Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: surfinn on June 20, 2013, 06:18:41 PM
-
Why are these two still on the attack menu and allowed to take off without ords and with formations enabled? I think its a oversight that needs to be corrected. Either by disabling their formation capability from the attack menu or taking them off of the attack menu and putting them in the bomber only menu. :salute
-
(http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Pretty+sure+he+s+not+from+Toronto+and+we+don+t+want+_d4fa7c4a41bb29904ce79e8d1e201100.jpg)
-
cant see the picture there its not showing up
-
Why are these two still on the attack menu and allowed to take off without ords and with formations enabled? I think its a oversight that needs to be corrected. Either by disabling their formation capability from the attack menu or taking them off of the attack menu and putting them in the bomber only menu. :salute
While I can't speak directly for HTC I'd be willing to bet that bombers are labelled as such of they were used more so for actual bombing missions of static targets. Aircraft that have the ability to score in the attack column are able to do so because they were used as a direct fire support vessel, and both the B25 and Ju88 were used as level bombers AND as close air support (direct fire, non level bombing) vs enemy positions.
B17's were not sent to loiter on station and wait for the call to bomb X hill because the troops were in need of assistance. Lancasters didn't do that either. The Mossi FB Mk IV did, so did the He111, so did the IL-2, so did the A20 and P47. Oh, and the Ju88's could carry torps as well, that qualifies as a direct attack imo.
Do not try and figure out HTC's system of how they label what. Same goes for giving "all bombers" full and complete views based solely on how they are classified (bomber) and not what the crew members of the plane could actually see.
Just go with the flow. Trust me, life is easier. The sun will come up tomorrow regardless. :aok
-
SmokinLoon,
It is "Mosquito FB.Mk VI". The Mk IV was the Mosquito B.Mk IV, an unarmed bomber.
-
Why are these two still on the attack menu and allowed to take off without ords and with formations enabled? I think its a oversight that needs to be corrected. Either by disabling their formation capability from the attack menu or taking them off of the attack menu and putting them in the bomber only menu. :salute
might want to change the cereal you're eating.
look up both of those planes...in depth. you will find your answer.
-
SmokinLoon,
It is "Mosquito FB.Mk VI". The Mk IV was the Mosquito B.Mk IV, an unarmed bomber.
Yeah thanks. My 1 spelling error of the day and that wuz it. ;)
-
I rather wonder why the B-26 with it's nice additional strafing capability is not also rated as an "attacker" :headscratch:
-
Yeah thanks. My 1 spelling error of the day and that wuz it. ;)
Actually you make that error habitually. I just decided to comment on it this time. :P
-
I rather wonder why the B-26 with it's nice additional strafing capability is not also rated as an "attacker" :headscratch:
all of them have forward firing pilot controlled guns I would imagine it should.
Only HT can say why they class them as attack.
-
I rather wonder why the B-26 with it's nice additional strafing capability is not also rated as an "attacker" :headscratch:
I've wondered the same thing, it was used in many light bomber squadrons in the "attack" role, alongside the A-20 and later A-26.
ack-ack
-
Still don't get why they have the formation option enabled from the attack menu for those aircraft. Why can these "attack" aircraft take off with no ords when they have zero strafing ability as a formation? Only thing I've seen that makes since was dead stick saying they were on station with "ords" to bomb a position as close support. Not opposed to them being used as fighters if ya want to but not with formations enabled.
-
Using bomber formations as fighter is kinda pointless as you lose your drones.
Best bomber-figher is the SBD tho followed by the TBM.
-
The JU88 should have a "fighter mode"
I like to call it the FU88 :O
JUGgler
-
If only it had a 13mm or 20mm forward gun instead of those infernal bb's
-
If only it had a 13mm or 20mm forward gun instead of those infernal bb's
Yes! A forward firing stream of urine would hit harder than those BBs.
JUGgler
-
Still don't get why they have the formation option enabled from the attack menu for those aircraft. Why can these "attack" aircraft take off with no ords when they have zero strafing ability as a formation?
Why makes things complicated?
You can select attack+formation even though it is very difficult to set us a strafing run this way (though very much possible and fun to attempt!). I can't see a way to exploit this in any significant way, so keep it simple.
-
Ju 88C-6a or C-7c. Heavy long-range fighter/bomber. Four 20mm in the nose, two in the gondola. :cheers:
(http://www.luftarchiv.net/flugzeuge/junkers/ju88c6.jpg)
-
Ju 88C-6a or C-7c. Heavy long-range fighter/bomber. Four 20mm in the nose, two in the gondola. :cheers:
Yes please. The H88 can be a lot of fun to take out and throw around, but the pea shooter makes it an exercise in futility.
-
Ju-88P1-P4 variant had 37mm, 50mm, 75mm, or 88mm. Other variants were equipped with radar for night fighting capabilities, 20mm and 30mm cannons that fired forward and some that were angled high to shoot bombers by flying under them. How fun would the ju-88 be if we had all these options in the game eh :D
-
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Zushia/ju88p-2.jpg)
-
I have used both in attack roles and even participated in dogfights with both as well. The B25C has better punch with all those forward facing .50's. :aok
-
Ju 88C-6a or C-7c. Heavy long-range fighter/bomber. Four 20mm in the nose, two in the gondola. :cheers:
(http://www.luftarchiv.net/flugzeuge/junkers/ju88c6.jpg)
A fighter version of the Ju88 would be great to have. Anything that increases the use of this core WWII airframe in the game is good with me.
-
Bomber-fighter you say?
Yes please :aok
Just when do we get an SB2C???