Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: bozon on July 29, 2014, 02:20:41 PM
-
Currently in the MA we have the semi-auto calibration method. This calibration involves holding the "Y" key for a few seconds and nothing else. There are two issues with this method:
1. Player skill comes down being able to hold down a button and maintain speed after that. Even the latter can be nullified by holding "Y" again a few seconds before the drop.
2. Accuracy of the calibration is not a function of altitude, thus bombers can snipe individual structures with a single bomb from 25,000.
Let me expand a little about #2:
When the full manual calibration method is used, the player has to hold the crosshair on a spot in the terrain for a few seconds. The higher the plane, the less accurate this becomes. Thus, bombing accuracy becomes increasingly inaccurate with altitude due to offsets in the calibration (beyond bomb dispersion). Player skill comes in the ability to spot, track, and point accurately at a moving (relative to the plane) point on the ground. The semi-auto calib. method does not simulate this alt-dependent source of inaccuracy, which allows the laser-guided accuracy in bombing.
Suggestions:
1. Include in the semi-auto method a random inaccuracy in the calibration that increase linearly with altitude.
2. Allow players to switch between semi-auto and full manual calibration on the fly.
Reasoning:
The increased calibration inaccuracy with altitude will make bombers trade safety (altitude) for accuracy. So, if a bomber climbs to 25k to bomb a CV or a FH he should be prepared to spread the bombs a little to ensure a hit, or drop from 15k with a much higher accuracy. Alternatively, the player is given the option to manually calibrate and rely on their skill instead of the alt-dependent randomization in calibration. A skilled player may still be able to snipe a target from 25k with careful calibration. The ability to do either a full manual or semi-auto calibration allows a player to choose given the situation - if he is busy with the defensive guns he may opt for semi-auto which is much faster, or if safe, to opt for the potentially higher accuracy of a full manual.
Not the most urging issue in AH, but perhaps worth considering for a future patch.
-
When this was done in the past players simply abandoned bombers and switched to heavy fighters, or used bombers as kamikaze tools.
-
When this was done in the past players simply abandoned bombers and switched to heavy fighters, or used bombers as kamikaze tools.
This was not done in the past. I was not requesting to force manual calibration.
-
This was not done in the past. I was not requesting to force manual calibration.
You were requiring a reduction in accuracy. That has the same effect. If one puts an hour into a flight only to have their bombs miss when they were as calibrated as they could get, they won't waste their time going forward. For those of us who can use the manual calibration it isn't a big deal (I missed the patch notes where it was changed and kept doing the manual calibration method for three years after it had been easier), but for those who never grokked it, it was the kiss of death for their use of bombers.
-
how do u go to manual bombsight? Havent tried that.
an option is to have a acceptable accuracy on the auto bomb sight but u can do even better if u can set it up properly, for ex that the auto bombsight doesnt compensate for the wind. In that case u hav good accuracy up to the wind layer and most bombers dont fly that hight. those hwo do go higher ar mostly dedicated bomber pilots.
-
It is the same concept as stall limiter, u can jump in a plane, fight with it and do a good job but there is a benefit to learn how to fly w/o the stall limiter.
-
You were requiring a reduction in accuracy. That has the same effect.
I am suggesting a reduction in calibration accuracy with altitude (in the semi-auto mode) because this is how it works when you manually calibrate and in real life. This would mean that if you bomb from 10,000 you can still laser bomb individual structure, from 15,000 you may need to drop just a little more poundage just to be sure and from 25,000 you'd better set up a carpet bomb pattern - OR do a full manual calibration if you think you can do better.
The semi-auto (current) method should still be accurate enough to drop hangars reliably from 10,000-15,000 AGL. It is the 25,000 buffs that single handedly shut down fields and/or disable ords and/or snipe a CV without missing a bomb that I aim for. At least make it a challenge to pull off such a feat, not just time investment. With the option for manual calibration skill can overcome the luck element.
If one puts an hour into a flight only to have their bombs miss when they were as calibrated as they could get, they won't waste their time going forward.
It takes them an hour if they climb to 25,000 feet and then expect to bomb with unrealistic (not even close by a mile - literally) pin-point accuracy from that altitude.
It is the same concept as stall limiter, u can jump in a plane, fight with it and do a good job but there is a benefit to learn how to fly w/o the stall limiter.
Exactly!
-
To the mods - this thread is obviously in the wrong subforum. It was supposed to be in the wishlist.
-
Stall limiter is a different animal. It doesn't, at a blow, render useless the entire flight. Some aircraft, such as the P-51 and Fw190D-9, really aren't even impacted by the stall limiter as it has its effect in parts of the flight envelope where those should never be.
-
Stall limiter is a different animal. It doesn't, at a blow, render useless the entire flight. Some aircraft, such as the P-51 and Fw190D-9, really aren't even impacted by the stall limiter as it has its effect in parts of the flight envelope where those should never be.
And SLIGHTLY reducing the auto-calibration accuracy won't cripple a bomber either.
-
What means 'slightly' in this context?
-
What means 'slightly' in this context?
"Slightly" is measured in angles.
In the manual calibration method the bomb sight primitive computer measures the change in view angle (parallax) to a fixed point on the ground over a given time interval. The angular velocity is multiplied by the altitude to get the actual ground speed (I am simplifying for the ideal case). To measure the change in angle, a human needs to point the instrument (crosshair) to the same point during these two times, but has a finite angular accuracy. Thus, the error in measured angle is multiplied by the altitude and carried over to the ground speed measurement - double the alt, double the inaccuracy of the calibration.
Currently (as I understand it!), the semi-auto calibration has some random error on the speed irrespective of the altitude. Holding "Y" longer, averages the speed over a longer time and reduce the random error, as it should - up to a limit. The 5 seconds required now is way below the limit and manual calibration takes much longer in practice in order to achieve this accuracy. I understand why HTC made this time so short (one person doing all the jobs on the plane), but the side effect is that it was made VERY accurate and independent of alt.
Now for the practical game - "Slightly" should be defined by what should be the highest speed and alt that still yield pin-point accuracy. Say, half (or 2/3, or 90%, whatever if it needs to be made more accurate for gameplay) the times the bomb will fall within the blast radius of a 500 lbs (defined by a normal 2D distribution). For example, 300 mph at 10,000, which is still incredible. So, if you drop the bomb from 20,000, half the times the bombs will fall within a circle twice as large. In practice it is much easier to tweak since you only need to decide on some angular accuracy limit in the semi-auto calibration via a bit of experimenting in the limiting conditions (300 mph, 10k in the is example) and the rest follows by itself.
The main point here is that accuracy will deteriorate with altitude. Just make sure that from low "enough" and typical bomber speeds it still hits hangars reliably. From higher altitude it will not be completely off! accuracy drops only linearly with alt. It will mean that when dropping from 20k, some spread of the bombs is desirable and that you should not expect to drop the exact amount of lbs needed to destroy the hangar calculated to the last ounce. One 500lbs dropped from 20k per ammo bunker should not be standard MO.
Manual calibration should always be an option for the veterans if they think they can improve on the accuracy when it makes a difference (i.e. from very high/fast). Just allow them to choose the method while in the air, not preflight.
-
What means 'slightly' in this context?
As i said, no wind correction on auto calibration would give an accurate bomb sight up to the wind layer, thats good for most players. Its also possible to hit lager targets like city and strats with aceptable accuracy from higher alt. But if u want to drop on hangars and ords from 30k u need the manual bombsight.
-
Almost reads like you are asking Hitech to factor in a dispersion cone that gets worse the higher you drop the bombs from. Thus requiring more bombs the higher you are flying to hit a single object. Sounds like the actual dispersion problems they had in WW2. And why it took so many bombers to hit one target.
The consequence would be players using jabo because of the diminishing returns on their investment. I suspect the only reason many players bother to bomb is the JDAM accuracy of their bombs at all alts. But, at least CV might last longer.
I have always wondered why some amount of dispersion to simulate the reality of dropped bombs has not been added by now. Especially since you can talk a bomber on target well enough to pinpoint GV from alt.
-
Since early on in my days in AH (joined AH in Jan of '08), I've thought that level bombing was too easy. We've heard directly from HTC as to why auto calibration is used and not manual (make it too difficult and ALL bombers will be hanger queens). While I dont propose HTC use the manual calibration in the MA, I would like to see the "spread" be a bit larger.
I too think there should be a larger variable the higher the bombers are. I agree that it is just too easy to bomb away at 25k+ and drop targets the size of a house with a single bomb (or three!).
I vote for HTC to incorporate a larger spread via the higher a bomber is.
-
Stall limiter is a different animal. It doesn't, at a blow, render useless the entire flight. Some aircraft, such as the P-51 and Fw190D-9, really aren't even impacted by the stall limiter as it has its effect in parts of the flight envelope where those should never be.
Hmmmph? What is this? If either plane has to fight to against a competent opponent aware of their existence, they will need every bit of AOA available.
-
Almost reads like you are asking Hitech to factor in a dispersion cone that gets worse the higher you drop the bombs from. Thus requiring more bombs the higher you are flying to hit a single object. Sounds like the actual dispersion problems they had in WW2. And why it took so many bombers to hit one target.
Close, but with a few finer points. This is not a dispersion of the bombs - it is an uncertainty in the calibration. The difference is that if you drop a salvo, the dispersion will scatter the bombs into a wider pattern. Calibration uncertainty will shift the center of your pattern, but not widen it. Most of the calibration error will shift the pattern either short or long. Shifts sideways are very small unless there is a strong side wind and the altitude is very high. Thus a bomb pattern (release delay) covers that uncertainty at the cost of more bombs per pickle.
I in no way suggest to make the accuracy as bad as it was in real life. The way I see this implemented, hitting a hangar from 25k will still be quite easy , but will require dropping a few extra lbs because some of the bombs may miss by a hair. Drop from 15k and you are much more likely to get all the bombs on the target. Hitting ords bunkers from 25k with a single bomb will not be a sure-fire thing unless bombs are dropped in 2-3 salvo.
There is today absolutely no reason not to bomb from as high as possible, except for the time investment. Eating dinner while the bomber is on auto-climb should not be a winning tactic.
-
So you are suggesting that one be allowed to have JDAM-like accuracy with high bombers sans any particular skill...why exactly? To increase the number of bomber flights? By the same logic, we should equip the P-40C with 20 millimeter Gatling guns as incentive. After all, peeps hardly fly it and they need a little encouragement that their sortie want be a waste of time, even if it is unrealistic. Right?
In reality level bombers were imprecise tools that often proved next to useless in trying to hit individual small targets, like bridges. They were used en masse to devastate large areas. In the semi-precision role, the dive bomber was realistically the proper tool. Why object to this fact?
You were requiring a reduction in accuracy. That has the same effect. If one puts an hour into a flight only to have their bombs miss when they were as calibrated as they could get, they won't waste their time going forward. For those of us who can use the manual calibration it isn't a big deal (I missed the patch notes where it was changed and kept doing the manual calibration method for three years after it had been easier), but for those who never grokked it, it was the kiss of death for their use of bombers.
-
is it even possible to calibrate with manual calibration over water anymore?
-
I don't recollect the old method being more accurate or less accurate. Establishing one's alt in the bomb site was another step merely.
-
see rule #5
:)
-
is it even possible to calibrate with manual calibration over water anymore?
You could, I suppose, turn off the detailed water to remove the animation which would make it just a static texture.
-
You could, I suppose, turn off the detailed water to remove the animation which would make it just a static texture.
that's what I was figuring.. so with the animated water on, bombers would be essentially useless unless calibrated over land first..
someone could probably make an argument that's a good thing for cv survival..
-
Currently in the MA we have the semi-auto calibration method. This calibration involves holding the "Y" key for a few seconds and nothing else. There are two issues with this method:
1. Player skill comes down being able to hold down a button and maintain speed after that. Even the latter can be nullified by holding "Y" again a few seconds before the drop.
2. Accuracy of the calibration is not a function of altitude, thus bombers can snipe individual structures with a single bomb from 25,000.
Let me expand a little about #2:
When the full manual calibration method is used, the player has to hold the crosshair on a spot in the terrain for a few seconds. The higher the plane, the less accurate this becomes. Thus, bombing accuracy becomes increasingly inaccurate with altitude due to offsets in the calibration (beyond bomb dispersion). Player skill comes in the ability to spot, track, and point accurately at a moving (relative to the plane) point on the ground. The semi-auto calib. method does not simulate this alt-dependent source of inaccuracy, which allows the laser-guided accuracy in bombing.
Suggestions:
1. Include in the semi-auto method a random inaccuracy in the calibration that increase linearly with altitude.
2. Allow players to switch between semi-auto and full manual calibration on the fly.
Reasoning:
The increased calibration inaccuracy with altitude will make bombers trade safety (altitude) for accuracy. So, if a bomber climbs to 25k to bomb a CV or a FH he should be prepared to spread the bombs a little to ensure a hit, or drop from 15k with a much higher accuracy. Alternatively, the player is given the option to manually calibrate and rely on their skill instead of the alt-dependent randomization in calibration. A skilled player may still be able to snipe a target from 25k with careful calibration. The ability to do either a full manual or semi-auto calibration allows a player to choose given the situation - if he is busy with the defensive guns he may opt for semi-auto which is much faster, or if safe, to opt for the potentially higher accuracy of a full manual.
Not the most urging issue in AH, but perhaps worth considering for a future patch.
:airplane: If you are going to do anything with the bomb sight, I would offer removing, at the pilots request, the delay time from .005 to .000...real bombers have that choice and that way, if you did that, you would have to learn quick how to calibrate correctly, or you are going to miss a lot of targets. I made a suggestion in the "wish" section about a bombardier as a third crewman on bombers, maybe require your suggestion to this position!
-
Manually calibration wasn't inaccurate, it's just that many players couldn't be bothered to learn how to do it. The way I remember it, what really drove people out of bombers to jabos was the wind effects starting at 15,000ft. Basically bomb dispersion started to grow at 15,000ft, and got worse with altitude. So a lot of people simply wouldn't climb above 15k in a bomber, because above 15k level bombing was much less effective against point targets.
So the choice presented to the player became A: Take level bombers in at 14k and probably get shot down. B: Take level bombers in at high altitude and probably miss the target. C: Take a fighter-bomber instead. D: Fly a heavy bomber as if it were a fighter-bomber.
-
This is all very realistic, and I see no reason it should not be this way.
Manually calibration wasn't inaccurate, it's just that many players couldn't be bothered to learn how to do it. The way I remember it, what really drove people out of bombers to jabos was the wind effects starting at 15,000ft. Basically bomb dispersion started to grow at 15,000ft, and got worse with altitude. So a lot of people simply wouldn't climb above 15k in a bomber, because above 15k level bombing was much less effective against point targets.
So the choice presented to the player became A: Take level bombers in at 14k and probably get shot down. B: Take level bombers in at high altitude and probably miss the target. C: Take a fighter-bomber instead. D: Fly a heavy bomber as if it were a fighter-bomber.
-
Because it's bad for the game. It presents a no win situation to the players in heavy bombers. It makes heavy bombers irrelevant and useless. With that system the player in the heavy bomber at 20k can do everything right and still fail. Gamers generally don't like that.
-
Because it's bad for the game. It presents a no win situation to the players in heavy bombers. It makes heavy bombers irrelevant and useless. With that system the player in the heavy bomber at 20k can do everything right and still fail. Gamers generally don't like that.
You are arguing that we should *highly* warp the accuracy of level bombing from high altitudes to please gamers. Essentially, what we have good be called arcade-mode level bombing accuracy. By the same argument, we could relax the physics, get rid of spins and blackouts make the gunnery easier, etc. One iteration of arcade-mode is as good as another.
Hell, P-40C pilots are kind of in a "no win situation" in the LWMA. They can do everything right and still fail. So let's give P-40Cs Gatling cannons and RATOs...
-
You are arguing that we should *highly* warp the accuracy of level bombing from high altitudes to please gamers. Essentially, what we have good be called arcade-mode level bombing accuracy. By the same argument, we could relax the physics, get rid of spins and blackouts make the gunnery easier, etc. One iteration of arcade-mode is as good as another.
Hell, P-40C pilots are kind of in a "no win situation" in the LWMA. They can do everything right and still fail. So let's give P-40Cs Gatling cannons and RATOs...
I think you're not only taking this to the extremes, but to the wrong extremes. I read his request as asking that we make calibration a little more work so that level bombing from high altitude isn't just a game of who has more patience, the bomber or the fighter. Adding a bit of skill necessary to make the bombs hit their targets. He's not saying we should make it LESS accurate. He's saying let's RETAIN the current bomb-accuracy, but make attaining the current level of bombsight accuracy require some degree of work.
-
Im not arguing that we should "warp" the accuracy of level bombing, you are. I think it's fine the way it is. If a p40c pilot fails then he certainly didnt do everything right. You want strategic bombers to comply with realistic standards before aces high has strategic targets that resemble anything in reality?? Why are you trying to make bombers the square peg? What motivates this? You guys whats BNZ's deal? Fill me in.
-
Because it's bad for the game. It presents a no win situation to the players in heavy bombers. It makes heavy bombers irrelevant and useless. With that system the player in the heavy bomber at 20k can do everything right and still fail.
No. "everything right" from 20k means either manual calibration to attain the maximum potential accuracy, or using the semi-auto calibration and a wider bomb pattern to assure a hit. The latter is not such a horrible thing. It means that if it takes 2000 lbs to kill a FH, you mean need to drop 3000 lbs at a wider pattern because a few of the bombs may actually miss (oh the horror). You trade accuracy for safety and can attain both if you opt (decision in real time! not a game setting) for the full manual calibration and you know what you are doing. Level bombing from 10k should hardly be affected. It takes some tactical thinking, some skill, and some understanding of how bombing works - a terrible concept for a skill based PvP game.
Players keep complaining about how horrible it is to miss even one bomb. and how everyone will go jabo instead - I see dive bombers that miss targets much more than level bombers, unless they ride the bombs all the way down.
@Karnak:
So you are suggesting that one be allowed to have JDAM-like accuracy with high bombers sans any particular skill...why exactly? To increase the number of bomber flights? By the same logic, we should equip the P-40C with 20 millimeter Gatling guns as incentive. After all, peeps hardly fly it and they need a little encouragement that their sortie want be a waste of time, even if it is unrealistic. Right?
In reality level bombers were imprecise tools that often proved next to useless in trying to hit individual small targets, like bridges. They were used en masse to devastate large areas. In the semi-precision role, the dive bomber was realistically the proper tool. Why object to this fact?
Karnak's cautiousness is understandable. Heavy bombers in this game are used in a completely unhistorical way. They are also often flown by noobs that have not figured out dogfighting (or dive bombing) yet and it is an early phase in their careers before advancing to fighters (though there are a handful of dedicated bomber players). For the sake of gameplay we do not want to see bombers go extinct. I simply think he sees my suggestion as a bit more extreme than it is.
In reality, tactical bombers were very inefficient in anything other than bombing cities. My personal view is that the strategic bombing campaign of the 8th airforce was a net loss to the allies, if you consider how all those resources could have been used elsewhere. However! level bombers are an icon of WWII and I would hate to see a WWII era PvP game without them, even if this means some relaxation in modeling some aspects of their mission (but not flight models!). At the same time, they should not be completely trivial to operate - this is a heavy skill-based game after all.
-
Bozon in the old dispersion system you could have your bombsite calibrated and drop your whole load of bombs on one hanger and miss the hangar entirely. The manual bombsite calibration was just as accurate as it is now, in fact I hadn't even known that it had been changed until about a year ago, I was still calibrating manually.
-
I hadn't even known that it had been changed until about a year ago, I was still calibrating manually.
holding down y doesn't work anything like moving the crosshairs with a joystick. how could you confuse the two?
-
You have to hold down y when you hold the cross hairs steady. The only difference now is you dont have to hold the crosshairs on a point. Either way your still holding down the y key. There was no confusion, I just didnt know the method had been changed.
-
You are arguing that we should *highly* warp the accuracy of level bombing from high altitudes to please gamers. Essentially, what we have good be called arcade-mode level bombing accuracy. By the same argument, we could relax the physics, get rid of spins and blackouts make the gunnery easier, etc. One iteration of arcade-mode is as good as another.
Hell, P-40C pilots are kind of in a "no win situation" in the LWMA. They can do everything right and still fail. So let's give P-40Cs Gatling cannons and RATOs...
P-40C player can choose to take a Spitfire Mk XVI, still a fighter. A bomber player can't choose to take a different bomber to make it easier or less likely a waste of time.
-
P-40C player can choose to take a Spitfire Mk XVI, still a fighter. A bomber player can't choose to take a different bomber to make it easier or less likely a waste of time.
The bomber pilot can choose to spread the bombs or opt for manual calibration if the altitude is high.
A bomber pilot has 3 times the lbs of bombs due to the ability to drive a formation. This was added so the can spread the bombs and still do the amount of damage of one bomber or more. Somehow it became expected that bombers must not miss a single ounce of its triple load.
-
The easiest and best thing to do would be to bring back manual calibration mode and get rid of idiot-proof mode. It never stopped people from flying bombers when it was the only option, and, if calibrated correctly you could still drop with pinpoint accuracy from 25K.
-
The bomber pilot can choose to spread the bombs or opt for manual calibration if the altitude is high.
One can opt for manual calibration? And why would he?
-
The bomber pilot can choose to spread the bombs or opt for manual calibration if the altitude is high.
A bomber pilot has 3 times the lbs of bombs due to the ability to drive a formation. This was added so the can spread the bombs and still do the amount of damage of one bomber or more. Somehow it became expected that bombers must not miss a single ounce of its triple load.
Three times the payload that all misses the target makes a bigger collection of craters in the countryside. It doesn't make the player feel that their hour flight was any less of a waste.
The easiest and best thing to do would be to bring back manual calibration mode and get rid of idiot-proof mode. It never stopped people from flying bombers when it was the only option, and, if calibrated correctly you could still drop with pinpoint accuracy from 25K.
I was there. Bomber use plummeted, and a large number of the Lancs and 17s that were used were as dive bombers. Your statement doesn't match what actually happened.
Personally I liked it, keep that in mind. I never had any problem with it. I recall the screenshots of players missing the hanger by multiple field lengths. I don't recall ever missing a target at all.
-
Three times the payload that all misses the target makes a bigger collection of craters in the countryside. It doesn't make the player feel that their hour flight was any less of a waste.
If they insist on dropping a single salvo in an attempt to drop the target with the exact amount of damage required. It is the same waste for a fighter pilot who has no clue and gets blasted out of the skies without being able to fire a single shot at the enemy, or the one that dive-bombs, miss the target, and get mauled by the acks or lawdarts. HTC can set the default delay for bombers to something a little higher than 0.05, if that will help the cluless.
@BaldEagle:
I was there. Bomber use plummeted, and a large number of the Lancs and 17s that were used were as dive bombers. Your statement doesn't match what actually happened.
Personally I liked it, keep that in mind. I never had any problem with it. I recall the screenshots of players missing the hanger by multiple field lengths. I don't recall ever missing a target at all.
I remember that as well. For this reason I suggested to keep the current calibration method in place and make its accuracy altitude-dependent (based on real arguments) such that from typical bombing altitudes of 10-15k most of the cluster will hit even in a single salvo. The dependency of accuracy on altitude, beyond some trace of realism is to make the virtually unstoppable 25k bombers that bomb fields (not strats) a little less able to single handedly shut down fields or pork the ordnance/dar/troops with a single bomb per object. The potential for dead-eye accuracy will still be there for those that can do the manual calibration.
I was fooling around with a (single) Mossie XVI bomber yesterday, sniping GV's and objects (dar, field guns) from 6-8k with 500 lbers. The method was to make a pass and observe the v-field through F6 view to locate objects/vehicles, make a 5-6G U-turn, wait 20 seconds, make another 5-6G U-turn, hold "Y" 3 seconds a few seconds before the drop, bomb the object/GV - repeat up to 6 times. In between I sometimes had to dodge a tempest and/or a 109. The only reason some of my bombs missed is because my speed was always around or in excess of 300 mph, which left me very little time to put the cross-hair on a tiny GV once I see it through F6, so I made some proximity drops in the hope the blast radius will get them.
Dive bombing will have put me at a much greater risk and more bombs would have missed, especially if I had to drop from high to stay away from the wirbl hell down there. This is not how level bombing is supposed to work, calibrating 3 seconds after a blackout turn to perfect accuracy, with no established bomb-run and not even a stable speed. Too bad I did not spot any perked tanks there - the GV players would really appreciate my calibration skill if I sniped one from 7k, safe above their acks and wirbs. :P
Just for the record, I usually don't attack V bases (except their dar) with a plane - I tend to leave the ground war to the GVs. Also, I dont fly bombers that much, and I am not supposed to be very good at it - it is just that easy.
-
P-40C player can choose to take a Spitfire Mk XVI, still a fighter.
And a pilot looking to take out a single building or a ship can choose to take a something appropriate to the mission, like a dive bomber. He will kill only one building or ship per sortie though, how sad I feel about that! :devil
A bomber player can't choose to take a different bomber to make it easier or less likely a waste of time.
Bombers WERE most a waste of time in the roles they end up being used for in the AH MA. We play a game that is obsessed with physics, where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth if it turned out a certain cannon was modeled with too high a ROF or something, yet when it comes to bombing accuracy we have something equivalent to arcade-relaxed physics to make gunnery easier, no one bats an eye. Bizarre.
-
Bombers WERE most a waste of time in the roles they end up being used for in the AH MA. We play a game that is obsessed with physics, where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth if it turned out a certain cannon was modeled with too high a ROF or something, yet when it comes to bombing accuracy we have something equivalent to arcade-relaxed physics to make gunnery easier, no one bats an eye. Bizarre.
You consistently fail to realize that AH is a game.
-
<snip>
I was fooling around with a (single) Mossie XVI bomber yesterday, sniping GV's and objects (dar, field guns) from 6-8k with 500 lbers. The method was to make a pass and observe the v-field through F6 view to locate objects/vehicles, make a 5-6G U-turn, wait 20 seconds, make another 5-6G U-turn, hold "Y" 3 seconds a few seconds before the drop, bomb the object/GV - repeat up to 6 times. In between I sometimes had to dodge a tempest and/or a 109. The only reason some of my bombs missed is because my speed was always around or in excess of 300 mph, which left me very little time to put the cross-hair on a tiny GV once I see it through F6, so I made some proximity drops in the hope the blast radius will get them.
You have to remember this is YOUR experience at work. Picture a newb trying the same thing. Picture him running 1000 runs during his 2 week trial, how many "hits" would he get?
You and I wouldn't mind the "challenge" added but it would drive away the newbs. Make it optional.... LOL!!! nobody would use it. How many people have turned off the auto take off? While I have learned how take off and land with out any help from the game I have long since turned it back on. After I die a horrible death I just hit the launch button and as my plane rolls, climbs out Im AFK grabbing a beer, using the bathroom, knocking down the wife ack :D Im sure there are a VAST majority of players who still use auto take off.
If you make things harder newbs wont play, give them an option and they wont use it as most people wont, so why waste the time to implement it?
-
You consistently fail to realize that AH is a game.
It is a game that is supposed to simulate real physics for the equipment. It is very high fidelity when it comes to flight, ballistics of gun projectiles, the interaction of force and angle when it comes to piercing armor, and the pilot's biological limitations on G and stick forces. Thus real gunnery principles work, real ACM works, etc. The level bombing accuracy represents a glaring and inexplicable exception which allows level buffs to be used in a way that was impossible in real life. If the fighter gunnery modeling allowed regular 2000 yard air-to-air kills, most people would (rightfully) object to this unrealistic extreme.
-
You have to remember this is YOUR experience at work. Picture a newb trying the same thing. Picture him running 1000 runs during his 2 week trial, how many "hits" would he get?
I don't need to picture - I can recall.
During my 2 weeks trial do you know how many planes I shot down while in a fighter? One (1). Even that kill was on my last day and I still thought this was the most amazing game I have ever seen (never played air warrior or warbirds). Shelling out those 24.95$ (or was it 34.95$ back in 2001?) was one the easiest decision I ever made (the phone bill hurt me a lot more).
This is a difficult game because it uses as close to real physics as it can. 13 years later and I still learn new moves and analyze some of my fights that I lost. Face it, a two weeker will suck no matter what. By pulling it in the arcade direction you may get a few more noobs to subscribe, but far fewer will still be playing 13 years from now. Arcades are play and toss games. Of course, adding elves, RPG elements, AI-assisted mouse flying, and micro transactions will get you 10 times the number of players, but then will this be aces high? Please note that in what I suggested, bombers are still an order of magnitude more accurate than in real life and can still snipe structures and GVs from orbit - it just gets a bit more difficult with altitude, that is it.
-
Please note that in what I suggested, bombers are still an order of magnitude more accurate than in real life and can still snipe structures and GVs from orbit - it just gets a bit more difficult with altitude, that is it.
Right, and why is this more acceptable than a gunnery modeling that allowed regular 2,000 yard kills? There is no difference between the two except one is the status quo and the other is not.
-
Right, and why is this more acceptable than a gunnery modeling that allowed regular 2,000 yard kills? There is no difference between the two except one is the status quo and the other is not.
Fighters regularly get kills at ranges beyond the longest ranged gun kills in WWII in AH. It isn't different.
-
Karnak,
With the hit bubble gone, now days those kills are more of a pleasant surprise for the majority. Rather than the norm it once was. Bombs still can be dropped in a small swimming pool from 20k on demand. Too often a player will orbit around in a wide circle using the dt command, and pickle off a few bombs 5 seconds after the VH and radar comes back up. Or even the FH.
Still I take out town centers from level flight at 2000ft in a box of lancasters by toggling off the bombs the moment the buildings pass under my nose from the pilots seat. I have better things to do with my time than climb to 20k to be safe and use the bomb sight. The town ack kills off some of the drones and I get to shoot at fighters until they tower me. But, their town center is down while more piggies are on the way to finish it off. And I don't have to bother with the time flying back to land. Up a fighter and come back for the fun.
-
Karnak,
With the hit bubble gone, now days those kills are more of a pleasant surprise for the majority. Rather than the norm it once was. Bombs still can be dropped in a small swimming pool from 20k on demand. Too often a player will orbit around in a wide circle using the dt command, and pickle off a few bombs 5 seconds after the VH and radar comes back up. Or even the FH.
Still I take out town centers from level flight at 2000ft in a box of lancasters by toggling off the bombs the moment the buildings pass under my nose from the pilots seat. I have better things to do with my time than climb to 20k to be safe and use the bomb sight. The town ack kills off some of the drones and I get to shoot at fighters until they tower me. But, their town center is down while more piggies are on the way to finish it off. And I don't have to bother with the time flying back to land. Up a fighter and come back for the fun.
I have played online more since the hit bubble was removed than I did when the hit bubble existed. I, personally, have killed fighters from a fighter at over 1000 yards on multiple occasions. The longest range kill I am aware of in WWII was Beurling's freakish 800 yard kill of a Bf109. The rate at which fighters kill other fighters at long range is much higher in AH compared to WWII. We don't have wing flex going on, we don't have prop wash, we don't have turbulence. It all adds up to making long range kills far, far more common in AH than they were in reality.
-
Too often a player will orbit around in a wide circle using the dt command, and pickle off a few bombs 5 seconds after the VH and radar comes back up. Or even the FH.
that's pretty good airmanship if so.
good for them!
-
Limit fighters to 500lbs total ordnance capacity and then you can talk about making it harder on the bombers.
Late War heavy fighters have supplanted bombers for the most part, except in V Base attacks. Far quicker and easier to overwhelm a defense than climbing to alt in much more vulnerable bombers.
-
Limit fighters to 500lbs total ordnance capacity and then you can talk about making it harder on the bombers.
Late War heavy fighters have supplanted bombers for the most part, except in V Base attacks. Far quicker and easier to overwhelm a defense than climbing to alt in much more vulnerable bombers.
I was always a supporter of the perk ordnance idea that included the 1000 lbs. Not going to happen anytime soon.
You are wrong about heavy fighters. The are preferred for porking the ords and troops (dont need the 1000 lbers for that), but they are inefficient in dropping hangars - unless they come in a horde. A single heavy fighter can at best kill one hangar. By the time it did 3 trips to kill 3 FH on a small field, the first one will pop back up. A single heavy bomber (with drones) can shut down a small field in two passes by itself. All the hangars are destroyed in a short time span which means fighters are disabled for longer. Same goes for the 2 VHs on a V-base. If he does to the toilet with the newspaper while the bomber is on auto climb and gets to 20+k, there is almost nil chance that anyone will be high enough to stop him. Newspaper in the toilet should not guarantee you close the field.
Of course 3 heavy fighters can achieve the same thing, assuming they do not miss the drop - which they often do if they try to survive. The same 3 players flying in a 9 bombers box will have an excellent chance of achieving the same objective. More over, if they are not shot down on the first pass, they will still have plenty of bombs left for other structures, the town, the dar, or even just sniping the ack nests with one bomb each. Except bomber pilots very rarely join with other bomber pilots. I do not remember the last time I saw a tight 9 bombers box, not on a strats raid.
-
I, personally, have killed fighters from a fighter at over 1000 yards on multiple occasions.
I assume this was with nose-mounted Hispanos? Even if this is the case, this makes you one of the gunnery gods of AH, if not the premier one. I've been playing since 2006 and I don't know if I remember a single specific incidence of being killed at D1000. All my experience confirms that most pilots in most planes most of the time are simply wasting ammo outside of 500 yards, as was the case in WWII. That said, most of our guns are *physically* capable of thousand yard shooting, it is a matter of pilot skill, and some of our pilots have literal decades of gunnery practice. Recall that in Korea, the radar-ranging gunsight brought 1,000 yard hits into the real of plausibility for F-86 pilots. Our pilots don't have any such aids, but many do have thousands of times the gunnery practice any real pilot had, so thus some freakish shooting is to be expected. Compare this to the situation Bozon brought up, where bomber pilots snipe with an accuracy that probably IS physically implausible with no especially high level of skill whatsoever.
The rate at which fighters kill other fighters at long range is much higher in AH compared to WWII. We don't have wing flex going on, we don't have prop wash, we don't have turbulence. It all adds up to making long range kills far, far more common in AH than they were in reality.
I don't think this is really true, as I outlined above. Prop wash is an illogical thing to bring up in regards to long range shooting, as it would effect stability at close range much more than long range. In any case, there is considerable dispersion built into all guns to simulate such miscellany. Just type .target 1000, hit autolevel, and try it for yourself. Even with nose-mounted packages, the pattern made by fighter-mounted guns at 1000 yards is more accurately described as a "cloud" than a grouping. If we extrapolate this dispersion as compared to the sniping possible with bombs at 10, 15, 20K, then it is quite possibly the case that unguided munitions in this game are in some respects more accurate than gunfire!!!
-
Not only is all this true, but fighters carrying 2000+ pounds of bombs and rockets don't enjoy all that much of a performance advantage over many buffs (I've tested this) AND unlike bomber formations, they are nearly helpless to defend themselves without dumping their ord. Any reasonablye LW fighter can run them down from a co-alt start (remember they don't have the lazer ack of heavy bomber formations so a dead six chase isn't a problem) and force them to pickle their bombs or perish.
I was always a supporter of the perk ordnance idea that included the 1000 lbs. Not going to happen anytime soon.
You are wrong about heavy fighters. The are preferred for porking the ords and troops (dont need the 1000 lbers for that), but they are inefficient in dropping hangars - unless they come in a horde. A single heavy fighter can at best kill one hangar. By the time it did 3 trips to kill 3 FH on a small field, the first one will pop back up. A single heavy bomber (with drones) can shut down a small field in two passes by itself. All the hangars are destroyed in a short time span which means fighters are disabled for longer. Same goes for the 2 VHs on a V-base. If he does to the toilet with the newspaper while the bomber is on auto climb and gets to 20+k, there is almost nil chance that anyone will be high enough to stop him. Newspaper in the toilet should not guarantee you close the field.
Of course 3 heavy fighters can achieve the same thing, assuming they do not miss the drop - which they often do if they try to survive. The same 3 players flying in a 9 bombers box will have an excellent chance of achieving the same objective. More over, if they are not shot down on the first pass, they will still have plenty of bombs left for other structures, the town, the dar, or even just sniping the ack nests with one bomb each. Except bomber pilots very rarely join with other bomber pilots. I do not remember the last time I saw a tight 9 bombers box, not on a strats raid.
-
If he does to the toilet with the newspaper while the bomber is on auto climb and gets to 20+k, there is almost nil chance that anyone will be high enough to stop him.
I would debate that sir. Even if I'm the only one, that's more than nil.
-
Just tested probably the fasest "heavy" jabo, the P-51D with a max ord load. At 10,000 feet, the highest speed I could attain (running out the WEP) was close to 350 mph. The most ubiquitous fighter in the game, another P-51D, has about a 60mph speed advantage, while the second most ubiquitous, the SpitXVI has about a 40mph speed advantage, as does the La7. The very common hunter, the Fw-190D9, has the same WEP speed as the P-51D at that alt and has 9 minutes of WEP...you get the idea. Jabos are completely defenseless against being run down and forced to choose between being killed and pickling ordnance by numerous common fighters in the game.
-
I would debate that sir. Even if I'm the only one, that's more than nil.
Bozon's is the common game experience which your odd behavior does not refute Zoney. I do not intend disrespect Sir, but for most players your hunting practices would be sadomasochistic exercises in boredom almost as extreme as *real* hunting. Well, you probably don't play at 4:30 in the morning in a room chilled to 38 degrees, but the rest of the comparison stands. :salute
-
Maybe Bnz but I'm the hunter not the hunted so i really wouldn't know. From the buff pilots perspective, you guys that fly missions above 20k, what percentage would you say your flights are un-apposed?
-
Just tested probably the fasest "heavy" jabo, the P-51D with a max ord load. At 10,000 feet, the highest speed I could attain (running out the WEP) was close to 350 mph. The most ubiquitous fighter in the game, another P-51D, has about a 60mph speed advantage, while the second most ubiquitous, the SpitXVI has about a 40mph speed advantage, as does the La7. The very common hunter, the Fw-190D9, has the same WEP speed as the P-51D at that alt and has 9 minutes of WEP...you get the idea. Jabos are completely defenseless against being run down and forced to choose between being killed and pickling ordnance by numerous common fighters in the game.
Try some of the faster heavy fighters. P-51's 1700hp engine makes it rather poor for hauling ordnance. Including the climb to 10,000ft the P-38 is the fastest heavy fighter to target, followed by the Mosquito. Adding 2000lbs of bombs and, in the P-38's case 10 rockets, is a smaller percentage increase in weight and drag for the twin engined fighters. They are also working with about double the P-51's power.
-
Maybe Bnz but I'm the hunter not the hunted so i really wouldn't know. From the buff pilots perspective, you guys that fly missions above 20k, what percentage would you say your flights are un-apposed?
Depends on my bomber. G4M1, about 66% to 75%, Ki-67, perhaps half of that and almost none in the Mossie XVI. I fly the Japanese bombers at about 22,000ft and the Mossie at 28,000ft.
-
Maybe Bnz but I'm the hunter not the hunted so i really wouldn't know. From the buff pilots perspective, you guys that fly missions above 20k, what percentage would you say your flights are un-apposed?
I haven't flown buffs in a couple of years now but when I did regularily I'd estimate:
Lancasters @ 23K - 60-70% unopposed
Bostons @ 18K - 50-60% unopposed
AR234's @ 16K - 95%+ unopposed
Being opposed meaning there was a real and serious threat to my aircraft.
Regarding distance shots, I've gotten plenty of kills over the years at 1000 but never beyond that. I also set most of my convergences at 650 so there's less dispursion at long distances.
As to Jabos being meat on the table for fighters I've fought to victory on many many occasions in the F6F-5 without dropping my rockets (I rarely do if engaged) and occasionally with my 1K bombs and rockets still attached. Of course I always fly fighters with 100% internal too. I ignore the weight and do my best with what I have which is no different than flying any "inferior" plane in the MA.
-
Maybe Bnz but I'm the hunter not the hunted so i really wouldn't know. From the buff pilots perspective, you guys that fly missions above 20k, what percentage would you say your flights are un-apposed?
Let me answer it this way:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/bombrcombatlusch_zpsaba39770.jpg)
As you can see if you compare B-17 and B-25C, altitude alone doesn't mean much, the chances of being intercepted depend on several factors.
-
Let me answer it this way:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/bombrcombatlusch_zpsaba39770.jpg)
As you can see if you compare B-17 and B-25C, altitude alone doesn't mean much, the chances of being intercepted depend on several factors.
Good god! do you fill in a report after every sortie?
I am sure that there is a medical term to whatever it is the condition you have - "Statistichosis"?
Mission profile and environment matter a lot. We are discussing here mainly bombers over front bases bombing the field and/or town.
Bombers that are headed to the strats usually give enough early clues to attract dedicated bomber-hunters. The latter will arrive in suitable fighters and climb as high as necessary to meet the bombers (I am sure you know that Snailman, I think you are one of them). However, over the front, it is difficult to differentiate 25k B17s from a 3k Brewter, until they are within dot range. The very few fighters you may randomly encounter over the front at 20+k are usually noobs in P51s. In very very rare occasion you may find one of the few alt-monkey vets :p. Still, at 25k fighters have a hard time positioning for an effective attack on the bombers, if the latter have picked up their speed. On top of that, it depends whether the bomber attacks a deserted field or one that supports an ongoing furball.
What does "a2a combat" means in your table?
-
Good god! do you fill in a report after every sortie?
I am sure that there is a medical term to whatever it is the condition you have - "Statistichosis"?
Mission profile and environment matter a lot. We are discussing here mainly bombers over front bases bombing the field and/or town.
Bombers that are headed to the strats usually give enough early clues to attract dedicated bomber-hunters. The latter will arrive in suitable fighters and climb as high as necessary to meet the bombers (I am sure you know that Snailman, I think you are one of them). However, over the front, it is difficult to differentiate 25k B17s from a 3k Brewter, until they are within dot range. The very few fighters you may randomly encounter over the front at 20+k are usually noobs in P51s. In very very rare occasion you may find one of the few alt-monkey vets :p. Still, at 25k fighters have a hard time positioning for an effective attack on the bombers, if the latter have picked up their speed. On top of that, it depends whether the bomber attacks a deserted field or one that supports an ongoing furball.
What does "a2a combat" means in your table?
My guess would be Air to Air combat meaning he had to fight his way in/out.
Nearly half his missions ARE to bases/town. Check out the "Boston, G4M, HE111" groups. 155 missions and a third of the time he runs into a fight losing twice as many planes as he takes down.. Seems like many get to find good angles to make good killing runs.
-
Good god! do you fill in a report after every sortie?
Only for bomber sorties: Date, time, plane, mission type, target country, fuels settings & bomb loadout, altitude, actual dropped tonnage, destroyed targets, kills & deaths by type, sortie duration, perk gain, displayed damage, score points,remarks.
Sheet computes immediately computes things actual lb of destruction, bombing efficiency, perk efficiency, as well of derived statistics by plane, by mission type and so on.
I am sure that there is a medical term to whatever it is the condition you have - "Statistichosis"?
It's fairly limited to AH, so it's not really chronic yet :D
What does "a2a combat" means in your table?
Air to air. Just wanted to make clear that the kills & deaths did not include GV or AA fire.
-
Bombers that are headed to the strats usually give enough early clues to attract dedicated bomber-hunters.
It used to be that way. With the disperesed strats we now have, it's often difficult to impossible to identify factory attackers early enough. Many factories are now very close to the front line, and you can't know if that darbar next to your own base is ib the base or to the strats.
And as the factory downtime is still 180 mins, it also still pays off to invest 60 mins to climb to 30k. And there's no way to intercept such a 30k strat raider over the frontline strats.
Bombing the factories has become a very safe thing now... there ain't even any puffy ack any more.
-
Try some of the faster heavy fighters. P-51's 1700hp engine makes it rather poor for hauling ordnance. Including the climb to 10,000ft the P-38 is the fastest heavy fighter to target, followed by the Mosquito. Adding 2000lbs of bombs and, in the P-38's case 10 rockets, is a smaller percentage increase in weight and drag for the twin engined fighters. They are also working with about double the P-51's power.
The 3200 horsepower P-38L at 10,000 feet with half fuel and a max ord load will go 343 on WEP, thus making it slightly more vulnerable to being run down and shot by common late war fighters than was the case for the P-51, and of course, it much more vulnerable to being run down after the drop, if surviving the drop is an important consideration.
Let me sum up an argument some people are using on this thread: These people admit that bombing accuracy is far, far greater than is plausible for real life, but they say it must stay this way, because if level bombing "precision" was made realistic people would use jabos instead of bombers for certain jobs (hitting individual buildings, vehicles, ships that sort of thing) that dive-bombers were selected for in real life, precisely because in real life (but not in Aces High) dive bombing was far more accurate than level bombing. So stated even more succinctly, some people are arguing in favor of an unrealistic modeling aspect so that players may use bombers in unrealistic mission profiles, instead of using dive-bombers for the sort of missions they were actually used for. I think that line of "reasoning" deserves about a million of these little guys :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: but I'll content myself with a baker's dozen.
-
If were able to launch a bomb mission w 100+ buffs then we could have real world accuracy on level bombing but for now we have to compensate for the low number of buffs in a raid by having more accurate bomb sights. Nothing in this game can be called realistic in any way. Its a game - live with it. 10000hrs in a P-51 in the game will not take u any closer to being able to fly a real one. But why not demanding complex engine managment, no radars. Bad wheather etc etc if we want realism.
-
The 3200 horsepower P-38L at 10,000 feet with half fuel and a max ord load will go 343 on WEP, thus making it slightly more vulnerable to being run down and shot by common late war fighters than was the case for the P-51, and of course, it much more vulnerable to being run down after the drop, if surviving the drop is an important consideration.
Let me sum up an argument some people are using on this thread: These people admit that bombing accuracy is far, far greater than is plausible for real life, but they say it must stay this way, because if level bombing "precision" was made realistic people would use jabos instead of bombers for certain jobs (hitting individual buildings, vehicles, ships that sort of thing) that dive-bombers were selected for in real life, precisely because in real life (but not in Aces High) dive bombing was far more accurate than level bombing. So stated even more succinctly, some people are arguing in favor of an unrealistic modeling aspect so that players may use bombers in unrealistic mission profiles, instead of using dive-bombers for the sort of missions they were actually used for. I think that line of "reasoning" deserves about a million of these little guys :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: but I'll content myself with a baker's dozen.
If this game were in any way based on real life, we would all only use P-51D/F4U-4/Tempest/262/B-29/TigerII/Wirble ;) and never go back to anything less.
-
Before you continue with the sim vs. game arguments, I just wanted to point out that the OP was made entirely with gameplay in mind. The suggested solution was based on realism argument but was not intended to make level bombing entirely realistic. Not at all.
-
If this game were in any way based on real life, we would all only use P-51D/F4U-4/Tempest/262/B-29/TigerII/Wirble ;) and never go back to anything less.
This game is supposed to be based on the physics of real life. That is why bullets fired from a given gun disperse instead of staying in as tight a group 1000 yards as they were in at 50 yards. Since I've been playing, the optics on tanks have been redesigned to conform more closely with real life. These are two examples of AH's general commitment to physical realism when it comes to modeling the equipment. Level bombing accuracy is a startling and bizarre exception to this principle. If you want to say "well it's just a game anyway" that opens the door to making every other aspect arcade-mode as well. Why not also get rid of black-out, red-out, stalls, and spins to make dogfighting (arguably) more "fun"? Why have the complex modeling of armor piercing for GVS, it just seems to piss people off anyway? Etc.
-
But u dont want bombers to bomb your hangars because u want to fight? How realistic is that? We maybe should make the runways destructable and have real bomb craters so buffs can turn a field into a moon landscape. That would be more realistic.
-
This game is supposed to be based on the physics of real life. That is why bullets fired from a given gun disperse instead of staying in as tight a group 1000 yards as they were in at 50 yards. Since I've been playing, the optics on tanks have been redesigned to conform more closely with real life. These are two examples of AH's general commitment to physical realism when it comes to modeling the equipment. Level bombing accuracy is a startling and bizarre exception to this principle. If you want to say "well it's just a game anyway" that opens the door to making every other aspect arcade-mode as well. Why not also get rid of black-out, red-out, stalls, and spins to make dogfighting (arguably) more "fun"? Why have the complex modeling of armor piercing for GVS, it just seems to piss people off anyway? Etc.
You do realize that bombs do the same in AH, right? Just as we don't suffer wing flex and buffeting as causes of increased dispersion in fighters, so the same is true for bombers and bomber gun mounts.
-
Oh where to begin with this?
If were able to launch a bomb mission w 100+ buffs then we could have real world accuracy on level bombing but for now we have to compensate for the low number of buffs in a raid by having more accurate bomb sights.
Launching 100 buffs on a raid in this game would be perfectly realistic-IF and ONLY if you had 1,000 players to man the various crew positions. Allowing one player to control 3 planes and effectively do the work of 30 crewmen is already a very large realism compromise.
Nothing in this game can be called realistic in any way.
Really, so you think HTC fudged on the flight models, the ballistics, the armor penetration modeling, etc? It looks to me more like they went to a lot of trouble to base those things on real world data.
Its a game - live with it. 10000hrs in a P-51 in the game will not take u any closer to being able to fly a real one.
Hitech once flew in a mock dogfighting tourney against ex-military aviators...and won.
But why not demanding complex engine
I've played a sim with complex engine management before actually. What complex engine management amounts to is pushing a few more buttons to get off the ground, and that's about it. It makes zero difference to the tactics of dogfighting. Extra button pushing or not, a 190 still performs like a 190, a Spit still performs like a Spit It is completely unlike a situation where level bombers can snipe individual buildings on a field from 20K, when in reality it might be difficult for them to reliably hit the field itself from that alt.
managment, no radars. Bad wheather etc etc if we want realism.
Most fighters in WWII didn't have onboard radar, but they sometimes DID have radar controllers radioing them vectors to the enemy, including a good idea of the altitude of the enemy. Sooooo.......
"Bad wheather?" Hmmm...unlike sniping from 20K, CAVU days actually sometimes occur in the real world. :devil
-
You do realize that bombs do the same in AH, right?
The accuracy of a bomb-an unguided munition dumped from the bay and stabilized with freakin' fins-in AH is greater than the accuracy of rifled projectiles fired from our guns. This can be demonstrated by comparing what is possible with high-alt bomb drops against the dispersion one sees with guns at just 1,000 yards using the .target command. When bombs stay inside a tighter MOA cone than rifled projectiles, something may be just a tad off, wouldn't ya say?
Just as we don't suffer wing flex and buffeting as causes of increased dispersion in fighters, so the same is true for bombers and bomber gun mounts.
Gunfire in AH plainly DOES disperse, as can be demonstrated by the .target command. If you have evidence that the dispersion is insufficient, I would be interested in hearing about it. However, as game distortions go, the bombing accuracy is a far more obvious and glaring distortion than the putative excessive accuracy of guns you mention.
-
But u dont want bombers to bomb your hangars because u want to fight? How realistic is that?
Being able to shut down all fighters upping from a 625 square mile area by bombing three closely grouped buildings? Now THAT is totally unrealistic.
We maybe should make the runways destructable and have real bomb craters so buffs can turn a field into a moon landscape. That would be more realistic.
Go ahead and make runways destructible-IF you will let fighters up and land successfully from any long strip of grass in the general vicinity of the airport. :devil WWII fighters could and often did operate from the sort of improvised runway that could be built in less than a day and easily repaired in the wake of any bombing raids. German fighters near the end operated from stretches of the Autobahn...
-
Oh where to begin with this?
Launching 100 buffs on a raid in this game would be perfectly realistic-IF and ONLY if you had 1,000 players to man the various crew positions. Allowing one player to control 3 planes and effectively do the work of 30 crewmen is already a very large realism compromise.
Really, so you think HTC fudged on the flight models, the ballistics, the armor penetration modeling, etc? It looks to me more like they went to a lot of trouble to base those things on real world data.
Hitech once flew in a mock dogfighting tourney against ex-military aviators...and won.
I've played a sim with complex engine management before actually. What complex engine management amounts to is pushing a few more buttons to get off the ground, and that's about it. It makes zero difference to the tactics of dogfighting. Extra button pushing or not, a 190 still performs like a 190, a Spit still performs like a Spit It is completely unlike a situation where level bombers can snipe individual buildings on a field from 20K, when in reality it might be difficult for them to reliably hit the field itself from that alt.
Most fighters in WWII didn't have onboard radar, but they sometimes DID have radar controllers radioing them vectors to the enemy, including a good idea of the altitude of the enemy. Sooooo.......
"Bad wheather?" Hmmm...unlike sniping from 20K, CAVU days actually sometimes occur in the real world. :devil
3 buffs dont compensate for a 100. If we could drop a 1000 tons of ords on a field then accuracy would not be an issue
. but now we have to do the same job with 5-15k of ords. Thats why we need better accuracy.
The fact that AH won against real aviators prove notthing more than that i was right. U cannot compare this game w the real world. In the real world they dont brought troops to a flag to take a field, they dont up from a field with lots of cons over it just to get "a good fight". U simply have to compromise w reality in order to make a game that is playable for most players.
But if u want realism, then we should have the abillity to cut of fuel supply on a base. With all fuel tanks gone, no fuel. That would be fun right...
-
3 buffs dont compensate for a 100. If we could drop a 1000 tons of ords on a field then accuracy would not be an issue
. but now we have to do the same job with 5-15k of ords. Thats why we need better accuracy.
You don't get the point. Level bombing is ALREADY highly unrealistic without any sniping ability on top of it because one player can fly a 3 ship box. In reality this was the job of thirty men. But you sit here and say that this is not enough, that you want one person to have the ability to do the job of (your words, your estimate) one THOUSAND men. Really? You want a level of bombing power that in reality took 1,000 men in your lone, individual hands? Why then, when I up to intercept your formation I want to be able to take 999 AI fighters along to help me. It is absolutely the same in principle.
Meanwhile, a single player flying fighters can fly, get this, one single-seat fighter. A tanker can control multiple positions, but he still gets only one tank. A situation equivalent to the bomber mess in fighters would be one pilot able to fly with two "spare" fighters in formation with him that fired in parallel. An equivalent situation in GVs would be a tanker able to up with two flak "drones" shadowing him for protection. These examples show how many advantages level bombers are handed over everything else in the game, how bizarrely unbalanced the situation really is compared to everything else in the game. And you want physically impossible bombing accuracy on top of all that? :rofl
The fact that AH won against real aviators prove notthing more than that i was right.
Ummm, Hitech won a mock dogfighting tournament that involved flying REAL PLANES while competing against military aviators. I must say, this is a very important part of AH lore/culture for you to have totally missed.
U cannot compare this game w the real world.
This game is compared to the real world all the time, especially by its creator. As I have pointed out already, Hitech and team have done vast amounts of work gathering real world data for the planes, weapons, and vehicles. This seems like a rather odd thing to do if the objective isn't simulating the attributes and abilities of the gear we play with in this game.
U simply have to compromise w reality in order to make a game that is playable for most players.
Well yes, there are some compromises necessary, such as the no one really dying bit. However, allowing entitled hangar banger types to easy-mode smart-bomb levels of accuracy with WWII munitions is hardly necessary to making the game playable. Bombing realistically is too hard? Bah, if some player were to say "Gunnery is too hard! Turn on the lead computing sight in the MA!" he would be ignored, and rightly so. But the easy-mode level bombing accuracy we have right now is as unrealistic as having the computer gun sight turned on during dogfights, perhaps more so, and no one bats an eye.
-
one THOUSAND men.
A thousand men you say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mANx3L-N0yU&list=RDmANx3L-N0yU
-
Our bomb sights is doing exactly like the real ones, the only things that differ is that we fly in a very predictable environrment. We know our exact ground speed and the wind conditions and thats why we can have pin point accuracy.
Lancasters with SABS-sights had an accuracy of <90 yards from 20.000 feet during the war. If they had flown in the same conditions as we do they also would have been able to drop on a single building. Its the same thing for the fighters, lack of wind and wing flex makes guns more accurate than they where in real life.
-
Our bomb sights is doing exactly like the real ones,
Really, with real bomb sights you hold down a single button for a bit, put the crosshairs on target and that's it? Funny, I thought being a bombardier required a good bit of training. I also am given to understand that flying a perfect formation of even 3 ships was a little bit harder than firewalling the throttle and hitting "X"...
Lancasters with SABS-sights had an accuracy of <90 yards from 20.000 feet during the war. If they had flown in the same conditions as we do they also would have been able to drop on a single building.
Tests like that are always done under perfect conditions (good visibility, calm air, excellent crew.) In reality the British decided that daylight precision bombing was a waste and went in for carpet bombing at night. Under the conditions we fly under, realistically a Lancaster (with a very skilled operator) should be accurate to ~90 yards, because conditions like we fly under were actively sought after for conducting tests of such equipment.
Its the same thing for the fighters, lack of wind and wing flex makes guns more accurate than they where in real life.
If you can be bothered to up any fighter with nose-mounted guns and test the pattern with the .target command at various yardages, you will be able to plainly see that a considerable bit of random dispersion IS built into guns in Aces High. If you are alleging that there is not enough, then the burden of proof is on you. Most players rarely kill outside of 300, rarely damage outside of 500, and rarely do much of anything beyond 800. I will also point out that any excess MOA of accuracy fighter guns may have is useless to probably 95% of the player base, for the same reason that high-end extremely accurate rifle doesn't convey much if any advantage to an average hunter shooting deer at 100 yards. Aiming fighter guns has not been bizarrely made easy-mode (as I say, the equivalent of our bomb drop accuracy would be turning on the lead computing sight in the MA) so most players cannot use any superlative accuracy that may exist.
-
1. U really dont want to understand do u..?
2- It was achieved during combat operations and under far from perfect conditions.
3. I dont have anything against manual bomb sight. As i have said earlier, u should be able to choose between auto and maual bomb sights and that auto bomb sight should be less accurate than the manual one.
4. We fly in perfect conditions with a predictable wind and a known ground speed. Under those circumstances pin point accuraccy can be achieved. Want to change that -add random wheather. But as i said, we cannot up 100+ bombers to compensate for less accuracy, carpet bombing with 3 buffs is kinda silly and adding a random factor to the bomb drop will simply turn buffs to hangar queens.
So: lack of accuracy in level bombing during the war was a result of lack of precision in the calculations of Ground speed and wind. We dont have any problems with that in AH, therefore is the accuracy is higher.
-
Tests like that are always done under perfect conditions (good visibility, calm air, excellent crew.) In reality the British decided that daylight precision bombing was a waste and went in for carpet bombing at night. Under the conditions we fly under, realistically a Lancaster (with a very skilled operator) should be accurate to ~90 yards, because conditions like we fly under were actively sought after for conducting tests of such equipment.
Read more and don't base your assumptions on 1941.
-
1. U really dont want to understand do u..?
What is there to understand? You, as an individual player, think you should able to have an effect in the game that in reality took 100 bombers and 1,000 crewmen to inflict. The only part I don't understand is why you fail to realize this is absurd.
2- It was achieved during combat operations and under far from perfect conditions.
"The Norden bombsight was developed during a period of United States non-interventionism when the dominant U.S. military strategy was the defense of the U.S. and its possessions. A considerable amount of this strategy was based on stopping attempted invasions by sea, both with direct naval power, and starting in the 1930s, with USAAC airpower.[21] Most air forces of the era invested heavily in dive bombers or torpedo bombers for these roles, but these aircraft generally had limited range; long-range strategic reach would require the use of an aircraft carrier. The Army felt the combination of the Norden and B-17 Flying Fortress presented an alternate solution, believing that small formations of B-17s could successfully attack shipping at long distances from the USAAC's widespread bases. The high altitudes the Norden allowed would help increase the range of the aircraft, especially if equipped with a turbocharger, as with each of the four Wright Cyclone 9 radial engines of the B-17.
In 1940, Barth claimed that "we do not regard a 15 square feet (1.4 m2) ... as being a very difficult target to hit from an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,100 m)".[22] At some point the company started using the pickle barrel imagery, to re-enforce the bombsight's reputation. After the device became publicly known in 1942, In 1943 the Norden company rented Madison Square Garden and folded their own show in between the presentations of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Their show involved dropping a wooden "bomb" into a pickle barrel, at which point a pickle popped out.[23]
These claims were greatly exaggerated; in 1940 the average score for an Air Corps bombardier was a circular error of 120 metres (400 ft) from 4,600 metres (15,000 ft), not 4.6 m from 9,100 m[/b]
However, as at sea, in early missions over Europe the Norden likewise demonstrated widely varied results. Over Bremen-Vegesack on 19 March 1943, the 303d Bombardment Group dropped 76% of its load within a 300 metres (1,000 ft) ring, representing a CEP well under 300 m (1,000 ft). But on wider inspection, only 50% of American bombs fell within a 400 metres (1⁄4 mi) of the target, and American flyers estimated that as many as 90% of bombs could miss their targets.[30][31][32] The average CEP in 1943 was 370 metres (1,200 ft), meaning that only 16% of the bombs fell within 300 metres (1,000 ft) of the aiming point. A 230-kilogram (500 lb) bomb, standard for precision missions after 1943, had a lethal radius of only 18 to 27 metres (60 to 90 ft).[21]"
4. But as i said, we cannot up 100+ bombers to compensate for less accuracy
You can up 102 bombers IF you have 34 players to fly them. This is at least 68 fewer players than it SHOULD take to up 102 bombers. For absolute realism, it should take about 1,020 men to properly operate the heavies. But being able, as an individual player, to effectively operate 3 planes that it took 30 men to operate in actuality is not enough for you. You say that ONE bomber pilot in this war-equipment simulation should be able to have the same effect as ONE HUNDRED BOMBERS did in real life. But why stop there? Why not give fighter pilots 99 AI wingmen so they can also have the same effect as 100 fighters in the game? It would actually be LESS ridiculous than the bomber situation, because 100 single-seat fighters only required 100 crewmen to operate, not the thousands required to operate a similar number of bombers. On that note, why not let an individual T-34 drivers command a flock of 100 tanks? Then it would look like the Russian front...there is no rational reason to single buffs out for the kind of special treatment you are advocating.
,random factor to the bomb drop will simply turn buffs to hangar queens.
This is not true for many reasons, but even if it were so, so what? The P-40C is largely a hangar queen for many reasons, shall we give it super-powers to encourage people to fly it?
-
Meanwhile, a single player flying fighters can fly, get this, one single-seat fighter. A tanker can control multiple positions, but he still gets only one tank. A situation equivalent to the bomber mess in fighters would be one pilot able to fly with two "spare" fighters in formation with him that fired in parallel. An equivalent situation in GVs would be a tanker able to up with two flak "drones" shadowing him for protection. These examples show how many advantages level bombers are handed over everything else in the game, how bizarrely unbalanced the situation really is compared to everything else in the game.
This isn't exactly true. Players in the game were allowed buff formations to account for the lack of six individual gunners (in certain aircraft) that could all fire in different directions at different targets at the same time. Even in the current formations they lack that ability. With death being the most likely outcome faced with multiple attackers buff drivers were allowed additional aircraft. I see no correlation to a fighter pilot or GVer getting additional aircraft or GVs (although I could see a possible argument for GVers as they also have multiple gun positions but the frequency of them being used at the same time is almost nil in comparison to bombers).
That said I'm all for the return of the deathstar. It's been far too long. That was a really really fun aspect of AW although it could tie up eight people in a single buff (six gunners plus pilot and bombardier) making fights in the arena even harder to find.
In reality the British decided that daylight precision bombing was a waste and went in for carpet bombing at night. Under the conditions we fly under, realistically a Lancaster (with a very skilled operator) should be accurate to ~90 yards, because conditions like we fly under were actively sought after for conducting tests of such equipment.
Didn't the Brits decide to stop daytime bombing because they didn't have fighters that could escort them that deep into enemy territory and their bombers were being eaten alive? That's a completely different story than the precision of the drop as a reason to change tactics. I imagine they made the right decision but not for the reasons you insinuate.
-
"Operationally the SABS far outperformed the Norden. In 1945, the 8th Air Forcewas demonstrating accuracy of about 900 yards (820 m) circular error probable,[29] nowhere near the performance of the SABS-equipped 617th, which reached 80 yards (73 m) during this same period. However, the 8th was also flying at higher altitudes on missions deep within Germany, facing considerably stronger defences and bombing en masse, often through various cloud densities, of 1/10th to 10/10th, often using an on board ground radar providing only a rough view of the target. [5] Moreover, the 617 was a crack unit of veteran crews."
I havent said anything about the norden sight
Most Bombers didnt even had a bomb sight onboard. They dropped when the leader did. So therefore the accuracy was very low.
We dont bomb like the 8th AF did ( we tested it for fun, and the accuracy where not excatly pin point) we bomb more like the 617th but with even better ability to compensate for the wind.
And if u want to know: at 25k+ its hard to even see your target in the bomb sight, the reason its still possible to hit individual hangars is that all bases look the same so u know where they are anyway.
And btw: almost noone bombs hangars from 25k feet. Most buffs are btw 10-15k.
-
Didn't the Brits decide to stop daytime bombing because they didn't have fighters that could escort them that deep into enemy territory and their bombers were being eaten alive? That's a completely different story than the precision of the drop as a reason to change tactics. I imagine they made the right decision but not for the reasons you insinuate.
This is true, and he is still obsessing over early war data that predates the navigational and bomb aiming enhancements that were developed during the war. By 1944 Lancasters bombing at night were more accurate than B-17s bombing during the day with the vaunted Norden bombsight.
-
This isn't exactly true. Players in the game were allowed buff formations to account for the lack of six individual gunners (in certain aircraft) that could all fire in different directions at different targets at the same time. Even in the current formations they lack that ability.
6 gunners would be fine, *IF THE EFFORTS OF 6 PLAYERS* were being taken up gunning for that plane. Of course, those six players could not simultaneously be effecting the combat elsewhere while gunning, which is perfectly fair. But that is not how it is in AH. With formation and bomber modeling as it is, one individual can essentially effect the combat in a way that in reality took the efforts of 3 pilots and multiple other crewmen. Meanwhile, one guy upping a single-seat fighter has one plane that it took one guy to fly. One fighter pilot can have the effect of...let me do the math here...yep, 1 fighter pilot. Tanks in reality did require multiple crewmen and AH makes some compromises so one person can effectively operate them, but at least each GVer still gets only one GV. When you look fighter/attack planes, GVs, and level bombers, one of these things is not like the other.
Then Zimme comes along and claims that himself alone sitting in his computer chair being able to control 3 planes that in reality took 30 men to crew is NOT enough. No, he thinks bombers ought to be handed enough reality-compromising advantages that his lone self can have the same effect as ONE HUNDRED bombers which in reality required thousands of crewmen to operate!!! :confused: :huh :headscratch: There is absolutely no difference between this and me asking for up to 999 AI wingmen to accompany me on fighter sorties, which is to say both notions are completely absurd. But most people do not think deeply especially when it comes to the status quo, thus they fail to judge the bomber modeling with the same consistency.
Bombers have been handed so many compromise arcade-mode advantages over F/A and GVs that really, if you are doing anything to effect the "war" OTHER than piloting bombers, you are most likely wasting your time. Now if one doesn't care about the war this won't bother one personally, but surely the fact that the outcome fighter-on-fighter engagements is almost irrelevant to who wins maps compared to bombing inanimate objects can't be good in the long term for a WWII air combat game named "Aces High".
That said I'm all for the return of the deathstar. It's been far too long. That was a really really fun aspect of AW although it could tie up eight people in a single buff (six gunners plus pilot and bombardier) making fights in the arena even harder to find.
I highly favor multiple gunners being able to join a bomber. That would be handing each individual player a position that was handled in reality by...drumroll please...ONE individual. That is perfect as far as I'm concerned. BUT, if multiple players were allowed to join a bomber, I would expect some compromise back in the direction of reality, such as as one player no longer having every single gun in the formation with a line of sight to the target under his control. One player could jump between controlling the 3 tail guns, the 3 ball turrets, etc. Letting one person control 3 positions on the 3 separate planes is still a big compromise, but an acceptable one IMO. With two players, six of the positions in the formation could be fired simultaneously (and independently, no less). Would this make bombers with 8 players joined more effective and less vulnerable than bomber formations with only one player in control, on average? Yes it would, and this how it SHOULD be, because you would have the efforts of 8 players tied up in that formation instead of driving their own bombers, flying F/A, or GVing elsewhere, and that is a fair balance. As currently modeled though, bombers self-defend so well with only one person that there is hardly any point in having even one person join a formation to gun.
-
Drone guns convergence at 500 yards so most of the time their guns are useless because they wont hit anything. Only if the fighter pilot decides to go to the spot where all the gun convergence he will have to worry about the fire from the drones. I only fire the gun im in until that poor numbnut goes into convergence distance. A really good fighter pilot have little to fear from a set of buffs.
Why do u want to add a random factor to bombing that doesn't exist even in the real world? Bombs fall in a very predictable pattern, look at videos from real bomb runs. Only difference btw AH and the real deal is. 1) In AH we do a lot more bomb runs against targets we know exactly where they are and what they look like and 2) We don't have any unknown factors affecting the aiming (wind and wheather). Bombs don't falls randomly, aim right and they land spot on.
If we upped 100 buffs and all dropped when the leader did our accuracy would be just as bad as it was in WW2.
But as i said: I'm positive to a manual bomb sight that require some skills to use and that the auto bomb sight only remain accurate up to 15k.
It is very obvious that this is just another part of your "get rid of anything that can destroy my fighter hangars" campain. But (too bad for u) the MA is more than just up-and-die fights that u like (play in the DA instead). But u should focus on the JABO:s instead, they are the ones that kills your fun.
And No - i didn´t say that i should be able to do the job of 100 buffs, i said that we cannot use 100 buffs to carpet bomb a single base and because of that we use a different tactic. I will btw gladly see u take 999 fighter drones with u, they will do excatly as u do and if u turn too tight u will loose them :aok
-
Bombs do not fall in a very predicable pattern. Air density/temperature, humidity, wind, rain, Coriolis effect and I'm sure many other variables affect where a bomb will hit. The higher you fly the more these variables will affect the bombs.
-
Dose things effect mostly the aiming, not the drop. 2 bombs dropped at the same time will end up very close to each other. Drop a stick of bombs and they will land close to a straight line. And there are some randomness in how the bomb falls in the game, they don't fall in a completely straight line so those factors are simulated pretty good.
-
As currently modeled though, bombers self-defend so well with only one person that there is hardly any point in having even one person join a formation to gun.
Yet bombers still have roughly half the K/D ratio of fighters.
-
Yet bombers still have roughly half the K/D ratio of fighters.
That includes suicide lancs and all sorts of other dweebery...
-
Bombs do not fall in a very predicable pattern. Air density/temperature, humidity, wind, rain, Coriolis effect and I'm sure many other variables affect where a bomb will hit. The higher you fly the more these variables will affect the bombs.
The scatter of the claster may not vary by much, but the deviation of the center from the aiming point will. The latter is mostly due to imperfect calibration - I.e. the input of the speed, wind and altitude parameters. Due to the way they are measured, the accuracy drops with altitude, which brings us back to the OP.
Yet bombers still have roughly half the K/D ratio of fighters.
Anything above 0.3 k/d for the bombers is good because you have 3 bombers/lives per player. k/d>0.33 means that on average a player facing another in a fighter has better chances to win when he brings a bomber than when he brings a fighter.
The parity limit should actually be less that 0.33 because this assumes the 3 bombers survive every time the buffs win.
-
k/d ratio don't say that much. A lot of bomber kills is GV:s and many players fly suicide missions in buffs at low alt.
Against a not-so-good bomber hunter buffs can reach a 1:1 k/d ratio while facing a good buff hunter the bombers score way below <0,33 in k/d ratio. But as long as the fighters keep coming in at the bombers six o'clock they are going to be shot down just as often as they get a kill.
-
Anything above 0.3 k/d for the bombers is good because you have 3 bombers/lives per player. k/d>0.33 means that on average a player facing another in a fighter has better chances to win when he brings a bomber than when he brings a fighter.
If I'm not mistaken the k/d ratio for the Lancaster is around 0,14. That's the most flown bomber in the game.
Other bombers don't fare much better, I don't think any of them even surpasses the 0,3 mark. Even accounting for the 3 bombers in a formation (and therefore equating 3 bombers to 1 fighter), the Lancaster k/d ratio would be around 0,42. The average fighter k/d is around 0,9. So if we define "whinning" by downing the 3 bombers or the single fighter, we still see that the fighter will win twice as often.
That's why I see BnZ's complains about bombers being too difficult to shoot down as ridiculous. The average buff pilot loses two whole formations (6 aircraft) for every enemy fighter he destroys.
-
Above all else, killing bombers requires patience. You can work on your interception, angles, speed and gunnery but without patience, you will only find yourself on their 6, and dead.
If I have nothing else, I have patience. 46 bomber kills this month with zero deaths, or bails, or ditches. I call out bombers when I see them and I do share. More than half the time I'm getting the kill after the other fighters have flown up their 6, wounded the buff and the died before the buff goes down. We got all day, he can't run away, what's your rush?
This post is not about my numbers, it's about your numbers. I'm not a great stick but I can shoot down buffs without damage because I am patient. It is always my goal to kill all 3 without 1 ping on myself which is not impossible to do. Then I've got an undamaged plane and can re-arm to hunt a few more.
Bottom line, I'd like the buff pilots to have more of a chance of surviving. How we do that, I'm sorry I have no idea.
-
Bottom line, I'd like the buff pilots to have more of a chance of surviving. How we do that, I'm sorry I have no idea.
That's easy, we simply have to do like they did during the war. Escort the bombers or fly at night. Unescorted bombers have a very hard time surviving against fighters if the fighters are flown by good pilots.
This tour I'm 3-6 in bombers (combat losses), all kills was guys lining up on my six. I lost one set of 26:s when i ran into 5 cons over a CV. (one kill) And i lost a set of B-17 to a spit over nit city. A good pilot that didn't give me any chance. His buddy in a moss did the six o'clock run and died before he even scratched any of my bombers.
Last kill was in a single Tu against a La. Again approaching from dead six.
So: if u wanna live against buffs, stay out of the cone of death. If u have 1-2 seconds to shoot before the fighter is out of range again its very hard to land any lethal hits on him. Don't go within 1k from the buffs unless u are going in for a shot and don't be there for more than a few seconds.
-
That's easy, we simply have to do like they did during the war. Escort the bombers or fly at night. Unescorted bombers have a very hard time surviving against fighters if the fighters are flown by good pilots.
Excellent point, you are absolutely right.
I fly knights, what do you fly? What's your in-game handle? Have we met in the skies, fighter vs. buffs yet sir?
-
Other bombers don't fare much better, I don't think any of them even surpasses the 0,3 mark
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/lwbuffsa2a_zpsefb95966.jpg)
Strictly air to air K/D
As being both an avid bomber hunter and bomber pilot myself, I can only state that those "high" K/D's for B-17 or B-24 only exist because the majority of AH fighter pilots stupidly insist on attacking from 6 o clock. Yes, it's not a matter of skill but just a stupid choice most of the time.
-
Excellent point, you are absolutely right.
I fly knights, what do you fly? What's your in-game handle? Have we met in the skies, fighter vs. buffs yet sir?
Bish, part of 97th bg. If we have met its prob over your strats. Long range bombing is my deal (and running goons...)
-
the majority of AH fighter pilots stupidly insist on attacking from 6 o clock.
it cannot be stressed often enough what a bad choice it is.
you go from basically fighter having almost zero chance against a buff, to buff being essentially a sitting duck.. just by doing it right and not attacking from behind.
-
Yet bombers still have roughly half the K/D ratio of fighters.
Actually the toughest bombers *formations* have a k/d against of about 1. That means that for every time a single individual in a fighter kills all 3 bombers and busts the bomber guys mission, an individual controlling a bomber formation shoots down the fighter pilot and continues on his mission with at least one plane intact, on average. Now let's talk about the bomb load of even one heavy buff vrs. that of the heavy jabos, which planes, I remind you, are helpless against another fighter closing on their six unless they dump their ordnance.
-
And No - i didn´t say that i should be able to do the job of 100 buffs, i said that we cannot use 100 buffs to carpet bomb a single base and because of that we use a different tactic.
I will try to explain this one more time:
You said the super accurate gamey bombsight is "needed" because you *cannot* up 100 bombers to carpet bomb a base. I explained that this is not true, that if you have thirty some-odd players who want to bomb you CAN stage a bomber raid with about 100 bombers. It is true that you probably can't recruit thirty other players to go with you on a 100 bomber raid, but so what? You probably can't recruit enough players for a 100 plane fighter push or a 100 vehicle ground raid, and in those cases you would actually need 100 hundred players to command a hundred planes/vehicles, not 33.333 as is the case with buffs. You DID use that logic to demand the effectiveness of 100 bombers be put in your hands, now you are attempting to crawdad back on that because I have logically demonstrated the absurdity of such a demand.
As for the rest, the modeling of hangar banging is a bad anti-fight dynamic in an arena already dying because people cannot find enough action of most of the time. In the good times it was anti-fun but not particularly damaging. In these times, anything making it harder for people to get up and fight is a suicide move for AH. Really, bombers need things to do that AREN'T inherently anti-fight and anti-fun. I think adding large cityscapes, the kind of targets bombers were realistically good for targeting, to the maps one day would be a good thing.
-
Anything above 0.3 k/d for the bombers is good because you have 3 bombers/lives per player. k/d>0.33 means that on average a player facing another in a fighter has better chances to win when he brings a bomber than when he brings a fighter.
I did something approaching a controlled experiment into this very matter over the course of one weekend. I encountered a player I had never heard of, I think it was "Boofdada" or something like, one on one several times in fighters of comparable ability. It was apparent that this person was inexperienced, and I won the dogfights with trivial ease. However, this same not-very-skilled person made several B-26 raids, on the deck (which thing essentially precludes the "dive with high speed straight down for a guns pass" approach) and never failed to at least severely damage my plane. Now when I say something about bomber modeling being wrong, I commonly hear "You suck!" from the monkeys in the peanut gallery, but anyone who has ever gone up against me in a few friendly duels knows this is an exaggeration. This experience drives the point home-This person was *literally* able to fight me better by clicking on a bomber formation and flying in a straight line on autolevel than by clicking on aircraft specifically designed for *fighting* and maneuvering. If that doesn't say there's something a little skewed about how all the different aspects that go into bomber modeling work together in this game, I don't know what does.
-
I did something approaching a controlled experiment into this very matter over the course of one weekend. I encountered a player I had never heard of, I think it was "Boofdada" or something like, one on one several times in fighters of comparable ability. It was apparent that this person was inexperienced, and I won the dogfights with trivial ease. However, this same not-very-skilled person made several B-26 raids, on the deck (which thing essentially precludes the "dive with high speed straight down for a guns pass" approach) and never failed to at least severely damage my plane. Now when I say something about bomber modeling being wrong, I commonly hear "You suck!" from the monkeys in the peanut gallery, but anyone who has ever gone up against me in a few friendly duels knows this is an exaggeration. This experience drives the point home-This person was *literally* able to fight me better by clicking on a bomber formation and flying in a straight line on autolevel than by clicking on aircraft specifically designed for *fighting* and maneuvering. If that doesn't say there's something a little skewed about how all the different aspects that go into bomber modeling work together in this game, I don't know what does.
Actually your results could also very clearly state that you are fine one on one with a newby in a fighter but you can't do well against the same guy when he is in a buff, leading to the conclucion that you do in fact need to work or your tactics and skills against buffs. Or maybe he just got lucky while gunning.
-
Its not that hard to hit a plane from <800 yards. its done all the time with acks and wirbs. Especially when the fighter fly in a straight line. I don't see anyone complaining about the Wirbs and gunning from a buff isn't much different from firing from a gv. I can score hits on aircrafts up to 800 with a .50 cal on gvs too and they have just iron sights. And during WW2 a lot of fighters where shot down by aerial gunners. Unescorted daylight raids lost 2-3 bombers for every fighter shot down and that's pretty close to what we see in AH.
-
Now let's talk about the bomb load of even one heavy buff vrs. that of the heavy jabos, which planes, I remind you, are helpless against another fighter closing on their six unless they dump their ordnance.
Wait, bombers carry more bombs than fighters? Nerf them! :old:
-
I don't see anyone complaining about the Wirbs and gunning from a buff isn't much different from firing from a gv.
It is completely different because vehicles are sitting on a platform called the "ground", while even the best trimmed airplanes on the calmest days does not keep an absolutely perfectly straight and level course. But in AHII the "X" key gives you precisely this thing. Now this is not useful to fighters, since they have to be flown onto target, so it presents and unfair advantage to bomber gunnery that should be compensated for with greater dispersion or wandering of defensive gunfire from buffs. I also suspect that the flex-mounted guns may boast an inordinate amount of accuracy compared to guns mounted in a rigid manner. I plan on testing this when I get around to it.
And during WW2 a lot of fighters where shot down by aerial gunners. Unescorted daylight raids lost 2-3 bombers for every fighter shot down and that's pretty close to what we see in AH.
One, over-claiming is rampant in aerial warfare, and is especially problematic when it comes to planes actually downed by bomber fire. Two, WWII bombers were being flown in huge stacked boxes with dozens of airplanes and hundreds of individual gunners. It was not formidable so much because of individual gunners sniping specific airplanes, which was rare, but simply because so many guns provided a veritable cloud of bullets. By comparison, an AH bomber formation consists of a 3 ship vic, almost always manned by one guy. If an AH 3 ship formation achieves k/d ratios similar what was achieved by bombers in a combat box, dozens of close packed airplanes and hundreds of trained gunners, then that serves as rather strong evidence that buff formations in AH are over-powered relative to realism.
-
Actually your results could also very clearly state that you are fine one on one with a newby in a fighter but you can't do well against the same guy when he is in a buff, leading to the conclucion that you do in fact need to work or your tactics and skills against buffs. Or maybe he just got lucky while gunning.
But you see, this is an experiment without confounding variables. Whatever the other guy's and my own ability relative the entire AH player population, our skill as pilots remained the same relative to each other throughout the "experiment". And the "experiment" demonstrated unequivocally that this guy was more formidable in a fight by flying "vulnerable" bombers on auto-x than he was in a *fighter* airplane, you know an airplane actually designed for *fighting*, that in the real world was assigned to PROTECTING bombers, not the other way around. He could be the worst pilot in AH and I could be the second worst, or we could be elite, doesn't matter in ALL possible combinations he should STILL be more likely to succeed taking me on in a comparable fighter than in 3 buffs. "As above, so below."
Skills and luck-Well, only experience with bomber flying in recent memory is taking some B-17s over an enemy base at 10K on a lark. I was flying on the crapulent comp I'm typing on right now, not my regular game rig. Remember, I have almost no experience with bombing or gunning. Turns out gunning in AH is as easy as point and click, literally since I was using a mouse in the absence of a joystick. I shot down two planes and still had 3 ships, albeit damaged, right before I flew the formation into a mountain range.
There is a certain long-time pilot who liked to accuse me of "sucking" when I talk about bomber issues, perhaps because he doesn't realize that not everyone hangs around at nose-bleed alts in a P-38, therefore interception is not as easy for most. Well, I recently re-found the film of our one and only duel in which he named the planes (you can guess which). Fair merge, other guy's favorite ride, I won with a clean shot from behind. Took ten minutes of looping and turning I admit, but it was the other guy's main plane after all. I mentioned this little fact to him the last time he braced me on a thread like this and I haven't heard a peep from him since. If I "suck", then anyone I manage to squeeze out a victory over in a fair duel must also "suck", yes? :devil
-
His skill in fighters is not his skill in bombers and your skill in killing fighters is not your skill in killing bombers. Your test does not mean what you think it means.
-
His skill in fighters is not his skill in bombers and your skill in killing fighters is not your skill in killing bombers. Your test does not mean what you think it means.
This means Karnak does not like the results. :D But at least you are not crass enough to call me a liar or argue via ad hominem because of that. That's why I like you. :salute
Bomber "skills"? Apparently I can achieve a par bomber k/d ratio against fighters with no experience and on a terrible comp and shoddy internet connection. "Skills..."
Another example: Shawk is without doubt a very skilled and lethal fighter pilot. But when things are really bad and he's outnumbered, I've noticed his practice is often to drag a flight of B-17s around the fight. Which thing is very lethal in really no matter which direction you approach him from. Apparently when outnumbered he is more dangerous to a crowd of fighters in a box of buffs than he is a fighter, you know those airplanes specifically designed to FIGHT which in reality were tasked with PROTECTING buffs from FIGHTERS. This despite the fact that his fighter skills are also definitely there.
Answer me this Karnak: If buffs aren't more formidable against fighters in this sim than they were in reality, how do buffs in AH, 3 ship vics being flown and gunned by a single individual, achieve k/d ratios on a par with what was achieved by proper combat boxes with hundreds of individual gunners, able to aim and fire in multiple directions independently?
-
O M. G. !!!!!
I never knew you just had to hold 'Y' .... Im still doing the steady crossair thingy :lol
-
BnZ. U are a funny guy. Real world gunners flew their max 25 missions and did not have a fraction of the gunnery practice many players in AH have. Just like that many fighter pilots never scored any kills. 97% did not reach 5 kills. In real world both gunners and pilots were way below most AH pilots in aiming skills. That affected fighers more since 100 gunners could just spray and pray. Most A2A victories where shots from dead 6, 200 yards out because the rookie in the plane ahead didnt looked around.
And yes, wind affects planes. Fighters more than bombers. In AH we have no real wind so its not a factor. And btw yes, a calm day a perfect trimmed plane fly in a very straight line, no movememts that would mess up your aiming. Ive flew 90 min straight with only adjusting heading with rudder. No auto pilot or anything. Wind would mess up the fighters aimimg too, especially close to the ground. But sice we fly in this perfect environment we have nothing affecting aiming in any way, guns or bombs.
yesterday i was driving an m3 trying to avoind a lot of low cons and even dough i was turning and runnimg around i hit the cons on several ocasions w the .50 cal. Not enough for a kill but still, no plane moves as much as a vechicle running around and i can still hit planes.
-
Its not that hard to hit a plane from <800 yards. its done all the time with acks and wirbs. Especially when the fighter fly in a straight line. I don't see anyone complaining about the Wirbs and gunning from a buff isn't much different from firing from a gv. I can score hits on aircrafts up to 800 with a .50 cal on gvs too and they have just iron sights. And during WW2 a lot of fighters where shot down by aerial gunners. Unescorted daylight raids lost 2-3 bombers for every fighter shot down and that's pretty close to what we see in AH.
Really? no one complaining about the wirbs? :rolleyes:
Bomber gunners kills were extremely over claimed. For every 109 that started pouring smoke 20 gunners swore that they were the one that hit it. With a massive bomber formation the real danger is stray bullets, not necessarily the ones aimed at you. I wonder how many gunners hit other bombers in their formation.
The difference between gunning from a ground position and from a plane is quite large in real life. I was getting hit yesterday consistently by a Lanc shooting 1000 yards straight up. We were going at about 300 mph after the Lanc shallow dived for speed. The equivalent for a ground gunner would be to shoot through a 300 mph cross wind from a vibrating platform.
yesterday i was driving an m3 trying to avoind a lot of low cons and even dough i was turning and runnimg around i hit the cons on several ocasions w the .50 cal. Not enough for a kill but still, no plane moves as much as a vechicle running around and i can still hit planes.
So you bring another, even more absurd thing you can do in th game as a justification for bomber gunnery? Firing while driving in AH is completely arcade mode. The game engine was made for planes and not meant to model vehicle physics very well - and indeed it does not.
-
O M. G. !!!!!
I never knew you just had to hold 'Y' .... Im still doing the steady crossair thingy :lol
lol :rofl
The ability to go into calibration mode and move the crosshair does have its use - I use it to observe the target from afar with full zoom (or to see the bombs hit after the drop). This is how I spot individual GVs from afar and align to drop a single 500 lbs on their heads from 7000 feet. They could do that in real life! I am sure there is some anecdote to prove it!
-
That affected fighers more since 100 gunners could just spray and pray.
Logic refutes this claim, since the in real world it a well-packed box with hundreds of gunners wasn't any more effective than a 3 ship flight manned by one guy is in here. IF one takes the k/d ratio claimed at face value, also an iffy proposition.
And yes, wind affects planes. Fighters more than bombers.
Logic, experience, and even the tiniest bit of commonsense refutes this as well. The fact that the guns of fighters have to be flown onto target anyway, they are typically multiple guns, and the fact that fighters typically fire from under 500 yards renders the the effect of wind and turbulence on fighter gunnery moot point. I've flown sims with wind and turbulence, it is almost a non-factor in typical fighter gunnery.
In AH we have no real wind so its not a factor. And btw yes, a calm day a perfect trimmed plane fly in a very straight line, no movememts that would mess up your aiming. Ive flew 90 min straight with only adjusting heading with rudder. No auto pilot or anything.
I've ridden in airplanes a lot. On even the calmest day there are slight currents that effect the motion of an aircraft slightly, enough to make trying to be a sniper an exercise in futility. Fighter gunnery is also effected to a degree, but again, the very fact that fighter guns have to be flown onto targets with continuous course corrections anyway renders the effective reduction in fighter accuracy almost nil for typical gun solutions.
Flex-mounted guns are in reality quite inferior to fixed-forward firing guns for aerial warfare. That is why they went to the trouble of inventing the interruptor gear in WWI, and continued to go to the trouble of developing maneuverable fighters for decades. All factors being equal, a single tailgunner would in reality be dead meat against a well-armed fighter settled off the six of the plane. A shootout between a small fighter with fixed forward-firing guns and a large target of a bomber with flex guns should hardly be a contest, if things are modeled accurately. AH's modeling of aerial flex guns reverses this proposition, thus distorting tactics. This is probably an unintentional side effect of the auto-level command, but in any case dispersion for aerial flex guns should be increased to correct the problem.
[/quote]
-
This means Karnak does not like the results. :D But at least you are not crass enough to call me a liar or argue via ad hominem because of that. That's why I like you. :salute
Bomber "skills"? Apparently I can achieve a par bomber k/d ratio against fighters with no experience and on a terrible comp and shoddy internet connection. "Skills..."
Another example: Shawk is without doubt a very skilled and lethal fighter pilot. But when things are really bad and he's outnumbered, I've noticed his practice is often to drag a flight of B-17s around the fight. Which thing is very lethal in really no matter which direction you approach him from. Apparently when outnumbered he is more dangerous to a crowd of fighters in a box of buffs than he is a fighter, you know those airplanes specifically designed to FIGHT which in reality were tasked with PROTECTING buffs from FIGHTERS. This despite the fact that his fighter skills are also definitely there.
Answer me this Karnak: If buffs aren't more formidable against fighters in this sim than they were in reality, how do buffs in AH, 3 ship vics being flown and gunned by a single individual, achieve k/d ratios on a par with what was achieved by proper combat boxes with hundreds of individual gunners, able to aim and fire in multiple directions independently?
I don't like or dislike the results. Your methodology is simply flawed and you are reading more into the data than is there.
-
During WW2 raids (before 44-45 atleast) there where between 1-1,5 German fighters for every buff, while we in AH often see 1 fighter on 3 buffs. That is the fighter pilots biggest problem. No coordination. Up 3-4 fighters in a coordinated attack on a set of buffs and the buffs will be no way near a 1:3 k/d ratio, 1:10 maybe. The buffs in AH have better defence than real world buffs against a single threat with all guns firing at a single point. Against multiple threats dough, its just the opposite if u don't bring gunners. Multiple fighters dramatically decrease the buffs rate of survival.
-
During WW2 raids (before 44-45 atleast) there where between 1-1,5 German fighters for every buff, while we in AH often see 1 fighter on 3 buffs. That is the fighter pilots biggest problem. No coordination. Up 3-4 fighters in a coordinated attack on a set of buffs and the buffs will be no way near a 1:3 k/d ratio, 1:10 maybe. The buffs in AH have better defence than real world buffs against a single threat with all guns firing at a single point. Against multiple threats dough, its just the opposite if u don't bring gunners. Multiple fighters dramatically decrease the buffs rate of survival.
True, but what does this means? what you suggest is that it takes 3 players from one country to neutralize the 1 player from the other country. If players upped 3 fighters for every one enemy fighter, the enemy fighters will not fare any better than the bombers. Mostly likely, they will fare worse.
"Multiple fighters dramatically decrease the buffs rate of survival" - multiple fighter dramatically decrease anyone's rate of survival.
-
I'm just saying that this affect the k/d ratio for bombers. This plus the fact that most fighter pilots don't use the advantages in speed and maneuverability they have over the buff but rather go into the area where its easiest to kill them is the reason buffs can have a relatively high k/d ratio.
-
And btw: One side effect of strategic bombing is that it force the enemy to divert forces from the front in order to defend the strategic targets so i dont see a problem that a single set of buffs require more than one fighter to up for him. Germany had atleast 600 fighters in their homeland for defence against bombers, fighters that where needed at the fronts.
-
During WW2 raids (before 44-45 atleast) there where between 1-1,5 German fighters for every buff, while we in AH often see 1 fighter on 3 buffs. That is the fighter pilots biggest problem. No coordination. Up 3-4 fighters in a coordinated attack on a set of buffs and the buffs will be no way near a 1:3 k/d ratio, 1:10 maybe. The buffs in AH have better defence than real world buffs against a single threat with all guns firing at a single point. Against multiple threats dough, its just the opposite if u don't bring gunners. Multiple fighters dramatically decrease the buffs rate of survival.
Just want to clarify here that bomber guns do not fire at a single point unless you are very liberal with your definition of the word "point".
The guns from an individual bomber fire in parallel to one another and the guns from the three bombers cross each other at 500 yards.
-
Allow me to demonstrate where your logic fails *yet again* by offering the following example:
Tanks rolling into their cities also forced the enemy to divert forces to defend against them. Therefore, using your logic, as an individual player in Aces High I should be allowed to control 3 tanks or perhaps 1 tank and 2 defending flak "drones" (with the lethality turned way up above reality), so that on average it takes THREE jabo/attack aircraft from the other side to defeat my vehicle "formation". Never mind that in reality it would have taken multiple crewmen to roll all these vehicles, while the jabo/attack pilots I'm fighting against will still be getting to control one and only one aircraft for their efforts.
The above hypothetical is exactly the sort of non sequitur you are demonstrating in the statement quoted below.
And btw: One side effect of strategic bombing is that it force the enemy to divert forces from the front in order to defend the strategic targets so i dont see a problem that a single set of buffs require more than one fighter to up for him. Germany had atleast 600 fighters in their homeland for defence against bombers, fighters that where needed at the fronts.
Let me separate this bit out for emphasis:
so i dont see a problem that a single set of buffs require more than one fighter to up for him.
Really? You don't see the fundamental imbalance with multiple players being required to counter the efforts of a single player, on average? Ponder my "vehicle formation" hypothetical above, and perhaps enlightenment will begin to slowly seep in through the granite. If an individual player like yourself can take 3 buffs to attack a base merely by checking a box in hangar, why should another individual player not similarly be allowed to take 3 GVs to attack a base?
Hell, if, as an individual player, you are allowed to control 3 buffs on attack, why should another individual player not be allowed to control 3 fighters to intercept you? The only difference here is that in reality it only took only 3 individuals to fly 3 single seat interceptors, while it took about 30 trained crewmen to operate the heavies ONE player routinely operates effectively in AH. Therefore, while the idea of one player being able to click a box in the hangar and bring 3 fighters to the fight IS absurd, it is still less absurd than the bomber situation, by a factor of about 10 I'd say.
We all understand that there were 100 bomber raids in WWII. There were also massive fighter sweeps and interceptions, and situations where hundreds of tanks were thundering across the plains. What you have not and cannot offer is any reasonable argument for why a SINGLE bomber player in this game should be allowed to have the *effectiveness* of 100 bombers which required 1,000 crew members to operate, while individual JABO, fighter, and GV players remain limited to having the effectiveness of ONE, count 'em, ONE aircraft or GV.
-
What you have not and cannot offer is any reasonable argument for why a SINGLE bomber player in this game should be allowed to have the *effectiveness* of 100 bombers which required 1,000 crew members to operate, while individual JABO, fighter, and GV players remain limited to having the effectiveness of ONE, count 'em, ONE aircraft or GV.
Except they don't. Both GVs and fighters can shoot way more accurately in game than in real life. And virtually all pilots in-game have way more kills than +90% of WWII pilots. That's lots and lots of practice, even in situations that would get you killed in real life. We have no wing flex, no calibration problems, no slipstream from a bomber's propeller, no wind or turbulence to speak of. I've seen plenty of players destroy a bomber formation in a single pass, and they've done it dozens of times. Do you think any single WWII pilot did that? No, because this is a sim, not real life. It's easier. Do you think any WWII pilot could change gun convergence (and do it perfectly) just by point and clicking in the hangar like we do? No, of course not.
Of course bombers have it easier here than in real life. Wind or turbulence isn't an issue so any bombsight can perform flawlessly. That same lack of turbulence allows flex mounted guns to have better accuracy, but that works for fighters too.
You're complaining about bombers being too effective because they lack realism, when all other vehicle types are modelled in the same way and in the same medium. Of course a bomber here is more effective than a bomber in real life. Just like fighters, GVs or even ack.
Or you could realize that the 3 bomber formation was introduced for balancing purposes, from a single bomber being a free kill to 3 bombers being an almost free kill.
-
Except they don't. Both GVs and fighters can shoot way more accurately in game than in real life.
They MAY shoot more accurately than in real life, but at least fighters and GVs don't come in threes and HTC doesn't try to model them in such a way that a single player can effectively do the work of up to *thirty* crewmen.
Also, I should point out that IF a flex mounted weapon like the tailgun of a bomber is showing no more dispersion than a fixed weapon, like a nose-mounted .50, then that is a problem, for obvious reasons. Need to test this.
And virtually all pilots in-game have way more kills than +90% of WWII pilots. That's lots and lots of practice, even in situations that would get you killed in real life.
This is true, but completely irrelevant to our discussion. And it may explain the fighter/GV accuracy you perceive as too high.
You're complaining about bombers being too effective because they lack realism, when all other vehicle types are modelled in the same way and in the same medium.
But they are clearly NOT modeled the same way. You can up ONE single-seat fighter, a craft manned in real life by...one person. You can up some multi-crew vehicles, but you still only get one vehicle. In neither case do you get to look around in F3 view. When you are in a field gun, you can't make all the other field guns fire at the bandit along with the one you are actually operating. So plainly, to say all aircraft and vehicle types are modeled "the same" is a false.
Or you could realize that the 3 bomber formation was introduced for balancing purposes, from a single bomber being a free kill to 3 bombers being an almost free kill.
I imagine that if a single man took off in a B-17 in RL it would be an even easier kill than in AH. He'd certainly have a difficult time trimming the plane from the pilot's seat, then scurrying to the various gun positions to defend, then jumping into the bombardier's position when it was time to bomb. Sounds like quite the athletic feat. And how on earth would he fly, gun, and bomb for all THREE planes? Some clever arrangement of pulleys and wires?
I'm just responding to the figures that people are bandying about. If someone says that it on average takes more than one guy in a fighter to counter one guy in bombers, and that is okay, then their idea of balance is skewed all out of whack. And then Zimme comes along and ups the ante, claiming that one guy in bombers is/should be able to have the effect on an airbase that took ONE HUNDRED BOMBERS in the real world. His words, not mine. Again, this is not "balance" by any reasonable definition.
-
They MAY shoot more accurately than in real life,
They do. The wing flex alone would give us worse dispersion than we have in-game. Even more if more real life variables were modelled, such as turbulence, wind and the like.
but at least fighters and GVs don't come in threes and HTC doesn't try to model them in such a way that a single player can effectively do the work of up to *thirty* crewmen.
Fighters and GVs don't come in threes because it would be absurd and wouldn't serve any balancing purposes. You've already seen that a formation (3 bombers) takes less effort to kill than a fighter. And yes, a single player can do the work of thirty crewmen, because it's a game. And when you take a GV you're doing the work of several crewmen, and when you're turning a CV group you're doing the work of hundreds.
Also, I should point out that IF a flex mounted weapon like the tailgun of a bomber is showing no more dispersion than a fixed weapon, like a nose-mounted .50, then that is a problem, for obvious reasons. Need to test this.
If they do indeed show less dispersion it should be adressed. But in your endless crusade for realism you never ask for more historical accuracy in fighter gunnery, just asking for something that nerfs bombers. It's quite interesting.
This is true, but completely irrelevant to our discussion. And it may explain the fighter/GV accuracy you perceive as too high.
It is completely relevant. If a fighter in game has a way more effective than in real life, it's obvious that they'll be more effective against bombers too (and they are). Also, now player skill seems to be irrelevant but you were using it as an argument a few posts before.
So plainly, to say all aircraft and vehicle types are modeled "the same" is a false.
I was refering to the physics of Aces High II, wind, turbulence and the like.
If someone says that it on average takes more than one guy in a fighter to counter one guy in bombers, and that is okay, then their idea of balance is skewed all out of whack.
What's your idea of balance?
-
Fighters and GVs don't come in threes because it would be absurd
Non sequitur. Why would it be absurd? Looking at it mathematically, it seems far LESSS absurd for one player to control 3 single-seat fighters than for one player to control 3 planes that each required ten crew members.
You've already seen that a formation (3 bombers) takes less effort to kill than a fighter.
I have NOT seen that. Per the example I gave earlier in the thread, I have seen many instances where an individual is MORE formidable in a formation of buffs against a fighter than they are in another fighter. And bombers take ALOT more effort to stop than a jabo trying to do the same job, which is purely a matter of fly up behind him (dead six approach is fine), he either pickles his bombs and maneuvers or gets shot down.
I should also point out that one guy in a tank, he realistically has almost no defense against jabo/attack planes, yet no one seriously suggests he should be given some kind of "flak drones" to prevent him from being a helpless target. Why is that? It's the same principle as the bomber arguments I hear.
Also, now player skill seems to be irrelevant but you were using it as an argument a few posts before.
I cited an example where one player was easily shot down another player when both were flying dedicated fighters (you know the planes designed to FIGHT, that PROTECTED bombers from other FIGHTERS historically), yet this same player was much more formidable in a flight of NOE B-26s. Skill level was simply mentioned as a potential confounding variable that was eliminated because the same two players participated in all iterations of the "experiment", thus the relative skill level remained a constant.
Now what does the overall higher level of practice AH players get in all aspects of flying and shooting have to do with how things should be modeled? I thought the idea of this game was to model the GEAR as realistically as possible and let the chips fall where they may regarding how people use that gear.
What's your idea of balance?
Well, it taking more than one player in fighters on average to put a stop to a run by a *one* person in heavy bombers is certainly not balance, and one player being allowed to have the effect of one hundred bombers, or one hundred anything else, on an airbase or the war, that would obviously not be balance either, despite the half-baked arguments some have made on this thread.
I think bombers doing things more resembling the jobs they were useful for doing, bomber interception being more rewarding and not potentially frustrating drudgery, and fighter escort actually serving a needed purpose for mission completion, these things would be good for gameplay. After all, many of us were inspired to love this genre by history of the air battles high over the skies of occupied Europe, so any play that got closer to those battles would be good.
I think the idea that Baldeagle mentioned, of allowing more than 2 players to join buffs as crew members, is a bone I'd definitely like to see thrown in along with anything I'd suggest to "nerf" bombers as you put it. This would allow for a realistic and probably fun team experience...we've all seen "12 o'clock High" and "Memphis Belle" after all.
-
I thought the idea of this game was to model the GEAR as realistically as possible and let the chips fall where they may regarding how people use that gear.
Having a single player control 3 planes isn't realistic, but having flights of lone bombers would be even less realistic. It's the lesser evil. I'll post a longer reply when I get back!
-
Having a single player control 3 planes isn't realistic, but having flights of lone bombers would be even less realistic. It's the lesser evil. I'll post a longer reply when I get back!
Why would it be even less realistic? Sounds pretty realistic to only have one plane IF you can only have one pilot. Note, I am not necessarily saying formations should be eliminated, but it is an example of the numerous unrealistic things given only to bombers in this game. When Bozon mentioned slightly modifying them, the entitlement for bombers attitude ran wild.
-
Why would it be even less realistic? Sounds pretty realistic to only have one plane IF you can only have one pilot.
Because having single bombers would mean that all of them would become hangar queens, except the Mossie and maybe the 234. We would have a flight sim with no bombers, while almost half of all aircraft produced during WWII were bombers.
Why are some planes perked? Because otherwise they would be used en masse and therefore unbalance the game. Same with bomber formations, it's a compromise made to balance the game.
-
Air Warrior had only single bombers (no formations). Flying a bomber was usually (except for special situations like the "Blood Dragon", see here if interested: http://www.gonzoville.com/games/t-rex-ala-mode/ ) guaranteed death if any fighter was around.
Having flown a lot of Air Warrior and a lot of Aces High, I prefer the Aces High method. It seems like a near-perfect balance having a trio of bombers.
-
They do. The wing flex alone would give us worse dispersion than we have in-game.
Wing guns already have more dispersion in game compared to a fuselage mounted gun.
-
Wing guns already have more dispersion in game compared to a fuselage mounted gun.
Good information. :aok
-
Wing guns already have more dispersion in game compared to a fuselage mounted gun.
Noting that have any practical effect on aiming. Wing flex would mess up aiming a lot in high g maneuvers. Doesn't really matter dough. Most players, both in fighters and bombers are way better gunners than anyone where irl. Because we can still learn even if we get killed. A bomber pilot with a few thousand sorties will become very good at defending himself. those pilots are very hard to beat, just like there are fighter pilots that can up almost any plane and still is close to unbeatable for most other players. That's the boring side effect of a game. No matter how much harder we make aiming and shooting, people will still learn and adapt.
We have a lot of compromises with reality in order to make the game playable, base taking is one thing. lack of technical failures or need for ground rearm and -fueling before take off. One player can control CV groups w thousands of crew members, we have no wheather and so on. All this is necessary in order to make a game that as many as possible can enjoy.
I will gladly see a manual bomb sight that require something more than just the "y" button but adding random errors into the game that are impossible to predict or compensate for, no matter what it is i strongly oppose.
-
Non sequitur. Why would it be absurd? Looking at it mathematically, it seems far LESSS absurd for one player to control 3 single-seat fighters than for one player to control 3 planes that each required ten crew members.
It would be absurd because bombers were designed to find defense in numbers, flying in tight formation and using defensive armament. Fighters did not.
I have NOT seen that. Per the example I gave earlier in the thread, I have seen many instances where an individual is MORE formidable in a formation of buffs against a fighter than they are in another fighter.
I was talking about the statistics. The k/d ratio for the most used bomber, the lancaster, is about 0,14. A whole formation of bombers is less likely to survive than a lone fighter attacking them. I'm not refering to personal experience but statistics.
And bombers take ALOT more effort to stop than a jabo trying to do the same job, which is purely a matter of fly up behind him (dead six approach is fine), he either pickles his bombs and maneuvers or gets shot down.
Let's take one of the most popular jabos and bombers, the P-38L and Lancaster. At 14K one will be cruising at 350mph and can fight you on equal grounds, while the other is travelling at 270mph and can't even make evasive turns. But yeah, the jabo is absolutely easier to reach and kill :noid
I should also point out that one guy in a tank, he realistically has almost no defense against jabo/attack planes, yet no one seriously suggests he should be given some kind of "flak drones" to prevent him from being a helpless target. Why is that? It's the same principle as the bomber arguments I hear.
Because you're comparing ground targets with air targets and it's completely different. Also, icon range, commander position, wirbels, etcetera.
I cited an example where one player was easily shot down another player when both were flying dedicated fighters (you know the planes designed to FIGHT, that PROTECTED bombers from other FIGHTERS historically), yet this same player was much more formidable in a flight of NOE B-26s.
So a guy was a better at gunning than flying a fighter. It's almost like some players are better in some kind of planes....sorry, I'm a fan of conspiracy theories! :P
I think bombers doing things more resembling the jobs they were useful for doing,
You mean bombing things? Some of us already do that from time to time. You call it tool-shedding, you mentioned it in a quite irate thread. So you want bombers to bluw stuff up or not? Make up your mind! :uhoh
bomber interception being more rewarding and not potentially frustrating drudgery,
And here we go again. Don't want to climb to 20K to catch those sneaky lancs? Fine. Don't like cruising over strats in a 152 waiting for that B-29 raid? It's ok. But some of us like it, and we're not gonna start flying at 5K just so you don't have to spend 10 minutes climbing.
and fighter escort actually serving a needed purpose for mission completion, these things would be good for gameplay.
Any bomber pilot is going to lose all his planes if the enemy fighter has a little patience. I'm quite sure most of your frustrations come from a lack of it.
After all, many of us were inspired to love this genre by history of the air battles high over the skies of occupied Europe, so any play that got closer to those battles would be good.
You mean those huge bomber formations being attacked by swarms of fighters? Take away the drones to balance the game (in your mind) and there will be no bombers.
I think the idea that Baldeagle mentioned, of allowing more than 2 players to join buffs as crew members, is a bone I'd definitely like to see thrown in along with anything I'd suggest to "nerf" bombers as you put it. This would allow for a realistic and probably fun team experience...
What nerf would you like to see? But I believe that by a realistic and fun team experience you mean being able to creep up a bomber's six and shoot it down without having to climb too much.
Why would it be even less realistic? Sounds pretty realistic to only have one plane IF you can only have one pilot.
Yet you have no trouble with GVs, shore batteries, CV groups or PT boats. You can turn an entire CV group with a few mouse clips, when in reality those ships were manned by crews in the thousands. Is that realistic? No. It's called a compromise.
We're going in circles over and over again on the same points. I would really like to hear your solutions, how would you nerf the bombers.
-
Don't get him started on auto-ack in which 0 players do the work of dozens. :rofl
-
Don't get him started on auto-ack in which 0 players do the work of dozens. :rofl
Outrageous! :old:
-
It would be absurd because bombers were designed to find defense in numbers, flying in tight formation and using defensive armament. Fighters did not.
Indeed, the combat box was designed for defense. So what stops bomber pilots from flying in formation with other bombers?
The basic unit of fighter combat is the wing pair. By the logic of that gives us buff formations, I should get an AI wingman. After all, who can go to the trouble of finding other pilots to fly with :D
I'm not really in favor of getting rid of formation, I'm just demonstrating what a huge concession formations alone are for bombers, before we even get to discussing other concessions.
I was talking about the statistics. The k/d ratio for the most used bomber, the lancaster, is about 0,14. A whole formation of bombers is less likely to survive than a lone fighter attacking them. I'm not refering to personal experience but statistics.
The k/d ratio of the toughest heavies is about .3 though. That means the formation as a whole has a k/d of about 1. And looking at the formation as a unit makes sense, since it essentially is one unit controlled by one player. If there were some kind of fighter/attack aircraft that had a k/d around 1 AND could carry tens of thousands of pounds of ord AND could hit targets accurately without descending below 20K, I think the cries for perking it would be multitudinous.
Let's take one of the most popular jabos and bombers, the P-38L and Lancaster. At 14K one will be cruising at 350mph and can fight you on equal grounds, while the other is travelling at 270mph and can't even make evasive turns. But yeah, the jabo is absolutely easier to reach and kill :noid
I have seen bombers making hard-to-believe "evasive turns" often, not losing drones and warping all over the place. The drone leash is buggy as hell. And yes, the P-38 jabo is absolutely easier to run down and kill. Laden with a max ord load, it is 40-60 mph slower than common LW rides, it has no rearward firing guns so a co-alt dead six chase is just fine, and it cannot defensively turn EFFECTIVELY without pickling its ord, which is mission busted right then and there. And that is not even getting into the fact that it has only enough ord to kill one hangar at a time, and must get quite low to deliver it accurately.
So a guy was a better at gunning than flying a fighter. It's almost like some players are better in some kind of planes....sorry, I'm a fan of conspiracy theories! :P
It's almost like with nearly no skill someone flying buffs in AH can be more dangerous than the fighters who historically had to protect even the best-defended bombers ever made from being slaughtered by other fighters. Last time I flew buffs I shot down two planes with a MOUSE before flying into a mountain because I was laughing so hard and not paying attention. It is literally an EZ mode point-and-click enterprise. Compare this to all that goes into being a decent shot and maneuvering pilot in fighters.
You mean bombing things? Some of us already do that from time to time. You call it tool-shedding, you mentioned it in a quite irate thread. So you want bombers to bluw stuff up or not? Make up your mind! :uhoh
Yes, in a game which is drying up and dying because players cannot find fights, a fundamentally anti-fight dynamic like toolshedding (or downing HQ) is very bad, almost suicidal. Still, bombers should have targets. Large cityscapes in the back country of each side on the map would be realistic target for realistically (in)accurate level bombing. The destruction of them could have an effect on many strategic things, such as how fast destroyed ack guns and town buildings re-up, something of that nature. Or come up with your own idea. Whatever, buffs need something important to do that DOESN'T add to the lack of fights problem with current player numbers.
What nerf would you like to see? But I believe that by a realistic and fun team experience you mean being able to creep up a bomber's six and shoot it down without having to climb too much.
Many bombers were destroyed over Germany precisely by a 190 or 110 creeping up on their six and shooting them down. Realistically, a tailgunner, wielding a relatively inaccurate flex-mounted gun in a huge target is overmatched when it comes to a shootout with a small target heavily armed with fixed-forward firing guns. That said, I doubt a bomber with all gun positions manned by a player would be an easy kill in AH. That is precisely what I meant by a "team experience" and you know it.
As to changes to bring bombers more back into reason...Well first I'd look at the accuracy of flex mounted machine guns, which I think may be too high. The bombing accuracy thing has been discussed at length. I think a SINGLE player should control and fire one gun position in the formation at a time...the tail guns, or the ball turrets, or the top guns, etc. Additional players would mean additional guns firing simultaneously. Thus there would be some REASON to have gunners join your plane. Finally, I'd take a look at the drone leash bugs and what I call the "iron gunner" problem-Even a single ping in the canopy region in fighter combat often leads to a pilot-kill and POOF. We've all seen that. OTOH, I've seen many instances of shooting at a gunner position on a buff formation, landing many pings right where the human gunner would be, and it continues to fire.
Yet you have no trouble with GVs, shore batteries, CV groups or PT boats. You can turn an entire CV group with a few mouse clips, when in reality those ships were manned by crews in the thousands. Is that realistic? No. It's called a compromise.
GVs an PT boats only come in multiples of one, and don't have the same strategic effect on the game that bomber formations do. Manned guns are by definition locked to the landscape of the base they are defending, so the comparison there doesn't really hold water. Your CV group comparison would be pretty damming, except for a few little details. Details like the fact that each side only gets a very limited number of them, and they have to creep about at 30 knots. If any and every player in the game could repeatedly up his own CV group from virtually any base, then that would make it a different story. But such is not the case.
-
Indeed, the combat box was designed for defense. So what stops bomber pilots from flying in formation with other bombers?
The basic unit of fighter combat is the wing pair. By the logic of that gives us buff formations, I should get an AI wingman. After all, who can go to the trouble of finding other pilots to fly with :D
A single bomber is a free kill. Even a whole formation is easier to kill than a fighter (not only an opinion, I'm talking about the stats). As I said, formations are allowed for balancing purposes. Can't you understand it?
The k/d ratio of the toughest heavies is about .3 though.
And the k/d ratio of the 262 is way better than the average fighter. You're cherry-picking data.
I have seen bombers making hard-to-believe "evasive turns" often, not losing drones and warping all over the place. The drone leash is buggy as hell.
The player whose drones warp is the same player who warps in a fighter. It's a connection issue, not another concession made to bombers.
And yes, the P-38 jabo is absolutely easier to run down and kill.
If you're having more trouble shooting down a formation of Lancasters than downing a co-alt P-38L, you should think about changing your tactics.
It's almost like with nearly no skill someone flying buffs in AH can be more dangerous than the fighters who historically had to protect even the best-defended bombers ever made from being slaughtered by other fighters.
It seems like you don't want the facts to sink in. Bombers die more than fighters. It's easier to kill a whole formation than a single fighter. The stats show it, yet you come back to a single personal experience to back up your claims.
Yes, in a game which is drying up and dying because players cannot find fights, a fundamentally anti-fight dynamic like toolshedding (or downing HQ) is very bad, almost suicidal.
You don't realize that what you call tool-shedding is a fight. Someone just bombed your FH? Take off from the nearest base. That's what everybody does.
The destruction of them could have an effect on many strategic things, such as how fast destroyed ack guns and town buildings re-up, something of that nature.
You mean strats?
Whatever, buffs need something important to do that DOESN'T add to the lack of fights problem with current player numbers.
So you want bombers far away from the frontline and bombing things that can't directly affect the war. Not gonna happen.
That said, I doubt a bomber with all gun positions manned by a player would be an easy kill in AH. That is precisely what I meant by a "team experience" and you know it.
Your "team experience" would tie 4-10 players in a single plane that would still be an easy kill. The first fighter who saw a bomber would just HO it and get the 10 kills. Nobody would fly bombers anymore.
As to changes to bring bombers more back into reason...Well first I'd look at the accuracy of flex mounted machine guns, which I think may be too high. The bombing accuracy thing has been discussed at length.
It has, and you've been shown how bombers in the game have this accuracy because they're flying in ideal conditions. Just like fighters.
I think a SINGLE player should control and fire one gun position in the formation at a time...the tail guns, or the ball turrets, or the top guns, etc. Additional players would mean additional guns firing simultaneously. Thus there would be some REASON to have gunners join your plane.
That would effectively make bombers dead meat, and nobody would fly them anymore.
GVs an PT boats only come in multiples of one, and don't have the same strategic effect on the game that bomber formations do. Manned guns are by definition locked to the landscape of the base they are defending, so the comparison there doesn't really hold water. Your CV group comparison would be pretty damming, except for a few little details. Details like the fact that each side only gets a very limited number of them, and they have to creep about at 30 knots. If any and every player in the game could repeatedly up his own CV group from virtually any base, then that would make it a different story. But such is not the case.
You know we were talking about how a single player can do the job of several crewmen in real life. I wasn't talking about formations. You complain that a player should only be able to do the job of a single person in real life, yet you see nothing wrong with all other vehicles besides bombers.
-
BnZs, I won't discuss this anymore. I'm going over the same points again and again. You're chosing to overlook the stats posted by other players, and I doubt you're doing it uncounsciously. I know you like to flame with certain topics, especially bombers. Since it's impossible to know when you're trying to have a genuine discussion or simply flaming, I choose to stay out of it. I saw enough in the Vic Formation thread. ;)
-
BnZs, I won't discuss this anymore. I'm going over the same points again and again. You're chosing to overlook the stats posted by other players, and I doubt you're doing it uncounsciously. I know you like to flame with certain topics, especially bombers. Since it's impossible to know when you're trying to have a genuine discussion or simply flaming, I choose to stay out of it. I saw enough in the Vic Formation thread. ;)
Xavier, you are wrong in just about every point you are making, and you are the one that ignores the stats. You have also taken this thread way off course.
-
Xavier, you are wrong in just about every point you are making, and you are the one that ignores the stats. You have also taken this thread way off course.
Are you talking about Lusche's stats? Yes, I've taken this thread off course. I apologize for that!
-
A single bomber is a free kill. Even a whole formation is easier to kill than a fighter (not only an opinion, I'm talking about the stats). As I said, formations are allowed for balancing purposes. Can't you understand it?
And I've said multiple times that I'm NOT in favor of ending formations really, I just think formations are quite enough concessions to bombers. That said, what exactly makes it impossible for 2, 3, or more bomber pilots to wing up for mutual protection? You keep acting as if it is impossible in this game.
And the k/d ratio of the 262 is way better than the average fighter. You're cherry-picking data.
And the 262 is the most highly perked fighter in the game, while the B-17, to which the .3 figure refers, is unperked and ha.s an average ENY of 20. That is a point I forgot to mention in my previous post, I would lower the ENY of the "big 3" heavy bombers to 5. A country that is being hoarded doesn't need to be bombed into rubble by the best buffs anymore than it needs to be greatly outnumbered by opponents in La7s and SpitXVIs. Yet that is exactly what current ENY values allow. Also, the player who faces the defensive firepower of a Flying Fortress and shoots it down for his country deserves at least as many perk points as the guy who kills a nearly helpless jabo Pony.
The player whose drones warp is the same player who warps in a fighter. It's a connection issue, not another concession made to bombers.
This is a known bug that happens when both players have a clean connection and the bombers are maneuvering. It is not a deliberate concession but it amounts to another gamey advantage for bombers and another thing that makes interception not really worth it.
If you're having more trouble shooting down a formation of Lancasters than downing a co-alt P-38L, you should think about changing your tactics.
A P-38 laden with 2000 pounds of bombs is helpless to maneuver effectively, and you can just run it down in a co-alt chase, hang onto its six, and kill it, or force it to jettison ords which is mission bust. A Lancaster will severely damage you if you try the same thing. Also a single lanc or other other heavy buff is much, much resistant to damage than any fighter, let alone 3 of them. So you have to build more of an energy advantage, shoot better, and run more of a gauntlet of firepower to stop a unit that is capable of dropping 3 hangars on a base than you do to stop a unit that can drop one at most.
It seems like you don't want the facts to sink in. Bombers die more than fighters. It's easier to kill a whole formation than a single fighter. The stats show it, yet you come back to a single personal experience to back up your claims.
Actually the stats show the B-17 formation having a k/d about 1, which is a lot better than many fighters. And my personal experience is entirely valid. You can often fly right up behind someone in fighters, shoot them down with a small number of rounds, and they have really no chance to do anything about it, certainly not fire backwards at you. Bombers often being more dangerous than the fighters that historically protected them is a fact. Fighters in this game diving to bomber *for* protection (a thing which has happened in the MA and FSO both) is a fact which should make everyone stop and think.
So you want bombers far away from the frontline and bombing things that can't directly affect the war. Not gonna happen.
By "effect the war" you mean stop fights, pouring more water on the already dying fire that is Aces High. Bombers could have approximately the same effect they actually did have on the war, making the enemy unable to replenish certain things, without stopping fighting entirely. And the way I envision setting it up would lead to classic 8th Air Force vs. Luftwaffe fights at high altitude, something the MA could use.
Your "team experience" would tie 4-10 players in a single plane that would still be an easy kill. The first fighter who saw a bomber would just HO it and get the 10 kills. Nobody would fly bombers anymore.
Actually it would tie 4-10 players up in a 3 ship formation, as I've said over and over, and 4-10 players SHOULD be tied up in something like that if it is going to be modeled to be as effective as 3 airplanes that took 30 crew.
:rofl OH boy, really, you think you'd get ten kills? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but in this game shooting down one plane=1 kill, whether he has a gunner or not.
It has, and you've been shown how bombers in the game have this accuracy because they're flying in ideal conditions. Just like fighters.
It has been shown that bombers in this game can snipe vehicles from 15k, a feat that was not duplicated by real world test even under the most ideal condition. It was further shown that level bombers were almost useless for attacking things as large as ships, which is why dive bombing was used in the first place.
-
again, bombers are mostly harmless if attacked properly.
-
again, bombers are mostly harmless if attacked properly.
So are fighters.
-
So are fighters.
No, not at all. Huge difference between those two cases.
As someone said earlier, you can go from "certain death" to "almost invulnerable" when attacking bombers just by choosing your approach... which doesn't require much skill at this point at all. It's a simple decision to spend another minute to set up the approach.
The overwhelming majority of all fighters I see attacking buffs in the MA (or attacked my buffs) are choosing the 6 o'clock approach. Even massively fast rides like the 262 or Me 163.
It's totally different with fighter because of the entirely different, much more dynamic combat. Fighters are maneuvering to gain angles on each other, bombers only very rarely.
When I fly a bomber on a strat run or so, and I see someone coming up to me, an then starting to get into a proper position, I know I'm screwed. Luckily, the majority used to chase me down for 10+ minutes just to ride down my tail gun barrels.
-
choosing your approach...
Sometimes it feels more like is being chosen for you. For instance, when attacking NOE B-26s.
which doesn't require much skill at this point at all.
I debate this point, as does Bozon. We're all experienced pilots here, so I trust no one will play the "...because you SUCK!" card.
Besides, the comparison being made over and over was not between bombers and clean fighters, but bombers and jabos. A fighter with more than 2K worth of ord weighing it down is much more helpless than a bomber until it drops the stuff at least, which means no bombing on that run. A formation can effectively defend itself and still deliver a huge bombload onto target.
-
Sometimes it feels more like is being chosen for you. For instance, when attacking NOE B-26s.
Which attack approach do you use when bombers are flying NOE? And what about higher alts? I'm genuinely curious.
-
Which attack approach do you use when bombers are flying NOE? And what about higher alts? I'm genuinely curious.
The only approaches even moderately safe from defensive gunnery seem to be either as straight down as practical, or head-on. And head-on has to be disfavored because of short firing times and the large amount of separation created after the firing pass, thus greatly extending the time to destroy a buff unless one has the speed and armament of a 262. And many bomber pilots are very Johnny-on-the-spot about honking a hard turn and making a head on approach into a very dangerous beam or rear approach for the interceptor.
The vertical approach is obviously limited by terra firma when the formation is very low and it can be very difficult to keep repeated from drifting more to the dangerous rear quarter when the bombers are fast.
All of this adds up to a situation where IMO, yes it may be very easy for some to eventually down a formation with a fast, multi-cannon bird and patience, but I maintain it is often impractically difficult to destroy a formation *before it gets its bombs on the target*, which is the whole point of attacking buffs for non-scorepadders.
-
The only approaches even moderately safe from defensive gunnery seem to be either as straight down as practical, or head-on.
you should try from the high 11 or 1 oclock (and not a collision course).. even someone like 999000 will have trouble hitting you.
-
you should try from the high 11 or 1 oclock (and not a collision course).. even someone like 999000 will have trouble hitting you.
My favorite is the chin attack - from near 12 oclock low, pull up for a lead shot from below, taking the shot at 70-90 climb from short range as the bomber flashes infront. With something that has plenty of cannons and good front view (mosquito VI in my case ) it is a killer. there are very few guns that can point at you from that angle and aiming for the gunner is awkward. Also, both the closure speed and disengage speeds are very high since the speed of the bomber and the fighter add up. The down side is that you can only kill one bomber and then, unless you had lots of E to begin with, you have to chase the other two and position for another attack.
All these "how easy it is to kill a bomber" theories do not work as well in MA conditions. We are not talking about a bomber formation on the way to the strats in the middle of nowhere. This thread is about bombers attacking fields and in that case the fighter do not have all the time in the world to position for an effective attack. The ranges are short and he needs to down the bombers before they drop their bombs on the target. Enemy fighters often will make the attacker turn into them and prevent convenient positioning. In those cases the fighter must press an attack or not do it at all.
More over, consider the effect of two noobs in bombers against a veteran fighter vs. two noobs in fighters/jabos against the veteran. If they arrive in jabos or fighters, the veteran will likely dispatch them both with ease and continue to kill others. If they come in bombers, and lets say they are so clueless that they do not know they can man the guns, the vet will kill all 6 of their bombers and run out of ammo. So now the vet will land 6 kills and get an 'attaboy' but two noobs have removed him from the fight, just by making him expend all his ammo into helpless bombers. They have not shot him down, but they did send him back to the tower. Also, they kept him engaged for long minutes while he was positioning for ideal "safe" attacks - 6 times at least.
The bottom line is that inexperienced players are FAR more effective in bombers than in fighters/jabo. Generally, in shutting down fields, 5 players in 20k bombers are more effective than the same 5 players in 20k JABOs - and the absurd is that the level bombers will hit more accurately than the JABOs, without coming down into the climbing defenders and even while under attack from fighters that made it to 20k. This is what the original post was about - not survivability, I am fine with the 3 ship formations, it is about the laser precision high alt bombing. I am also fine with the ability to place a single 500 lb bomb into the open turret of a wirble/ostie from 10k - it is just that accuracy should deteriorate with alt.
-
I don't attack bombers unless I'm very bored. Here's my perspective. Why attack a bomber? It can't fight, it's not going to be much fun and it's likely you're going to get your plane messed up. And if he wanted someone to attack him in the first place he would be in a fighter, he wants to bomb. With that in mind, attacking a bomber kind of makes me feel like a griefer.
As far as tactics. Even 303s can dispatch a buff without much fuss if you aim at the right spot, the medulla oblongata.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWcN4I1aDKo&list=UUbNGo6f6ffP8YvqjXc1IEgQ
-
I've never understood attacking bombers after their ord is out. It's not like we kill the bomber and that player is permanently out of the game forever. In ww2 that was the purpose of killing bombers on the outbound leg to home. Kind of makes the complaints about bomb and bail silly. He's accomplished his mission and hurt your country. After that it's just your hurt ego if he bails to get another load of bombs.
-
I've never understood attacking bombers after their ord is out. It's not like we kill the bomber and that player is permanently out of the game forever. In ww2 that was the purpose of killing bombers on the outbound leg to home. Kind of makes the complaints about bomb and bail silly. He's accomplished his mission and hurt your country. After that it's just your hurt ego if he bails to get another load of bombs.
Is there any difference in what you say and letting a guy go in a fighter because he decides to run home? He's not a threat any more after all.
No, that's not the way it works. If your flying and you are the enemy, I will shoot you down. Bailing from a bomber is just lame gameplay, nothing else.
-
I've never understood attacking bombers after their ord is out.
it's fun
-
It depends on why one plays the game. Some folks might play for points; some might play for winning a map; some might play for WWII-inspired action; some might play for a mix of those things. If you play only for winning a map, there is no point attacking bombers. If you play for the other things, then there is.
-
you should try from the high 11 or 1 oclock (and not a collision course).. even someone like 999000 will have trouble hitting you.
This would seem to combine an element the short time to fire and wide separation after the pass problem of the HO approach with the terra firma difficulties that can be encountered if the buffs are NOE.
-
This would seem to combine an element the short time to fire and wide separation after the pass problem of the HO approach with the terra firma difficulties that can be encountered if the buffs are NOE.
noe buffs are rare
but yes you are ending up with snapshots basically so you good aim and timing
-
I've never understood attacking bombers after their ord is out. It's not like we kill the bomber and that player is permanently out of the game forever. In ww2 that was the purpose of killing bombers on the outbound leg to home. Kind of makes the complaints about bomb and bail silly. He's accomplished his mission and hurt your country. After that it's just your hurt ego if he bails to get another load of bombs.
I very much enjoy gunning in da buffs, may not be 999000, but a few have felt my perk stealing wrath.... If I get a chance at gunning after the drop, bring it on! To me, refusing to attack bombers on the outbound, is like a fighter running to the ack to avoid a fight. And i dont' know how many times I've heard the moans and groans this brings... just because I don't have ords anymore, doesn't mean i'm done playing and can't be a threat. A good buff driver becomes an intelligence officer after the drop, reporting number of cons and alt. . . yeah i might be sent to the tower sooner, but I'm getting more out of my sub if i get to play rather than the boring trip home, I DO NOT bomb and bail.... I hate that too, means my guys don't get home!
Bombing accuracy is pretty tight, and may need to be tweeked... Still not sure what the best way to do that is... sorry HTC, i'm pondering the situation still... :salute
-
noe buffs are rare
but yes you are ending up with snapshots basically so you good aim and timing
Actually I encounter very low B-26s, using speed and the proximity of the ground to try and force a six approach, quite often.
-
Suicidal buff riders are not uncommon unfortunately. A non-suicidal heavy bomber need at least 5 min of climbing to go from Noe to above acks so they should not be a problem to take down before the target.
An attack from the front sector and in a slight turn towards the bombers is the best imo on Noe buffs. Gives u a good chance of landing some lethal damage and since u are flying across the bombers path when u pass them its not too hard to set up for another pass. A B-26 has only the top turret to use against such attack and its hard to get any substantial damage to the fighter on the short time he is within range.
-
best way of avoiding gunfire from a 12-oclock high fighter in a set of buffs, is to roll the lead plane. Drones warp, and you have a 50% of colliding with them if you persist your attack.
I see that on a regular basis.
I tries to make one guy stop to it, and was told "Its my $15"
-
Haven't tried that but evasive maneuvers can be pretty effective on high altitudes when attacked from above. Especially if the attacker is a 163.