Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: sparky1 on February 14, 2013, 01:19:45 PM
-
Why not have a formation option .. they would be used more and have a higher survival rate
-
also it would be helpful in cv based missions
-
Did someone say TBM? :noid
-
I'd say fix the tin foil and bailing wire vertical stabilizer/rudder of the TBM first, then we can talk about formations.
-
Formations were added for carpet bombing replication, and for box-defense tactics for the gunners which were common with heavy bombers.
TBMs and Kates don't fall into any of the same categories as heavy bombers. They should NOT have formations, ever. There is no reason for it.
-
TBMs and Kates don't fall into any of the same categories as heavy bombers. They should NOT have formations, ever. There is no reason for it.
Why shouldn't they? TBMs and Kates regularly bombed targets while in formation.
ack-ack
-
Why shouldn't they? TBMs and Kates regularly bombed targets while in formation.
ack-ack
Agree with you completely. If the Boston can get formations, why not the TBM or Kate?
-
Again, flying in formation doesn't mean they dropped in formation on command of the lead bomber. There is a massive difference between CARPET bombing (or, even having the ABILITY to carpet bomb) and small fighter-sized attack dive bombers.
This is just a request along the lines of 6-plane bomber formations. They want more and don't want to do anything in return. It's also a phony free life get-out-of-jail type request.
These naval planes should never get drones. Ever.
-
Krusty meter pegged at 10
-
At Pearl Harbor, 49 Kates flew high-level (10K) bomb runs in groups of 5 running right across battleship row. That was not the first time the Kate had been used as a high-altitude level bomber, and it sure wasn't going to be the last.
They even have a captured japanese photo taken during the attack.
http://www.navpublishing.com/phtour3.htm (http://www.navpublishing.com/phtour3.htm)
So tell me again why carrier based aircraft should never have formations....
-
Krusty you have to admit it would be helpful in the game
-
Shattered Sword details how Japanese B5N's group dropped torpedoes on the Shotai leaders release.
+1
-
Id like to see the formation option on all of these torpedo bombers if for nothing else than to negate the overall advantage the 5" gunners have in here. Not that it would make much difference, but at least maybe one in the three might be able to make it past the 5"s to torp dropping range.
-
Aside from Nathan's idiotic trolling, Eagle the only reason to want them is to "cheat" at the game.
They are attackers. They are dive bombers. They are small planes designed and flown in maneuvers like fighters. The fact that some few occasions came up where they dropped in formation doesn't mean they were heavy bombers. Nor does it mean they could and did carpet bomb.
Pretending you want formations for any reason other than personal selfishness is quite obvious and transparent. I might as well ask for +9 plane formations so I can engaged in squadron maneuvers with my Fw190. After all, it was used in squadron sizes, flown in formation during attack and kept together with squadron tactics. They followed the commands of the flight leader and fired on his orders, right?
I mean, after all, if I can't get a full squadron's worth of lives in 1 up, what good is this game, right? :rolleyes:
Right? :rolleyes:
Same logic for wanting formations on B5Ns and TBMs. :rolleyes:
-
krusty,you need a snicker bar,your turning into a diva
+ 1 for CV bomber formations
-
i do not see any thing selfish about this.plus if what your saying is correct that means the Bostons and B-25s should not have formations as well because those could be used as fighters
-
I support B5N and TBM formations for totally selfish reasons, as it almost guarantees me to get three kills where before just one would have happened. :devil
-
Aside from Nathan's idiotic trolling, Eagle the only reason to want them is to "cheat" at the game.
They are attackers. They are dive bombers. They are small planes designed and flown in maneuvers like fighters. The fact that some few occasions came up where they dropped in formation doesn't mean they were heavy bombers. Nor does it mean they could and did carpet bomb.
Pretending you want formations for any reason other than personal selfishness is quite obvious and transparent. I might as well ask for +9 plane formations so I can engaged in squadron maneuvers with my Fw190. After all, it was used in squadron sizes, flown in formation during attack and kept together with squadron tactics. They followed the commands of the flight leader and fired on his orders, right?
I mean, after all, if I can't get a full squadron's worth of lives in 1 up, what good is this game, right? :rolleyes:
Right? :rolleyes:
Same logic for wanting formations on B5Ns and TBMs. :rolleyes:
The TBM was not a dive bomber.
TBM Avenger and SB2C Helldiver bombers dropped their load on the Japanese city of Hakodate, Jul 1945
(http://ww2db.com/images/air_avenger10.jpg)
ack-ack
-
I might as well ask for +9 plane formations so I can engaged in squadron maneuvers with my Fw190. After all, it was used in squadron sizes, flown in formation during attack and kept together with squadron tactics. They followed the commands of the flight leader and fired on his orders, right?
There has been evidence of these planes bombing in formation there is no evidence of a fw190 bombing level in formation. I think your logic is faulty. If they asked for a pure dive bomber to have formation your logics would be sound but the evidence has been shown that these planes were used in formation bombing. You posts have not shown any evidence otherwise thus the Krusty meter is pegged at 10, in so much that you just dont like this idea.
-
Even given formation takeoff would be ok but I think landing on a cv and keeping the drones would be a tough row to ho.
-
I support B5N and TBM formations for totally selfish reasons, as it almost guarantees me to get three kills where before just one would have happened. :devil
:aok We need MORE of the kinds of planes I can kill!
-
2 plane formation of Kates making a torpedo run on USS Dakota during the Battle of Santa Cruz.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/USS_South_Dakota_with_Kates_Battle_of_Santa_Cruz_NARA_19LCM-BB57-2.jpg/747px-USS_South_Dakota_with_Kates_Battle_of_Santa_Cruz_NARA_19LCM-BB57-2.jpg)
3 Kates in Vic formation beginning their attack run on USS Oklahoma during the Pearl Harbor raid.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ir9iunBa3jk/TvzsNBliz3I/AAAAAAAABFw/wd0KaVzcW7Y/s400/2.jpg)
ack-ack
-
I've always wondered why there were no formations allowed for the TBM and B5N. It was a bomb from a formation of B5Ns making a level bombing attack that destroyed the USS Arizona.
-
I've tried LANDing a formation on a cv before...the drones ditch a few hundred yards back.....and just sit there
-
Even given formation takeoff would be ok but I think landing on a cv and keeping the drones would be a tough row to ho.
I've landed an Ar 234 on a CV, and regularly used CVs as a rearm pad for land-based fighters. Can't be a whole lot more difficult to land a formation of aircraft that you can stop on a dime.
-
Aside from Nathan's idiotic trolling, Eagle the only reason to want them is to "cheat" at the game.
They are attackers. They are dive bombers. They are small planes designed and flown in maneuvers like fighters. The fact that some few occasions came up where they dropped in formation doesn't mean they were heavy bombers. Nor does it mean they could and did carpet bomb.
Krusty, get a grip - we are talking about B5N Kates and TBMs here - these are planes that regularly go to the slaughter. I'm not looking to "cheat" in a formation of these any more than I am looking to cheat when I take up a formation of Bostons. Both of these rides were the level bombing planes used off of carriers - this has been shown. Both of these rides have an actual level bombing bombsite in them. Further - both of these aircraft have 3 MAN CREWS (Pilot, Gunner, and BOMBARDIER).
This is not trying to get a "formation" option on the A-20G or FW-190 or any other ride that was NOT used as a level bomber. Nor is this using level bombers in a dive bombing Lanc stuka role - which I am totally against. Both the TBM and Kate have the ability to both level bomb and dive bomb. Many other rides have this ability as well, and were used in both roles - B-25s? JU-88s? We have a formation option on the B-25C, and no formation option on the B-25H - this is appropriate since the Cs did level bombing and the Hs were an attack model. The Boston vs A-20 - again, formations for the Bostons which only level bomb, and no formations for the A-20G which is an attack model. In each of these cases, the model with an actual BOMBARDIER has the formations option.
I see no reason why this wouldn't be a good thing for CV operations in general. It would be much more realistic to see CV strike aircraft hitting the town instead of wave after wave of FIGHTERS carrying 2 x 1000lb bombs and and a full rocket load off the carrier deck. The formation option gives you a reason to take up a TBM or Kate vs an F4U or F6F. The option for formations off of the CV would also be great for scenarios.
I also do not see how this would throw off game balance in any way shape or form. A 3-box of TBMs carries the same bomb load as a set of Bostons, but at about half the airspeed. Given the weak defenses of both the Kate and the TBM, a 3-Box of them is still likely to a ride to the slaughter.
-
I support B5N and TBM formations for totally selfish reasons, as it almost guarantees me to get three kills where before just one would have happened. :devil
I believe you would have the same opinion on the Mosquito Mk XVI formations, from my experience :cry
Snailman :cheers:
-
:devil
:cheers:
-
Deleted.
-
it looks like this is good idea to everyone else krusty :neener: i hope gets added :cheers:
-
Formations were added for carpet bombing replication, and for box-defense tactics for the gunners which were common with heavy bombers.
Hi Krusty,
I'm curious where you got this insight into HTC's intentions re: bomber formations. I've done a
forum search and can't find anything on it except for their input on why the "F3" view is
enabled on bombers. Can you provide a link for me?
I have always thought that the formations were implemented in order to
provide an impetus for folks to fly them as it gave them a much greater chance
of survival and thus helped maintain a "healthy" number of bombers in the
air to provide fighters with the opportunity to engage something beyond
just other fighters.
TBMs and B5Ns along with the D3A and SBD are currently "hanger queens" for
the most part and I fail to see how assigning them a "formation" option
would negatively impact gameplay and/or peoples' enjoyment of the game.
Regards,
Oddball
-
If they have level bombsights allow formations. If not then don't.
-
+1
-
This would be fantastic. Also would be great for PTO scenarios.
And how many Krusty's is this thread at on the meter, lol...
-
This would be fantastic. Also would be great for PTO scenarios.
And how many Krusty's is this thread at on the meter, lol...
its a only a 2 Krusty since he gave up so quickly and didnt keep at it ignorong the evidence, However the Krusty meter is at 10 because he be seriously hatin'
-
+1
-
+1