, which is ending fun fights :D But I gave up escorting in the MA long ago, I felt like I was mostly stealing kills from the bomber gunner.
Hey listen, give me an option to check "Interceptor" on certain planes in the hangar, such as the 190-A8, Me-410, or hell, the Me-262. This option will give me two other drones who will fly formation with me and shoot where I shoot. Do this and I'll call it even on the buff thing :neener:
-
Luckily that isn't how it plays out in the MAs. Very rarely do you see more than a PAIR of buff groups running together in any kind of formation to were those extra guns can cover each other.
Very rarely do you see more than a pair of fighters flying together as an effective element in the MA...so what? We can break it down to singles if you want to, and it still works: The individual player in a single fighter has to bring down 3 very tough airplanes defended by 36 .50 caliber in a timely manner, if he is defending against another individual player in heavy buffs, which the statistics strongly indicate he will fail to do. You can call the defender "unskilled" all you want, but so what? Most players are unskilled. You think the buffers they're facing are mostly experten? Unlikely, they just have inherent advantages the way things are currently set up.
-
Almost every fighter commonly used in the LW can run down a P-47D-40 carrying max ords
That is a fantasy setting though as the defenders are only lifting as the 47s come in at 10k+, already at speed. There is no way for the defenders to intercept before the 47s, 51s, 38s, 110s, Tiffies, Spits, Mossies, 190s or what have you hit their target.
Yes, sometimes a lucky fighter or two will be in position to intercept them, but oh well, overall the fighter-bombers are far harder to stop. You are painting scenarios that do not match what actually happens in the MA in order to strengthen your argument. Fine, in your fictional MA you have a point, but in the actual MA things don't play out as you claim they do, hence the prevalence of mass fighter-bomber raids rather than the almost never seen mass bomber raids.
-
That is a fantasy setting though as the defenders are only lifting as the 47s come in at 10k+, already at speed. There is no way for the defenders to intercept before the 47s, 51s, 38s, 110s, Tiffies, Spits, Mossies, 190s or what have you hit their target.
Yes, sometimes a lucky fighter or two will be in position to intercept them, but oh well, overall the fighter-bombers are far harder to stop. You are painting scenarios that do not match what actually happens in the MA in order to strengthen your argument. Fine, in your fictional MA you have a point, but in the actual MA things don't play out as you claim they do, hence the prevalence of mass fighter-bomber raids rather than the almost never seen mass bomber raids.
You're one stretching to make a point now. What CAN be intercepted effectively if you're just lifting on the runway when it crosses the radar ring doing cruise speed@10K? Probably nothing, not even Stukas This is a lot like arguing that a Tiger is no better than a Panzer, 'cause either will murder the hell out of jeeps :D The difference between a group of jabos and a group of buffs coming in under the same circumstances is that it takes far fewer individuals flying buffs to level your base.
Furthermore, it's not an either-or proposition. If you didn't get this earlier, I repeat myself: I heartily back the proposal to add perks to 1000 pounders on fighters. I think this would help the MA almost as much as making bomber formations slightly less insane.
the almost never seen mass bomber raids.
I've seen several just in the couple o weeks I've been back playing, but if you rarely see 10 buff formations together, it is because 2-5 is almost always overwhelming enough to get the job done. Three or more seems to be plenty to always overwhelm defenders and guarantee the CV is going to sink or the base is going to be toolshedded. I only used the 10 on 10 example just to show how enormous the advantages handed to individuals controlling buff formations really are. In actual MA play these advantages allow buffs to often get the job done in spite of superior numbers of defenders.
-
Wow! Several in the past few weeks? Stop the presses!
Oh wait. There are more mass fighter bomber raids on any given night than that.
Bombers are marginally useful as they are. You want to make them less useful and you think players would still use them. Why do you think people would want to invest that kind of time, and a bomber sortie does take far, far more time than a fighter or fighter-bomber sortie, in an activity that has significantly less effect and is far more likely to have no effect?
-
Wow! Several in the past few weeks? Stop the presses!
These two weeks are actually more like two weekends. The stats page says I've logged a total of 15 hours and 20 minutes since my return. And I know that I've left myself logged in for several hours while I did other things more than once.
[/quote]
Bombers are marginally useful as they are.
No, bombers are decisive. I'd like them to have a 50/50 chance of being intercepted and righteously executed :devil, instead of being what ends furballs practically at will.
Fighter-bombers: We don't really disagree much here! The ideas for somewhat limiting them complement rather than conflict with my pointing out that the current potency of bombers needs to be tweaked a bit.
-
No, bombers are decisive. I'd like them to have a 50/50 chance of being intercepted and righteously executed :devil, instead of being what ends furballs practically at will.
If I only had a 50/50 shot (in I am assuming a B-17G, so make that much less for a Lancaster or He111 or G4M1) at making it to my target why would I ever commit to the 1-2 hour flight required?
I cannot think of any reason I would do so. Bombers would cease to interest me at all.
You want to "fix" bombers the way a vet "fixes" a dog or a cat. If you were able to ask the dog or cat I am quite sure they would argue they weren't broken and were not now fixed.
-
I can follow this discussion totally laid back, because rarely I was so conviced none of the 'fixes' will ever happen :angel:
-
Very rarely do you see more than a pair of fighters flying together as an effective element in the MA...so what? We can break it down to singles if you want to, and it still works: The individual player in a single fighter has to bring down 3 very tough airplanes defended by 36 .50 caliber in a timely manner, if he is defending against another individual player in heavy buffs, which the statistics strongly indicate he will fail to do. You can call the defender "unskilled" all you want, but so what? Most players are unskilled. You think the buffers they're facing are mostly experten? Unlikely, they just have inherent advantages the way things are currently set up.
The toughness of the buffs is made up by the maneuverability of the fighters. The buffs as a single box will have a hard time surviving. In the last 87 tours I have flown the B17 very little and have 9 kills to 12 deaths. SO I have lost 4 boxes to the 9 fighters I have downed.... seemingly to support your theory, but again those 4 boxes may have been the only flights I had.
On the other hand for that same time period I have almost 200 kills of B17's and only 50 deaths to B17s. 4 to 1, easily taking out a box per fighter. While I'm a better pilot now I always wasn't :P I STILL am ahead on the kills killing more buffs. As long as the buffs are single boxes, or just plain single aircraft they are easy to take down with a few simple rules as to "how" to shot them down.
However, I did once wing with JG11 when they were practicing attacking large formations of of buffs in the MAs before one of the scenarios. The "Allied" bomber groups numbered in the 15-20 box area and they flew tight with in a couple thousand yards of each other. I don't care how fast you were, what angle you came in at nor how many came in from different angles to confound the gunners, everyone was swiss cheese and limping home if not down after a single pass.
A single average fighter will take down a single average buff group far more often than the other way around.
-
I once ran into a group of seven B17s flying formation and escorted by a single November Jug (21 ships plus the jug). Only three of those planes flew home. Two other bishops came into the bomber string. Both of them went to the formations six and had to land early after getting a single kill. That sortie resulted in seventeen kills against one of the toughest bombers in the game, and that's without rearming. When the wind layers were introduced things got a little harder, but just a little.
Bombers do not need fixing.
-
If I only had a 50/50 shot (in I am assuming a B-17G, so make that much less for a Lancaster or He111 or G4M1) at making it to my target why would I ever commit to the 1-2 hour flight required?
Now you have veered off into fantasy world my friend, if you are seriously claiming it takes an hour or two to up buffs and drive them to target in the MA :D
You want to "fix" bombers the way a vet "fixes" a dog or a cat. If you were able to ask the dog or cat I am quite sure they would argue they weren't broken and were not now fixed.
More hyperbole. Calling for an adjustment to the unbalancing near 100% chance of buff success is not the same as calling for a 100% chance of failure, as this poorly thought out metaphor implies.
A 3 buff element in real life took 30 men to control. In AHII, that firepower and bomb load are handed to one player. Now I understand there will always be a certain amount of unrealistic advantage handed to bombers to make them flyable in a game, such as allowing one player to control 3 aircraft at all. I'm not suggesting all that be eliminated, just scaled back a little. To wit, as I said, I think the "Big 3" should be ENY 5, a single pilot/gunner should be able to fire the guns of a single position at once. Giving one player three tough aircraft with the firepower of a P-51D to train on enemies in any direction is still more than fair.
I was also sincere when I said it would be cool if more than one gunner could be allowed on board. If a 3 ship element is utterly lethal because the labor of 6 skilled players is tied up in manning it's guns, more power to them! As it currently stands though, those 6 players can bring not 3 but 18 bombers to the fight and still be almost as lethal.
-
The toughness of the buffs is made up by the maneuverability of the fighters. The buffs as a single box will have a hard time surviving. In the last 87 tours I have flown the B17 very little and have 9 kills to 12 deaths. SO I have lost 4 boxes to the 9 fighters I have downed.... seemingly to support your theory, but again those 4 boxes may have been the only flights I had.
It doesn't matter, your experience is still evidence for my point. The boxes that you, a single player controlled, were more than a match for the fighters single players controlled at a rate of two to 1. These numbers indicate that, on average, the fighters playing defense to your bomber offense have to outnumber you to stop you. And your number of deaths says nothing about the number of times you were actually prevented from making your bomb run, which the factor of main importance. Probably less than the number of times you lost a drone or two.
On the other hand for that same time period I have almost 200 kills of B17's and only 50 deaths to B17s. 4 to 1, easily taking out a box per fighter.
I'd like to know what "almost" 200 B-17s is...195? 185? 175? :D
Even so, dividing by 3 indicates that you have taken out tntire B-17 boxes 66.6 times and have been taken out by them 50 times. This is a k/d of 1.33333. Your fighter k/d in Late War Tour 167 was 1.50. These numbers would indicate that on average, an individual flying a B-17 box is slightly more likely to kill you than than the average of individuals flying everything in the MA, including fighters. And you are a relative "experten".
However, I did once wing with JG11 when they were practicing attacking large formations of of buffs in the MAs before one of the scenarios. The "Allied" bomber groups numbered in the 15-20 box area and they flew tight with in a couple thousand yards of each other. I don't care how fast you were, what angle you came in at nor how many came in from different angles to confound the gunners, everyone was swiss cheese and limping home if not down after a single pass.
In the ETO before bombers were escorted, German pilots had a field day attacking them. And yes, they often did attack even from 6 o'clock. I've seen ample gun cam footage of such approaches. Such operations were dangerous and rough on the German pilots and their planes no doubt, but they were sheer bloody murder on the bombers. In AHII, numbers clearly indicate it is the opposite.
A single average fighter will take down a single average buff group far more often than the other way around.
The hard numbers indicate that this statement is false. For this to be true, the k/d for a given fighter against a given bomber would have to be in excess of 3. In tour 167, the most popular fighter in the game, the P-51D, average firepower, excellent speed, often lingering up high, killed 685 B-17s (the most formidable non-perk bomber) and B-17s killed 273 P-51Ds, for a k/d of 2.5. Dividing 685 by 3, we get 228, which means that in tour 167 the P-51D shot down 228 boxes of B-17s, but 273 P-51Ds were shot down. Simply put, individuals flying B-17 boxes won fights with P-51Ds more often than they lost, to the tune of 1.2 to 1.
The B-24, probably the most popular bomber, was killed by the P-51D 553 times and was killed by it 173 times. This indicates that the P-51D is SLIGHTLY more likely to win a fight with a box of B-24s than lose it. 553/3=184.3 times individuals flying B-24 boxes were destroyed by P-51s, vs. 173 times P-51Ds were destroyed by individuals flying B-24 boxes. This works out to a P-51vB24 box k/d of 1.065. The total k/d for P-51Ds in LW tour 167 was 1.35. So in other words, in tour 167 the B-24 box had almost a 1/1 kd ratio fighting the P-51D, and was significantly more dangerous to the most popular fighter in the game than the average of all threats in the MA.
What these k/d numbers do not tell is on what percentage of attempts the bomber formation got through to sink the CV/level the base, whether or not it managed to RTB, which is the most important bit. Experience and observations suggests that it was way, way higher than a coin toss though.
-
Yes, a bomber sortie is usually 1-2 hours, assuming you aren't a bomb 'n bailer.
And yes, having a 50% shot of success for that time investment whereas the fighter gets to have, by your desired change, a 50/50 chance of success if he is a drooling moron and climbs slowly up the bomber's six after his five to ten minute intercept. Of course, if the drooling moron has a 50/50 shot at winning then somebody like Lusche, Icepac or myself is nigh guaranteed to win. How can I tell this? Because, by your own numbers, B-17s currently enjoy a 2.5 to 1 K/D death ratio against P-51Ds, not very far off of 50/50 for success in combat for the entire formation, so that can't be what you are asking for.
You seem to be asking for bombers to have a 50/50 shot at actually bombing their targets. How can that result be reached? Well, either bombers need to be far easier to intercept and kill or they need to be drastically less accurate with their bombs. Either solution will lead to players abandoning bombers as attack platforms. It boggles my mind that you think players would put up with that kind of nonsense.
You are really pushing to have more kamikaze fighter-bombers in AH.
-
It looks to me that your numbers (even the ones you can't back up) are very close and so it looks pretty balanced. So why change it?
-
Yes, a bomber sortie is usually 1-2 hours, assuming you aren't a bomb 'n bailer.
Bad assumption on the bomb and bail part! Many don't care what happens after reaching the target. At the very least, after a CV is sunk or a base is shut down, whatever happens after is strategically irrelevant.
Besides, your estimates are wrong. If you only got a 1000fpm average climb rate out of a given set of buffs, then it would take only 10 minutes to get to 10K. Then, even if you only get 200mph TAS, that is only 15 minutes if you have to cover two entire sectors. That's 25 minutes used up so far. Call it an even 20 for turn around, RTB, and landing, and that is STILL less than an hour.
Now, a quick glance at the performance page says that the B-17G has an initial climb of about 1300 fpm, and climbs at over 1000fpm till above 15K, and does 230 MPH on the deck, about 250 at 10K.
If you're assuming a climb to 20+K, sure it takes longer, but guess what, 20K is clearly unnecessary. In point of fact, a buff formation can often bedevil fighters best by flying at 5K or less, thus taking away diving room beneath them that allows for the relatively safe guns pass from directly overhead.
"And yes, having a 50% shot of success for that time investment whereas the fighter gets to have, by your desired change, a 50/50 chance of success if he is a drooling moron and climbs slowly up the bomber's six after his five to ten minute intercept."
Karnak! You mad bro?
"Drooling morons" in the Luftwaffe flew up to the six of unescorted bombers and blew them out of the sky more often than the other way around. Not so in AHII. There are many reasons for this, such as icons, and the fact that autolevel+no winds or turbulence in AHII greatly shift the odds in a shootout in favor of the mounted guns on the rock-steady autopiloted bombers over fighter guns that have to be flown onto target. Those things are unavoidable, but some allowances should be made in compensation.
Of course, if the drooling moron has a 50/50 shot at winning then somebody like Lusche, Icepac or myself is nigh guaranteed to win.
And why not? If one of you comes across the average individual flying a fighter plane, you are also nigh guaranteed to win. My analysis of the numbers reveals that an average MA pilot probably has a slightly BETTER chance of killing one of you Vets 1v1 by flying a buff formation than by flying a fighter. THAT little fact should go a long way towards demonstrating that the bomber setup in the MA verges on the ridiculous.
You seem to be asking for bombers to have a 50/50 shot at actually bombing their targets. How can that result be reached? Well, either bombers need to be far easier to intercept and kill or they need to be drastically less accurate with their bombs. Either solution will lead to players abandoning bombers as attack platforms. It boggles my mind that you think players would put up with that kind of nonsense.
More like a 50/50 shot of completing their mission when opposed by a similar number of players with a reasonable amount of warning. The buff that is inside the radar ring when you're rolling for takeoff will still be impossible to stop.
Correct. Bombers should be far easier to kill and drastically less accurate with their bombs. Currently in game one player in a buff formation is far more of a force both in the air and on the ground than 3 actual buffs that took 30 men to control generally were in R/L.
Either solution will lead to players abandoning bombers as attack platforms. It boggles my mind that you think players would put up with that kind of nonsense.
It boggles my mind that you think players should continue to put up with buff formations controlled by a single players being able to fight just as well as fighters, not needing escorts, and being the single strategically decisive aircraft/vehicle choice on MA maps, as well as all the other concerns with them. Remember, I didn't start this thread, one of the most experienced MMO flightsim players period did that. You gonna call "drooling moron who doesn't know how to attack bombers" on everyone who has a concern, or do you finally concede that such accusations are a bit fatuous?
Bombers will never be abandoned simply because no other means can put that ordinance on target. If they have to be escorted, that might result in *GASP* fighter combat in a game named "Aces High".
You are really pushing to have more kamikaze fighter-bombers in AH.
If a heavy jabo gets bounced by a fighter before he reaches target, he is either an easy kill who dies, or he skins his ord. And probably still dies. Or maybe in some cases he kills his bouncer. Either way a **********ing DOGFIGHT (you remember those don't you?) just went down. :aok
If a heavy jabo does not get bounced, he maybe misses, because divebombing isn't quite as easy mode as level bombing is in AHII. Even if he doesn't miss, he's only got enough ord to take out one hangar. So a **********ing dogfight might still go down at that base!!!
(Hell maybe he brings two of his closest friends in jabos....if they're real heavies like P-47s, that means they can potentially put 9000 pounds of ord on target if they all make it....still HALF the bombload that ONE #!@$%@$#~@##$@ in B-17s could tote....MATH MOFO, it doesn't lie!)
-
It looks to me that your numbers (even the ones you can't back up) are very close and so it looks pretty balanced. So why change it?
If a given fighter tooling around has about 1:1 k/d ratio against fighters, that is par and not worthy of note. If a tool that puts destructive map moving power like no other into the hands of a single player and which historically was brutalized by interceptors when not protected by escorts also has such a k/d, that unbalance is a matter of concern.
If there were a fighter bomber with a 1:1 K/D, 12+ .50s firepower, capable of delivery 6-18K ords on target that regularly shut down entire bases in the MA, likely everyone currently arguing with me would instead be calling for it to be perked in the MA. But when the single-player controlled unit known as the "buff formation" has these same attributes, the matter seems to elude their minds.
-
Bad assumption on the bomb and bail part! Many don't care what happens after reaching the target. At the very least, after a CV is sunk or a base is shut down, whatever happens after is strategically irrelevant.
I never take off without the intention to return to base. I am speaking for myself. I know I am not the only one either as I see many "damage landed" messages in the buffer.
Besides, your estimates are wrong. If you only got a 1000fpm average climb rate out of a given set of buffs, then it would take only 10 minutes to get to 10K. Then, even if you only get 200mph TAS, that is only 15 minutes if you have to cover two entire sectors. That's 25 minutes used up so far. Call it an even 20 for turn around, RTB, and landing, and that is STILL less than an hour.
1) Many bombers not only don't average 1000fpm, they don't ever have a climb rate of 1000fpm. The bombers that do climb at over 1000fpm are either perked (Mosquito Mk XVI) or have light bomb loads (Ki-67, G4M1 and Boston Mk III), or are slow (B-17G) though the Tu-2 will break that trend a bit. Above 10,000ft, where bombers really have to go to be reasonably safe, climb rates quickly drop off.
2) Bombers at 10,000ft are free kills already. I love finding bombers that low. That changes the five to ten minute intercept I mentioned into a three to five minute intercept. Even if your numbers were accurate the bomber player will still have committed five times as much of his evening to the sortie than the interceptor will have.
If you're assuming a climb to 20+K, sure it takes longer, but guess what, 20K is clearly unnecessary. In point of fact, a buff formation can often bedevil fighters best by flying at 5K or less, thus taking away diving room beneath them that allows for the relatively safe guns pass from directly overhead.
I fly B-29s and Mossie XVIs at 28,000ft, B-17s are 25,000ft, Lancasters and Ki-67s at 22,000ft, Bostons and G4M1s at 20,000ft and He111s and Ju88s at 16,000ft. Bombers at 5k are like a bleeding cow in a school of piranha, not only do they not bedevil fighters, it is a frantic race to get a piece of them before the other fighters kill them all.
"Drooling morons" in the Luftwaffe flew up to the six of unescorted bombers and blew them out of the sky more often than the other way around. Not so in AHII. There are many reasons for this, such as icons, and the fact that autolevel+no winds or turbulence in AHII greatly shift the odds in a shootout in favor of the mounted guns on the rock-steady autopiloted bombers over fighter guns that have to be flown onto target. Those things are unavoidable, but some allowances should be made in compensation.
Nobody disputes that bombers are more lethal in AH than they were historically, but the Luftwaffe did not climb slowly up their six either. They climbed above the bombers and attacked at speed, from the twelve and from the six. I cannot tell you how many fighters I've killed in AH because they attacked my bombers by slowly climbing up my six. At least a third of intercepting fighters, probably more, do that in AH and they greatly contribute to your 2.5 to 1 B-17G vs P-51D ratio. You are insisting that the overall K/D ratio must be much, much more in the P-51D's favor while still allowing a third of intercepts to be done absolutely wrong.
And why not? If one of you comes across the average individual flying a fighter plane, you are also nigh guaranteed to win.
Not me, no. Fighter vs fighter I am a pale shadow of what I once was.
My analysis of the numbers reveals that an average MA pilot probably has a slightly BETTER chance of killing one of you Vets 1v1 by flying a buff formation than by flying a fighter.
Good! Maybe that taste of success will help convert them into a paying customer and keep this game alive.
THAT little fact should go a long way towards demonstrating that the bomber setup in the MA verges on the ridiculous.
Sorry, but no. I don't see how making new players completely helpless and unable to taste success is a good thing.
More like a 50/50 shot of completing their mission when opposed by a similar number of players with a reasonable amount of warning. The buff that is inside the radar ring when you're rolling for takeoff will still be impossible to stop.
Ok, so now you're backtracking. Now you want bombers to be even more lethal. Oh, you didn't realize that currently intercepted bombers that are opposed by equal numbers of players have a far less than 50% chance of hitting their targets?
Correct. Bombers should be far easier to kill and drastically less accurate with their bombs. Currently in game one player in a buff formation is far more of a force both in the air and on the ground than 3 actual buffs that took 30 men to control generally were in R/L.
And you flip around again. Make up your mind. If bombers can't hit anything useful reasonably reliably and they are free kills, why would anybody use them? You still haven't explained that. Efficiency wise the players in bombers would already be far, far more effective in "win the AH war" terms if they just played the kamikaze P-38L game. I have run the math, it is starkly in favor of suicide 38s as things stand now, with your proposed changes suicide Ki-43s would probably be a more efficient way to attack.
It boggles my mind that you think players should continue to put up with buff formations controlled by a single players being able to fight just as well as fighters, not needing escorts, and being the single strategically decisive aircraft/vehicle choice on MA maps, as well as all the other concerns with them.
I don't think that bombers should be able to do that stuff, and they can't as they are now. Only your strawman fantasies give them those capabilities. They are not nearly as good as you claim they are.
Remember, I didn't start this thread, one of the most experienced MMO flightsim players period did that. You gonna call "drooling moron who doesn't know how to attack bombers" on everyone who has a concern, or do you finally concede that such accusations are a bit fatuous?
You've never seen a rage post by an entitled player who thinks his "targets" ought to lay down and die for his amusement before? Long time player or no, I have seen it here and on other game's forums.
If a heavy jabo gets bounced by a fighter before he reaches target, he is either an easy kill who dies, or he skins his ord. And probably still dies. Or maybe in some cases he kills his bouncer. Either way a **********ing DOGFIGHT (you remember those don't you?) just went down. :aok
Sorry, no dogfight. You are forgetting why the Mossie was so successful, and is so successful in AH as well, despite having no guns. Speed. Speed means you don't have to fight. Fighter-bombers have the speed to avoid being intercepted except with great difficulty or with blind luck. You massively, catastrophically to your position, disregard that fact. And it is a fact.
If a heavy jabo does not get bounced, he maybe misses, because divebombing isn't quite as easy mode as level bombing is in AHII.
Yes, hence the suicide into the target, because if you do it that way it is about as accurate as the level bomber.
Even if he doesn't miss, he's only got enough ord to take out one hangar.
Yup, but he can fly four or more one way suicide sorties in the time it takes his B-17 to be making its first pass, if it lived to get there.
So a **********ing dogfight might still go down at that base at **********er!!!
Nope. The guy is new, knows he has no chance, so best contribution is to bring in the ordnance as fast as possible, which means he kamikazes in each time. Sure, some will stay and fight, but many will not. And many more will think that kamikazing each sortie is stupid and being cannonfodder is stupid and won't subscribe at all.
You're also completely dismissing that some of us enjoy the combat style of killing bombers and that it is also a fight.
(Hell maybe he brings two of his closest friends in jabos....if they're real heavies like P-47s, that means they can potentially put 9000 pounds of ord on target if they all make it....still HALF the bombload that ONE #!@$%@$#~@##$@ in B-17s could tote....MATH MOFO, it doesn't lie!)
Except the P-47s can apply all of theirs (4157.5lbs of damage each, not counting the 3978lbs of damage their guns carry, BTW. Math, it doesn't lie) in a few seconds, whereas the B-17 formation has to overfly the base, turn, recalibrate and come back for each drop. It is very hard to line up on six worthwhile targets in a single pass. Two or three is more common.
And that is assuming that new guy has friends in the game yet.
-
In point of fact, a buff formation can often bedevil fighters best by flying at 5K or less, thus taking away diving room beneath them that allows for the relatively safe guns pass from directly overhead.
So, you now admit that a proper attack from above makes bombers easy kills?
-
But you DO get the chance of disabling / killing in-bounds at 1.5k while at the same time pull G.
I have been killed in a heavy armoured A8 ( at least it should be) from 1.5k out from all angles manoeuvring like a bat.
Also doing your rudder kicking , in a formation of three, instead of causing collision with your drones ( which should happen) you are causing them to warp, colliding into high-speed attackers, causing fighter to go down and not the happy drone.
You simply don't do any fast stick moves in a formation. in here I see B17's with drones shooting at 400mph dives in formation. result for me as attacker is :
1 abort.
2 colliding with warping drones
3 get killed before I get into effective range (600yards), takes quite some time at 400mph.
4 get lucky :that guy don't hit you because he is a newbie -B17 set is ded.
Also you can, in an A20 at least out-turn a A8 at 4G and at the same time, if you have a gunner, blast that poor SOB to pieces doing it.
I have to agree on the bomb-and bail, every plane type can do it.
Some penalty should be imposed/ or reward for landing.
I say, don't do any fancy maneuvers, or lose drones in a set of buffs.
Bomber range from all but rear should be max 800 yards effective. 1k from rear 30 degree arc.
There is a reason B17s needed an escort IRL, here I see some guys land 6 kills in it.
my 2 öre
I bomb a lot, and I do agree with some of this. 4-engine bombers are not dive bombers, and their bombs should NOT release unless the autopilot is in level flight and the player is in the bombardier position. Period. The driving of lancstukas from the pilots position in F3 mode and carpetbombing the gvs is just playstation gamey. That said, there are plenty of twin engine bombers (JU88s, A20s, B25s, B26s, etc) that did dive bombing and attack missions, and these should be gone thru on a case by case basis to see who should be allowed to bomb from the pilots seat. (Somebody check me, but I don't think the Betty or the Ki-67 did dive bombing).
That said, the gunnery is just fine as it is. You have told them what I DO get - let me tell you what I DO NOT get:
1. I don't get 8 sets of eyes searching the skies for enemy fighters.
2. I don't get gunners in multiple planes engaging multiple targets at once.
3. I don't get the ability to have my gunners actually engage anything while I am in the bombsite over the target.
So if you are insane enough to try to crawl up by B-17s tail, I can step on the rudder and turn right & left, but I am not pulling some high-G split-S on you. I may go ahead and nose up or down to make you have to climb up to catch me, or give you a longer tail chase, but that is about it.
The "bomb and bail" problem is not limited to bombers - I see plenty of P-51 base porkers that do the same thing. A quick suicidal bomb run, strafe a couple of strats until the ack gets you, then rinse & repeat. The disappearing bombs solution you propose would do nothing to stop either one, as I could just wait until bomb impact then then fly into the dirt and crash instead of bailing out. A lot of coding by HTC for no benefit at all. The problem is that there is very little benefit to me flying home (in either a bomber or a fighter) unless I need perks, and I usually don't. If there was some other benefit to actually bringing a ride home that might change (and there have been some other proposals in the forums about that).
$.02
-
If a bomber is attacked properly (and by properly I mean with at least one wingman and by experienced fighter pilots) then it is exactly as pointed out already very easy to kill any bomber. If you attack one alone at high altitude then the bomber can easily out turn any fighter. So either way you need to demonstrate great patience. If you lack the experience then go look for easier targets.
In a single plane, yes, in AH a whole group of tree can dance like a charm doing incredible things, still in a group, pull G and shooting at the same time, if they have a gunner onboard, making it effectively impossible to get them.
Unescorted buff groups where very vulnerable, in here a group of 12 buffs driven by 4 good bomber pilots in formation can be more deadly than anything else. imagine DaveyJ and 99000 and 2 other good gunners in formation ...
Im happy TWC have not discovered that 15 buff sets in a formation are close to invincible, whereas finding 15 heavy TWC P38s are just lunch :D
-
1) Many bombers not only don't average 1000fpm, they don't ever have a climb rate of 1000fpm. The bombers that do climb at over 1000fpm are either perked (Mosquito Mk XVI) or have light bomb loads (Ki-67, G4M1 and Boston Mk III), or are slow (B-17G) though the Tu-2 will break that trend a bit.
The B-17 is not "slow". The B-17 formation is barely slower climbing and level than a P-47 burdened with maximum ords, carries 6 times the bombload, and can defend itself far better. The B-24 and Lanc have similar performance and carry heavier bomb loads.
Many other bombers are far less effective than these three, this is true. However, arguing that "bombers" in general, including the Big 3 should have special advantages to help out 2nd string members of the bomber team is like arguing that ALL 109s should get 2 drones because the Emil is difficult to fly and rarely ever seen in the MA.
2) Bombers at 10,000ft are free kills already.
This is absolutely false. I see bombers at 10K getting through over and over. (Most furballs I attend seem to be about 10K to a deck. Why flying a P-51D, I almost never climb it above that strong cruise speed peak it has at 12K, because 99.9% of the time doing so would be pointless.
Even if your numbers were accurate the bomber player will still have committed five times as much of his evening to the sortie than the interceptor will have.
So? Sounds like a good trade-off in exchange for a single player being able to potentially bomb someone's base into a parking lot. If you are broken-hearted about the time bomber pilots are potentially spending in flight, you should positively WEEP for poor GVer's drive time. Why don'tya lobby to give them two "drones" and F3 mode?
I fly B-29s and Mossie XVIs at 28,000ft, B-17s are 25,000ft, Lancasters and Ki-67s at 22,000ft, Bostons and G4M1s at 20,000ft and He111s and Ju88s at 16,000ft.
Sounds like you're wasting your own time there, no one else's fault. Also: Have you been tested for lack of a boredom gene?
Bombers at 5k are like a bleeding cow in a school of piranha, not only do they not bedevil fighters, it is a frantic race to get a piece of them before the other fighters kill them all.
Bombers at 5K or below offer NO safe approach for fighters, because the safe guns pass, the direct overhead, cannot be done when there is virtually no room beneath the bombers. Altitudes like this are probably where most bombers take out CVs. Sure if they fly into a swarm of red, bombers will get shot down. Anything will. But they'll probably take a few with them, along with the boat.
Nobody disputes that bombers are more lethal in AH than they were historically,
You and others disputed it until I proved otherwise with numbers.
but the Luftwaffe did not climb slowly up their six either.
They often sat ron their six and destroyed them because in actuality, multiple flexible guns mounted on a flying aircraft manned by multiple individuals>concentrated firepower mounted on a heavily armed fighter, and the gunners themselves are very vulnerable to bullets. In AHII this is not true. Hell, even in WWI arena an F2B on autolevel can be the very devil with ONE machine-gun. Again, this comes from the fact that auto-level essentially gives a flex gun in AHII a rock-steady platform to shoot from, like a wirblewind, and the fact that one individual is controlling multiple sets of guns. The only thing that last part accurately "simulates" are telepathic gunners with a preternatural ability to concentrate their fire.
They climbed above the bombers and attacked at speed, from the twelve and from the six.
Any speed, any angle except the perfect approach from directly vertical, the bombers chew up the fighters in AHII.
Good! Maybe that taste of success will help convert them into a paying customer and keep this game alive.
Sorry, but no. I don't see how making new players completely helpless and unable to taste success is a good thing.
The argument that "this will make things easier for new players" is fatuous and could be used to justify virtually anything, including unperked Tempests.
In point of fact, you delving far into the territory of unsubstantiated speculation. It is at least as possible that a new players in a fighter gets chewed up by the one thing that should offer him some easy kills, bombers, and is dissuaded for joining by that. It becomes even more likely if this new player is something of a "grognard" who realizes what a load of horsehockey that situation is.
Ok, so now you're backtracking. Now you want bombers to be even more lethal.
If the labor of six players is tied up in a bomber formation, sure, I'm okay with it being six times more lethal than one manned by only one player. In reality it won't be of course, because the system that allows all the defensive guns to be controlled by 1 and brought to bear on a target is actually more lethal than 6 different individuals firing at will.
Oh, you didn't realize that currently intercepted bombers that are opposed by equal numbers of players have a far less than 50% chance of hitting their targets?
My numbers reveal that one player in bombers has about an equal chance of shooting down one player in a fighter as the other way around. That is a fifty-fifty chance of survival in such a combat. That really says nothing about the chances of getting through to target, but my experience leans towards almost certainty of bombs on target in the MA.
If bombers can't hit anything useful reasonably reliably and they are free kills, why would anybody use them?
Bombers in AHII can currently drop thousand pounders down your left nostril, if you happen to be looking upwards. That goes far beyond "hitting reasonably reliably" to the point of absurdity. People would use bombers because the potential payoff for getting them to target is so high. Also, people might potentially use bombers not to end air combat, but to tempt interceptors to come up and tangle with their (actually needed!) escorts. Wow, bombers being used to start fights instead of grief fights out of existence...what a concept!
It is very hard to line up on six worthwhile targets in a single pass. Two or three is more common.
But pretty easy to take out the fighter hangars on one pass, and after that, who cares?
Hey look, put more fighter hangars dispersed around bases, say 25 or so :D , and I'll withdraw any concerns with bombers.
And that is assuming that new guy has friends in the game yet.
My point here was that even 3 players in P-47s can't carry the bombload that one formation of buffs hands to ONE player.
You've never seen a rage post by an entitled player who thinks his "targets" ought to lay down and die for his amusement before? Long time player or no, I have seen it here and on other game's forums.
The only one possibly angry here is you Karnak.
-
So, you now admit that a proper attack from above makes bombers easy kills?
And Rondar is perfectly safe killing other tanks in a Tiger from the next county. Equally relevant to general MA conditions.
Actually, if such an approach is not flown *perfectly*, the fighter still gets chewed up, a good gunner can still chew the fighter pilot up, and there is a good chance of actual collision if the approach is not flown perfectly, which is probably why this somewhat gamey approach was NOT used in R/L very often. Setting up such repeat passes can also be very time consuming, especially with fighters that aren't E monsters. If bombs hit their mark, what is the point of continuing the attack?
-
Unfortunately caldera , i've found some pilots have found a way to make the drones warp on demand , effectively ruining the attack from above without risking collision with them. Looks like the lead buff is doing some kind of roll as you dive in on them.
-
You think I am angry?
:rofl
You're ridiculous.
Have fun with your crusade as you are immune to actual reason and to seeing what actually happens in game. You are too invested in seeing things through the filter of your desire to the point that the bomber at 10k that gets through because nobody bothered to intercept it is seen as proof that bombers at 10k are safe. Your cart is in front of your horse.
Ask yourself why such an easy intercept doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because most of the fighter boys don't care because the damage bombers can do isn't significant enough to warrant intercepting them. Yes, even though given a couple of passes they can shut down fighter ops at a given field.
You propose to fix fighter player laziness by removing bombers from the game.
Tootles.
-
And Rondar is perfectly safe killing other tanks in a Tiger from the next county. Equally relevant to general MA conditions.
Actually, if such an approach is not flown *perfectly*, the fighter still gets chewed up, a good gunner can still chew the fighter pilot up, and there is a good chance of actual collision if the approach is not flown perfectly, which is probably why this somewhat gamey approach was NOT used in R/L very often. Setting up such repeat passes can also be very time consuming, especially with fighters that aren't E monsters. If bombs hit their mark, what is the point of continuing the attack?
You seem to be basing your argument on stopping the bombers. If they are shot down after hitting their targets, that's fine with me - everybody wins. There are other bases, other fights. You are right about collisions, a large portion of my deaths to bombers are due to just that. The reason being, is that I am not "leet" and make many mistakes. Often the same ones, over and over again. Right you are again, in regards to good gunners. Those are few and far between, though. Even still, I have killed 999000 more than he me. Setting up a proper attack does take more time, as you said. Taking a few more minutes and bagging a whole formation seems wiser than an impatient, desperation attack that gets you shot down.
Lack of patience or ignorance of tactics is why your bomber numbers read the way they do. Everyone is in such a hurry but fail to realize that instead of downing one bomber and getting torched, they could get all three in one sortie. It isn't rocket science. Speed is your best weapon against bombers. Hit them fast and double-time it out, not wade up their 6 and slug it out.
Unfortunately caldera , i've found some pilots have found a way to make the drones warp on demand , effectively ruining the attack from above without risking collision with them. Looks like the lead buff is doing some kind of roll as you dive in on them.
That happens sometimes and is frustrating. Collisions are always a danger when using an attack with a high closure rate. It would be nice if hard maneuvering would break the drone leash, requiring level flight and reduced speed to re-acquire them. There are definitely some circus performers piloting buffs, but even those guys can still get beat. Nothing is absolute. You still may get shot down but against 95% of the bomber pilots, a top-down, high speed attack will favor the fighter pilot most of the time. Even one like me, who still flies with the stall limiter on. :)
-
If a given fighter tooling around has about 1:1 k/d ratio against fighters, that is par and not worthy of note. If a tool that puts destructive map moving power like no other into the hands of a single player and which historically was brutalized by interceptors when not protected by escorts also has such a k/d, that unbalance is a matter of concern.
If there were a fighter bomber with a 1:1 K/D, 12+ .50s firepower, capable of delivery 6-18K ords on target that regularly shut down entire bases in the MA, likely everyone currently arguing with me would instead be calling for it to be perked in the MA. But when the single-player controlled unit known as the "buff formation" has these same attributes, the matter seems to elude their minds.
This is the part that is clouding your thought process here. This GAME has very little to do with what happened during the war. This game makes concessions for game play such as making buffs a bit tougher maybe, with a better ability to defend themselves so that PAYING players who wish to enjoy the fun of bombing crap can do so with a reasonable chance at success.
As I said, by your numbers it looks to be fairly even, and "fairly" is the key word in that statement. My suggestion to you is learn to shoot buffs with out getting shot yourself.
-
Some penalty should be imposed/ or reward for landing.
there already is reward for landing, the 1.25x perks bonus
http://www.hitechcreations.com/features/perk-points
and there are already penalties for not landing for your score/rank. the death multiplier. eg. you only get 25% if you die. 40% if you get captured 50% if you bail, etc.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/features/scoring
-
"bombers are too tough" sounds like "tanks kill me with main gun"
do it correctly, they are both sitting ducks.
-
Lack of patience or ignorance of tactics is why your bomber numbers read the way they do.
If impatient ignoramuses are being shot down by experten, I'd call that the Darwinism and be content with that. Surely you're not claiming the numbers read like they do because the average buffer is relatively more experten than the average fighter pilot? If relative expertise is about the same, then the deciding factor must be inherent advantage in the setup.
That happens sometimes and is frustrating. Collisions are always a danger when using an attack with a high closure rate.
A speedy attack not from dead 6 was always prudent against bombers in R/L, this I grant you, though even a dead six approach still ended up doing more damage to the bombers. But conditions in AHII are so distorted that the historically rare straight vertical dive is the ONLY valid approach. And can you imagine doing it against an actual stacked formation of buffs, instead of 3 plane element? The chances of collision would go through the roof.
-
"bombers are too tough" sounds like "tanks kill me with main gun"
do it correctly, they are both sitting ducks.
I do not know whether it was physically possible for one guy to to effectively target a shallow-diving airplane with the main gun of a tank, although I know it was surely uncommon. I do know it was physically impossible for one man to fly 3 airplanes and control 36 .50s mounted in various locations, unless that man was the Kwisatz Haderach :devil
-
Even though I said this:
Lack of patience or ignorance of tactics is why your bomber numbers read the way they do.
You have convinced me that what I really meant was this:
Surely you're not claiming the numbers read like they do because the average buffer is relatively more experten than the average fighter pilot?
It seems that I have been arguing with a crazy person. Enjoy the rest of your thread without me, thanks.
-
A speedy attack not from dead 6 was always prudent against bombers in R/L, this I grant you, though even a dead six approach still ended up doing more damage to the bombers. But conditions in AHII are so distorted that the historically rare straight vertical dive is the ONLY valid approach. And can you imagine doing it against an actual stacked formation of buffs, instead of 3 plane element? The chances of collision would go through the roof.
one time i let this guy follow me for about 30 minutes in a fighter. to be honest i was bored waiting for him to attack. when he was in a position of advantage i bailed all my buffs and he got not even a proxie. I could have bailed out before but i went to the bathroom, got a snack, got a second beer and he was still not in a position to attack.
the point is, I'll fight on my own terms, just like he wanted to fight on his own terms. i am no more wrong that he is.
semp
-
one time i let this guy follow me for about 30 minutes in a fighter. to be honest i was bored waiting for him to attack. when he was in a position of advantage i bailed all my buffs and he got not even a proxie. I could have bailed out before but i went to the bathroom, got a snack, got a second beer and he was still not in a position to attack.
the point is, I'll fight on my own terms, just like he wanted to fight on his own terms. i am no more wrong that he is.
semp
Well, that puts a whole new wheel on the wagon when it comes to all this being patient and setting up your attack. Well done sir, I'm sure you're proud. :rofl
(Then again I once inadvertently shot down the same guy AFK twice in the same evening, then proceeded to convince him that if you look really, really, really carefully, you can tell AFK players because their icons are slightly dimmer. So who am I to judge?)
-
But conditions in AHII are so distorted that the historically rare straight vertical dive is the ONLY valid approach.
Attacking bombers from above like you describe is called the "Overhead Attack" and was the primary bomber attack tactic taught by the USN and USAAF, along with the "Beam Attack".
ack-ack
-
the point is, I'll fight on my own terms, just like he wanted to fight on his own terms. i am no more wrong that he is.
You're assuming there is something wrong with setting up a proper attack. I say you knew you were up against somebody that was going to hand you your head and you didn't want to see it happen.
The direction this thread is going suggests that you think bombers have some magical advantage because they have an F3 view. The only real advantage a bomber can have is to climb very, very high. At 37k a B29 formation can make it difficult for even a 163 to kill his planes, because of compression. Most other planes are defeated because they just cannot keep up. Snailman has learned that allowing a fighter to get to his high twelve is a very, very bad thing, so he turns a lot to prevent that. He does that now in every bomber he flies. It is an advanced technique (advanced because it is beyond the average flier). Likewise, the high twelve attack is an advanced technique. If you see someone going far out in front then you know he is not a beginner. That's why bombers bail. You climb up their six they won't bail. The F3 view only makes up for the fact that there are not actually ten pair of eyes in each bomber, as there would be in a real B17.
If you want to wish for something, wish for realistic turret hydraulics. Knock out #2 (#3 in AH) engine and the turrets are stuck in the B17 (B24, and Lanc too I believe). Like that's going to happen.
-
It was an attack from altitude yes, but not the virtually STRAIGHT down attack needed in AHII. In AHII diving on bombers at 45 degrees is almost as bad as the attack from 6. Which itself was used by the Germans to inflict horrific tolls on the big American heavies.
Attacking bombers from above like you describe is called the "Overhead Attack" and was the primary bomber attack tactic taught by the USN and USAAF, along with the "Beam Attack".
ack-ack
-
It was an attack from altitude yes, but not the virtually STRAIGHT down attack needed in AHII. In AHII diving on bombers at 45 degrees is almost as bad as the attack from 6. Which itself was used by the Germans to inflict horrific tolls on the big American heavies.
By no means is a straight down attack the only viable attack in AH. Any attack that requires constant adjustment by the gunner is viable. The two worst attacks, straight 6 or straight 12 (against B-17, 24 and 29), are bad because the gunner doesn't have to adjust significantly.
-
Anything other than the straight overhead is a bad idea. The buff gunner is firing more guns in tougher airplanes that are absolutely stable platforms.
Really, if you think about it, except for the straight overhead, anything that makes his gun solution more of a crossing angle, makes your gun solution more of a crossing angle, reducing the probability of killing a bomber in a single pass while still risking his fire.
The head on against bombers was a popular tactic in the ETO.
By no means is a straight down attack the only viable attack in AH. Any attack that requires constant adjustment by the gunner is viable. The two worst attacks, straight 6 or straight 12 (against B-17, 24 and 29), are bad because the gunner doesn't have to adjust significantly.
-
Anything other than the straight overhead is a bad idea. The buff gunner is firing more guns in tougher airplanes that are absolutely stable platforms.
Really, if you think about it, except for the straight overhead, anything that makes his gun solution more of a crossing angle, makes your gun solution more of a crossing angle, reducing the probability of killing a bomber in a single pass while still risking his fire.
I've found that a dive in from above and ahead, resulting in a crossing shot, is almost impossible for them to defend against and gives good guns on target time for my fighter.
You greatly exaggerate the ability of the bomber player to actually hit you. Being able to point the guns at you is unimportant if the firing solution is too hard to pull off.
The head on against bombers was a popular tactic in the ETO.
Indeed, it is the reason for the chin turret on the B-17G having been added.
-
Really, the accuracy of flex-mounted aircraft guns in AHII is perhaps the problem. Bounced a 410 in an FM2 last night. He attempted a head on, lead turn, was on his six and closing fast instantly. He went into a slight climb, probably hit shift-X to hold it there, and smoked my oil with that rear gun before I crossed inside D400 and my 4 .50s put him down. Even the F2B in the WWI arena can be the very devil sometime, out-ranging anything behind it with superior accuracy. I think they could use significantly more dispersion, to account for various factors that would in reality degrade their accuracy.
-
Really, the accuracy of flex-mounted aircraft guns in AHII is perhaps the problem.
The dispersion of such guns in AH is very much less than it was on the real deal.
How much of a problem this is depends on how much of a concession you're willing to make in order for bombers to be playable.
-
I've found that a dive in from above and ahead, resulting in a crossing shot, is almost impossible for them to defend against and gives good guns on target time for my fighter.
You greatly exaggerate the ability of the bomber player to actually hit you. Being able to point the guns at you is unimportant if the firing solution is too hard to pull off.
Indeed, it is the reason for the chin turret on the B-17G having been added.
c
We are at an impasse-I have walked fire down a bomber with the 190A8 heavy guns, 30MM flashes all the way, to believe that a crossing angle is very efficient against the heavies.
I also believe that being in range of those guns is incredibly risky, even crossing at high speeds. That 190A8 I mentioned? Last time I upped one, I just had the alt and speed to make a pass from slightly above and directly on the beam of some lancs coming into our field, all I had time for. 90 degree crossing shot, walked fire all the way down the beam of the leftmost Lanc to no deadly effect. Presumably also a difficult high angle shot for him? Well, a single (tracerless burst) stopped my own engine. So again we are at an impasse and must simply agree to disagree I suppose.
-
The dispersion of such guns in AH is very much less than it was on the real deal.
How much of a problem this is depends on how much of a concession you're willing to make in order for bombers to be playable.
See here now, I don't understand where you can look at a situation where one player is given 3 aircraft AND guns you acknowledge to be more accurate than real, and don't think things are a tad out of hand. No animosity towards you man, I just don't get it. How is that in principle different from giving, say the 109E better guns than real so that plane would be more playable in the MA?
-
See here now, I don't understand where you can look at a situation where one player is given 3 aircraft AND guns you acknowledge to be more accurate than real, and don't think things are a tad out of hand. No animosity towards you man, I just don't get it. How is that in principle different from giving, say the 109E better guns than real so that plane would be more playable in the MA?
Because the alternative is to not see bombers get used in the game. More accurate guns is the lesser of the two evils.
EDIT:
Well, ok. They could increase flexible and turret mounted gun dispersion to historical levels, reduce bomb accuracy and increase the formation size from 3 to 10.
-
Because the alternative is to not see bombers get used in the game. More accurate guns is the lesser of the two evils.
I reject both of these statements, especially the latter. Bombers have such a high payload of destruction that players would find a way to get them to target. (Read: Effective escort. This would be a GOOD thing.)
And again, the 109E is not particularly playable in the MA. You don't see it often, and it has a bad k/d ratio. So why not jazz it's cannons up a bit, make them more like Hispanos, make the old Emil more playable in the MA? Not different in principle, except that accurizing all aerial flex guns is worse, it has effects that distort way more than one model.
-
EDIT:
Well, ok. They could increase flexible and turret mounted gun dispersion to historical levels, reduce bomb accuracy and increase the formation size from 3 to 10.
,
A better situation than current actually. But it is not needed. Look, tanks are basically helpless against bombers and fighter-bombers without wirble or fighter cover. No one weeps and moans and suggest they be given "drones" or the ability to easily shoot down diving P-47s, you get my drift?
-
I reject both of these statements, especially the latter. Bombers have such a high payload of destruction that players would find a way to get them to target. (Read: Effective escort. This would be a GOOD thing.)
And again, the 109E is not particularly playable in the MA. You don't see it often, and it has a bad k/d ratio. So why not jazz it's cannons up a bit, make them more like Hispanos, make the old Emil more playable in the MA? Not different in principle, except that accurizing all aerial flex guns is worse, it has effects that distort way more than one model.
one fighter vs all bombers.
-
one fighter vs all bombers.
So? The principle is the same. And as I said, giving fled mounted guns unreal accuracy has far wider effects than giving one fighter abilities it didn't have, such as the F2B example.
In AHII the Defiant would be a rousing success :rofl
-
one fighter vs all bombers.
Oh...and those tanks...ALL TANKS...as I say, almost helpless against airpower without allies in flaks or fighters. Mebbe we should give 'em "Wirble drones"? :devil
-
So? The principle is the same
No.
-
I reject both of these statements, especially the latter. Bombers have such a high payload of destruction that players would find a way to get them to target. (Read: Effective escort. This would be a GOOD thing.)
No, they would not.
Look, I don't want to pull the BS "I've been here longer than you so I've seen things you haven't, but in this case it is true. Originally AH's bombsight worked such that the bomb would land where ever the cross hair was when it was dropped. No calibration at all. If you think what we have now is lazer guided, oh boy would you be appalled at what we had then.
So HTC came up with a more complex bombsight. You had to click the target on the clipboard map to set target altitude, then, once speed was stabilized, you had to hold the crosshairs steady on a terrain feature while holding the appropriate key depressed (Y key I think, but I may have changed it) and the longer you held the key down and the steadier you held the crosshairs the more accurate your bombsight would be. I liked it. It made bombing effectively more of a challenge, but one that I could reliably accomplish. The player base as a whole? They hated it. Bombers were abandoned wholesale in favor of fighter-bombers. B-17s and Lancasters would usually be used as dive bombers. Of the players who tried to level bomb using the bombsight, most missed, often by hundreds or thousands of yards.
HTC was forced to reduce the bombsight's complexity to the point that all we do now is hold down a key to calibrate speed. No more target selecting and no more holding the crosshairs steady. Just blindly hold a key down, the longer the better.
And again, the 109E is not particularly playable in the MA. You don't see it often, and it has a bad k/d ratio. So why not jazz it's cannons up a bit, make them more like Hispanos, make the old Emil more playable in the MA? Not different in principle, except that accurizing all aerial flex guns is worse, it has effects that distort way more than one model.
The Bf109E-4 is not an entire class of aircraft. While it may not be particularly viable, the Bf109K-4 or Spitfire Mk XVI are. You're suggesting changes that would render not only the G4M1 and He111 useless, but also the Lancaster and B-17G as well.
-
I think even the premise is invalid. That being bombers were easy meat in real life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt
Is one of the worst raids in b17 history. But note this worse raid lost 60 of 291 b17's. How many fighters were used in the attack against the b17s?
In real life losses like those are unsustainable, but in AH it does not matter , there is an unlimited supply.
If the same numbers were used in AH by experienced gunners and experienced fighters, What do you believe the outcome would be?
My guess is that even more b17s would be killed then in the real mission.
HiTech
-
My guess is that even more b17s would be killed then in the real mission.
Absolutely. If you scale the numbers down to AH size like 30 bombers -> 10 formation (these days quite a sizeable raid) and send them to the central strats on a large map, they would not lose just 6 bombers... they could call themselves lucky when getting 6 (=3 formations) to the target. And that's not even with flying at "real" cruise speeds...
AH combat is much more bloody for any participant, fighters, bombers, vehicles.
-
I think even the premise is invalid. That being bombers were easy meat in real life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt
Is one of the worst raids in b17 history. But note this worse raid lost 60 of 291 b17's. How many fighters were used in the attack against the b17s?
In real life losses like those are unsustainable, but in AH it does not matter , there is an unlimited supply.
If the same numbers were used in AH by experienced gunners and experienced fighters, What do you believe the outcome would be?
My guess is that even more b17s would be killed then in the real mission.
HiTech
:airplane: I run 17's to the strats about twice a week, usually have 10 to 15 formations. We might not always get all three aircraft in each element home, but most of the time, we do get the pilots home. GHI and Snailman seem to be the best 163 pilots that we encounter, and on last mission, we killed 3 163's. Most of my guys are getting to be good enough gunners that they can defend themselves very well.
If they listen to me and stagger their altitudes, and stack the "boxes", then we can usually defend ourselves very well. Its the guys who drift off a 1K or more that get shot down, but the guys who stick with the main body have a good chance of hitting the strats and getting home.
-
They hated it. Bombers were abandoned wholesale in favor of fighter-bombers. B-17s and Lancasters would usually be used as dive bombers. Of the players who tried to level bomb using the bombsight, most missed, often by hundreds or thousands of yards.
Good points. I wouldn't suggest making the bomb-sight more complex, I would suggest making the bombs themselves less accurate, if anything. Shrug, but it may be an insoluble problem on that front, I grant you.
You're suggesting changes that would render not only the G4M1 and He111 useless, but also the Lancaster and B-17G as well.
I suggested lowering the ENY of the Big 3 to five, reducing the number of positions a single player could fire at once from infinite to 3. Perhaps also putting a more realistic dispersion on all flex guns, if indeed they are off. I do not believe these changers would render the Big 3 useless. Surely we can at least agree that the ENY suggestion is reasonable, the last thing the outnumbered side needs is the most effective bombers in the hangar simply taking down their hangars so they don't even get to make "last stands".
-
Good points. I wouldn't suggest making the bomb-sight more complex, I would suggest making the bombs themselves less accurate, if anything. Shrug, but it may be an insoluble problem on that front, I grant you.
I suggested lowering the ENY of the Big 3 to five, reducing the number of positions a single player could fire at once from infinite to 3. Perhaps also putting a more realistic dispersion on all flex guns, if indeed they are off. I do not believe these changers would render the Big 3 useless. Surely we can at least agree that the ENY suggestion is reasonable, the last thing the outnumbered side needs is the most effective bombers in the hangar simply taking down their hangars so they don't even get to make "last stands".
Where is the gameplay impact? About all your argument seems to be based on is theorycraft. Looking at the numbers puts this amount of ord and guns in the hands of one player, and that's horribly wrong. Yet somehow, bombers sometimes make it to target and sometimes don't. Impenetrable boxes (heh) of bombers are not running the arena into the ground. Simply put, what is the actual gameplay impacting problem that needs to be solved?
The GV's are a separate issue.
Wiley.
-
Simply put, what is the actual gameplay impacting problem that needs to be solved?
There isn't one. The bomber/fighter balance in the game, particularly in the LWMA, is just fine. If anything, bombers, even B-17s in a formation, are at a disadvantage to a well-flown fighter. He is trying to pull the realism argument that "if I can look up gun camera videos on YouTube of an Me-109 flying up the dead-six of a B-17 and blow it to bits without getting hurt, I should be able to do that in the game." It simply doesn't make sense, when considering gameplay and fun for all.
-
Where is the gameplay impact? About all your argument seems to be based on is theorycraft. Looking at the numbers puts this amount of ord and guns in the hands of one player, and that's horribly wrong. Yet somehow, bombers sometimes make it to target and sometimes don't. Impenetrable boxes (heh) of bombers are not running the arena into the ground. Simply put, what is the actual gameplay impacting problem that needs to be solved?
The GV's are a separate issue.
Wiley.
Most fights seem to be ended by a bomber crippling the hangars. Often before the "fight" has even begun. It's disappointing whether you're on the losing or the so-called "winning" side in such engagements. It also seems like 4 out 5 CV furballs get scuttled quickly, whether its your CV or theirs. The effort needed to kill the fight and the difficulty of preventing that same seems unbalanced. Certainly this is the case when one side is badly outnumbered anyway. Thus the ENY suggestion. Also, those who regularly hunt and kill the toughest buffs deserve more perks than they are getting atm IMO.
-
It simply doesn't make sense, when considering gameplay and fun for all.
I am considering gameplay and fun for all. The historical references are mainly for perspective. Bombers are the dominant force in the "war", which wouldn't be so bad except that that dominance comes through *fight killing*. No one escorts them because they don't need it, and a huge number of players will ignore a set of buffs in favor of pouncing on fighters because they've learned the former is not worth the trouble. It all seems pretty distorted.
-
Most fights seem to be ended by a bomber crippling the hangars. Often before the "fight" has even begun. It's disappointing whether you're on the losing or the so-called "winning" side in such engagements. It also seems like 4 out 5 CV furballs get scuttled quickly, whether its your CV or theirs. The effort needed to kill the fight and the difficulty of preventing that same seems unbalanced. Certainly this is the case when one side is badly outnumbered anyway. Thus the ENY suggestion. Also, those who regularly hunt and kill the toughest buffs deserve more perks than they are getting atm IMO.
Honestly, I think you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Any buff group I see that is in an attackable position by a fighter or two dies horribly. Sometimes one gets in with nobody in position to stop it. That's gameplay.
Any side using a CV that doesn't pork the bases around it should expect no other result than for it to sink.
Nearly all I do is oppose large red bardars. In at least 2 years, I can remember one evening off the top of my head that made me think, 'Damn, the buffs just keep coming and it's impossible to defend this base.' Once. Far, far more often I've watched a swarm of fighters do the same thing a few buffs would do in less time.
Wiley.
-
Far, far more often I've watched a swarm of fighters do the same thing a few buffs would do in less time.
Wiley.
I've tested and timed this. Fighter-bombers are significantly more efficient than bombers right now. With the changes BnZ proposes they would be staggeringly more efficient.
-
Most fights seem to be ended by a bomber crippling the hangars. Often before the "fight" has even begun. It's disappointing whether you're on the losing or the so-called "winning" side in such engagements. It also seems like 4 out 5 CV furballs get scuttled quickly, whether its your CV or theirs. The effort needed to kill the fight and the difficulty of preventing that same seems unbalanced. Certainly this is the case when one side is badly outnumbered anyway. Thus the ENY suggestion. Also, those who regularly hunt and kill the toughest buffs deserve more perks than they are getting atm IMO.
I played for several hours last night. we took several bases but bombers never killed any fights. there was even a cv battle where the damn cv was up to what it seemed like forever. bombers did shut down bases a few times but there always seemed to be and endless supply of la7 flying around. I guess the la7 hangar never got killed.
I say la7's hoing over the field kills more fights than bombers.
semp
-
Any side using a CV that doesn't pork the bases around it should expect no other result than for it to sink.
But....I can't pork the bases for my own side to keep some green dolt from sinking the buffet table the enema so considerately parks offshore... :bolt:
-
As an unapologetic alt monkey, I love to hunt bombers. I possess the one thing you must have to be successful, patience. Everything else you need is a skill that you will develop, IF, you have patience.
I don't think anything needs tweaking or changing. If buffs are below 20k, they are dead quick, if they are higher they are dead too, it just takes a bit longer.
Yes, the buffs have a very stable gun platform to shoot but so do the fighters, no turbulence, no jammed guns, no dud ammo.
If and when, you develop the skills and have the patience for a quality intercept I don't think anyone will want it easier either. I want this game to be hard, but with balanced gameplay and I think we have that now.
This month I have killed:
26 B17's
19 B24's
5 B26's
1 B29
36 Lancs
That's 87 kills and ZERO deaths and I am at best a mediocre stick.
A successful base defense means that I am killing guys and having fun doing it, could really care less if the base is captured during the ensuing melee. I know I can't kill them all so I never get frustrated or impatient.
:salute
-
AH combat is much more bloody for any participant, fighters, bombers, vehicles.
Without a doubt because (on average) the AH stick is generally a better shot, has the benefit of range icons, and also has the benefit of a message telling them their prey were destroyed.
History versus AH is almost apples to oranges in terms of comparison.
-
Without a doubt because (on average) the AH stick is generally a better shot, has the benefit of range icons, and also has the benefit of a message telling them their prey were destroyed.
History versus AH is almost apples to oranges in terms of comparison.
And, most significantly, has the benefit of not dying when they over commit or put themselves in a bad spot in order to get a kill.
-
And, most significantly, has the benefit of not dying when they over commit or put themselves in a bad spot in order to get a kill.
"Most significantly", is absolutely the case here and I've thought that for a long long time. In RL you tried something and if you were wrong you died. Whatever information you may have gleaned from your mistake you really couldn't learn from because you were dead. Your mates also learned nothing from your mistake because "dead men tell no tales". The consequences here are a loss of time, a trip to the tower, and a shiny new plane for you to make your next mistake in.
-
Decreasing the ability to cripple a well armoured plane flying 1,5k beside a bomberset
would be both realistic and reducera time on target before a fighter get in range to be able to shoot back.
This happens VERY orten.
Decreasing this to 1k is probably the best and easiest fix.
I would stay no fighter ever was shot down 1.5k from any angle than from straight approach ded 6.
IF i fly at 1.5k beside a bomber set overtaking them I normally have smoking engine and one gun ded, and if its a good gunner Im half-winged.
Im sure any descent B17/B24 pilot can testify that.
Dont tell me Ishould fly 2k away just because of a total unrealistic ubergunnery noone in real life had,
In effect it gives gunners 700 yards of free shooting with no chance of shooting at them buffs.
Even from front they reach out to that distance and in best case only give a crippled/ded buff for a totally molested fighter with enginge oiled and in US birds a pw on top of that.
I agree buffs should be able to shoot back även i gunsight though, because they are meat during that time period.
-
I've tested and timed this. Fighter-bombers are significantly more efficient than bombers right now. With the changes BnZ proposes they would be staggeringly more efficient.
With all due respect, what did these tests consist of?
We will assume an fb-ac takes 5 minutes to climb to 10K. That time is probably generous for many fighters when hauling max ords. Then when figure in flying 25 miles to target at an average speed of 300mph. Again, that average speed is probably generous, but we'll roll with it. That gives us another 5 minutes enroute to target. Assuming no other time is spent doing anything other than dive bombing and auguring, that is 10 minutes. So far so good. But a single fighter bomber is good for one hangar in AHII. If this individual wants to get both fighter hangars, that is at least 20 minutes, and that time is probably an underestimation. Both fighter hangars and the VH, 30. This is probably more time than it takes to get a heavy bomber to target with more than enough bombs. So sorry, I find the idea that fighter-bombers are much better to be suspect. It just doesn't add up.
HOWEVER, I definitely *would* support a light perk price when taking 1000 pounders in f-b aircraft, which I think should work like the price on perk aircraft, that is you get to keep the price if your RTB successfully. This is to encourage trying to survive.