To frame this up better, I have a question? What is your understanding of the perk system? Why do we have it?(not really sure...its a balance n check system in a sense that way we have something besides b29s and 262s running around)
I saw add a small perk cost to the Lancaster, B24, B17, and maybe even the B26 and Tu2.
Stop and think of the destruction a flight of them can bring to the table. The speed demons get a perk for not able to be intercepted (Ar234's, Mossi B Mk 16's), and the B29 gets a perk because of the massive amount of destruction, long range, defensive capability, and difficulty in being intercepted (speed).
Why not apply a 5 perk cost to Lancs? 4 to B24's, 3 to B17's, and 2 to the B26 and Tu2??? It isn't like bomber perks are hard to earn.
I saw add a small perk cost to the Lancaster, B24, B17, and maybe even the B26 and Tu2.
Stop and think of the destruction a flight of them can bring to the table. The speed demons get a perk for not able to be intercepted (Ar234's, Mossi B Mk 16's), and the B29 gets a perk because of the massive amount of destruction, long range, defensive capability, and difficulty in being intercepted (speed).
Why not apply a 5 perk cost to Lancs? 4 to B24's, 3 to B17's, and 2 to the B26 and Tu2??? It isn't like bomber perks are hard to earn.
at the fantastic bomber hunters "high is not high enough" typically if some one is going to even waste time climbing in lancs they will be 30k + and all bombers climb around 700-1100fpm so lancs really dont fall short on climb rate.. they just move slow when they do at 150... not 170 or 180 or 240...(in ar234s case)Lanc's can't go to 30k+ and they climb well below 700fpm above 20k.
I saw add a small perk cost to the Lancaster, B24, B17, and maybe even the B26 and Tu2.
also this being said.. i realize 24s/17s are flown rather often and its not just "lancs" i just feel that lancs carry to much to really be unperked
i think they should be perked in all arenas not just EWSTOP IT-they are not gonna perk the lancs--so forget about it...the only real to stop the lancstukas is to stoot them down as soon and as fast as possible.
reasons
1: 14klbs of ords is to much to not be perked
2: its the only AC(except b29) that can drop HQ 1 pass(with formation)
3: it would reduce lanstukas
4: would reduce suicide lancs in on cv's
5: towns would not be paved with ords...(as in 2 sets dropping 14/1klber EW/NS)
6:you tell me
i understand lancs are slow... and deathtraps for the most part but i also understand that they carry enough ords to obliterate just about anything
so my though would be ... keep EW perk value as it is(dont wanna disturb the trees)
MW perk value around 20 a plane...
LW perk value 5-15 a plane...
i realize it wont stop everything... and i also realize that people have enough bombers perks to throw away.....but it would deture newer people from doing it who dont have 5k perks... and those that do... would have to fly something besides lancs to stop from losing all the perks..
also this being said.. i realize 24s/17s are flown rather often and its not just "lancs" i just feel that lancs carry to much to really be unperked
just pointing out... the question mark is in the title...it is a question in general to see what people think of the idea... aswell as any input.... thats why #6 is you tell me...The Lanc makes the trade off of defensive guns for more bombs. They are easy to intercept and kill. Any perk price wouldn't just make them less common, it would make them nigh extinct in the MA.
so instead of trying to target the thought... how about give some constructive feedback
and about the fighters....who carry more ords... this is true but im just referring to lancs... not all planes
STOP IT-they are not gonna perk the lancs--so forget about it...the only real to stop the lancstukas is to stoot them down as soon and as fast as possible.
I wouldn't want lancs to be perked, they make up like 15% of the kills I score each tour. although I will say, I kind of feel for the poor Gvers when somebody brings a set of lancs in at 1k and carpet bombs a spawn with 1000lbers.
you should never feel sorry for spawn campers.
:devil Takes two to camp a spawn.
Perk Bomber X threads always make me laugh.
ack-ack
Too bad you can't step outside of the box sometimes.
I look at bombers at what they can do, and how easily they can do it, and THEN survivability. Notice how many start by saying "X bomber is a sitting duck", etc, well all it takes to fix that is an escort fighter or two.
I think the bomb load is counter balanced by the slow speed, and the lesser defensibility.+1 i think thats ^^^why 999000 doesen't fly lancs.
I know I love seeing a lanc. I know I won't be all day catching him, and I know I'll have more time to kep my guns on the target for each pass, and I know 999000 usually doesn't fly Lancs :D
stabbyy, once you build your skills you will find Lancs don't need to be perked.+1
Your posts in the wishlist section smack of a newer person trying to learn the game and wanting it to be made easier. Work on your skills, get a trainer and focus on tactics and gunnery.
I hope you take this the right way...
Post like this make me laugh as well.
The people that cry to perk a bomber do so because they were either bombed or shot down by the bomber they wish to have perked. There is no valid reason to perk the Lancaster, it does not unbalance the game play in any fashion.
Basically, players (like the OP and those that think like him) cry to perk planes that kill them and/or they can't kill themselves.
ack-ack
Post like this make me laugh as well.
The people that cry to perk a bomber do so because they were either bombed or shot down by the bomber they wish to have perked. There is no valid reason to perk the Lancaster, it does not unbalance the game play in any fashion.
Basically, players (like the OP and those that think like him) cry to perk planes that kill them and/or they can't kill themselves.
ack-ack
so would you have spent your perks on them hq busting a few days ago if they were?
you know your wish would change the dynamics of this game considerably?
Stab... Planes are perked because they will cause an imbalance if they weren't. You are correct, if 262's were free, they would be used all the time, causing an imbalance.
Do you see the lanc as causing an imbalance in the game given that it's only positive over other bombers is what's in it's belly?
when it comes to bombers....thats really all the matters getting home is just a rare and welcome reward
does not matter how well armed you are... or how fast you are... as many cases fighters will stalk you till you slow down to land if your fast...
and if your well armed they will either wait till you are stopping on airstrip/dropping ords...or just drill you as they collide really comes down to how bad they want the kill
and compared to some of these guys.. yes i am new... but i am not that new 2 weeks was up along time ago my reasoning is sound whether people like it or not it would change things... and remove a few easy kills but make some "typical" tasks more challenging and i feel that is what people are more so objecting to more then the actual thought of perking it because it does have a imbalanced level....ords wise
like you said...you would see mostly 262s running around if they were free well...if you look at the buffs running around they are 80% lancs no?(unless its a strat raid)
The problem with Lancaster that with full bomb load it takes forever to get the "relatively safe" altitude. Once I had flown half a map just to get to ~19k to be intercepted by some 109. It is also slow and has weak ammo.
So also it has a good punch it is virtually defenseless - as primary defense of bomber is surprise - in/out without being intercepted, otherwise you need an escort
actually for your information i do not view lancasters as a direct threat... even if im in GV the wish was a wish yes... but it was also a question to see what people thought
what does bother me is how stupidly they are used... vary rarely will lancs return home... because they are slow... which contributes to bomb n bail after WF town(because they can near WF it in 1 pass 2 at most)
also contributes to suicide into carrier groups
and low level carpet bombing of spawns
and at the time of i think it was 45k pounds(currency) for 1 lanc... that would be like i think some where 2million pounds today? or almost 4 million a plane math might be off on that one
so the fact people are throwing away we'll say 12million in planes just to kill a hand full of targets its a bit much
and granted i my self have done many of the listed above things....just not the bomb n bail that being said... i still dont think it should happen so frequently anything that can shut down a base purely on its own... should be perked in my opinion
and for the record it really does not matter what bomber you are in when you get intercepted it depends on what intercepted you... and how good of a gunner you are slow speed makes them easier to intercept yes... but it does not take many 50 cals to bring a plane on your 6 down...
Well the "costs" of the buffs are irrelevant as we all pay the same price for as many as we want to fly.
As for the bolded statement..... Welcome to Aces High were everyone gets to play the game how ever they want to. Your never going to get a change in game play because "thats not the way they used them in WWII".
no the game needs more lancaster pilots. easy kills and best tool for the job it's a fair trade off.
Perk the lancs. What are you going to do when the sky is now full of bomb and bail B24's?
Perk them too I guess :rolleyes:
Perk the lancs. What are you going to do when the sky is now full of bomb and bail B24's?
Perk them too I guess :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:The problem with perking the Lancaster Mk III, B-24J, B-17G, B-26B, and Tu-2S is that the remaining bombers are substantially less efficient than simply using Bf110s, P-38s, P-47s, P-51s and Typhoons. Some of them are probably even less efficient than using Ki-84s. While the free bombers in your scenario are useful perk farmers, they are not effective weapon systems in the LWA due to either excessive vulnerability or inadequate bomb load or both. This would put bombers in a distinctly different place than fighters where numerous, effective LWA fighters are free of any perk price. Perking those five bombers would be like perking every fighter below ENY 30.
hence my suggestion of applying a small perk price to the Lancaster, B24, B17, B26, and Tu-2. It isn't a matter of stopping the bomb-n-bail as much as it is applying a linear price based on the ability to wreck havoc with the aid of bomb load, speed, climb rate, range, and defensive ability. Notice I've left the Ju88 off the list. While it carries usable ordnance comparable to the B26 (4/500kg), it is restricted by its range, speed, and defensive armament. The Ju88 isn't going to get to the strategic targets easily enough on most occasions so the 20/50kg bombs are not worth much (vs city blocks they are great).
Again, I emphasize that applying a perk price is not going to stop the bomb-n-bail price, that isn't why I suggest it. However, for every flight of Lancasters lost there should be a bomb run with "lesser" bombers to earn the perk points. It isn't like it is difficult to earn bomber perk points.
i understand the cost is generally irrelevant just making the point.. they were not cheap
as for the "thats not how they were used!" argument never really argued that side of anything....as war always takes on a new form
Should start charging perks for wishes...
Should start charging perks for wishes...
Don't perk the heavy bombers - perk their drones!
This will stop players from treating them as expendable 2-extra-life bomb mules.
This will stop players from treating them as expendable 2-extra-life bomb mules.
Don't perk the heavy bombers - perk their drones!No. Bombers are too vulnerable and the time investment to use them too great.
This will stop players from treating them as expendable 2-extra-life bomb mules.
Yes, yes! DEATH TO BOMBER PILOTS!!! :bheadHave fun HQ raiding :)
Have fun HQ raiding :)
1) Lancs are weak, wingtips easily shot offFlown a lanc back to base after losing both wing tips and getting a PW. If anything should be changed it's that dam fleet ack! :lol
2) Guns suck!
3) C'mon.... it's British. :)
4)
(http://euw.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=118717&d=1365089653)
No. Bombers are too vulnerable and the time investment to use them too great.That is simply inaccurate. Bombers have a K/D of about 0.3--0.4. This means that PER FORMATION they have a K/D of 1. Given the abuse of bombers and drones especially as kamikaze, I'd say that they are doing well against fighters.
That is simply inaccurate. Bombers have a K/D of about 0.3--0.4. This means that PER FORMATION they have a K/D of 1. Given the abuse of bombers and drones especially as kamikaze, I'd say that they are doing well against fighters.Bombers are free kills. Take away two thirds of their firepower and durability and they will simply not be used in favor of P-51Ds.
That is simply inaccurate. Bombers have a K/D of about 0.3--0.4. This means that PER FORMATION they have a K/D of 1. Given the abuse of bombers and drones especially as kamikaze, I'd say that they are doing well against fighters.
Bombers are free kills. Take away two thirds of their firepower and durability and they will simply not be used in favor of P-51Ds.No, I did not say disable formations, I said put a perk price tag on them. It could be as low as 1 perk point each, just something to give an incentive to bring them back. Bomber perks are easy to get even for the noobies and such a price is easily affordable. If however a player regularly loose his drones or perform suicide attacks the costs will add up till it stings.
Is that really what you want?
Look at A2A kills only for some of those bombers as they get alot more kills on GVs. IE the Wirble makes up around 20% of the Lancaster kills, where as the B-17 has a much higher A2A ratio.There are fighters with very low K/D as well. All planes are not equal in A2A. Lancs specifically are the most abused bomber in the role of GV carpet bombing and CV kamikaze, which pushes their K/D way down. In general, also consider that the total time-in-game of the average bomber pilot is probably lower by a significant amount then the total time-in-game of the average fighter pilot, as noobs gravitate more to flying bombers till they accumulate some experience in the game. There are the dedicated veteran buff pilots of course, but we are talking averages.
Also last month the Lanc had a .2 K/D ratio, where as the He111 had a K/D of .08!
The only non-perk bombers that can, on average, trade a Formation for a fighter, are the US heavy bombers and the Ki-67.
free kills
As a point of fact myself and many other veteran players consider taking on a heavy buff formation guaranteed death or RTB due to oiled engine/pilot wound and often avoid them. Here's a hint: When really, really, really outnumbered at a base he's defending, SHawk will up from another base and drag a box of B-17s through the red cloud in lieu of a Tempest, 262, or other possible option. It tends to be deadlier. I've seen him do it, and I've seen a whole crowd of players pointedly ignoring those 3 "free kills" when he does it, for good reason.Huh. One the rare times that I play, I still consider bombers easy kills. While I may get pinged a bit they are distinctly easier to kill than fighters. I'll grant you that the only truly free kills are the rare B-25C, Boston Mk III, G4M1, He111 and Ju88 along with the common Lancaster Mk III. The B-17G, B-24J, B-26B and Ki-67 need to be treated with a bit of respect and damage is expected, but in the end they die.
The fairly common phenomenon of fighters sheltering in buff defensive gunfire (it has even happened in FSO before) is as strong an indicator that something is wrong as one could imagine.
A jabo is as good as a free kill if you fly anything with speed, a formation is not.
I find your claim that "many other veteran players consider taking on a heavy buff formation guaranteed death or RTB due to oiled engine/pilot wound" to be even more of an exaggeration than my exaggeration of calling them free kills.
I am not particularly good, but every time I have fought 999000 he has lost bombers to me and he has never shot me down.
Thread has left the hyperbole region and is now firmly rooted in the country of comedy.
I have shot down 20 vs the 4 that have got me. Looks like I get more than I get got, and I fly planes with 50 cals most of the time.
So ya I think your exaggeration is a bit out there.
You are either very good indeed (and bragging about it through understatement) or lying. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former, especially considering the Mossie will help.Last time I encountered 999000 I was in an La-7 and while he oiled me I destroyed one of his bombers. The others were all gone before I could make another pass.
Last time I encountered 999000 I was in an La-7 and while he oiled me I destroyed one of his bombers. The others were all gone before I could make another pass.
Last time I encountered 999000 I was in an La-7 and while he oiled me I destroyed one of his bombers. The others were all gone before I could make another pass.
The story of your stats is that you don't hunt buffs that often, when you do it is often in a plane that is above average for taking on buffs, and even though you are an experienced pilot, they still get you regularly. Pretty good demonstration of what I'm saying.
And this guy...I love him, but he's one of the premiere shooters of the game (whether or not he will admit it), and most of his buff kills this tour appear to be in either an Me-163 or a Ta-152. An experten flying 30mm-packing dedicated interceptors talking about how easy it is to kill buffs does not quite represent the whole story.
I have not claimed at all it does. And I'm not the one singling out a single player and the occasional incidents.
I have shot down 20 vs the 4 that have got me. Looks like I get more than I get got, and I fly planes with 50 cals most of the time.Since bombers get 3 strikes, your 20:4 ratio is equivalent to 7:4, which is about the same as your general K/D vs. fighters. In other words, you chances of sending another player to the tower versus him sending you to the tower are the same whether he is in a fighter or in a bomber. I'd say it is likely much worse against a bomber because vs. a bomber you can disengage at will, or kill one drone and let the other two go, thus limping away with your kills to land your stricken plane, pushing K/D higher.
So ya I think your exaggeration is a bit out there.
When a player uses his playing experience to prove a point in discussion here, I feel justified in looking at stats to get hard numbers on these experiences.
a reasonable chance to set up and attack them properly and has enough guns on it to kill them effectively.
Wiley.
Waiting around for these twin parameters lets buffs accomplish their strategic objective in the MA more often than not. In the MA you have no idea what type or alt is coming in, you have a very short-range excuse for radar vectors. Furthermore control of 3 bombers in the MA doesn't require the effort of 30 humans from the other team, and loss of these bombers anytime after they sink the CV or blow up the hangars matters not strategically as it does not attrite the other side in any way.
As a point of fact myself and many other veteran players consider taking on a heavy buff formation guaranteed death or RTB due to oiled engine/pilot wound and often avoid them. Here's a hint: When really, really, really outnumbered at a base he's defending, SHawk will up from another base and drag a box of B-17s through the red cloud in lieu of a Tempest, 262, or other possible option. It tends to be deadlier. I've seen him do it, and I've seen a whole crowd of players pointedly ignoring those 3 "free kills" when he does it, for good reason.
The fairly common phenomenon of fighters sheltering in buff defensive gunfire (it has even happened in FSO before) is as strong an indicator that something is wrong as one could imagine.
A jabo is as good as a free kill if you fly anything with speed, a formation is not.
Since bombers get 3 strikes, your 20:4 ratio is equivalent to 7:4, which is about the same as your general K/D vs. fighters. In other words, you chances of sending another player to the tower versus him sending you to the tower are the same whether he is in a fighter or in a bomber. I'd say it is likely much worse against a bomber because vs. a bomber you can disengage at will, or kill one drone and let the other two go, thus limping away with your kills to land your stricken plane, pushing K/D higher.
I'm guessing you mean there were other friendlies attacking the formation with you. So here is the scenario: You were in very fast aircraft heavily armed with nose mounted cannon, attacking a buff formation with help (I'm guessing, again, if I'm wrong correct me). In this scenario, a single individual commanding the buff formation, fighting more than one individual player, was able to severely damage your plane in exchange for one of his bombers. It is reasonable to extrapolate that if you had been alone and tried to destroy the other two drones there would have been a very good chance of him shooting you down. At best you were left with a severely damaged plane that needed to RTB. IOW, the scenario you describe plays out more or less exactly according to what I said, yet you still call them "easy kills". That is cognitive dissonance.I was in a slow La-7 that had just taken off. I attacked from the right, slightly below his formation. That others were coming in behind me is irrelevant as he was shooting at me and none of them were shooting at him. Despite that, I destroyed one of the best bomber gunner's B-17Gs, something that you said was suicide. If it hadn't been 999000 it is unlikely I would have even been hit.
I was in a slow La-7 that had just taken off. I attacked from the right, slightly below his formation.Funny thing about that, many many fighters in the game would have been just as dead with zero chance to take out your oil, if you were attacking their six with an La7 with controlled closure and your skill level. (Interesting thing about bombers is how the render that skill level irrelevant, which is great for the game and super-fun :rolleyes:)
That others were coming in behind me is irrelevant as he was shooting at me and none of them were shooting at him.It's perfectly relevant. You didn't make an attempt to take out the other two buffs. He would certainly have gotten you if he did, he already severely damaged you after one pass.
You destroyed ONE plane in the formation, at a cost of a severely damaged oiled plane. This is exactly what I said would happen. You said yourself you did not take out the other two. A thing unmentioned by you is how many other attackers 999000 oiled/destroyed flying low and outnumbered, unmentioned because it would probably support my point.
Despite that, I destroyed one of the best bomber gunner's B-17Gs, something that you said was suicide.
You say it is unlikely you would have been hit approaching B-17s low and from the right? :rofl
If it hadn't been 999000 it is unlikely I would have even been hit.
Normally I take the time to set up proper attacks on bombers that significantly improves my odds. In that case I just bored in and even one of the best couldn't stop me.The fact that it is necessary to have more energy advantage to reliably take on bombers than fighters in this game argues in favor of my point, not yours. What you and others are essentially saying is "Bombers are easy kills, as long as I have a large energy advantage, my choice of planes best suited for the job, and all the time I need.*" Um, excuse me, but what planes AREN'T easy kills under those rather artificial parameters?
Since bombers get 3 strikes, your 20:4 ratio is equivalent to 7:4, which is about the same as your general K/D vs. fighters. In other words, you chances of sending another player to the tower versus him sending you to the tower are the same whether he is in a fighter or in a bomber. I'd say it is likely much worse against a bomber because vs. a bomber you can disengage at will, or kill one drone and let the other two go, thus limping away with your kills to land your stricken plane, pushing K/D higher.
So you're effectively saying bombers should be balanced through perks/eny/whatever toward poor attacks with sub-optimal planes and players whose only awareness of the enemy comes from dot dar? Not a fan of that.
Wiley.
What none of you guys have explained is why you think that bombers would even be used if formations were removed. The best of all free bombers, air-to-air wise, has an effective K/D of 1.17 with formations. Take away formations and you remove two thirds of its sortie durability and a significant chunk of firepower as well as cutting its payload from 18,000lbs to 6,000lbs. With that change you would drastically reduce its effectiveness and probably drop its K/D ratio to no better than .25 to 1, quite possibly less.Again, nobody is asking for formations to be removed. I was only suggesting to put a token perk price on taking the two drones (lead bomber is free ALWAYS). The only point is to make them less than completely expendable. We have seen multiple threads complaining about bomb-and-bail, lancstukas, GV carpet bombing, bombers flying away (shallow dive) at 500 mph while keeping formations intact, TU2s bombing and then ditching their drones in order to go strafe the target / attack other planes, bomber formations lifting off a defending base as ack-stars.
The statistical analysis does not lie Fugi. You have 16 A2A kills (I disregarded your two kills of Liberators in shipguns) of B17, B24, and 3 deaths to them. These 16 kills divided by 3 means that you have encountered someone driving a heavy buff formation about 5 times, putting your k/d against heavies at about 5 to 3.
By comparison you have 13 kills of a P-51D this tour, against only 3 deaths to P-51Ds.
The statistics don't lie Fugi, and they clearly demonstrate that heavy bomber formations are actually more dangerous to you than P-51Ds.
Y'all still talking about perking Lancs? If Lancs get perked, might as well perk every airplane in the game. :lol
I've never heard a "vet" see a set of buffs and say "ooh no! I'm outa here!"
it's usually more along the lines of, "mine mine mine!"
Y'all still talking about perking Lancs? If Lancs get perked, might as well perk every airplane in the game. :lol
Excuse my language but if you don't get a raging hard-on everytime you see lancs (free kills) then you need to go to the TA.The reason to perk drones by at a minimal perk price has nothing to do with how difficult it is to kill bombers. We are discussing two separate issues here in parallel. Do not mix them up:
Buffs are pretty easy kills. It feels like I shoot them down at a rate of 20:1. Even the venerable 999 falls to my guns more often than not. I see no need to perk Lancs in general. I do, however, see the validity in charging a perk for drones for the reasons mentioned previously. They should have SOME value to the pilot. Perhaps, if drones are perked, there would be a provision for more drones beyond the standard two but on a sliding scale.
Example: 1st drone = one perk, 2nd drone = two perks, 3rd drone = three and so on.
I don't think it would be a travesty to give the bomber guys up to four drones provided there is a cost.
I am suggesting that bombers have been given any number of unrealistic advantages such, F3, multiple planes for a single player, slaving of all defensive guns together. I am suggesting that when it can be demonstrated that such advantages allow the formation to have k/ds in the neighborhood of 1:1 while carrying tens of thousands of bombs then it has gone too far, and something has gotta give. If there were any fighter-bombers that could carry a bomb load into the tens of thousands of pounds while simultaneously maintaining a k/d around 1, the cries to perk that plane would be deafening. This is exactly what heavy buff formations are capable of, as the statistics for every single tour demonstrate. But for some reason there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance from players regarding bombers and their effectiveness in this game.
A competent gunner with 5 bombers worth of guns at his disposal would be pretty terrifying, even if they were Lancs. I would not want 999 to have this, ever. ;)
I'm just not seeing anywhere other than on paper, looking at their capabilities mathematically, that bombers are being used so much and so effectively that they're bad for gameplay.So, you have never seen bombers streaming formation after formation to bomb the CV well within its acks range and under fighter CAP, in the hope that the time it takes to kill all 3 will be long enough so one survives to drop on the carrier (and die immediately after)? You have never seen a formation of lancs carpet bombing a bunch of tanks/flaks from 1000 feet altitude? You have never seen a formation bomb and bail? Never seen a bomber ditching its drones after bomb release? Never seen a formation lifting off a base under attack, flying at 300 feet and shooting at the fighters? Really?
So, you have never seen bombers streaming formation after formation to bomb the CV well within its acks range and under fighter CAP,
in the hope that the time it takes to kill all 3 will be long enough so one survives to drop on the carrier (and die immediately after)?
You have never seen a formation of lancs carpet bombing a bunch of tanks/flaks from 1000 feet altitude?
You have never seen a formation bomb and bail?
Never seen a bomber ditching its drones after bomb release?
Never seen a formation lifting off a base under attack, flying at 300 feet and shooting at the fighters? Really?
All of the above can be done and has been done with single bombers as well. However, the formation makes the above behavior so much more effective.
It is bad for gameplay. It is another one of those things that require hordes in order to take a base, defend a carrier, or just ruin the fun by denying combat.
Excuse my language but if you don't get a raging hard-on everytime you see lancs (free kills) then you need to go to the TA.
Though, it is obvious that many of "us" don't look at Lancs in the matter of what they can do with their 14,000 lbs of ordnance.
Wiley, from your reply it is clear that you have not read, or have not comprehended the argument for placing a very perk tag on drones. NO ONE SAYS THAT FORMATIONS SHOULD BEGONE. quite the opposite.
Blah, blah, blah, another "my way of playing is better/righter then your way of playing" thread.
Oh the angst caused when a GV'er gets a bomb dropped on them.
If you're trying to mock me may I suggest you read up on my explanations. It has nothing to do with me getting carpet bombed while in a gv by heavy bombers floating over at 1000 ft.
Likewise, I don't care how anyone plays the game, I'm just vouching for a means vs cost vs risk. That is all.
I wasnt mocking any one person in general. But we do have a trend going here against bombers.
And if you have ever read any of my posts about this Lankstuka thing There is nobody more against their use this way then am I. I think no 4 engined bomber should be able to dive bomb. Level only!
But perking such a slow helpless bomber? No way.
No arguments there. I'm not exactly sure how to stop Lancstukas, other than allowing bomb drops while only in the bomb site. But even then to really have an affect there would need to be a time delay from when entering the bomb site mode to actually being able to drop bombs. So here we are, just how deep do we/they want to go to usher "proper" usage of heavy 4 engine bombers. How would they regulate bombers like the Ju88 and He111, they both have level bomb sites but both were used in shallow dive/low level bombing runs against static targets. 4 engine vs 2 engine? I certainly understand HTC simplistic approach, it makes things much easier.
Modeling whatever dive angle limitation there was IRL seems to me to be the simplest.
At a maximum bomb release angle of 30° for the Lancaster, nothing much would change in the way they are used and definitely nothing in the complaints about "Lancstukas" ;)
At a maximum bomb release angle of 30° for the Lancaster, nothing much would change in the way they are used and definitely nothing in the complaints about "Lancstukas" ;)
Modeling whatever dive angle limitation there was IRL seems to me to be the simplest. If the plane could divebomb, it should divebomb. If it couldn't, it shouldn't.
It might be more difficult to code than it appears on first blush though.
Wiley.