Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Downtown on July 15, 2000, 08:19:00 AM
-
This morning I upped from A1 in a Jug. I started heading south east cause there were markers in one of the southeast sectors. As I am passing toward A5 I see a low dot at A2, I was about 15K.
I check and there are no friendly markers in that sector so I turn north to investigate.
I start diving toward A2 cutting back on power to stay out of compression.
There orbiting A2 is a low B-17.
I did a dive must have been his 10 o'clock and see a fuel leak start. Meanwhile his gunner get my oil, fuel, and a pilot wound.
I did a high speed attack from 10 o'clock IAS over 400 and got that.
We were both low and I decided since I was close to the field to cut power and get down fast.
The bomber turned after me and his gunner got me as I was crippled and blacked out.
This aggrivated me, so I upped in an F4U 1C.
As soon as I spawned I get Ping Ping Ping and another pilot wound. Cut engine braked and re-spawned. This time I get up and see another low dot heading toward the field. As I up there is ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping at my six. I check back and the B-17 is chasing me. As I close on the other low con I see it is a goon which I dispatch and start to turn back toward A2.
I look back and the buff is turning with me.
I get on the buffs six and feed him quite a bit of 20MM. Eventually he goes in.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't don't like bombers attacking fighters.
What is the point of having bombers, why not just have an all fighter game? With the advantages that HTC has given bombers it is damn hard to attack them with fighters.
My first attack was a standard High speed pass against a bombers poorest defensive angle and I got pinged hard. The .50s on a pony, hawg d, and P-47 will only hit at 1100 yards max, with almost no power, yet the .50s on bomber will reach from 1800 to 1400 yards with quite a bit of effect.
This individual who was attacking me with his B-17 said that I had made poor attacks. My first was the 400+ IAS attack where I got his fuel. The second I saw a lot of black and white smoke from his bombers.
The first attack was a classic attack, the 2nd was a attack of self defense and despiration cause I was low and just upped.
One thing I have been trying to do is loiter at about 1400 yards from bombers to get them to use up all their ammo so I can attack.
I will be above a bomber and 1400 yards to the left or rights. I quite often get pilot wounds, or engine damage trying to do this.
IMHO B-26s are worse than B-17s cause you can fly and fight in those. I have been on the Rec.aviation.military news group and all the U.S. WWII vets there say that the B-26 was the most dangerous plane to fly and turn. I know that Hap Arnold did a demonstration in a B-26 that was pretty impressive, but he wasn't flying them as fighters or against fighters.
What is aggrivating me is that bombers are too effective against fighters, I could see it if lone bombers were getting lone kills agains lone fighters, but bombers are racking up 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 kill streaks against fighters. Many people, and I admit that I have seen knights doing this, are upping in bombers and using them as ack wagons.
I agree anyone doing a low climbing six attack against a b-17 or b-26 deserves what he gets, but I also feel that a b-17 low and turning with a fighter should stall and auger. The Bombers turn to well compared to what they could do in real life, the guns range out to well and are to effective at too great a range.
Something has to change to stop the trend of people using bombers to attack fighters, which IMHO is becomming all too common for me.
The other issue I ask is if all these fighters (at least the LW figthers) were used to intercept allied bombers between 25 to 30K. Why aren't these planes able to turn at altitude with bombers. I have read quite a bit about what was going on over the air in Germany, and LW fighters shot down a lot of bombers. As a matter of fact they shot down more bombers than the bombers shot down fighters. In AH the Bombers are shooting down more fighters than the fighters are shooting down bombers.
Maybe this individual wasn't ackstarring, but he was flying a F-17 not a B-17 and I have a problem with that.
Bomber=Bomber not Fighter!
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
I don't like it either, but if it's possible then how can you stop it? This is the MA where anything goes, really. Sad to say, but true. I had a Rook in a B-26 chase me, taking my engine out, then shoot down another knight fighter while we were engaged with a F4U. He was not flying the B-26 with the intent of bombing at all. Not very historically realistic, but within the B-26's capabilities.
The MA is not about historical realism, but more about the pure performance realism of the various aircraft. Hopefully, the Scenario Events will be a relief from all this.
-
It is ackstarring when otto is doing the shooting. You just got outfought.
Lizking
(Why would you takeoff from a feld with a B-17 orbiting it?)
-
Just curious, what squad was the guy in?
I just notice a couple squads seem to enjoy it more then others. I hate it to, but dont think it can be stopped. At least its not the computer firing the guns.
------------------
Dnil
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
Id figure that B-17 would suffer damages from banking too hard, specially with the bombs.
It is durable and easily flown bomber, but it does still have structucal limits for banking the plane for example.
It is not a fighter, it was not built to turn on a dime.. but carry heavy load to its target.
Here it turns pretty well without any damages..
I think that B-26 is too easy to fly as a 'fighter'.
-
I did a dive must have been his 10 o'clock and see a fuel leak start. Meanwhile his gunner get my oil, fuel, and a pilot wound.
Roughly level, 10 o'clock attack?
Hmmm, lets see...
Mid-upper turret
Ball turret
Left waist gun
Chin turret
Are the positions that will all fire at you.
It's not suprising your plane ends up a swiss cheese with seven guns firing at it.
-
Ackstarring is exactly what you described Downtown - textbook case.
It is sad to see the guys using bombers as mobile ack platforms.
-
Wasn't anything roughly level about it, I came down from 15,000 ft to less than 1000 ft, My angel of attack was at least 30 degrees. Should have been top and a waist. I believe he got my engine, fuel and pilot as I extended still going +350 away from him.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Also to say, "I was out fought" then you are saying it is okay for bombers to manuver with and out gun fighters? From what I have read Adolf Hitler was very aggrivated by the U.S. 8th and Bomber Command bombing Germany around the clock. He pulled the LW back from France into Germany to deal with the bomber threat. At this point the focus of the German fighter corp was to intercept and destroy bombers. These planes would climb above the bombers and dive through them, making several attacking passes. Through tighly packed formations of bombers.
In AH it is difficult to get most fighters to climb to 30K. Onces there their manuverability is hampered. If you have advanced warning you can get up to that altitude, but a bomber only has to make a slight turn to completely ruin your solution, you can't manuver to correct because you can't manuver at 30K like a buff can.
Below 30K bombers can manuver like fighters.
At very low altitudes bombers can manuver better than bombers.
When I was turning my F4U 1C I used two extentions of down flap (30%) to improve my turn. A B-17 would have to turn vertical to the ground to turn with and F4U. The Slide slip should cause a B-17 to fall off on a wing and auger in a situation like that. Yet he continued to turn (Level turn) with my F4U. This is a B-17 think about the manuvers you have seen a B-26 do in the Main.
I really feel that bombers have to much of an advantage. I just want the playing field leveled. Leave em the 1400 to 1800 yard guns and bring the manuverability closer to realistic parameters, or leave the manuverability and give em guns like we have.
Or, a fair decrease in manuverability and firepower.
Something so that bomber pilots know that they shouldn't be attacking fighters.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
The term Ackstarring I feel has pretty well been accepted to mean using a bomber in a defensive roll for base defense.
It has no basis in historical fact. Nobody ever took a bomber off in the face of enemy fighter attack so they could use the guns to defend the field.
While reluctant at first, I decided to accept the idea that using a bombers guns in an offensive roll during attacks on an enemy base. There was evidence of bombers doing this in real life. BUT NOT FOR BASE DEFENSE.
Ackstarring, as I described it, is a pathetic tactic in my opinion, and in the opinion of most of those I have discussed it with. Those guilty of doing it lose the respect of other players, and they have a negative impact on the game.
Dago
[This message has been edited by Dago (edited 07-15-2000).]
-
Wasn't anything roughly level about it, I came down from 15,000 ft to less than 1000 ft, My angel of attack was at least 30 degrees. Should have been top and a waist.
Correct. Three guns on the way in...
I believe he got my engine, fuel and pilot as I extended still going +350 away from him.
So now you're level or lower than the B-17G at 1000ft, extending at its 4 o'clock.
Mid-upper turret, if level.
Ball turret
Right waist gun
Tail turret
Will all fire at you.
Five to seven guns.
-
I was making a JOKE, Downtown, a joke! You flew WB, you should have gotten it.
Lizking
-
I don't understand, because you are convinced that attack and shoot down a B17, he must be easy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif)
Do you excuse, but, every so often, do you read the books of history? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
For understand thing could do a B17, you read thing happened during the attack to Schweinfurt. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
But, particularly, you read attentively how many German fighter the B17 succeeded to shoot down and/or damage. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The B17 No.383 of the 332° Bs, 94° BG, has reentered from the single one mission with 2 Me109, 2FW190 shoot down and a third, ME109 damaged, the No. 301, got the same result.
Thing could do you think that attack a B17 with a single fighter, it is an intelligent thing, I am not able to understand it.
The suggestion of disable the guns al low altitude, doesn't have any logical or Historical comparison. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif)
Like in all the airplanes, Guns have a sure, this could be removed from the gunner, it is to earth that in flight, to his discretion.
It is already little logical that, don't work guns before the take-off.
The B17 is one of the more strong airplanes that they have stayed built, he is able to tolerate damages that would reduce anybody else bombardier in crumbs.
(http://space.tin.it/io/msantona/images/b17-1.jpg)
(http://space.tin.it/io/msantona/images/b17-2.jpg)
He is, also with his limits, heavily armed, and the position of the his arms is a work of art.
(http://space.tin.it/io/msantona/images/b17-4.jpg)
He is for a long time, considered, one of the easier airplanes to pilot and is particularly agile in relationship to his dimensions.
In poor words he is for the enemies, an ugly beast. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Really the greater damages, in terms of casualties of B17, he did the anti-aircraft and not the fighter.
(http://space.tin.it/io/msantona/images/b17-3.jpg)
For strike a B17 effectively, different types of attack exist, but nobody of them is devoid of risks. :P
I love the my B17, down the paws !! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
(http://space.tin.it/io/msantona/images/b17-5.jpg)
Max
------------------
When you are flown, there is an only certainty:
In a way or in the other, to earth you will return.
[This message has been edited by Maxopti1 (edited 07-15-2000).]
-
The Buffs are part of the sim..
As has been pointed out, the buff decending on an enemy field he's just attacked is legit; as is defending his goon driver.
Yah can't have a big platform with guns poking outta it in every direction in the MA and not expect some desperate character decide that he's gonna up it for defensive purposes at a base.. especially when that bases fighter hangers are rubble.
They are dangerous, to be sure. Yep; tangoing with one is a very risky buisness indeed... else the buff would never survive to reach a target to bomb. Taking this platform and flying it agressivly; putting the fighter pilot on the defensive is often the best option for the buffs survival.
Always a shock for the fighter pilot.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
But they CAN be killed. They are easily overwhelmed by multiple attacts from opposite sides. Hi-lo attacks can fox the gunner as he hops from position to position. Careful gunnery on the fighter pilots part can down a buff quite quickly if the fire is concentrated on the wing or tail.
My advice... grit yer teeth and kill the bastid. Use your strengths and his weaknesses and don't waste yourself by allowing him to force u defensive. Upping from a field capped by buffs is no less dangerous and foolish than it is upping from a field capped by fighters. If the buff CAN kill you, he probably WILL. Don't let that happen.. get the advantage; THEN attack.
Hang
-
The B17 No.383 of the 332° Bs, 94° BG, has reentered from the single one mission with 2 Me109, 2FW190 shoot down and a third, ME109 damaged, the No. 301, got the same result.
I don't like things like this being used to support the lethality of the buffs in the AH arena. The reason you know this tail number and data on this sortie is because this was EXTREMELY unusual. In AH this is a typical buff sortie.
AKDejaVu
-
There is a way to fix this.
M16s and ack reach up as high as 1500 feet. You need to simply disable a bombers guns until he reaches 2k. Problems with that though.
I've figured out an intercept pattern into the front quarter of a bomber that involves a bit of timing, but is pretty hard for the buff gunner to hit. You need to approach the buff while watching him from your front quarter view in an intercept vector but slightly behind, so you 2 are on a collision course but he's going to pass about d.4 in front of you and you won't hit. Just as he CROSSES your front section hold the trigger down and let him fly through your stream.
Gunners cannot track the odd ingress angle. People are just too used to intercepting buffs while holding them in the reticle view. That has to stop.
If a Buff starts to jink around, that means the flyer is in the pilot seat, and just quickly turn into him and hammer him. HT has given Buffs a serious weakness in that you cannot maneuver and gun both. That alone makes the buffs weak enough to kill once you learn the unstoppable ingress path. You must be coalt with the Buff so as to stay outta the hitting arc of the one position that can get you, the top gunner.
In a F4U, this is a one pass kill to the B26, a B17 needs two passes.
Otherwise, if you have a wingman and ANY sort of coordination worthy of that title, one of you may bite it but the other surely gets the kill. Almost nobody in the arena has the patience to make a coordinated run on a Buff. It's like a Kung Fu movie, where the attackers come one at a time.
The problem with a simple alt switch to disable guns, is that bases are at different altitudes. So, change the buffs in two fundamental ways that should be easier to code:
1. Turn guns off while the wheels are down. If you pull the wheels up OTR, it explodes the buff. Even though it was historic at times to make belly in landings, we have to take it away due to abuse. As a fix, perhaps the Gear could be removed as a damagable part on Buffs.
2. Turn guns off unless the bird is in less than an 10 degree bank. I think HT put this into WB.
No Buff pilots should be able to squeak about that. Number 1 is immutable, and as for number 2, buffers should be in level formation boxes. End of story, game fixed.
XX
-
The easy solution is to take away the artificial lethality boost that (as HT has stated) the BUFF guns possess.
-
Dosequis
you may not be aware of this, but in the AH buffs, you can take a second player along as a gunner.
So, the pilot stays in his seat and flys, the second player guns all through the flight.
Dago
-
I don't think shooting down a B-17 should be easy, IMHO HT could up the hardness/Toughness of the B-17.
I know that B-17s flew low and straffed airfields and flew quickly away. These were airfield with no anti-craft, and no fighters in the air. Bombers were afraid of fighters. If there were fighters B-17s didn't stay in the area. In WWII when bombers went out and flew low so their gunners could attack things they shot up factories, formations of infantry or firemen. Not airfields, not anitiaircraft, not aircraft.
From my reading a signal fighter should be able to outmanuver a B-17 with will. A lone fighter should have almost nothing to fear from a lone B-17.
Lone fighters quite often did shoot down bombers. They generally attacked alone. That was their tactic. Early in the War the English tried to use their fighters in formation and mass volleys against German bombers. When the Brits allowed thier fighters to seperate and attack LW bombers they were more successfull. A group of fighters together gave bomber gunners a larger target. That why high speed attacks against bombers became the standard attack. High Angle High Speed attacks against bombers worked.
I didn't say to disable the guns at low altitude. HT has allowed the B-17 and B-26 defensive guns an effective range of 1400 to 1800 yards. The .50s of the fighters can hit at 1100 but aren't effective. I said if HTC is allowing the bombers to manuver like fighters, then take away this artifical advantage. Or Keep the Artifical advantage with the gun and take away the artifical advantage of the additional manuverability. Altitude has nothing to do with it, I said to let B-17s fire from the ground (during the initial ackstar discussions.) What is the difference now between a B-17 and a Quad .50 on an M-16? B-17s fly and manuver like fighters.
There is a difference between structrual strength and manuver ability. THe B-17 was a large HEAVY Aircraft, it didn't turn like a P-38. Violent manuvers should be costly to bombers they should bleed speed very rapidly when turning, they don't. IMHO you can make B-17s able to take more damage, right now they deal out too much damage IMHO.
My main issue right now is, people are starting to take bomber up with no intention of using them as bombers. They are using them to dog fight fighters. I want that trend reversed. I want bombers to do bombing missions. I can understand why they got the range increase. I don't understand why they are so manuverable. I don't think they need to be manuveralbe and have the most effective guns in AH.
I would accept increase the toughness of the B-17 (I would have a problem with this being done to the B-26 cause everything I read said that the wings were thin and damaging a B-26 wing would pretty much doom it.) Keeping the current effectiveness of the B-17s guns and decreaseing the manuverability or E-retention, or whatever it is that allows bombers to turn with fighters at slow speed and low altitude without falling off on a wing. OR
Allow the Bombers the current manuverability, increase toughness and take away the artificial boost to the weapons.
So, make B-17s take more damage, and keep the guns. Or Make B-17s take more damage and keep the manuverability.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Or allow a "Blood Dragon" loadout, but make the guns have the same effectiveness as the .50s on fighters.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Originally posted by Maxopti1:
For understand thing could do a B17, you read thing happened during the attack to Schweinfurt. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
[/b]
Oh yes...that out of a force of 600 bombers, 60 were shot down and another 40-50 were rendered useless.
That is more than 15% of the mission planes, a complete disaster...and all the daylight bombing effort over Germany was nearly disrupted because it.
But, particularly, you read attentively how many German fighter the B17 succeeded to shoot down and/or damage. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Oh,yes and you must read, attentively, to the LW list of planes shot down during that mission... Happens that the 8th AF bomber crews claimed 5 times more LW planes downed than the true downed ones.
Really the greater damages, in terms of casualties of B17, he did the anti-aircraft and not the fighter
Uh yeah because from mid 44 until the end of the war the Jagdwaffe had more problems trying to survive the ESCORTING FIGHTERS than attacking the B17s. Few planes reached firing positions because the escort, but the few that were able to do it always spreaded havoc and disaster between the bombers.
Now get a GOOD book and search this...up to May 1944 (date when P51 escort started to be usual) wich thing did more damage to the B17s?...the Ack or the Fighters?...huh?... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Learn some history, man...if there was such urgency for a long range fighter escort for the B17s and B24s surely it wasnt because they did very well on their own isnt it?...
_____________________________ __________
To the matter:
Buffs are toned up to make bomber lovers come to AH. It is a compromise between realism and playability... But I also think that the dweebish ackstar or the more dweebish use of B26s as fighters must end soon. Because that is not make a game playable. That is to make a game dweebish.
The other day I was fighting a niki in my A8 when I saw a B26 jumping me!!! amazed I had to break my attack on the niki for a moment and downed the idiot (who BTW only remembered that he had bombs on board when I was shooting at him, because I saw his bombs falling)...
later the niki got me...I regard it as a stupid thing that ruined a good one on one fight. But well, at least I downed the stupid B26.
Dunno how to fix the ackstar/fighter thing in bombers...but for sure its not easy with the current settings for the bombers.
But I am sure that HTC will do something to fix it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 07-15-2000).]
-
You need to simply disable a bombers guns until he reaches 2k
That's absolutely ridiculous. That would encourage vulching of buffs just as they leave their base's ack perimeter. What about the buff with 2 engines left, on the deck, struggling to get home? You want him to be totally defenseless? What about below-dar raids? Many complain about buffs in the stratosphere, and this would just encourage them to grab alt. Flying below dar shouldn't make you an easy target.
And what makes it illegal for a buff to drop down and vulch after he nails the ack and has no eggs left? It's just like taking off from a fighter-vulched field. It takes two to vulch. The ball-turret of the B17 makes an excellent vulching platform for those who feel they can takeoff despite the risk of the vulched field. If the fields not closed (hangars destroyed) why should you wait for a fighter escort for the goon (or M3) when you pack loads of guns and ammo?
I don't think you can label it ack-starring, since there is no otto. It's just bomber pilots taking advantage of the features of their planes. They pay for it in low speed, slow climb, low maneuverability, and being a large target. Also, many buff gunners in AH have MUCH more gunning time and experience than WWII buff gunners. If the USAF gunners flew a max of 25 missions (if they were lucky) then most definately have more gunning experience, hence some of the sniper characteristics of the buffs guns. Just like with fighters; if the field's being vulched, take-off somewhere else.
If it's stupid and it works, it's not really stupid[/b]
[This message has been edited by MarkVZ (edited 07-15-2000).]
-
Same tired old thread! This ones been run up the flagpole too many times! THE DOG DON'T HUNT!
-
Disabling guns on bombers under certain altitudes is absurd. I personally think net lag has more of an effect on bomber attacks that folks give it credit. A good cap/or a two-man attack on a bomber makes the buff an easy target. (or just kill the BH)
Jarbo
-
Normally I avoid these discussions because they are merely retreads of threads that started several years ago in WB and AW and resurface every 6-8months or so. We've all seen them degenerate into name calling and hurt feelings. However I won't stand by and see bomber aircraft neutered here, (like they are in other sims), because one person is unhappy that they got shot down several times and won't accept responsibility for their actions.
I believe Downtown's venting his frustration at getting shot down and I can understand that. I used to get shot down at capped fields and didn't think that was fair either. Eventually I worked out that you can take off from other fields. I don't agree with the target of Downtown's frustration. Downtown's looking for a reason that he got shot down and the easiest thing is to blame someone/something/anything else rather than take personal responsibility for Downtown's mistakes. There is only one person I blame when I get shot down and currently he's typing this message in for you to read. However after starting this discussion in the arena last night and not winning us over to his point of view that the bombers are too good and should be neutered, I see that Downtown has decided to drag it out into the board and try to gander popular support by arguing that some aspect of this sim is not fair from his jaundiced point of view.
For those of you who don't like a long read I'll summarise my rebuttal in five words.
"Downtown fly smarter next time".
Since the rest of you are masochists, carry on reading...
I have no opinion on Downtown's summary at the start of the thread because I wasn't there. He attacked a con, prevented a field capture, was shot down in the process and somewhere amongst it all got straffed trying to respawn from a field that had no AAA cover. A familiar and often told epic.
It seems to me that Downtown was annoyed at being shot down because he couldn't fight back.
The bomber turned after me and his gunner got me as I was crippled and blacked out.
This aggrivated me, so I upped in an F4U 1C.
Getting angry at someone because they shot you down is pointless because you aren't learning from the experience. <sarcastic mode=on>Although it is nice to see that you are being consistent in your approach to "problems" here by using the ability to instantly respawn<sacarsm=off>.
Downtown you haven't learned that a bomber with guns can be used offensively. Downtown appears to believe that bombers should be used defensively and that fighters should have an easier time killing them. By the same token should fighters only be used offensively? Should fighters and vehicles be disabled from a field under attack?
That's why we destroy hangers!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't don't like bombers attacking fighters.
I don't like fighters attacking me from a field I attack. I'll use whatever means available to capture a field which of necessity includes straffing hangers. Last night that consisted of a kamikaze attack on a fighter hanger in a Typhoon, then returning in a B17 and bombing field 32 and in the process destroying the AAA, vehicle hanger, a lurking m16 and panzer then straffing down the fighter hanger and 8 fighters that tried to launch and defend the field. The last kill was a Zero who, (after killing an inbound C47), ran away from me and waited until I turned back to the base before chasing me. They died in a hail of .50cal as I reversed back. I'm not a toejam hot bomber pilot or a fighter ace but I got 8 easy kills because the fighters took off under my guns and had no protection available.
It may not be fair, historical or realistic but since there are no "laws" as such other than the physical modelling of the aircraft and weapons in the arena people will push the limits on the sim. If you don't like being vulched pick another field to launch from. If you don't like buffs chasing you then shoot them down. If you don't like respawners destroy the hangers.
Eliminate the source of the problem with a solution that won't cause harm to anyone else and then you will have an answer that is fair to all.
Downtown's problem is getting shot down by a bomber. The simple solution is avoid being shot at by bombers not turning off gunners under 2k. It isn't realistic, historical and causes harm to the bomber pilots.
Don't want someone to shoot at you in a crippled plane? Bail out!
If you're defending a field and see a big nasty ol' B17 decending from 12k flying the rook banner and the noseart below it's me coming to hammer your bellybutton before you get mine.
Spotcha in the Air
raxx
(http://www.geocities.com/raxman.geo/images/skyratsbannersmall.gif)
-
He's not upset he got shotdown, he's upset on the gay use of the bomber that way. Dieing part of the game, not much penalty in it.
Its the nature of the MA, childish, dweebish, quakish, its all there. Until a better solution comes along, ya just gotta grin and bear it.
------------------
Dnil
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
For the information of all, I was the pilot of the B17 Downtown referred to. Here is what happened:
I'd finished bombing radar and all acks at A2. A C47 was on the way but unfortunately I couldnt get any fighter cover. I was down on the deck at A2, using guns to destroy the vehicle hanger.
With our C47 about 2 minutes out, Downtown comes diving in. First pass in his P47 sees me suffer a fuel leak. Second pass and he overshoots below me and then, for some inexplicable reason, pulls up coalt with me only 300 yds away off my left wing, heading in the same direction I was. I accepted the gift and shot him down.
Downtown re-ups in a F4U cannon-hog. Our C47 is now 1 minute out. He ignores me, heads straight for the C47 immediately after takeoff. He's probably doing about 180-200 mph at this stage, with me on his left rear quarter. I turn to follow him, fire a few shots scoring light pings only at about 1000yds. He shoots down the C47 then makes a hard right hand turn back towards his field.
I cut the corner of his turn, roll out, and find him 400 yds dead ahead. Go to the ball turret and shoot him down.
1 turn! That's it. 1 turn to cut off his run back to A2.
That makes it an ackstar???????????
I've long respected DT's posts on a number of topics both on this forum and others. But the incessant whining I received from this guy last night forced me to eventually squelch him. And then I find he's continued the tirade on the BBS! This particularly disappoints me, since I contacted DT on private once he started complaining, and asked what his problem was. He didn't bother to reply on private, or seek my side of the story, simply continued ranting on common channel.
Personally, I HATE ackstars, which I have always understood to be bomber style aircraft who launch from a field under attack and serve as mobile ack-wagons.
But I'll leave it to you, gentle reader.
What SHOULD I have done? Allowed DT to blow me out of the sky without firing my guns in anger? Should I have simply given up on the idea of field capture once I saw a single enemy aircraft moving towards the field?
So was I an ackstar, or not?
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 07-16-2000).]
-
I go back to my former post, #1 and #2.
Both are good ideas, and in addition, and counter the increased range/leth of the gunner's in AH.
I said in my post there were problems with disabling guns under a certain alt. Of course, in true BBS fashion, the quote was out of context.
Anyhow, Pyro is gonna do what he's gonna do. Tonight I saw people trying to ackstar their bases 3 times. All 3 times the buff got creamed within moments.
I don't see the gameplay issue that pressing at the moment, but I would like to see my suggestion of turning guns off in a hard bank done. HT did it once.
XX
-
Would rather not see guns switched off in a hard bank.. these guns are not 'otto'; they are fired by the pilot or his gunner.
Switching off the guns while the pilot manuvers is kinda counter-productive to havin a gunner... and when the pilot guns himself; he can turn with his rudders.. gonna deny him that defensive turn/gun capability? He can only gun when he's a level target?? C'mon.. that's kinda stackin the deck against the buff pilots ain't it?
The guns are currently switched off when there is weight on the wheels. As soon as he lifts off he's a target as it is.. vulchers have no trouble with 'em pinned on the deck.
I just don't see an issue.. if it's ackstarring; it'll be dead in a few moments anyway in that kinda enviornment.
Ackstars are an annoyance.. not a major gameplay issue; same as the dweebs that hide forever in field acks coverage. You can always stay outta the buffs or acks range and shoot at something else... that is; if you can find something more helpless, like a goon.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
-
I was the Goon.
Let's clarify one thing. If you want historical, the closest thing to that will be a scenario in SEA.
Main Arena is ahistorical, so I don't see the relevance to an historical comparison so far as tactics are concerned.
The only historical aspect of MA which bears scrutiny is the performance of aircraft. So digging up historical reference to strategy and using it as a precedent is flawed to begin with.
Now had we been in Real Life, me with a load of toejam-scared paratroopers, and Jekyll with a B-17 with an equally toejam-scared crew, the B-17 would have had two choices.
One, run away or,
Two, defend as well as he is able.
Now there might not be a precedent to the latter in WWII, but there also wasn't a precedent to Spitfires fighting Mustangs either.
Had the buff run away, I would've wondered what had happened to the gumption of my fearless leader (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
In Real Life people do fight against the odds.
What Jekyll did was not ackstarring.
Ackstarring is when a person seeks to replace the utility of 'Ack-ack' with the armament provided by an aircraft such as the B-17.
However having just said that, even that is not really an issue which bears a comparison to real life. In RL, there would be survivors on the ground to continue shooting. In RL, the B-17 wouldn't be so accurate dropping it's bombs... etc etc ad nauseum ... In other words any attempt to attach a WWII historical precedent is nonsensical.
Furthermore, the arguments have drifted away from the accusation of ackstarring, to the flaws in B-17 game design, or else the two are becoming entwined.
I think the accusation bears resolving on its own merit and not in conjunction with game design, as it besmirches the good name of an individual.
Jekyll was NOT ackstarring, where the implication is that he is cheating or at best, gaming the game. In my experience he is an honourable man, whose integrity is without a doubt.
Downtown owes Jekyll an apology.
Cheers
Yosus
------------------
“One day, flight simulation will be so realistic, that you’ll need to wear brown corduroy … “
Phoenix Squadron.
[This message has been edited by Yosus (edited 07-16-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Yosus:
I was the Goon.
Let's clarify one thing. If you want historical, the closest thing to that will be a scenario in SEA.
Main Arena is ahistorical, so I don't see the relevance to an historical comparison so far as tactics are concerned.
The only historical aspect of MA which bears scrutiny is the performance of aircraft. So digging up historical reference to strategy and using it as a precedent is flawed to begin with.
Now had we been in Real Life, me with a load of toejam-scared paratroopers, and Jekyll with a B-17 with an equally toejam-scared crew, the B-17 would have had two choices.
One, run away or,
Two, defend as well as he is able.
Now there might not be a precedent to the latter in WWII, but there also wasn't a precedent to Spitfires fighting Mustangs either.
Had the buff run away, I would've wondered what had happened to the gumption of my fearless leader (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
In Real Life people do fight against the odds.
What Jekyll did was not ackstarring.
Ackstarring is when a person seeks to replace the utility of 'Ack-ack' with the armament provided by an aircraft such as the B-17.
However having just said that, even that is not really an issue which bears a comparison to real life. In RL, there would be survivors on the ground to continue shooting. In RL, the B-17 wouldn't be so accurate dropping it's bombs... etc etc ad nauseum ... In other words any attempt to attach a WWII historical precedent is nonsensical.
Furthermore, the arguments have drifted away from the accusation of ackstarring, to the flaws in B-17 game design, or else the two are becoming entwined.
I think the accusation bears resolving on its own merit and not in conjunction with game design, as it besmirches the good name of an individual.
Jekyll was NOT ackstarring, where the implication is that he is cheating or at best, gaming the game. In my experience he is an honourable man, whose integrity is without a doubt.
Downtown owes Jekyll an apology.
With respect,
Yosus
-
Hehe .. now how did that happen???
Oh well ...
-
Jekyll, I made two comments, two, then it was about 30 people who were all over channel one. I said "Nothing like ackstarring first thing in the morning,eh?" and "so long as you can ackstar right?."
That was it, and you and yousus and I don't know who else went off for 15 minutes, I didn't whine incessantly. YOu may have taken affront because I directed my comments at you at the time, but this isn't just about your attack on me with a bomber.
It is about the fact that many folks are flying bombers like fighters. They go up with no intention of bombing anything. Later that day I came across a B-26 that had an alt advantage on me and he turned and started after me. I was close to 15K.
Bombers are not turn fighters. With HT giving the bombers addtional range for their guns he has given them an artifical advantage that people are exploiting by dogfighting fighters with bombers. I get attacked by bombers alot. Maybe I am the only person getting attacked by people in bombers.
At the altitude you chased me from A2 at, turning a B-17 that sharply should have caused you to auger in. You should have lost airspeed and dropped off on a wing and crashed.
Raxx, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It isn't just this instance. I have been at 20K and bombers attack my fighter, I have been at 30K and bombers attack my fighter, I have been at 10K and have bombers attack my fighter, I have been at fields that weren't capped, between fields, and been attacked by bombers. I want bombers to be able to defend themselves. I want bombers to be able to fly to enemy fields, targets and drop bombs, then fly back to their base and land, not loiter as CAP and vultures. I don't want to be flying along and get bounced by a B-26. I don't want to dogfight B-17s. If people are going to fly B-17s and B-26s, which they are, with an advantage that they did not have. Saying that they are flying within allowable aspects of the game don't hold water in my boat. The bombers have an artificial advantage. HT Gave them the Artifical advantage so they could survive bombing missions and drop bombs, not so they would become large dogfighters with a 1.5X weapons range advantage on every other aircraft in the sim.
People take up a B-26 or B-17, drop the bombs after clearing the runway, and go out looking to dogfight. That is what I want to put an end too, dogfighting in Bombers.
I wish I was one of the apparently charmed people who haven't been attacked by a bomber, but IMHO it is becomming an all to often occurance.
I wasn't angy because he shot me down, I was angry because he was in a bomber and chased a fighter and used his bomber as a fighter.
When people are using bombers as fighters I start to have a problem with that. People in bombers have almost no fear of fighters.
How about this.
Keep every advantage that bombers have now, so long as they have bombs. Drop the bombs and your plane manuvers like it did historically, and your weapons range like similar weapons of the other aircraft in this sim (I.E. every .50 cal armed fighter.)
Quote Raxx
_____________________________ _______________________
It may not be fair, historical or realistic but since there are no "laws" as such other than the physical modelling of the aircraft and weapons in the arena people will push the limits on the sim.
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____
Typical Game Gamers comments from Raxx. HT gave buffs an advantage so that buffs could survive bomber missions. People are using those advantages to turn bombers into fighters.
Why don't we all just fly bombers, why have fighters at all? B-17s and B-26s turn with F4U-1Cs? B-17s have more guns and more armament, they have a longer weapons range, why fly a fighter at all? Take a B-26 bomb the ack, cap the field taking out all the supporting figters with your artifical range advantage from your weapons. then vultch away. In this sim the B-26 can and does do it all. They are FB-26s now.
I want bombers to be bombers!
Since some of you don't seem to understand.
MY PROBLEM IS WHEN PEOPLE FLY BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, I DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, THEY ARE NOT FIGHTERS THEY ARE BOMBERS! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS. I SEE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS ALOT. I THINK THIS IS A TREND AND I DO NOT LIKE IT. I DON'T WANT TO NUETER BOMBERS I WANT TO NUETER FIGHTER BOMBERS.
-
Only when we see a true historical arena will this type of problem go away.
A main arena always breeds this type of problem and changing the plane characteristics won't solve the problem it will just create more problems.
This would not happen in a special historical event, and wouldn't happen in a historical arena.
Aces High is still in the early stages. Eventually, I hope we will see an Historical type Arena where this type of thing wouldn't be tolerated.
Aside from checking the field before taking off to see what's lurking around there just isn't any good way around this type of problem.
Ranger Bob
-
This has never been a level headed discussion.
From the outset it has been an exercise in name-callin and an attempt at public humiliation.
I have a problem with that. Because when the attempt to arrive at a 'truth' begins in this manner, 'truth' will not be the end product. Instead the end product will be hurt and bent ego's.
Downtown, you made the issue public by broadcasting on channel one. In other words, your intent from the outset appears to have been to humiliate.
The term 'ackstar' is emotive and carries with it a negative connotation. It could have been a knee jerk reaction though.
What did you expect from the gallery after broadcasting an accusation like that? In hind-sight the best retort would have been to ignore your comment and let it blow over.
I believe I made one comment to the effect that 'respawing' at said airbase over and again was gaming the game as well. I can't remember my exact words, however at the time I said them without malice. My comments then, can also be construed as a knee jerk reaction.
If you hadn't again broached the subject on this BBS, in a similar style that you broadcast on channel one, I could assume that you had reacted in the heat of the moment.
It appears to me that your intent is to provoke public disapproval of a game feature, and that your cause is best served by the public execution of a scape-goat.
Is this the case?
If it really is a game feature that you disapprove of, then say so from the outset, and abstain from name-calling.
I will draw your attention to the forum "Gameplay feedback/Issues", which to my mind should be used for the purpose which I believe you aspire.
Finally, I have issue with your last comment re:
"Since some of you don't seem to understand.
MY PROBLEM IS WHEN PEOPLE FLY BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS ..."
where I cannot help but make the assumption that your method of communication hinges on sarcasm and belittlement.
There're better methods!
Might I suggest that if you desire changes, clouting a fellow over the head with a smelly fish, rarely produces agreement from those you wish to convince.
My dear fellow, I actually agree that the game could do with some changes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ... although I haven't frequented the MA nearly enough to be beset upon by killer bombers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)... but isn't that why the other forum I mentioned before, exists?
HTC appear to listen to many suggestions, but ultimately it is their game design, and we are merely the players.
I still think you owe an apology, as I do you for thinking the less of you earlier.
My sincerest to you! Now be a chum and shake hands with the people whom you've called names, and let's move the heart of this matter to the correct forum in a platonic fashion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Cheers
Yosus.
------------------
“One day, flight simulation will be so realistic, that you’ll need to wear brown corduroy … “
Phoenix Squadron.
-
Yosus.
People have different definitions of Ackstars. Mine is when people fly fighters as bombers, whether it is to cap a field or at your home field doesn't matter to me.
People bring up "Blood Dragons."
Well, a blood dragon did two thing.
One, flew with bomber formations and carried extra guns and extra ammo for the guns. They flew on the outskirt of the formations and engaged enemy fighters. This didn't work very well.
The other was to strafe ground targets. They didn't do this at airfields cause you couldn't just take out the ack. They straffed troop fromations and enemy columns.
I didn't have a problem with Jekyll flying low and orbiting, and strafing cons as they come up at the spawn point. I take offense when someone in a B-17 chases a fighter. When a B-17 turns with a fighter. Yosus, would you in RL ride in a B-17 at 200 Ft of Altitude that was turning to chase a F-4U? I don't think so because you would be afraid that the B-17 would stall and auger in.
The issue is that people are using Bombers to attack fighters, you are entitled to your definition of Ackstarring. When an official WWII Era Flight Sim Dictionary is released and say HT, Pyro, MO, HS, DocDoom, Stigler, Laz, Udie, Reviin, Yeager, Lapwin, and Thrax agree on the definition I will probably adhere to that one. If it doesn't match my current definition of what I saw jekyll and others doing, I will insist that a new term be developed.
Why I posted here (And I didn't mention you are Jekyll, you both posted your side, and I wanted you to do that is) I don't have an answer. I would post on gameplay and feedback If I thought I had a fair solution. I don't want to nueter the bombers, I want to nueter fighter bombers.
Are any of the things I suggested above acceptable to bomber pilots. I think they are fair?
1. Blood Dragons, .50Cal Effectiveness same as all .50 Call armed fighters. Increase ammo for guns carried by B-17/B-26 with blood dragon option. Oh, yeah, they painted these planes with loud gaudy paint jobs, I want the White one with the Red, Green, Purpls and Yellow polka dots on it. No External View, but make all 10 gun postions manable. As a matter of fact I will put this one on the GP/FB Message board!
2. Dropping Bombs returns .50Cal Effectiveness to the same as .50Cal armed fighters.
3. Keep range of guns and bring manuverability within realistic specifications at all altitudes?
4. Make the .50Cal in the bomber same effectiveness as current .50cal armed fighters, let bombers keep additional manuverability.
In all cases improve the Hardness/Toughness of the B-17 so it will take more damage.
Do you like any of those options, would they be acceptable to you? Do you have any other options?
Should we hammer out a "Text Book" definition of AckStarring that is acceptable to everyone. Then we can post it on all the Flight Sim UBBs, so it is standardized?
IMHO bombers have too great and advantage now, it is such an advantage that it is being misused. HT did something to encourage people to fly bombers, people are abusing that privelidge, I think something needs to be done about it.
I am frustrated being attacked by bombers.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Here is a little historical perspective.
April 23 1944
"The German pilots hadn't seen this in a long time-a Pulk of 25-30 heavy bombers, without fighter escort. Staiger's men carried out a textbook attack from 12 o'clock high. Staigers's own Me 109 carried a 30mm MK 108 cannon in its nose, and he used it to good effect, shooting down 2 B-17s and forcing two two more from their formations, to be shot down by Staiger's wingman. The German fighters attacked repeatedly, retiring only when they had exhausted their ammunition. Their final score totaled 17 confirmed victories, which were gained without a single loss. Thier repeated head-on attacks succeeded in breaking up up the enemy combat box; thus speparated, the B17s were fairly easy prey"
Taken from JG 26 Top Guns of the LW by Donald Caldwell.
This was during a time when the LW was going thru the so called "Jagerschreck" or fear of fighters. When the bombers were heavily escorted, the LW units would shy away from the big formations and try to find smaller formation to attack.
The only point I am trying to make is that lone or small formations of unescorted bombers were considered to be easy targets by the LW.
------------------
JG 2's current cannon magnet
Milo
-
Hmm, sorry Downtown, but I have to disagree. Low flying 17s are piss easy to kill. Theres only a couple of hard ones where the guys can gun real good (Wardog for example).
Best attack is a 60 degree dive from his hi 6 sliding down the fusalage.
I hate ackstars as much as anyone but I must say they pad my score quite nicely.
-vlkn- in
-
I have 2 big gripes with the bomber situation:
First is, real fighters had a significant speed advantage against real bombers. Here, the advantage is quite minimal.
Second, although the bomber pilot can hit you from mulitple locations, he can't do it at the same time. The most guns he can bring to bear is two, yet two machine guns can lay terrible damage from long range when shot by a bomber, yet 8 cannot do ANY damage at that range when shot by a fighter.
Clearly, there needs some more work to be done with the speed, firepower and manuverability of the bombers.
-
Downtown, I don't think manuverability of the bombers has been changed any for game play's sake.
A fully loaded B-17 weights about 65,000lbs. Take out 6k lbs of bombs, and 75% less fuel from a plane with enough wing area to carry it into the air and a plane stable enough to be a bomber. With the above the deletions the 17 now weighs not much more 45,000 lbs.
That much extra power is available, along with much less wing loading. 1,420 sq ft of wing area at full weight is 45 pounds per square foot. Okay it should be a brick there. Then try it at the avg AH load out without bombs. 31 pounds per square foot. Thats better then alot of fighters. Now at that same 45,000 lbs weight it's power loading isn't so hot, about 9.3lbs per HP. Seems on there. Doesn't climb well, loops and other ACM are possible but not without a serious struggle.
So, not taking into account the enormous amount of strength need to move B-17's yoke to make sharp turns, the B-17 is behaving within it's capabilities.
The B-26 follows pretty much the same trend, take a stable air frame, give it nearly the same amount of power as the much heavier B-17 (ala the P&W DW) and the power loading is very good on a lighter plane while the wing loading is rather crappy, and the B-26 shows this.
The only way bombers are going to reflect the poor manuverability that was common during the war are to make full fuel loads mandatory, make control and to make control input slower once it gets near the end of the axis (well slower then it already is, it's modeled pretty well as it is.) Add a few confused gunners, altitude fatique, and maybe it might represent a historical bomber crew.
And gunners really didn't have much problem firing even during manuvers, although hitting anything was another story. Oh well, they had trouble hitting stuff when the plane was flying straight. But most were strapped in or attached to the gun by some method.
Might want to go look up the story on how the "Flying Porcupine" got it's name (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
I have no idea as to the veracity of the simulation, with regard to any vehicle portrayed, much less the bombers in it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
However, there is one thing I am aware of, and that is that Aces High is not a World War II simulation!
It is an ACM sim with tanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) ... which just so happens to render World War II vehicles.
That is why any comparison to what strategists did or didn't do in WWII has little bearing within the game.
To make history your basis, you need to be reasonably assured that the rest of the simulation adheres to it. I don't think Aces High was so designed from the outset. There're too many elements missing for it to be properly classified as a WWII sim.
Having said that, it must model the vehicles/aircraft reasonably well, as one is able for the most part to recreate specific air combat manoeuvres with a reasonable expectation of the results given the variables.
It is a mistake to assume that fidelity in aircraft performance from a specific period, to be synonymous with fidelity with an entire war!
Cheers
Yosus
------------------
“One day, flight simulation will be so realistic, that you’ll need to wear brown corduroy … “
Phoenix Squadron.
[This message has been edited by Yosus (edited 07-16-2000).]
-
In Aces High there is only one real gunner on board (1 v 1). There is no otto gunners and both can hit or miss! Neither has an advantage over the other. The bomber has few advantages and usually the advantage he gets is attained by a poor desision made by the attacker! Remember, a bomber can't run down a fighter. If you are upping a field under heavy attack by fighters or buffs.. remember.."Life a squeak Anyway"! All are vulching planes trying to defend there attack. The is no such thing as an "ACKSTAR in Aces High! I think all of us should use any vehicle or fighter or plane to its maximum potential/effectiveness and have fun! If there is a flaw in the gameplay lets bring it up! -- BUT I DON"T SEE IT HERE!-- IMHO the Bomber has more disadvantages then advantages in a pissing contest with a fighter. I have flown Bombers for almost 10 years. I respect your opinion Downtown but I think you are way off base here. Get over the fact that this guy killed you and get more altitude and energy, set him up and KILL HIM next time. You are a fine pilot! I have been in formations when four F4U's took down all TWELVE of our bombers. Bombers are not OVERMODELED and can rarely win in a 1 v 1 with a savy, patient fighter pilot. When I see buuffs being used like this is in field capture mostly. Usually this behavior happens after the buff drops his load and C-47 is otw and all he has is guns to help with. Also his gunner may have been flying for 30 min and not fired a shot yet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) He may be takin him down to help and give his gunner an oportunity to get a shot.. who knows. Usually the attackers have better numbers and cap. Defending fighters get caught low & slow in these situations. You probably got caught in a turn fight with a bird you couldn't get a good solution on. His gunner probably had you bracketed. This result was determined by a poor set up probably. Extend out climb and come back with the advantage. Sounds like you made made a bad desision that got you killed.
Salute,
Thunder
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/thunder.gif)
[This message has been edited by Thunder (edited 07-16-2000).]
-
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
A few comments.
I did not read DownTown naming the names of any players involved until those very players jumped in and identified themselves.
I have seen many times where a player has used a bomber solely as a guns platform. This includes my own squadmates.
From my own experience in bombers. I can pull off almost any manuver that I can do in a fighter, but just much slower and alot less G's.
I have chased fighters and other bombers in my bomber. I have shot them down on occasion and it was a riot.
If it is in the game, it is in the game. You have to get over it and move on.
However; I salute anyones attempt to get something changed in the game that they strongly disagree with. The purpose of this forum?
Good Luck and Have Fun! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"So what do you post here? Poetic love letters?"
Ram
-
Originally posted by Vulcan:
Hmm, sorry Downtown, but I have to disagree. Low flying 17s are piss easy to kill. Theres only a couple of hard ones where the guys can gun real good (Wardog for example).
Best attack is a 60 degree dive from his hi 6 sliding down the fusalage.
I hate ackstars as much as anyone but I must say they pad my score quite nicely.
-vlkn- in
I respectfully disagree with downtown too. If I look around and see a bomber, my mouth starts watering. Most of them are easy kills. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Last TOD:
hblair has 39 kills and has been killed 10 times against the B-17G.
-
MY PROBLEM IS WHEN PEOPLE FLY BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, I DO NOT LIKE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS AS FIGHTERS, THEY ARE NOT FIGHTERS THEY ARE BOMBERS! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS. I SEE PEOPLE FLYING BOMBERS LIKE FIGHTERS ALOT. I THINK THIS IS A TREND AND I DO NOT LIKE IT. I DON'T WANT TO NUETER BOMBERS I WANT TO NUETER FIGHTER BOMBERS.
Ahh Downtown, finally I know what you look like (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix/images/mojo2.gif)
Mino, I identified myself as the B17 pilot in order to correct some of the wild inaccuracies made in DT's original post. From the tone of that post, you might have been forgiven for thinking I'd done a complete aerobatic pattern including slow rolls and lomcevak (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Just one lead turn, that was all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
When an official WWII Era Flight Sim Dictionary is released and say HT, Pyro, MO, HS, DocDoom, Stigler, Laz, Udie, Reviin, Yeager, Lapwin, and Thrax agree on the definition I will probably adhere to that one.
"Ackstar: A bomber being used as a flying AAA battery. The majority of Warbirds pilots frown on this practice".
Source: 'Warbirds - The Story so far', by DocDoom, Prophet, Krod and Burbank.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Seriously DT, I can understand your concerns about buffs. I've been shot down many times against buffs doing high speed 3-9 passes that I thought were completely safe.
But I really took offence at your suggestion on common channel that I was ackstarring. You've been flying long enough to know that 'ackstar' is a perjorative term. But I was never pulling more than about 2g's at any time in that B17 in order to get the kill. It's not like I was thrashing it around like a Pitts Special! Just gentle turns and banks, rolling out level whenever I wanted to take a shot. If you remove THAT kind of maneuverability from a buff you might as well put it on railway tracks and call it a train!
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix (http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix)
'feel the heat .......'
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 07-17-2000).]
-
Hehe ... Mino, if you'd read the responses of those 'people jumping in', you would have known that the public naming happpened in MA on channel one.
As to the quote from RAM in your sig, it appears to be a neat rebuttal of my suggestion to take the 'discussion' of gameplay to the gameplay forum ... it's cute, but I think my suggestion is valid.
As to the other points in your post ... I agree (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Cheers
Yosus.
------------------
“One day, flight simulation will be so realistic, that you’ll need to wear brown corduroy … “
Phoenix Squadron.
[This message has been edited by Yosus (edited 07-17-2000).]
-
Jekyll, a B-17 turning to chase a F4U-1C turning, and I had two notches of flap, and airspeed was less than 200 MPH as was altitude would fall off on one wing and auger. That wing would hit the ground and the B-17 would cart wheel and break up and explode or something. I believe that a B-17 shouldn't turn like that!
I am sorry for my comments on one, I am frustrated about being attacked by bombers. The FM of the B-17 and B-26, the gunnery of the B-17 and B-26, the addition of external views give bombers a significant advantage.
I believe that when people start attacking fighters with bombers there is something wrong.
I did suggest the addition of Blood Dragons on the GP/FB Forum. But I also believe that something should be done to limit the ability of Bombers to attack fighters. Make bombers bombers, not fighter bombers.
Again, I apoligize for the Ackstarring comment, even by the definition above
"Ackstar: A bomber being used as a flying AAA battery. The majority of Warbirds pilots frown on this practice".
Is this not what you were doing Jekyll? It doesn't specify Attack or Defense, were you not orbiting the base, using your guns as Anti-Aircraft (Artillery?) You were orbiting A2 to protect the incomming goon from fighters in a B-17. You had dropped your bombs and using the guns to keep fighters from spawning? So we disagree on this definition? But I can even tolerate your use of bombers in an offensive roll, if the bombers fly like they are supposed too. I don't like being chased by bombers, they shouldn't turn with fighters on the deck, they should fall off on a wing if they try this.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Originally posted by Downtown:
Jekyll, a B-17 turning to chase a F4U-1C turning, and I had two notches of flap, and airspeed was less than 200 MPH as was altitude would fall off on one wing and auger. That wing would hit the ground and the B-17 would cart wheel and break up and explode or something. I believe that a B-17 shouldn't turn like that!
Please drop this. Unladened bombers are rather manuverable. Just over a week ago I was watching a pair of B17s (Pink Lady and Sally B) doing 70+ degree banks at low altitude. And these are rather valuble, venerable old aircraft and these days unlikely to be flown that close to the limits.
Remember a least a couple of of pilots got grounded for looping/rolling Lancasters.
If you're saying the performance of the B17 is incorrect then you need to back it up with hard data (see the other threads about plane performance for examples).
Otherwise you are coming across as complaining that a plane was too hard for you to shoot down and so it should be 'nuetered' until you{/B] can. This doesn't tend to show you in a good light.
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Downtown,
the term "Ackstarring" started when pilots in Warbirds discovered that you can roll a bomber out onto a field and the automatic gunners would fire while the plane was on the runway, when fighters started carrying 1000lb bombs to drop on these ackstars, they started rolling and dumping bombs just off the end of the runway and circling the feild in defence. This is your mobile or airborne AAA platform and describes a defensve use of bombers when field AAA has been eliminated. This behavior was curtailed by gunners being disabled untill the bomber was flying with wheels off the ground and became an easy target for attacking fighters. Cratering the runway also destroyed landing gear and inhibited takeoff.
Acstarring can't happen in Aces High because you can't fire the bomber's guns while on the ground to defend a field.
Downtown, looking at your stats you seem to be getting the short end of a rather pointy stick when it comes to attacking bombers. If you want I'll take you into the Training Arena and show you how to attack and defend a B17. It's not difficult to learn and untill someone shows you how I don't think you are ever going to be satisfied, (hell I shot down a B17 in a zero two days ago so it can't be that hard). Maybe education will provide a solution to the problem you face rather than getting all wound up.
Telling me I'm not supposed to do something because it's not fair or that I'm a typical gamer won't win you the argument. I've been called worse by nicer people.
If you want to have realistic fights with buffs down at 20k then ask HT to model icing on the wings at higher altitudes but at the same time demand that fighters guns freeze in those same conditions.
If you want Bombers to have gunners disabled in greater than 2G turns than demand the same effect on fighters. If you want buffs to have guns disabled under 2000ft then also demand that fighters and vehicles not instantly respawn at airfields under attack.
If you want to reduce the effectiveness of a bomber's guns untill it drops bombs then I'll roll and drop a single bomb 500 yards from the airfield.
If I'm not supposed to fly through a hanger to shake a con off my tail then model the doors as being closed.
I have not yet seen a single fact from the "anti-bomber" faction that suggests the bombers are overmodelled. There is just the unsupported argument based on anecdotal evidence that bombers are overmodelled and kill fighters. There is no basis of fact merely a feeling that you get killed to often than is to your liking.
Lemme know about the training Arena. I'll try to fit in a time that suits you.
raxx
BTW Dnil, "Flying gay", I just about killed myself laffing at that one =P Ya need some new bait fer the hook.
-
I can easily understand Downtown. A lot of time bombers shot me down and I got pissed off. Bombers have big advantages in AH. Laser Brownings, bigger target bubbles (IMHO) and so on. I dont think PYRO will change anything about it.
Forget any classic low-six, co-level, and predictable path when you attack. The only ways that works for me are high-low attacks (very high AoA) and my personal crazy attack: vertically from low (with tons of E). Two un-historical and quite undoable attacks indeed. Unhistorical and strange buff performance require the same kind of attacks, IMHO.
So I have to forget to attack low buffs when I'm low and stay very far from them just to avoid to become the prey. In TOD #5, while defending our HQ from Rooks zombie attacks, I was able to choose my tactics:
Query results:
GATT has 33 kills and has been killed 4 times in the C.205 against the B-17G.
And no, I never bail-out. But many times I had to type: "bye-bye buff, play alone, I'll not hunt you ..." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Downtown:
I want bombers to be able to fly to enemy fields, targets and drop bombs, then fly back to their base and land, not loiter as CAP and vultures.
People take up a B-26 or B-17, drop the bombs after clearing the runway, and go out looking to dogfight. That is what I want to put an end too, dog fighting in Bombers.
DT, While I understand your frustration with bombers I'm not sure I agree with you on making bombers “just bomb and go home”. I took over a month break from AH and decided to give it try Friday night, I had so much fun that I logged around 20hrs of play this weekend. One of the best times I had yesterday was when we were trying to capture A2 and I selected a B26 to fly for the ack. I killed all the ack then proceeded to strafe 3 M16’s while some Knight 17’s finished off the hangers. One of the panzers on the field (there were 2 panzers I believe and 3-4 M16’s) was Visconti which was talking trash (as in ribbing, just good fun) in the open channel about how we would never get the field with all those tanks and M16’s on the field. I took my B26 on the deck and got 3 of the M16 with help of the few fighters we had, I then emptied all my 50cal into the 2 panzers left hoping to damage their treads so the incoming heavy fighters could hit them with bombs. I was not doing what I would call “ackstarring” as I was shooting and flying (no gunner). I used every single round I had in ALL my gun position (yes even the top turret!)
We all felt pretty good about getting the base as I watched our M3 roll up to the map room and let the drunks out as I landed and pulled up next to the M3. If the bombers didn’t come down and strafe those vehicles we would not have gotten that base.
I agree it’s nowhere close to being historical.
I agree it’s gaming the game.
I’ve given up on caring as to the way people play in the MA. I used to waste a lot of brain power on people in the MA when they were “gaming the game”, now I’ve decided to let anything go in the MA and hope and pray for a Historical Arena soon so I could leave the madness of the MA to the people that want to “game the game”.
Mox
TWC
[This message has been edited by Mox (edited 07-17-2000).]
-
Hi DT been a while.
I recomend you take a buff up and try what that guy did to you.......
We ridicule bombers when they fly to high..
If we ridicule them when they fly too low.
what is left. They are playing the game and all but the best of them are very vulnerable when flown in the way you describe. Stay low if they are vulching, get out of dodge and get some height...If you are up in a 1c they are cooked...but you might be tagged a little doing it.
buff pilots. The pucker factor is high when ya meet em.
-
I don't see how you can say it's gaming the game. If it has guns and I can point them at you I'm going to.
It's really no worse than a fighter vulching.
I don't think there is such a thing as ackstarring in AH. Not like it is in WB at least. Without otto it's just some guy trying to get me before I get him.
------------------
Mighty1
The New Baby Harp Seals
"Come try to club THIS Seal"