Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pepe on February 19, 2002, 02:40:51 AM
-
Same concept as for guns (beefed up for gameplay concession) add a substantially big fuel consumption multiplier (another gameplay concession). This way:
a) will have to use reasonable fuel load (so no sailplanes).
b) will have some thoughts about range/fuel loadout (not the average 25% to make the world trip and back).
c) 30k climbing will be tough and will likely finish gliding home. For instance, make fuel consumption such that it a 100% fuel load leaves only 5 mins of level flight after a full throttle 35k climb.
This as an easy and fast fix. Notwithstanding the general look that buff model in general badly needs (and thks Htc. for looking into it) :)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
I like it Pepe, :)
-
The drawback ==> the Jak 9u will be uber if she got legs !!
-
Good idea, Pepe!
It may be a-historic to crank up the fuel burn on buffs, but then again a buff pilot would in real life spend time doing weight and balance calculations, and agonising over the choice between range, flight time and ordinance, which I never do in a Lanc.
I just load 25%; 14 x 1K, hit auto take off, do the shopping come back and decide which base I'm going to pork.
Your suggestion would be an improvement on that....
-
People drop this topic once and for all! Who the hell told you that buff guns are stronger? :rolleyes: They are NOT! And if you die all the time in a fighter trying to attack buffs then YOU are doing something wrong!
AMEN! :p
-
I got pissed off and just smashed 4 of them. (check the stats Eskimo, it might have been a more brutal test)
Course it was "Creamo killed 87956" or a varient of the sequence numeral callsign Buff Ace.
Still, I got to gawk at the steamin radiator white HTC graphics on the Dora, and I ran away knowing I was right.
-
It reminds me of an rooks buff mission somewhere north at Mindanao where they had 3 Lancasters with P-51s and P-38s as escort at about 25k heading prolly for our HQ... I say prolly because I don't know where they were heading... They never made it to theit target... They met me and orel and were all Tempestized :D Escorts first and then the lonely Lancasters... I almost feel sorry for those buff drivers when I'm about to send them down in flames at 25+ k it must have taken quite alot of time to get fully loaded lanc to that alt... Oh well and still I always pull the trigger :D
-
Wtg MAD!
Those AH regulars are still pry wondering your powers and ACM mastery. I stand corrected on the newbe dig goof on Buff defence gameplay.
-
Hehehe, just killed a lanc and a B17 in Dora too, took 2 50 cal hit from the B17 and POOF goes my Radiator, is this thing outside of the plane or what? ;)
Btw, great idea Pepe, maybe they wouldn't outmanuver anything at 25k and up either.
-
Originally posted by MadBirdCZ
People drop this topic once and for all! Who the hell told you that buff guns are stronger? :rolleyes: They are NOT! And if you die all the time in a fighter trying to attack buffs then YOU are doing something wrong!
AMEN! :p
I've got to applaud you for saying what's pretty obvious. While I usually fly Ar 234s or Lancasters, I can't begin to tell you how many fighters climb slowly up my 6, sit there, hoping I do not see them, and die from a short burst to one wing root.
Then, channel 1, the dummy in the fighter rants how buff guns are over powered, etc etc.
Its tactics, as you mentioned.
The only exception is in the B-17. As a B17 pilot, and as someone whose attacked them in fighters, they have some amazing range on those guns, and the fact they can fire through their own structure is annoying. In a P38, Ive been hit from the B17s 3'oclock position a 1.8k out. 1 hit, 1 engine dead, and down I go. As others have pointed out, the B17 needs to be reviewed.
I like the fuel load idea.
I'm still curious of this Lancaster III we have had more horsepower than is modelled. Someone said it did, but I havent seen any followup posts on that.
There are some really really good hi-alt pilots out there that know how to clean a buffs clock in 1 or 2 passes. We do not need to tune down the buff guns due to someone's lack of skill in attacking them.
And Nop, you still owe me a death ;) That was a great fight the other night over A32/Baltic
-
The Lanc III (if I've got me models right) had Bristol Hercules engines (same as the Beaufighter); which gave a bit more.
It also had a belly gun, albeit in a similar arrangement to the Ju88 (in other words, not a real "belly ball" like the B-17).
-
Fuel consumption can afford another look, but the guns are fine.
It's the fighter pilots who (generally) don't know what they're doing. This get them killed by buff guns.
Perfect example, I ran a lone B-26 into enemy Airspace, dropped by ord., and turned to sea, for the return flight. I had 3 Bogs following me, dead six, co alt, trying to catch up. Bog 1 gets within 1K, Tail gun opens up, one missing wing. Bog 2, La7, same story. Now, if you were Bog 3, would'ny you try something different? Nope, came in dead red, Co alt. Kill 3.
Now, I ran into an ace the other night. He knew every one of my weak spots. Came in under me, blasted upward, firing all the way, and then inverted and came back down. I lost an engine and an Aileron. I must have hurt this pony, because he broke off after his second pass. Still, another pass and he would have had me. I can tell an ace from a newb the minute they are within 2k.
And the Aces ALMOST ALWAYS beat my buffs guns.
-
I was out pokin around bish country last week in a G-2 with gondolas and got a B-17 and Lanc that were at about 8k. It sure is more enjoyable to go deep into enemy territory and bounce buffs that are flying together. They must have been deep into conversation because my poor gunnery skills on the B-17 caused me to hose down the whole bird before I shot em down and it never fired one shot at me. Though the Lanc was shootin at me 2k before I got to him...
-
The MkII used the Bristol Hercules ,the MkIII used the Packard Merlin 28, 38 and 224 engines and had a cruising speed of 234mph at 21,000ft with a service ceiling of 23,000ft and an absolute ceiling of 24,500ft with a rate of climb of 250ft/min. This was at a weight of 65,000lb in early examples which increased to 72,000lb in 1945.
-
Wow! Bring one of those in and let's pork some fields!
-
lol oops edited
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Wow! Bring one of those in and let's pork some fields!
If you do that Lazs will haunt you in your dreams :)
-
Originally posted by MadBirdCZ
People drop this topic once and for all! Who the hell told you that buff guns are stronger? :rolleyes: They are NOT! And if you die all the time in a fighter trying to attack buffs then YOU are doing something wrong!
AMEN! :p
I don't think Pepe is talking about the guns. I think he's talking about the unusual flight characteristics of buffs that 1) have dropped their ordnance and 2) have 10-15% fuel load.
curly
-
what i said in another post. take a 100% fuel lanc or b17 and take it to 20k.. and see if you can pull the split-s or insta-turns.. you will stall halfway in the manouver.
the fuel must be changed so that buffs have to take 100 fuel to get across most of the map.. not this crap of 25% fuel and fly 5 sectors at 15k.
-
Quite the opposite indeed. I can drop B17s and Lancs with incredible ease (b26 and ju88 are a little harder to kill).
I have always felt the buff guns were longer ranged but I guess they are not. What is for sure is how easily B17s and Lancs blow up.
Its the guns lethality optimised for instant gratification (ie gameplay) that really chorks things up IMO. All for the better I guess. I like to see things explode too...
Y
-
The Lancaster had a range of 1,550 miles with a 22,000lb bombload, the B17 had a range of 1,800 miles...fuel burn seems to be correct its just the small scale of map we play on but the altitude of the bombers certainly does need attention I hate to see them being used over their listed ceiling and instruct all my pilots to not go over those.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I don't think Pepe is talking about the guns. I think he's talking about the unusual flight characteristics of buffs that 1) have dropped their ordnance and 2) have 10-15% fuel load.
curly
Exactly....guns mentioned only as a reference.
Thanks for explaining that. :)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Originally posted by Revvin
The Lancaster had a range of 1,550 miles with a 22,000lb bombload, the B17 had a range of 1,800 miles...fuel burn seems to be correct its just the small scale of map we play on but the altitude of the bombers certainly does need attention I hate to see them being used over their listed ceiling and instruct all my pilots to not go over those.
This says it all Im affraid.... ;) Because acording to area size and even to the fuel consumption multiplyer the numbers seem to be quite OK for the buffs... And we are geting to another problem.. We need biger maps with more distant fields... But I will better not continue on this becaue it would seriously spoil someone's fun (wouldnt it?).... :p
(the area as it is, is way too small for 400 ppl IMHO)
-
Originally posted by Seeker
The Lanc III (if I've got me models right) had Bristol Hercules engines (same as the Beaufighter); which gave a bit more.
It also had a belly gun, albeit in a similar arrangement to the Ju88 (in other words, not a real "belly ball" like the B-17).
Not all variants had the belly gun. I believe it was removed once the Lancaster began doing night raids.
-
the b17's beta paintjob needs a touch up. I'd like to see a memphis belle olive drab type scheme... i dont care, i just want it refurbished or a different color :cool:
-
And as for the 30+ k buffs - HTC will give us Me-163s in two weeks anyway so then we will deal with those buffs as well :D
Meanwhile I will let those 35k buffers alone... Any damage they cause is repaired long before they rtb anyway... (dont you just love the new strat system?) ;)
-
mad... 2 or 3 hour flights to the fight would be a lot more realisic. It would be even more so tho if you never saw any enemy fighters. course, the fluffs would have no idea if they did any damage or not and for the most part, other than flatening a few hospitals and orpjanages, they wouldn't have any effect on anything.
lazs
-
But it still sounds better than "filelds closer to each other"... Actually closer fields would have 1 benefit.. I would be able to vulch enemy taking off planes from my field's manable ack :D