Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MrSiD on April 18, 2001, 06:36:00 AM
-
Thats right, let's see how many of the participants of the UBB think that:
a) The buffs are barely surviving as is, the guns and the bombing should be left alone if not improved..
b) The buffs are ridiculous killing machines, precision bombing and hyperleathal turret guns should be brought to more realistic levels..
If HTC works with the ideal of democracy, the winning opinnion should be taken into consideration.
-
As it is now buffs are ridiculous killing machines that require no escorts . People say that if we make buff guns realistic nobody would fly them in the MA . Buff gunners in AW were relatively ineffective, and a lone buff was dead meat just like wwII. However attacking a buff meant exposing yourself to it's escort fighters . Another even more important reasons to tone down buff guns is scenario play . Imagine being in a group of fighters tasked with intercepting a formation of 40 or so AH b17's . The bombers would kill more fighters than fighters would, how absurd is that .
-
B
The bomb modeling is such that calling it a simulation is laughable.
Add the effects and WIND, DRAG and DRIFT. and teh hyperaccuracy will be replaced by a more realistic effect.
Also increase the bomb damage effects, a 1k egg landing 10 feet from an osti and not damaging it retarded..
and a 100 pound bomb making the same size crater of tha 4000 pounder speaks for itself...
Bullet FM is paid so much attention to and modled so accuratly, while the bombs are...well they way they are makes no sense..
We have WW2 bombs that are more accurate than any bomb or missle in existance today. yet cause almost no damage unless they directly hit the target..
DECREASE accuracy
INCREASE damage
PRESTO the first step towards realistic bomb modeling.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-18-2001).]
-
Status quo.
Fidd
-
The only change I would like to see is the ability to add more than 1 gunner to the bombers.
There is plenty of porking already occuring.
ATC
-
No change please.
They blow nicely whe you setup your attack carefully...
hint :
Alt + speed + jinking a bit == TheBomber.blow() (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I've a great respect to the bomber pilot it's a dificult task to do.
The only trouble is the strato bomber ... but the G10 hanlde nicely this job (I call it my F104 emulator (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
Just a note HTC did improve the blast radius of the bombs a couple of versions ago . Speaking from my own experiences, 1k bomb has to miss pretty badly not to kill a gv . The blast radius of a 1k bomb is larger than it's crater . But the farther away the bomb lands from target the less damage it does. My biggest beef is with the guns, they are really going to hurt the scenario experience, and to me scenarios are more important than the MA .
-
A
Someone who takes the time to get the advantage in a fighter will consistantly take down a bomber. Sit on a bombers 6 at .8K and you will die every time.
So far in tour 15, the B17 has shot down 2163 fighters, and has been shot down 2679 times by fighters. I don't think a kill ratio of a little over .8 is unreasonable.
And are we only talking about the B17? Surely people can't be asking for the guns on the TBM or JU88 to be toned down, are they? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Mickey
3./JG2 (http://members.home.net/winyah999/3jg2.htm) "BigJoe's Bastards"
[This message has been edited by Mickey1992 (edited 04-18-2001).]
-
They're fine
-
Its tough for a developer to ride the fine line of "Easy enough for a newbie, challenging enough for a veteran".
Leave them as is, but add more bomber types. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Yes a kill ratio of .8 is unreasonable, infact it is glaring evidence of how crazy buff guns are . Especially considering that most kills are from lone bombers . Some fighter planes don't even have a kill ratio that good . A split second of gunfire from a buff turret shouldn't be able to dismember a fighter plane that is over 1/2 a kilometer away . Again I am most concerned with the effect this will have on scenarios .
-
- Real size for craters, for each type of bomb, with a adjusted to real life blast radius and living for longer period as damage in the target.
- Norden sight working more in the line WB did. Time to adjust, and deny violent jinkenbankenpushenthursterwer kenmanouveren (i.e. no fighter pilot wannabes)
I think that would be fair enough to increase Buff flying interest.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
A
Eagler
-
Originally posted by Pepe:
- Real size for craters, for each type of bomb, with a adjusted to real life blast radius and living for longer period as damage in the target.
- Norden sight working more in the line WB did. Time to adjust, and deny violent jinkenbankenpushenthursterwer kenmanouveren (i.e. no fighter pilot wannabes)
I think that would be fair enough to increase Buff flying interest.
I agree with Pepe on this. Also being able to add more gunners would be nice. Also I stoped comming up behind them or undernieth unless there was very little time to get them out of thier bomb site. I find attacking from the port side or the other very effective with one pass to down the bombers.
-
Why is it that people would rather F**ck up the bomb sight to decrease the accuaracy than make the bombs behave realistically... they would have the same effect.
Bombs that dont have
WIND
DRAG
is just plane DUMB
how can you have anything that is supposed to even resemble a WW2 sim and not modle those 2 things..
as to why some people would rather f**k up the bomb sight insted of just making the bombs behave realistically is beyone me..
Make the whoopee bombs BEHAVE like bombs...not like some kind of damn super space bomb that doesent obey {b]ANY[/b] of the laws of physics accept gravity..and that is almost a joke like the rest.
just implement a simple setting that makes the bombs drift x number of feet off center for every x amound of feet they fall
As it for ever 1000 feet the bomb falls it will drift 2 fet off center... each bomb will drifet different distances..
That way alt 10-20 k bombers can still be very effective against trgets AS THEY WERE IN REAL LIFE
but at 25k-35k + they have a very hard time hitting exact targets AS THEY WERE IN REAL LIFE
as far as bombs needing to be super accurate because there are no mass formations..thats stupid..show me a single target that would require a mass formation of bombers to Severley damage it...the DAMN HQ is the toughest target in the game and what does it take WOOHOO 2 lancasters whoopty toejam...
the stupid CITY can be destroyed with just 1 bomber.. so saying we need super accurate bombs because we dont have mass formations is STUPID because there is no target that 1 bomber cannot severly damage.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-18-2001).]
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 04-18-2001).]
-
What needs to be changed is the M-5 super-optronic bomb sight. Yea sure, make it more accurate than historical accuracy at 10k, but I think that above 10K the bombs should have a RANDOM DRIFT of 1' per 100 feet so that at 30K your bombs drift up to 200 feet (two hanger lengths I'd say).
This keeps the bombing accurate enough when at REASONABLE altitudes, but gets rid of most of the 30-35k strato buffs that take zero skill to pork a base.
As far a gun lethality, I have little problems killing buffs. It all depends on if you do it right. Get above them and dive down at oblique angles and you can kill a 17 or Lanc with realative certanty. It also is very east to kill them if you wait till they are lining up on the target (as 95% of buffs dont have xtra gunner). You can wait till they are near the target, and see the tell-tale little aleron wiggles...drop down take off a wing and BOOM!
(http://home.tampabay.rr.com/strategy/YAK9.gif)
[This message has been edited by 2Late4U (edited 04-18-2001).]
-
it's both the fact that they have too many concessions and that they don't have enough targets or... targets that are realistic.
I will concede that without fixing the fact that they have no realistic targets you can't make the bombers more than the sick joke they are right now realism wise, and still have people fly em.
They are not just broken realism wise they are a victim of simplistic and unreealistic strat and targets too.
lazs
-
I want Lanc and B17 and b26 whiners to feel what it's like to fly the JU88 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
B... nice letter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Dispersion according to altitude is needed! If one wants to bomb accurately he has to stay lower. If the bomb blast is now too small, make it as large as it was in real. Adjust the damage levels.
Also one gunner should not be able to fire several guns accurately at the same time. Either AI for other gunner positions, allow more gunners in one plane or simply just keep the other gunner positions quiet if they are not manned.
No more single B-17 raids. Either fly in a formation or be escorted!
-
yep blau... it allways amazes me when people tout things like WWII online and all the infantry, cooks, truckdrivers, whatever that will be in the game and be real people but in AH and other sims.... we can't get a crew of even 5 or six to man a 10 man bomber. We can't get people to escort bombers.... Any boring job is ignored (and rightly so. it's our dime) so.... the bombers have to be one man porcupines with laser guide bombs that "affect" the fun of a lot of people who couldn't care less about em or no one would even fly the POS.
lazs
-
B
-
Just for the sake of statistics:
Tour15:
AKSWulfe has 2 kills and has been killed 0 times against the B-17G.
Stain has 3 kills and has been killed 0 times against the B-17G.
Stain has 4 kills and has been killed 0 times against the B-26B.
Stain has 1 kill and has been killed 0 times against the Ju 88.
Tour14:
Stain has 3 kills and has been killed 0 times against the B-17G.
Stain has 1 kill and has been killed 1 time against the B-26B.
AKSWulfe has 4 kills and has been killed 2 times against the B-17G.
AKSWulfe has 5 kills and has been killed 1 time against the B-26B.
AKSWulfe has 3 kills and has been killed 1 time against the Ju 88.
AKSWulfe has 1 kill and has been killed 0 times against the Lancaster III.
Now if I add all that up:
27 kills over 2 tours and 5 deaths.
If I set myself up for a good pass, all I need is one pass and I've got that bomber dead. If I set myself up for a lousy pass, well then I can expect to go down.
Oh and that's using the supposedly "undermodelled" Mausers on the 190A5. <shrug> Guess it's all in the eye of the defeated.
-SW
-
A
-
A
I think the priority is planeset at the moment. Maybe one day the 6 people at HTC could turn their valuable attention to this problem.
Tone down the buff guns and you need escort - where is this escort going to come from? Most people find escorting boring - in the historical scenarios, its the task that most people don't want. From my experience anyway.
-
Staus quo.
Wobble, do the LW thing, data man, data.
Show some figures for bomb flight deviation due to wind etc.
-
Well I think everything is balanced with the bombers, except maybe the bomb loadouts. WE NEED MORE BOMBS IN THE 17! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyway getting serious here, the ones of ya that are complaining are prolly the same ones that pull HO or RO till your 500 from the bomber, and you come straight in, and then you die. What do you expect here? You have to use some fighter pilot skills when you attack a bomber.
One be higher and faster and two come in on a blindspot. It's not hard, well it is for me, but there are plenty of guys that waste me that way. It's called being a pilot instead of a drone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And you might need to realize that some of us know how to use the guns on the bombers, just a wild guess there though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
This buff argument has become inane and ridiculous and carried on by the ones who don't want to take the time to set the run up.No one says any thing about carriers that never run out of fuel,ammo,planes or pilots but just go on and on.Some one with more knowledge could list all the problems with fighter planes and GVs that are not modeled perfectly.There is nothing perfect in the MA.This is a GAME.Get a grip.This is not real life.If it were you would be killed just once.Lighten up and enjoy whats there.
-
Taking into account the way is entire game functions and is played right now, I say A. I think a major re-vamp would be required to have it any other way at this point (as some others have mentioned).
On another note, I heard on the Discovery Channel that the US Air Force expects up to 6' of deviation due to turbulence/wind for every 1000 feet alt on dumb bombs.
Belt
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
I want Lanc and B17 and b26 whiners to feel what it's like to fly the JU88 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Santa thats not a hard bomber at all. The variety of targets that can be taken out on one pass is what is so great about it. It takes some pounding to put it down, and the manuverablities when empty is just like a Fighter. Didn't they use the Ju-88 to go up and attack the B-17? I believe the did at some part in the War. The only thing that I see bad about the Ju-88 is that it is gas guzzler.
-
On another note, I heard on the Discovery Channel that the US Air Force expects up to 6' of deviation due to turbulence/wind for every 1000 feet alt on dumb bombs.
<Loud Screaming Banshee yell>
-
Buff are easy to kill if u get the right alt and angle np (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
dont want them changed its difficult to surive in them as it is.
AG
-
Guns and bomb sight should be done realistically instead of "boosted for gameplay". Model them more accurately and find another way to balance "gameplay".
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-18-2001).]
-
Odd. 617 achieved an *average* error of 94 yards dropping 12000lb blast bombs from 10,000 ft, which would suggest a drift of 600ft or 200 yards! (according to USAF figures)
Maybe USAF just never expected to hit anything accuratly?
Fidd
(tongue in cheek)
figures taken from "The Dam busters" by Paul Brickhill.
(tongue in cheek)
Originally posted by Beltfedd:
On another note, I heard on the Discovery Channel that the US Air Force expects up to 6' of deviation due to turbulence/wind for every 1000 feet alt on dumb bombs.
Belt
-
I'd like to see a more realistic modelling of buffs and bombing in general.
If bombing was more realistic (i.e. no high alt pinpoint accuracy), this means that a group wanting to capture a base or destroy a strategic target should have to commit a fair amount of resources to accomplish the task. If you want utilize the advantages of heavy bombers (bringing an enormous amount of ordinance to the target), you should have to pay the price of having to protect these bombers so they make it to target. A group of bombers should be easy pickins for a group of determined fighters and a lone buff should be considered nothing short of a suicide run.
As it is now, I rarely engage a buff unless I'm just plain bored and can not find a fighter nearby.
------------------
Exile
Tard Extraordinaire
SIMLADDER.COM (http://www.simladder.com/aceshigh/)
-
Exile,
I understand your point your trying to make, but is that practical for this game? Besides me and my squaddies and Jackal and DaJoker ther are the few that do organized heavy bomber missions.At least for the Knights. Getting fifteen people at one base is a pain much less trying to get them all in the same bomber and formed correctly. And if you do manage to get that done you still have only two or three fighters for escort. And this is normally when you set up a mission.
Now I think the most likely solution is to increase the number of targets that can be hit is the best option for the bombing. Now when we change the high altitude bombing results, IE drift and drag variances due to alt, everyone will complain when someone figures out what the new pattern. This is a game and it can not simulate real life conditions under these guidelines. Sooner or later it will follow a pattern and that pattern will be found and exploited.
As far as the gunning goes, some bomber pilots know how to gun and some don't. Same applies to the fighters attacking the bombers. Some can do it some can't. Now if we want to be as realistic as possible then allow the bombers to use the guns when they are on the ground. In a real life situation a B17 could fire while rolling down the runway. That function is turned off to help out the vulcher dweebs.
-
Keep the buffs the way they are, but make the bombing somewhat harder then it is. Either wind drag something for the bombs, or make the site not as accurate. At any rate they are fine and so are the fighters, just teh bombing needs to be changed.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
"The soup nazi"
-
i might have whined sometimes but it's perfectly balanced now yes thos guns are a bit...
but u have to evade be fast and shoot at the right time on them as for the bombers it's impossible to have an accurate bombsight think off B17II u won't have the time in MA alone for that. Unless u perfectly organize i big bombergroup but that is an utopia.
it's all a question off the learning curve and how far u are in it.
bombers hardly kill me anymore i say it's hard enough for both partys this way it is now.
As for my stat (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) :
P38 vs Buff
B17 : 8-10
B26 : 1-12 dough my stats say 0-12
Ju88 : 0-4
lanc: 3-11
TBM: 0-11
overall My(lovely) P38 vs bombers is 12-48
the P38 is a good buffhunter maybe the best one in the whole MA(none perked)
do i need to whine ... hell no (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
and i think most off the whines just take the wrong plane against buffs for instance a nik or a spit wich perform badly at higher alt.
planes like the Ta -152 and P38 manouvre much better there and have the adequate power to intercept and bouncing.
-
this is so funny and nothing more then a joke. everybody wants the guns to be more realistic, and the bombs to be more reralistic, and the bomb sight to be more realistic. BUT who wants the plane to be more realistic. only two bombers in WWII flew at 30k, and those where the two B29's that dropped the atomic bombs. but in acs high, how many pilots are trying to get into the space program.
15K was about as high as the bombers in WWII flew at.
wolf37
-
Originally posted by wolf37:
15K was about as high as the bombers in WWII flew at.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
B-17s flew at 25,000 to 28,000ft.
Lancasters flew at 20,000ft.
The Germans had a bomber that flew at more than 50,000ft.
Where the heck did ya get 15,000ft?
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I got the 15K from the book sitting here beside me on WWII aircraft. where did you get the german bomber that could fly at 50K from, seeing as the germans had no long range bombers, only short range and medium range bombers.
wolf37
-
A
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwD6d60JNIFs2mHfM9ggHF4xY6Gy1uBBOIL0vAzWuZ4VQ!pBhaoFjvmZM4qCFICQ)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 04-18-2001).]
-
B.
Reduce gun lethality or force them somehow to fly historically. Which means no more turning like a friggin' fighter.
bowser
-
Every book I have on my bookshelf gives operational alt for the B17 was between 25-28k and a maximum alt of 35,000ft but I believe this is an unloaded ceiling. One of these books is written specifically on the B17 by Janes. My missus also bought me a nice video on the B17 for Easter and one of the pilots says quite clearly he flew at this altitude. The service ceiling for the Lancaster was 24,000ft.
-
B
And change the arena design to make realstic buffs viable and useful.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Fidd:
Odd. 617 achieved an *average* error of 94 yards dropping 12000lb blast bombs from 10,000 ft, which would suggest a drift of 600ft or 200 yards! (according to USAF figures)
Maybe USAF just never expected to hit anything accuratly?
Fidd
(tongue in cheek)
figures taken from "The Dam busters" by Paul Brickhill.
(tongue in cheek)
The figure that I quoted from the Discovery Channel (up to 6 ft drift for every 1000 ft of alt for dumb bombs) was from a show about modern laser-guided bombs. Not that that matters as much as the fact that they were talking about completely ideal circumstances (bombsight accuracy, among other things, is not a factor in this formula).
Think of it this way, you drop a bomb from 1000 feet at a given speed. In a perfect setting where all atmospheric factors are always the same (no flucuation in air pressure, no turbulence, no wind, etc.) and you release the bomb at the same point in space at always the same velocity: repeating the experiment always ends up hitting the same spot.
Now if you take this perfect situation and add in the factor of irregularities in the atmosphere affecting the bomb on its way down, you can expect UP TO 6' in deviation at the 1000ft drop altitude. Of course in a hurricane it could be much more exagerrated, but I don't think the modern USAF drops weapons much in those conditions.
Add in the multitude of factors presented by the case you site, and of course the dispersion will much more magnified.
Just wanted to make clear that the 6ft max per 1000ft air force quote was only describing one variable in a complicated situation (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Hope that made sense! God knows I'm no physics professor, lol.
Belt
-
Leave them as they are except...
make it so that if we padlock a fighter from a gunner position it changes us to the gunner that can see the padlocked fighter as the attacker changes angles. Also make the main gun positions use the same key stroke for the different fighters.
And give us chaff
-
Err no. It couldn't. For a start the tail-gunner *had* to be well forward of the tail position to keep the C of G correct for takeoff. The top gunner was busy watching the t's and p's (engineer) and the ball turret was unoccupied in case of a forced landing after takeoff. The waist guns were stowed. Hmm, lets see, that leaves the chin turret... maybe?
Fidd
Originally posted by Jebo44:
Exile,
...In a real life situation a B17 could fire while rolling down the runway. That function is turned off to help out the vulcher dweebs.
-
My opinion, leave em alone.
They are not that hard to kill if you have patience.
If you wanna die in a hurry, go in level, co-alt, and staight on it's six.
Check out beemers stats if you need proof that buffs can be an easy kill.
He gave me a few lessons, combined with common sense, success.
Sax
-
Leave em alone.
STop draggin scenarios into this, things can be changed for scenarios. That has no bearing at all on the main arena.
Its an easy kill if you are patient. The attacker is killed easily if he is stupid (as it should be)
The Lanc was well known for perfoming a "corkscrew" manuever to shake off german fighters, as it wasn't flown in close formation like the b17.
The B36 used to turn inside the f86 sabre jets at alt and cause em to stall and spin.
B17s flew high to make interceptions difficult. it made the geometry much more difficult.
The B29 regularly flew above 30k till late 1945 when most guns were stripped out and more bombs were loaded for the carpet bombing campaigns.
Cheers
Bohica
-
"If HTC works with the ideal of democracy"
Ya'all arnt from around here. Are ya? (bend, spit)
-
Leave em as they are. If anything make them tuffer.
-
Why do you think a lone bomber shouldn't make evasive actions?
1st fix should be the buff firing arcs. Why the hell can they shoot thru vertical stab?
Gunning itself is fine but needs more dispersion. Although that can be pretty bad as well since it's easier to hit to manouvering target. But i still rather take few hits than get that dence death ray if the gunner is good.
Agree the bombing should be harder.
Btw, there were a lot more than just hundred plane bomber formations. Ur mind is just seeing Bob and late war allied strategic bombings.
Recon & interdiction was used a lot! And those were done by single or small number of airplanes. And how could all those German bombers do their thing late war with all that allied air superiority? Because they flied in small formations and counted on surprise and speed.
-
A
Trell
-
Only reduce the guns range from 1.5 actual to 7/800.
Add the death of the gunners so nobody in the future will be shot down while the bombers is going down destroyed and the gunner goes on in firing: this is very annoying. Besides due to g-force and fear I don't think it was possible to stay in the turret and man the gun while the bomber was going down.
Nothing more.
Lucchini
-
A
Do anything to tone down the buffs then no one will fly them. period.
Hard enough to get plp to fly hvys to a target, make buffs easy prey, then they would all but disappear.
I do like the idea of adding extra perks for mission participation, but thats another thread.
Thanks
LaVa
-
Speculation, LaVa. On one side, you do not know that. On the other, what you perceive a toning down, other might see an improvement. I speak form myself, but I WILL fly a lot more buff missions when there is some interest in this area:
- Flight Plan needed to have a godd approach.
- Accurate Bomb Damage effect
- Adequate Airfield Damage Pattern.
It's pitiful that WB is still far ahead of AH in this particular field. Of course, thats my particular opinion.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Hi all ,
A
blitz out
-
I'd say B but regarding buff guns I must admit I'm 20-4 against B17s and yes approach does matter when you're killing buffs(sometimes it doesn't since they can fire thru the airplane) but once in a while a well placed HO shot of 30mm ammo will kill the pilot.
As to buff guns ,here's an idea as the bombers goes up in alt(I think the Buffs don't have an FM per say) the guns should be less powerful and accurate ,since the current system we have gives advantage to buffs over fighters when at high alt(barely can you maneuver with them) after a certain alt the 50 cal guns would gain more dispersion and less firing range making them untouchable but not indestructible at such extreme alts.
------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
Besser tot als rot
-
A
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
I want Lanc and B17 and b26 whiners to feel what it's like to fly the JU88 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
exactly (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
i choose 'B' though it's clearly worded for drama...i think lethal distance should be reduced and perhaps lethal effect.
i have had a single half inch bullet fired from a bouncing buff, 1,400 yards away cause the entire back of my plane to fall off -
thats 14 football fields folks - i think i could probably catch a bullet from that distance i seriously doubt it would cause a plane to split in two. i mean maybe make a dent but rip the empanage off?
werner moulder's slashing attacks on buffs were highly effective because a speeding plane was hard to hit in a deflection shot etc etc...he would have died 1st time out if life were like a.h.
if .50 cal were really that lethal why would we use torches and explosives to disassemble buildings? just point a .50 cal at them and you could take down the world trade center from 50 yds by that logic!
short story = status quo with minor adjustments.
-
A) And give us Harpoons, AMRAAMs and backwinders, night goggles and JDAMs. Surelly we'll duplicate the number of buff pilots.
Ups! And dont forget the stealth capabilities of the B17.
-
Fidd,
I aint gonna argue how they stowed the gear in 48. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) All I am saying is that some if all of the guns could be, hypothetically manned if they were rolling down a runway. So if we are going to make every thing realistic allow all or some of the 17's guns to be fired while on the deck. If your saying that the reason they are turned off is because the gun crews had to be here and there because of during takeoff duties fine, I'll go with that. But I really doubt there was a 17 crew in the world that had their guns unstowed and locked in to their bases and locked and loaded the second the wheels were up. So what do you suggest HT should do?
I am not jackin' with ya just trying to provide a different view point from a bomber driver.
-
It's ok, although my post was factually correct, I was teasing you a bit! I do think that HT has it right, as regards buff guns being U/S until airborne. Imagine what might happen if this were not the case:
1. b17(s) alts to filed, kills acks and FH, VH.
2. B17 lands at field and uses gunners to destroy remaining soft targets.
3. B17 remains parked as a mobile MG position.
Thats *exactly* what would happen, therefore HT is wise to prevent it. The reality is that it would be sheer suicide to attempt to takeoff a B17 from a field under attack by fighters; so in this regard HT has also got it right!
Fidd
Originally posted by Jebo44:
Fidd,
I aint gonna argue how they stowed the gear in 48. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) All I am saying is that some if all of the guns could be, hypothetically manned if they were rolling down a runway. So if we are going to make every thing realistic allow all or some of the 17's guns to be fired while on the deck. If your saying that the reason they are turned off is because the gun crews had to be here and there because of during takeoff duties fine, I'll go with that. But I really doubt there was a 17 crew in the world that had their guns unstowed and locked in to their bases and locked and loaded the second the wheels were up. So what do you suggest HT should do?
I am not jackin' with ya just trying to provide a different view point from a bomber driver.
-
I say "A" but with a caveat. I think if anything is changed then it should be to the effect that flying a buff would increase immersion.
Make the manifold pressure increase if you increase prop pitch with a steady throttle,(like real life)
Make it possible to adjust mixture (like real life)
Make these things automatic if you don't want to fool with them.
Make the Buff, especially the 17, able to take a LOT more punishment.
I like the idea of the norden sight working like it did in WB, but I don't beleive that makeing bombs disperse like in real life would do much to enhance gameplay (from a buff crew's perspective anyway).
I think it would be ok to reduce the effectiveness of the guns down to 1k, no closer though unless the toughness was increased dramaticaly.
If these can't be implemented then leave it the way it is as far as I'm concerned.
I fly fighters more than buffs for the simple reason that landing a buff mission is almost impossible with the arena populated at over 100.
Getting fighter escorts is near impossible but my squad has done that. Even with escort, buff missions are not very succesfull as far as making it back to a landing.
There will always be this argument. In here, in WB and in WWIIOL when and if it ever gets going.
If you are patient in a fighter you will kill the buff. All it takes is the proper approach. If you don't want to have that patience, then don't bother. And don't whine about it either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
'Nuff said.
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
"...Why do you think a lone bomber shouldn't make evasive actions?...".
I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't take evasive actions. What we're talking about is several changes in heading over or near the target made possible by the "instant" norden in AH. In RL the bombers had to maintain a heading for a period of time, which would allow fighters to set up a proper attack. In AH, the bombers can continually turn their 6 to you and still get the bombs on target, and fire accurately.
For all the people talking about proper attacks, patience, etc..you're obviously not facing the same bombers I see, who are continually turning their 6 to you, making a properly set up attack impossible.
In Warbirds, it would take about a minute for the Nordon to calibrate once the heading was changed, meaning you had to use a proper IP and bombing run, similiar to RL. Maybe something like this would help.
bowser
[This message has been edited by bowser (edited 04-19-2001).]
-
Yes Bowser,
I have faced them too. It makes it really interesting to say the least. But we come back to that little word...patience. You really need to set up your attack correctly or you WILL get shot down.
I have worked on a buff for what I thought was a long, long time before I got the shot I was looking for. Most of the time, I don't have the necessary patience and he ends up shooting me down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
If they are below 20k... hehehehehehehehe
I still get shot down a lot, but with the proper setup, you will get your con.
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
Status quo with one very small change
Like everything else in this game, you have to learn how to do it correctly. The only complaint I have is this:
An unskilled fighter against an unskilled buff gunner = dead fighter
A skilled fighter against a skilled gunner = an even fight.
Model wind deflection for the bullets to raise the skill bar a bit for the gunner and all would be well.
People who attack buffs from 6 O'Clock get what they deserve and should stop whining.
~Lemur
-
lemur said: "Model wind deflection for the bullets to raise the skill bar a bit for the gunner and all would be well"
This IS modelled. Fire out to the side of the bomber and observe the tracer stream curving backwards.
janjan said: "1st fix should be the buff firing arcs. Why the hell can they shoot thru vertical stab?"
AGREED! The B-17G is the worst culprit - eg: the ball turret can fire through the fuselage, allowing it to fire on attacks that are coming from slightly ABOVE the bomber! A level HO attack against the B-17G faces 8 .50in guns!!!
-
I wish.
I wish the bombs would drift with the wind shears at 12k, 14k and 16k. I wish the guns were modelled differently to make it harder for the gunner. But those things continue to be my wish. I fully understand the reasons for the buffs being overmodelled. - oh, my, I said the words :-( - Getting escorts for buffs is nigh on impossible. Getting gunners even harder.
I asked HiTech about better high altitude modelling, for the high altitude fighters, e.g. the TA-152, Jug, P-38, 109G10, etc. He said they were aware of the issue, but that other matters had higher priority, since to change this would entail a lot of other *game engine* changes.
As for B17 mission altitudes in WWII, check out these sites. They cronicle real B17 missions in world war 2 and are taken from various Real Life Pilots that flew Real Missions.
http://www88.pair.com/davepaul/b17/major.htm (http://www88.pair.com/davepaul/b17/major.htm) http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/history/history2/wilson_1.htm (http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/history/history2/wilson_1.htm) http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/history/history3/johnson1.htm (http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/history/history3/johnson1.htm) http://www.91stbombgroup.com/lookingback.html (http://www.91stbombgroup.com/lookingback.html)
Hope you enjoy. BTW, none of them mention ever flying below 25000 feet, unless in an emergency, such as loss of oxygen tanks for the masks, etc. For the ones interested, I have a long list of these sites, and can share if you want. Email me at klumhru@simnet.is and I'll send you a link list.
Nit for life
Darling