Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Traveler on May 16, 2014, 10:07:11 PM
-
Early on in the actual World War II the 8th Air Force reversed it's decision to fly bombers into Germany un-escorted after having more than 100 bombers shot down in one mission alone. It was proven that un-escorted bombers were easy kills for the (at that time superior Germane fighters) With that thought in mind how is it that one set of three bombers in AH is able to fight off two or three fighters taking little or no damage un-escorted. Something must be wrong with the combat simulation model in AH. What's the difference other than one pilot controlling three heavy bombers . Could it be the three or four sets of guns firing in sync. Right now it feels like air combat between fighters and bombers in AH is lop sided unfairly in favor of the bombers.
-
:rofl
Wow. Just....wow.
I beg to differ. Where is Lusche when ye need him? :headscratch:
-
HTC is working on debugging the Mk108 atm : soon its gonna be different times for those "fatasses" ! :devil :rock :devil
Early on in the actual World War II the 8th Air Force reversed it's decision to fly bombers into Germany un-escorted after having more than 100 bombers shot down in one mission alone. It was proven that un-escorted bombers were easy kills for the (at that time superior Germane fighters) With that thought in mind how is it that one set of three bombers in AH is able to fight off two or three fighters taking little or no damage un-escorted. Something must be wrong with the combat simulation model in AH. What's the difference other than one pilot controlling three heavy bombers . Could it be the three or four sets of guns firing in sync. Right now it feels like air combat between fighters and bombers in AH is lop sided unfairly in favor of the bombers.
-
:rofl
Wow. Just....wow.
I beg to differ. Where is Lusche when ye need him? :headscratch:
What is it that you beg to differ on, the fact that the Brits had to go to night bombing because there unescorted bombers loses were so large as to stop all day light bombing missions. Or the fact that US 8th Air Force stopped un-escorted bombers operations after losing over a 1000 men in one raid alone.
No where in any bomber formation would three gunners be able to sync their guns on one target it just wasn't possible. It worked only in theory, but in actual combat they were being blown out of the sky.
-
It isn't really that buff's guns are overpowered. It really depends on the aircraft, full, 1 extra or no drones, and who is behind the gunsight.
I've seen really bad gunners in B-17s who get shot down by 109F-4's and I've seen gunners who can take out a 163/262 in a blink of an aye as it whirs by at 400 mph.
Some of the bomber gunners will poke your eye out if you get near them.
( Contrary to popular belief diving on a plane with a top turret isn't the best idea! ;) )
-
It isn't really that buff's guns are overpowered. It really depends on the aircraft, full, 1 extra or no drones, and who is behind the gunsight.
I've seen really bad gunners in B-17s who get shot down by 109F-4's and I've seen gunners who can take out a 163/262 in a blink of an aye as it whirs by at 400 mph.
Some of the bomber gunners will poke your eye out if you get near them.
( Contrary to popular belief diving on a plane with a top turret isn't the best idea! ;) )
I understand and it is only a game, but it’s touted as a combat simulation, what’s being simulated in the air combat between a bomber group with synced guns putting out a wall of fire and a fighter is just not a real simulation. So I’m not sure what’s being simulated at that point?
-
Some people drive right up the guns,, they die a lot, others set up and make good solid attack runs,, one of the things I try to do is take the guns out first, if I'm not diving down from 12 high ripping the wings off of them.
I doubt many German fighter pilots would tell you how easy it was to attack bomber formations!
-
Someone had a sig that had a quote from a German Pilot. It went something like this...
"I had fun dogfighting a Spitfire, even forgetting that I could die. But when I look down upon a bomber stream of Flying Fortresses, my life would flash before my eyes."
-
Some people drive right up the guns,, they die a lot, others set up and make good solid attack runs,, one of the things I try to do is take the guns out first, if I'm not diving down from 12 high ripping the wings off of them.
I doubt many German fighter pilots would tell you how easy it was to attack bomber formations!
First, I never said that any German pilot said it was easy to attack a bomber formation. I said that the reality of WWII was that un-escorted bombers were shot down in very large numbers, so many that the Brits went to night bombing raids only and the US changed it's policy of un-escorted raids into Germany. AH is a combat simulation and for the most part does a great job, however, the simulations of combat between Bomber and fighter is just not right.
-
Someone had a sig that had a quote from a German Pilot. It went something like this...
"I had fun dogfighting a Spitfire, even forgetting that I could die. But when I look down upon a bomber stream of Flying Fortresses, my life would flash before my eyes."
I'm pretty sure that any sane person has those thoughts before going into any type of combat, I know I did in Viet Nam, I know my Father did in WWII. The fact is that un-escorted bombers did not do very well. It would seem however that un-escorted bombers in AH do OK. If this is a simulation of air combat of WWII aircraft, how is it the result is different for un-escorted bombers.
-
I think it's "you're doing it wrong" is what the kids would say.
-
I know its hard for a lot of people to hear but this is a game, NOT ACTUALLY WORLD WAR TWO! :angel: :x
-
Traveler how does your unescorted bomber do? Are you killing everyone too easily or is it a different issue?
-
FYI: the guns are only in sync at 500 yards ;)
Bombers are sitting ducks for a capable fighter. Any fighter with worthy enough cannon can make short work of a bomber. A US fighter with the 6//50's can do almost as well especially if the fighter's convergence is set right.
No.... I don't think much needs to be changed in terms of bomber vs fighter combat. If anything needs to be changed it is the ease in which bombers can deliver destruction. It is too easy to hit targets. Im almost thinking manual calibration would be nice. The auto calibrate bit offers very little challenge and very little planning.
-
Traveler how does your unescorted bomber do? Are you killing everyone too easily or is it a different issue?
I don't fly bombers and I don't attack bombers. Having watched to many times over the years where the lazer guns just plain wipe everyone out.
-
I know its hard for a lot of people to hear but this is a game, NOT ACTUALLY WORLD WAR TWO! :angel: :x
of course it's game, but the author says it based on a combat simulation. I'd say the bombers are the gamest part of it.
-
FYI: the guns are only in sync at 500 yards ;)
And how is that a simulation of anything related to bombers in WWII?
-
I said that the reality of WWII was that un-escorted bombers were shot down in very large numbers
[and in AH bombers are not]
Your perception is incorrect.
One of the raids you talk about that nearly broke the back of the 8th AF was the unescorted 2nd Raid on Schweinfurt (aka "Black Thursday"). In that raid, out of 291 B-17's, 60 didn't make it back, for a loss rate of 21%.
In Scenarios (which are set up more akin to actual battles -- i.e., large groups of bombers against historical opponents), loss rate of unescorted bombers when found by the enemy is generally about 100%. We have seen this many times in Scenarios, such as in Der Grosse Schlag, Battle Over Germany, and Der Grosse Schlag II. Those were Scenarios with B-17's.
We also have many scenarios with other types of bombers: Battle of Britain (Ju 88's and He 111's), Rangoon (G4M's), Red Storm / Krupp Steel (Ju 88's and B-25's), Tunisia (Ju 88's and B-25's), The Final Battle (Lancs), Philippine Phandango (Ki-67's and B-25's), Mediterranean Maelstrom (Ju 88's). Bombers generally get massacred (close to 100% losses) when they are found without escort and pounced upon. I can tell you this from direct experience of that in all of the Scenarios mentioned.
Even escorted groups can have fairly high loss rates. 50% isn't uncommon.
Thus, in Scenarios, bomber loss rate is higher than historical. That is probably because people don't really die in AH, and so attackers press their attacks to the limit.
-
I shot down three B-17s in one sortie in a Ki-43. Sure, the gunner sucked, but still....
-
Your perception is incorrect.
One of the raids you talk about that nearly broke the back of the 8th AF was the unescorted 2nd Raid on Schweinfurt (aka "Black Thursday"). In that raid, out of 291 B-17's, 60 didn't make it back, for a loss rate of 21%.
In Scenarios (which are set up more akin to actual battles -- i.e., large groups of bombers against historical opponents), loss rate of unescorted bombers when found by the enemy is generally about 100%. We have seen this many times in Scenarios, such as in Der Grosse Schlag, Battle Over Germany, and Der Grosse Schlag II. Those were Scenarios with B-17's.
We also have many scenarios with other types of bombers: Battle of Britain (Ju 88's and He 111's), Rangoon (G4M's), Red Storm / Krupp Steel (Ju 88's and B-25's), Tunisia (Ju 88's and B-25's), The Final Battle (Lancs), Philippine Phandango (Ki-67's and B-25's), Mediterranean Maelstrom (Ju 88's). Bombers generally get massacred (close to 100% losses) when they are found without escort and pounced upon. I can tell you this from direct experience of that in all of the Scenarios mentioned.
Even escorted groups can have fairly high loss rates. 50% isn't uncommon.
Thus, in Scenarios, bomber loss rate is higher than historical. That is probably because people don't really die in AH, and so attackers press their attacks to the limit.
In other arenas that may be true, but in the main arena my perception is based on my observation of watching unescorted bombers being attacked by two and three fighters and walking away undamaged. I've seen this happen over and over in the main arena for many many years. I know that the arena settings are different in each arena, I don't know if that has an impact or not, but watching the bomber gunner with multiple guns in sync taking out fighter after fighter is not based on any true simulations of air combat that I am aware of.
-
I shot down three B-17s in one sortie in a Ki-43. Sure, the gunner sucked, but still....
Yes, people do shoot down bombers, As they well should , I'm just saying that based on reality of WWII which this simulations is based, Unescorted bombers should fair as well as they do in this simulation.
-
I don't fly bombers and I don't attack bombers. Having watched to many times over the years where the lazer guns just plain wipe everyone out.
You don't make a good case. It could be a particularly skilled player that you're watching. If someone like yourself who doesn't usually fly bombers could easily shoot down attacking fighters then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
-
In other arenas that may be true, but in the main arena my perception is based on my observation of watching unescorted bombers being attacked by two and three fighters and walking away undamaged. I've seen this happen over and over in the main arena for many many years. I know that the arena settings are different in each arena, I don't know if that has an impact or not, but watching the bomber gunner with multiple guns in sync taking out fighter after fighter is not based on any true simulations of air combat that I am aware of.
There is no difference in lethality for guns in Scenarios compared to the MA.
I think it's still incorrect perception. I think that you are remembering the cases where no bombers are lost an not remembering the more-numerous cases where one or more bombers are lost. In the MA, when you have a trio of bombers attacked by two or three fighters, the average outcome is that one or more bombers will be shot down. That is a loss rate equal to or greater than Black Thursday.
-
Early on in the actual World War II the 8th Air Force reversed it's decision to fly bombers into Germany un-escorted after having more than 100 bombers shot down in one mission alone. It was proven that un-escorted bombers were easy kills for the (at that time superior Germane fighters) With that thought in mind how is it that one set of three bombers in AH is able to fight off two or three fighters taking little or no damage un-escorted. Something must be wrong with the combat simulation model in AH. What's the difference other than one pilot controlling three heavy bombers . Could it be the three or four sets of guns firing in sync. Right now it feels like air combat between fighters and bombers in AH is lop sided unfairly in favor of the bombers.
I think it is as even as it's going to get, period.
Like others have said, I've seen crappy shots and great shots. Speaking for myself, I am an above average gunner. I think that if you are in a fighter, and don't know what you are doing, then learn! Same for bombers or GVs. Because there is currently nothing wrong with fighter/bomber interactions. It's all perspective and individual skill level (with the occasional lag portion in the equation). I've killed 2 sets of bombers side-by-side without getting hit, I've died before getting 1 ping from 1200 yards back (was 3 O clock high infront of the guy, helluvashot.. and no it wasn't 999000 :devil ).
If you know what you are doing, you are someone to be reckoned with. I list myself as average or slightly above, and I do just fine.. and when I was able to play, I was playing on minimum everything. So I wonder how I will be when I get my new rig? :cheers:
-
Right now it feels like air combat between fighters and bombers in AH is lop sided unfairly in favor of the bombers.
Disagree. Bombers are meat on the table in the MA.
-
I shot down three B-17s in one sortie in a Ki-43. Sure, the gunner sucked, but still....
The real gunners were freezing and peeking through a small hole with no understanding on their surroundings. They could see only the small patch of their fire sector at a time. It's totally different from AH where you can have all the guns pointed where you want with a 360° visibility.
-
In AH bombers are too easy to shoot down because we have perfectly stable atmospheric conditions; no turbulence, no slipstreams from the bombers. We also have too accurate defensive fire from bombers.
In scenarios there is also too little focus on force preservation. There should be penalties for losing aircraft, also on the defending fighter force.
As for real life... During 1943 with an average mission loss rate of more than 5%, the 8th AF lost its entire bomber force three times over. In the 2nd Schweinfurt raid (14th October) as part of Pointblank, fifty-nine B-17s were shot down over Germany, one ditched in the English Channel on the return flight, five crashed in England, and twelve more were scrapped due to battle damage or crash landings. A total loss of 77 B-17s. 122 were damaged to some degree and needed repairs before their next flight. Out of 2900 crewmen, about 650 did not return, although some survived as POWs. Five were killed and forty-three wounded in the damaged aircraft that made it home, and 594 were listed as MIA. Only 33 bombers landed without damage. 77 out of a force of 291 is 26.5%, on one mission. After that mission the USAAF withdrew from deep raids into Germany, and did not return until the spring of 1944 when sufficient numbers of P-51s were available to escort them.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuWoh67V-C4
For those who haven't seen the excellent machinima of Heinz Knocke's "I flew for the Führer".
-
In scenarios there is also too little focus on force preservation. There should be penalties for losing aircraft, also on the defending fighter force.
There generally are penalties for losing fighters in Scenarios. However, it applies to both sides. It's always of the form "if I die, my side loses X; but if I kill that other guy, his side loses X," and so people go for it nearly regardless of what X is. Unless there is a strong personal penalty to dying (such as death, dismemberment, a monetary fine), because of this symmetry side to side, there will be no flying like your life depended on it.
-
Should be that if both sides loses too many aircraft no one wins. It becomes a draw.
-
I used to feel frustrated as a skilled gunner chopped off my wing at 1.5K, until I learned that it's all about patience. Like attacking GVs, you have to give yourself some time, climb above them and wait for the perfect moment to strike. Wait for them to be over the target dropping their bombs, or turning.
If you still want to creep up their six (and risk a quick death), at least take something like a Me-410 with the BK5 or MK103, aim carefully and you can score hits well outside of their defensive fire. But be careful, a skilled bomber will cut the throttle and open the bomb bays to close the gap and put you right in his sights!
Another way to learn a lot about attack approaches is, well...getting shot down :rofl. I have probably learned more while getting blasted by Lusche and Bruv than attacking bombers myself.
Is it realistic to have bombers flying at full throttle all the time? No. Is the laser-aim historically accurate? No. But then again, this is a simulation, and there were some compromises to make it playable and balanced.
-
Early on in the actual World War II the 8th Air Force reversed it's decision to fly bombers into Germany un-escorted after having more than 100 bombers shot down in one mission alone. It was proven that un-escorted bombers were easy kills for the (at that time superior Germane fighters) With that thought in mind how is it that one set of three bombers in AH is able to fight off two or three fighters taking little or no damage un-escorted. Something must be wrong with the combat simulation model in AH.
To the extent this is true, it's because of the poor tactics employed by many AH pilots when attacking heavy bombers. No Luftwaffe pilot in his right mind would have crept up on a formation of B-17s from dead behind and duked it out with the tail gunners at 400 yards. Any who were foolish enough to try didn't get the chance to try twice. But noob after noob in the MA gets blown out of the sky doing exactly that.
And Lancs? Fuhgeddaboudit. Any pilot with a smidgen of skill can blast Lancs out of the sky all day. An average pilot can easily rack up a 10:1 k/d ratio against Lancs IF he has the patience and sense to make attacks that keep him out of the arc of the rear guns.
Anyway, a quick look at the stats page shows that your perception is unfounded. In the last tour 2.5 B-17s were shot down for every 1 plane they killed. For B-24s and B-26s the ratio is about 3:1, and for Lancs it's 5:1. For other bombers it's as bad as 10:1 or even 20:1 (for the He-111, although granted that's an EW plane in the LW arena). The difference between WW2 and AH in this regard is that AH players aren't deterred by these terrible losses since they can always just up another set of buffs.
Try doing an unescorted high-altitude deep penetration mission to the HQ or a strat far from friendly bases in the MA. Take a decent number of bombers and you MIGHT be lucky enough to get half of them back alive. Take a single formation and if anyone bothers to intercept you your chances of getting even one plane back alive are almost nil. And as Brooke notes, bombers are absolutely massacred in the scenarios when they get caught by enemy fighters without escorts.
-
What is the intent if you don't attack them or fly them? Not being a pia there, just asking.
When I was new and flew buffs a lot, my feelings were in line with the OP; back then and as I got better at gunning, I thought killing ppl in buffs was ~easy. That was because many attacked from ded 6.
I got the same result when I tried it in a ftr, but then one day a bish C205 took out all my B-24s at altitude. He did something in a way I'd never noticed another individual player doing. Thanks Kamurogi. High slashing attack is quite regularly successful with hits on one in the formation. It's all about patience; if you're not that patient in this game, buffs should kill you.
:salute
-
And Lancs? Fuhgeddaboudit. Any pilot with a smidgen of skill can blast Lancs out of the sky all day. An average pilot can easily rack up a 10:1 k/d ratio against Lancs IF he has the patience and sense to make attacks that keep him out of the arc of the rear guns.
Anyway, a quick look at the stats page shows that your perception is unfounded. In the last tour 2.5 B-17s were shot down for every 1 plane they killed. For B-24s and B-26s the ratio is about 3:1, and for Lancs it's 5:1. For other bombers it's as bad as 10:1 or even 20:1 (for the He-111, although granted that's an EW plane in the LW arena). The difference between WW2 and AH in this regard is that AH players aren't deterred by these terrible losses since they can always just up another set of buffs.
This discussion comes back every now and then on these boards. K/D of 0.33 for a bomber is equivalent to a K/D=1.0 for a fighter. The 3 bombers are slaved to a single player, fire at the same target. The players lands the combined kills of its three planes (three lives/strikes). If K/D stat for bombers was 1.0 it would mean that a fighter goes down for every drone that is killed. All gunnery in AH is much easier than in real life and this is more than simply the more practice that we have. I am almost convinced that bomber gunners were completely useless except when shooting backwards at a chasing plane from a short range.
The reason we get extremely high fatality rates in AH is because players fight to the "death". This is common to all combat sims, land, sea and air. In real life people fight until the fight is lost or that they feel that the odds are against them. Then they RUN AWAY. Real ground battles that end in a decisive, one-sided victory see the enemy force being routed and scattering away. They do not end in a total slaughter of all enemy troops - that outcome is extremely rare, but common in computer games. A typical pilot that sees his wingman and leader plunge down in flames will dive to the clouds and head for home. We of course do not have clouds and the friend/foe ID is much easier, so running away is a lot harder. Real people do not take unnecessary risks - if they are low on fuel and ammo they leave the fight and land safely, not try to get a kill with their last 10 bullets, then hope to disengage successfully and glide home on an empty plane.
-
It isn't really that buff's guns are overpowered. It really depends on the aircraft, full, 1 extra or no drones, and who is behind the gunsight.
I've seen really bad gunners in B-17s who get shot down by 109F-4's and I've seen gunners who can take out a 163/262 in a blink of an aye as it whirs by at 400 mph.
Some of the bomber gunners will poke your eye out if you get near them.
( Contrary to popular belief diving on a plane with a top turret isn't the best idea! ;) )
You are mistaken. And the OP has been playing long enough to figure out that 99% of bombers are easy kills.
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/AH%20screenshots/cd60ca67-3d4e-4fab-9030-7048f2f5393a.png~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/AH%20screenshots/cd60ca67-3d4e-4fab-9030-7048f2f5393a.png.html)
edit: Did some checking and found an error in my calculations.
For the 2013 calendar year, I shot down (1279) B-17/B-24/B-29/B-26/Lancasters to (28) deaths.
So it is actually only 98% of bombers that are easy kills. ;)
-
Someone had a sig that had a quote from a German Pilot. It went something like this...
"I had fun dogfighting a Spitfire, even forgetting that I could die. But when I look down upon a bomber stream of Flying Fortresses, my life would flash before my eyes."
Attacking B-17's is like kicking a porcupine while you are wearing flip-flops. :aok
-
Ever since I stopped attacking bombers from directly behind, I can count on one hand the number of times I've died from attacking a bomber. Sometimes the guy lands some hits and takes pieces off my plane or gives me a PW, but even that's kinda rare if I'm making my normal top down passes.
I think you're doing it wrong Traveler.
-
I don't fly bombers and I don't attack bombers.
This right here renders your argument invalid. Try again later, when you have actual experience in doing these things. :aok
-
For the 2013 calendar year, I shot down (1279) B-17/B-24/B-29/B-26/Lancasters to (28) deaths.
That's a K/D ratio more than 50% better than mine :aok
-
We know that the bomber gun mounts don't vibrate with low-amplitude "noise" as they would IRL, yes? To me, this is something worth looking at. As for the results of any one attack, those accounts I also call "noise". They are purely anecdotal. HTC should do exactly what he does; focus on model fidelity.
The chips can fall where they will.
-
"Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But curve in towards 40 fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes."
- Hans "Fips" Philipp. 206 victories. Shot down on 8 October 1943, possibly by a P-47 piloted by Robert S. Johnson. He fell to his death after his chute failed to open.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Hans_Philipp.jpg)
A formation of heavy bombers with all their guns may look very scary indeed. However, the self escorting bomber concept was a failure. Only when the Allies could properly escort the bombers did the Luftwaffe start taking serious casualties.
-
That's a K/D ratio more than 50% better than mine :aok
98% were proxies. The rest were claimed in an underhanded manner. :)
-
Part of the issue is the totally different operational restrictions of Aces High.
One thing that's always bothered me about sims is that most don't model any kind of engine wear, you can run any engine in Aces High at full power (not WEP) forever with no ill effects and so....everyone does. Why wouldn't you? Bombers in AH streak along at max speed all the time, with no regard to fuel or engine damage and, therefore, are much harder to intercept and get into a decent firing position rather than chase the damn things down and come in dead six cos that's the only angle available.
-
Part of the issue is the totally different operational restrictions of Aces High.
One thing that's always bothered me about sims is that most don't model any kind of engine wear, you can run any engine in Aces High at full power (not WEP) forever with no ill effects and so....everyone does. Why wouldn't you? Bombers in AH streak along at max speed all the time, with no regard to fuel or engine damage and, therefore, are much harder to intercept and get into a decent firing position rather than chase the damn things down and come in dead six cos that's the only angle available.
That's what gets most fighters killed. They lose patience climbing up to and chasing the bombers. You know the bomber pilot at 20k that climbs when he spots you and when you finally get into position, he does a series of break turns to present a seemingly easy target. If you fall for that and blow your energy trying to follow, you are the easy target. If you don't fall for that, the bomber pilot starts diving. Your closure speed becomes less and again you can become an easy target. If you take your time and don't succumb to a tail chase, he will keep diving and you will keep chasing and trying to set up a good shot. Meanwhile, he is on the radio calling all his squaddies to bounce you as you get lower and lower - and closer to his field ack. So, you then push your luck to get him before getting ganged and he kills you.
It's all about patience. You determine when and how the attack comes. Don't push your luck and you will almost always emerge victorius. Or at least won't get yourself killed.
Even with bombers going balls to the wall, they are still slower than most fighters and usually in your territory. If you get wounded or damaged, you have a much better chance of making it home than he does.
-
Just this morning I had a Me 163B attacking my Lancs at 22K. He was flying the fastest, best climbing fighter of them all, allowing him to chose freely ANY angle, any approach to attack my slow bombers at will.
He chose to ride down the barrels of my tail guns from a perfect 6 Oclock.
That's what's getting you killed when attacking buffs, no matter what plane you are in. It's all about decisions. :old:
-
I think the problem is more related to the amount of time and patience involved with buff hunting. Those high altitude buffs are going to take a lot more patience and are exponentially harder to target with the proper approach. I much rather fight single fighters or a group of fighters than to climb 10k feet above my current altitude and chase a formation of bombers for 3 sectors to possibly make a wrong decision and suddenly find my monitor flashing the tower screen in my face.
I do get where Traveler is coming from. If you are not in the right bird, have the right convergence, and take the right approach, you are going to go "right down" in flames or pieces. I am not going to say that the bombers are over modeled, just that there are few pilots that are consistent at doing all of the above that it takes to successfully take out a half way decent bomber pilot with proper altitude and speed.
-
Part of the issue is the totally different operational restrictions of Aces High.
One thing that's always bothered me about sims is that most don't model any kind of engine wear, you can run any engine in Aces High at full power (not WEP) forever with no ill effects and so....everyone does. Why wouldn't you? Bombers in AH streak along at max speed all the time, with no regard to fuel or engine damage and, therefore, are much harder to intercept and get into a decent firing position rather than chase the damn things down and come in dead six cos that's the only angle available.
This is sort of a model fidelity issue, sort of not... The wear was an issue because of cost ( the logistical train and everything that goes with it) and the diminishing return of flying faster in return for having less bombers operational at any time. Tough dilemma for The Creator, because, IRL, they are that capable even as, IRL, those capabilities weren't used most of the time.
-
This discussion is what I call motivating..............<S>
-
Just this morning I had a Me 163B attacking my Lancs at 22K. He was flying the fastest, best climbing fighter of them all, allowing him to chose freely ANY angle, any approach to attack my slow bombers at will.
He chose to ride down the barrels of my tail guns from a perfect 6 Oclock.
That's what's getting you killed when attacking buffs, no matter what plane you are in. It's all about decisions. :old:
That always struck me as funny on HQ raids, where a bunch of 163s were fighting each other for kills, while flying in on direct 6 approaches. :lol
Coincidentally, trying to save gas in the 163 helped me learn proper attack methods that you can use for every plane.
I think the problem is more related to the amount of time and patience involved with buff hunting. Those high altitude buffs are going to take a lot more patience and are exponentially harder to target with the proper approach. I much rather fight single fighters or a group of fighters than to climb 10k feet above my current altitude and chase a formation of bombers for 3 sectors to possibly make a wrong decision and suddenly find my monitor flashing the tower screen in my face.
I do get where Traveler is coming from. If you are not in the right bird, have the right convergence, and take the right approach, you are going to go "right down" in flames or pieces. I am not going to say that the bombers are over modeled, just that there are few pilots that are consistent at doing all of the above that it takes to successfully take out a half way decent bomber pilot with proper altitude and speed.
If you mean "proper altitude and speed" is flying at combat ceiling, then that does limit your choice of fighters to attack with. Anything under 25k though, can be killed by pretty much any fighter.
This is a P-40B doing pretty well for itself:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/AH%20screenshots/p40b-4.jpg~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/AH%20screenshots/p40b-4.jpg.html)
-
Actually when I see a fighter pilot break off rather then do something stupid against my bombers I respect him.
In real life I have read from many sources, even Luftwaffe aces, that flying into a Bomber box was terrifying. The noobs would sometimes even forget to shoot.
-
Fuel was the limiting factor in RL. You can't run a B-17 from England to Berlin and back on MIL power. Nor would you be able to hold together any kind of formation. I have no problem with bombers flying all out in the MA. Lone bombers or small groups would certainly do so in RL if they were in trouble and had the fuel range.
-
If that's the case, then the in-flight spawns should just have a fuel deduction on arrival based on the duration required at cruise to reach the box. I have little doubt that, once in proximity, they'd very much like to increase throttle.
Of course, this would also mean that the return flight fuel would need to be deducted as well once they exit... Or, perhaps an a priori reduction from their supply. This would leave them in an appropriate place, decision-wise: go all out and risk exit or fly cool and run a greater risk of interception.
And, of course, none of this means anything for the main arena... But for scenario, realism is worthwhile.
-
Should be that if both sides loses too many aircraft no one wins. It becomes a draw.
Events would all just end up being draws.
-
:lol
I find killing bombers farely easy unless 999000 or SHawk is in the bomber.
If you come at certain angles the only gun that is able to get on you are the side guns (right gun/left gun).
Now if it is a B17 or B24, that is a different story; even then though, bombers aren't going to be a challenge to kill. Just be patient and don't get greedy or fixated.
Also remember. . .it is a game. Not everything in this game is realistic.
If that was the case I would argue that we are able to talk to other countries through 200 chat and we are able to fly any plane we want no matter what chess piece we are on.
-
Traveller, you are doing it wrong. Back when I flew AH all the time I shot down more than 100 bombers in a single month without the loss of a single life. In fact, I don't recall being even hit once. I started to make a video that included all of the kills and reduce it to a film that resembled a gun camera film, but I got tired of working on it. It is rather repetitive, and even the gun passes that got kills the actual downing of the plane is sometimes off camera because of delay. Still, in contrast with what you have experienced there is one squadron of B17s that I run into that failed to get to our strats and had to hit an airfield instead, because of the loses they suffered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTAD-_2I0bg
-
I do get where Traveler is coming from. If you are not in the right bird, have the right convergence, and take the right approach, you are going to go "right down" in flames or pieces. I am not going to say that the bombers are over modeled, just that there are few pilots that are consistent at doing all of the above that it takes to successfully take out a half way decent bomber pilot with proper altitude and speed.
I'm pretty sure the stats confirm that buffs are sitting ducks more than they are racking up kills against fighters.
-
Traveler,
Why role or use do you think bombers would have in AH if they were made much easier to kill?
-
All of you that keep posting "he's doing it wrong" do you not realize he's not doing it at all?
-
btw if it weren't for ded 6 attackers, many of the buff pilots wouldn't get any kills
shhhhhh :cool:?
-
By the way, what's everybody's ride of choice when buffs are in the menu? Any personal preferences?
-
Traveler how does your unescorted bomber do? Are you killing everyone too easily or is it a different issue?
I stooged around in B-17s below 10,000 feet over an enemy base the other day because I was away from home, on a crapulent computer. This is the first time I've done this in my AH career. On a sattelite connection, no frame rate to speak of, lousy monitor, and no stick. That's right, a mouse. Remember, first time I've ever done this.
I shot down two fighters and gained some assists for 3 deaths. And my death rate is only that high because I accidentally flew into a mountain range while looking backwards :rofl (I was stooging around low enough to actually take some hits from base ack)
I noticed many fighter planes wisely shying away from me, to attack targets that are easier, such as every fighter plane in the game :devil
Did I mention I was flying with a flippin' mouse and never fly bombers? I shudder to think what I could do with practice.
It is easier than using the wirblewinds everyone complains about.
So yes, bomber gunnery has been made incredibly gamey and easy, to the point that the hard lessons from WWII about unescorted bomber vulnerability make absolutely no sense in AHII. A three ship flight of 17s is a monster in this game, a proper box would be an insane engine of destruction.
-
So yes, bomber gunnery has been made incredibly gamey and easy, to the point that the hard lessons from WWII about unescorted bomber vulnerability make absolutely no sense in AHII. A three ship flight of 17s is a monster in this game, a proper box would be an insane engine of destruction.
Take a multi formation of B-17s and fly 8 sectors deep into enemy territory at the same historical alt and speed of the Black Thursday raid. If you get a comparable amount of defenders, you won't even make it to target. Your "insane engine of destruction" will be shredded like paper.
-
No Luftwaffe pilot in his right mind would have crept up on a formation of B-17s from dead behind and duked it out with the tail gunners at 400 yards.
This is false. They did it all the time, successfully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJAlsJAbZw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJAlsJAbZw)
What makes this a bad idea in AHII is the combo of three extremely gamey elements 1. The slaving of all guns in a formation to fire together, 2. The fact that gunners, protected by plexiglass, continue to fire after you hose their positions bullets, and most importantly 3. The fact that flex mounted guns on auto-level bombers are, in this game, given the platform stability and accuracy of thousand-yard benchrest rifles.
The reality of heavily armed plane off the tail of a buff is that 1. The tail gunner is the ONLY guy liable to have anything resembling a good shot at the bandit, 2. The tailgunner is going to be silenced the moment the bandit can squeeze off a burst that hits him with as little as one .30 caliber round, much less cannon fire, 3. The bandit with fixed forward firing guns if anything going to have a far LONGER range for accurate fire than some guy with a flex-mounted machine guns.
-
Attacking from six o'clock was the norm until escort fighters arrived on scene, then it became suicidal.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ux9BMfhu1ck/UJeDhRv9fKI/AAAAAAAAHxI/1VHnAYIKhgA/s1600/kampf.jpg)
-
Take a multi formation of B-17s and fly 8 sectors deep into enemy territory at the same historical alt and speed of the Black Thursday raid. If you get a comparable amount of defenders, you won't even make it to target. Your "insane engine of destruction" will be shredded like paper.
Snail, argument is that if I end up fighting a cloud of bandits in a buff formation I'll get shot down. Which is true, but it is also a dishonest one, albeit laughably easy to dismiss. No fighter will survive being attacked by a large wad of 163s and 262s either.
You like numbers, except when they make a point you don't wish to accept: With no prior practice whatsoever I managed to get a 2-3 k/d ratio in B-17s, meaning that as a bomber noob, flying stupid with a MOUSE my formation is good for at least two fighters before going down, and likely far more if I hadn't been flying so low as to hit mountains.
Let me check the stats of someone who is actually good at the buff game, Shawk: He has 88 kills to 113 deaths in B-17s. I think this is a large enough sample that we can say not a fluke, aye? This doesn't sound too great, until you divide by the not one but three planes everyone gets on a bomber run. That puts his k/d at something like 88 kills in exchange for losing his formation 38 times. A 2.3 K/D. Hmmm....that is better than most people's fighter k/d.
-
Attacking from six o'clock was the norm until escort fighters arrived on scene, then it became suicidal.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ux9BMfhu1ck/UJeDhRv9fKI/AAAAAAAAHxI/1VHnAYIKhgA/s1600/kampf.jpg)
Correct. But it was because of the escorts, not because buffs were death stars. Anyone whose only reference is AHII would rightly wonder why buffs needed escort.
-
Take a multi formation of B-17s and fly 8 sectors deep into enemy territory at the same historical alt and speed of the Black Thursday raid. If you get a comparable amount of defenders, you won't even make it to target. Your "insane engine of destruction" will be shredded like paper.
Thank god you weren't on for this, but my squad got together, the four of us on at the time, and formed a tight formation to area bomb the rook strats in 17s. We where making our first pass on the rook ammo strat when a 47 showed up. After 5 min of setting up his pass, he was oiled in a few secs. The next pass was sloppy and got him shot down. On our pass on the ammo factory, we saw another jug, a D11 this time. He was shot down on his first pass. RTBing we had a 410 try and shoot us down, made a horrible move and was shot down in about 2 seconds. Is this realistic. P.S if snail was on, we mostlikely would not have made it home... :D
-
The bombers are not so hard to kill if you have patience. I noticed if I stay on direct 6 for more than 1-2 seconds I die - it is like HO a tank... stupid. But when I do high speed dives/passes and do short shoots and than extend I manage to get a kill or two - which in WW2 terms amazing result.
If you destroy 20-30% of incoming wave of bombers in WW2 - you win the battle even if they managed to hit the target because in 2-3 waves they would ran out of bombers (unlike in AH)
In any case for this particular reason my preferred bombers are:
1. Perked: Mosquito XVI, Ar 234
2. Non-perked: Tu-2, Ki-67 & Boston
Because they are very fast and hard to intercept and even when they are intercepted it is very hard to make an approach from any other direction than the narrow rear sphere.
-
Earlier that day, we where doing the same thing. A 109G14 tried to attack our 6, 2 of us shot above him to kill his FR, and the rest hit him with a 1/4 sec burst, tearing his plane to shreds. That was over 50 .50cal MGs firing on that poor 109... :devil
-
Correct. But it was because of the escorts, not because buffs were death stars. Anyone whose only reference is AHII would rightly wonder why buffs needed escort.
Yup.
-
Snail, argument is that if I end up fighting a cloud of bandits in a buff formation I'll get shot down. Which is true, but it is also a dishonest one, albeit laughably easy to dismiss. No fighter will survive being attacked by a large wad of 163s and 262s either.
You like numbers, except when they make a point you don't wish to accept: With no prior practice whatsoever I managed to get a 2-3 k/d ratio in B-17s, meaning that as a bomber noob, flying stupid with a MOUSE my formation is good for at least two fighters before going down, and likely far more if I hadn't been flying so low as to hit mountains.
Let me check the stats of someone who is actually good at the buff game, Shawk: He has 88 kills to 113 deaths in B-17s. I think this is a large enough sample that we can say not a fluke, aye? This doesn't sound too great, until you divide by the not one but three planes everyone gets on a bomber run. That puts his k/d at something like 88 kills in exchange for losing his formation 38 times. A 2.3 K/D. Hmmm....that is better than most people's fighter k/d.
Try flying bombers for more than one sortie before claiming a 2/3 ratio as your average. How long has shawk been playing by the way? Quite a long time compared to your average bomber pilot. You could probably name dozens of leet fighter pilots who have played the game. How many leet bomber gunners can you name?
Using your example of shawk's bomber K/D, how does that compare with his K/D in fighters? Looks like he has a 5.1 fighter K/D, versus a .77 K/D in bombers.
So you would rather face his Corsair than his B-17? ;)
The much feared 999000 has 31 kills for 48 deaths in his B-17. That equates to a .63 K/D.
Some lackluster pilot I know has 59 kills of B-17s this year, to only 2 deaths (1 of those being in a C.202 :)). That same pilot got waxed a Hell of a lot more by fighter planes, I can assure you.
-
This is false. They did it all the time, successfully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJAlsJAbZw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJAlsJAbZw)
What makes this a bad idea in AHII is the combo of three extremely gamey elements 1. The slaving of all guns in a formation to fire together, 2. The fact that gunners, protected by plexiglass, continue to fire after you hose their positions bullets, and most importantly 3. The fact that flex mounted guns on auto-level bombers are, in this game, given the platform stability and accuracy of thousand-yard benchrest rifles.
The reality of heavily armed plane off the tail of a buff is that 1. The tail gunner is the ONLY guy liable to have anything resembling a good shot at the bandit, 2. The tailgunner is going to be silenced the moment the bandit can squeeze off a burst that hits him with as little as one .30 caliber round, much less cannon fire, 3. The bandit with fixed forward firing guns if anything going to have a far LONGER range for accurate fire than some guy with a flex-mounted machine guns.
Showing a video of a damaged B17, or maybe lost, cut out from the formation and getting cut to pieces doesnt mean that was the preferred method of attack by the LW. It was actually the last way they wanted to do it. Unless of course the Bomber was on its own or, as the video showed, the tail gunner was blown out of it. The fact that HO attacks were preferred is a well known fact.
-
By the way, what's everybody's ride of choice when buffs are in the menu? Any personal preferences?
Im not going to get into the argument about whether or not the buff are easy prey or not. There are too many variables to take into consideration. For the most part, buff are easy. Last night I took down a set of B24's while flying a Pony B.
If you have a good buff gunner going against a lousy fighter more often than not the fighter is going to lose. If its the other way around the fighter wins most. If its a good gunner vs a good fighter the fighter is going to win more, but not many more.
As for plane of choice, it really doesn't matter. As long as you have the patience to set up your runs you can win most of the fights in any plane. Cannon birds like the 190's are good due to speed and hitting power but it is not necessary.
-
I stooged around in B-17s below 10,000 feet over an enemy base the other day because I was away from home, on a crapulent computer. This is the first time I've done this in my AH career. On a sattelite connection, no frame rate to speak of, lousy monitor, and no stick. That's right, a mouse. Remember, first time I've ever done this.
I shot down two fighters and gained some assists for 3 deaths. And my death rate is only that high because I accidentally flew into a mountain range while looking backwards :rofl (I was stooging around low enough to actually take some hits from base ack)
I noticed many fighter planes wisely shying away from me, to attack targets that are easier, such as every fighter plane in the game :devil
Did I mention I was flying with a flippin' mouse and never fly bombers? I shudder to think what I could do with practice.
It is easier than using the wirblewinds everyone complains about.
So yes, bomber gunnery has been made incredibly gamey and easy, to the point that the hard lessons from WWII about unescorted bomber vulnerability make absolutely no sense in AHII. A three ship flight of 17s is a monster in this game, a proper box would be an insane engine of destruction.
I think you'll find that gunning with a mouse is easier than with a stick.
-
By the way, what's everybody's ride of choice when buffs are in the menu? Any personal preferences?
Preference, Tempest or P47M.
But I will shoot at them in anything, but a spitfire. Spitfire ammo sucks on American Bombers.
-
I stooged around in B-17s below 10,000 feet over an enemy base the other day because I was away from home, on a crapulent computer. This is the first time I've done this in my AH career. On a sattelite connection, no frame rate to speak of, lousy monitor, and no stick. That's right, a mouse. Remember, first time I've ever done this.
I shot down two fighters and gained some assists for 3 deaths. And my death rate is only that high because I accidentally flew into a mountain range while looking backwards :rofl (I was stooging around low enough to actually take some hits from base ack)
I noticed many fighter planes wisely shying away from me, to attack targets that are easier, such as every fighter plane in the game :devil
At 10,000ft you'd have added three kills to my Mossie total and never had a shot at killing me. I love finding buffs below 13,000ft.
That you ran into guys who don't know how to attack bombers in AH doesn't make them an engine of destruction, it makes the guys you killed dumb.
Did I mention I was flying with a flippin' mouse and never fly bombers? I shudder to think what I could do with practice.
It is easier than using the wirblewinds everyone complains about.
Mouse is irrelevant when flying bombers. Literally, has no effect on the ease or difficulty of your claim. Mouse only hurts when you need to do aerobatics.
So yes, bomber gunnery has been made incredibly gamey and easy, to the point that the hard lessons from WWII about unescorted bomber vulnerability make absolutely no sense in AHII. A three ship flight of 17s is a monster in this game, a proper box would be an insane engine of destruction.
Yes, it is more effective than it was historically. I don't see anybody claiming otherwise. The choice you have is to either make the bomber guns more effective than they were historically or give each bomber player 9, perhaps 19, drones in full box formation. If one of those two things isn't done then slow bombers would go unused in AH.
Most of the people who want bomber guns nerfed also want the drones taken away. They want helpless, free kills and they never stop to consider who will play the helpless, free drone.
-
the VAST MAJORITY of buff gunners cant even ping me if I attack properly (from front quarter). it's comical. I mean, not a single ping thru multiple passes.
999000 is one who can, I think he may have gotten my oil last time I met him. I'm pretty sure I have a winning record against him anyway.. so if the best buff gunner in the game cant even kill me more than I kill him.. yeah..
-
the VAST MAJORITY of buff gunners cant even ping me if I attack properly (from front quarter). it's comical. I mean, not a single ping thru multiple passes.
999000 is one who can, I think he may have gotten my oil last time I met him. I'm pretty sure I have a winning record against him anyway.. so if the best buff gunner in the game cant even kill me more than I kill him.. yeah..
Woah hey there Mr. Ego Calm down
-
Showing a video of a damaged B17, or maybe lost, cut out from the formation and getting cut to pieces doesnt mean that was the preferred method of attack by the LW. It was actually the last way they wanted to do it. Unless of course the Bomber was on its own or, as the video showed, the tail gunner was blown out of it. The fact that HO attacks were preferred is a well known fact.
In 1942 and first half of 1943 the Luftwaffe tactics swayed between attacking from 6OC and HO. However in August 1943 the OKL ordered that all attacks must be made from the rear, mostly because the greenhorns had problems performing a HO attack. Also in the fall of 1943 Hans-Günter Kornatzki's "Sturmstaffeln" started making mass attacks from the rear in tight formation. The defensive fire would be spread out among the large formation of attacking fighters. Attacking the B-17 from the rear the Luftwaffe targeted the tail and ball gunner first, then the oil tanks between the fuselage and inner nacelles. The number 3 engine was also a prime target since it powered the hydraulics. In HO attacks they would target the cockpit and no. 3 engine. In diving attacks they targeted the inboard oil tanks and the fuel tanks between the nacelles.
-
If one of those two things isn't done then slow bombers would go unused in AH.
Unescorted bombers having a bad time in AH2? The horror, the horror! That's as bad as tanks unescorted by flaks and/or fighters getting slaughtered by A-20s and Il2s!...Couldn't have that in a combat game, no sir.
-
So you would rather face his Corsair than his B-17? ;)
Yes, yes in fact I would much rather go Corsair to Corsair with him than Corsair to his B-17s. I'm a good duelist but I've never seen anyone approach him doing his stooging about in B-17s technique without getting shot to pieces. He does this *instead of* taking his Hog into heavily outnumbered and disadvantaged situations for a very good reason, he can damage or destroy more enemies while outnumbered that way.
The much feared 999000 has 31 kills for 48 deaths in his B-17. That equates to a .63 K/D.
Actually what that means is that 999000 has 31 kills in comparison to having his formation destroyed 16 times. That's a k/d about 2, again better than the average MA pilot's fighter score. The formation, upped and controlled in tandem by a single pilot should be considered a single unit when considering it's lethality against fighters.
Some lackluster pilot I know has 59 kills of B-17s this year, to only 2 deaths (1 of those being in a C.202 :)). That same pilot got waxed a Hell of a lot more by fighter planes, I can assure you.
Any lackluster pilot can rack up a heck of a k/d against bombers by simply breaking off whenever the gunner appears to be competent, and most pilots with that sort of k/d against buffs do exactly that. (Most AH players do exactly that in fact, drifting buff K/D even higher.) And you Snuggie, are no lackluster pilot. You've lost two 1v1s against B17s, which is probably about as many true 1v1s as you lose to most plane types in a given year.
-
Thank you. I wonder if peeps playing this *game* honestly think that German fighter pilots used the straight-down-asking-for-a-collision attack runs that deathstar bomber attack makes necessary in this game.
In 1942 and first half of 1943 the Luftwaffe tactics swayed between attacking from 6OC and HO. However in August 1943 the OKL ordered that all attacks must be made from the rear, mostly because the greenhorns had problems performing a HO attack. Also in the fall of 1943 Hans-Günter Kornatzki's "Sturmstaffeln" started making mass attacks from the rear in tight formation. The defensive fire would be spread out among the large formation of attacking fighters. Attacking the B-17 from the rear the Luftwaffe targeted the tail and ball gunner first, then the oil tanks between the fuselage and inner nacelles. The number 3 engine was also a prime target since it powered the hydraulics. In HO attacks they would target the cockpit and no. 3 engine. In diving attacks they targeted the inboard oil tanks and the fuel tanks between the nacelles.
-
Fighter pilots complain that the guns on bombers are too powerful. What they really mean is that a trio of B-17's should be easy to shoot down by a single fighter who attacks from 6 o'clock.
In real WWII did the average fighter pilot shoot down 3 B-17's under those conditions? (Average, not the story of it happening three times in all of WWII.)
I think that AH pilots have a lot more practice in their environment than WWII pilots had in their environment. A typical AH pilot has hundreds of hours of combat time. Not 100's of flying time, but 100's in combat. They have fired millions of rounds of ammo at maneuvering enemies, not at stationary targets. That adds to their ability to hit things in our environment.
-
If, through whatever mechanic, you make it so the "average" low six creep attack from a fighter has a chance, a fighter with a clue will be under precisely zero threat from them.
Wiley.
-
Unescorted bombers having a bad time in AH2? The horror, the horror! That's as bad as tanks unescorted by flaks and/or fighters getting slaughtered by A-20s and Il2s!...Couldn't have that in a combat game, no sir.
They wouldn't have a bad time. They would go unused as they would be pointless.
Tanks do far, far better against Il-2s and A-20Gs than bombers would with realistic gunnery and no drones. It isn't even comparable. A single B-17G would be meat on the table for almost any attacking fighter. B-17Gs would be lucky to have a 0.08/1 K/D ratio each tour under those rules, about where the He111 and G4M1 sit now.
Why would players waste time using those when you can be so much more effective in suicide P-51s/P-47s/P-38s/Typhoons?
A lot of new players start in bombers. Why would they stick around to become subscribers when they are free kills that almost never accomplish their goals?
-
Are people here really advocating making "gameplay balancing" to aircraft performance in AH? Because that's what this is.
-
Are people here really advocating making "gameplay balancing" to aircraft performance in AH? Because that's what this is.
Yes. Because it is more important for the game to survive than to have realistic bomber gunnery.
Either that or find a way for players to control a whole box of bombers. Just figure out how to limit what 140,000lbs of bombs dropped from ten Lancasters does to things on the ground....
-
Using your example of shawk's bomber K/D, how does that compare with his K/D in fighters? Looks like he has a 5.1 fighter K/D, versus a .77 K/D in bombers.
So you would rather face his Corsair than his B-17? ;)
The much feared 999000 has 31 kills for 48 deaths in his B-17. That equates to a .63 K/D.
Some lackluster pilot I know has 59 kills of B-17s this year, to only 2 deaths (1 of those being in a C.202 :)). That same pilot got waxed a Hell of a lot more by fighter planes, I can assure you.
You have to remember that bombers come in trios. 999000 is not feared because he never loses a bomber. Guys like him are feared because you will get maybe one or two of his drones while you will be downed or headed home trailing smoke and fuel. He still gets to land his remaining planes. A 0.63 K/D means at lease 1.89 kills per short trip to the tower (i.e. 3 bombers lost). It is at least, because he probably lands many sorties with 1 or 2 bombers remaining - the lost drone still counts to lower his K/D even if the sortie ended in "landed safely". This is quite impressive given the inability to escape bad situations and the gang-factor that bombers generate. Direct comparison to fighters K/D is difficult.
The heavily armed bombers (B17/24/26) have a K/D of around 0.33. This means that their "equivalent" (factor 3, allowing up to 3 deaths per sortie) K/D is around 1.0. Also keep in mind that this statistic includes all the bomb&bail, CV kamikaze, GV carpet laying, gamestyles that tend to push K/D way down. This stat is quite good and means that game-wise, these bombers are balanced. Game-wise, not historically wise. We have seen what happens when more challenge and a bit of realism is introduced to bomber piloting (full manual calibration anyone?). As much as I dislike it, the game is better off in its current configuration.
-
I see this is still going...
Hmm... Okay, for those of you who think bombers are too hard to kill/have it too easy, why don't you all get together and fly in a formation of bombers, no formations enabled (following a more historic route). Then do it again, with formations enabled. Make sure you take escorts for both. Target a long range target, deep in enemy territory (8+ sector round trip flight). None of that, "I don't have time for that" BS either. You can make the time. Make plans to get together and do it a month or two from now if needed.
Let's see how you do.
-
Actually what that means is that 999000 has 31 kills in comparison to having his formation destroyed 16 times. That's a k/d about 2, again better than the average MA pilot's fighter score. The formation, upped and controlled in tandem by a single pilot should be considered a single unit when considering it's lethality against fighters.
Going with your 1=3 formula, the most devastating bomber gunner in the game has a K/D of about 2. How many fighter pilots do you think have a K/D over 2?
Most bomber pilots are not aimbot killers. All you have to do when attacking bombers is employ a rocky/paladin-style timid BNZ approach and it's a cinch. I see lots of familiar names fly right up the 6 O'clock, when they would normally try to get the high ground over another fighter. It's not really magic. A fast closing speed with a huge target from above equals dead bombers.
-
Yes. Because it is more important for the game to survive than to have realistic bomber gunnery.
Realism (or at least the feeling thereof) is the only thing this game has over other MMO games like WT.
-
I see this is still going...
Hmm... Okay, for those of you who think bombers are too hard to kill/have it too easy, why don't you all get together and fly in a formation of bombers, no formations enabled (following a more historic route). Then do it again, with formations enabled. Make sure you take escorts for both. Target a long range target, deep in enemy territory (8+ sector round trip flight). None of that, "I don't have time for that" BS either. You can make the time. Make plans to get together and do it a month or two from now if needed.
Let's see how you do.
Forgot to mention, do those two things without escort as well.
-
Are people here really advocating making "gameplay balancing" to aircraft performance in AH? Because that's what this is.
It's not aircraft performance at issue. It's the game feature of one gunner firing all guns on 3 aircraft that bear on one target.
-
It's not aircraft performance at issue. It's the game feature of one gunner firing all guns on 3 aircraft that bear on one target.
They don't bear on one target. That is a common misconception. They converge at 500 yards. If the fighter is at 800 yards and the bullets from one of the bombers are hitting/narrowly missing it then the bullets from the other two bombers are missing it by dozens of yards.
-
Some of you guys are making a mistake in your math on this.
For bomber pilots, kills / (bombers lost) is not 3 * K/D but at most 1/3 * K/D because K/loss = K/D * D/loss, and D/loss is at most 1/3 (i.e., one D per 3 losses). I say "at most" because there are times when there is no death, but one or two bombers were shot down. Thus D/loss is even smaller than 1/3.
For B-17's, if average K/D is 0.33, then average K/(bomber lost) is less than 0.11.
-
Some of you guys are making a mistake in your math on this.
For bomber pilots, kills / (bombers lost) is not 3 * K/D but at most 1/3 * K/D because K/loss = K/D * D/loss, and D/loss is at most 1/3 (i.e., one D per 3 losses). I say "at most" because there are times when there is no death, but one or two bombers were shot down. Thus D/loss is even smaller than 1/3.
For B-17's, if average K/D is 0.33, then average K/(bomber lost) is less than 0.11.
I think you're mistaken. If a bomber player loses all three bombers while killing a single fighter that is 3 deaths and 1 kill, 0.333/1 K/D.
-
Realism (or at least the feeling thereof) is the only thing this game has over other MMO games like WT.
How can that be balanced with the fact (it has happened in the past when the bombsight was made more realistic) that such changes lead to the abandonment of bombers as a tool in AH? Should kamikaze fighter-bombers just be accepted as the way things have to be?
What about more realistic gunnery, but full 10 plane boxes for each player? Would that work?
-
I think you're mistaken. If a bomber player loses all three bombers while killing a single fighter that is 3 deaths and 1 kill, 0.333/1 K/D.
3 losses and 1 kill, but that is one death reported to the bomber pilot, right, or am I not understanding how the stats pages report K/D for bombers? In other words, if a bomber pilot goes up in his formation, shoots down one fighter and loses all three bomber aircraft, won't he see in his stats a K/D of 1; but K/loss would be 1/3.
-
3 losses and 1 kill, but that is one death reported to the bomber pilot, right, or am I not understanding how the stats pages report K/D for bombers? In other words, if a bomber pilot goes up in his formation, shoots down one fighter and loses all three bomber aircraft, won't he see in his stats a K/D of 1; but K/loss would be 1/3.
Three deaths for the bomber player.
-
Three deaths for the bomber player.
Thanks for correcting me on that.
The stats in the game then do count every death of a drone as a death in the K/D stats?
Then, no correction needed, and folks still shouldn't be multiplying it by 3, right?
-
How can that be balanced with the fact (it has happened in the past when the bombsight was made more realistic) that such changes lead to the abandonment of bombers as a tool in AH? Should kamikaze fighter-bombers just be accepted as the way things have to be?
What about more realistic gunnery, but full 10 plane boxes for each player? Would that work?
I kind of like the idea of a full box of bombers. However, I mostly want more realistic gunnery for all aircraft = more turbulence and atmospheric effects; actual slipstream from aircraft. Aiming at long range is far too easy as it is now.
-
I kind of like the idea of a full box of bombers. However, I mostly want more realistic gunnery for all aircraft = more turbulence and atmospheric effects; actual slipstream from aircraft. Aiming at long range is far too easy as it is now.
Long ago I posted a wish for wake turbulance and propwash in the Wishlist forum.
-
They don't bear on one target. That is a common misconception. They converge at 500 yards. If the fighter is at 800 yards and the bullets from one of the bombers are hitting/narrowly missing it then the bullets from the other two bombers are missing it by dozens of yards.
Thanks for clarifying. They all hit the same target at 500 yards. Which is why many players wait to shoot then. That convergence seems to be a big part of Traveler's criticism.
-
Thanks for clarifying. They all hit the same target at 500 yards. Which is why many players wait to shoot then. That convergence seems to be a big part of Traveler's criticism.
Heh. My experience in bombers says that if I wait until 500 yards one or more of my bombers has already been destroyed.
Also, keep in mind that the guns from an individual bomber do not converge, they fire in parallel to each other. The net effect of all of this rather like that of a shot gun, making it easier to get hits but harder to get the focus of fire you see out of a P-47 or such.
-
Heh. My experience in bombers says that if I wait until 500 yards one or more of my bombers has already been destroyed.
Also, keep in mind that the guns from an individual bomber do not converge, they fire in parallel to each other. The net effect of all of this rather like that of a shot gun, making it easier to get hits but harder to get the focus of fire you see out of a P-47 or such.
My point remains that the convergence is game design not aircraft modeling. :D
-
My point remains that the convergence is game design not aircraft modeling. :D
How do you think it should be handled? If the streams of fire from each bomber did not converge it would make the guns on the drones 95% useless. As it is they are probably 75% useless.
-
How do you think it should be handled? If the streams of fire from each bomber did not converge it would make the guns on the drones 95% useless. As it is they are probably 75% useless.
I'm not seeing a problem that needs handling.
-
The stats in the game then do count every death of a drone as a death in the K/D stats?
Then, no correction needed, and folks still shouldn't be multiplying it by 3, right?
Yes, yes, and yes. Each bomber downed counts as one kill for the fighter pilot and one death for the bomber pilot. This is true whether the buffs are in formation or not.
This business about a formation = one kill is nonsense. Attacking a formation three times and shooting down all three bombers in three passes is exactly as difficult as attacking three individual bombers in three passes and shooting down all three, and has the same effect on scores and stats. More difficult, actually, because with the three individual bombers you'll only be facing one set of guns at a time. Trips to the tower have nothing to do with it. You die and teleport to the tower and take off again, or you die and teleport to another bomber in your formation and play again, there is not one iota of difference. Either way you register a death, either way you're right back in combat.
BnZs, you wanted numbers, I gave them to you. In the April tour slightly more than 2.5 B-17s were shot down for every time a B-17 killed any kind of enemy. If the absurd claims being made in this thread were true, that ratio should be reversed. For other bombers the numbers are as bad as twenty to one. For every time one He-111 kills any kind of enemy, bombing or gunning, TWENTY He-111s are shot down. There is not a single fighter in the game with a k/d remotely near that bad - in fact, there's not a single fighter in the game with a k/d as bad as the B-17. Based on actual statistics from the MA, your odds are better fighting a Spit XVI in a Spit I or P-40E than you are defending against that same Spit XVI in a B-17 - and WAY better than in a Ju-88 or G4M.
Maybe you're a way better gunner than you give yourself credit for, maybe you just happened to run into some particularly bad fighter pilots, or maybe it was beginner's luck. Either way, judging by cold hard facts from the MA, the experience you had was NOT the experience the average bomber pilot has in this game. I'll say it again: looking at actual MA stats, the average B-17 pilot can expect to lose 2.5 bombers for every 1 enemy plane or GV of any kind they shoot down. This is actually WORSE for the bombers than the historical loss ratio in either Schweinfurt raid (using postwar estimates of German losses, not inflated USAAF claims at the time). As I said before the difference between AH and WW2 on this is NOT that bombers do better in AH than IRL, it's that AH players aren't deterred by that high loss rate while IRL it was crippling. If all those bomber crewmen who died or bailed out over Schweinfurt had instead been magically teleported back to England in perfect health to fly again the next day, and all the lost or crippled planes were replaced from an infinite supply of spares, the 8th AF would have had no reason to discontinue unescorted deep penetration raids, but of course that's not how it works IRL.
You folks making absurd and unjustified claims about the effectiveness of bomber guns in AH can hum and haw and speculate and offer random anecdotes all you like, but the FACTS - real statistics from our MA and real statistics from the historical events - show that B-17 loss rates in AH are higher, and their k/d rates lower, than those of unescorted bombers in WW2 - and that's even with the bombers flying most of their missions within range of friendly fighters, and not even considering how many of the kills by the B-17s were carpet bombing helpless GVs at friendly bases.
-
vote for pedro!
-
I kind of like the idea of a full box of bombers. However, I mostly want more realistic gunnery for all aircraft = more turbulence and atmospheric effects; actual slipstream from aircraft. Aiming at long range is far too easy as it is now.
That would affect fighters just as badly, so it wouldn't change the game balance.
-
My point remains that the convergence is game design not aircraft modeling. :D
It is a game mechanic, yes, but it makes gunnery less effective than IRL, not more. Or more precisely, the formation and single-crewman-bomber game mechanics make gunnery less effective, and the drone gunners make up for a little of that but not all of it. IRL each of those guns would be manned and aimed at the target, and the aircraft would be fully capable of maneuvering while the gunners were firing. In the game only one is manned and the others hit somewhere near where the one aimed one is pointing, and half the time the plane can't maneuver with anything but rudder while the guns are manned. Actually, IRL you'd have SIX gunners all aiming at you, because the ball and top turrets would be manned as well. Can anyone imagine trying to attack a formation of B-17s in the game if every tail, top, and ball turret position was manned by its own player? It would be absolute suicide. (Air Warrior had this, but you almost never ran into it, it was tough to get that many people willing to tag along as gunners. IIRC you couldn't join as a gunner mid-flight like we can.)
(And I'm not saying we shouldn't have the formation game mechanic, it's a good one, but its net effect in this regard is to make it easier, not harder, for fighters to score kills against bombers.)
-
We already talked about adding more realistic physics and most of the responses were negative and worded as ultimatums.
I think the OP was looking for clues on how to kill the bombers, which he should now have picked up on.
-
This is an interesting post. I think the game has many perspectives. Fighter pilots do what fighter pilots do..shoot stuff down. Bomber pilots objectives really are not kill to death ratio's, if it was we would be fighter pilots. Shooting fighters down is the means not the end of our objective. <S>
-
a reply from 'He that kills fighters bests'...
Listen carefully..
JGroth
-
...We have seen what happens when more challenge and a bit of realism is introduced to bomber piloting (full manual calibration anyone?)...
If we are already talking about calibration...
To be honest I preferred when it was manual calibration - there was a meaning in experience in calibration - you need to work on your approaches more accurately, once calibrated - keep the airspeed correct as calibration took much more time and so on.
Of course with auto-calibration it is way easier and more bombers flying around - but it makes the preparations almost irrelevant - you can re-calibrate 10 seconds before hitting the target and score the hit.
As a compensation layers of winds added to MA blowing in different directions which is <sarcasm>totally realistic</sarcasm> :furious
BTW the entire assumption of the Norden bomb sight is based on the fact that winds are very similar from the low to high altitude. In the real world the shift actually occurs in the layers very close to the ground when the friction between the wind and the ground becomes significant and the wind isn't blowing at 90 degrees to the pressure gradient - but these are very thing layers that have relatively small impact on the bomb in comparison to 20-30K drop.
-
It is a game mechanic, yes, but it makes gunnery less effective than IRL, not more. Or more precisely, the formation and single-crewman-bomber game mechanics make gunnery less effective, and the drone gunners make up for a little of that but not all of it. IRL each of those guns would be manned and aimed at the target, and the aircraft would be fully capable of maneuvering while the gunners were firing. In the game only one is manned and the others hit somewhere near where the one aimed one is pointing, and half the time the plane can't maneuver with anything but rudder while the guns are manned. Actually, IRL you'd have SIX gunners all aiming at you, because the ball and top turrets would be manned as well. Can anyone imagine trying to attack a formation of B-17s in the game if every tail, top, and ball turret position was manned by its own player? It would be absolute suicide. (Air Warrior had this, but you almost never ran into it, it was tough to get that many people willing to tag along as gunners. IIRC you couldn't join as a gunner mid-flight like we can.)
(And I'm not saying we shouldn't have the formation game mechanic, it's a good one, but its net effect in this regard is to make it easier, not harder, for fighters to score kills against bombers.)
You have a basic flaw in your logic. Real bomber guns do not converge at all, at any point. A bunch of human gunners shooting at the same target will create a dispersion pattern that does not converge at any range. This is because the systematic errors each gunner produce (i.e. imperfect aim) are different. This is opposed to guns slaved to a single gunner all having the same systematic error. In that case it is possible to make the guns converge at some point. The harder the aim, the more dispersion that will be created, so shooting at a target that requires a lot of lead (high angular velocity) will create a lot of dispersion from a bunch of human gunners, vs. no dispersion in the case of a single gunner with slaved guns. Like in a shot gun, more dispersion makes it more likely to get A hit, but reduce lethality very fast with range. This applies both to the guns on the same plane and to the drones.
It is true that a drone that drifted out of formation become useless in term of defensive fire if it is slaved to a gunner in the lead plane. The drone is probably shooting completely off mark.
This is an interesting post. I think the game has many perspectives. Fighter pilots do what fighter pilots do..shoot stuff down. Bomber pilots objectives really are not kill to death ratio's, if it was we would be fighter pilots. Shooting fighters down is the means not the end of our objective. <S>
999000 is absolutely correct. Bombers usually get into very difficult situations against fighters because they want to put eggs on the target, not because they want to get as many fighters as possible into their guns range. The absolute majority of bomber sorties are unescorted and do not employ mass formations. Having friendly fighters in the area doing their own thing is not really an escort, though it helps a bit. In that kind of action I do not expect real bombers to survive any better. This situation is much worse that the worst massive WWII bomber raid.
Because bombers main purpose is to put bombs on target, using larger formations will be a disaster. With larger formations it will be impossible to completely stop a bomber formation from dropping on the target, even if they do not shoot back. "The bombers will always get through" - such was the belief in early WWII. And indeed some, and even most got through, but there are two differences from the game: one is that real bombers tend to miss the target, while AH bombers can snipe a tank with a single bomb from 16,000 feet. So in real life, thinning down the number of bombers getting through often meant that the target survived, while in the game the defenders have to annihilate the entire bomber force. Second difference is that in real life, if you shoot down enough bombers the raids will stop (at least for a good while), but in the game, killing a bomber formation only makes it come back quicker after you saved it the return trip. Killing bombers after the drop is actually counter productive to defense! We do it anyway because our game time is limited and we want to shoot red stuff down before we have to log out.
-
All guns not manned by a player on multi-crew aircraft should be controlled by AI. That would also give bombers some protection when on the bomb-run or landing.
-
All guns not manned by a player on multi-crew aircraft should be controlled by AI. That would also give bombers some protection when on the bomb-run or landing.
Don't solve a problem by creating a worse one.
NO AI!
Current situation is not that bad.
-
Why no AI gunners?
-
Why no AI gunners?
Death Star - rings the bell?
In WB AI bombers were used to enter furrball and or do flybys killing fighters around.
B-17 would be a cool vulcher
-
The AI can be programmed not to bee too accurate. It can be set "just right".
-
The AI can be programmed not to bee too accurate. It can be set "just right".
Hard to make an AI that doesn't waste ammo, isn't accurate and is a deterrent to attacking fighters.
-
Hard to make an AI that doesn't waste ammo, isn't accurate and is a deterrent to attacking fighters.
OTOH, we could have a whole new forum devoted to complaints about the AI gunners! What's not to love?
- oldman
-
The AI can be programmed not to bee too accurate. It can be set "just right".
Agreed............
Were not AI gunners developed for Combat Patrol with different levels of lethality adjustable within the game arena?
I think there is a fear that AI gunners will become uber.......... I do not see why this must be the case.
Thru convergence settings the lone player gunner is disadvantaged to a multi-aircraft attack in a way that is a bit unreal........ equally the same gunner is advantaged against a single aircraft attack
-
I abhor the thought of AI gunners... they will either suck or be über. And most of the time both at once, depending on perspective only.
I'm here to fight players, not AI. Player controlled guns means a full range of skill levels to engage as a fighter pilot, never knowing what you are up against. 1k off angle shredding wonder boy or "QUICK, HOW TO GUN" n00b.. you never know. It's a test of your skill vs your opponent's skill.
And this is also true from a bomber pilot's perspective. It's a skill you can develop and improve upon, and any death or victory of yours is the result of your skills and experience... or lack of. For me as a bomber pilot (and contrary to popular perception I spend more time in bomber than in fighter mode) it would take away almost all the fun in combat.
It's the same as if the fighter planes had an "auto combat" function.
edited for typos
-
Anyone ever take the time to think that out of X number of rounds there are going to be Y number of hits? Me thinks there is far too much analyzing going on this topic.
HTC has explained that puffy ack is in a box around each plane. If your plane is in that box sooner or later it is going to get hit. The long you're in that box the higher the chance goes that you're going to get hit. There are only two things players can do to minimize their chances of getting hit by puffy ack: get out of range as fast as possible, and the smaller the plane the less likely, based solely on the area of the plane, it is to get hit (B29 vs 109, etc). The same applies, though I don't have the details on the specifics, the longer you're in the auto ack and the larger your plane is the higher your chances are to get hit.
In regards to bombers, I think the chained guns make sense. A bomber or a flight of bombers has more than 1 crewman and it simulates the crewmen where the players is not. The convergence is at 500 yards. If you get hit while at 500 yards each and every gun firing gets a piece of you. Stay fast, stay frosty, and learn a certain serenity prayer. It will help keep you sane. :aok
-
I remember HTC replying that AI gunners on bombers won't be in the game for technical reasons.
-
I'll say it again: looking at actual MA stats, the average B-17 pilot can expect to lose 2.5 bombers for every 1 enemy plane or GV of any kind they shoot down. This is actually WORSE for the bombers than the historical loss ratio in either Schweinfurt raid (using postwar estimates of German losses, not inflated USAAF claims at the time). As I said before the difference between AH and WW2 on this is NOT that bombers do better in AH than IRL, it's that AH players aren't deterred by that high loss rate while IRL it was crippling.
. . .
You folks making absurd and unjustified claims about the effectiveness of bomber guns in AH can hum and haw and speculate and offer random anecdotes all you like, but the FACTS - real statistics from our MA and real statistics from the historical events - show that B-17 loss rates in AH are higher, and their k/d rates lower, than those of unescorted bombers in WW2. . . .
:aok
-
i cant believe the OP wants it to be even easier than it already is to kill bombers. if it gets any easier, you might as well take them out of the game.
-
I remember HTC replying that AI gunners on bombers won't be in the game for technical reasons.
It is not technical. Lusche stated fairly well all the reasons for not having AI gunners from a "fun" point of view. I wrote AI gunners before, and as with any AI you have 2 choices TRY make them realistic as a human would act, sounds like a great Idea until you try actually write it. The problem becomes in anticipation of a players move, and adjusting to his previous behavior. People do this extremely well, computers suck at it. Hence once you learn how to defeat the AI, you can pretty much always defeat them.
The 2nd choice is to make them random like our puffy ack. In general people really hate dieing to a randomizer and as much as possible I try to not to use randomizers if another choice is available.
I feel that the bomber vs fighter vs hitting target is well balanced at the moment. Prior to the change in the sight calibration bomber usage was extremely low. As far as bombing accuracy , the bomber pilot needs to be reasonably assured that if he does everything correctly , he will hit his target. If it were other wise, bombers would again rarely be seen. There are different ways of accomplishing that goal, such as more targets or bigger formations, but those choices also are not with out problems.
HiTech
-
It is not technical.
I stand corrected on my faulty memory. :aok
-
In 1942 and first half of 1943 the Luftwaffe tactics swayed between attacking from 6OC and HO. However in August 1943 the OKL ordered that all attacks must be made from the rear, mostly because the greenhorns had problems performing a HO attack. Also in the fall of 1943 Hans-Günter Kornatzki's "Sturmstaffeln" started making mass attacks from the rear in tight formation. The defensive fire would be spread out among the large formation of attacking fighters. Attacking the B-17 from the rear the Luftwaffe targeted the tail and ball gunner first, then the oil tanks between the fuselage and inner nacelles. The number 3 engine was also a prime target since it powered the hydraulics. In HO attacks they would target the cockpit and no. 3 engine. In diving attacks they targeted the inboard oil tanks and the fuel tanks between the nacelles.
Im talking what the fighter pilots preferred not what they were ordered to do. To think they "preferred" to attack the rear of a bomber stream box was madness. Unless of course they found a way to turn the situation to their favor. Heck some were even ordered to fly into the wing of the bomber. Think they "preferred" that" http://freepages.military.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~josephkennedy/German_Pilot_Perspective.htm
A B-17 formation, dubbed a "Pulk" (herd) by the Germans, was an unnerving sight for the novice sight for fighter pilots. With a combined closing speed of 500 mph both sides had only seconds to make their fire count. Barreling in at 200 yds per second a fighter pilot might have time for only a half-second burst before taking evasive action.
"Fips" Phillips, a 200+ Eastern Front Ace wrote the following while in command of JG 1 defending against American Bombers over Northern Germany:
"Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But curve in towards 40 fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes."
The B-17’s most vulnerable quarter of attack was from head-on, at least until the advent of the G-model with its twin gunned chin turret. The next best option was straight down from directly above and a bit behind but this technique called more precise flying. After mid 1944 there was an ever-decreasing number of Luftwaffe pilots who were cable of such precision on a regular basis.
To reliably destroy a B-17, the attacker had to either break the integrity of the flight deck or explode the bombs in the bomb bay. Anything less only damaged the bomber. Hits on less vulnerable areas like the massive vertical stabilizer and rudder might cause the aircraft to slow but it would struggle on. Consolidated B-24 Liberator’s had a tendency to explode when hit but the B-17 rarely did.
Attacking a formation of American bombers from the rear was foolhardy due to the coverging fire from the bomber’s tail and ball turret gunners. Tail attacks also exposed the fighter pilot to additional fire due to the reduced closure speed. The standard fighter approach from 1000 yards astern with an overtaking speed of 100 mph took over 18 seconds to close the distance down to 100 yards.
-
The convergence is at 500 yards.
that's one thing I would change.. I'd either make the convergence changeable in the air with a dot command, or link it to the target selection key (tab) so all available gunners would be shooting at the one plane and not just converging at 500 yds. (which makes no sense)
-
that's one thing I would change.. I'd either make the convergence changeable in the air with a dot command, or link it to the target selection key (tab) so all available gunners would be shooting at the one plane and not just converging at 500 yds. (which makes no sense)
For balance purposes alone, it makes a lot of sense to me.
-
I feel that the bomber vs fighter vs hitting target is well balanced at the moment.
Ever done any surveys to see how many agree with that?
It's not balanced at all.
In Scenarios (which are set up more akin to actual battles -- i.e., large groups of bombers against historical opponents), loss rate of unescorted bombers when found by the enemy is generally about 100%. We have seen this many times in Scenarios,
You cant defend against multiple attackers from different directions.
If you get good at aiming, you're guaranteed to destroy an attacker with a WALL OF LEAD,
for the first months or years in bombers, you get luck or no defense at all.
You can't defend AT ALL when you need to be bombing your target.
And the argument that it should depend on player skill is nothing but ego stroking. It takes no skill to shoot down bombers, and Brooke's comment proves that beyond doubt.
Lusche knows he can shoot down most bombers with ease. They are his primary targets. He uses them to pad his score. He has a vested interest in seeing them remain easy targets.
The problem becomes in anticipation of a players move, and adjusting to his previous behavior.
So you're saying that you can't program an AI gunner (who happens to know the exact speed of an attacker and can calculate the precise lead) that can't defeat a skilled player?
I know there is a little more to it than that, but I still find it hard to believe that a human player has the ability to "outmaneuver" that kind of precision.
If an attacker is only "maneuvering" on a single axis or stops maneuvering even for a second, he should be toast. If he is constantly maneuvering then it should be exceedingly difficult to get a shot in.
And further, once that precision is established, how could it not be balanced or offset by some kind of harmonics that would occur in a moving craft?
The 2nd choice is to make them random like our puffy ack. In general people really hate dieing to a randomizer
Everyone hates all ways of dieing in the game. I despised the "random" puffy deaths, but it would be a ridiculous game without them.
AI bomber gunners would be no different than field guns.
But if you MUST pretend the "skill" level is an issue, then why not slave the accuracy of AI to that of the "real players" hit percent while in a gunners seat? The better a player can shoot, the better the AI shoots.
-
You cant defend against multiple attackers from different directions.
It helps the attackers when there are lots of them, of course. But even in that situation, attackers usually aren't closer than 1000 yards from each other, meaning that you can shoot at one attacker and then switch to the next one.
If you get good at aiming, you're guaranteed to destroy an attacker with a WALL OF LEAD,
Good aiming is definitely good for defense. You aren't guaranteed to shoot down an attacker, though, even in a B-17 or B-24, and certainly not in anything else.
for the first months or years in bombers, you get luck or no defense at all.
I'm not sure what that means.
You can't defend AT ALL when you need to be bombing your target.
Yes, you can. You calibrate when you are clear. You defend up to the point where you need to drop your bombs, hop into the bomb sight to drop, then back into guns. You are gone from your guns for 10-20 seconds. If that is too long, you have two options: don't drop your bombs and defend instead, or have a gunner. In scenarios, you often have a chance at a gunner unless no one was shot down short of target.
And the argument that it should depend on player skill is nothing but ego stroking. It takes no skill to shoot down bombers, and Brooke's comment proves that beyond doubt.
Of course shooting down bombers is a skill. In scenarios where shooting down bombers is a big part of it, you clearly see that. You will see guys like Killa with 20 bomber kills, the average pilot getting a few bomber kills, and the below-average pilot with none.
-
There I am, arguing year after year that bombers are not overpowered at all but merely victims, that they should not be nerfed or downgraded at all because any lack of success in killing bomber is just a result of impatience and bad tactic and spending actually more time in bombers than in other planes...
And what's the result?
Lusche knows he can shoot down most bombers with ease. They are his primary targets. He uses them to pad his score. He has a vested interest in seeing them remain easy targets..
I'm really getting tired by people in here in general.
-
Lusche, as a gastropod, has a vested interest in undermining humanity (or at least in ruining their gardens). ;)
-
To shoot down the Snailman in his set of 17's can be very satisfying!! :old:
Means you did most of it right! Usually after the third attack round you just have enough plane left to rtb :devil
A question regarding buff modelling:
Do the eggs in a buff explode when hit by MG or cannons?
As I tend to put quite a lot of cannon rounds in a belly, without result sadly...
-
To shoot down the Snailman in his set of 17's can be very satisfying!! :old:
:lol
If you find that one satisfying, ask the folks who killed me in a B-29 41 times so far :uhoh
A question regarding buff modelling:
Do the eggs in a buff explode when hit by MG or cannons?
No.
-
. . . Lusche knows he can shoot down most bombers with ease. They are his primary targets. He uses them to pad his score. He has a vested interest in seeing them remain easy targets. . . .
:O This guy has skills Muzik. I was in a P47M with a big E advantage over his 234. It was a pure 1v1. I had him. I made several passes and got some hits. Then he pulled up and sucked me in to a climb that gave him the only chance to use those crummy 234's rear guns. Game over. That was pure skill on his part.
-
I like the bomber model as it is. They are only "victims" if you dont count the damage and havoc they cause with their Ords. And since we dont have stats for that I guess we dont count them.
-
The victims of bombers are the fights, As is, their primary purpose in the MA is griefing everyone on BOTH sides of a fight via tool-shedding. There are times I would give a hundred perks to be able to shoot down friendly bombers... If they had something else to do while the rest of us enjoyed dogfighting then the sillieness of the modeling wouldn't be a very pressing issue. Also, were single-player controlled formations made slightly less insane, I would be quite open to the idea of allowing multiple players to join and gun for a formation. A formation that is quite formidable because half a dozen players are manning it is quite reasonable, as opposed to the absurdity of a unit controlled by a single player being able to dump tens of thousands of pounds of ord while killing as often as it dies.
-
The victims of bombers are the fights, As is, their primary purpose in the MA is griefing everyone on BOTH sides of a fight via tool-shedding. There are times I would give a hundred perks to be able to shoot down friendly bombers... If they had something else to do while the rest of us enjoyed dogfighting then the sillieness of the modeling wouldn't be a very pressing issue. Also, were single-player controlled formations made slightly less insane, I would be quite open to the idea of allowing multiple players to join and gun for a formation. A formation that is quite formidable because half a dozen players are manning it is quite reasonable, as opposed to the absurdity of a unit controlled by a single player being able to dump tens of thousands of pounds of ord while killing as often as it dies.
:rolleyes:
-
It helps the attackers when there are lots of them, of course. But even in that situation, attackers usually aren't closer than 1000 yards from each other
I've played this game as long or longer than you. Not steadily as you should know, but as long.
I know what's typical, and 3 attackers 1k apart are just as likely to end in death as 3 in oposing directions. I'm not going to argue effectiveness of the multitude of attacker positions with you.
Your unofficial statistics are enough to demonstrate that bombers aren't "balanced" in game.
Good aiming is definitely good for defense. You aren't guaranteed to shoot down an attacker, though, even in a B-17 or B-24, and certainly not in anything else.
I was exaggerating Brooke. Fortunately, you are right, most don't reach a skill level to worry about. Which just makes the argument that bombers are not balanced even more valid.
I'm not sure what that means.
It means when a noob can't get any satisfaction in a fighter and resorts to the only other flying activity, he has little reason to stick around barring some fanatical devotion.
A noob with only a moderate interest in trying this game, won't stay.
Yes, you can. You calibrate when you are clear. You defend up to the point where you need to drop your bombs...
Again, I'm not going to argue the multitude of possibilities. I've killed dozens or hundreds of guys on their bombing pass. It's their most vulnerable moment.
Giving up your chance to bomb your target so you can defend is not a valid option when you spent a half to one hour flying a mission already and playing drag the fighter until he dies is NOT what you consider a fun game activity.
You may be ok with that, but some people would rather the game be slightly more SANE in the first place. Bombers didn't drag fighters around germany, porpoising to 30k, trying to shake them before they can make a bomb run.
Of course shooting down bombers is a skill.
You need to cut back on the "literal" in your diet. It can cause heart disease.
When the "smarter" bomber pilots, drag you to 30k, it takes a lot of "skill" to prevent yourself from lunging at them in a rage because they make you chase them around for eternity to set up proper attacks.
This guy has skills Muzik.
He's very talented at making charts.
There I am, arguing year after year that bombers are not overpowered at all but merely victims, that they should not be nerfed or downgraded at all
You poor thing. And here you are arguing that they shouldn't have a fighting chance either. Seems you support all the causes. Grief much?
-
See rule #4
-
:rolleyes:
You worded that perfectly. It captured exactly what I was thinking as well! :aok
-
He's very talented at making charts.
You poor thing. And here you are arguing that they shouldn't have a fighting chance either. Seems you support all the causes. Grief much?
Muzik, Knock off the attacks and insults.
HiTech
-
bombers aren't "balanced" in game.
If this is the heart of what you mean, then we can skip arguing about how it takes no skill to kill bombers (it does take skill), how bombers can't survive attacks (they can in various situations survive), and the simultaneously contradictory statement of how attackers are always shot down by bombers (attackers are not always shot down).
Instead, we can talk about what you are really advocating: what would be "balanced" in your view?
-
:O This guy has skills Muzik. I was in a P47M with a big E advantage over his 234. It was a pure 1v1. I had him. I made several passes and got some hits. Then he pulled up and sucked me in to a climb that gave him the only chance to use those crummy 234's rear guns. Game over. That was pure skill on his part.
Actually it was pure luck on my part, as it was the only fighter I think ever shot down with the 234s rear guns despite of trying hard and often. The only other kills I ever got were proxies from guys running into me
I don't doubt that I am one of the "above average" guys of the MA (well, how much "above" can be disputed a lot ;)), but in that particular aspect I totally suck. I have no idea how some can rack up an impressive kill tally shooting the rear guns... I for sure can't :bhead
My K/D in the Arado is very, very much tilted towards D.
-
I think that bombers *are* balanced in the game.
In scenarios, bombers work such that, (1) when they are unescorted and jumped by a bunch of fighters, most of the bombers are going to be shot down, and (2) when they are strongly enough escorted, most of the bombers get through. That is appropriately realistic. Also, in both cases, the bomber pilots with better gunning skill tend to have significant advantages in survival, and when bombers get to target, the bomber pilots with more skill in bombing things destroy more objects and achieve more objectives. So bomber-pilot skill matters a lot. Also, on the opposite side, fighter-pilot skill matters a lot. There are guys who are terrors of the sky, and average pilots who aren't nearly as dangerous to bombers. In most cases, unless the bombers never see an enemy, whether bombers are all shot down or not, there is plenty of action in the process for the bomber pilots and the fighter pilots.
All of this works well enough that bomber pilots and fighter pilots tend to have lots of fun in bomber-centric scenarios like Der Grosse Schlag and feel that things are well balanced.
In the Main Arena, they also seem balanced. If you go in on the deck and get swarmed by attacking fighters, you will get shot down. If you go in with altitude and have to fend off an attacker or two who isn't so skilled and if you are a decent gunner, you can make it to target. If a super-skilled fighter pilot attacks you, and you have no escort, you are in big trouble. If you have escort, you can often make it to target.
All of that seems reasonable. Bombers are neither so weak that they never get to target nor so powerful that they always get to target. That is balance.
-
You poor thing. And here you are arguing that they shouldn't have a fighting chance either.
I am not. That's just what you are trying to impute to me.
I for one have the firm belief that in the LW MA bombers DO have a fighting chance, if well flown. A n00b Lanc pilot flying into a welld efended enemy base at 8k will die as certain as a fighetr n00b slowly croaching up to a B-29's butt.
If both are competently flown, the fighter has the better chance against the bomber for sure, but that doesn't mean the bomber has not any.
I for one had quite a satisyfying air to air K/D in bombers last year...
(though I'm almost curious about he next basesless allegation - Will it be "You fly only at 35k!" or "You shoot down only your shades!" or "You hardly fly bombers at all!" ?)
-
I am not. That's just what you are trying to impute to me.
I for one have the firm belief that in the LW MA bombers DO have a fighting chance, if well flown. A n00b Lanc pilot flying into a welld efended enemy base at 8k will die as certain as a fighetr n00b slowly croaching up to a B-29's butt.
If both are competently flown, the fighter has the better chance against the bomber for sure, but that doesn't mean the bomber has not any.
I for one had quite a satisyfying air to air K/D in bombers last year...
(though I'm almost curious about he next basesless allegation - Will it be "You fly only at 35k!" or "You shoot down only your shades!" or "You hardly fly bombers at all!" ?)
I will take #2 for $1500. :D
I think that bombers *are* balanced in the game.
In scenarios, bombers work such that, (1) when they are unescorted and jumped by a bunch of fighters, most of the bombers are going to be shot down, and (2) when they are strongly enough escorted, most of the bombers get through. That is appropriately realistic. Also, in both cases, the bomber pilots with better gunning skill tend to have significant advantages in survival, and when bombers get to target, the bomber pilots with more skill in bombing things destroy more objects and achieve more objectives. So bomber-pilot skill matters a lot. Also, on the opposite side, fighter-pilot skill matters a lot. There are guys who are terrors of the sky, and average pilots who aren't nearly as dangerous to bombers. In most cases, unless the bombers never see an enemy, whether bombers are all shot down or not, there is plenty of action in the process for the bomber pilots and the fighter pilots.
All of this works well enough that bomber pilots and fighter pilots tend to have lots of fun in bomber-centric scenarios like Der Grosse Schlag and feel that things are well balanced.
In the Main Arena, they also seem balanced. If you go in on the deck and get swarmed by attacking fighters, you will get shot down. If you go in with altitude and have to fend off an attacker or two who isn't so skilled and if you are a decent gunner, you can make it to target. If a super-skilled fighter pilot attacks you, and you have no escort, you are in big trouble. If you have escort, you can often make it to target.
All of that seems reasonable. Bombers are neither so weak that they never get to target nor so powerful that they always get to target. That is balance.
Well, it also depends on escort skill as well, if you remember. Escorts that do their job and provide escort, allow us to make it to target with little problem. It's the escorts that decide to abandon their job in favor of "glory" is when we tend to get hammered.
I'll take 4 escort pilots who will stick with us over a two squadrons of "glory seekers" ANY DAY. :aok
And I see that those who think bombers are too hard to kill/have it easy are avoiding my little challenge like the plague. :noid
-
See rule #2 & 4
-
If this is the heart of what you mean, then we can skip arguing about how it takes no skill to kill bombers (it does take skill), how bombers can't survive attacks (they can in various situations survive), and the simultaneously contradictory statement of how attackers are always shot down by bombers (attackers are not always shot down).
Instead, we can talk about what you are really advocating: what would be "balanced" in your view?
Stop back pedalling. You proved it better than anyone could. In scenarios, you have consistent 100% losses of mid/large bomber formations flying close enough for mutual fire support.
The worst raids in ww2 rarely if ever, had those kinds of losses. What chance does the typical single player formation in the MA have?
-
I am not. That's just what you are trying to impute to me.
Really? So what are the odds for a new player? One with no previous experience? And what about the most prevalent player type who won't check help files or actually put an effort into understanding his task? What is that 90% of the player base?
-
Really? So what are the odds for a new player?
What are the odds for that very same new player in a fighter vs other fighters with experience?
-
Bombers are only as safe as the gunner is good.
-
What are the odds for that very same new player in a fighter vs other fighters with experience?
Apples and ANVILS.
In a fighter, I am solely responsible for successfully operating a fighter just as it was in WW2.
In a bomber, I am tasked with doing the job of 10 other people, frequently several at the same time.
-
(though I'm almost curious about he next basesless allegation)
My allegations are never baseless. Advocating player skill without AI be the sole defense of bomber formations = helpless.
You said it yourself in the same breath...
I for one have the firm belief that in the LW MA bombers DO have a fighting chance, if well flown.
Lest you forget we are including noobs.
-
Stop back pedalling. You proved it better than anyone could. In scenarios, you have consistent 100% losses of mid/large bomber formations flying close enough for mutual fire support.
The worst raids in ww2 rarely if ever, had those kinds of losses. What chance does the typical single player formation in the MA have?
Some people have said that bombers are too tough to kill, and others have said that bombers are too easy to kill. I disagree with both statements.
Bombers being too tough to kill is countered by evidence in scenarios showing large bomber losses when they are unescorted and jumped on by a large number of enemy fighters. Bombers being too easy to kill is countered by evidence in scenarios showing bombers surviving when well-enough escorted or, even in unescorted groups, if those groups are not attacked by a large number of enemy fighters. So, in scenarios, bombers live or die in situations analogous to when they lived or died in WWII.
In AH loss rate for everything (bombers, yes, but also fighters, attack planes, tanks, GV's, PT boats, and ships) is higher than WWII. That is because we don't die when we are shot down and because we have 1000 hours of shooting time. Given those aspects, how bombers work in AH is, in my opinion, decently realistic.
What chance does the typical single player formation in the MA have?
A decent one -- as long as he doesn't do something like fly alone into a base swarming with many enemy fighters at and above his altitude.
-
Here is a clip of an He 111 run to target in the previous "Battle of Britain" scenario.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk9V66e88eI
We have escort and get attacked by a flight of enemy fighters, which we and the escort take care of without losses being too bad.
Then we get jumped by a large group of enemies. Our escort engages some of it, and we fight some of it. Our losses are significant, but some bombers still battle through it.
I don't think the bombers in this are either too hard to too easy to kill.
-
My allegations are never baseless. Advocating player skill without AI be the sole defense of bomber formations = helpless.
You said it yourself in the same breath...
Lest you forget we are including noobs.
Any player who doesn't want to take the time to learn to get better at playing, whether it be fighters, bombers, or GV is going to SUCK and be easy meat for anyone. Todays players.... for the most part are not all that interested in becoming "skilled" players. They are happy to be part of the horde and MAYBE get bombs on a target, or get enough rounds into a defender that he goes down before the goon gets taken out.
We play a far different game than what we played 5-10 years ago. 10 years ago I'd bet half of the players flew wearing goggles and scarfs, we were playing the war game. We learned to bomb, gun, acm's and bfm's. Today people use auto take off, are asking for air spawns for fighters, and any other thing to make the game more steam lined to do nothing buzz through the land grab to WIN DA WAR!
For the most part bombers are easy to take down. When they are alone unescorted. Put a few groups together and they are much harder to take out. Add some fighter cover and forget about it unless your attacking force is as big as their full group AND have the alt advantage. The problem isn't that the buffs are weak, it's that people don't use them the way they were designed to be used. Thats a player problem, not a game mechanic one.
-
..On fighter pilots escorting bombers.........There is one simple way that helps a bomber pilot the most.......TAKE AWAY THE RELATIVE HIGH ATTACKER SO HE ONLY GETS ONE HIGH ANGLE ATTACK PASS. <S>
-
Any player who doesn't want to take the time to learn to get better at playing, whether it be fighters, bombers, or GV is going to SUCK and be easy meat for anyone. Todays players.... for the most part are not all that interested in becoming "skilled" players. They are happy to be part of the horde and MAYBE get bombs on a target, or get enough rounds into a defender that he goes down before the goon gets taken out.
snip
Still the same old false conclusions.
1. Everyone wants to get better, they're just slaves to their laziness.
2. Not everyone wants to play YOUR way and could care less that you want to find a good 1v1.
3. No one want's to avoid combat, they just want to WIN. As long as the game is set up the way it is, people will keep winning WITHIN THE RULES layed out or NOT layed out by the game developer.
-
What are you asking for, muzik? How do you think bomber's ought to be in AH?
-
Bombers are only as safe as the gunner is good.
Not exactly. The plan itself must be sound. The attack must use the strengths of the actual Bomber type. There must be coordination between the Bombers and fighters.
In other words you never find me low in a conga line , or in a conga line period, and Im always typing situational info to my fellow Rooks. That or speaking Intel on the vox, trying to coordinate. See guys like Lusche will take the time to set up on Bombers correctly. Most will simply come in flat and then blame their deaths on the balance being to much to the bombers. The reason I make it to target so much is the laziness of the enemy. Last night I had a 262 come in flat 6 and he started spewing at 1000 yrds until the TUs guns splashed him at 400. Had it been even a moderately skilled player I would have been in a bad way. Against the top bomber killers I'd have been next to helpless.
The balance is perfect right now. Has been for a while. We have just lost a lot of the great Bomber hunters.
-
What are you asking for, muzik? How do you think bomber's ought to be in AH?
I didn't ask for anything in this thread, I just responded to some false statements.
Of course my opinion was based on my beliefs about what's good for me or the game and I thought it was obvious how I saw it.
If someone wants to fly a bomber, which is by far the last activity of choice, I don't feel they should be forced to spend hours or years "improving skills" in a novelty of the game.
This game was developed as a "flight simulator" first, not a gunner simulator. It should be optional, not a prerequisite.
Slaved guns are fake and detract from the fidelity of the game. It's a neat idea, which I don't really have a problem with, but it shouldn't be the ONLY option.
It's not good for the game when new players, some of whom could care less about "playing gunner," can't enjoy the most populated and accessible arena UNTIL, gunnery is at a level that in most cases takes a year or more to develop.
-
Taking away the slaved guns would make bombers very much easier to kill. Only a pair of .50s at a time, other than the B-29.
-
Being able to man the guns makes bombers much more fun, in my opinion. Same for being the bombardier, and even the navigator.
-
Taking away the slaved guns
Who said anything about taking them away?
but it shouldn't be the ONLY option.
would make bombers very much easier to kill. Only a pair of .50s at a time, other than the B-29.
No clue what exactly you mean by this. I certainly never suggested leaving them with only 1 gunner position to fire at a time.
AI gunners would ALL fire at a single attacker as long as they have a shot and barring multiple attackers. In which case you have a better chance to hit one of them.
Being able to man the guns makes bombers much more fun,
Who ever said otherwise? I said it's ridiculous that you have to pilot, bomb, and gun SIMULTANEOUSLY. Especially new players.
Even with AI gunners, that doesn't preclude the ability to gun for yourself. You could still take any gun position you wanted. All you have to do is say please. That guy in the tail gun is a sucker for good manners. He'll hop right out for you.
-
The slaved guns are the reason for the single gunner policy. I wonder if it's possible to unslave the guns if more than 1 player joins the flight and then all the positions become available.
-
You can have yourself and a gunner both manning different guns.
I remember having Ruah as a gunner in Mediterranean Maelstrom (in Ju 88's). It was excellent, and we fought our way clear of several attacking Spit V's. :aok
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201303_mediterraneanMaelstrom/pics/frame4/005-kill1-SNAG-0020.jpg)
-
Who ever said otherwise? I said it's ridiculous that you have to pilot, bomb, and gun SIMULTANEOUSLY. Especially new players.
Even with AI gunners, that doesn't preclude the ability to gun for yourself. You could still take any gun position you wanted. All you have to do is say please. That guy in the tail gun is a sucker for good manners. He'll hop right out for you.
Except that Hitech has said that they aren't going to implement AI gunners. So that discussion is moot.
-
What I'm wondering is if there could be a choice between the current system and multiple gunners up to a fully crewed heavy bomber.
-
What I'm wondering is if there could be a choice between the current system and multiple gunners up to a fully crewed heavy bomber.
As in: A) Formation, gun for self; B) No Formation (single), crew all guns with people; type of thing?
-
As in: A) Formation, gun for self; B) No Formation (single), crew all guns with people; type of thing?
Yes. Or one gun crewed, fire all guns. More than one gun crewed, only occupied guns fire, all crew positions open, formation or single. Selectable in flight preferences.
-
Except that Hitech has said that they aren't going to implement AI gunners. So that discussion is moot.
There's that inevitable, ht said no.
-
There's that inevitable, ht said no.
Not inevitable. There are many things where HTC doesn't say "no", and discussion is then not moot.
But if you still want to discuss AI gunners (even though it's not going to happen), I'm up for it.
I think that AI gunners would be useless except for the brief time the pilot is on the bomb run. Then, they could be useful throwing out some rounds toward the enemy, if only so that he can't be sure the pilot isn't in the guns still. Other than that, in my opinion, for playability and for philosophical reasons (that the game should be about humans doing things, not AI doing things), AI gunners should not be as good as human gunners and thus not very useful.
-
I have been playing "paying" for this game since day ONE! There is nothing out there that compares in my opinion, and if there is, I would never trade. That being said, I will tell any NOOB that bombing is a skill, a skill that is learned over time and only enjoyed by the success you receive by being good at it. Successful bombing in AH is not getting killed going into a very heavy defended base an killing it. That is the very essences of what my squad does and what I was tough long ago. In AH's current model this task is not easy nor boring , it takes patience. Don't change a thing!
Devil Dogs
-
Not inevitable. There are many things where HTC doesn't say "no", and discussion is then not moot.
But if you still want to discuss AI gunners (even though it's not going to happen), I'm up for it.
I think that AI gunners would be useless except for the brief time the pilot is on the bomb run. Then, they could be useful throwing out some rounds toward the enemy, if only so that he can't be sure the pilot isn't in the guns still. Other than that, in my opinion, for playability and for philosophical reasons (that the game should be about humans doing things, not AI doing things), AI gunners should not be as good as human gunners and thus not very useful.
If the AI is anything like the AI in staged missions they will be more often than not, gunnery like 999000
-
See rule #2
You're quite right, bombing is a skill, but not what the last 4 pages have been discussing.
Bombing, piloting, and gunning are THREE skills and humanly impossible to do simultaneously.
-
I'm not reading the whole thread, but will comment that bombers are easy kills most of the time. I haven't played much of late (summer fun'n), but over the winter one month I was 14v1 against B-17's, arguably the toughest bomber out there.
If you are having trouble with bombers, feel free to look me up and we can go bomber hunting. I am not a Lusche, but bomber hunting is one of my "things"...
-
You're quite right, bombing is a skill, but not what the last 4 pages have been discussing.
Bombing, piloting, and gunning are THREE skills and humanly impossible to do simultaneously.
As most formations don't have a pilot, a gunner, AND a bombardier aboard, I.E they are being manned by only a single individual, why is this a problem?
-
As most formations don't have a pilot, a gunner, AND a bombardier aboard, I.E they are being manned by only a single individual, why is this a problem?
It is not a problem - doing all 3 jobs is an advantage. No group with any sense will put gunners in their buffs.
Say a squadron wants to do a bomber mission together. With 4 players they can bring two formations (3 planes each) and have a gunner in each formation, OR they can bring four formations without gunners. I have no doubt which option they will choose. Of course, if they are smart they will bring 4 formations and players who lost all 3 planes then join as gunners to the others... they can lose two full formations and then they are at the situation of taking off with gunners.
-
It is not a problem - doing all 3 jobs is an advantage. No group with any sense will put gunners in their buffs.
Say a squadron wants to do a bomber mission together. With 4 players they can bring two formations (3 planes each) and have a gunner in each formation, OR they can bring four formations without gunners. I have no doubt which option they will choose. Of course, if they are smart they will bring 4 formations and players who lost all 3 planes then join as gunners to the others... they can lose two full formations and then they are at the situation of taking off with gunners.
And those 4 individuals in 4 formations totaling 12 bombers will be wielding a level of defensive firepower and ordinance delivery capacity that in reality required about 100 individuals to operate.
-
And those 4 individuals in 4 formations totaling 12 bombers will be wielding a level of defensive firepower and ordinance delivery capacity that in reality required about 100 individuals to operate.
And yet they have little effect on the game and are all but free kills waiting to be picked.
Get over it.
-
Really? So what are the odds for a new player? One with no previous experience? And what about the most prevalent player type who won't check help files or actually put an effort into understanding his task? What is that 90% of the player base?
They have about the same odds that a late 1944 luftwaffe newbie with 160 hours total flight time did when the stuck him in a 109 and sent him up against the a stream of escorted B17s.
-
And those 4 individuals in 4 formations totaling 12 bombers will be wielding a level of defensive firepower and ordinance delivery capacity that in reality required about 100 individuals to operate.
`
But you have no problem asking for fighter drones, that's called a double standard.
-
`
But you have no problem asking for fighter drones, that's called a double standard.
I believe that idea is for parity.
Personally I think the current system works.
-
I believe his idea is parity.
If so, he would ask the bombers to be beefed up a bit :)
-
If so, he would ask the bombers to be beefed up a bit :)
Depends on your point of view. I'm not saying you're wrong. :D
-
`
But you have no problem asking for fighter drones, that's called a double standard.
Actually it's called demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, also known as satire. For further research into the genre I suggest reading the following:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)
-
I believe that idea is for parity.
Personally I think the current system works.
Parity? Not necessarily. I would be okay with a buff formation being as lethal as a pilot, a bombardier, and 18 999000s on the guns could make them. The hard part will of course be finding 18 999000s to gun for you, but everything has its challenges right? :devil
-
Actually it's called demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, also known as satire. For further research into the genre I suggest reading the following:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)
That would require the thing you are claiming to be absurd to actually be absurd. As it isn't, you fail.
-
That would require the thing you are claiming to be absurd to actually be absurd. As it isn't, you fail.
Argument via "You're wrong and I'm right nah-nah-nah!"? I am ashamed to admit that I can't quite remember the Latin term for that particular logical fallacy.
-
Parity? Not necessarily. I would be okay with a buff formation being as lethal as a pilot, a bombardier, and 18 999000s on the guns could make them. The hard part will of course be finding 18 999000s to gun for you, but everything has its challenges right? :devil
I thought it was a response to bombers and bomber formations firing all guns bearing on the target. Thus parity.
-
Argument via "You're wrong and I'm right nah-nah-nah!"? I am ashamed to admit that I can't quite remember the Latin term for that particular logical fallacy.
No, just common sense. Something you seem to intentionally suppress in regards to this subject as you can't possibly be as dense as you pretend to be.
You need to support your claim that bomber formations are absurd. Existing gameplay in AH is pretty strong evidence that they are not and that they function in a reasonably manner within the game. You have not provided that support. Instead you resort to out of context and distorted wild eyed hysterics to make your position seem reasonable. If you were to resort to plain logic and cold statistics rather than drama you know your position would be untenable, hence your refusal to do so.
-
I thought it was a response to bombers and bomber formations firing all guns bearing on the target. Thus parity.
Well, a formation with 18 skilled human gunners on board wouldn't SEEM like parity for any poor lone fighter pilot attacking it-they'd tear him to shreds. However, you have to consider what those 18 players would NOT be doing in the MA simultaneously, such as flying up to 54 bombers of their own. That is what I call the "big picture" :devil
-
Well, a formation with 18 skilled human gunners on board wouldn't SEEM like parity for any poor lone fighter pilot attacking it-they'd tear him to shreds. However, you have to consider what those 18 players would NOT be doing in the MA simultaneously, such as flying up to 54 bombers of their own. That is what I call the "big picture" :devil
I call that a hypothetical argument. My big picture would involve actual MA behavior. :D
-
Actually it's called demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, also known as satire. For further research into the genre I suggest reading the following:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)
So your whole thread on fighter drones is satirical? For a frightening minute I thought you were serious, I'm glad you were just messing around! ;)
-
So your whole thread on fighter drones is satirical? For a frightening minute I thought you were serious, I'm glad you were just messing around! ;)
Actually I think an entire "Interceptor" category for things like 110s and 190s that scored only Bomber kills might be a good idea. But the drones...probably not. :aok
-
Actually I think an entire "Interceptor" category for things like 110s and 190s that scored only Bomber kills might be a good idea.
Friendly He 111: "Please help me, there's a Jug trailing me!"
190: "I'm sorry, but I'm in interceptor scoring mode"
-
Actually I think an entire "Interceptor" category for things like 110s and 190s that scored only Bomber kills might be a good idea.
Why?
-
I call that a hypothetical argument. My big picture would involve actual MA behavior. :D
But that requires looking at things in their context, something BnZs won't do because only by isolating certain stats can he make his argument seem reasonable.
Actually I think an entire "Interceptor" category for things like 110s and 190s that scored only Bomber kills might be a good idea. But the drones...probably not. :aok
I am aware of many Spitfires that were shot down by Bf110s and Fw190s.
-
But that requires looking at things in their context, something BnZs won't do because only by isolating certain stats can he make his argument seem reasonable.
Perhaps the language and tone we choose to disagree with each other affects the likelihood of promoting different points of view.
-
Argument via "You're wrong and I'm right nah-nah-nah!"? I am ashamed to admit that I can't quite remember the Latin term for that particular logical fallacy.
Can't help you there but the latin for your previous argument regarding drones would be the "reductio ad absurdum". Speaking for myself, I did find the concept of fighter drones to be absurd and so I thought the argument somewhat compelling -but diminished by the obvious fact that the bomber mission is quite different from the typical fighter mission and that the incentives issue to which Karnak repeatedly returns ( like some kind of one-note braying donkey :D) is probably overriding...
-
Argument via "You're wrong and I'm right nah-nah-nah!"? I am ashamed to admit that I can't quite remember the Latin term for that particular logical fallacy.
Ironically your response, misstating his position, is fallacious argument. Many threads feature examples of most of the common fallacies.
-
They have about the same odds that a late 1944 luftwaffe newbie with 160 hours total flight time did when the stuck him in a 109 and sent him up against the a stream of escorted B17s.
You must have missed the response to this failed argument when it belonged to lusche...
Apples and ANVILS.
In a fighter, I am solely responsible for successfully operating a fighter just as it was in WW2.
In a bomber, I am tasked with doing the job of 10 other people, frequently several at the same time.
Both of you seem to have trouble seeing the absurdity of comparing a new fighter pilot to a bomber pilot.
Fighter plane = An aircraft designed to be operated by ONE person.
Bomber = An aircraft, as DESIGNED, incapable of successful operation by a single person.
-
Both of you seem to have trouble seeing the absurdity of comparing a new fighter pilot to a bomber pilot.
Fighter plane = An aircraft designed to be operated by ONE person.
Bomber = An aircraft, as DESIGNED, incapable of successful operation by a single person.
AH is a game. How it handles bombers is a game mechanic. What things were in reality is mostly irrelevant to this discussion.
-
And yet they have little effect on the game and are all but free kills waiting to be picked.
Get over it.
Actually they end most fights via toolshedding. Probably 90% of CV fights (Apparently no one realizes anymore that a CV represents a buffet of mostly lower-performing planes parked right off their shore for convenient consumption). All kidding aside, I wish buffs had something to do in this game which did not make the game worse for everyone else.
-
... All kidding aside, I wish buffs had something to do in this game which did not make the game worse for everyone else.
I used to agree with that but now I think the friction makes a better game. One common complaint about the WW1 dueling arena is the lack of other activity.
-
I used to agree with that but now I think the friction makes a better game. One common complaint about the WW1 dueling arena is the lack of other activity.
They are used as massive overkill of single buildings in order to prevent to stop uppers, almost never escorted (because they don't need it), rarely intercepted in a methodical manner because one simply doesn't have the tools to do that. They end more fighter-on-fighter engagements than they cause I think. One would think there has to be a better way, something that would look more like the ETO perhaps.
-
They are used as massive overkill of single buildings in order to prevent to stop uppers, almost never escorted (because they don't need it), rarely intercepted in a methodical manner because one simply doesn't have the tools to do that. They end more fighter-on-fighter engagements than they cause I think. One would think there has to be a better way, something that would look more like the ETO perhaps.
Well if you think of a better way I'm sure you'll let us know. :D
-
Well if you think of a better way I'm sure you'll let us know. :D
Whole cities of buildings to bomb for points towards ye old bomber score, but which don't effect the rest of us being able to up? :D
-
Whole cities of buildings to bomb for points towards ye old bomber score, but which don't effect the rest of us being able to up? :D
In other words take them out of the game. What makes you think they would want to do that? When I fly bombers the chance of being intercepted is spice. If what bombers hit didn't matter at all to the game very few players would intercept them. Very boring that.
You'd, at the least, have to change the game winning to be based on those whole cities of buildings being destroyed. Not sure how that'd work with fields not changing hands anymore.
-
Whole cities of buildings to bomb for points towards ye old bomber score, but which don't effect the rest of us being able to up? :D
I actually think you're on the edge of something here.
When you look at the historical deployment of heavies IRL, it was generally in the service of taking out strategic targets. The RAF would bomb cities at night, the USAAF would bomb "pinpoint" targets in the day. Generally, these were NOT connected to Luftwaffe operation centers. Of course, there were notable exceptions; eg, D-Day support, etc.
I'm thinking that it's kind of a pity that, as Karnak points out, deploying them as they were actually used sort of "disconnects" them. However, it need not do so IF there were some underlying strategic supply model. I write this, btw, in total ignorance of the way the current strat model works (or fails to do so), as I don't much care for bombing myself.
For example, let's say the NITs have a fuel production center as one of their strat targets. If the Bish are able to take that out, resupply of fuel to the various operational bases is cut off. Each base could have some token capacity for storage that, once exhausted, is not replenished until the strat asset is back up. The same could be established for all of the other war materiels - aircraft, GVs, ords, ammunition, transport capacity. Of course, in order to instill the incentive to both bomb the strat asset and to defend it, people would have to understand the linkage and value of each type of strat asset. Essentially, to make bombing more relevant, we need an underlying economic/logistical model...
As for the tactical bombers, I think the best way to expand their use is to increase the scope of the ground war, introducing more/new ground vehicles, employing field artillery, perhaps even some generalized form of infantry.
-
If what bombers hit didn't matter at all to the game very few players would intercept them.
Da Killz? I hear some people like those.
Very boring that.
Well, bombers only get flown in this game because some people have a gene that makes them immune to boredom. Unfortunately they can still act as *carriers* of the disease, infecting the rest of us :devil
-
Da Killz? I hear some people like those.
People aren't going to fly things that have no effect on the war game. The fewer people who fly bombers the fewer people who like intercepting them will be around.
Well, bombers only get flown in this game because some people have a gene that makes them immune to boredom. Unfortunately they can still act as *carriers* of the disease, infecting the rest of us :devil
And you say I just toss personal attacks?
-
Okay, you two are squaring off, starting a spiral. Stop.
I'm actually serious about this idea of an underlying "economy", albeit in simplified form, and would like some f/b on it.
You two can fight offline.
-
And you say I just toss personal attacks?
But mine are clever. :D
-
I'm actually serious about this idea of an underlying "economy", albeit in simplified form, and would like some f/b on it.
One could make the bombing of strategic targets increase the amount of time it takes town buildings and auto acks and things like that to respawn, thus having an effect on "winnin teh warz" WITHOUT actually negatively impacting anyone's ability to up a plane and scrap.
-
You've begged a question, imj. What are the purposes of the MA and DA?
Where you're coming from sounds like a DA mentality: air combat uber alles.
If the MA doesn't attempt to somehow model war, then how does it differ from DA?
Bear with here: One consequence of making the MA more like a real war, with economic destruction crippling your ability to up and fight, might just be... more DA usage.
At the same time, consider the incentives. bomb****s could actually "WIN TEH WAR" by destroying all the production centers...
-
You've begged a question, imj. What are the purposes of the MA and DA?
Where you're coming from sounds like a DA mentality: air combat uber alles.
Air combat uber alles is the mentality of the game "Aces High". The thing that differentiates the DA mentality is "instant gratification, usually turn and burny individualistic air combat uber alles"
Aces High is most certainly NOT a war game. I have played such games, like "War in the Pacific" and calling AH a wargame is laughable by comparison. :D
I don't think the hangar banging game mechanic promotes fun fights. It is way too easy to kill two buildings to end all resistance. Bomb the town buildings, bomb all the AA guns out of existence, establish air/ground superiority and take the base. If you can't take it just because the enemy still has the ability to up under your vulch enough to resist you, then you don't need to take it.
-
I don't think the hangar banging game mechanic promotes fun fights. It is way too easy to kill two buildings to end all resistance. Bomb the town buildings, bomb all the AA guns out of existence, establish air/ground superiority and take the base. If you can't take it just because the enemy still has the ability to up under your vulch enough to resist you, then you don't need to take it.
I'm not talking about hangar banging. I'm talking about the ability to economically cripple a chess piece nation via strategic bombing. This would have the effect of crippling ALL hangars (for example, by cutting off their fuel, ords, or aircraft - of perhaps the transport means to provide same), but would necessarily be a difficult thing to accomplish.
Another consequence of this might be: more bombers in the air into which shells might be pumped, but good.
-
I'm not talking about hangar banging. I'm talking about the ability to economically cripple a chess piece nation via strategic bombing. This would have the effect of crippling ALL hangars (for example, by cutting off their fuel, ords, or aircraft - of perhaps the transport means to provide same), but would necessarily be a difficult thing to accomplish.
Another consequence of this might be: more bombers in the air into which shells might be pumped, but good.
Ah. Well that would tilt things even farther in a direction I don't think we should go. What you're talking about is potentially tool-shedding a whole bleeding country, as opposed to one base. Really I think the strategic bombing increasing re-up times for the inanimate objects is the best possible compromise.
-
Ah. Well that would tilt things even farther in a direction I don't think we should go. What you're talking about is potentially tool-shedding a whole bleeding country, as opposed to one base. Really I think the strategic bombing increasing re-up times for the inanimate objects is the best possible compromise.
I'd be thinking more along the lines of, let's make this an option for winning the war, but let's make it a moonshot. If sufficiently difficult, it'd make for an interesting option - the proponents of such an approach would have to organize, clearly... and then execute. It might make for some interesting attempts, and some far more interesting variations of air combat. The ability to pull it off, though, would be serious point of pride amongst bomb tards. Perhaps in this way, we could build an esprit of sorts - along the lines of, "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history..."
-
AH is a game. How it handles bombers is a game mechanic.
Fortunately, I knew AH was a game before I made the comment or I might have said something irrelevant.
In reality, the pilot couldn't fly, bomb and man defensive guns all at the same time either.
-
Early on in the actual World War II the 8th Air Force reversed it's decision to fly bombers into Germany un-escorted after having more than 100 bombers shot down in one mission alone. It was proven that un-escorted bombers were easy kills for the (at that time superior Germane fighters) With that thought in mind how is it that one set of three bombers in AH is able to fight off two or three fighters taking little or no damage un-escorted. Something must be wrong with the combat simulation model in AH. What's the difference other than one pilot controlling three heavy bombers . Could it be the three or four sets of guns firing in sync. Right now it feels like air combat between fighters and bombers in AH is lop sided unfairly in favor of the bombers.
Well the tactics guys use when i shoot them down from my 24s are bad! if the attacker uses correct tactics i always die.