Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: StracCop on August 20, 2002, 06:52:05 PM
-
An idea....,
Okay, I've given this quite a lot of thought and I think I've come up with a solution that solves the two most glaring problems with the bomber model that I've heard with the most frequency: accuracy and vulnerability while in calibration-bombsite (this idea also addresses the peripheral issue of people refusing to use bombers under the new model - except as low level raiders.. ;-) .
Here is how it would work:
Lets assume that 4 pilots want to launch a joint B-17 bomber mission, each pilot with a 3-plane formation. That's 12 planes and should pack quite a punch. The problem is they don't under the new model because its too easy for them to get widely separated from one another and because each pilot has varying levels of skill in hitting the target.
Compounding this problem is the inherent vulnerability window that's created while you spend all that time in calibrarion/bomb site, a weakness that was quickly seized upon and exploited by the opposition. Given these factors its no wonder that the fun factor has gone out of strategic bombing for many.
So, instead of flying as separate formations, I propose that an option be coded into the program that allows the pilots of these formations to 'group' their 3-plane formations to a more accomplished flight leader and create a 'Group Combat Formation' (say a maximum of four pilots - [12 planes] for each group).
Once grouped (attached), the 'Group Leader' would have navigation and bombing control over the entire bomber group while the pilots of the other 3-plane bomber formations (and their gunners if so equipped) can concentrate on manning the defensive armament. This, I believe, would more faithfully recreate the experience of actual bomber missions in World War II and would allow those who have labored to become proficient under the new bombing model to realize some recognition of their efforts by becoming 'Group Leaders.'
My sense is that this might best be done through a 'dot' command.
For example, the command: '.group HiTech' Would give HiTech control of my 3-plane formation. So, when he turns, my 3-plane formation would also turn using the same 'tether' that the 3-plane formations now have. I would be freed from having to fly the plane and could instead concentrate on manning the planes' defensive guns.
Furthermore, when HiTech opens bomb bay doors, mine would open and when he dropped ordnance, I would drop - just like in World War II.
To exit the group a command like: '.detach' would be easy enough to remember. A 'group' radio channel could also be provided if desired.
In summary, the group leader, a pilot with skill in hitting the target in a heavy bomber, would be commanding and piloting a 12-plane formation and, because the other pilots could then concentrate on defense instead of hitting the target, the bombers would not be the easy pickens' they have been while on final bomb runs. More bomber missions would be flown because of the increased effectiveness of such missions and the greater number of missions would present dedicated BUF hunters more numerous and formidible targets to attack.
These are just some ideas I've had germinating around in my head for a while now. I wonder what the rest of you think of them? I'd like to see a greater use of bomber formations again someday and I think this solution would go a long way towards making that possible.
Flying bomber formations is now, at least for a majority of us, a futile gesture that does little more than waste time and give BUF hunters an easy target...and I don't care to be a target drone.
So there it is. I've attached a pic of what a prototype formation could look like once joined for your review. Constructive commentary is invited and encouraged!
- Dave
(http://www.digitaldioramas.com/images/users/digitaldioramas/bombgroup.gif)
Post edits in red text.
-
Very good idea!
Two thumbs up!
:D
-
You go StracCop! Excellent post:D
-
First off I love the basic concept but you are proposing that there is really only one player piloting the other 8 or 11 buffs and when he turns everybody turns, when he opens doors everybody does so, etc.
Would buff drivers enjoy doing nothing but gunning if the lead bomber that you attach to does everything for you?
I am terrible at bombing even before the revision so I would love it. :D
Hmmm....I don't know what the answer is but you're really on to something here.
Kuben
-
First of all, an outstanding presentation of your idea. Well done. In fact, THIS is how it should be done. No anger, no accusation, no veiled innuendo, no tears about previous abuse of buffs... just a rational presentation of your thoughts.
Second, it seems like it certainly doesn't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do... so excellent there as well.
Third, it certainly would make the bombers more effective and more historical at the same time, so... no problem there. (Except now we'll have to get more fighters to attack at once. But with more targets, there's more food for everyone! ;) )
So, overall, nicely done!
-
agree 100% . great idea.
whats really suprising is strac never even mentioned his 'handcuff the players to their guns' idea :)
straccop
-
This Sounds like an excellent Idea.
Hitech, Please give this some thought
-
Bravo StracCop. Great idea.
-
Would buff drivers enjoy doing nothing but gunning if the lead bomber that you attach to does everything for you?
Kuben,
That is correct. Except he doesn't do everything for you. He depends on your gunnery skill to keep him alive since he will be occupied with other duties.
Nonetheless, I hasten to point out that attaching yourself to a Group Leader would be entirely optional. If you preferred to continue to navigate and bomb on your own you could still do so. After all, doing so will allow you to hone your own bombing skills, a necessary prerequisite to become an effective Group Leader. In summary, attaching yourself to a 'Group Leader' would be at your discretion and you could 'detach' at any time and at your pleasure. Although I didn't mention this previously, the intended Group Leader would also have the option to accept the responsibility and could decline attach requests by interested parties at their discretion.
One thing comes to mind that I haven't yet addressed and that is what would happen to the Bomber Group if the 'Group Leader' formation were destroyed or the pilot killed. As we all know Luftwaffe pilots went to great lengths to kill the bomb group leaders during the war because of their tactical importance to the mission's success.
I think that to preserve the momentary chaos that such a loss would have it would probably be best for all plane formations within the group to automatically revert to individual control upon the death of the Group Leader. The surviving members could then elect to nominate a new leader to join with if desired. Doing this while under fire would be a challenge not unlike that experienced by 8th Air Force pilots during the war and would add yet another layer of realism to the experience.
Thanks for the responses and feedback guys. I'm glad that you've decided to give the idea some thought and have found some merit in it. I hope that this idea and your suggestions will be considered by HiTech for introduction in a future release.
Thanks again and keep the comments coming!
- Dave
"StracCop"
113th "Lucky Strikes" Attack Squadron
Post edits in red text
-
this sounds like a gr8 idear
SKurj
-
I would like it very much if hitech would code a way for players to join a buff as a bombardier instead of a gunner.
thus, when the pilot starts the bomb run he can call for a bombardier to join their buff(s). the pilot then hits a key to turn on bombing autopilot (shift b ?) to give control of the buff to the bombardier just like the real buffs did.
while in bombing autopilot all aircraft control while in cockpit or gunner positions is disabled until the pilot disengages it again with (shift b ?) this will prevent the player from inadvertantly ruining the bomb run while gunning or accidentally moving the controls.
as for scoring bomb hits should be credited to both players in the bomber category.
somehow it just makes more sense to have a player join to drop the bombs while the pilot concentrates on defense gunning during the bomb run.
-
Great post!
After reading this one I may even pay more attention to the BB than I have lately.
I have 17 squadmates and not one of us wants to buff again, but if something like this were implemented I believe the buff hunters and the buff flyers would be back in the game. :)
RafBader:Co. RRR
-
Just curious...
Has anyone actually noticed the spread of craters with a formation matching the actual spread of the drones themselves?
SKurj
-
Has anyone actually noticed the spread of craters with a formation matching the actual spread of the drones themselves?
I've noticed SKurj,
They look too tight to me. More like a single bomber made them with 3 times as many bombs.
This is a critical point though.
In order for this idea to address the accuracy issue of the current bomber model the bomb dispersal pattern must correspond with the aircraft formation pattern (understanding that the effects of wind, bomb wobble, etc. may alter the impact pattern).
Thanks for bringing that up SKurj!
- Dave
-
I'd like to digress a little with a link to an additional discussion. While far beyond the focus of this thread I thought it wise to incorporate a mention of it here to insure its review since it would be somewhat related if adopted.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62232
I think that the idea for a 'Bomber Group' would dovetail with the idea expressed on this thread quite well. Additional thoughts or comments?
Thanks again for the well-reasoned and thoughtful dialogue..!
- Dave
"StracCop"
113th 'Lucky Strikes' Attack Squadron
-
Another thought just came to mind...
Instead of having Formation Pilots type '.detach' in the text buffer to separate from the Bomb Group, have a hot key for detachment. For example, hitting the num pad 'minus' key 2 times in quick succession would detach you from the group.
This would be important in the event that the Group Leader is battered so badly in his sole remaining aircraft that he loses control of it and perhaps starts to spiral down in flames. Since he's not yet dead he would drag the tethered formations of the remaining planes down with him, making it all but impossible for the remaining formations to quickly regain control and continue to the target and successfully strike it as a formation. After all, when a Group Leader in World War II was knocked out of action, other planes of the squadron didn't follow him down. Therefore, a means to allow for a quick disconnect needs to be made available in such an event.
Using this feature, when the Group Leader informs the pilots that he is going down or the Formation Pilots see his demise, they could quickly detach and retain control of their aircraft and continue on the bomb run.
Equally important, if the Group Leader were to hit the num pad 'minus' key 2 times in quick succession he would detach all planes that had been attached to him. This would be the proper course of action for the Group Leader to take if he had to break formation due to damage or was unable to continue accurately to the target, not unlike what happened during the war when lead bombers had to limp back home short of target acquisition due to enemy damage, mechanical breakdown, etc.
Anyway, Group Leaders, in addition to Formation Pilots need this ability in the event that VOX goes down and his condition can't be relayed to the other pilots. The Group Leader, knowing he is mortally damaged or unable to effectively command the group, could detach the formations from him and then bail from his aircraft ... or change course and travel alone.
Anything else I'm missing?
Why am I still up thinking about this idea? >> :rolleyes:
- Dave
"StracCop"
113th 'Lucky Strikes' Attack Squadron
-
What do you think about an attach to group leader command that works like the current check six command ? You point your bombers at the plane formation you want to attach to and hit a hot key, and you're attached. If they can make check 6 work, it seems like this would work too.
As a career buff driver from AW4Win days, I think your buff formation idea is excellent !
-
Originally posted by SKurj
Just curious...
Has anyone actually noticed the spread of craters with a formation matching the actual spread of the drones themselves?
SKurj
I've seen bomb spread. It definitely seems to be tied to the location of the drones at the drop.
I was making a second pass on a base, turned a little too hard causing the stall horn to blow (those drone dweebs just can't fly on the edge ;) ) Anyway, drone three falls off and fails to catch up before drop. Plane one and two were accurate but plane three was way short as I expected.
--------
I would like to see something like StracCop's idea as well. It would really be nice if the "tethered" pilots could actually see what the Group Lead was doing in the calibration process. What better way to train?!
From a fighter perspective, I'm going to shoot that lead buff in the face :D
-
Originally posted by Kuben
First off I love the basic concept but you are proposing that there is really only one player piloting the other 8 or 11 buffs and when he turns everybody turns, when he opens doors everybody does so, etc.
Would buff drivers enjoy doing nothing but gunning if the lead bomber that you attach to does everything for you?
I'd gladly turn over my plane command and go gunner in that thing like there was no tomorrow! I'd even wear my lucky rubber band!
-
Thanks for all the comments guys!
I'm really pleased that this idea has met with your endorsement. :)
I would especially like to hear a thought or two from HiTech or someone else at HTC about the feasability of integrating this idea and what kind of development time it would take.
- Dave
-
Originally posted by StracCop
I would especially like to hear a thought or two from HiTech or someone else at HTC about the feasability of integrating this idea and what kind of development time it would take.
- Dave
I have noticed they seldom, if ever, chime in in these sorts of threads.
-
Originally posted by StracCop
Thanks for all the comments guys!
I'm really pleased that this idea has met with your endorsement. :)
I would especially like to hear a thought or two from HiTech or someone else at HTC about the feasability of integrating this idea and what kind of development time it would take.
- Dave
I'm pretty much a fighter pilot, but I like your idea. Well-done.
-
You can rest assured though that these walls do have ears, and they are listening :)
This does seem like a promising idea. At first I seriously wondered if real MA usage of such a feature would warrant spending the resources to code a prototype/beta for inhouse development. I then asked myself if this was something I would use or be willing to participate in, promptly I said to myself 'ofcourse' but would I be willing to be a group leader, ultimately responsible for the impacts of others ordinance, well....if they "attached" it was their call and they can "detach" at any time.
And btw on the subject of a spiraling damaged leader dragging everyone down......HT coded that drones not follow such an aircraft because it was an issue when this model was first released.
-
And btw on the subject of a spiraling damaged leader dragging everyone down......HT coded that drones not follow such an aircraft because it was an issue when this model was first released.
Thanks AcId,
Thats good to know.
When I was churning this idea around in my head before posting I was hoping that the amount of new coding work could be minimized through the reuse of existing code (with some modification).
Your information suggests that at least one segment of code may exist that may be adaptable to the idea. My hope is that the majority of the necessary code could be borrowed from programming work already done and incorporated into the game. That would sure speed up development time and spare Dale the stress of writing something new from scratch.
Thanks for the information.. :)
- Dave
"StracCop"
113th 'Lucky Strikes' Attack Squadron
-
I appreciate the thought that's gone into your concept and would much support such a change.
Navy49
-
This Idea is great.
It seems teh logical extension of what HTC has already implemtented.
A bomber raid was devasatating due to the sheer # of bombs droped. A 3 buff formation does not recreat that. The bomb drift of the boms has mostly length drift, very little left right. however our targets (especially factories) have ALOT of left right targets. currently bombing anything but a single object is impossible. however if we could get 12 , 24 , 36 bombers all qued up at the same time, set our delays to .8 or 1.0 and have true carpet bombing going on, we'll then the destruction could be marvelous!
I put my vote in to haveing this idea implemented. I greatly looked forward to the new bombing formation hoping it would bring massive waves of bombers and change the strat of the game from JABO attack waves to organized bombing and intercept missions. that has failed to materialize and now we have even fewer bombers in the air. I do not want to go back to single bombers with laser guided ordenance.
I hope this Idea gets some official attention. Its a very good one.
-
And just a little addition +)
It also adds realism!! huh?
Well in reality didn't all the buffs in the formation (that was much larger than just 3 buffs) drop on the lead.
So the rest of the 'no talent dweeb fluffs" can just man the guns +) (sarcasm!!)
The majority of buffs in ww2 didn't have to bother much with the norden, they just followed the leader +)
SKurj
-
Seems like all the pieces are here.
Scott E even thought about scoring.
This gets my hardy support!
-
Well in reality didn't all the buffs in the formation (that was much larger than just 3 buffs) drop on the lead.
Exactly SKurj.
Striving for a more realistic experience..for both the bomber crews and the fighter opposition..is exactly what I envision this change would achieve.
I think this idea could bring us a step closer to recreating the effect and experience of being in or opposing a strategic bombing mission in World War II.
Incidentally, with the 'preview' of the Me-163 at the convention and hopes that it will soon enter the planeset, wouldn't it be appropriate to give the Me-163 a target that is akin to those it would have opposed during World War II - namely, large bomber formations? Seems like this idea would be a perfect complement to the introduction of the Me-163.
Hmmm, now, about adding contrails to bomber groups over 20k... ;)
- Dave
-
StracCop
Great idea, suggestion is to make the number of planes to 18 to form a bomber box.
DarkHawk
-
I'll be the first to tell anyone I'm NOT the greatest bomber pilot in AH, but this "formation of bombers" is a step in the right direction for Aces and noobies alike! :cool:
-
suggestion is to make the number of planes to 18 to form a bomber box.
DarkHawk,
Good thought.
I had considered that so we could have maximum historical accuracy. The 12-bomber formation I came up with is actually adapted from the B-17 Group Combat Box Formation used during World War II. In the end though I decided not to suggest it for 2 principle reasons and a technical concern:
First, while it would be more historically accurate, it would run the risk of becoming an overpowering and irresistable force in the game. Believe me, fighters will have their hands full. They will need to form joint missions, maintain caps (or have access to Me-163's) and coordinate attacks if they have a chance of downing an entire group - a group that may have its own 'little friends' with them. I think the challenge will be great enough with 12 planes where, incidentally, there can be two gunners in each set of 3 for a maximum of 8 manned guns firing at them (if the Group Leader is also in a gun during the attack). I think that having to attack 18 will be all but impossible for fighters....and hey, I want a crack at attacking a Bomber Group ... an living to tell the tale..myself. ;)
Still, with that said, nothing would stop more than one Bomber Group from forming (after some planning and coordination, I would suppose) and creating a coordinated mass attack. Remember, during World War II, bomber groups would launch from multiple bases in England and meet at a rally point before their final run into the target. Creating an opportunity for similar missions in AH would further enhance the historical complexity and coordination required to form such missions.
The second reason is that I think Group Leaders will have enough trouble trying to fly their own formation and three additional ones that are tethered to his formation. Anything but the smallest course-correcting manuevers will require the Group Leader to think far ahead - they will have to plan their course and any mid-course turns needed to arrive at the target - just like they had to do during the war. Trying to do that with 5 tethered formations and his own might prove too daunting a task.
A final reason is that the technical demands of such a grouping might prove more than the game can handle. I have no idea what effect a 4-formation Bomber Group would have on frame rates when escorts and opposing fighters are all thrown together. Heck, I don't even know if its possible to form the Bomber Group in the first place...but I hope its possible.
I started this thread to promote a community discussion of the idea to discuss its merits and to uncover any flaws in the concept. Along the way, your thoughtful discussion has allowed me to fine-tune my original idea and to better disclose some of its nuances for your consideration.
Through this exercise, I hope that we have created a knowledgebase of sorts to help HiTech and HTC decide if its warranted, desired and technically possible.
Thanks for contributing your ideas and feedback to the thread...if this idea happens, I would love for it to be a by-product of such a discussion. Wouldn't that be nice..? :D
- Dave
-
I must say this has been one of the best thought out proposals I have seen in this BBS.
Your thoughts are clear and concise and encourage open non-critical comments and suggestions from others.
I hope you plan on staying around for a long while and just maybe we can all learn something from you when comes to making our own proposals and suggestions for AH :D
-
Great post Strac!!!!
T0J0
-
Thanks for the comment.
One way to test will be the scenario BOB with all of those JU-88 in formation each group could consist of 6 pilots and 18 planes.
This would then give an idea on the Frame Rate and other complications that may arise.
Also if more than a single group you could possible have any where from 18 to 64 ju-88 or more in the same area.
We need to film these battles to see what effect we have on the system, both the PC and the servers
DarkHawk
-
I'm just a little curious.
Is anyone who has read this thread opposed to the idea?
If so please share your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks,
- Dave
"StracCop"
113th 'Lucky Strikes' Attack Squadron
-
I would like to know if HTC has read this thread... don't have tow eigh in if they don't want too, just tell us they've seen it. This is how I imaged bomber formations would turn out but they just havn't.
Let us know you've read the thread guys... otherwise I'll give you a call in the morning and find out. And maybe a bottle of Cragenmore if you implement it :)
-
Guess this thread burned itself out....
-
Looks that way WarChild...
I just hope that the idea reached the decisions makers and that the proposal is given some serious consideration.
Shooting in the dark and 'wondering' if it has been heard is a bit frustrating. Some might suggest using email to convey the concept but that would eliminate the possibility for community analysis and commentary regarding the idea, information that I'm sure would be of interest to HTC.
In any event, I'm glad I had the opportunity to share my idea with everyone and that the dialogue has been so mature and thoughtful. I found it extremely valuable while I tried to synthesize all the various aspects associated with it. I'm sure I missed some but what we ended up with was a pretty complete review.
Thanks again for the support and keep your fingers crossed! ;)
See you in the skies!
- Dave
"StracCop"
113th 'Lucky Strikes' Attack Squadron
A Knights Affiliated Squadron
-
This is a very good suggestion—bombers in general hold very little attraction for me, thus I’m not very good at it—however if I have the opportunity to not only add an extra pair of eyes/guns to the formation but also my ordinance to a dedicated buff driver—that would be more than worth my time!
Question: How would scoring work? I would think that if you attach to a formation where the other guy is doing the hard work and you are just manning the guns—he should be the only one getting points for the drop—so if I attached my formation the only credits I would walk home with would be any gun kills… yes/no… thoughts?
-
On you through of scoring. If the target is destroyed or damaged and you are part of that cause either gunning or the lead all should score the same. It is an all or nothing raid and your gunning leave him not to have to worry about fighter but can devote his time to a better calibration of the bomb sight and the deliver of the tonnage.
DarkHawk
-
I like it!
-
Strac,
Excellent idea overall - I'd love to see this implemented, and yes, I would have no problem letting a pilot who actually owns a sliderule and a scientific calculator do the bombing for me.
Some things have got to change before this can be implemented effectively though:
1) MIGRATING DAMAGE The "one hit all hit" system has got to go, having everyone loose their port engines or ball turret because one plane took a hit is just unacceptable.
2) DAMAGE MODEL/GUNS At present this system would just mean that a 190 or 47 pilot who knows what he is doing will get 12 free kills instead of 3. Buffs pop too easily and the guns are currently only up to Panzer IV pintle standard. Bring back the old buff toughness and guns and this would be a treat to fly.
Thanks Strac - simple, elegant, and worthwhile. This would be a GREAT asset in the mission arena.
HT if we promise not to complain about connection speeds or ask for the JU87 for a week can we have this - PUH-LEEEZE?
- Seagoon
-
i vote the same thing goes for fighters.. this way you could have close formations of fighters too...
-
I haven't seen many of the buff bugs that I hear about. For instance, when I attack a buff and shoot an engine until it leaks, not all buff engines are leaking. However, one thing that bugs me a great deal is the warping that these formations introduce. With the recent lag issues this has become very pronounced. I think a formation of twelve aircraft would only compound this situation and we would hear an increase in the whine frequency (I'll even start the whines off by complaining that I'm wasting ammo. and my gunnery suffers, for no damn good reason).
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a very good idea (I've heard it somewhere else before, actually / ahem) but the current system needs to be looked after first.
Personally, before seeing this implemented I would like to see more of the larger maps introduced.
-
Its a DAMN good idea...which is exACTLY why it will be ignored, and buffs made even more useless than they are
now// (buff formations in ww2 had like 1 trained bombadier in each group...they were very hard to come by)
-
I reallly like the idea !
As for the attaching and detatching to and from the formatiuon i would link that to certain flight conditions:
for example the joining of the formation has to be performed manual until as close as say 200 yards to the lead plane or the closest lead plane drone.
as soon as you attach in that position your plane and its drones would maintain that position (so you*re able to build certain formations.
now the station keeping would essentialy only be possible in straight and level flight up to say 10 degrees of bank and or stable climb / descend. -> i have just had formation training in multi engine a/c and i can tell you that a formation on jumprun when dropping skydivers ain`t so different from a formation of Buffs :)
that should help lost to prevent rapid manouvers and the likes when having a pulk formed and controlled on one pilot.
Cheers
Phil aka DW6
-
Any feedback from HTC on this suggestion?
I (and I'm sure many others) would sure like to know if this is even being considered for a future release.
- Dave
-
Hola! I too would like to know if this has met the eyeballs of stakeholders at HTC.
-
Excellent, logical, objective thread with open exchange of ideas and no smartass scoring or dumbing down.
But why will the staff not even acknowledge that they have seen it? Someone must have brought it to their attention surely?
When people put this much effort into suggestions for improvement, is it not simply POLITE to acknowledge it?
If they don't wan't to do that, they should put a clear disclaimer at the head of the board to the effect that no comments will be made on any thread by the staff.
I'm disappointed only by this aspect. :confused:
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
2) DAMAGE MODEL/GUNS At present this system would just mean that a 190 or 47 pilot who knows what he is doing will get 12 free kills instead of 3. Buffs pop too easily and the guns are currently only up to Panzer IV pintle standard. Bring back the old buff toughness and guns and this would be a treat to fly.
The buff guns are the same they were before but the guns dont fire through the fuselage anymore thats why they seem less powerful.
-
I have to chime in too, great idea.
Probably not needed with fighters though.
HTC? Listening?
Havnt seen a post that hitech or pyro responded to in a long time. I thinks theys mights be bizy
-
Bump
-
I like this idea, but think it isn't for the MA. This idea could better be implemented in the new mission arena. Even start the buffs at altitude over their bases where the players then can organize.
I would also suggest that an intercom be set up within the 17's. Would also suggest that when the 88's start that the attacking fighters are forced to disengage.
The targets need to be larger for the buffs. When a raid distroys targets the down times need to be effective even limiting the nme planes!
I can't see this working in the MA as most ppl are interested in a "right now" type of play. Climb out is too long in the MA and hardly makes buffing worth while where jabo can be more effective. The new Mission Arena would be more for strat ppl willing to spend time.
Well, I have high hopes for the Mission Arena and look forward to its being a cutting edge of new ideas for flight sims! A place where one can go for 2 or 3 hours and fly a mission that really means something. We have had the MA type of flying for years in many sims. The idea of scenerios has been the only attempt to produce some of the RL experience in the sim world. I hope that there are enough ppl to support this type of flying! That is going to be the real question, is the audience ready for this type of flying?
-
Strac,
Great idea. However IMO let each element of the formation calibrate and drop thier own bombs. If the formation wants to co-ordinate with the group leader fine, but letting each pilot control bom drop would add just a tad bit more reality to the buff formations.
Overall, a fantastic idea that should get more than a little atttention.
jEEZY
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
let each element of the formation calibrate and drop thier own bombs. If the formation wants to co-ordinate with the group leader fine, but letting each pilot control bomb drop would add just a tad bit more reality to the buff formations.
jEEZY...!
I think that such a provision would defeat the intended goal of allowing pilots to man defensive armament while designating one pilot, the group leader, as the individual responsible for calibration and bombing for the whole group. Insisting that each pilot within the group continue to calibrate and drop once again forces them to sit in the bombsite for long periods rendering them defenseless, something the 'Bomber Group' proposal would correct.
Perhaps an option could be coded that would give formation pilots joined within the group the ability to override the group leaders calibration/bomb release control, giving them an opportunity to calibrate and drop their own ordnance while still attached to the group leader?
I, for one, would be opposed to such a provision. I think it would be more advantageous for the group if pilots concentrated on defending the group while allowing the group leader to remotely drop every attached plane's bombs.
As I see it, pilots who elected to calibrate and drop their own ordnance would weaken the groups defensive envelope. Having everyone in their planes manning the guns except for the Group Leader who is caibrating/dropping the munitions assures the maximum possible survival rate for all.
Just my thoughts...
But all this aside, If the principle of the idea is adopted it would be a most welcome enhancement to the game.
- David
-
Strac,
Good point.
Ken
-
I like that idea..BNut I would Crush WHOLE Cityies and Airfileds with ease..and Bish And rooks would cry ..alot...
Love BiGB
xoxo
-
HiTech, Pyro,
I wonder if you ever considered this proposal?
I wanted to wait until this release before bumping this topic back up to see if it was incorporated. Clearly, it wasn't.
So, basically, I'm just looking for some feedback from the development staff regarding the feasibility of the idea and how receptive you are to adding it to a future release. It seems to have pretty widespread support from the player base that posts on the forums. What's the impression of the development staff?
Thanks for reading.
David
-
I posted this in the Gameplay feedback forum yesterday:
Currently bombers cannot maintain formation when the guns or bombsight is manned by the pilot, and it is almost always solely manned by the pilot.
A command to drone the flight and bomb commands to a lead player would make the bombers act in a more realistic manner, e.g., maintaining formation and dropping bombs on the leader.
The way I would suggest this functioning would be via a system like so (using my squadmate Keyapaha as the example leader):
1) The player(s) who are going to slave their bombers form up on the leader.
2) The player(s) who are going to slave their bombers type ".form Keyapaha".
3) The newly slaved bombers move into set formation positions like the drones do now.
4) The player(s) in the slaved bombers act as gunners, being able to jump between the three bombers of their section of the formation.
To release from the formation a command like ".unform" could be used, or maybe a joystick movement from the cockpit could release the formation as is done with autopilot.
Because evey three bombers would still require a player to be present this does not free up players, effectively giving larger drone formations. Instead it simply allows the integrity of the formation to be maintained in the face of the enemy, something that is impossible to do right now.
This feature would be particularly useful in the coming Mission Theater as it would allow bombers to be flown in a more historical manner.
-
StracCop,
I agree with the theme of this thread. The Imporoving Bomber Model idea is a good one. I hope it is implemented.
However it will likely take a lot of coding to get it done.
We now have suitable terrain, targets, and strat (possibly) to make bomber missions worthwhile again. (As opposed to constant and unrelenting suicide jabos, which has brought the normal fight to just above ground level).
I suggest two quick fixes to get more bombers up in the sky, and return the role of P-51's, Bf109 G-10's, and other high alt interceptors to their historic roles.
1) Increase the bomb loadout of the B-17. Every refrence says typically about 17.5 to 18.5K of bombs was max load. Our current is 6k bombs. I believe this was done to encourage people to fly the less well defended Lancs during the days of laser bombsites. The laser bombsight is gone, so too should the low bomb load on the 17.
Raise the B-17 bomb load to at least 12K.
2) Lancs and 17's climb extremely poorly. Especially Lancs. At many of the bases on the new Pizza map, you can barely get a Lanc in the air due to the unrealistically high altitude bases. We can get into a long thread about historical accuracy etc, and how lots of things here are/are not historically accurate, but I think the climb rate should be tweaked up for all bombers.
Raise the climb rate of all bombers by 30% except the Lanc, which needs a 50% boost at least.
These two changes should be able to be implemented rapidly and will bring high altitude buff runs, with their attendant high altitude escorts and interceptors back into the game.
By the way, in what dept. are you a Strack Cop ?
-
Not to knock some of the other pilots, but I find flying in formation to a be a challenge that keeps me occupied and adds to the realism of the Bomber mission.
The lead flight always calls out his heading, Alt, rate of climb or descent, and manifold pressure. We take these numbers down, and can make a pretty tight box formation ourselves.
It's a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd use it.
Meanwhile, Bombing seems to be a lost art. I almost never see heavies in the air anymore. No one seems to be bothering with Strat targets. Jabos are the ride of choice these days. Even I don't both with bombing much anymore. It just does not have an impact, in my opinion.
I can't wait for the mission arena, or a change in the Strat so we can get the heavies flying with a purpose again.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
By the way, in what dept. are you a Strack Cop ?
I've been with the Philadelphia PD for 18 years now.
GeezLouise..has it been that long? ;)
Just FYI, the Strac is an acronym I borrowed from my days with the 82nd Airborne Division. Back then we were part of something called the Rapid Deployment Force and to be called a "Strac" trooper was a great compliment.
Anyway, it stands for:
S = skilled
T = tough
R = ready
A = around the
C = clock
And of course the 'Cop" is self-explanatory. :cool:
Now if I could just get people to say or spell my nickname correctly :D
Originally posted by muckmaw
Meanwhile, Bombing seems to be a lost art. I almost never see heavies in the air anymore. No one seems to be bothering with Strat targets.
I bumped this post precisely because you are correct: you seldom ever see bomber groups operating in the MA. What you do see is an occasional pilot with his group of 3 trying to get to a target, usually getting waxed as he tries to calibrate. No fun.
I would love to see more bomber groups at high alt (instead of just an odd formation) to intercept or to be a part of. Makes getting up that high and spending all that time in flight worthwhile. :p
Until we see something like this we'll continue to see large bomber groups as an endangered species. And that, IMHO, would be a real shame.
Thanks for posting your thoughts!
-
Good idea, but this is already completely possible with the current bomner model. The reason it doesn't happen very often is almost no one knows how to fly a simple formation.
412th has done this several times. We go up in bombers and the leader calls out heading, climb and engine settings. The wings get formed up and can go on auto-pilot.
As we approach target (Chosing an IP is critical. You can't expect to get everyone lined up at the last second) the group pulls into final formation and go Auto-pilot level all on the exact same heading and engine settings.
As the leader runs through calibration, the rest of the bomber pilots man their guns and keep a look out. Just before the leader is about to drop bombs, he tells the rest. They all jump to pilot seat and release salvo on command.
Yes, this takes more coordination and effort. However, allowing one pilot to run the entire formation "automatically" would be just the same as allowing 1 pilot to take up a formation of 12, 20 or 30 bombers by his self and then asking for gunners.
My vote. No. It dosen't take too much effort to fly formation with another bomber group, especially when the leader knows how to fly formation lead. Auto-pilot is just way to easy.
-
very nice idea indeed
-
I am all for some changes in the bomber model, but only those that reflect historical accuracy. As example, if the historical max bomb load for a B-17 is 12 or 15k, vs. the current 6k, then it should be raised. Any resulting degredation in performance (climb and runway requirement) as a result of the higher weight should also be reflected.
I am not in favor of changes that differ from historical reality. As an example, I would not favor increasing rate of climb to exceed that of the real machine. This despite the fact that I spend a lot of my time grabbing altitude in buffs. And, I'm not so sure about grouping the bomb relaease control to the flight leader.
Just my $.05's worth. Season's best to all ye buff drivers.
Navy49
-
I think I have to agree with Midnight. Someone in this thread said "The art of bombing is lost." I think that if you implement this idea, it wont be an art anymore. It is, as Midnight says, the same as giving one pilot 30 bombers and 9 gunners. Too easy.
In the No9 RAF we pride ourselves for our tight formations which we fly every week during squadron meeting. The leader tells everyone what his settings are, we form up and head out. We keep formation during the heat of battle, simply by peeking out the cockpit for a second every minute, and then making very small corrections. Then its back to the guns. If someone is about to stray away from the formation we tell him and give a short advice, "Keez, you're straying, a bit to the right and you're ok."
You would make big formations of well flown bombers with a good bombardier something common. A good buffer can attach 3 newbies to his bombers and voila, the effect is the same as 4 good pilots flying. It's like a fighterace being able to fly the fighters of his wingmen as well, and all the wingmen have to do is squeeze the trigger when an enemy is steered into their sights.
I can imagine that this idea appeals to a lot of people tough, as it makes it easier to get good results for minimum effort. I'm afraid I'm one of the very few who thinks that this would not be such a good addition.
-
Midnight,
I can see the merits of your point of view and agree with you that with practice what I propose could be done manually as your unit demonstrates.
The problem is, as I see it, that most players don't want to apply that much of their scarce leisure time to practicing that element of the task because it isn't exactly ringing their 'fun' bell. From my perspective, your proposal, while workable, would serve to lengthen an already challenging learning curve, something that I think most players would not have the inclination to navigate...and have not done to date.
Additionally, your unit has the advantage of working and practicing these skills together on a regular basis. Pilots who are not affiliated with a squad and who wish to participate in large-scale bomber raids that are manual in nature would find their skills inadequate to the task. They would effectively be locked out of such operations which isn't ideal at all.
Still, nothing in my idea would prohibit pilots from doing as your unit does. It's only offered as an option for those of us who want to experience large-scale strategic bombing operations (both as bomber pilots and as fighter interceptors) but don't want to navigate an obstacle like a long learning curve to enjoy.
In summary, my idea would put more large bomber groups in the air. The fact that few units/members do this now testifies to the need for such a provision, IMHO.
Call me selfish, but I get a charge out of seeing a large bomber formation as either a foe or ally and, if the radio chatter I hear from those opposing or participating in such groups is any indication, everyone else gets quite excited by them too! I want to see more of them...! Thats the bottom line objective of this idea.
Thanks for your feedback Midnight!
- David
-
Keez,
You and Midnight are both viewing the issue from within a squad. What happens to the unaffiliated members who want to do what you are doing? They don't 'practice' with a squad so they can never attain the level of proficiency you have. They just become prey, get discouraged from both never hitting the target or getting waxed while calibrating, and never fly BUFs again. This experience only serves to further reduce the number of BUFs being used in their proper role, a trend that needs to be reversed.
STRATEGIC BOMBERS BEING USED AS TACTICAL BOMBERS
This is where we are now. Since the update that added the calibration bombing model few BUFs are in the air, at altitude and in large formations. I think we can readily agree on that. Perhaps worse, they are now increasingly being used to death star bases, dive-bomb carriers and for low level no-bombsite bombing raids on fields.
I think this is a chronic and worsening problem and have proposed a solution. While a few squads have been able to muster the necessary time to practice and attain some level of proficiency at effective large group strategic bombing missions, the vast majority of players have not and, if history since the bombing model update is any guide, won't.
Thanks Keez...hope to run into one of your bomber missions someday...actually, I hope to run into any large-scale bomber mission. :rolleyes:
- David
-
StracCop
My point exactly is that huge formations of bombers should be allowed ONLY by pilots contributing with skill. If the game is reduced to allowing one skilled bomber pilot to control multiple bomber formations, the new wave of mega dweebism will soon follow.
The current trend is massive numbers of players joining huge JaBo raids to assault enemy fields. The majority of these raids are inspired and lead by one or two good pilots who rally a large number of lesser skilled pilots to follow them into battle.
Why? because the lesser skilled pilots think either..
A. They might learn from the experienced leaders
or
B. They won't have to try too hard with such large numbers.
Allowing single leaders the multi formation bomber control will only promote the same thing in bombers. The sky will be filled with huge bomber formations that will be, for the most part, unstoppable. Most of the leisurely pilots will only stay with the formation just long enough to see their bomby away, at which point they will bail out and grab a fighter to go vulch or cherry pick on the target that was just destroyed.
People hate mass suicide Jabo raids... They will HATE mass bomber formations even more.
Keep the bombers working the way they are now. Promote some learning and skill development. Why should the lazy game player be rewarded? For crying out loud it's a game... why play if you don't even want to learn it?
-
On a side note - I'm seeing people discussing the B17 loadout issue, and noting that they've heard of higher bomb weights than 6K being carried.
In fact, the reality was that ordnance loadout was a partial factor only in terms of total loadout. More fuel for longer missions would mean less ability to load bombs, and vice versa. Heavier bomb loads were only possible on shorter range missions. Even gun ammunition had to be taken into account.
For HTC to make this exactly realistic, in other words, would be complicated. Pilots wishing to carry more bombs would have to be limited in terms of how much fuel they could load.
A customer of mine who flew B24s for 8th AF in the war explained this in detail one day for me, and even returned home to get a really neat tool to show me - a slide-rule like device called a load computer that he was issued to use when calculating his takeoff weight. Using it, he had to balance his plane before launching to make sure max limits were not exceeded and that the various loads were distributed to maintain optimal center of gravity. I was truly impressed :)
culero (just wanted to share)
PS - I really DO like the idea of being able to slave bomber formations for the purpose of IP-to-drop runs. I also can understand those who object for reasons of possible abuse. Perhaps a compromise would be that the slaving could be allowed only when the lead pilot is in the bombsight, and time limited?
-
Midnight,
I'm skeptical of your claims. They sound a bit exagerated to me.
I have flown in situations like you describe, but the bomber pilots can never quite get the exact same heading and exact same power settings. Inevitably the formation fragments as soon as people have to go to guns to defend the formation.
I've never tried the "drop on the leader" like you describe, but based on the above I would expect everyone besides the leader to miss.
-
How about offering a 12 plane formation as a Perk option? 1 pilot gets 12 instead of 3 for 60 perkies.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I have flown in situations like you describe, but the bomber pilots can never quite get the exact same heading and exact same power settings. Inevitably the formation fragments as soon as people have to go to guns to defend the formation.
I've never tried the "drop on the leader" like you describe, but based on the above I would expect everyone besides the leader to miss.
Karnak,
The 412th routinely uses formation flying even on non-squad nights and we don't have too much trouble getting steady headings, power settings etc (it just takes a lot of practice, as you'd expect). As for most of the bombers missing, that is the nature of carpet bombing, which is the only way this formation would be employed...
I'm with Midnight. Keep formation flying and bombing a skill. Too many flight aids = too little realism in my books. I much prefer the simulation aspects of this game. In real life the pilot had to hold formation, we should here too (yes, I realise the pilot didn't have to bomb and gun also). We have autopilot to help, that should be enough IMO...
-
I knew suggesting that we up the bomb load on B-17's and the climb rate for buffs in general would bring objections from the keep it historical folks. However, there are plenty of non-historically accurate aspects of Aces High that are made to increase the enjoyment and playability of the game.
I need not go thru a laundry list here (25 to 45 mins of fuel in a fighter ?). The issue for all of us who like to fly buffs, or like to attack buffs at 20 to 25 K, is how do we make the gameplay of flying a buff to high alts to bomb strategic targets more fun ?
HTC has started to fix the issue. The new cities and factories are tightly packed with targets suitable to a high alt buff formation. The strat system has been tweaked so that hitting a city and the factories will force them to stay down for longer periods of time, and allegedly HQ has been adjusted so that it stays down longer as well. Hence the need for the Me163 to defend it.
So how do we get those buffs up there so the Me163 has a purpose ? I truly believe we need to make a non-historical adjustment to the buffs climb rate and give the 17 a decent payload.
Historically a strategic bomber had hours to climb to 25 K. We obviuosly don't have hours here. But because the buffs have historical climb rates, it takes forever to get to high alts. The interceptors designed to lift off and reach 25K are modelled historically, and that works just fine for gameplay. Fire up a Me163 and you can attack those 25K Lancs in a just a couple of minutes. A Bf109G-10 will be there in a jiffy. Meanwhile the buff pilot has spent 45 minutes to an hour climbing like a dog in a Lanc to be there. Historical climb rates for buffs does not "work" for good gameplay in the MA.
I'm not talking about putting booster rockets on buffs or "starting" them at 20K over a base as I've seen suggested. Increasing a Lanc 50% means it will fully loaded go from around 600 fpm to 900 fpm, hardly enough to turn them into a rocketship. But it is enough to add a measure of fun factor back into the flying of them. A 30% boost of all the other buffs will also make them much more enjoyable.
A year ago we had lots of high alt buffs in the arena. Why did the climb rate annoy the buff drivers prior to 1.10, but not be seen as a critical problem? Because you could climb from a nearby base all the way to the target and jump to the scope at the last second, drop your laser guided bombs, and hit your targets.
Now, you have to climb to 20-25K, adjust your approach to take in the wind factor, level out and let the buff settle into a very constant speed. And you better have done all this a full sector from your target if you want to have any hope of hitting it accurately. The whole process has added a lot more time to a high alt buff run, too much time as far as most players are concerned, hence no one flies them much anymore. We can speed the time to alt a bit by adjusting the climb rate, so you don't have to start an hour away from your target.
I'm all for keeping the new bombsight system. I like the challenge. ( I do wish you could see your speed in the sight though). I think with my two suggestions, we may see high alt buffs return to the pre v.1.10 levels.
I see both sides of the formation lock up issue. I always have to remember when considering these type issues is what are we trying to accomplish? The goal is to get more buffs at high alts to add another dimension to the game.
Keeping that goal in mind, I restate my quick fixes of upping the climb rate and increasing the load on the 17.
1) They are easy to code and can be applied very quickly.
2) They don't require a lot of programming time that might go down the drain if in fact they don't work well.(That is the biggest drawback HTC would see to StracCops idea. What if HTC spends $50K in programming time and it doesn't work, either technically or customer acceptance?)
3) If the two changes I suggest cause a gameplay problem, they can be easily undone in a flash.
If the quick fixes combined with the new targets don't bring about the stated goal, then more serious programming efforts like StracCop's idea should be explored.
And StracCop, I'm a retired 23 year veteren of the Portland OR. Police Bureau. Strac is a term we proudly use all over the west coast for the sharpest cops. To be refered to as "Strack" was, and is, an honor.
:)
-
In reality..there WAS a lead bombadier for each group of planes...well-trained bombadiers were few---the guy would holler DROP..and all the planes in his flight would do so--if he missed..they all missed
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Midnight,
I've never tried the "drop on the leader" like you describe, but based on the above I would expect everyone besides the leader to miss.
I feel like I must defend the "drop on lead" method here. It has been succesfully adapted by our squadron. Every single squadron meeting we use it, and it works perfectly well every single time.
And that is not just when we fly with squadronmates. During our squadron meetings we often post buff missions that are led by us, but free for all to join. We then also always use drop on lead. And even the rookies that fly with us hit spot-on every single time.
In fact, I dare to claim that using "drop on lead" is more effective than everyone dropping all by himself. Much mor effective since only one person has to calibrate. I will illustrate this with two pictures.
This first one is from a Fariz bombraid. Everyone dropped all by himself and many, if not most pilots, were not skilled enough in the use of the bombsight. This was the result.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Midnight,
I'm skeptical of your claims. They sound a bit exagerated to me.
I have flown in situations like you describe, but the bomber pilots can never quite get the exact same heading and exact same power settings. Inevitably the formation fragments as soon as people have to go to guns to defend the formation.
I've never tried the "drop on the leader" like you describe, but based on the above I would expect everyone besides the leader to miss.
I am by no means exagerating. Any good bomber squadron can tell you they can do the same thing.
1. Get your formation assembled while still in friendly territory, where the pilots can concentrate on flying.
2. Once the formation is together, the leader calls out heading, power setting and climb rate (auto-angle climb preffered over auto-speed. Also, the leader CAN NOT fly at full power, otherwise the trailers will never catch up.)
3. The IP (Initial Point) must be planned ahead. For those who don't know, IP is the point at which all bombers should be in TIGHT formation, power settings are given for bomb drop, all bombers go to auto-pilot level and bay doors open.
4. As the leader calibrates, all other bombers can man their guns and make small corrections with rudder input if needed.
5. Leader needs to take into account that some bombers may be a few hundred yards behind. Becuase of this, the leader should drop salvo dead center of target area. If the rest of the bombers have a good formation, the target should be very well covered with bombs.
-
This here is the result on No9 Squadron AND GUESTS dropping all on Revvins command, like we do every week. I rest my case :).
-
I like it.
eskimo
-
Stracop, in my opinion your suggestion is excellent. You are also the first person to convince me that "Otto" (automatic defensive fire, like ground flak) isn't necessarily a necessity for buffs.
I would also like to see the pilot of a plane be able to call for a bombardier, if they wanted one; perhaps have it so that when folks make a "join" request that the pilot has the option to select "Gunner only" "Bombardier" (who could also gun) or refuse the request.
As for training people... after messing around in a bomber with a squad mate the other day, where sometimes I perched myself in the cockpit (I was actually navigating us using paper maps, rather than using the GPS, for those that are curious), it occurred to me to wonder whether netlag would prevent the possibility of allowing some sort of "dual-control trainer" mode altogether. At the very least, I can see that it's possible to show newbies what a reasonable approach to an airfield for landing is like, by having them join and sit in the cockpit, but it'd be nice if one could allow them to try to land whilst retaining the option to override their control of the plane if they start going too badly wrong.
It'd also be nice if they could see what you're seeing through the bomb sight.
But anyway... damned good suggestion, Stracop! Only addition I'd make to it is to have the formation used selectable, as the LW didnt fly combat boxes like that. They tended to fly columns, slanted lines or arrowheads Or... maybe just give the person linking up the option of whether to be stationed left or right, abreast or behind, above, on a level or below the ship they are linking to. That way any number of different formations could be formed. And you could have people linking to someone who is linked to someone else, so that if a little lag were built into the "follow my leader process", the people further down the links would turn later in progression.
Esme
-
This is a great idea that should also be implemented to fighters, and fighter escorts. The fighters would fly in packs but disengage the formation when engaging.
Secondly, the bombing formation would return this game to a more realistic role. Instead of everyone flying around like bees, we would have goals.
Attacking:
bombers - destroy enemy ground target
fighters - escort/protect bombers
defending-
fighters - destroy bombers (lighter fighters like 109 could escort 110 attacking bombers)
In my opinion, the main arena right now is a mess of people flying around with the objective of killing only.
-
Steven10> It's already being done in the MA by No.9 Sqn RAF at least. Every mission we post has escort and bombers. Every bomber pilot is assigned a formation position, I have a small word doc that I use to position everyone. I've not had a mission yet where the escort has buggered off and left us and they do a great job whilst the bombers lumber on. I would not want to see such a lazy command as to automatically form bombers in perfect formation as squad's like No.9 pride themselves on maintaining formation themselves and dropping on lead as Keez pointed out above.
-
Originally posted by StracCop
An idea....,
Okay, I've given this quite a lot of thought and I think I've come up with a solution that solves the two most glaring problems with the bomber model that I've heard with the most frequency: accuracy and vulnerability
As to accuracy, the bombsite is 100% accurate, at any altitude. I know this, I do it consistently. You must do two things though:
(1)Set a constant speed and constant altitude. In this there is no margin for error. You should set a speed at about 75% 80% power - too low a power your bomber will be decending - tpp high you bomber will never quite equalize at a constant speed in time. (a)
(2) Do a proper calibration, which includes a proper target altitude setting. TO be sure you have done it right, you should zoom in the map.
(a) You can do this extremely fast,if you take note of the approximate speed your particular bomber travels at a particular throttle settign. Write it down. Then when you do a 180, you can use full power or zero power to get the speed quickly to that pooitn. (This is how I can do such fast recalibrations for subsequent passes, and still maintain grat accuracy at 20K+ altitudes- which is from where I drop almost every bomb)
accuracy and vulnerability
Overall - Yep, you are vulnerable, but fortunately you get to piclk the situations you put yourself in.
-
oops I meant to add as well, to bomb well I don't recommend you use formations. I fly single bombers. The formation bomb spread is waaaay too small, largely all you do with the 2 other bombers is blow up the stuff the first one already would have (this is why my hit percentage is so high)
-
I understand what you guys are saying but you're actually helping me prove my thesis. My objective is to get more bomber groups into the air.
The fact that few (very few) players have managed to attain the level of skill your squad demonstrates attests to the need for change. If having one squad and a few dedicated strategic bomber is what the new bombing model was designed to foster then fine. If, however, it was intended to create a more widespread use of strategic bombing then the results have not followed.
One final thing: I'm not sure that the dweebery you fear will necessarily transpire. For one thing my idea would still require that bomber pilots get within a certain distance of the leader they wish to join. I envision it as a loose formation: each group of three in roughly the same heading, altitude (and some minimum alt like 10k could also be required to add some dweeb-prevention difficulty) and some minimal distance away before join can successfully be accomplished. This alone would improve a players bomber formation flying and, hopefully, limit any dweebery by those who haven't taken the time to acquire even rudimentary bomber piloting skills.
Meeting up at a predetermined point would likely still be necessary. The big change that my idea would offer is to allow players to concentrate on defense instead of flying/calibration while at the same time off-loading the bomb release duties to a dedicated member of the flight. This, I believe, offers the best balance of realism and historical accuracy. Being forced to get in the bomb site, calibrate, and stay there during the bomb run is akin to having no gunner at all...not very realistic or accurate.
There will always be pilots who will seek to operate such missions manually to meet the challenge of doing it that way and as a means of demonstrating their mastery of the art. For those who don't wish to travel that route or don't have the necessary time to navigate a long learning curve to appreciate the joy of large-scale strategic bombing, I think an option should be provided.
As I stated earlier, the option you have professed has been available since the bombing model update and few have taken the necessary steps to adapt to it. Perhaps it is time to adapt the strategic bombing model to the playing habits of the majority of players. If more large-scale bomber missions are desired by HTC, then this is clearly necessary.
Thanks for the feedback!
David
-
We've had members join us whom were very good at formation flying and some that learnt with us. We're always more than happy as a squad to help bomber pilots learn the ropes and the way we fly is not beyond any virtual pilot in Aces High and requires only a little practice to fly formation and to learn how to use the bombsight. You are not going to encourage people to learn to bomb or fly formation by giving them more and more crutches, the only thing you will do is drive out those who learn because they will feel like they are then playing a game that requires no skill.
There are more reasons as to why you don't see so many bombers in the sky in AH anymore apart from dedicated bomber squads like No.9 but that's another topic altogether ;)
-
Some folks have argued in favour of artificially increasing buff climb rates and loadouts. No, no, NO! Please, no. :-} yes, there are aspects of AH that are rather unrealistic, particularly if by "AH" what you have in mind is the MA rather than the basic software itself. But taking AH even further away from reality is NOT the way to go. What next, artificially increase the speeds for all the speed junkies? Then what's to seperate what is supposed to be a WW2 combat flight sim from a Korean War one?
Please, everyone, be careful to NOT confuse "AH as experienced in the MA" with "AH the software", the program that runs on your computers. The MA is but ONE of the things that AH is capable of giving you the experience of. Others include a much more realistic experience in organised games or more realistic arenas. If you start asking for this that or the other thinking ONLY in terms of the MA, then you risk limiting AH in the range of experiences it can offer us - you would, in fact, be taking something OUT of the game. Deliberately making the FMs fundamentally unrealistic is one such suggestion that would seriously detract from AH.
I have long argued, not just in AH, that the place to tailor to various groups needs is in the arena settings. You want the possibility of increased rates of climb? OK, but do it by having the FMs scalable, the scaling set by CMs, so that arenas and games can be set up with climb rates as real or unreal as people want. I want to have no-GPS games? Sure! - just make it an arena setting.
Lots of stuff can be added to increase the realism and also increase the enjoyment for the dedicated bomber pilots/crew amongst us WITHOUT negatively impacting MA dweebery simply by putting in the ability to have it turned on or off (or scaled) as an arena setting.
Remove the underlying reality of the game, and you'll turn AH into just another video game with little longevity. Improve the underlying reality but with options to tailor stuff via arena settings, and you can cater to more people for much longer, and turn AH into one of the true greats.
Regarding bomber loadouts, we should be able to load either an exact percentage of fuel (up to the limit set by the field state) or have smaller increments (even multiples of 10% up to the field limit would be nice - 5% increments would be better) and take the consequences in terms of aircraft performance and stress if we overload it. This also means that we need to have realistic modelling of fuel load and consumption for each plane. The endurance of the Ju88, for instance, is grotesquely undermodelled - even without flight test data, that a Ju88 could raid Scapa Flow from Denmark or Norway proves this (try it in a 1:1 modelled terrain in AH!), and the facts and figures regarding Ju88 tankage and range aren't exactly difficult to find. Also, you might want to look into how many Lancasters actually took 14,000lbs of bombs up to 30,000ft at all, never mind what time of day it was... Part of the fun of planning a mission properly is planning the loadout taking what needs doing at target and performance factors into account. Doesnt need to take long, so long as good performance data is to hand (bit damned difficult if the fuel loads are unrealistic and the fuel burn rate is messed with too much, mind...)
Stracop's idea has a great deal of merit, would allow the unskilled buffer as much opportunity to do something fun as the unskilled fighter dweeb has had for ages in the MA, would NOT force skilled bomber crew to abandon their skills, and I for one would welcome some kind of response from HTC on the suggestion.
My request would be for greater realism in radar and (lack of) navigational aids - oh, and greatly reduce icon range at night, and lets have some moonless DARK nights now and then. Furball enthusiasts will still head for enemy held bases looking for fights and find them. Others might find it FUN to patrol the gaps in the radar looking for buffers like me trying to sneak through. It's the cat-and-mouse aspect of fighter vs bomber ops that gives enduring pleasure to both. HO'ing armadas of escorted enemy buffs is OK, but a change is nice now and then. And of course, when it comes to fighter pilots looking for buffs to kill in the MA - well, you KNOW we'll be coming for your bases, don't you?! What the heck do you think you need radar for to find us?!?!
I move in support of Stracops idea. Then lets get a few others in that make life more fun for buff pilots - trust me, they'll make life more fun for EVERYONE using AH in whatever way.
Esme
-
Once again, esme, I'm enormously impressed with how articulate and reasoned your approach is to issues related to strategic bombing in AH. Nice point about the 88 as well, that lack of range is a frustration. I also think Stracops idea has a lot of merit, and now is the time to try something, I think, because since 1.11 came out I've noticed a lot more people flying buffs. I've got back into it in a serious way myself. Previously, it was never the bombing that was an issue for me, it was that bizarre transferrable damage problem that was ruining my fun; that seems to have been dealt with (touch wood). That, and the provision of much larger strat targets (which in turn has vastly improved the utility of the KI67, and the 88; I rarely fly B17s and Lancs anymore. And as a fighter pilot, I've certainly encountered a lot more buffs recently. So there seems to be some momentum here, it would be nice to build on it.
-
Dave its a good post.
If Hitech does this, it should be in program that bombers in this big formation cannot drop bombs untill 25kplus I would set it at 30k. (as this was the alt bombers bombed at in ww2)
I think your idea would work best in tods or other mission arena's in here. 1 week and every fighter in here would complain. I know I wouldn't attack a 12 ship formation with 12 guns all firing at same plane. Its hard now for 2 or 3 fighters to kill a formation of 17's let alone 12 in tight.
small reasons why I think its not perfect
1. Making 1 12 ship formation be perfect formation takes out the flying of a flying sim. I like the idea if my squad wants to bomb a hq we all have a little work to stay tight.
2.I can see 3 or 4 guys getting formation like this and just flying 1k or 2 k and bombing field or city and acting like a deathstar circling over bases for kills.
3. Can SEE 12 ship formations now Suiciding cv's lol
and as for example why i think bombing is okay in arena. This is account of 3 trips to take out radar.
Just for example today went to Bishops HQ 3 times highest was 30k. Bishops lost radar every time.(at least enemy) killed 2 163's a 109 abd a la7, flew home 1 ship. 2nd time 2 kills 3 ships home 3 rd time 2 kills only 1 ship left.This was due to fact at 30k.
Now later same knight I went to Field 60 from 61 9 k killed a spit smoked 190 going to target. Killed 3/4 city 17 targets first pass. Killed a6m la7 f4u before a 190 finished off my 3 bombers. And we not talking newbies in planes half were AK's Furious was the 190. only reason city was not destoryed was case I was at a alt that bomber shouldn't be at.
I personally think bombers now are perfect, and close to real life. And I think most know i'll even slow down to let fighters catch me so i can shoot them. (Mostly la7's since la7 is slower than a a6m at 30k plus) I havn't seen many take out my bombers alone. Even with 163's now.
I think some just to lazy to learn how to bomb, I taught the dumbest guy in our squad in 5 mins. Only takes 5 mins to learn. Have taken many up to learn to bomb. all report that bombing all intened targets now.
Please don't take this post wrong, I fly 50/50 fighters/bombers maybe more this tod as bomber, As I can climb and get work done. This is not a fighter dweeb wanting easy kills.
-
Beautifully presented idea, But:....
In effect, apart from the visual representation of the individual buffs, once the buffs have formed they consist of a single entity under a single individual's control and multiple gunners.
Exactly as a single buff would operate with multiple gunners.
The only effective difference would be ordinance dropped.
SO we may as well cut straight to the chase and enable multiple gunners anyway, and leave the cockpit crew in the cockpit where they belong.
This would be by far my preferred solution: multiple gunners, but I beleive HT is reluctant to do it; I'm not sure why.
I miss squad "death star" missions, we used to have a hell of a lot of fun with Spiffy as pilot, Flossy as top or chin and the rest of us taking any empty positions. A real "squad event".
-
Superb idea. I really like the idea of advertising for a master bomb-aimer too, once you near the target.
-
.....:rolleyes: .....
-
Originally posted by Seeker
This would be by far my preferred solution: multiple gunners, but I beleive HT is reluctant to do it; I'm not sure why.
I have long wondered about this too.
I also liked how the scoring was a crew thing, everyone shared in the success of the ship.
-
The other night I took up a formation of B-17's and used the .target command to set a target at various ranges from the formation, and also variious positions around the formation.
I concluded the following:
The convergence factor problem is huge. When a fighter is attacking on a formation's six, there is a very limited range within which most of the formation's guns will converge. As I recall it was about 1000 yds. A little ways behind or in front of that range, and the planes on the side of the lead buff simply miss by a mile.
The same or worse goes for 3, 9 and 12 o'clock.
Having multiple gunners in a formation would make them much more accurate.
I really miss squad nights when our whole team would up in one or two buffs, all our virtual lives depnding on each other. The intercom function for the crew in the plane was a blast. The whole thing built great camaraderie among our squad.
MOSQ
-
Mosq..its actually no tas bad as you say o rthink....
The other buffs guns do not converge where your center gun is shooting...
example...Im shooting ded 6 from Buff#1...
Buff #1' s bullets hit ded center..
Buff#2-3 both hit on each side of that center...
so..if a f4u is closing in..i aim for center of radial..I see sprites all over the Hog wings and radial.....
if you are shooting at 3 or 9 o klok..ur 2 buffs that are behind the lead will place there bullets behind(slightly) your lead buffs fire....
I think this is good.. 2 reasons......
1) You have this shotgun affect....I frikn Slay ftrs attaiking me
2) if all 18 50 cal machine gun sfiring backwards all conveged on a single space...NOT ONE FITER WOULD HAVE A CHANCE
they would be obliterated
And yes... I want the party Bus (deathstar ) that AW had too..multi gunned buffs are great....especially if we had a formation
love
BiGB
xoxo
-
I guess this is the time to state the gun convergence for the current buff formation model is 1000 yds.
-
A few observations (good thread, btw). I apopligize in advance if somebody already suggested these:
1. Might it be easier to simply slave the bomb drop to a master bomber, instead of slaving the plane itself? After losing 100+ perks to less-than-brilliant AR234 slaves, I am leery of handing 3 B-17s over to the ai :) You could then concentrate on gunning once in formation. You're going to have to get close to the lead either way, so why not use the built in autopilot system?
2. I like also the idea of inviting a bombardier on board. Seems logical.
3. About a year and a half ago, a buddy of mine who is quadraplegic called HTC to find out why there can't be multiple gunners per buff (back then). He was told that it was mainly a lag issue. This may have changed by now, I don't know. The reason I mention he is handicapped, is because he cannot fly the planes with his sip-and-puff mouse controller, but he enjoys gunning and probably would enjoy bombing too (He's not playing AH currently). Think about that next time people say this should be a pure fighter game :)
The Collector :{)}
-
Originally posted by StracCop
An idea....,
Okay, I've given this quite a lot of thought and I think I've come up with a solution that solves the two most glaring problems with the bomber model that I've heard with the most frequency: accuracy and vulnerability while in calibration-bombsite (this idea also addresses the peripheral issue of people refusing to use bombers under the new model - except as low level raiders.. ;-) .
1. There is no accuracy problem unless you want to place your bombs in a tea cup.
2. Calibrate before you meet fighters; if you can't, up at a more distant field.
3. Your peripheral issue is nonexistent. I see more bombers today than I did 6 months ago. Furthermore, in the past, single buffs would come to a field at excessive altitude and fighters couldn't reach them! Today, most (not all!) buffs avoid climbing to 25k. What's the point in spending 45 minutes climbing if you're just going to bomb a troop factory?
4. The guns today are deadlier than the guns which predated the buff change. One plane cannot kill all 3 buffs without dying [unless there is a tremendous element of surprise and/or confusion.]
The tether business won't work. A single flight (as it is today) has to pay close attention or it loses its drones! I cannot imagine trying to keep 4 flights of 3 closely grouped. I can just imagine the radio traffic. Slow down!!! I'm losing my drones!
Bombing isn't broken - instead, it's a task which require attention and forethought. And best of all, the buffs are being used the way they should be used.
curly
-
yes Curly..I agree...
Buff are running pretty well right now...
1 Fault which HT said hes still working on...
The 1 pass by a spitfire that kills the whole box of 17's....
Sometimes it explodes..somtimes it takes alot of damage...
I guess we can call this the 20 mil cannon found the Bombay in each B17 in a single pass..
BiGB
xoxo
-
I admit, I have not been on this forum very long. I only chime in sporadically, as my post count would suggest.
But, IMO, this is the BEST idea I've read of on this board!
-
AKcurly wrote: "And best of all, the buffs are being used the way they should be used."
Yea curly, you're right.
I see many more B-17's at 500 feet doing Jabo raids on the GV assaults and CVs then I ever have before. Guess thats what they were designed for since they seem to do it so well. Wonderful.
The fact is that most players don't bother with BUFs anymore (at least not in the strategic bombing role) because they are a pain: a pain that is wholly attributable to a new bombing model that not only succeeds in introducing a greater likelihood of missing your target but also forces you to remain vulnerable to attack while you 'calibrate'.
This might be fine for a few stalwarts and masochists but to most players its not worth the trouble or time as is clearly evidenced by their lack of 'proper' use in the MA.
Oh, and last night I finally saw my first large-scale strategic bombing raid in something like 3-4 months of looking. It was 6 groups of B-17's. Unfortunately, I wasn't in the air when the dark cloud appeared. Bummer. Worse still, given the frequency with which I see this phenomenon I guess I'll have to wait another 3 months before I see another....unless I want to 'cap' at 1000 feet for the JABO BUFs.
-
:cool: I think that's a great idea!! i have suggested in my message in here that we should be able to have 2 people attached in the plane as gunners not just one too.
Your right,the calibration time is a hard one to defend your buff and keep the(drift) to a mininum to target.I luv the realizim in this game but it is (just a game) and under avg (new) pilots will not fly the buffs,cause its too long and too hard to bomb and hit targets, great idea!!!! (sawman)
-
Originally posted by StracCop
AKcurly wrote: "And best of all, the buffs are being used the way they should be used."
Yea curly, you're right.
I see many more B-17's at 500 feet doing Jabo raids on the GV assaults and CVs then I ever have before. Guess thats what they were designed for since they seem to do it so well. Wonderful.
StracCop, you are correct about the 500 feet Jabo. It seems like a disease that has swept through AH in the last 10 days. I see wave after wave of Rook & Knight buffs coming in at 500 feet. I'm not seeing the Bishops doing that, but I'll bet they are!
curly
-
When you calibrate meticulously and approach the target properly you should consistently hit the target. Currently, you don't. Because of the frustration level who can blame those finding and exploiting a loophole?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
When you calibrate meticulously and approach the target properly you should consistently hit the target. Currently, you don't. Because of the frustration level who can blame those finding and exploiting a loophole?
I may be incorrect, Iron, but I don't believe hangars are a valid bomber target according to HTC.
It is my understanding that HTC is trying to direct the use of buffs against strategic targets (factories, HQ, CVs & so on.)
Now, folks may say, "well, I'm going to attack hangars with a buff" (as I do myself), but I think HTC is trying very hard to thwart this strategy. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I may be incorrect, Iron, but I don't believe hangars are a valid bomber target according to HTC.
Give us real craters that have a real effect on anything that tries to roll through one -- tanks aren't going to be disturbed much, halftracks more so, the M8 might roll over if you aren't paying attention, but aircraft are going to get munged up if they go through at speed -- and you'll see people start carpet-bombing airfields the way they did during the war to deny them for use. Then you wouldn't have to have the game artificiality of destroying hangars to close an airfield -- you'd have to put enough craters on the ground to keep the enemy pilots from having enough flat ground to make a takeoff run.
-
I like the bomb crater concept.
-
Originally posted by leeburt
I like the bomb crater concept.
you forgot to close out needed to add [/size] [/font] [/b] and [/color] to the end of your paragraph to make it work:
I like the bomb crater concept. [/size] [/color] [/font]
-
One benefit to having real craters on the ground is that it works to the benefit of the furballers like Lasz -- because virtually all the fighters of the period could take off from fields that were only marginally improved (i.e, grass, graded dirt, etc.), it's going to take a lot of bombs to cover a field widely enough to prevent fighters from coming up at the field; they may have to do some work taxiing around the craters to get to where they have enough clear ground to launch, but the big bombers need long, flat runways and don't steer as well; they're much more vulnerable to field-cratering.
And I don't know that it would even require making the graphical crater collidable; the FE should know where each of the wheels are -- it has to know that to handle landing and takeoff -- so you could fake the effect of going into a crater by using the crater position and diameter to adjust the ground level under each wheel to make the plane/vehicle tilt as if a wheel was dropping into a crater.
One thing I would like to see, and which should only take a small amount of programming, is to enhance the graphics by defining ground objects as either vertical or conformal. Vertical objects, like trees, are placed vertically regardless of the slope; conformal objects, like craters and the stupid white rocks, are placed to lie in the same plane as the ground. This would eliminate the wierd effect of having craters sticking out from the hillside like wood-ear mushrooms -- a crater in a 45° slope should be in the slope, not sticking out from it like a shelf.
-
:confused: OK ,i have just thought of a possible problem with this plan.
What would happen to the group if the pilot responsable for the bomb drop were to be shot down??
My suggestion would be for one,to have the lead pilot stay in the middle of the group for safety to prevent this but the question still remains,any idea's guys?? (sawman)
-
Good question.
The way I see it, the bombadier would cycle through his three planes as he does now. If his 3-plane group is destroyed (killing him or causing him to hit the silk) then the group would revert to unjoined status.
In WWII, when a lead bomber upon who the group is dropping is too damaged to continue or is destroyed, another bomber assumes the lead bomber role.
With that historical precedent in mind, players still surviving within the group could, upon the death of the original group leader, join to another pilot who would then take over 'group leader/bombadier' duties for the group. I think that this would be most consistent with the historical experience.
How's that sound?
David
-
What I would like to see is a change in the way the bombsite is setup. Current model takes to much time to setup. What I would like to see is a system where you dial in the altitude and airspeed to calibrate the bombsite. You still would not have a laser bombsite, and it would not account for wind drift. If your speed or altitude changed so would the accuracy of the site. Less time srtting up the site means less time your going to be a sitting duck. Just my idea of what would help the bomber pilots out a bit.
-
Hip Hip Horay!!!!!!!! Nice job StracCop. I left AH for about 4 months, 2 months after the new Buff System was implimented. I had hoped that during the time off there may be some changes made to the Buff System. Totaly didnt agree with it. When the Targeting System was changed from a "Lazer Aim System" to a "Random Carpet Bombing System" they forgot to tell the Ground objects. :) ie. The ground objects still require "Lazer Accuracy" to destroy them. I have seen a FH surounded by 4 or 5 or even 6 1,000 pound bombs and not destroyed! Maybe im wrong, but i think that 4 or 5 THOUSAND POUNDS of Ordanance droped within a stones throw away of a Fighter Hanger would Flaten the darn thing!!
With the idea you propose, the Heavy Bomber in AH will be used as much as it used to be. :)
< S > MugZ....{Mugzeee}
-
StracCop,
Excellent idea! I think you should email this entire thread to HiTech. Maybe then you would get a reply.
DJ229
-
Thanks DAVENRINO,
I don't think I need to e-mail it to him though.
If he isn't aware of it by now he's in a coma. (http://www.bhra.org.uk/graphics/smilies/gold_circular_bold_std/zzz.gif)
I really hope that our thorough examination of the issue and the clear interest many members have in seeing it implemented will result in its adoption in some future release.
Still, I'll be bumping this post around to see what additional thoughts and concerns we can raise. I think the more clearly we articulate what we hope for in the game, the better Dale will be able to envision things clearly from our perspective. Some companies pay thousands of dollars doing the kind of market research we're doing right here. I hope he appreciates the effort. ;)
Thanks again for the kudos!
David
-
i agree with the concept., i too have been away from the game due to the bombing changes, and wish there was a way to make it enjoyable again.
while i understand, the "concept" is to make it ""realistic"". at the same time, it seems that the powers that be have forgotten that it is a sim game, and is supposed to be enjoyed and made somewhat easier than the real thing to do.
I pay my money each month to have fun, not bang my head against the comuter screen in frustration.but then again, nobody is forceing me to keep paying ...
just a thought.. mine are cheap...
-
Two thumbs up :cool:
I didn't leave the game (been flying those ground buffs these days instead), but would love to have a reason to fly real buffs more again. Still fly them some and have some luck with town, but that's about it. also, early in this thread, noticed someone mention the side-to-side spread... I definitely agree a wider spread would be more logical and preferable. As it is, 3 17's dropping down the cent of a town, even on the diaganol, is gonna leave some buildings up... you'd think 18k of ordinance would pretty much wipe out a town, and could if the spread were wider.
Nice job StracCop and all the folks who have added to this post.
tgnr
-
I think you're right Curly....the ONLY targets I look for when bombing are FH's..then VH..if it is remotely along the path...and it seems that no matter WHAT the f ya do..there is enough 'play' thrown into egg drops that hangar hits are iffy thing..regardless of alt
-
The problem is that level bombers werent designed to hit single hangars. They were made to carpet bomb wich requires large targets, like current strat targets.
German bombers in the BoB targeted airfields to prevent fighters from taking off by destroying the runways, wich we cant do in AH.
Making airstrips destroyable would be much more realistic.
The current system might be a little too accurate for that though.
Increased dispersion might be requiered.
-
Originally posted by Imp
targeted airfields to prevent fighters from taking off by destroying the runways, wich we cant do in AH.
Making airstrips destroyable would be much more realistic.
I agree completely.
We had such a feature in Fighter Ace 2 and denying the enemy use of their paved runways was a key component in our missions. Naturally, they could always take off from the surrounding grassy area - IF their gear was strong enough - and IF they had enough flat ground for them to reach take-off speed. They could even ride through the craters to reach undamaged stretches of runway - IF they taxi'd very slow.
I would love to see something like that incorporated into the game. I'm for anything that marries the Aces High experience more closely to the reality experienced during the war.
On a lighter note, the vulch-stat potatos would whine day and night if something like this were enacted. And that prospect just makes the idea more attractive! :D
David
-
Originally posted by StracCop
On a lighter note, the vulch-stat potatos would whine day and night if something like this were enacted. And that prospect just makes the idea more attractive! :D
David
I agree the furballers would whine like never before.
Of course Buffers would tell them its realistic (because it is).
But the furballers wouldnt stop until they changed it back.
I dont think itll happen but I can hope cant I.
-
in stead of giveing us 3 buff for bomb runs jest let us put 6 gunners in one buff thats the way it realy was
-
Thats a good idea yb11.
-
Excellent thread
I agree with pretty much everything stated.
Big kudos for the crater damage, which Ive been preaching for ages. Having a tank roll through a 4,000 pound bomb crater is a bit silly.
Anyone else nothing the buff guns convergences seems REALLY short?
-
mebbe this has been passed over for the ma...
perhaps tod... or perhaps not at all...
shame not one response from HTC
SKurj
-
Crater damage is problematic because puter has to know about alot of craters. Destroyable airstrips dont need that.
-
Originally posted by Imp
Crater damage is problematic because puter has to know about alot of craters. Destroyable airstrips dont need that.
the crater thing was a problem in WB3 - I don't remeber what now...but it did have something to do with the server and bandwidth.