Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Virage on May 16, 2002, 06:45:26 PM
-
HT in MA:
- New bombsite functionality
- Drone buffs take off, form on lead or circle base waiting for u to take off
- Pilot and gunner can both operate guns, all slaved, no ai
- If lead buff dies, pilot jumps into next drone and that becomes lead
- drones stay in formation and drop bombs when lead drops
- "very close on new terrains"
edit:
forgot 1
- If drone falls too far out of formation due to damage, it disappears.
-
and is the C47 a buff?
-
"New bombsite functionality"
- Wonder if this means bombardier has to set height and speed to sights ?
-
Oh man 1.10 is going to be a hard core buffers dream. New sites and bomb drift which will make buffing a skill, and not "easy mode" as some have put it. I hope this will cause figther jocks to respect buffs more. "All guns slaved and no AI" Oh man this is going be fun. If you fighter jocks thought flying vs 12 guns was hard wait till you try it vs 48 (B.F.G.). Oh man HT I love you!!!!!!! :D :D :D
-
Ohhh... Goody that makes me stop killing buffs even more 4x times as more:mad:
-
ok great now de-uberfy the .50cals on the b17 otherwise it is going to be redundant to fight them
-
50 cal modeling is same for every 50 cal. and since these buffs will fly tighter more firepower SHOULD be coming out. It sounds to me like HTC is finally getting what you all have whined about for so long. More realism, also since there is a altitude and wind dispersion buff more chose to fly lower to be more accurate. They will have more realistic bomb strings and not laser guided. Larger per centages of bombers on bombruns will (and should) return. Lots of targets up there for fighters. Guys will want to escort buffs becuse it will be the new (furball area). Buffs won't be talking out airfields, fighter jobo's and GV's will.
I think this is great!!!!!!!
WTG HTC
Thunder
-
Well still, it was kinda hard to slew the .50 cal around plus not to mention the cold temps up there. The thing that kinda makes me sceptical about buff modeling is just thinking how deadly 1 B-17 is in this game, it kinda makes me wonder why the Americans even bothered escorting buffs. Just think of just 50 (and a lot of B-17 raids consisted of many many more buffs) Aces High Style Buffs flying in formation.
One thing that has to go is the buff guns firing through the fuselage i mean look at the chin turret, the 2 check guns are capable of firing through the fuselage.
Well knowing the AH style AI good thing the buffs guns aren't AI controlled
-
I wonder if we will be able to killshooter ourselves if we hit a drone buff. I hope not, I'd like to see the drone duff take the damage.
-
The buff will now be the ULTIMATE power in the universe! I suggest we use it.
:cool:
Wab
-
I see it now....
"AH 1.10 Attack Of The Drones" :)
-
And 6 months from the introduction of 1.10, the wacky gang at IEN/WB will introduce a radical new concept, "Multi-buff flights, where you the pilot take up a buff and are in fact in control of 4, count them 4 buffs, all flying in formation and dropping bombs with your bomber".
I only wish I had kept a list, with the into dates for a lot of stuff that started here, and ended up being rolled out as some new thing there months later.
HT and Pyro must quietly chuckle at little when this happens, then silently in a more frustrated manner reflect on the parentage of the idea thieves.
New motto for AH "Play it here first".
dago
-
4 x Buff is gonna be cool :cool:
but in that case, the bombs should drift and have dispersion... Laser guided bombs we have now for a 4 x Buff formation will be kinda too much IMHO
-
I wonder what it will do to frame rates. 3 pilots would make 12 bombers and that formation will kill your frame rates even on a better than average system.:(
-
FPS? what about the limit of max numbers of AC´s wich AH can render/show at the same time.... What is now 32? 64?
-
It's atleast 64 now you 08 :D
<--- Kommer till Stockholm snart, 24:e Juni rycker jag in i Kungsängen.
-
Will be interesting to see how it is implemented. I think it will take some patches or even releases to make it functioning ok in terms of gameplay.
Fariz
-
Originally posted by Virage
HT in MA:
Also, there will still be the capability of only taking one bomber, if preferred.... :)
-
If HT makes the norden more realistic then as a buffer I will be very happy. For years I've wanted a sim which models a norden bombsight as closely as possible. As long as everyone else is tweaked like not needing pinpoint accuracy to destroy a target I think it will work very well, perhaps we'll see a tonnage on target setup?
-
Most buff sorties I have made in AH were without a gunner so how am i suppose to defend 4 by myself?
1 pilot with 4 buffs should result in 4 easy kills for fighters.
Realistic Norden is great.
Clouds to hide in would be better IMO.
-
Imp, it was said before, YOU will controll ALL guns of the 4 buffs by just moving ONE gun.
Unless I have missunderstood drasticly that is.
-
Imp a buff in this game is never an easy kill - if the gunner knows his business even remotely.
It's less than 50/50 chance of surviving if you attack a b17 that has an alert gunner. Most successes come by surprise, otherwise mostly the fighter just goes down in flames.
Multiply that by four and you got one heck of a deathstar flying around. I'm really interested to see the outcome and 20 player missions flying b-17's with the drones and annihilating everything in their path. I reckon it's enough to fly in a base at 1k feet and strafe the ground with the turbolasers, the whole base will die in a couple passes.
I wish HT will AT LEAST fix the gunner damage modeling in the game. The gunners practically never die to .50 or lighter hits.. It takes multiple cannon shots to kill g-s probably because theyre modeled like chutes.
It should take only 1-2 hits to kill the gunner just like in reality. Then attacking buffs would become realistic, snipe the gunners from longer range and finish off the rest of the buff from an ideal gunning position.
-
I dont know if anyone has noticed but there does not seem to be ballistic dispertion in the manned gunners spots. In a buff, Try firing a single gun at the ground when you fly over terrain low. The impact makes a neat straight line. No pispertion that I can tell.
This also applies to the manned ack guns. Just find a piece of terrain far enough out to make small hit sprites and fire without moving the gun. All hits impact at exactly the same spot. Grab an osti and try it. The rounds explode all over the impact area.
If dispertion is not modeled (I dont see it) then perhaps 1.10 would be a good time to give dispertion to the buff guns.
Feel free to try these tests and see for yourself before spouting off like youve got a pair.......
MuadDib.
He who controls the SPICE controls the universe you doof ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I see it now....
"AH 1.10 Attack Of The Drones" :)
lol
Hey Maud run some tests with the .target command and take some s-shots of the target;)
HINT: you will see dispersion
-
I think the problem was with greater dispersion on the buff guns combined with having multiple guns slaved to a single gunner, you ended up with a HUGE cone of fire. I may be mistaken, but I think HT turned the dispersion down (maybe off?) on the buff guns to prevent them from being too uber. Because all the buff guns converge on a single location, if you put in proper dispersion, you end up with with a very large cone of fire. As it is now, the cone of deadly fire is much smaller, BUT if they hit you, they all hit and you die.
Problems with the current setup IMO are that the guns will often fire through the fuselage. That really sucks. That and the gun positions being really tough to kill.
That said... I'm sure HTC will balance this so it's reasonable. The key will be how all the guns are slaved and if they keep them from firing through the fuselage combined with friendly fire within the formation.
Either way, it's going to be VERY interesting!
-
"I'm sure HTC will balance this so it's reasonable."
Amen!
This one feature has room for a lot of speculation (more IMO than padlock did before it's release) and I hope that Pyro or HiTech will give a small brief to allay fears as well as make folks happy soon.
I've not been bother by the bomber gun lethality since I learned how to deal with them. Takes time and practice. Now it's a peice of cake. I've shot them down more (much more) than I ever was by them. I've simply disliked the arcade nature of the bombers here. I'm hoping that the skill to bombing in AH rises up the complexity ladder several rungs. I say bring honor and respect to being a "bomber" in AH. Make "fluffer" a shameful thing of the past.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
ok great now de-uberfy the .50cals on the b17 otherwise it is going to be redundant to fight them
Took the words right outta my mouth! :cool:
Kuben
-
here's another question:
How many of you "Buff Hunters" fly in pairs?
the buff pilot can only aim at one AC at a time. just a thought. ;)
-
Mason: Buff hunters fly all over where buffs fly. If they're paired up then they pair. I don't think anyone in AH flies only to hunt buffs because of the nature of the game. There are no dedicated buff raids like there were in the real war, it's always a mix of 90% fighters and 10% buffs.
Therefore the only buff hunters are the ones who manage to break off the dogfight. That also means that the attacks are in no way organised, if there was a friend odds are he was shot down or engaged somewhere else. One notable point is also that the buff flies mostly alone, he's not paired either like he should - in dozens.
As a sidenote: HT has specifically said that there's nothing NOTHING porked in buff leathality or gunnery. :eek:
-
Originally posted by faminz
and is the C47 a buff?
Going to bet "a Buff" in this context is going to mean planes with a bombsight. Not C47s or IL2's. Which raises another question, I wonder how dive bombing will be handled (thinking b26 here).
-
This feature will be huge for the scenarios, where it has historically been difficult to attract large numbers of buff drivers. If we run into a situation where half the buff drivers are no-shows, then each buff driver takes 2 buffs instead of one.
-
Originally posted by Lephturn
...Problems with the current setup IMO are that the guns will often fire through the fuselage. That really sucks. That and the gun positions being really tough to kill.
That said... I'm sure HTC will balance this so it's reasonable. The key will be how all the guns are slaved and if they keep them from firing through the fuselage combined with friendly fire within the formation.
Either way, it's going to be VERY interesting!
Agreed. Being able to shoot through the fuselage is the only thing that concerns me. I don’t believe hitting a drone should cause killshooter damage but it should cause damage to the drone. If it ends up that the gunner can fire through the fuselage of all the drones that could be a problem.
As already stated though, this should be very cool to see. I really want to see that large formation, below me of course :D.
“Very close” on the terrain, outstanding!
-
"HT has specifically said that there's nothing NOTHING porked in buff leathality or gunnery."
IMO there isn't. The problem IMO could be found with the person complaining of any such thing. Most often it's simply due to a lack of viable attack tactics which is due to low experience. People might notice that most folks who claim buff guns are uber and bomber lethality is p_o_r_k_e_d have less than 6 mos online in AH.
Westy
-
K West I have slightly more than 6 months online in AH and WB and I still say it's porked.
-
Gun postions on buffs are hard to kill? I laugh at that. Yesterday I was attacked by a spit who made a GREAT strafing pass on my B17. In one pass he killed my top, Right waist, Ball, and chin guns. Now before you say "oh it was just luck", this happens every freaking day to me in the MA. IMHO Gunner postions are weak.
Also lets look at the B17 kill stats so far this tour.
The B-17G has 4096 kills and has been killed 5966 times.
Hrm, thats really odd. If the B17 was such a deathstar like alot of pilots make it out to be, then why does it still have a Negative K/D?
:)
-
MrRipley the reason buff guns seem so "uber" most of the time is not because they're porked, its because of "physics". You see, when you attack a buff from the rear you are flying -INTO- his bullets and he is flying -AWAY- from yours. So in a way, his bullets will hit you with more force and your bullets will hit with less. So it gives the false impression that buff guns are powerful and that they're invincable, when really they're not. There is a post in the Gameplay forum that has the formula and everything, though I don't know where it is.
-
I still say it's porked
Easy to say...now prove it. HTC are a reasonable bunch, if you can offer up some evidence to prove they are porked they will listen. Try a search on these very forums for explanations from HTC about the buff gunnery. Beefcake explains it above but you'll find posts from Hitech himself explaining the buff guns.
-
The only problem with buff gunners is their accurracy. Its too stable a platform even when in banks or rolls.
They nbeed to be given iron sites like the 110c and some sort of "shake" modelled.
The guns need to be abled to be disabled more easily. powered turrets ought to quit functioning in hydraulics are hit.
Also large buff formations are lag fests. They were in the days of the hq raiders and they were in BW. There needs to be some balance. Hopefully there will be a perk value for the 4 buff thing.
Will the buffs fly a predetermined flight path? or can i guy up 4 noe buffs and tool around ack starrin?
Its definately a good thing
btw wbs has had ai buff formations.
-
Originally posted by Imp
Most buff sorties I have made in AH were without a gunner so how am i suppose to defend 4 by myself?
One of the things HiTech said in the arena was that the Pilot would be able to gun as well as having a gunner.... :D
-
Originally posted by mason22
here's another question:
How many of you "Buff Hunters" fly in pairs?
the buff pilot can only aim at one AC at a time. just a thought. ;)
LOL.... with the Pilot being able to gun as well as having a gunner on board, this is obviously going to change.... :p
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
K West I have slightly more than 6 months online in AH and WB and I still say it's porked.
Having way more than six months online in AH and AW, I say that there's nothing wrong with it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
If there's more complexity to the buff modelling, in addition to the 4 ship box, that will be fine; as a buff fan and someone who likes the challenge of trying to shoot them down, I'm looking forward to it. Frame rate will be the major issue, but personally, I couldn't give a rat's bellybutton for all those complaining or bragging about the uber-uber potential of this.
First of all, even putting four Lancs in formation isn't going to do much for their survivability. Their guns are weak and they have no belly defence. The 4 ship thing will simply turn them from a tasty snack into a mobile buffet.
It's a mistake to believe that the b-17 is so uber, and that it will now be unstoppably uber. When flying 17s I've always had a better than even chance of shooting down attackers, but it's always been against guys who persist, against all evidence to the contrary, in making dead astern attacks, or head on attacks (OK, I know, sometimes you make mistakes and end up there, do that a lot myself). The most fun I've had in 17s has, paradoxically, been against those guys flying Luftie machines in particular who really know their trade, who take time to set up for the high side attack, the slash, or the death dive from above. Then I know I'm in trouble, and if I manage to shoot one of them down, I really feel it means something.
Is all this going to change with the new features? Only in numbers, not in fundamentals. If you want to be the lone pilot that takes on the bomber formation, more power to your elbow--you'll probably find out why so many very good LW pilots died unnecessary deaths in the last year of the war. You'll need multiple interceptors, who know intercept tactics. Will that be everyone's cup of tea? Of course not. But I can see it is going to make for some epic battles in the high blue. Four 190s against four buffs say? Even money. All the talk about 48 guns is BS. Just as when you attack a lone 17 now, you can never get more than 4 guns firing at you, and you try and maximize your attack so that you have only 3 or 3. In the same way, you aren't going to be able to bring all 48 guns to bear. Plus, there is the added constraint that if the 4-ship box is really tight, you are going to be unsighted a lot of the time (it's going to depend how exactly this is implemented, of course; some people have already raised questions about whether the guns will check fire and/or damage other ships in formation; it will also be interesting to see if you are going to be confined to the lead ship until you're whacked, in which case , even with two people gunning, its still going to be more difficult to track your attackers).
4 JU 88s? See notes for Lanc.
The ones that have me woried are the B26 and the KI. They are going to be a little harder to shoot down when they have numbers.
I'm looking forward to trying to attack these formations as much as I am flying in them.
-
Originally posted by Beefcake
Also lets look at the B17 kill stats so far this tour.
The B-17G has 4096 kills and has been killed 5966 times.
Hrm, thats really odd. If the B17 was such a deathstar like alot of pilots make it out to be, then why does it still have a Negative K/D?
:)
Are you serious? I have seen time and time again people take off in B-17s headed for the nearest base and they bomb it at 2k to 4k above the ack and get shreaded. Remember, it takes time to get a loaded B-17 up to proper bombing altitude and many many people don't do it.
I think this explains the 1870 more deaths, this and the fact that people use them as "ack" while a base is getting vulched.
Kuben
-
I'm sorry, but to all the people who say bombers aren't easy kills, you're just doing wrong.
The most powerful bomber in AH, the B-17G, I view as a nearly free kill if I want to take the time to position myself correctly. I don't even need another fighter in the area, the B-17G has a 90-95% chance of losing to me.
The Ju88A-4, Lancaster Mk III and Ki-67 all lose thier guns at what seems like the drop of a hat. Nearly every time my Lanc gets hit I lose the tail turret. Last time my Ki-67 was hit was by a short burst from a Bf109E-4, I lost every gun position except for the waist guns. Gun positions on bombers die just fine.
-
Beefcake all the spits except mk.I have 2x20mm hispano's on board. Wipe the foam off your mouth and read again.
Lancaster is an easy kill most of the time because it lacks the punch and bottom turret.. But a B17 is another story.
I have never been attacked in a B17 (those that came by surprise not counting) that I wouldn't have been able to at least seriously damage or kill the attacker. So at best I consider it a suicide strike to attack a B17 that sees you coming and has a decent gunner.
Once I was attacked by two 262's and a 152 simultaneously over a5 mindanao.. I smoked both 262 and forced them to rtb and killed the 152 instantly. Later the 262 died on landing so I scored on him also. The altitude was 27k..
If that's not a screaming example of the B17 leathality I dont know what is. I'm not even an experienced gunner and I rarely fly buffs myself except when I have to be afk a lot and therefore can spend a lot of time climbing. Still my last 3 tours I have 1:1 k/d in all bombers by average (not counting ju88 which is dead meat on the table.) A little higher in B26.. That naturally counts the sorties where I've been killed by ack etc. also.
If the buff leathality really is on its historical level, why are there numerous fighter pilot stories written that indicate bombers as slow, steady flying targets in the air? Easily picked apart by the attacking fighters, first kill gunners and then snap them down one engine at a time. Only in 20 buff boxes they presented viable danger, single bombers weren't even considered a danger.
That doesn't sound at all like what we have in AH (B26,B17)..
Even if nothing else is porked in the buffs, the gunner model is. When all gunners target exactly the same spot (and in the case of B17 are able to shoot at it) it delivers an unrealistic amount of fire to the attacker. In reality the gunners tracked the attackers independently and in most cases they were shooting with completely different accuracy, lead and sometimes missing the target completely even if his gun could have tracked the enemy.
There's a difference with 2 .50 tracking you and 8 .50..
What goes with the physics the speed difference can't explain it all. How come it's far more likely to survive a HO shot from a .50 armed fighter than it is to survive a hit from a buff on his dead six? If your physics would be accurate the HO fighter should have ten times the kinetic energy in his bullets compared to the buff.
-
Thnx for the reply leph. I guess the reason I didnt consider the stated purpose of no dispertion on buff defensive guns was because to me, at least, it seems I would rather get prattled by few of the many rounds wobbling through dispertion at 1000 yards as opposed to getting zinged by 20-30 rounds traveling down the same beam. In this sense at least, AH has lazer gunnery I guess.
No doubt HTC has done the testing and edtermined that their particular choice of buff gunning requires no dispertion. In any even, its just a game so I try to relax.
However, I have found that the mannable ack guns at fields also do not demonstrate any perceptable dispertion whereas the osti, just a manned ack on wheels, does demonstrate a very healthy dispertion. Come to think of it, does the 40mm on the PTs have any dispertion?
I guess in the end these types of gameplay concessions are what really seperates the simulation from the game.
In any event HTC I love it and thats what counts.
-
So this is what experiencing dejavu is like . MrRipley every one of your points and questions has been answered ad-naseum by Pyro and HiTech over the past two years. If you've been here for more than six months then you'd have been witness to at least three go-rounds in the gameplay forum alone.
Yes, there is some gameplay concessions with the buff guns. We have no "otto" and the pilot has a choice of doing all by themself or getting one extra crew member to man guns. But any concesssion are no where as bad as a few folks would make it appear. Seeing the K-D's of the differet bombers, how thier are literally no bomber squads in AH and also more folks responded with finding no problem with buff guns when shooting them down versus those who do. I personally think a fair compromise was reached by HTC. And why bomber guns hit harder than the same guns mounted on a fighter in most cases has been explained more times than should have been necessary. But they do NOT converge on one point like fighter guns can
Simply put there is nothing historically accurate about "flying" online in any of the AH online arenas. Saying something like "does this sound like what we have in AH" just doesn't hold water because AH is built on data and recorded fact versus "feel" and old memories. AH special events are about as close as we can get and even then it's pathgetically comical to compare those (or any other game/sims arena/event/setup) to any kind of real life/death combat.
My point is that it does not work to introduce the historical yard stick where it won't work. Most historical "this is the way it was" anecdotes just won't work in any online environment because we're not there using the real equipment nor enduring combat under real life conditions.
Lastly, kudos for killing two 262's and a 152! :) One could wonder how the pile-its got thier perk points for them if they could not down a even a solitary bomber though. Even more so when thier were three of them and one of you. Would have loved to seen the film of that one and poke fun at the fighter pile-its.
And fwiw, it does sound historically accurate to fly a lone buff at 27k and then get attacked by three late war uber planes! ;)
Westy
(cracks me up about those three dorks and thier perk rides lost... ;) )
-
Westy: I have seen the discussions you mentioned but those that I've seen have only handled the dead-6 attacks compared to buff shooting backwards. I've never seen a comparison based on HO jug vs buff guns for example.
In that fight I mentioned the other 262 didn't lose his perkies he just rtb'd with two smoking engines.
I don't attack buffs that are over 25k anymore because it takes half an hour to set up an attack at that alt and even then it's 80:20 in buffs advantage. He outturns, outaccelerates and outguns your fighter at that altitude. Many 30k attacks I've made have ended with the buff losing patience and manouvering violently enough to break his wing off and plummet to his death. That happens only if the buff goes to pilot position though, the rudder controls keep the plane steady as a train. As many times the buff managed to ping me from distance forcing me to land.
Very rarely I've got a chance to actually shoot them down. Probably because I suck at buff hunting.
-
(btw, not trying to be argumentative. just offering a counter balance to the discussion)
"Probably because I suck at buff hunting."
Ha! No one sucks at buff hunting. There is no endeavor more nobler to pursue in AH.
If I can shake this rust from my bones and get some airtime soon I'ld be happy (and other folks too I imagine .... Lazs? ) to help via films or winging it would be my honor and pleaure to help. I think ALL of us will need it when the new bomber feature comes out :) (so many targets, so little ammo!)
Westy
-
HIstorical question ...
Suppose a single 109 (your favorite variant) attacked a buff flight. How often did the 109 survive?
I don't really know, but my guess is "not often."
Didn't they attack buffs with large numbers of fighters?
Why do guys make single plane attacks against buffs and expect to win?
The buff gun platform is nice and stable; it's firing multiple 50cals; why would any sane person attack one and expect to survive?
In the main arena, have you ever seen 5 planes attack one buff? Have you ever seen the buff win such an attack? I haven't.
curly
-
Now if ALL guns are slaved for gunning...
If pilot and Gunner are firing which guns are slaved to which gunner? +)
I dove on a formation of 3 buffs in p47d25 last night. On First pass no kills, second pass 1 buff down, i lost 2 guns. 3rd pass no kills but i think he got me smoking. 4th pass #2 buff down and i went pop just before he did.
oh yeah... and the frame rate concern is a good one... even 8 buffs will cause serious fps hits i imagine...
I also believe it will take a few patches to get bomb damage/dispersion etc tweaked
SKurj
-
Akcurly I read today a story of german 109 pilots attacking b17 formations.
They attacked a formation of 100+ b17's with 38 109's. That means less than one fighter per bomber.
-
u really think that each 109 chose a different buff to attack Ripley????
1 v 1 both planes undamaged i'd be hard pressed to choose a winner in reality. Hmm just like AH +)
SKurj
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
If the buff leathality really is on its historical level, why are there numerous fighter pilot stories written that indicate bombers as slow, steady flying targets in the air? Easily picked apart by the attacking fighters,
MrRiplEy,
I think the operative phrase is "attacking fighters." If 3 skillful main arena fighter pilots attack one buff, the buff is dead meat.
If 2 262s and 1 TA-152 attack a buff from a superior position, the buff will be dead meat. If they make a climbing approach, the fighters are going to lose.
Do you know why the idiots (single plane) that attacked a b17 from an inferior position didn't write stories of their attacks? Answer: All died. In my opinion, it was genetic evolution in action. :D
curly
-
There are a few pilots I've seen make very good passes on buffs that have resulted in me not getting a single ping on them and I'm not a particularly bad gunner. Ask Wilbuz to record a sortie next time he attacks a buff..its poetry in motion.
-
AKcurly the WW2 time record in kills/time was done by a lone 109 pilot attacking 20 soviet medium bombers. He killed 6 of them in 30 minutes and rtb'd with no ammo left. He did not get damaged by the buff gunners regardless of the fact that he closed in to 20 yards to shoot the engines.
-
did u know the US 8th Airforce almost stopped daylight bombing over germany in ww2? why? they had no escorts, the enemy fighters with no enemy fighters to worry about were slaughtering
the B17s. without the intro of the P51 as long range escort, the daylight raids would have stopped. the b17s guns in RL were no match for fighter attacks, otherwise they wouldnt have needed
the p51s would they?
unlike AH, in RL a lone b17 vs a lone fighter, fighter wins. in AH
b17 wins more then fighter.
in ww2 it was usually, a few hundered to a thousand buffs with 300 or so escrots vs couple hundred enemy fighters.
there were times a buff stream was like 10 miles wide and 25 miles long.
whels
Originally posted by AKcurly
HIstorical question ...
Suppose a single 109 (your favorite variant) attacked a buff flight. How often did the 109 survive?
I don't really know, but my guess is "not often."
Didn't they attack buffs with large numbers of fighters?
Why do guys make single plane attacks against buffs and expect to win?
The buff gun platform is nice and stable; it's firing multiple 50cals; why would any sane person attack one and expect to survive?
In the main arena, have you ever seen 5 planes attack one buff? Have you ever seen the buff win such an attack? I haven't.
curly
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
It's atleast 64 now you 08 :D
<--- Kommer till Stockholm snart, 24:e Juni rycker jag in i Kungsängen.
You can see 64, but severe micro warps start at 30 within icon range for aircraft 31+
That's why those huge tiffie raids are so successful, they're allready together in icon range so they stay smooth, but anyone else coming into the cloud (ie the defenders) see massive micro warps.
And beef, it's random drift. The only skill you'll be delevoping is guessing which way the ball's gonna roll.
-
Let's assume for a moment that buffs were terribly vulnerable in real life, and that their guns couldn't do jack against enemy fighters. Put THAT buff model in AH. How many buff sorties would there be in AH then? I'd say less than c202 sorties... Hardly anyone would take up a flying deathtrap.
Any concessions to buff modeling and buff guns are gameplay concessions to make them more survivable, mainly more enjoyable for those flying the buffs. They are far from uber. Only uber if they are extremely high or you are in a non-buff hunter plane (Spit I, Hurri I, Zeke, etc.) They are meat on the table 1 v 1 to the patient fighter pilot.
-
Have you also considered curly, that the gunners on a buff in WW2 would be killed almost instantly if a fighter got a burst into him?
Sit in a tail of a buff in AH and it will take nearly half your ammo into the buff's tail before you can kill the tail gunner..and even then the player is STILL in the tail gun, but he's really shooting from the ball and top turret shooting through the fuselage.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
In the main arena, have you ever seen 5 planes attack one buff?
curly
Yes... but I'm pretty sure it was followed up with much complaining about kill stealing and several "check-six" warnings :D
-
The sturmgruppen page is down or i would fill this thread with numerous lw acounts of attacking buffs from ded 6. They said the closer they got to a buff the better off the were. Not true in ah.
The buff gunners rarely "blew planes up " they hit things like eng and oil. But even then out right kills were rare. Buff guns now for what ever reason (ht and pyro have said they are the same as the other 50 cal armed planes) kill fighters with ease.
Buffs are not hard to kill. But take the side gunner fer instance they stood up and had to swing their 50s around. I doudt they could track a 350mph 400 mph fighter.
Karnak i have killed plenty of buffs. A squad mate of mine killed damn near 100 one tour. We are good shots but rarely if ever knock out buff gunners . I believe the left inside eng on a b17 powered the hydraulics for the turrets. I have never seen a turret disabled in ah this way.
I take ht word for it that buff guns are ballistically correct. Whats "unrealistic" is the fact that buff guns hit and kill pretty regularly at long range. I am not "whining about buffs" and i doudt that many folks will agree they are too tough to kill.
I think they take too little damage to be killed but that fer what ever reasons this is offset by their "lethality". Buff gunners claimed a huge number of fighter kills in ww2 in actually only a small percentage we killed by buff guns. If the sturgruppen site was still up i would post a link.
There was one account of a8s attacking a buff formation of 16 that was boxed and stacked. The pilot account said at that as they approached from the 6 "it was like running around in a shower trying not to get wet". But as they closed on a b17 he used 13mm to kill the tail gunner then 3cm into the wing he killed 1 then another. I have read numerous accounts like this. I think the the strum groups lost 3 190s to every 1 buff killed. The majority being killed by escort aircraft.
12 o'clock attacks were discourage by goring who believed that the closure rates and the smaller profile made it tougher to score kills. Most buff films i ve seen and accounts i read are from 6 or near 6 o'clock attacks.
In bw i killed 10 buffs and had 5 assists in 4 frames all from ded six. Theres a trick i use where i come in fast and use my rudder to slide across the buffs 6. Gunnery is harder this way because you cant "trust your gunsite" . I killed 5 in 1 pass.
So my point is buffs are by no means hard to kill. But for whatever reason (even with their lo kd) they are much more lethal then real life. Most buffers are new guys in ah (the ones i see) So simply saying time in the gunner position compared to rl gunner wont cut it. If as ht says the 50 cal are correct then what is it that allows for any noob to up a buff a get kills? Its got to be the stabilty of the platform and the icons.
I think ah buff lethality is good for gameplay but from what i have read it hardly matches real life accounts of those who killed them regularly. I think buffs (wing tips and tail sections) are bit to fragile.
I do think the current buff model with the laser accurate single bomb stuff takes no skill. I welcome the improvements. I do have concerns over lag and the 32 or 64 plane limit. HT says that shouldnt be a problem but I have doudts. Big week was laggy so were the old 15 buff hq raids back in the day.
In an arena of 400 folks the whole arena could bog down with hundreds of buffs. Also will they be "follow the leader" or follow the flight path? Will they be able to toggle salvo and drop 1 bomb at a time? Will each buff get a different bomb load? Will their be a perk value to the 4 buff formation? will they be limited to med or large fields? How will kills be scored? How will il2s, ju87, vals, ju88, tbm (if when we get 1) work?
Anyway my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by whels
unlike AH, in RL a lone b17 vs a lone fighter, fighter wins. in AH
b17 wins more then fighter.
Oh? The strengths of buffs in AH are easily overcome by intelligent tactics. A single fighter with sound tactics will defeat or neutralize the better buff pilots just about every time.
Think of it this way. Would you turnfight a Zeke on the deck if you're in a 190D9? Would you go headon with a 110G2 if you're in a 202? Not unless you enjoy dying.
Why then do people complain constantly about imaginary superpowers possessed by buffs in AH? Like any plane, they have strengths and weaknesses. Exploit their weaknesses and don't play to their strengths. Attack fast, attack at odd angles, and don't fixate on them for an extended period of time unless they're distracted. The problem as I see it is that most players utilize unsound tactics against buffs which wind up killing them, but instead of blaming their tactical errors for their deaths, they blame the alleged uberness of the buffs.
I wouldn't blame the "uberness" of the Zeke in outturning me in the first example , nor the "uberness" of the 110 for the relative superiority of its nose guns in the latter. These are things that we know they do better. So why people continue to complain about buffs when they play to their strengths baffles me.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
the b17s guns in RL were no match for fighter attacks, otherwise they wouldnt have needed
the p51s would they?
whels
[/B]
Whels, I don't know much about it - not really arguing. But, I've read the primary tactic was to fly to the front of the buff stream and then HO the buffs. With A8s, I imagine it was an effective strategy. But, this tactic was used before the introduction of the nose guns in the b17, right?
curly
-
Originally posted by Tac
Have you also considered curly, that the gunners on a buff in WW2 would be killed almost instantly if a fighter got a burst into him?
Sit in a tail of a buff in AH and it will take nearly half your ammo into the buff's tail before you can kill the tail gunner..and even then the player is STILL in the tail gun, but he's really shooting from the ball and top turret shooting through the fuselage.
Tac, I'm sorry, but I believe you are in error. I fly buffs a lot - 2 or 3 missions every night and it's a *RARE* buff mission when I return with all guns working.
Sometimes, I get bounced by a high guy I didn't see. Almost always, he gets the top gun in a B17. If I get bounced by an unseen low guy, it's the belly gun and sometimes the rear gun.
Tac, it happens all the time to me.
curly
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
K West I have slightly more than 6 months online in AH and WB and I still say it's porked.
Evidently, it is an issue for you, not the majority of players. There is not a member in the 13th that cannot kill any buff in one pass...pop it like a cork. The ability of the gunner is insignificant as to whether we are successful or not.
You should work more on your buff killing technique and less on your whining.
-
I think this will be cool. I think the buff vs fighters is pretty much balanced as it stands now. I have no problem killing buffs, or killing fighters while in a buff. Single buffs are Deadmeat as IRL. A formation is deadly, But there should be a trade off, Multiple buffs for bomb drift and a lesser degree of accuracy. I wasn't online when HiTech was discussing this so I'm not sure what he's doing with the bombsight.
NUTTZ
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Oh? The strengths of buffs in AH are easily overcome by intelligent tactics. A single fighter with sound tactics will defeat or neutralize the better buff pilots just about every time.
Think of it this way. Would you turnfight a Zeke on the deck if you're in a 190D9? Would you go headon with a 110G2 if you're in a 202? Not unless you enjoy dying.
Why then do people complain constantly about imaginary superpowers possessed by buffs in AH? Like any plane, they have strengths and weaknesses. Exploit their weaknesses and don't play to their strengths. Attack fast, attack at odd angles, and don't fixate on them for an extended period of time unless they're distracted. The problem as I see it is that most players utilize unsound tactics against buffs which wind up killing them, but instead of blaming their tactical errors for their deaths, they blame the alleged uberness of the buffs.
I wouldn't blame the "uberness" of the Zeke in outturning me in the first example , nor the "uberness" of the 110 for the relative superiority of its nose guns in the latter. These are things that we know they do better. So why people continue to complain about buffs when they play to their strengths baffles me.
-- Todd/Leviathn
How many times in the real world did a B-17 or B-26 roll 60degrees to one side (the limit of turning from the gunposition with rudders in AH) to bring more guns to bear or because the tail gun was out of ammo?
I've had plenty of verra nice setups to attack buffs spoiled by this mickey mouse gaming roadkille. Ya reach position, roll in, and while you watch this huge assed lumbering kite (full bomb load on board) stands on its wing and piroettes to put you at his 6oc in a turn you have to envy.
What's really rediculous is the idjits that do this at 25k+
Above 25,000ft turn for turn the fluffs out turn the fighters. And if the fighter does out turn the buff for the shot he ends up dead for his trouble because that high he can't keep enough E to shoot and avoid being killed.
That's more that just game play concession, it's out right lunacy, and one of the reasons I gave up being one of the top buff drivers to learn to fly/fight in fighters.
-
Rude youre welcome to post a film where you pop Festers, Fariz's, Ute's or for lesser extent, my buff in 1 pass and walk away to tell of it.
I seem to kill 10x the buffs averagely / tour compared to you.
Ju88 and lanc won't count because theyre doable. I'm talking about b26 and b17.
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
How many times in the real world did a B-17 or B-26 roll 60degrees to one side (the limit of turning from the gunposition with rudders in AH) to bring more guns to bear or because the tail gun was out of ammo?
[/B]
Comparison to real world buff capabilities is beside the point. If the fact is that a buff can do this in AH, then tactics may be properly adjusted to account for it. It's just like any other plane matchup in AH... regardless of the accuracy of the flight model, each plane has strengths and weaknesses unique to it. Don't fly to its strengths, and you'll rarely die.
I've had plenty of verra nice setups to attack buffs spoiled by this mickey mouse gaming roadkille. Ya reach position, roll in, and while you watch this huge assed lumbering kite (full bomb load on board) stands on its wing and piroettes to put you at his 6oc in a turn you have to envy.
[/B]
Then take that into account when setting up buffs in the future. If you know it can do that, you can neutralize it.
What's really rediculous is the idjits that do this at 25k+
Above 25,000ft turn for turn the fluffs out turn the fighters. And if the fighter does out turn the buff for the shot he ends up dead for his trouble because that high he can't keep enough E to shoot and avoid being killed.
[/B]
Would a 202 pilot complain about dying to a P-47 at 30k? Why should he? Why would the 190D9 pilot complain that a Zeke can outturn him on the deck? If a buff can outturn a fighter at 25k, then good for it! The buff pilot is using sound tactics within the parameters of the flight model, and the fighter pilot turning with it has utilized poor tactics.
That's more that just game play concession, it's out right lunacy, and one of the reasons I gave up being one of the top buff drivers to learn to fly/fight in fighters.
Even with the capabilities that you've mentioned, I don't consider buffs to be "uber." Why? Because generally I take into account what they can and can't do, and I know that it's a matter of adjustment and understanding. Every time that I've died to buffs in the last year, I can honestly say that it was due my own tactical failures and not due to some supernatural qualities of the AH buffs. I understood their capabilities, but I failed to follow my own advice in engaging them.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I think HT said that BOTH the gunner AND the pilot will be able to gun, if I understand it right, then 2 attackers can be fired at at the same time with 2 buffs shooting at each.
A new challange has shown it self, bring it on!
-
ive sat in the tails of many b17s that were on their norden doing their bomb run, splattered the tail with 200 rnd of 50 cal and nearly all my 20mm cannon from a P-38s nose at d100 or less.. and the fugger tail gun shot me out. If that aint outright roadkill I dont know what is. B17s had no armour to speak of, those 200 rounds wouldve made confetti out of the tail gunner and very likely turned both waist gunners and the top turret gunner into maggot chow. Not in AH though.. oh ho no.
When I fly buffs (mainly B-26's), the tail gun only dies after an extremely long barrage of hits. Methinks it needs to hit the lil' gun barrel thingy to knock it out, dunno.
"If the fact is that a buff can do this in AH, then tactics may be properly adjusted to account for it. It's just like any other plane matchup in AH... regardless of the accuracy of the flight model, each plane has strengths and weaknesses unique to it. Don't fly to its strengths, and you'll rarely die."
I'd love to know your method of shooting down a 30k buff that keeps a constant turn rate. Its not a matter of tactics or strengths and weaknesses, its a matter of how well you can abuse the flight model. Hopefully next version, with dispersion set in, 30k buffs will be useless and this blatant abuse will be worthless.
BTW, get a b17 or lancaster to 30k with 100% or 75% fuel and see if you can pull those BS constant turns or hard manouver.. the wings will snap out or you will spin.
In any case, all this will change IF next version has disperion in the bombs.. the higher they go the less they hit. What really worries me is now giving 1 or 2 people command of 40+ guns on buffs and being able to fire them at one spot (and even worse if they still shoot through fuselage.. and it would be terrible if those guns fire through their own buffs the same way field acks fire through hangars!). I'll just wait and see.. who knows, maybe fighters will become obsolete and we can all take 4 b17 flights and smack everyone down at d1.8.. joy to the world! :D
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Rude youre welcome to post a film where you pop Festers, Fariz's, Ute's or for lesser extent, my buff in 1 pass and walk away to tell of it.
I seem to kill 10x the buffs averagely / tour compared to you.
Ju88 and lanc won't count because theyre doable. I'm talking about b26 and b17.
No problem at all. If I execute a proper attack, a fast dive from 10 ock, 2 ock..or from low 12 ock, I kill them quick with a p-47. One pass is all it takes.
-
ok about the 48 gun thing, as you know it can't be done by a lone or x4 buffs. At worst you could have 24 (Tail, Top, Ball Turrets) firing on you toward the rear or 32 (chin/nose, Top and ball turrets) firing on you if you choose to ho.
Also Tac about the gun damage thing. There are sometimes I will take what seems like a 1000 pings and never take a lick of damage. There are other times I get hit one or twice and lose everything. I guess it's the luck of the draw. But Tac....no offense man, but if you're dying to the tail guns of a B17, that means you're attacking it wrong buddy. :)
-
So leviathn in essence youre saying that the players should utilize the current parameters even if theyre porked for their advantage? That has a name, gaming the game.
We don't want to go on that road do we?
-
Originally posted by Tac
ive sat in the tails of many b17s that were on their norden doing their bomb run, splattered the tail with 200 rnd of 50 cal and nearly all my 20mm cannon from a P-38s nose at d100 or less.. and the fugger tail gun shot me out. If that aint outright roadkill I dont know what is. B17s had no armour to speak of, those 200 rounds wouldve made confetti out of the tail gunner and very likely turned both waist gunners and the top turret gunner into maggot chow. Not in AH though.. oh ho no.
[/B]
I've never had this problem, but then again... I don't attack B-17s from dead six. I've killed Lancs with just the leftover .303s in my Spit V before by making slashing attacks repeatedly and aiming for the same spot. That's not to say that killing gunner positions in buffs shouldn't be easier, but in my experience you shouldn't have to anyway.
I'd love to know your method of shooting down a 30k buff that keeps a constant turn rate. Its not a matter of tactics or strengths and weaknesses, its a matter of how well you can abuse the flight model. Hopefully next version, with dispersion set in, 30k buffs will be useless and this blatant abuse will be worthless.
[/B]
I don't. Take a 202 to 32k and face off against a P-47. Then squeak all day about how you can't catch him, can't turn with him, can't zoom with him, and can't climb with him. Cry me a river. If buffs can outturn you at 30k, then don't turn with them. See how that works? It may be ludicrous to imagine that buffs can turn so well, but in the absence of anything but anecdotal evidence to the contrary, we'll just have to make do.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I agree with Leviathan! Who cares if anything is realistic or makes sense, just play the game. If there are obvious BS errors, they are not. They are game features..... :rolleyes:
Mach 1 capable missle armed FW190 to AH! It wont be an error in modeling it will be a feature.....
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
So leviathn in essence youre saying that the players should utilize the current parameters even if theyre porked for their advantage? That has a name, gaming the game.
[/B]
What I'm saying is that the validity of the flight model belongs in another thread, because it's not relevant to this one. All planes in AH possess strengths and weaknesses. The way you defeat one is by exploiting its weaknesses and not flying to its strengths. This goes for fighters, buffs, and even ground vehicles. If a buff outturns most fighters at 30k, then the fighters must endeavor to defeat it another way or risk dying.
HTC has a strong history of correcting flight model oddities when provided with proof, and I fully expect they'll correct any buff irregularities in time. In the meantime, it's ridiculous for you to expect that a buff pilot will fly in a manner that suits you given the flight model limitations of his plane. It's up to you to employ effective tactics, and it's up to him to counter you with effective tactics of his own.
We don't want to go on that road do we?
Then don't go down that road. It seems some of you miss my main point completely.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I agree with Leviathan! Who cares if anything is realistic or makes sense, just play the game. If there are obvious BS errors, they are not. They are game features.....
[/B]
Oh, I see you got my point entirely. Reading comprehension isn't a strong point with you, is it? :rolleyes: Okay, here's a test for you... find the exact quote from me where I say that incorrect flight models are game features.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
beef: I have never been hit by a buff and gotten away undamaged. Even a glancing shot at extreme long range single ping blasts something out. But thats another story.
Also, buffs now shoot through their fuselage, thats why I say i fear next version will have so many guns firing at you. And since the AI acks fire through hangars, its not far fetched to think the buff guns MAY be able to fire through the 3 other buffs in their formation. *grin*
"But Tac....no offense man, but if you're dying to the tail guns of a B17, that means you're attacking it wrong buddy. "
None taken, I dont hit buffs from 6 unless they on bomb run and I feel particulary suicidal. ;)
"Cry me a river. If buffs can outturn you at 30k, then don't turn with them. See how that works?"
Who said anything about turning with them? Its a matter of bomb-laden aircraft turning like a zero in the thin air without losing alt or any stability..and all the while firing their turrets. Any B&Z attacker will only have 1 pass at it, after that its nearly damn impossible to catch up with the buff or climb back above it. The B17 has more fuel. See pic below.
"It may be ludicrous to imagine that buffs can turn so well, but in the absence of anything but anecdotal evidence to the contrary, we'll just have to make do."
Errmm.. i'd love to see anectdotal evidence of a 30k buff rolling 90 degrees and pulling a high G turn while loaded with bombs. :rolleyes:
Pic below is Ta152 with 1 dt and 100 fuel chasing the same B-17 from A30 to the field on the SW corner of the Mindanao map. There was no way the Ta152 could climb or catch up to that b17 after the first 2 passes (which I had to abort 1 pass to the B17 turning hard with its rudder and spraying at d2.0, the 2nd pass was avoided with a sharp turn when I was d700, this pass the buff pilot actually tilted the plane 90 degrees and pulled hard up.. THEN he bombed and continued to avoid me by climbing even higher. The pic you see here is where we ended up). BTW, he won with a d1.8 ping that took off my wing. Quite nice actually, 1 ping.. wonder how many bullets and how much KE they had at that extreme range. Oh, and No, the killing shot was from his 3oc position , not 6 oc.) :rolleyes:
-
Bombers have incorrct FM at 30K. You support this by saying something like:
"If buffs can outturn fighters at 30k then don't turn with them."
If FW190 could outurn your retatard spitfires would you jist say, "dont turn with them"?
-
bah.
When you come slow(Or even fast) up a buff's 6, how can you wonder why you lose out? Killing a buff isnt that hard, but you need to be a little bit patient. If you attack fast from the sides, or from straight above, there is little the buff can do to hit you.
-
any lanc or 17 with full bomb load at 20k+ will stall if banked as far as it can go with rudders while in gunner position if turn held too long (it won't do a 360)
and no they don't bank 90degrees with rudders while gunnin...
SKurj
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bombers have incorrct FM at 30K. You support this by saying something like:
"If buffs can outturn fighters at 30k then don't turn with them."
[/b]
I see. So two sentences later when I write, "It may be ludicrous to imagine that buffs can turn so well, but in the absence of anything but anecdotal evidence to the contrary, we'll just have to make do" I'm somehow in favor of incorrect flight models? Earlier I also wrote, "Comparison to real world buff capabilities is beside the point. If the fact is that a buff can do this in AH, then tactics may be properly adjusted to account for it."
I'm not sure how more clearly I can make it for you, Grunherz. I am not arguing for or against buff flight models. I'm arguing that there are valid and invalid tactics for killing buffs regardless of their flight capabilities in AH. If you're consistently dying to buffs, then you're fighting it incorrectly in the context of the AH flight model. If that flight model changes in the future, then the effective tactics will change as well.
If FW190 could outurn your retatard spitfires would you jist say, "dont turn with them"?
My "retarded" Spitfires? Seems you're bitter... sure you're using effective tactics against them too?
To answer your question, of course I would recommend against a Spitfire turning with a 190 if the 190 substantially outturned it. Duh. If the flight models changed in a future patch to change that balance, my recommended tactics would change as well.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Tac
Who said anything about turning with them? Its a matter of bomb-laden aircraft turning like a zero in the thin air without losing alt or any stability..and all the while firing their turrets. Any B&Z attacker will only have 1 pass at it, after that its nearly damn impossible to catch up with the buff or climb back above it. The B17 has more fuel. See pic below.
[/b]
For the umpteenth time, I'm not arguing for or against the flight models of buffs in AH. The simple fact is that, until a patch changes things one way or another, squeaking isn't going to effectively kill buffs under the current flight model... intelligent tactics will. And there are tactics that work better than others.
Errmm.. i'd love to see anectdotal evidence of a 30k buff rolling 90 degrees and pulling a high G turn while loaded with bombs.
[/B]
I don't care one way or the other about a buff's flight model.
I noticed you were filming in that screenshot. Instead of describing the amazing buff prowess with 90 degree turns, why not post the film so everyone can see it for themselves? That will also allow us to evaluate your tactics, which is really what the point of my posts is in the first place.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I never had problems with buff formations. Back in the day when Zigrat and I would run extempore nightly snapshots with B17 formations and escorts attacking German targets with LW fighter cover, I would routinely get 3-4 buff kills before the escorts forced me off. My tactics included a directly overhead pass on the first buff, then I would come in directly below another so fast he wouldn't be able to react--and I only need 4 rounds of 30mm into one and he's toast.
So, fly and learn.
-
Tac wrote:
B17s had no armour to speak of
This is incorrect. US buffs had armored bulkheads between the various crew compartments as well as other armor in select areas. The B-17G weighed 4000lbs more than the B-17E and a significant part of this weight gain was in additional armor.
As far as high altitude maneuverability of B-17s go... all of their engines have turbosuperchargers, just like the P-47 engine. At 30K B-17 engines put out 100% of their sea-level power. In comparison a P-51d puts out about 60% power at 30k. B-17s best relative performance against most fighters is at the higher altitudes. Also, a b-17 with a light fuel load that has dropped half of its ordnance should be fairly agile at high altitude compared to a fighter that can only produce 60% of its rated power.
Next time you see an agile B-17 film it. You can use the film editor to switch to the bomber's cockpit afterwards and see exactly what the fuel and bomb load is. If B-17s really are modelled wrong then it should be trivial to prove with film.
Hooligan
-
b17 armour did not stop 13mm or even 7.9mm's from going in one end and out the other. Even less a 50 cal or 20mm.
And no, I dont have that film any more, its like 3 tours old.
-
Originally posted by Tac
And no, I dont have that film any more, its like 3 tours old.
Shocker. Please make another soon and post a link to it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
To answer your question, of course I would recommend against a Spitfire turning with a 190 if the 190 substantially outturned it. Duh. If the flight models changed in a future patch to change that balance, my recommended tactics would change as well.
So would you be ok with such an FM change? You would not complain and ask it be changed?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So would you be ok with such an FM change? You would not complain and ask it be changed?
What does this have to do with my original point?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
>I take ht word for it that buff guns are ballistically correct.
>Whats "unrealistic" is the fact that buff guns hit and kill pretty
>regularly at long range.
I've come to the following conclusions:
1. Bullet dispersion on the buff guns appears to be correct.
2. Effective range of the buff bullets appear to be correct.
I'm convinced that the problem lies in the unnatural stability of the buff gun sights. I was watching something on the history channel today and they were showing b17 footage. That gunner was jiggling on the end of that .50 like he had hold of a jack-hammer.
Take off in a pony and zoom into the gun sight and fire away. The site picture jiggles all over the place. The buff guns (even turrets)should do no less. Any gun controlled by hand should shake a fair bit more still.
Without the proper vibration, the buff gunner can zoom in at maximum magnification and track a target at 1.5k with butter smooth computer controlled precision. That give him enough advantage that it appear the effective range is too far.
Its not the ballistics. Its the unrealistically stable sight picture.
$0.02,
Wab
-
Leviathn is pointing out, correctly, that regardless of whether or not the bomber flight models are correct in AH, they are easy to kill if you use the right tactics.
Trying to change the subject to make it look like he's advocating inaccurate fligh models is stupid, has nothing to do with the point and he never argued for inaccurate fligh models. Flight model accuracy and changes are a whole different topic.
-
What Leviathan is saying, and I agree 1 billion percent with him is:
This is NOT ww2 and never will be...
Its a game.. each game piece can and can't do certain things, of which ALL can be countered in some manner.
In this case... buffs have been in their current form for over a year... if you haven't figured out a way to killem by now... mebbe you should not bother trying +)
You still pays your money, (as do the buff drivers) so obviously this is not a game stopping issue for you. I've yet to see someone say "i quit cuz this ain't ww2 and buffs killme all the time..."
Anyways, if y'all paid attention to the map more there would never be a buff over 20k +) we all know a buff under 10k is no match for any fighter do ya blame the buff driver for trying to find some parity by grabbin so high?
lets see...
all but the 234 and mebbe the ki67..
can't outrun any fighter at under 20k
can't outturn any fighter at under 20k
can't outclimb any fighter under 20k
can't outdive any fighter at any alt...
wound one crewmember you wound all aboard...
Once enemy has detected him, no matter the alt, odds are unless he has ALOT of escort he won't be rtb...
HEY!! now that I think of it... I can't remember any occasion where i couldn't shake a bomber of my 6...
deal with it ...
SKurj
-
Well, I expect its soon to become much more of a problem if not fixed.
You combine butter smooth computer controlled precision gun sights able to nail fighters at 1000yrds with a 4 buff armada flying in perfect tight formation with external 360 deg view perfect SA and you've just created yourself a DeathStar (hence my earlier quip).
Wab
-
4 Buff formations controlled by one pilot? :)
Gonna have an impact on the MA for sure.
Good??? Bad??? Guess we'll find out :D
AKEagle+
-
Deathstar was killed by a lone fighter and with one shot too.
-
I hope the ackstar syndrome does not restart. I can just picture waves of B-17's flying low over a capped base. Acting as gunships with their only intent to shoot down enemy fighters.
Can you say "Porcupine Quill's"?
-
b17 armour did not stop 13mm or even 7.9mm's from going in one end and out the other.
What? 5 minutes ago you were claiming that B-17s didn't have any armor and now you are an expert on how well that armor resists German projectiles?
Hooligan
-
Almost to three pages.. .CONTINUE THE BLIND SPECULATION boyz!
How long can they let this thread go?
-
number 100:)
-
Things won't be all roses in Buffdom.
4 dot formation will scream "kill me" on radar.
Bomb dispersion may take away only sure defense, Altitude.
Single bombers will be less effective.
Nice big friendly bomber where ur clear six shot used to be.
4XBuffs in formation probably wont be able to do more damage to a field than 2 Buffs can now.
On the other hand, Cities and Towns are in for a world of hurt.
-
Leviathn give us fools your expert opinnion on how to effectively attack a 27k B17 in any given plane.. You make it sound so easy.
So, you're left in a situation where you:
a) Are maybe 30mph faster than he is, one missed bounce means spending 20 minutes on getting to another position.
b) Climb as slow as the buff, if the buff has no load he's sometimes even faster.
c) Lose E and stall if you try to match his turn radius where he retains E and actually extends doing the turn. Happened to me at 27k B26 vs 262 - B26 extended away from 400mph 262 if I tried to turn after it from low 6 position (clear from gunners.)
d) Can only shoot forward while he can shoot you while manouvering from back.
e) Your .50 ammo won't kill the gunners even if they directly hit the turrets/positions, takes several CANNON shots to do that. This is one part which I'm sure resembles chute model. Ever noticed how ridicoulously tough chutes can be? They take 3-4 hits from 37mm field gun to die. Same seems to apply on gunners.
If the B17 was untouchable over 25k in reality also, I wonder why the hell the stupid allied command didn't command them to climb that high routinely to avoid losses. Sure the bombing accuracy would be hurt but OTOH there would be no losses. Not to mention not needing escort fighters, they couldn't keep up with the b17s that high anyway lol.
I know the answer: They couldn't.
But this is a game, share your knowledge on how to defeat the buffs in this situation.
-
Havent had time to read the entire thread (life is short!) but...
In real life, bombers never flew at maximum throttle for very long. Something like maximum throttle to get airborne, then 90-95% power for climbout to cruising altitude, build up speed, cut back throttle to maybe 80-85% power... on lengthy flights, keep cutting power back to maintain a constant airspeed as the weight of fuel burnt affects the performance of the plane.. drop bombs, cut throttle back even further due to sudden large drop in weight and consequent jump in performace...
How often do you see people fly bombers like that in AH?
If you're wondering WHY they flew like that in WW2, the answer is that
(a) real engines sieze up if you run them too hard for too long
(b) most raids were planned to fairly tight schedules - if you think about the daylight raids on Germany, the endurance of the escorting fighters had to be taken into consideration, and also flying to a schedule meant that "reception" fighters sent up hours after the raid started to see the returning bombers and their escorts, now very tired, safely home over the last leg of the trip, could be sure of where they would find their charges at the designated time.
(c) If you fly economically in terms of fuel use, you need to carry less fuel, and that means you can fly faster and higher than you would otherwise on the same settings.
Not to mention, of course, that you can't hold a formation together with everyone at full throttle. The flight leader HAS to be at a reduced throttle setting so that the rest of the formation has sufficient power in hand to be able to maintain station.
If engine overheating were introduced into AH, bombers would fly at more realistic speeds and altitudes, rather than the silliness we see so often now, of them thumping along at full throttle from takeoff to end of flight. I mean - a Lancaster with 14,000lb bombload doing 300mph at over 27th feet?! I've done it myself in the MA, but it sure as heck wasnt flown like that in real life.
Comments about people blaming their poor attack technique on supposed over-toughness of bombers are spot on, IMO, as are those saying that bombers can't take as much damage as they ought to be able to, that defensive gunnery is too potent, and that point out that the extreme aerobatics possible when gunning for oneself are VERY unrealistic. The G-forces on the gunner would make aiming rather difficult for a start, as well as quite possibly distracting the gunner by making them feel ill.
Also, most planes had a set of "thou shalt nots" with regard to their handling. Here, you might be surprised to know that the standard evasive manouvre for RAF bombers, yes, even the 4-engined ones (flying at night) was a hard "corkscrew" to left followed by similar to right. That is, nose down and hard left turn followed by nose up and hard right turn, leaving you roughly back on track, but hopefully now without a nightfighter on your tail. Ive read somewhere of B17s doing similarly violent evasives when caught alone, but can't confirm that, however doing that kind of thing was an act of desperation, risking various damage to airframe and engines.
Then too... in real life, friendly collisions are always ON :-} So a formation of B17s wouldnt suddenly start gyrating when attacked, they'd stay level and in formation to give their gunners best chance of hitting their attackers, AND to avoid colliding with other planes in the formation. Also, in real life, pilots wee sent on missions, they didnt just grab a plane and wander over to enemy territory to see what they could get up to - and they would rtb if damaged or lost, or had some kind of equipment failure. And they really, REALLY did not want to die, and preferably not be captured. All of which made them tend to fly fairly directly along their routes, so they could navigate and get back home qicker.
In Aces High, I've yet to see a nice tight formation of B17s or suchlike (grnted I've not been in AH long though), so I cant comment on how effective their massed gunnery would be at defending them against attack. I do know that when flying solo, if I DONT use the steering capabilities from the gunner position to the full, then chances are I'll be dead within seconds, even against an attack from astern, unless my attacker is a lousy shot.
So, my guess at what would make things better here would be
-model engine overheating (make sure that fighter engines arent as constrained as bomber engines, though)
- allow bombers to take more realistic levels of damage
- put constraints on how much G can be pulled and still have defensive guns shoot
-decrease the potency of defensive gunnery
- allow up to 2 gunners per bomber (if they actualy had 3+crew) to allow for defence against more than 1 attack at a time.
- have Otto as an observer, calling out when enemy planes get close, so that solo pilots get a chance to jump to their guns to defend themselves, OR introduce Otto gunners, but less accurate than most human gunners.
- if necessary, rework buff engine management to reward realistic engine management (your engines dont catch fire! Also fuel lasts longer so you dont need as much*) and penalise unrealistic engine management (your engines DO catch fire if run too fast for too long). A "generic" solution to this would be fine - itd give OVERALL more realsim. There's other things more important than having engine control utterly as per real on a plane by plane basis even for a realism nut like me!
Esme
CO, Kampfgeschwader 2 "Holzhammer"
* Yes, I know, that kind of works now. I'd vote for exagerrating the effect slightly, to encourage more realistic flying practices, and have engine overheating affected by both MPs and RPM, so that buffs fly slower, but can fly considerably further on a given amount of fuel than they do now
(added in edit) Skurj.. Ju88s can out-dive Spit 1s and Hurricanes
-
MrRipley...
You are fighting an La7 on the deck in your 51, he has a slight E advantage and starts to run.
What do u do?
SKurj
-
Skurj what does this have to do with anything?
Sorry I missed your point.
Anyway in answer to your question I will let him run and find another fight. I'll extend to another direction and grab some altitude. Then later if he shows signs he wants to try again and the sky is clear I'll have a go.
What would you do?
-
I don't get it.
I'm a newbie.
The only time I die to a bomber is when I sit on thier six.
90% of the players in the MA only attack bombers from thier six.
Therefore bomber guns are WAY too powerfull. Yea, thats it. Lets attack a bomber from the point where it has the most firepower and squeak when we cant kill it!
High-speed passes from the top/bottom/sides are incredibly difficult to deal with from the bomber, other than to hope they screw up and fall into your six.
-
Esme, thoughtful post. I like the idea of engine overheating for buffs, I think that would throw an interesting wrinkle into the mix. As you suggest, I'm not sure I'd model it for fighters, but for bombers, sure, why not. Ditto the idea of fire constraints. I noticed that in its latest release Warbirds went in this direction. OK, slightly different scenario in that they were trying to place constraints on the ridiculously potent otto, but the principle could be applied here. Otto can't fire if the plane is banking at more than 45 degrees, or pulling more than 2Gs. Seems like a sensible restriction to me.
I'm not in favor of Otto gunners, but I like the idea of otto observers, and I think that especially when your vision is going to be obscured in a 4-ship box, it would be a useful idea. However, I wouldn't want the otto observer from WB who keeps calling out planes at ridiculous distances.
The only points where I don't agree with you are on the guns (I still don't believe they are too powerful), and the damage levels of the bombers. The damage level seems pretty good to me, I've taken a lot of damage and survived, and I've been killed in one firing pass.
-
"What? 5 minutes ago you were claiming that B-17s didn't have any armor and now you are an expert on how well that armor resists German projectiles? "
I said they didnt have any armour TO SPEAK OF. You just need to go to a museum and see how much armour those things had in the fuselage. And im talking about the parts where the gunners stood in.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Skurj what does this have to do with anything?
Sorry I missed your point.
The fact that you missed his point means that you've also missed mine. Whether the B-17 flight model is accurate or not in AH is irrelevant. The scenario you presented with the B-17 at 27k is one in which the buff, not the fighter, holds most of the advantages. It should come as no surprise then that, given the circumstances you described, it would be very difficult to effectively kill the buff.
How is that any different than the situation Skurj just described? How easy would it be for your P-51 to kill the fleeing La-7? Pretty tough if you're in a situation where he's got a performance edge. It's no different for the situation you described. You had no problems telling Skurj, "I will let him run and find another fight. I'll extend to another direction and grab some altitude. Then later if he shows signs he wants to try again and the sky is clear I'll have a go." Why then should you be capable of killing a buff if it, likewise, holds the performance edge? It seems that some players suffer from a mental schism that renders them enable to see the similarities between fighters and buffs in this regard.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
So we're back to the seemingly porked buff modeling (or were they really that good up high? I thought AH lancaster can climb with full load over its real life max altitude and still outmanouver fighters..) and with you telling me to accept the fact that buffs outmanouver fighters at very high altitudes even when they couldn't do that in reality.
Yes sure this is a game and I know the limitations. That's why I rarely if ever waste my time climbing up to the stratobuffs. I let them do their mission untouched and pork the field.
Is this right? I consider it a bit like camping in FPS games, the other player takes a position that gives him an advantage over the other players using holes in gamecode - and blasts others away from his position untill his ammo runs out.
I think this discussion is handling whether we want to tolerate this kind of 'flaws' in the game and people who take advantage of them. Another approach would be to fix the modeling to prevent that.
If the majority wants to keep the model as it is and tolerate the players gaming them, then we all must just learn to live with it and how to exploit all possible flaws in the game. IMO it's a short way to induced warps, lag and other anomalities the game technology lets a player induce if he wants to get an edge over the others.
-
they aren't flaws per se... its the way the game is designed to be played...
Hell I used to play chess... the friggen king shoulda been able to move more than one position per turn !!!! game is porked!!!
SKurj
-
Skurj if you would be able to move your king outside of the board to safety while you attack the enemy, it would resemble more of the situation described and yes, it would be porked.
-
Ok 4 buffs at a time sounds cool, Im a buff dweeb joined AH to fly them, havent much lately because they are annoying. When the buff AI is introduced hwo smart will it be. Blind kamikazes that fly to targets leaking fuel, trailing oil and engine parts or when you hit them will they break off? How will kills be scored? Will gun arcs be fixed? that is main problem now. HO a b17 you have up to 9 guns shooting at you. Through its own wings,props,tail. 2 cheek guns with super field of fire whose manning them anyway? How much skill does it take to kill a fighter with 36+ 50s all hitting at same spot? I've killed 190s with only 20 rounds or less before. 1 ping will have a new meaning. Tonight I lost a 262 at 1.1 to a b17 I was heading same direction on his 3 preparing for a slashing attack, with only 1 gun it would only been about 3 or 4 bullets total. but with the 9 shooting 10 rounds per second rapidly means your gonna be in world of hurt, now multiply that by 4. Even with the must successful buff attack the average pilot will be pinged a few times, which with current buff modelling means death.
What about formation keeping? Will the 4 buffs go full throttle making the ridiculous speed of 300 while turning all over the sky? Buffs did evasive action in real, true but not at 300 miles an hour. Half the fun off killing buff formations is busting it up, then killing stragglers. Current tailsteer dweebs who can do turns with minimal E loss cause the computer flys plane for them got to be one of the most realism killing things in this game. Will whole buff formations fly with Thunderbirds style perfection through snap rolls, loops and hammerheads current buffs employ? This is too long ending here
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
The buff will now be the ULTIMATE power in the universe! I suggest we use it.
:cool:
Wab
Dont be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed... the ability to control multiple bombers is insignificant, next to the power of the Force. :D
PS: Great idea, WTFG HTC!
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
So we're back to the seemingly porked buff modeling (or were they really that good up high? I thought AH lancaster can climb with full load over its real life max altitude and still outmanouver fighters..) and with you telling me to accept the fact that buffs outmanouver fighters at very high altitudes even when they couldn't do that in reality.
[/B]
Let me say this one more freaking time so you can maybe, finally, unequivocally understand. This discussion is not about the validity of the AH bomber models.
Stop trying to push it in that direction. Debate the flight models all you want, but debating them with me is idiocy. I don't care. The fact is that buffs are easy kills when you utilize the proper tactics whether they model them properly or improperly.
When you persist in saying things like:
I think this discussion is handling whether we want to tolerate this kind of 'flaws' in the game and people who take advantage of them. Another approach would be to fix the modeling to prevent that.
[/b]
It shows that you have no idea what point I'm trying to make. Or more likely, you don't care in your single-minded effort to make your own, unrelated point.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Oh sorry Sir I forgot you're in total charge of the discussion here.
If you would have read my post more carefully I already cleared my position regarding your point of view on gameplay. I deal with the current FM - still it doesn't mean I have to like it or not raise questions if things could be improved.
-
Uhmm, B17's went down pretty easy when hit by 20 and 30mm. Just watch any gun camera fotage and you'll see that in 95% of those films the gunners are not shooting anymore, no armored glass, specially not as thin as the turret gunners/tail gunner had can protect from cannon shells not to mention a waist gunner.
The problem with buffs is that they outperform fighters above 25k or so, even the TA152, which was, and still is (if there were any flying) on the very edge of what a piston engine plane can do, that means at what alt and speed it can reach, specially alt.
No other piston engine plane has every been able to compete with its high alt performance and yet B17's outclimb it at 30k?
One way to acually limit high alt use of bombers and fighter would be to modell high alt preasure. When you reach an altitude of about 30k or so, a bit less even, and don't have a preassurized cockpit you're vision narrows down and your boddy starts to hurt aswell as you get weaker. I have the pilot report from a TA152 pilot who brought a TA152 up to about 40k or so, the cockpit preasurisation was broken.
Now, the only fighter in AH, and (I think) the only fighter to see service in WW2 with a preasurised cockpit was the TA152, modell that fatigue and high alt preasure in AH and the TA152 would become the high alt beast it was capable of (we all know they used them mostly as low alt field defenders).
Modell the narrow vision and thus buff gunners will have a hard time shooting, modell the weak muscells by making gun movement slow, sluggish and make them wobble. Allso add gunners passing out at extreem alts, much like pilot wounded.
-
its not the pressure but lack of oxygen afaik most fighters had o2 systems. Hell most need o2 at 22k.
btw the g1 had a pressurized cockpit.
I dont see how buffs could perform at those alts like they do in ah even with super charged eng.
I damn sure know that in those manuvers the probrability of a gunner hitting anything would be near 0.
However you dont see many buffs above 20k and if you are sure you cant kill um or think they are too uber let umm go. Thats what i do. But i dont turn fight zekes in a jug. :)
I still maintain that the stablity of the gun platform whether through the vibration of the gun itself or of the ability to track a plane across the sky at 400 mph is what gives buff the lethality they have now. They arent unbeatable nor are they too hard to kill. But if every buff died at the sight of a nme fighter then no one would fly umm. So it stands to reason that a gameplay concession be made here and there to encourage folks to fly umm.
With the new system otw a lot of the current concessions and being curtailed. If you have read the news you will know that manuvering the 4 buff formation will be rather delicate couple that with the new bombsite/bomb drift seems nice and steady will be the norm. If you cant find a way to kill them then you might as well give up trying :)
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Oh sorry Sir I forgot you're in total charge of the discussion here.
[/B]
I'd like to think I'm in charge of my own argument. When you attempt to divert my main point into some tangent utterly unrelated to it in order to serve your own agenda, then you must expect that I'll call you on it. You're welcome to talk about gameplay, "gaming the game," flight models, or whatnot. To bring those up as responses to my argument, however, serves no purpose other than to prove that you either don't understand what I'm saying, or you don't care because it doesn't serve your interests. Preach it to someone else, because it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.
If you would have read my post more carefully I already cleared my position regarding your point of view on gameplay. I deal with the current FM - still it doesn't mean I have to like it or not raise questions if things could be improved.
That's just it... I'm not making any point on gameplay. I'm saying that buffs are easy to kill when you utilize proper tactics, regardless of the validity of their flight models. Period. Whether their flight models improve or detract from gameplay for you doesn't matter to me.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Wotan, the low preasure will affect you even if you use O2, the TA152 pilot used O2. If you Don't use O2 the highest alt a pilot can fly is about 10k, can fly there and above for a little while then he must go down again or pass out.
The preasure affected this TA152 pilot in the way that his, although O2, body started aching etc, will post the report.
-
Leviathn, I thought your first post was in response to my previous post I made 19 posts earlier than your first - there you stated there's nothing wrong with buffs, quoting one of my earlier posts.
I'd say that's a strong statement and a point of view brought to public. Not to mention it was in response to my original post so what was exactly the time where you took over the idea / subject of my previous post?
What youre saying now that when you give YOUR opinnion to my post I've made much earlier, I should all of the sudden take it as the total truth and obey.. You say buffs are darn easy to kill with proper tactics, yet later you admit there's no viable solution of getting them down up high :) You also can't deny that buff gunnery as it is gives easily 1-ping wing losses etc. effects at extreme ranges, 1.5k and up. The problem with b17 is that you have to maintain a 2k distance to it at all times if you want to avoid a sudden and immediate death from the enemy which seems to be clearly at a safe distance. I'd prefer more dispersion to buff guns (if I recall right from earlier posts the dispersion was toned down) if it would mean I'd get a warning before I lose parts. I'd prefer to hear a lot of hits before I lose a wing because it would also enable me to break off if needed. Right now the concentrated fire from all the guns does the exact opposite, the wings snap off in one burst which often sounds as one hit to the fighter.
Sure a lonely 10k bomber is dead meat most of the times. If it has even one escort it's life will be mucho easyer. If it doesn't it should go down in a snap just like in reality. Maybe buffs sometimes seem more leathal than they are because of netlag effects, too.
Regarding to the attack tactics you mentioned, I have found a way to deal with the buffs in game. I've even learned to exlpoit the weaknesses of the gunner modeling such as having to switch positions between gunners which makes aiming harder.. I also have moderate success in attacking buffs and killing them.
This should be an answer to your comment - which brings us to my original post which you don't seem to agree with and which still goes unresolved.
-
MrRipley you would help yourself and all others replyin by starting a thread on the topic YOU think we are discussing because obviously you are talking about something completely different.
We are saying: This is the way the game is played, this is not reality and like any game: learn to play it how it is designed.
You seem to be saying: The game is not a true reflection of reality and therefore needs to be 'fixed'.
SKurj
-
Well D'oh Skurj yes I thought this is a WW2 warfare simulation.
Maybe it should be clarified whether AH wants to be a general arcade or a simulation.
-
Read this page...
http://www.hitechcreations.com
better yet close your account you won't find what you are looking for here, hmm or anywhere in the current space time dimension
SKurj
-
this endless banter sucks. Ripley you might as well close your account because making accusations about the buffs being bad or good without conclusive proof shown will not change anything
show some proof in writing, cite your sources, and then complain.
-
Originally posted by K West
"HT has specifically said that there's nothing NOTHING porked in buff leathality or gunnery."
At least now if you are fool enough to sit on a B17's 6 his top turret will not be firing at you........... and if you are just high enough niether will the ball.......
Then if he tries to slew to get a gunner shot he looses formation.......and his drones........ and upto 75% of his bombs and guns......... 1000 (AI) yards is easily lost in a simple manouver.
The devil will be in the detail
Tilt
-
"The devil will be in the detail. Tilt"
Now THAT's the truth :)
Although not before much gnashing of teeth, forehead banging on bricks and rapid wringing of hands has transpired. ;)
Gotta love these apocolyptical discussions, no? :)
Westy
-
" Edit the bomber, change this change that, do this, do that, make it easier to kill them. Model engine overheating, and gun accuracy..................... ..."
Really the list goes on and on about the changes that need to be done to the bombers.
Now this is what i dont understand with SOME fighter pilots out there. They want to tottaly change the Bombers in aces high but dont want there fighters to be effected one bit.
I am really looking forward to the new bomber AI and also the flying formation, i think it will bring a LOT of customers to HTC, I can just imagin somthink like 10 people i know signing up JUST FOR THE use of this new bomber AI system that going to be installed.
Really if HTC get more customers he has more resources to spend on people like us :). It mean people really against the bomber system is really against new developments in Aces High, let it be new AC, terrain and also the new FPS that should be coming out this year from the reports that i have read ehehhehe.
If you have ever played B17 the mighty 8th, you would understand how hard it becomes trying to manage a flying formation of bombers and also the bomb sight.
Really i cant wait until i up a JUG with drop tanks and go out Buffy hunting, and also i CANT wait to up a formation of 4 buffs and go bomb a base. I think it would be great.
Q: How are we going to land 4 buffs on the runways that we currently have right now, are we going to haft to fly in a sort formation on approach and landing?
-
westy... I have no trouble killing fluffs. I have never said they were hard to kill. I simply say that they are unfun to kill. Like strafing ack. They are gamey in the extreme and now they will be four times less fun and four times more gamey.
All I hope is that they have less effect on the game so that they can be ignored even more.
As for overheating... we don't fly long enough for overheating to be a problem. No engine in WWII, radial or inline, that I am aware of overheated in 15 minutes of full throttle.
lazs
-
"They want to totally change the Bombers in aces high but dont
want there fighters to be effected one bit."
You must be new here. For there are many requests for changes to fighters. Auto-flaps being one major issue constantly broiught up. What do you think should be changed? Either way it's irrelevant and has nothing to do with the topic of future bomber modelling in AH.
Bombers are basically as idiot proof in AH as one could get. (Barring FA and expired AW of course) They require no ACM skills, no fuel managment, no trim (with combat trim enabled), no convergance testing. Basic "point and go" vehicles. It's not as if the FM is being changed. It's not like it'll be harder to fly them beyond thier current basic "delivery truck/shcool bus" manner; start engines, take off, go to a base, pork it, auger like a dweeb/get shot down.
Now people may have to actually "think" about what they are doing. No longer will it be as simple as "make a bee line to the base with the pedal-to-the-metal." Darwins rule will prevail as some will develop CBM (combat bombing maneuvers) and the new SA that will be needed. It'll be tougher to get to the target, setup well and drop accurately now. Some will "get it" .... and some won't.
Westy
-
"westy... I have no trouble killing fluffs."
Ditto. But I've mostly hated the ease with which any pube or dork could up in one and disrupt some enjoyable fighting single handedly. THAT will change imo.
Westy
-
Originally posted by K West
But I've mostly hated the ease with which any pube or dork could up in one and disrupt some enjoyable fighting single handedly.
Westy
Sheesh, now you're channeling Lazs ;)
The question I didn't see addressed was the bar dar thingie--if a 4 buff formation w/ 1 pilot ups, will the bar dar react as it would to four planes, or just one? (can see a future of nothing but full bars in every sector...)
dh
(Westy, does the "com.cast" addy still work?)
-
Now tell me how is bomber idiot proof. You haft to have the skill to take them of the runway. I see more dweeb in AC than i see in Bombers. Also Bombers have ther own ACM, they need to slowly clime up to an alt for bombing, without being hit by Lazer clones that hate Bombers. Fuel management would haft to be the most importanat part of the bomber, you need to see how much fuel you will require for the voiage. Trim is no consurn because its a OPTION that fighters can choose.
K West I know you may be here longer than I have, but you still haft to remember with new players joining aces high everthink is hard compared to the 3hr a day players.
Now i KNOW that the bombers will be harder in the new version to fly and everthink and I am all for it. But I dont think it would be a good idea to model the Bombers 100% correctly, seeing that most fighters in this game can do some things that would kill a normal pilot. What i am really trying to get at, If changes are to be made to Bombers, eg... You start getting fatigue at 30K feet, so do the same to fighters and such to bombers.
The bomber flight model will be changed for reasons regarding Game play.
-
Originally posted by Linux_gene
Now tell me how is bomber idiot proof. You haft to have the skill to take them of the runway. I see more dweeb in AC than i see in Bombers. Also Bombers have ther own ACM, they need to slowly clime up to an alt for bombing, without being hit by Lazer clones that hate Bombers. Fuel management would haft to be the most importanat part of the bomber, you need to see how much fuel you will require for the voiage. Trim is no consurn because its a OPTION that fighters can choose.
Skill to take off? No. Choose "auto take-off"
Slowly climb to altitude? "alt-x"
Fuel management? 50% and one can circle the globe
Trim? Combat Trim "enabled"
You do have to remember to open the doors, tho. ;)
dh
-
:P Horn (check yer email) ;) In all honesty I share much of the same feelings about bombers as Lazs does (and quite few others). The difference I think is I do not mind them as much as he does when they're used by people not out to be fun spoilers. AKA the solo base porker.
Actually Linux_gene AH is very "newby" friendly. There is no need for a shallow learning curve as AH has features like "auto take off," auto-climb/level/angle/combat trim and AH has padlock as well. All of which help do everthing except actually point the nose to the target, open the bay doors and drop. It only takes a about a half dozen tries at most for a newby to get the hang of using flaps to take off and leanr that they better not yank and bank the plane about when real low and slow.
In the near future "skills" needed to fly a level bomber won't change. It'll be the use of the bombers actual function which will. IMO the existing "helpers" are more than enough to help anyone fly the bomber. the only requirement now to actually being a bombardier was to open the bay doors, go to the bombardier station and if you had at least one Cod given one eye left you could (learned in less than a week even if the person was "slow" or did not have much online time) how to totally destroy a base singlehandedly with just one Lanc or B17. Given that, I see no reason for HTC to dumb down the learning curve just to satisfy the slowest common denominator coming in the through door.
I do think that however that it would be better if HTC added a bombardier position to go along with the pilot and gunner.
Westy
-
linux theres 100 threads out there that will explain how ez the current ah fluff model is. also theres a help file if you are having trouble.
all fluffs auto take off auto climb auto level push 2 or 3 butoon then rtb. They mostly get killed because they go in at 10k.
-
Originally posted by K West
"Darwins rule will prevail as some will develop CBM (combat bombing maneuvers)
CBM!.......... wow a whole new science I reckon its still a pretty "quick read"
:p
Tilt
-
"CBM!.......... wow a whole new science I reckon its still a pretty "quick read" Tilt"
:D Well, it is progress I must admit;)
While becoming a bombardier won't consist of cracking open multiiple volumes of hard bound books to learn at least it won't be just a few lines scribbled on a 3x5" index card anymore either ;)
Westy
-
I dont think i was asking for a detailed descritpion on how a player might go ahead at flying a bomber.
"Skill to take off? No. Choose "auto take-off"
Slowly climb to altitude? "alt-x"
Fuel management? 50% and one can circle the globe
Trim? Combat Trim "enabled"
You do have to remember to open the doors, tho. "
So why is it so hard for you fighters to clime up and take them down. You have the same option as bomber pilots do?
I am not trying to get into a flame war here, but instead i revert back to my original post saying, that i am looking forward to the new bomber addon, and also that any changes done to the modeling of compression at 30K feet or fatigue at 30K feet aswell be the same for fighters.
Also, you mentioned bombers being "fun spoilers", aint you being a "fun spoilers" if you shot down another person AC?
-
"Sheesh, now you're channeling Lazs " Now there is an expression I have not heard. I would imagine that it is some effeminate fluffer expression tho.
lazs
-
"... aint you being a "fun spoilers" if you shot down another person AC?"
Well, that IS a fundamental part of AH. Without that one feature we'd essentially be a MMPOG version of MS FS-2000. All calling in for tower clearance on takeoff, vectors and permissions to land at various international airports. With back slapping the only reward for perfect landings and taxiing to the proper terminals ;)
"So why is it so hard for you fighters to climb up and take them down."
That's a valid question. Glad you asked as it also segues into my explanation of what a "fun spoiler" is ;)
It typically isn't difficult to shoot bombers down here IMO. I have no problem with shooting them down and if given enough of an alert I WILL climb up to try and nail em. The "fun spoiler" problem does arise if you're one of a half dozen or more people who are enjoying a good bout of dogfighting at anywhere between 2k and 15k only to have some attenting starved player drop on your takeoff base from 25k wiping out the FH's - with no intention of trying for a capture. That is not what AH is about. That action is not dogfighting, it's not aircombat and it's not part of the land grab. Currently it's far too easy for one person, be they brand spanking new or otherwise, to disrupt enjoyable online gameplay of many others players.
Thanks for the good discussion and debate. I'm not trying to me or just be argumentative either. Even if we do not see eye-to-eye we at least can understand our different pov's.
Westy
-
Originally posted by Linux_gene
I dont think i was asking for a detailed descritpion on how a player might go ahead at flying a bomber.
No you didn't. Your question was:
Now tell me how is bomber idiot proof.
which I then unselfishly endeavored to explain.
dh
And Lazs: Westy was eerily and supernaturally echoing your exhaustive and eternally expounded views on fluffs--he was therefore "channeling" you. However, I for one would never stand in your way if you feel the need to be effiminate.
-
blasphemous and most assuredly pure heresy. How about (now put yer thinking caps on, kiddies) we wait for 1.10 and actually try out the new system before we argue it's merits?
-
horn.... oddly enough... my views on the attention starved, talentless fluffers have been stated once or twice before... they require no "channeling". Only fluffers and self help section denizens would even know of such a word. In short.... the effeminate.
Attacking one or two guys who are controlling around 40 guns will be even less realistic and less fun than what we have now. The best that can be hoped for in the whole fluff situation is that they have less effect on gameplay than they have now.
fluffing in AH will get my support when it is useless.
lazs
-
hehe lazs, with the buff formations your fields will be pancaked regularly instead of just hit with jabos and an ensuing furball.
I look foward to buff intercept missions and escort missions. Much fun.
-
"I look foward to buff intercept missions.."
A task the F4U-1C is suited very wel for. :)
UNPERK THE CHOG!!!!! ;)
Westy
-
4 guns against 40? no thanks. 40 guns all converging on the same spot no matter what the distance? Hardly my idea of "fun".
No... the less I have to see of fluffs the better. I can't see how giving the fluffers 4 times the firepower they have now is going to change that.
lazs
-
"I can't see how giving the fluffers 4 times the firepower they have now is going to change that. "
Not trying to change your pov but imo they'll simply aim them just as bad as they do now. I don't think the new bomber model will change much of anything about how well they survive or not. The real concrete change is it will take more of them to do what they used to be able to do. And that is the positive imo. I'm not worried in the least about being able to shoot them down, more guns or not. I'm confident I will be able to do it after 1.10 as well as I can now.
Westy
-
One key to killing buffs is definately to fly cannon birds.
I was shot up today TOTALLY hard by f4u-d and my gunners didnt get a scratch even though the whole plane was trashed.
Then again I was attacked multiple times by n1kdweebs and lame7:s which pinged the gunners dead from first hits. I was flying lanc.
Maybe this is why I've found killing buffs so hard, I fly mostly .50 armed planes and with those the gunners are without a doubt immortal.
-
post 150 :)
-
lol. Was wondering if we'd crank the vBB odometer over to 4 today ;)
Westy
-
Laz, thank you so much for not even THINKING about anybody other than people like yourself who, from what you've said yoursef, neither know nor care to know how to fly bombers effectively and/or anywhere other than in the MA. Try opening that narrow little mind a bit and think of those who like flying in scenario games. I've flown sorties in organised games (in WB) that lasted over two hours - still short by real standards, but plenty long enough to wreck an engine flown at too high a throttle. The buff manuals I've seen tnd to say that they should be flow at maximum power for no more than ONE MINUTE, and then go on to list at what throttle & rpm they can be flown for as long as an hour, and then wht settings for continuous.
Esme
Originally posted by lazs2
westy... I have no trouble killing fluffs. I have never said they were hard to kill. I simply say that they are unfun to kill. Like strafing ack. They are gamey in the extreme and now they will be four times less fun and four times more gamey.
All I hope is that they have less effect on the game so that they can be ignored even more.
As for overheating... we don't fly long enough for overheating to be a problem. No engine in WWII, radial or inline, that I am aware of overheated in 15 minutes of full throttle.
lazs
-
Esme the limits in pilot's notes (at least for US and UK aircraft) had more to do with engine life and overhaul intervals than bad things that might happen in the near term. Sure some planes would overheat but many would keep running just fine, at least on that sortie. And many of them (e.g. Merlin, R-2800) could run wide open indefinitely without ill effects in the short term.
-
What a stroke of brilliance. Nine players can set up a box formation of 12 B17's at three altitudes. A total of 36. Add to that several sqads of P51's escorting above the formation. Then add the hordes of 109's and 190's to defend and take out the buff's. What a senerio!!! AH should get a kick back on computer upgrades . But one thing will have to be implimented, B17's should take damage if they are hit by friendly fire. I don't think kill shooter would add to the immersion. And 17's should loose the ability to fire through there fusilage.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
What a stroke of brilliance. Nine players can set up a box formation of 12 B17's at three altitudes. A total of 36. Add to that several sqads of P51's escorting above the formation. Then add the hordes of 109's and 190's to defend and take out the buff's. What a senerio!!! AH should get a kick back on computer upgrades . But one thing will have to be implimented, B17's should take damage if they are hit by friendly fire. I don't think kill shooter would add to the immersion. And 17's should loose the ability to fire through there fusilage.
Yep, then turn friendly collisions on to really keep things interesting! :eek:
-
I've had some of my most enjoyable flights in the MA escorting Buffs and even more fun Hunting them. Especially while defending the HQ.
With 3x Buffs and the 110-G2 I can't wait! For 1.10
As with the whines on Buff alts at 25k+ and their performance etc. Unless I start of with the advantage I don't bother trying to chase some 30k+ Buff. Infact I can't remember the last time I was higher then 20k. And with 1.10 realistic (for AH) bomb sight and bomb flight. I'd wager that most Bombers won't be able to hit anything more then the ground at 30k+ without a certin amount of skill and practice so all credit to those that do. Unlike the current modeling.
So Bravo! To HT. Hopefully it will bring in a whole new and challanging addition to AH. For Buffers and Hunters alike.
My only concern is what to do with the Perkie 234 now with realistic bomb sights and flight. Might end up rather redundent due to it's very small bomb load. So HT please bring on the B29 then we'll really have something to spend our buff perks on! :-)
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
. And 17's should loose the ability to fire through there fusilage.
They have for 1.10
SKurj