Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: EskimoJoe on March 05, 2013, 10:28:58 PM
-
Krusty in another thread brought up a point that I've come across every so often, and that is 'bombers fly too fast for ANY plane'. For the sake of historical accuracy, could we not have autopilot override the throttle to a limited, closer to realistic setting? Granted yes, this game isn't entirely about realism, but would it be worth implementing or would it simply be a huge bomber nerf?
I believe that if this were designed and implemented, that it might make bomber-hunting (particularly in scenario settings) easier in aircraft that would have been able to have greater success in real life than we do in this game.
Of course, the key is to find a fair balance. Limiting throttle with auto-pilot at X altitude in a bomber, we may have to implement similar across all aircraft, which defeats the purpose entirely. How could we do this in a way that won't make high-altitude bombers the sitting ducks they are at lower altitudes?
Discuss.
-
I don't think it is good, as things stand, to limit bombers in the MA. They are mostly helpless against fighters with even the vaunted B-17G only managing about one kill for every three bombers lost.
I think it might be a good arena flag so that it can be switched on where appropriate.
-
I always say there are only 3 planes that you need to worry about at 30k, only one needs to be feared. The fear for me is a 163, so unless I'm attacking strats I don't really need to worry.
If however I see a 152 or a 47 above me, I will start to panic very quickly... especially if they are coming in my direction.
-
I don't think it is good, as things stand, to limit bombers in the MA. They are mostly helpless against fighters with even the vaunted B-17G only managing about one kill for every three bombers lost.
I think it might be a good arena flag so that it can be switched on where appropriate.
Don't count total kills to deaths. These are the primary dive bombing platform nowadays. Folks run them into hills, into hangars, and if they can't get what they want with level bombing they run them into the target, seconds after dropping their ord. Many don't give a second thought to blowing drones, either.
Not to mention all the folks that up them for base defense to specifically be shot down (to waste ammo of the attacking planes), or to use them as mini deathstars.
And don't forget the just-plain-idiots that fly them 500 feet into a furball of 50+ to try and bomb a GV fight below or a runway. Kills to death is not a valid concern for these planes.
IMO HTC needs to implement a throttle cap at max continuous, and if you push the throttle forward it starts counting. After the 30 minute limit for that setting (or less, depending on plane) the throttle drops back to max continuous. Planes with WEP could toggle that but once it's gone you would drop back to max continuous.
Basically 2 WEP counters, if you see what I'm getting at. One automatic, one manual. Maybe not the BEST idea, but hell, at least I'm thinking of solutions. Take 'em or leave 'em.
-
If that's the case then the same needs to be applied to all fighters that were so handicapped.
-
bombers are already an easy kill, can't imagine why anyone would think making them 'weaker' is a good idea
-
There's a major difference.... Most fighters had a max continuous duration that lasts LONGER than their fuel will allow in this game. That's why HTC has done the throttle the way they have.
It isn't an issue with fighters. They flew at higher power settings throughout their flight than most bombers ever used in emergencies.
It *IS* an issue with bombers, though. When even a regular sortie can last over an hour and they run on WEP the entire time... it would be like a P-51 with 25% fuel never running out of WEP or needing cooldown or running out of gas either.
You can't compare them, really.
Yet you are comparing them and chose to weaken the weakest of the lot. Besides, you're wrong. Some aircraft like the Typhoon and Tempest always had a performance problem due to heat. If those airplanes kept high power settings for very long their engines would become useless rather quickly. Bombers run on WEP the whole time? Really? Are we even talking about the same game? You are hand picking the aircraft that support your argument, making up some data for the same reason, and ignoring the aircraft that do not fit the bill.
Krusty, I have already made a point of demonstrating how utterly weak bombers are. Fighters have an undeniable advantage already. Even at very high altitude where the bombers should have a superior edge they do not. A determined opponent will always be able to destroy the bombers and if the fighter has any kind of experience at all he will not even get hit. Not once. I proved this by shooting down more than 100 bombers in 30 days and never getting hit. Unless you believe in some unseen force of the universe bestowing good, or bad unluck upon people randomly, then you have to accept that the bombers have a disadvantage in the game.
-
Well, IMHO, unless you upped with the specific intent to go hunt bombers bomber hunting is rather difficult.
If I upped for a routine furball / basefight environment, and otw to target I see a set of buffs at 25k+ heading for strats, I wouldn't even bother trying to chase them down. I know my P38 will empty its 75% tank well before I can reach that altitude then climb another couple of thousand and then chase them down to engage.
But then again wasn't that the same dilemma faced by the real guys who got a last minute scramble to intercept an inbound formation?
While Im all for a little more complex engine management in game, if HTC has modelled fighters that can run at full mil power endlessly then it wouldn't really be fair to deny that advantage to bombers either. Especially when we have bombers like the mosquito or the KI67 or the JU88 where the speed is an vital part of its defenses.
Besides the buff pilot spent a lot longer than any fighter will to get to that altitude to enhance his survivability. It would not be fair to now go deny him that.
So No, I do not think that nerfing bombers would be wise choice. As chalenge has said, once you encounter a set of bombers at the right altitude and with adequate fuel on board, theres not much the buff pilot can really do to escape (unless you do something daft like me at times :P)
However what I would like to see is an increased challenge to the bombing element. Prohibit bomb release unless in level flight for 30seconds (on the big lancstuka birds that is) add wind layers (increasing with altitude) at say 15k, 20k and 25k to make bombing from higher alts a bit tougher. It really is too damn easy-peasy as is now. Id also like some semi-transparent to opaque scattered cloud layers between 15k to 25k.
-
The one thing that I have seen suggested that I liked was tying it to the drones. If the drones would only fly at a cruise setting you'd have the choice of a single fast bomber, or a formation of cruising bombers.
Still not sure that should be anything other than a flag that can be set on or off though.
Challenge,
You don't seem to acknowledge the difference in how fighters, particularly interceptors like the Spitfire and Bf109, and bombers were used. Fighters simple did not fight while using cruise settings. Bombers did.
-
most any bomber above 18k is hard to kill.. 25-30k and it is a very small selection of the planeset that can be effective to even stay ahead of b17..
-
Proper interception technique will allow you to run down B29s at 30k with at least 10 planes in the planeset.
-
The one thing that I have seen suggested that I liked was tying it to the drones. If the drones would only fly at a cruise setting you'd have the choice of a single fast bomber, or a formation of cruising bombers.
I like that idea.
+1
-
Proper interception technique will allow you to run down B29s at 30k with at least 10 planes in the planeset.
sure.. you can run up a bombers bellybutton at 3k too, just not too wise.. roughly 5, including the jets/rockets, can mount an effective attack on b29s at 30k..
clearly why we need the mig15..
+1 for slowing formations..
-
sure.. you can run up a bombers bellybutton at 3k too, just not too wise.. roughly 5, including the jets/rockets, can mount an effective attack on b29s at 30k..
clearly why we need the mig15..
+1 for slowing formations..
P-47, Ta-152, 109 K-4, Spit XIV (death wish), P-51...
-
sure.. you can run up a bombers bellybutton at 3k too, just not too wise.. roughly 5, including the jets/rockets, can mount an effective attack on b29s at 30k..
clearly why we need the mig15..
+1 for slowing formations..
Me163
Me262
P-47M
P-47N
Spitfire Mk XIV
Ta152
I think that is about it, but it might be rough with the P-47M and Spitfire Mk XIV due to fuel limitations.
-
You want all buff to fly at max cruise, then allow the buff to have any gun that can point at the attacking target fire at any range from 1000 yards to point blank, then I agree
The b17 does not have wep, it has three settings 2500 rpm , 2300 rpm( better fuel range) and 2100 rpm (max fuel range). You can adjust the manifold pressure in any of the ranges for better or worst fuel range. You want to know how to attack buffs contact snailman, he is one of the hardest to kill when attacking a buff, unless he gets greedy.
DHawk
-
I think the speeds of undamaged planes are fine but the drones should not be able to maintain formation with a dead engine unless the formation leader slows as well.
A few more of the many planes that can catch B29 at 30,000 feet.
mossie fighter
C205
yak9u
bf110g
F4U4 and F4u1a
I do know that a I16 at 37,000 feet cannot chase down a b29 at 30,000 feet nor does he want to face any return fire.
Bomber interception is made easier if you go AFK and do other things while you are in a climb........just like flying bombers.
If things go well, you might return to find yourself at 35,000 feet in a 110g with the cleanest loadout and 50 minutes fuel remaining..........over your HQ with a red dot 1/4 of a sector away.
In that scenario, the 110g will easily run down a B29 at 30,000 feet but beware the P47 often seen escorting very high B29s.
Most important is to know that most buff pilots who fly super high are doing it with the intent of RTB so you just get between them and freedom.
-
bombers are already an easy kill, can't imagine why anyone would think making them 'weaker' is a good idea
Agreed, and it's already tough enough to get bomber pilots in scenarios and sometimes even FSO.
If you are having trouble with buffs you need to change your tactics/aircraft.
-
The one thing that I have seen suggested that I liked was tying it to the drones. If the drones would only fly at a cruise setting you'd have the choice of a single fast bomber, or a formation of cruising bombers.
I like this idea.
-
I think the speeds of undamaged planes are fine but the drones should not be able to maintain formation with a dead engine unless the formation leader slows as well.
A few more of the many planes that can catch B29 at 30,000 feet.
mossie fighter
C205
yak9u
bf110g
F4U4 and F4u1a
Can do so with a struggle and are suited to doing so are two different things. There is a whole list of aircraft I can do that are faster than the B-29 at 30,000ft, but the margin of error is very narrow for the fighter pilot. That said, the B-29 is a perk bomber and ought to be a challenge to intercept. Same for the Mossie XVI and Ar234B.
-
I have no issues if HTC were to implement some sort of speed limiting tether of sorts. I wish the faster the bombers flew the less accurate the bombing was. Currently, bombers can fly at max throttle and have no issues with hitting a hanger from 25,000 ft, it certainly was not that way in WWII. Do people realize that most Allied heavy bombers in WWII dropped their ordnance at less than 230 TAS, yes? I'm not sure about the B26's, B25's, Bostons, or even the B29 for that matter.
Also, there is a reason the US and RAF used escort fighters when possible. :aok Bombers *should* be strung up meat when enemy bomber killers are able to intercept and the only defense are a few MG's. It gives good reason to ask for proper fighter escort, if a player has a go alone then let altitude be their friend. Ultimately, roll the dice.
I think something needs to happen regarding the speed in which bomber fly. Either slow them down or have the high speeds effect their accuracy so that actual 1 pass carpet bombing becomes a norm.
-
This time I won't argue against those proposals en detail, have done that often enough.
But just one thing I'd like to mention:
If most proposals made to limit bombers in AH would be applied - limited to cruise speed, different layers of wind at different altitudes, more complex calibration (maybe even the often wished for changes to bomber gunnery)...
What do you think would happen gameplay wise?
:)
-
What do you think would happen gameplay wise?
:)
More P-51Ds.
Which is why I'd like it as a flag that can be enabled and disabled. That way the AvA can set up a Battle of Britain week without having 300mph Ju88s and He111s while the MAs remain as they are. No need to worry about P-51Ds in the Battle of Britain. :p
-
Removal of current bomber advantages would require removal of 262 and 163 from the lwa to provide balance.
-
Icepac's just spouting a list of planes from the ah comparison charts. He's not talking from personal experience.
Simply looking at the chart doesn't tell you if it can effectively hunt bombers at 30k or not. That's absurd. F4us are not good at that alt. C2 is barely able to stay in the air, let alone maneuver and hunt. Same for most of your planes icepac. Like Kappa says, flying straight up a bomber's 6 oclock at 5mph closure rate does NOT an effective hunting strategy make.
-
Simply looking at the chart doesn't tell you if it can effectively hunt bombers at 30k or not. That's absurd. F4us are not good at that alt. C2 is barely able to stay in the air, let alone maneuver and hunt. Same for most of your planes icepac. Like Kappa says, flying straight up a bomber's 6 oclock at 5mph closure rate does NOT an effective hunting strategy make.
F4Us are fine for hunting and killing all buffs but the B29 and to some extend the Mossie at that alt. Even the B-29 can get caught and shot down by them, it's just that I personally would prefer other rides better suited for the job.
By the way, since HTC made some adjustments you won't find anything but 17's 29's and the occasional Mossie at that alt. It's extremely rare to find B-24s past 28 and Lancs past 25k these days. And at that altitude, a lot of fighters can run down and shoot down those bombers without having a "closure rate of 5mph".
If you find yourself crawling up the six of a bomber at that speed without any other option, calibrate your throttle of step away from the Hurricane 1.
And by the way, the utter majority of bomber sorties in the MA is flown at altitudes much lower than 30k. Only at strat raids you have a high percentage of high alt runs, but you also have much more warning time - if you actually use the map, which most players simply don't do.
-
If someone spends the time to climb that high, they should get all the benefits that go along with it.
-
Again: Too many of you are looking at history to define how the planes should be portrayed in AH. Look again. The same engines the bombers use are in use by fighters, yet the fighters are not limited. Why? Historically the reason bombers flew so much more slowly is that they needed the formations for survival. A formation of three aircraft is much easier to maintain at higher speeds than a formation of 300-1000. If you have ever tried to fly in formation as a bomber pilot you would realize the futility of doing so at high power settings, unless someone is willing to slow down.
Disable bombers as you suggest and bombers will become hangar queens, or the few you see will be flying in the trees like 999000 does. Once that happens AH becomes a giant furball and subscriptions will fall.
-
This time I won't argue against those proposals en detail, have done that often enough.
But just one thing I'd like to mention:
If most proposals made to limit bombers in AH would be applied - limited to cruise speed, different layers of wind at different altitudes, more complex calibration (maybe even the often wished for changes to bomber gunnery)...
What do you think would happen gameplay wise?
:)
Fair question and you're not the only person to think that way every time a subject of this matter comes about. ;)
If HTC put in to effect some sort of limiter, say a speed limiter for dropping bombs based on historical evidence I don't think it would have much of a bearing on who does what, really. I think the bomber barons will continue on as they have been and the fighter jocks will continue on as they have been. I do think it would open up the fighter escort portion of the game a bit more, that role just became far more important. If the B17 and B24 were restricted to dropping ordnance to speeds of less than 250 TAS, it really is not going to change their game. If the Mossi B Mk 16 were to be restricted to 250 TAS it most certainly would impact it because speed is the only defense it has. However, with that said I do not know at what speed the Mossi B Mk 16 dropped its ordnance, if it did so while doing 350 TAS then so be it. Likewise, I don't think the B29 can even stay aloft at 250 TAS. So if HTC were to implement such a think it would have to be a "by the book" application and not a blanket "one size fits all". Anyone know what the Ju88 and He111 flew for typical air speeds while dropping ordnance from 18,000 ft???
Giving HTC's history of not applying arbitrary restrictions on the aircraft and gv models in the game (save for the reload times of the tanks), I don't look for them to do anything in terms of limiting speeds. However, I could see them put some sort of a spread factor on bombs. I don't know how it is coded now, but it sure seems like if everything is calibrated, etc, the bomb lands very close if not exactly on where a players aims regardless of altitude. I think by default the impact zone should be a lot larger the higher up the bomb is dropped. For example, if HTC currently has a cone attached to a bomber with the point attached to the plane and the further away the ground is from the plane the base of that cone should get bigger. As it is, if it is at all, the cone (impact zone) is rather small. If HTC has the ability to affect the size of that cone based on the speed of the bomber maybe that is the route they should go.
-
Again: Too many of you are looking at history to define how the planes should be portrayed in AH. Look again. The same engines the bombers use are in use by fighters, yet the fighters are not limited. Why? Historically the reason bombers flew so much more slowly is that they needed the formations for survival. A formation of three aircraft is much easier to maintain at higher speeds than a formation of 300-1000. If you have ever tried to fly in formation as a bomber pilot you would realize the futility of doing so at high power settings, unless someone is willing to slow down.
Disable bombers as you suggest and bombers will become hangar queens, or the few you see will be flying in the trees like 999000 does. Once that happens AH becomes a giant furball and subscriptions will fall.
I absolutely agree no changes should be made to the MA. I would like a flag for the AvA and private arenas though.
-
Giving HTC's history of not applying arbitrary restrictions on the aircraft and gv models in the game (save for the reload times of the tanks), I don't look for them to do anything in terms of limiting speeds. However, I could see them put some sort of a spread factor on bombs. I don't know how it is coded now, but it sure seems like if everything is calibrated, etc, the bomb lands very close if not exactly on where a players aims regardless of altitude. I think by default the impact zone should be a lot larger the higher up the bomb is dropped. For example, if HTC currently has a cone attached to a bomber with the point attached to the plane and the further away the ground is from the plane the base of that cone should get bigger. As it is, if it is at all, the cone (impact zone) is rather small. If HTC has the ability to affect the size of that cone based on the speed of the bomber maybe that is the route they should go.
I'm not fond of the arbitrary speed restriction idea, as much as it would benefit my bomber hunting endeavors. I'm much more in favor of precision being brought a little more inline with reality. The gunnery model is quite accurate regarding dispersion, bullet drop, effects of yaw... Why not do the same with bombs?
Within the confines of the stuff the game models, I am almost always in favor of more realism as far as the physics go.
Wiley.
-
That's absurd. F4us are not good at that alt.
F4U-4s were. During the Okinawa Campaign, Marine Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser and his wingmen in F4U-4s intercepted a IJAF Ki-45 above 45,000ft and brought it down. They would have shot it down if the cannons didn't freeze, so they had to resort to chopping the Ki-45's tail up with their propellors.
ack-ack
-
Why not do the same with bombs?
Bomb ballistics are already modeled, so I recall from about a decade ago when it was added.
The part that isn't modeled accurately is the bombsights. AH did have a more complicated bombsight for a bit, one that can still be turned on, but you either found it just as easy as the current one or you couldn't hit anything with it. The result was lots of dive bombing B-17s and Lancasters. If they are blocked the option to dive bomb with the B-17 and Lancaster then the heavies would have had their numbers culled to the extreme.
The funny thing is that I wasn't aware they'd changed it to be easier for more than a year. I just kept using the "hard" calibration and it kept working because the removed steps, marking the target's altitude and holding the crosshairs steady on a point to calibrate speed, didn't matter to the current system either way.
-
F4U-4s were. During the Okinawa Campaign, Marine Capt. Kenneth L. Reusser and his wingmen in F4U-4s intercepted a IJAF Ki-45 above 45,000ft and brought it down. They would have shot it down if the cannons didn't freeze, so they had to resort to chopping the Ki-45's tail up with their propellors.
ack-ack
Ki-46, much lower altitude and no cannons on the F4Us.
-
Here's a Wishlist suggestion of several years ago about adding a parameter to control the drones' max speed.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,249443.msg3066353.html#msg3066353 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,249443.msg3066353.html#msg3066353)
Best.
-
I think the speeds of undamaged planes are fine but the drones should not be able to maintain formation with a dead engine unless the formation leader slows as well.
A few more of the many planes that can catch B29 at 30,000 feet.
mossie fighter
C205
yak9u
bf110g
If things go well, you might return to find yourself at 35,000 feet in a 110g with the cleanest loadout and 50 minutes fuel remaining..........over your HQ with a red dot 1/4 of a sector away.
In that scenario, the 110g will easily run down a B29 at 30,000 feet but beware the P47 often seen escorting very high B29s.
lol
An empty B29 can reach 380mph+ at 30k. The 110's maximum speed is nowhere near 380. The Mossie can sprint at 380mph, but only between 12-18K. At least the Jak can fly 5-7mph faster than the B29, at that alt...
How much time it takes to get to 30K? ~12 mins? How far a B29 can go in 12 mins?
How much time it takes to get above a 30k, 380mph the opponent, setting up a proper attack? How much fuel a C205 or a Jak9U has?
sheesh.
-
Icepac's just spouting a list of planes from the ah comparison charts. He's not talking from personal experience.
Simply looking at the chart doesn't tell you if it can effectively hunt bombers at 30k or not. That's absurd. F4us are not good at that alt. C2 is barely able to stay in the air, let alone maneuver and hunt. Same for most of your planes icepac. Like Kappa says, flying straight up a bomber's 6 oclock at 5mph closure rate does NOT an effective hunting strategy make.
Nope....wrong a usual Krusty.
All the planes I mentioned are in my stats as having killed B29s.......the only b29 kills I have at low altitude were with the yak9 when I flew NOE to what looked like thier intended landing field.
The list of planes I have successfully intercepted B29s with but failed to shoot them down is a lot bigger.
Here's one I did just for the benefit of this thread.
The only thing needing adjustment in bombers is the speed of the drones with engines out
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8537092164_90aa1f6a7b_b.jpg)
-
The one thing that I have seen suggested that I liked was tying it to the drones. If the drones would only fly at a cruise setting you'd have the choice of a single fast bomber, or a formation of cruising bombers.
Again: Too many of you are looking at history to define how the planes should be portrayed in AH. Look again. The same engines the bombers use are in use by fighters, yet the fighters are not limited. Why? Historically the reason bombers flew so much more slowly is that they needed the formations for survival. A formation of three aircraft is much easier to maintain at higher speeds than a formation of 300-1000. If you have ever tried to fly in formation as a bomber pilot you would realize the futility of doing so at high power settings, unless someone is willing to slow down.
So what if we worked on combining those logics in reverse? :devil
Reduce the bomber formation speed, and increase the number of buffs in a formation to, maybe 5? More spread, looks more carpet bombing (even if it isn't really), better defense for bombers, easier interception for fighters, more action for everybody, everybody happy?
As long as the buffs aren't given the ability to drop from individual planes, wont affect the gameplay too much I think (although I suspect the score hores might be upset since the outer fringes of the formation would probably be missing their precision drops on hangars and such anyways).
The funny thing is that I wasn't aware they'd changed it to be easier for more than a year. I just kept using the "hard" calibration and it kept working because the removed steps, marking the target's altitude and holding the crosshairs steady on a point to calibrate speed, didn't matter to the current system either way.
Wait, that's not how its done nowadays? Dont you still have to hold a target centered in the bombsight to calibrate?
-
I never bomb over 220mph and I make sure I haven't done any course or speed corrections long before I drop.
-
Nope....wrong a usual Krusty.
All the planes I mentioned are in my stats as having killed B29s.......the only b29 kills I have at low altitude were with the yak9 when I flew NOE to what looked like thier intended landing field.
The list of planes I have successfully intercepted B29s with but failed to shoot them down is a lot bigger.
Here's one I did just for the benefit of this thread.
The only thing needing adjustment in bombers is the speed of the drones with engines out
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8537092164_90aa1f6a7b_b.jpg)
wow man...you're kinda obtuse?
even with your own pic, you should be dead long before you get in gun range..
if that is your idea of effectively attacking b29s at 30k i believe our conversation is over.. lol
-
I gotta agree here, I never get within 1.5k of bombers and for good reason. You are well within the kill zone there.
-
wow man...you're kinda obtuse?
even with your own pic, you should be dead long before you get in gun range..
if that is your idea of effectively attacking b29s at 30k i believe our conversation is over.. lol
Obtuse?
My point is not whether I survive but the fact that I routinely kill the very planes everybody else says are uncatchable in planes they say can't catch them.
Had I known about the high buffs earlier, I would have gotten in a HO pass before creeping up dead six.
-
Obtuse?
My point is not whether I survive but the fact that I routinely kill the very planes everybody else says are uncatchable in planes they say can't catch them.
Had I known about the high buffs earlier, I would have gotten in a HO pass before creeping up dead six.
ok then.. who are the 'everybody else says are uncatchable' folks? i don't think that is the point being made by anyone really...
-
Wait, that's not how its done nowadays? Dont you still have to hold a target centered in the bombsight to calibrate?
Nope. Just need to hold the key down, the longer you hold it down the closer to your speed it calibrates at. Holding something in the crosshairs is completely unnecessary.
Obtuse?
My point is not whether I survive but the fact that I routinely kill the very planes everybody else says are uncatchable in planes they say can't catch them.
Had I known about the high buffs earlier, I would have gotten in a HO pass before creeping up dead six.
26.5k is significantly different than 30k and your claims about how easy it is to intercept and kill Ar234s, B-29s and Mosquitoes, which you constantly talk your self up at, are not nearly so easy as you make it out to be unless you have lots of warning and know where they are going. Even then, you do a head on attack against them at 30k in most of what you mention you had damn well better kill them because you're never getting another shot.
-
Glad to see that no matter how long I'm away some things never change. The argument that bomber engines are fragile and fighter engines are tough, is just ridiculous.
The truth of the matter is what makes intercepting high altitude bombers so difficult is a lack of clear information for the defenders. I blame this on the fact that the current clipboard radar is so limited in it's functional capabilities. What really needs to happen is for HTC to update the radar system to facilitate more flexibility and balance out the information inequity the interceptors face.
I would propose a radar setup that looks something like an airspace model (see below).
(http://rrtr.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/class-b-airspace.jpg)
This way the radar range could be set at different altitudes and allow more time for the defenders to prepare for a proper intercept. And it would be best if this function could be controlled by the CM's for special events. With several different altitude increments.
Another clipboard change that would help is for the ability to click on a red dot on the map and turn on a visual trace of that targets flight path.
And the final clipboard change would be to allow for a different type of dot to distinguish bombers from fighters.
By providing these three different pieces of information, interceptors would have a much better chance at success in my opinion.
-
The argument that bomber engines are fragile and fighter engines are tough, is just ridiculous.
Nobody has made that argument, but if they did you are right, it would be ridiculous.
I agree that a radar model that provided altitude data and greater range of detection for higher altitude targets would be better.
-
My point is not whether I survive but the fact that I routinely kill the very planes everybody else says are uncatchable in planes they say can't catch them.
Icepac the yak in your image has a 20 mph speed advantage over the b29. That means the yak will gain 500 yds in 1 minute on the b29, therefore the yak is highly likely to be shot down before it enters effective gunnery range. I believe kappa has hit the nail on the head, several planes can climb to 30k and have a speed advantage over a b29, but very few have a significant advantage so as to make a proper attack on one. Slowly gaining on a b29 in a tail chase is not an effective strategy to shoot down a b29.
-
I have films.....will post after you guys talk more smack.
Feeds out rope.
-
LOL.....they descended to speed up.
I descended to catch them.
I caught up.
Ok, so they sucked at B-29s. "Decended to speed up" and reached a whopping 317mph and 348mph respectively? After a 2.4 and 3.2k foot decent?
-
Ok, so they sucked at B-29s. "Decended to speed up" and reached a whopping 317mph and 348mph respectively? After a 2.4 and 3.2k foot decent?
Why not ask the pilot of the B29s (biggamer) whether he desceneded a few minutes before I ran them down?
-
Why not ask the pilot of the B29s (biggamer) whether he desceneded a few minutes before I ran them down?
Doesn't matter if he did or didn't. With the listed speeds of 317mph and 346mph respectively they weren't doing very well and thus cannot be held up as representative examples to be intercepted. Particularly given your suicide attack approach on subpar players.
-
ith the listed speeds of 317mph and 346mph respectively they weren't doing very well and thus cannot be held up as representative examples to be intercepted.
Just for the record (and perhaps not applicable to the exact scenario being discussed), but 346 mph is in fact a very typical cruising speed for B-29 at high altitudes inbound to the target. Thus 346mph are quite representative for that bomber.
The often cited 380mph+ are only attained after dropping the ords. As the primary goal of any interceptor / bomber hunter is to stop the heavies before they drop on their target, this is not of minor importance.
-
Just for the record (and perhaps not applicable to the exact scenario being discussed), but 346 mph is in fact a very typical cruising speed for B-29 at high altitudes inbound to the target. Thus 346mph are quite representative for that bomber.
The often cited 380mph+ are only attained after dropping the ords. As the primary goal of any interceptor / bomber hunter is to stop the heavies before they drop on their target, this is not of minor importance.
Agreed, but not after diving 3.2k to gain speed in order to elude the pursuing La-5FN as icepac claimed the situation was. If it had been a long pursuit at 26.8k and the B-29 had slowed to 348mph, the other B-29 ought to be going faster than 317mph.
-
I don't see why the number of planes capable of intercepting by far the most outlandishly perked bomber in the game has any bearing on the argument.
You take the right plane for the job... if you're attempting to intercept high-performance/high-altitude late war bombers, use a high-performance/high-altitude late war fighter.
The enhanced radar intel is good to go... maybe even have a circle "dot" indicating a plane under say 10k or whatever... a square "dot" indicating a plane between 10 and 20, and a triangle "dot" indicating a plane north of 20k?
-
The enhanced radar intel is good to go... maybe even have a circle "dot" indicating a plane under say 10k or whatever... a square "dot" indicating a plane between 10 and 20, and a triangle "dot" indicating a plane north of 20k?
The most probable reaction to this would be more bomber flying at more extreme altitudes. If there's an icon saying "k+" they will either fly at 19.9... or 29, but hardly in between anymore.
A similar effect could happen for strat raiders in case the radar circles will be increased for higher altitudes. This would quickly cover about every inch of the map. We had that (total coverage) once, and the effect on strat raiders and other long range intruders that I could observe was a) much less of them appearing overall and b) higher average altitudes.
-
Lusche I understand your point but there could be increments every 2,000 feet, just like the current wind settings.
with that many options the ranges could be balanced in such a way that it doesn't stop someone from bombing or push them to the max altitude. Having this functionality would increase the flexibility of the arena in general, and could help create a better chance to intercept high bombers.
In the past with any radar changes it has been an all or nothing this would give HTC a chance to try something different.
-
and could help create a better chance to intercept high bombers.
Allow me a more general remark: Players are not even remotely using their chances now. Darbars screaming "high alt bombers" for 30+ minutes, the presence of high valued bomber targets, continuous and detailed reports on country channel usually get thoroughly ignored. I can point out a 20k raid inbound to a target for like 20 minutes, but players are for the most part only reacting to targets flashing with the enemy directly overhead.
It's so much easier to kill high alt raids if you actually use the tools already there. Map and country text.
(Not to speak of all those would-be interceptors always upping from a base just below or even behind an enemy raid :bhead )
-
(Not to speak of all those would-be interceptors always upping from a base just below or even behind an enemy raid :bhead )
I love watching that from the bombsight of my Mossie as I pass over the field. I was dogged by a Spitfire Mk XIV for about five sectors once after he had lifted under me. Never came close to being a threat though.
-
99% of the players in Aces High will never learn how to chase bardar like you do Luche. Just like other aspects of the game, high altitude interception requires a unique set of skills to be done properly. Most players will never master it in the current state because after climbing and chasing bardar for even 20 minutes they will loose interest. And for an inexperienced player, chasing bardar leads invariably to a stern attack which further frustrates the interceptor.
Since most players have lost interest in attempting high altitude interception, you can't even begin to teach proper techniques for doing it.
-
99% of the players in Aces High will never learn how to chase bardar like you do Luche. Just like other aspects of the game, high altitude interception requires a unique set of skills to be done properly. Most players will never master it in the current state because after climbing and chasing bardar for even 20 minutes they will loose interest. And for an inexperienced player, chasing bardar leads invariably to a stern attack which further frustrates the interceptor.
Since most players have lost interest in attempting high altitude interception, you can't even begin to teach proper techniques for doing it.
Which is why even people with experience in AH are now asking for bombers to be weakened. I call it laziness.
-
I often fly at 20 to 25k, if a long run then up to 32k or higher, and very seldom will anyone come up to play. Once and a while you well see a enemy fighter who will fly past the bomber at icon range an never even attempt an angle of attack even if the have altitude on said set of buff's. I very seldom fly at max speed except at climbout. usually at 2300 rpm, 38 manifold ( speed tas 240 doors open, 250 doors closed and abut 270 when empty).
DHawk
-
Which is why even people with experience in AH are now asking for bombers to be weakened. I call it laziness.
"Weakened" is not the word I'd use nor would I call the suggestion(s) laziness. I think a better analogy is allowing for some historical accuracy in the way certain platforms were deployed and used. I don't think anyone is asking for the guns, bombs, air frames, etc. etc, to be "weakened", instead what is being asked is for some sort of historical accuracy to be applied in how a heavy bomber, or any bomber is used. Obviously, putting a damper on anything would tighten the bounds in which it could be used and ultimately I don't think anything is being abused or does not a some sort of risk in being used (300+ perks lost for losing a flight of B29's, etc).
As I've said before, if bombers like the B17, B24, and Lancaster for example were restricted to 250 TAS or less (historically accurate numbers) in order for the bombs to drop of out the bay, that would open wide up the importance of having escort fighters along for the trip, or at least part of the trip. Most of us know that escort fighters rendezvoused somewhere other than where the bombers took off from. If by chance HTC could come across some official documentation showing what a "standard" speed was in dropping ordnance for each bomber, I doubt they would even go there. Ever think that some bombers had a maximum speed in which bomb bay doors could be opened? Check it out sometime, you'd be surprised at which bomber in AH goes screaming over an enemy target about 60 mph faster than what it was mechanically able to do (think of trying to deploy flaps at to high a speed).
HTC has to balance between historical accuracy and game play, and if the plane go perform at such levels then so be it: let the plane flay at its fastest speed and drop bombs based on some chart somewhere. If the B24 could fly at 290+ TAS at 25,000 ft and drop 8 tons of ordnance in 50 yard square area then so be it, why restrict it just because a USAAF bombing SOP beckoned it to do so in WWII? I understand the premises in AH completely. Arbitrary restrictions are not HTC's way of doing things. In the AH MA's, we have no wind, each base and strat is the same, every hanger has the same hardness, all town buildings are the same, etc, etc. Heck, we can even tell to the minute when an OBJ is going to be repaired. There is no guess work. It doesn't get any easier that what we have now. Ever think it may be YOU who is lazy in shooting from the hip with your accusation???
-
"Weakened" is not the word I'd use nor would I call the suggestion(s) laziness. I think a better analogy is allowing for some historical accuracy in the way certain platforms were deployed and used. I don't think anyone is asking for the guns, bombs, air frames, etc. etc, to be "weakened", instead what is being asked is for some sort of historical accuracy. . .
No, it's laziness. I have not seen anyone suggest the same accuracy be applied to a single fighter. Nor has anyone suggested that bombers only be allowed to fly in groups of 500, which is the historically correct reason bombers flew at reduced power.
'Historical accuracy' is not what AH does best. AH gives us the equipment, none of it limited by 'historical weakness' and we use it as we see fit. If you want to fly a bomber around at reduced power you are free to do so. I've also noticed that no one has mentioned bombers above 30k! Every one of the bombers in AH can out turn 110's, 410's, and Jugs at 35k. That is historically accurate.
No, what you don't like is that it takes too long for your fighter to catch a bomber. Even when AH pilots finally catch one they usually attack it in the dumbest way they know how, and the reason they do that is laziness, and lack of patience.
No, my assessment is accurate. It's laziness. This wish is nothing more than asking HTC to change the game to favor the way the OP flies. That sort of wish is never granted because HTC can see right through it.
-
As I've said before, if bombers like the B17, B24, and Lancaster for example were restricted to 250 TAS or less (historically accurate numbers) in order for the bombs to drop of out the bay, that would open wide up the importance of having escort fighters along for the trip, or at least part of the trip. Most of us know that escort fighters rendezvoused somewhere other than where the bombers took off from. If by chance HTC could come across some official documentation showing what a "standard" speed was in dropping ordnance for each bomber, I doubt they would even go there. Ever think that some bombers had a maximum speed in which bomb bay doors could be opened? Check it out sometime, you'd be surprised at which bomber in AH goes screaming over an enemy target about 60 mph faster than what it was mechanically able to do (think of trying to deploy flaps at to high a speed).
Could you provide some specific examples of this please? I have data for a few planes and they all show very high speeds for door limits. For example the door limit speed on the B-17G is 305mph indicated.
If there is a particular bomber that exceeds it's door speed then HTC should look at limiting door operation just like flap operation.
-
No, it's laziness. I have not seen anyone suggest the same accuracy be applied to a single fighter. Nor has anyone suggested that bombers only be allowed to fly in groups of 500, which is the historically correct reason bombers flew at reduced power.
Why do you think the Germans win every Battle of Britain setting run in AH despite having had essentially no chance historically? All I am asking for is a tool that can be used in historical settings to limit the bombers, when flown as a formation, to historical speeds. This would not affect the MA at all as it wouldn't be enabled in the MA.
The Spitfires and Hurricanes are already limited to their historical speeds. Why should the bombers not be as well?
-
Pretty sure I can maintain at least a sector at 380mph in a zero before reaching 30,000 feet.
I derive a lot of enjoyment planning intercepts of the highests altitude and fastest buffs in the game.
Once I catch them, it's like a normal low altitude sortie and loses my interest fast.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8109/8538237478_3d4731cfe6_c.jpg)
-
99% of the players in Aces High will never learn how to chase bardar like you do Luche. Just like other aspects of the game, high altitude interception requires a unique set of skills to be done properly. Most players will never master it in the current state because after climbing and chasing bardar for even 20 minutes they will loose interest. And for an inexperienced player, chasing bardar leads invariably to a stern attack which further frustrates the interceptor.
Since most players have lost interest in attempting high altitude interception, you can't even begin to teach proper techniques for doing it.
I've been playing since November of 2012 and I have dar bar-based interceptions down to the point that I am frequently accused of cheating, spying, or having a shade account. It isn't rocket science, it literally requires only a few minutes of patience and some basic reasoning.
-
Two things I like to do most in AH: fly buff missions and intercept buff missions. Even though I'm part of a bomber squad and place a lot of effort in that interest, I would not be against throttling back bomber formation speed. I like the idea limiting the max speed of drones only while flying level in formation. During the any other time (take off, landing, climb or any evasive maneuvers), they should not be hampered any more than they already are.
A formation of buffs has three times the lives, defensive protection, and offensive bomb load at no cost (unless perked). The price of taking two additional drones should be a reduction in max throttle speed in level flight to something less than full tilt. AH is a perfect world environment where everything operates at its full potential without mechanical difficulty or problems. This is especially true for buff formations with all three planes being identical to one another. Differences between the three regarding engine performance, fuel consumption, weight, etc. that would all normally affect speed is non-existent in the game. I would reason that nothing should be changed in non-level flight because the three planes would be loosely operating and not stressed with keeping a tight formation. While in level flight though, reduced throttle input should be required to keep a tight formation.
-
it literally requires only a few minutes of patience and some basic reasoning.
well there's your problem
-
well there's your problem
As with all things in life, I suppose.
-
Why do you think the Germans win every Battle of Britain setting run in AH despite having had essentially no chance historically? All I am asking for is a tool that can be used in historical settings to limit the bombers, when flown as a formation, to historical speeds. This would not affect the MA at all as it wouldn't be enabled in the MA.
The Spitfires and Hurricanes are already limited to their historical speeds. Why should the bombers not be as well?
It's not what you are asking for that is so wrong.
-
No, it's laziness. I have not seen anyone suggest the same accuracy be applied to a single fighter. Nor has anyone suggested that bombers only be allowed to fly in groups of 500, which is the historically correct reason bombers flew at reduced power.
'Historical accuracy' is not what AH does best. AH gives us the equipment, none of it limited by 'historical weakness' and we use it as we see fit. If you want to fly a bomber around at reduced power you are free to do so. I've also noticed that no one has mentioned bombers above 30k! Every one of the bombers in AH can out turn 110's, 410's, and Jugs at 35k. That is historically accurate.
No, what you don't like is that it takes too long for your fighter to catch a bomber. Even when AH pilots finally catch one they usually attack it in the dumbest way they know how, and the reason they do that is laziness, and lack of patience.
No, my assessment is accurate. It's laziness. This wish is nothing more than asking HTC to change the game to favor the way the OP flies. That sort of wish is never granted because HTC can see right through it.
Your opinion is just that. You're awfully quick to sling mud and label and just may forget that just because someone does not agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. Some would call you lazy for not wanting to have to defend your bombers or rely on an escort fighter. ;)
I have no issues with how long it takes for a fighter to "catch" a bomber. That isn't the issue, never has been and it wont ever be with me. Under a speed restriction, the bomber pilot who takes his B24's to 25k under full power and levels off under full power for 3-4 sectors before setting up calibration and opening doors is not going to change a thing. That last 25 miles or so he will have to cut his throttle (perhaps a dot command???) and set his bomber to speed X. Once the bombs are dropped then hammer down and away he goes. So for 25 miles or so he has to reduce throttle. Is it worth HTC to even model for that? Probably not. The big thing at least for me is the blatant accuracy the bombs have. There is very minimal dispersal of the bombs, if any.
Instead of a speed restriction, I'd like to see HTC implement a speed scale of sorts: the faster the bomber is going the less accurate the bombs are going to be, AND the higher the bomber is the less accurate the bombs will be. It is simply too easy to bomb accurately while moving at 300 TAS and from from 35,000 ft. There is no wind in the MA's, there is no rain, no cloud cover, no darkness, etc, etc, etc.
-
Lowering bomb accuracy with altitude will just cause the population to never again fly up to historical operational altitudes.
Lowering bomb accuracy with speed is ok and it seems to already be in place to a very small degree.
-
Lowering bomb accuracy with altitude will just cause the population to never again fly up to historical operational altitudes.
Lowering bomb accuracy with speed is ok and it seems to already be in place to a very small degree.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes. ;) Never say never, and it going to 25k means a higher chance of surviving yet having a %20 larger impact zone then I'm willing to bet nothing changes.
I've not noticed a bit of difference in accuracy depending on altitude. If there is a variable it is very miniscule.