Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: kfsone on February 16, 2002, 10:28:13 AM
-
Having not played in some time and, when I have, mostly playing head to head, I've decided to close my account.
The clincher for me, being a buffer type, is the little news-detail of multiple-bombers-per-pilot. This smacks of: Rather than recognising the buffers frustrations, we'll simply put more buffs in the sky for fighters to shoot down every time one person spawns them.
AI gunners or the option of more than 1 gunner per plane... These would have been good moves. Flying multiple buffs at a time would really make me feel nothing more than a drone for the fighters.
I wish HTC well and good luck, and all those of you whom I know from AcesHigh and before :) And those of you still playing WW2OL will no doubt bump into me there.
Oliver "kfsone" Smith
-
Well, even though they seem to have been "toss ins" to draw a few bodies into the game, bombers have become totally irrelevent in Aces High outside of scenarios.
Any damage they cause can be repaired in seconds, way too long for some here, and cloning them in 4s would surely raise the whine level to new heights.
I hope HTC has plans for the bomber aspect of their game but right now their customer base is mainly "take off shooting" types and they pay the bills.
The fact that bomber improvements have taken a back seat to film editors might be construed as a notice that bomber pilots need not apply.
-
Cyas buddy.
I understand and completely agree on where you are coming from. Buffs have unfortunately, and I am sure unintentionally, managed to find themselves victims of gameplay lethality settings IMO.
Im not sure how HTC can rectify this but lets hope they do. Keep on eye on AH. This situation may change for the better eventually.
Y
-
you fly buffs "head to head"?
lazs
-
When will you guys learn or realize that Bombers never took a backseat to a new film editor?
HTC has already said that work on the bombers is continuing at it's normal pace and is still a big concern of theirs.
It all merely came down to one simple thing...HTC could WAIT to release the next patch until the bombers are done, or could release 1.09 now and make available other projects that are completed.
If they'd decided to wait, then everybody and their brother would be screamin bloody murder because they want a new patch/update. If they don't wait, then they get criticised for work not magically 'poofed' into existence.
According to HTC's news, 1.09 is releasing other fixes, details, and ideas that other players have had. Just because they have not yet finished what YOU want is nothing to scream about.
Really, it just makes you look like a spoiled child. Kinda like Veruca from 'Willy Wonka'......"But I want it NOOOOWW!"
-
Veruca was a babe. She could have squeaked to me all day as long as I got what I wanted in the end.
Hehe n
Y
-
Guys, HTC never said they were cancelling the new buff idea. Check back and see when it actually *is* implemented. The concept is extremely difficult to meld into the current strat and will most definitely take longer to develop.
I see it this way: wait longer for the release of 1.09 including[/ the new buff ideas (possibly delaying the release by atleast a tour and a half) or stick with the current plan and release the updates in smaller chunks.
If you feel you need to take a break from AH for a while then more power to ya. Its not going down the pooper any time soon ;). Check back often and hang in there, your time to shine as a buffer is coming!
-
I believe what kfsone is saying he doesn't like the proposed buff mods. Doesn't matter if they make it in 1.09 or not, he doesn't like the direction. To each his own.
The argument has played over and over, what left is there to say? If you want to have a mega-impact, come in mega-numbers and back it up with mega-support. If it takes the ability of one buff to virtually nuke the other side's resources to make the buffing game fun, well, good riddance. Two lancasters able to destroy radar and resources for up to 4 hours before was a bit lame, don't you think?
Don't want to see anyone go, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you are perfectly willing to accept the game concession of buffs that operate 15K over historical altitudes with pinpoint accuracy (please don't quote the B-17's 36K ceiling- first, it seldom went that high, and secondly, it couldn't hit Rhode Island from up there), then you have to accept your damage can be undone by people in a game concession manner. I've seen many of you guys pull stunts and maneuvers at altitudes that would have made the pilot's ears bleed, and perform better up there than a fighter with a supposedly higher ceiling could ever dream of. It's funny, I never hear a buffer complain about that one.
I think the game wants and needs buffers, but you cannot expect more game concessions than you already have. If they happen, great for you. I still can't understand why it isn't fun to fly in, blast a base, get a few kills, and land that sortie the way it is. I guess the only thing missing is the former ability of buffers to effect a tactical nuclear strike.
Then again, could it be that Jabo is actually effective now, and people don't want to take the long flight up? If so, is that bad? Seems like another option, which can't be all bad.
In the end there is no need to call anyone that doesn't want to buff a "take off shooting type"- as a sweeping generalization it just doesn't fit. To me this turns your argument into yet another "play it my way" rant.
-
Seems to me the AI bomber wingmen would be a great force multiplier for a bomber pilot. Instead of a formation of four bombers you get SIXTEEN. With all the bombload and firepower and protection. And I'm pretty sure they'll leave in the option of using a single bomber. I definitely don't see a problem here.
If bomber pilots want to gripe about something they should gripe about the poor bombsight model, or the strat system.
-
Lazs; it's good to see you are still doing your bit to drive people away from the game.
Kharven; when will you learn to read peoples posts rather than read what you want to see them saying? It's the imminence rather than the delay of the bomber formations that clinched my decision to leave.
Funkedup; we'll have to agree to disagree. I explained why I don't like it, you seem to have ignored that explanation.
Sunchaser; I'm not sure, and didn't mean to infer, that the bomber stuff has taken a backseat. They'll be getting worked on by different people, and the bomber thing just didn't make it in time. Even so, its that- rather than when- its being added that clinches it for me.
Kieran; please don't pin your buff-anti-buff flame on me. I didn't critique the way bombers are implemented, simply that I feel this move is the wrong direction since it introduces drones into the game. IMHO AI Otto would have been a better solution, but I didn't say that I liked it. You most definitely haven't seen me pulling ear-bleeding stunts at altitude, as those who do remember me will probably recall me from back in WarBirds when RAF 617 Squadron frequently formed up on the *taxi ways* before taking off; or from working with -tomb- to organise Operation Chastise, the Dambusters Raid recreation. But the Bomber System really needs a complete overhaul. There has to be a purpose to bombing, or theres no purpose to flying bombers. At the minute they're expected to bomb with modern day accuracy, so having a non-modern day accuracy bomb site leads to a lot of wasted flights. Adding larger targets would simply make it easier for fighters to take them out. So you have a dilema. There's nothing really for the bombers to contribute. Perhaps as ground transport becomes more popular in future incarnations, the bombers will be able to provide some form of support to ground vehicles through carpet bombing.
Yeager; /salute =) I will, of course, keep an eye on AH :) I'll probably be playing H2H again in a few months, but the main arena just does nothing for me, my interests lie in directions other than AH is persuing I guess.
And generally... I've said I disliked the idea of bomber-drones since the first time I saw Bobn propose them back in WarBirds 1.2. To me the art of flying bomber formations is a key part of what makes buffing fun. My absence in game has been matched by my absence on these forums, so it says something about those of you leaping into flame mode that you would attribute your various pet flames to me... It's expected from lazs but maybe the AH commuity is beginning to draw in more people like him.
-
Who?
If you say there is nothing for a buff pilot to do in the game, I disagree. Is that a flame? If I point out that there are game concessions for buffs as ridiculous as the instant rebuild of the damage done, is that a flame? If you think so you misunderstand.
You say there is nothing for a buff pilot to do- I can't disagree more. If your argument had been "there is nothing for the lone buff pilot to do, I agree, and am glad it is that way. Keep the alt performance, keep the deadly guns, give you more formations, let you carpet bomb or strike with pinpoint accuracy from 35K, keep all that- but if you get all that, then a similarly gamey rebuild has to be part of the game.
WRT to buff formations being there as just more targets for fighters, I still fail to understand your logic. Neither you nor I know how they will work, their guns, anything at all about them. How do you know how it will pan out? Further, will you not be able to drop four times the ord on target? Will you not have four times the guns? Won't it be more difficult than ever before to attack bombers? Again, I guess because I don't know, but it seems hardly likely that multiplying the number of bombers by four will result in more vulnerable bombers. Perhaps you can help me understand.
Not trying to hurt your feelings, I just happen to disagree with the "woe is us, the bombers of AH" line of thinking. Seems to me you are getting the better end of the whole deal by a wide margin- save the ability to completely wreck a country all by yourself, which you should by no means have anyway.
-
KFSONE...actually I'm sorry if you saw my reply as directed toward you...
I was picking at Sunchaser's reply to your initial thread. Please don't take my reply as an attack towards you.
I actually agree with your initial message (sorta...mixed feelings) but I didn't want to see it shadowed by somebody who tries to agree with your views...yet in a way that seems to skew your opinion.
-
what do you mean "drive people away"? You are allready gone. I just dojn't understand how flying head to head has anything to do with fluffs and if it doesn't then why can you fly fighters in head to head but not in the arena? I wouldn't fly fluffs head to head if I didn't like the way fighters were done in the arena.
lazs
-
Historically speaking, a lonely buff against a single fighter resulted in a dead buff at least 9 times out of 10.
The buffs in this game can make 4-5 kill sorties shooting down fighters left and right.. The buff pilots should _not_ complain.
The rebuild time is a tad short though, as I've found out myself. It's not possible to do major impact alone out there.. That's not a bad thing though. How many times the fields were porked by the lonely dweeb who spent 2 hours of his time climbing to 30+k and then dropping the bombs from his untouchable position.. Nobody liked that, except the dweeb who ate his lunch and took a hot shower while his fluff was gaining altitude within friendly lines.
I'd like to see 20-30 buff formations at 10-20k (with reasonable leathality though) that strike fields.. Then the fighters would have something to shoot at instead of climbing after the 30k lonely superbuff that will shoot you down with a guarantee at that alt.
I rarely fly buffs and I even more rarely gun in them, yet I'm able to kill 90% of attackers easy. Sometimes resulting in 4-5 kills and rtb.. That means only that buff modeling is very favourable to the buff and the fighters are at a big disadvantage.
Often there has been situations where I've fought 2-3 vs 1 and either shot the enemy down or escaped.. Then a couple seconds after that I try to attack a B17 (high slash not 6 approach) and get pinged to dead from the first hit. So it feels like I have more chances to survive 2:1 vs fighters than a lonely buff.
AI gunners would make things much much worse.. We already have enough problems with the magic AI ack hitting 500mph planes.. Imagine what that would do to anyone who tries to make a fast slashing attack - a certain death.
It would be a no-win situation, you can't go fast because of AI and you can't slow down because the fluff gunner might be there..
-
Man....you guys are mean spirited....quit it!
Kfsone...join the Dickweeds Heavy Bomber Group...you will have some fun I assure you.
(http://www.13thtas.com/rudesig.jpg)
-
Otto.... Just say NO.
-
NO!
My real name is Otto:)
(http://www.13thtas.com/rudesig.jpg)
-
Historically speaking, a lonely buff against a single fighter resulted in a dead buff at least 9 times out of 10
At least? so you're saying most of the time it was a dead cert the bomber would die? sorry thats not true as is 9 times out of 10. A lone bomber was still a salamanderly target for a lone fighter. Instances of a lone bomber vs a lone fighter often was the result of a buff taking damage that was substantial enough for it to fall out of formation, but even then unless the gunners were hurt it would still pose a salamanderly target but often only needing small ammounts of damage to compound what it had already taken and see it killed.
I'm sorry to see you go KFS, have fond memories from flying with 617 and also in AH with you. You were a credit to the bombing community of both sims and I am very sorry to see you go. WW2OL has a more historically accurate norden system but I still feel the rest of the game has a lot of fixing needed which is a shame. Have fun wherever you go and maybe I'll be fortunate enough to wing up with you once again
-
From the aspect of "teamwork," there's nothing more satisfying than to have a field under attack and to shut down the attack by porking the fuel at the attacking fields. Even better, have a group pork the barracks at nearby fields so that the attacking fields can't be resupplied.
However, it does require teamwork ... typically, more than one field can attack another and similarly for the resupply issue. I estimate that 10 arados can stop an attack "dead in it tracks" across any front for a period of 30 minutes. 3 B17s with 4 or 5 fighters escorts can accomplish the same thing, but it takes longer.
The issue is teamwork. There's abundant work for the buffs, but it's not high altitude stuff (>20k).
curly
-
Instances of a lone bomber vs a lone fighter often was the result of a buff taking damage that was substantial enough for it to fall out of formation, but even then unless the gunners were hurt it would still pose a salamanderly target but often only needing small ammounts of damage to compound what it had already taken and see it killed.
Lone buff vs lone fighter and buff falling out of formation? What formation?
I haven't ever seen a fighter pilot story where the fighter would have been actually scared to attack the buff because of it's awesome hitting power, quite the contrary of what we have in AH.
-
I think if you weren't afraid of the possibility of a .50 slug hitting you in the face, you weren't smart enough to be in the cockpit. That said, it was relatively easier to attack a single buff than to attack a formation. A buff with all its crew and guns intact was still a formidable opponent, even if alone.
-
Well, the russian bombers must have sucked bigtime because in all the stories I've read, the pilots considered taking them down fairly easy unless the buff was so armoured that the ammo didn't damage it.
They just went in, shot a couple rounds to kill the gunners and then started hitting the engines at a close distance. No mention about extreme approach angles, 1 hit miracle kills or being unable to disable buff gunners. OTOH I read many stories of wildly shooting buff gunners and the fighter pilot approaching close enough to see the gunners eyebulbs before ending his life.
In all the stories I recall, the buff armour was a much worse opponent.. On some planes you had to hit the exhaust pipe opening from the side to be able to penetrate. Some planes like IL-2 was resistant to MG fire in all places except 1x1 meter spot in the root of the wing where it was vulnerable. The cockpit was of course one of the most popular places to shoot to in all planes.
-
>>Well, even though they seem to have been "toss ins" to draw a few bodies into the game, bombers have become totally irrelevent in Aces High outside of scenarios.
Any damage they cause can be repaired in seconds, way too long for some here, and cloning them in 4s would surely raise the whine level to new heights. <<
Well I guess I've been flying a different game :confused:
And I guess I gotta wish you guy(s) farewell and good luck whereever the hell yer going.
Perhaps the Buffs I have seen at 25k and above dropping eggs on their targets with uncanny accuracy, then blowing fiters out of the air with relative ease is a figment of my imagination:confused:
Perhaps there is a place/sim for disgruntled buffers where all the fiters are drones, and modeled with the consistency of paper mache, and where buffers have unlimited bombloads and can fly rings around the toughest nme interceptors dropping their bombs while fighting off those pesky lil Focke Wulfs.
-
>>If you are perfectly willing to accept the game concession of buffs that operate 15K over historical altitudes with pinpoint accuracy (please don't quote the B-17's 36K ceiling- first, it seldom went that high, and secondly, it couldn't hit Rhode Island from up there),<<
Ahhh! Sanity at last!:D
And to add, there is a problem with the resupply system which has been discussed many times. It is broken and needs to be fixed. To my knowledge HT or Pyro haven't said: 'no we won't be fixing that".
-
I'm speaking mainly of the B-17, Mr.Sid. The Russians didn't put anywhere near as many defensive guns on their bombers as did the Americans.
Take the lowly TBF, for instance. One nearly ended Saburo Sakai's life because he made a belly approach into the belly stinger- a measly .30. Bullet grazed his skull and blinded him in one eye. Now try and imagine the same approach on a B-17, twin .50's with a much better traverse and field of fire.
Point is, while it might be relatively easy to get a single B-17 compared to a flight, it wasn't an easy kill if all the guns and gunners were alive.
-
Kieran: How many 4 kill sorties did B-17 crews pull in WW2? Not to mention they weren't attacking alone but in huge formations in order to stand a chance.
It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, the b17, b26 and lanc are all a) too manouverable up high b) too leathal when compared to historic success. This is especially true with the dedicated buff killing planes such as a8. It was designed to withstand the damage from the defensive fire to frontal part in order to do its job.
If it took 2 fighters per average to down one b17 the luftwaffe would have run out of fighters even without allied introducing escort fighters.
-
Onboard radar and ten mile icons are the reasons why AH MA will never be nice place for bomber pilots.
You cannot get to target and home alive unless you have significant altitude advantage. That means you must spend long times for boring climbs. And if you spend long times just climbing, you don't want to get blonw to bits by first fighter that sees you. This means you must have artifically enchanced defensive armament. This means that fighter pilots whine about that armament and rightly so.
Get rid of inflight radar and long range icons. I doubt HTC has guts to do it this is what we are stuck.
-
"It doesn't matter how... I... try... to... twist... it..."
Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else. I am pointing out 11 x .50 is a sticky target. If you extrapolate out maneuverability from that, or alt performance, or anything else, you do so on your own.
-
Good riddence kfsone. Die in WWIIOL.
I hate that basatrd, he stole my 'Ol lady.
Lazs; it's good to see you are still doing your bit to drive people away from the game.
Nice one from a homewrecker, you sonofasqueak.
-
You let some effeminate sounding brit with socialist dental work steal your ol lady?
lazs
-
Yup, musta been the fake love poems, candy, and it didn't "hurt alot" short and sweet during love makin.
He's sneaky, what a toejam.
-
sorry to see anyone leave but I cant understand why anyone would think hes a drone when HTC adds 2 or 3 bombers to your flight!!??? YOU ARE A DRONE WHEN ALONE.
whats the most unrealistic thing in AH? lone bombers/bomb accuracy/bomb damage. They didnt send these bomber guys out in single aircraft because a single fighter in real life could carve them up. The answer in AH is to organise missions with as many bomber pilots as you can persuade to enter.Often you will only get 2 or 3 pilots in and you would be vulnerable to all the furball heads.With 2-3 bombers for each pilot you now have up to 9 bombers in the flight!! kfstone you love buffs but you DONT want this??? you gotta be crazy. :)
Hell if htc gave us 20 bombers per player THAT would be a HOOT!!
make the bombs as innaccurate as they were(as in they could miss by half a damn mile!) make the buffs really durable, tone down the lethality of buff guns to a more realistic level and start CARPET BOMBING :)
fighters attacking would REALLY have fun shooting down bombers.It might take longer or more attacks, it might expend almost all of your ammo but at least 5 or 6 hits of 50 cals from 1.4k wont destroy a wing! you as a fighter will make slashing passes blowing bits off all over the place, you will get hit but it wont be the end of the fight for either of you!
I cant understand why this hasnt been done! LONGER fights,More time to learn how to attack, less frustration at the guns,buff pilots get to actually kill fighters with a gun that has no adjustments , and therefore NO MOANING about long range super shooting.
WW2ol is where you are going to get your bomber kicks? I like WW2ol bombers but its hardly a user friendly bombing system! I cant drop more than a couple from bombardier position without having t switch back to pilot to re-position the aircraft.I think WW2ol has one of the worst bomber set ups ive seen in any sim.
It seems they expect you to be in 3 positions at once, flying bombing and gunning, but if you go gunner the plane just starts to drift without auto pilot control.Now that really IS annoying.
ah well GL kfstone, but i think you are judging HTC too soon.We've all done it and been pleasently suprised at what they produce for us.Give them a chance to show us what they think will improve matters before you condemn it.
-
On the very unlikely off-chance that you aren't trolling...
I never said I played buffs head 2 head. I said I am a buffer type. But I gave up on flying buffs in the main arena not because doing it well was hard, but because expending the effort to do it well generally left players feeling unrewarded resulting in them rapidly losing interest in the hassle.
-
lazs is job is done here then...........
maybe he can get the rest of the fluffers to feel that very same way.................
-
No one cares. Geezus.
-
Large buff missions are quite fun, When you get at least 7 or 8 lancs with escorts thats a h00t! but i dont think that many people have the time to do all of that. A few squads can get mabye 3 or 4 buffs up but never like 10 or 20.... I would LOVE to see that all in formation flying 25K with escorts. But that wont happen any time soon. I fly buffs alot and I don't think buffers should whine and cry about how cheap they are and stuff. Only way (3/4 of the time) i can get killed in a buff is if i have more then 1 guy on me.. then i know im dead and i kill the one that i can and go down with him... But IMHO buffers shouldnt whine.
BTW i didnt read all of the post's i dont have time :)
Peace
-
Again, Lazs; it's good to see you are still doing your bit to drive people away from the game.
?
-
To any of you unhappy folks...
Try Warbirds.
When you come back we will forget all of this.
-
If there were any WWII recorded 4-kill B-17 sorties the kills were likely bogus.
B-17 and B-24 kills were among the most inflated kill stats of WWII. USAAF pretty much eliminated any review or investigation or confirmation requirements for buff kills, to keep morale up when the buff losses were enormous. You claimed a kill, and you got it.
If a lone 190 attacks a box of Buffs, and 14 different gunners in 7 different Buffs shot at it, and it blows up...guess how many kills were recorded? 14.
If the B-17 kills were accurate then the B-17s were destroying the entire Luftwaffe every few weeks. In fighter combat, when comparing the records of both sides after the war, even for countries careful about claims it was routine for there to be 2x overclaiming....but comparing buff claims to LW losses, there's no comparison...ridiculously inflated.
Very few LW fighters were actually shot down by the buffs....overwhelming majority were shot down by escort.
As long as you avoided the slow walk-up behind, hitting a fighter was next to impossible. The guns served a purpose in preventing the 6 'o clock attack, but they weren't actually shooting people down.
-
Originally posted by Revvin
WW2OL has a more historically accurate norden system but I still feel the rest of the game has a lot of fixing needed which is a shame. Have fun wherever you go and maybe I'll be fortunate enough to wing up with you once again
How can WW2OL have a more accurate Norden bombsight, especially since they don't have any U.S. buffs in the game. They might have Sperry bombsight on some of the allied planes in that crappy sim, but definitly not a Norden.
Ack-Ack
-
so torgo, what else you got up in there that you can pull out for us? :rolleyes: